garyarnold:


You are wrong, wordtalk.

And I showed you plain as can be that the victor did not own ALL of the spoils in Numbers 31.  Rather than admit your error, you try to put the emphasis on something else.  You need to grow up.

I am asking you once more:

wordtalk:


What again does Numbers 31:53 mean by "the men of war had taken spoil, every man for himself"?? Were they violating Deuteronomy 20:14? Please tell me, I'm curious: what does "ALL its spoil" mean to you in Deut. 20:14?

Have you also checked with external references I shared elsewhere with you concerning the fact that it is a UNIVERSAL truth that spoils of war belonged to victors by rights of conquest? Have you? What did those external references say? Please share your findings with me.

Rather than making unfounded allegations in self-pity, please be man enough to show me ONE VERSE where God said that spoils of war did not belong to the victors; and when you do, then reconcile that verse with Deuteronomy 20:14. Plain enough, isn't it?

wordtalk - you are a joke. You keep picking verses out of context and want me to explain them to you.

You obviously have NO training as to what a "principle" even is, so I am not going to continue wasting my time on this nonsense. You keep asking questions rather than answer the questions that others and myself have asked you.

You have very good debate skills, but your Biblical understanding is lacking. And being able to come up with valid principles from what you read is non-existent.

Therefore, I will debate with those who have some common sense, and will answer my questions, but not with you any more.

garyarnold:

wordtalk - you are a joke.  You keep picking verses out of context and want me to explain them to you.

I'm used to your lame excuses, so what's new? If you can be man enough to show clear answers to simple questions for your assertions, do so. Other than that, you draw on such excuses as your first-aid!

You obviously have NO training as to what a "principle" even is, so I am not going to continue wasting my time on this nonsense.

Your national anthem!

You keep asking questions rather than answer the questions that others and myself have asked you.

You make silly assertions which you can't substantiate; I point out why they are dead wrong and post clear references which you excuse away or never return to comment on, and now you're flapping for jingoistic self-pity?

You have very good debate skills,

Thanks - but . . . yawn!

but your Biblical understanding is lacking.

Okay, that's another song you often sing. I lack Biblical understanding well enough to show that your total of 1.1% is a fallacy - and you could not answer the questions I asked around verses 50-54 of Numbers 31? And you did Accounting in school?

I lack this 'Biblical understanding' to point out how you were trying to cheat on the KJV not using 'tithe' for Abraham in Hebrews 7:6, whereas it does?

I totally lack this 'Biblical understanding' of yours to point out how your doctorate anti-tithing theologians are feeding you with shoddy scholarship of a "list of opponents" where several of those names actually did NOT oppose tithing? What have you said on just one example I posted on Thomas Aquinas? Doesn't that "list" need a revising or rather being retired instead of seeking to play fast and loose with it on a public forum?

I also lack your 'Biblical understanding' enough to have shown that spoils of war belonged to victors by rights of conquest as per Deut. 20:14; Num. 31:53; 1 Sam. 30:20; etc.? - and for all that you could not show even ONE VERSE for your denial?

Sir, I'm quite happy to lack that your 'unbiblical understanding' which you parade for your fallacies - the score board shows exactly what it is.

And being able to come up with valid principles from what you read is non-existent.

That's another way of saying you have not read beyond your small view. I would not have to wonder anymore as to why you have forever said nothing about the external scholarly references I showed you for your denials - what's keeping you, hmm?

Therefore, I will debate with those who have some common sense, and will answer my questions, but not with you any more.

Have you heard of "jingoism" and/or "demagoguery" in debates? That's what you're simply advertising in that last line.

wordtalk:

The highlighted words are the answer you seek concerning my identifying the said principle.

What does the word "tithe" mean to you in basic definition? I'm sure you saw where I defined other terms such as circumcision (ie., consecration), etc? When you see the basic meaning behind the term, it would not be difficult to see the difference between a legalistic application and an application in principle.

The reason why some keep asking this question repeatedly is because they ignore the explanations and references cited already in order to maintain a legalistic argument.

Forgive me, but I've read most of what you've written on this thread, but have not seen where you explained the principles behind tithing. If you don't mind, indulge me one more time. Your explanation that the tenth is the principle does not satisfy, since the tithe itself is the tenth. Are you saying that God has a principle of honoring the tenth (of things) so that when we give a tenth of income, we're following that principle? If so, where in the Bible did you find such principle? Why did God choose ten and not, 9,8, 7 or any other number?Also, shouldn't we then be honoring him, in addition to income, with a tenth of other things - yet I don't hear that preached? And how often should we honor him with the tenth in a year? For you to be consistent, our fulfilment of the tithe cannot be a repetition of the OT practice, because that's not the approach you take with our fulfilment of other practices, such as circumcision.

nlMediator:

Forgive me, but I've read most of what you've written on this thread, but have not seen where you explained the principles behind tithing. If you don't mind, indulge me one more time. Your explanation that the tenth is the principle does not satisfy, since the tithe itself is the tenth. Are you saying that God has a principle of honoring the tenth (of things) so that when we give a tenth of income, we're following that principle? If so, where in the Bible did you find such principle? Why did God choose ten and not, 9,8, 7 or any other number?Also, shouldn't we then be honoring him, in addition to income, with a tenth of other things - yet I don't hear that preached? And how often should we honor him with the tenth in a year?  For you to be consistent, our fulfilment of the tithe cannot be  a repetition of the OT practice, because that's not the approach you take with our fulfilment of other practices, such as circumcision.

What is the principle in a tenth My brother, it's obvious these guys will not be able to explain this theory. Tithe is only seen as a principle when tithing advocate are desperately trying to justify their position.

^^^
Abi oh! Tithe mongers resorted to labelling tithes as a 'principle' when it was glaring that the scam had no legitimate basis under the new covenant neither is it relevant to true christian doctrine. This is the information age and people are getting better informed. However because of the love for filthy lucre derived from the tithing scam, tithe mongers had to invent a new spin to it to sustain the racket hence their coming up with unsubstantiated claims that it is a principle.

Zikkyy:

What is the principle in a tenth My brother, it's obvious these guys will not be able to explain this theory. Tithe is only seen as a principle when tithing advocate are desperately trying to justify their position.

It all depends on how you approach the issue, and who exactly you may mean by "these guys" and "tithing advocates" - if that includes the same anti-tithing "guys" who at the same time are in "agreement" with pastors who teach tithing. Whatever label you may come up with, "these guys" most definitely include anti-tithing theologians.

wordtalk:
In very fact, Paul drew from passages of the OT Law on tithing in order to teach on support and sustenance for preachers of the Gospel in 1 Corinthians 9:13-14

wordtalk:
Have you read Numbers 18 and compared with 1 Corinthians 9:13? Is it difficult to see that Paul was referring to the Levitical system when he said in verse 13 - "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?"

wordtalk:
So, if you were looking for "even ONE example in the NT where the Levitical system of tithing was used to as a principle to encourage giving", you have it in Paul's epistle in 1 Corinthians 9:13.

I find this bit interesting. When you read Numbers 18, is it just tithe you see? 1 Corinthians 9:13-14 talks about ministers living off the holy things of the temple and being partakers with the altar, i like to ask what offerings actually get to the altar? what are the holy things of the temple? Is the tithe taken to the altar? the answer to that is NO. reading numbers, we see that offerings that gets to the altar includes Cereal offering, sin offering, holocaust and guilt offering. So why do you believe Paul was referring to tithe and not cereal, sin or guilt offering? I have to agree with Debosky that the Corinthians passage was referring to the principle supporting people primarily working for God, and not to tithing as a principle. I think that was a desperate attempt to make peeps believe Paul was in support of tithing.

Numbers 18:8-13(KJV)
8And the LORD spake unto Aaron, Behold, I also have given thee the charge of mine heave offerings of all the hallowed things of the children of Israel; unto thee have I given them by reason of the anointing, and to thy sons, by an ordinance for ever.
9This shall be thine of the most holy things, reserved from the fire: every oblation of their's, every meat offering of their's, and every sin offering of their's, and every trespass offering of their's which they shall render unto me, shall be most holy for thee and for thy sons.
10In the most holy place shalt thou eat it; every male shall eat it: it shall be holy unto thee.
11And this is thine; the heave offering of their gift, with all the wave offerings of the children of Israel: I have given them unto thee, and to thy sons and to thy daughters with thee, by a statute for ever: every one that is clean in thy house shall eat of it.
12All the best of the oil, and all the best of the wine, and of the wheat, the firstfruits of them which they shall offer unto the LORD, them have I given thee.
13And whatsoever is first ripe in the land, which they shall bring unto the LORD, shall be thine; every one that is clean in thine house shall eat of it.

wordtalk:

It all depends on how you approach the issue, and who exactly you may mean by "these guys" and "tithing advocates"

On this thread, i know of two people referring to tithe as a principle; wordtalk and Joagbaje

wordtalk:

if that includes the same anti-tithing "guys" who at the same time are in "agreement" with pastors who teach tithing. Whatever label you may come up with, "these guys" most definitely include anti-tithing theologians.

i don't know of any anti-tithing theologians referring to tithe as a principle. If there are, i think they also don't know what they are talking about

Tithes and offerings are all based on spiritual principles . They are beyond the laws and commandment. Tithing is least in our givings, I still wonder why the fuss over it. People give land ,cars ,houses. If a pastor want to deafraud why go or ten percent why not 50 percent. All these scamming alarm are very funny.

Joagbaje:

Tithes and offerings are all based on spiritual principles .

Something you are unable to explain

Joagbaje:

Tithing is least in our givings, I still wonder why the fuss over it.

There will be no 'fuss' when the pastor stop preaching tithing as a Christian requirement

Joagbaje:

People give land ,cars ,houses.

if they give car and house nko what's my business

Joagbaje:

If a pastor want to deafraud why go or ten percent why not 50 percent.

no venture, no gain. Pastor should attempt 50% and see if he will be successful

Zikkyy:

On this thread, i know of two people referring to tithe as a principle; wordtalk and Joagbaje

You should have a broader thinking. If this is the first time you ever heard that tithe could be a principle in Christian giving, please read broadly. This is why I have mentioned a few examples of names which appear on a "list" and noted that even some anti-tithing theologians are in "agreement" with pastors who teach tithing.

i don't know of any anti-tithing theologians referring to tithe as a principle. If there are, i think they also don't know what they are talking about

Okay, that's nice. I should chalk this up for garyarnold who gave a "list of tithing opponents in history" - surely, those anti-tithers who oppose tithing don't know what they are talking about.

Zikkyy:

I find this bit interesting. When you read Numbers 18, is it just tithe you see? 1 Corinthians 9:13-14 talks about ministers living off the holy things of the temple and being partakers with the altar, i like to ask what offerings actually get to the altar? what are the holy things of the temple? Is the tithe taken to the altar? the answer to that is NO. reading numbers, we see that offerings that gets to the altar includes Cereal offering, sin offering, holocaust and guilt offering. So why do you believe Paul was referring to tithe and not cereal, sin or guilt offering? I have to agree with Debosky that the Corinthians passage was referring to the principle supporting people primarily working for God, and not to tithing as a principle. I think that was a desperate attempt to make peeps believe Paul was in support of tithing.

I think your comments would have been somewhat different if you had carefully read my response here: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-724424.288.html#msg8873252

This principle that we are talking about is really the main contention here.

Who delibrated on this principle and under whose directives was this Principle established?

Look up principle in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

A principle is a law or rule that has to be, or usually is to be followed, or can be desirably followed, or is an inevitable consequence of something, such as the laws observed in nature or the way that a system is constructed. The principles of such a system are understood by its users as the essential characteristics of the system, or reflecting system's designed purpose, and the effective operation or use of which would be impossible if any one of the principles was to be ignored

A law or a rule.

Who precipitated this Law or Rule?

Why is there no clear directive in the NT to part with 10% as it was clearly directed in Deuteronomy on how to Tithe?  

If it was so important why did'nt Jesus or God not just mention it?

Very simple, but as always Humans must figure a way to complicate simple matters

Joagbaje:

Tithes and offerings are all based on spiritual principles . They are beyond the laws and commandment. Tithing is least in our givings, I still wonder why the fuss over it. People give land ,cars ,houses. If a pastor want to deafraud why go or ten percent why not 50 percent. All these scamming alarm are very funny.

I happily drop 10%. It does not bother me. And no pastor I have been under has misused church members' contributions. But there are core issues beyond the size of the tithe:

(1) The need for our practices to be grounded in the Bible.

(2) The need to be sincere in what we are teaching, even if it only takes one penny out of people's pockets.

(3) The need to explain things clearly. We keep on hearing that tithing is based on principles, but not one person has mentioned what these principles are. Yet, we're supposed to simply accept it.

(4) The need not to keep people in bondage or guilt if God has not imposed the duty to do a particular thing.

(5) The need not to keep people away from God's plan for them. E.g., X just received 100K Naira. Immediately, an opportunity came for him to invest the money and reap extra 50K by month end. If tithe is an obligation, he cannot do that. He misses the opportunity. If tithe is not an obligation, he takes the opportunity. With the new 150K Naira, he gives 20K Naira to the church (God). Everybody wins. With obligatory tithing, he only gave 10K Naira. Everybody loses. Now, if tithe is really obligatory, it doesn't matter that he only gave 10K since following what God says is better in the long run. But to be dismissive on the basis that the tithe is a small portion is unhelpful.

Note, I've not even mentioned those that do not have 10% to give from their income. People, who after their creditors have taken monthly obligations such as mortgage, rent, car note, children's school fees, feeding, have less than 10% left. The children of Israel never faced this kind of problem and were required to tithe out of their abundance. Even Abraham gave 10% when he didn't have to worry where fuel money would come from after tithing. Pastors need to be more sympathetic, instead of adopting a cavalier attitude that dismisses people's concerns. [BTW, I have the same atittude toward any "obligation" in the church, even non-financial ones]

wordtalk:

You should have a broader thinking. If this is the first time you ever heard that tithe could be a principle in Christian giving, please read broadly.

Well, they are not available here on NL to prove their cause. on NL, i see wordtalk & Joagbaje. Can you get these guys to come over to NL But if you do have useful links, please provide, thanks.

wordtalk:

This is why I have mentioned a few examples of names which appear on a "list" and noted that even some anti-tithing theologians are in "agreement" with pastors who teach tithing.

The way i see it, anybody that agrees with the fraudulent preaching of tithe cannot be against tithing. It all depend on how you categorize people (i.e. pro-tither & anti-tither). for example, i can tell you i don't have issues with people giving a tenth of their income to the church (if that's what they chose to do), and at the same don't agree with the preaching of tithe. would you place me in the the anti-tithing category?

wordtalk:

Okay, that's nice. I should chalk this up for garyarnold who gave a "list of tithing opponents in history" - surely, those anti-tithers who oppose tithing don't know what they are talking about.

Yes, if they did believe tithing is a principle but can't explain what the principle is all about

"Tithe" or "tenth" is not a principle.  It is an absolute.

A tenth of one's income is not a principle that can be derived from the Bible since nowhere in the Bible is a tenth of one's income used as a tithe.  A tenth of one's money is not a principle that can be derived from the Bible since nowhere in the Bible is a tenth of one's money used as a tithe.

Even in Leviticus 27:30-33, the tithe of the crops could be bought back (redeemed) by taking the VALUE OF THE TITHE (tenth of the crops) and add a fifth to it.  It wasn't a tenth of the money.  It wasn't a tenth of the farmer's income.  The tithe was still the crops and not the money.

Since NO tithe in the Bible related to anyone's income, it is not possible to logically conclude that there was a principle of giving a tenth of income.

Those who use this " spiritual principle" can never define it.  It isn't logical.  It is just man made-up garbage.

In another blog, wordtalk showed his total lack of mathematical skills.  My experience has been that those who lack good mathematical skills usually also lack the ability to make logical conclusions.  Many theologians may also be in this category.

This whole thing of a tithing principle came up in the late 1800s when some church leaders mistakenly believed that the Israelites tithed on their income.  They didn't know the difference between assets and income.  They were not accountants, so that is understandable.  However, since their premise was wrong, so was their conclusion.

wordtalk:

I think your comments would have been somewhat different if you had carefully read my response here: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-724424.288.html#msg8873252

i don't think so

Is it me or does "wordtalkt" remind anyone else of "Pilgrim.1" (wait for it) "viaro"

I think we've seen this Ecclesiastical gymnastics on NL before especially on the tithe threads.

ogajim:

Is it me or does "wordtalkt" remind anyone else of "Pilgrim.1" (wait for it) "viaro"

I think we've seen this Ecclesiastical gymnastics on NL before especially on the tithe threads.

Na you talk so

nlMediator:

I happily drop 10%. It does not bother me. And no pastor I have been under has misused church members' contributions. But there are core issues beyond the size of the tithe:

(1) The need for our practices to be grounded in the Bible.

(2) The need to be sincere in what we are teaching, even if it only takes one penny out of people's pockets.

(3) The need to explain things clearly. We keep on hearing that tithing is based on principles, but not one person has mentioned what these principles are. Yet, we're supposed to simply accept it.

(4) The need not to keep people in bondage or guilt if God has not imposed the duty to do a particular thing.

(5) The need not to keep people away from God's plan for them. E.g., X just received 100K Naira. Immediately, an opportunity came for him to invest the money and reap extra 50K by month end. If tithe is an obligation, he cannot do that. He misses the opportunity. If tithe is not an obligation, he takes the opportunity. With the new 150K Naira, he gives 20K Naira to the church (God). Everybody wins. With obligatory tithing, he only gave 10K Naira. Everybody loses. Now, if tithe is really obligatory, it doesn't matter that he only gave 10K since following what God says is better in the long run. But to be dismissive on the basis that the tithe is a small portion is unhelpful.

True talk nobody will be fighting over tithe if pastors do the right thing but they won't, cos they need the money

Zikkyy:

i don't think so

If you read it, you would see I already answered your question. I could just repost it for you below -

If you are arguing that this passage is an indication of a principle of tithing, does it also indicate a principle of 'wave offerings' too? Because this was also used to provide for those who served in the temple.

My answer -

Specifically, the parallel passage in Numbers 18 was about the tithes in the Levitical system - and that is the same thing concerning the Levitical system in Hebrews 7 which mentions tithing rather than other types of resources for support.

True, there were various offerings (such as the heave and wave offerings in Numbers 18:8 & 11); yet, whatever they offered were in principle found in verse 21, where the Levites are in view - "I have given the children of Levi all the tenth in Israel for an inheritance, for their service which they serve, even the service of the tabernacle of the congregation" (KJV).

It is therefore not difficult to see what Paul was pointing to in 1 Corinthians 9:13 in reference to those who served particularly in the Temple and the Altar.

And this -

Further, the tithes of Israel bore the character of a heave offering according to Numbers 18:24 - "the tithes of the children of Israel, which they offer as an heave offering unto the LORD, I have given to the Levites to inherit, " etc. It shows that Israel's tithes were offered as a heave offering in this verse. The question rather would be to seek out the basic meaning of a 'heave offering'. Do this and let's compare our notes.

So, rather than yap on and on to separate between tithes and heave offerings, please read that verse again: Israel's tithes were offered as __________?? Yes, they were offered as a HEAVE OFFERING.

I then asked a simple question: find the meaning of 'HEAVE OFFERING' in context of that verse as regards the tithes in the LEVITICAL SYSTEM, and let's compare notes. It does not appear anyone had done so - perhaps you guys are still seeing them separately, whereas that verse says the tithes were offered as heave offering.

This is why your question and reaction was quite unnecessary in the first instance.

garyarnold:

"Tithe" or "tenth" is not a principle.  It is an absolute.

In other words you're tired of the "LIST OF TITHING OPPONENTS" you posted earlier? I guess you only throw things around without having checked them out for yourself. If you did, you would have noticed how shoddy that list is; besides the fact that -

(a) there are more than a dozen couple names that appear there that actually did not oppose tithing for Christians;
(b) some of the anti-tithing theologians on that list actually are in "agreement" with pastors that teach tithing;
and (c) many of the names listed there have talked about tithing as a PRINCIPLE.

I'll give you just one example which I have already highlighted several times (for ease of reference) - Thomas Aquinas:

I answer that, In judging about a thing we should look to its principle. Now the principle of the payment of tithes is the debt whereby carnal things are due to those who sow spiritual things, according to the saying of the Apostle (1 Cor. 9:11), "If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great matter if we reap your carnal things?" [thus implying that on the contrary "it is no great matter if we reap your carnal things"] [*The phrase in the brackets is omitted in the Leonine edition]. For this debt is the principle on which is based the commandment of the Church about the payment of tithes. Now whatever man possesses comes under the designation of carnal things. Therefore tithes must be paid on whatever one possesses.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/aquinas/summa/sum343.htm

So, while anti-tithers are busy recycling that shoddy "list of tithing opponents", they should realise first that most of the names actually were inclined to tithing; and secondly that a bunch of them have spoken about tithing as a principle in so many places - I am amazed how your lot could ever have missed this in the abundance of materials scattered all over the place!

Just go and dump that "list" - it was a wasted effort.

A tenth of one's income is not a principle that can be derived from the Bible since nowhere in the Bible is a tenth of one's income used as a tithe.

Good. Excellent. So, why are your own anti-tithing theologians yet in "agreement" with pastors who 'encourage believers in Christ to tithe'??

Look, Mr. . . you're not consistent at all. If you cannot find a Biblical basis for encouraging tithing, then from where do your own anti-tithing theologians "agree" with tithing pastors that believers in Christ should tithe? Please share this with us and let's know the real meaning of your posting your "list of tithing opponents".

Febup:

These 10% income robbers will stop at nothing to make sure they continue to deceive those who are gullible onto handing over 10% of their income to them. Giving tithes to pastors is worthless, the pastors are the ones receiving it and not God. The Bible tell us clearly how to give to the work of God in:
2 Corinthians 9:7
You must each decide in your heart how much to give. And don't give reluctantly or in response to pressure. "For God loves a person who gives cheerfully."

I'm sure these 10% income robbers have torn this verse out their Bible.

Tithing is not a giving, it's payment

Any anti-tithing theologian that agrees with tithing Pastors that Christians should tithe have just contradicted themselves.  I know of none myself.

Notice how wordtalk avoids answering questions about the principle of tithing.

I don't care what some theologians come up with.  Until one realizes that the Biblical tithe always came from ASSETS and NEVER from income, one will not understand the Biblical tithe at all.

The so-called "tithing principle" is a farce.  It comes from church leaders, and possibly even from some theologians, who didn't understand the difference between assets and income.

Azibalua:

Tithing is not a giving, it's payment

It would be nice for you and your tithe MONGERS(masters) to show us your letter of appointment/offer letter where God replaced the house of Levi with modern day pastors, The new levites would then take over today's governments and run everything like they did in the past don't you think?

Get a JOB and stop driving folks away from the FAITH with your man made requirements that can't stand the test of the Scriptures.

God help you all!

God help the rest of us to recognize your kind from MILES and FLEE

garyarnold:

Any anti-tithing theologian that agrees with tithing Pastors that Christians should tithe have just contradicted themselves.

Thank you. That says it all - you guys are never consistent, and thanks again for acknowledging the fact! Brilliant.

 I know of none myself.

So, what happened to the one I pointed out about Russell Kelly who was in "agreement" with Dr. James D. Kennedy who was "encouraging believers in Christ to tithe"? I anticipated you would return to feign you never saw the fact, that was why I posted just a sample here: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-724424.320.html#msg8875313

Dr. James D. Kennedy is quoted as having said, among other things:

- "Churches should allow tithes to be paid in the form of work performed

- "Tithes are only on what is left after necessary expenses and after taxes"

- "In light of these biblical principles, I encourage believers to tithe."

To these, we find Russell Kelly in "agreement" with Dr. Kennedy - and oh, it was in light of "these biblical principles", the same "principles" you never read in the list of your "tithing opponents".

If you read more broadly, you'll find a plethora of anti-tithing theologians both "agreeing" with pastors that teach tithing, as well as using the same "Biblical principles" that you're worrying about. Reason you're acting in denial is perhaps that you never take the time to check things for yourself but only recycle by rote whatever suits your fancy.

Notice how wordtalk avoids answering questions about the principle of tithing.

Tell me, after all I have said and explained and reposted about what I meant by Biblical principle in hermeneutics and exegesis, which one of them did you ever try to discuss? You flat out just kept repeating the same slogan in denial, only to come forward affirming that anti-tithing theologians are contradicting themselves.

Since you were happy to post your "list of tithing opponents", please tell us in plain terms what sort of "biblical principles" your Russell Kelly was "in agreement" with Dr. James D. Kennedy? Where can we find their own "biblical principles"?  

I don't care what some theologians come up with.

Oh, but you care enough to be posting the list of the same theologians which you find saying surprising things that contradict you and themselves? This is quite fanciful of you!!  You only don't care when you can't defend what you harvested from them - but you cared enough while you were hugely ignorant of what they have been saying!

Until one realizes that the Biblical tithe always came from ASSETS and NEVER from income, one will not understand the Biblical tithe at all.

Go and tell Russell Kelly he does not understand your own 'Biblical tithes', afterall he is the one whose name you posted in capital letters (RUSSELL EARL KELLY 2001 Baptist) in your "list". Remind him of his lack of understanding for even attempting to be "in agreement with" Dr. James D. Kennedy who 'encouraged believers in Christ to tithe'.

The so-called "tithing principle" is a farce.

Good - I'll chalk that up for Russell Kelly (remember his own view was "in light of these biblical principles"?).

It comes from church leaders, and possibly even from some theologians, who didn't understand the difference between assets and income.

You don't have to feel threatened that your Accounting degree hasn't helped you much in these things.

wordtalk:

So, rather than yap on and on to separate between tithes and heave offerings, please read that verse again: Israel's tithes were offered as __________?? Yes, they were offered as a HEAVE OFFERING.

I then asked a simple question: find the meaning of 'HEAVE OFFERING' in context of that verse as regards the tithes in the LEVITICAL SYSTEM, and let's compare notes. It does not appear anyone had done so - perhaps you guys are still seeing them separately, whereas that verse says the tithes were offered as heave offering.

This is why your question and reaction was quite unnecessary in the first instance.

you mis-interpret my post. Let me summarize:

Numbers 18 does not deal with tithing alone. Other stuffs gets to the altar. to interpret 1 Corinthians as referring to tithe alone (ignoring other types of offering that were eaten by the priest) will be wrong.

My position: Corinthians passage was referring to the principle supporting people primarily working for God, and not to tithing as a principle.

I understand what you meant by heave offering, but it does not change anything.

Zikkyy:

you mis-interpret my post. Let me summarize:

Numbers 18 does not deal with tithing alone. Other stuffs gets to the altar.

I don't think I misread or mis-interpreted your post. But it could be possible, except that you probably are missing something essential and repeating the same mistake.

to interpret 1 Corinthians as referring to tithe alone (ignoring other types of offering that were eaten by the priest) will be wrong.

The mistake is that you're still separating between the 'tithes' and 'heave offering' in that chapter. Indeed, I noted there were other types of offerings mentioned in Numbers 18; but I also pointed out something you probably missed. This is what I said -

True, there were various offerings (such as the heave and wave offerings in Numbers 18:8 & 11); yet, whatever they offered were in principle found in verse 21, where the Levites are in view - "I have given the children of Levi all the tenth in Israel for an inheritance, for their service which they serve, even the service of the tabernacle of the congregation" (KJV).

It is therefore not difficult to see what Paul was pointing to in 1 Corinthians 9:13 in reference to those who served particularly in the Temple and the Altar.

Then I went on to point out in verse 24 that the "tithes" were offered as "heave offering". Your mistake is trying to set them apart, whereas that verse says clearly - "the tithes of the children of Israel, which they offer as an heave offering unto the LORD, I have given to the Levites to inherit". Note -

- it is "the tithes" which they offered as "heave offering"

So, I really don't get why you would be asking 'what about other types' apart from the tithes. Please consider that verse carefully again.

Then I asked: what does "heave offering" mean to you in context of that verse? I feel that as soon as we endeavour to seek out answers to that question, the difficulty will clear up.

My position: Corinthians passage was referring to the principle supporting people primarily working for God, and not to tithing as a principle.

Then there would absolutely have been no reason for Paul to be specific when he mentioned those who served at the Temple and the Altar. But because he did, you probably would need to ask why.

I understand what you meant by heave offering, but it does not change anything.

Oh, if you actually did, then please share your understanding bout it. I bet you would see things differently and come to see why Paul said "[On the same principle] the Lord directed that those who publish the good news (the Gospel) should live (get their maintenance) by the Gospel.".

Wordtalk totally misrepresents Dr. Kelly's position on Dr. Kennedy.

Dr. Kelly does NOT agree with Dr. Kennedy, but rather say that Dr. Kennedy is in more agreement with him than most tithing teachers.

Read it for yourself at: http://www.tithing-russkelly.com/id71.html

Then you will see how wordtalk totally lied about Dr. Kelly.

Tithes and [other] offerings need to be separated in Numbers 18 because the tithe went to the Levites and the [other] offerings went to the priests. The tithes did NOT go to the Temple except for a tenth of the tithe from the Levites.