View Single Post
  #8  
Old March 5th 21, 09:29 PM posted to alt.astronomy
Rick C. Hodgin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39
Default Help to disprove this theory

On Fri, 5 Mar 2021 21:19:53 +0000 (UTC)
R Kym Horsell wrote:
Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
...
We don't know what gravity was like in the past, so it's not
something we can prove.


Non-fringe science would have it we can look up in the sky and can
see how it was in the past upto 14 bn years go.

But as I said if you're going to keep using appeals to logic you have
fallen into a trap probably set by demons.


We've only been experiencing things on this planet for as long as our
civilizations are. Do things change on the Biblical cycle? In this
theory the answer would be yes.

But we also have a pattern for this in the natural world. Seasons.

We have a planting, growing, harvesting, and a season where things are
not active (winter).

If this pattern was given us, and is part of a larger pattern of the
Earths over these multiple "seasons" which are the 7,000 year Biblical
cycles, then we can gain knowledge about this from what we see
naturally applied to the larger scales.

The New Jerusalem that comes out of Heaven is a cube approximately
1,200 miles on a side (it's just the right size to fit inside the
moon, by the way). But, it's a cube. Why a cube? It has three gates
on the North, three on the East, South, and West. 12 Gates total.

To me it sounds like a block or a brick. If there are other solar
systems out there like ours that have "crops of man" being created,
then the New Jerusalem would be a transport taking the crop of man from
this Earth to wherever we're going after this time of man on this
current Earth.

There's so much we don't know about what's out there. We have
mainstream secular scientists telling us this that and the other thing
about how it all works, but if they aren't seeking the truth, don't have
a foundation in Biblical knowledge, don't trust in God, aren't born
again, then how can we know what they say is correct?

I admit that I do not know if my theory is correct, but I'm very
seriously trying to disprove it with something that's actually
provable. Because in the absence of that proof it remains possible.

I appreciate your reply. If you have more thoughts or insight I would
welcome it.

--
Rick C. Hodgin