Jump to content
IGNORED

Calculations about the New Jerusalem


Retrobyter

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  40
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  6,539
  • Content Per Day:  1.07
  • Reputation:   2,426
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  06/28/2007
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  10/28/1957

9 hours ago, Last Daze said:

Wouldn't that cause the square walls to lose their "squareness" and become triangles?

Shalom, Last Daze.

Sure it will! But, so what? There is NOTHING that demands square, rectangular, or even trapezoidal walls! So, yes, the walls will be huge, isosceles triangles tapering to a point at the pinnacle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  40
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  6,539
  • Content Per Day:  1.07
  • Reputation:   2,426
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  06/28/2007
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  10/28/1957

8 hours ago, Da Puppers said:

Let us not overlook the fact that the walls are specified to be 144 cubits high. 

Another tidbit of info.   With a height of 12000 furlongs (1500 miles), this would mean that it would be visible from about 4000 miles away.   That is roughly equivalent to virtually all of the continents of Europe,  Asia,  and Africa,  and part of Australia.

Blessings

The PuP 

Shalom, The PuP.

Sorry, but how can 144 cubits (about 72 yards) be a wall "great and high" for a city that is 1,379.8686868... MILES high? There's another measurement of the wall that can be measured at 144 cubits ... THICKNESS!

And, yes, the pinnacle of the New Jerusalem (if centered at the location of the OLD Jerusalem) will be visible from Norway to Zimbabwe, and from Morocco to China! (Australia doesn't fall within that circle.) And, even if one cannot see the top of the city, its light will be visible from even farther away, just as we can see the morning light before we see the sun come up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  40
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  6,539
  • Content Per Day:  1.07
  • Reputation:   2,426
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  06/28/2007
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  10/28/1957

5 hours ago, Diaste said:

Yes, a great many cities with great high walls have been constructed as pyramids. What, the angel that measured the thickness of the wall used a measuring device capable of penetrating the 4th dimension? 

I suppose the angel asked John to hold the tape while the angel removed some bricks to get to the inner part of the wall to measure the thickness.

So which ancient city had walls that were pyramid shaped? Must have been at least one.

Again, smh.

Shalom, Diaste.

Please learn to think things through. The object that the messenger ("angel") used to measure the city was called a "metron kalamon chrusoun." A "kalamos" is defined as...

2563 kalamos (kal'-am-os). Or uncertain affinity; a reed (the plant or its stem, or that of a similar plant); by implication, a pen -- pen, reed.

It's a GOLDEN MEASURING TUBE! Now, how does one measure distances with a tube? Simple: It's a THEODOLITE! A SURVEYOR'S TELESCOPE used as "a precision optical instrument for measuring angles between designated visible points in the horizontal and vertical planes." From the readings, one can use trigonometry to calculate the distances. Furthermore, to use such a piece of equipment, the messenger took Yochanan to a HIGH MOUNTAIN to see the whole city and measure it! (Revelation 21:10)

As far as measuring the thickness of the walls, ever hear of a GATE?! The gateway was measured to be 72 yards long, the thickness of the wall!

"Ancient city?" I don't know of any off-hand; however, there might have been some. There were HOMES so constructed. Ever hear of TENTS?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  40
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  6,539
  • Content Per Day:  1.07
  • Reputation:   2,426
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  06/28/2007
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  10/28/1957

7 hours ago, Diaste said:

Amazing.

Shalom, Diaste.

Well, Montana Marv is not wrong! The cube on the sphere is your conception of the New Jerusalem positioned upon the New Earth. Remember: The surface of the New Earth, although curved as a sphere, appears to its inhabitants as "LEVEL." This size of a city, even as a cube, would be close to 20 degrees difference from one side to the opposite side. That is, in the center of the middle gate on the west side of the city would have a "down" that is 20 degrees different than the "down" in the center of the middle gate on the east side of the city. So, what happens to the top of the cube?

Do the walls stay perpendicular to the surface of the earth and stretch the top of the city longer than 1,379.8686868 miles in order to stay positioned over the bottom edges of the base which is truly 1,379.8686868 miles?

OR, do the walls slant in so that the top is actually 1,379.8686868 miles long but is positioned over points on the base that is a few hundred miles shorter than the 1,379.8686868 miles?

See, either way, the cube shape has problems!

Did you know that the pyramid shape beats BOTH these problems in one fell swoop? If the walls of the pyramid slant farther in because of the 20 degrees, the TOP angle (at the pinnacle) will be the same as the BOTTOM angle (of the wall to the base, about 53 degrees) to simulate an equilateral triangle! (This makes the length of the base APPEAR to be the same length as the height of the triangular wall.) However, from miles away, one can still see that the height of the pyramid is the same distance as the length or width of the base!

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Junior Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  6
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  93
  • Content Per Day:  0.03
  • Reputation:   33
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  10/24/2016
  • Status:  Offline

Have you guys ever looked into the history of Biblical metrology ?

Might help with your discussions

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  14
  • Topic Count:  66
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  6,599
  • Content Per Day:  2.00
  • Reputation:   2,355
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  03/17/2015
  • Status:  Offline

8 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Shalom, Diaste.

Please learn to think things through. The object that the messenger ("angel") used to measure the city was called a "metron kalamon chrusoun." A "kalamos" is defined as...

2563 kalamos (kal'-am-os). Or uncertain affinity; a reed (the plant or its stem, or that of a similar plant); by implication, a pen -- pen, reed.

It's a GOLDEN MEASURING TUBE! Now, how does one measure distances with a tube? Simple: It's a THEODOLITE! A SURVEYOR'S TELESCOPE used as "a precision optical instrument for measuring angles between designated visible points in the horizontal and vertical planes." From the readings, one can use trigonometry to calculate the distances. Furthermore, to use such a piece of equipment, the messenger took Yochanan to a HIGH MOUNTAIN to see the whole city and measure it! (Revelation 21:10)

As far as measuring the thickness of the walls, ever hear of a GATE?! The gateway was measured to be 72 yards long, the thickness of the wall!

"Ancient city?" I don't know of any off-hand; however, there might have been some. There were HOMES so constructed. Ever hear of TENTS?

Since this is interesting lets just look at at from the practical construction. First, for the pyramid to fit the measurements the angle of the walls would be 60º using round numbers. If the sloped walls are 12,000 stadia long the height at the center would be approximately 10,400 stadia. If the height at the center is 12,000 stadia the walls would be approximately 13,400 stadia long, neither of which fits the biblical description of the walls being 12,000 stadia HIGH. 

The description is of vertical and horizontal measurements not slopes and lengths of hypotenuse or no doubt Jesus would have said as much. No pyramid I know of is hollow inside. All are constructed as solid with passageways. If there are many mansions in the city then I suppose supports using the mansions walls and beams and the like could support the slope of heavy stone walls but it's less practical than a vertical wall for space and efficiency.

And its not a tube, it's a reed or a measuring rod.

"and he measured the city with the reed,twelve thousand furlongs. The length and the breadth and the height of it are equal."

If length and width are EQUAL it's a square. In a triangle the length and width are not equal and in fact a triangle is described in terms of width and height, so on that alone it cannot be a triangle. Since there is a third dimension involved it can only be a cube. The base of the city is 12,000² stadia and the height is equal, a cube. To kick the dead horse again how can the width equal the height if the width is only at the base? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  14
  • Topic Count:  66
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  6,599
  • Content Per Day:  2.00
  • Reputation:   2,355
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  03/17/2015
  • Status:  Offline

8 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Shalom, Diaste.

Well, Montana Marv is not wrong! The cube on the sphere is your conception of the New Jerusalem positioned upon the New Earth. Remember: The surface of the New Earth, although curved as a sphere, appears to its inhabitants as "LEVEL." This size of a city, even as a cube, would be close to 20 degrees difference from one side to the opposite side. That is, in the center of the middle gate on the west side of the city would have a "down" that is 20 degrees different than the "down" in the center of the middle gate on the east side of the city. So, what happens to the top of the cube?

Do the walls stay perpendicular to the surface of the earth and stretch the top of the city longer than 1,379.8686868 miles in order to stay positioned over the bottom edges of the base which is truly 1,379.8686868 miles?

OR, do the walls slant in so that the top is actually 1,379.8686868 miles long but is positioned over points on the base that is a few hundred miles shorter than the 1,379.8686868 miles?

See, either way, the cube shape has problems!

Did you know that the pyramid shape beats BOTH these problems in one fell swoop? If the walls of the pyramid slant farther in because of the 20 degrees, the TOP angle (at the pinnacle) will be the same as the BOTTOM angle (of the wall to the base, about 53 degrees) to simulate an equilateral triangle! (This makes the length of the base APPEAR to be the same length as the height of the triangular wall.) However, from miles away, one can still see that the height of the pyramid is the same distance as the length or width of the base!

If one supposes we live on a spinning ball then I guess the arguments would make sense. There are a great number of issues concerning the the globe model none of which can be explained by academia. I've tried and get no response or a response I won't repeat. 

"do the walls slant in so that the top is actually 1,379.8686868 miles long but is positioned over points on the base that is a few hundred miles shorter than the 1,379.8686868 miles?"

This is incorrect. The cube can exist in any dimension square, perpendicular, parallel and plumb no matter the base. In fact this issue is a problem with skyscrapers. Plumb will change from one end of a city block to the other if we are on a globe and plumb is registered to the center of the earth. All skyscrapers would have to wider at the top, on all four sides, than the bottom to maintain perfect vertical,  They are not wider at the top and yet are plumb on all four walls. I don't want to debate flat earth here but it makes more sense than a spinning ball traveling at 660 million mph through the cosmos.

I don't buy this argument for the pyramid shape.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  40
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  6,539
  • Content Per Day:  1.07
  • Reputation:   2,426
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  06/28/2007
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  10/28/1957

13 hours ago, Diaste said:

If one supposes we live on a spinning ball then I guess the arguments would make sense. There are a great number of issues concerning the the globe model none of which can be explained by academia. I've tried and get no response or a response I won't repeat. 

"do the walls slant in so that the top is actually 1,379.8686868 miles long but is positioned over points on the base that is a few hundred miles shorter than the 1,379.8686868 miles?"

This is incorrect. The cube can exist in any dimension square, perpendicular, parallel and plumb no matter the base. In fact this issue is a problem with skyscrapers. Plumb will change from one end of a city block to the other if we are on a globe and plumb is registered to the center of the earth. All skyscrapers would have to wider at the top, on all four sides, than the bottom to maintain perfect vertical,  They are not wider at the top and yet are plumb on all four walls. I don't want to debate flat earth here but it makes more sense than a spinning ball traveling at 660 million mph through the cosmos.

I don't buy this argument for the pyramid shape.

Shalom, Diaste.

Well, if you're a flat-earther, then, no, this argument won't make any sense. But, we AREN'T on a flat earth! I have never seen satisfactory physics for believing in a flat earth.

As a kid, I used to LOVE reading encyclopedias for a hobby. (Still do, when the mood strikes.) My parents bought the family a set of Compton's Encyclopedias while I was still in grade school, and I inherited the set, and made them accessible to my children. One of the examples they showed was a ball that was bigger than a house upon which a tiny fly lands. To the fly, the ball seemed like a flat land, even though we could see it was round.

One of the proofs for a round earth is watching the ships sail off into the horizon. First, the bottoms of the ships disappear from sight and finally the tops of the ships disappear as the ships sail over the horizon. (This is why sailors used to worry about comrades falling off the edge of the earth!)

When you're traveling to a mountainous region, the first thing you see about the mountains is their tops. You won't see the bottoms of the mountains until you get close enough to the mountains.

One of the confusing things to flat-earthers are the directions of sun beams, always pointing away from the sun through the clouds, but what we are seeing are foreshortened shafts of light that are radiated out from the sun 93 million miles away.

Hold up your hand in front of your face, and look at your hand and see how long your fingers are. Now, point your fingers away from your face and look down your hand to your fingertips. You are seeing your fingers foreshortened, and they seem much shorter that the actual lengths of your fingers.

When we're looking at sunbeams, we are seeing beams of light from the sun that are ALMOST parallel to each other, but the sun is actually VERY big, compared to the earth, and these rays of light come from the entire disk of the sun (from our perspective). So, we are seeing these "fingers" of light foreshortened and since they are NOT actually parallel, we see them spreading out as they emanate from the sun.

It's a little like looking down a long, straight line of electrical towers and the wires hanging between them. If we are standing below one of these towers, we can see the wires forming what look like waves of wire looping in what looks like u's of wire. However, in reality, the wires are pulled very tightly and their weight pulls them down in a shape called a catenary that looks like a parabola, but is slightly different in shape. Looking edge-on, however, they appear to be sagging quite distinctly.

That's enough for now, but no matter what I explain, you're not going to accept the explanations until you are WILLING to accept them. After all, "a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." Since you were not willing to accept the pyramid theory, I had to attack the problem at its source, the theory of a flat earth. May God give you a clear understanding and open eyes to see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  40
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  6,539
  • Content Per Day:  1.07
  • Reputation:   2,426
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  06/28/2007
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  10/28/1957

17 hours ago, Diaste said:

Since this is interesting lets just look at at from the practical construction. First, for the pyramid to fit the measurements the angle of the walls would be 60º using round numbers. If the sloped walls are 12,000 stadia long the height at the center would be approximately 10,400 stadia. If the height at the center is 12,000 stadia the walls would be approximately 13,400 stadia long, neither of which fits the biblical description of the walls being 12,000 stadia HIGH. 

The description is of vertical and horizontal measurements not slopes and lengths of hypotenuse or no doubt Jesus would have said as much. No pyramid I know of is hollow inside. All are constructed as solid with passageways. If there are many mansions in the city then I suppose supports using the mansions walls and beams and the like could support the slope of heavy stone walls but it's less practical than a vertical wall for space and efficiency.

And its not a tube, it's a reed or a measuring rod.

"and he measured the city with the reed,twelve thousand furlongs. The length and the breadth and the height of it are equal."

If length and width are EQUAL it's a square. In a triangle the length and width are not equal and in fact a triangle is described in terms of width and height, so on that alone it cannot be a triangle. Since there is a third dimension involved it can only be a cube. The base of the city is 12,000² stadia and the height is equal, a cube. To kick the dead horse again how can the width equal the height if the width is only at the base? 

Shalom, Diaste.

Just for the record, we'll answer this post, too. 

Now, let's attack the root misunderstandings:

First, one MUST be able to distinguish between an object and its dimensions. To say that an object is x long and y wide and z high, it does draw for us an imaginary "box" in which the object is contained, but it does NOT mean that the object fills that box!

Second, one MUST be able to distinguish between two-dimensional measurements and three-dimensional measurements. One usually doesn't get into this until they get into calculus, but there's such a thing as a PROJECTION in which the dimensions of the three-dimensional object are PROJECTED onto a two-dimensional grid, like the picture of an object being PROJECTED onto a flat screen or a person's shadow is PROJECTED onto the ground.

The words "lieth foursquare" is a TWO-dimensional measurement, not a three-dimensional description! What it means is that the BASE of the city is two-dimensionally projected as a SQUARE! However, it does NOT tell us anything about the third dimension in that single statement! That's why John went on and added, "the length and the width and the height of it are equal." NOW, he gives information about the third dimension. However, ALL that is said is that the imaginary "box" in which the city would reside would be "12,000 furlongs" high as well! That statement by itself says NOTHING about the shape of the walls of the city or about their directions within that "box!" ALL that he said was that, whatever the city looks like within that imaginary "box," the height of the city does not exceed the "12,000 furlongs" limit!

Finally, a real reed IS a tube! It's a grass stalk! How many grasses do you know that produce rectangular cross-sections in their stems? It's not a yardstick, y'know! How hard is it to measure with a ROUND rod?! And, can you imagine how long it would take to use a six-foot rod to measure 1,379.86 MILES????!!!! It MIGHT be possible for an "angel" to do it ... POP, POP, POP, POP, POP, POP, POP, POP, POP, POP, POP, POP, POP, POP, POP, POP, .... "Phew! Done! Now, how many times was that?" (Ridiculous.)

Can you imagine how much such an event would tax the normal patience of a person? (John went out for coffee and a nap for days on end until the "angel" completed the task!)

How much simpler would it be to measure the angle from the top to the bottom of the city or from one side of the city to the other side, use the distance from which you are away from the city, and calculate how high and how wide that would make the city?

Conclusion? It's a surveyor's theodolite. As Charlie "Tremendous" Jones would say, "See it big, keep it simple."

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  30
  • Topic Count:  265
  • Topics Per Day:  0.07
  • Content Count:  13,128
  • Content Per Day:  3.50
  • Reputation:   8,461
  • Days Won:  12
  • Joined:  12/21/2013
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  10/06/1947

On ‎4‎/‎10‎/‎2019 at 1:29 PM, Retrobyter said:

Shalom, brothers and sisters.

As one might note from my avatar, I believe that the New Jerusalem shall be a pyramid shaped city. Despite personal attacks, I can give adequate Scriptural proof for such a belief.

 

Hi Retro,

Nice to chat with you again. Now what do you see from God`s word as His purpose for `this city?` That might aid it what it looks like.

regards, Marilyn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...