PROOF OF GOD

I don't have time to elaborate: but this link will should deal with most of the Pyramidology crap:Error 404 - Australian Skeptics IncPyramidology is just another example of Christina nonsense that actually does more harm to Christianity than it does good.The greatest pagan shrine to re-incarnation, God's creation? If you split a human hair in half - that is the difference between the British inch and the Sacred inch?Utter, utter tripe.

---

This is an assertion without any support.

---

Man, we are getting strict here. Rightio.I wrote:

---

The greatest pagan shrine to re-incarnation, God's creation? If you split a human hair in half - that is the difference between the British inch and the Sacred inch?

---

Point 1.
I'm no expert on ancient Egyptian religions, but I think I am safe in saying that a) the Pyramids a great (indeed the "greatest" of such shrines), b) the Egyptian religion is pagan and c) the whole idea of the Pyramids was to facilitate the re-incarnation 9or should that be bodily ressurrection?) of the Pharoahs.The proposition that the greatest pagan shrine to re-incarnation is the Christian God's creation, seems at least a little far fetched and, I'd wager is utter, utter tripe.Point 2.
Human hairs vary dramatically in width. I don't know whether Willowtree used this statement: "If you split a human hair in half - that is the difference between the British inch and the Sacred inch" as an attempt at a legitimate method of measure, or whether it was merely just a colorful way of saying that there is no difference between the two (I really can't tell with Willowtree: the stuff he posts in so left field).If it was a method of measurement, then I claim it as utter utter tripe, based on me as an example. On the sides of my noggin' I have normal, healthy strong hair fibres of reasonable width. On the top, thanks to brilliant genetics pre-disposing me to male pattern baldness, I have feeble, thin and frail hair that is visible finer than the stuff on the sides.Using human hair as a method of measurement is utter utter tripe.

---

You see, you read way too much into his words...The English/Brittish inch IS The Sacred inch. It's one and the same! At some point in history, England decided that since they were such a swell nation, they should call their inch the Sacred inch to differentiate it from the load of other (widely varying) inches in the world.

---

Oh. My bad.As I said, it is really hard to tell with Willowtree's writing.
Thanks for the heads up.

I've only had a chance to skim across this thread, because I am berserk busy. I apologise if this post ignores any points that have been resolved (because I may have missed them when I skimmed 415 posts).IMO Willow is sustaining this thread.I am fascinated: If:1) The Gemantria of Isaiah 19: 19-20 is 5449
and if the Pyramid is is damn well close to that mark in height (irregardless of a few debatable inches either way: which can be accounted for in several ways);and2) The Pyramid is debatably at the centre of Egypt and on the border (and in the appropriate global location)Then this claim by Willow is significant.My present skeptical/atheist view does not force me to exclude such phenomenal claims: indeed it compells me to look for them. So far, most of the arguments against Willow are debating mere inches and mere errors rates of a few percentage. You can factor those in a number of ways. How did this Pyramid thing even get this close to Willow's claims?Most miraculous Christian claims are not off by such small percentages: they are either completely false or based on false or misleading premises entirely. This seems a little too close.I would be inclined (if I had the time) to look at this another way.1) Question the Gemantric claim. Bible Numerics is dodgey stuff: ask Willow to provide the most commonly accepted Hebrew translation of Isaiah, and Hebrew Numerical values so that you can do the calculations yourself. The claim may fall down here.Here's a Christian site linking to the values:
http://www.trf.org.au/Bible_Numerics.asp2) Question the logic that Isaiah even refers to the Pyramid at all. Many Christians believe that it does not:Christian Essays on the Web !!!In my opinion a dead give away is the fact that Isaiah refers to "the altar" in the future tense. Of course, the Pyramids were already built when Isaiah was written, so that verse refers to another structure.Once you deal with the Bible to the pagan temple (Pyramid) link, you can then deal with the supernatural claims of the Pyramid and all of the other wacky claims about it (extra-terrestrials etc) at the same time: mainly by evidencing that fact that it was not ebyond the capabilites of man at that time.Didn't anyone see the BBC production where they re-created great architectual feats, like the Easter Island statues, draggin a long boat across (Scottland, I think) and building trebuchets etc? They also showed how you could carve, cart by river and use as construction materials the bloddy great blocks that make up the Pyramids.Well done, so far Willow! I'll research this claim of yours further!Edited for typos.This message has been edited by Gilgamesh, 07-06-2004 04:23 AM

SORRY DOUBLE POST! PLEASE DELETE ADMIN!This message has been edited by Gilgamesh, 07-06-2004 04:18 AMThis message has been edited by Admin, 07-06-2004 07:38 AM

Hello Willow,You have abused the praise and acknowledgement that I have given you by using your response to my post as another excuse to go off on another unsubstantiated speil about this Pyramidology stuff.How about:1) Providing us with the most commonly accepted Hebrew translation of the most common Bible and demonstrating the Gemantria for us. No dodgey, rare, tortured translations allowed.If you get within a few metres (inches, whatever) of your magic 5449 inches of a proposed capless pyramid, I will be justifiably intrigued.Remember that some numeric values of hebrew letters are as much as 400, so it wont take too many letters before your miles off the 5449 mark.2) Convincing us why Isaiah 19:19, 20 even refers to the Egyptian Pyramids. Most Bible scholars believe that it does not. I already pointed out that the verse refers to an alter in the future tense, when the pyramids were already built when it was written. How do you explain that?Remember that I also stated that the BBC produced a documentary re-enacted most of the major construction processes of the Pyramid, using ancient and very primitive technology.Remember if this Pyramid claim does not stand up, it will be logged as yet another false Christian evidence of the supernatural.This message has been edited by Gilgamesh, 07-06-2004 08:26 PM

Hello Willow, Yea, but you don't even get off the ground if you can't establish the Gemantric claim, and the Bible reference to the Pyramid.I'll read your links.--------------
I have neglected out other debate and not perused it for a short while. I hadn't completely responded to your last post when I replied on that thread.I'll check back on asap. Sure: I said so on the other thread. Fill me in on that thread, not here.Edited to add:Willow linked to: For the purposes of proving the Gemantria claim, these links don't cut it. For starters the Gemantria stuff is contaned in little jpegs, and I can hardly read it. Secondly, what was the source of the Hebrew translation: why can we trust it? The calculations on those pages are not very self-explanatory, and I can't check the maths. My experience has shown me that Bible Numerics claims fall down on close inspection and I sense something fishy.Give me the most common Hebrew translation (and tell me why you think it is), with the individual letters clearly shown and let me do the maths. My trustee calculator is standing by.This message has been edited by Gilgamesh, 07-07-2004 12:19 AMThis message has been edited by Gilgamesh, 07-07-2004 01:47 AM

Gil wrote:Remember that I also stated that the BBC produced a documentary re-enacted most of the major construction processes of the Pyramid, using ancient and very primitive technology.Willow responded Say what?If a few bored uni students can cut a Pyramid sized stone with hand tools, move it around with woodern levers and logs to roll it, place on a barge with ropes and pullies and muscle power, deliver it to another distant site using only primitive tools, then there is nothing miraculous about the same process being repeated thousands of years ago by a huge workforce over a century of labor.Mankind has experienced technological cycles: there have been many times on the past, in different areas of the world where civilisation was much more advanced than it became many centuries later.Don't underestimate our ancient ancestors. They conceived and drafted one of the best tools for religion and control of the masses: the Bible, afterall.

wmscott wrote: Bingo.1) The majority of Christians do not interpret Isaiah 19: 19 as refering to the Pyramids.2) By Willow's silence, I suspect that the Gemantric calim about Isaiah 19: 19, 20 equaling 5449 (or any other figure debatably close to the height of an un-capped pyramd) is dependant upon some very unique Hebrew translation, and some very dodgey maths.The Bible (and Christian God) link to the Pyramid link is not sustained.Let's debate whether aliens built it or not.Sorry Nosyned and others for complicating things and distracting Willow on the previous page of this thread.I'm out of here.