[creation] Re: God bless

  • From: "Marshall" <fefinc@xxxxxxxx>
  • To: <creation@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 10:16:45 -0400

Hello Percival,

Thanks for your good words, and give my Christian regards to Pastor Carullo
for his interest in this Biblically pivotal geocentrism doctrine.  Since the
entire world (todo el mundo!)--including every single church--has forsaken
the non-moving earth of the Bible in favor of the factless Copernican model,
just try to imagine what would happen if God decides to force the Truth of
the matter on the churches first (I Pet. 4:17,18), and then on the world!!

Let me go a step further than saying that "the earth is not a moving body in
the solar system".... It is not a moving body in the universe..a universe
that is not one ten trillionth the size that "science falsely so called" has
constructed in order to make the Biblical model impossible.

You and Pastor Carullo may want to check the Scriptures involved in the
small universe on my links on "The Size and Structure of the Universe
According to the Bible and Non-theoretical Science".  Also, check Part VI of
the Kabbala series to see what fraud and lies that "Space Science" uses to
establish a universe so huge that the stars can't get around every 23 hours
and 56 minutes as we see (and photograph) them doing....

In Christ's love,

Marshall

----- Original Message -----
From: "Percival Tanierla" <percy_tan@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <creation@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 1:16 AM
Subject: [creation] Re: God bless


> Dear Marshall,
>
>     Good afternoon!  How are you today  hope all is
> well  with  you.  One of my pastor friends  who read
> your book is really convinced  that  your view is
> correct. He name is nelson Carullo pastor of Grace
> christian chrurch.  There is a growing interest  that
> the earth is not a moving body in the  solar syystem.
>
>     I hope someday you could come and  give lectures
> on this vital subject.
>
>      God bless you.
>
>    percival
> --- Marshall <fefinc@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Good idea Percival.  Judgment begins at the house of
> > God, but family
> > teaching goes along with that.
> > ("Geocentrism or Geostatic" are more accurate than
> > "Geocentricity" if you
> > mean to have the earth at the center of the
> > universe.)
> >
> > Lord Bless,
> >
> > Marshall
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Percival Tanierla" <percy_tan@xxxxxxxxx>
> > To: <creation@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2005 11:55 PM
> > Subject: [creation] Re: where to start
> >
> >
> > > Dear friends,
> > >
> > >    I think creationists should  start teaching
> > > Geocentricity= creation in the church instead of
> > > schools. Let us teach our children at their  early
> > age
> > > about creation and geocentricity and when they go
> > to
> > > school they already have a good  biblical
> > foundation.
> > > Each family should  be encourage to teach their
> > > children  about creation and geocentricty. Every
> > > evening  John (7 years ) read the Bible  and after
> > > short prayer I tell them about Genesis 1- that God
> > is
> > > the creator of all things. I teach them God made
> > the
> > > earth for man and Christ came into this world.
> > >
> > >   I have six children one is in college; one  in
> > > elementary and  2 are in kinder  school. I pray
> > that
> > > when they grow older  God,s truth would be more
> > real
> > > to them.  I think this is one of the best way to
> > > protect our children from error  and from
> > deception.
> > >
> > >    percival
> > >
> > >
> > > --- "Dr. Neville Jones" <ntj005@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'm very happy with how this group has started,
> > > > Marshall, and this posting from Jack is well
> > > > pitched.
> > > >
> > > > (For those who haven't already been there,
> > Marshall
> > > > has some detailed and interesting material on
> > his
> > > > website regarding the enormous amount that NASA
> > > > spends on virtual reality -
> > > >
> > > > www.fixedearth.com )
> > > >
> > > > Neville.
> > > >
> > > > Marshall <fefinc@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > Good response on this important subject,
> > Neville!
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Jack Lewis"
> > > > To: ;
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2005 9:46 AM
> > > > Subject: [creation] Virtual/created reality?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Dear Forum Members,
> > > > > This item may be of interest to many of you
> > > > especially Neville. I have
> > > > scanned in a number of letters sent to New
> > Scientist
> > > > about concern regarding
> > > > real/simulated data in the media and how to tell
> > the
> > > > difference.
> > > > > Simulation signals
> > > > >
> > > > > From Chris James
> > > > >
> > > > > I strongly agree with Easter Russell (8
> > January, p
> > > > 25). There should be a
> > > > media code of practice requiring that all
> > > > simulations, artist's impressions
> > > > and so on are clearly marked as such. How
> > authentic
> > > > are the pictures of
> > > > Titan we are being shown from Huygens? New
> > Scientist
> > > > could set a good
> > > > example by stating when its pictures are not
> > real -
> > > > for example, that of
> > > > comet Tempel i on p 28 of the same issue.
> > Eastleigh,
> > > > Hampshire, UK
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > From Roger Taylor
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree completely with Russell, and the
> > sooner
> > > > the better. Modern imaging
> > > > technology is so powerful, and presumably will
> > > > become more so, that it could
> > > > lead to all manner of fraud and deception, and
> > > > ultimately to an Orwellian
> > > > rewriting of history. This is not something we
> > > > should tempt our politicians
> > > > with. Meols, Cheshire, UK
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > From Peter Strickland
> > > > >
> > > > > It is a mistake to think of films or
> > photographs
> > > > as real. When you take
> > > > into account the choices that go into what to
> > point
> > > > the camera at and when
> > > > to film, there is an enormous amount of
> > subjectivity
> > > > involved. Then there
> > > > are choices about zoom, focus and aperture,
> > which
> > > > all affect what is seen
> > > > and how it is portrayed. And then, of course,
> > the
> > > > resulting film or
> > > > photograph will be edited, which will involve
> > > > various digitally applied
> > > > modifications, and, in film, choices about
> > timing,
> > > > sequences and so on. The
> > > > difference between photography and digital
> > imagery
> > > > is more of a perceived
> > > > idea about authenticity than any practical
> > > > difference. Leeds, UK
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > From Stu Witner
> > > > >
> > > > > Once begun, where does one stop, I wonder? For
> > > > example, all images from
> > > > the Hubble Space Telescope are "simulated" in
> > that
> > > > the colours are computer
> > > > generated. The colours are not only beautiful
> > but
> > > > enable researchers to
> > > > learn much more from them than if they were
> > "real".
> > > > >
> > > > > Then there is the philosophical argument,
> > "what is
> > > > truth?", not to mention
> > > > the obvious public taste for drama over reality.
> > I'm
> > > > afraid Russell may be
> > > > tilting at windmills, 21st-century style.
> > Seattle,
> > > > Washington, US
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > There was also an amusing cartoon which I
> > shall
> > > > have to describe in the
> > > > absence of a method for posting.
> > > > >
> > > > > It shows an office with a sign saying 'ECONOMY
> > > > SPACE PROGRAMMES INC.' and
> > > > an assitant showing round a bemedalled,
> > uniformed
> > > > 'top brass' type
> > > > character. In the office is an artist painting
> > and a
> > > > lady sitting at a piece
> > > > of electronic equipment. The assistant is saying
> > to
> > > > the visitor,
> > > > >
> > > > > "Ron does lurid images and Sue does crackly
> > sound
> > > > effects".
> > > > >
> >
> === message truncated ===
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.3 - Release Date: 4/5/2005
>
>



-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.3 - Release Date: 4/5/2005


Other related posts: