₦airaland Forum

garyarnold:
I am not saying this is a complete list. I am saying these are examples of Old Testament commands repeated in the New Testament.

Thanks for the effort; but please try not to be evasive or prevaricate on these things. Reason I say so is that you seem to be shifting goal posts from your original assertions. Here are my concerns --

[list][li]You had argued for "613 Old Testament" laws/commandments[/li][/list]

[list][li]- then you asserted that "over 600" of those laws/commandments are NOT 'repeated' in the NT[/li][/list]

[list][li]- as well that nine of the Ten Commandments (except sabbath) are repeated in the NT - "in substance"[/li][/list]

[list][li]-->> upon which I observed that such an assertion leaves you LESS THAN 13 OT laws/commandments for your claim[/li][/list]

The questions, consequently, would be -

(a) How many of the "613 OT laws/commandments" do you have left after you have determined that "over 600" of them are NOT repeated?

(b) What are those which are "repeated" - please name or outline them.

(c) What if we find some commandments in the OT that are not "repeated" or "carried over" into the NT - is there sin in applying them today as Christians?

What you produced may not be a complete list - that's fine. All I ask for is that you try and provide the list of your own claims, since they would be LESS THAN 13 of them. That should not be hard to do, would it?

Any other commands repeated are also meant for Christians.

Please, let's see those "other commands repeated" - how many are they and what are they?

I don't see what is so complicated about this. If you feel there are other Old Testament laws that we are to obey, please list them from the Old Testament, and show me where in the New Testament they are repeated.

The point is that there are more than the number you assert - if I draw from your argument of the "613". As soon as you show me your list of those you argued for - a full list - then I'll give you some others that may not appear in your own listing.

from 1 Corinthians 6 -

. . .Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another.

- I've often wondered about the quote in that passage: is it wrong among and between believers to deal with legal issues, whether:

(a) a Christian being subpoenaed or taken to court by another Christian?

(b) a Christian suing another Christian on some serious crime?

- and by extension . . .

(c)  a Christian suing a non-Christian in cases involving serious legal challenges?

garyarnold:
It is not a non-issue.

Just fine with me. Since you want to make it an issue, then stand up and stop complaining about being criticized.

There are 613 commandments that have been listed and counted.

Does that mean there are only 613 commandments in the Old Testament? This is the issue I want you guys to clarify, because often when that argument comes up it sounds like you know no other count than exactly 613. If you're not sure, you would not be referring to it and trying to make an issue out of a non-issue.

Maybe there are more.

Meaning. . . you're not sure which is which, or what is what??

The problem is, who determines which of the commandments are valid today, and which are not.

I don't know. But your argument is assertive as if you have determined what they should be when you argue that "over 600 OT laws" are NOT "repeated" in the NT. How did you come by that assertion if you're not demonstrating your own determinism?

Most people either pick and choose, or they accept that only that repeated in the New Testament is meant for Christians.

Leave out what most people do - the question is: what do YOU do? The issue of "only that repeated" does not even arise, because we know that you can't ascertain if it is the remaining less than 13 from the 613 that are found repeated in the NT. If you knew, it would not have been difficult for you to outline them, would it?

Whether you want to accept 613 as the number is moot.

Lol, I'm not the one "accepting" 613, so how is that 'moot'? It is because I reject the fallacy built on that argument that is why I find your arguments a fallacious non-issue and your excuses quite moot. Dude, wake up!

The question is, how does one determine which of the Old Testament commands are meant for us today?

You have determined, and what I'm asking is show us your own delineated 'laws/commandments' that you have carried over. Why is that a difficult thing for you to do all this time?

(a) How many of the "613 OT laws/commandments" do you have left after you have determined that "over 600" of them are NOT repeated?

(b) What are those which are "repeated" - please name or outline them.

(c) What if we find some commandments in the OT that are not "repeated" or "carried over" into the NT - is there sin in applying them today as Christians?

Please provide answers - since you want to make this blether of the 613 commandments an issue when it is not.

garyarnold:
The more I say, the more you criticize, so I'm not going to continue with this.

If someone is confident of what they're saying, they ought not to fear being critiqued. In the same manner, if you were confident about what you were arguing with the "613 Old Testaments", you would not be complaining about being 'criticized' - that is just an easy copout.

Since the "613 commandments" is a non-issue, I don't see any need for you to have resorted to it here. Not only is it irrelevant, but it is totally redundant. I took you up on that because many people who throw in bits here and there for their diehard anti-tithing stance often hide behind that blether as their perfect excuse. In their thinking, the Old Testament has 613 commandments - as if they have counted all the OT commandments and could verify their claim!

Some would even argue that nine of the Ten Commandments are "repeated" in the NT, except the sabbath - and therefore, that the remaining 600+ OT laws were not "repeated". These are careless and hollow assertions that no intelligent student of Scripture should be bandying around in a public forum.

If you're confident about the "over 600 OT laws" that are not repeated, and leaving the sabbath to take only nine of the Ten Commandments, then that leaves you less than 13 of those commandments - which can be EASILY outlined or delineated, "in substance", of course. It seems you either lack the confidence to show what you assert, or you might have done a quick check to realise that your assertion was unfounded - which explains why you are stylishly rescinding under the excuse of being criticised.

Leave it off, garyarnold - the "613 commandments" often argued by anti-tithers is a fallacious non-issue.

garyarnold:
@wordtalk,

You went totally off topic, apparently just to criticize what I said.

No. I didn't try to go off topic just to criticize what you said. I had earlier warned you to give it up, because the blether about "613 Old Testaments" is simply a non-issue. I wouldn't take you up on it if you didn't bring it up in the first place.

I said nine of the Ten Commandments were repeated, in substance, in the New Testament.

So, what exactly do you mean by "in substance"? If you delineate the nine of the Ten Commandments, you will indeed find that the tenth one (sabbath) which you left out also appears in the New Testament as a Christian doctrine. There's no denying that, as you also have acknowledged.

There is nothing in the New Testament comparable to the commandment to remember the Sabbath and keep the Sabbath Holy.

I did not argue that, so that's just a moot point. I said earlier: "This does not mean that Christians are to be observing a ritual of a seventh-day Jewish sabbath, . . Yet, there's no denying that the 'sabbatismos' in Christianity is derived from the Jewish Sabbath."

I did not say that sabbath isn't mentioned in the New Testament.

So, what exactly are you saying? Nine out of Ten Commandments - leave out the sabbath. . . and now come back to acknowledge the same fact of the sabbath being mentioned?

This is not a big deal, garyarnold. But if you really want to delve a bit more into it, then since you asserted that "over 600 OT laws" are not repeated (which leaves you less than 13), please kindly delineate the remaining laws/commandments that are "repeated" from the 613 commandments - that way, it becomes easier to follow your arguments.

garyarnold:
Not in the same substance at all.

I'm sure that when you used 'in substance', you did not mean it in a literal sense. So, how did you mean 'in substance'?

And notice the KJV did not use the word sabbath here so as to not confuse.

Please get done with this hugging of the KJV - it is not the most accurate or the only English version available.

Hebrews 4:9 -

[list][li]ESV - "So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God"[/li][/list]

[list][li]Darby - "There remains then a sabbatism to the people of God"[/li][/list]

[list][li]HCSB - "A Sabbath rest remains, therefore, for God's people. "[/li][/list]

[list][li]LEB - "Consequently a sabbath rest remains for the people of God"[/li][/list]

[list][li]Wycliffe - "Therefore the sabbath is left to the people of God"[/li][/list]

These^^ and other English translations/versions (ASV, NIV, Amplified, CEB, NASB, YLT) clarify that verse as pointing to a "sabbath-rest" (Gk., σαββατισμός - 'sabbatismos').

Another word 'katapausis' (κατάπαυσις) is used for 'rest' in several verses in that same Hebrews 4 (see verses 1, 3, 5, 10, 11). This word 'katapausis' is different from the 'sabbatismos' (σαββατισμός) in verse 9 - and that's probably why the other translations/versions use "sabbath-rest" to distinguish verse 9 from all those other verses with just 'rest'.

sabbatismos
: the repose of Christianity (as a type of heaven)

sabbatismos: (σαββατισμός)

Definitions

[list][li]THAYER'S GREEK DEFINITIONS
G4520
1) a keeping sabbath
2) the blessed rest from toils and troubles looked for in the age to come by the true worshippers of God and true Christians[/li][/list]

[list][li]STRONG'S HEBREW AND GREEK DEFINITIONS
G4520
From a derivative of G4521;
a “sabbatism”, that is, (figuratively) the repose of Christianity (as a type of heaven): - rest[/li][/list]

[list][list]G4521 - sabbaton: (σάββατον)
Of Hebrew origin [H7676]; the Sabbath (that is, Shabbath), or day of weekly repose from secular avocations (also the observance or institution itself); by extension a se'nnight, that is, the interval between two Sabbaths; likewise the plural in all the above applications: - sabbath (day), week.[/list][/list]

The 'sabbatismos' (σαββατισμός) of verse 9 is a keeping of "sabbath/sabbatism", derived from the Hebrew 'sabbaton' (σάββατον - Sabbath).

This does not mean that Christians are to be observing a ritual of a seventh-day Jewish sabbath, as is obvious from Colossians 2:16 and Galatians 4:10. Yet, there's no denying that the 'sabbatismos' in Christianity is derived from the Jewish Sabbath.

davidylan:
Yeah and i saw pigs fly out of my window.

^^ fact-based!

garyarnold:
Would it help if I gave you scriptures to show that nine of the ten commandments are repeated in substance, all but the Sabbath? Those are the only ones I can now think of that are repeated in the New Testament.

It's okay, really - I don't think there's any need to keep this on or belabour it as I said earlier. I was just curious and didn't think there was anything to the "613" OT commandments claim. If it is a matter of "repeating" some laws, then that again is contrary to the gist of the NT.

Just so you know: it's not just nine, but all ten commandments of the Decalogue are found in the New Testament pertaining to the Christian life. The sabbath is also found in substance in Hebrews 4:9 - "So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God."

Here is just one to show an example:
Old Testament:
Exodus 20:12 (KJV) “Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.”
New Testament:
Colossians 3:20 (KJV) “Children, obey your parents in all things: for this is well pleasing unto the Lord.”

Yep, I know - Exodus 20:12 is also found in Ephesians 6:2-3 >> "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." (I already alluded to it in post #109).

^^ In post #110 you said that "Over 600 OT laws are not" - let me quote you:

garyarnold:
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, . . .

In other words, if "over 600 OT laws" are not "repeated", that should leave you no greater than the remaining 13 (or less). Was just wondering what those 13 (or less) "repeated" laws in the NT could be?

garyarnold:
I answered your question in post #110 and you criticized my answer in post #111. Need we go over all of this again?

No, we should not belabour the point - that's why I don't think it would be such a great idea for you to often bring up the issue of the "613" whatever. It makes no sense to be using a faulty assertion as the foundation of your arguments.

garyarnold:
Must I repeat myself? Haven't you already criticized my answer to that question? Is it that you want to criticize my answer again? Is that how you get your pleasure out of life? Do you just sit at your computer waiting for me to post something so that you can criticize what I write? Have you nothing better to do?

Don't get so rattled - relax. You seem to also wait for someone to post something and then you jump at the chance to criticize what they say as if you have nothing better in life than hugging your keyboard!

I was curious that you always wave that blether of '613 Old Testaments' whenever issues like this come up - that was why I thought you could take the time to explain. . . voluntarily, of course.

But if you're unsettled by that request, no pains - just relax. The so-called "613" whatever is an old hat-trick people often use to hide their ignorance of the Law and the Old Testament. Just saying.

Bethor:
FIRST CREATION BY GOD AND THE SECOND BY THE LORD GOD.

Is 'GOD' a different Deity from 'THE LORD GOD'?

WOULD EXPATIATE IF I HAVE THE TIME.

Without bias, please do.

^^InesQor,

Thanks - I get your point, though.

garyarnold:
If you are right and the law is still valid today, then please explain how you choose which of the 613 Old Testaments are valid today, and please explain what the following verses mean. However, if I am right, the following verses speak for themselves.

There's only 1 'Old Testament', not '613 Old Testament[b]s[/b]' - maybe a typo, no bother.

This should not be a matter of whether you are right and the other person wrong. Basically, your arguments are based on faulty premises - the so-called '613 Old Testament' commandments are arbitrary and you cannot be using that as an argument. 613 is just a number conveniently chosen: it is not that there are only 613 commandments in the Old Testament.

I'm curious, though: (a) how do YOU determine which of the said 613 commandments are valid today; and (b) how many of the 613 commandments do you think are valid today?

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

We know Jesus fulfilled the Law; but the New Testament does not argue that faith in Christ overthrows the Law - see Romans 3:31.

11But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.

Tithes and other types of giving are not taught in the Bible as a matter of justification. This is why I have noted that neither Abraham, nor Jacob, nor Israel were said to have given tithes in order to be justified.

@InesQor,
I owe you loads, but I'll get round to emailing you. It's viaro.

InesQor:
That is faith. By you, Purist. When you have no tangible proof, so to say, but you make something the reality that you accept.

No. A thousand times no. What Purist said does not qualify as 'faith' in the sense of that word as used in discussions of this nature. There are uncountable things we all 'believe' that do not require tangible proof, whether theists or atheists.

Yet, there are two important things he said:

(a) defining atheism
(b) incognizance of God

On the one hand, atheism is variously defined - depending on who you're talking to, and who is self-identifying as an atheist. The traditional idea that 'God does not exist' is not a definition that cuts across board for all atheists. Some prefer to say that they do not find philosophically compelling arguments for the existence of God, and by extension the reality of the supernatural. This other premise does not require any 'faith' to substantiate it, in so far as it is not the atheist that makes the compelling argument for God's existence. 'Faith' perhaps comes into play at the point when the atheist crosses that premise and tries to argue for the non-existence of God.

Same thing with a child - here it is not a question of whether the child makes any cognitive assumptions as to the question of God's existence or non-existence. We may make these observations and arrive at the same conclusions irrespective of whether we are theists or atheists - and those conclusions do not require 'faith' even if we say that we believe our conclusions reflect our observations of children in their state of incognizance.

The point is that people can use such terms as 'I believe' as a remark without requiring 'faith' for holding those remarks. British athletes 'believe' the forth-coming Olympics would be glorious - they have no 'tangible proof' for believing so, and no: it is not a statement of faith.

anonimi:
@God2man

what does it mean to fulfil a contract or deal?
simple question that I hope you can also provide a simple answer.

A simple question: how did Jesus 'fulfil' the tithes?

garyarnold:
They tithed crops and animals.  Men tithed ALL three tithes.  No example of any woman tithing anything to anyone.  Period.

Strawman! I didn't argue anything about the gender of those who gave tithes, so please don't try to create another 10 pages of your fundamentalist drama on that one.

And by definition, they tithed from assets whether you accept it or not.

Nobody tithed from 'asset' in Scripture, no matter how hard you try to jam that into the text.

Just because you aren't smart enough to know the difference between assets and income doesn't mean the rest of us have to be dumb also.

The rest of you can be as dumb as you want to, and for as long as you want to be - voluntarily, of course!

Look, dude, I've explained what you need to know - posts #118 and #122. The etymology of 'asset' does not indicate that anyone in Scripture tithed from 'asset'.

garyarnold:
Can anyone give even ONE example in the scriptures were any woman/women tithed?

Since during the laws of Moses property went to the oldest son, the women never owned any property. ONLY MEN TITHED.

And what did they tithe from - "asset"? WHERE?

garyarnold:
Those who tithe know what they are doing - let them be. They do not need you and your redundant "asset" manufactured accounting-without-budget to get in their way, especially where you have tried to cheat repeatedly with zero success on your "modern" definition of asset.

Zero success?  There are pastors and ministers in the US, Canada, Australia, and East Africa that I know of teaching the income vs asset argument from my material, and they email and thank me for bringing this out.

Dude, you've been giving them some concoction that you have not been able to ascertain. That they are thanking you is because they don't know any better. If they knew that nobody tithed from 'asset', would they thank you for the stories you're telling now? Please pass.

Christian accountants have also told me that they to saw that the Biblical tithe was on assets.  Zero success?  Not at all.  YOU are the one rejecting the asset argument.

How many of those Christian 'accountants' actually find any hebrew word for 'asset' in ANY tithing verse in Scripture? Indeed, I reject it because there is no verse I can find to buttress such an argument. I said earlier that I know the hebrew word you are looking for - but it is NOT in connection with tithing. If those dudes knew that tithing was from 'asset', how come you their defender are falling flat on your face when asked to show it in the Bible?

The more people like you who keep the argument going, the more downloads of my book.  THANK YOU!

Story-telling . . . that is what you do best to feel good about your braggadocio.

garyarnold:
Please drop the asset thing. I am not using it now because it isn't needed.

This is the second time you are begging to stop using your own word "asset". Nice.

The fact is, scripture does not use the word TEBUAH for any tithe that you claim you are doing "in the spirit of."

Scripture does not use the word 'tebuah' for ANY TITHE? You will find 'tebuah' (תּבוּאה) in connection with tithes in Numbers 18:30 and Deuteronomy 14:22. Just say you are now trying even harder to IGNORE Scripture and we can then soundly and roundly ignore you for your fundamentalist arguments.

Which of all the tithes in the Bible do you claim to be following "in the spirit of the law?" Are you using the festival tithe or the 3-year tithe? NO. That only leaves Abram's tithe and the Levitical tithe, neither of which does scripture say anything about assets or TEBUAH. You won't accept assets for those tithes, and I won't accept income.

I am not a legalist who seeks only the letter of the Law (oh, I forgot - you don't read and only limit yourself to the KJV). Paul was not concerned about which of the 3-year tithes were applicable before he quoted from the Law of Moses in 1 Corinthians 9. My point? This: you can use the OT scriptures for present applications as long as you do not seek a the "letter" only.

Since I don't tithe, I don't need to substantiate assets.

That's fine. Since I'm not the one bragging about 25-30% of my total income, I don't need to substantiate where tht is coming from. The one thing I have consistently maintained is that you should allow others the freedom to choose what makes meaning for them rather than try to heckle them in the typical spirit of a fundamentalist.

Those who tithe know what they are doing - let them be. They do not need you and your redundant "asset" manufactured accounting-without-budget to get in their way, especially where you have tried to cheat repeatedly with zero success on your "modern" definition of asset.

But since you are "giving tithes" and doing so using the "spirit of the law," I'd like to know exactly which laws you are basing your tithing on.

I've said it before - you missed it because you are not interested in dialogue. So, you tell me what law you find for your "25-30% of your total income", then I will once again show you what I do.

The Levitical tithe is spelled out. No TEBUAH, just a tenth of the land, whether of the seed of the land, or of the fruit of the tree, and every tenth animal. Forget assets. Now, show me where that is INCOME in the scriptures?

I've shown you plenty of times. Since you refuse to see it, all I ask is for you to show me ANY VERSE for tithing from 'asset'.

You have dug yourself a hole you can't get out of now.

Rubbish! What hole? The one you're still struggling to hop out of?

You keep insisting that TEBUAH means income, but TEBUAH isn't used for the tithe you are basing your tithing on.

Look again at the verses I cited, check the STRONG's for the wordings there - and see if you can still DENY the fact!

If I am wrong, GIVE THE SCRIPTURE YOU ARE BASING YOUR SPIRIT OF THE LAW ON.

I did - you ignored it. So please show us your "asset" from ANY VERSE on tithing.

garyarnold:
I, personally, use the KJV as the best translation available. That doesn't mean I don't also use others to compare wording. But when the wording changes the meaning, I stick to the KJV.

I do not begrudge you whatever you may believe about the KJV. Fact is: a vast majority of scholars know that the KJV is not the "only" or even the "most accurate" of translations.

And the word increase does not mean income even if TEBUAH can be translated into either word.

Does the word 'increase' mean 'asset? Please show me what hebrew word in ANY tithing verse translates 'tebuah' into 'asset'.

But since TEBUAH is not used for the one and only tithe the Israelites paid to God, we don't need to translate TEBUAH for that tithe.

Did the hebrew use a word translated as 'asset'? What word is that?

garyarnold:
There is no TEBUAH mentioned in Abram's tenth.

Red herring!
Did I argue that TEBUAH was mentioned in Abraham's/Abram's tithes?
Why are you using that as an excuse?

There is no TEBUAH mentioned in the Levitical tithe (Leviticus 27:30-33 / Numbers 18).

TEBUAH is only used for the Festival tithe and the 3-year tithe, neither of which would be a principle for giving a tenth of anyone's income to the church.  There is no so-called "spirit of the law" that would even closely resemble giving a tenth to a church.

So the ONE AND ONLY tithe that God said belonged to Him is the one in Leviticus 27:30-33, Numbers 18.  And there is no TEBUAH mentioned.

Again: Now please show me where tebuah = 'asset' in ANY tithing verse.

So you have NO scripture to back up saying the tithe paid by the Israelite farmers had anything to do with income.

So, are you saying that the Israelite farmers had nothing to do with TEBUAH in their tithes? I just want to know.

The tithe given to the Levites was their income, so even if you want to argue that the Levites tithed on their income, they were tithing on the tithe.

Yes, I already said that the Levites were tithing from their income - as in:

[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]

In all of this, please again: show me where tebuah = 'asset' in ANY tithing verse.

There is no logical way to see some principle or so-call spirit of the law in the Levitical tithe and come up with a tenth of income to the church.

Please again: show me where tebuah = 'asset' in ANY tithing verse.

garyarnold:
You seem to have missed the point. The word TEBUAH is only used for the 3-year tithe, not the tithe that pastor's refer to. The 3-year tithe was kept within thy gates and was used to feed the Levites, widows, orphans, etc. There is no TEBUAH used in any other tithe. Since you are following any so-called "spirit of the law" of the 3-year tithe, then stick to the so-called "spirit of the law" for the tithe you are following, which was NOT on any TEBUAH.

Okay, just to allow you sleep well: your argument is that I miss the point. Now please show me where tebuah = 'asset' in ANY tithing verse.

garyarnold:
If you feel that there is a version of the Bible more accurate than the KJV, then you should use it consistently. If you change versions depending on the topic, you are merely shopping for a version to back your own position.

No. I'm not a hermit like you recommend for yourself - that is why I don't stick to just one translation or version. This is the reason why you will find a vast majority of scholars in Biblical exegesis or hermeneutics who use a variety of translations/versions for their work rather than stick to only one version. So, there's nothing wrong in using a few complementary resources to arrive at a better understand - which is why I've recommended you consult such sources and see that 'tebuah' is NOT the same as 'asset'.

The SDA use the KJV for everything EXCEPT tithing. They choose another version to support their own teaching, but won't let you use that version for any other topic. That is what you do, also.

That's their problem and it's not what I do. I have used a variety of resources instead of sticking to only the KJV - since you have been hooting alone for the KJV, you may as well try and make your case as long as you don't cheat. Afterall, did I not say in post #69 that "by all means stop trying to cheat yourself and your plaudits by making assertions about concepts which you cannot defend from the Bible - KJV or any other"?

wordtalk = pick and choose

I don't pick and choose; but if that is your style of releasing fart to sit comfy, nice try.

garyarnold:
Luke 18:12
I fast twice a week, and I give a tenth of my entire income.

Do you not know that they were bragging about what they did BEYOND the law? There was no law to fast twice a week or to give a tenth of their entire income.

The man was not condemned for either fasting or tithing beyond the Law, but rather for his self-righteousness.

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

[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]

They were trying to show their superiority, just like some so-called tithers do today.

Were you not doing the same thing when you bragged about giving "25 - 30% of your total income"? Were you not doing precisely the same thing when you bragged about giving "far, far, far, far, far more than" a tenth? If the man could be apprised/reprimanded for his self-righteousness on the tenth of his entire income, what do you think would be your own case in bragging about "far, far, far, far, far more than" that man?

Romans 2:3 - "And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God? "

garyarnold:
Common sense - when the scriptures were translated into English, the words were translated into words that people would understand.

We know - that is why we find some English translations that simple use the word INCOME. That is simple enough for the hebrew 'tebuah' in those tithing verses. See Numbers 18:28 for example in the God's WORD version - this simple English version is using words that people would understand. If that is the case, would you come back and make it more complicated? I trust you will.

Again, the KJV uses increase, and that is only for the three-year tithe.

Again, the word INCREASE is from the hebrew 'tebuah' which in Bible dictionaries is defined as INCOME - not 'asset'.

The KJV does NOT uses the word increase in Leviticus 27:30-33 / Numbers 18 where God defines His tithe and gives his instructions for that tithe.

The KJV does not use the word 'asset' because it cannot do so from the hebrew 'tebuah'; but other versions use the word 'income' because that is what the hebrew word 'tebuah' means. The KJV is NOT the only or most accurate translation - only fundamentalist Christians argue hard and long on KJV and get defeated on their weak arguments every single time. Nice.

It is the Levitical tithe that pastor's use to pattern their teaching of tithing today, NOT the festival tithe or the three-year tithe.

No problem. Which one do you use to pattern your '25-30% of your total income'?

The Holy Bible, King James Version

Leviticus 27:30 (KJV)
. . . .

Says nothing about increase (or income) in the above scriptures. You only find the word increase in connection with the three-year tithe.

No 'asset' there either.

garyarnold:
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:

Yep, I saw what it "also says". the point there was that anyone who is arguing that the KJV is "the only" accurate version or translation is arguing like a fundamentalist/fundy Christian - the other source tells us that these fundy-type of Christians are "mostly in the United States" . . . would you like to relocate from California now?

Dude, the argument of the KJV 'most accurate' and 'only' this or that is not an intelligent argument to make - you should grow with the times, as a VAST MAJORITY of scholars already know that such an argument cannot stand up in the arena of intelligent discources.

- 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.

And . . . does that all argue at all that Christians cannot tithe from their income? Does that argue that tithing is from asset?

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.

Sweet. Is that not the same thing I have tried to maintain? Let Christians DO AS THEY WISH - do try to heckle them to define their giving to fit your own narrow 'asset' this or that. If people want to give a tenth/tithe of their RESOURCES, let them do so: let each one pray and listen and act on their own convictions. I have said many times: God has not apponted you or me to be His personal secretaries in these matters.

garyarnold:
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.

Agreed. Their INCOME was what? Money? Nope. What was it?

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)

You're playing some weak magic trick here, garyarnold. Look above - it is clear that the Levites tithed from their income. Everyone knows this. All this brouhaha about "however-therefore" is bilgewater. You can't play fast and loose to twist the simple things that people can read here, y'know.

. .  but rather from their assets.  That's the meaning in plain English.

Nope, neither Matthew Henry nor the verses cited say anything about tithing from 'asset'. Please refrain from cheating like this - it's weak and childish.

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

The broken record and crap is coming from you - you just shut up and your peace will return.

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

Applause! Is that all you can do in bearing out your frustration?
Just take it easy - this is not a do-or-die affair. More to the point would be that you try and reason things through - which is what I have done in posts #118 and #122. Relax, dude.

And like I said, IF increase meant income under God's tithing commands, the definition of income has changed.

Everyone who reasons sees that 'tebuah' is INCOME; and the source I showed earlier says the same thing: "He gave a tithe of his income, not of his property" (Robertson's Word Pictures, Luke 18:12). If it was the case of tithing from "asset", there would definitely have been a hebrew word or equivalent in those tithing verses in Scripture - you have not found any such, nor have I.

The only word in reference to tithing that I know of at present is 'tebuah' which is defined as INCOME - for INCOME was of two types: partly produce and partly money. This is not even a "modern" definition, and that was why I posted all those other references to show what it actually was.

There are other words in the Old Testament that the KJV translates in English which do not have a bearing on tithes - these include property/properties. But they do not have the sense of "asset" in its etymology. So, the best you can do is IGNORE Scripture and then keep hooting about on "asset" in its modern definitions (which renders your assertion that 'an asset is an asset' to be meaningless).

Nowhere in the KJV does it associate the word income or revenue with wages or interest.

If you want to keep on like this, you're damagin your arguments even further. First, we have seen that the KJV is NOT the most accurate translation - as a vast majority of scholars do not use it to argue in a fundamentalist manner as you're doing.

Second, to get an understanding of an issue, look at the background - its etymology, etc - and that can be got from sources outside the Bible (e.g., Dictionaries and Encyclopedias). It is in this manner you will find that 'tebuah' is INCOME, and scholars already acknowledge that. But I have not found any scholar which argues that tithes were from "assets" - which is so obvious as none of your sources shows tithes from "asset".

Your only escape hatch is to resort to a so-called "modern" definition of "asset" to force your own ideology. In scripture, "tebuah" is NOT 'asset' and nobody I know has ever made the argument to define 'tebuah' as 'asset'.

If you know of any scholarly material that has defined 'tebuah' as 'asset' in those tithing verses, please share them - that may help you and others you're trying to impress.

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]

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.

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:
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".