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.

 

Saddam is a Mason !

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 25 2003 @ 07:02 PM
link   
No I strongly think that it was the king of Lebanon because I correlated him to being of the same nationality of a friend who is lebanese...been a while heh


But I do find it amusing that you should try to use the bible as a "prophetic" source, when all the true prophets, whom probably more or less just said something that was true EITHER WAY the event came out (like the mirror of Galadriel, it might come true if you try to avoid it, or your trying to avoid it might keep it from coming true), well anyways, all the prophets were burned by the Church, or discounted.

Nothing in the bible has ever come true, so why do people think it is coming true now?

I'm sure the people of the middle ages thought the Crusades were the coming of Armeggedon too, but they were wrong.




posted on Mar, 25 2003 @ 07:58 PM
link   
well now we have nuclear weapons inseatd of cannons.


GS1

posted on Mar, 25 2003 @ 08:03 PM
link   
Isn't the Bible a living book ?? The mases give it life!!
So isn't that why people wait on things to happen over and over again. Or see something and apply the Bible to it.



posted on Mar, 26 2003 @ 01:03 AM
link   
Quote: "Nothing in the bible has ever come true"

Why do you believe that? Thanks.



posted on Mar, 26 2003 @ 01:06 AM
link   
YO MASON BOY GET A SMALLER PIC!
Mine was a few pixels over
your's is like 100s

It's against TOS



posted on Mar, 26 2003 @ 02:00 AM
link   
Lysergic, the man with the large avatar certainly is no Mason.

Other sir, because nothing in the Bible HAS come true.

For one good reason, it is not a "Phrophecy", it has stories in it which teach lessons to life, just because events that happen that vaguely resemble biblical stories, does not mean they are related. At all.

It is as if one tries to relate Beowulf to current events, it is quite possible I'm sure. But no one believes Beowulf as if it were the prediction of the end of the world, so no one bothers.



posted on Mar, 26 2003 @ 10:14 AM
link   
Anyone of you so called Masons, know if King James was one?


arc

posted on Mar, 26 2003 @ 10:47 AM
link   
not a mason (wrong gender) but can provide an answer

King James I was not only a mason but the first king to be known as one. Initiated into lodge of Scoon and Perth at age of 35.



posted on Mar, 26 2003 @ 11:40 AM
link   


If Hammerite is a mason I would surely like to meet him.

As for Saddam, no there is no Freemasonry in Iraq, dictatorships don't like groups that can think away from the party toe.



xmb.abovetopsecret.com...

tooting your own horn i see



posted on Mar, 26 2003 @ 10:08 PM
link   
So, that means if King James is a Mason, then the bible was written by a mason.


And we all know what Masons are.



posted on Mar, 26 2003 @ 10:31 PM
link   
*LMAO*

King James wrote the bible????



posted on Mar, 27 2003 @ 06:43 PM
link   
King James funded a translation of the Bible, from Latin to English.

Sir Francis Bacon, Freemason, Rosicrucian and probably Shakespeare, edited this translation.

A researcher claimed in 1870 that he found 38,012 translation errors.

Among the more interesting alterations, some of the names for God were altered. Elohim - a PLURAL word, Adonai. others went away. Sort of changes the meaning, when you eliminate plural words for God in a book written by a monotheistic God.



posted on Mar, 27 2003 @ 06:53 PM
link   
Wait, I would think removing plural words from the Bible would be a good thing. If I agreed with editing any...I don't think the bible should be edited now at all, all the many versions must be preserved for history's sake.

But some things make no sense to monotheism, such as "You thought you could sit upon the mountain where the gods live". In Jerimiah I believe....but when you know Jewish history it makes perfect sense.



posted on Mar, 28 2003 @ 07:11 PM
link   
removing plural words from the Bible would further change the true meaning and translation of the Bible. Isn't that wrong?!?!?!



posted on Mar, 28 2003 @ 07:53 PM
link   
Yes, that's why I said (or thought, I guess I failed to get across my thought though), that changing the plurality to singular would be a practical thing to do, but we shouldn't do that for historical reasons.

Future Generations wouldn't realize what the Jews really thought, at that time if we did so.



posted on Mar, 28 2003 @ 11:52 PM
link   
oh.... ok my bad



posted on Mar, 29 2003 @ 10:54 AM
link   
That brings up more problems.

1) The meaning of words change over time. In my own lifetime, the word "bad" went from meaning "bad" to sometimes meaning "bad", and sometimes meaning "Excellent", depending on context. It can be difficult to explain this to a foreigner. In a thousand years, will people be able to differentiate what we mean by "bad" today?

2) There are 50,000 words in the Hebrew language. At least 500,000 in the English language. English speaking people are accustomed to a degree of precision undreamed of in other cultures.

When the word "leprosy" is used in the Bible, it means a disease which shows up in the skin. Smallpox, chicken pox, measles or Hansens disease - what we call leprosy. If you didn't know this, you would think Hansens disease was very common in the Old Testament days.

Which leads to

3) Translators of the Bible are believers. There is a tendency to glorify God by using the most extreme translation of a word. If a word can be translated to mean a group, a crowd or a host of thousands, the host of thousands will be the chosen translation.

These things, taken together, cause me to pause in awe and wonder when some all-knowing True Believer starts in with "Every word in the Bible is literally true". Oral traditions told in Hebrew and Aramaic. Written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Translated to Latin. Then to English, centuries ago. Devoid of translation errors. And it can be understood by barely literate 21st century people without explanation. It must truly be divinely inspired.



posted on Mar, 29 2003 @ 06:56 PM
link   




These things, taken together, cause me to pause in awe and wonder when some all-knowing True Believer starts in with "Every word in the Bible is literally true". Oral traditions told in Hebrew and Aramaic. Written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Translated to Latin. Then to English, centuries ago. Devoid of translation errors. And it can be understood by barely literate 21st century people without explanation. It must truly be divinely inspired.


There are a lot of people on this board that need to read that



posted on Nov, 29 2003 @ 09:12 PM
link   
Saddam is a sunni and practises Sufi.
I just read somewhere that an organization called
al-Jamiya took credit for an attack against several buildings that they said were intended for Freemasons.



posted on Nov, 30 2003 @ 02:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by William
Geeze... well... if it's on a website, it must be true.

-sigh-

Saddam's ethnicity and religion precludes Masonic membership.



I don't know if he is a Mason or not. I pertsonally doubt it.

But the last statement above is fallacious, nothing about a person's religion or ethnicity can preclude their membership.


* EPLURIBUS gets my vote for oldest topic resurrection for the month. What an archaeological find. *

[Edited on 30-11-2003 by MaskedAvatar]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join