PROOF OF GOD

5449 British inches is equal to 138.4046 metres which is a tad short of the 146 metres which the great Pyramid started out at. I have used the British inch since that's what is claimed as the unit used in the original construction. For reference one British inch is 0.0254 metres (see http://www.simetric.co.uk/si_hij.htm#india) Taken from PI is Pyramid inch

Can I just supply this website that I found while trying to hunt down the meathods used to measure the GP?AIA FAQ file on the Great Pyramid - Answers.orgWhile it doesn't count as evidence as such and needs quite a bit of checking, it does cast some light on the subject, especially when it mentions that the length of the four bases of the pyramid are not the same. That means if you measure one side and multiply by four the answer you get is NOT the total length of the base.Additionally Petrie's original measurements took into account the limestone facing - he actually found some of the originals buried at the base of the pyramid and so was able to include them in his measurements. Even then, the baseline measurements are too short for the 9140 inches required. So that means that one of the measurements used on the Pyramidology websites is out.Added in edit - I've just found out that the measurements done on the height of the GP by the length of the shadow cast were done by Thales (640-546BC). He planted rod of known height in the ground, measured its shadow length by pacing it out then worked out the proportion of the shadow length. He then used that figure on the shadow length of the pyramid, again by pacing it out. Not a very accurate method, but it gets you in the right ball park. Still, its a bog basic method known to seven year olds the world over and is quite handy.This message has been edited by Trixie, 07-07-2004 05:09 PM

I think I've found the original image of the Bible Numerics calculation which was posted here a while ago. I've been trying to find it and just give a link to it, but had no luck, so I've had to do it this way. If there is a better way of doing it I would be grateful if an admin could sort it out. Anyway, I wanted the whole thing visible because it's important to look at it closely. On the top line there is a character, the 25th from the right, (it's just under the "I" and the "s" of the word Isaiah). It looks like a seven, but the tail drops below the level of the line on which the characters appear to be written. It's called koph. This character is known as a final as it is the last one in a word and is written differently from the same character when it occurs within a word (a bit like out capital and small letters). Not all characters have a "final" version in Hebrew.In Numerics "final" characters have a different value from their non-final counterparts. However, in the Bible Numerics we're dealing with here, the "finals" are given the same value as their non-final counterparts. So to give it a value you have to look up the value for "little" koph which is 100. However, if you look at the numbers below the Hebrew, you will see the original calculations done to reach the figure of 5449. The sum at (6) gives the figures for the sixth word (remember Hebrew reads right to left). The last value given in (6) is 20. Now, 20 isthe value of kaph which actually has no "final" equivalent and no other Hebrew character has the value of 20. From this I can be sure that the calculation above definitely gives the value for kaph. kaph actually looks like a "C" written backwards (there is one in the third line, 10th character). In no way can this be said to remotely resemble the "final" koph in the first line and so the conclusion must be that the value of 20 assigned in the first line should actually be 100. If this is the only error, then the value will add up to 80 more than the value given ie 5449+80=5529.This means that if the Great Pyramid is 5449 as has been claimed all over the internet pyramidology sites, then its height DOES NOT correspond to the Bible Numerics of Isaiah 19;19,20. Since this is what is used to show that these verses are referring to the Great Pyramid, surely a figure which doesn't correspond to the height of the Great Pyramid means that the verses ARE NOT referring to the Great Pyramid.I'll do a bit more checking of the text, but I have been unable to find any other errors in the interpretation of the text which will decrease the final number obtained. So far, I've downloaded the Hebrew text for Isaiah and double-checked the actual part which is shown above. It is definitely Isaiah 19: 19,20. I've also completely redone the numerics on my dowloaded version and I did it BEFORE I looked at the above calculations. The only difference was the one I've described. I can provide a table much like the one above and references which assign a number to the characters. In fact, the site I used to find out the values of the characters is a pyramidology site. Since my numbers are exactly the same as the numbers given above, with one notable exception, I can only assume that I have done it correctly. I can only assume that the error in the given calculation had occurred because the words koph and kaph are so similar and the wrong one has been looked up for the numeric value.This message has been edited by Admin, 07-10-2004 12:51 PM

Have a look here. This gives you the numerics for each characterhttp://www.vic.australis.com.au/hazz/HebrewIntroduction.htmlIf you go herehttp://www.speakingbible.com/hebrew/B23C019.htmyou can look at or download the whole of Chapter 19 in Hebrew. You can then check verses 19 and 20 with the Hebrew given at the top of the numerics image that I posted and can verify that they are exactly the same. That's two sources giving the Hebrew characters of these two verses.Both sources use exactly the same symbol which I pointed out in the first line of my image. If you then check the Numerics link, you'll see that the symbol is definitely koph, it can be no other. You will also notice that the only character which scores a 20 is kaph and kaph cannot be confused with either version of koph.By checking the scores given in the image I posted with the scores given on the numerics site, you will see that all finals in the image calculation have been scored as non-finals. That means that the final koph should be scored as non-final koph and non-final koph is 100. A final koph will give an even higher value. There is NO WAY that the symbol which looks like a 7 could be interpreted as a backward C. Even in the image I posted, you can see the difference between koph and kaph. The original author gave kaph a value of 20 and since there is only one symbol which scores 20, it means that the symbol I pointed out in the top line CANNOT be kaph and cannot score 20.I've found plenty of sites on the web that claim the total is 5449, but I only found a single one which showed how this number was arrived at and that's the one I included in my post. I'm beginning to think that everyone on the web has referred to this single calculation without realising that there is an error in it. Thing is, even without a knowledge of Hebrew you can do the calculation for yourself using the rules laid down by the Bible Numerics. Apart from that single character, every character I scored ended up scoring exactly the same as the original and your calculation will do exactly the same. It just doesn't add up to 5449!Willowtree, do the calculation for yourself. Use the downloadable version of Isaiah 19 then you won't have to spend hours online, then save the numerics webpage for the same reason. You can print out the two verses you need and then sit down with a pencil and assign values to the characters. Then compare your Isaiah to the Isaiah in the image I posted and you will see they are identical.

Jar, I clicked on your link and ended up at my link. If you look at the bit underneath it says None of the other finals in the passage have been given final values, they have been given the "normal" values. I just used the rules which were used in the original calculation and also given at the web site.

Can you point out to me the post where Percy confirms a height of 5813PI? I must have missed it.

Willowtree, you quote The problem here is that if you include the "concavity" which is actually an angle where two straight lines meet, you change the face of the pyramid from a two-dimentional plane into a three dimensional structure. Once you've done that, you can't apply the basic trigonometry to do the height calculation, since this calculation depends on the base being a straight line. It gives you a larger length than actually is the distance between the corners and it's the straight line distance between the corners that you need to use.Even using this larger length in the calculations, which will overestimate the height to the apex, the figure comes out at 5808 PI, 5 PI shorter than the 5813 claimed.We need to find out why this is and whether it would change any other numbers used such as the 5449 figure.