It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Are muslims actually worshipping the devil (baphomet)

page: 7
4
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 28 2016 @ 11:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: Kais123

Clocks only go up to 24 hours, but usually 12 hours. The most a normal clock can "count" is 60. That's a far cry from 92.

It's visible in the Off-Topic section of the site.


as i said i cant recallo exactley why its 92....but it is....the entities told me so




posted on Nov, 28 2016 @ 11:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Kais123

It's still in the religious section.

Maybe, instead of posting 6 threads about letters being assigned arbitrary numbers, you should have looked through the newbie section.
edit on 28112016 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2016 @ 11:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kais123

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: Kais123

Clocks only go up to 24 hours, but usually 12 hours. The most a normal clock can "count" is 60. That's a far cry from 92.

It's visible in the Off-Topic section of the site.


as i said i cant recallo exactley why its 92....but it is....the entities told me so


So some "entity" told you that 92 was super important and you forgot what it is?

I'm the devil (as proven with numbers in an earlier post) and I've got a bridge to sell you.



posted on Nov, 28 2016 @ 11:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Kais123

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: Kais123

Clocks only go up to 24 hours, but usually 12 hours. The most a normal clock can "count" is 60. That's a far cry from 92.

It's visible in the Off-Topic section of the site.


as i said i cant recallo exactley why its 92....but it is....the entities told me so


So some "entity" told you that 92 was super important and you forgot what it is?

I'm the devil (as proven with numbers in an earlier post) and I've got a bridge to sell you.


its not a rainbow bridge it it?

RAINBOW

RI = 69 AN = 12 BOW = 23 23

so you have 69 21 23

makings of the illuminati if you ask me!

BRIDGE

2 6 9 4 7 5

69 24 12

69 12 21



posted on Nov, 28 2016 @ 11:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Kais123

Making up numbers to replace modern English and thinking it's something special is downright hilarious.

Shame your trying to do it in a language that didn't exist and has more letters than the language it originates from. That means it's complete bunk.



posted on Nov, 28 2016 @ 12:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: Kais123

Making up numbers to replace modern English and thinking it's something special is downright hilarious.

Shame your trying to do it in a language that didn't exist and has more letters than the language it originates from. That means it's complete bunk.
as i said before - i beg to difer



posted on Nov, 28 2016 @ 12:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kais123

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: Kais123

Making up numbers to replace modern English and thinking it's something special is downright hilarious.

Shame your trying to do it in a language that didn't exist and has more letters than the language it originates from. That means it's complete bunk.
as i said before - i beg to difer


You can beg to differ till the cows come home. Until you can show how using a language, that wasn't conceived at the time, is somehow valid, makes your opinion moot.

Why not use Aramaic? Oh, wait, that's not got enough letters in it's alphabet to make this nonesense work.



posted on Nov, 28 2016 @ 01:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Kais123

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: Kais123

Making up numbers to replace modern English and thinking it's something special is downright hilarious.

Shame your trying to do it in a language that didn't exist and has more letters than the language it originates from. That means it's complete bunk.
as i said before - i beg to difer


You can beg to differ till the cows come home. Until you can show how using a language, that wasn't conceived at the time, is somehow valid, makes your opinion moot.

Why not use Aramaic? Oh, wait, that's not got enough letters in it's alphabet to make this nonesense work.


this was the build up to the english language.....every word is coded



posted on Nov, 28 2016 @ 01:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kais123

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Kais123

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: Kais123

Making up numbers to replace modern English and thinking it's something special is downright hilarious.

Shame your trying to do it in a language that didn't exist and has more letters than the language it originates from. That means it's complete bunk.
as i said before - i beg to difer


You can beg to differ till the cows come home. Until you can show how using a language, that wasn't conceived at the time, is somehow valid, makes your opinion moot.

Why not use Aramaic? Oh, wait, that's not got enough letters in it's alphabet to make this nonesense work.


this was the build up to the english language.....every word is coded


No, it wasn't lol.

You REALLY need to look up how languages have developed and how some have developed away from others.

Using numbers instead of letters from a modern English translation of something written 2000 years ago is pure rubbish. It's like trying to decipher hieroglyphs by reading Garfield comics.



posted on Nov, 28 2016 @ 01:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Kais123

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Kais123

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: Kais123

Making up numbers to replace modern English and thinking it's something special is downright hilarious.

Shame your trying to do it in a language that didn't exist and has more letters than the language it originates from. That means it's complete bunk.
as i said before - i beg to difer


You can beg to differ till the cows come home. Until you can show how using a language, that wasn't conceived at the time, is somehow valid, makes your opinion moot.

Why not use Aramaic? Oh, wait, that's not got enough letters in it's alphabet to make this nonesense work.


this was the build up to the english language.....every word is coded


No, it wasn't lol.

You REALLY need to look up how languages have developed and how some have developed away from others.

Using numbers instead of letters from a modern English translation of something written 2000 years ago is pure rubbish. It's like trying to decipher hieroglyphs by reading Garfield comics.
you really trying hard arnt you.....pity my posts prove otherwise



posted on Nov, 28 2016 @ 01:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kais123

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Kais123

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Kais123

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: Kais123

Making up numbers to replace modern English and thinking it's something special is downright hilarious.

Shame your trying to do it in a language that didn't exist and has more letters than the language it originates from. That means it's complete bunk.
as i said before - i beg to difer


You can beg to differ till the cows come home. Until you can show how using a language, that wasn't conceived at the time, is somehow valid, makes your opinion moot.

Why not use Aramaic? Oh, wait, that's not got enough letters in it's alphabet to make this nonesense work.


this was the build up to the english language.....every word is coded


No, it wasn't lol.

You REALLY need to look up how languages have developed and how some have developed away from others.

Using numbers instead of letters from a modern English translation of something written 2000 years ago is pure rubbish. It's like trying to decipher hieroglyphs by reading Garfield comics.
you really trying hard arnt you.....pity my posts prove otherwise


I don't have to try anything. Your posts prove that if you take modern English and arbitrarily assign numbers to them, you can make anything add up to whatever you want it to.

Kais123

K=11
A=1
I=9
S=19
1=1
2=2
3=3

11+1+9+19=40
1+2+3=6
46

4 6's =6666

You're even more of a Satan than I am.



posted on Nov, 28 2016 @ 01:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Kais123

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Kais123

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Kais123

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: Kais123

Making up numbers to replace modern English and thinking it's something special is downright hilarious.

Shame your trying to do it in a language that didn't exist and has more letters than the language it originates from. That means it's complete bunk.
as i said before - i beg to difer


You can beg to differ till the cows come home. Until you can show how using a language, that wasn't conceived at the time, is somehow valid, makes your opinion moot.

Why not use Aramaic? Oh, wait, that's not got enough letters in it's alphabet to make this nonesense work.


this was the build up to the english language.....every word is coded


No, it wasn't lol.

You REALLY need to look up how languages have developed and how some have developed away from others.

Using numbers instead of letters from a modern English translation of something written 2000 years ago is pure rubbish. It's like trying to decipher hieroglyphs by reading Garfield comics.
you really trying hard arnt you.....pity my posts prove otherwise


I don't have to try anything. Your posts prove that if you take modern English and arbitrarily assign numbers to them, you can make anything add up to whatever you want it to.

Kais123

K=11
A=1
I=9
S=19
1=1
2=2
3=3

11+1+9+19=40
1+2+3=6
46

4 6's =6666

You're even more of a Satan than I am.



as i said before....im not adding numbers up....its more of a direct translation
edit on 28-11-2016 by Kais123 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2016 @ 01:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kais123

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Kais123

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Kais123

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Kais123

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: Kais123

Making up numbers to replace modern English and thinking it's something special is downright hilarious.

Shame your trying to do it in a language that didn't exist and has more letters than the language it originates from. That means it's complete bunk.
as i said before - i beg to difer


You can beg to differ till the cows come home. Until you can show how using a language, that wasn't conceived at the time, is somehow valid, makes your opinion moot.

Why not use Aramaic? Oh, wait, that's not got enough letters in it's alphabet to make this nonesense work.


this was the build up to the english language.....every word is coded


No, it wasn't lol.

You REALLY need to look up how languages have developed and how some have developed away from others.

Using numbers instead of letters from a modern English translation of something written 2000 years ago is pure rubbish. It's like trying to decipher hieroglyphs by reading Garfield comics.
you really trying hard arnt you.....pity my posts prove otherwise


I don't have to try anything. Your posts prove that if you take modern English and arbitrarily assign numbers to them, you can make anything add up to whatever you want it to.

Kais123

K=11
A=1
I=9
S=19
1=1
2=2
3=3

11+1+9+19=40
1+2+3=6
46

4 6's =6666

You're even more of a Satan than I am.



as i said before....im not adding numbers up....its more of a direct translation


You ARE adding numbers up. And minusing, multiplying and dividing.

You're using a "direct translation" with 2 languages that didn't exist at the same time and have a date gap of around 1000 years.

The original language doesn't even have the same amount of letters as modern English.

So, in conclusion, it's made up to fit whatever you want it to fit. In other words, it's rubbish.



posted on Nov, 28 2016 @ 02:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Kais123

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Kais123

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Kais123

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Kais123

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: Kais123

Making up numbers to replace modern English and thinking it's something special is downright hilarious.

Shame your trying to do it in a language that didn't exist and has more letters than the language it originates from. That means it's complete bunk.
as i said before - i beg to difer


You can beg to differ till the cows come home. Until you can show how using a language, that wasn't conceived at the time, is somehow valid, makes your opinion moot.

Why not use Aramaic? Oh, wait, that's not got enough letters in it's alphabet to make this nonesense work.


this was the build up to the english language.....every word is coded


No, it wasn't lol.

You REALLY need to look up how languages have developed and how some have developed away from others.

Using numbers instead of letters from a modern English translation of something written 2000 years ago is pure rubbish. It's like trying to decipher hieroglyphs by reading Garfield comics.
you really trying hard arnt you.....pity my posts prove otherwise


I don't have to try anything. Your posts prove that if you take modern English and arbitrarily assign numbers to them, you can make anything add up to whatever you want it to.

Kais123

K=11
A=1
I=9
S=19
1=1
2=2
3=3

11+1+9+19=40
1+2+3=6
46

4 6's =6666

You're even more of a Satan than I am.



as i said before....im not adding numbers up....its more of a direct translation


You ARE adding numbers up. And minusing, multiplying and dividing.

You're using a "direct translation" with 2 languages that didn't exist at the same time and have a date gap of around 1000 years.

The original language doesn't even have the same amount of letters as modern English.

So, in conclusion, it's made up to fit whatever you want it to fit. In other words, it's rubbish.
you know it works, but you mind cant handle it



posted on Nov, 28 2016 @ 02:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kais123

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Kais123

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Kais123

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Kais123

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Kais123

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: Kais123

Making up numbers to replace modern English and thinking it's something special is downright hilarious.

Shame your trying to do it in a language that didn't exist and has more letters than the language it originates from. That means it's complete bunk.
as i said before - i beg to difer


You can beg to differ till the cows come home. Until you can show how using a language, that wasn't conceived at the time, is somehow valid, makes your opinion moot.

Why not use Aramaic? Oh, wait, that's not got enough letters in it's alphabet to make this nonesense work.


this was the build up to the english language.....every word is coded


No, it wasn't lol.

You REALLY need to look up how languages have developed and how some have developed away from others.

Using numbers instead of letters from a modern English translation of something written 2000 years ago is pure rubbish. It's like trying to decipher hieroglyphs by reading Garfield comics.
you really trying hard arnt you.....pity my posts prove otherwise


I don't have to try anything. Your posts prove that if you take modern English and arbitrarily assign numbers to them, you can make anything add up to whatever you want it to.

Kais123

K=11
A=1
I=9
S=19
1=1
2=2
3=3

11+1+9+19=40
1+2+3=6
46

4 6's =6666

You're even more of a Satan than I am.



as i said before....im not adding numbers up....its more of a direct translation


You ARE adding numbers up. And minusing, multiplying and dividing.

You're using a "direct translation" with 2 languages that didn't exist at the same time and have a date gap of around 1000 years.

The original language doesn't even have the same amount of letters as modern English.

So, in conclusion, it's made up to fit whatever you want it to fit. In other words, it's rubbish.
you know it works, but you mind cant handle it


You keep saying that to people who call you out on how badly this is done because of language and transliteration problems.

I think it's you whose mind can't handle it being fake.



posted on Nov, 28 2016 @ 02:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Kais123

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Kais123

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Kais123

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Kais123

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Kais123

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: Kais123

Making up numbers to replace modern English and thinking it's something special is downright hilarious.

Shame your trying to do it in a language that didn't exist and has more letters than the language it originates from. That means it's complete bunk.
as i said before - i beg to difer


You can beg to differ till the cows come home. Until you can show how using a language, that wasn't conceived at the time, is somehow valid, makes your opinion moot.

Why not use Aramaic? Oh, wait, that's not got enough letters in it's alphabet to make this nonesense work.


this was the build up to the english language.....every word is coded


No, it wasn't lol.

You REALLY need to look up how languages have developed and how some have developed away from others.

Using numbers instead of letters from a modern English translation of something written 2000 years ago is pure rubbish. It's like trying to decipher hieroglyphs by reading Garfield comics.
you really trying hard arnt you.....pity my posts prove otherwise


I don't have to try anything. Your posts prove that if you take modern English and arbitrarily assign numbers to them, you can make anything add up to whatever you want it to.

Kais123

K=11
A=1
I=9
S=19
1=1
2=2
3=3

11+1+9+19=40
1+2+3=6
46

4 6's =6666

You're even more of a Satan than I am.



as i said before....im not adding numbers up....its more of a direct translation


You ARE adding numbers up. And minusing, multiplying and dividing.

You're using a "direct translation" with 2 languages that didn't exist at the same time and have a date gap of around 1000 years.

The original language doesn't even have the same amount of letters as modern English.

So, in conclusion, it's made up to fit whatever you want it to fit. In other words, it's rubbish.
you know it works, but you mind cant handle it


You keep saying that to people who call you out on how badly this is done because of language and transliteration problems.

I think it's you whose mind can't handle it being fake.


i have now made many posts with workings out and formula...i know it works and is correct....as i have checked it over many times....

as i said English is a coded language....almost each word is a code for somthing in numerical form



posted on Nov, 28 2016 @ 02:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Kais123

You have made many posts using a letter to number code that fails because it's not based on the original language, but a language that started about 1000 years AFTER the language you (badly) transliterated.

Like I said, it's rubbish because you're using the wrong language and words that weren't invented yet.
edit on 28112016 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2016 @ 03:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: Kais123

You have made many posts using a letter to number code that fails because it's not based on the original language, but a language that started about 1000 years AFTER the language you (badly) transliterated.

Like I said, it's rubbish because you're using the wrong language and words that weren't invented yet.
well i will carry on regardless......and why is it just you replying to this thread???


edit on 29-11-2016 by Kais123 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2016 @ 04:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kais123

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: Kais123

You have made many posts using a letter to number code that fails because it's not based on the original language, but a language that started about 1000 years AFTER the language you (badly) transliterated.

Like I said, it's rubbish because you're using the wrong language and words that weren't invented yet.
well i will carry on regardless......and why is it just you replying to this thread???



Carry on if you like. Doesn't mean it's not completely made up rubbish.

Probably because people don't have the patience to debate with someone who won't debate?



posted on Nov, 29 2016 @ 04:31 AM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

Im an asshole, but, i have a purpose..

Im trying to figure out your equation since you dont really full any function than derailing.. Are you a mason terrydon79? I believe helping someone finding a spiritual path is a better guidance than telling someone he is different and weird.

I'm not sure you are clever enough to see anything that doesn't fit your subjective view.. How many teachers are willing to take you under their wings? One?

What is your purpose? Either you believe you are telling the truth, or you lie.. I'm trying to see which one you are




top topics



 
4
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join