Taking the Bible Seriously But Not Literally - Page 9

Praxeas · #81 02-09-2010, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam

Y'all do know, don't you, that some Bible teachers like Larkin (author of Dispensational Truth) and also some Apostolic/Pentecostals believe that the Great Pyramid is "the Bible in Stone"? Sis. Alta Johnson was pastor of The Church of Jesus Christ in Niles, MI and was a Bible Teacher. She had a chart on the Great Pyramid. If I remember correctly, she thought that the builder was Melchizedek and she believed that he was a theophany.

That is as silly as Magic Hair. The Egyptian pyramids (plural) are part of a pagan culture dedicated to false gods and pharaohs.

Mechezidek was a man, not a theophany. He lived in Salem

Praxeas · #82 02-09-2010, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

Not to mention Machu Picchu. http://www.sacredsites.com/americas/...hu_picchu.html

The location and appearance of this Inca city built HIGH in the Andes is right out of the Lord of the Rings.

Praxeas · #83 02-09-2010, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Digging4Truth

And that the megaliths of the world don't appear to be random but appear to be in a grid which would require some amazing knowledge to lay out.

That "grid" looks awfully contrived

Praxeas · #84 02-09-2010, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother David

If it's "still in the quarry" then it doesn't qualify as the requested example. It's still in the quarry because NOBODY could move it in antiquity. "Oops!" went the Temple's project manager.

I've attached a picture of a machine that can lift itself and move around - it weighs 45x's as much as that stone. Empty.

from http://www.swapmeetdave.com/Humor/Workshop/Trencher.htm

The machine above could pick them each up at the same time and transport them along its 750 foot conveyer belt in a matter of seconds.

None of these "rocks" presents a real engineering challenge for today.

If this is what I think it is, it's still in the quarry because it got a crack

Praxeas · #85 02-09-2010, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother David

If it's "still in the quarry" then it doesn't qualify as the requested example. It's still in the quarry because NOBODY could move it in antiquity. "Oops!" went the Temple's project manager.

I've attached a picture of a machine that can lift itself and move around - it weighs 45x's as much as that stone. Empty.

from http://www.swapmeetdave.com/Humor/Workshop/Trencher.htm

The machine above could pick them each up at the same time and transport them along its 750 foot conveyer belt in a matter of seconds.

None of these "rocks" presents a real engineering challenge for today.

man I sure hope SkyNet never becomes active

Digging4Truth · #86 02-09-2010, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Praxeas

If this is what I think it is, it's still in the quarry because it got a crack

This is what I thought I remembered about the Stone of the South but I have not been able to verify that.

Could be... but I can't find anything about it.

jfrog · #87 02-09-2010, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Digging4Truth

I'm not going to argue your point because there is room for you to be correct. You have demonstrated big heavy machines with impressive ability to destroy things but there is no clear cut evidence that we could move this stone or the three 800 ton stones that are at Baalbek and put them in position without harm. So there is room that my initial statement is right as well.

But we have different measurements on what is necessary to call another persons thought wrong and impossible and that is the pivotal point in this discussion.

Below is a picture of a 900 ton building that was moved intact to a new location. Don't tell me a 800 ton stone would be a problem.

http://www.history.co.uk/shows/mega-.../gallery/.html

pelathais · #88 02-10-2010, 12:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Digging4Truth

I'm not going to argue your point because there is room for you to be correct. You have demonstrated big heavy machines with impressive ability to destroy things but there is no clear cut evidence that we could move this stone or the three 800 ton stones that are at Baalbek and put them in position without harm. So there is room that my initial statement is right as well.

But we have different measurements on what is necessary to call another persons thought wrong and impossible and that is the pivotal point in this discussion.

Why haven't you tried "digging" for the truth on this matter?

Just for this machine to exist requires the CAREFUL handling of 45,500 tons of steel, electronics and other equipment. Every time this machine moves - empty - it must use some miraculous or alien anti-gravity device just to keep from rumbling the entire mass (45,500 tons) into the world's largest heap of scrap steel?. ???

Remove the trenching bucket/wheel and add a simple crane type sling and it can move your stones easily and as carefully as the operator was told to be.

You have to be a really hardcore alien enthusiast (or nephilim, or whatever) to try and stick to your original statement. You ought to sign up for Internet service and just google your theories around.

In 1991, the entire and intact Cape Hatteras Lighthouse was moved to another location 1/2 mile away. The lighthouse weighs 4,830 tons - far, far more than the Baalbek stones you described - all together! See the first picture below.

Sorry, maybe I'm being too harsh, but c'mon! Just one Howie Long GMC commercial moves payloads of similar size to those "impossible to move stones."

The last pic is a contemporary depiction of Egyptians moving an 800 ton colossus. http://www.catchpenny.org/movebig.html