<t>Snowfire;1169428 wrote: Are there STILL people who believe the moon landing was a hoax.<br/> <br/> The elaborate hoax is is supported only by the crutch of bad science. There is no evidence that the event never took place. <br/> <br/> None !<br/> <br/> <br/> Does any body here sees in these words...

<t>oscar;1169223 wrote: Well said..... people in the real world want proof.<br/> <br/> If man left debris on the moon, why does man dismiss the 'face on mars'??<br/> <br/> <br/> Let's Jump to the moon and bring back some frogs<br/> <br/> YouTube - Moon Landing 1969 Original see Frogs/Desert Rats Pro...

<t>Clodhopper;1169173 wrote: I disbelieve conspiracy theories on principle. So far I have never been shown to be wrong on ANY of them. By all means believe this sort of rubbish if you like. Just don't expect me to. I find reality quite worrying enough.<br/> <br/> Oh, by the way, Obama is an alien.:y...

<t>Galbally;1135960 wrote: <br/> <br/> The facts are these. <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> Man really stepped on the moon in 1969.<br/> <br/> Man went to the moon in 1969. <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> How can you demostrate the above?, or is it just your believe by faith?<br/> <br/> Steps of the Scientifi...

The following videos show you the ugly facts, share them with friends and relatives; please, feel free to translate them to those other languages that know



fake_(1-4).wmv

fake_(2-4).wmv

fake_(3-4).wmv

fake_(4-4).wmv

<r>Gannet101;671144 wrote: (1 Timothy 1:4) Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.<br/> <br/> (Titus 3:9) But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they a...

<t>Ted;654195 wrote: iesous:-6 <br/> <br/> I am well acquainted with history but not the kind that conspiracy theorists create. <br/> <br/> I read, in spite of a severe visual impairment all kinds of scholarly work including history. It it seems to me that you simply brush them off as ignorant. Sorr...

Thank,

For years I could not understand why for english speakers "JESUS" becomes "YISAS", if you want to know the truth go to

http://texto-recepto.iespana.es/iesus.html

and some other mysteries solved

<r>For years I could not understand why for english speakers "JESUS" becomes "YISAS", if you want to know the truth go to<br/> <br/> <URL url="http://texto-recepto.iespana.es/iesus.html">http://texto-recepto.iespana.es/iesus.html</URL><br/> <br/> and some other mysteries solved<br/> <br/> <br/> <br/...

<r>That are the proofs: just imagination, expeculation; rejection of math application<br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> The clouds are not traveling on the water surface even though by the perspective law they descend and hide behind the horizont line<br/> <br/> The following Oil Platform is 10 km from lense'e...

Ted;651828 wrote: Perhaps it could be the basis of one hell of an hilarious comedy. Reality it isn't.

Shalom

Ted:-6


Dear Ted, the past is not too far from us, look here, there and everywhere, and you will capture it

Number '11' has been with us from the beginning, just follow the site

11


and you are going to know why the Vatican placed the name "JESUS" instead of the real name

<t>Galbally;646396 wrote: I think its the "Flat Earth Society" people again, I wouldn't worry too much about it. Great graphics though, whatever they are. :wah:<br/> <br/> <br/> I don't belong to tha society, I am alone: I like to take measurements and compare them with expected value, that is simpl...

<t>Bill Sikes;646496 wrote: Of course it's not a globe, if by that you mean a sphere. It's an oblate spheroid. This was known in what, the 17th. century? Please try to keep up!<br/> <br/> <br/> Bill the oblate spheroid to which you refer <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> doesn't correspond with "images" of NO...

<t>buttercup;646381 wrote: Excuse my ignorance on the subject but how is this a religion? Who do you worship?<br/> <br/> <br/> FIRST QUESTION<br/> <br/> All the believers in a round floating earth belive that without having any real proof, they believe that their priests can show easily the proofs, ...

<t>The priests of the Floating Earth Religion teach us that the earth is a rotating ball within the vaccum space<br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> But they never give real proofs, but speculations. We can build a cheap and simple device to show that the earth does not rotate at all, using a protractor, tying a...

<t>Ted;645193 wrote: With a lengthy exposure one can see the parth the stars apparently make but this is due to the rotation of the earth<br/> <br/> <br/> Dear Ted, that is not science, to affirm that the true is the opposit to what you see and record. In science you must take measurements and compa...

<t>Ted;645159 wrote: It is the earth turning on its axis that makes the sun appear to rise and set. The earth did not stop turning.<br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> Dear Ted, in some future post I will show instrument that showa the myth of the rotating earth, I invite you to build one of th...

<t>Ted;645052 wrote: <br/> <br/> When you are copying down a URL if you put immediately at the end it will come up with a line under it and all one then has to do is right click on it and they will go automatically to the site. It just helps others to follow what you are saying more easily. Thanks.<...

<t>Believing that some readers would like to know who are the "Arabes" and why their language is not hebrew as that of the sons of Abraam, I copy for you part of a document at iesousxristosDOTbravehostDOTcom/factisfactDOThtml [put . instead of DOT]<br/> <br/> Ismael was not Arabe but he was as Hebre...

<t>Ted;644486 wrote: <br/> <br/> Revelation is not about some time in the distant future. It is about John's time and the immediate future for him. Crossan, Borg, Spong, Gordon, and a whole host of other biblical scholars.<br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> Ted, Can you show us any document that shows [no...

<t>Therefore thus saith the LORD, If thou return, then will I bring thee again, and thou shalt stand before me: and if thou take forth the precious from the vile, thou shalt be as my mouth: let them return unto thee; but return not thou unto them.<br/> <br/> <br/> Many readers clasify the book of Ap...

<t>Ted;643817 wrote: The Roman Catholic Church became the official church of the Roman Empire under Constantine in 380. <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> Dear Ted, Constantine was as Pontifix Maximun as Iulio Caesar, and for sure Caesar was not the first Pontifex Maximun, <br/> <br/> Annum agens sextum ...

<t>Ted;643663 wrote: iesous:-6 <br/> <br/> Your last paragraph flies in the face of the historical facts concerning the compilation of the Bible. We did not have the autographs. They had long ago disappeared or more likely disintegrated due to age.<br/> <br/> The Bible as we have it today was compil...

<t>Ted;643664 wrote: BTW Chonsi has answered the question about Zeur=theus.<br/> <br/> Shalom<br/> <br/> Ted:-6<br/> <br/> <br/> I know about "DIOS", "ZEUS" and "THEOS" in greek characters, but I don't know what "THEUS" is, and if the sound is equal or different to "ZEUS". In latin appears "DEUS" wh...

<t>spot;643643 wrote: Any text at all in Latin is going to have no J/j anywhere, even today. A spelling in Latin of "IESVS" is perfectly correct, for Latin, and always has been and still is. Why is the English (and, presumably, also Spanish) spelling so crucial in calling on the Lord's name?<br/> <b...

<t>The 47 [or more] wisemen hired by King James in 1611 wrote Eli-zeus in Luke 4:27 and Timo-theus (first epistle of Paul to Thessalonians)<br/> <br/> Was "Theus" different to "Zeus"?<br/> <br/> Was this "Zeus" different to the Greek "Zeus"?<br/> <br/> How could those 47 wisemen agree in writing "Ze...

<t>spot;643267 wrote: Have a [I remove this link because it didn't allow me to post] that's a facsimile page from the 1611 King James version.<br/> <br/> You'll see "Chap. j" where "j" is not a consonant, it's a numeric "one". That's a convention of the time.<br/> <br/> You'll see that there are two...

<t>spot;643020 wrote: That's slightly different. The lowercase "j" there is a numbering device, not a consonant. The J j types are not used in the Bible of 1611 as letters. By 1640 the differentiation was well established but even into the 1800s I and J were still being used for the consonant value ...

<r>spot;642959 wrote: Wycliffe's use occurred by 1382 when his translation was first published, not "380". I think you dropped a "1".<br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> Dear thank you for your time, about the dates I just wanted to mean "around those years". <br/> <br/> The real point in the post was to m...

<r>Dears, peace to all those<br/> <br/> Any of you did know that in the year 380 Wycliffe used "IHU" instead of "JESUS", and Gutenberg, in the year 1454. used "IHESUS" instead of "JESUS" and in the year 1611 the 47 experts in Greek, Hebrew and English used "IESVS" instead of "JESUS" in the KJV 1611?...