Were the Pyramids Built Before the Flood? (Masoretic Text vs. Original Hebrew)

[KenJackson]

1. The spaces were filled in later, after the famine, when the pyramids were converted to tombs.

The pyramids were not tombs. Real tombs are extremely ornate, lots of hieroglyphic histories on the walls, pillars and grand entrances and chambers. But the pyramids have nothing like that.

They weren't filled with concrete. They're filled with blocks. How would the structure have been supported if it were an empty shell of blocks? And how did they get the blocks inside and in position after the fact? And the big question, why? For what reason? It would be a monumental multi-year effort to fill in the pyramid after it was built.

Since the Bible never mentions the pyramids, why try to force them into Bible history? I admit it's curious that the Bible didn't mention them, but that probably indicates that they were totally irrelevant.

 

[The Barbarian]

1. The spaces were filled in later, after the famine, when the pyramids were converted to tombs.

But you have no evidence for that? As you know, a hollow pyramid that size, made by piling uncemented stones together, would simply have collapsed. Indeed, several solid ones collapsed before they got the method figured out.

2. Were they pyramids, or cylinders?

Various shapes.

3. What (Who, actually) kept them from doing so? Hint: Noah's Ark.

Sorry, that would just make it worse. Flimsy as a hollow stone pyramid would be, the onrushing waters would just knock it over.

 

[AV1611VET]

But you have no evidence for that?

That's true. I don't.

As you know, a hollow pyramid that size, made by piling uncemented stones together, would simply have collapsed.

Unless prohibited by God.

Indeed, several solid ones collapsed before they got the method figured out.

Unless prohibited by God.

Flimsy as a hollow stone pyramid would be, the onrushing waters would just knock it over.

What I meant was:

Just as God protected the Ark from the stresses put on it by a global flood, it would be nothing for God to protect Joseph's pyramids from caving in from stresses put on it from gravity.

God is a master preserver, here are two examples:

Deuteronomy 29:5 And I have led you forty years in the wilderness: your clothes are not waxen old upon you, and thy shoe is not waxen old upon thy foot.

Daniel 3:27 And the princes, governors, and captains, and the king's counsellors, being gathered together, saw these men, upon whose bodies the fire had no power, nor was an hair of their head singed, neither were their coats changed, nor the smell of fire had passed on them.

 

[The Barbarian]

As you know, a hollow pyramid that size, made by piling uncemented stones together, would simply have collapsed.

Unless prohibited by God.

If you get to call in an unscriptural miracle to cover every flaw in your argument, then any argument is equally valid.

Indeed, several solid ones collapsed before they got the method figured out.

Unless prohibited by God.

So you'll need quite a few miracles to prop up your beliefs.

 

[AV1611VET]

So you'll need quite a few miracles to prop up your beliefs.

What? did God run out of miracles? was He on a quota system?

 

[KenJackson]

Unless prohibited by God.

By what principle of hermeneutics do you make the unmentioned pyramids miraculous?

 

[AV1611VET]

By what principle of hermeneutics do you make the unmentioned pyramids miraculous?

Here are my principles:

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x = dual agreement
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x = science can take a hike
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x = Biblical support
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x = Scientific support
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.

I would almost go with Principle 4, but since the pyramids are used to violate my Prime Directive (contradict the Bible), I go with Principle 5.

 

[The Barbarian]

Here are my principles:

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x = dual agreement
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x = science can take a hike
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x = Biblical support
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x = Scientific support
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.

Show us where the Bible says Joseph built the pyramids to store grain.

 

[AV1611VET]

Show us where the Bible says Joseph built the pyramids to store grain.

I'm speculating, chief ... just speculating.

According to academia, the pyramids were built before the Flood.

Given that Egypt came from Noah's grandson, Mizraim ...

Genesis 10:6 And the sons of Ham; Cush, and Mizraim, and Phut, and Canaan.

... not even Egypt existed as yet, let alone the pyramids.

Since science is wrong, I'm free to speculate.

 

[The Barbarian]

I'm speculating, chief ... just speculating.

That's what they call it when you start inserting miracles that never happened into scripture.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's what they call it when you start inserting miracles that never happened into scripture.

What do they call it when I insert miracles that did happen? magic?

 

[The Barbarian]

What do they call it when I insert miracles that did happen? magic?

Inserting miracles at all is highly disrespectful to God. He isn't your clean-up man.

 

[AV1611VET]

Inserting miracles at all is highly disrespectful to God. He isn't your clean-up man.

And what's inserting a country (like Egypt) into history, before its progenitor (like Mizraim) was even born?

Let me guess.

Good science?

 

[The Barbarian]

Inserting miracles at all is highly disrespectful to God. He isn't your clean-up man.

And what's inserting a country (like Egypt) into history, before its progenitor (like Mizraim) was even born?

"Mizraim" is just a Semitic word for "Egypt."

The Biblical Mizraim was the grandson of Noah, supposed by some to be the ancestor of Egyptians. So now, you're telling us that the flood covered the pyramids, built by people long before those people even existed.

Do you actually think about this stuff before you write it out?

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you actually think about this stuff before you write it out?

Do you actually read what I write?

I'm second to none here saying that Egypt didn't exist until well after the Flood, because Egypt came from Noah's grandson.

Wow.

 

[The Barbarian]

So why did you bring Noah's flood into it to support you claim of a new miracle?

 

[AV1611VET]

So why did you bring Noah's flood into it to support you claim of a new miracle?

Have a nice day, sir.

 

[KenJackson]

Have a nice day, sir.

I don't like it that you've actually driven me to agree with that barbarian over you. Yes, the Bible is inerrant. And in fact, modern science has vindicated the Bible in demonstrating that life could not have originated or developed by naturalistic materialistic processes (even if the truth isn't widely acknowledged).

But the pyramids aren't mentioned in the Bible and no truth presented in the Bible depend on any aspect of the existence of the pyramids. It seems unwise to impose something on them that denies physics and logic. God's miracles were designed to give him glory. Speculative miracles don't do that.

In the video that this thread is based on, Nathan makes an excellent case for the pyramids being built at about 2350 BC (see the diagram at 18:04) which was before Serug, Abraham's great grandfather, was born. Prior to seeing it, I assumed the pyramids must have been built before the flood, but he makes such a solid argument that I think he's exactly right. And he doesn't give up any of the authority of the Word of God.

 

[AV1611VET]

And he doesn't give up any of the authority of the Word of God.

Really?

Even though he calls the Masoretic Text "corrupted"?

He also gives kudos to the Greek Septuagint, a writing we KJVOs believe to be very corrupt.

We hold the Textus Receptus/Masoretic Text in high esteem, and the Vaticanus and Septuagint in low esteem.

It all boils down to the Alexandrian Texts vs the Antiochian Texts.

But I don't speak any of those languages, and I believe the KJB is the end of the line for Scriptural authority.

 

[KenJackson]

He also gives kudos to the Greek Septuagint, ...

Didn't the Apostle Paul himself quote the Greek Septuagint? Nathan points out that that translation and the Samaritan Pentateuch were translated hundreds of years apart for groups that would have no reason to conspire together, yet they agree, as does the early copies of Josephus's histories.

I believe the KJB is the end of the line for Scriptural authority.

I know there are those who think that way, but I just don't see any scriptural reason to support it.