.

[Adama]

If you want yourself to be represented correctly, you should...

No, nope, stop right there little boy. It is YOUR responsibility to represent others accurately as best you can. If you make a mistake, fine, but you're lying and that's quite unethical.

1. Show us where exactly I have misrepresented you and how.
2. Present your actual beliefs.

I'll give you one example since you misrepresented me many times. For example, you said I believe in reincarnation when I stated several times (in this thread and others) that I do not. You were clearly too stupid to differentiate between what I believe (or in this case, don't believe) and what I am stating about text in the Bible. In other words, I was showing an allusion to reincarnation in the Bible, not stating that I believe in reincarnation. This and many other problems you have with basic comprehension indicate that you have a sub 80 IQ.

You don't have beliefs, except for holding onto that which is directly counter to God and His scripture. You say you are just against my version which is my ego. It is not my ego naturally if I supply verses proving them. You just lack spiritual discernment because you're a reprobate who has a dead soul which can't perceive.

1. I do have beliefs. I stated that I don't have a fully formed belief system. Bit of a difference there. Coming from you, this is also funny because you've previously stated what I believe, although you got that wrong too. So you said both that I don't believe in anything and that I believe in wrong things. You have no consistency.

2. One can selectively pick out verses from any text and make points. That's all you have been doing. You've been using effectively less than 1% of the Bible to form your belief system. That's silly at best.

3. Anyone can claim that one lacks "spiritual discernment." A Jew, Christian, Muslim, or Zoroastrian could all approach and say that others lack discernment. But when I say you lack comprehension or a sense of logic, I can point in out in your posts.

You even lack the courage to go back and read posts. Yet you would entice more posts when you won't read what's there. Willful ignorance.

Don't expect people to read spam, idiot. Post one or two points at a time and let's go from there. You were intentionally trying to obfuscate things by rapid firing gobbledygook posts.

I am not even upset that you call me names. You call names but don't prove that I've done any of those things. At least when I call you a fool, I've shown how you are a fool, and a complete fool and a reprobate at that. Your choice of insults also reflect your pure animal spirit; the most base insults: twat, shut the f**k up, self-righteous, liar, deceiver, hypocrite, your bullshit, Irrationality, no substance or logic or consistency, gobbledygook posts.

I see no need to sugar coat it. If that hurts your feelings, too f***ing bad.

You say, I am a liar. Believe me, I would show everyone how you are a liar with your own posts. Where are the posts proving I am a liar?

You say, I am a deceiver and a liar, with bad fruit, yet in every place you've been asking me for answers to learn, supposedly, while attacking me, saying it is B.S. Then why would you ask questions and attempt to "learn" from such a person? What's the logic in that?

You've intentionally misrepresented me and acted immature and irrational. I started the thread to learn what you believe and the particulars about your belief system. It turned out to be jumbled, inconsistent, illogical mess. The error I'm guilty of is thinking an idiot like you could explain anything sensibly.

Also, it isn't necessarily to call anyone a twat, or to say it is B.S. And if your complaint is illogic, why don't you stick to the logical yourself? Use logic, not insults. Use citation to back up that logic, rather than insults.

I tried that and you don't respond to it. I'm convinced the only thing you would respond to is a punch in the face.

And how do you know that I have misrepresented you, when you won't even go back to read those posts.

I've skimmed through enough of it to find misrepresentations. If you present one or two reasonable posts at a time, as I said, we can have a discussion. But you don't want that. Don't spam the thread with 10 or 12 gobbledygook posts and then expect everyone to spend hours sifting through all the bullshit.

Ahahahahaha See, he claimed he wanted to learn. All he was interested in was acting like a devil: to ridicule and insult. He doesn't even realize he's a son of Satan, acting like an adversary and an accuser of the brethren, opposing the gospel, believing everything completely contrary to the gospel.

Got that, everyone? Disagreeing with Adama = SATAN! What a moron.

Because you will not read my posts, do not expect me to read yours. Your post is spam, nothing more.

[Ghost]

.

[Adama]

It's OK. I know it's really because you have no reading comprehension ability and don't want to embarrass yourself further. I clearly said I didn't read through all of it because you were trying to spam me with tons of gobbledygook, ergo your lame comeback about my lone post being spam doesn't make any sense. But that's par for the course in Adama-land. From now on I see no need to try to reason with you - you don't respond to reason - so I'll just speak to you like you're a retarded child because that's what you've shown yourself to be.

Irrelevant.

[Ghost]

.

[Adama]

I've been out witnessing to the lost recently. Out of everyone I've talked to, not one had a problem believing that when Jesus talks of death He really means hell. As soon as I explain that passing from death unto life means skipping hell and going to heaven, no one has ever questioned me to say anything like, "...But that's only the death of the body." Lol

Everyone knows intuitively that when it says NEVER DIE, it means NEVER GO TO HELL, because obviously the body will die, and death of the soul is hell. People get this with one explanation.

I've never even had anyone say to me that they think hell is temporary in person, even with all the people I've talked to about the gospel. Not one has even mentioned that they thought people are burned up or annihilated. Lol Such a ridiculous concept.

I've also never had a person explain to me that faith means faith plus works. I've never even had anyone in person insist that it isn't "believe only" but instead "keep the commandments and love/forgive one another." After I've shown them a few verses that say believe only, how could they come up with the latter doctrine? This is just obvious stuff.

Naturally the people who believe in such damnable heresies are the ones who outright reject receiving any kind of witnessing before reproof can be made. Muslims and Hindus will wave me off without listening the vast, vast majority of the time. So probably the people who subscribe to the damnable heresies referenced above also omit themselves before I get to hear how ridiculous their beliefs are. Lol

[Adama]

The reprobates won't even open a Bible to see that they are wrong. Fools. They are funny.

They believe the Jews didn't have and didn't believe in a hell in the OT. How could they believe that, when hell is actually in the OT? These brainless, soulless fools won't even open the book to see the one word they need to see to release them from a false doctrine.

And if you show these idiots, they'd want to murder you. That's how screwed up a reprobate dummy is. Luckily as soon as you mention the real Jesus in person they will run away as far as they can, the same as they will not read a Bible verse. They have good reason to be afraid.

Deuteronomy 32:22
For a fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell, and shall consume the earth with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains.


*keyword emphasis mine

You know a person is a reprobate when they can read a verse that is clear as day, and yet they can't believe it. That means their heart is hard as stone. Their heart isn't tender to the truth. Their heart rejects the truth.

[Ghost]

.

[Adama]

That's grasping at straws pretty hard. What does the original language say? That verse looks like it just saying that someone (God?) is really angry. You didn't give any context but the verse doesn't appear to be making a statement about hell. It's talking about intensity of someone's anger. I wouldn't build a complex belief system or doctrine on a single verse.

You could also try asking a Jew whether or not there is the same hell as in Christianity. Have you tried that? Might be an easier way to figure it out since you're not very good at the evidence-in-the-text thing.

Look at this man. It is doubtful you will ever meet a bigger fool in all the days of your life. I have never encountered someone as dense as this. Eyes that do not see, ears that do not hear, and a heart which cannot perceive. The truth of the verse bounces off, like a ball off a stone.

(Anyone with a functioning mind can tell from the context of the verse itself that the only person who has such power is God. Who else could do such wondrous things but God? Do they think someone else can set on fire the foundations of the mountains in an anger that consumes the earth? Fools. Complete fools.)

This fool also does not realize that Jews do not believe the Old Testament at all, but instead rely on their own set of fables written by prominent rabbis known as the Talmud. The talmud is not the Torah. The Torah is the 5 books of Moses, which Jews do not believe. The Talmud is the book of the Rabbis, the tradition and commandments of men along with Jewish fables. In it, they directly blaspheme Jesus. Now if you are saved, you know if you don't have Jesus, you don't have God. These are not God's people, and they do not believe the OT. Because Jesus said if they believed Moses then they also would believe Jesus. The problem is, they don't believe Moses. They believe in the tradition of the elders (rabbis). Even FSchmidt admits this openly.

Reprobate silver shall men call them, because The Lord hath rejected them. Ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. Reprobate concerning the faith. Having a form of godliness, but denying the POWER thereof. A conscience seared with a hot iron.

[Ghost]

.

[Adama]

Deuteronomy 32:22
For a fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell, and shall consume the earth with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains.


Any moron can read this verse and the name of the book where it is from to see that the Jews (the ones who believed in The Lord, not the ones who hated Him) had a hell in the ancient days. It is a reference to hell in the Old Testament with an accurate description of hellfire and location, being inside the earth.

Naturally fools can believe that it must be someone (anyone) other than God who could do such a thing. That's what happens when you believe in nonsense (and you're unable to believe the truth).

[fschmidt]

That's grasping at straws pretty hard. What does the original language say?

The word is sheol which means underground. KJV Genesis 37:35 has Jacob say "For I will go down into the grave unto my son mourning" where "the grave" is a translation of the same Hebrew word (sheol = שְׁאוֹל) that KJV translated as Hell in Deuteronomy 32:22.

[Adama]

Everyone knows intuitively that when it says NEVER DIE, it means NEVER GO TO HELL, because obviously the body will die, and death of the soul is hell. People get this with one explanation.

So you acknowledge that not everything (not only parables) in the Bible is meant literally?

This is as literal as it gets. If God defines death as hell, it must mean that the definition of death is hell. Are you like totally dense or what? There is no doubt this is real, literal and not a metaphor or allegory. The fact that you just can't see the whole reason for believing is to avoid hell, and that obviously if He's saying you pass over death it means you pass over hell, is just ridiculous.

Just as eternal, everlasting and forever mean the same thing, so does death of the soul mean hell. Any normal person can see this just from one explanation. You'll never be able to come to believe it. All it should take to believe is one or two verses at most.

[Adama]

Isaiah 5

14 Therefore hell hath enlarged herself, and opened her mouth without measure: and their glory, and their multitude, and their pomp, and he that rejoiceth, shall descend into it.

15 And the mean man shall be brought down, and the mighty man shall be humbled, and the eyes of the lofty shall be humbled:

16 But the Lord of hosts shall be exalted in judgment, and God that is holy shall be sanctified in righteousness.

Oh look, it looks like the ancient Hebrews really did have a hell. The Jews don't have a hell because they don't believe one word of the Bible. Not one word.

[Adama]

That's grasping at straws pretty hard. What does the original language say?

The word is sheol which means underground. KJV Genesis 37:35 has Jacob say "For I will go down into the grave unto my son mourning" where "the grave" is a translation of the same Hebrew word (sheol = שְׁאוֹל) that KJV translated as Hell in Deuteronomy 32:22.

Let's double check the verse: For a fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell, and shall consume the earth with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains.

Why does "the grave" burn? Do graves burn? Is this metaphorical for your unbelief?

How does a grave set on fire the foundations of the mountains?

Why does the fire burn unto the lowest grave? Why is a grave on fire beneath the mountains?

Why is the fire kindled in anger?

Who could have an anger that would set a grave on fire?

How does a grave consume with increase?

How can a grave that is full of fire not also be accurately described as HELL?

Now if "The grave" does all those other things in that verse (burning, consuming, set on fire, etc), wouldn't it indicate that the translators knew that in that instance that the proper English word to use there is HELL (because that's where the fire is, beneath the mountains, consuming the earth)? Whereas in other places, they realized the proper translation of the same Hebrew word was actually the word grave?

Ask a Jew. Now you have the answer. They do not believe the Bible. Therefore they re unable to receive the love of the truth.


Just as a side note for fools, if English has two words, and Hebrew has one word, with two different meanings, then, if we are to say this is an issue of languages, it would be the Hebrew that the problem lies with and not English. English has words which more accurately distinguish the various meanings of one word in Hebrew. That is the Hebrew word has multiple meanings for one word. Whereas the English has more words to distinguish the different meanings of that singular Hebrew word. The problem is with the Hebrew, if we are going to suppose there is a translation problem. Therefore we know, the translation into English isn't the problem. It is the lack of distinctive vocabulary words in the original language (sheol = grave, underground, and hell).

[fschmidt]

The word means "underground" not "grave". Both hell and grave are mistranslations by KJV. Here is a translation (by me) of Deuteronomy 32:22:

"For a fire is kindled in my anger and will burn to the lowest underground and will consume the earth and its produce, and set on fire the foundation of the mountains."

Isn't this logical and consistent? Isn't "the lowest underground" consistent with "the foundation of the mountains"?

Biblical Hebrew always uses concrete imagery to make a point. Fire is very good imagery to express extreme anger.