Irrespective of what u give in the church, tithe is a 10th of your earning and only Mr. A paid tithe. So earning 1000, the tithe from it is 100 which was what Mr. A paid and others are offering and free will giving.

They all tithe.

All of the 3 [img]http://2.s07.flagcounter.com/count/DymW/bg=E6E6E5/txt=E6E6E5/border=E6E6E5/columns=1/maxflags=1/viewers=3/labels=0/[/img]
[img]http://s07.flagcounter.com/count/DymW/bg=E6E6E5/txt=E6E6E5/border=E6E6E5/columns=1/maxflags=1/viewers=3/labels=0/[/img]

I personally love, believe in and will encourage Mrs C's method. Furthermore, she is closest to the original idea of tithes IMHO.

None of the three

A very very big thank you to every single person who has voted so far whether you gave a reason or not. The poll is open indefinitely, so people can always continue to vote; please note that the poll is set up such that people can actually also go back and change their vote if they wish.

Now onwards: I have set up a follow up poll (I still plan one more) asking people to vote on who is robbing God; that new poll is to be found here https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-747403.0.html#msg9035517

Again, I'd be happy to see as many votes as possible, many thanks.

The following shows how the word asset(s) is widely used to describe certain items:

The Nelson Study Bible
Leviticus 25:32
The Levites’ houses, too, were protected under the basic law of redemption and Jubilee (vv. 25–28) because their homes were their only substantial assets.

1 Chronicles 27:31
Since there was no essential difference between the king and his state, the property of the king consisted of the assets of the nation.

Disciples Study Bible
DEUTERONOMY 18:5
Election, Responsibility—The chosen of God are required to support the
elected priests, since priests are without land and related material assets.
Stewardship is a basic responsibility to God, who is Lord of all creation and the
Source of all blessings.

The Holy Bible, International Standard Version
Luke 16:1 (ISVNT)
1Now Jesus was saying to the disciples, “A rich man had a manager who was accused of wasting his assets.

From “The Four-Fold Gospel” – Copyright 1914:
The following are classified as assets:
Sheep
Oxen
Cattle
Asses
Camels

From “Associates of Spiritual Knowledge”:
Looking at this matter of the tenth animal being tithed from our present monetary point of view, a rancher could have many thousands of dollars invested in nine cattle, but unless he had a tenth he was not required to tithe a penny of his assets.

From Jubilee USA:
The New Testament refers to lending on interest only in the context of a parable, about a man entrusting his assets to his servants (Matthew 25:27; Luke 19:23).

From WHAT KIND OF “CAPTIVITY?” by Steven M. Collins
It is easy to see how the ancient Israelites gradually took on too much debt, and the Mesopotamian moneylenders in the sun-god temples legally foreclosed on the assets and properties of the Israelites in the Promised Land, resulting in a situation where Israelites were reduced to being serfs serving foreigners on the Israelites’ former lands.

I previously gave Biblical references where the word revenue is used.

A is the only tither.@ anomini why doing this? Why are you encouraging people not to pay tithe? Why are you saying things Jesus did not say? Why are you misrepresenting or misinterpreting the scripture? Jesus said :matthew 5:17" Think not that i am come to destroy the law or the prophets: i am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." how can tithe be abolishe? Is tithe not part of the law? Why are you doing this? I have been paying tithe for decade, and i have no cause to regret, i have been blessed, not only money, but other thing as well. So, why should i stop paying tithe?please STOP, STOP, STOP this unscriptural message. It is unbiblical. God bless. God2man. have been blessed, not only money, but other thing as well. So, why should i stop paying tithe?please STOP, STOP, STOP this unscriptural message. It is unbiblical. God bless. God2man.

@God2man,

Are YOU under the Old Testament laws, OR are you a Christian, under the New Testament?

Matthew 5:17-18 states Christ came to fulfill the law and not abolish it.

This is where some education in law is useful. What does fulfill mean? What does abolish mean?

Let me give an example. A legal contract is enforceable under the law. Let’s say you hire a contractor to build a swimming pool in your back yard. Once the contractor has completed the job, and everything in that contract has been completed, the contract has been fulfilled. The contractor’s job is to fulfill the contract, not abolish it. He fulfills it by completing the terms, bringing it to an end.

Consider:

Hebrews 8:13 (KJV) - In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Colossians 2:14 (KJV) - Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

Galatians 5:18 (KJV) - But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

Galatians 3:19 (KJV) - Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

Until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. In other words, until Jesus came and fulfilled the law.

Galatians 3:23-25 (KJV)
23But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
24Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

Galatians 3:10-14 (KJV)
10For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
11But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
12And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.
13Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
14That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

Furthermore, are you following any one of the three tithing laws commanded by God?

THE FIRST TITHE
Leviticus 27:30-33 defines this tithe as a tenth of crops and animals in herds and flocks.
Numbers 18 gives the ordinances, or instructions, for this tithe, and commands this tithe be taken to the Levites.
Purpose of this tithe: to support the Levitical Priesthood.

SECOND TITHE
Deuteronomy 14:22-27: aka The Festival Tithe - a tenth of crops, plus add to that the firstborn animals, and take for the yearly feast.
Purpose of this tithe: “that thou mayest learn to fear the LORD thy God always”

THIRD TITHE
Deuteronomy 14:28-29: 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.
Purpose of this tithe: to feed the poor.

The ONLY people in the Old Testament that were commanded to tithe were those who INHERITED THE PROMISED LAND WITH EVERYTHING ON IT. They got the land, house, animals, crops, etc. ALL FREE AND CLEAR. No mortgage payment or rent to pay. And THEY were commanded to tithe on the crops and animals and take it to the Levites who INHERITED the tithe INSTEAD OF the promised land with everything on it. No one else tithed. Wage earners did not tithe. Jesus did not tithe as a carpenter. Paul did not tithe as a tent maker. Peter did not tithe as a fisherman.

YOU are not following any one of the three tithing laws commanded by God. Rather, you are following the false teaching of man.

@God2man
If the law is still in operation, how many of the over six hundred mosaic laws do you observed apart from the false version of tithes being preached today? Do you offer burnt offerings? Do you observe the sabbath? Do you even tithe as it is instructed in the bible? Why do you feel comfortable with the twisting of Gods word just becos it suits the preachers? Those of us who don't tithe and even preach against mandatory tithing as preached in most churches are also blessed, so what blessings do you enjoy as a tither that non tithers are not enjoying better than you.

garyarnold:

@God2man,

Are YOU under the Old Testament laws, OR are you a Christian, under the New Testament?

Christians under the New Testament derive their doctrines from the Old Testament - not by arguing the letter of the Law, but by seeking the spirit of the Law.

From Wikipedia:
[list]The letter of the law versus the spirit of the law is an idiomatic antithesis.[/list]
[list][li]When one obeys the letter of the law but not the spirit, one is obeying the literal interpretation of the words (the "letter" of the law, but not the intent of those who wrote the law.[/li][/list]
[list][li]Conversely, when one obeys the spirit of the law but not the letter, one is doing what the authors of the law intended, though not necessarily adhering to the literal wording.[/li][/list]

This was why Paul had no problem quoting from the Law of Moses when he taught Christian doctrines in 1 Corinthians 9. Nobody in Paul's day had any problem with the apostles quoting the Law of Moses except those who are too rigid in their legalism that they see nothing other than the letter of the Law.

Christians under the New Testament derive their doctrines from the Old Testament - not by arguing the letter of the Law, but by seeking the spirit of the Law.

One Old Testament law was to KILL (stone to death) disobedient children. Hummm. Wonder how we can seek the spirit of that law.

Instead of using Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, how about giving such scripture?

I can't believe someone would actually use Wikipedia and a Biblical reference.

garyarnold:

One Old Testament law was to KILL (stone to death) disobedient children. Hummm. Wonder how we can seek the spirit of that law.

Like I said, nobody in Paul's day had any problem with the apostles quoting the Law of Moses except those who are too rigid in their legalism that they see nothing other than the letter of the Law. I also have pointed out that the promises of the Old Covenant may apply to Christians in the New Covenant, but the punishments/curses do not all apply in that fashion.

Now, with regards to your "kill (stone to death) disobedient children", if YOU want to kill your own kids, all well and good - fundamentalists Christians are doing that everyday because they are applying the letter of the Law rather than seeking the spirit of the Law. But again, since the promises of the old covenant may apply to Christians in the New Covenant, we can use the Law of Moses for practical Christian living without recourse to the punishments/curses of the Law.

Where do we find one such in this case of children? In Ephesians 6:1-3, Paul quotes the Law of Moses (eg., Exo. 20:12) - and indeed refers to the old covenant promise thereto: "Honour thy father and mother; (which is the first commandment with promise) That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth." However, while quoting from the Mosaic Law on such an issue, Paul did not bring in the curses/punishment about killing or stoning children.

If all you see is the letter of the Law, you will be asking you and your folks to murder all the kids in your church for not obeying your anti-tithing arguments. Do as you wish - we know you see nothing other than the letter.

Instead of using Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, how about giving such scripture?

The scripture is Ephesians 6:1-3. You can apply the promises of the old covenant today without the punishment or curses thereof.
Wikipedia provides resourceful material like any other reference. Not everything in Wikipedia may be accurate or up-to-date; and if you can give a more accurate distinction between "the letter of the Law and the spirit of the Law" than Wikipedia has provided, please do so. It is the sign of weakness in reasoning that makes people complain about a source where they have nothing to offer as a better alternative.

I can't believe someone would actually use Wikipedia and a Biblical reference.

Only fundamentalist Christians argue the way you do - like hermits. You talk like that because you are not in touch with contemporary realities.

Please give some scripture to back up that there is such as thing as "spirit of the Law."

I believe that only that part of the Old Testament law that is repeated in the New Testament are the parts we are to follow.  Nine of the ten commandments are repeated in the New Testament.  Over 600 OT laws are not, and there is no "spirit of the Law" that I can find in scripture.  That is purely man-invented crap to convince people to tithe.

Since you are constantly badgering me to quote scripture, all I'm asking is that you do the same.

garyarnold:

Please give some scripture to back up that there is such as thing as "spirit of the Law."

Gary Arnold, what is this? Are you the only Christian "teacher" that does not know about these matters? Is it only through your spectacles of a defunct and non-productive 'accounting' that you must see things? If you want a scripture, please look up these two -

- Romans 2:29 - "But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God."

- 2 Corinthians 3:6 - "Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life."

These are elementary things that should not be such a problem for you to be asking as if you're totally ignorant of such matters!

I believe that only that part of the Old Testament law that is repeated in the New Testament are the parts we are to follow.

Rubbish! That is the same cliche you're parroting from Russell Kelly and it is defunct! The New Testament does not make such a claim, but rather says that ALL OF SCRIPTURE is essential for the Christian under the new covenant. All of Scripture - including the Law of Moses, the prophets (including Malachi), and the Psalms and Proverbs. Here are scriptures for that (just in case you ask) :

2 Timothy 3:16-17
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Romans 15:4
For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.

Romans 3:31
Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law. (ESV)

All this yada about "only that part of the Old Testament law" is complete bilgewater! The OT Law is not to be applied to the Christian life in any part by THE LETTER - but the OT Law and Prophets form the foundation for ALL Christian doctrines and practical living in the SPIRIT.

Nine of the ten commandments are repeated in the New Testament.

The talk of "repeated" is unqualified for God is not "repeating" anything from the old covenant. Rather, He has provided the Old Testament scriptures as the foundation of Christian living and ministry (2 timothy 3:16-17 - ALL SCRIPTURE). In this case, we find that ten of the Ten Commandments (Decalogue) are found in the NT - not by repeating it in a legalistic sense of the "letter", but so we may find its intrinsic value for our lives. It is legalism that makes people see only 9 rather than the 10.

Over 600 OT laws are not, and there is no "spirit of the Law" that I can find in scripture.

If you don't find the spirit of the Law, you should consult other good materials that provide commentaries to help you find it. However, if by "over 600 OT laws" you making reference to the so-called '613 Commandments' (or the Mitzvot), you're wasting your time. Go and list out the 613 commandments and find out how many you can leave behind and how many you want to "repeat" - then come back and tell us that "over 600 OT Laws" are not for today. You will surprise yourself.

That is purely man-invented crap to convince people to tithe.

Lazy thinkers with defunct arguments often call things 'crap' because they can't handle good reasoning.

Since you are constantly badgering me to quote scripture, all I'm asking is that you do the same.

Uh-ho-ho-ho!!
Dude, I have scripture for what I say. Your disadvantage is that you don't have an inkling of intelligence to reason things through.

garyarnold:

The following shows how the word asset(s) is widely used to describe certain items:

That's fine. The three things that I was looking out for were:

(a) whether Israel was said to have tithed from their "asset"
(b) what verse in the Bible shows a hebrew word for "asset"
(c) whether the various sources using the word "asset" were translations of any hebrew word in the Bible.

Unfortunately, what we find in your citations do not answer to these three enquiries. I'll come back to show you why that is so.

The Nelson Study Bible
Leviticus 25:32
The Levites’ houses, too, were protected under the basic law of redemption and Jubilee (vv. 25–28) because their homes were their only substantial assets.

We can see that the quote above is a commentary rather than a quote of the verse Leviticus 25:32. Two things to note:

[list][li]even where it describes 'homes' as "assets", we know that the Levites did not tithe their "homes"[/li][/list]
[list][li]although the NSB commentary uses the word "asset" there, that is not the etymology of the word[/li][/list]

I have repeatedly asked you to look up the etymology of the word "asset" to see the difference! Since you have always had a problem with others who use modern or contemporary definitions of words, I think it is only fair to query why you are happy to use a modern definition of "asset" which is quite different from its original (or etymological) definition.

1 Chronicles 27:31
Since there was no essential difference between the king and his state, the property of the king consisted of the assets of the nation.

Again, that does not tell us that the king tithed from his asset(s) in that verse. Anyone who looks up that verse (1 Chronicles 27:31) will notice you're probably quoting a commentary rather than the verse as it appears in the Bible.

Disciples Study Bible
DEUTERONOMY 18:5
Election, Responsibility—The chosen of God are required to support the
elected priests, since priests are without land and related material assets.
Stewardship is a basic responsibility to God, who is Lord of all creation and the
Source of all blessings.

Also probably a quote from a commentary rather than quoting the verse as it is given in Scripture. Nothing wrong in quoting a commentary, except that I would have hoped you would find the hebrew word for "asset".

I have said again and again that I could help you make a good argument for "asset" in the Bible - as long as you also appreciate that others are correct in using the more appropriate word "income" from the hebrew 'tebuah' in the tithing verses. I know the word you're looking for, and have used it on my blog in answer to your questions: but I'm surprised that you still have not been able to find that hebrew word. It's not rocket science.

garyarnold:

The Holy Bible, International Standard Version
Luke 16:1 (ISVNT)
1Now Jesus was saying to the disciples, “A rich man had a manager who was accused of wasting his assets.

Great! The International Standard Version (ISV) uses 'asset' in that verse in the general sense of property. Would you also be willing to see what that same ISV says in the things that were tithed? Consider Luke 18:12 in ISV - "I fast twice a week, and I give a tenth of my entire income." I could give you several other renderings from various other versions later.

From “The Four-Fold Gospel” – Copyright 1914:
The following are classified as assets:

This is what I will come back to deal with.

From “Associates of Spiritual Knowledge”:
Looking at this matter of the tenth animal being tithed from our present monetary point of view, a rancher could have many thousands of dollars invested in nine cattle, but unless he had a tenth he was not required to tithe a penny of his assets.

Point is. . .? There - "he was not required to tithe a penny of his assets." This raises the question, as before, whether it was wrong to say that Israel tithed from their 'tebuah' (ie., INCOME)? The reason why I raise this point is that the "penny of his asset" is more a modern definition of 'asset' rather than its original meaning.

You have argued two things, as far as I can remember:

(a) that the tithe is on crops and animals which happen to be assets, not income;
(b) that it could be an "error" to use the word income for tithes

So, quoting commentaries is one thing; finding the "asset" from which Israel tithed is another thing.

From Jubilee USA:
The New Testament refers to lending on interest only in the context of a parable, about a man entrusting his assets to his servants (Matthew 25:27; Luke 19:23).

That's fine - a commentary about 'lending on interest' could hardly be contingent on our discussion on "tithes" from 'asset(s)'. And it should be clear that when you look at those verses (Matthew 25:27; Luke 19:23), they are dealing with the very thing you argued against: MONEY! [(a) Matt. 25:27 - "put my money to the exchangers"; and (b) Luke 19:23 - "my money into the bank", both KJV]. So, how does this square with your argument that tithing was not 'money' or from 'income'? I'm just wondering, because it seems you are seeking to bring in issues that have no bearing on your arguments.

From WHAT KIND OF “CAPTIVITY?” by Steven M. Collins
It is easy to see how the ancient Israelites gradually took on too much debt, and the Mesopotamian moneylenders in the sun-god temples legally foreclosed on the assets and properties of the Israelites in the Promised Land, resulting in a situation where Israelites were reduced to being serfs serving foreigners on the Israelites’ former lands.

What "assets" were foreclosed on? Did it say? Nope.

I previously gave Biblical references where the word revenue is used.

Dude, look up the verses on tithes again: Israel was to tithed from their 'tebuah' - that is INCOME in the form of produce. I have said this over and over and over again! It is one thing to argue as you did that the tithes were not from 'income'; and while you prefer the word "asset", I still haven't seen you cite the verses that say it was from 'asset'.

You have given NO scripture that uses "spirit of the Law."  Same old broken record.

You invent all this crap you keep spreading around.

garyarnold:

You have given NO scripture that uses "spirit of the Law."  Same old broken record.

You invent all this crap you keep spreading around.

1. Please show us what is wrong with the citation from Wikipedia.

2. Please show us what is wrong with the verses I cited (Romans 2:29 and 2 Corinthians 3:6)

3.  Please show us why you think that the Christian life should be lived by "the letter"

4. Please show us HOW MANY of your scholars and theologians argue for the "letter of the law" as the foundation of Christian living.

Any and all your answers will determine how much intelligence you have when arguing in a public forum.

Dude, look up the verses on tithes again: Israel was to tithed from their 'tebuah' - that is INCOME in the form of produce.

Only someone ignorant of what income means would make such a foolish statement.

The KJV is the only version of the Bible recognized by most all scholars to be the most accurate translation, and it says INCREASE, not income.

You pick and choose which version of the Bible you are going to use the same as you pick and choose which Old Testament laws you will follow "in spirit."  What a joke.  You are in the same league as the false teachers.

Please show us what is wrong with the citation from Wikipedia.

You are unable to show me what is right with the citation. Give me SCRIPTURE that says spirit of the law. Can you give it or not? If you can't, then just shut up.

Now, let me try and help you sort out your problems.

garyarnold:

From “The Four-Fold Gospel” – Copyright 1914:
The following are classified as assets:
Sheep
Oxen
Cattle
Asses
Camels

Yep, and that is a MODERN classification of "assets" - see the date in that quote: "Copyright 1914". But what originally did the word "asset" mean? That is why I have asked you to look at its etymology - "asset" originally meant MONEY. The first use of 'asset' was in 1531, about four centuries earlier.

However, using the MODERN definition of 'asset', you probably may be thinking in terms of "lessee* asset accounting" when you argue these things. (*a lessee is a tenant who holds a lease, or a renter to whom a lease is granted.) In such contexts, it is possible for you to branch off and derive your idea of tithing from "asset" - it only remains for you to determine what type of  asset(s) you may mean, even though 'ASSET' itself does not appear in any of the tithing verses of the Bible.

Your problem is resolved when you help yourself and readers to understand that you're thinking of "BIOLOGICAL ASSETS", which include -

•  sheep, pigs, beef cattle, poultry and fish
•  dairy cows
•  trees in a forest
•  plants for harvest (e.g., wheat and vegetables)
•  trees, plants, and bushes from which agricultural
produce is harvested (e.g., fruit trees, vines
and tea bushes)
In this sense, the "biological assets" are derived from agricultural activities from managed resources (e.g., fish farming) and NOT from unmanaged resources (e.g., ocean fishing). These all make sense only if you're doing accounting for "agricultural assets" rather than "financial assets" or "economic assets".

IF you argue that 'an asset is an asset' without distinguishing what you mean, then you're making a mockery of your accounting career, and there would be no reason why anyone can't argue on that basis that tithes involved money as well, since 'financial assets' definitely include money, cash or monetary gold!

However, please note that the above is only an argument of convenience and not what you can argue from the Bible. You know why the word "ASSET" is not used in the Bible (especially your beloved KJV)? Because it is a neologism of the 19th century, even though its etymology is traced back to 1531. See, for example, the Word Origins Dictionary -

[list]{{Originally, to have assets was simply to have ‘enough’ – as in French assez. The Anglo-Norman legal phrase aver asetz signified ‘have enough money to meet one’s debts’, and eventually asetz, later assets, passed from the general meaning ‘enough’ to the particular ‘financial resources’ (the final -s caused it to be regarded as a plural noun, but the analogical singular asset does not appear until the 19th century). Anglo-Norman asetz itself goes back via Old French asez to Vulgar Latin *assatis, formed from the Latin phrase ad satis ‘to enough’ (satis is the source of English satisfy and satiate, and is related to sad).}}[/list]

So, whenever you argue tithes based on "ASSETS", you probably don't know that you're making a strong case for money and financial resources - because that is what that word originally meant from its etymology! The only way you could dribble in the word "asset" for tithing is by resorting to a MODERN definition where you may be thinking of "lessee asset accounting". After explaining this, whenever you shout again that tithes were from "ASSET", you're saying that money or financial resources were involved, unless you're trying to cheat by waving around a modern definition to the unsuspecting public!

This is the reason why I feel so sorry for you, because you don't know anything and only tend to make a lot of noise on the net!

Something must be wrong with you.

You aren't tithing per definitions of thousands of years ago.  You are tithing using today's definition of gross income, or income, etc.

IF increase meant income in the tithing laws, then that income has NOTHING to do with what we call income today.  Are you that dense?  You actually keep arguing yourself into a hole.

garyarnold:

You are unable to show me what is right with the citation. Give me SCRIPTURE that says spirit of the law. Can you give it or not? If you can't, then just shut up.

No, I have no scripture that says exactly what you want to read in black-and-white. I have no Scripture that says Wikipedia is wrong. But I do have plenty of references that show that Theologians and scholars have no problem distinguishing between the two - and these theologians know that people who argue the way you do are legalists who have no intelligence in their arguments. Happy now?

Now, if Wikipedia is too difficult for you, leave it and let's get on with other things in my rejoinders to your claims for "asset".

Right, you have no scripture.

Again, it is a waste of time debating with someone who doesn't have the knowledge to understand the difference between income and increase.

garyarnold:

You must be an .

Please say it! Scared now of your penchant to slander? Or are you taking a heartattack for just reading/glancing at my reply?

You are tithing per definitions of thousands of years ago. You are tithing using today's definition of gross income, or income, etc.

Yes, I use contemporary definitions for 'tithe' - in just the manner that you want to dribble and cheat on your MODERN definition of "asset". The funny thing is that even though I have shown you many times that the tithing verses define tebuah as income, you have no verse to show what hebrew word defines "asset" as tithes. All you have done is fidgeting and desperately cited commentaries that have no bearing on tithing from asset. Look again - you might find some other sources to cheat once more.

IF increase meant income in the tithing laws, then that income has NOTHING to do with what we call income today.

To be sure, increase meant income - and the only person who has always had a problem with that is YOU.

All you want is cheat by using a MODERN definition of "asset" while arguing emptily with those who use 'tebuah' in the more appropriate sense. That's because you have absolutely REFUSED to open your eyes and see the simple plain things that are there. Since you have been busy quoting all sorts of commentaries here and there to force-include "asset" into tithing verses (even though you did not find ONE), here are a few of commentaries and versions that use INCOME directly in tithing -

[list]
[li]Robertson's Word Pictures, Luke 18:12
He gave a tithe of his income, not of his property.[/li][/list]

[list]
[li]John Wesley's Explanatory Notes
Luke 18:12
I give tithes of all that I possess - Many of them gave one full tenth of their income in tithes, and another tenth in alms.[/li][/list]

[list][li]GoodNews Bible
Luke 18:12
I fast two days a week, and I give you one tenth of all my income.[/li][/list]

[list][li]God's WORD version
Numbers 18:21
I am giving the Levites one-tenth of every Israelite's income. This is in return for the work they do at the tent of meeting. [/li][/list]

[list][li]God's WORD version
Malachi 3:10
"Bring one-tenth of your income into the storehouse so that there may be food in my house. Test me in this way," says the LORD of Armies. "See if I won't open the windows of heaven for you and flood you with blessings.[/li][/list]

[list][li]Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible, Amos 4:4
It was more than most Christians will sacrifice, two fifteenths of their yearly income, if they gave the yearly tithes, which were to be shared with the poor also.[/li][/list]

[list][li]Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible, Numbers 18:20-32
When the Levites had thus paid the tenth of their income, as a heave-offering to the Lord, they had themselves the comfortable enjoyment of the other nine parts[/li][/list]

[list][li]The Holy Bible, International Standard Version
Luke 18:12
I fast twice a week, and I give a tenth of my entire income.[/li][/list]

[size=14pt]Do you know why these commentaries and versions^^ understood that tithes were from INCOME?[/size]
Simple: Because "income" in such early times in history were of various levels and types, as I have said earlier. See this source:

[list][li]JFB Commentary, Nehemiah 5:15
[size=14pt]The income of Eastern governors is paid partly in produce, partly in money.[/size][/li][/list]

Yes, INCOME as partly produce and partly in money! Your problem is that byou're trying to force only one meaning and blind yourself to the fact that INCOME was also produce!! There are other verses that show that produce were regarded as INCOME -

[list][li]Common English Bible
Isaiah 23:3
over the mighty waters. The grain of Shihor, the Nile’s harvest, was her income; she was the marketplace of nations.[/li][/list]

[list][li]New International Version
2 Kings 8:6
The king asked the woman about it, and she told him. Then he assigned an official to her case and said to him, “Give back everything that belonged to her, including all the income from her land from the day she left the country until now.”[/li][/list]

It is in the second sense of INCOME as produce (rather than money) that Amplified gave this rendering -

[list][li]AMPLIFIED Bible
Malachi 3:10
Bring all the tithes (the whole tenth of your income) into the storehouse, that there may be food in My house, and prove Me now by it, says the Lord of hosts, if I will not open the windows of heaven for you and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.[/li][/list]

Even from one of the sources you cited earlier (the Four Fold Gospel) says this

[list][li]The FOUR-FOLD GOSPEL, 1914
Luke 18:9-14
I give tithes of all that I get. [I give the tenth part of my income. The law required that tithes be given from the corn, wine, oil, and cattle (Deut. xiv. 22, 23), but the Pharisees took account of the humblest herbs of the garden, and gave a tenth of their mint, anise, and cummin (Matt. xxiii. 23). Thus he confessed his virtues rather than his sins.][/li][/list]

Please go back and see for yourself - tebuah is INCOME; for in early times in that region, INCOME was partly produce and partly money - it did not have only one (modern)  definition!!

Are you that dense? You actually keep arguing yourself into a hole.

You can continue with your frustration - I'm used to it by now and feel very sorry for you.

garyarnold:

Again, it is a waste of time debating with someone who doesn't have the knowledge to understand the difference between income and increase.

I do know the difference. See my rejoinder above - post #120.
You have tried to cheat for eons on this "asset" issue, and yet all the sources you tried for your excuses did not point to tithes from "asset". You're left in the hole you dug yourself and I feel sorry for you. Really.

I have tried to help you out in these things - see post #118. Also, much earlier (#112) I said: "I know the word you're looking for, and have used it on my blog in answer to your questions." Even if I try to help you, it's funny the way you're trampling over yourself again and again.

In any case, whenever you can calm down, ask for the word you're looking for (ask nicely), and I'll show you. I just wanted to see how empty your scholarship is, after all your noise. Take heart.

You must be an .

Please say it!

I tried, but this blog won't print it. So I will try it this way. You are an I D I O T.

And like I said, IF increase meant income under God's tithing commands, the definition of income has changed. Nowhere in the KJV does it associate the word income or revenue with wages or interest.

garyarnold:

The KJV is the only version of the Bible recognized by most all scholars to be the most accurate translation, and it says INCREASE, not income.

See for yourself -

[list]However, the vast majority of Bible scholars and Christians reject all these objections as being based on faulty facts and reasoning, and they do not consider the KJV to be more accurate or more sacred than other translations. (click here for source)[/list]

[list]Some of the sillier Christian fundamentalists even believe that the version of the Bible that King James authorized in 1611 is the only true version. That type of fundy is mostly in the United States. Sensible people who understand history realize that older versions of the Bible that archaeologists have found are closer to the original texts. It's obvious isn't it? Sensible people also realize that modern translations of the Bible taking account of archaeological finds are likely to be more reliable than the King James version. Anyway The Sketpics Annotated Bible uses King James which makes that type of crazy fundy easier to defeat. (click here for source). [/list]

Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible, Numbers 18:20-32
When the Levites had thus paid the tenth of their income,

Since the Levites received the tithe as compensation for the work they performed, when they tithed, it was actually from their income.  HOWEVER,
Numbers 18:27 (KJV)  “And this your heave offering shall be reckoned unto you, as though it were the corn of the threshingfloor, and as the fulness of the winepress.”

Therefore, Numbers 18:27 means that it will not be treated as from their income (since income was not tithable) but rather from their assets.  That's the meaning in plain English.

Now shut up for a change.  I am sick of your broken record and crap.

However, the vast majority of Bible scholars and Christians reject all these objections as being based on faulty facts and reasoning, and they do not consider the KJV to be more accurate or more sacred than other translations.

And that same source also says:
- most aspects of the Old Testament Law do not apply to Christians.
- Christians still look to the Old Testament scripture for moral and spiritual guidance (2 Timothy 3:16-17). But when there seems to be a conflict between Old Testament laws and New Testament principles, we must follow the New Testament because it represents the most recent and most perfect revelation from God (Hebrews 8:13, 2 Corinthians 3:1-18, Galatians 2:15-20).
- The tithing rules in the Bible were based on the religious and social system of ancient Israel and on an agricultural economy. Modern day questions about what percentage we should give and whether it should be computed on gross income, net income or wealth are not answered in the Bible. Nor does the Bible tell us how much of our giving should go to the Church and how much to help the needy. In today's world, we must pray and listen to our consciences when deciding how much to give and to which organizations or individuals.