₦airaland Forum

aah mehn!!

Dont you guys get tired

pilgrim.1:
@anonimi,

Okey-dokes! I even thought you had a huge problem that was worrying you for which I could edit. Kai! E no good to carry legalism for mind O!

Let me help you brother. Throughout from the very onset, I have maintained two things in this regard:

(skip) I have maintained that IMO tithe is not only 10% and the figures vary in Scripture. Even those who favour tithes have gracefully shared with me that tithe is nothing other than 10%, and I acknowledged their persuasions on that note - afterall, there has been a consistency that this issue in our lives is not a compulsion where my own persuasions should be the standard and only prescription for anyone else.  (skip)
If you choose only 10%, what do you then call the other figures, dear anonimi? I shall wait for your answer, and then give you some other figures straight from Scripture which your own adulators have all acknowledged and yet call those various figures TITHES!

(skip)

(c) I still maintain my position that tithes should not be a matter of rigid figures, but of divine principles. If you have been careful to follow my inputs on this, you certainly would not have missed where I clearly have repeatedly stated that it was by "principle" and not by exactitudes of calculations. Some may decide to give more or less instead of exactly 10% - others may feel led to give in that same manner, but are too scared to call it "tithes" (preferring other terms not found in the NT). I don't have a problem with all those - the only issue for such arguments is that those who stay on a rigid command in everything will miss the essential feature of what tithes are pointing to (which is what I was waiting all along to demonstrate, though I mentioned it earlier).

Bottomline is that -
    ● I give my tithes (which is not 10%),
    ● following the principle of Abraham's faith,
    ● recognizing the priesthood of Christ after the order of Melchizedek
    ● without fear, cajoling, manipulation, or inveigling,
    ● not to fulfill any part of Judaism
    ● not seeking to be more righteous thereby
    ● and have been truly blessed extra-ordinarily in doing so.

I'm sorry to note that my position somewhat distressed or confused you all the more - I never intended it so to be. However, it is not an exactitude of figures in percentages that is paramount in tithes - rather, it is what tithes essentially mean that Scripture presents before us that matters more. problem is that people have taken the secondary matters and made them the primary matters - and that is why they cannot see what they are confusing.

(skip)

I am not sure you know of a popular ad in Nigeria at a time: If it is not Panadol it is not Panadol.

If your tithe is not a tenth (10%) of your earnings it is not tithe. It is offering, gift, vow, first fruit etc etc etc but definitely not tithe.

You can speak more dogo turenci= plenty grammar till Armagedon that will not change the Biblical definition of tithe as a tenth of your earnings. That F.Y.I. has been abolished by Christ after his fulfilling sacrifice at Calvary.
We are now expected to give as our hearts desire a proportion (%) of our earnings, freely determined by the giver and not in reference to a tenth (tithe).
I hope you can bring yourself to understand this fundamental even though tiny difference.

@anonimi,

anonimi:
I am not sure you know of a popular ad in Nigeria at a time: If it is not Panadol it is not Panadol.

Another Nigerian ad says: '7-Up, the difference is clear!' You cannot be using a franchise name for what you can't find in the NT - that is plain hypocrisy, I'm sorry.

anonimi:
If your tithe is not a tenth (10%) of your earnings it is not tithe. It is offering, gift, vow, first fruit etc etc etc but definitely not tithe.

Can you show me where in the NT you have any injunction for Christians to give such "first fruit" and "vow"? One may haggle on and on about their fear of using the term tithes; but bros, I don't have that fear because I dealt with it a long time ago.

anonimi:
You can speak more dogo turenci till Armagedon that will not change the Biblical definition of tithe as a tenth of your earnings. That F.Y.I. has been abolished by Christ after his fulfilling sacrifice at Calvary.

You never fail to amuse me about this roundabout complain. WHERE did it say that Christ's sacrifice abolished tithes? Don't turn and spin - just show me that verse!

You guys are in the habit of reading your own thoughts into Scripture to make it placate your fear against tithes, but you are so at ease to transmigrate OT terms into your NT givings! Please show me where you find these terms in the NT!

Nobody is asking you to dip your hand into your pocket and hand it over to them so that they could use your money for their own tithes! These same excuses of "abolish", "redundant" and "condemn" are often only cop-outs - and yet you can't show us where you find a verse for what you so fastidiously assert!

anonimi:
We are now expected to give as our hearts desire a proportion (%) of our earnings, freely determined by the giver and not in reference to a tenth (tithe).

Let me call that 'more hubris'. Kai! May God give me grace to be humble here. HOW in the world would you fight so much (with weak excuses) against tithes just because it is your worst nightmare of a 10[b]%[/b] - and yet, you come back here to talk about the same thing of a "proportion (%)"?!? You guys are quite good at confusing yourselves, you know. Only 1 out of 10 has been a problem to you - but you still come back hooting for a nameless "proportion" in [size=14pt]%?[/size].

Interesting. Could you give us an example of that "proportion (%)"?

anonimi:
I hope you can bring yourself to understand this fundamental even though tiny difference.

Please do share more - I am willing to get to the bottom of this "proportion (%)".

But thanks sincerely for sharing - I truly appreciate it.

Pilgrim,
you obviously didn't get the fact that I was making a mockery when I talked of the first fruit offering, atonement offering etc. If I was for all of such,why would I have asked you to explain Acts 15? I was trying to let u know that the same way 'God did not condemn tithing (cos u want to know where God condemned tithing outrightly like 'Thou shall no longer tithe in this new covenant') is the same way He didn't condemn all the other parts of the Law'.Understand here that I'm making an ironical statement.

You know the grace that I was referring to because you mentioned it to TV01 here :

c) Post-Mosaic ushers us to the present where the grace of God in Christ Jesus is offered to all the world - Jews and Gentiles.

When I give what I have to others (money,time,material possessions), I don't call it any special name like 'offering/tithe/love offering' etc. I don't even see the need to.I'm content to be used by God as a vessel to meet someone's needs. When I give money for God's work,the percentage of it with respect to my income is between myself and God. And by experience, I've given my 100%,so I know what I'm saying here when I talk of 100%. I've also made a commitment to God never to make wealth a prime thing in my life , my priority in this life is to know Him more and love Him more. In a nutshell, the new covenant giving is not confined to percentages or done in obedience to a law/out of compulsion.
Abraham's tithing to Mel has nothing to do with God's injunction and was carried out as a normal practice of the times ( tithing and circumcision predated Abraham and were not exclusive to the children of Isreal). He did that to Mel because of his dual office-a king and a priest,more on the priesthood office) and not to the king of Sodom. If God had seen that Abraham's tithing (one-off and booty possessions) was worthy of emulation,He would have used it as a term of reference when instructing Moses on the issue of tithes.
How was faith (the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen) involved in Abraham's tithing?

You are still being nebulous about the 'mystery of the new covenant'. Could you pin it down to something concrete?

Lev 27:30-31: I gave u an illustrated example on the word 'tithe' because it has only one meaning i.e. specificity of terms without ambiguity.When tithes are being redeemed, the person adds 20% of the value of the tithe to the original value of the tithe and hands over the money to the priest and takes his tithe( crop or livestock) back home with him.

@MALAMA,

Good morning, how body? Glad to see you respond this morning.

MALAMA:
Pilgrim,
you obviously didn't get the fact that I was making a mockery when I talked of the first fruit offering, atonement offering etc. If I was for all of such,why would I have asked you to explain Acts 15? I was trying to let u know that the same way 'God did not condemn tithing (because u want to know where God condemned tithing outrightly like 'Thou shall no longer tithe in this new covenant') is the same way He didn't condemn all the other parts of the Law'.Understand here that I'm making an ironical statement.

My apologies if I misread you, but I don't think so. In quoting Acts 15 and then making the point of "my" this and that, it didn't come across as a mockery - more so because I have seen those same arguments many times in the persuasions of those who decline tithes as a legitimate exercise for Christians wishing to do so. Besides, I was wondering why you would be resorting to the same Levitical rites where I have pointed out so many times already that my convictions for tithing is not to fulfill any obligations of JUDAISM. I made that point so very clear, and that was why I would rather not trail off discussing Acts 15 about questions or concerns that were not clearly stated.

No, MALAMA - I do not live by the old covenant, nor do I argue my convictions to tithe from there.

MALAMA:
You know the grace that I was referring to because you mentioned it to TV01 here :

c) Post-Mosaic ushers us to the present where the grace of God in Christ Jesus is offered to all the world - Jews and Gentiles.

The point was simple - God's grace is just that: grace. But dispensations are a different matter altogether. Under the pre-Mosaic dispensation, we find the LOVE of God; during the Mosaic dispensation, we also find the LOVE of God; and post Mosaic dispensation, we find the LOVE of God. If anyone is arguing about this matter, does it then mean that there are 3 types of the LOVE of God?

We should not strain at this matter - because every single excuse I read from people discussing these dichotomies are not even substantial enoughto address the core of our subject. Take, for instance, the following other highlights:

(a) sometimes, people argue against tithes, because they feel that Christian giving is done by willing hearts and cheerful spirits. My answer is simple: both in the OT and NT, people gave with the same disposition - a willing and cheerful heart.

(b) another argument is that Christians give not by Law or Compulsion. My answer to that is simple: Abraham did not give by Law of compulsion in tithing to melchizedek.

Every single dichotomy or paradigm that have been raised in obejction to tithes has been addressed already, and I'm only just trying to be patient to repeat myself on them, so that after we have addressed these issues satisfactorily, then we can move forward and I could share with all how tithes are not the real problem of the Church.

MALAMA:
When I give what I have to others (money,time,material possessions), I don't call it any special name like 'offering/tithe/love offering' etc. I don't even see the need to.I'm content to be used by God as a vessel to meet someone's needs. When I give money for God's work,the percentage of it with respect to my income is between myself and God. And by experience, I've given my 100%,so I know what I'm saying here when I talk of 100%.

I applaud your effort - honestly giving 100% of your income at any time is no mean feat. Please do it again for just 6 months with only 10% and let's know the testimony in contrast to those who have been tithing joyfully for years! The problem here with a lot of us is that we make these statements just out of hand (not dissing your actual giving of 100%), and yet we have a problem with people who consistently give just 1 out of 10 to God. What is the problem with that? Please share with me how you give from month to month (no, I'm not asking you to give me theexact amount in pounds or Naira - just how you give regularly).

MALAMA:
I've also made a commitment to God never to make wealth a prime thing in my life , my priority in this life is to know Him more and love Him more. In a nutshell, the new covenant giving is not confined to percentages or done in obedience to a law/out of compulsion.

Have I not mentioned these matters before, MALAMA?

MALAMA:
Abraham's tithing to Mel has nothing to do with God's injunction and was carried out as a normal practice of the times ( tithing and circumcision predated Abraham and were not exclusive to the children of Isreal).

All the same, please walk us through Scripture and let us see it! That is a simple request - I just want to learn what I'm not able to see yet, thank you.

MALAMA:
He did that to Mel because of his dual office-a king and a priest,more on the priesthood office) and not to the king of Sodom. If God had seen that Abraham's tithing (one-off and booty possessions) was worthy of emulation,He would have used it as a term of reference when instructing Moses on the issue of tithes.

What "office" are you making out here that Abraham must have seen? Are you trying to read things into the text? Just curious.

MALAMA:
How was faith (the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen) involved in Abraham's tithing?

That is the point I have asked - which I will answer myself since no opposer to tithes has yet addressed (not to my knowledge). I know a few opposers to tithe who see faith there; but some, like you, do not see that same faith.

MALAMA:
You are still being nebulous about the 'mystery of the new covenant'. Could you pin it down to something concrete?

Soon, my dear. . . soon.

MALAMA:
Lev 27:30-31: I gave u an illustrated example on the word 'tithe' because it has only one meaning i.e. specificity of terms without ambiguity.When tithes are being redeemed, the person adds 20% of the value of the tithe to the original value of the tithe and hands over the money to the priest and takes his tithe( crop or livestock) back home with him.

Please show me where you read the highlighted in Scripture.

Cheers.

Hi Pilgrim.1,

I trust you are well today.

Thanks for offering to answer my questions around your understanding on this issue. As I said I am equally ready to respond to any you may have. Could I crave your indulgence and request concise replies, submitting myself to reciprocally clarifying any questions you may raise in turn in like manner.

From your submissions, you obviously define a difference between Christian "tithing" and Christian "giving", although you claim tithe is not any fixed %age or in any way mandatory. I also read your alluding to a specific use for the tithe. On that basis could I ask that you;

1. Clearly outline the difference, noting the the reasons for this difference and or the application of both.

(Correct me if I've misunderstood and ignore the question, I'll be happy to rephrase if I'm wrong)

Look forward to your response.

Regards
Deji

Fuc.k tithe!!

TV01:
Hi Pilgrim.1,

I trust you are well today.

Thanks for offering to answer my questions around your understanding on this issue. As I said I am equally ready to respond to any you may have. Could I crave your indulgence and request concise replies, submitting myself to reciprocally clarifying any questions you may raise in turn in like manner.

From your submissions, you obviously define a difference between Christian "tithing" and Christian "giving", although you claim tithe is not any fixed %age or in any way mandatory. I also read your alluding to a specific use for the tithe. On that basis could I ask that you;

1. Clearly outline the difference, noting the the reasons for this difference and or the application of both.

(Correct me if I've misunderstood and ignore the question, I'll be happy to rephrase if I'm wrong)

Look forward to your response.

Regards
Deji

I don't think you are going to get answer to this question, i have been asking her my self for over a week and she keeps promising to respond and i wonder why, is it not the same Pilgrim.1 that would respond by writing and quoting pages of scripture(even if unrelated) to even more difficult questions.

@Pilgrim.1
Are you a lawyer? If you are not i seriously think you should consider taking up the profession i think you would make a very good one. I have observed that you have a passion for winning arguements(cases) and you would go to any lenght to prove your point even if you have a weak case. That is the trappings of a very good lawyer. . The way you play with and dance around words and phrases would mesmerize confuse any Judge. You are also very resourceful and have a rich repertoire of knowledge (ammunition) to bamboozoo any body. But in this case you just can't win and it is for the simple reason i have been trying to tell you since which is contrary to your claims, you have been consistently inconsistent.

TV01:
Hi Pilgrim.1,

I trust you are well today.

Thanks for offering to answer my questions around your understanding on this issue. As I said I am equally ready to respond to any you may have. Could I crave your indulgence and request concise replies, submitting myself to reciprocally clarifying any questions you may raise in turn in like manner.

From your submissions, you obviously define a difference between Christian "tithing" and Christian "giving", although you claim tithe is not any fixed %age or in any way mandatory. I also read your alluding to a specific use for the tithe. On that basis could I ask that you;

1. Clearly outline the difference, noting the the reasons for this difference and or the application of both.

(Correct me if I've misunderstood and ignore the question, I'll be happy to rephrase if I'm wrong)

Look forward to your response.

Regards
Deji

Hi TV01,

I'm doing good, and trust same for you. Thanks for that concise reposte again.

Yes, I would like in due course to specifically outline the difference between tithes (in my understanding as relates to the Christian) and other types of giving, before going on to talk about their applications. For now, I think we all have come to the point where we understand that this ministry is not a matter of "just give" as some of us have held it to be in the past, for such an idea was not pointing to anything specific (IMHO).

In due course, I shall make a detailed reply showing my persuasions to your enquries.

Blessings.

@KunleOshob,

How body today? Trust you're doing okay?

KunleOshob:
I don't think you are going to get answer to this question, i have been asking her my self for over a week and she keeps promising to respond and i wonder why, is it not the same Pilgrim.1 that would respond by writing and quoting pages of scripture(even if unrelated) to even more difficult questions.

Well, you should, at least, allow me answer for myself and let my recipient judge forthemselves whether I have answered or not. Glad that you notice I've played down filling pages with quotations even on very difficult questions, and in addition I have not sought to bend any body's neck to answe the simple questions I offered and have remained unanswered up to this moment. So, although my approach is no longer to keep repeating myself endlessly on what I have already stated again and again till I lost count, it does not mean I'm disinclined to proffer answers to fresh enquiries.

KunleOshob:
@Pilgrim.1
Are you a lawyer? If you are not i seriously think you should consider taking up the profession i think you would make a very good one. I have observed that you have a passion for winning arguements(cases) and you would go to any lenght to prove your point even if you have a weak case. That is the trappings of a very good lawyer. . The way you play with and dance around words and phrases would mesmerize confuse any Judge. You are also very resourceful and have a rich repertoire of knowledge (ammunition) to bamboozoo any body. But in this case you just can't win and it is for the simple reason i have been trying to tell you since which is contrary to your claims, you have been consistently inconsistent.

Many thanks for your compliments - God richly bless you.

pilgrim.1:
For now, I think we all have come to the point where we understand that this ministry is not a matter of "just give" as some of us have held it to be in the past, for such an idea was not pointing to anything specific (IMHO).

I for one do not concur with you on this. I absolutely believe it is a matter of "just give", with the specific being "need". If you have a specific question to pose on this, I'll happily answer.

I await your response to my previous question.

Thanks
TV

@TV01,

TV01:
I for one do not concur with you on this. I absolutely believe it is a matter of "just give", with the specific being "need". If you have a specific question to pose on this, I'll happily answer.

Granted, and I'll note your persausion above that it is "just give".

Just curious, though: do you see giving only as a matter of "need"?

TV01:
I await your response to my previous question.

Will do.

Cheers.

Hi Pilgrm.1,

pilgrim.1:
Just curious, though: do you see giving only as a matter of "need"?

In a word;  "Yes"

Why? Because I find no where in the NT narrative examples of

~ money moving amongst the body of Christ for any other reason.
~ exhortions, pleas, ordinances or commands given by the Lord/apostles - for money to move for any other reason.
~ examples shown for money to move for any other reason

Neither can I personally see any other reason that I would consider mandated/ordained, although there may be situationally specifc  need for money to move. But in all probability, even that would probably still speak to a specific physical need.

Best
TV

@all
I am glad to see that finally we christians are finally beginning to question Man made laws, rules, regulations and practises christians have been made to believe is scriptural and is the word of God for centuries.

Romans 16:17-18:
17I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. 18For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive.

@TV01,

TV01:
Hi Pilgrm.1,

pilgrim.1 link=topic=272.msg2981697#msg2981697 date=1224765999:
Just curious, though: do you see giving only as a matter of "need"?

In a word; "Yes"

Why? Because I find no where in the NT narrative examples of

~ money moving amongst the body of Christ for any other reason.
~ exhortions, pleas, ordinances or commands given by the Lord/apostles - for money to move for any other reason.
~ examples shown for money to move for any other reason

While I respect your persuasions about this matter, perhaps you would have recognized that I was not particular about money - the question was about giving, however you may term that or what is included in that giving.

Second, perhaps you need to go back and review your submissions that you may not have seen any:
       ordinances
       commands
       exhortations
. . either by the Lord or the apostles. Perhaps if you took the time to check these matters carefully, you may actually find some surprising answers to that address them in the NT. Would that help?

pilgrim.1:
Neither can I personally see any other reason - that I would consider mandated/ordained, although there may be situationally specifc - for money to move. But in all probability, even they would probably still speak to a specific physical need.

Okay, it seems this is a middle course and not really saying anything cogent. Probability doesn't seem a safe ground to occupy where we are seeking direct answers. I urge that you take a second look and see if indeed every inference to giving has always been prompted by a "need". Whatever happened to worship - nothing at all about that as well?

Warm regards.

Dear KunleOshob,

KunleOshob:
@all
I am glad to see that finally we christians are finally beginning to question Man made laws, rules, regulations and practises christians have been made to believe is scriptural and is the word of God for centuries.

Romans 16:17-18:
17I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. 18For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive.

Man-made laws are the stuff we're all questioning - and that is why quoting verses here and there should help us wonder why some anatagonists to tithes have been dividing Christians with doctrines condemning them to HELL just because of tithing. Was that what the apostles taught?

You see, it's easy to try to quote verses against people - I did so at one time. I could revive that same attitude and quote verses showing the sort of mindset legalists pander about, but what would that benefit us either way? If you want to see anatagonists to tithes in their real colours, just be patient - I have plenty of quotes from the Bible that are most definitive of their spiritual condition. . . and then I will see where you will warm yourself.

Cheers.

pilgrim.1:
While I respect your persuasions about this matter, perhaps you would have recognized that I was not particular about money - the question was about giving, however you may term that or what is included in that giving.

Second, perhaps you need to go back and review your submissions that you may not have seen any:
ordinances
commands
exhortations
. . either by the Lord or the apostles. Perhaps if you took the time to check these matters carefully, you may actually find some surprising answers to that address them in the NT. Would that help?

Okay, it seems this is a middle course and not really saying anything cogent. Probability doesn't seem a safe ground to occupy where we are seeking direct answers. I urge that you take a second look and see if indeed every inference to giving has always been prompted by a "need". Whatever happened to worship - nothing at all about that as well?

Yes one can give food, time, counsel etc, but presmably your thrust has not been about tithing or giving a proportion of those? For the sake of simplicity, please let's keep it tight. Let's use money as a metaphor shall we .

Yes, a fragrant oil was once used to worship the Lord.

But I said earlier, I would fold worship into "need" as I don't see how in this dispensation we would worship the Lord with physical things. If you have a different perspective or insight, please share.

"Sacrifice of praise/worship.

Thanks again
TV

pilgrim.1:
Dear KunleOshob,
Man-made laws are the stuff we're all questioning - and that is why quoting verses here and there should help us wonder why some anatagonists to tithes have been dividing Christians with doctrines condemning them to HELL just because of tithing. Was that what the apostles taught?

To the best of my knowledge no poster on this thread as condemned tithers to hell. If i remember correctly you were the first to make that statement on this thread and you gave an impression you were told that elsewhere outside this forum. That apart if i am to speak on behalf of those of us that are critical of tithing, it is not tithers that we are against neither are we against the act in itself. What we are against is the fraudulent manipulation of scripture by tithe preaching pastors to justify this greedy and selfish man made doctrine. We have consistently held that pastors should be above board and they owe their congregation the truth on any subject cause of the trust reposed in them. If you would care to admit it, the popular version of tithing based on on a corrupted interpretation of Malachi 3:10 is not applicable to christians. This scripture is being used to manipulate,intimidate,cajole,extort and oppress christians into doing what is not required of them based on curses and promises not applicable to them. THIS IS WHAT MOST OF US ARE AGAINST and not tithers.

Dear TV01,

TV01:
Yes one can give food, time, counsel etc, but presmably your thrust has not been about tithing or giving a proportion of those? For the sake of simplicity, please let's keep it tight. Let's use money as a metaphor shall we .

Sorry, I can't do that. Money is quite a different matter altogether, and if I pally with you on that compromise just now, there's going to be a huge issue in the near future that we may not be able to reconcile. So, for our own sakes, I'll just like to keep things in their proper perspectives.

TV01:
Yes, a fragrant oil was once used to worship the Lord.

Was that due to a "need" as well?

TV01:
But I said earlier, I would fold worship into "need" as I don't see how in this dispensation we would worship the Lord with physical things. If you have a different perspective or insight, please share.

"Sacrifice of praise/worship.

It does not appear you have a consistent position - and I grant you anyways. "Folding" worship into a need does not address worship in true essence. That takes us so close to the idea of idolatry that we all disavow. Worship does not arise from a need, and it would be difficult to fold one into the other - not in this regard.

Cheers.

@KunleOshob,

KunleOshob:
To the best of my knowledge no poster on this thread as condemned tithers to hell. If i remember correctly you were the first to make that statement on this thread and you gave an impression you were told that elsewhere outside this forum.

All you needed to do was visit the link directly after I pointed out that Yomisays didn't have a handle on what he was saying as reposted here by anonimi - if Yomisays' article on tithing was never posted on this thread, I would not even have gone to that site to highlight what he directly said he rested most of his thoughts on that subject thereto.

If anyone cared, they should have simply visited the link where it says clearly that Yomi got his ideas from that same link where the anatgonist was condemning tithers to Hell using Galations 5:4 - to put it as he said: to tithe was "to lose your salvation and start down the road to hell".

That was just one example - and my question was whether that was what the apostles taught! You see, it is easy to quote a verse of the Bible against other Christians simply because you don't agree with them. Check your heart, perhaps it's just about time you take care of your extremum.

KunleOshob:
That apart if i am to speak on behalf of those of us that are critical of tithing, it is not tithers that we are against neither are we against the act in itself.

I don't think you're being honest here. It's not difficult to see that antagonists have been most vehement against both tithes (the deed), tithing (the act) and tithers (the people) - and it was only when I called your attention to be careful about that attitude to this subject that you went tongue-in-cheek. At least, after spending many pages on that same issue, we no longer read you guys cough about God making tithes redundant or condemning it with the extremum that have appeared in arguments. Even when I don't agree with a premise, it doesn't mean I have to be so unbalanced in thought and passion to drive rough in what I state.

KunleOshob:
What we are against is the fraudulent manipulation of scripture by tithe preaching pastors to justify this greedy and selfish man made doctrine.

If that is actually the real problem, how then do you handle the fraudulent manipulation of non-tithers who condemn Christians to HELL using Scripture? This is the same hubris that makes me laugh - the finger you point at others shows the 3 pointing back in your direction that you guys be sure your house is in order before seeking to call others all sorts of names.

KunleOshob:
We have consistently held that pastors should be above board and they owe their congregation the truth on any subject cause of the trust reposed in them. If you would care to admit it, the popular version of tithing based on on a corrupted interpretation of Malachi 3:10 is not applicable to christians.

There we go again - this incurable fausse patte that one has to alway be entertained with from your arguments. If you are going to be honest with your own heart, would you say that I never mentioned anything about Malachi 3? Have we not said enough about that? What then is the problem that it has to always be the same excuse you pander in defence of all your arguments? If you must know, Kunle, you haven't seen a thief yet - because those who are making merchandise of Christians are not concerned about tithes. I have said this thing over and over again - but the only thing that seems to bother you is this incurable rabies of misapplying the wrong emphasis for your misgivings.

KunleOshob:
This scripture is being used to manipulate,intimidate,cajole,extort and oppress christians into doing what is not required of them based on curses and promises not applicable to them. THIS IS WHAT MOST OF US ARE AGAINST and not tithers.

Rest your heart - you have no worries there, and to be shouting everytime on that retired excuse is beginning to be worse than a bore already. How many tithers have you read in recent times on this thread saying that they tithe from Malachi 3? Of course, not many people have understood these matters - and even I have benefitted tremendously from all exchanges. But as we grow, it is befitting to drop these childish rants once addressed and move on to something more in substance to our subject. If you can't afford to do so, there's no law that says you can't remain on the same immaturity. Please yourself as best may.

Regards.

Hello Pilgrim,

pilgrim.1:
Sorry, I can't do that. Money is quite a different matter altogether, and if I pally with you on that compromise just now, there's going to be a huge issue in the near future that we may not be able to reconcile. So, for our own sakes, I'll just like to keep things in their proper perspectives.

No problem.

Please clarify what else one gives. Specifically what one gives as a "proportion of" or that is determined in percentage terms, whatever that percentage may be. Just so I understand your thrust, please be very specific. If I am in danger of misreading or totally overlooking something, please be sure to say.

pilgrim.1:
Was that due to a "need" as well?

It does not appear you have a consistent position - and I grant you anyways. "Folding" worship into a need does not address worship in true essence. That takes us so close to the idea of idolatry that we all disavow. Worship does not arise from a need, and it would be difficult to fold one into the other - not in this regard.

God has no need of our worship, and we have no need to worship? Is that your position?

Please explain or show an example in this dispensation of how we would worship God with anything physical.

Pilgrim.1, it's not to difficult to say answer yes or no and then clarify if you wish. it's not overly onerous to simple state a position or share an insight. Once again, it's inference, leading questions, teasers, promises of future outlines and the like. Further your reading "idolatry" into my posting just comes across as diversionary. And why, oh why are you going on about condemning tithers to hell. You seem bent on keeping this discussin at the edges.

I have stated clearly and laid myself open to scrutiny. "I don't see how one would worship God with something physical in this age" Kindly explain or show differently.

I am discussing on the basis that your desire is to share and edify, if not please say so and I will desist.

I await your answers.

Thanks
TV

@Pilgrim.1
It seems you are personalizing this tithe issue and you assume every critic of tithing is directed towards you or other people on nairaland, my grieviances is directed at the pastors who use tithes to manipulate christians and not you so stop taking it personal.

Hi @TV01,

TV01:
Please clarify what else one gives. Specifically what one gives as a "proportion of" or that is determined in percentage terms, whatever that percentage may be. Just so I understand your thrust, please be very specific. If I am in danger of misreading or totally overlooking something, please be sure to say.

I am not to make a law for anyone's tithes. It is clear that I've made a reference to this point so many times, as well as appreciated the various views held by so many. The one thing I noted was that we can't evade the fact that whatever anyone gives in monetary terms is undeniably in "proportion to" what they receive. The point is that people assert that such "proportion" should not be called "tithes" because it is not 10% of one's income - and when I asked them a few cases as to the various percentages and proportions called tithes in the Bible, so many nerves were frayed. I've become weary of repeating myself endlessly, and that's why I've been waiting for them to clear themselves from Scripture - seeing that in recent times I've played down the urge to quote referneces in my replies. If they have changed their minds, they should let us know so we can move on to more important matters.

TV01:
God has no need of our worship, and we have no need to worship? Is that your position?

I didn't make that inference, please. You have always made this issue of tithes and/or giving a matter of need and saw no aspect of worship thereto. My call was directly to ask you if you never saw any inference to worship in our our giving - and whatever you said came simply to the point that you didn't. No? That's why I asked you to go check again as well stated my position that I don't see "worship" arising from a "need"; nor could we "fold" one into another lest we tend towards idolatry, no?

For me, I don't mix them up - and blurring the lines does not help our discussions.

TV01:
Please explain or show an example in this dispensation of how we would worship God with anything physical.

If you haven't found it and still remain on that point, I shall come back and share a few things thereto. For now, I would just simply stick to the present approach to play down quoting referneces until we are all open again to invite an enabling atmosphere thereto. I'm not playing heady here; but rather than run the risk of not having listened, I'm taking the approach already offered -
                _________________________________________

                'I'd like to put some questions to you, in some ways
                away from a purely doctrinal basis, more towards
                the practicality of giving.'_________[quoting you]

TV01:
Pilgrim.1, it's not to difficult to say answer yes or no and then clarify if you wish. it's not overly onerous to simple state a position or share an insight. Once again, it's inference, leading questions, teasers, promises of future outlines and the like. Further your reading "idolatry" into my posting just comes across as diversionary. And why, oh why are you going on about condemning tithers to hell. You seem bent on keeping this discussin at the edges.

Thank you - since you guys are bent on making me repeat myself endlessly, I don't see any need to react to the same "diversionary" allegations. If you're going to discuss, please do so.

TV01:
I have stated clearly and laid myself open to scrutiny. "I don't see how one would worship God with something physical in this age" Kindly explain or show differently.

Will do - is that not enough for now? As if I have not mentioned these issues for now, and then coming back pretending not to notice and all the talk about "redundant" et al. . I just simply help you guys grow tired of these fausse patte attitudes in approaching this matter. When I share a point, rather than show from Scripture why, how and where you may disagree, you assume the dismissive posture with unnecessary undertones. In just due respects I'm according you guys the platform to show your disaffection until such a time as perhaps may invite my interest. I have often said and repeated myself on the same issues: if we want to discuss, let's do so and leave what nobody is saying aside. These are not helping the health of our discussions, but if otherwise then there's really no need for me to push anything here, is there?

TV01:
I am discussing on the basis that your desire is to share and edify, if not please say so and I will desist.

When I see a moment inviting me to share, I'll do so.

Regards.

@KunleOshob,

KunleOshob:
@Pilgrim.1
It seems you are personalizing this tithe issue and you assume every critic of tithing is directed towards you or other people on nairaland,

Quite to the contrary, I'm not personalising anything here - regardless the way people have address me, I don't lose my focus.

KunleOshob:
my grieviances is directed at the pastors who use tithes to manipulate christians and not you so stop taking it personal.

There's another thread or another way we could bear out those grievances without transmigrating them to this subject. It is not as if that point has not been mentioned several times - but why are we so stuck on just that and yet never moving forward on what should be more beneficial to us here? No matter how anyone slices it, tithes are not the problem - and I don't see why people have to always peg their excuse for railing at other "pastors" on that same thing.

Cheers.

Hallo Pilgrim,
hope u had a fruitful day . I'm sorry I will not share with you how I go about my giving.That is between God and I.Whether it is daily,weekly,fortnightly or even monthly, only God and I are entitled to that information. The proportion in which I give is also not for public consumption( I shouldn't have told you on how much I have given before, but u prompted me to). As a non-tither, God has blessed me 'repete'tiously in all forms and I'm happy to be used as a conduit by Him to bless others.
In Lev 27:30-31, that was the way they redeemed their tithes. Those verses also tell us that God never used money as tithes and He placed an interest i.e. increased monetary value on those who wanted to redeem it;so if any man wanted to do so,he paid an interest on the value of his tithe.Probably, you are confusing it with the way 'redeem your tithe' is used in church.They are quite wrong here because redeeming one's tithe means buying it back which the passage has illustrated for us.
Are you trying to tell me that Melchizedek was not both a priest and a king i.e. he had a dual office and that Abraham knew this? The reason why Abraham tithed to Melchizedek is the same reason why Eleazer could have inherited Abraham's property if he hadn't had a child, which is the same reason why we don't have any injunction in the bible telling us to celebrate the birth of Jesus, which is also the same reason why Jesus was using the example of pouring new wine into old or new wine skins. What I'm saying here is that the reasons for all of them are found in extra-biblical sources and it is for us to search them out if we want to understand why such things were so. The Jewish historians ertainly left out some important information.
In one of your posts to TV 01, you actually confused me. You were asking him where God did away with tithing ,yet you had posted to me earlier on a biblical reference on obedience of the Law not bound on christians since Jesus is the mediator of the new covenant. Are you trying to say that you don't know that the law of tithes is part of the Mosaic Law? I remember that your stand on tithe is based on Melchizedek, but tithing as it is being noised about usually get its foothold on the Levitical priesthood.Even when Jews talk of tithes,they expound the requirements of the Law but give the Abrahamic tithe a cursory glance and when christians want to validate it they refer to Abraham and Jacob which have no bearing on the Levitical tithing. The tithe of Abraham as I had earlier said was not even used as a point of reference by God for the children of Isreal to tithe.

Whether u base your tithe on Melchizedek, Abraham, Jacob or even Jesus, it is your personal thing and not one which is expected of us in the new covenant. Nobody is begrudging you if you tithe, at least I can vouch for myself, it is your personal thingy. What is important to us as christians is that tithing has no basis in this new covenant .

Hello Pilgrim.1,

Hope alls well.

You ended your last post thus;

pilgrim.1:
When I see a moment inviting me to share, I'll do so.

Let me see, 12 posts ago - between the two of us - I asked if you'd be willing to answer some questions, you replied in the affirmative. Ten posts back, I posed a question. In the subsequent posts since then, you have asked various questions of your own, which I have answered and clarified as best I can where requested. However, for some reason you have singularly refused or been unable to answer my original question.

The sheer relentlessness with which you have pursued this course has itself intrigued me. I decided that on that basis alone I should try and see if I could at least understand your reasoning, hence my decision to see if you would answer some simple questions. Whilst I said "not purely" doctrine, I was by no means saying it shouldn't be resorted to, but I really wanted to get an idea of the dynamics of this from your view.

You now come out with the point above? Like I said, I don't want to be tedious. No offence Miss, but if I'm wasting my time, mine or yours, pray tell and I'll bother you no further.


Thanks again.
TV

@MALAMA,

Yes, I had a very fruitful day, thanks. Good to read from you again.

MALAMA:
Hallo Pilgrim,
hope u had a fruitful day . I'm sorry I will not share with you how I go about my giving.That is between God and I.Whether it is daily,weekly,fortnightly or even monthly, only God and I are entitled to that information. The proportion in which I give is also not for public consumption( I shouldn't have told you on how much I have given before, but u prompted me to). As a non-tither, God has blessed me 'repete'tiously in all forms and I'm happy to be used as a conduit by Him to bless others.

I'm quite glad to read your sensible reposte here. Often, it has been my persuasion that this information about tithing is a discreet transaction between the believer and God - some choose to tithe, others choose to not tithes; yet others care less anyhow they want to handle it. This is one of the things I've actually for before moving on to other issues, because it appears to me that some of us still need to clear a few basics before other issues could be highlighted. The problem with discussing this matter is not what we know doctrinally or by experience; but why some of us are too driven to use this subject on either side of the divide to slur one another is simply beyond me. . . that's why I kept intoning that tithes are not our problem, no matter how much it has been abused.

MALAMA:
In Lev 27:30-31, that was the way they redeemed their tithes. Those verses also tell us that God never used money as tithes and He placed an interest i.e. increased monetary value on those who wanted to redeem it;so if any man wanted to do so,he paid an interest on the value of his tithe.

I don't get you here. On the one hand you assert that God never used money as tithes; and on the other hand, you intone that the interest He placed was tantamount to "increased monetary value"? I don't know if that was a slip, or you had read it into the text; because I don't find any "money" mentioned there - not even by indirect inference.

Yet, I could grant you the matter of money in that chapter, because I have read and studied it myself. The point of all this is not to state an inconsistent position in mine; but rather to bring you round to your own assertion previously that money was never used in tithes. This is the reason why I have played down quoting any references and just follow you guys to discover for yourself that something might be seriously missing in your summations.

The point now is this: (a) are you now changing your view that money was never used in tithes; or, (b) you still hold on to that same assertion?

If you can clear this matter yourself, the rest is easy. Before we make any assertions, it helps to be sure what we are saying. Is it "Yes" - money was indeed used in tithing; or, "NO", it never was once used?

MALAMA:
Probably, you are confusing it with the way 'redeem your tithe' is used in church.

Not at all, and I find that idea a most troublesome one indeed.

MALAMA:
They are quite wrong here because redeeming one's tithe means buying it back which the passage has illustrated for us.

Okay - "buying it back" - involves money or not?

MALAMA:
Are you trying to tell me that Melchizedek was not both a priest and a king i.e. he had a dual office and that Abraham knew this? The reason why Abraham tithed to Melchizedek is the same reason why Eleazer could have inherited Abraham's property if he hadn't had a child, which is the same reason why we don't have any injunction in the bible telling us to celebrate the birth of Jesus, which is also the same reason why Jesus was using the example of pouring new wine into old or new wine skins. What I'm saying here is that the reasons for all of them are found in extra-biblical sources and it is for us to search them out if we want to understand why such things were so. The Jewish historians ertainly left out some important information.

I think that this has even mixed up a lot of things. It's always been my style to not mix issues up and rather to keep them in perspective. My point with Melchizedek which I highlighted earlier was to make the point that there were other kings of other places that Abraham was familiar with (Sichem, Canaan, Egypt) - and in none of those cases did he tithe to any one of them. These extra-biblical sources we often try to set our minds on are not all helpful, because too many people are busy suggesting issues which have no bearing at all on Biblical events.

This is why I kept challenging people who refer to Abraham's case as parallel to pagan rites and customs to please come forward and walk me through Scripture on that! Anyone can use extra-Biblical sources to even "prove" that Abraham never existed - can you handle that? It is for this reason that I set my discussions on the Biblical naratives themselves and find them sufficient in dealing with the lessons God wants us to learn there. To this end, I have shown why other kings with their pagan rites did not draw Abraham to tithe to them, even though pagans had their own rites and priests.

MALAMA:
In one of your posts to TV 01, you actually confused me. You were asking him where God did away with tithing ,yet you had posted to me earlier on a biblical reference on obedience of the Law not bound on christians since Jesus is the mediator of the new covenant. Are you trying to say that you don't know that the law of tithes is part of the Mosaic Law?

My dear, there was no "law of tithes" anywhere in the Bible - please go and check and correct me on that.

I have repeatedly stated that same thing, and yet no one has been able to show me any such law. They keep confusing the "commandment to take tithes" for the "Law"; for me they are not the same. Let me share just one verse that clears this (although I'm breaking a promise to playdown quoting references):

             ____Hebrews 7:5____________________________________________________

             And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood,
             have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law,
             that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham."
             __________________________________________________________________

There - it was "a commandment" - and we cannot make "a commandment" larger than itself to transform into the idea of "the law of tithes".

Now, what is the point in all this? Simple: because many people just lump everything together, that is why they assume that the question of tithes are redundant and done away with because Christians are no longer under "the Law". My question has always been twofold:

     (a) who ever said Gentiles were under the Law?
     (b) are we denying the fact that some Christian doctrines are derived directly from the Law?

Following these two points, I stated that I have never sought to justify my persuasions to tithe with recourse to the Law (because I was never a Jew or a Jewish proselyte - the Law was not given to me to fulfill in Judaism); and secondly, we should learn to see what actually belongs to Judaism instead of lumping everything together and then rejecting the whole Law completely.

MALAMA:
I remember that your stand on tithe is based on Melchizedek, but tithing as it is being noised about usually get its foothold on the Levitical priesthood.Even when Jews talk of tithes,they expound the requirements of the Law but give the Abrahamic tithe a cursory glance and when christians want to validate it they refer to Abraham and Jacob which have no bearing on the Levitical tithing. The tithe of Abraham as I had earlier said was not even used as a point of reference by God for the children of Isreal to tithe.

You're making a huge mistake here. Granted, I know that there are several people who still ignorantly tithe in reference to the levitical order and priesthood - and I have been saying that my persuasions to tithe are not based on the Levitical priesthood, but rather on the priesthood of Melchizedek. The difference is a huge one, because while I have tried to correct this impression so many times, some have missed it and then rhetorically asked if Melchizedek was my saviour! I never said that my tithing was based on Melchizedek himself; but rather on the PRIESTHOOD of Melchizedek! It is just that people skip the "priesthood" and jump to Melchizedek!

But why the priesthood of Melchizedek and not Melchizedek himself?

Because it is the priesthood I am focusing on, where the Bible testifies that the Lord Jesus Christ is our High Priest after the order of Melchizedek. That is the difference, and I thought it needed to be cleared again.

Secondly, that Moses did not make a recourse to Abraham was understandable - because the Law did not spring from Abraham! It would have been confusing indeed for us if the Levitical order and its rites were derived directly from Abraham; rather, what the Jewish nation itself enjoyed was what outlived Judaism! This is why it is not by coincidence that we find the plain statement that -

        ___Galatians 3:17_______________________________________________

        And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ,
        the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul,
        that it should make the promise of none effect.
        ______________________________________________________________

What did we see here? There was a covenant that God confirmed before the Law; and the Law that came four hundredand thirty years later cannot annul that covenant of promise! This is why we should be careful in making the inference that just because Moses never derived the tithes from Abraham, therefore it must have been a cursory case! Nothing could be further from the truth! The fact is that Judaism did not emerge from Abraham; and what Judaism did not originate, it cannot annul! Why are we missing that same point all along?

MALAMA:
Whether u base your tithe on Melchizedek, Abraham, Jacob or even Jesus, it is your personal thing and not one which is expected of us in the new covenant. Nobody is begrudging you if you tithe, at least I can vouch for myself, it is your personal thingy. What is important to us as christians is that tithing has no basis in this new covenant .

Your call. You may assume this is personal - and if it was merely a matter of personal persuasion, I don't see why non-tithers would have been condemning tithers so viciously! How does a "personal matter" become grounds for non-tithers to vehemently oppose a decision no one forces upon them?

Cheers.

@TV01,

TV01:
Hello Pilgrim.1,

Hope alls well.

You ended your last post thus;

pilgrim.1 link=topic=272.msg2983451#msg2983451 date=1224787066:
When I see a moment inviting me to share, I'll do so.

Let me see, 12 posts ago - between the two of us - I asked if you'd be willing to answer some questions, you replied in the affirmative. Ten posts back, I posed a question. In the subsequent posts since then, you have asked various questions of your own, which I have answered and clarified as best I can where requested. However, for some reason you have singularly refused or been unable to answer my original question.

The sheer relentlessness with which you have pursued this course has itself intrigued me. I decided that on that basis alone I should try and see if I could at least understand your reasoning, hence my decision to see if you would answer some simple questions. Whilst I said "not purely" doctrine, I was by no means saying it shouldn't be resorted to, but I really wanted to get an idea of the dynamics of this from your view.

You now come out with the point above? Like I said, I don't want to be tedious. No offence Miss, but if I'm wasting my time, mine or yours, pray tell and I'll bother you no further.

I had promised to come back and share and if that was not enough, I'm sorry there's nothing more I could do beyond that. You're not the first person I made that promise to; and the other promises I made to others, I have taken my time to fulfill them. There are so many other questions which people are still asking - some of the simplest of questions I asked have only returned with slobbers, and I didn't bend anyone's neck to them. My approach is nothing personal - I just decided to follow the reco offered me to play down the "doctrinal" aspect of my discussions - it should have been easy enough for us to discuss this subject outside of doctrine as recommended. If not, what then do I offer yet?

You see, TV01, it's always been my style to discuss issues and focus on the substance rather than on distractions. yes, I play sometimes, tease others. . . but if I have to be repeating myself every single time, there comes a point where I would have to relax and let the same style from others wear itself out so we can then be more focused. If my answers are not good enough, no worries - it doesn't by that stretch give grounds for anyone to slobber the subject or disdain tithers.

Regards.

Tithing was part of the Law; after all even the Matthew 23:23 that is often referred to in support of modern day "tithing" basically says so. Moreover, some of the passages quoted above say so explicitly - "commandment ,,, according to the Law" in Hebrew 7:5.

The fact remains that "tithing" simply has no place in Christian doctrine; of course, those who choose to can tithe; no one condemns them; that which deserves of condemnation is wrong or false teaching or manipulation today to guilt-trip misguided people into "tithing" and servitude.

@Enigma,

Enigma:
Tithing was part of the Law; after all even the Matthew 23:23 that is often referred to in support of modern day "tithing" basically says so. Moreover, some of the passages quoted above says so explicitly - "commandment ,,, according to the Law" in Hebrew 7:5.

Glad you could weigh in on this point and affirm it so - there is no such thing as "the law of tithing".

Enigma:
The fact remains that "tithing" simply has no place in Christian doctrine; of course, those who choose to can tithe; no one condemns them; that which deserves of condemnation is wrong or false teaching or manipulation today to guilt-trip misguided people into "tithing" and servitude.

That many people say it has no place in Christian doctrine really shows that you haven't studied it that much. However, the condemnation (if we could call it that) should apply both ways - for we know that those who oppose tithes have been most viciously opposed to tithes, tithers, and tithing with the same impulse to manipulation to misguide tithers with a guilt-trip. If nothing is wrong with tithes, why is it that those opposed to it have been that vicious even against tithers?

Pilgrim,
the day is far spent and I'm really tired. Before I go to bed,a few words from me. The Levitical tithes is part of the Mosaic Law,which is more than the Decalogue i.e. 10 commandments because it comprised of 613 laws. My mistake calling it a 'law of tithes'. I meant the commandments on the different forms of tithes in the Law.This is an interesting development from you in defining terms as exactly as they were meant to be. It's just that you didn't show such exactness in the definition of 'tithes' .

Of course Judaism did not originate from Abraham, I never hinted it at all. I also never hinted that Gentiles are under the Law. All I was trying to say was that if God thought Abraham's tithe to Melchizedek was worthy of emulation, He could have brought it to the knowledge of Moses for him to encourage the children of Israel to emulate.

Are you saying that Gal 3:17 talks on the tithe of Abraham before the Law came years after and that the Law cannot annul this covenant? If you are, in that case, you are making a humongous mistake. The covenant under discussion was the promise that God made to Abraham that his seed ( Jesus) would inherit the promise and the blessing. And it is through Jesus that we Gentiles and Jews i.e. spiritual offspring , who have faith in Jesus receive this promise. Inheritance of this promise is done through FAITH.
The Law claims that by it's observance people would be saved i.e. salvation is of the Law. From here, Paul contrasts the two i.e. faith and the Law, saying that the Law which came in 430 years after the promise of God cannot disannul God's promise to Abraham where salvation is by faith and unconditional, not by works of the law which was based on its obedience. The covenant of the promise is superior to the Law. God who had promised to Abraham would keep His promise and bring it to pass and has done so through Jesus. This verse did not even border on tithes. I encourage you to read the whole chapter so as to get the whole picture here.

Non-tithers are not condemning tithers. This is a free world so we all are entitled to our decisions. What we non-tithers are saying is that the bible is replete with examples to show us that we christians are not obligated to tithe. If any1 tithes, it is because they either do not understand that tithing is unscriptural for christians or that they have decided to make a personal decision to tithe . Such decisions should be as they are- PERSONAL DECISONS and not God's injunctions for us christians.

Ehen, before I forget, when will u come up with a demystification of the 'mysteries of the new covenant'? Till then, I've got to get my beauty sleep now. Borrowing the words of Elechi Amadi, 'may the day break' .