garyarnold:

Try me - your life will never remain the same after viaro deals with you.

Biggest laugh I've had in a long time! That's for the humor!

Much obliged. I knew you were far more of a joke than anything else to begin with.

ttalks:

Viaro,

It is very clear from Genesis 14:21-24 that Abram being the owner of the spoils considered them to be the possessions of the King of Sodom
which he(Abram) had taken over.

. . . .

ttalks:

I think Matthew Henry's comment on this issue is quite interesting and goes along with the idea I'm trying to pinpoint:

I understand your view, as well I'm willing to be genial enough to let anyone have theirs. I just wanted to see the basis for the assertions many of us make and wondered if there were any exegetical basis in them.

The one you gave from Matthew Henry may well be suited for what you wanted to convey - and that's all fine. But its short comings are revealed in the fact that it is rather exhortatory in general and not exegetical. I do not find the principles of Biblical exegesis in Matthew Henry's treatment of Genesis 14. I could also point you to a few exegesis from other commentaries to the point; but perhaps I should forebear.

However, let's consider the analogy you offered earlier:

ttalks:
Look at this:

Let's say in an imaginary situation, there is a law that states:
"If any body loses his money(that is,misplaces it in some way or the other); any body that finds it or comes upon it automatically becomes the owner."

. . . .
>snip<

Everything I've said about this has nothing to do with whether 90% of any goods were given to any body or whether it bears any relation to tithes or not,
but simply the fact that Abram(current owner of the spoils) decided to leave a balance of the spoils to the original owner(king of Sodom).

The analogy cannot be held against you, bro. However, it does not fit in at all with the Genesis 14 scenario.

We know that the Bible teaches us about restoring missing things back to their rightful onwers. For example, if someone has found something that was lost, by commandment he is to restore what was lost back to the owner (see Lev. 6:2-5). In such a case, there are circumstances that guide the restoring of such goods, for they concern such goods as  -

[list][li]that which was delivered him to keep,[/li]
[li]or in fellowship,[/li]
[li]or in a thing taken away by violence,[/li]
[li]or hath deceived his neighbour[/li][/list]

It is on grounds of such lost things that they be restored to the onwers (compare also Deuteronomy 22:1-4).

However, it is a very different scenario in war of nations. Spoils of war cannot be claimed by defeated kings, rulers or sovereigns. This is what Deuteronomy 20:11-14 teaches - "ALL that is in the city, even ALL THE SPOIL THEREOF, shalt thou take unto thyself". This principle has been recognized among ancient civilizations, so that before and beyond Deuteronomy 20, that is what has been applied in laws of conquest among nations.

The principle is seen in the war history of Israel. Even where disagreements emerged among them as to how spoils were to be divided, nonetheless the victors laid claim to the spoils and nothing is reserved unto the defeated kings. See 1 Samuel 30:24 for example: "For who will hearken unto you in this matter? but as his part is that goeth down to the battle, so shall his part be that tarrieth by the stuff: they shall part alike." Only those who conquered others in warfare had claim to the spoils, and in no wise do we find any case made where defeated kings had any claims to spoils of war that did not belong to them.

So, restoring goods that are lost would be determined by circumstances which we all understand (which is why your analogy is not wrong in itself, but just would not fit the case of Genesis 14). However, spoils of war is a different matter altogether - and we cannot suppose in one instance that the measures and principles are the same.

Of course, I am open to see anything to the contrary - but let it be clear references showing that defeated kings had legal rights to spoils of warfare that are not theirs. That is what I am asking for; and because I'm persuaded to the contrary, I have shown hitherto from Deuteronomy 20; 1 Samuel 30; and an external reference (Hugo Grotius's work) which is has become foundational in political law among many nations today.

garyarnold:

I have said and repeated that these things are simply based on PRINCIPLES.

You are making up the principle involved. Actually, there is NO principle with Abraham's tenth.

I am not making up the principle. If you understood what an 'example' or a 'principle' is, I don't think all this would be hard for you to grasp. A PRINCIPLE is not a clone of something - it does not mean that you have to do the exact same thing by using the exact same materials given in the exact same amount in the exact same year with the exact same experience, environment and econometrics. This exactitude is what you have been sweating all along in your theology - and that, sorry to say, is a legalism worse than anything we have come across.

When Peter said that Christ in His sufferings has left us an "example" (1 Peter 2:21), was he expecting us to literally go and be whipped by Roman soldiers and hung on a cross between two thieves? You just have issues confused for yourself, so take a hike. Just go back and learn the meaning of 'example' and 'principle' - you might surprise yourself. And when you do, come back and let's talk, if you may.

garyarnold:

You seem to think that the principle is free-will giving of a tenth. I could just as well say the principle involved is that Christians should keep nothing for themselves.

Please do as you please - you will only injure yourself in the process.
I have a scripture on that for you though - just ask and I shall furnish it pronto.

garyarnold:

Or how about the principle here is that Christians should make a vow with God that they will accept NO salary/wages from their employer. That way, the employer cannot say that he made you wealthy.

You're simply carping now. Who was Abraham's "employer"? You're a serious joke.

garyarnold:

The Bible gives facts, and the Bible teaches principles. But when the Bible teaches a principle, it teaches it AS a principle; i.e. give according to your means.

haha - the Bible teaches principles - only when it suits your theology. Please pack yourself one corner . . . you really don't have a clue about the words you use.

garyarnold:

You take a fact and then MAKE UP a principle to substantiate what you want the Bible to teach. You are a phony; a false teacher for doing so.

Thanks. Now go back to school and let's have a real debate if you may. This time, I will hold nothing back to make absolute dunces of you and your night-school profs in seminary. Try me - your life will never remain the same after viaro deals with you. Twerp.

garyarnold:

I won't bother to count how often I stated that Abram's example was one of Christian free-will offering.

Yes, a free-will GIFT (NOT an offering) to a King, not a church.
Yes, a free-will GIFT (NOT an offering) of spoils of war.
Yes, a free-will GIFT (NOT an offering) ONE TIME.
NOT a free-will gift or offering of money.
NOT a free-will gift or offering from his normal vocational earnings.
NOT a free-will gift or offering to God.

Your arguments are fruitless.

Gary, please don't flog yourself and cry at the same time. The part you quoted in italics are not mine but nuclearboy's - and I agree absolutely with him on that. To say that "Your arguments are fruitless" is not mine to worry over, rather that would be nuclearboy's worry.

However, you're not a student of the Bible - that much is beginning to appear in your arguments. What fallacy are you foisting in here about 'free-will gift' and 'not an offering'? I really don't see the substance in such talk, but I could just take you for a ride if you want to be that technical to your own detriment. Here's a tip: go through the New Testament and show me any verse where you have the word "free-will". Just try that for size. The stupidity of folks who make so much of small matters is why I have a disdain for pretentious American 'theology' of the sort you parade.

But here is another eye-sore for you:

garyarnold:

NOT a free-will gift or offering to God.

Cry all you want; but take your quarrels over to others who recognize the fact what Abraham's tithes point to -

**Hugo Grotius (the same author that Russell Kelly Ph.D was happy to cite):
"According to this right, as we find in the fourteenth chapter of Genesis, Abraham devoted to God a tenth part of the spoils, which he had taken from the five kings: and the inspired writer in the seventh chapter of his Epistle to the Hebrews gives the same interpretation of this passage.
source: http://www.constitution.org/gro/djbp_306.htm

I do not have any problems with that; and it would not make for serious talk to banter with you. I just don't have the time of day to worry about your bleating, Gary.

garyarnold:

Even though I believe it was custom at that time to give a tenth of the war spoils, a person can still go against custom; therefore, I have said all along that it was free-will. My book says it was free-will. I have never said it wasn't free-will.

Have I or nuclearboy argued that it was not free-will? What essentially is your problem here?

garyarnold:

Show me where the scriptures say Abram gave an OFFERING? Did I miss that?

Please show me where the Bible used "free-will GIFT" in lieu of Abraham's tithes. Did you miss that?

I may allow for some room to hold ideas as best suited to the reader. What I do worry about is that some of the issues being asserted simply have no basis in Biblical exegesis - that is the point I have been trying to make. Whether technical, mathematical, theological, ecclesiatical, historical, grammatical, or any other '-ical', a tithe is a tenth. Period.

If one wants to get very technical about the meaning of 'tithes', I have shown that we are going to get into a lot of trouble discovering that it means far more besides than the 'tenth' we have been arguing up and down the street - for which reason I pointed out a few terms in post #7. I observed that most of the meanings given to tithes are based on Jewish understanding of that term, and we could then go on to appropriate them for ourselves if that helps in any wise at all.

For now, I would like to comment on this:

Enigma:

2. While one can say that technically/"legally" Abram himself owned the "spoils of war" by reason of conquest, it is clear that morally at least some of the "spoils of war" belonged to the king of Sodom; they certainly belonged to him before he lost them in war e.g. verses 11&12

That the goods belonged to both kings of Sodom and Gomorrah BEFORE the war is not in doubt. Yes, before the war, they both had claim to the goods ( see Genesis 14:11 - "the goods of Sodom and Gomorrah". However, there is no "moral" grounds on which either the kings of Sodom or of Gomorrah could lay claim to any of the spoils from that warfare - nothing shows this in any single line at all, whether from Scripture, or from external sources that bear testimony to the fact.

Now, just to clear the air and be far more convincing, those who want to force any grounds of claim for the defeated king(s) of Sodom and Gomorrah can only do so by pointing to Biblical texts and show where such a notion is established. To just infer it (because we want to say so) and yet have nothing to show for it, is simply not going to cut it - and it would seriously violate the principles of conscience and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. We are asked to compare scripture with scripture - and that is the most basic of all Biblical exegesis. Any other references that could be cited would bring us back to Scripture (in which case we have seen one such in Hugo Grotius' work). I have waited to see this principle applied in whatever anyone wants to infer for the defeated kings - but that wait is beginning to drag now.

If we want to simply read our own pretexts into the texts and arrive at eisegesis, then let's all agree on that - in which case anybody can infer just about anything they like into Scripture. Can we gamble on that?

Enigma:

It is understandable that despite his conquest and taking these as spoils of war, Abram still regarded them as belonging to the king of Sodom;

No, Abraham did NOT regard them as still belonging to the king of Sodom - that idea is the eisegesis I have been highlighting. We have read our pretexts into the Genesis 14 narrative rather than allowing Scripture to speak for itself. If Abraham had considered the spoils to belong to the king of Sodom, we would be asking serious questions here -

1. What part belonged to the king of Gomorrah, since it was the goods of both the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah that was taken away (Gen. 14:11)? To argue that the spoils 'morally' belonged to the king of Sodom would mean that the king of Gomorrah also had moral and legal grounds to claim back part of the spoils to himself, no? If not, why?

2. If Abraham considered the spoils to belomng  to the defeated king of Sodom, on what grounds would Abraham have gone on to take the spoils as his own and then offered a tithe of them to Melchizedek? Why did Melchizedek not reject the tithes but rather go on to bless Abraham if the latter considered that the goods were not his own in the first instance?

3.  Please, what references in God's Word show that spoils of war are considered as belonging to DEFEATED kings? I have asked again and again for this simple question to be answered, but I still don't see any answers forthcoming. Not that I am seeking to be a spoiler here, hehe. . . but I am not too sure that eisegesis is the way to go on this matter. To just make assertions and not show how they can be carried is to read our own pretexts into the texts and ignore context completely. And yes, it matters what we do here.

Enigma:

hence Abram only wanted provision for his soldiers - otherwise he returned the "spoils of war" that belonged (or originally belonged) to the king of Sodom. Yes, we may say that strictly what Abram returned to the king of Sodom was not 90% of

Please read Grotius and read Scripture (Deuteronomy 20) - you will not find that idea ^^^ justified. The king of Sodom could claim absolutely nothing - yes, he tried to; but he was greeted with a clear answer from Abraham that showed that he could not lay claim to anything in that conquest.

Besides, why would anyone have been arguing a 90% back to the king of Sodom initially - where in fact the goods carried away did not belong to Bera alone? Thank goodness you saw that point (which I will note again in the next quote - that the goods before the war belonged to other kings as well - at the very least, the king of Gomorrah also had goods in that). The goods prior to the war belonged to both kings of Sodom and Gomorrah - not just to the former. The so-called "remaining" did not go to the king of Sodom - we are just assuming it is so because we have ignored the fact that another king was involved. [when I say 'we', I'm speaking more generally, not narrowing this down to you - so please forgive any misunderstanding that may arise]. On what basis then does anyone argue a legal or moral ground of claims to spoils of war on behalf of the king of Sodom? None.

Enigma:

the total spoils of war --- because goods originally belonging to other people other than Sodom were also involved --- the critical thing here is that Abram did not retain what belonged or was perceived as belonging to the king of Sodom -- other than provision for his soldiers.

I have not argued anywhere to say that Abraham kept something for himself. I have had to repeat that point at least twice over now, so let's not stay on that. Point is, I like the fact that you recognise what many did not recognise - as highlighted above.

Enigma:
3. When Abram gave Melchizedek a tenth of spoils of war, there was no indication whatsoever that Abram thought he was giving a tenth to God. There is no indication whatsoever that Abram himself perceived Melchizedek as representing God in any way, shape or form. Theologians and us latter day readers of the Bible are the ones who see in Melchizedek a typology of Christ.

I beg to differ. The typology of Christ in Melchizedek is plainly seen in Hebrews 7:1-3 (particularly verse 3). It is not theologians of our day that have drawn this typology - it has been there all along in Scripture. But even so, many theologians recognize the fact that Abraha's tithes are in recognition of God's mercy(?). Apart from Hugo Grotius, I think that the excerpt posted by ttalks from Matthew Henry bears the same point. I post a part of this later.

Enigma:
PS Notice that I deliberately used and emphasised the word tenth in point no 3 -------- because that is all that was meant by "tithe" as used in Genesis 14. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the later Mosaic connotation of "tithe" let alone the modern/contemporary fraud.

No worries.

garyarnold:

To HONESTLY follow Abram's (or Abraham's) example:
1 - do not tithe on any cattle you have
2 - do not tithe on any silver and gold (MONEY) you have
3 - do not tithe on anything that comes from your normal, everyday vocation
4 - tithe ONLY one time, and ONLY on spoils of war, and keep nothing for yourself

If you're going to be honest, you would have understood that I am not a legalist. I have said and repeated that these things are simply based on PRINCIPLES. I have no worries that nuclearboy himself would agree on Abraham's tithes being an EXAMPLE for CHRISTIANS as a matter of FREE-WILL. If you are going to be honest, you would not be running here to argue your legalism into all this.

garyarnold:
No honest man can say he is following Abraham's example by giving a tenth of their income to the church. That's just pure fabrication.

I doubt you know the meaning of being HONEST. For one, those who are informed would say the same thing as did nuclearboy - and I agreed with him:

nuclearboy:

I won't bother to count how often I stated that Abram's example was one of Christian free-will offering.

Next time go get schooled up on the meaning of "example" before entering a discussion assuming only thou knowest how to be "honest".

Zikkyy:

@Viaro, its clear to any reader of Genesis 14 that Abraham did not keep any of the spoils of war to himself. I dont know what you are trying to achieve here, really.

I am not trying to achieve anything other than what I stated from page 1. I brought nuclearboy here to examine the assertions which are classic anti-tithing arguments and have found them to be nothing short of eisegesis, not exegesis. This is why on so many counts, I have not found anyone pointing to simple principles of Biblical exegesis and answering simple questions.

As regards the point in yours above, I have not argued anywhere that Abraham kept anything to himself. If that was what I was arguing all along, please show me.

ttalks:

Verses 22 - 24 highlight the fact that Abram considered the spoils of war which were his by conquest to still be the goods or possessions of the King of sodom;although not exclusively.
He considered them to be the king of Sodom's but were his(Abram's) to determine their fate.

Haha . . . that, my bro, is another classic eisegesis deliberately read into the text. It is a neat example of pretext, not context.

1.  There is no reference anywhere for that kind of double possession. Nada, zilch, nix. It is either the victor possessed ALL the spoils of war (see Deuteronomy 20:11-14) or nothing at all. Scripture shows this is the case, and external references show the very same thing (I have lost count of how many times I've cited Hugo Grotius' work).

2.  People arguing that the spoils belonged to Abraham and then also that Abraham considered them to belong to the king of Sodom are only wishing their eisegesis into the texts. I would really like to see these folks show us some exegetical references to the point, and not eisegesis of their own ideas. Any such references to show for that? I'll be delighted to see it or them.

3.  After all is said and done, let's lay aside all eisegesis and follow the simple principles of Biblical exegesis - you know those principles, I guess; so apply them as see if your interpretation or conclusions stand at all. If we cannot compare Scripture with Scripture to show where a defeated king qualifies to still lay claim to goods that are not his by conquest, then everything else collapses and all we have to do is just keep reading pretexts into the texts and leave off contexts.

4.  As a friendly offer, here is a collection of terms that we should be familiar with in obtaining an exegetical understanding that is free from eisegesis:

Exegesis: Reading out of a writing what is in the writing. Eisegesis: Putting into a writing what is not in it. The first is valid; the second is not.

Hermeneia: Interpretation, hermeneutics. We are to use the right hermeneuties (principles of interpretation) in studying the Bible, so that we are putting God's Word into our hearts rather than putting our words into His mouth. . . .

Prolegomenon: First word, the introduction to a science that lays down its basic principles. Theological Prolegomenon includes the doctrine of Scripture, since all true theology must be based on the Bible. . . .

Elenchus: The logical refutation of an error.

http://faithbibleonline.net/MiscDoctrine/GreekTerms.htm
[/list]

Unless we want to abandon the principles of Biblical exgesis, there would be no need to be inferring a double possession (both by victor and defeated) in any warfare - history refutes that idea, Scripture refutes it, and common sense nowhere applauds it. On what leg therefore would such pretext of eisegesis stand in the face of Biblical exegesis??

nuclearboy:

exegesis not eisegesis, Viaro.

Okay commander, three honours salute!
Exegesis - 'The study of the text of Scripture in order to bring out the meaning of it. This is to be distinguished from the error of eisegesis, i.e. reading a meaning into the text.'

(also here - 'Exegesis: Reading out of a writing what is in the writing. Eisegesis: Putting into a writing what is not in it. The first is valid; the second is not.')

nuclearboy:

Rather ^^^ over and over again, put me out of my "ignorance" by

No, you're not 'ignorant' - I wouldn't say that. I'm trying to follow your exegesis and decline the eisegesis.

nuclearboy:

[1] showing the reasons why it was a "tithe" to Melchizedek

Exegetically, because Scripture uses both the terms 'tithes' (Gen. 14:20) and 'tenth' (Heb. 7:2 & 4) for what Abraham gave to Melchizedek. That is the reason why it was a "tithe" to Melchizedek - Scripture says so.

nuclearboy:

[2] showing the reasons why inferring "paganism" into it are a farce.

Paganism could not be inferred into Abraham's tithes - because Scripture does not teach us so. First, Melchizedek was not a pagan priest, for twice over he was called the priest of the most high God (Gen. 14:18 and Heb. 7:1) - the same as Abraham's God.

Second, it could not be a tithe fulfilling a 'pagan culture', because exegetical sources which even anti-tithing theologians are happy to acknowledge have said that Abraham devoted a tenth of the spoils to God (see Hugo Grotius' "De Jure Belli ac Pacis", cited in post #17). I wonder how such an inference could then have turned into 'pagan culture/tithe' without showing from Scripture that it is so - and to maintain such an inference is to force one's eisegesis into the text.

nuclearboy:

[3] showing why it was to Melchizedek and him alone that he could have paid the "tithe" to

Okay, I shall show that. If Abraham's tithes were merely to fulfill "tradition's demand" such that it could be said to be a pagan tithe in his own case, then Abraham could have given the tithes to another king indeed, for he was not under the jurisdiction of Melchizedek when the latter met him (same as when the king of Sodom met the patriarch at the valley of Shaveh).

The serious point that has been ignored here is the question of jurisdiction. Pagan customs (such as has been cited in the excerpts you gave in post #10), as well ancient political and civil laws, recognize that only subjects under a certain sovereignty could be tithed or taxed or levied by their rulers or sovereignties. The same applies today - for example, you don't live in Nigeria and then forward your tithes or taxes or levies to the UK government. In this case, as king of Salem, Melchizedek had no claim whatsoever upon Abraham, for the patriarch was not under his jurisdiction when the king-priest met him. This is why the Scripture tells us that Melchizedek met Abraham (Heb. 7:2), and not the other way round.

Third, if Abraham wanted to fulfill a pagan custom, then the most probable king to have tithed to would have been the ruler over the jurisdiction of Mamre - for that is where Abraham had dwelt when these things were reported (Gen. 14:13 - 'he dwelt in the plain of Mamre the Amorite'). Following the laws of territorial jurisdiction, you could only have had recourse to the ruler over the area of your jurisdiction if you wanted to fulfill any 'custom' - pagan or ancient. But Abraham's tithes were not in fulfilment of any such ancient traditions, which was why he gave tithes to another king (Melchizedek king of Salem) that had no territorial jurisdiction over Mamre where Abraham dwelt.

For this reason, there was something far more intrinsic in Abraham's tithing to Melchizedek - it was a question of priesthood. Indeed, Melchizedek was a king; but it was rather his priesthood that Scripture emphasizes in connection to the tithes. If it was a matter of 'blessing', any king could as well have said a few words of 'blessing' upon Abraham, which would not have mattered as much as the "greatness" of the priest. Abraham was a "great" man, no doubt, for Scripture calls him a "prophet" even in the presence of a king (Gen. 20:7); but it was more a question of the priesthood that the tithes were connected - and that is the same point that Hebrews 7 brings out in the discussion about tithes.

Consequently, the greatness of the priest Melchizedek was what singled him out from all other kings and above all talk of any tradition or pagan custom. It is as if to say that Abraham broke with all so-called conventions of 'customs' and gave tithes to the priest-king Melchizedek, even though custom would infer that it was properly fitting for the patriarch to have given his tithes to the ruler over the jurisdiction of Mamre. No, but he rather gave tithes to a king that had no jurisdiction over Mamre - because he was looking forward to something far more than has been recognized by some who study that passage.

What was he looking forward to? Hear the Lord Jesus Christ: "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad" (John 8:56). The priesthood of Melchizedek is the foundation of the tithes in Abraham's case - it was again the foundation of the tithes in the NT discussion in Hebrews 7; and it was also the foundation of Levi's tithes. Being merely 'king of Salem' does not so much make for this; but the priesthood is what Abraham recognized - and that was what moved him to have singled out Melchizedek above every other king, above pagan customs, above any so-called 'tradition' or 'coventions' of pagan societies, and above any eisegesis to the contrary: and upon the basis of that priesthood, Abraham gave tithes.

nuclearboy:

[4] explaining Abram's statement

Please see post #19 previous page - I did so already.

nuclearboy:

Ancient peoples gave tenths. I've made references available which state so. Abram gave a tenth. Why ONLY HIM was different from others in motive, is your position and I leave to you!

I have asked you to consider the text of Scripture and show me where Abraham's tithing to Melchizedek was fulfilling "tradition's demand" - that was all. I have reasons to show why Abraham's tithes to Melchizedek could not have been qualified to any other king at all. Aside from Hugo Grotius work (which showed that Abraham devoted a tenth of the spoils to GOD), I have reasons in Scripture to show that inferring pagan culture into Abraham's tithes is a farce as far as Scripture is concerned. I have no hidden motives for this - and that is why I like to show issues openly by maintaining what I can attest from Scripture. The weakness of eisegesis is simply this: it makes statements that it cannot sustain when closely examined - and that is why I shy away from such tendencies and hold unto only what I can point out from Scripture.

nuclearboy:

He gave to the only king that welcomed him, prayed for him and who was a priest (I know this will get lost in your next post). Why you then still keep asking "WHY MELCHIZEDEK" and FOR THIS ALONE require "the light of Scripture", beats me.

Please. If you don't want to look into Scripture, I won't press. As far as making statements that fly in the face of simple references are concerned, I won't go there. There is a reason why it was to Melchizedek that Abraham could have tithed to - I already alluded to them, and then asked you if you would like me to elaborate. Yes, I am willing to elaborate - if you would be willing to listen. If not, I won't go there, hehe.

nuclearboy:

Repeated allusions and treatises on Paganism, Ph.D holders and Russell "whatever" is simple quite, well, space filling and an amazing way to evade issues.

Please show me where I evaded any issues. I am really tired up to here with this allegation of evasion (even though I have been pateintly waiting for you to offer answers to some of the simple questions I asked and you have not done so). Please show me where I evaded anything - and I shall re-quote where I offered answers to your concerns.

nuclearboy:

There is only one analysis here - Abram's Words! Abram said 'I have raised my hand to the Lord, God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth and have taken an oath" [23] "that I will accept nothing belonging to you, not even a sandal, so that you will never be able to say "I made Abram rich" [24] I will accept nothing but what my men have eaten and the share that belongs to the men who went with me - to Aner, Eschol and Mamre. Let them have their share

I have discussed the meaning of Abraham's response - see post #19 previous page. Unless you missed it and want me to re-post it. However, it seems you are not considering what I explained and are just repeating yourself over and over again on what you have made up your mind on.

nuclearboy:

What belonged to Sodom that he would not accept? NOTHING Why is that phrase there or was the Bible needing to fulfill a quota of words?

Please show me what actually belonged to the defeated king of Sodom. Just show me. I have grown weary of asking this question - but I must ask again, because it seems you're bent on maintaining that a defeated king has rights to what does not belong to him, and if that is the case then Abraham's claim and oath would just be meaningless. Just show me with references how the defeated king would still claim that anything belonged to him - with references please.

nuclearboy:

I'll take nothing but their share plus what we ate - Share of what and what happened to the "balance"? If their share was everything, why then say "I'm taking nothing but their share plus what we ate". The words "plus what we ate" show the sum was greater than their share.

This is just wishful thinking. If Abraham said he would take NOTHING and yet has already taken from the spoils to give as his own tithes to Melchizedek, does that not strike you at all? How can you maintain that someone said that he would take NOTHING and yet has taken something - and yet you are claiming the rest for the defeated king?!? Where is that done anywhere - and on what law of conquest in any nation, nuclearboy?

It is either Abraham took nothing or indeed he had taken something from the spoils. The question is: to whom did the spoils belong in the first place? If to Abraham, what other arguments are there to then treat the spoils as belonging to anyone else?

nuclearboy:

I used to argue to win but stopped as I advanced in years. I see the exact tactics I used then here so maybe the chickens have come home to roost. But I wonder if this is the sort of thing one wins especially with Christianity the way it is now considering the support this coming from "Viaro" would give?

I'm not arguing to win. From page one, I stated why I opened the thread - and that was simply to understand your arguments. Two pages running now, and what I have seen so far are assertions that cannot be pointed out from Scripture. I didn't try to "win" any argument to persuade anyone to change their minds; but I was deeply concerned that your response to Olaadegbu in the other thread was way off the road, which was why I brought us here to rub minds and to show you why that was so. I didn't mean any harm, trust me.

nuclearboy:
I want help here. Could others (preferably Aletheia, Krayola, Jesoul, Inesqor) help me see what I'm not seeing here or conversely, show Viaro what I'm saying? I've gone as far as I can personally

I understand what you're saying - but for the most part, they are just assertions made on eisegesis.

nuclearboy:

No, Viaro:

I find myself unable to accept much of what you've stated here. My reasons are simple - every question I've asked has been turned into a different question and the answer obviously has thus become answer to a different question. I guess you know why you do this - my concern is for those who read this thread seeing it as a "winning" exercise like Tonye-T has just done. You're providing a means of denial.

On the contrary, I have not tried to turn the thread into a 'winning' exercise or turn your questions into other questions and thus answered the new questions. What I have done is discussed the essentials in detail and left you to provide counter arguments with cogent references. You don't seem to have done that, and that is why I cannot just accept your assertions to fly in the face of simple attestations on this subject.

nuclearboy:

I won't bother to count how many times I asked who got the rest that Abram would not touch ASIDE of what Aner, Eshcol and Mamre took. The passage states there was something left aside what was eaten and the portion of those men. I didn't get an answer but a very professional evasiveness that made things go off on an unrelated tangent which yet brought a "conclusion".

I have answered this question so many times - unless you just want to say that you don't see it or don't wish to see it. I have said plainly that the king of Sodom did NOT get anything 'back' from Abraham; and I've also discussed why that is so. On the other hand, if you are going to maintain what Scripture does not tell us (such as the highlighted), then you would also have to answer the basic question of what grounds any defeated king would have been qualified to lay claim to spoils of war that are not his own. Do you have any such references? If you don't want to pay any attention to that fact, could it be probably that you cannot find any reference anywhere to maintain your arguments for the eisegesis you inferred for the king of Sodom getting back a 90% from Abraham?

nuclearboy:
I won't bother to count how often I stated that Abram's example was one of Christian free-will offering. Your assertions have reduced him to a robber baron who believed in might at war rather than the blessings God promised him that the passage says he was looking forward to. For the first time, I wonder how Abram could ever be considered worthy of emulation in terms of looking ahead for the fulfillment of God's Promise. Interesting how language and interpretation can be used to change meanings even when clear. Maybe thats why Christian leaders today also have become robber barons. Your Abram is the one they follow.

Dear sir, at this point I would have to say that you have arrived at a very far-fetched conclusion that are not in one instance in my arguments at all. Let's review:

1. If we (you and I) can agree that Abraham's example was one of Christian free-will, what then would be the grounds of anyone in this thread arguing anything to make Abraham's tithes a matter of 'pagan tradition'? Remember that far back in post #12 this thread, I have agreed with you on this same issue in saying:

      -  'We can follow Abraham's example without trying to be a legalistic
         clone of the patriarch.' . . . and:
      -  'What I see in all this is simply a principle and not legalism.'

2.  I made those two comments in answer to your comments that 'the tenth was an ancient acceptable "pagan" custom whist the 9/10 was the "gift"' (see again your own quote in my rejoinder in #12). And I have maintained throughout that Abraham's tithes are not taught as fulfilling any 'pagan tradition or custom' - which was why I have consistently challenged such an interpretation and asked you to show me why you have done held that idea. You have not shown me any thing at all to justify such a 'pagan'  interpolation for Abraham's tithes; and I wonder now that you are alleging I had reduced the patriarch to a robber baron. I don't think that is a fair submission on your part - please go back and carefully read my comments again.

3.  So, as long as we are agreed on the fact that Abraham's tithes could be an example of Christian free-will, our concerns diverge on the basis of how we came to draw any such conclusions. You implied that it was 'pagan custom'; I argued seriously that it is not so - the reason for my arguments is that such an interpretation has serious implications for us as Christians. The basic of all is this: infer paganism into Abraham's tithes, and you get nothing short of a pagan priesthood for Christianity! If you want to maintain that idea of paganism into the tithes of Abraham, then please pay some attention to its implication.

nuclearboy:

I won't bother to state how many times I stated here that Sodom had no legitimate claims to the spoils BUT only begged for the people. That alone makes me wonder why you hold on to this one point since the passage informs us that Sodom knew he had no claim. But you repeatedly sit on this turning it left and right and making it the subject of this discussion rather than face the import of Abraham's words themselves.

If you had simply let Scripture speak for itself, I would not press it further. But to acknowledge that the king of Sodom had no claims to the spoils and then maintain that he got a 90% back from Abraham is quite a whopper, sir! That is very misleading, not to mention 'contradictory' in the absence of all arguments to the contrary! I have discussed the meaning of Abraham's reply to the king of Sodom - and I did so both from Scripture (Genesis 14 and Deuteronomy 20) as well as the very reference that Ph.D anti-tithers have cited: Hugo Grotius! I did not find you showing me any references for what you argue - and that is why I cannot just let your eisegesis sit on this matter at all.

nuclearboy:

The issues of "Pd.H" and "Russell whatever" mean nothing to me.

That's fine - you should not be recycling his absolutely dubious 'research' as you did in post #10.

Lol, my apologies brethren - I didn't quite notice this as I was in and out of the forum the last few hours while on another thread (Abraham Genesis 14).

A pity the last few posts were lost (but I should commend the guys behind Nairaland for their hardwork all the same - God bless them). We shall take time to consider all points argued for or against the security of our salvation.

@toluxa1, good to read from you, and thanks for your comments.

@5solas, you asked a very important question on Ananias and Sapphira. I would have loved to discuss them; but time constraints for now won't let me go into detail. Basically, I tend to think that if they were saved, the fact that they died physically on their error does not mean they had lost their salvation. This seems so to me, at least for the same reason that one might observe that even though Moses had not entered the promised land and died outside of it, he nevertheless did not lose his salvation. Maybe more later.

aletheia:

An interesting exchange. Just a brief comment here:That it is "tradition" does not necessarily make it wrong. Sometimes we find that the traditions of men are a corruption of God's commands. The fact that tithing was practiced in several societies in antiquity may point to some underlying point of origin for that practice.
Just some thoughts. . .

Very astute observation there - and I will not argue against that.

The problem I have is for people reading such 'tradition' into Abraham's case in Genesis 14. If anyone would like to push that idea of Abraham fulfilling a "custom" or "tradition", then they would just simply have to show how that is so, especially in light of Scripture.

The reason why I challenge such an idea when passed as an assertive argument for anti-tithing, is because it has no basis in Scripture at all for Abraham. To this end, questions must be asked:

1.  Why would it have been Melchizedek and not some other king that Abraham would have tithed to? (another way to ask this is - On what jurisdiction/jurisprudence could Melchizedek have been the proper king among other kings to have received Abraham's tithes?)

2.  If Abraham's tithes were in fulfilment of a pagan tradition (so that it could be called an example of 'pagan tithe'), does that not seriously affect other things as well? Such things are:

[list](a)  those who call Abraham's tithes 'pagan' are just wishing it so, for they desperately ignore the fact that Melchizedek was the priest of the most high God - Abraham's God.[/list]

[list](b)  they also forget the implication of that assertion - the implication being that, Christianity would be nothing short of paganism! Why? Because the Christian priesthood is after the order of Melchizedek - and if Melchizedek was a pagan priest, then Christianity could be argued to be founded on a pagan priesthood (which is not what Scripture teaches at all).[/list]

[list](c)  to argue paganism into Abraham's tithes would mean that the Levitical priesthood was also obeying paganism - afterall, Levi gave tithes while still in the loins of Abraham (Hebrews 7:9).[/list]

But not minding this, I shall discuss the main reason why Melchizedek received a tithe from Abraham and recognized it as ABRAHAM's TITHES. If Abraham gave from what was not his, then it would be an exchange of thefts, not tithes. History shows this, and as far as I know, the civil and political laws of ancient nations also bear testimony to the fact. However, the basic reason why Melchizedek received the tithes from Abraham has been hinted at by the same Hugo Grotius (whom Russell Kelly cited) - and that reason is this: "Abraham devoted to God a tenth part of the spoils."

This simple point is what Ph.D anti-tithing theologians find a bitter pill to swallow - and that is why they want to cut corners and keep dubiously shouting paganism into Abraham's tithes. That is why I opened this thread to rub minds with nuclearboy - and by extension to challenge that fallacy of "pagan tradition" deliberately read into Abraham's tithes in Genesis 14.

nuclearboy:

Tell you what, Viaro - this is warfare by attrition.   You say it over and over and over till I say "that doesn't matter. Lets discuss something else" and then you say since I've agreed that is right, it means this is that ( ) then attack another mundane issue till I say ok. You're making me scream non-stop in my mind and I honestly cannot believe it is Viaro I'm discussing with.

Hehe, commander - you know your boy. . . viaro has to be careful with his boss so I don't risk e-jail.  Anyhow, if I were attacking mundane issues, I would have hoped that you would show me references for what you argue rather than just reading your own thoughts into that text and analogising here and there while ignoring laws of conquest both from Scripture (Deuteronomy 20) and from external citations (eg., Hugo Grotius).

nuclearboy:

Could other people just come in and let me know if I've lost my mind or not? Are we discussing what I'm reading in front of me. your assertions have gotten me to read these few verses close to a hundred times in under 24 hours. You're going to get me to take a "carbonated' drink this morning.

<Hiccup!>  I just recovered after my round of carbonated D's - could I join you, hehe?

On a serious note, though, let me reiterate:

(1)  As regarding the assertion that Abraham did not tithe from what belonged to him, I have shown that the patriarch actually tithed from what belonged to him - the spoils of war belonged to Abraham, and as such, he could tithe from what he claimed was his own. If that were not true, then the patriarch would have been displaying theft rather than rightfully laying claim to the spoils. (this point has been buttressed by all references we have examined - Genesis 14, Deuteronomy 20, Hugo Grotius' work - and we could look for other references to the point). However, if anyone feels that were not so, they could point out the contrary by discussing the references/sources as well.

(2)  As regarding the assertion that Abraham gave 90% back to the king of Sodom, I have shown that was a fallacy deliberately read into the texts, for the king of Sodom had no legal rights to the spoils and so could not have laid any claim to them in any wise. There is no indication from any cited source (Genesis 14, Deuteronomy 20, and Hugo Grotius' "De Jure Belli ac Pacis" [ie., 'On the Law of War and Peace']) that a defeated king still qualifies to lay claim to what he had lost. Where you feel that the defeated king of Sodom and/or Gommorah qualifies as such, please show the references as well - I'm open and willing to see it.

The import of this discussion is simple: although I would not aim to push anyone to change their minds on the subject of tithes, I'm rather concerned that anti-tithers often make unfounded conclusions that fly in the face of simple statements in Scripture. Such unfounded assertions include the following -

(a) that Abraham gave tithes from what did not belong to him;

(b) that Abraham was fulfilling 'traditions demands'

(c) that Abraham returned 90% to the king of Sodom

(d) that Abraham's tithes were pagan tithes and has nothing to do with God

. . . and from the above, all other unfounded assertions are made, such as -

(e) that Abraham's tithes were not holy

(f)  that Abraham was mandated and thus fulfilling an obligation to Melchizedek

(g) that therefore, in all that could be argued, Abraham tithes were NOT 'tithes' (thus, the unnecessary arguments that 'tenths' were used and not 'tithes', etc., etc).

If it were just a matter of saying that you have a problem with the word tithe/tithing/tithes, it would not be necessary to ask you to discuss here. However, if you want to push unfounded conclusions from public/open sources that are confusing issues, I would not let it pass (not minding that you're boss, sir). An example is the one from Wikipedia - the article there is quite unfounded in many respects, and I shown just one: terumah. You could also look up the Ma'aser kesafim, and then perhaps you might begin to understand why I agreed initially with Image123 that you are pushing unfounded arguments to the fore.

We ought to carefully study issues for ourselves - and not just reharsh the arguments of other people who are just saying things here and there, regardless whether they have written a degree thesis (as in the case of Gary Arnold) or even a Ph.D on tithes (as in Russell Kelly).

Good morning, commander. A few brief comments to yours:

nuclearboy:

Viaro:

This is the most amazing set of responses I ever read. Its interesting you believe I am the one reading what is not there with your assertions plus you are answering what you want and ignoring others. You're really just highlighting/addressing what I would consider the most mundane issues here leaving the weightier matters. AND PLEASE NOTE - not once have I said "oh ok, now you have agreed with this and that means that". That is not a good way to "rub minds".

Okay, I'll try and keep them at the minimum if you may, just so we rub minds.
Yet, what really are the weightier matters you feel I left out?

nuclearboy:
When I say Sodom met/welcomed him, you latch on to "welcome" and turn that into a big thing - did you ever consider my choice of words means he saw him or they accidentally met or he welcomed him or whatever. I didn't say there was a ceremony involved that showed any "claims/whatever", did I?

You should see I was only teasing you there. However, it is inconsequential in so much that you seemed to have taken things for granted and did not consider the circumstances around them.

nuclearboy:
After I said the laws of conquest would infer Abram owned the Spoils, you keep and keep and keep saying Sodom had no claim and buttressing this with "the light of scripture" that comes hundreds of years after. Would it make sense to you for me to use our standards today and thus "agree" with Mazaje that Yahweh was murderous; not considering first, the ways of the "times" and the personalities involved?! And again, I have repeatedly said he didn't have a "LEGAL" claim so why you keep repeating this, I do not know. But I'll bet you will now latch on to the word LEGAL now forgetting I'm talking about a concept not a court case. [i]wondering "Am I conversing with Viaro or did the LAWYER part of DeepSight get his password?"[/i] Please, stop saying the King of sodom had no rights - that is not in consideration here.

The reason I kept bringing home that point is that, even though you acknowledged Abraham's rights of claims to the spoils, somehow you want t ignore it altogether and look for lopeholes as to why the king of Sodom could have claimed anything - hence, your argument that the latter got back 90% from Abraham. You can't expect me to just nod in the face of that fallacy and assume all is well. No sir.

nuclearboy:
The passage discusses [1] Sodom meeting Abram [2] Melchizedek blessing him [3] Sodom discussing with him IN THAT ORDER. How you imagine Sodom wasn't a part of (or shared in) that meeting beats me. This again is another non-issue anyway and I wonder why it is of import to you

I did not assume anything - you on the other hand are reading things into the texts on your assumption. I have said that my answers would be in light of Scripture and kept to that and nothing else - which is why I have tried to discuss my points in detail and consider issues from all sides.

However, if one has to consider my reasons why the king of Sodom did not join them in that fellowship, please look again at where their meeting occured - Gen. 14:17 >> it was at the valley of Shaveh that the king of Sodom met the patriarch. Does that strike you at all?!?

This, of course, has no weight in what I have been asking you regarding the question of why it was Melchizedek that Abraham should have tithed to and not to any other king at all. The essential point here is WHY that should be the case, on the basis that you seemed to have earlier implied it was in fulfilling a "tradition". WHAT tradition do we find in Genesis 14 that Abraham was fulfilling - and why to Melchizedek?

Whether the king of Sodom met the patriarch at the valley of Shaveh or not, still does not answer that basic question.

nuclearboy:
My argument that Abram gave Melchizedek a "tenth" - Yes, it was an accepted tradition.

Please show me the "tradition" that Abraham was obeying in Genesis 14.

The reason I keep asking this questions is because a lot of people have just taken that idea and run with it without even for one instance considering what the text says. If you want to argue it based on tradition, then please sir - tell me why it was to Melchizedek that Abraham would have "fulfilled" such a tradition to, and not to some other king at all or besides.

The idea that it was because Melchizedek blessed him is not "tradition". Where you find that 'tradition' in that chapter is what I am waiting to see.

nuclearboy:
We've seen that from references. YOU however, are saying that in Abram's case, it was based on something else. This is my argument - everyone has been pissing all their lives when their bladders are full. Viaro says NO, in my case, I do it when I'm hungry. AND THEN YOU ASK ME TO PROVE THAT IT IS WHEN BLADDERS ARE FULL . No, Viaro, onus is on you! I have no reason to argue with the norm when we have NO reason to believe otherwise.

How is the onus on me - to provide you answers on your own argument?

As far as I'm concerned, I have provided answers in DETAIL as to why the insertion of "tradition" in Genesis 14 is a farce. If you want me to elaborate, I could then accept the 'onus' to do so - and I shall keep within the references we have thus far been looking at. Shall I, sir?

nuclearboy:

But for this, you now say "light of scripture". I justify it being Melchizedek - I say he was the only king present who [1] was not involved directly in the goods/warfare [2] was the only one we hear was a priest [3] was the one who celebrated Abram, blessed (prayed) for and rejoiced with him. We all attend parties, Viaro and you give food (first) to those who attend, not people on the street. Thats simplistic but explains my point

Then why did the same Abraham not give tithes to any other king but rather to Mlechizedek alone?

Your answers are flying in the face of simple stated lines in that chapter. If you say that Melchizedek was the only king present who was not involved in the war, that even takes away from the arguement - because then you are arguing against the "tradition" and not in favour of it. It would then mean for you to furnish me with evidence clearly that such was the tradition - please cite references.

nuclearboy:

If I DO NOT recognise your right to something, I would NOT SAY "I'm taking nothing so you cannot EVER say it was your riches that made me wealthy". And if I said "I'm taking nothing except the portions (due to the rules of conquest) that belong to the others FROM YOU", that would "normally" mean you can have the rest.

No, that would normally mean that you are forcing your eisegesis into the text - and that is pretext, not context. If I have taken what is yours and given to others, I am violating my oath that I have NOT taken "ANY THING" (not even a shoe lace) from what belongs to you!

nuclearboy:
I think we've beaten this issue enough. We've not seen who the rest (aside the "tenth", the portion of the 3 and what was eaten) went to.

We've seen it clearly - from all references to the point (Genesis 14; Deuteronomy 20; and Hugo Grotius' work). To say we have not seen it is to deny all references to the case and just maintain the unfounded assertion that rests on mere eisegesis.

nuclearboy:
In lieu of that (except you can let me know who it went to), I believe it reasonable that it went back to Sodom's King or Peoples. Please leave the arguments and interpretations and answer just this - who got the rest (again FOR SIMPLICITY) 90% that Abram declined to take and that you've accepted he didn't take? That would prove your point easily.

Those who got the rest of the spoils were Abraham's confederates - Aner, Eschol and Mamre.

If you want me to elaborate and show how, I could oblige you.

However, I have again and again requested that you show me WHERE or HOW any defeated king could lay claim to what he had lost. Why have I not seen you do so?

nuclearboy:

Still evasive and avoiding what I am saying!

I'm trying to picture this - Say I am the King of Sodom and you are Abram. After losing my possessions, I meet/welcome you who has just won them in war.

This is where you're getting it all wrong! The king of Sodom might've met Abraham after the conquest just as Melchizedek met him; but in the case of the king of Sodom, what makes you think it was a 'welcome' he was offering Abraham? 'Welcome' - on what grounds?

I'll tell you who was doing the welcome - look at Melchizedek who met Abraham with bread and wine. Hehe, commander. . forget that loser the king of Sodom - the guy had no rights of claims anywhere and anyhow.

nuclearboy:
As at this time, I am unsure how you plan to handle the issue but accept that what I lost, you gained and only just welcome you if not for getting them back "for me", at least for conquering my enemies. But there is ANOTHER king who joins us. This is Melchizedek who is a Priest. He takes bread and wine and blesses you.

This is altogether on another plain entirely. The 'joining' is a non-starter. The king of Sodom there did not share in that meeting between Abraham and Melchizedek - for if it were otherwise so, then something intrinsic would have been presented before us.

nuclearboy:

After Melchizedek prays for you, you give him a tenth of these goods. He is the "non-involved" king I mentioned since he was not involved in the war UNLIKE the King of Sodom.

Perhaps you're getting it all mixed up again. Your argument initially was inclined to say that Abraham gave tithes more as a matter of fulfilling 'tradition' - not because someone was there who stood ready to bless him. I am more concerned about this "tradition" you took, and that was why I asked why it would be Melchizedek in particular that Abraham would have given the tithes to. Was the "tradition" a matter of someone who blessed another being qualified thereto to receive the tithes?

nuclearboy:

I then sheepishly come before you and plead that you let me have my people. I also say you should keep all the gold/whatever. But you say "let Aner, Esckol and Mamre have their portions". You also say your men have eaten some of the food. Aside this, you want nothing"

Nothing of WHAT? you also say you do not wish I ever be able to say I enriched you. WOULD THIS NOT RESULT FROM YOU TAKING THESE PROPERTIES YOU HAD DECIDED YOU DIDN'T WANT ANY PART OF?

No, not quite. If I do not recognize your claims to anything, I would make the same statements as did Abraham. Only if you had any legal claims of rights after the conquest, would I begin to say something else. You would never be able to claim anywhere that you made me rich, especially if you had lost everything at the vale of Siddim! I then could rightly say to you that you cannot prevent anyone from having their portion in that spoil of warfare - since you have no grounds to dictate anything to anyone.

nuclearboy:

Viaro!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes sir!! Three salute to my commander!

nuclearboy:

No Viaro:

You evaded my questions. Here again is what I'm saying

[1] Abram gave a tenth to Melchizedek
[2] His men had "eaten some"
[3] He allowed that Aner and the other two had their portion

[] FOR SIMPLICITY IN COMPUTATION, I ignored 2 and 3 and said Abram gave the rest back to Sodom. There is no argument over [2] and [3] above. Even before you pointed out the mathematical discrepancy, I had said myself that the use of 90% was to simplify and show that he didn't take anything for himself.

I did not evade anything - which explains why I went into detail. However, not in one line did I argue that Abraham kept anything for himself - for that is not the issue here at all. Yes, Abraham gave it all away and retained nothing for himself - but even at that, two points stand out lucidly:

(1) he did not give back anything to the king of Sodom
(2) he treated the spoils as his own, so he could then give to others

Whether for mathematical simplicity or not, we know that the king of Sodom got nothing 'back' from Abraham. A tenth went to Melchizedek as tithes; and the rest were divided among his confederates as 'portions'.

The point here is that the king of Sodom got nothing back from Abraham; and to argue that he did is simply to wish it into the texts without showing anything for that argument. Besides, it would mean that while Abraham was making an oath that he would not take ANY THING that belonged to Sodom, he might as well have broken that oath and from from what might've belonged to the king of Sodom and given to others!

What I'm trying to say is this: either we force human ideas into the text, or just ignore what the texts are saying altogether. But if we are to consider them, then a choice faces us between these alternatives -

(a) Abraham said he would not take anything that belonged to the king of Sodom;
(b) but he had taken from the spoils and given them to others

therefore, it is either he actually took what was not rightfully his and belonged rightfully to the king of Sodom; or he did not consider anything to belong to the king of Sodom, and thefore could not stand accused of violating his own oath.

nuclearboy:

My questions remain [1] what "properties" of the King of Sodom did he reject taking?

The king of Sodom had absolutely NOTHING to claim! I have made this point repeatedly. Look again at the laws of conquest or of any verses in Scripture and show me what legal rights that a defeated person had to claim anything in warfare? Since the king of Sodom had fallen at the vale of Siddim (v. 10 - his defeat) and had lost everything (v. 11), on what grounds would he have come back to claim anything after suffering such a defeat? Please show me answers from Scripture or from Hugo Grotius work on "On the Acquisition of Territory and Property by Right of Conquest".

nuclearboy:

[2] Who, according to the Biblical passage, did Abram (not ME or YOU or Deuteronomy) say owned these "properties"?

Abraham. That is the one person who could claim any legal rights to the spoils of war - and you also acknowledged it as such. Everywhere you look - whether in Melchizedek's statement in Genesis 14; or in the Law in Deuteronomy 20; or in Hugo Grotius; or even in your own arguments, Abraham owned the spoils of war.

nuclearboy:
[3] If according to your most recent post, Abram did take the properties, would he have
been able to say I will not take thine so you cannot say you enriched me?

Yes, and I have explained what that meant - it simply meant that the king of Sodom had absolutely NO LEGAL RIGHTS or claims to the spoils. If we cannot see this simple fact, then we would be saying that the spoils belonged to the king of Sodom even though he had suffered the loss of all things (Gen. 14:11); and also that Abraham would have violated his oath that he would not take anything that belonged to the king of Sodom - because he had already taken from the spoils to give as tithes to Melchizedek!

nuclearboy:

Think about that statement - It was spoils of war that he believed to be his; why then say "I'm not taking what is yours so that you can't say you enriched me"?

As above - because the king of Sodom had absolutely no legal claim on anything. Show me from any source that the king of Sodom as a defeated king could then lay claim to anything - whether from Genesis 14, or Deuteronomy 20, or from Hugo Grotius.

nuclearboy:

See Viaro, I have moved from one point of view to another already when I stopped believing tithes were a duty. And I assure you I find it very easy to accept when I am wrong. All you need to convince me that I was wrong is to answer these 2 questions and kill this issue once and for all. Russell et al mean nothing to me. What I read is what I'm thinking about!

Okay, bro - consider my answers above for now.

nuclearboy:

BTW, the King of Sodom did not, as you say, try to claim the "spoils of war" (goods and riches) for himself. All he asked for were his people. In asking for them, one gets the idea that morally, it was agreed that he "could" want the property back (but he didn't). Does it make sense to say "keep the goods which we all know are yours anyway! but give me the people which we both know are yours too since you won"?

On what grounds would the defeated king even try to dictate who keeps what? That would be a garrulous laughter. You remind me here of someone who lost a football match, then as the loser, he tries to dictate to others what they should do with the trophy! Ha-ha!

Okay, seriously now. . . forget that funny chap the king of Sodom. He had no rights to any claims as much as the king of Gomorrah also had no rights (for both of them fell at the vale of Siddim). Nobody there considered anything as belonging to the king of Sodom.

nuclearboy:
VIARO, you are not reading my posts! I answered about Melchizedek earlier - He blessed Abram and he is the only non-involved king we hear of being present. Who would you have given the "tenth" to?

I saw it afterwards, sorry. Even so, that is not the reason at all. Please think about it carefully.

Sorry, I might have missed this:

nuclearboy:

One question you asked that I didn't answer was why it was Melchizedek he gave the tenth to rather than another king. The passage informs us that it was Melchizedek who blessed Abram. Who would you give to, Viaro? Note that we are not aware of any other "not-involved" king being present at that meeting.

Well, I really would have loved you to carefully consider that (or those) question(s). However, the last part of your comment ('that we are not aware of any other "not-involved" king being present at that meeting') does not seem to have considered Genesis 14:17 - "the king of Sodom went out to meet him after his return from the slaughter of Chedorlaomer".

It was the king of Sodom that first went out to meet Abraham on the return of the warfare - in just the same way that Melchizedek is said to have met the patriarch on his return from that warfare (Heb. 7:1 - 'Melchisedec, king of Salem, . . . who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings').

Besides who first met who after the return of Abraham, my point is this: on what basis indeed could anyone have argued that Genesis 14 presents Abraham's tithes as pagan tithes that was fulfilling 'traditions demands'? How could this have been so, considering that chapter? Why would Melchizedek have been the one to whom Abraham would give tithes if it was according to the pagan tradition of the day?

@nuclearboy,

There are still a few things I would like to pick your brains on:

viaro: But I do not agree with you that it was to fulfill "traditions demand". That is a fallacy as far as Scripture is concerned. If we are to argue and insist on such, my first question is this: why did he tithed to Melchizedek and not to any other king at all? A second question: what did Melchizedek "demand" from Abraham so the latter could then "fulfill" the said 'tradition'?

Perhaps a third question: on what grounds would Melchizedek be the king to have received tithes from Abraham, seeing that there were other kings within vicinity, as well that at least one other king who went out to meet Abraham?

I don't think it was about fulfilling some 'traditions demand' - those questions would have to be considered in light of Scripture. However, I think that when we answer those questions, we shall get to see why the argument of 'pagan tithes' for Abraham is unfounded and altogether NOT what Scripture tells us.

nuclearboy:

You're using a command given in Deut to "tell" Abram in Genesis that he owned the Spoils?

No sir. Rather, I am considering issues in light of Scripture; and in face of ancillary evidence to the point I made - which was why I pointed out the fine point that Hugo Grotius had made on Abraham's tithes in Genesis 14 (the very same reference that Russell Kelly Ph.D had cited). I only considered issues by asking basic questions, such as "What would that have meant in practical terms?" If we only take our reading and give the texts our own private interpretations without looking at the bigger picture, we would be forcing our own eisegesis into God's Word - which, as we have seen, is why the anti-tithers arguing Abraham's tithes to be pagan tradition simply have no leg to stand on.

nuclearboy:

Lets make this easy: -

Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim and Bela lost their possessions along with Lot and his property. Abraham warred and got back these possessions. The conquest informs he, as conqueror, now owned them. Then Abram said he would take nothing of "what belonged to the king of Sodom" except what his companions had taken. What happened to the possessions aside the "tenth" and the portion belonging to Aner, Eshcol and Mamre?

I had anticipated your questions and had explained accordingly - see post #19 above.

nuclearboy:
Please Viaro, answer this question without many words. And in the same succint response, tell us what it was he was saying belonged to the King of Sodom that he declined to take from the King of Sodom.

Please see post #19 above.

As to the second concern, viz: that "2.  Bera (the king of Sodom) tried to claim the spoils of war for himself" and why that is not quite true, let me draw again from yours:

nuclearboy:

You say Abram returned nothing back (is that the same as gave nothing back or better still, that the King of Sodom got nothing back?). Please show me how you arrived at this.

I believe that Bera (the king of Sodom) got absolutely nothing back from Abraham. Let me show why (basically, I'm just repeating the same response to these same queries, so nothing here is original. I can't find the reference, but I'll just post them anyways).

Genesis 14:18-24 does not teach that Abraham gave any 90% of the spoils to the king of Sodom. We have tended to read that idea into the text (eisegesis) rather than study them a bit more closely. Such assumptions are completely unsupported anywhere by the verses in Genesis 14, nor by any other verses in the Bible, nor even by the external references cited for it (such as Hugo Grotius’ “De Jure Belli ac Pacis”).

1.  First, we have noted that Bera the king of Sodom was defeated in the vale of Siddim (Gen. 14:10). We also noted that, according to the laws of conquest (which Hugo Grotius so well encapsulates in his work), only the victor could legally lay claim to the spoils of war and not the defeated. Since the king of Sodom had lost everything in that war (verse 11), there was just no grounds for him to approach Abraham to claim anything on any legal grounds - and that is why Abraham could not have assumed that the the king of Sodom had any legitimacy of any claims.

2. Second, what could possibly be meant by Abraham’s response to the king of Sodom in verses 22-24? It’s easy to see – the moment we ignore what Melchizedek said to Abraham (because people dubiously see “pagan tithes” there), then we miss everything else. It was the Most High God that gave everything to Abraham – that was what Melchizedek recognized when he blessed Abraham: “blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand” (Gen. 14:20).

3. From the same inference given in Deut. 20:14 (”and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies“), we can understand WHY Abraham made the statement in Gen. 14:24 – “Save only that which the young men have eaten, and the portion of the men which went with me, Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre; LET THEM HAVE THEIR PORTION“. Abraham was not adjudicating over what did not belong to him; indeed, it would have been wrong of him to have taken what was not his in the victory of that war and then given them to other people (the priest of God, Melchizedek; and his confederates – Aner, Eschol and Mamre).

4.  Now if Abraham gave 90% to the king of Sodom, what “portion” was he referring to in verse 24 – “and the portion of the men which went with me, Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre; let them take their portion“? The spoils belong to the conquerors (according to Deut. 20:12-14); therefore, Russell and his colleagues would have to intelligently explain where Abraham got the “portion” for his confederates if he gave 90% to the king of Sodom.

More to the point is this fact that should not be ignored: if Abraham was saying that the spoils belonged to the king of Sodom (on which grounds he was getting 'back' the 90%), what then did he mean by 'I will not take any thing that is thine' in verse 23? Let's remember that Abraham said he made that statement on an oath (verse 22 - 'I have lift up mine hand unto the LORD')!!

The thing to note here is this: if Abraham made an oath not to take anything that was belonging to the king of Sodom, it only means that he did not consider the spoils of war to be legally the latter's. If he did, then he had already violated that oath - because he had taken from the spoils and given tithes of it to Melchizedek as well as portions from the same spoils to his confederates! The fact that Abraham had given tithes and portions from the spoils to others only comes back to show us that he did not consider the king of Sodom to have any legal claims of rights to the spoils - more so when Bera had met his defeat in the vale of Siddim and had lost everything previously (Gen. 14:10-11). I don't find anywhere in the law of conquests that the defeated would still have any legal claims to what he had lost.

For these reasons, I think that the ideas many (even those with a Ph.D) have been arguing around Abraham's tithes are fallacious when closely considered in light of Scripture. They tend to just assume things into the texts without showing anything - and in some cases (as in Russell Kelly's), they force their own eisegesis into the texts and then quote other authors in such a way as to deceive the gullible reader who does not take the time to check carefully.

Here now is the matter:

nuclearboy:

You say Abram returned nothing back (is that the same as gave nothing back or better still, that the King of Sodom got nothing back?). Please show me how you arrived at this.

Yes, that is what I meant - that Bera the king of Sodom got absolutely nothing back of the spoils from Abraham. I will show that in due course, sir.

From the argument that Abraham gave 90% back to the king of Sodom, two things immediately present themselves to us:

[list]1.  that Abraham had tithed from what did not belong to him; and -[/list]

[list]2.  Bera (the king of Sodom) tried to claim the spoils of war for himself.[/list]

The first of these two we have dealth with and are agreed. However, for the benefit of others who have long held to such notions, I shall try and show the fallacy in the argument that the spoils of war did not belong to Abraham. As always, my answers shall be in light of Scripture.



The Spoils of War Belonged to Abraham

Indeed, the spoils of war belonged to Abraham - that is what Scripture teaches, and that is what I'll try and present here. One does not take other people's property without legal rights and begin to act upon them as they wish, for that would be theft - and that would seriously sully the principles of conscience and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Here then are a few reasons for Abraham's rights to the spoils of war:

(a) According to Genesis 14, the warfare had involved four against five kings (verses 8-9). Verse 10 reveals the fate of Bera king of Sodom: he with the king of Gomorrah had fled and fallen at the vale of Siddim - ie., they effectively met their defeat at that place. Hence, those who had been defeated could not afterwards come back to lay legal claim to any spoils of war, for their defeat effectively showed that they had lost everything indeed (verse 11)!

(b) The fact that the spoils of war belonged to Abraham is found in Melchizedek’s declaration: “blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand” (Gen. 14:20). What would that have meant in practical terms? From Deuteronomy 20:10-14, it is clear that it is always a principle of warfare that the victor claims all the spoils:
[list]'When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee. And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it: And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and ALL THAT IS IN THE CITY, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.[/list]

(c) Thus, when Melchizedek declared in Genesis 14:20 that 'blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand', it meant simply that ALL the spoils of war belonged to Abraham! And that was why he could effectively act upon the spoils as his own - first giving tithes (yes, TITHES of all) to Melchizedek; and afterwards portions to his confederates: Aner, Eschol and Mamre. Were it not that the spoils were legally Abraham's, he could NOT at any time had taken from it to give a tithe to anyone from them, nor could he have given portions to his confederates.

(d)  The giving of portions to anyone from warfare actually was the prerogative of the one who claimed victory in that warfare. For example, Israel could say to Joseph: "Moreover I have given to thee one portion above thy brethren, which I took out of the hand of the Amorite with my sword and with my bow" (Gen. 48:22). See Numbers 31 also.

The above then is how we understand why the spoils of war legally belonged to Abraham - for the benefit of those who might be wondering about this.

However, since a few of my friends like to argue over and over again from Ph.D anti-tithers that the spoils did not belong to Abraham, let me go directly to the source from which many of them pull out that argument and deal with it.

Russell Kelly, Ph.D is one such anti-tithing theologian who makes such an argument; and it seems to me that the excerpts you had cited in post #10 above might've been taken from his webpage (scroll down to almost the bottom of this page under the sub-title: "PAGAN TITHES: GENESIS 14". Among those excerpts, he has this posted:

Russell Kelly: "In the same manner the Greeks too, the Carthaginians, and the Romans devoted a tenth portion of the spoils of war to their deities."  (On the Acquisition of Territory and Property by Right of Conquest)

When you click on that link in the quote, it takes you to chapter 6 of Hugo Grotius' "De Jure Belli ac Pacis". It may shock Russell's fawning crowd to see that Grotius does not regard Abraham's tithes as "pagan". This is what comes immediately before the above quote:

[list]According to this right, as we find in the fourteenth chapter of Genesis, Abraham devoted to God a tenth part of the spoils, which he had taken from the five kings: and the inspired writer in the seventh chapter of his Epistle to the Hebrews gives the same interpretation of this passage.

source: http://www.constitution.org/gro/djbp_306.htm
[/list]

It is sad when Christian ministers and theologians try to blow smoke in people's eyes. For the life of me, I just wonder how Russell Kelly with a Ph.D on tithes would so shamelessly try to gull his readers! In citing Hugo Grotius' work to argue 'pagan tithes' for Abraham, we find that Grotius himself made no such conclusions or arguments - infact, Russell would have you believe the direct opposite of what Grotius had stated!

For those who may not have noticed this cheap trick of Kelly, I hope they can rest now and stop recycling that fallacy that the spoils did not belong to Abraham, or that Abraham's tithes were pagan. There are whole loads of questions to ask Russell and his friends on that - but let's leave that for another day.

Bottom line, no sincere theologian would argue against plain facts from Scripture. Abraham's tithes were not pagan; Scripture does not say so; and leaving the eisegesis of Russell aside, we can put paid to this matter. The spoils belonged to Abraham.

Next, I would go on to deal with the second part of the enquiry, viz: that "2.  Bera (the king of Sodom) tried to claim the spoils of war for himself" and why that is not quite true.

nuclearboy:

Chairman:

I explained my particular aversion to the word tithe rather than tenth. I stated it is a personal thing and I thank God that someplace in your post, you allow for "personal interpretations".

Okay sir. I respect your personal aversion to the word tithe. That is quite a relief from your previous stance that: "He gave a TENTH (that word, NOT tithes, was used) to Melchizedek". When you said "NOT tithes", my brows were raised somewhat and I thought I might've been reading my Bible from the wrong page to front, haha.

nuclearboy:

Death is not always death, Viaro. Death by a judge's order has the same effect as by a mob action. One is justice but the other is travesty of justice. We both know that

Aiight. I just wanted to point out that both words (tithes and tenth) are used in Scripture in regards to Abraham.

nuclearboy:

Ok, you say it cannot be proved it wasn't due to Holiness or Righteousness. Same goes for "due to customs and traditions. In lieu of proof for the existence of newer evidence, I would suppose what would be acceptable would be what was normal in those days being the reason. That is my honest opinion.

I like your attitude and respect your opinion, although I tend to see things around this issue somewhat differently. The reasons will be shared with you in due course, and that was why I had asked why it was to Melchizedek in particular that Abraham would have tithed to, and not rather to another king. Suffice to say that if it was merely a matter of customs, Abraham would have given that tithe to someone else than to Melchizedek.

nuclearboy:

concerning your points [1], [2], [3] and [4], I wrote in my post that "for simplicity of calculation, I said 90% went to Sodom." But that in actuality, a portion went to Abram's companions. How you missed that suprises me. And the basis that the king would stand to get back anything was specified by Abram himself in saying "I take nothing belonging to you so you can never say you enriched me" Abram in effect says, the property would not be touched by himself.

No, I did not miss what you stated earlier - and that was why I asked [1], [2], [3] and [4] in that sequence - they follow one another and are related. Yet, the whole point, as I have said plainly, is that the king of Sodom (Bera) in Genesis 14 got nothing back from Abraham. I shall show this in due course; but I don't go the same route as jumping to conclusions as some have done on that chapter.

nuclearboy:

You say Abram returned nothing back (is that the same as gave nothing back or better still, that the King of Sodom got nothing back?). Please show me how you arrived at this.

Yes, that is what I meant - that Bera the king of Sodom got absolutely nothing back of the spoils from Abraham. I will show that in due course, sir.

nuclearboy:

What I see is you saying that what Abram said was "the goods are mine so its not your property I'm taking so don't for a minute think you can say it was your stuff that made me rich. I paid my tithe to Melchizedek because its my property so get out of the way"

If that is how you want to put it in military lingo, then yes sir!

nuclearboy:

Let me stop here and get a response to the above statement. That would clarify your thoughts on this. But my thoughts I make clear here - In saying "I will accept nothing belonging to you , but what my men have eaten and the share that belongs to the men that were with me", Abram was refusing to take anything. Whether those goods were then burnt or further donated to Melchizedek would then be of no import. But he had said they belonged to someone and it was the king of Sodom he was addressing.

Now I shall try to elucidate on your concerns and answer accordingly.

uplawal:

@toba,but you mocked him earlier,if you are a muslim,honestly,u will never write rubbish about someone

Maybe that is why Nairalanders doubt you're a muslim, because you're doing the same thing you complain against:

uplawal:

Thank God muslims dont behave the way these idolaters/ungreatful creatures/kuffar behaves,

uplawal:

pls just leave my two Brothers alone before the wrath of Almighty Allah comes on you,very jobless souls

nuclearboy:

@ Christians:

The following quote made me remember who I'm supposed to be - a Christian "sincerely" searching for truth. Reminds me of another quote - DON'T confuse me with the FACTS as I already made up my mind!

Hehe, if we already make up our minds in the face of facts, would there be any need to engage our thinking and hearts? My attitude often in searching out things is to adopt a big 'L' sign on my back - you know, like a learner would have on a car he's learning to drive. "Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise" - I Cor. 3:18.

I I just love this:

nuclearboy:
Truth often offends those who believe they already have it. Keep this in mind as you study contrary views. It's not uncommon for those who believe they already know what the truth is about any issue or given subject, to be offended (sometimes even angered) about an alternative. Challenging certain teachings that have been accepted as true tends to be agitating. This is often true of many Christians--in virtually any capacity--who generally don't appreciate challenges (cordial or otherwise) to doctrines they sincerely believe and have held for years. Thankfully, sincerity and time have no effect on scriptural truths. Keep in mind that with regard to all matters of faith and practice, the only standard for believers is the Bible. What we've believed for long should not be the acceptable alternative to the Word of God

Well spoken.

nuclearboy:

Mathematically, TENTH and TITHE mean THE SAME THING. However, theologically and today, they mean different things. I live in Nigeria, Viaro, and I hear "The TITHE is the Lords" all the time. It is preached and shouted from every nook and cranny. BUT you will not hear "The tenth is the Lords" if you understand what I mean. In effect, the word TITHE has come to be seen, to mean, a debt that is binding. It is only for that reason that I seperate the meaning of the two in Abram's story. He gave a tenth, NOT a "debt" tithe!

Whatever people are shouting from anywhere, it does not make any sense for us to turn to unnecessary divides. So with tithe and tenth - whether mathematically, theologically, or otherwise, they mean the same thing in basic understanding. There is no reason to try so hard to make it mean something different - for doing so only makes us as guilty as others who seek unnecessary interpolations here and there. Tithe is simply the tenth.

nuclearboy:

So yes, Abram gave a "tenth" to Melchizedek. Why did he do this?

It doesn't matter - Abraham gave 'tithes' (Genesis 14:20) is the same as Abraham gave 'the tenth' (Hebrews 7:4). They are the same.

nuclearboy:

The above informs that this "TENTH" was a custom, not based on Holiness or Righteousness, but as a tradition of many (almost universal) ancient peoples.

Commander, I beg you to listen carefully to what I say and not what I did not say. I have said that my enquiry would be primarily in light of Scripture; so if you're going to appeal to other sources, I could allow for that as far as clarifications are necessary. Therefore, there is nothing in all those excerpts you quoted to show that the tithe/tenth was not based on holiness or righteousness - at best, that is what you want to force upon the issue of tithe/tenth; but that is not what Scripture presents to us.




Now, to deal with the following points in yours which seem to be responding to the points I raised:

nuclearboy:

The Biblical passage says Abram refused to take any portion aside what his men took. For purposes of math simplicity, I call that the remaining 90% or 9/10. That went back to the Sodomites. Thats what the Word says.

No sir, that is what you say and is not what the Word of God says. Quite often, we have traditionally taken the whole passage to mean that 90% went back to the king of Sodom, but that is simply wishful thinking.

Let me discuss this by raising a few questions:

1.  If 10% of the spoils went to Melchizedek, on what basis would any careful reader assume that the remaining 90% went back to the king of Sodom?

2.  If we are to insist that 90% went back to the king of Sodom, then indeed none of Abraham's confederates got anything out of the spoils - which is not what Scripture teaches.

3.  If Abraham's confederates took their portion, on what Scriptural basis could they have done so? And wouldn't that suggest that 90% did not go back to the king of Sodom?

4.  On what basis at all, if any, would the king of Sodom stand to claim back any portion/percentage of the spoils of war?

These preliminary questions are vital in the sense that the answers are there in God's Word; but they are not what we often conclude. Point is that, the king of Sodom did not get any 90% back from Abraham. In fact, if we carefully read the passage in context, the king of Sodom got absolutely NOTHING from Abraham.

That is the most basic point; and when we miss this, all kinds of unfounded conclusions begin to emerge here and there to justify an anti-tithing stance. However, I'm leaving them open for now, for if you disagree then please furnish me with your reasons, and I shall then show you why I think you did not consider the verses in the spirit of the Word.

However, please note: Abraham's tithe to Melchizedek is NOT 'pagan' - it was not out of "custom" that Abraham gave tithes to Melchizedek. If you argue to the contrary, please let me know why you do so and believe that Abraham's tithes were 'pagan tithes' and based on pagan customs.

nuclearboy:

The issue of ownership of the SPOILS OF WAR - laws of conquest would determine that the "spoils of war" were Abram's due, since he was the one who warred and won them. However, he refused that, spoke out and said he was returning all to the sodomites who "owned" them (according to him).

Not in one bit. We don't read anywhere that Abraham was 'returning' anything to the people of Sodom. And I agree with you that the spoils belonged to Abraham - and that is why it is factually wrong for Christian theologians to argue that he tithed from what did not belong to him.

Before the 'crash', I had questioned Gary Arnold on that same point (which he never in one instance obliged any answers); but then, more to the point was that, if Abraham had tithed out of what did not belong to him by right, then he would have been displaying theft and not tithe - by the same laws of conquest. I know this, because those with a Ph.D who argue tithes to make Abaraham's tithes a matter of pagan customs are being dishonest. For one, I know that Russell Kelly's argument on that is fallacious, because even where he'd cited Hugo Grotius' work, he was reading something entirely different from what Grotius had written.

Of course, you may disgaree - but you would have to show me where any verse says that Abraham was returning anything to the king of Sodom, let alone that being a 90% anywhere.

nuclearboy:

Lot was his reason for war rather than conquest or profit. That example informed my asking why 9/10s are not preached today amongst us - how many would ever think to give out so much?

Lol, I'm not interested in Abraham's reason for war - I would rather be interested in his reason for his tithing to Mlechizedek and to no other king! Have you thought through that? If you had, then all the preceding would be quite unnecessary - because in that very consideration lies your answer.

nuclearboy:

Come to think of it, the tenth was an ancient acceptable "pagan" custom whist the 9/10 was the "gift".

Abraham's tithes (as far as Scripture goes) is NOT presented to us as a 'pagan custom'. To insist that it was would simply mean you ignore who Melchizedek was in the first place. Besides, why would Abraham have tithed to Melchizedek and to no other king?

nuclearboy:

So if we are to follow that example, Viaro, we should pay 9/10 rather than "tithe" if what we are doing is following Abram's example.

We can follow Abraham's example without trying to be a legalistic clone of the patriarch. We are called the children of Abraham in the NT, no? And if so, does the NT ask us to become clones of the patriarch?

What I see in all this is simply a principle and not legalism. I tend to think that Jewish scholars also do not drag on a legalistic interpretation on Biblical tithes all the way. In fact, many Jews (especially orthodox Jews) who still tithed today, do so on their income in addition to agricultural tithes on crops grown in Israel.

nuclearboy:

Your last query is that he gave "his tithe". Well yes, he did, but most likely to fulfill traditions demands. What I see now is him giving 9/10s which ought to have come to him.

We are agreed that he gave tithes as HIS. Good.

But I do not agree with you that it was to fulfill "traditions demand". That is a fallacy as far as Scripture is concerned. If we are to argue and insist on such, my first question is this: why did he tithed to Melchizedek and not to any other king at all?  A second question: what did Melchizedek "demand" from Abraham so the latter could then "fulfill" the said 'tradition'?

nuclearboy:

Insisting we follow the tenth/tithe part today is saying we should follow a pagan tradition because Abram followed it. What we rather should do is go out of our way to help others (NOT FOR PERSONAL PROFIT) as Abram did 

Without insisting, there are good grounds to follow Abraham's example. The only reason, IMO, why anti-tithers reject (and do not understand Abraham's tithe at all) is because they have written it all off as "pagan tithes". That is the biggest hindrance they've put themselves, and that is one reason why I wanted to rub minds with you on this subject.

nuclearboy:

I tithed for years on end, Viaro, until I saw a listing of every single time tithes were mentioned BEFORE the law and AFTER it. Periods during the law were omitted. It made interesting reading

I began to tithe after coming to an understanding that God has never called any of His people to legalism. Even under the OT, the basic tenets we preach for NT giving are all found ion the OT. It all depends on how one interpretes what he/she reads (What is written in the law? how readest thou? - Luke 10:26). If we read God's Word in such legalistic manner, we can be sure to arrive at very warped conclusions.

^^^
In a way, the above post seems to take care of this (a) part:

viaro:

. . . I seriously would like to talk with you on each of the claims above in light of Scripture, that -

[list](a) Abraham gave a tenth and not tithes;[/list]

So, let's look at your arguments as outlined in the other parts.

@nuclearboy,

In general, I don't like to get very technical about the meaning of 'tithes', especially as it means a whole lot of other things than we have traditionally thought. Perhaps the only grounds for which I would really not mind doing that, is for the sake of much needed clarifications. So let's sort out a few issues before proceeding.

(1)  First, it seems rather odd that anyone would argue between "tithe" and "tenth".

nuclearboy:

Abraham split the money (spoils of War) two ways - He gave a TENTH (that word, NOT tithes, was used) to Melchizedek and 9/10 back to the King of Sodom.

The Bible uses both words interchangeably -

[list](a) 'tithes' - 'And he [ie., Abraham] gave him [ie., Melchizedek] tithes of all' Gen. 14:20, KJV.[/list]

[list](b) 'tenth' - 'the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils' Heb. 7:4, KJV.[/list]

The whole argument to seperate 'tithe' from 'tenth' is quite quizzical, unless either you or Gary Arnold have a more cogent point to make on that. For all we know, a 'tithe' in broad terms is the same as a 'tenth'.

(2)  Second, the problem with being technical or pedantic with terms around tithing is that we often lose meaning in the gist of what we argue. There are multiplied connotations of 'tithe'; and drawing from the Wikipedia quote you excerpted in the other thread:

nuclearboy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tithes
"Traditional Jewish law and practice has included various forms of tithing since ancient times. Universally, Orthodox Jews practice ma'aser kesafim (tithing 10% of their income to charity) and take challah. In modern Israel, Jews continue to follow the laws of agricultural tithing, e.g., terumah, ma'aser rishon, terumat ma'aser, and ma'aser sheni.

Now, which one of these terms is particularly applicable to the 'tithe' -

[list][li]terumah?[/li][/list]
[list][li]ma'aser rishon?[/li][/list]
[list][li]terumat ma'aser?[/li][/list]
[list][li]ma'aser sheni?[/li][/list]
[list][li]ma'aser ani?[/li][/list]
[list][li]ma'aser kesafim?[/li][/list]
[list][li]terumah gedola?[/li][/list]

The point is that all of them point to the 'tithe'; but we know they don't all mean the same thing. However, the reason why I ask questions like the above is to help us see that the broad conclusions we sometimes make from other people's arguments are unfounded. This is why I agreed with Image123 that you had based most of your arguments and conclusions on Wikipedia instead of studying issues a bit more closely for yourself. Again, people read the above Wiki excerpt and then run on to assume that tithes did not involve money at any instance. If that were true, why mention the terumah at all?

If you're going to draw from other sources (like those terms mentioned in Wikipedia), no problem. However, please note that they are based more particularly on Jewish interpretations of the texts in the Hebrew Bible. That being so, perhaps we need to pay a bit more attention to the meaning given to 'tithes' by Jewish scholars, if we would obtain any balanced understanding on the subject.

nuclearboy:

My Lord Viaro:

Ok ( ), I did warn myself that this would happen one day (to stand in court against the mighty Viaro) so here I am tail between my legs at your mercy. I've seen your queries and the ball is in your court.

Hehe ... sir, you know I was only seeking to rub minds with you (and I quite remember that I can't mess with you anyhow, lest I face your e-jail again without mercy this time!).

Where did I go wrong, sir?

I don't think it's a matter of having gone wrong. I just wanted to understand your arguments, and that was why I delineated my concerns as earlier:

viaro:

. . . I seriously would like to talk with you on each of the claims above in light of Scripture, that -

[list](a) Abraham gave a tenth and not tithes;
(b) that he gave 9/10 back to the King of Sodom;
(c) that the spoils were not his own possession;
(d) that he did not give his tithes.[/list]

Those ones for now, and then (perhaps, just perhaps) others might follow.

Interesting. I've been away that 'long' to even have noticed that there was a 'crash'. Who was trying to 'crash' our respected NL?!

Anyways, commander nuclearboy, your boy viaro has read a bit of your arguments (especially those embellished with quotes from Wikipedia) - I think for the most part, you have presented a bias that is polarised towards anti-tithing. To this end, when I can find the time, I really would like to examine your arguments and show you, sir, where you have it all confused.

For now, I tend to agree with Image123's reflection on yours:

Image123:

@nuclearboy
Sorry to 'disturb' your day, but methinks olaadegbu simply preferred to honour God's Word above wikipedia's or garyarnold. I believe the gary guy is still alive and of age to re-present his points. It's desperate to accuse someone of benefitting from the 'crash'.
Also,n.b: who told you that Abraham split money? So you think money is what he got from the battle, this isn't the gulf war friend. Genesis 14v20 says Abraham gave him tithes of all. Which one are you about with TENTH not tithe, are you reading the wikiVersion of that passage? Who told you that Abraham gave 9/10 to the king of Sodom? I hope it's not HS(i wonder who that is) that is privately telling you this things?

nuclearboy:

Abraham split the money (spoils of War) two ways - He gave a TENTH (that word, NOT tithes, was used) to Melchizedek and 9/10 back to the King of Sodom. You're preaching the "tenth" as tithe. Are you not supposed to preach the 9/10 too? Remember, these were "spoils of war", not his natural possessions. Why didn't he give his "TITHE" i.e. increase on his income or salary as you preach today? Please PLEASE show us one example of Abraham paying "tithe" or even paying "a tenth" from his personal property.

I really don't know where to start from; but the arguments around Abraham which you summised do not have a leg to stand on. To this end, I've opened a thread just for you and your boy viaro to rub minds together on that. Anyone is free to comment in that thread, but I would be focusing only on whatever you say there.

The new thread can be accessed here. Looking forward to yours, I salute, sir.

This is just a space for us to rub minds together. I know that as you being my 'commander', there's a risk of my being court-marshalled; but I was gravely concerned in the arguments you made in another thread in reply to Olaadegbu concerning tithes. Here is the relevant quote:

nuclearboy:

Abraham split the money (spoils of War) two ways - He gave a TENTH (that word, NOT tithes, was used) to Melchizedek and 9/10 back to the King of Sodom. You're preaching the "tenth" as tithe. Are you not supposed to preach the 9/10 too? Remember, these were "spoils of war", not his natural possessions. Why didn't he give his "TITHE" i.e. increase on his income or salary as you preach today? Please PLEASE show us one example of Abraham paying "tithe" or even paying "a tenth" from his personal property.

Perhaps a few other things may be added, as drawn from your other statements where need be; but I seriously would like to talk with you on each of the claims above in light of Scripture, that -

[list](a) Abraham gave a tenth and not tithes;
(b) that he gave 9/10 back to the King of Sodom;
(c) that the spoils were not his own possession;
(d) that he did not give his tithes.[/list]

Please understand: I'm not trying to force anyone to be inclined to any side of the issues about tithe/tithing - rather, I think that even when you want to present an argument, you should not appeal to flawed reasoning to draw any conclusions on any subject. Especially so is the case when people arguing on either side of the fence think that they have the exact mind of the Holy Spirit on their on arguments. I'm not making any claims; instead, I am seeking to examine your assertions (heard them before and trashed them out elsewhere).

So, please let me know if you're willing to engage. I salute again, sir.

Now, to address yours to me:

Image123:

viaro,
Ezekiel33 is not presenting an idea of salvation. The righteous in passage is already saved/righteous before God.

I don't understand. If Ezekiel 33 does not present an idea of salvation, why did you use it to argue salvation in the first place?

In fact, Ezekiel 33 does not tell us that the righteous there is already saved - not at all. It tells us more emphatically that the person who is trusting to 'HIS OWN RIGHTEUOSNESS' is not going to find salvation that way. This also is what Isaiah tells us in Isa. 57:12 - 'I will declare thy righteousness, and thy works; for they shall not profit thee'. Our righteousness and works are worthless in the sight of God (Isaiah 64:6).

Image123:

My point is can a believer lose salvation and my answer is Yes. Whether he got salvation by faith or works, before Jesus or after Jesus is not the crux. Can he lose it after been found righteous/not wicked before God?

No, and that is because you seem to be taking this subject of salvation without due regard as to what we find in God's Word.

It actually should matter to us that salvation is based on faith and not on works - for that is what Scripture tells us in both the OT and NT. For one, grace cannot be confused for works (Rom. 11:6); and secondly, no man is justified by works in the sight of God, for the just shall live by faith and not by works (Galatians 3:11-12).

For both dispensations of the old and new covenants, salvation for every single person is founded upon Christ and no one else (Rom. 3:27 - 'Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith' . . . read also Romans 5). This salvation in Christ is by faith, and not by what any man has done (Titus 3:5).

Image123:

Context is vital in this because when God makes us righteous, it still becomes 'our righteousness'(compare 2Corinthians9v10 and Matthew 5v20). Infact we are made the righteousness of God. What Ezekiel is saying in other words is that the righteous shouldn't think that his evil will go unpunished, he shouldn't rest on past records. It's the context. I'll comment on other issues later

I agree that context is important.

Certainly,even though in the past God winked at people's ignorance (Acts 17:30), He will not excuse our sins - this is because He has made recommendations for those who believe in Jesus Christ (1 John 1:7-10), just as I said earlier in reference to Hebrews 12.

But in Ezekiel 33, the man who is trusting to 'his own righteousness' will not stand in God's judgement. None of his righteous acts which he had done in the past will be remembered (v. 13). That is not the same thing as believers under the new covenant, of whom God says: 'For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love, which ye have shewed toward his name, in that ye have ministered to the saints, and do minister' (Heb. 6:10). And if the believer in Christ sins, He will mete out discipline to such as proof that such a person is His 'son' (see Hebrews 12 again).

I look forward to your comments.