This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Sarah31
Filter to certain boards:
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 17
1
« on: January 21, 2012, 06:46:29 PM »
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginRonald Eldon Wyatt (1933 – August 4, 1999) was an adventurer and former nurse anaesthetist noted for advocating the Durupınar site as the site of Noah's Ark, among other Bible-related pseudoarchaeology. His claims were dismissed by scientists, historians, biblical scholars, and even by leaders in his own Seventh-day Adventist Church, but his work continues to have a following among some fundamentalists and evangelicals.
2
« on: January 21, 2012, 05:36:11 PM »
The Sign said:
Not only does the devil deceive, but he deceives the whole world on the very same reason why he was kicked out of heaven—for demanding that angels should be able to sit on God’s throne! Just take a look at any and all pictures and drawings of the ark; search “ark of the covenant” on Google images, or some other search engine. Or look through ark pictures in religious materials.
In all cases, you will find the angels are standing on the throne, kneeling on the throne, crouching on the throne, or whatever; but always on the throne! However, angels are not even allowed to sit on God’s throne, much less have their feet on His throne!!! What blasphemy! The devil has a good laugh, no doubt.
There is one ark, though, depicted with a few different yet similar illustrations, where the angels are beside the ark and mercy seat—which is exactly where they belong! And this is the true ark; any and all arks with angels on top of the mercy seat are most certainly counterfeit.
For those might think that the story of Lucifer and God’s throne is symbolic, and not literal, the point here is still the same. God would not design the ark of the covenant to represent symbolic error (angels on the throne); no, He would design it to represent the truth (angels beside the throne).
This is exactly what Souza said on the thread about the true ark.
Oops! Then the most important part of all the fake arks: the cherubim. On nearly EVERY image of the Ark, the cherubim are placed ON the mercy seat. The Ark was God's throne on earth. Just like on the throne he sits upon in heaven, the Ark has covering cherubim:
"The LORD reigneth; let the people tremble: he sitteth between the cherubims; let the earth be moved."
(Psalm 99:1)
"O LORD of hosts, God of Israel, that dwellest between the cherubims, thou art the God, even thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth: thou hast made heaven and earth."
(Isaiah 37:16)
Nowhere in the Bible does it ever indicate that angels sat UPON God's throne. Satan wanted it, but was cast out of heaven for it. He was jealous of Jesus, who DID sit on the throne besides the Father. Satan was one of the highest angels, so if HE couldn't sit on God's throne, how would angels lower ranked than he be allowed?
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login
3
« on: January 21, 2012, 05:03:50 PM »
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login
4
« on: January 21, 2012, 03:13:35 PM »
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login
5
« on: January 21, 2012, 03:11:59 PM »
I will not comment on TS' subjects from now, read them or check them. Because this was the proof of what is behind all this. Not what's behind Michael's hoax, but what's behind TS' character. For me this was the last proof. I will not be part of this. It is scary - because I simply don't understand who this character is, why he came here and why he chose Michael's subject. Enough.
I agree, especially with the bold part. Now T. S. is turning this into a Doomsday cult, using Michael's name for it. This is Anna's post that I replied to: You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login
6
« on: January 21, 2012, 10:36:13 AM »
wasnt he also earning 150K a month with MJ.
He was never paid.
7
« on: January 20, 2012, 11:55:58 AM »
I knew someone had this in his/her signature and that I'd stumble upon it again sooner or later, and now I just did: ![]() If you look at this and compare, the other picture doesn't really look photoshopped anymore.
8
« on: January 19, 2012, 09:31:00 PM »
I asked you if you seriously contributed something about the hoax investigation,
I gave you a couple of examples, and there are a couple more. Just shows you never read most of my posts. I contributed more with a lot less posts than those people who are here mostly to talk about religion or other stuff that has nothing to do with actual investigation.
9
« on: January 19, 2012, 09:11:42 PM »
I don't agree with that kind of language in general, so I don't agree with the language in the blog and I don't agree with your language, Front.
And I don't agree with your continuous need to spit out your assumptions and negativity on this forum, poisoning threads you clearly don't even like. Have you EVER even contributed to the hoax investigation, or are you only here to stir up the pot and annoy me and others?
I contributed a lot, but I guess people don't care because I'm not part of a certain group of people. I looked into the 911 call and even made and posted videos, I explained a lot of things about Propofol, I explained GarageBand, I looked for exhibit B and posted the video, because people kept asking for weeks and weeks what exhibit B was (and it took me hours to find it on youtube), etc., etc. I'm also the one who found out that this one back post wasn't posted on August 25, but August 24 and that the screenshot was taken in a different time zone. And I did some other stuff too that I never posted about, because I know that people will just attack me when I post. I still don't agree with the language on the blog and I don't agree with Front's language, they are both bad in the same way. MJonmind, look at the second thing that veronicafall marked red in her quote of Front's post, that's what she is talking about, not the language.
10
« on: January 19, 2012, 08:53:51 PM »
I don't agree with that kind of language in general, so I don't agree with the language in the blog and I don't agree with your language, Front.
11
« on: January 19, 2012, 12:39:23 PM »
If it is "real" numerology or not makes no difference to the debate.
But it makes a difference if you want to explain this to "outsiders". If you tell them "the numerology proves that he faked his death", that's exactly like saying "his horoscope says that he faked his death", people won't even give that a second thought. If you say there seems to be a number code pointing in the direction that this was planned (if you believe in that), then people might look at it in a different way.
12
« on: January 19, 2012, 12:21:42 PM »
she is saying the whys, hows and what the numbers are inspired by is irralevent.
Ok. Yes, they might be inspired by the meaning of numbers, but they are still used as a code (if you believe in that, that is).
13
« on: January 19, 2012, 12:16:37 PM »
What is irrelevant?
14
« on: January 19, 2012, 12:11:57 PM »
This is what the TS skeptics who constantly repeat the true statement, "numerology is a psudoscience" fail to understand. I went over this 2 pages ago.
I actually said months ago (I think in the old back thread) that I don't get why people call it "numerology", because that's the wrong word for it. Numerology is about numbers and their meaning, reading stuff into numbers, like astrology. The numbers in this case have nothing to do with that, they are more used as a code. So no idea who started to call that "numerology" as it has nothing to do with that.
15
« on: January 19, 2012, 11:23:18 AM »
I know I've seen this picture before, and more than once, I guess on other MJ forums. Just not sure about the caption, don't remember if it had one.
|
Show Posts
