There appears to be a lot of controversy amongst Christians about the subject of tithing. But why is it scuh a hot issue? Is it because;

1) It has got salvidic potential and anyone does not tithe is jeopardising their salvation?

2) It is the mainstay of the income of most churches?

3) As a doctrinal issue, the bible is equivocal about it?

It is NOt a christian teaching or doctrine.
It was just smuggled into christianity at least seven centuries after the death of christ.
The scriptures tithing is preached from is actually twisted and manipulted to justify the nonsense they preach.
Biblical tithing is totally and completely different from the scam our pastors preach and define as tithes today.
Those that preach it are the ones giving christianity a bad name just becos they are out to make a quick buck.

When someone says that it is NOT a Christian teaching or doctrine, we would like to know then how he agrees that it is perfectly okay for Christians to do that very thing. If Scripture has been manipulated and twisted, we also would like to know if he has done that same thing (manipulating and twisting) for his own "perfectly okay" recommendation of the same thing he condemns.
_____________________________

huxley2:

There appears to be a lot of controversy amongst Christians about the subject of tithing. But why is it scuh a hot issue? Is it because;

1) It has got salvidic potential and anyone does not tithe is jeopardising their salvation?

Salvation is not based on any type of giving - call it whatever one may: tithes, contributions, donations, alms, offerings, firstfruit, seed-sowing, etc. Giving is connected with temporal as well spiritual blessings; but tithing in itself was not taught as a salvific matter as if it brings anyone to hell for failing to do so.

huxley2:

2) It is the mainstay of the income of most churches?

No; there are other types of giving which provide funding for churches.

huxley2:

3) As a doctrinal issue, the bible is equivocal about it?

It all depends in what context you use 'equivocal' - it definitely has several meanings, but it is not an uncertain subject.


By the way, what caught your interest on the subject?

If there's a controversy in Christianity, it's either someone doesn't understand something or someone isn't a true Christian. Even Christ said that not everyone that claims to be a Christian is one.

mactao:

If there's a controversy in Christianity, it's either someone doesn't understand something or someone isn't a true Christian. Even Christ said that not everyone that claims to be a Christian is one.

True, but that could not be applied across board. There are indeed many Christians who do not understand so many things in the faith, and quite a handful of matured believers have certain controversies on some subjects. It's not only in Christianity you find this situation - so many other worldviews and fields of enquiry have people saying different things within the same 'coterie' (for want of a better expression).

pilgrim.1:

By the way, what caught your interest on the subject?

mmmmmmm what can i say

pilgrim.1:

When someone says that it is NOT a Christian teaching or doctrine, we would like to know then how he agrees that it is perfectly okay for Christians to do that very thing. If Scripture has been manipulated and twisted, we also would like to know if he has done that same thing (manipulating and twisting) for his own "perfectly okay" recommendation of the same thing he condemns.
_____________________________

Salvation is not based on any type of giving - call it whatever one may: tithes, contributions, donations, alms, offerings, firstfruit, seed-sowing, etc. Giving is connected with temporal as well spiritual blessings; but tithing in itself was not taught as a salvific matter as if it brings anyone to hell for failing to do so.

Pilgrim, how do you know tithing is NOT a salvidic issue? Any reference will be welcome. And can you show how other issue which you think are salvidic are expressly mandated in the scriptures?

pilgrim.1:


No; there are other types of giving which provide funding for churches.

When one gives to the church, what makes one a tithe and another not?

@huxley2,

huxley2:

Pilgrim, how do you know tithing is NOT a salvidic issue? Any reference will be welcome.

Another way of asking that question: how would one know that tithing is a salvific issue?

Addressed directly to me, my answer is simple: one has to understand what salvation entails before drawing any inferences. That said, I don't see tithing (or any other type of giving) as 'salvific' - in the sense of granting salvation to the seeker - for the basic understanding we as Christians have is that salvation begins with being born-again. It is not tithes or any other type of our giving that results in being born again; rather, the new birth is received by faith in Christ Himself (John 1:12-13). Another reference is the well-known Acts 8:20 - "But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money." Salvation is a free gift to man - it cannot be purchased with any type of our giving, offerings or tithes.

huxley2:

And can you show how other issue which you think are salvidic are expressly mandated in the scriptures?

Depends again on your context of what is 'salvific' (did you rather mean 'salvi[b]f[/b]ic', not salvi[b]d[/b]ic?). As regards our 'giving' (in the sense of 'offerings'), I'm one of those who takes the view that it is not "mandated". Believers are called to participate in this ministry of giving - for various purposes; and not all believers can afford to regularly give in such ways (the poor especially). If our 'offerings' were a matter of "mandated", then every believer is "bound" to obey it. . which would then mistakenly imply that those poor who believe could not be "saved" since they cannot afford to give. However, we believe that Christians can and should give according to what they have, and not according to what they do not have (2 Cor. 8:12).

huxley2:

When one gives to the church, what makes one a tithe and another not?

'Giving' is expressed in various ways - including such things as alms (Luke 11:41), contribution (Rom. 15:26), etc. However, what many people do not understand is that tithing in essence is simply a setting apart of a portion of one's income for a certain determined purpose. I've tried to make this as plain as could be from two primary texts in the NT:
~ 1 Cor. 9:13-14

~ 1 Cor. 16:2.

Anything that someone deliberately, determinedly and definitely "sets apart" (it does not have to be a rigid "10%" expresses this concept in its simplicity. Many Christians feel that is not the case, as the only thing they know about the word 'tithe' is a fixed "10%" and nothing other than that. My query has been simple enough: if even anti-tithing authors have argued that "tithe" in Scripture varies in percentages - (from 0.002% to as far as 23%) - what then is the quarrel? Why have those same anti-tithers argued different percentages from the Bible and also called those different figures "tithes"? Even scholarly Jews are not as rigid, and those who are experts in the Jewish Law argue that it is anything between 10-20% and not a rigid "10% only".

Tithing is simply setting apart a self-determined portion/percentage from one's income to support the ministry of one's local church. It does not stop the Christian from also giving alms (Luke 11:41 and Acts 10:2) or helping out in several other ways.

I hope these are helpful?

pilgrim.1:

@huxley2,

Another way of asking that question: how would one know that tithing is a salvific issue?

Addressed directly to me, my answer is simple: one has to understand what salvation entails before drawing any inferences. That said, I don't see tithing (or any other type of giving) as 'salvific' - in the sense of granting salvation to the seeker - for the basic understanding we as Christians have is that salvation begins with being born-again. It is not tithes or any other type of our giving that results in being born again; rather, the new birth is received by faith in Christ Himself (John 1:12-13). Another reference is the well-known Acts 8:20 - "But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money." Salvation is a free gift to man - it cannot be purchased with any type of our giving, offerings or tithes.

Depends again on your context of what is 'salvific' (did you rather mean 'salvi[b]f[/b]ic', not salvi[b]d[/b]ic?). As regards our 'giving' (in the sense of 'offerings'), I'm one of those who takes the view that it is not "mandated". Believers are called to participate in this ministry of giving - for various purposes; and not all believers can afford to regularly give in such ways (the poor especially). If our 'offerings' were a matter of "mandated", then every believer is "bound" to obey it. . which would then mistakenly imply that those poor who believe could not be "saved" since they cannot afford to give. However, we believe that Christians can and should give according to what they have, and not according to what they do not have (2 Cor. 8:12).

'Giving' is expressed in various ways - including such things as alms (Luke 11:41), contribution (Rom. 15:26), etc. However, what many people do not understand is that tithing in essence is simply a setting apart of a portion of one's income for a certain determined purpose. I've tried to make this as plain as could be from two primary texts in the NT:
~ 1 Cor. 9:13-14

~ 1 Cor. 16:2.

Anything that someone deliberately, determinedly and definitely "sets apart" (it does not have to be a rigid "10%" expresses this concept in its simplicity. Many Christians feel that is not the case, as the only thing they know about the word 'tithe' is a fixed "10%" and nothing other than that. My query has been simple enough: if even anti-tithing authors have argued that "tithe" in Scripture varies in percentages - (from 0.002% to as far as 23%) - what then is the quarrel? Why have those same anti-tithers argued different percentages from the Bible and also called those different figures "tithes"? Even scholarly Jews are not as rigid, and those who are experts in the Jewish Law argue that it is anything between 10-20% and not a rigid "10% only".

Tithing is simply setting apart a self-determined portion/percentage from one's income to support the ministry of one's local church. It does not stop the Christian from also giving alms (Luke 11:41 and Acts 10:2) or helping out in several other ways.

I hope these are helpful?

Stop playing pranks tithes mentioned in the old testament was strictly 10% ,nothing less and nothing more .9.9999% is not and can never be called tithes.If in doubt you can check the dictionary definition of tithes.

The term Tithe has no place in christian doctrine.

Tithing is just another scam. According to their bible Jesus never took from his congregation. He never passed around a basket or tray to receive pledges and donations at the end of each sermon. He never asked for a payment. Nor did he ever tell his disciples to accept money for their assistance as found in Matthew 10:8-10:

“Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give. Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses, nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his meat.”

chukwudi44:

Stop playing pranks tithes mentioned in the old testament was strictly 10% ,nothing less and nothing more .9.9999% is not and can never be called tithes.If in doubt you can check the dictionary definition of tithes.

The term Tithe has no place in christian doctrine.

@chukwudi44,

Let me say this to you personally: if you want to discuss, please do. If you have nothing intelligent to say, don't assume 'pranks' into other people's posts just to placate your vast ignorance. I've studied the texts carefully before posting my replies: they stand as they are, and I can take you to the cleaners to bleach your otiose remarks if you care.

So many times I've pointed out that the Biblical tithes is not a rigid "10% only" - and anti-tithers know this for a fact! Many anti-tithers have written volumes about this and affirm that tithe is not a "strict 10%", but varies:

       ~ Russell Kelly argues that it amounted to 40%
       (how in the world he came to that is beyond reason)

       ~ the same Russell Kelly argues tithes from Numbers 31 -
       in that chapter the percentage there is a mere 0.002%

       ~ John MacArthur bellows that when someone says
       the Jews gave 10%, that is NOT correct

       ~ Jewish scholars who are in the best position to understand
       their own Jewish Law have taught that it is anything between
       10-20%

       ~ when analysing the tithe in Judaism, Jewish scholars vary the amount,
       from the first portion (terumah) to what remained, and then how the rest
       was appropriated.

You obviously are too thick to just come blow open your arrogance with such silly remarks since you have no clue what you want to argue. If you anti-tithers have nothing sensible to say, hold your otiose remarks so you don't draw out replies like this from me.

Pilgim For christ's sake stop being mischievous,the word tithe means a tenth.In some bible translationss what you have is a a tenth and not tithe.Any thing other than 10% cannot be called tithes.In the book of Malachi He made mention of "Tithes and offerings".Tithes and offerings are not and can never be the same.

chukwudi44:

Pilgim For christ's sake stop being mischievous,the word tithe means a tenth.

I'm not being mischievous - if anyone has been mischievous, it's anti-tithers who have said the very same thing that I've noted several times and yet none of you have gone over to say the same thing about those authors.

chukwudi44:

In some bible translationss what you have is a a tenth and not tithe.

The original words are not spelt the same, nor do they mean the same in every case.

chukwudi44:

Any thing other than 10% cannot be called tithes.

That is simply because you really have not studied your Bible and are just in the habit of making empty noise. It's really funny that the anti-tithers whom many of you have been quoting on this forum are denying your own assertion here.

chukwudi44:

In the book of Malachi He made mention of "Tithes and offerings".Tithes and offerings are not and can never be the same.

Lol, bobo cool down. Where did I ever make them the same? You seem to have run out of steam and are just desperate to punch the air.

@ pilgrim
The oxford advanced learner's dictionary defines tithes as;

One tenth of the annual produce of a farm paid as a tax especially to support the church.

You can see that the tithe is not just only a a tenth but also an anual event which was restricted to just farm produce and never involved money.

Except you want to prove to me that the oxford dictionary is no longer reliable

chukwudi44:

@ pilgrim
The oxford advanced learner's dictionary defines tithes as;

One tenth of the annual produce of a farm paid as a tax especially to support the church.

You can see that the tithe is not just only a a tenth but also an anual event which was restricted to just farm produce and never involved money.

Except you want to prove to me that the oxford dictionary is no longer reliable

@chukwudi44,
The definition given by the OLD (Oxford Learners Dictionary) is not the only and all-embracing definition and meaning of the word tithe - there are also other dictionaries which in their own ways, etymologies and contexts render other definitions to cover wider considerations. Could it be possible that the Ox.L.D. you quoted might have been looking at the narrow British historical definition of that word?

However, some anti-tithers have used other dictionaries and resources in writing about the subject. For instance, Russell Kelly quoted several of them:

The Encyclopedia Americana defines the general tithe as “the tenth part
of produce or other income, paid voluntarily or under the compulsion of law
for the benefit of religious institutions, the support of priests and pastors,
and the relief of those in need.”
~~ Encyclopedia Americana, 1996 ed., s.v. “tithe.”


“In the ancient Near East lie the origins of a sacred offering or payment
of a tenth part of stated goods or property to the deity. Often given to
the king or to the royal temple, the ‘tenth’ was usually approximate, not exact.
The practice is known from Mesopotamia, Syria-Palestine, Greece and as far to
the west as the Phoenician city of Carthage.”
~~ Encyclopedia of Religion, Mircea Eliad, editor, 1987, s.v. “tithe.”


“A 10th part of one’s income consecrated to God. The separation of
a certain proportion of the products of one’s industry or of the spoils
of war as tribute to their gods was practiced by various nations of antiquity.
The Lydians offered a tithe of their booty (Herod. I, 89). The Phoenicians and
Carthaginians sent a tithe annually to the Tyrian Hercules. These tithes might
be regular or occasional, voluntary or prescribed by law.”
~~ John D. Davis, ed., Westminster Dictionary of the Bible
(Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1964), s.v. “tithe.

Although Russell could not fault them, he nonetheless could not accept them for some mere incoherent excuses. But the point is simple: just as you tried to make a case for the Ox.L.D. which you quoted, could you also 'prove' that these other dictionaries and resources are no longer reliable?

@pilgrim1
Na woa i can just tell by all your posts on tithing that your very sensitive about the issue. Why?

manmustwac:

@pilgrim1
Na woa i can just tell by all your posts on tithing that your very sensitive about the issue. Why?

I think she ought to be Christened "Lady of the Tithe", as nothing stirs her zeal quite as much as tithing.

manmustwac:

@pilgrim1
Na woa i can just tell by all your posts on tithing that your very sensitive about the issue. Why?

No, I'm not sensitive about the subject in itself. Quite often anti-tithers just take it for granted that they know it all and there's nothing anyone else says that could matter at all. Of course, no one is being forced to tithe; but anti-tithers should not be using this subject to castigate people just about anyhow.

pilgrim.1:




“In the ancient Near East lie the origins of a sacred offering or payment
of a tenth part of stated goods or property to the deity. Often given to
the king or to the royal temple, the ‘tenth’ was usually approximate, not exact.
The practice is known from Mesopotamia, Syria-Palestine, Greece and as far to
the west as the Phoenician city of Carthage.”
~~ Encyclopedia of Religion, Mircea Eliad, editor, 1987, s.v. “tithe.”


“A 10th part of one’s income consecrated to God. The separation of
a certain proportion of the products of one’s industry or of the spoils
of war as tribute to their gods was practiced by various nations of antiquity.
The Lydians offered a tithe of their booty (Herod. I, 89). The Phoenicians and
Carthaginians sent a tithe annually to the Tyrian Hercules. These tithes might
be regular or occasional, voluntary or prescribed by law.”
~~ John D. Davis, ed., Westminster Dictionary of the Bible
(Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1964), s.v. “tithe.

Thanx for confirming my earlier assertions that the origins of tithes is pagan.

KunleOshob:

Thanx for confirming my earlier assertions that the origins of tithes is pagan.

Which syntax in what you highlighted 'confirms' the "origin" of tithes as pagan to you?

pilgrim.1:

Which syntax in what you highlighted 'confirms' the "origin" of tithes as pagan to you?

Mesopotomian civilization[where abraham came from]highlighted above confirms the origin as pagan to any student of the bible or history. Abraham obviously learnt about tithing from this culture as God never instructed him when he did so of his own free volition to the king of Salem

KunleOshob:

Mesopotomian civilization[where abraham came from]highlighted above confirms the origin as pagan to any student of the bible or history. Abraham obviously learnt about tithing from this culture as God never instructed him when he did so of his own free volition to the king of Salem

I suspected that was what might be on your mind, but didn't want to prejudge it. The fact that something "is known in Mesopotamia" does not mean that it originated from there. Nothing in that reference argues that tithing was first known or first practiced in Mesopotamia; and thank you for acknowledging indeed that Abraham's tithe to the king of Salem was of his own free volition - just as tithers today choose to do so.

For pastors like adeboye and oyedepo, tithing is a 'private jet' issue.

@pilgrim
far from it,tithing in churches is'nt by your free volition
On the contrary,pastor preaches on tithe, says if you don't pay you 'rob' god quoting malachi 3 in the process. Member naturally thinks robbing god is a crime/sin (taking into consideration threats issued in malachi 3 by god). He then has no option than to pay coz he doesn't plan to steal from the lord.
Now if its by free will as you're insinuating,members should be CLEARLY told its not compulsory.

Tùdor:

@pilgrim
far from it,tithing in churches is'nt by your free volition
On the contrary,pastor preaches on tithe, says if you don't pay you 'rob' god quoting malachi 3 in the process. Member naturally thinks robbing god is a crime/sin (taking into consideration threats issued in malachi 3 by god). He then has no option than to pay coz he doesn't plan to steal from the lord.
Now if its by free will as you're insinuating,members should be CLEARLY told its not compulsory.

@Tùdor,

Thanks for your concerns. Unfortunately, I do not argue from sentiments or the flat opinion of the general public. I'm aware that many misunderstand this issue about tithing, and in my various posts I've endeavoured to show how many anti-tithers argue with assertions that are false and very misleading.

Take, for instance, the question of volition: several anti-tithers know that tithing could be voluntary: they've said so, written and published that it is so, and point to many references that clearly state that it is precisely so. Inspite of this, they often would not remind their crowds of this fact, and will forever sing the mantra that it is "compulsory". That is scenario 1.

Now, scenario 2: I used to follow the same misleading argument by demagoguery which saw tithing as always and only "compulsory" - nothing about it being voluntary. No less so, because both at home (Nigeria) and abroad some pastors indeed have preached it as compulsory. So, I argued endlessly that the tithe was 'evil. . a fraud. . false', etc. Ironically, in my anti-tithing days I realized that condemning tithing did not make me a generous giver; and also, I witnessed the same attitude first-hand among many anti-tithing leaders that condemned even fellow pastors who dared to preach tithes. Sadly, I confess that these few anti-tithers were the most stingy of leaders I ever met in religious circles, bar none!

Scenario 3: again, I realized within a short time that many anti-tithers were lying through their teeth. I mean, how many times have they been asked about certain statements they made, and when asked for clarification, they excused those questions and immediately resorted to uncouth language and ad hominems. I know you're not inclined to Christianity (pls correct me if I'm wrong); but it was a shame when I discovered the very assertions I borrowed from these 'respected' anti-tithers were false and could not be Biblically defended. The last one that turned me around was the one that "Jews today no longer tithe" - and if you check carefully (Google if you may), you would find that this fallacy is recycled by some 'Christian' minister(s) who leave no honestly substantiated references for what they say! Whereas, I discovered to the contrary from reliable sources that Jews today still tithe - most of them from the incomes!

Enter scenario 4: all that I had previously argued as an anti-tither up until that time collapsed, and I started afresh to look at the subject objectively. My attitude also changed, and today I'm not drawn to slurring people just because of the subject of tithes. What was my surprise - I visited so many churches in the USA, listened to several other pastors from around the world where I had not visited - and amazingly, these churches or pastors clearly preach tithes as not compulsory, and yet I witnessed their congregations tithe regularly and cheerfully. I could cite some examples for you upon request. But the point is that most of the things being claimed by anti-tithers are plain irresponsible lies! That is why they cannot defend their assertions from Scripture; that is why they shy away from dialogue; that is why they won't discuss or show intelligent answers for what they claim. . . but they enjoy castigating pastors who preach tithes and then justify themselves in doing so!


Now, is it only "tithing" pastors that may get it wrong? NO. I'm not inclined to the interpretation that a Christian who does not tithe could be cursed; but I certainly don't think that anybody who preaches tithe from Malachi 3 could be damned!

Secondly, I believe that many anti-tithers themselves have made far worse damning statements against tithing and tithers - including the false idea that those who tithe are going to hell! You decide, if you can: which one is worse:

someone sending people to hell for tithing?

or

someone cursing people for not tithing?

On either side, we find people making such obviously false and ignorant statements with a zeal beyond this world; and they would justify themselves in their fallacies. Good that this thread seeks to ask if tithing is a salvific issue; and clearly it is NOT - so what are these fellows doing busying themselves with false statements on either side of the fence?

The bottom line for me is this: on either side, people make mistakes - both pro-tithers and anti-tithers. Yet, it's not my style to castigate anyone (pro- or anti-) who makes unsubstantiated and even false assertions. I would rather seek to dialogue amicably to correct misunderstandings and also promote a healthy understanding to encourage what I'm persuaded about. That does not mean I should "force" my views on anyone; and anti-tithers cannot force their views on anyone else either. It is not enough to denounce or discourage tithing; for if anti-tithers actually have nothing against tithes, they should ENCOURAGE it and stop doodling on their inconsistencies.

Cheers.

Good. Pastors in the U.S and elsewhere might preach tithing as non-compulsory,but in nigeria (mostly pentecostal churches),its preached as sin if you don't pay tithes.ask your relatives at home if you may.

It's not only in Nigeria we find unbalanced teaching, as not everyone has got it right in the USA. I do know of a few local churches in Nigeria that don't see it as a sin if someone does not 'pay' tithes (although I don't know if there's any one of them that is categorically pentecostal). And yes, the Nigerian scenario cannot be used as the only situation worldwide concerning tithes.

Personally,i don't give a rat's arse if people pay tithes or offerings. My only beef is they shouldn't be forced or decieved.

pilgrim.1:

I suspected that was what might be on your mind, but didn't want to prejudge it. The fact that something "is known in Mesopotamia" does not mean that it originated from there. Nothing in that reference argues that tithing was first known or first practiced in Mesopotamia; and thank you for acknowledging indeed that Abraham's tithe to the king of Salem was of his own free volition - just as tithers today choose to do so.

Doesn't common sense dictate that since Abraham came from mesopotamia he would have been aware of the customs and traditions of his people of which tithing is an integral part off? That is apart from the fact that there was NO religious conotation or requirement for his tithing to the King of Salem since it was a normal practise/tradition back then.[ even though some charlatans try to confuse chrisitans by using the example of Abaraham's mesopotamian tithing example to justify what was never taught and required of christians in the bible]

KunleOshob:

Doesn't common sense dictate that since Abraham came from mesopotamia he would have been aware of the customs and traditions of his people of which tithing is an integral part off? That is apart from the fact that there was NO religious conotation or requirement for his tithing to the King of Salem since it was a normal practise/tradition back then.[ even though some charlatans try to confuse chrisitans by using the example of Abaraham's mesopotamian tithing example to justify what was never taught and required of christians in the bible]

You haven't shown that tithing ORIGINATED from MESOPATAMIA; nor do the references show that it began from that place or at the time Abraham gave tithes. Please look up the word "origin" or "originate" or that cognates.

Now, have I argued anywhere to make Abraham's tithe a matter of "requirement"? If not, what was supposed to be your interjection of that idea at this point? Besides, to say that there was NO religious conotation to his tithing is quite a weak excuse which might be laughed away. I wonder why several anti-tithers with Ph.Ds have argued a religious connotation thereto. Nevermind your continued vexations, charlatans or not, where do you get your own perfectly okay tithes for Christians? You keep pointing accusing fingers for others and yet have never been able to point out your own super-scholarship from Scripture. Why has that very thing eluded you for eons?

pilgrim.1:

You haven't shown that tithing ORIGINATED from MESOPATAMIA; nor do the references show that it began from that place or at the time Abraham gave tithes. Please look up the word "origin" or "originate" or that cognates.

I never said tithing originated from mesopotamia[which pre-dates the biblical tithes anyway] what i inferred is that Abraham must have learnt about tithing in mesopotamia[A pagan region] since he came from there and it was their custom to tithe.

KunleOshob:

I never said tithing originated from mesopotamia[which pre-dates the biblical tithes anyway] what i inferred is that Abraham must have learnt about tithing in mesopotamia[A pagan region] since he came from there and it was their custom to tithe.

You're inferring things into the reference. The references did not point to the "origin" of tithe - neither in Mesopatamia, nor at Abraham's time, nor any of the other places mentioned; nor did it say it was "confirming" it was 'pagan'. Reading pagan into it is assuming things.