June, 1977
Dear Folio Friends,
I have read with interest all of the new contributions to the Folio, now on its second round. It would be nice to have the time to make comments on each of the , but unfortunately this is not the case. However, I must obviously answer the remarks of Robert Forrest and David RandellMay 2014: David Randell’s remarks are missing from the scanned copy of the Folio..
In the case of Mr Forrest at least, there is certainly a ‘frame of reference’ problem. I understand that he does not believe in any god, even the Christian God. To my mind, anyone who cannot see the truth of the God of the Bible is indeed lacking in perception and judgement.
Christianity is in several ways unique compared with other religions in the world, both past and present. The God of the Bible says that He is the only God, and that there is no other. Christianity offers eternal life to all men in return for nothing more than a heart felt belief in Jesus Christ as the son of God and Saviour of the world. Christianity is so comprehensive and complete, and makes such claims for itself that it is either true or the biggest fraud in the world. Experience of life and perception of the world in which we live teaches me that Christianity is the true religion, without the slightest doubt.
I am not, of course, making any claims for the denominations or sects of the Christian church. Many of these bodies will have much to answer for in the great time of judgement yet future. Men, as usual, are very good at messing things up, and indeed would mess the whole world up if left to go on their merry way much longer, as is now becoming apparent to all.
If we start going too much into religion we will have to start another folio, but I must mention one more point. The deep matters of God are Spiritually discernible and are not available by any other method. Now an atheist cannot understand that statement, and in fact by definition cannot understand anything about the real meaning of Christianity until he humbles his mind before God. This factor also applies in some degree to those who would consider themselves to be Christians. This was illustrated to me some years ago when I met two people at the opposite ends of the human spectrum. One was an incredibly hopeless girl, of low intellect, slovenly appearance, etc., who was quite unable to hold down any job for more than a few weeks. The other person was the last Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. A.M. Ramsey, who is presumably one of the most learned men in the Church of England. From what these two people said I formed the opinion that the stupid girl had a deeper understanding of the mind of God than had the Archbishop of Canterbury.
To a non-Christian this last statement would appear to be ridiculous, but a Christian can understand it because he knows that the profound matters of God are only imparted by the Holy Spirit to those judged fit to receive them, and cannot be determined by man’s intellect. Thus it is really a waste of time to argue Christian matters with an atheist. He must first realize the futility of his beliefs and then by his own free will seek to be enlightened by the one true God, creator of the world and all that is in it.
Apart from Mr Forrest, I feel it is outside of the scope of the Folio to set about establishing the Plan of God for Mankind from Biblical sources, as he apparently wishes me to do. I say there is such a plan, and Folio friends can accept the fact or not, as they wish.*
* I should mention, for the benefit of those who wish to look into the matter further, that our Bookroom at Harpenden stocks two books on this subject. They are ‘The Creator’s Grand Design’ and ‘The Divine Plan of the Ages’, and each is priced at 90p or $1-75, including postage.
I quite agree that, at first sight, it seems unlikely that God would have a hand in the building of the Great Pyramid, but one has to take all the facts into consideration before reaching a decision. Generally the Ancient Egyptians are given the credit for thinking of the idea of large stone pyramids, but the Institute believes that the idea actually came from God, who implanted the concept during the reign of Zoser, of the Third dynasty. Although there are good reasons for this belief, it would take too long to go into it fully. I am, of course, aware that there are many other so-called pyramids in the world, but nevertheless the Egyptian ones are really a unique type because of their size and the fact that they are constructed throughout with blocks of stone.
However, we must pass to the question of Biblical references. The Bible rarely says anything explicitly and unambiguously, and if it does so in one verse, there is often the opposite sentiment expressed in another verse. Of course there are times when the Bible is quite emphatic, e.g. the case mentioned above of the one and only God. But often the Bible is not easy to understand, in the sense of its teaching on any particular topic. I call it the ‘world’s most difficult textbook’. Naturally there is a reason for this situation; it did not come about by chance. If it read like a novel, simple and straightforward, it would not require to be studied. Often a novel is read and discarded, so this style would not have been suitable for the Bible. The object of having the Bible in its present form is to provide material for a life-time of study by serious Christians and to allow interpretation by the Holy Spirit. Hence the Bible does not say plainly that God built the Great Pyramid in Egypt to illustrate His Plan for Mankind, but careful study of all the factors leads any right thinking person to that conclusion.
The great strength of the Christian Theory of the Great Pyramid is not in one quotation, or the idea in one man’s mind as is the case with some other theories, but in the comprehensive and complete manner in which everything ties together to present a harmonious message.
Both Mr Forrest and Mr Randell have produced expert testimony to suggest that my use of the word ‘monument’ is unreasonable as a translation of Isaiah 19:19–20. Presumably all translations of the Bible are the work of a number of experts in the field. It is therefore interesting that French and Esperanto Bibles that we have here both use the word ‘monument’. The respective versions are the Ostervald and the Zamenhof, and of course it may well be that other versions use other words.
But what does the word pillar signify to most people anyway? Usually a column or obelisk, constructed of stone and pointing skywards. A pyramid has a broader base than an obelisk but it is still a stone structure pointing skywards. It is also usual for Egyptian obelisks to be dressed so that the top is in the form of a small pyramid.
Regarding the quotation in Exodus 20:24–26, mentioned by Mr Forrest, this point is usually brought up by those who do not appreciate the difference between altars of sacrifice and altars of witness. God’s aversion to hewn stone only applies to altars of sacrifice, as the verses clearly state. No such conditions were placed on altars of witness.
There is no possibility that Isaiah 19:19–20 refers to a church at Alexandria, or to a ruined temple at Leontopolis, or to a variety of monuments and buildings, dedicated to the Lord, and scattered through Egypt from the centre to the very border. Verse 19 opens with the words, ‘In that day’ and this is a phrase which means the end of the present age or, as we believe, the time in which we are now living. Thus the edifice must be a sign and a witness unto the Lord in 1977. That the ‘altar’ and the ‘pillar’ are clearly one is shown by verse 20 which says, ‘And it shall be for a sign and a witness …’. Bible commentators often have difficulty with the verses in Isaiah and with the other verses connected with the Pyramid because they are so different from the regular themes to which Christians are accustomed. They tend to be odd little verses which do not convey any particular meaning to many Christians. Our Pyramid theory gives full meaning to these verses.
The name ‘Pyramid inch’ is a little unfortunate as it tends to give the impression that it was some special unit connected only with the Pyramid. This is not the case, for the Pyramid inch is the ancient thumb-breadth, which is the twenty-fifth part of the Sacred cubit, a unit devised by God and used by Noah in the construction of the Ark, and in the Tabernacle, and also in the building of Solomon’s Temple at Jerusalem. The British inch and the American inch are both descendants of the ancient thumb-breadth or Pyramid inch, modified slightly by the passage of time.
The Sacred cubit is basically a design unit used for the Great Pyramid, but it is not the unit used for construction, which was the Royal cubit in common use at the time. The fact that the Sacred cubit is there at all is further proof of the Divine designer of the monument.
As regards the height of the Pyramid and the problem of weathering causing changes over the years, God foresaw that this would be a difficult point for sceptics and doubting Thomas’s, so He provided that the total distance from the original entrance (which can be geometrically determined) to the extremity of the Dead End passage would also be 5449 Pyramid inches.
The Nile Delta discovery by Henry Mitchell is, by its very nature, not accurate to a few feet, but does pin-point the Giza Plateau according to the discoverer, and an area within 2 miles of the Pyramid according to Mr Forrest. This certainly excludes temples at Leontopolis, churches at Alexandria, and all other buildings and monuments scattered throughout Egypt. If anyone can suggest an altar and a pillar, witnessing to God, with a critical dimension of 5449 Pyramid inches, within a mile or two of the Great Pyramid, I will be happy to look at it the next time I am in Egypt and make a full report to the Folio.
As I have said, Bible commentators have difficulty with the ‘Pyramid verses’ because it is outside their normal ‘ken’, as the Scots would say. It is common for them to think of a ‘chief foundation stone’ as they are unable to connect it with anything else. Now let us take a closer look at Ephesians chapter 2, as mentioned by Mr Forrest, if you will permit me to lump verses 20 and 21 together.
And are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone in whom all the building fitly framed together, groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord.
Now Mr Forrest suggests that the meaning here is that the chief corner stone is the same as the first stone of a modern building, as laid by some notable person. But in this case all the other stones are on top of this foundation stone and this is definitely not the Biblical picture. Christ, as King, is always pictured as over the Church and the world. Looking again at the two verses, ‘… the chief corner stone in whom (under whom) all the (stones of the) building fitly frame together …’. Taking the Pyramid shape, it is clear that Christ as the Top-stone is over all the other stones with strength gained from the foundation stones of the Apostles and the prophets at the bottom.
Lumping a few odd things together … Yes, the Pyramid was constructed smaller than the original design, and this superficially may have been one of the reasons that the builders rejected the top-stone, as it was hewn to the original size and would be too big for the monument as built. The missing top-stone is a huge stone and much bigger than any other known top-stone, with its base length of over 47 feet and its height of just over 30 feet. Perhaps the movement of this size of stone, particularly to the height involved, posed problems for even the Egyptians!
Pi (π) is in the design of the Pyramid, but the Egyptians did not use this factor in its construction. God, as the designer, instructed that it should be built to such and such a size, but the Egyptians did not know that pi was involved.
I should have mentioned that to fit in with the stature of Christ, it is of course necessary that the Top-stone, the symbolic Christ, should be a big single stone.
Another thing that comes to mind is that I would like to counter the idea that the Christian theory is nothing more than juggling with a lot of dimensions to obtain a few dates. The basic revelation of the Pyramid can be determined using a few simple deductions, without reference to a single measurement or date. This is fully explained in my new book which will be published later this year.
Yours sincerely
J. Rutherford