₦airaland Forum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You invent all this crap you keep spreading around.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is what I will come back to deal with.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

garyarnold:
@God2man,

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

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

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

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

garyarnold:
I have better things to do than waste my time with those who must be playing games. Can't believe people can be this dumb!

Just shut up and get totally lost! You bring forth a very dumb argument that you have been teaching to dumb people in your dumb universe all these years so you can feel 'good'. After playing your games and scoring against your own goal post, you suddenly woke up to discover you've been wasting your time!

Scamper along and look for another dumb blog to spew your intellectual excreta!

garyarnold:
Can someone actually be that dumb?

Perhaps you are? If you don't find asset in Scripture, how come you're trying to pass it off as if it made you more intelligent to tell stories about having figured it out in high school? What dumb quip is that?

I did no such thing.  I have been teaching the asset interpretation for years.

For years you've been teaching a completely fabricated thesis of your own which you can't defend in Scripture. That's the whole point, isn't it? You thought you've got it all wrapped up until it had to be challenged to see you had absolutely no foundation for that teaching.

I merely said that I didn't "invent" the word asset.  I got it from my accounting classes, not any pastor.

Whatever, you had to finally admit you can't find any basis for that teaching in Scripture.

The misquotes and misinformation just keeps on coming!

More excuses, twists and turns.

Snowwy:
I can see your boast in your accounting 'knowledge' and all, not an issue, however you are yet to show how this whole arguments relates to what you figured out.

That's the whole point he doesn't get! When he runs out of steam, he resorts to empty boasts and story telling - yet his claims and assertions stand as empty as they were from the beginning!

garyarnold:
More lies. More misquotes.

He asked a question - if that was not what you implied, then simply answer the question rather than conclude he was lying or misquoting you.

Before I ever heard or read anywhere that the tithe was on assets, I figured that out on my own when I read the scriptures. My whole career depended on me knowing the difference between assets and income. I learned the difference in high school.

WHERE in Scripture did you figure out that 'asset' is found? You make claims to sound intelligent and yet show absolutely NOTHING for your claims. Anybody could have figured out anything in high school - let's see the proof of their claims in order to settle matters once and for all! Take the easy way out: look for the etymology of your 'asset'. End of!

The first time I heard a pastor say you tithe on your gross income, I felt that the pastor probably didn't even know the proper definition of gross income. I have asked several pastors to explain gross income to me, and not even one of them know the correct meaning. Pastors use accounting terms but don't understand what they mean.

You're just telling stories. Leave the pastors alone, and show us proof of your own!

frosbel:
Surely you do know that for education and research purposes wikipedia is not accepted as a legitimate source of information, right

This does not mean that Wikipedia does not carry credible, legitimate and factual info - on the contrary, it does.

garyarnold:
My making? There are pastors who teach that the Biblical tithe was on ASSETS. I've seem it on youtube.

That some people are teaching this or that on Youtube does not mean you have to pick it up and run errand for them! You have accused others of not doing their own independent study - how come you did not carefully check out this youtube thing before trying to use it as your police baton on others who point to a more appropriate word derived from the hebrew 'tebuah'?

I didn't make up the word asset(s).

Whether so or not, the use of that word should have a bearing for what you claim - well attested to by clear derivation from Scripture. That is where you totally failed, and that was the genesis of your problem in this whole drama. This was why I pointedly asked you to take the simple way out by checking the etymology of that word and see all the difference it makes.

Also, definitions of words change over the years,

That's true - and we have no problem with that. The point where your arguments were spinning out of control is where you wanted to force a word that has transited through several modifications while denying others the freedom to use their own contemporary meaning of income!

I have stated that: (a) I could help you make a cogent argument for asset in Scripture, even though that word is not used in those connections; and (b) I would do so on the basis that you allow others in the same manner to use their own modified expressions to make meaningful contributions. But since you argued once that 'an asset is an asset' (although I wanred you it was too broad a term), I felt you're hitting a dead end!

. . so for someone to say that the Hebrew word for increase also means income can be in error when you apply TODAY'S definition of income.

Are you not the same person who has tried to harangue others for using contemporary definitions on tithes and other concepts? There's no arguing that 'tebuah' includes the definition of income in those verses - but then again, where do we find the hebrew expression for assets?

It's really so simple, but there will always be those who want to complicate things.

You're the one complicating things for yourself - afterall, it is not as if you had a good grasp of what you were arguing if you merely picked it up from youtube! If you try to complicate things for yourself, you will only hit a dead end everytime!

And there are those who have such big egos that to say they tithe just plain makes them feel so good!

Did it not make you feel good and egoistic to claim that you give between 25-30 percent of your income - and you're retired? Did you feel bad after bragging in that manner? Did you not feel so good in claiming that you give "far, far, far, far above" a tenth? What are you then complaining about in those who give a tenth?

"The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God" (Romans 14:22) - do not live a life of judging others on the same things that you approve for yourself.

Game playing is what is going on in this blog.

You played your games and scored in your own goal post - that's why you're in such a bad frame of mind. Take it easy and learn to reason with people: that way, you won't have to run around with stuff you pick up from youtube.

^^
I wasn't surprised you would prove what I said about you - do it again: quote my comments to add, edit, delete, format, reformat, formulate your own lopsidedness - it happens all the time.

MrBible:
[size=13pt]Galatians 2:4
And that because of the false brothers let in secretly, who came searching out our free condition which we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might make servants of us; - By collecting tithes[/size]

I'm glad you added "By collecting tithes" on your own - people like you will always add your own words into simple texts in order to justify yourselves. Galatians 2:4 is not about or against tithes - the false brothers there have nothing to do with tithes; and you will not find tithes mentioned in any verse in Galatians, because that is not what Paul was arguing against!

The only way you can pat your conscience is to add, edit, delete, format, reformat, formulate your own lopsidedness into a text that has nothing to do with your problems - continue: it happens all the time!

toba:
Is this the end of atheism on nairaland? Sexkillz and davidyland

Not likely. Worldviews are not often settled on arguments.

garyarnold:
You are right, Pastor Kun. It is really a waste of time to discuss anything with wordtalk. The devil has put him/her here to cause havoc and confusion. But those who really have the Spirit will see through it all.

This is not the first time you have insinuated the devil slanderously at me.

The one thing I constantly find in many anti-tithers is the penchant to slander others. You can't reason rationally until you have vilified others to make you feel more spiritual and self-justified. Whatever claims you may make about having the Spirit, I know that you certainly do not demonstrate His leading by such behaviour.

'Slander is the trademark of fools and haters (Prov. 10:18), and an unceasingly accusing tongue is for losers (Rev. 12:10).'

garyarnold:
Is wordtalk totally ignorant?

No. That is why I continue to question your assertions and ask for Biblical proof for your 'asset'. You go about haranguing others who use a more appropriate term in Scripture - but you have not been able to show any verse in your beloved KJV.

Does he/she not understand the difference between money as an asset and money earned as income?

I totally do. I am not the one who said that tithes are from "asset"; nor did I argue that tithes were from "sale". The reason why you're ever so restless is because you know you can't cheat by asserting these things and running away with them! if you were a bit closer to common sense, why has it been ever so difficult to find the verse for asset in your KJV?

Does he/she not understand the difference between merchandise as an asset and merchandise as income?

I absolutely do. I find it quite unnecessary that you would mention them if they had no bearing in your arguments - that was why I queried them. NOWHERE did i assert anything about their being things from which Israel gave tithes. If they do not have any bearing, then don't try to call them into discussions to help you hide your excuses.

Geez!  The more he/she speak the more he/she shows his/her ignorance.

You can accuse all you want - it takes nothing away from the fact of your sham. if you have anything to say about asset from the Bible, please show it simply.

THE WORD ASSET IS NOT IN THE BIBLE.

Good. Then 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. The one reason why you know you can't cheat by that word is simple: look up the etymology of that word and knock yourself out!

I ALSO CAN'T FIND THE WORD ASSET IN THE HEBREW DICTIONARY.

Super! So, you have to admit that you have been peddling your fallacies for ages to those who can applaud you for your illiterate claims. Nice one.

THE WORD MAY NOT HAVE EXISTED AT THAT TIME.

Oh shut up! Go and surprise yourself by looking up its etymology and see for yourself WHY no other translations even remotely used that word from the hebrew.

CAN'T WORDTALK GET IT THROUGH HIS/HER HEAD THAT I AM USING ASSET(S) AS A DESCRIPTION?

No, I can get the fact that you were cheating by using that word for your arguments while attacking others for the more appropriate term INCOME which is derived from the hebrew 'tebuah'.

IS HE/SHE REALLY THAT DENSE OR IS HE/SHE PLAYING GAMES HERE?

I wasn't playing games - and I saw through your legerdemain from the onset. Shout all you want, cheat with 'asset', wave your cards magically to pretend your scholarship that is now bereft and empty - and now what?

wordtalk is either playing games here, really ignorant,  or just plan evil.

All and more as suits you - just accuse as may help you sleep well.

MrBible:
[size=13pt]His just been evil. Because anyone supporting or collecting tithes today is a messanger of satan. [/size]

No problem. I can stand any kind of slander - 'evil', 'satan', 'devil', and many more. Does your slander make you more spiritual - Proverbs 10:18?

nuclearboy:
@wordtalk

Can u give one (any) specific example of an issue you feel makes ogoamaka99's gist "timely"?

I was looking at this line in the OP - "to warn those unknowingly join to abuse some MOG, the dangers of doing so."

Could you give one Specific example of "slander" or a "unceasingly accusing tongue" in this forum against someone?

There are many examples - but I would not like to point to any particular poster/posts. Unless you're absolutely convinced that there are no such occurences of slander and unending accusations, then I could show you quite a load of them.

Your intellect is increasingly becoming the prop for the scum of this forum. . .

No. My discourses do not provide a prop for anyone with whatever agenda they have. I try (even wher I fail) to look past name-calling and all sorts so as to get what people are saying. On that basis I could comment to disagree or agree with those whose lines i find interesting enough to comment on. I do not have to agree with everyone on everything or anything - but even so, I do not like to join sides with any one to foster the culture of "us versus them".

. . . to perpertuate their agenda to make all questioning and criticism seem evilly ungodly

Criticism and questioning are still very much achievable as long as we do so in a responsible manner. I have earlier said that even where we should not come down to the level of uncouth language, it does not mean that "the teachings and behaviour of called servants and ministers cannot be questioned - especially when these have serious consequences for believers.". In other words, I'm persuaded that believers could question and critique teachings and behaviour of those who claim to be called of God - Paul was exemplary in inviting such criticism and evaluation, both as to his behaviour (1 Thes. 2:10) and teachings (1 Cor. 10:15).

Criticism should not seem evil and ungodly in itself - but using such things as a license for name-calling and slander is going beyond the critique itself.

yet you know as well as any that the Spirit of Truth has almost always been at loggerheads with the establishment.

But who actually could boldly claim they have 'the Spirit of Truth' while others are at a loss? Just because we disagree strongly as ever does not mean we are alone for 'Truth' and other Christians must therefore be moved by another spirit.

The best we could do is state our persuasions and let God do His work in the hearts of other people - alas! I'm first to confess this has not always been the case in my discussions and arguments. Yet, we can try our very best to refrain from these things - slander and accusations - that contradict our calling to be Christlike.

Snowwy:
You have said you will not have a dialogue with him anymore because he is this and that, yet you keep surrounding your conversations around him.
Pls make a post without mentioning him, you are acting petulant.

Just leave him alone - he can't help himself. I don't have any issues with him; but if he desires to be rubbished in his silly assertions, I could very well help him achieve just that.

The following is quoted from
http://carm.org/christianity/christian-doctrine/word-trinity-not-bible

, there are many biblical concepts that people believe in that don't have a specific word describing them used in the Bible. For example, the word "bible" is not found in the Bible, but we use it anyway to describe the Bible. Likewise, "omniscience" which means "all-knowing," "omnipotence" which means "all-powerful," and "omnipresence" which means "present everywhere," are words not found in the Bible either, but we use them to describe the attributes of God. We don't have to see a specific word in the Bible in order for the concept it describes to be true.

First off, you can't claim that a certain word is not in the Bible by simply holding unto only one particular English version (KJV) - you have to understand that the Bible was written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek: NOT in English. If, therefore, the translators of a certain version like the KJV do not use a specific word which other translators in OTHER VERSIONS have used, that does not mean therefore that the KJV is the most accurate - which it is NOT.

Take, for example, the word Bible. We can consult other Bible sources to determine HOW we got the word 'Bible' -

Bible
The English form of the Greek name Biblia, meaning “books,” the name which in the fifth century began to be given to the entire collection of sacred books, the “Library of Divine Revelation.” The name Bible was adopted by Wickliffe, and came gradually into use in our English language. ~~ Easton Bible Dictionary.

The point here is that, when a certain English word is used, we should look for two things: the basic definition (from Bible dictionaries) and their applications (from various other sources).

However, if you use the word 'asset', you should be able at the very least to find either the Hebrew or Greek words that define the concept(s) you're forcing into a text! You did not provide any verse nor hebrew/greek words for your 'asset' other than make so much noise for several pages and from other threads about the same thing you are unable to prove!

I hinted you at one time that I could help you make a good argument for 'asset' even though there is no hebrew word I could find in the Bible for that term. But when you argued that "asset is asset", I felt you were the most unreasonable person to discuss anything helpful with. This is why I would rather help you make a complete mess of your own unsubstantiated arguments until you come to a place where you begin to shy away from your 'asset'.

Do you know why you can't get away with all this? Because the moment you try to define 'asset' in its etymology, all your redundant arguments will collapse momentarily. This, PERHAPS, is the reason you don't want to man up to seek ot the etymology of 'asset', and you are desperate to cover the eyes of your readers with an evolved usage of the term 'asset'.

Following are other words that the Bible does not use but the concepts are mentioned:

Atheism is the teaching that there is no God. "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God'" (Psalm 14:1).

That is not the definition or meaning of atheism for many atheists themselves - rather, that is just a convenient definition that theists like to use when seeking meaningless arguments with fundamentalist believers. Go and find out for yourself what atheism actually is, and you will see that Psalm 14:1 is not particularly defining atheism: that verse is actually talking about people who behave foolishly in ungodly manners - and that (surprise! surprise!!) includes those who claim to be believers and yet act in that same manner!

Divinity which means divine quality or godlike character. Yet, we speak of the godlike quality of the Lord God. See Psalm 139.
Incarnation which means the word (God) who became flesh. Yet, this is definitely taught in the Bible (John 1:1,14).
Monotheism is the teaching that there is only one God (Isaiah 43:10; 44:.
Rapture is the teaching that the Christians who are alive when Jesus returns will be caught up to meet Him in the air (1 Thess. 4:16-18).

The same principle as above.

The fact that the word asset doesn't appear in the Bible doesn't mean the concept or description doesn't appear in the Bible.

That is why you need to show us what verses describe such use of the term "asset". Afterall, the CARM quotes you cited also gave their own verses to show wat they meant by the various terms and concepts they were arguing. WHERE in the KJV did you find any hebrew word that defines 'asset'?

garyarnold:
Isn't it amazing how wordtalk ignores all my talk about income - that it can be in ANY form.

I didn't ignore all your talk about income. The issue was for you to please find a verse - any verse - in the KJV that shows the hebrew word for 'asset'.

Money, services, or merchandise.

Please be specific - do people tithe services? Do they tithe merchandise? If you're saying that your meaning of income includes all those, does that mean you agree that tithes included money in Scripture? If not, why do you include it as income in this case?

I have said over and over again that the Israelite farmers had income from the sale AND/OR barter-exchange of the crops and animals.

Did I argue against that? I have reiterated that there were various types of income in Israel, and that the commonly understood term for income was tebuah. That is a fact which you find very difficult to controvert other than denying without substance. What hebrew word do you know of in Scripture that points to 'asset'?

Isn't it odd that wordtalk can't seem to understand that I am using the term asset as a description of the items.

Oh don't be silly. I can understand how you're trying to cheat repeatedly by using 'asset' for your own description while rigidly opposing others who use the term 'income' as descriptive as well. If you're begging to use 'asset' as descriptive, I can allow that as long as you also allow others the use of a more appropriate term 'income' on the same basis as you want for your own arguments. Denying others the appropriate use of 'income' (tebuah) which is found in Scripture in the hebrew form, while you take the liberty to dribble in 'asset' is just cheating.

I don't need to use the word asset at all.

No problem - find another excuse.

The Levitical tithe was a tenth of the crops and every tenth animal, NOT a tenth of what was received from the sale and/or barter-exchange of the crops and animals.

Red herring. Nobody I know of in this forum has argued about tithes from "sale" - so your point here is mute. I have maintained indeed that tithes in Judaism was from 'tebuah', a hebrew word which Bible dictionaries define as including INCOME. I never once said that 'tebuah' was "sale".

Wordtalk obviously has an agenda other than accuracy and truth.

If 'tebuah' does not satisfy you, please show us the hebrew word for 'asset' so we can see your own agenda and define for ourselves how "accurate" and "truth" you claim to be.

I believe I have proven my position by DEFINITION, not interpretation.

Pleasee give us the "definition" based on ANY VERSE in the Bible, and then you can rest your head while we interpret. You can believe all you want by prevarications - it happens often in your arguments. You just make assertions which you can't provide proof for, then attack others who challenge your assertions, while at the same time being unable to refute or controvert the challenge! Nice.

Wordtalk is so narrow minded that he/she can't see the difference between an increase in the seed and an income from a sale.

Thanks for making things easier for yourself by resorting to ad hominem fallacies - that is always the first-aid you hide behind when you can't reason issues calmly and sensibly. If I tried to argue tithes from defining 'tebuah' as "sale", please quote me directly! Don't come down to the level of plainly lying on top of your failure to persuade yourself!

Wordtalk obviously thinks he/she is smarter than those who translated the Word into the KJV of the Holy Bible.

Another red herring. I used the words which Bible dictionaries define from hebrew words which occur in the Bible. WHERE is your own 'asset' from the same KJV of the Holy Bible?

The words revenue, profit, and gain are all used in the KJV but NEVER in conjunction with the tithe.

Whereas, tebuah which is defined as 'income' among other things is found in connection with tithes; your own word 'asset' does not even appear once in any verse of the KJV - and you can't even find the hebrew word that could be defined as 'asset'. The best you do now is altogether abandon your own "asset" and pick a quarrel with 'tebuah'.

The word vegetable is also not in the KJV. Doesn't mean we can't describe some of the herbs as vegetables.

The KJV of the Holy Bible is NOT the only or the most accurate of English translations - that much we know. Only fundamentalists believers make a lot of noise about the KJV and end up making assertions which they can't defend from the same KJV! This is why you have always had problems with other translations/versions - and yet you can't find the word 'asset' in those which I cited for you.

garyarnold:
I have not shifted. I will no longer dialogue with wordtalk on this blog. That doesn't mean I won't explain to others how I believe wordtalk is being dishonest and purposely, in my opinion, injecting confusion and lies by constantly misquoting what others say.

If I have lied to you, please quote me directly.
if I have injected confusion purposely, please quote me directly.
If I have misquoted you, please quote me directly to show the original quote(s) and the misquotes.

As Snowwy has observed, you don't have to make 'wordtalk' the reason for your discontent/restlessness.

wordtalk has shown the world that he/she has absolutely no accounting background but continues to define what the accounting term income means.

How many authors of Bible Dictionaries needed to take accounting classes in order to define the word 'tebuah' as including INCOME and REVENUE? How many translators had to wait to sit accounting classes in order to have translated the Bible? Who has ever concluded that a good knowledge of the Bible has to be based on accounting classes?

I find your complaints here absolutely id[color=Black]io[/color]tic, as it is becoming such a caricature of your boasted accounting career! You often grumble about people having or not having accounting background when discussing Biblical subjects - yet you of all people that should have known better just cannot compute the 'total giving' in Numbers 31! And yet you claim to be teaching others "financial planning" without budgeting - a most risible claim for any 'accountant' to make!

Those who can see through lies and dishonest debating will see through this type of manipulation.

Yes, your type of manipulation! That is why you have quibbled long and hard and asserted things which you can't defend from Scripture. You manipulate others around your 'asset' until you're the one now abandoning that term - in search for another excuse, no?

However, most church goers seem to be influenced by whatever they are told at church and fail to do their own in-dept Bible study.

It is because we can do our own Bible study, that's why you're left sobbing all by yourself!

@ogoamaka99,

I can understanding the main gist of your OP; but this line is perhaps one among other reasons why many people object to tithing in any form among Christians -

ogoamaka99:
This is because GOD is not expecting tithe payment from every body. To this end, GOD punishes those HE expect to pay tithe but are not obeying HIM, while HE is not bothered about unbelievers who HE is not expecting their tithe payment.

Tithing does not condemn anyone, nor does it save. So, God is not going to punish any Christian for not paying tithes under the new covenant. Most of the blessings in the old covenant (ie., the Law of Moses and prophets) apply to believers under the new covenant; but the curses or punishments in the old covenant may not all apply in the same fashion.

It is therefore logical that you ask yourself “those who are making noise in this forum that you should not pay tithe –are they children of GOD?”

We cannot determine or conclude anything about a person's salvation or justification relationships with God on the basis of tithes. There is only one basis I know of for being a child of God by the new birth in the NT - receiving Jesus Christ by faith in His Name (John 1:12). A person who gives "freewill offering" is not more saved than a person who does not give anything at all - in the same way, nobody can be saved or condemned by obeying or deisobeying pro-tithing/anti-tithing arguments at any level.

Tithing has absolutely nothing to do with anyone's salvation.

It is like you, refusing to pay your income tax because an American visitor to Nigeria is not paying income tax. In the eye of the law, income tax expectation from you in Nigeria is different from an American visitor to Nigeria.

No, that analogy is faulty. Although the Christian life is not lawless, yet it is not based on legalism (the letter of the Law).

Christians are urged to pay taxes to the civil and political governments wherever they live (Romans 13:6-7) - and in that context, the payment is in a legal sense. The "pay" in 'for this cause pay ye tribute also' is 'teleo' (τελέω) - and it is the same word used in Jesus' payment of a tax in Matthew 17:24 - ('Doth not your master pay tribute?').

However, tithes are not compulsory for Christians - not in any legal sense of 'teleo' (τελέω). Even under the old covenant, Israel gave tithes in the form of a GIFT as a pointer to their worship to God (see Numbers 18:24).

The point in this is simply to let Christians do as each one has determined for themselves - some give in the form of contributions, or freewill offerings, or donations, or fellowships, or firstfruits - or even tithes. Nobody will be punished for giving in the form of tithes/freewill/firstfruits/donations/fellowships/contributions, etc. Perhaps, the one type of giving that believers can't get away with is that type of giving which is pretentious in character in order to buy the favour of men (Acts 5) or the gift of God (Acts 8:20).

@mazaje, please don't be upset. True, 'open rebuke is better than secret love' and it was very bad of me to not have said hello. Please forgive me. Hope you're doing great.

@5solas,
Many thanks - and yes, I'm doing very well. I hope you're even far more blessed in all you do.

free123:
Is it wrong to call the first one a fornicator, the second a businessman and the third a fake MoG? I await your reply wordtalk

Is it not clear from what I have said already with Ephesians 5:11? I already said this -

wordtalk:
This does not mean, however, that the teachings and behaviour of called servants and ministers cannot be questioned - especially when these have serious consequences for believers.

In addition, it is not all who claim to be called that are actually called by God. BUT the fact that some people behave badly is not a licence for slander and unceasing accusations to be levelled indiscriminately against any and everybody. The attitude of seizing upon every opportunity to castigate people could lead some to accuse Paul of literally robbing churches - if they mis-read his meaning in 2 Cor. 8:11.

PA1982:
A spade's a spade.
With or without Paul's permission.

Nobody's asking Paul's permission here.

The gist of the OP is timely. We should all be very careful in these matters.

However, people sometimes find themselves in serious predicaments and that's why they react with unnecessary words and name-calling. Paul was in one such situation. When the high priest Ananias commanded those around to smite Paul on the mouth, the apostle was upset and called the high priest a "whited wall". On being told he was REVILING God's high priest, Paul resiled and said: 'I did not know, brothers, that he was the high priest, for it is written, "You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people"' (Acts 23:1-5).

This does not mean, however, that the teachings and behaviour of called servants and ministers cannot be questioned - especially when these have serious consequences for believers. Paul himself wrote in Ephesians 5:11 - 'Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.' The problem here is that many believers are quick to condemn others because they have already concluded others are 'darkness' while they are themselves the 'light' - a culture of "us versus them": such things will not help anybody's spirituality.

Slander is the trademark of fools and haters (Prov. 10:18), and an unceasingly accusing tongue is for losers (Rev. 12:10).

This should make it perfectly clear to anyone studying this topic in depth that increase does not mean revenue, or gain, or profit, or income where the KJV uses the word increase, in the verses I have shown.  The KJV, unlike some other translations, was careful to choose the proper translation of the Greek word in each of those verses.

In all that, none of the translations I cited earlier (click here) gives the meaning of tebuah as 'asset'. Have you wondered why?

There are other hebrew words that specify the yield from farming activities - such as:

(a) 'harvest' (qâtsıyr - H7105). We find this, for example, in Leviticus 23:22 - 'when ye reap the harvest of your land,' and '. .  'any gleaning of thy harvest''

(b) 'increase' (yebûl - H2981). This is defined as -

          - 'produce, that is, a crop or (figuratively) wealth: - fruit, increase' (STRONG'S)

          - 'produce, fruit, produce (of the soil)' (BROWN-DRIVER-BRIGGS)

You can see indeed that "increase" can more specifically be called by another hebrew word as in (b) above; but the basic word that points to 'income' is tebuah.

This is why I have asked you 3 basic questions, and I'll try and make them simple here again -

  - (a) where in the Bible (your own favourite KJV) have you read of the word "ASSET"?

  - (b) what hebrew word do you know in the Bible that is used for INCOME?

  - (c) what hebrew word do you know in the Bible that is used for "ASSET"?

As always, you have forever evaded those simple questions. I've outlined them in simple terms and used other terms to expatiate for clarity. It would have helped both you and your readers if you have tried, at the very least, to show the hebrew word for 'asset'.

You can't exchanged increase for revenue or revenue for increase without distorting the true meaning.

You actually CAN exchange increase for revenue or revenue for increase without distorting the meaning.

What you can't do is exchange increase for 'asset' - because dribbling in 'asset' for 'increase' will distort the "true meaning". This is why I have asked you to bring out the etymology (word origin) of 'asset' so we can see the "true meaning" of that word. Why is that a hard thing to do?

garyarnold:
The following illustrates how the KJV uses the same word translated as increase and also revenue.  Notice the context of each verse and you will see that increase in the tithing verses has nothing to do with revenue (income).

It all depends on your meaning and understanding of income and revenue. If you think of income and revenue only in terms of cash and monetary exchanges as is used in contemporary times, you're narrowing the meanings of those terms while trying to excuse the meaning of 'asset'. It then remains for you to please find a verse - any verse - in the KJV that shows the hebrew word for 'asset'.

H8393 TEBUAH (increase, revenue)

Nice. You should have given the full definition of H8393 TEBUAH, as in the following dictionaries -

    STRONG'S HEBREW AND GREEK DICTIONARIES
    H8393
    תּבוּאה
    tebû'âh
    teb-oo-aw'
    From H935; income, that is, produce (literally or figuratively): - fruit, gain, increase, revenue.

    BROWN-DRIVER-BRIGGS HEBREW DEFINITIONS
    H8393
    תּבוּאה
    tebû'âh
    BDB Definition:
    1) produce, product, revenue
    1a) product, yield, crops (of the earth usually)
    1b) income, revenue
    1c) gain (of wisdom) (figuratively)
    1d) product of lips (figuratively)
    Part of Speech: noun feminine
    A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: from H935

The basic understanding of 'tebuah' is income, because it derives from another hebrew word (H935), as Strong's cited above:

    From H935; income, that is, produce (literally or figuratively): - fruit, gain, increase, revenue.

So, while 'tebuah' points to their income, it is the contents of that income that are explained to be the produce of farming activities. There are various types of income, and H8393 is one type of income that involves farm produce. The whole point is simply this: TEBUAH is INCOME.