@ Enigma

Apologies for the mix up - my first post was in response to garyarnold. The second post was in response to yours (the one with your post quoted).

You can read that and reply if as you deem appropriate.


@ garyarnold

You are arguing in circles - whether it was 'custom' or 'tradition' or whatever else, it was accepted by God - that is what is important. You cannot tell me what terms of a covenant I can make with God, inasmuch as no one instructed Jacob before he made that vow - again you are overreaching.

Whether the pharisees tithed on herb gardens or not isn't the issue - they gave tithes and Jesus said they ought to do so, which brings into disrepute your avowed list about people who didn't give tithes.

Again you fall into the trap of trying to dictate how I follow an example. The bible says Moses was the most humble man on the face of the earth and I want to be humble. Does that mean I must marry an Ethiopian woman like Moses before I can completely follow his example?  Do I need to kill an Egyptian before I can follow Moses example on humility?  Must I go to U R in Mesopotamia and then leave my kindred and family before I can be seen to be imitating Abram's belief in God? 

Your reasoning is absurd - I do not need to create a carbon copy a biblical example before I can use it as a guide.

No one compelled Jacob to do what he did, he chose to institute his tithe, so I can choose to institute mine, either on a monthly or yearly basis as I deem fit. No one compelled Abraham to give his tithe, yet it was acceptable in the sight of God. If those two cases can be accepted, then, without even referring to the examples in Mosaic law (which are also valid) then those two are clear examples of guides that I can choose to use in my own giving now.

Your problem (along with others) is  a need to see a direct and complete imitation of something in the old testament to serve as justification. This is a legalistic mind set and is not beneficial. Examples can be followed without being unduly rigid and rigorous, as long as it is not turned into an obligatory routine.

Image123:

Chai, what's with this tithephobics and recycling.
BTW, how would Jesus fulfil the law without giving tithes? How would Paul be blameless in the law without giving tithes? This people sef. So anything not penned down in scripture was definitely not done. Where is wisdom which is profitable to direct? So on your line, we can assume Jesus never had his bath, or excrete. It'll be absurd for a Jew not to tithe. Malachi just went on to say that the WHOLE nation had robbed by not bringing tithes, but your half-truth poisoned half-baked minds would not process that. All you can see is law, law. One wonders what the 1st century christians read/or considered scripture. Any one who cuts out of God's Word would have his/her part cut out of God's city. You've been warned.

You must have a different Bible, kindly point out Scriptural references where Jesus paid tithe apart from the Temple tax, Paul's or the other Apostles' tithe would have been DOCUMENTED too had they paid or? Kindly show us SIR (Uber meister, bitte)

Jesus gave more than tithe, he paid our DEBTS, he gave us a new start, I don't think he told us to give others in the hope of getting a reward, he told us to love one another and treat each other like ourselves, reward being in HEAVEN, I don't know about you but I would much rather RECEIVE my reward in HEAVEN.


Go Celtics!

My how tithers add their OWN story to the Bible.

Just WHERE does the Word say that God accepted Abraham's tithe?

My Bible says the tithe was given to Melchizedek.  It says NOTHING about God accepting Abraham's tithe.

Amazing how different our Bibles seem to be.

garyarnold:

The command to tithe was not a principle, it was a law, to be followed as it was written.

This is the sort of literalism and legalism that I've always noted trails your arguments. Abraham did not receive any LAW to tithe; but he indeed tithed - and you don't find any principle there, no? Okay, if you want to drag a literalism for your anti-tithing arguments, let's follow it through and see how well your legalism can stand when scrutinized:

1. We can also say that the command in Deuteronomy 25:4 about not muzzling the "ox" is not a principle but a LAW - to be followed as it was written. Gary, that verse appears TWICE in the NT to Christians (1 Corinthians 9:9-10 and 1 Timothy 5:18) - are you following Deuteronomy 25:4 AS IT WAS WRITTEN? Where's your farm ranch? Don't come back ducking, because the Bible clearly says that the verse in Deut. 25:4 was written for OUR sakes (see 1 Cor. 9:10). So please tell us: are you following that verse AS IT WAS WRITTEN?

2. We can also say that the verse Exodus 16:18 which was quoted in the NT to Christians in 2 Corinthians 8:15 is not a principle but appears in the LAW - to be followed as it was written. The verse says: "he that gathered much had nothing over, and he that gathered little had no lack; they gathered every man according to his eating" (Exo. 16:18). Go back and read the chapter in that Exodus 16, you will not find anything there about offering or collection for the saints or any thing we talk about in terms of "the fellowship of the ministering to the saints". Rather, it was talking about the gathering of manna in the wilderness of Sin. Since it was not a principle, please Gary answer us: how many times have you sat down to gather manna in the wilderness of Sin? Where is your Israelite family? Since you want to push this legalism of your "follow as it was written", please show us when YOU have ever sat down in the wilderness of Sin to eat manna!

Oh, I could show you tons more scattered all over the NT where the apostles cited directly from the Law for Christians in the NT. One more -

3. In 1 Corinthians 9:13-14, the apostle was pointing back to the Law of Moses when he said: "Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar?" Compare this with Numbers 18 - that well-known passage on TITHES! Since you don't want to see PRINCIPLE but LAW, then read verse 14 of 1 Cor. 9 - "EVEN SO hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel." That is a direct command - do EVEN SO as you read in 1 Cor. 9:13. Don't come back cutting corners with "principles" - according to you, it is "to be followed as it was written", so go back to the TEMPLE and the OT ALTAR and follow the directions there AS IT WAS WRITTEN! Gary, how much of that have you personally obeyed?

You know what legalism does to the Christian? It just strains at a gnat and swallows a camel!^{Matthew 23:24} Most of the teachings in the NT for CHRISTIANS are taken directly from the OT LAW and applied as PRINCIPLES for our walk and testimony!

There are tons of examples scattered all over the New Testament - and if you can't see anything about their principles, good: just go ahead and follow then as they were written! You have to go back to the Land of Israel, obey the verse that says you should not muzzle the ox while it treadeth out the corn, you should gather manna in the wilderness of Sin and eat, you should also observe what happened in the OT temple and altar - do all these things as you have argued: they are "to be followed as they were written!!"

If you can't apply the same "followed as it was written" in these examples, you are hypocrite! You want to force legalism upon the necks of others; but when the same thing is presented to you and you're challenged to follow what you recommend, you begin to convulse!


Anyone who wants to tithe, do so without worrying about the fallacious arguments of "tithing was agricultural products. . . from the holy land. . . only farmers tithe. . . yada-yada-tada!!" All these stupid childish anti-tithing arguments are nothing but legalism that most anti-tithers would NEVER apply all through when it comes home to them! Yea, you read the OT, see no principles in them, and have the temerity to shout that they are "to be followed as it was written". You obey the examples I gave you above first, then I can listen to any other noise you make!

I'm not picking on you, Gary. . . but I think that the legalistic arguments you often make for your literalism should begin to be squarely faced. The goal is to help you go back to your study and see what you are deliberately missing. Here is another example:

garyarnold:

IF you follow Abraham's example as given in The Word, you will give a tenth of war spoils to a King and keep nothing for yourself.

Not necessarily. The first question is to ask yourself: what is an EXAMPLE?

An example is NOT a clone of a situation or event. It does not asks the recipient to condition all things and all materials and all events and all stakeholders to exactly the same thing as the prior event - to do so otherwise would be literalism and not an "example".

I've pointed out a good analogy that we find in the Bible about an "example" - 1 Peter 2:21 >> "Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps". We know, from the Gospels, how Christ suffered - from His arrest, torture, imprisonment, trial, condemnation, and ultimately the Crucifixion. We do not have to follow and replicate every detail in order to satisfy them as "EXAMPLE". No. For to replicate every detail is no longer an "example" but rather trying to clone the same event step-by-step and end up on a literal Cross!

So again with Abraham. When believers speak of following the example of the patriarch in tithing or any other aspect of faith, for you to recommend that they tithe only war spoils and give to a king and keep nothing to ourselves, etc - all such talk is merely LITERALISM that seeks a cloning of that incident, and that is not the meaning of an "example". An example would simply in this case mean that believers give a portion of what accrues to them in recognition of a divine priesthood - and believe it or not, Hebrews 7 reveals that priesthood!

It was Abraham's recognition of how great Melchizedek was - not "great" merely as a king, but more so as the priest of the most High God. While some assume that Melchizedek was a pagan priest, Scripture reveals otherwise and shows how such people are only interested in pushing their agenda!

Yes, many believers who look to Abraham's tithes as "example" are not seeking to clone the war and spoils and whatnots. Rather, it is a matter of the priesthood which Melchizedek stood for, and which now operates in the new covenant upon which Christianity is built.

Paul would have being called a scammer and a twister of scripture to suit his purpose and trade had he lived in our time. Thank God for the life in His Word. This pharisees would gladly crucify Christ again.

the way some of U who claim to be christians speak is suprising!! some of u talk without wisdom and understanding. U even go to the extent of quoting scriptures to suit u! instead of going around judging and criticising,why not use that time to pray and ask God to give u more understanding. anyone who judges another is automatically placing themselves on the same level with God. pls lets watch what we think and say!!

Image123:

Paul would have being called a scammer and a twister of scripture to suit his purpose and trade had he lived in our time. Thank God for the life in His Word. This pharisees would gladly crucify Christ again.

You made claims you appear unable to BACK UP, show us where Jesus Christ and Paul paid tithe jare and stop this running around in circles

nimma:

the way some of U who claim to be christians speak is suprising!! some of u talk without wisdom and understanding. U even go to the extent of quoting scriptures to suit u! instead of going around judging and criticising,why not use that time to pray and ask God to give u more understanding. anyone who judges another is automatically placing themselves on the same level with God. pls lets watch what we think and say!!

We would be very glad to hear from your own understanding - for it seems only sensible that the one who asks others to pray has done so herself and gained understanding. So share with us so we don't continue to 'suit' ourselves.

@viaro

you better go and PRAY before "nimma" comes back for you buddy

^^The very best advice anybody has given me in a decade! I'm humbled, bro!

Some of you criticise me for the legalism arguments, yet you don't seem to have the ability to see a "principle."

YOU want to take Abraham's tenth of war spoils and use it as a principle of giving ten percent.  You ignore what Biblical historians say that it was custom.

IF there is any principle, it would be that Abraham GAVE to a priesthood.  NOT the percentage.  

Too many use the definition of tithe from the current, modern-day dictionary.  In Abraham's day, the word tithe meant a tenth and had nothing to do with God, priesthoods, giving, paying, etc.  It was a mathematical term.

Abraham did NOT tithe as the word tithe is used today.  He gave a tenth of certain items, NOT even from his regular income.

The ONLY principle here (if there even is one) is that he gave to a priesthood - NOT the percentage or amount, and not what he gave.  OR, some could even say the principle is that Abraham kept nothing for himself.

You are dreaming when you say the principle is giving ten percent ESPECIALLY since the later mosaic law used a much smaller amount of war spoils to be given to the Levites.

garyarnold:

Some of you criticise me for the legalism arguments, yet you don't seem to have the ability to see a "principle."

Er, Gary. . . I don't know any other poster who has "criticized" you - as far as I'm aware, viaro is the one who particularly criticized your arguments for its legalism. I didn't find your argument funny or helpful to the believer at all, that was why my replies were quite strong. I apologise for the fray.

Some of us are all for principles - not literalism, such as you have recommended. The "principle" does not point to a clone of an event, that was why I gave you examples.

garyarnold:

YOU want to take Abraham's tenth of war spoils and use it as a principle of giving ten percent. You ignore what Biblical historians say that it was custom.

Should I remind you once again about what Abraham's tithe is regarded or interpreted as by historians? The only fellows I ever heard interpreting Abraham's tithes to be pagan tithes are anti-tithers - and that argument is fast losing its ground. However, even if it were a "custom", what would make for the interpretation that Abraham was obeying any such "custom"? WHY would it have been to Melchizedek that he would have tithed, and not to any other king? That is the most basic of all questions you guys have to ask and answer before writing it off as a "custom".

garyarnold:

IF there is any principle, it would be that Abraham GAVE to a priesthood. NOT the percentage.

There is a principle - so the question of "IF" just simply does not arise at all! And should we see that it was a priesthood that stands out in the principle, that is the same thing I for one have often maintained, as reiterated again on this page. Yet, what Abraham gave was marked out to be a "tithe" - it was a determined statement that could not be ignored or taken for granted. However, because we would not like to push this point too far (at least, I speak for myself), that is why I stand to agree with those who tithe without seeking to "bind" any particular amount or percentage on the neck of any believer!

One could tithe (10% or as they so choose) - others could prefer to NOT tithe. Neither the one who argues against tithe nor the pro-tither has the argument so water-tight to become a Law for the Body of Christ. Let every man decide in his heart what to do - but let the one who chooses to NOT tithe not then seek to argue that others should not tithe!

garyarnold:

Too many use the definition of tithe from the current, modern-day dictionary. In Abraham's day, the word tithe meant a tenth and had nothing to do with God, priesthoods, giving, paying, etc. It was a mathematical term.

You're shooting yourself in the leg. In Abraham's day, the tithe is the tenth - if you have any other argument with substance on that one, please show us that they are "different" in a very strong way. Second, Abraham's tithe had everything to do with God - for right after the priest of the most High God blessed God and Abraham, the patriarch gave Melchizedek a tithe.

Third, if Abraham's tithe had nothing to do with priesthood, why then does he choose to give to the priest of the most High God and not to some other king? Melchizedek was not even the king of the place where Abraham lived/sojourned - so why Melchizedek?!? Fourth, of what use is it to keep maintaining that Abraham's tithe was mere a mathematical term - as if after all the mathematics involved, it failed to be called "tithes" in the Bible? Why does the Bible refer to it as tithes?!?

I don't think your comments yet has captured the essence of the "principle" of which we speak - but that's okay. . . fingers crossed, you shall get there (Php. 3:15).

garyarnold:
Abraham did NOT tithe as the word tithe is used today. He gave a tenth of certain items, NOT even from his regular income.

What is the difference, bro? Just what is the difference in meaning between "tithes" in Abraham's case and tithes as appear in other passages of the Bible? Why this push away from Scripture in principle to argue for non-essentials?

garyarnold:

The ONLY principle here (if there even is one) is that he gave to a priesthood - NOT the percentage or amount, and not what he gave. OR, some could even say the principle is that Abraham kept nothing for himself.

Your effort to make that^^ "the only principle" does not necessarily make it so. Both what he gave (tithes) and the priesthood (Melchizedek) are what we find in the "principle" we talk about in Genesis. You cannot argue away what he gave as if Scripture does not clearly declare what it was - it calls it "tithes" in both the OT and NT! We are not saying that in "principle", the only thing that should define our giving is an exactitude of "10%" - no, the Christian should endeavour to do more than that as he/she is able. If therefore believers draw from Abraham to start at the tithe as a principle for themselves, what sin is in that - especially since even you agree that it has to do with the priesthood?

garyarnold:

You are dreaming when you say the principle is giving ten percent ESPECIALLY since the later mosaic law used a much smaller amount of war spoils to be given to the Levites.

The Mosaic Law does not pre-define Abraham's life; nor does it pre-define the priesthood of Melchizedek. If you want to stretch this argument, please recognize that even Levi to whom the Mosaic Law pertained, are said to have given tithes in Abraham - to the same melchizedek (heb. 7:9). The Law under Judaism does not supercede the priesthood that was first recognized before the emergence of the nation of Israel.

@ viaro

Thanks for giving garyglory a definition the word of example  - sometimes it's the use of English that confuses issues and may affect understanding.

I must also confess to be a critic of his legalistic arguments and pursuit of exactitude, even when not required in the bible.

garyarnold:

My how tithers add their OWN story to the Bible.

Just WHERE does the Word say that God accepted Abraham's tithe?

My Bible says the tithe was given to Melchizedek.  It says NOTHING about God accepting Abraham's tithe.

Amazing how different our Bibles seem to be.

Again this is an issue of English language and seeking literalism - I said his tithe was acceptable in the sight of God, that is why it could be referenced in the NT in the manner it was. I did not say God came down and literally accepted the giving.

Again, this is a legalistic argument bent on forcing an exactitude not even claimed in my post.

To surmise, you have not come up with any coherent argument to remove the validity of Abram's example, or Jacob's or the one mentioned in Deuteronomy 26:12, as guides for giving for a Christian. As long as those examples are valid and were acceptable to God, they can be preached loud and clear - as long as not regarded as an obligation.

Ogagim
I recall asking a question which you highlighted, so stop being dishonest. Talk about being undirected. Did you and your pals not argue that tithe is under the law?

viaro said, "You cannot argue away what he gave as if Scripture does not clearly declare what it was - it calls it "tithes" in both the OT and NT!"

NO IT DOES NOT.  The KJV calls it a tithe in Genesis and a TENTH in Hebrews.  Yet in the same chapter of Hebrews, when referring to Levi, the KJV uses the word tithe.  WHY does the KJV distinguish between Abraham's TENTH and Levi's TITHE?  And WHY does almost every other version of the Holy Bible use the word TENTH in Genesis, and also distinguish between Abraham's TENTH and Levi's TITHE in Hebrews 7?  The scriptures DO make a distinction between the two.  The Hebrew word translated in Hebrews 7 for Abraham's tenth is NOT the same as the Hebrew word translated in Hebrews 7 for Levi's tithe.  Again, the scriptures make a distinction between tenth and tithe.

Once God defined His tithe in Leviticus 27:30-33, we have a NEW definition for "The Lord's Tithe."  The Lord's "tithe" is not just a mathematical term.

@ garyarnold

So the issue now is the 'definition' of a tenth or tithe? 

Ok, I want to give a tenth of my income to support the church, using the guide of Abraham's giving of a tenth. 

You have only confused yourself further - a few breaths ago, you claimed that the principle in Abraham's 'tithe/tenth' was in giving to priests, now you are saying they are different from Levi's tithe, when the bible says that Levi paid tithe while in the loins of Abraham?

Abraham's 'tithe/tenth' was done of his own volition - the 'tithe/tenth/12.5/etc' under the law was mandated. Apart from that difference, I do not see what you are trying to achieve through your distinction.

No one is arguing (except you) about 'the Lord's tithe' or any OT definitions under legalism - what is being proposed is using the giving (regardless of its nomenclature) in the OT to guide a Christian's giving today. We don't need to nail down definitions before we can do that.

You people are missing THE WHOLE POINT.

I have NO problem with anyone giving a tenth of their income to the church or anywhere else.  I have NO problem with anyone who wishes to use Abraham's so-called example and give a tenth of whatever you wish to the church or anywhere else.

I DO have a problem with calling that giving as PAYING tithe, or tithing.  Why not call it was it is - giving a tenth of your income.  It is NOT tithing, Biblically speaking.  WHY must you CONFUSE THE ISSUES by calling your giving a tithe?

Most church goers have not studied these issues and are being misled when people call giving, tithing.  Since we go to church to learn The Word, why not try to be accurate in our choice of words?  The English language is bad enough without intentional confusion be added.

Most church goers I have known equate tithing with The Lord's Tithe.

WORDS ARE POWERFUL.  We should choose the best word to convey our message to lessen confusion.

Isn't there already enough confusion in this area of The Word?

garyarnold:

You people are missing THE WHOLE POINT.

I have NO problem with anyone giving a tenth of their income to the church or anywhere else.  I have NO problem with anyone who wishes to use Abraham's so-called example and give a tenth of whatever you wish to the church or anywhere else.

Glad to hear that.

I DO have a problem with calling that giving as PAYING tithe, or tithing.  Why not call it was it is - giving a tenth of your income.  It is NOT tithing, Biblically speaking.  WHY must you CONFUSE THE ISSUES by calling your giving a tithe?

Tithe is an English word - to get hung up on its usage is misdirected attention. The bible was never written in English, so trying to say it is not tithe biblically speaking is a waste of time. Again, this is rooted in your need for exactitude - while this is your personal decision, you cannot enforce it on others.

Most church goers have not studied these issues and are being misled when people call giving, tithing.  Since we go to church to learn The Word, why not try to be accurate in our choice of words?  The English language is bad enough without intentional confusion be added.

I agree we must clarify things, but tithe is an accurate word for 10% giving. Nothing you've said has changed that. By prefixing it with 'The Lord's' you might make a distinction significant to you, but to most people it is irrelevant.

Most church goers I have known equate tithing with The Lord's Tithe.

WORDS ARE POWERFUL.  We should choose the best word to convey our message to lessen confusion.

Isn't there already enough confusion in this area of The Word? 

You have not shed much light on it either - Abraham's giving can be legitimately called a tithe, so can Jacob's so again, you have not achieved anything with this distinction you are trying to make.

What we should emphasise is that giving is from the heart and not a matter of compulsion, and focus less on trying to bring exact definitions to the tithe that don't serve much benefit.

debosky:

To surmise, you have not come up with any coherent argument to remove the validity of Abram's example, or Jacob's or the one mentioned in Deuteronomy 26:12, as guides for giving for a Christian. As long as those examples are valid and were acceptable to God, they can be preached loud and clear - as long as not regarded as an obligation.

This is the part that worries me. How exactly are you going to preach this?

Some suggestions from zikkyy;

‘As Christians we should at all time strive to give up 10% of our income just like daddy Abraham’
‘Like Daddy Abraham, let’s all give 10% of our income’
‘Daddy Abraham gave 10%, as Christians the lower thresh-hold of our giving is set at 10%. If you can give more, give more but never less’
‘10% should be the base for giving, anything less is not acceptable by God’

Don’t you think this will be contradicting zero thresh-hold giving as preached in the NT. How do you reconcile both giving? So Pastor debosky, confuse convince me, let hear that sermon.

Gary made a comment in post 305, what exactly are you going to call this giving? Let hear you debosky, I am really interested.

Although the following would be correct, I believe people would be confused if I said:

The New Health Care law in the US adds a tithe to the cost of tanning services.

Employers must withhold a tithe more in state income taxes.

The tax change means people who would have paid a tithe, will now have to pay a double tithe.

Jun 2, 2010 ,  Business tax receipts down a tithe.

The Recovery Act also provided a tax credit for plug-in electric drive conversion kits. The credit is equal to a tithe of the cost of converting a vehicle to a qualified plug-in electric drive motor vehicle and placed in service after Feb. 17, 2009.

Get the point?  Better to use a word that causes less confusion or misunderstanding.

garyarnold:

Although the following would be correct, I believe people would be confused if I said:

The New Health Care law in the US adds a tithe to the cost of tanning services.

Employers must withhold a tithe more in state income taxes.

The tax change means people who would have paid a tithe, will now have to pay a double tithe.

Jun 2, 2010 , Business tax receipts down a tithe.

The Recovery Act also provided a tax credit for plug-in electric drive conversion kits. The credit is equal to a tithe of the cost of converting a vehicle to a qualified plug-in electric drive motor vehicle and placed in service after Feb. 17, 2009.

Get the point? Better to use a word that causes less confusion or misunderstanding.

Gary, a tithe is NOT a tax - unless you are going to start arguing that God taxed His people whne He spoke about tithes in the Law. You guys should not confuse issues further for yourselves on this subject.

viaro,

One definition of tithe from Webster's Dictionary:
a tenth part or any indefinitely small part of anything

We are not dealing with the Biblical tithe in my examples which show how confusing my comments would be.

debosky:

What we should emphasise is that giving is from the heart and not a matter of compulsion,

It would really be nice to see how this fit into your sermon. I will be paying my 10% after your sermon, if you’re willing to accept an e-cheque

garyarnold:

The New Health Care law in the US adds a tithe to the cost of tanning services.

Employers must withhold a tithe more in state income taxes.

The tax change means people who would have paid a tithe, will now have to pay a double tithe.

Jun 2, 2010 , Business tax receipts down a tithe.

The Recovery Act also provided a tax credit for plug-in electric drive conversion kits. The credit is equal to a tithe of the cost of converting a vehicle to a qualified plug-in electric drive motor vehicle and placed in service after Feb. 17, 2009.

You got a good sense of humor gary. I like this.

Here is even more to show that VIARO is now confused!

Vario said, and I quote:  "Gary, a tithe is NOT a tax - unless you are going to start arguing that God taxed His people whne He spoke about tithes in the Law."

No, I am not arguing that God taxed His people when He spoke of tithes in the law.  I am not talking about the law at all - just like those who say we are not under the law.  

From Webster's Dictionary.

Another definition of tithe:
any tax, levy, or the like, esp. of one-tenth

From the American Heritage dictionary - one definition of tithe:
A tax or an assessment of one tenth

You see, viaro, many people use a modern-day dictionary when reading their Bible.  Not everyone has Hebrew and Greek dictionaries.

I think YOU have proven my point that choice of words used IS very important.

garyarnold:

viaro,

One definition of tithe from Webster's Dictionary:
a tenth part or any indefinitely small part of anything

We are not dealing with the Biblical tithe in my examples which show how confusing my comments would be.

Tithe is just a tenth part - no matter how you define it. Webster does not tell you that the 'tithe' in the Bible amounts to anything other than the meaning as used today. It has always been basically a tenth of anything - before and after Abraham.

garyarnold:

Here is even more to show that VIARO is now confused!

Lol, viaro is NOT confused. My reply to that was because I was carefully checking you out on those lines - I don't hastily rush a reply lest I am made to suck in my tongue!

garyarnold:
Vario said, and I quote: "Gary, a tithe is NOT a tax - unless you are going to start arguing that God taxed His people whne He spoke about tithes in the Law."

No, I am not arguing that God taxed His people when He spoke of tithes in the law. I am not talking about the law at all - just like those who say we are not under the law.

Good. Then what was the proint in your connecting tithe and tax then?

garyarnold:

From Webster's Dictionary.

Another definition of tithe:
any tax, levy, or the like, esp. of one-tenth

From the American Heritage dictionary - one definition of tithe:
A tax or an assessment of one tenth

You see, viaro, many people use a modern-day dictionary when reading their Bible. Not everyone has Hebrew and Greek dictionaries.

I think YOU have proven my point that choice of words used IS very important.

No, I did not "prove" your point. Please see the following on tithe harvested from Webster Online Dictionary of `1913 -

Tithe (?), n. [OE. tithe, tethe, properly an adj., tenth, AS. teó&unr_;a the tenth; akin to tién, t&unr_;n, tēn, ten, G. zehnte, adj., tenth, n., a tithe, Icel. tīund the tenth; tithe, Goth. taíhunda tenth. See Ten, and cf. Tenth, Teind.] 1. A tenth; the tenth part of anything; specifically, the tenthpart of the increase arising from the profits of land and stock, allotted to the clergy for their support, as in England, or devoted to religious or charitable uses. Almost all the tithes of England and Wales are commuted by law into rent charges.
[1913 Webster]

The tithes of the corn, the new wine, and the oil. Neh. xiii. 5.
[1913 Webster]

&hand_; Tithes are called personal when accuring from labor, art, trade, and navigation; predial, when issuing from the earth, as hay, wood, and fruit; and mixed, when accuring from beaste fed from the ground. Blackstone.
[1913 Webster]

2. Hence, a small part or proportion. Bacon.
[1913 Webster]

Great tithes, tithes of corn, hay, and wood. -- Mixed tithes, tithes of wool, milk, pigs, etc. -- Small tithes, personal and mixed tithes. -- Tithe commissioner, one of a board of officers appointed by the government for arranging propositions for commuting, or compounding for, tithes. [Eng.] Simmonds.
[1913 Webster]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tithe, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Tithed (?); p. pr. & vb. n. Tithing.] [As. teó&unr_;ian.] To levy a tenth part on; to tax to the amount of a tenth; to pay tithes on.
[1913 Webster]

Ye tithe mint and rue. Luke xi. 42.
[1913 Webster]

That is just one example - from Webster. Other resources abound if you care to check. However, I don't think I have proven your point; and a tithe is NOT a tax.

garyarnold:

viaro said, "You cannot argue away what he gave as if Scripture does not clearly declare what it was - it calls it "tithes" in both the OT and NT!"

Yes, I said so.

garyarnold:
NO IT DOES NOT. The KJV calls it a tithe in Genesis and a TENTH in Hebrews.

Could I show you that the same KJV calls it "tithes" in both the OT and NT, sir? Here goes -

[list][li]And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all - Genesis 14:20, KJV[/li][/list]

[list][li]But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises - Hebrews 7:6, KJV[/li][/list]

I understand your problem here is one on definition - so, you argue that it was supposed to be tenth and not tithe, no?

If that is the case, we know that Hebrews 7:6 is referring to the same thing Genesis 14:20 calls Abraham's tithes. To be technical and pedantic, the Greek word in Hebrews 7:4 & 6 for Abraham's tithe is δεκατόω which is usually translated a "tenth" - yet, is the "tenth" in those verses not the same thing that is referred to in Genesis 14:20 as TITHES?

To say they are not the same is like arguing that Abram is not Abraham simply because Gen. 14 says "Abram" while Hebrews 7 used "Abraham" instead! We know that Abram is the same Abraham (1 Chron. 1:27) - and so, there is no argument likewise that the "tithes" in Genesis 14:20 is the same "tenths" in Hebrews 7:6.

Another way of forcing this argument as you do is to argue against Hebrews 7:9 that Levi who received tithes actually does not recive tithes but a mathematical "tenths"! The same word (δεκατόω) is used in Greek in that verse, so are you going to maintain that just because this verse in Greek uses "δεκατόω", it cannot be understood that Levi received tithes?

You see, this argument between a so-called 'mathematical tenths' and "not tithes" is just unnecessary. What Genesis 14:20 calls "tithes" (מעשׂרה / מעשׂר / מעשׂר - ma‛ăśêr/ma‛ăśar/ma‛aśrâh) is the very same thing that Hebrews 7 was referring for Abraham's tithes/tenths. There is no justification for the differentiating between them as if they spring from two entirely different universes!

I hope this explanation helps resolve your deep concern between "tithes" and "tenths" with regards to Abraham?

garyarnold:

Yet in the same chapter of Hebrews, when referring to Levi, the KJV uses the word tithe. WHY does the KJV distinguish between Abraham's TENTH and Levi's TITHE? And WHY does almost every other version of the Holy Bible use the word TENTH in Genesis, and also distinguish between Abraham's TENTH and Levi's TITHE in Hebrews 7? The scriptures DO make a distinction between the two.

The Scriptures do not make any "distinction" between them - they are the same thing in reference. If there is a world of difference between them, then you should have shown us from Scripture what exactly that difference is!

However, the KJV actually uses "tithes" with respect to Levi in verse Heb. 7:5; but in verse 8 and 9, the word in Greek understood as "tenths" - "And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes (δεκάτη - dekatē), payed tithes (δεκάτη - dekatē) in Abraham" (Hebrews 7:9)

Whether one wants to use "tithes" or "tenths", they are THE SAME THINGS being spoken about for Levi in those verses. There is not a single verse where we read that Levi had seperate commandments for tithes and tenths as if they are two different things.

garyarnold:

And WHY does almost every other version of the Holy Bible use the word TENTH in Genesis, and also distinguish between Abraham's TENTH and Levi's TITHE in Hebrews 7?

That is not true, Gary. First, the Hebrew word for "tithes" in Genesis 14:20 is (מעשׂרה / מעשׂר / מעשׂר - ma‛ăśêr/ma‛ăśar/ma‛aśrâh) which is the very same word used for "tithes" in Leviticus 27 and Numbers 18.

However, it is NOT true that every other Bible translation uses "TENTH" in Genesis - here are a few others you probably are not aware of that uses the word "tithes" -

[list][li]'. . .And he gave him a tithe of all' - Gen. 14:20, NKJV[/li][/list]

[list][li]'. . .and Abram gaue him tithes of all' - Gen. 14:20, Bishops Bible (1568)[/li][/list]

[list][li]'. . .And he gave him the tithes of all' - Gen. 14:20, Douay Rheims (1899)[/li][/list]

[list][li]'. . .And Abram gaue him tythe of all.' - Gen. 14:20, Geneva Bible (1587)[/li][/list]

[list][li]'. . .And he gave him a tithe of all.' - Gen. 14:20, Literal Translation of the Hokly Bible (LITV)[/li][/list]

[list][li]'. . .And he gave him tithes of all' - Gen. 14:20, Webster Bible (1833)[/li][/list]

There are a few others hanging in my shelf; but the point is that not every other version used TENTH as you claimed! The Hebrew word in that verse is the same used for TITHES in both Leviticus 27 and Numbers 18.

garyarnold:
The Hebrew word translated in Hebrews 7 for Abraham's tenth is NOT the same as the Hebrew word translated in Hebrews 7 for Levi's tithe. Again, the scriptures make a distinction between tenth and tithe.

There's no dictinction - they are referring to the same thing.

garyarnold:

Once God defined His tithe in Leviticus 27:30-33, we have a NEW definition for "The Lord's Tithe." The Lord's "tithe" is not just a mathematical term.

Scripture does not give any new definition to the word TITHES in the OT. Go through yourself and see that the hebrew word used in Genesis 14:20 is the same used in Leviticus 27 and Numbers 18 in the exact same connotation.

@viaro
you really do have a passion for any subject related to tithes don't you?

viaro is STILL confused!

NONE of my example said that tithe was a tax.  All you have to do is substitute the word TENTH in the examples to see what they say, NOT the word tax.

WORDS SHOULD BE CHOSEN CAREFULLY.

viaro is STILL confused but won't admit it!