₦airaland Forum

Abram gave a tenth of the spoils to Melchizekek LONG BEFORE God changed his name to Abraham, and LONG BEFORE God made his covenant with Abraham which, by the way, said nothing about tithing.

Some tithers say they don't want to be legalistic, yet they keep the MOST LEGALISTIC part of the tithing commands - THE TENTH.  Then some claim they are following Abram's example when in fact they are not.  They are in fact following NO PART of Abram's example.  They are not giving a tenth of spoils.  They are not giving to a King-Priest.  They are not limiting their giving to a one-time event on something out-of-the-ordinary.  They are not giving away the rest of it.  They are fooling no one but themselves and the gullible.

That makes as much sense as taking the word sabbath out of the Bible and applying it to any time, any day that they don't feel like doing anything.  Just take a rest and call it a sabbath.  Gee, I guess I can keep a sabbath every afternoon for an hour or two.

What this is called is MANIPULATION of God's Word.  Take any word out of context and apply it the way YOU want to apply it.

If anyone can claim they tithe because they give a tenth of their income to the church, I can claim I tithe if I give a tenth of anything I have to the church.

Consider the following:

When the children of Israel reached the promised land, with their animals, etc., every "family" had a farm.  But every "family member" was not a farmer.  They had all kinds of occupations.  But the "family" had a farm, and the tithe was on the crops and animals in herds and flocks, NOT on the wages or other types of income from the "family members."  The command to tithe wasn't on each individual, but rather on the "children of Israel" as a nation, or as a whole.  Church leaders put the tithe down to the individual level which is wrong. Putting the tithe down to the individual level creates all kinds of problems; i.e. some tithed, some did not.  It creates the problem of understanding that ALL attended the yearly feast, but not all tithed.  When you see the big picture that the tithe was on the nation as a whole, and not the individual, everything starts to fall into place.

If one farmer tithed but the one next to him didn't, did God withhold the rain on the land of the one who didn't tithe but pour out rain on the land of the one who did?      --OR--
was it the NATION that was blessed or cursed?

"It does not matter, but you have Aquinas and others who have explained their meaning in your list? Are you for real? WHY do you have them claiming what they never claimed as "opponents" in the first place?"

Not MY list.  I gave proper credit as to where that list came from.

You lost this debate without a doubt.  But you will try to redeem yourself by keep bringing up other issues and ignore the issue of a tithing principle.  We understand.  You don't have an answer.  We  know that.

Wordtalk said, "But since those asking are denying categorically that no theologian has ever spoken about tithing as a principle, "

Really? Where has anyone said that NO theologian has EVER spoken about tithing as a principle?" MISQUOTING AGAIN, AND AGAIN, AND AGAIN. Will it ever stop?

It is obvious that wordtalk doesn't have an answer as to what the principle of tithing is.  It is also obvious that wordtalk misquoted Dr. Kelly.

Dr. Kelly says that Dr. Kennedy somewhat agrees with him because Dr. Kennedy agrees that you support your family and pay your bills before you give to the church.  That is one example.

Those following this blog must have seen that once wordtalk said the principle of tithing is "tenth," and then some of us asked questions about giving a tenth of just anything, he no longer discusses that topic.  I think he saw, at that time, how flawed his principle is.

It doesn't matter how many theologians or anyone else claims that they are following a Biblical principle when they tithe, no one is able to say exactly what that principle is.  Fact is, since tithing was always on assets and never on income, you can't come up with a tithing principle on one's income that would be supported by the scriptures.

Some will just never get it.  But they will continue to debate to the end.

Now, can wordtalk give us THE tithing principle that he insists is there, and tell us where it came from?

Obviously not or wordtalk would have given it to us long ago.

Why then was Russell Kelly saying that such a statement(s) would make Dr. Kennedy to be 'in much more agreement with myself'?

He didn’t say that particular statement would make Dr. Kennedy to be in much more agreement with himself.

Where did Dr. Kennedy ever say that he was "agreeing" with Russell Kelly?

He didn’t.  I NEVER said that Dr. Kennedy said he was agreeing with Dr. Kelly

Rather than come back and say he made a mistake, wordtalk just goes on as though he never makes a mistake.  A very self-righteous person who can never admit doing wrong.

Wordtalk - you MISQUOTED Dr. Kelly.  Fess up to it like a man.

It's so simple. When Dr. Kelly is giving his comments, they are in italics. When the info is coming from Dr. Kennedy, it is not in italics.

Dr, Kelly wrote: "He says “In light of these Biblical principles I encourage believers in Christ to tithe.”

Then he quotes that statement a few more times on that page, but each time he is quoting Dr. Kennedy. DR. KELLY NEVER AGREED TO THAT STATEMENT.

Wordtalk - you can't seem to separate what Dr. Kelly is saying from what he is quoting from Dr. Kennedy. Dr. Kenndy made the statement, not Dr. Kelly, and Dr. Kelly NEVER said he agreed with it. GEEZ!

Wordtalk continues to misquote Dr. Kelly.

By now, most of you should see how wordtalk is NOTHING but talk.  He continually misquotes others.  No wonder he is so confused on this topic.

This is why I find it so frustrating to debate with him.  He ignores the questions he can't or doesn't want to answer, misquotes others, twist what I say, etc. etc.  He is a sad example of a teacher.

Dr. Kelly did NOT agree with Dr. Kennedy's statement: “In light of these biblical principles, I encourage believers to tithe.”

What you are showing me is that you have absolutely NO UNDERSTANDING of what you read.

Quote from Dr. Kelly regarding Dr. Kennedy:

"I agree with Kennedy that most of us should give more than 10% to either the poor or to mission work.  I only disagree when he calls it “tithing” when it is not."

Wordtalk shows his total lack of understanding that you can't take one verse out of context and use it to support some so-called principle. We must take EVERYTHING the Bible says about God's commands for both tithes and offerings to see what it all means.

Wordtalk always does this crap. When he can't or doesn't want to answer your question, he goes back to some other point and won't let go. A talent that scammers use.

Since I personally know Dr. Kelly, and have spoken to him, I know that he does NOT agree with Dr. Kennedy.  Would you like me to have Dr. Kelly comes to this blog and straighten you out?  You are either a flat out liar, OR you have a hard time understanding what others write.  You twist what others say to support your position.  Either way, it is Dr. Kennedy that agrees with SOME of what Dr. Kelly teaches.  Dr. Kelly has said time and time again that there is no place in the Christian Church for tithing.  Dr. Kelly has said time and time again that those who give a tenth of their income to the church are NOT tithing.  He is very clear on his position.

Since you have also twisted what I say, and misquoted me many times on many different blogs, I tend to believe little of what you say when you "quote" what someone else says.

Tithes and [other] offerings need to be separated in Numbers 18 because the tithe went to the Levites and the [other] offerings went to the priests. The tithes did NOT go to the Temple except for a tenth of the tithe from the Levites.

Wordtalk totally misrepresents Dr. Kelly's position on Dr. Kennedy.

Dr. Kelly does NOT agree with Dr. Kennedy, but rather say that Dr. Kennedy is in more agreement with him than most tithing teachers.

Read it for yourself at: http://www.tithing-russkelly.com/id71.html

Then you will see how wordtalk totally lied about Dr. Kelly.

Any anti-tithing theologian that agrees with tithing Pastors that Christians should tithe have just contradicted themselves.  I know of none myself.

Notice how wordtalk avoids answering questions about the principle of tithing.

I don't care what some theologians come up with.  Until one realizes that the Biblical tithe always came from ASSETS and NEVER from income, one will not understand the Biblical tithe at all.

The so-called "tithing principle" is a farce.  It comes from church leaders, and possibly even from some theologians, who didn't understand the difference between assets and income.

"Tithe" or "tenth" is not a principle.  It is an absolute.

A tenth of one's income is not a principle that can be derived from the Bible since nowhere in the Bible is a tenth of one's income used as a tithe.  A tenth of one's money is not a principle that can be derived from the Bible since nowhere in the Bible is a tenth of one's money used as a tithe.

Even in Leviticus 27:30-33, the tithe of the crops could be bought back (redeemed) by taking the VALUE OF THE TITHE (tenth of the crops) and add a fifth to it.  It wasn't a tenth of the money.  It wasn't a tenth of the farmer's income.  The tithe was still the crops and not the money.

Since NO tithe in the Bible related to anyone's income, it is not possible to logically conclude that there was a principle of giving a tenth of income.

Those who use this " spiritual principle" can never define it.  It isn't logical.  It is just man made-up garbage.

In another blog, wordtalk showed his total lack of mathematical skills.  My experience has been that those who lack good mathematical skills usually also lack the ability to make logical conclusions.  Many theologians may also be in this category.

This whole thing of a tithing principle came up in the late 1800s when some church leaders mistakenly believed that the Israelites tithed on their income.  They didn't know the difference between assets and income.  They were not accountants, so that is understandable.  However, since their premise was wrong, so was their conclusion.

wordtalk - you are a joke. You keep picking verses out of context and want me to explain them to you.

You obviously have NO training as to what a "principle" even is, so I am not going to continue wasting my time on this nonsense. You keep asking questions rather than answer the questions that others and myself have asked you.

You have very good debate skills, but your Biblical understanding is lacking. And being able to come up with valid principles from what you read is non-existent.

Therefore, I will debate with those who have some common sense, and will answer my questions, but not with you any more.

Again, wordtalk is all talk and keeps taking verses out of context.

This is getting to be quite funny.  Wordtalk says the principle of "tithe" is a tenth.  And here I thought the DEFINITION of tithe is a tenth.  Now wordtalk says the principle of something IS the definition.  How absolutely rediculous!

And wordtalk says he/she is not legalistic!!  Wordtalk KEEPS the MOST LEGALISTIC part of the tithing laws - the TENTH!  And then claims that it is a "principle."

I think wordtalk needs to go back to school.

"Tenth" cannot be a principle.  It doesn't meet the definition of principle.  Plain and simple.

You are wrong, wordtalk.

And I showed you plain as can be that the victor did not own ALL of the spoils in Numbers 31.  Rather than admit your error, you try to put the emphasis on something else.  You need to grow up.

wordtalk - and with your math, did the victors in Numbers 31 own ALL of the spoils?

When wordtalk speaks of the victor owning the spoils and refers to Deut, that has to do with God giving the Children of Israel the promised land. Nothing else.

Again, wordtalk takes something out of context.

Wordtalk ignores Abrams OWN STATEMENT that he wasn't going to keep anything that DIDN'T BELONG TO HIM. In other words, Wordtalk must think that Abram was a liar.

From Abram's tithe, why not use the principle of KEEPING NOTHING for yourself.

Wordtalk INVENTS principles.

Again, since wordtalk says a tithe simply means a tenth, I can take ten dollars to church with me. If I give one dollar of that ten, I have tithed. Therefore, I would be a "tither." Wordtalk makes the word tithe meaningless for religious purposes. It means nothing if we can give a tenth of whatever we decide to give.

I am using TLB here for clarity purposes only. You may use the KJV as you will get the same result.

Numbers 31:26-27 (TLB)
26“You and Eleazar the priest and the leaders of the tribes are to make a list of all the loot, including the people and animals;
27then divide it into two parts. Half of it is for the men who were in the battle, and the other half is to be given to the people of Israel.


Numbers 31:28 (TLB)
28But first, the Lord gets a share of all the captives, oxen, donkeys, and flocks kept by the army. His share is one out of every five hundred.

1/500 = 0.2% of the Army’s share

Numbers 31:29 (TLB)
29Give this share to Eleazar the priest to be presented to the Lord by the gesture of waving before the altar.


Numbers 31:30 (TLB)
30Also levy a 2 percent tribute of all the captives, flocks, and cattle that are given to the people of Israel. Present this to the Levites in charge of the Tabernacle, for it is the Lord’s portion.”

2% of the people’s share

Total war spoils given = 1.1%
2% to the Levites – taken from the people of Israel’s share
.2% to the Lord – taken from the Army’s share
equals 1.1% of the total went to The Lord

Wordtalk makes the assumption that the goods Abram tithed from belonged to him, even though the Word doesn't say it, and even though Abram said he would keep nothing that belonged to someone else, and even though Abram was returning the people and goods to their original owners, and even though under the Mosaic law the victor did not own all the war spoils. Wordtalk says that Abram wouldn't have given a tithe of the spoils if he didn't own them. Nothing but assumptions. God's Word doesn't tell us why Abram gave the tenth.

But does it even matter? Nowhere in God's Word did God give Melchizedek permission to receive His tithe. And why would anyone with common sense be using Abram's one-time example of giving a tenth, not of his regular income or wealth, as a principle for giving a tenth of their income to the church? Can only be one reason - to manipute the thinking of those who can't figure this out on their own.

1 Corinthians 9:13 (KJV) - Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar?

The Levitical tithe was taken to the Levites WHO LIVED IN THE LEVITICAL CITIES.  The Levites then took a tenth of the tithe to the Temple for the priests.  Therefore, only ONE PERCENT goes to the Temple.

Matthew 17:24 (KJV) - And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute?

Matthew 17:24 (NIV) - After Jesus and his disciples arrived in Capernaum, the collectors of the two-drachma tax came to Peter and asked, “Doesn’t your teacher pay the temple tax?”

And of course we don't want to forget all the freewill offerings mentioned in Leviticus.

IF tithing was a principle used by Paul, the principle is giving, NOT giving a tenth.

Isn't it amazing how a person can say the "principle" of tithing is the TENTH and nothing else when the most legalistic part of tithing is THE TENTH.

What is the "principle" behind giving 5% to the church? Would the "principle" be 5%? This just shows lack of common sense, and lack of ability to understand what a principle is.

Everyone on this blog can see the type of person you are.  You are making a fool out of yourself.

I have to keep going over the same thing.

Leviticus 27:30-33, Numbers 18:  The First Tithe - a tenth of crops and animals and commanded to take the tithe to the Levites.  This is the ONLY tithe that God CLAIMED to be HIS, and HE GAVE this tithe to the Levites.

Deuteronomy 14:22-27:  The Second Tithe aka The Festival Tithe - a tenth of crops, plus add to that the firstborn animals, and take for the yearly feast.  God did NOT give this tithe to anyone.  

Deuteronomy 14:28-29:  The Third Tithe aka The Three-Year Tithe aka The Poor Tithe - a tenth of crops, kept at home, and invite the Levites, widows, orphans, stranger to eat.  God did not give this tithe to anyone, but He did direct who to invite.

The simple word "tithe" means a tenth.  I have never said it didn't.  I have said the Lord's tithe goes beyond just a "tenth" of anything.

Grow up and stop this nonsense.

wordtalk,

You take what I say out of context just as you do with God's Word.

Did I say the tithes in Deut were not God's? I said God only CLAIMED the tithe in Leviticus 27:30-33 to be His. He distinguished that tithe from the others.

I have made my points. You want to use the definition of a word and ignore it's Biblical application. That how we get false teachers that teach firstfruits offerings applies to your income. Firstfruits offerings in the Bible ALWAYS applies to the first of the crops and NEVER on income. It's taking a definition and ignoring the application.

I can play this game too, as I am now. I can tithe anything I want and you should agree that I can call it tithing. If you disagree, then it is YOU who is defining what a tithe is.

wordtalk, I have given you the definition of "The Lord's tithe" many times.  God told us what His tithe consists of.  God defined HIS tithe in Leviticus 27:30-33.  Take it or leave it.  Doesn't matter to me.  If you want to play with God's Word, that is on you, not me.  The tithe in Leviticus 27:30-33 is the ONLY tithe that God claimed to be His.  He didn't claim either tithe in Deut to be His.  ONLY the one in Leviticus 27:30-33.  THAT is the ONLY ONE that is Holy to the Lord.

If you want to give a tenth of your income to the church, fine.  If you want to call it a tithe, I can't stop you.  In my opinion you are insulting God by doing so.  That is between you and God.

Since it is YOU that wants to stick with the original definition of tithe, meaning a tenth, then I can use the term, as you do, anytime I give a tenth of anything.

A quote from wordtalk:  "Not every case of Biblical tithes were under the Law. One who believes is free to give a tithe of what they choose if they so wish. To strain far too much on the letter of the Law tends only to legalism."

One who believes is free to give a tithe of what they choose if they so wish.

Okay, all non-tithers.  Let's begin tithing by giving a tenth of whatever we choose.  Doesn't have to be our income.  Can be just anything.  And then tell all those who claim to be tithing that you, too, are a tither.

There is no way wordtalk can say it must be from our income. Abram's tithe wasn't from his regular income. The Israelites didn't tithe from their income. We can go to the store and buy ten apples and then tithe one to the church. WOW! I think wordtalk has it right! It can be what we choose!

Using Wordtalk's logic, I can say I am tithing if I:

1 - give a tenth (tithe) of the trash from the trash can to the church. Since everything belongs to God, if I give a tenth, I am tithing.

2 - give a tenth (tithe) of the change I have in my pocket. That's a tenth; therefore, it's a tithe; therefore, I am tithing.

3 - take a tenth of anything I have to the church. That would be tithing.

Therefore, I could honestly say I am a tither. I could honestly say I tithed to the church.

After all, the principle is to give a tenth. The principle can't be to give a tenth of "your income" because income was not given as a tithe in the Bible. Just a tenth of anything. We don't want to be legalistic here, so a tithe can be a tenth of ANYTHING.

I see. NOW I see how easy it will be for me to tithe next time I go to church! Can hardly wait to tell the pastor I am a tither!