Whirlwind
Options
Comments
-
waterproof wrote: »SHUT UP, IT WAS YOU WHO ASKED THAT QUESTION.........you should of told them that but your punk ass was scared. Like i said i got the drop on you
I haven't had to ask such a simple nutrition question in ten years, bruh. Who do you think I be? -
@My_nameaintearl wrote: »I haven't had to ask such a simple nutrition question in ten years, bruh. Who do you think I be?
you is a damn lie and im going to slap you, you just remember that, I got the drop on you. You know you asked that question and where you ask the question, you can play stupid all you want. you never know who you talking to, lol. ? i might be a mod over there...lol -
I've never talked weights on the internet anywhere.
-
@My_nameaintearl wrote: »I've never talked weights on the internet anywhere.
you is the biggest lair, just know that i got the drop on you. you think all that ? talking wont catch up to you?? lol, that's what happen when you play hoe games, sooner or later it will catch up to you. -
i havent even typed hoe games since i needed something to rhyme with moe james
-
@My_nameaintearl wrote: »i havent even typed hoe games since i needed something to rhyme with moe james
Yo mayne, im not going to address this any further because you getting scared. but you done ? up mayne. did you really thought all those years of talking slick, disrespecting blacks, making fun of us, saying you knock out black apes aint going to catch up with you. REALLY?? all that im healthy ? my cardio on point and i train in mountains, we going to see about that homie.
Do you know about the power of words and thoughts, all that ? you put out there came back to you. You is a creep, you even look like a creep, you done slipped up. i done got the drop on you. i got enough what i need if some more come, so be it. But im going to see you and put all that ? to the test.
So when you see a black man standing 6'2 built like a NFL FULLBACK weighing from anywhere from 230-260 (depends if im on a bulk or a cut) bald with a full beard with fire in his eyes then it me. Im not going to go out my way, because i travel a lot but if im in your area, you will know. And you going to learn the laws of the universe that's govern by the Most High.
Im done with this convo, but i got the drop on you. you never know who you talk to on these internets and on other sites.
YOU DONE ? UP, I MEAN ? UP REAL BAD, LOL!!!! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH, lol -
One Spliff wrote: »im living proof.
waterproof is living proof
judahxulu is living proof
judah7 us living proof
young-king is living proof
and the 10's of thousans of israelites all over the world that have woken up...but soon the whole world will know the truth.
were we not signing about israel being our homeland in slavery ?...i looked up on jordan and what did i see, comin forth to carry me home...swing low sweet chariot.
? ...we even knew what chariots were in slavery.
ask nat turner why he killed those crackers, lol.
if u aint spiritual u wont get it...the bible is all the proof u need...prophecy speaks for itsself...how many propchies of slavery do u need ?
And we sang KUMBAYAH "HERE I COME MY ? "
? ba yah, my Lord
? ba yah
? ba yah, my Lord
? ba yah
? ba yah, my Lord
? ba yah
O Lord, ? ba yah
Someone’s crying, Lord
? ba yah
Someone’s singing, Lord
? ba tah
Someone’s praying, Lord
? ba yah
These Bones gon raise again,
ZEKIEL (EZEKIEL) SAW THE WHEEL
Wheel, oh, wheel
Wheel in de middle of a wheel
Wheel, oh, wheel
Wheel in de middle of a wheel
'Zekiel saw de wheel of time
Wheel in de middle of a wheel
Ev'ry spoke was human kind
Way in de middle of a wheel
Way up yonder on de mountain top
Wheel in d middle of a wheel
My Lord an' de chariot stop
Way in de middle of a wheel
'Zekiel saw de wheel
Way up in de middle of de air
'Zekiel saw de wheel
Way in de middle of de air
De big wheel run by faith
Little wheel run by de grace of ?
Wheel in a wheel
Way in de middle of de air
Wheel, oh, wheel
Wheel in de middle of a wheel
BOUND FOR CANAAN LAND
Where’re you bound ?
Bound for Canaan land
O, you must not lie
You must not steal
You must not take ? ’s name in vain
I’m bound for Canaan land
Your horse is white, your garment is bright
You look like a man of war
Raise up your head with courage bold
For your race is almost run
How you know ?
Jesus told me
Although you see me going so
I’m bound for Canaan land
I have trials here below
I’m bound for Canaan lan
? 's our ancestors knew who we are, WE COULDNT EVEN READ OR HAVE A BIBLE and when the slave owner did decide to, he read us the New testament. he stayed clear from the Old teastment because he knew we would remembered who we are -
waterproof wrote: »So when you see a black man standing 6'2 built like a NFL FULLBACK weighing from anywhere from 230-260
Then I'll be seeing a dude 9 inches shorter than me and 40 to 60 pounds lighter. -
@My_nameaintearl wrote: »Then I'll be seeing a dude 9 inches shorter than me and 40 to 60 pounds lighter.
That's what im talking about HEATHEN, the bigger the better you know My ancestor King David fought a Giant name Goliath and we all know the ending to that story. Your foundation better be strong because anything can be brought down, espically the bodyparts that wasn't meant to be hit. -
Doggy you talmbout male bodyparts, nh B.
-
@My_nameaintearl wrote: »Doggy you talmbout male bodyparts, nh B.
that's your ? gene that provoke you to think like that, im talking about lungs, kidneys, liver, throat, behind the ears, ribs, chin. it doesnt matter how big you are, i will break you down -
This is interesting. Are you referring to Deuteronomy 28:68? I don't see where it says Hebrews will be the "only" to be taken by ships into slavery, but it does indeed say that the Israelites shall be taken on ships back to Egypt and sold as slaves.Bible prophecy stated that only Hebrews would go into captivity by ship. The Africans (Hamites) and Arabs (Ishmaelites) sold Negros (Biblical Hebrew Israelites) to Europeans (Edomites)... The reason you dont know ur true heritage is cuz it was prophecy for us to forget that knowledge...
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.
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.
Therefore, without a modifying adjective/adverb such as "only", a number of slave transports can satisfy Deuteronomy 28:68 by your standards. Of course, since Deuteronomy 28:68 explicitly states the Israelites will be taken to Egypt, the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade does not actually satisfy the verse.
So if Deuteronomy 28:68 is the basis for your argument, it does nothing to support the claim that all Sub-Saharan Africans are descendants of Hebrews/Israelites.
Besides, it's not like Sub-Sahara, North, and East Africa were unpopulated prior to the supposed biblical exodus of the Israelites; so it's no stretch to think that Sub-Saharan, Northern, and Eastern Africans are likely just descendants of many generations of other Sub-Saharan, Northern, and Eastern Africans. -
fiat_money wrote: »This is interesting. Are you referring to Deuteronomy 28:68? I don't see where it says Hebrews will be the "only" to be taken by ships into slavery, but it does indeed say that the Israelites shall be taken on ships back to Egypt and sold as slaves.
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.
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.
Therefore, without a modifying adjective/adverb such as "only", a number of slave transports can satisfy Deuteronomy 28:68 by your standards. Of course, since Deuteronomy 28:68 explicitly states the Israelites will be taken to Egypt, the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade does not actually satisfy the verse.
So if Deuteronomy 28:68 is the basis for your argument, it does nothing to support the claim that all Sub-Saharan Africans are descendants of Hebrews/Israelites.
Besides, it's not like Sub-Sahara, North, and East Africa were unpopulated prior to the supposed biblical exodus of the Israelites; so it's no stretch to think that Sub-Saharan, Northern, and Eastern Africans are likely just descendants of many generations of other Sub-Saharan, Northern, and Eastern Africans.
your trying to be smart but you just exposed your stupidity once again...
u dont need a ship to from israel to egypt u DAMN FOOL...look on map before u make such stupid comments.
the israelites never went into eypt the first time by ship THIS IS BIBLE 101, moses split the red sea (gulf of suez) and they crossed over, that was the paictular route they took.
theres no history of them going back into egypt, let onlone ON SLAVE SHIPS...they could walk from israel into egypt.
the egypt is talking about a modern day egypt, or qa future land of slavery.... thats why your physical whiteman ? doesn't fly over here, because the bible wasn't given to every body especially ? like you, take your ? somehwere else....the egypt is referring to america, and so does babylon in propecy...
egypt was a land of slavery for israel, same way america was also...that doesn't take a genius to figure out.
and yes the negroes of the arab slave trade were israelites, it tells u that in joel 3 and psalm 83...
nice try tho. -
I never said the Israelites left Egypt by ship or that they were taken back to Egypt by ship in the biblical exodus story. If they had to use some form of miracle to split the Red Sea before crossing, that means they crossed the Red Sea; which is what I said. I also did not say that by sea was the only way to take the Israelites back to Egypt, I said that's "the primary way one would expect"; which means that there are alternatives--such as slower, more difficult land routes--but the main way would likely be the faster sea route.One Spliff wrote: »...the israelites never went into eypt the first time by ship THIS IS BIBLE 101, moses split the red sea (gulf of suez) and they crossed over, that was the paictular route they took...
And although Ancient Egypt isn't exactly the same geographically as present day Egypt, it was definitely not located in North America. 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.
So, while your post was quite emotional, it did nothing to refute any of my statements. -
fiat_money wrote: »I never said the Israelites left Egypt by ship or that they were taken back to Egypt by ship in the biblical exodus story. If they had to use some form of miracle to split the Red Sea before crossing, that means they crossed the Red Sea; which is what I said. I also did not say that by sea was the only way to take the Israelites back to Egypt, I said that's "the primary way one would expect"; which means that there are alternatives--such as slower, more difficult land routes--but the main way would likely be the faster sea route.
And although Ancient Egypt isn't exactly the same geographically as present day Egypt, it was definitely not located in North America. 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.
So, while your post was quite emotional, it did nothing to refute any of my statements.
no u ? clown...theres stories in the bible of certain israelites walking into egypt during the time they were invaded by the babylolians.
they traveled from jerusalem to egypt ON FOOT...not by ship u stupid clown, u cant USE A SHIP to cross the gulf of suez u ? , LOOK ON A MAP...lol i thought u were supposed to be intelligent ?...
the same body of land moses split by a miracle is NOT possible to cross by ship u idiot...lol...nobody is this stupid.
the israelites never went back into egypt into slavery, notice how u AVOIDED that simple fact...
ok genuis...explain this...
joel 3:1For, behold, in those days, and in that time, when I shall bring again the captivity of Judah and Jerusalem,
3And they have cast lots for my people; and have given a boy for an harlot, and sold a girl for wine, that they might drink.
4Yea, and what have ye to do with me, O Tyre, and Zidon, and all the coasts of Palestine? will ye render me a recompence? and if ye recompense me, swiftly and speedily will I return your recompence upon your own head; 5Because ye have taken my silver and my gold, and have carried into your temples my goodly pleasant things: 6The children also of Judah and the children of Jerusalem have ye sold unto the Grecians, that ye might remove them far from their border. 7Behold, I will raise them out of the place whither ye have sold them, and will return your recompence upon your own head: 8And I will sell your sons and your daughters into the hand of the children of Judah, and they shall sell them to the Sabeans, to a people far off: for the LORD hath spoken it.
^^ what is this describing ?
lets see u make a fool of yourself again. -
I never said that people never left Egypt on land; I never said the Israelites were taken back to Egypt as slaves; and I never said the "same body of land" that the Israelites supposedly crossed miraculously was the only path in Red Sea that the Israelites could be taken back in ships across.One Spliff wrote: »no u ? clown...theres stories in the bible of certain israelites walking into egypt during the time they were invaded by the babylolians.
they traveled from jerusalem to egypt ON FOOT...not by ship u stupid clown, u cant USE A SHIP to cross the gulf of suez u ? , LOOK ON A MAP...lol i thought u were supposed to be intelligent ?...
the same body of land moses split by a miracle is NOT possible to cross by ship u idiot...lol...nobody is this stupid.
the israelites never went back into egypt into slavery, notice hwo u AVOIDED that simple fact...
Perhaps your emotions are impeding your reading comprehension, because you seem to be responding as though I typed things that I did not. -
fiat_money wrote: »I never said that people never left Egypt on land;
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.fiat_money wrote: »I never said the Israelites were taken back to Egypt as slaves;
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.fiat_money wrote: »and I never said the "same body of land" that the Israelites supposedly crossed miraculously was the only path in Red Sea that the Israelites could be taken back in ships across.
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... -
spliff I see you're still losing outchea
-
Jaded Righteousness wrote: »spliff I see you're still losing outchea
did'nt you confess to having 'learnt' alot from me ?
stay in your place.
not about to go bk n forth with u...fiat_money is already making a fool out of himself with his embarrasing geographical errors, the same way u did last week. -
One Spliff wrote: »did'nt you confess to having 'learnt' alot from me ?
stay in your place.
not about to go bk n forth with u...fiat_money is already making a fool out of himself with his embarrasing geographical errors, the same way u did last week.
I did learn a lot about your religion. Didn't say I believed any of it to be true. -
Fiat is toying with his prey...
-
Jaded Righteousness wrote: »I did learn a lot about your religion. Didn't say I believed any of it to be true.
You aint learned ? !!! Because we have no religion.
I thought i was well verse in the Tanach and The Bible until i came into this forum, Brothers like Judahxulu, One Spliff, Sounds of Isarel, Isarelites and others have Hebrew Knowledge and not to be boasting i haven't not seen a Hebrew lost a debate once in this forum.
that's because you cant no defeat truth!!!!
if yall ? dont want to believe yall Hebrews but some Hamites, that's fine with me -
this could take awhile.
-
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.
-
waterproof wrote: »You aint learned ? !!! Because we have no religion.
I thought i was well verse in the Tanach and The Bible until i came into this forum, Brothers like Judahxulu, One Spliff, Sounds of Isarel, Isarelites and others have Hebrew Knowledge and not to be boasting i haven't not seen a Hebrew lost a debate once in this forum.
that's because you cant no defeat truth!!!!
if yall ? dont want to believe yall Hebrews but some Hamites, that's fine with me
both of ya'll lost in our last debate
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFYuOE_gp5I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7lvg8jdCuU