View Full Version : U.S. will cease to exist in 2007
Psi Baba
30th March 2005, 06:36 AM
:rolleyes:
Move over, Nostradamus (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1111980180248)
Let the countdown begin. I think Randi should put a new clock on the JREF homepage.
Ladewig
30th March 2005, 08:55 AM
The Narrative Sura, he noted, clearly suggests that the US will drown in the sea.
A great sin will cause a huge flood in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans."
If the U.S. "drowns" because of flooding in the Atlantic and Pacific, then every nation on earth (except maybe a dozen mountainous countries) is going to feel some ill effects as well.
Kodiak
30th March 2005, 09:04 AM
Originally posted by Ladewig
If the U.S. "drowns" because of flooding in the Atlantic and Pacific, then every nation on earth (except maybe a dozen mountainous countries) is going to feel some ill effects as well.
Now, how dare you apply logic to such a prophecy?!?
Scot C. Trypal
30th March 2005, 09:27 AM
Originally posted by Psi Baba
:rolleyes:
Move over, Nostradamus (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1111980180248)
Let the countdown begin. I think Randi should put a new clock on the JREF homepage.
That’s just ridiculous and I can prove it:
Gen 9:14-16
And it shall come to pass, when I [God] bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud: And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh. And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.
Or does the term “all flesh” leave loophole?
Checkmite
30th March 2005, 09:35 AM
A great sin will cause a huge flood in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.
A flood in an ocean? Is that something like a candle in a bucket of wax?
TragicMonkey
30th March 2005, 09:39 AM
Originally posted by Scot C. Trypal
Or does the term “all flesh” leave loophole?
The same one as in Merchant of Venice: everything that has flesh also has blood, and bone, and some other stuff. That makes us creatures of NOT all flesh.
Also, "upon the earth"....that could be interpreted to mean only people currently touching bare earth would be safe, and not the ones in vehicles, or buildings, or wearing shoes.
Scot C. Trypal
30th March 2005, 09:53 AM
Originally posted by TragicMonkey
The same one as in Merchant of Venice: everything that has flesh also has blood, and bone, and some other stuff. That makes us creatures of NOT all flesh.
Also, "upon the earth"....that could be interpreted to mean only people currently touching bare earth would be safe, and not the ones in vehicles, or buildings, or wearing shoes.
Our God is an awesome God, with awesome lawyers.
rikzilla
30th March 2005, 10:13 AM
2007 huh?
That blows. I guess I'll need to move my 401(k) into off-shore stocks! :eek:
-z
Ladewig
30th March 2005, 11:44 AM
Also, why is the cleric using the Gregorian calendar rather than the Islamic calendar when playing with the numerology dates?
2001-2009, James Randi Educational Foundation. All Rights Reserved.
vBulletin® v3.7.7, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.