Isaiah, Part 40 | The Fate of Egypt 

Thank you Dr. Tour for standing strong on God' word. You can see the haters are angry at you putting factual truths out as a professional! That means you are definitely on the right path, if not they wouldnt spend so much time here on a biblical first channel! Thanks again!👍👍👍

Bless you, Dr. James Tour. 🙏

Really needed this word today! Thank you and Amen

Dr. Tour, God Bless every building block of HIS creation that HE made you with, and NO pollution is found in you. May, you James Tour explain the Complex of God's thoughts to HIS flock, to show them what is blocking their Spiritual understanding. God Bless You and Your Family Good Sir.

I don't know if anyone else has ever noticed, I presume some have, but when reading the passages like this, you have to be really kinda careful about figuring out WHO it's really talking about. Very often, whatever idiom happens to be being portrayed, is often true on multiple levels. It's more 3d than just 2d, In regards to specifically Egypt, and Syria and Israel as well, consider this passage: Isaiah 19:24 24 In that day Israel will be one of three with Egypt and Assyria-a blessing in the midst of the land, 25 whom the Lord of hosts shall bless, saying, “Blessed is Egypt My people, and Assyria the work of My hands, and Israel My inheritance.” This seems to specifically point to the various specific peoples. In other cases, when the bible talks about Egyptians and/or Babylonians et al, it's REALLY talking about Israelis who have rejected/not obeyed God. Think about when they left Egypt with Moses, some wanted to return to Egypt. In other words, THEY were Egyptian in "thought," not necessarily literally, so you really have to pay attention because the bible does this kind of thing a lot. You will read a passage and think it's about one thing and then all of a sudden it changes course and you suddenly realize it really isn't talking about what you thought it was so to speak. Keeps ya on your toes. Multiple levels of truth all over the place that scale upwards or downwards, but are still true.

Why are they cutting off your words every episode when you say, "physical resurrection of Jesus"? I hear everything before and after those words, but they are always cutting those out. Do they really think we don't know what you're saying? It wasn't happening when you first started teaching Isaiah, but I've noticed it the last few times.

One other thing to consider, when the bible talks about water/waters, it VERY often is an idiom for the holy spirit. You can get some really interesting insight when you read passages talking about "water" and think of it as the holy spirit. Man does not live by bread alone. You can go weeks without eating, but you can barely go 3 days without water. Think about it.

nice

As @surrenderdaily333 said, the “physical resurrection” is being cut out when Dr. Tour says it.

In previous videos, Jim said he’ll only debate Ph.D’s and professors. If that’s so, why not just publish his critiques in peer-reviewed journals? Ordinary people can’t publish papers, he already does that with his graphene and molecular machines research, and he can even add it to his bibliography and h-index. He doesn’t even have to prep for debates

If Dr. Tour is so confident that his statements on origin of life are factual, why doesn’t he publish his critiques on origin of life research in reputable peer-reviewed journals like Nature or Angewandte Chemie? It’s not like you can’t publish critiques in these journals. I read 2 critiques published in Angewandte Chemie and Nature about how a compound made by Stephen Liddle’s group may not exhibit aromaticity. Why CAN you publish critiques on those topics but not origin of life if, like Jim said, they’re both basically synthetic chemistry? Critiques: [{Th(C8H8)Cl2}3]2− is stable but not aromatic, Bonding in a Crystalline Tri‐Thorium Cluster: Not σ‐Aromatic But Still Unique

30 : 55 And on the Day the Hour will arrive, the wicked will swear that they did not stay ˹in this world˺ more than an hour. In this way they were always deluded ˹in the world˺. 30 : 56 But those gifted with knowledge and faith will say ˹to them˺, “You did actually stay-as destined by Allah-until the Day of Resurrection. So here is the Day of Resurrection ˹which you denied˺! But you did not know ˹it was true˺.” 30 : 57 So on that Day the wrongdoers’ excuses will not benefit them, nor will they be allowed to appease ˹their Lord˺.

In previous videos, Jim said he’ll only debate Ph.D’s and professors. If that’s so, why not just publish his critiques in peer-reviewed journals? Ordinary people can’t publish papers, he already does that with his graphene and molecular machines research, and he can even add it to his bibliography and h-index. He doesn’t even have to prep for debates

If Dr. Tour is so confident that his statements on origin of life are factual, why doesn’t he publish his critiques on origin of life research in reputable peer-reviewed journals like Nature or Angewandte Chemie? It’s not like you can’t publish critiques in these journals. I read 2 critiques published in Angewandte Chemie and Nature about how a compound made by Stephen Liddle’s group may not exhibit aromaticity. Why CAN you publish critiques on those topics but not origin of life if, like Jim said, they’re both basically synthetic chemistry? Critiques: [{Th(C8H8)Cl2}3]2− is stable but not aromatic, Bonding in a Crystalline Tri‐Thorium Cluster: Not σ‐Aromatic But Still Unique

In previous videos, Jim said he’ll only debate Ph.D’s and professors. If that’s so, why not just publish his critiques in peer-reviewed journals? Ordinary people can’t publish papers, he already does that with his graphene and molecular machines research, and he can even add it to his bibliography and h-index. He doesn’t even have to prep for debates

If Dr. Tour is so confident that his statements on origin of life are factual, why doesn’t he publish his critiques on origin of life research in reputable peer-reviewed journals like Nature or Angewandte Chemie? It’s not like you can’t publish critiques in these journals. I read 2 critiques published in Angewandte Chemie and Nature about how a compound made by Stephen Liddle’s group may not exhibit aromaticity. Why CAN you publish critiques on those topics but not origin of life if, like Jim said, they’re both basically synthetic chemistry? Critiques: [{Th(C8H8)Cl2}3]2− is stable but not aromatic, Bonding in a Crystalline Tri‐Thorium Cluster: Not σ‐Aromatic But Still Unique

If Dr. Tour is so confident that his statements on origin of life are factual, why doesn’t he publish his critiques on origin of life research in reputable peer-reviewed journals like Nature or Angewandte Chemie? It’s not like you can’t publish critiques in these journals. I read 2 critiques published in Angewandte Chemie and Nature about how a compound made by Stephen Liddle’s group may not exhibit aromaticity. Why CAN you publish critiques on those topics but not origin of life if, like Jim said, they’re both basically synthetic chemistry? Critiques: [{Th(C8H8)Cl2}3]2− is stable but not aromatic, Bonding in a Crystalline Tri‐Thorium Cluster: Not σ‐Aromatic But Still Unique

In previous videos, Jim said he’ll only debate Ph.D’s and professors. If that’s so, why not just publish his critiques in peer-reviewed journals? Ordinary people can’t publish papers, he already does that with his graphene and molecular machines research, and he can even add it to his bibliography and h-index. He doesn’t even have to prep for debates

In previous videos, Jim said he’ll only debate Ph.D’s and professors. If that’s so, why not just publish his critiques in peer-reviewed journals? Ordinary people can’t publish papers, he already does that with his graphene and molecular machines research, and he can even add it to his bibliography and h-index. He doesn’t even have to prep for debates

In previous videos, Jim said he’ll only debate Ph.D’s and professors. If that’s so, why not just publish his critiques in peer-reviewed journals? Ordinary people can’t publish papers, he already does that with his graphene and molecular machines research, and he can even add it to his bibliography and h-index. He doesn’t even have to prep for debates.

If Dr. Tour is so confident that his statements on origin of life are factual, why doesn’t he publish his critiques on origin of life research in reputable peer-reviewed journals like Nature or Angewandte Chemie? It’s not like you can’t publish critiques in these journals. I read 2 critiques published in Angewandte Chemie and Nature about how a compound made by Stephen Liddle’s group may not exhibit aromaticity. Why CAN you publish critiques on those topics but not origin of life if, like Jim said, they’re both basically synthetic chemistry? Critiques: [{Th(C8H8)Cl2}3]2− is stable but not aromatic, Bonding in a Crystalline Tri‐Thorium Cluster: Not σ‐Aromatic But Still Unique

In previous videos, Jim said he’ll only debate Ph.D’s and professors. If that’s so, why not just publish his critiques in peer-reviewed journals? Ordinary people can’t publish papers, he already does that with his graphene and molecular machines research, and he can even add it to his bibliography and h-index. He doesn’t even have to prep for debates

If Dr. Tour is so confident that his statements on origin of life are factual, why doesn’t he publish his critiques on origin of life research in reputable peer-reviewed journals like Nature or Angewandte Chemie? It’s not like you can’t publish critiques in these journals. I read 2 critiques published in Angewandte Chemie and Nature about how a compound made by Stephen Liddle’s group may not exhibit aromaticity. Why CAN you publish critiques on those topics but not origin of life if, like Jim said, they’re both basically synthetic chemistry? Critiques: [{Th(C8H8)Cl2}3]2− is stable but not aromatic, Bonding in a Crystalline Tri‐Thorium Cluster: Not σ‐Aromatic But Still Unique