The Birth of Abraham
- Thread starter Christina
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
tim_from_pa
New Member
- Jul 11, 2007
- 1,656
- 13
- 0
- 66
(Christina;65366)
The Birth of Abrahamhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ptvh1b90teo&feature=related
I confirm what Tea Tephi said on that video regarding the planetary positions in February of 1953BC. When I have time, I will look over the book of Jashar. I love that book and will confirm the story as well.In the book of Jubilees, they would give the calendar date (Jubilee year) of Abraham's birth, but the only problem there I see is that these are time dates with regard to creation. It is controversial when creation (i.e. of Adam and Eve) took place with respect to the Gregorian calendar now in existence if it could be retroactively projected back to their time. What I am saying is that I cannot relate the Jubilee years to the present Gregorian calendar to make a comparison.Kriss: Do you know if this woman who narrated this video the same Tea Tephi that joined our forum? She sounds very knowledgeable and fascinating.Why don't more Christians bring up subjects like this instead of dwelling on personal trials, basic doctrines like salvation and baptism and whatnot? This stuff is neat and I have to give credit to that woman.
The Birth of Abrahamhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ptvh1b90teo&feature=related
I confirm what Tea Tephi said on that video regarding the planetary positions in February of 1953BC. When I have time, I will look over the book of Jashar. I love that book and will confirm the story as well.In the book of Jubilees, they would give the calendar date (Jubilee year) of Abraham's birth, but the only problem there I see is that these are time dates with regard to creation. It is controversial when creation (i.e. of Adam and Eve) took place with respect to the Gregorian calendar now in existence if it could be retroactively projected back to their time. What I am saying is that I cannot relate the Jubilee years to the present Gregorian calendar to make a comparison.Kriss: Do you know if this woman who narrated this video the same Tea Tephi that joined our forum? She sounds very knowledgeable and fascinating.Why don't more Christians bring up subjects like this instead of dwelling on personal trials, basic doctrines like salvation and baptism and whatnot? This stuff is neat and I have to give credit to that woman.
Interesting... that is so very neat. ... I regret my earlier post... it's just I guess I am skeptical on these things...
But I guess skeptical can be a good thing and a bad thing.
tim_from_pa
New Member
- Jul 11, 2007
- 1,656
- 13
- 0
- 66
(Christina;66237)
Yes she is the same one she is knowledgeable and a friend of mine and the Lord Tim
Yes. Another poster of this board also told me they (and you) were friends with this knowledgeable young woman. At least I'm assuming that was her in the you tube video holding that wonderful child. If only more young people would be so blessed with knowledge like her! I must say, it's refreshing.Back to the Abraham thing. I also verify the story. I have to tell the strangest story. There was a "bookmark" at that very page in Jashar that told the story that Tea Tephi told! And the "bookmark" happened to be a long-lost prescription for pain medication for my son Kyle last year when he had his wisdom teeth pulled! My wife was reading Jashar and put the prescription there as a bookmark and then forgot where it was. She said, "Is that where is was?"! How weird is that?Anyway, the quote in Jashar was exactly as Tea Tephi narrated on the video.I also checked the book of Jubilees. According to that, Abraham was born in the 39th jubilee in the 7th year.That makes 39 x 50 + 7 years since creation = 1957 years.That makes Adam around 3910 BC (using her 1953BC date). That's possible. As we all know, the "traditional" Bishop Usher dating was about 4000 BC. When I calculated back using the actual ages, I got closer to 4100 BC, but we are talking within 200 years maximum difference (compared to about 6000) which to me is close enough to take another look. The "error" is only about 3% maximum.This lady Tea Tephi is onto something here. In short, these facts seem to check out. Thanks be to God for this Lady that gives me something else to dive deeper into!I know that I can seem harsh on some folks here in these forums, but that's only when their facts do not check out. But if they do like Tea's did here, I'll be the first to praise such a person and even change my beliefs if what they say is more substantial than what I believe!!!
Yes she is the same one she is knowledgeable and a friend of mine and the Lord Tim
Yes. Another poster of this board also told me they (and you) were friends with this knowledgeable young woman. At least I'm assuming that was her in the you tube video holding that wonderful child. If only more young people would be so blessed with knowledge like her! I must say, it's refreshing.Back to the Abraham thing. I also verify the story. I have to tell the strangest story. There was a "bookmark" at that very page in Jashar that told the story that Tea Tephi told! And the "bookmark" happened to be a long-lost prescription for pain medication for my son Kyle last year when he had his wisdom teeth pulled! My wife was reading Jashar and put the prescription there as a bookmark and then forgot where it was. She said, "Is that where is was?"! How weird is that?Anyway, the quote in Jashar was exactly as Tea Tephi narrated on the video.I also checked the book of Jubilees. According to that, Abraham was born in the 39th jubilee in the 7th year.That makes 39 x 50 + 7 years since creation = 1957 years.That makes Adam around 3910 BC (using her 1953BC date). That's possible. As we all know, the "traditional" Bishop Usher dating was about 4000 BC. When I calculated back using the actual ages, I got closer to 4100 BC, but we are talking within 200 years maximum difference (compared to about 6000) which to me is close enough to take another look. The "error" is only about 3% maximum.This lady Tea Tephi is onto something here. In short, these facts seem to check out. Thanks be to God for this Lady that gives me something else to dive deeper into!I know that I can seem harsh on some folks here in these forums, but that's only when their facts do not check out. But if they do like Tea's did here, I'll be the first to praise such a person and even change my beliefs if what they say is more substantial than what I believe!!!
Thats what I respect about you Tim you just put it aside till something can prove it to you one way or another doesnt shake you one way or the other You are firm in your faith but not so stuborn and set in your ways to learn a new thing when it presents itself in a way you can see and relate to it.great story aout the prescription by the way
tim_from_pa
New Member
- Jul 11, 2007
- 1,656
- 13
- 0
- 66
(Christina;66268)
Thats what I respect about you Tim you just put it aside till something can prove it to you one way or another doesnt shake you one way or the other You are firm in your faith but not so stuborn and set in your ways to learn a new thing when it presents itself in a way you can see and relate to it.great story aout the prescription by the way
Yeah, and the prescription is no good any longer!
It would BOTHER me to believe something wrong just for the sake of not changing because that would be an admission I was wrong. In other words, I could not fool myself if I was wrong. Look at some of my recent posts and you can see what I mean regarding some folks that get ideas and even when proven wrong they resist it (but I'll give them some time
)BTW, Kyle's doing fine as I mentioned to you in the PM. Thanks for your prayers he's becoming more himself by the day. Head injuries are serious business, but the Lord gave us a great mind that 90% is unused and can reroute any deficits we have! Praise!
Thats what I respect about you Tim you just put it aside till something can prove it to you one way or another doesnt shake you one way or the other You are firm in your faith but not so stuborn and set in your ways to learn a new thing when it presents itself in a way you can see and relate to it.great story aout the prescription by the way
Yeah, and the prescription is no good any longer!
Wow! Thanks for all those kind comments! I really give praise to Father for helping me with these studies, and I welcome comments / corrections because I'm only human 
It was a lot of work to put these videos together, and considering I've never done it before, I was surprised they came out as well as they did.I have a fourth Pyramid video in mind, Tim, that will discuss dates all the way back to Adam! I was debating on making that video because it really doesn't have any bearing on prophecy per se', but is more historical. There is more speculation too than in the previous videos that have been more straightforward and such.I guess when you're looking that far back in time, the only thing you can do is speculate anyway, but it will be full of dates and Scripture, and my own personal conclusions you may find very interesting.BTW, I tried to PM you Tim, but my post count is too low (must be three posts
) So I'm ok with the friend thing! Tea
tim_from_pa
New Member
- Jul 11, 2007
- 1,656
- 13
- 0
- 66
(TeaTephi;66273)
BTW, I tried to PM you Tim, but my post count is too low (must be three posts
) So I'm ok with the friend thing! Tea
Well, you know what that means. You have to just post some more.
Yes, you did a fine job with those pyramid videos (as far as I could see, you had 2 uploaded on you tube). Regarding the scale change at the great step, that has been tossed about by many people and most are baffled at what scale to use, but the inch-to-month scale was one that has been suggested a lot. You could be right on the inch to a day later on (c.f. Ezekiel 4:6 where this scale is also used).How is your mathematics background? I have a minor in the subject, but ironically I take most pleasure in using plain ol' trigonometry and geometry at the HS level, with the exception of spherical trigonometry.Back before there were (good) computers, I used to calculate positions of planets fairly accurately using Kepler's Law and spherical trig---- the latter is useful in navigating, earth coordinates, stellar alignments, sundials and the like. Ironically, even the college courses do not teach that any longer as it is replaced by vector theory. I have a friend who teaches HS mathematics working on her masters and she said they never taught her that. I "discovered" spherical trig on my own almost 30 years ago when I ran into the dilemma of needing to convert declination and right ascension to one's local altitude and azimuth. I did not even realize what the name of my math formulas were called nor did I realize I was using spherical trig until a fellow math student pointed it out to me.Needless to say, in the pyramid we have lots of angles and geometry.One last question, I don't think you made mention of the astronomically dated scored lines in the pyramid (aligning with Alpha Draconis and the Pleiades in about 2141BC), and also the sources of the pyramid inch and how it relates to the earth. that would help in understanding the benchmark for the dates in the pyramid. I take almost as much fascination in this unit they call the pyramid inch.Catch you soon.
BTW, I tried to PM you Tim, but my post count is too low (must be three posts
Well, you know what that means. You have to just post some more.
tim_from_pa
New Member
- Jul 11, 2007
- 1,656
- 13
- 0
- 66
Kriss, TeaTephi et al:I printed out the genealogy I have in my signature and looked up the number of years between generations between Adam and Abraham and penned them in. For example, from Adam to Seth is 130 years. From Seth to Enos is 105 years, etc. The numbers I got were as follows: 130,105,90,70,65,162,65,187,182,502,100,35,30,34,30,32,30,29, and 70 until Abram was born. The number 502 I have in red is the age the apocryphal book of Jashar had as Noah's age when Shem was born. The bible hints he was about 500 years old but I did not find anything specific (let me know if I missed anything). If we add those numbers up, from the time of Adam until Abraham is 1948 years. Now how weird is that???If Abraham was born 1953BC, then that puts Adam back using the traditional dating about 3900BC, but I realize that depending on what genealogy one uses the time duration may vary somewhat (some biblical genealogies as well as mine skips some names). Like I already stated, when I did a traditional dating back to Adam several years ago, I arrived at closer to 4100BC which is plenty close enough for me.The reason I call it "traditional dating" is because I simply add the numbers between the supposed generations. I do not take an adamant position on this and if the pyramid for example claims Adam was say, 7000BC it would not bother me. Some folks find their little niche and hard-headedly stick to it and debate until the cows come home despite evidence to the contrary but if I find I'm wrong and supported by evidence, I will change my position.In short, I am really excited about the 1953BC date! Thanks Tea Tephi for this fascinating "Christmas" gift!
(tim_from_pa;66282)
Well, you know what that means. You have to just post some more.
Yes, you did a fine job with those pyramid videos (as far as I could see, you had 2 uploaded on you tube). Regarding the scale change at the great step, that has been tossed about by many people and most are baffled at what scale to use, but the inch-to-month scale was one that has been suggested a lot. You could be right on the inch to a day later on (c.f. Ezekiel 4:6 where this scale is also used).How is your mathematics background? I have a minor in the subject, but ironically I take most pleasure in using plain ol' trigonometry and geometry at the HS level, with the exception of spherical trigonometry.Back before there were (good) computers, I used to calculate positions of planets fairly accurately using Kepler's Law and spherical trig---- the latter is useful in navigating, earth coordinates, stellar alignments, sundials and the like. Ironically, even the college courses do not teach that any longer as it is replaced by vector theory. I have a friend who teaches HS mathematics working on her masters and she said they never taught her that. I "discovered" spherical trig on my own almost 30 years ago when I ran into the dilemma of needing to convert declination and right ascension to one's local altitude and azimuth. I did not even realize what the name of my math formulas were called nor did I realize I was using spherical trig until a fellow math student pointed it out to me.Needless to say, in the pyramid we have lots of angles and geometry.One last question, I don't think you made mention of the astronomically dated scored lines in the pyramid (aligning with Alpha Draconis and the Pleiades in about 2141BC), and also the sources of the pyramid inch and how it relates to the earth. that would help in understanding the benchmark for the dates in the pyramid. I take almost as much fascination in this unit they call the pyramid inch.Catch you soon.
Well I've always been good at math, trig, calculus, but I majored in Biology in college, so I have some more knowledge in the biology area. I also taught high school chemistry and physics one year, and it was wonderful to teach, especially at a Christian school.However, I haven't been in school since I graduated'97, and I dropped out of the work force in 2001 when I had my first child. Now, I have two babies and they keep me pretty busy, but I still manage to sit down and study the pyramidology books. I used a little trig to figure out some isosceles triangles in the Pyramid, and given that the scholars of old didn't count the P" up the Great Step, nor over the top of it, they subsequently concluded much earlier dates, starting with 1914, of course.David Davidson though came up with 2001 as the termination of the scalar timeline, terminating at the Granite Slab. About August 27th, 2001 from the measurements that I could find. I saw others came up with Sept. 17th, 2001, which is interesting, I would like to know what figures they were using.As I saw you stated the measurements can vary by a couple P" depending on who you reference. I was referencing Davidson and Rutherford. Now, Rutherford is no slouch. His 4 volume set on the Pyramids goes into all things "chronology".He has a different perspective on the ages of the patriarchs, and the time in which they lived. Basically he goes by the septuagint, which is a real surprise to me because I generally go by the Massoretic text.But I looked into his arguement and it is quite compelling. Which brings me to my fourth Pyramid video. There should be four videos on you tube:Abraham's birthIntro to the Great PyramidMeasurements of the Great PyramidTheories of Prophecy in the Great PyramidHere are the Septuagint figures:2302051901701651621651871825021001351301341301321307970TOTAL 3098 years If you have Rutherford's work, read about why he chooses the septuagint, it is not only compelling, but I think he may be right on this one.One reason is that if the Great Pyramid was built a couple hundred years after the flood, then the Septuagint dating would have to be used (2895 BC for the flood, 2623 for building Pyramid)Perhaps the entire recorded history in Egypt began with the Pyramid of Gizeh or thereabouts, then we would also need it be begin around 2623 BC, especially is Shem built it as one author Mrs. Sydney Bristowe in "The Man who built the Great Pyramid" suggests. Again, many liberties arebeing taken here, but as we examine the Pyramid itself, particuarly the Queens Chamber and passage we shall see Rutherford and Bristowe may both have been right. As I said before, this is a heck of a lot of speculation, and it is fun. Who knows?If you don't have Rutherford's work then we will have to examine his theories later because he makes a lot of good points. and . . .Merry Christmas to you too! and to everyone!Tea
Well, you know what that means. You have to just post some more.
Well I've always been good at math, trig, calculus, but I majored in Biology in college, so I have some more knowledge in the biology area. I also taught high school chemistry and physics one year, and it was wonderful to teach, especially at a Christian school.However, I haven't been in school since I graduated'97, and I dropped out of the work force in 2001 when I had my first child. Now, I have two babies and they keep me pretty busy, but I still manage to sit down and study the pyramidology books. I used a little trig to figure out some isosceles triangles in the Pyramid, and given that the scholars of old didn't count the P" up the Great Step, nor over the top of it, they subsequently concluded much earlier dates, starting with 1914, of course.David Davidson though came up with 2001 as the termination of the scalar timeline, terminating at the Granite Slab. About August 27th, 2001 from the measurements that I could find. I saw others came up with Sept. 17th, 2001, which is interesting, I would like to know what figures they were using.As I saw you stated the measurements can vary by a couple P" depending on who you reference. I was referencing Davidson and Rutherford. Now, Rutherford is no slouch. His 4 volume set on the Pyramids goes into all things "chronology".He has a different perspective on the ages of the patriarchs, and the time in which they lived. Basically he goes by the septuagint, which is a real surprise to me because I generally go by the Massoretic text.But I looked into his arguement and it is quite compelling. Which brings me to my fourth Pyramid video. There should be four videos on you tube:Abraham's birthIntro to the Great PyramidMeasurements of the Great PyramidTheories of Prophecy in the Great PyramidHere are the Septuagint figures:2302051901701651621651871825021001351301341301321307970TOTAL 3098 years If you have Rutherford's work, read about why he chooses the septuagint, it is not only compelling, but I think he may be right on this one.One reason is that if the Great Pyramid was built a couple hundred years after the flood, then the Septuagint dating would have to be used (2895 BC for the flood, 2623 for building Pyramid)Perhaps the entire recorded history in Egypt began with the Pyramid of Gizeh or thereabouts, then we would also need it be begin around 2623 BC, especially is Shem built it as one author Mrs. Sydney Bristowe in "The Man who built the Great Pyramid" suggests. Again, many liberties arebeing taken here, but as we examine the Pyramid itself, particuarly the Queens Chamber and passage we shall see Rutherford and Bristowe may both have been right. As I said before, this is a heck of a lot of speculation, and it is fun. Who knows?If you don't have Rutherford's work then we will have to examine his theories later because he makes a lot of good points. and . . .Merry Christmas to you too! and to everyone!Tea
tim_from_pa
New Member
- Jul 11, 2007
- 1,656
- 13
- 0
- 66
(TeaTephi;66306)
Again, many liberties arebeing taken here, but as we examine the Pyramid itself, particuarly the Queens Chamber and passage we shall see Rutherford and Bristowe may both have been right. As I said before, this is a heck of a lot of speculation, and it is fun. Who knows?Tea
A woman after my own heart. Yes this is fun, and we both understand the problems of interpretation as we keep an open mind here. And yes, I like the Septuagint figures regarding the years. This is typical of translation issues that I am aware of and for that reason, I do not make adamant claims regarding the length of time back to Adam. Rutherford's dating using the Great Pyramid is probably more accurate, when understood correctly, as to ascertaining the times of historical events.As for the math, I see that you have no lack in that department! You remind me a little of my friend Tina who teaches math in HS. I think you can attest to the fact that the bible uses a lot of math, and I wish more people would have that insight like you do.I have family responsibilities right now, plus the holidays I'll be somewhat busy. But perhaps in the near future I will PM you with some equations or things to that effect and look forward to your input. Sounds like i can learn some things from you.
Again, many liberties arebeing taken here, but as we examine the Pyramid itself, particuarly the Queens Chamber and passage we shall see Rutherford and Bristowe may both have been right. As I said before, this is a heck of a lot of speculation, and it is fun. Who knows?Tea
A woman after my own heart. Yes this is fun, and we both understand the problems of interpretation as we keep an open mind here. And yes, I like the Septuagint figures regarding the years. This is typical of translation issues that I am aware of and for that reason, I do not make adamant claims regarding the length of time back to Adam. Rutherford's dating using the Great Pyramid is probably more accurate, when understood correctly, as to ascertaining the times of historical events.As for the math, I see that you have no lack in that department! You remind me a little of my friend Tina who teaches math in HS. I think you can attest to the fact that the bible uses a lot of math, and I wish more people would have that insight like you do.I have family responsibilities right now, plus the holidays I'll be somewhat busy. But perhaps in the near future I will PM you with some equations or things to that effect and look forward to your input. Sounds like i can learn some things from you.
Similar threads
