A message from a physicist and a message from a flat earther

Physicist

I am a physicist and it comes naturally to me that all planets are spheres mainly because of gravity.

The gravity of a planet is directly proportional to the planet’s mass and inversely proportional to the planet’s radius.

Gravity can be calculated 6.67*10^-11(planet mass/planet radius^2).

This also means that, according to Newton, the earth’s rotation does not have a particularly large effect on gravity.

The sun has the greatest gravitational force in our solar system, approx. 247N/kg or 247 m/s^2, which means that if you fall one meter on the sun, you will hit the “ground” with a speed of 247 m/s. Similarly, 1 kg on the Sun will be 247N, while on Earth 1 kg will only be 9.81N.

We have formulas to calculate the curvature of the earth, and these are very accurate.

Why do some people think the earth is flat? When all scientific findings indicate that all planets are spheres?
All scientific sources on the shape of the plates are available to anyone. Flat earth documentation is not available, logically enough because it doesn’t exist. As a physicist, I must be able to explain observations and natural phenomena through mathematics and scientific models. This is exactly what makes physics so exciting!

A model must be able to explain all phenomena and observations, you can do that on a sphere. On a flat earth it is not possible, so above all one does not use false values.

The globe rotates 360 degrees/24 hours. Our solar system is moving at 600,000m/s towards the center of the Milky Way where there is a gigantic hole with an enormous gravitational force. Since the acceleration is constant, we do not  notice any of this, so Newton’s second law is fulfilled.

If, on the other hand, the earth’s rotation increased or decreased, we would notice it because Newton’s second law will no longer be fulfilled.

I love my subject and am happy to answer questions, but do not respond to sarcasm.

– Physicist

Flat Earther

The earth is flat because I rolled a marble on a table and it disappeared bottom up. Although when I moved my head up a little to be level with the table, it didn’t do that for some reason.

I brought a small boat back into view that was too small to see, although I can’t bring the sun back for some reason.

The bible teaches the world is flat, although I cannot find one verse that teaches this.

The flat earth map is accurate and explains observation, although it doubles and triples distances in the southern hemisphere for some reason. But the southern hemisphere kind of doesn’t matter.

The globe earth conspiracy means millions are in on the secret, yet not one person has leaked the truth despite the anonymity of Wikileaks etc for some strange reason,

The flat earth is hidden from the populace because it proves that God exists. Although the scientific view proves an eternal God because the cosmos is so finely tuned for our existence, that the odds of it being random are greater than 1 in a number bigger than all the atoms of the universe. Further it does demonstrate the eternal nature of God, but it is just too big to give God the glory if you have a simple mind. The pizza model and dome on top which BTW to keeps the pizza warm and contained makes it easier to see that there is a God, although not a very impressive one.

– Flat Earther

Viewing 20 posts - 1,141 through 1,160 (of 6,414 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #829294
    Anthony
    Participant

    Hi Mike and Dig, God bless. Good morning you guys must be on the other side of the flat Earth your posting, when I’m sleeping it’s a wonder you guys don’t fall off. Lol. k  let’s talk about a fix Earth Mike: The Bible clearly and undeniably describes a fixed earth with a sun, a moon, and stars as lights in a firmament. × Some creationists believe that the scientific assault on the Bible did not begin with biological evolution, but with the acceptance of the heliocentric (or more properly, geokinetic) theory centuries ago<span class=”js-canadianPeriod”>. </span>These people believe that the Bible clearly states that the Earth does not move, and hence the only acceptable Biblical cosmology is a geocentric one<span class=”js-canadianPeriod”>. </span>Modern geocentrists use both Biblical and scientific arguments for their case. We examine these arguments, and find them poorly founded<span class=”js-canadianPeriod”>. </span>The Scriptural passages quoted do not address cosmology<span class=”js-canadianPeriod”>. </span>Some geocentrists draw distinctions that do not exist in the original autographs or even in translations<span class=”js-canadianPeriod”>. </span>In short, the Bible is neither geocentric nor heliocentric<span class=”js-canadianPeriod”>. </span>While geocentrists present some interesting scientific results, their scientific arguments are often based upon improper understanding of theories and data<span class=”js-canadianPeriod”>. </span> What better way to do this than for them to falsely claim that the Bible says things that are patently not true<span class=”js-canadianQuestion”>?</span>This technique is a very common strategy in attacking the Bible There are few Biblical texts that in any way even remotely address the heliocentric geocentric question<span class=”js-canadianPeriod”>. </span>In each instance there is considerable doubt as to whether cosmology is the issue<span class=”js-canadianPeriod”>. </span>Some of these verses are in the poetic books, such as the Psalms<span class=”js-canadianPeriod”>. </span>It is poor practice to build any teaching or doctrine solely or primarily upon passages from the poetic books, though they can amplify concepts clearly taught elsewhere<span class=”js-canadianPeriod”>. </span>It is also important not to base doctrines upon any passage that at best only remotely addresses an issue<span class=”js-canadianPeriod”>. </span>That is, if cosmology is clearly not the point of a passage, then extracting a cosmological meaning can be very dangerous. in the middle ages and well into the Renaissance, the Roman Catholic Church did teach geocentrism, but was that based upon the Bible? The Church’s response to Galileo (1564–1642) was primarily from the works of Aristotle (384–322 BC) and other ancient Greek philosophers. It was Augustine (AD 354–430), Thomas Aquinas (1224–1274) and others who ‘baptized’ the work of these pagans and termed them ‘pre-Christian Christians’<span class=”js-canadianPeriod”>. </span>This mingling of pagan science and the Bible was a fundamental error for which the Church eventually paid a tremendous price.Confusion persists to today in that nearly every textbook that discusses the Galileo affair claims that it was a matter of religion vs science, when it actually was a matter of science vs science<span class=”js-canadianPeriod”>. </span>Unfortunately, Church leaders interpreted certain Biblical passages as geocentric to bolster the argument for what science of the day was claiming<span class=”js-canadianPeriod”>. </span>This mistake is identical to those today who interpret the Bible to support things such as the big bang, billions of years, or biological evolution. Therefore, any evangelical Christian misinformed of this history who claims that the Bible is geocentric is hardly any more credible a source on this topic than an atheist or agnostic The Hebrew word for ‘moved’ (<i>mowt</i>) is in the <i>niphal</i> stem, which often refers to the passive voice, as indeed it does here<span class=”js-canadianPeriod”>. </span>This is reflected in the English translations—to be moved or not to be moved suggests the action of an external or causative agent to bring<span class=”js-canadianAbout”> about </span>change in position, but does not exclude the possibility of motion apart from an external agent<span class=”js-canadianPeriod”>. </span>Virtually all that we know of ancient science and cosmology comes from the Greeks. Most of them were geocentrists<span class=”js-canadianPeriod”>. two other evidences for heliocentrism. One was the discovery of four moons, that orbit Jupiter. Galileo used this to counter the objection to heliocentrism that the moon would be left behind if the Earth moved. It is obvious that Jupiter moves, and it is also obvious that its motion does not leave behind the moons of Jupiter. God bless,In Anthony.</span>

     

    #829295
    Anthony
    Participant

    My phone apparently is messing up sorry I have no computer right now this is hard to do with a phone.  Going have to wait till I get my computer back this is to frustrating with my phone God bless, later In Him Anthony.

    #829296
    GeneBalthrop
    Participant

    Mike…Here is one not just for you but everyone here to think about, instead of this FLAT EARTH GARABAGE.

    John 16:13,..”Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into “all” truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come”.

    If you understand this then you should know, who was speaking and “when” he was speaking, the man Jesus, or GOD the Father speaking through the man Jesus.

    Peace and love to you and yours. ……gene

    #829297
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Let’s just admit the Antarctica is a frozen continent that has been visited, mapped, and probed continually for years. People fly over it, takes tours there, and there is a ton of video and photographic evidence of such activity.

    So how many people have actually touched the dome or photographed the actual dome structure? I think I saw one video that had supposed proof of the dome being visible behind the clouds. But to the trained eye, it clearly was grain from the camera film or could have been the result of changing the hue too much in the video to highlight features. The colour was off, so I suspect it was the latter.

    How is this even a debate?

    Once we can admit the Antarctica is a continent, then we can seriously look into other claims. But if the FE theory relies on Antarctica being an ice wall surrounding the flat disk, then the theory falls flat and is a nonstarter.

    #829298
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi Mike,

    Can you see the kingdom yet?

    It is less about flesh and more about the Spirit.

    #829299
    Lightenup
    Participant

    I believe that American Astronauts have indeed landed on the moon…and I honor their courage.

    Here is a testimony from Charlie Duke about his faith. He is one of the astronauts that has walked on the moon.

    #829300
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi Mike,

    Jesus was the great prophet that Moses and Peter spoke about.

    ’For no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God’ 2 Peter 1.21

     

    Of course he was more than a prophet being fully blessed in all the gifts of the Spirit.

    #829301
    Dig4truth
    Participant

    Hey t8, did you see the vid I posted on the last page? It has a NASA Goddard ex-employee who’s job it was to collect data to map Antartica. Just watch the first 12-15 minutes. The data is still not there! It has not been mapped. The other ex-NASA employee said that she was told that the earth was a plane (flat). Let me know what you think. Blessings.

     

     

     

    #829302
    david
    Participant

    I haven’t don’t this but if you have binoculars and are near a lake or oceon anywhere on the planet, supposedly you need only watch a boat and the further it gets away, you don’t just see it getting smaller as you would on a flat surface but see the bottom of the boat disappearing as it gets further away.  Almost as if it suggest it is on a curved surface.

    #829303
    GeneBalthrop
    Participant

    Correct Nick, and yet he said that we wouls greater works then he did,

    John 14:12….Verly, verly, I say you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he “ALSO DO”; and “Greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto the my Father verse, 13, and whatsoever you shall ask in my name, that will I do, (WHY)?, THAT THE (FATHER) may be glorified in or through, the son.

    All who have tbe comforter abiding “in” them understand this.

    Peace and love to you and yours. …..gene

    #829304
    Lightenup
    Participant

    Hi Dig4truth,

    Would you mind giving me your response to the Charlie Duke testimony video that I just posted after you have watched it? It is less than 3 minutes. I’m trying to find the shorter ones since the 4 hour video of scientific information with three astronomers and a lunar eclipse seems to be not worth your time. May I mention that it is a video with a pause feature. It can be seen bits at a time 😉 It seems that you are seriously wanting to learn, I think it may have info to help.

    Blessings,

    LU

    #829305
    Dig4truth
    Participant

    Hey David, this short 4 minute video will explain why the bottom disappears and why it looks like it is going down over a horizon. Remember, that this is a known, testable and repeatable example of science. If we make conclusions without taking this into consideration then our result will not be accurate.

     

     

    Enjoy!

    #829307
    Dig4truth
    Participant

    Hey David, if you watch the last few minutes of this video (start about 10:30) you will add a lot to the previous video.

     

    Much of of the same information in this vid but if you are really seeking the truth it would be worth watching the whole thing.

    This is again made by Rob Skiba. He is doing his best to uphold Scripture and true science. Blessings.

    #829309
    Anthony
    Participant

    Mike did you try to read the message that I sent

    #829312
    Anthony
    Participant

    Mike     Galileo was a scientist who believed in the trustworthiness of the Bible and sought to show that the Copernican (heliocentric) system was compatible with itHe was fighting against the contemporary principles of Bible interpretation which, blinded by Aristotelian philosophy, did not do justice to the biblical textGalileo was not blamed for criticising the Bible but for disobeying papal orders. Today, most creation scientists read the Bible differently from the contemporary school of biblical interpretation, i.ehigher criticism, and therefore are criticised by the liberal theological establishment and by natural scientists.

    #829313
    Lightenup
    Participant

    Mike,

    Regarding your wet flag theory, the flag does not have a normal drying pattern if it were wet. The seams would be darker because they would be thicker and stay wetter than the thin area between the seams but that is not what the picture is showing. I suspect that the photo shopping done on pictures are likely done by flat earthers including the so called wet flag. I believe that the moon and the sun can be both seen at times during the day because of the angle of the orbit of the moon, I have no problem with that.

    Do you think that flat earthers are above doctoring their videos and pictures to make it look different than reality?

    #829316
    Anthony
    Participant

    Mike come on now Rob Skiba do you know that he said:

    “no wild beasts are so hostile to men as Christians” come on please. God bless I’ll be praying for you God bless. In Him Anthony

    #829318
    mikeboll64
    Blocked

    Anthony:  Key in this discussion is the firmament.The Hebrew word rāqîa‘ is translated as firmament in the King James VersionThe word is a noun that derives from the root rq‘, meaning to stamp out. An example of this action is to stamp or pound a metal into thin sheets…  From the meaning of this word, we can deduce that the rāqîa‘ is something that has been pounded or stretched out.

    So far so good.  I will add this info that I posted earlier in the thread…

    Brown-Driver-Briggs

    רָקִיעַ noun masculineGenesis 1:6extended surface, (solid) expanse(as if beaten out; compare Job 37:18); — absolute ׳רEzekiel 1:22 +, construct ׳רְGenesis 1:14 +; — ᵐ5 στερέωμαᵑ9firmamentum, compare Syriac below √above; —

    1 (flat) expanse (as if of ice, compare כְּעֵין הַקֶּרַח), as base, support (WklAltor. Forsch. iv. 347Ezekiel 1:22,23,25(gloss ? compare Co Toy), Ezekiel 1:26 (supporting ׳י‘s throne). Hence (CoEzekiel 1:22)

    2 the vault of heaven, or ‘firmament,’ regarded by Hebrews as solid, and supporting ‘waters’ above itGenesis 1:6,7 (3 t. in verse); Genesis 1:8 (called שָׁמַיַם; all P), Psalm 19:2 (“” הַשָּׁמַיַם), ׳זֹהַר הָרDaniel 12:3; also ׳ר הַשָּׁמִיִםGenesis 1:14,15,17, ׳הַשּׁ ׳עַלמְּֿנֵי רGenesis 1:20 (all P). **רְקִיעַ עֻזּוֺPsalm 150:1 (suffix reference to ׳י). 

    So far we all agree it refers to something solid that is beaten/spread out – like gold or molten glass.  Notice above that it is used as the base/support for God’s throne, and was regarded by the Hebrews as solid, and supporting waters above it.  That is also my understanding.

    Anthony: Unfortunately, some people reason that since this is an action frequently done to a metal, the thing being stretched out must have some physical property common with metals.

    I make no such claim, nor have I heard anyone else make it.

    Anthony:  Not all metals are hard; and gold, which is involved in the best example illustrating the Hebrew root from which the Hebrew noun rāqîa‘ comes, definitely is not hard

    Molten glass – as Job describes the firmament – isn’t “hard” either.  But molten glass and all metals are “solids” – and that is the point.

    Anthony:  It is more likely that the intended meaning of rāqîa‘ is related to the process of stamping out, not a physical property of the thing subjected to the process

    If it is a masculine noun, per Brown-Driver-Briggs above, then it is decidedly not more likely that the intended meaning was that of a verb.

    Anthony:  This is why many more modern translations of the Bible render rāqîa‘ as expanse rather than firmament.

    Of course we all know that is not the reason.  The reason the more modern translations use “expanse” is that godless men of the world were able to shame Christian translators into thinking that the original Biblical meaning of something solid was silly, because it wasn’t in line with the story scientism tells us about our endless vacuum universe.

    Anthony:  The first use of the word rāqîa‘ in the Bible probably is helpful in deciphering its meaningThis is found in (Gen.1:6-7)

    And God saith, `Let an expanse be in the midst of the waters and let it be separating between waters and waters.’

    Um… just up and translating it as “expanse” has nothing to do with “deciphering its meaning” – especially when you already know it is a noun that refers to something solid.  When tropical fish stores put dividers in the tanks to separate different kinds of fish (for example, to separate tetra waters from molly waters), don’t they use something solid – like Plexiglas?  They don’t separate the Siamese fighting fish from the sword-tails with an “expanse”, right?

    I gotta tell you, so far we’ve learned that the word is a noun that refers to something solid, that the Hebrews understood the firmament as something solid, and that the only evidence offered by Anthony’s source is that he doesn’t want it to be something solid.

    Anthony:  Before declaring an end to Day Two in (Gen.1:8) And God calleth to the expanse `Heavens;’

    You haven’t yet provided any reason for a raqia to be translated as “expanse”, so let’s leave it at, “And God called the firmament heaven…” for now.

    Anthony:   There are several observations that we can make from this passageFirst, the waters that God divided were the waters mentioned in (Gen. 1:2)

    Agreed.

    Anthony:  It is clear that the waters that God separated below must refer to surface water (mostly oceans) on the earth.

    It is most certainly not clear that the waters below were oceans.  God hadn’t created dry land for there to be oceans, lakes, and rivers yet.  The heaven and the earth were water at this time.  The firmament separated the waters from which the earth was about to be formed from the waters of heaven, that still remain on the other side of the firmament.

    Anthony: But what are the waters above the rāqîa‘How we answer that question will depend upon what we understand the rāqîa‘ isNotice that God equated the rāqîa‘ with heaven.The Hebrew word šāmayim is translated as “heaven” most of the more than 400 times it occurs in the Old Testament, as it is here.

    Interpreting Scripture in terms of Scripture, we find reinforcement of the equation of the rāqîa‘ with heaven.At least eleven verses in the Old Testament speak of God stretching out the heaven’s (Job 9:8) Stretching out the heavens by Himself, And treading on the heights of the sea, out the heavens by Himself, And treading on the heights of the sea, Day Two, God made the rāqîa‘, something that is spread or stretched outFurthermore, God called the rāqîa‘heaven.The stretching of the heavens probably refers to when God made the rāqîa‘.

    All good except that last line, where the writer again attempts to use a Hebrew noun as a verb.  At least he qualifies it with “probably”.  Besides, the raqia denotes only one of the three heavens… the solid one.

    Anthony: Heaven generally is understood as being above us.

    Of course there is no “above us” in the heliocentric model, because what’s above me right now in America is below T8, Nick, and miia in NZ. 

    Anthony: Depending on the context, the word can refer to that which is immediately above us, where flying birds, clouds, and rain are.

    Yes, that is the first heaven – which is never referred to by raqia, since it is not solid.

    Anthony:  It also can refer to the realm of astronomical bodies

    That would be the second heaven… the only one of the three that is designated by a Hebrew word that refers to something solid.  But “astronomical bodies“?  Where in scripture can I read about those?  Because all I’ve read about in scripture are lights that God placed in the firmament, ie: the sun, the moon, and the stars.  Are you guys able to see that, just like when he translated a noun as the verb “spreading out”, the author is once again taking liberties with what the scriptures actually say, and importing his own worldly ideas – like astronomical bodies – into them?

    Anthony:  Finally, it often refers to the abode of God“Heaven” has all these meanings, both in modern use and in the BibleDoes the rāqîa‘ refer to all of these meanings, or just some of those meanings?

    Yes, three heavens, but only one of them referred to by raqia – the solid one that separates the other two.

    Anthony:  The other appearances of the word rāqîa‘ in the Genesis 1 creation account can help in answering this questionThe next use of the word rāqîa‘ is in the Day Four account of creation (Psalm 104:2),Covering himself [with] light as a garment, Stretching out the heavens as a curtain, where it appears three timesEach time it appears in conjunction with the Hebrew word šāmayimThe best way to express this relationship in English is with the prepositional phrase, “expanse of heaven.” This construction emphasizes, lest there be any doubt, that the thing mentioned in the Day Four account is the thing that God made on Day Two. (Gen.1:14-19)

    I have no idea what that even means, since I wasn’t able to find the word raqia in Psalm 104:2.  All the author has done here is try to import his own translation, “expanse of heavens”, in for a word that clearly refers to something solid.  But there is nothing in the above that supports his claim.  I’m baffled by that entire paragraph, and can’t for the life of me figure out what point he’s even trying to make.

    Anthony:  God made the lights and set them in the firmament of heaven.It is clear here that the lights are the heavenly bodies, the greater and lesser lights, and the stars also Therefore, the firmament of heaven (the rāqîa‘) is where God placed the heavenly, or astronomical, bodiesToday we would call this outer space, or simplyspace.

    What?  How in the world is it “clear” that the lights are heavenly “bodies”?  He still hasn’t offered any reason… only claimed it.  And now he is taking raqia, which refers to something solid, and calling it “outer space”.  Where did that come from?  I can’t read about “outer space” or heavenly “bodies” in scripture, can I?  Can’t you guys see that this guy hasn’t actually supported his claims scripturally – but has only imposed worldly views into the Bible when the Bible clearly doesn’t even support them?

    Anthony:  The most natural understanding of the Day Four creation account is that all heavenly bodies are located in the rāqîa‘.

    If we get rid of his unscriptural word “bodies”, and retain the scriptural word “lights/luminaries”, the above line is spot on.

    Anthony:  As an aside, some flat-earthers…argue that the stars are embedded in a dome above the earth (the rāqîa‘), but they hold that the sun and moon (the greater and lesser lights) are below the dome while still above the earth… However, the Hebrew text (and even the English text) does not permit thisThe masculine plural pronoun of v.17 refers back to the sun, moon, and stars collectively, and the verse does not distinguish as to their placement.

    The writer has finally made a very good and valid point.  If scripture is our authority, then we can’t have the stars in the firmament, while the sun and moon are floating around underneath it, in the first heaven.  And he is correct that many flat earthers have held this view.  What he hasn’t mentioned is that many of them have been aware of this problem for a while – and not only from a scriptural perspective, but from an observational one.  We are in the process of learning how it all works (we haven’t had 500 years of scientists funded by trillions of tax dollars like the heliocentrists), but many have already produced some good videos of how the sun and moon that we see are projected images of the real sun and moon.  Kind of like Batman’s Bat Signal is not the actual spotlight, but its projected image in the sky…

    Or think of the sun reflecting off a tall building with mirrored windows.  You can see the sun in those windows, and even feel heat equal to the sun itself – but the reflection isn’t really the sun.  This would explain the crepuscular rays that D4T brought up earlier, and also explains the many different perspectives on the sun in the sky.  For example…

    If I am the one taking that picture, the reflection comes right to my feet.  But if you are standing 20 feet away, you can’t see it come to my feet, because you have your own reflection coming to your own feet.  And the same with another person 40 feet away, and so on.  Similarly, we are all also seeing our own version of the sun, from our own perspective.  Btw, do you see how the reflection goes all the way from the sun to the observer in a continuous line?  That’s not possible on a ball earth either, because there are miles of curvature between the observer and the sun that the reflection can’t get over, and so the observer would only see the last tail end of the reflection closest to him…

    Notice in the bottom right image how the breaking waves break the reflection as well.  The reflection cannot follow its continuous path to the observer if there is a wall of water in its path.  And the ball earth requires a huge wall of water to be between that observer and the sun.

    Anyway, there are videos of people doing experiments with those half-dome magnifying glasses photographers use (to represent the dome).  They move the actual light source around on the dome, and record the results.  Here is a screenshot from one of them…

    Imagine the yellow ring is the firmament itself, which contains the sun, the moon, and the stars.  The sun (penlight) is the actual source of the light, but inside the dome, we see the sun as the smaller light I circled within the first heaven where the birds fly.  Anyway, we can talk more about that later.

    Anthony:  Well that’s enough for now. IlI’ send more. God bless, In Him Anthony.

    Okay, but please read it first using discernment, to see if the source is actually saying something of value, or just trying to import his worldly beliefs into the scriptures without offering a single scriptural reason to do so.  Because this response took me two hours, and I won’t have that kind of time to invest in every novel that you copy and paste into the thread.

    #829323
    mikeboll64
    Blocked

    I just spent over two hours doing that last response, so I hope you guys (especially Anthony, T8 and Kathi) read every word.  I won’t do that again.  I refuse to spend that much time addressing a huge volume of information that someone else took 3 seconds to copy and paste.  I only did it this time because T8 and Kathi seemed so impressed with it, and I wanted to make sure they knew it all amounted to a bunch of unscriptural nothing in the end.

    Next time, Anthony, break it down into manageable sections, and put it in your own words.  Otherwise I won’t even bother reading it, let alone responding to it.

    #829325
    mikeboll64
    Blocked

    Gene:

    Mike….Jesus did speak through his own mouth at most of the time…

    Thank you for acknowledging that.  Nick told me that I wouldn’t be able to find a scripture when it was Jesus doing the actual speaking.  But as you pointed out, he is mistaken.

    Gene:  …but there were times when the Father spoke also through his mouth.

    I disagree.

    Gene:  Or haven’t you ever read this,

    Matt 10:20…For it is not you that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh, “IN” OR “THROUGH” YOU.

    NOW DO YOU STILL DENY GOD THE FATHER ACTUALLY DID SPEAK DIRECTLY THROUGH JESUS’ MOUTH?

    Yes.

    Gene:  Here is another one for you WONDER ABOUT Mike,

    Matt 23:37…..O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, that killest the prophets… how often would (I) have gathered your childern together, even as a hen gathers her chickens under her wings…

    That is Jesus speaking about something he longed to do when he was in heaven… before he emptied himself to be made in the likeness of a man.

Viewing 20 posts - 1,141 through 1,160 (of 6,414 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

© 1999 - 2024 Heaven Net

Navigation

© 1999 - 2023 - Heaven Net
or

Log in with your credentials

or    

Forgot your details?

or

Create Account