Back to Bible Contradictions

Originally posted by chaney3
The lunar module is small, yet inside with crammed astronauts you have moon buggies, flags, golf clubs, etc.

Very fishy.

How small? Give us actual dimensions.

Originally posted by chaney3
Their argument focuses purely on speculation, probability and luck.

Liar. That is not true and you know it.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Sure they could, but if they had any real evidence, it would be making waves rather than remaining tucked away in some anonymous YouTube video.

[b]Maybe the real truth is somewhere in the middle.
Maybe, but unlikely.

But I am not taking it hook, line, and sinker even if sonhouse was the Director of NASA in 1969.
Nobody said you should. ...[text shortened]... y you are that you agree in advance to actually discuss it honestly afterwards.

Do you agree?[/b]

I believe this is your most signigicant statement to me so far.

I always allow for the possibility that things like the moon landings could be faked,

I agree with the speaker here that its seems very perculiar that NASA claims we lack certain solutions to problems with moon landings today which we supposedly solved decades ago.

Why not just dust off the old plans with the Saturn V and used the technology that we know WORKED before ?

How come we do not have the technology to go to the moon today when we did it (supposedly in 69) ?

1.) Dust would be a problem ???

2.) Space suits to take the temperature differences would be a problem ???

3.) Radiation in space would be problem ???

://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdeplQFbDBs

Originally posted by chaney3
One more question, if allowed.

If an 18 year old Jew, who did not yet believe in Jesus, got immediately killed by Nazis, is his destiny hell?

Meaning, did the Nazi's free will indirectly send the Jews to an eternity in hell, by stripping the Jews of an opportunity to know Jesus?

Just a couple points to help you here. First the Bible does not teach that any of our futures are guided by destiny. Also the bible does not teach that bad humans go to a fiery hell to burn forever, and it is only Jehovah who decides who lives or dies as for as eternity goes. let me know if you'd like more of an explanation on these issues.

Originally posted by galveston75
Just a couple points to help you here. First the Bible does not teach that any of our futures are guided by destiny. Also the bible does not teach that bad humans go to a fiery hell to burn forever, and it is only Jehovah who decides who lives or dies as for as eternity goes. let me know if you'd like more of an explanation on these issues.

If our futures are not guided by destiny,how do you explain prophecy?

Originally posted by sonship
I agree with the speaker here that its seems very perculiar that NASA claims we lack certain solutions to problems with moon landings today which we supposedly solved decades ago.

The speaker is wrong. We still have all the same technology and a lot more.

Why not just dust off the old plans with the Saturn V and used the technology that we know WORKED before ?
How do you think satellites are launched?

How come we do not have the technology to go to the moon today when we did it (supposedly in 69) ?
We do have the technology. What we lack is the money and reason to go there. NASA's budget was cut and it changed focus to things like the international space station and going to other planets. There simply wasn't a compelling reason to send people to the moon.

It is noted that you did not agree to honestly discuss the previous video but instead chose to try and spam the thread with more concerns.
Pick one issue you have and lets discuss it until either you accept that you are mistaken, or I accept that I am mistaken or we both accept that there simply isn't enough available information to make a call. Then we move to a new concern. Spamming just suggests you don't believe what you are saying.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The speaker is wrong. We still have all the same technology and a lot more.

[b]Why not just dust off the old plans with the Saturn V and used the technology that we know WORKED before ?


How come we do not have the technology to go to the moon today when we did it (supposedly in 69) ?


It is noted that you did not agree to h ...[text shortened]... ll. Then we move to a new concern. Spamming just suggests you don't believe what you are saying.[/b]

Did you watched the video just until you found something you thought was wrong?

Documents have been suspiciously "lost" from what I heard.
Probable whistle blowers have died rather suspiciously.
National Security in the US is taken extremely seriously and the astronauts were military men who do what they are TOLD.

Before I heard of any conspiracy I noticed some group pictures of astronauts at the Smithsonian that just didn't look right. They did not happy. I wondered why. Now maybe I know why.... maybe.

How do you think satellites are launched?
----------------------------------------------------------------

Satellites usually are not live human beings sent through the Van Allen Belts to land on the moon and brought back alive.

We do have the technology. What we lack is the money and reason to go there. NASA's budget was cut and it changed focus to things like the international space station and going to other planets. There simply wasn't a compelling reason to send people to the moon.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That may be part of it. But you still think the landing could be faked. And I do too. And while compelling reasons and money is a rationale, there also seems to be concern that we still do not have the know how to do it, which is strange if we did it.

Another thing is that any photograph taken in the sixties is subject to Photoshop doctoring since 1989. You cannot believe all you see anymore simply because you are shown an old photograph let alone a new one. That of course would go for both sides of the argument.

Tell me when you are absolutely certain then it could not have been faked.
As long as you leave that as a possibility you have no strong ground for many people believing that it was faked.

So you too are not totally convinced of what you're saying.
I have no problem saying I could be wrong about it.

Originally posted by sonship
Did you watched the video just until you found something you thought was wrong?

I didn't watch it at all. I gave you my condition for watching a video and you declined to meet my very reasonable condition.
My responses were to your post, not the video.

Documents have been suspiciously "lost" from what I heard.
Probable whistle blowers have died rather suspiciously.
National Security in the US is taken extremely seriously and the astronauts were military men who do what they are TOLD.
So you just keep on spamming the thread I see.


Satellites usually are not live human beings sent through the Van Allen Belts to land on the moon and brought back alive.
I know. But how are they launched? Its basically the same rocket technology, but improved with time. To pretending that we no longer have the technology to launch a rocket is ridiculous, and from your response I can see that you know it is ridiculous, but don't have the honesty to admit it.

That may be part of it. But you still think the landing could be faked.
Do not deliberately try and misconstrue what I said.
I think anything is possible. I am a skeptic by nature. But I have no genuine doubt that we landed on the moon. So no, I do not really think that the landing was faked.

... there also seems to be concern that we still do not have the know how to do it,
Concern from whom? Why is that persons concern relevant? Especially given that it just isn't true.

Tell me when you are absolutely certain then it could not have been faked.
I am never absolutely certain of anything. But I would bet my life that astronauts landed on the moon.

As long as you leave that as a possibility you have no strong ground for many people believing that it was faked.
Huh? Something wrong with that sentence.

I have no problem saying I could be wrong about it.
But you do apparently have a problem with having an honest discussion about it.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I didn't watch it at all. I gave you my condition for watching a video and you declined to meet my very reasonable condition.
My responses were to your post, not the video.

[b]Documents have been suspiciously "lost" from what I heard.
Probable whistle blowers have died rather suspiciously.
National Security in the US is taken extremely seriously ...[text shortened]... g about it.
But you do apparently have a problem with having an honest discussion about it.[/b]

Likewise I think I won't bother reading your post.

Originally posted by sonship
Likewise I think I won't bother reading your post.

Hilarious. I think we have proved that you don't actually want to know whether or not the moon landings were faked and the whole point of bringing it up was an attack on sonhouse because he offended you in some way.

Originally posted by sonship
Did you watched the video just until you found something you thought was wrong?

Documents have been suspiciously "lost" from what I heard.
Probable whistle blowers have died rather suspiciously.
National Security in the US is taken extremely seriously and the astronauts were military men who do what they are TOLD.

Before I heard of any con ...[text shortened]... convinced of what you're saying.
I have no problem saying I could be wrong about it.

Dude, man walked on the moon.

Nod meekly and move along.

Originally posted by sonship
Dust off your Bible. You can read a chapter or two or three.
Do you stay away from the Bible because of fear that reading it may change you?

Over the sixteen hundred years in which the 66 books of the Bible were written, some very bad tragedies occurred. For example, the descendents of Jacob were under the cruelest ethnic cleansing, genocide, and sla ...[text shortened]... s not extinguished though there are strong setbacks of opposing forces that seem to win the day.

Dictionary.com: Theocracy: "a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God's or deity's laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities. 2. a system of government by priests claiming a divine commission."

Sonship: "...the one and only genuinely theocratic nation in history - Israel."

I don't know what is meant by "genuinely" here. By both definitions 1 and 2 it is clear that theocracies are run by humans who claim to be intermediaries between a god and the governed. Perhaps what you mean is that in the case of
Israel, these claims are genuine, correct and true?

If so, would you support establishing such a theocracy elsewhere?

Originally posted by OdBod
If our futures are not guided by destiny,how do you explain prophecy?

Great question. If you are interested I'm posting a fantastic link here on that subject that clarifies what the differences are. Please look over it as you've asked a question that many would like some help with....

http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200001549#h=1:0-57:1201

Originally posted by galveston75
Great question. If you are interested I'm posting a fantastic link here on that subject that clarifies what the differences are. Please look oveit as you've asked a question that many would like some help with....
ss
http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200001549#h=1:0-57:1201

I will have to get back to you on that,I am not very good at computer/internet stuff,I will have to get someone to help me,unless you can explain in your own words?

Originally posted by JS357

Dictionary.com: Theocracy: "a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God's or deity's laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities. 2. a system of government by priests claiming a divine commission."

Sonship: "...the one and only genuinely theocratic nation in history - Israel."

I don't know what is meant by "genuinely" here. By both definitions 1 and 2 it is clear that theocracies are run by humans who claim to be intermediaries between a god and the governed. Perhaps what you mean is that in the case of
Israel, these claims are genuine, correct and true?

That captures what I am trying to say. The nation of Israel was a truly theocratic nation. As far as I know, the only real one in history.

At the coming of Jesus their opposition to Him was so intense that the Son of God said that the kingdom would be taken from them and given to a nation producing the fruits God sought.

" Therefore I say to you that the kingdom of God shall be taken from you and shall be given to a nation producing its fruits." (Matt. 21:43)

If so, would you support establishing such a theocracy elsewhere?

I probably would consider it a flawed attempt to imitate what God established with ancient Israel.

The normal prevailing church life is the kingdom of God today. And I am thoroughly occupied with her. At Christ's second coming He will smash to pieces all human governments to establish His millennial reign over the planet.