<\/strong><\/p>\n I<\/em>t would be left to David Davidson in the 1920s, long after Petrie and others had decimated Smyth\u2019s reputation, to demonstrate the \u201cauthentic example\u201d which Petrie claimed didn\u2019t exist.<\/em><\/p>\n Now, as seen in the last line of explanation in the above illustration, Davidson made three measurements of a Pyramid\u2019s side. (It is important to remember that the points A,B,C,D are not exactly the same for Petrie and Davidson.) Two of these measurements Davidson physically measured; a third measurement was extrapolated based on where legs BG and CH would meet (at d) if they continued. Davidson then showed that these three ways of<\/em><\/p>\n <\/em><\/p>\n Ikonos Satellite image showing the Great Pyramid\u2019s crease.<\/p><\/div><\/em><\/p>\n <\/em><\/p>\n measuring the perimeter led to an amount of cubits per side which represented the three types of years. The solar year is a little less<\/u> than 365\u00bc days, the sidereal year a little more<\/u> than 365\u00bc days, and the anomalistic year just a little longer than the sidereal year.<\/em><\/p>\n B<\/em>u<\/em>t how close do Davidson\u2019s three measurements actually come to representing the three types of years?<\/em><\/p>\n Davidson, like Taylor and Smyth before him, believed that the basic unit of measurement along a base\u2019s side was barely over 25<\/em>.\u201d T<\/em>h<\/em>e exact figure Davidson gave was 25.0275<\/em>\u201d <\/em>(i.e. British inches), 1\/10,000,000<\/em>t<\/em>h <\/em>of the polar radius of the earth as calculated at that time. (Today\u2019s figure is not much different, at 25.0265 B.<\/em>\u201d<\/em>) Davidson believed that the British inch, as well as certain other nations\u2019 inch, had their origin in the type of inch used in the Great Pyramid, or 1\/25<\/em>t<\/em>h <\/em>of 25.0275 B.<\/em>,\u201d derived from 1\/25<\/em>t<\/em>h <\/em>of a sacred (or biblical) cubit. Thus Davidson\u2019s Pyramid inch = 1.0011 of a British inch. Incidentally, since Davidson believed 25 such Pyramid inches were equal to 1\/10,000,000<\/em>t<\/em>h <\/em>of the polar radius of the earth, he notes that 500,000,000 Pyramid inches was the diameter of the earth measured from its poles.<\/em><\/p>\n Davidson\u2019s three measurements representing the three types of years are based on the following perimeters as measured in pyramid inches, with each perimeter then divided by 25 for the number of cubits in the perimeter and then divided by 4 for the amount of cubits per side (which represent the amount of days in the year). The same amount of cubits can result by taking the number of inches in the perimeter and dividing by 100. The three<\/em><\/p>\n measurements of the perimeter follow the points ABCD for the solar year, AEFBGHCJKDPR for the sidereal year, and AaBbCcDd for the anomalistic year.<\/em><\/p>\n Again, Davidson converted the<\/em><\/p>\n amount of British inches in these three types of geometric perimeters to Pyramid inches, and showed that they corresponded to the amount of days in the three types of years, based on 100 Pyramid inches<\/em><\/p>\n to the day.<\/em><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n Sir Flinders Petrie (1853 \u2013 1942). Shown here at age 69, striding across the desert at Abydos in Upper Egypt.<\/p><\/div><\/strong><\/p>\n \n Here are the three measurements Davidson used, <\/em><\/em>based on Petrie\u2019s distances surveyed from the outer corner sockets. ABCD is 36,524.2465 P<\/em>.\u201d (Pyramid inches). But we need to make an adjustment for the fact that the more-accurately measured polar radius of the earth today is 25.0265 B.<\/em>\u201d <\/em>r<\/em>ather than the 25.0275 B.<\/em>\u201d <\/em>u<\/em>s<\/em>e<\/em>d by Davidson. Davidson believed 1 P.<\/em>\u201d <\/em>= 1.0011 B.<\/em>\u201d\u2019 whereas the present value is 1 P.<\/em>\u201d <\/em>= 1.00106 B<\/em>.\u201d A<\/em>n<\/em>d so we take Davidson\u2019s number of Pyramid inches and multiply by 1.0011 to see what amount of B.<\/em>\u201d <\/em>h<\/em>e began with, which was 36,564.42317 B<\/em>.\u201d T<\/em>h<\/em>e<\/em>n we divide this number by today\u2019s corrected value of 1.00106, which yields 36,525.70217 P.<\/em>\u201d <\/em>W<\/em>e divide this number by 25 to get <\/em>1,461.028086<\/em>8 sacred cubits for the perimeter, and divide this by 4 to get the number of cubits per side, which is <\/em>365.257<\/em>0217. The cubits per side can thus also be calculated by taking 36,525.70217 P.<\/em>\u201d <\/em>an<\/em>d diving by 100 (pyramid inches to the day) to get 365.2570217 cubits, representing the number of days in the solar year. But <\/em>365.257021<\/em>7 days is slightly more than the present value of 365.2421891 days in a solar year. So we subtract the l<\/em><\/em>atter number from the former to get a difference of .0148326 of a day. We multiply this number by 86,400 seconds in a day to get 1,281.5 seconds. Since each pyramid inch represents 1\/100<\/em>t<\/em>h <\/em>of 86,400 seconds, or 864 seconds, we divide 1281.5 seconds by 864seconds to get (what is represented by) 1.48 pyramid inches error for the entire perimeter. And so the error for one side of the Pyramid is 1.48 \u00f7 4, or .3718 of a P.<\/em>\u201d <\/em>pe<\/em>r side. We multiply this by <\/em>1.0010<\/em>6 to get .3712 of 1 B.<\/em>\u201d <\/em>\u00a0<\/em>more<\/u><\/em> per side. This is a remarkably close measurement when one considers that a side of the Pyramid is 9,141.1 B<\/em>.\u201d T<\/em>h<\/em>e margin of error is only 1 part in 24,000.<\/em>\u00a0<\/p>\n T<\/em>h<\/em>e measurements for the sidereal and anomalistic years are figured accordingly. Davidson gives 36,525.6471536 <\/em>P<\/em>.<\/em>\u201d <\/em>f<\/em>or the sidereal year (AEFBGHCJKDPR ). Subjecting this number to the same equations in the above <\/em>paragraph in relation to the days in a sidereal year, result in .368 of a B.<\/em>\u201d <\/em>\u00a0<\/em>more<\/u><\/em> p<\/em>e<\/em>r side.<\/em><\/p>\n F<\/em>inally, we have the anomalistic year. Davidson gives 36,525.997317 P.<\/em>\u201d <\/em>After doing the same calculations as for the solar and sidereal years, the result is .374 of a B.<\/em>\u201d <\/em>\u00a0<\/em>more<\/u><\/em> p<\/em>e<\/em>r side.<\/em><\/p>\n T<\/em>he error of the three measurements for the Pyramid\u2019s side is thus 3\/8 of a B.<\/em>\u201d, i.e., 3\/8<\/em>\u201d <\/em>over the length of 2.5 <\/em>American football fields. This incredible accuracy of three measurements in relation to the solar, sidereal, and anomalistic years, respectively, is why Davidson was able to justly claim that the New Construction was beyond coincidence, and therefore Divinely imparted to human agency. And thus Davidson redeemed the views of Taylor and Smyth, insofar that they believed a biblical cubit of just over 25<\/em>\u201d <\/em>w<\/em>as the basic unit of measurement in constructing<\/em><\/p>\n <\/em><\/p>\n Here is a picture showing a man sitting on a portion of the platform. He is looking in the direction of the only outer limestone casing which still exists (these are the stones which slant down to the platform). The platform is the stone which juts out a bit from the casing, and the pavement is that which abuts to the platform.<\/p><\/div><\/em><\/p>\n <\/em><\/p>\n the Great Pyramid. Moreover, the fact that all three measurements are 3\/8<\/em>\u201d <\/em>\u00a0<\/em>more<\/u><\/em> t<\/em>h<\/em>a<\/em>n the years they represent, yet<\/u> within 1\/150<\/u><\/em>th<\/u><\/em>\u00a0<\/u><\/em>of an inch of each other<\/u><\/em>, suggests that the original measurements were not in error at all, especially given that the Great Pyramid has experienced earthquakes that may have had a slight effect on the measurements. Or the measurements may actually represent the length of year at the time of the Pyramid\u2019s construction, or else perhaps be a prophetic anticipation of the length of a year at a particular point in the future.<\/em>\u00a0<\/p>\n F<\/em>inally, we return to an issue mentioned earlier, of the outer limestone casing of Menkaure\u2019s pyramid. Here the limestone casing \u2018\u2018erased\u2019 the middle crease and pushed the limestone out to its four corners (A,D,C,D, so to speak), and thus did not mirror the hollowing-in of the base core <\/em>masonry. Skeptics have used this example to try to discredit Davidson\u2019s view that the outer limestone casing of the Great Pyramid would have been similar. But to do so is an apples to oranges comparison. First, only the Great Pyramid among all pyramids (including Menkaure\u2019s) has a perimeter and a height which corresponds to the earth\u2019s circumference and its polar radius, thus demonstrating \u03c0. Second, only the Great Pyramid has numerous chambers and passageways some of which reflect the basic unit of measurement\u2014the sacred cubit\u2014<\/em>incorporated throughout the structure, and certainly used in all <\/em>three base perimeter measurements. Third, Menkaure\u2019s pyramid does not demonstrate the exact kind of hollowing-in effect of the Great Pyramid, which in the Great Pyramid <\/em>comes down from the top in a single \u2018crease\u2019 but then broadens <\/em>out in the lower courses such that a section in the middle of the sides are parallel to the AB, BC, CD, and DA sides (see illustration above which shows the Base Core Masonry), which in turn yields, at the Pyramid\u2019s base, a length of cubits per side which correspond to the number of days in a sidereal year. <\/em>T<\/em>hus while Menkaure\u2019s base core masonry supports the idea <\/em>that its designers incorporated a similar (though not exact kind of) \u2018crease\u2019 found in the Great Pyramid, Menkaure\u2019s pyramid demonstrates none of the Great Pyramid\u2019s startling <\/em>r<\/em>e<\/em>su<\/em>l<\/em>t<\/em>s<\/em>, and so is really nothing more than a large tomb <\/em><\/em>marker with little else than a single room to house a dead king.<\/em><\/p>\n O<\/em>n<\/em>e note of addendum here: Since in Chapter 3 I quote<\/em><\/p>\n \n Darius the Great, from a relief at Persepolis.<\/p><\/div><\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n V<\/em>elikovsky\u2019s extensive proofs of a 360-day year existing as late as the 8<\/em>t<\/em>h <\/em>c<\/em>en<\/em>tu<\/em>r<\/em>y <\/em>BC<\/em>, I interpret the Great Pyramid\u2019s measurements showing solar, sidereal, and anomalistic years as <\/em>prophetic, since the Great Pyramid was constructed centuries or millennia earlier. As to who designed it we do not know. However, an educated guess might be Joseph, since God had shown that he gave Joseph information about the future in other dreams, and because Jospeh\/Imhotep was known to the Egyptians in connection with building. If true, this does not necessarily mean the design was carried out in Joseph\u2019s lifetime, nor for whom he may have intended it, if indeed it was intended for anyone. The design may have been a mere exercise in mathematics, with no intended use. Mainstream Egyptian <\/em>chronologists believe it was built by Khufu in the 4<\/em>t<\/em>h <\/em>Dynasty. If this is the case, then the building came after Joseph, who lived during the 3<\/em>r<\/em>d <\/em>Dynasty.<\/em><\/p>\n 5\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/strong>I share with readers an April, 2012 email to my brother regarding the \u201cDarius cubit.\u201d It is possible this cubit was also used by Darius\u2019 predecessors, including Cyrus. The cubit is slightly longer than 13,\u201d thus a little more than half the length of the sacred cubit of 25.0265.\u201d Interestingly, bricks in Babylon measured 13 inches, and so perhaps the so-called Darius cubit was derived from this basic architectural element incorporated into that city.<\/p>\n As for what led me to research possible Persian cubits, I had for some time puzzled over a description in Ezra 6, where Darius quotes Cyrus\u2019 permission that the Jewish Temple\u2019s walls be rebuilt up to 60 <\/em>cubits in height. This seemed odd to me, since Solomon\u2019s walls are recorded as only 30 <\/em>cubits in height. But when I found that there was a Persian cubit of just over 13 inches, the answer practically suggested itself:<\/p>\n Hi Dave,<\/p>\n Just found some possibly interesting info on the cubit. Darius the Great, who was king after Cyrus and Cambyses and ruled somewhere around 521 BC to 486 BC, is associated with a 33.60 cm royal cubit. This works out to 13.228+ inches. And so IF this were the same cubit used by Cyrus (can\u2019t determine this for sure, though I have found no other cubit associated with Cyrus), then when Darius is stating that Cyrus gave permission for the Temple walls to be 60 cubits, it\u2019s possible that Cyrus was rounding \u00a0<\/strong>u<\/u><\/strong>p<\/u><\/strong> to the nearest multiple of 10, and even of 5. In other words, Solomon\u2019s 30-cubit high walls, assuming they are sacred cubits of 25.0265,\u201d equal 750+ inches. 60 cubits at Darius\u2019 cubit of 13.228 is about 794 inches. So Solomon\u2019s temple walls would require 56.76 \u2018royal\u2019 cubits of Darius. So if Cyrus used the same royal cubit as Darius, then he simply gave a number that allowed for enough height to equal the former walls of Solomon.<\/p>\n I know this will excite you, though, of course it seems we can\u2019t say for sure whether Cyrus\u2019 cubits were the same as Darius\u2019. But I think an argument could be made that Darius\u2019 quotation of Cyrus without further explanation suggests that the cubit lengths were the same.<\/p>\n 6\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/strong>(See my brother\u2019s calculations on the diagram of Solomon\u2019s Sea, showing the golden ratio.)<\/p>\n \u00a0Incidentally, in biblical measures 6 handbreadths = a profane cubit, and 7 handbreadths = a sacred (biblical) cubit. The measurements for Solomon\u2019s Sea are 5 cubits deep and 10 cubits in diameter. This book presumes these are interior measurements referencing (1) total water capacity of 3000 baths if the Sea were completely filled; and (2) normal-use capacity of 2000 baths (I Ki. 7:26) for Temple use. The cast bronze [hemisphere] is stated to be one handbreadth thick.<\/p>\n 7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/strong>During my blogging on websites about this book\u2019s various points\u2014theological, philosophical, and scientific\u2014no other point received more derisive mocking than the sacred cubit\u2019s use in Solomon\u2019s Bronze Sea and the biblical bath\u2019s volumetric connection to a \u201cmole\u201d in the metric system. Typical of the comments were \u201cOh, my! <\/em>Apparently someone slept through the high school chemistry class that talked about\u2026.<\/em>\u201d Another fellow wanted to know if Solomon carried around a huge basin at sea level and waited for a certain degree centigrade, so that he would know the exact volumetric space of a biblical bath. This is because I had related my brother\u2019s view that a biblical bath in Solomon\u2019s Sea occupied the same volumetric space as a mole of ideal gas at standard temperature and pressure. And since a \u201cmole\u201d was interpreted by our critics as exclusively a metric system measurement, they wanted to know how Solomon anticipated the metric system by 3,000 years! It was necessary, therefore, for David to inform these critics that merely cubing the diameter of any hemisphere and multiplying by three would give the volume of a hemisphere in baths or ephahs (i.e., the basic unit of biblical measurement for liquid and dry measures), provided cubits equal to 1\/10,000,000th of the earth\u2019s polar radius were used in measuring the diameter. In essence, God would not have needed to go into all the scientific details, but merely to have given Moses the right length rod and the above straight-forward formula. (It should be remembered that \u201cMoses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians\u201d (Acts 7:22), which would have included mathematics.) Additionally, my brother was compelled to explain the history of the metric system to these critics. Dave\u2019s detailed explanation of the matter is below. In essence, Dave\u2019s complaint is that metricists behave as if Avogadro\u2019s number could not have been discovered unless the metric system was around to give it a name:<\/p>\n Re: Avogadro\u2019s number: When scientists measured the atomic weights of all the chemical elements according to the original definition of a gram, no atomic weight of any element came out to an exact integer. Therefore when all the atomic weights of the elements were arbitrarily changed, it led to the misconception that Avogadro\u2019s number was changed in order to make all the atomic weights different. This is not true. The changes in the atomic weights of all the elements can be likened to the turning of the adjustment screw on a weight scale. When this is done, everyone who gets on the scale weighs differently than before the adjustment screw was turned, but the number of atoms in their bodies has remained the same. No one has really changed in actual weight; only the scale reading of each one\u2019s weight has been changed<\/em>. In like manner, the adjustment screw was turned (so to speak) on all the atomic weights twice; once when oxygen was arbitrarily <\/em>set as Avogadro\u2019s number of oxygen atoms and declared to weigh exactly 16 grams (ca. the 1940s), and again later (ca. the 1970s), when Avogadro\u2019s number of carbon atoms was arbitrarily <\/em>set at weighing exactly 12 grams. (The reason for the change from oxygen to carbon was because it was thought spectroscopy promised a greater field of experimentation.) At the time of this writing, even Wikipedia\u2014the most frequently consulted source of general information\u2014 doesn\u2019t mention how these changes in the atomic weights <\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n \n Amedeo Avogadro (1776 \u2013 1856).<\/p><\/div><\/p>\n automatically changed the original definition of a cubic centimeter of water as a mass of one gram at 4\u00b0C, and so <\/em>leaves readers to infer that Avogadro\u2019s number is miraculously defined by an exact integer of grams of a specific element, giving an inflated status to the metric system. Further, when the oxygen standard was abandoned (ca. the 1940s) and Avogadro\u2019s number of carbon atoms was arbitrarily set at exactly 12 grams, it again necessitated changing all the other atomic weights. I have an older chemistry text book from my student days which actually bothers to give the formula used to make the second change. (Old atomic weight) = (1.000043) x (new atomic weight)<\/p>\n![\"satellite](\"https:\/\/danielgracely.com\/rockpapershivers\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/08\/satellite-image-1024x931.jpg\")
![\"sir](\"https:\/\/danielgracely.com\/rockpapershivers\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/08\/sir-petrie-300x209.jpg\")
![\"pyramid](\"https:\/\/danielgracely.com\/rockpapershivers\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/08\/pyramid-platform-1024x661.jpg\")
![\"Darius\"](\"https:\/\/danielgracely.com\/rockpapershivers\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/08\/Darius-169x300.jpg\")
![\"avogadro\"](\"https:\/\/danielgracely.com\/rockpapershivers\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/08\/avogadro-217x300.jpg\")