[geocentrism] Re: Plenum and firmament
- From: "Philip" <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 20:12:31 +1000
Gary and Cheryl.. Whats with the KJV Is God then an Englishman....Gods chosen
people! Are all the other countries pagan if they do not conform to King James
of England?
Please,
and then what of the Billions before the Press , 1,600 years of no Bible... No
New testament that is.. All handwrittten in languages most could not read, let
alone speak. And certainly not afford to buy.. And there would never be enough
of them?????
They were so valuable that only the richest Catholic Churches, had them on
display for the faithfull to read, Chained to the platform of course.. Devout
faithful were prone to fanaticism , and stealling things like incorrupt saints
body parts was common....
Of course the New testament alone handwritten was available to the poorer
churches...
Anyone who could read at all in Europe could read latin, long before they could
read their native tongue.... Latin was the vernacular of Europe.. The first
handwritten translation in English of the NT was authorised in England circa
900 Ad. I challenge any Englishman today to understand or read it. It still
exists in a museum somewher in England..
All of this is confirmed in Protestant Historian sources...
Henry and other kings set up National religions, Jesus did not. He established
a universal Church, that was a kingdom that was not of this world.
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Gary Shelton
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 6:09 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Plenum and firmament
Cheryl,
Don't sell yourself short. You'll be up to speed with me in no time. I
haven't a very long history with this subject at all. I kind of see us
coming from a similar background. As a born and raised 45 year old Baptist,
I also tend to say KJV, but it's this thing of inerrancy that still has me
bugged, I'll tell you. Yes, Dr. Bouw's a purist as far as the KJV goes and
believes to be inerrant. But I don't know. I wonder how we can say the KJV
is anything without specifying the exact KJV we are talking about?
Did you know that when the 1611 KJV was printed it included the Apocrypha?
So what gives that we now do not have that in the KJV? If we are going to
ascribe some clearer connection to God for the translators of our Bible
version, hadn't we better learn just what the true product is they came up
with?
I have read that our KJV came into existence about 1881. Again, I'm no
expert. But I do know that I own two KJV's. One renders the Psalm (I
believe it's 93:1 here) as "stablish" while the other as "establish".
That's not a big deal perhaps, but it goes to show you there are differences
between even the modern printings of the KJV. I'm sure there are vastly
more erudite folks to talk about this than myself, however.
No, I haven't read Gordon Bane. I'll google him when I get the chance.
See, you're already asking the same question I have about the plenum and the
firmament. Perhaps Robert or the others will chime in here.
Sincerely,
Gary Shelton
> Gary -- I've not read your links yet, but I will. Being a woman, my brain
> doesn't work like the rest of yours. I don't get the engineering, math
and
> physics stuff the way you all seem to so easily grasp it all. But I have
> intuition, a sense of where to look for the truth, an intuitive sense of
> what it is when I recognize it. I am also logical. We all need logic and
> humility, a willingness to accept the truth once we find it. I do have
some
> biases/presuppositions -- I believe in God and I believe God is Good, and
I
> believe His Word is contained in the KJV only as Scripture.
>
> Other than that, I will consider anything as possible as long as it lines
up
> with the other three suppositions/biases I have.
>
> Have you read any of Gordon Bane's stuff, The Geocentric Bible? He says
> all the answers to cosmology are in the scriptures. He believes every
> scripture has a mate, that there's another scripture located somewhere
> between the two covers that explains and fulfils any other scripture.
>
> He speaks continuously of the plenum and the firmament. It is true, is it
> not, that the Copernican people don't believe in either one of these
> concepts? Is it not true also that a proper understanding of both of
these,
> plenum and firmament, will answer all the other questions?
>
> Is there agreement in this list/group as to what exactly the plenum and
the
> firmament is? If so, could you explain it to me kind of the way you did
the
> geocentric model?
>
> Cheryl
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gary Shelton" <garylshelton@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2005 2:58 AM
> Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Moon landings?
>
>
> > Cheryl,
> >
> > I have provided the following link before. But it is a very good link
to
> a
> > heated discussion between Gary Hoge and Robert Sungenis. Mr. Hoge
firmly
> > believes that the geo satellites (synchronous and stationary and polar)
> > solidly prove the earth is turning. Mr. Sungenis denies that.
> >
> > You'd have to give Mr. Hoge the prize for this particular debate, but I
> > don't think it's by any means the end of the debate.
> >
> > That link is:
> > http://catholicoutlook.com/gps1.php
> >
> > Read and learn all of this and you'll be very knowledgeable indeed.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Gary Shelton
> >
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.1.0 - Release Date: 2/18/05
Other related posts:
