^^^

@Image123:

I remain ever amenable to learning and you know I have respect for your thoughts. I would be pleased to read/learn more from you  One thing though which became a problem for me was my assumption that my readers understood my motives and thus MY DELIBERATE refusal to make a legalistic "file" of my thoughts -

[1] 90% (as I stated then) was simplistic  and only intended to keep issues simple.
[2] the King of Sodom referred to "ALL" those who owned the spoils
[3] The portion that went to Abram's companions came out of this same 90%.
[4] etc etc etc

Please do not use the letter of the law (i.e. arguments based on such as above) against me. It is what I fight against most as we are in a dispensation of grace, not law. It smacks of hypocrisy to use the meaning of words when you understand they are allegorical against the source

Nuclearboy and all
With some reference to your post on May 13,4:59 and some of your talk on the other thread viaro opened, I'll say there are some things that have been overlooked. As you may know, the people in old times were not what we may call 'civilized' people. They didn't live by principles of love, tolerance and peace that we take as normal today. What is bad bad today was some way of life in old times. People just conquered and conquered. If you're strong enough, you could just go on collecting the cities, wives and goods. We don't commonly do that today. Now, Abraham fought against at least four kings as mentioned in Genesis 14v1. These kings had conquered Sodom and others as you well know. Verse 10 says that the victors took possession of ALL the goods AND all the victuals and went their way. They ALSO took Lot and HIS goods.

^^^ Agreed to that! Whats your point, bro?

Sorry jare, don't mind my 'snaility'.
I was saying Abraham went to fight this kings and conquered. Automatically, everything belonged to him as you people have pointed in the other thread. But Abraham in his wisdom and magnanimity made some distinctions. Genesis 14v16 says he brought BACK all the goods, and Lot and HIS goods AND the women and the people. He could turn these to slaves if he chose to but he didn't.
When verse 20 tells us then that Abraham gave tithes of ALL, it's expected that in understanding, we be men and know that he's not giving ten percent of women, people, lot's goods, Sodom's goods and co, even though it reads ALL.

Hebrew 7 even makes it clearer in case you missed it. Abraham gave a tenth of the SPOILS. Recall, we went to battle with at least four kings. He came back with spoils, booty, loot. You may cast your mind and compare to the time when those lepers got spoils at the time of Elisha. Spoils could include food, jewels, clothes and so on. I doubt if spoils can be BROUGHT BACK/AGAIN.
Coming from 4 kings or more who had dominion for at least the past 12 years, I think the spoils must have been much. It was of these SPOILS that he gave tithes, not of Lot's property or kings of Sodom property or of women or people. These were Abraham's possession and it's this exemplary act that we ought to emulate as children of the promise and of faith.

^^^ Didn't miss anything, friend! Yes, the spoils were much! Yes, it was out of these spoils that Abram gave a tenth to Melchizedek. Which is what we all have been saying.

Where there was an issue was the legalism of 90% returned to Sodoms king which I have explained. I used the "King of Sodom" to represent all the original owners of the goods (spoils) more or less in the same way that the Bible itself uses the same "King of Sodom" to represent the original owners. Just as the Bible did not start to list Mr A, slave of Mr ZC who has Ogbomosho tribal marks etc, I did not bother to list the individual owners. To make things simple, I just said - Abram gave a tenth to Melchizedek and returned the rest to the original owners. The ABSOLUTE of that is - Abram gave a tenth to Melchizedek, then apportioned the portion that belonged to his three companions to them and returned the rest back to their original owners.

BTW, Spoils of war in this case included human beings, gold etc and so spoils could be and were brought back

Wow, beats me! You still missed it? I said 'Coming from 4 kings or more' i.e the spoils were previous possessions of those defeated 'dictators', not Sodom's or Lot's or ZC's. I don't think you bring back spoils, they were never lost. I do hope you can see this, or someone can show this to you. This is the part you all kinda missed out/didn't get right.

I'm telling you I didn't miss it.

The "spoils" belonged to LOT, SODOM etc. Then war and captivity made them belong to the Victors. Then Abram's war made them belong to Abram and his guys. But the Bible narrative shows he refused that tradition and renounced ownership of the "spoils" and returned what was due to him to the original owners i.e. LOT, SODOM etc.

No, you still do not get it. The spoils referred to were the possessions of the kings, not the possessions of Lot and Sodom which Abraham went to recover/bring back. You don't 'bring again' spoils. I told you to compare with the lepers of Israel during the time of prophet Elisha. The points being that Abraham gave tithes of his spoils, not of the 4kings' spoils

@Image:

Abram went after them and brought back three "spoils". [1] What they captured from the five kings [2] What was their own (at the battlefront) [3] Lot and Lots' stuff.

He gave Melchizedek a tenth of ALL. Thats what the Bible says. He did not touch Lot and property i.e. they got everything they originally owned back. He then (in the narrative refuses to touch anything but the share of his companions) and returns the rest back to the original owners.

What you are saying is that the spoils were [2] above i.e. the property (from time) of the kings he fought with. I understand and agree he took what belonged to them. But what proportion was this and why is it not mentioned if weighty in the equation. Do you know any military chaps? Ask them what they take to war - arms and meagre supplies. The bulk (if not totality) of the spoils were those originally owned by LOT and the five kings that were conquered before Abram stepped in.

What is Image123 talking about the man appears confused.

^^^ image123 specializes in reading the bible upside down, he always forces his reconceived notions into scriptures.

nuclearboy
Good, you're coming up. Now, you should know that when Genesis says 'he gave tithes of all',Hebrews clarifies in case you missed it that 'he gave tithes of spoils'. He didn't give one tenth of the women or the people to Melchizedek, or did he? It says ALL but understanding should be profitable here to rightly divide the Scriptures.
I know military chaps in the Bible. I'll give 2instances. They didn't go to war with meagre. 2kings 7v5-16 talks of spoils enough to feed a nation. 2Chronicles 20v22-25 talks same. I'll not beat on explaining those passages and scoring a point. Those 2 should do, if they don't 10 would not. I repeat, spoils are not recovered goods.

@Image123:

Friend,

You are in error gramatically and otherwise.

1st, I never said Abram gave tithes of ALL. The Bible (Gen 14:20) SAID SO! So I'll take it you're saying God doesn't know what He is saying.

2nd, any dictionary will inform you what spoils of war means -

valuables taken by violence (especially in war); "to the victor belong the spoils of the enemy"
http://www.wordreference.com/definition/spoil
Synonyms are: boot, booty, loot, pillage, prize money, prize of war, scalp, trophy, trophy of war, war booty, war trophy.
Usually they call them "spoils of war" instead.

A looser definition would be "basically what (tangible objects usually) the winning side keeps from the losing side"

So when you say spoils are not recovered goods, I don't get what you are saying - LOT was captured and became a spoil of war for the 4 kings. He was captured back by Abram and was then a spoil of war for Abram BUT Abram refused to see him as such.

BTW, do not be patronizing in your speech. All this "you're coming up" sounds like you're talking to someone you feel is retarded

Forgive me if I sounded patronizing, but retarded was NEVER in my thoughts. I wonder how you came up with that. You have a problem of which you accuse others, you're swept by the letter of the Word, not by the Spirit. I'm not accusing you, I'm telling you so you can possibly do something about it. Lot and his goods were not Abraham's spoils, he went to bring them back for Paul's sake

Sad you didn't get my point about the patronage - its what made Kunle and Zikky come at you cos you sounded (not that you felt) superior. Me, I don't mind.

LOT and his goods under the rules of engagement were "Spoils of war" being won from the 4 kings. However, Abram didn't treat them as such

Rules of engagement? How about purpose of engagement? Try purpose. If someone got yours and you went after him to bring back yours, would you consider yours as spoil?

You say I don't get it when its you not getting it.

[1] 4 kings came against 5 kings and prevailed. Everything they took from the 5 kings including Lot and his possessions were "Spoils of War" for those 4 kings who won

[2] Abram went to war against those 4 kings and prevailed. EVERYTHING he won from them (whether those things originally belonged to them or belonged to the five kings or were Lot and his stuff) were his "spoils of war" OR "his winnings".

However, Abram did not go to war for conquest but just to rescue his cousin Lot. FOR THAT REASON, he had renounced the "spoils" even before going to war as he told the king of sodom. Legally, EVERYTHING he won belonged to him (including LOT and goods). To clarify tis for you, the Bible point blank tells you that the King of Sodom recognised this fact and begged Abram to please give him the people wist keeping the goods. That statement alone tells you that the belief was that Abram owned everything. I do not know what you are arguing here, friend, since all this is in the Bible and is very clear! Abram owned ALL, gave a tenth of ALL and renounced what was due to him as victor and owner of the Spoils of war.

Thats what the Bible says. Purpose of engagement does not negate the fact that the Bible says all belonged to Abram by rights or the fact that he rejected them returning them to the original owners less what they ate and the share of his companions

The Bible says ALL belongs to Abraham? No, it doesn't. What it says is that Abraham gave tithes of ALL. It also says the tithes wasn't from Lot's possession or Sodom's possession. My 'arguement' therefore is that the ALL referred to was SPOILS(cf Hebrews 7). And the spoils were Abraham's possessions/increase/income coming from the defeated Chedorlaomer and his partners' possessions

Resurrected

Image123:

I understand you better now so I understand your point better too.

You say- Abram won back ALL the things the 4 kings took away plus, lets say, 1 million Dollars worth of things that belonged to the 4 kings. You then say He paid tithes of that 1 million Dollars and that was it. That is what you meant, right?

Seems fine on the surface. But the Bible actually says the King asked back for his people and that Abram take away the goods.

What people? His people that had been captured which implies the king accepted the "winner takes all" idea that Abram would own all the recovered goods PLUS your 1 million dollars.

The Bible specifying he gave tithes of ALL plus Abram's answer shows that tithes were paid from both the recovered AND the "spoiled" and then Abram refused EVERYTHING else returning to previous owners and allowing his men have the rest

BTW, I was particularly harsh on you, Tonye-T and even moreso on Olaadegbu here. I believed you and Olaadegbu both are sincere but here, it became an attempt to "win" rather than hold unto truth. So I got angry because I was disappointed in people I really trusted and had high regard for - I apologise (And I don't play with such statements) to you both. I used to see T-T as same with Jo-boy so I was angry with him from the start. I have since learnt the difference between them is almost as wide as between black and white. I apologise to him too.

The only one who we all ought have lampooned then and even till now was/is the businessman who benefits and thus sells "give pastors your all" (so God can bless you in heaven while blessing us pastors here) .

And I really wonder what Tonye-T has to say TODAY to the argument he made then for "prosperity preaching". Seems time has made a great difference to the Tithe-master

am enjoying this coz the ring is getting hot and the punches are getting really ferociously hard on contact, keep the it up boys the arena is full to capacity.

Really, i'm at a loss for words, but apology sincerely accepted and given as well nuclear.

@Image123, i hope you are aware we are yet to settle our quarrel 

nuclearboy:

The only one who we all ought have lampooned then and even till now was/is the businessman who benefits and thus sells "give pastors your all" (so God can bless you in heaven while blessing us pastors here) .

Very true. This has always been my position.

nuclearboy:

BTW, I was particularly harsh on you, Tonye-T and even moreso on Olaadegbu here. I believed you and Olaadegbu both are sincere but here, it became an attempt to "win" rather than hold unto truth. So I got angry because I was disappointed in people I really trusted and had high regard for - I apologise (And I don't play with such statements) to you both. I used to see T-T as same with Jo-boy so I was angry with him from the start. I have since learnt the difference between them is almost as wide as between black and white. I apologise to him too.

Apology accepted I hope you have forgiven me too. 

"Forgiveness is not just an occasional act: it is a permanent attitude" -- Martin Luther King Jnr.

@zikky
I have forgotten o! I ended the quarrel by fire and thunder and water in faith by grace.

Many thanks to you both.

Image seems to get more angry than even me nowadays with our online MoG so I pray he takes it easy at risk of being called anti-chris antiChrist.

@Zikky:

I beg o. Lets bury hatchets & together face those actively fighting Christ from inside His church