Great Pyramid Builder Identified in Scripture
- Thread starter Huckleberry
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
K
Okay, explain how the information got corrupted. Start with something easy, the king lists in Budge's Egyptian dictionary. They include the city gate at Sais, I believe. Then, we can talk about the Famine Stele itself, and what it represents, the actual laser measurements of the pyramids, and the Denderah Temple.
Remember, Hoeh himself repudiated his research.
Remember, Hoeh himself repudiated his research.
Argument from authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Argument from authority (argumentum ad auctoritatem), also authoritative argument, appeal to authority, and false authority, is an inductive reasoning argument that often takes the form of a statistical syllogism.[1] Although certain classes of argument from authority can constitute strong inductive arguments, the appeal to authority is often applied fallaciously.
Fallacious examples of using the appeal include:
cases where the authority is not a subject-matter expert
cases where there is no consensus among experts in the subject matter
any appeal to authority used in the context of deductive reasoning. [1][2][3]
In the context of deductive arguments, the appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, though it can be properly used in the context of inductive reasoning. It is deductively fallacious because, while sound deductive arguments are necessarily true, authorities are not necessarily correct about judgments related to their field of expertise. Though reliable authorities are correct in judgments related to their area of expertise more often than laypersons, they can still come to the wrong judgments through error, bias or dishonesty. Thus, the appeal to authority is at best a probabilistic rather than an absolute argument for establishing facts.
Forms
The argument from authority can take several forms. As a statistical syllogism, the argument has the following basic structure:[1]
Most of what authority A has to say on subject matter S is correct.
A says P about subject matter S.
Therefore, P is correct.
The strength of this authoritative argument depends upon two factors:[1][2]
The authority is a legitimate expert on the subject.
There exists consensus among legitimate experts in the subject matter under discussion.
The two factors — legitimate expertise and expert consensus — can be incorporated to the structure of the statistical syllogism, in which case, the argument from authority can be structured thus:[2]
X holds that A is true.
X is a legitimate expert on the subject matter.
The consensus of subject-matter experts agrees with X.
Therefore, there exists a presumption that A is true.
Fallacious appeal to authority
Fallacious arguments from authority often are the result of failing to meet at least one of the required two conditions (legitimate expertise and expert consensus) structurally required in the forms of a statistical syllogism.[1][2] First, when the inference fails to meet the first condition (inexpert authority), it is an appeal to inappropriate authority, which occurs when an inference relies upon a person or a group without relevant expertise or knowledge of the subject matter under discussion.[3][4]
Second, because the argument from authority is an inductive reasoning argument—wherein it is implied that the truth of the conclusion cannot be guaranteed by the truth of the premises—it also is fallacious to assert that the conclusion must be true.[2] Such a determinative assertion is a logical non sequitur, because, although the inductive argument might have merit—either probabilistic or statistical—the conclusion does not follow unconditionally, in the sense of being logically necessary.[5][6]
Argument from authority (argumentum ad auctoritatem), also authoritative argument, appeal to authority, and false authority, is an inductive reasoning argument that often takes the form of a statistical syllogism.[1] Although certain classes of argument from authority can constitute strong inductive arguments, the appeal to authority is often applied fallaciously.
Fallacious examples of using the appeal include:
cases where the authority is not a subject-matter expert
cases where there is no consensus among experts in the subject matter
any appeal to authority used in the context of deductive reasoning. [1][2][3]
In the context of deductive arguments, the appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, though it can be properly used in the context of inductive reasoning. It is deductively fallacious because, while sound deductive arguments are necessarily true, authorities are not necessarily correct about judgments related to their field of expertise. Though reliable authorities are correct in judgments related to their area of expertise more often than laypersons, they can still come to the wrong judgments through error, bias or dishonesty. Thus, the appeal to authority is at best a probabilistic rather than an absolute argument for establishing facts.
Forms
The argument from authority can take several forms. As a statistical syllogism, the argument has the following basic structure:[1]
Most of what authority A has to say on subject matter S is correct.
A says P about subject matter S.
Therefore, P is correct.
The strength of this authoritative argument depends upon two factors:[1][2]
The authority is a legitimate expert on the subject.
There exists consensus among legitimate experts in the subject matter under discussion.
The two factors — legitimate expertise and expert consensus — can be incorporated to the structure of the statistical syllogism, in which case, the argument from authority can be structured thus:[2]
X holds that A is true.
X is a legitimate expert on the subject matter.
The consensus of subject-matter experts agrees with X.
Therefore, there exists a presumption that A is true.
Fallacious appeal to authority
Fallacious arguments from authority often are the result of failing to meet at least one of the required two conditions (legitimate expertise and expert consensus) structurally required in the forms of a statistical syllogism.[1][2] First, when the inference fails to meet the first condition (inexpert authority), it is an appeal to inappropriate authority, which occurs when an inference relies upon a person or a group without relevant expertise or knowledge of the subject matter under discussion.[3][4]
Second, because the argument from authority is an inductive reasoning argument—wherein it is implied that the truth of the conclusion cannot be guaranteed by the truth of the premises—it also is fallacious to assert that the conclusion must be true.[2] Such a determinative assertion is a logical non sequitur, because, although the inductive argument might have merit—either probabilistic or statistical—the conclusion does not follow unconditionally, in the sense of being logically necessary.[5][6]
Association fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
An association fallacy is an inductive informal fallacy of the type hasty generalization or red herring which asserts that qualities of one thing are inherently qualities of another, merely by an irrelevant association. The two types are sometimes referred to as guilt by association and honor by association. Association fallacies are a special case of red herring, and can be based on an appeal to emotion.[citation needed]
Form
In notation of first-order logic, this type of fallacy can be expressed as (∃x ∈ S : φ(x)) → (∀x ∈ S : φ(x)), meaning "if there exists any x in the set S so that a property φ is true for x, then for all x in S the property φ must be true."
Premise A is a B
Premise A is also a C
Conclusion Therefore, all Bs are Cs
The fallacy in the argument can be illustrated through the use of an Euler diagram: "A" satisfies the requirement that it is part of both sets "B" and "C", but if one represents this as an Euler diagram, it can clearly be seen that it is possible that a part of set "B" is not part of set "C", refuting the conclusion that "all Bs are Cs".
Guilt by association
Examples
Some syllogistic examples of guilt by association:
John is a con artist. John has black hair. Therefore, all people with black hair are con artists.
Jane is good at mathematics. Jane is dyslexic. Therefore, all dyslexic people are good at mathematics.
Simon, Karl, Jared, and Brett are all friends of Josh, and they are all petty criminals. Jill is a friend of Josh; therefore, Jill is a petty criminal.
All dogs have four legs; my cat has four legs. Therefore, my cat is a dog. (This argument is made by the wordplay-prone Sir Humphrey Appleby in the BBC sitcom Yes, Prime Minister).
Guilt by association as an ad hominem fallacy
Guilt by association can sometimes also be a type of ad hominem fallacy, if the argument attacks a person because of the similarity between the views of someone making an argument and other proponents of the argument.
This form of the argument is as follows:
Source S makes claim C.
Group G, which is currently viewed negatively by the recipient, also makes claim C.
Therefore, source S is viewed by the recipient of the claim as associated to the group G and inherits how negatively viewed it is.
An example of this fallacy would be "My opponent for office just received an endorsement from the Puppy Haters Association. Is that the sort of person you would want to vote for?"
An association fallacy is an inductive informal fallacy of the type hasty generalization or red herring which asserts that qualities of one thing are inherently qualities of another, merely by an irrelevant association. The two types are sometimes referred to as guilt by association and honor by association. Association fallacies are a special case of red herring, and can be based on an appeal to emotion.[citation needed]
Form
In notation of first-order logic, this type of fallacy can be expressed as (∃x ∈ S : φ(x)) → (∀x ∈ S : φ(x)), meaning "if there exists any x in the set S so that a property φ is true for x, then for all x in S the property φ must be true."
Premise A is a B
Premise A is also a C
Conclusion Therefore, all Bs are Cs
The fallacy in the argument can be illustrated through the use of an Euler diagram: "A" satisfies the requirement that it is part of both sets "B" and "C", but if one represents this as an Euler diagram, it can clearly be seen that it is possible that a part of set "B" is not part of set "C", refuting the conclusion that "all Bs are Cs".
Guilt by association
Examples
Some syllogistic examples of guilt by association:
John is a con artist. John has black hair. Therefore, all people with black hair are con artists.
Jane is good at mathematics. Jane is dyslexic. Therefore, all dyslexic people are good at mathematics.
Simon, Karl, Jared, and Brett are all friends of Josh, and they are all petty criminals. Jill is a friend of Josh; therefore, Jill is a petty criminal.
All dogs have four legs; my cat has four legs. Therefore, my cat is a dog. (This argument is made by the wordplay-prone Sir Humphrey Appleby in the BBC sitcom Yes, Prime Minister).
Guilt by association as an ad hominem fallacy
Guilt by association can sometimes also be a type of ad hominem fallacy, if the argument attacks a person because of the similarity between the views of someone making an argument and other proponents of the argument.
This form of the argument is as follows:
Source S makes claim C.
Group G, which is currently viewed negatively by the recipient, also makes claim C.
Therefore, source S is viewed by the recipient of the claim as associated to the group G and inherits how negatively viewed it is.
An example of this fallacy would be "My opponent for office just received an endorsement from the Puppy Haters Association. Is that the sort of person you would want to vote for?"
I believe that during the time before the flood, the people had built the pyramids.
Genesis 6:1 When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them,2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.
5 The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. 6 The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. 7 So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.
Noah had the capability to build an great structure with his three sons.
Genesis 6:15
This is how you are to build it: The ark is to be three hundred cubits long, fifty cubits wide and thirty cubits high.
The people had started to go back to their old ways by trying to build another great Pyramid.
Genesis 11:4Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves; otherwise we will be scattered over the face of the whole earth.”
Tower of Babel - RationalWiki
[video=youtube_share;dje47HG7c90]http://youtu.be/dje47HG7c90[/video]
Genesis 6:1 When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them,2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.
5 The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. 6 The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. 7 So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.
Noah had the capability to build an great structure with his three sons.
Genesis 6:15
This is how you are to build it: The ark is to be three hundred cubits long, fifty cubits wide and thirty cubits high.
The people had started to go back to their old ways by trying to build another great Pyramid.
Genesis 11:4Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves; otherwise we will be scattered over the face of the whole earth.”
Tower of Babel - RationalWiki
[video=youtube_share;dje47HG7c90]http://youtu.be/dje47HG7c90[/video]
The pyramid could have been built on top of a graveyard or where life use to have had inhabit. The sand that the pyramid was once buried under should explain for itself that the pyramid was once underwater, because sand is the settlement of running water and which it leaves behind.
Rediscover Ancient Egypt - The Sphinx of Egypt at Giza
Whales in the desert? Prehistoric bones unearthed in Chile's Atacama desert | Mail Online
Rediscover Ancient Egypt - The Sphinx of Egypt at Giza
Whales in the desert? Prehistoric bones unearthed in Chile's Atacama desert | Mail Online
You're grasping, brother.
I didn't say there were fossils underneath the Pyramid.
There probably are, but how the heck could we know that?
What I said was, the Pyramid is built on top of strata that contains fossils.
Those layers were laid down during the Flood.
I'm not talking about the thirteen acre area that the Pyramid sits on,
I'm talking about an area of strata that is who-knows-how-big.
I've been studying this for a long time, and like I said before,
I used to think the Pyramid was pre-Flood. The facts say otherwise.
The Pyramid was never buried very deep in sand.
It's been a tourist attraction for centuries, if not millennia.
I didn't say there were fossils underneath the Pyramid.
There probably are, but how the heck could we know that?
What I said was, the Pyramid is built on top of strata that contains fossils.
Those layers were laid down during the Flood.
I'm not talking about the thirteen acre area that the Pyramid sits on,
I'm talking about an area of strata that is who-knows-how-big.
I've been studying this for a long time, and like I said before,
I used to think the Pyramid was pre-Flood. The facts say otherwise.
The Pyramid was never buried very deep in sand.
It's been a tourist attraction for centuries, if not millennia.
Now, some of the largest cities in the third millennium that we know elsewhere from archeology, such as Ur and Uruk, are 300, 400 hectares. So there's a very big city out there. The Pyramids were not out in the desert as sentinels and mausoleums of these deceased kings; they were the skyscrapers of downtown Egypt for the time.
So what we have at our site is only one part of this Lost City. But because it is protected—there is now a high-security wall around the whole Giza Plateau that takes in our site—we have the luxury of very broad horizontal exposure. So we can see the major pattern of parts of this city, and what we see is extremely interesting.
NOVA | Excavating the Lost City
They are finding out that there's more than just the pyramid out in the desert. It was a city underneath the sands and they are still trying to dig for more evidence.
So what we have at our site is only one part of this Lost City. But because it is protected—there is now a high-security wall around the whole Giza Plateau that takes in our site—we have the luxury of very broad horizontal exposure. So we can see the major pattern of parts of this city, and what we see is extremely interesting.
NOVA | Excavating the Lost City
They are finding out that there's more than just the pyramid out in the desert. It was a city underneath the sands and they are still trying to dig for more evidence.
When you live in a really hot environment, living underground is pretty nice - Downtown Houston
I guess that is why the Sphinx was buried under the sand and so that it can stay cool...
According to a light being we are acquainted with, he stated recently that the area was a jungle when is was created and the pit around the Sphinx was filled with water because there was a lot of rain at the time. Evidently the climate has changed a great deal since then as the Sphinx has been covered by sand for long lengths of time and has been photographed that way.
THE HEAD OF THE SPHINX
