₦airaland Forum

No, instead your goal is to teach a tithe that is not supported by the Word of God.

And I have done no twisting of Deuteronomy 12:8. When read in conteaxt (with its surrounding verses, it clearly is speaking of tithe.

I have read my Bible, and am quite sure it says all the tithe is holy. I also know that God said all the tithe was agriculture.

So, you are wrong. If all the tithe is holy and agriculture as the Bible says, then Naira cannot be tithe. God's Word is no lie. He said His holy tithe is animals and vegetation. He is my source of truth, you are not. You try to mislead. You try to make God's truth into I lie. I reject that.

OLAADEGBU:
The Mystery of Melchisedek solved:

http://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/library.sr/ct/hwa/k/745/mystery-melchizedek-solved.htm

Wow! Going to rely on a WWCoG article rather than the Bible, eh?

Sad.

The article says Jesus was not God's Son until He was born of the Virgin Mary. That is pure foolishness. The Bible says God sent His Son into the world. He was the Son before being born of the virgin.

You will remain in error as long as you keep looking to worldly-minded commentators, rather than the truth.

Image123:
You also lie consistently about some delusional God's only holy tithe definition. With the same measure, it will be meted to you. Beware.

so you think God is delusional, eh? I think it is you who should beware.

Leviticus 27:30 (KJV) 30 And all the tithe of the land, [whether] of the seed of the land, [or] of the fruit of the tree, [is] the LORD'S: [it is] holy unto the LORD.

Leviticus 27:31 (KJV) 31 And if a man will at all redeem [ought] of his tithes, he shall add thereto the fifth [part] thereof.

Leviticus 27:32 (KJV) 32 And concerning the tithe of the herd, or of the flock, [even] of whatsoever passeth under the rod, the tenth shall be holy unto the LORD.

Leviticus 27:33 (KJV) 33 He shall not search whether it be good or bad, neither shall he change it: and if he change it at all, then both it and the change thereof shall be holy; it shall not be redeemed.

He did say, " ALL THE TITHE OF THE LAND," did He not? Yes, I believe He did. Last time I checked, the word "all" meant "entirety".

Deuteronomy 12:8 (KJV) 8 Ye shall not do after all [the things] that we do here this day, every man whatsoever [is] right in his own eyes.

God said the entirety of His holy tithe was agricultural.

If you are trying to refer back to Abram's tithe, need I remind you that nowhere in the text concerning that tithe does it say that that tithe was "holy"? Obviously, because Abram's tithe was the property of a pagan king, it was not holy. God never called it holy.

And God said that the Israelites were not to tithe until the crossed Jordan. The tithe then was to be observed, and was then called holy. And under the Law, the Israelites could not offer anything as tithe but that which God decreed to be titheable... agricultural produce and livestock.

Since Mark's post is totally supported by the Word of God, it is clear he is not lying. Your accusations against him are unwarranted.

if the reading is literal, it cannot be the Son of God. "Resemblng the Son of God" does not mean is. Literal would mean he was like the Son of God.

Your argument still fails.

OLAADEGBU:
You are the one who has a problem believing the Word of God literally.

"Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like to the Son of God; abides a priest continually" (Hebrew 7:3).

I have no problem understanding the Word of God at all.

Melchizedek could not have been a Theophany. "Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like to the Son of God; abides a priest continually" is referring to his having no genealogical record. "Made like unto the Son of God. He was not God in the flesh, but was made "like unto Him"

Could Melchizedek have been God the Father? Absolutely not! And the proof is in the very verse you posted! Notice the two words, "without descent" those two words prove he was not God. Without descent indicates no sons or daughters. Yet, Galatians 4:4; John 3:16; and a host of other verses reveal God had a Son.

Goshen360:
Lemme help you confuse Olaadegbu the more:

King James Bible
Now consider how great this man (Melchizedec) was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.
Hebrews 7:4

^

New Living Translation
For although the first woman came from man, every other man was born from a woman, and everything comes from God.
1 Corinthians 11:12

Maybe Melchizedek is not part of the every other man that is born of a woman but Jesus was.....

exactly! This man... What does Numbers 23:19 say about God? Oh, that's right... God is not a man that He should lie.

OLAADEGBU:
Since you are not sure of her beginning do you believe that she doesn't have one?

MELCHIZEDEK OBVIOUSLY HAD A BEGINNING, OR HE WOULD NOT HAVE EXIISTED.

OLAADEGBU:
I did not interpret Hebrews 7:2 the verse interpreted itself so you have no excuse.

search as I might for my mother's grandparents genealogical records, I can't find them. No record of their birth, no record of their death, no record of who their parents were. Using your logic, I must come to the conclusion that they were A Theophany. Ha ha!

Oh, I forgot to mention... My mother's grandfather was a preacher.

OLAADEGBU:
Did you read that it is commonly assumed that Salem was the original name of Jerusalem from the excerpt I posted? and that "there is no other record of such a city" at the time Abram met Melchisedek, either in archaeology or Scripture.

"In Salem also is his tabernacle, and his dwelling place in Zion" (Psalm 76:2).

Was the city of Jerusalem existing at the time Abraham gave his tithes to Melchisedec?

Here is a bible commentary throwing more light on Psalm 76:2

Sorry Sir, but Salem did exist. If it had not been in existence at that time, it would not have been mentioned. You have a serious problem when you rely on commentaries to be more authoritative than the inspired Word of God. God's Word says Salem existed. Your commentary says it did not. You'd do well to throw away your book of lies and stick to the Word of God.

Where is the Biblical proof that Israel was an agrarian society? Or even largely agrairian? When the old Testament mentioned other job descriptions and those who fulfilled them, was it lying?

The problem I have with this whole tithe fiasco is the lack of evidence that Israel was solely, or mostly, agrarian. I have a problem with the claim that we should be tithing our money when there is absolutely no recorded instance in the Bible of anyone being told to do such.

The only way to arrive at a conclusion of a money tithe being necessary is to completely ignore the biblical text itself.