profibadan:

I pity this country, if i asked you to join a christian group, nobody will attack you but to suggest an alternative lifestyle you see some intellectual slowpoke attacking you without foundation.

Who gives two scoobies about your inviting anyone to join a christian group? There are many who have done so and still do so without trying to launch brainless excuses on "skepticism" the way you so illiterately did with cheap arguments on "religion". And besides, your reply does not even have a foundation - did you notice? I, for one, wrote you off as a piece of joke because you had no foundation whatsoever on Nigeria's problems! Dude, wake up!

profibadan:

Is it prayer that stabilize the country and are you sure the nation is stable?

Is it skepticism (especially your brainless skepticism) that can stabilize the country? I really want an answer to that - and please tell us how that is going to happen.

profibadan:
A situation where 70 per cent of our graduates are unemployed and some of our girls are turned into corporate love-peddlers. I am only surprise with the shallow reason of some of our people.

Please tell us how many graduates your skepticism had employed. Tell us how your skepticism has improved employment indices in Nigeria. Showing us results and a willingness to discuss rather than complain is the first step to taking you seriously.

profibadan:
We have been brainwashed for so long. When the Yorubas say that Osun a great heroine turned to Osun River, the whites and even modern day Christians called our fore-fathers silly saying it is irrational for them to believe that a human can turn to river. but when the missionaries brought the bible with the story of Lot's wife turning to salt. They say it is miracle, My People, read and do not follow blind sentiment

I can't believe this is all you have for your proposed "deliverance" to make Nigeria a better country! You must be a total joke!

Look, we are interested in Nigeria's development across the areas of deep concerns. I have hinted at a few of those areas: "political, social, cultural and economic". You talked about "invention" - and I also asked you to name just one invention or technology that your skepticism has offered anybody. In neither of these issues did you betake yourself to highlight anything with substance, other than your limp excuses of an "alternative lifestyle". Perhaps next time, you would rather seek to discuss issues with some substance and not breaking wind with complaints about other people's worldviews.


For now. . . all that would have solved your problem of your proposed alternative lifestyle is to make a simple request in the OP as this:

profibadan:

Please I am proposing a Nigeria Skeptical Society, Let all Nigerian Skeptic come together to liberate our Nation. send me email : profibadan@gmail.com or call 07060874312 to join

But wait, I stand to be corrected (especially because I'm not in Nigeria), I thought that there is already a "Nigeria Skeptics Society" being headed by one Leo Igwe? How is your own proposal going to be different from Igwe's group?

toba:

When u want to talk do reason and never generalise becos of your own selfish mission . .

That is the whole point, really. Often is the case that many a skeptic just generalize issues for their own selfish ends, so that whatever it is they want to discuss or argue, they just sweep everyone and everything into a box of very cheap arguments.

Nigeria's problems are much bigger than religion; and they are not peculiar to just this country. Corrupt politicians have used religion as well as many other social indices to further their corrupt political tenures. But that is not to say that the main problem in Nigeria now translates into "religion".

Let's take an example: how is the Niger-Delta crisis to be solved, for instance? For the life of me, I don't know who is out there that ranks that as a "religious" problem; but that aside, how does "skepticism" solve such a problem affecting other areas in the country's existence and polity?

I think a good assessment and appreciation of the nature of the real problems Nigeria faces is the first step to finding good solutions; rather than blaming them on cheap arguments and excuses.

profibadan:

We have more than 1000 religions in the world all claiming supremacy and at least three of them claim to be the only ones to even, Christianity, Islam and Judaism, Only one of them must leads to God as none of them agree that others will go to heaven, then what if you die and gets to heaven to discover that the God of Heaven is not JEhovah but Allah, then you will be doomed. but if you choose to be atheist and discover that there is a God, then you have not lost anythung as God is an atheist himself for God does not believe that there is a God above Himself.

If that is how you have set to "disprove" Paschal's Wager, I very much doubt the philosophy you have read. Your own answer does not "prove" the non-existence of God or the supernatural. In fact, you have only managed to lay a strong basis for the philosophical argument that there is a God. Let's quote you again:

profibadan:

but if you choose to be atheist and discover that there is a God, then you have not lost anythung as God is an atheist himself for God does not believe that there is a God above Himself.

If as an atheist, you discover that there is a God, then you have lost everything indeed! God never claimed to be an 'atheist'; and just because 'God' does not believe there is any other deity above God's divinity - that does not amount to "atheism" at all. To say that God is an "atheist" simply means that you don't have any clue about the meaning of the term "atheism", or perhaps you just want to play games and gull your readers. Anyone arguing the way you do will definitely fail a freshman's course in philosophy - guaranteed!

However, as to the opening line of your comment quoted -

profibadan:

We have more than 1000 religions in the world all claiming supremacy and at least three of them claim to be the only ones to even, Christianity, Islam and Judaism, Only one of them must leads to God as none of them agree that others will go to heaven,

. . . that again is not a solid point for your atheistic argument. Those who are informed know that there are many, many shades of atheism (many different types of atheisms) as there are thousands of religions in the world. I have often tried to point out that informed atheists who are honest enough will recognize the fact that: "There are many different forms of atheism; many differents atheisms so to speak" (atheism.ca). So, the complaint that 'we have more than 1000 religions in the world' is a no-brainer.

Besides, among these 1000s of "religions", there are some which are known as "atheistic religions". Yes, these atheistic religions are also part of the 'more than 1000 religions in the world'; but the interesting thing is that, while some of these atheistic religions do not claim a superiority of monotheistic faith principles, they nonetheless have the exclusivism that atheists complain about in theistic faiths.

babaearly:

but why under this thread? i thought for once the databade problem had resurfaced.

As toba noted, this thread was initially about Craig Venter and the synthetic lifeform news in the other thread. This one was initially titled "Scientist Creates Life", but after pointing out it was a duplicate of another thread, the OP changed it to the present title.

profibadan:

Nigerians with their blind adherence to religion again. Name one invention which has benefited mankind that came via prayer.

^^ This is a very stupid and brainless way of thinking. Prayers are spiritual exercises - we all know that. Your remark above is as brainless to ask you to name any "invention" that has emerged from your skepticism. Name one. If you want to rally like-minded skeptics for your campaign, do so with some thoughtfulness rather than making very silly remarks and cheap arguments.

I really pity those who will allow themselves to be gulled by your campaign - you don't show any hint of "education" in your comments, and yet you want to form a skeptical society to "educate" who?!? What really are the socio-cultural/political and economic problems Nigeria has been facing as a nation among developing countries (I disdain the term "third world")? Are those problems peculiar to Nigeria such that no other country is trying to come to terms with them even in so-called industrialized countries? What really are you "skeptical" about; and how do you plan to use the "skepticism" of your campaign to bring about developments in the political, social, cultural and economic landscape of Nigeria? What will your "skepticism" invent for the good of anybody? What technologies will your "skepticism" invent?

People who just come out to talk the way you do should be taken for the joke you are! Religion is not your problem - it were better that you share your atheistic concerns and move on. You're not alone, and with a little help you will find other atheists in that same Nigeria who will satiate your thirst for a union or 'fellowship' of sorts.

Nigeria's problems are multifaceted - they cannot be blamed on "religion" as if that alone is the reason for the country's problems. Hiding behind such excuses is worse than illiteracy, for if you cannot appreciate the real problems the country faces, then your skepticism is limp and lazy - you cannot proffer real solutions at any level if you do not first know what the real problems are.

m_nwankwo:

What Craig Venter and his team accomplished is remarkable. But the euphoria and crass sensationalism surrounding it are misplaced.

It happens a lot these days - and, not only are the crass sensationalism and hype misplaced, they also tend to becloud the gist all the more so that serious issues are given far less consideration than they deserve.

m_nwankwo:
What Venter team did is a scientific milestone but is not the creation of life.

But who can blame this on Venter (not saying that you are blaming it on him)? I've been trying to see where he (and/or any member of his team) claimed directly or indirectly that he created "life". I think the media blew the whole thing out of proportion by trying to sell us their own hype.

m_nwankwo:
Maybe, this forum is not the place to point the benefits as well as the great dangers that arise from this sort of research.

Well, since the 'news', I've had very serious concerns (some of which have been encapsulated by more educated minds). A few of these concerns are reproduced below as harvested from ScienceNOW:

ScienceNow: from: pietro ramellini
Dear colleagues, here is a little bunch of questions. 

First, a biological question: what about the taxonomic position of your cells? Which species do they belong to? 

Then, a biophilosophical question. There are many definitions of life: according to which do you claim that your cells are alive? Take for instance Bedau's 1996 concept of supple adaptation: which is then the bearer of life, the single cell, the whole population, or both? And have you assessed whether your cells not only possess supple adaptability, but do actually exercise this capacity? 

Finally, a philosophical question. You consistently speak of the creation of a cell. Is the word 'creation' merely a rhetorical device to gain public attention, or do you really feel to have created a new entity (be it material like a cell or non-material like - as you write - DNA software), in the traditional reading of a 'creatio ex nihilo sui et subiecti'? 

References 
Bedau, M. A. 1996. The Nature of Life, 332-357. In: Boden, M. A. (ed.). The Philosophy of Artificial Life. Oxford, Oxford UP. 
Ramellini, P. 2006. Life and Organisms. Vatican City, LEV. 

Pietro Ramellini 
Pontifical University 'Regina Apostolorum' - Roma (Italia)

ScienceNow: from: Kevin

Also, what thought has been given to the possibility that this could evolve into something we can't control? The effect on ecosystems are unpredictable and possibly negative. What thought has been given to this?

You see, while there is a greater need than ever before to regulate these kinds of researches in the face of growing concerns about bioterrorism, etc., I think there are other deeper concerns besides - and these are exemplified by the bolded in the quotes above. Although not a scientist myself, I've always had this thought that messing with nature has huge adverse consequences, even though we quite often jubilate over man's seeming 'scientistic' triumphalism. The payoff maybe positive and beneficial on the one hand; yet, the 'payback' is not often within our control to contain.

m_nwankwo:
One thing however is certain, no responsible government or people should allow this type of research without very stringent regulation. Or else, the very technology will destroy us.

Precisely what everyone has been saying, touché.

m_nwankwo:
Craig Venter talks of the benefits, creating designer organisms to mob up pollution, clean blocked arteries or produce bio-fuels better than crude oil and solve the world energy problem etc. Yet he and his supporters should also inform people that the same technology can be used to genetically engineer more deadly smallpox virus, HIV, EBOLA or even a synthetic pathogen that has the virulence factors of all the deadly viruses combined.

To be fair, I think the Venter institute has shown such concerns as well:

JCVI.org:
Synthetic Genomics | Options for Governance

Overview

Synthetic genomics combines methods for the chemical synthesis of DNA with computational techniques to design it. These methods allow scientists and engineers to construct genetic material that would be impossible or impractical to produce using more conventional biotechnological approaches. For example, using synthetic genomics it is possible to design and assemble chromosomes, genes and gene pathways, and even whole genomes.

Scientists foresee many potential positive applications including new pharmaceuticals, biologically produced (“green”) fuels, and the possibility of rapidly generating vaccines against emerging microbial diseases.

However, as with many technologies, there is the potential for misuse and accidents. Finding ways to mitigate possible nefarious uses and to prevent accidents in the laboratories of legitimate users so that positive uses are not undercut is an important concern of scientists, governments, and a large variety of stakeholders.

This report is the result of a 20-month examination of the safety and security concerns posed by this new technology. Including the authors, a core group of 18 individuals with a wide range of expertise undertook three tasks: assess the current state of the technology, identify potential risks and benefits to society, and formulate options for its governance. The report discusses options that would help to enhance biosecurity, foster laboratory safety, and protect the communities and environment outside of laboratories. Three sets of options apply respectively to commercial firms that supply DNA; the oversight or regulation of DNA synthesizers and reagent used in synthesis; and the legitimate users of the technologies, such as university researchers.

http://www.jcvi.org/cms/research/projects/syngen-options/overview/

^^^
Edited accordingly.





<sup>original post:
The above is a duplicate - see the other thread created by Kay 17 entitled "Man Is God".

@topic - "Re: Scientist Creates Life" - - The scientists did NOT "create" life - if we remove the sensationalism and all the hype, the scientists merely 'changed' an already existing life form into another life form.</sup>

toba:

Since viaro is here,im here also.
A little twist. We know from reading the bible how God 'manufactured man'. Lets assumed its true. Man inturn manufactures cars, electronics etc from assemblying different parts to form a whole. Im asking cus i dont know if man can manufacture another man by assemblying different parts to form a full man with life like man did with cars,plane&other material things?

As far as it's a question of "assemblying different parts", it is not impossible to achieve, humanly speaking. In time to come, anything would be possible with researches in such endeavours as Synthetic Biology (here you can plough through the fields of genetic engineering and genetic recombination). Of course, this is not saying that "life" is thereby created from scratch entirely on its own. Just my two cents.

jesus.:

OMG. Is anyone watching CNN presently as at the last 15mins? Woo this is lovely. Becky anderson is granting a live interview with craig venter&another Oxford prof,who flawed craig completely.He described craig as a crafty business man in his presence,claiming the potential risk of what he did could wipe out more life than hes trying to create. Obama gave an order for investigation into what craig has done. Lets watch as things unfold. What craig did is a manipulation of an existing DNA. Hes yet to create human life from the scratch. Toba i also need anwsers to your question.

^^ Ouch! I missed - someone sms me a moment ago!

viaro:

Perhaps for our readers' benefit, I shall try and repost the Associated Press article below.

Here it is:

Associated Press:

[size=14pt]A step to artificial life: Manmade DNA powers cell[/size]
By LAURAN NEERGAARD (AP) – 23 hours ago

WASHINGTON — Scientists announced a bold step Friday in the enduring quest to create artificial life. They've produced a living cell powered by manmade DNA.

While such work can invoke images of Frankenstein-like scientific tinkering, it also is exciting hopes that it could eventually lead to new fuels, better ways to clean polluted water, faster vaccine production and more.

Is it really an artificial life form?

The inventors call it the world's first synthetic cell, although this initial step is more a re-creation of existing life — changing one simple type of bacterium into another — than a built-from-scratch kind.

Maryland genome-mapping pioneer J. Craig Venter said his team's project paves the way for the ultimate, much harder goal: designing organisms that work differently from the way nature intended for a wide range of uses. Already he's working with ExxonMobil in hopes of turning algae into fuel.

And the report, being published Friday in the journal Science, is triggering excitement in this growing field of synthetic biology.

"It's been a long time coming, and it was worth the wait," said Dr. George Church, a Harvard Medical School genetics professor. "It's a milestone that has potential practical applications."

The project has overcome some hurdles in engineering larger genomes that will help push forward the field, said biological engineer Dr. Ron Weiss, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology leader in synthetic biology.

"It's an important step," said Weiss. Even though the manmade DNA needed an already living cell to start working, eventually it reproduced and "all elements in the cells after some amount of time can be traced to this initial artificial DNA. That's a great accomplishment."

Scientists for years have moved single genes and even large chunks of DNA from one species to another. Venter aimed to go further. A few years ago, his team transplanted an entire natural genome, all of an organism's genes, one bacterium into another and watched it take over — turning a goat germ into a cattle germ.

Next, the researchers built from scratch another, smaller bacterium's genome, using off-the-shelf laboratory-made DNA fragments.

Friday's report combines those two achievements to test a big question: Could synthetic DNA really take over and drive a living cell? Somehow, it did.

"This is transforming life totally from one+ species into another by changing the software," said Venter, using a computer analogy to explain the DNA's role.

The researchers picked two species of Mycoplasma, simple germs that contain a single chromosome and lack the cell walls that form barriers in other bacteria. First, they chemically synthesized the genome of M. mycoides, that goat germ, twice as large as the germ genome they'd previously built.

Then they transplanted it into a living cell from a different Mycoplasma species, albeit a fairly close cousin.

At first, nothing happened. The team scrambled to find out why, creating a genetic version of a computer proofreading program to spell-check the DNA fragments they'd pieced together. The result: They found that a typo in the genetic code, in one of the synthetic genome's million chemical base pairs, was rendering the manmade DNA inactive, delaying the project three months to find and restore that bit.

"It shows you how accurate it has to be, one letter out of a million," Venter said.

That fixed, the transplant worked. The recipient cell started out with synthetic DNA and its original cytoplasm, but the new genome "booted up" that cell to start producing only proteins that normally would be found in the copied goat germ. It reproduced into a small colony of germs in a lab dish. The researchers had tagged the synthetic DNA to be able to tell it apart, and confirmed that those new ones really looked and behaved like M. mycoides, not the recipient cell

Copyright © 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.


http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jUy0CkhjIEOS2ZY_SP3gWg8ELgewD9FQO1GO1

@Kay 17,

Don't get so excited as to create unnecessary arguments - more so, if you have no clue what you want to argue. Point is, the work by Craig Venter does not prove anything about man being God, nor was it constructed to further atheistic arguments. Please take time to make some sense when you propose a thread.

Kay 17:

the impossible task of replicating the DNA, has been accomplished with very simple tools. the Gaps in which God exists is shrinking tinnier day by day.

DNA replication is NOT new! Nor has it been "impossible". Your statement simply shows that you just are not aware what you are talking about. If it is all about "replicating DNA", researchers are not strangers to such things. See:

Wikipedia: Researchers commonly replicate DNA in vitro using the polymerase chain reaction (PCR). PCR uses a pair of primers to span a target region in template DNA, and then polymerizes partner strands in each direction from these primers using a thermostable DNA polymerase. Repeating this process through multiple cycles produces amplification of the targeted DNA region. At the start of each cycle, the mixture of template and primers is heated, separating the newly synthesized molecule and template. Then, as the mixture cools, both of these become templates for annealing of new primers, and the polymerase extends from these. As a result, the number of copies of the target region doubles each round, increasing exponentially.<sup>[20]

20</sup> Saiki, RK; Gelfand DH, Stoffel S, Scharf SJ, Higuchi R, Horn GT, Mullis KB, Erlich HA (1988). "Primer-directed enzymatic amplification of DNA with a thermostable DNA polymerase". Science 239 (4839): 487–91.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_replication#Polymerase_chain_reaction

I hope the above helps to clarify the issues you tend to think is new in terms of replicating DNA. You can see this also highlighted from the Associated Press excerpt below ["Scientists for years have moved single genes and even large chunks of DNA from one species to another"].

Besides, even if you want to argue your case from what was reported in the Guardian excerpt you made in the OP, it still does not lead to the idea that "life" was created entirely out of non-life. The difference is huge, and you only have to look carefully and read between the lines. Even though I'm not a scientist, at least there are certain highlights that we ought to take care to see that we don't push them for arguments that they don't make. Here are a few:

Kay 17 from Guardian:

The feat, hailed as an epochal scientific breakthrough by some but an alarming development by others, was achieved by scientists at the J Craig Venter Insititute in Rockville, Maryland using little more than a computer, some common microbes, a DNA synthesizer and four bottles of chemicals.

I don't claim to know much; but what are microbes if not some form of life? That says a lot in all this, as it would simply mean that Craig Venter took one "life form" and made it into another life form ("synthetic life form", if you may). If you leave out the sensationalism and misleading headlines, this does not argue at all that Venter created LIFE completely from non-life, does it? And if that is so, what is all the talk about "Man is God"?

In fact, what was Venter's pivotal point in his research? I don't know; but if we go by what you excerpted from the Guardian, he said:

Kay 17 from Guardian:
The new bacterium, Venter said, is "the proof of the concept that we can make, in theory, changes across the entire genome of an organism, that we can add entirely new functions, eliminate those we don't want, and create a new range of industrial organisms that put all of their effort into doing what we want them to do. Until this experiment worked, the whole field was theoretical. Now it is real."

There. The work is truly remarkable; but it is more about making changes in already existing life forms. It may help us all to try to keep things in their proper perspectives rather than snatching up reports here and there to make them into what they are not.

I don't have the time to shout (as they say), but others who are more knowledgeable have said it better than I'm trying to say. Here is one such, from Associated Press:

Associated Press:

Is it really an artificial life form?

The inventors call it the world's first synthetic cell, although this initial step is more a re-creation of existing life — changing one simple type of bacterium into another — than a built-from-scratch kind.

<snips> . . . .

Scientists for years have moved single genes and even large chunks of DNA from one species to another. Venter aimed to go further. A few years ago, his team transplanted an entire natural genome, all of an organism's genes, one bacterium into another and watched it take over — turning a goat germ into a cattle germ.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jUy0CkhjIEOS2ZY_SP3gWg8ELgewD9FQO1GO1

Perhaps for our readers' benefit, I shall try and repost the Associated Press article below.

toba:

Theres a contrast between the bolded and the other part of your post

Do u believe that sometimes the evil spirit can enter into mans heart to do or not to do? Remember the case of Ananias and Sapphira were they led in their heart by the spirit of God to bring insufficient before the apostle?

@toba,
I understand your concerns in the long run. However, for simplicity sake, let's also understand that I was more focused on what a believer would do in sincerity, and not spectacular cases of people who tend to go by mixed spirits.

In the case of Ananias, I don't think it was a matter of bringing what was "insufficient". Whether they gave all or gave 10% of what they had or far, far less . . . what mattered above all else was the condition of their hearts.

Acts 5 teaches us many lessons; but the most significant for me is that God does not countenance falsehood in our actions and motives. Peter's statement is quite revealing: "While it remained unsold, did it not remain yours? And after it was sold, was it not in your control?" (Acts 5:4, EMTV). What you and I have are in our own individual control(s) - we are to determined from ourselves what to do. The problem was not about Ananias' offering being insufficient; but rather a question of the condition of the heart.

toba:
Many are the plans in a man's heart, but it is the LORD's purpose that prevails.
Prov 19:21 (NIV)

Which means part of the many could be evil taught to cheat God or pay little. But when our purpose is directed by God in accordind to his purpose through his spirit, then one can be said to have done Gods purpose and not mans purpose like what Paul prescribed

I don't know if God asks for any particular fixed amount from His children - I don't know, as I'm not His secretary. Some have said that they knew God spoke to them in some cases about particular or fixed amounts for specific purposes and times (and these are people I know and respect) - and they live very exemplary Christian lives.

However, I think in very broad terms, Christians have the freedom to determine what we want to give from each one of ourselves. That does not mean that we ignore God in the process; but each one is to determine what they want to give. The simple rule of thumb in this case would be that, while the believer is encouraged to give abundantly (2 Cor. 9:6), at the same time, the believer should give from what he/she has, and not be coerced into giving what they don't have (2 Cor. 8:12).

toba:

we should live our lives to please God and leave the results in His hands. which include invitig God for his own purpose to be taught in our heart and not by our own heart.

The word let thy will be done is paramount in all we do and all we think in our heart to do

Very well put, thank you.

toba:

Individual can either be led by his/hr own spirit or by the spirit of God. So they are two.

That is true; but equally true for the Christian is the fact of 1 Corinthians 6:7 - "he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit."

toba:

if someone says i just felt by my spirit to give N200 or another says i prayed and the spirit of God led me to give N200 are they saying the same thing?

Two expressions, but pointing to the same thing. The fact in that example is that they gave - that is what is important. And that they gave N200, is again the same thing, IMO. One who feels in his/her spirit to give whatever they have determined to give could still be said to be acting on the principle of those two verses (1 Cor. 6:7 and 2 Cor. 9:7).

The same could be inferred from Exodus 35. In verse 5, the instruction was simple: "whosoever is of a willing heart, let him bring it, an offering of the LORD". Then the response in verse 21: "And they came, every one whose heart stirred him up, and every one whom his spirit made willing".

The basic point here is that a believer's heart is prepared by God, and out of that preparation a believer gives willingly as he/she desires. I think that is what 1 Chron. 29:17-18 reveals >>

'I know also, my God, that thou triest the heart, and hast pleasure in uprightness. As for me, in the uprightness of mine heart I have willingly offered all these things: and now have I seen with joy thy people, which are present here, to offer willingly unto thee. O LORD God of Abraham, Isaac, and of Israel, our fathers, keep this for ever in the imagination of the thoughts of the heart of thy people, and prepare their heart unto thee".

Enigma:
1. The first thing you note is that Genesis does not even refer to any of them as "spoils of war"; (I can deal with Hebrews 7 later if I could be bothered)

Nonetheless, we understand that what was taken by the conquerors is understood in the very sense that Hebrews 7 says it is: "spoils". To argue that just because 'spoils' in very fact was not the word used in Genesis 14 does not take anything away from the fact that they are understood nonetheless to be spoils.

This is one of the 'technicalities' I cautioned us to shy away from. If one wants to get technical in search of a particular word used in a chapter or verse, then a whole lot of other unnecessary issues creep into the discourse. Recently, someone was on about particular words used in this and that chapter and verse and the other. . . until when I could take it no longer, I said to him: please show me where you find "God" or "LORD" or "prayer" in the book of Esther. Of course, he could not show any such occurences of those particular words. Then I made the point: just because we don't find the particular and exact words ['God' or 'LORD' or 'prayer'] in Esther, that does not mean that we cannot understand that the Jews prayed to God who was their LORD (Esther 4:16).

In the same manner, getting too technical on simple issues often tends to becloud issues being discussed. Such technicalities, I guess, is why some people go to great lengths to assert that Abraham gave "tenths" and not "tithes" - as if there is such a fantastic difference between those terms! Or that Hebrews 7 must have got it all confused because it mentions "spoils" where Genesis 14 did not use any such word! So, rather than get down to these unnecessary worries, let's just learn to acknowledge the simplicity of Scripture and eschew unfounded assertions that lead nowhere.

Enigma:

. . . in a loose sense we tend to refer to these good as spoils of war; however, neither we nor the author of Hebrews, for example, are using "spoils" or "spoils of war" in a technical or legal sense. We and the author of Hebrews use "spoils" or "spoils of war" in a general every day sense as goods captured in war.

Scripture does not confuse between the words it uses, nor was Scripture using 'spoils' in a 'loose' sense. We can be thankful that the word 'spoils' is well understood to be whatever is taken and claimed by conquerors in warfare - and that is the very same sense that we find it used in Hebrews 7 which discusses Genesis 14. It is not out of ill-conceived prescription that Scripture in Hebrews 7 refers to the same thing as "spoils" from which Abraham gave his tithes/tenths.

It is just about the same sense that we see a basic principle is shown in 1 Chron. 26:27 - 'Out of the spoils won in battles did they dedicate to maintain the house of the LORD'. This is straight forward, even though behind it all we know that the "spoils" were taken from those who were their original owners before the warfare/battles.

Enigma:

Thus it is a waste of time to go on at length about Grotius who was formulating his principles concernng the law of nations almost 2000 years after the Genesis story ---- even if Grotus himself was looking for ways to support his arguments ----- some of them a bit tenuous. But I digress; normally, I get paid to advise on applying or to teach people Grotius, the Laws of Nations among others.

 

Lol, if Grotius was a waste of time, I don't think any Christian theologian should have been quoting him at all, least of all a Ph.D anti-tither! Besides, I don't see what it is with Grotius that is so worrisome that nothing is shown to fault what he wrote other than complaining about his work coming almost 2000 years after the Genesis story. Most theologians today who came after Grotius have discussed the same Genesis 14 and arrived at the same inference we find in Grotius' work! Could we also say that these same theologians are a total waste of time (prolly because they agree with Grotius)??

Grotius is not above or at par with the Bible; but if what he has written concerning this issue on Genesis 14 is wrong, it would be far better to show us how that is so. Complaining about Grotius writing many centuries later does not cut it at all! People who have written before and after Grotius have said practically the same thing. What then is the problem here in what Grotius said on that?

Enigma:

The long and short of it is that Abram gave "tithes"to Melchizedek from loot.  You will not find a passage in the Bible where Abram gave "tithes" from his own personal property. End of.

I see. . . after the analysis of "items/goods/possessions/" and the technicalities or non-technicalities of whether they were "spoils", we can rest at "loot". Hehe - but I like the fact it all came back to the same thing: Abraham gave tithes to Melchizedek. We know the signficance of that - as has been pointed out already.

toba:

Theres difference between purposing to follow Gods direction and purposing to be directed by intuition. What i vote for is Gods direction and not as an individual thinks in his/hr heart which may be in contrast to what God requires and acceptable unto God

But Scripture is clear on that one in 2 Corinthians 9:7 - "Every man according as he purposeth in his heart". That is not open to any vote this way or that: it is the individual believer's choice to determine what to give - and that is God's direction on the matter.

If you go through Scripture, you will find other verses saying practically almost the same thing.

aletheia:

I think in the heat of argument we may have missed the point of the interaction between Abraham and Melchizedek which was a foreshadow of Christ:

Thanks for that input, aletheia. I would like to highlight a few things again from the excerpt you quoted from Albert Barnes:

Albert Barnes: And he gave him a tithe of all. - This is a very significant act. In presenting the tenth of all the spoils of victory, Abram makes a practical acknowledgment of the absolute and exclusive supremacy of the God whom Melkizedec worshipped, and of the authority and validity of the priesthood which he exercised. (see Hebrews)

I agree - absolutely. The question may have been asked somewhat about the significance of Abraham's tithes to Melchizedek: was it in "fulfilment of traditions demands"? Or was it to be a question of "pagan tithes" as some have concluded without Biblical exegesis? It shouldn't be difficult to see that a careful study of Genesis 14 shows Abraham's recognition of those two things highlight above: (a) his acknowledgement of God's supremacy; and (b) the authority of Melchizedek's priesthood.

Those are the same things I had hinted at in post #39 -

[list]

viaro:
For this reason, there was something far more intrinsic in Abraham's tithing to Melchizedek - it was a question of priesthood.

[/list]
[list]

viaro:

The priesthood of Melchizedek is the foundation of the tithes in Abraham's case - it was again the foundation of the tithes in the NT discussion in Hebrews 7; and it was also the foundation of Levi's tithes. Being merely 'king of Salem' does not so much make for this; but the priesthood is what Abraham recognized - and that was what moved him to have singled out Melchizedek above every other king, above pagan customs, above any so-called 'tradition' or 'coventions' of pagan societies, and above any eisegesis to the contrary: and upon the basis of that priesthood, Abraham gave tithes.

[/list]

I think that these are easy to see in carefully studying Genesis 14. It's not difficult to see why other theologians come to the same conclusion.

I was quite concerned that some have tried to force their own ideas into Scripture and made unfounded assertions which they cannot show. That was the reason for this thread - to honestly examine them.

toba:

I will like to say not according to every man purposeth but as the spirit of God directs is my humble take on this

Lol, if we would obey God's Word, I reckon then that we can't improve on Scripture. You are still doing the same thing if you have made up your mind that the above is your 'take' on these things - because that also would mean that you have as well "purposed" in your heart that such is according to yourself.

toba:

as a genuine seeker waht are we suppose to do as regards this subject as end time christians

The answer is always the same: 2 Cor. 9:7 - 'Every man according as he purposeth in his heart' . . . not grudgingly . . not by force (nor fear, nor trickery, nor dubious statements, nor by eisegesis, nor by _______[fill in the gap]).

Okay, the highlighted in blue is not a translation - I extended the implication of that verse as applicable to our times (and in fact, all times). So, if a man/woman has purposed in his/her heart to set aside what amounts to a 'tithe' (however defined), let them do so and God be praised. If, however, another person had purposed in his/her heart to set aside what does not amount to a 'tithe' (whether more or less), let that person also do as he/she wishes. At the end of the day, the principle of faith that could be applied in this matter for our benefit could be from three of my fav verses in Romans 14 -

** "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind" (verse 5);
** "Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace" (v. 19)
** "Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God.
Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing
which he alloweth" (verse 22)

So, whatever you choose to do (whether it amounts to a 'tithe'/'tenth', or more or less than those), let God be glorified in all things.

Lol, let's get a few issues in perspective.

nuclearboy:

I walked away from this debate because of the respect I have for Viaro and because we'd so derailed that we were asking/answering questions which weren't the basis of the conversation.

Again, let me apologise if it seemed to have turned into a "debating" thread - it was not meant to be that at all. There are indeed far too many threads already where debates about 'tithes' have been raised. In this one, I sought to discuss - sort of 'rub minds' - and not 'win points' here or there.

Like I said, it was not my intention to persuade anyone to change their minds about the subject of tithes/tithing - whatever anyone has chosen to do, let them do so in simplicity. There is no need to appeal to unfounded assertions not found in Scripture and then use them to argue for or against tithes. IMO, People who try to 'force' others to NOT tithe are no different from those who try to force tithes upon believers. The watchword for us should perhaps be "voluntarily" - same as 'willingly', and not by compulsion in any form.

aletheia:

^^^Is this the final word on the topic on this thread?

Perhaps not. There could be more to share, if anyone desires to.

________________

Jesus2:

Nuclearboy are asserting that no one can beat viaro on NL?
i will throw him to the atheist&theists like david,noetic,deepsight etc

Hehe, the thread was not about 'beating' - who, afterall, dares to 'beat' my field-marshall?

________________

nuclearboy:

Viaro knows what I was saying but wanted something for Olaadegbu too - if it was worth the process, fine. Truth cannot be changed.

But commander, you also know what your boy viaro was trying to say, nevermind whether there was something innit for Olaadegbu or anyone else. At the end of the day, whatever anyone has so chosen to do, let him/her do - as long as we try to hold love and faith above any other issue.

nuclearboy:

BTW, you'll get to head a new "ministry of eisegesis".

Yay! Halleluyah!

nuclearboy:

Until then, keep thanking God Abram ain't around today. I'm sure he was as deft with a sword as you are with words and wonder how he'd felt hearing you say what he said was "the goods are mine so its not your property I'm taking so don't for a minute think you can say it was your stuff that made me rich. I paid my tithe to Melchizedek because its my property so get out of the way".

Haha, indeed I thank the Lord - I just trust for now that your 'promotion' makes me feel safe!

Enigma:

Some interesting absurdities which are logical conclusions from some of the arguments on this thread.

1. The author of Genesis made a mistake in referring to part of Abram's "spoils of war" as Lot's possessions/goods.

2. In fact after Abram defeated the four Kings, the author of Genesis should not have referred to Lot as Lot at all; he should have referred to Lot as Abram's slave since Lot himself was part of Abram's "spoils of war"!

3. The author of Genesis made a mistake in referring to what Abram brought back from war as "the goods", "all the goods", "everything" and showed his ignorance by not referring to them with the technical expression "spoils of war".

4. Grotius is far more informed about Abram's war than the author of Genesis.


etc etc in absurdum!

nuclearboy:

^^  Yep, Lot wasn't Lot but "Abram's slave Lot" and Lot's possessions were Abram's. Therefore and EXEGETICALLY, every single version of Genesis "lied". Only EISEGESIS CAN REDEEM THE BIBLE'S IMAGE

IMHO, a way with words cannot substitute "truth".

Lol, guys . . . I don't think anyone has made such absurdities other than yourselves. There are plain concerns, and these have been tabled for discussions. Nobody has placed Grotius higher than the Bible - if you have anything to fault it, please do so. The requests that have been made are simple enough: find references that are credible enough to show what you assert rather than trying to force pretexts into Scripture that we cannot find in one line in any verse.

We know what we have been discussing all along, and there's no reason to now try to be funny about them. In fact, you nuclearboy have said in your own words that -

nuclearboy:

The issue of ownership of the SPOILS OF WAR - laws of conquest would determine that the "spoils of war" were Abram's due, since he was the one who warred and won them.

nuclearboy:

Your last query is that he gave "his tithe". Well yes, he did, but most likely to fulfill traditions demands. What I see now is him giving 9/10s which ought to have come to him.

If it were a matter of SPOILS OF WAR, what conclusions did you draw initially, nuclearboy? Are you now arguing against your own summations initially? Why so?

And the issues that brought us here are also simple enough to digest. Against the backdrop of some of the wild statements that have been recycled again and again, I thought it was only fitting to challenge them once and for all for just one thing: show me from Scripture and thereby convince me. Some of these assertions have only turned out to be unsustained as we examined them point by point. For example:

* Abraham did not give "tithes" -
^^ that is false, since we have seen that Scripture uses both "tenth" and "tithes".

* Abraham was fulfilling "tradition's demand" -
^^ we don't find any such inference in Scripture, and such a notion cannot be defended in Scripture around Genesis 14.

* Abraham's tithes were "pagan tithes" -
^^ another assertion that cannot be defended in light of Scripture around the Genesis 14 narrative.

* Abraham returned 90% "back to" the king of Sodom -
^^ a classic farce not found in any verse of Scripture.

* There's nothing in Genesis 14 that discusses "spoils" -
^^ false, for Hebrews 7:4 plainly discusses Genesis 14 and uses the word "spoils".

These wild statements (exemplified in italics above) have been the classic arguments often pandered about by those who write off Abraham's tithes and use such assertions for their anti-tithing conclusions. I opened this thread so we could discuss them in light of Scripture and find if those making them could ever anywhere defend them at all by the principles of Biblical exgesis. That was all. It was not a question of 'winning' or 'losing' any debates (infact, I didn't intend it to be a 'debate') - as well, I was not even trying to change anybody's mind on the subject of tithes/tithing. All I wanted was this: as regards the wild statements made against Abraham's tithes (as exemplified in italics above), just show me and thereby convince me from Scripture. If you cannot show Scripture for what you argue, then try not dissing someone else (as you, my field-marshall seemed to have done to Olaadegbu in the other thread).

It sometimes amazes me that at the end, rather than discuss and keep to issues, you guys now turn round to infer "absurdities". Haha, that was just funny.


Anyhow, my commander . . .

nuclearboy:

Well at least, I did get a promotion out of this. Commander to Vice-Marshal. Now if you could just use this eisegesical style to convine this Nation I ought to be land lord at Aso Rock, somethingcogent would have come of this thread.

Hehehe, how could your boy do the 'convincing'? Your promotion was long overdue. Your boy viaro stands ready to carry through your orders, sir. Now let's go talk to the stake-holders at Aso rock.

Enigma:

@viaro

I will address you directly this once; I probably shan't do so again.

Personally, I do not see the point of devoting energy to every tangent, especially irrelevant tangents. Also, I am far more interested in substance than "technicalities" as will be used in secondary school debates. An example was your question about whether Lot had "spoils of war".

Finally, the Genesis 14 under discussion does not talk about spoils of war any way; rather it talks about "all the goods", "the goods", "possessions", "everything" and such like ---- not using "spoils of war". This is partly why a grown up discussion looking at substance is much preferable to "technicalities". In Genesis 14, the Bible did not use technicalities!

As I said before, I do not intend to address you directly again after this.

Enigma, thanks for your comments. I hope we're not quarrelling?

Anyhow, I did not ask for "technicalities" - I said so very early in this thread. I have tried to consider the scenario around Genesis 14 for one thing: the wild assertions that people make around Abraham's tithes often do not have any basis in Scripture at all. For instance, that Abraham was obeying/fulfilling "traditions demand", or that his tithes were "pagan tithes", or that Abraham did not gives tithes but a "tenth", or that Abraham returned 90% "back to" the king of Sodom - all these are deliberately read into the texts of Scrpture and NOT ONCE can you find any line to support them in Biblical exegesis. NOT ONE.

As to the assertion that "the Genesis 14 under discussion does not talk about spoils of war any way", I guess Hebrews 7:4 was not discussing the same Genesis 14 in using the word "SPOILS"?? I have posted that answer a few times, and I wonder why anyone still would argue against plain TRUTH of Scripture.

I don't mean any harm. . . none please. If any inconveniences have been caused anyone in my comments, I apologise. However, I am not writing off anyone, which is why I have noted my openness to consider whatever answers anyone else might give - and have asked for particular things, like credible references which establish what people assert on this Genesis 14.

My attitude is this: as our discussion is not a 'win-lose' one, I ask one thing - "show me and convince me thereby". If we all want to keep reading our own assertions into the Bible, what would be left of any line in time to come?

InesQor:

However, it is wrong to thus interpret that he gave[b] the rest[/b] back to Sodom (90% claim) and it is as well wrong to say he gave nothing back to Sodom.

Howdy, Inesqor. Great to read from you. There's a twist you proferred there, and I had not thought of it that way. I had tried to consider all elements in that chapter (Genesis 14) to draw my inferences, but again I was open to the consideration that I possibly might be wrong somewhere - as long as a good exegesis would allow. Thanks for that input and the reasons you gave. I shall consider them further and should the need arise, shall share my thoughts on that.

nuclearboy:

^^^^ The point is that after they were taken away and captured back by Abram, the Bible calls them "lot and his possessions" not abram's spoils

I'm glad that the Bible did not confuse issues - I said so earlier, did I not?

However, I know that the Bible uses the word "spoils" in Hebrews 7:4 in precise reference to what Abraham gave as tithes from. What does the word "spoils" mean to you, vice-marshall? When you think it through carefully, perhaps it may help answer the question as to who could lay claim in that victory to any "spoils".



If I have your permission, there's business to attend to - so I might be absent here and there. I shall revisit the thread any time I can manage.

nuclearboy:

^^^ Thank you, Enigma - brilliant question. which makes one wonder: Abram said they were due their PORTION, not the rest of the spoils.

Commander, please pardon me on this, as I'm not trying to form a mutiny. But let me say this as simply again as I can manage: consider the meaning of terms you use.

I have said earlier that: "(d)  The giving of portions to anyone from warfare actually was the prerogative of the one who claimed victory in that warfare" - post #17. Now, if you have any established case against that, please share with us.

We should try to not confuse the terms we are examining. Now, if I go by the CEV that ttalks quoted earlier (post #58) on Gen. 14:24, would it be wrong to say that Abraham claimed to have a share in the spoils? Don't scream - this is the quote (emphasis mine):

ttalks: Gen 14:24(CEV)
(24)  Let my share be the food that my men have eaten. But Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre went with me, so give them their share of what we brought back.

Contemporary English Version showing that the possessions were understood to be the King's except the food eaten by Abram's men(let my share . . .[allow my share]), and that the King should give to abram's allies their share of them.

Yet, what have you guys been saying all along? I remember you said: "Abram was refusing to take anything" (post #14) - but what is CEV saying in making a case for Abraham himself claiming "MY SHARE"??

Please don't let's start another argument on the above - it is only an illustration to carry home the point that we should try to not confuse the meaning of terms we use.

There is only one point here that I'm trying to carry across - "The giving of portions to anyone from warfare actually was the prerogative of the one who claimed victory in that warfare". That's all. If that does not sit well with you, kindly do me the joy of seeing you walk me through clear cases to establish the contrary.

nuclearboy:
How do you force <we will take nothing BUT what we ate AND "their portion"> to mean <we will take what we ate AND "the rest AS THEIR SHARE">? For portion surely means a percentage/proportion/part/some of the total, doesn't it?   So where's the balance?

Commander, please show me your answer that counters this simple statement: "The giving of portions to anyone from warfare actually was the prerogative of the one who claimed victory in that warfare." I believe that when you carefully study that question to answer it with cogent references, then the chips will fall neatly to place.

nuclearboy:

Interestingly, its both of you who are quick to accuse of eisegesis.  

I was not quick enough - I should have said it in the OP: don't bring in the drama of eisegesis, let's all endeavour to labour on exegesis.

Hahaha. . . you guys are beginning to make this thread quite interesting. I can't believe that some of you can't understand the simple meaning of of 'spoils'. What does that word mean to you lot who are falling over yourselves and arguing without being able to show any established reference for what you assert out of air?

Okay, brethren. . . let's rub minds again. I beg of you lot.

garyarnold:

To go on and on and on and on serves no purpose. You are arguing without knowing all the facts.

If you know any "facts", please share. At least, I have been very open to consider whatever ancillary evidence anyone can put forward. Produce your "facts" and let's consider them - that is all I have begged and am still begging. Thank you.

_____________

Enigma:

It is really becoming a fruitless discussion. Grotius is irrelevant as I've said before ----- and I can dissect the Grotius thoroughly,

Please do so - we're all here to learn. I still invite a dialogue, as we're all agreed that this is not a 'win-lose' situation. All I have been waiting for is that we make our points and counter-points convincing enough by following basic principles of Biblical exegesis. If we are wont to shy away from that appeal so that anything goes, then there's no need for the thread in the first place.

Why was Grotius wrong? Or, as you say, why was/is Grotius "irrelevant"? I don't see anything quite to substance in your argument against Grotius - and the idea that his work is a 17th century piece does not take anything away from the point - in so much that he was not arguing that his work was based on 17th century law of conquests. Ha, even that one is a give away, bro!

Enigma:

On Laws of Conquests etc ---- again, Laws of Conquests at what time, during which age? What law of conquest prevailed when Abram fought the four kings. Does it include the ability to take slaves?

Please sir, just give us anything of established references against this one point: "Spoils of war cannot be claimed by defeated kings, rulers or sovereigns" - anything you can find to attest a law in ancient times (choose any era you like) that counters that premise, please furnish us aplenty. That is all I have been asking.

Enigma:

On "spoils of war" versus "individual possessions" - the distinction is insignificant in the context of Genesis 14.

Hahahahahahahahahahah-ha-ha-ha-ha-HA-HA!!
I can't believe I just read that from you! Enigma bro, the distinction is necessary - that is why Genesis 14 does not confuse between them at all. You can't sit down and call you own property the same thing as "spoils" when you are NOT facing any warfare. The idea of "spoils" come in when warfare is spoken of. If that simple distinction cannot be grasped, I would be amazed if we can't see it.

Go through Scripture, check up this subject and see what is meant by "SPOILS". I am begging that simple request - because I believe that it is possible that viaro might have got it wrong at some point. Yet, at this point, if you cannot show anything to the case, I can't nod in agreement with your assertion - for Scripture does not confuse between those terms at all.

Enigma:

Let us focus first on Lot's possessions (or "goods); they were Lot's possessions/goods before the war; they were part of Abram's spoils of war; yet the BIBLE IN GENESIS 14 referred to them, even after they were part of Abram's spoils of war, as Lot's possessions/goods. What then is the point of references to Grotius or to Laws of Conquests?

After the war, were they Lot's "spoils of war"? I am surprised that you still can't get this simple fact. Look, the answers you are looking for are there in the Bible - please calm down and do a careful study: we both might surprise ourselves.

nuclearboy:

^^ How more credible than "lot and his possessions" were amongst what Abram recovered, would you require? So then, who owned those possessions?

I know you won't answer this question with a one word "name"!

Commander, please don't make your boy viaro laugh. From the onset, what have I been discussing with you, sir? Do you assume that I never checked that chapter (Genesis 14) carefully before setting forth my concerns? Sir, I have been discussing with you on the very issue that has been described as "SPOILS" of warfare (compare Hebrews 7:4).

The one thing I have been asking you all along is what again we find highlighted in Enigma's comments earlier:

Enigma:

One such issue: whether Abram or king of Sodom was the "owner" of certain "spoils of war"?

Please note, please: "spoils of war" - that is what I have been discussing with you, and not individual possessions. To whom does the legal claims of "spoils of warfare" belong? We know (and I hope we still have this agreement) that it is to Abraham that the SPOILS of war belong in Genesis 14. All this measures to forget that and then resort to possessions on the individual plane are, IMO, confusing issues all the more.

I appreciate the point made earlier by Enigma that "If one turns his mind away from a modern/Western mindset, the Abram-Sodom situation is a common situation in ancient societies". If you want me to help you, I could discuss this very point further - both from the Bible and from other established sources. I have tried to do some background check on LAWS OF CONQUESTS, trust me. But one thing I WILL NOT do is confuse issues here. I like us to keep things in their contexts and eschew pretexts, please.

Perhaps the following again may help to remind us of what I have been particular about:

SPOILS of warfare - not "who owns this possession" at the individual level:

viaro:

However, it is a very different scenario in war of nations. Spoils of war cannot be claimed by defeated kings, rulers or sovereigns.

viaro:
So, restoring goods that are lost would be determined by circumstances which we all understand (which is why your analogy is not wrong in itself, but just would not fit the case of Genesis 14). However, [size=14pt]spoils of war[/size] is a different matter altogether - and we cannot suppose in one instance that the measures and principles are the same.

viaro:

It's no use trying to play down Grotius and yet not be able to show anything anywhere on the fact that spoils of war certainly belong to the conquerors. No references I know of have established anywhere in any civilization that defeated kings had any claim to spoils of warfare - not in Scripture, not in established ancillary references. NONE. If you find any credible reference of note to the contrary, I would be very glad to consider it.

Please think carefully through what your boy viaro has been all about. To keep it simple and in context, I have been trying to highlight "spoils", and that is what has been my one concern in all things throughout. This is because, when we check through Scripture carefully in order to understand issues about CONQUESTS, you cannot confuse matters by dragging in unnecessary interpolations.

Now again: I'm not all about individual possessions, but about "spoils". I would just reiterate this point: "Spoils of war cannot be claimed by defeated kings, rulers or sovereigns". I'm not trying to be hard on this case, and that is why I have expressed my openness to consider any ancillary references that well establishes the contrary.

nuclearboy:

^^^ "He recovered all the goods and brought back his relative Lot and his possessions" certainly brings a lot of clarity to the table for here we see the Bible asserting "moral" ownership of his goods to Lot. Which would infer a part of what came back were "Sodom's" "possessions" but in Abram's control.

Hahaha . . . are we this desperate now? So, it has switched from all other 'ownership(s)' [Abraham, king of Sodom, etc., etc.] to "moral ownership of his goods to Lot"? Wait. . . I need to heal up from the <hiccups> of yesterday.

Look, let's all leave this stuff instead of making desperate eisegesis into God's Word. I understand that when people read their own ideas into God's Word and ignore the principles of Biblical exegesis, they will come up with all sorts of wild statements. First, it was "pagan tithes" for Abraham. Then Abraham gave 90% back to the king of Sodom. No. . . wait: it's now "moral" onwership to Lot. And then . . . Abraham was fulfilling "tradition's demand" (never telling what verses tell us any such "demand" by who and from who). Phew! These all are just wishful thinking - that is why no one has been able to point to any reference at all that clearly establishes these assertions.


__________________

Enigma:

Grotius certainly does not help on that point and cannot be placed above the Bible's own description, if what we are trying to understand and interprete is the Bible. In any event, Grotius' piece on this point needs to be understood against the background of its origin and the much earlier work that preceded De Jure etc etc but I don't have time to go into that here --- I don't see its usefulness anyway.

Grotius actually helps to sort out what many theologians are not willing to acknowledge nor can they tell us exactly what Genesis 14 sets out before us. No one has placed Grotius work above the Bible - but if anyone disagrees with what he has written in respect of understanding laws of conquest, such people are very free to show where he went wrong, and furnish ancillary references to show how wrong he could have been.

It's no use trying to play down Grotius and yet not be able to show anything anywhere on the fact that spoils of war certainly belong to the conquerors. No references I know of have established anywhere in any civilization that defeated kings had any claim to spoils of warfare - not in Scripture, not in established ancillary references. NONE. If you find any credible reference of note to the contrary, I would be very glad to consider it.

nuclearboy:

^^^
minus minus = plus (I studied a branch of engineering).

Haha, commander . . . this is not engineering, not even any branch of it. Evangelism might've been apt - and there you cannot make two negatives to be a positive: Matt. 5:37 - 'let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay:' - the nay-nay does not become a yea!

nuclearboy:
Another eisegesis? No thank you, Already traumatised enough and still wondering how you got this quaint idea that Sodom (and associates) got nothing back. Enjoy your days

It was simple. The Bible may not be incorrect, but translations may very well be in error - and that is a fact that NO HONEST Christian can deny, whether they feel traumatised or tantalized, hehe. Anyways, I'm glad we discussed. Enjoy.

nuclearboy:

@Gary:

You might be suprised at the latter to find Viaro is joking and has been playing Devil's advocate all along.

Hahaha. . . joking and teasing him, yes sir. But not playing the devil's 'advocado' - no sir.

nuclearboy:

^^^ which is exactly what I've been saying and stating that Viaro evaded

Thanks, ttalks

Commander, I have tried to not evade any issue you raised for my consideration - which was why I have tried to reply to ttalks just above (post #59) to show the difference it all makes.

There are clear pointers to restoring what someone has lost - it is found in the Bible. But there is nothing in Scripture or external references to show that defeated kings are considered to be the rightful claimants to spoils of war in conquest. If there were any such references, viaro is very willing to see it - that is the point I have been trying to make. In the absence of any such reference, I can leave it at that and call for a party (>hiccup< . . . carbonated drinks are bad on a Saturday afternoon, I confess ).

[1] You believe that Sodom (to me) meant that king and him alone (the individual). Wrong, bro! I used "the King of Sodom" then "Sodom" then "the sodomites" to represent ALL the original owners of the properties. You could as well have asked that I start to name every individual and local government. But again, this is a non-issue.

Okay. Non-issue let it remain. However, I did not so assume what you inferred.

[2] You agree that Abram kept nothing for himself but refuse to state who got them and show this from Scripture

I agree that Abraham kept nothing to himself - I did not argue otherwise in any instance. But again, I did not refuse to show or discuss from Scripture who got them, please go back to post #29 - "Those who got the rest of the spoils were Abraham's confederates - Aner, Eschol and Mamre." I discussed my answer from Scripture using Deuteronomy 20:11-14, even though you had complained about my use of that text in post #18 ("You're using a command given in Deut to "tell" Abram in Genesis that he owned the Spoils?".

[3] We are back to the meaning of "tenth" as opposed to "tithe". What understanding you want again after Enigma's brilliant summation on the alternative meanings these words "portray" TODAY, beats me.

I am not seeking another understanding. If anything at all, I have remained with the simple point that basically, the tithe is simply a tenth. Very early, I made clear that we should not be too concerned with technicalities - good for those who want to be technical (and I could allow for that where clarifications are needed); but I have tried several times to leave things simple for other readers who are trying to follow our discussion. I did not quarrel with Enigma's summation at all . . . but my apology if it sounded like I did.

[4] Why do you quote Hugo Grotius now, when you've previously insisted on "In light of Scripture"?

For two reasons: I wanted to see things in light of Scripture - but since you went to Russell Kelly's website to excerpt what is not in Scripture, I only took from ONE OF THOSE citations which happened to be Hugo Grotius' work. I have tried to make the discussion more on what Scripture has to say, not as a 'win-lose' contest or anything of the sort; but rather to see where all the assertion of "pagan tithes", "traditions demands", etc. are found in Scripture. If you wanted me to, I could have listed so many, many other references that show that most of the stuff you guys are passing off assertively simply have no basis in Scripture, but I didn't go there.

[5] okay, jokes apart, whats your motive here or is this just a really big joke to you? Remember though, Tonye-T (at least) has you as the guy who's put a stumbling block before him now. I simply cannot believe its you writing this stuff when its so obvious.

Lol, perhaps I have to repeat this again:
[list]

viaro: Please understand: I'm not trying to force anyone to be inclined to any side of the issues about tithe/tithing - rather, I think that even when you want to present an argument, you should not appeal to flawed reasoning to draw any conclusions on any subject. Especially so is the case when people arguing on either side of the fence think that they have the exact mind of the Holy Spirit on their on arguments. I'm not making any claims; instead, I am seeking to examine your assertions

[/list]

BTW, did you read ttalk's post and notice what the Amplified Bible says in the passage? Is that Bible wrong

The Bible could not be wrong - translations of the Bible could possibly err. However, there's no "take all" in that verse - that is what the translators want you to believe, and that simply is not anything to go by. I could show you many things that the same Amplified just got wrong in their interpolations in translation. Should I? I promise just one example on the same Abraham's life, if you may.

Enigma:

This issue of who owns "the spoils of war" is a technicality that the Bible does not make. In my view, it does not particularly help in understanding the purport of that Scripture to quote Grotius (by the way I speak as someone who first came across Grotius over 25 years ago as a first year law student in 1984, so arguments based on his work are neither new nor particularly impressive to me).

It is quite patently clear that Abram regarded part of the "spoils of war" as belonging to the king of Sodom. There is also the point I made that Abram did not see himself as giving a tenth to God in any shape or form through Melchizedek. I repeat that it is only later theologians (including the author of Hebrews) and us latter day readers of the Bible who see in Melchizedek a typology of Christ.

I hear. As always, I would be genial enough to let everyone have their say - I hope that much is clear. I'm not trying to clobber anyone for their views; but in seeking the basis of whatever assertions people make, I wanted substance and not just wishful thinking. It was for that reason that I have been urging against pretext and rather that we look at issues as they appear in Scripture.