Oyiboman69:
Only 300k from infinix?

na because na for 30 minutes

McCoy662:
Good morning Nlanders, I have this very issue bothering me. I have been in a relationship with this girl for about 3 years now. I love her so much, and she loved me until of recent when she told me that she's no longer interested in the relationship. She told me the stern truth that she was seeing someone else.

It's not like I don't take care of her, because I have given her almost everything she requested from me. I bought 90% of her clothes myself as she can't even buy for herself if I give her the money. I pay her bills too.

Just about 2 months ago, the said guy called me and told me that his gf (my gf) said I'm her ex, and they are now together. This guy is not that rich, he's just on average income scale, he's not super handsome and the worst is that, this girl calls and comes to my house for sex anytime she feels like. But that's all, we are not friends like before, we don't go out together, she don't even oblige my requests anytime I ask her for anything. She doesn't even visit on a regular except for sex.

Right now, I'm fed up; I'm tired of being in this love triangle, though I love her so much.
My guys advised me to beat her up and warn her never to come close to my house again, but I just can't. Though I feel used as a sex object, but I just can't say no to this girl's request.

I don't just know, am I being stupid?? Is there a Best way to handle this in a more diplomatic way?? I really love this girl.

Don’t keep acting this way

Boc007:

England
Time: 8:45pm
Wigan - Middlesbrough
Pick: X ft
Odd: 3.40


Holland
Time: 8:45 pm
Sparta Rotterdam - Den Haag
Pick: X ft
Odd: 3.70

Nice. Another profit made. 1 of 2 Won

It is well

daewoorazer:
This no be achievement. No lady will turn down an opportunity to be given money/gift..

Nigerian ladies will say yes if a monkey asks them to be their val so far he has money to waste

Don’t get it twisted, that’s not a YES to dating...

Get over your inexperienced beta male head

I don't understand why someone will kill her self because of one boyfriend relationship. This same guy will come to your burial with his new girlfriend.

Boc007:




Safest draw of the day
Time: 12:00
Erzurum BB - Keciorengucu
Pick: X ft
Odd: 3.30

Time: 17:00
Panetolikos - Volos
Pick: X ft
Odd: 3.36

One won and loss. We go again today

Liverpool just they form James Bond but Everton must win this one.

I see 10 people winning 1million each this year.

Viking007:
I'm also inspired, we can do this next year/week.

Yes. 3 days, N1,000, 10 odds and your life would never remain the same again.

It is possible bro. We have great punters here who are good at specific selections, if we join those strategies together we can do it.

Chelsea
Man City win
Liverpool- Win
Westbrom- 1X
Bristol- 1X
Wycombe- 1X
Celtic- 1X
Crotone- win

Bleep virtual,i just lost 300 box in 1minute

Chidexter:


Bro I can't say d spirit that told you this but it just worked. I just came back from side hustle and decided to try this

19k in the bag. After two trials of 150.
Bet9ja online virtual 1-4 Chidexter. Idonrun

Where is this virtual on Bet9ja?

Abdul00:
View details below.

Anozer izample of lazy Nigeria youth.

Wicked world Country

They will tell you to go for test yet they will still tell you to go check after 6months for the real result. If you go for test today and still need to go for test after few months, what’s the need to even go for test?

emmyboy162:
B9NX832051599YA-7822631

This loss has been haunting me since August, I was so close to being a millionaire.

Though I won 60k that day...Still haven't won since then.

Men

Someone told me to lend him exactly 50k that he would pay back in an hour time. It’s now 1 year and he hasn’t paid back the money.

2ray4sure:


Are you still interested in learning programming?

Yes sir.

francis2565:




ONE OF THE BIGGEST LIES IN ALL CHRISTENDOM

("How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer"

Theologians have been teaching for centuries now that Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 give us a perfect explanation of how a perfect Lucifer changed himself into Lucifer the Devil.

"How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For you have said in your heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High." (Isa. 14:-12-14).

"Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus says the Lord God; Thou seal up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty. You have been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was your covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of your tabrets and of your pipes was prepared in you in the day that you were created. You are the anointed cherub that covers; and I have set you so: you were upon the holy mountain of God; you have walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. You were perfect in your ways from the day that you were created, till iniquity was found in you"

"By the multitude of your merchandise they have filled the midst of you with violence, and you have sinned: therefore I will cast you as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy you, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. Your heart was lifted up because of your beauty, you have corrupted your wisdom by reason of your brightness: I will cast you to the ground, I will lay you before kings, and they may behold you" (Ezek. 28:12-17).

This, we are told, is a perfect description of how perfect Lucifer, a shining light bringing archangel/cherub, became Satan the Devil. Is there any truth to this theory? We will see.

This theory suits Satan just fine, and more so, it fits Christendom even "finer.' With this theory (or more correctly "hypothesis'), Christendom has the perfect solution to how they can justifiably consign billions of humans to an eternal lake of fire. With their "free will" firmly established in their deceived minds, Christendom can now teach the world that Satan CHOSE to do evil and has not repented, and most of mankind has also CHOSEN to do evil and not repent, therefore they are all thrown into an eternal lake burning with fire, and God is not the least bit responsible.

The Church believes it has accomplished a most marvelous thing: they have gotten God off the hook of responsibility for all of the sickness, disease, pain, suffering, sin, evil, terrorism, and death in the world. You see, without free will, God could never know who is for Him and who is against Him—it's the only way, the only "fair" way, and God is fair and God is good. Doesn't this make good carnal sense, and everyone is happy? It is rank heresy at the highest level; that is what it is!

Prepare yourself for a revelation: Satan was never perfect and then decided by his phantom free will to become a devil, neither has a single human started out perfect and then decided by his free will to become a sinner! Now I am well aware of the fact that people are deceived about these things, as was I. But the Scriptural truth of these matters will set us free from centuries of unscriptural traditions. The problem with this "Lucifer fell" theory is twofold: poor translation and poor interpretation. Let's go through it.

First Isaiah 14. To whom is God addressing Himself in these verses we quoted above?

"That you shall take up this proverb against the KING OF BABYLON..." (Ver. 4)

God is speaking of and to and about, "the King of Babylon," not Lucifer, not Satan, not a cherub. And God tells us the end of this man's reign:

"Your pomp is brought down to the grave [Satan never died or was put in a grave], and the noise of your viols [harps or lutes]: the worm [or maggots] is spread under you [can maggots eat a spirit body], and the worms cover you" (Ver. 11).

But is not this "Lucifer" of verse 14 Satan the Devil?

WHO OR WHAT IS 'LUCIFER?'

This next verse is where theologians believe God stops speaking of the King of Babylon and begins speaking of the origin of Satan. What pray tell, does the end of the King of Babylon have to do with the beginning of Satan? Really nothing, but let's check out their hypothesis anyway, as it is believed by the Church worldwide.

"How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, which did weaken the nations"! (Ver. 12).

Notice that back in verse 4 God says to take up this proverb against the "king of Babylon." Next let's pick up this proverb in verse 10 after all the "trees" (different people which feared the king), are at rest because of the king's demise, and see if this "Lucifer theory" fits into these verses without doing irreparable damage to the kings English:

"All they shall speak and say unto thee [king of Babylon], Art thou [king of Babylon] also become weak as we? Art thou [king of Babylon] become like unto us [mere mortals and not gods from heaven]. Thy [king of Babylon] pomp is brought down to the grave, and the noise of thy [king of Babylon] viols: the worm is spread under thee [king of Babylon], and the worms cover thee [king of Babylon]. How art thou [king of Babylon] fallen from heaven, O Lucifer..."?!?

What is this? How can, the king of Babylon, the king of Babylon, the king of Babylon, the king of Babylon, the king of Babylon, the king of Babylon, the king of Babylon, the king of Babylon (made reference to eight time in two sentences), suddenly turn into "Lucifer" in the middle of a sentence? And where are we ever told that "Lucifer" is a proper name for Satan?

So just where did this proper name, "Lucifer" suddenly appear from in the middle of this sentence? Is "Lucifer" a proper name? Is it even a noun? Is "Lucifer" another name for the king of Babylon? Is "Lucifer" an English word? Is there a Hebrew word that can be translated "Lucifer?"

I am going to shine some LIGHT on this "O Lucifer, son of the morning star" business, and we can all watch Lucifer disappear in the dawn's early light. It is but another heresy from the Dark Ages that crept into the hallowed halls of the Church. This is a little lengthy, but it is also one of the most intriguing bits of deception your will ever see exposed, so I will take the time to debunk it.

THE UNTOLD ORIGIN OF 'LUCIFER'

From my American Heritage College Dictionary, Lucifer n. 1. The archangel cast from heaven for leading the revolt of the angels; Satan. < OE, morning star, Lucifer < Latin Lucifer < lucifer, light-bringer: lux, luc-, light" (page 821).

The very next word under "Lucifer" is, luciferase n. An enzyme that catalyzes the oxidation of luciferin." Hmmmmm. What have we here? "Lucifer + in."

And the word that follows "luciferase" in this same dictionary is: " luciferin n. A chemical substance present in the cells of bioluminescent organisms, such as fireflies that produce a bluish-green light when oxidized. [Latin Lucifer, light-bringing; see LUCIFER + -IN.]" (page. 821).

There it is! Lucifer is the "chemical bioluminescence' in the cells of FIREFLIES! WOW! With that in mind, we should all sleep better tonight.

LUCIFER IS A CHRISTIAN HOAX

And so what do fireflies have to do with the King of Babylon or Satan the devil? Nothing, absolutely nothing. Was Satan once a "light-bringing firefly"? No, no he wasn't. Then how in the world did we get this Latin word "lucifer" as part of Isa. 14:12, in so many English Bibles?

First, just who was it that fell from heaven, and does the phrase "fallen from heaven" prove that this person had to have been in God's throne room, or at least in interstellar space in order for him to "fall from heaven" therefore proving that this must be a spirit being only? No, of course not. It is a figure of speech. Here is proof from none other than Jesus:

"And you, Capernaum, which art exalted to heaven, shall be thrust down [from heaven] to hell [Gk: hades]" (Luke 10:15).

So here we have a whole city being thrown down from heaven to hades, their grave. And so it is with the King of Babylon whose "pomp is brought down to the grave" (Isa. 14:11). These two Scriptures are exact parallel thoughts.

Now then, back to "lucifer." Just what is the Hebrew word found in the manuscripts that the translators turned into the Latin word Lucifer? It is very interesting. All of you with a Strong's Concordance, look up this word Lucifer. Right after the word Lucifer we are given a definition before we ever go to the Dictionary to find the meaning. Here is what you will find: Lucifer (lu'sif-ur){1} Title applied to king of Babylon.

Clearly the editor of Strong's Concordance realized that this word (whatever it means) is to be applied to the "king of Babylon," and NOT TO SATAN THE DEVIL!

We are told that the word in question is Strong's #1966 which is heylel, from 1984 [halal] (in the sense of brightness); the morning-star:--Lucifer.

What a web of deceit is woven in this "light-bringing-brightness-morning-star-Lucifer" theory. This word "Lucifer" appears no other place in Scripture. Was Satan ever spoken of as a "light-bringing perfect archangel"? No. What saith the Scriptures?

"And no marvel; for Satan himself is TRANSFORMED into an angel of light" (II Cor. 11:14).

Satan is NOT an angel of light, neither has he ever been! It is the "false apostles, DECEITFUL workers" Ver 13, that DECEIVE people into believing lies. Satan appears as an angel of light to the world; he is transformed into an angel of light, but it is an illusion, it is not true, it is a deception!

Paul expels any such theory that Satan knows anything about "light":

"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against power, against the RULERS OF THE DARKNESS of this world" (Eph. 6:12).

Rev. 16:10 is but the continuation of the same Babylonian beast that we read about in Isa. 14:

"and the fifth angel poured out his vial upon the seat of the beast [Babylon] and his kingdom was FULL OF DARKNESS..."

So what is this heylel/halal of Isa. 14:12? Here is the problem—too many translations of previous translations without checking the Hebrew manuscripts first.

Lucifer is the Latin Vulgate translation of the word "xosphoruos" in the Septuagint, which is a Greek version of the Hebrew of Isaiah 14:12, which the King James translators then translated over into the English as "Lucifer."

The Latin and the Greek, as well as a supposed form of a "Hebrew" word in verse 12 mean "bright shiner" or "shining one." The problem is, however, that Isa.14:12 was not written in Latin or Greek, but Hebrew. And I assure you that "lucifer" is not a Hebrew word, nor is it an English translation of a Hebrew word. Lucifer is Latin, and is related to a group of Latin derived English words including lucid, luciferin and luciferose, as we saw defined above, all of which suggest brightness or shining. Likewise xosphoros in the Greek derived English words such as, fluorescence and phosphorescence.

But, there seems to be no Hebrew or Aramaic text in which there is a word in this verse to correspond. What we find in all such texts is the word "hehlehl,' eill, which is a form of the Hebrew stem "yah-lahl," ill. And what is the meaning of "ill"? Are you ready? It means HOWL. That's right, "Lucifer" turns out to be nothing more than a "howl" (maybe of "hot air')!

It has been suggested that the translators of the Septuagint (Hebrew into Greek) could have overlooked the smallest of the Hebrew letters or been using a copy in which it had been inadvertently omitted. Thus if the form of the world eill, as it occurs in this particular text, were shortened to ell its meaning would be derived from a different root, in fact would be itself a different root, and the sense given in the Septuagint and the Vulgate would be at least understandable, with one giant exception. There is still absolutely no reason or rule of grammar for turning this word into a personal name! It could possibly mean "a shining one," but not a personal name such as "Lucifer." Doubtless the translators followed the Vulgate as they did in most of their translating.

Even such an eminent translator as Rotherham seemed to follow the Septuagint in this verse, however, from his comments within parenthesis, it is clear that he was fully aware of the fact that whatever this word meant, it was referring to none other than the context of these verses which is Babylon and not Satan:

"How has thou (Babylon—see context) fallen from heaven, O Shining One (O howl)—Son of the Dawn! (Babylon conspicuous as Venus). Hewn down to the earth, O crusher of nations."

Clearly the reference is to Babylon and none other. It was Babylon which was exalted to heaven (as conspicuous as Venus, the brightest star of the morning) in her wealth, power, and glory. Yet just as Capernaum, God says she is brought down to the earth, the one who was a "crusher of nations."

All this write-up just to prove a single point?

.

No need

Spend your money and don’t tell us. No need to expose your stupid extravagant lifestyle on the Internet.

Hazardd:
Z3XMMGHK

Date 11/10/2019 19:45

Event Turkey - Albania

Live/Prematch Prematch

Selection X/1

lets watch and see

Can you chat me up let’s make a deal?

Check my signature below

Not all. Talk about Hudson Odoi, Loftus Cheek. This guys are doing great. Albeit we are yet to see Cheek’s performance this season but we know he will deliver as usual.

Make I check wether this bros they there

Hazardd where @ thou. Come and drop sure Odd let’s play