Whirlwind
Options
Comments
-
And the 4 of you can't even agree with each other about the scriptures which you claim to be "the truth". If it were truly the truth, there would be no disagreement between all of you. What you follow IS a religion by definition and you can go look it up. Once you do, I just won another debate against you.
-
A lot of the Bible is written in code and parable so no it does not say America or United States.
The Israelites never went back into Egypt on ships... Remember during the Exodus the Most High destroyed Egypt?
Why do you make it so hard to understand the truth?
Christ wasnt born on December 25 yet you dont give the white man a hard time when he have you celebrating Christmas, Easter, and etc etc.
whats the point in even debating people like fait_money ?
hes whiteman knowledge is futile in this debate thats why he ran away with his tail tucked between his legs.
look @ jaded righteouness...dude has never even read the bible, yet he thinks he can hold down a debate, lol.
im not guna waste my time with these clowns anymore.
ask them to break down joel 3, and notice how they IGNORE IT. -
Hyde Parke wrote: »this could take awhile.
lol exactly, because you cant show any physical or historical evidence of israelites going back into egypt in ships...therefore this can go on forever...
clowns like vibe calling himself american yet his father is mexican...shows u how stupid people in the SL really are...
fait money calles himself afircan american by 'political' terms...in other words hes claiming to be two nationalities at once LOL...yet i asked him what his ancestors were called n watch language thye spoke etc...and he had no idea.
im delaing with ? reprobates right now, so its pointless even debating.
you are probably the same, another ? with no identity, no knowledge or wisdom..just scoffing on internet forums.
why not actually read the bible before u actually debate, it will save u looking like idiots. -
One Spliff;3429945
you are probably the same, another ? with no identity, no knowledge or wisdom..just scoffing on internet forums.
why not actually read the bible before u actually debate, it will save u looking like idiots.
man, chill on all that, and stop actin like ? do when they get a hold of a little self discovery. I aint scoffn here in this flimsy ass thread, you doing that on your own. I wont go in on you, because readin back on my posts in here, i can see how you could think that, but im not about that. You can be the most read ? on the planet, but that dont mean nothing if your mind and spirit not in the right place, so spare me with that read the bible mess. Get back to teaching and getting higher learning, instead of thinkin you know what others ? do and dont know. -
Where in that statement does it say that people never left Egypt on land? In the biblical exodus story, the Israelites left Egypt by miraculously crossing the Red Sea, correct? This means that in the biblical exodus story, as a means of escape, the Israelites needed to cross the Red Sea to leave Egypt.One Spliff wrote: »you said and i quote "That's not too surprising of a statement though, since they supposedly had to cross the Red Sea to leave Egypt; and typically (miracles excluded), seas are traversed by ships. So that's pretty much the primary way one would expect slaves-to-be to be taken back into Egypt.";
why make this comment if there is NO history of it every happening and if its the most inconvenient route of travel ?
clearly u have no idea where the red sea is located on a map, lol.
Where in that statement does it say the Israelites were taken back to Egypt by ship? As I mentioned, I was talking about what the verse in question was referring to; and the verse was referring to how the Israelites--in the future--will supposedly be taken to back to Egypt by ship. Me saying that a bible verse is talking about Israelites going back to Egypt by ship is not the same as me saying that the Israelites went back to Egypt by ship. There's a clear difference in tenses.One Spliff wrote: »lol YES U DID...
u said "So it's no stretch to think that a verse mentioning going back to "Egypt" referring to a people that left Ancient Egypt--written at a time when Ancient Egypt was a known place--would probably be referring to Ancient Egypt as opposed to The United States of America."
^^ lol...dont try back tracking just because u are getting murdered...we are debating deu 28:68...so obnviously we are talking about israelites going back into the land of egypt, which u clearly imply here.
I never said the Israelites had to be taken by ship directly from Israel. There are numerous routes that could be taken from Egypt across the Red Sea to land and then into Israel, or even across the Mediterranean. So there are in fact multiple sailable sea routes by which Israelites could be transported into Egypt. Sure, depending on Egypt's size and their relations with the nations/states around them at the time this "prophecy" is supposed to be fulfilled, it may be much less convenient to take the Israelites by sea to Egypt. However, it would be even more inconvenient to take them all the way to the United States of America.One Spliff wrote: »yes u did...you said:
"Certainly, if Europeans taking Africans across the Atlantic Ocean counts as satisfying Deuteronomy 28:68, then Arabs taking Africans across the Red Sea--a sea quite relevant to the biblical exodus story--centuries earlier satisfies Deuteronomy 28:68 even better."
how exactly is this relevant when the red sea is geographically impossible to cross when coming from israel to egypt LOL !!!!
what does th arab slave trade have to do with anything ?
were u asleep during gerogprahy class ?
u failed miserably...
Don't blame me if you think it doesn't make sense for the Israelites to be taken to Egypt by ship to be sold as slaves, I'm not the one who wrote the verse.
It's impressive though; you seem to be reading my posts, yet somewhere in between you reading my posts and responding, you conclude things were typed that were not. -
waterproof wrote: »And what get me about you 2/3rd's aka 85'ers ? 's is that the Whiteman done got yall lost. Yall dont beleive yall Hebrews but the white man show yall, that yall are hebrews in all his movies and that ? fly over your head.
Im about to show yall ? something since yall never believe yall Hebrew brothers but yall will listen to the white man and jew all the time. The Jew know yall Hebrews he produced AMISITAD AND FIANCE ROOTS.
On Amisitad they showed yall ? that when was on the Slave Ship we was still singin in Joy to YAHUWAH (even though it say Yahweh, for they cant stand the name of the Most High so they changed it) we on the ships rockin turbans, didnt the scripture say's the hebrews wore turbans, And praying like real Hebrews face to the ground palms up.
Yall ? done watch ROOTS a million times with your father and grandparents over the years and the Hebrew Customs flew right over your heads, but yall ? is smart and ? , the white man love making yall look STUPID.
Yall need to stop sleeping and wake up -
fiat_money wrote: »Where in that statement does it say that people never left Egypt on land? In the biblical exodus story, the Israelites left Egypt by miraculously crossing the Red Sea, correct? This means that in the biblical exodus story, as a means of escape, the Israelites needed to cross the Red Sea to leave Egypt.Where in that statement does it say the Israelites were taken back to Egypt by ship? As I mentioned, I was talking about what the verse in question was referring to; and the verse was referring to how the Israelites--in the future--will supposedly be taken to back to Egypt by ship. Me saying that a bible verse is talking about Israelites going back to Egypt by ship is not the same as me saying that the Israelites went back to Egypt by ship. There's a clear difference in tenses.I never said the Israelites had to be taken by ship directly from Israel. There are numerous routes that could be taken from Egypt across the Red Sea to land and then into Israel, or even across the Mediterranean. So there are in fact multiple sailable sea routes by which Israelites could be transported into Egypt. Sure, depending on Egypt's size and their relations with the nations/states around them at the time this "prophecy" is supposed to be fulfilled, it may be much less convenient to take the Israelites by sea to Egypt. However, it would be even more inconvenient to take them all the way to the United States of America.
Don't blame me if you think it doesn't make sense for the Israelites to be taken to Egypt by ship to be sold as slaves, I'm not the one who wrote the verse.
It's impressive though; you seem to be reading my posts, yet somewhere in between you reading my posts and responding, you conclude things were typed that were not.
u really are 1 dumb ? ...
every bible has maps in the back of it, with moses exodus route...either u are playing dumb...or u are just born dumb...dont be such a clown n stop playing games...
here it is:
lmao @ needing ships to cross the red sea for that...i told u its was the canal of suez in my first post which si the same body of water as the red sea...
YOU ARE A CLOWN !!!...u tried claiming they went back the same route with ships
the fact still remains that there is no history of israelites going into slavery in slave ships to egypt...so quit it. -
Hyde Parke wrote: »man, chill on all that, and stop actin like ? do when they get a hold of a little self discovery. I aint scoffn here in this flimsy ass thread, you doing that on your own. I wont go in on you, because readin back on my posts in here, i can see how you could think that, but im not about that. You can be the most read ? on the planet, but that dont mean nothing if your mind and spirit not in the right place, so spare me with that read the bible mess. Get back to teaching and getting higher learning, instead of thinkin you know what others ? do and dont know.
stop back tracking...
u were riding another grown mans nuts, n then dropin stupid ass comments...
if u want to learn then shut up and listen, no need for stupid comments.
nuff clowns in the SL, ask them simple question and they dodge n duck like bicthes..
all i want to know is a dudes nationality...thats it...and y'all cant even answer that simple ass question lol.
come on man...
u are grown ass men, and supposedly educated...but u cant answer a simple ass question ?
something is wrong there... -
One Spliff wrote: »stop back tracking...
u were riding another grown mans nuts, n then dropin stupid ass comments...
if u want to learn then shut up and listen, no need for stupid comments.
nuff clowns in the SL, ask them simple question and they dodge n duck like bicthes..
all i want to know is a dudes nationality...thats it...and y'all cant even answer that simple ass question lol.
come on man...
u are grown ass men, and supposedly educated...but u cant answer a simple ass question ?
something is wrong there...
? , hold the ? up, i aint rode ? , i think you got me confused, i dont ride or follow no ? . i said the ? on some other ? , how you get riding a ? nuts out of that is beyond me, i comment when and where in the ? i want to include in this sheisty ass thread you got going on in here. Now, im tolerate and patient to a point, i read thru some threads where you posted and you seemed to be on your ? , then you go off and call people names, and ignorant and all kinds of other off topic ? instead of sticking to what it is that should be yo purpose, so i cant really take you serious.at this point, so if you wanna handle yo business like that, go head, you a cat that wont every get no respect handling yourself like you are. No man knows everything, so stop with all this like you on some sacred ? , when your words dont reflect whats in your spirit. ? yo thread, ? -
Hyde Parke wrote: »? , hold the ? up, i aint rode ? , i think you got me confused, i dont ride or follow no ? . i said the ? on some other ? , how you get riding a ? nuts out of that is beyond me, i comment when and where in the ? i want to include in this sheisty ass thread you got going on in here. Now, im tolerate and patient to a point, i read thru some threads where you posted and you seemed to be on your ? , then you go off and call people names, and ignorant and all kinds of other off topic ? instead of sticking to what it is that should be yo purpose, so i cant really take you serious.at this point, so if you wanna handle yo business like that, go head, you a cat that wont every get no respect handling yourself like you are. No man knows everything, so stop with all this like you on some sacred ? , when your words dont reflect whats in your spirit. ? yo thread, ?
ok now that we've both said our peace...
lets put this behind us.
we cool. -
One Spliff wrote: »ok now that we've both said our peace...
lets put this behind us.
we cool.
no issues here, peace. -
I never said the bolded.One Spliff wrote: »...u tried claiming they went back the same route with ships
the fact still remains that there is no history of israelites going into slavery in slave ships to egypt...so quit it.
So it seems your emotions are really having a negative impact on your reading comprehension ability.
Either that, or you can only attempt refute an argument by distorting it; the "straw man" technique. -
fiat_money wrote: »I never said the bolded.
So it seems your emotions are really having a negative impact on your reading comprehension ability.
Either that, or you can only attempt refute an argument by distorting it; the "straw man" technique.
you implied it...
"That's not too surprising of a statement though, since they supposedly had to cross the Red Sea to leave Egypt; and typically (miracles excluded), seas are traversed by ships. So that's pretty much the primary way one would expect slaves-to-be to be taken back into Egypt.
Also interesting is that the same Red Sea--along with the Indian Ocean and even the Atlantic Ocean--was one of the bodies of water the Arabs used to transport millions of Africans from North and East Africa to be enslaved centuries before the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade."
^ the bold is you trying to imply we used ships to go back via the red sea, lol....or that ships wud be required for the firsdt exodus, yet when u study the first exodus u'll see ships wud have been impossible for such a small body of water.
wats funny is u also prooved my point, but using thr arab slave trade...because it was actually propchised also.
nice try tho...
i think you're just confused, thats all...i dont hold it against you.
btw, when did israelits go back into slavery in egypt ??? -
Spliff wtf are you talking about? You're changing what Fiat said to mean what you want it, how can you say what he implies or means when clearly to me he isn't saying any of what you're saying he's saying?
You have a big problem in wanting to see what you want, you've done that with me and other posters. -
No, that's just you reading something that's not there.One Spliff wrote: »you implied it...
"That's not too surprising of a statement though, since they supposedly had to cross the Red Sea to leave Egypt; and typically (miracles excluded), seas are traversed by ships. So that's pretty much the primary way one would expect slaves-to-be to be taken back into Egypt.
Also interesting is that the same Red Sea--along with the Indian Ocean and even the Atlantic Ocean--was one of the bodies of water the Arabs used to transport millions of Africans from North and East Africa to be enslaved centuries before the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade."
I don't even believe the "prophecy" or the "miraculous" parting of the seas to begin with, so I have no reason to argue that the "prophecy" has been fulfilled or that Israelites were taken back to Egypt by ship as slaves. This is why I use words like "supposedly" and "the biblical exodus story".
What those two statements refer to are Deuteronomy 28:68 and the claim based upon it that Sub-Saharan Africans are somehow Israelites. I mentioned the first part to show that transporting Israelites to Egypt by ship so they could be sold as slaves would've been a conceivable idea for a writer of the time period. This is done to refute the notion that it is a prophetical verse. And I mentioned the second part to establish that based on the reasoning behind the claim that Sub-Saharan Africans are somehow Israelites, the North and East Africans enslaved by the Arabs would qualify as Israelites as well. This is done refute any specific conclusion saying that the Sub-Saharan Africans are the only ones who satisfy the verse, and to show the expansive scope of such reasoning. -
Spliff wtf are you talking about? You're changing what Fiat said to mean what you want it, how can you say what he implies or means when clearly to me he isn't saying any of what you're saying he's saying?
You have a big problem in wanting to see what you want, you've done that with me and other posters.
lol...why u so mad vibe ?...i know i've cut u up pretty bad in the SL before, but dont hold grudges bruh....youy boy fiat still cant explain deu 28:68 and what it means...
im still waiting for anyone to tell me when israelites went back into egypt in ships, fiat keeps dodging it....look how he dodged judah7's post LOL.
maybe u can take his place... -
I read these chapters, and can't say I know what can considered the nation personified as the "prostitute", especially since the time-frame isn't clear. My guess is that it could be a reference to the Roman Catholic church, which although not a nation, has had a considerable amount of influence throughout history. But a few hundred years from now, China may better qualify. And if they can remain dominant for a few more centuries, The United States may qualify as well.Look at the back of your Bible in Revelations chapter 17 & 18 and there is a nation called Mystery, Babylon the Great... We know that Iraq is Ancient Babylon but read and tell me if that describes modern day Iraq and if not what nation does it describe? Read that and get bak at me.
A lot of the Bible is written in code and parable so no it does not say America or United States.
The Israelites never went back into Egypt on ships... Remember during the Exodus the Most High destroyed Egypt?
Why do you make it so hard to understand the truth?
Christ wasnt born on December 25 yet you dont give the white man a hard time when he have you celebrating Christmas, Easter, and etc etc.
I never said the underlined, and I subscribe to no religions made by white men or otherwise. -
fiat_money wrote: »No, that's just you reading something that's not there.
I don't even believe the "prophecy" or the "miraculous" parting of the seas to begin with, so I have no reason to argue that the "prophecy" has been fulfilled or that Israelites were taken back to Egypt by ship as slaves. This is why I use words like "supposedly" and "the biblical exodus story".[
What those two statements refer to are Deuteronomy 28:68 and the claim based upon it that Sub-Saharan Africans are somehow Israelites. I mentioned the first part to show that transporting Israelites to Egypt by ship so they could be sold as slaves would've been a conceivable idea for a writer of the time period. This is done to refute the notion that it is a prophetical verse. And I mentioned the second part to establish that based on the reasoning behind the claim that Sub-Saharan Africans are somehow Israelites, the North and East Africans enslaved by the Arabs would qualify as Israelites as well. This is done refute any specific conclusion saying that the Sub-Saharan Africans are the only ones who satisfy the verse, and to show the expansive scope of such reasoning.
LMAO @ THE BOLDED
seeeee
debating with u is pointless...
1. uve never read the whole bible
2. u dont even believe in the bible.
thank u for wasting my time....its funny u only exposed the fatc that YOU DONT BELIEVE IN THE BIBLE, after i had exposed your stupidity.
and yes you're right deu 28 can apply to the arab slave trade also, because they were also israelites.
egypt is used to represent a future land of ? , MAINLY america...but we were also enslaved in SOUTH AMERICA, CENTRAL AMERICA, EUROPE, MIDDLE EAST.
so once again...thank u for at least ackowledging that fact. -
One Spliff wrote: »lol...why u so mad vibe ?...i know i've cut u up pretty bad in the SL before, but dont hold grudges bruh....youy boy fiat still cant explain deu 28:68 and what it means...
im still waiting for anyone to tell me when israelites went back into egypt in ships, fiat keeps dodging it....look how he dodged judah7's post LOL.
maybe u can take his place...
You have never cut anyone up in the SL, this is the first time I've ever seen you this active. Ive seen you drop a few posts from time to time, nice try though.
You're definiately reading but not comprehending what Fiat is saying. It's not my position to explain his post as he's done that more than once. Clearly you want t to mean what you want it to mean, no surprise coming from a bible reader who reads the bible. Notorious for only wanting the bible to mean what the reader wants and not any other way around.
Also, I don't know why you act like it's a surprise Fiat isn't a believer, it's been known and obvious from his posts. -
fiat_money wrote: »I
I never said the underlined, and I subscribe to no religions made by white men or otherwise.
so what the ? are you doing in this thread...
? off if u jus another scattered brained atheist (no em)
aint nobdy guna debate u if u jus guna bring that whiteman knowledge into every debate...we spritual over here man. -
You have never cut anyone up in the SL, this is the first time I've ever seen you this active. Ive seen you drop a few posts from time to time, nice try though.
You're definiately reading but not comprehending what Fiat is saying. It's not my position to explain his post as he's done that more than once. Clearly you want t to mean what you want it to mean, no surprise coming from a bible reader who reads the bible. Notorious for only wanting the bible to mean what the reader wants and not any other way around.
Also, I don't know why you act like it's a surprise Fiat isn't a believer, it's been known and obvious from his posts.
your the same person who said "if america is in the bible, then why did'nt they call it america"
u and fiat are 1 in the same, lol
u have that primitive way of thinking, ur not spiritual people.
and i only debate u because u USED to be a believer, until u found out ? doesn't love everybody LOL.
n i dont know anybodies reliegious beliefs...i hardly post here...i asked fiat his nationality...and he cudnt answer me...so he started ranting about slave ships crossing the red sea...which is totoally irrelevant to the original discussion anyway...
hes ? just like you lol. -
Spliff has no comprehension skills whatsoever. Not surprising if you notice his terrible grammar and spelling ability. Its pointless to try to reason with him
-
He thinks he's a super saiyan so that should sum it all up for you
-
And none of this prophecy stuff proves the existance of a ? who is the center of your religion.
-
Jaded Righteousness wrote: »Spliff has no comprehension skills whatsoever. Not surprising if you notice his terrible grammar and spelling ability. Its pointless to try to reason with him
exactly...i dont comprehend atheists who try to break down bible verses, they do it from a physical point of view n not spiritual...so its pointless
its like me teaching a pilot how to fly a plane.
i told u the exact same thing, but u keep coming back with stupid questions, n now ur doing the same thing leaving stupid comments in this thread
ur understanding and knwoeldge of the bible was embarrasing, so much so that i felt like i was teaching a little child.
in the end we had to let the thread die, because u are so inept and unskillful in the word...
i jus hope u at least humble yourself and try studying the scriptures, if u are truly sincereand eagr to learn and not be "shock atheist" your whole damn life.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFYuOE_gp5I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7lvg8jdCuU