Stats: 3,191,607 members, 7,944,804 topics. Date: Tuesday, 10 September 2024 at 04:30 AM |
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / Nuclearboy . . . On Abraham, Genesis 14 (4120 Views)
Sarah's Mistake On Abraham / How Many Sons Did Abraham Have? (2) (3) (4)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (Reply) (Go Down)
Nuclearboy . . . On Abraham, Genesis 14 by viaro: 3:33pm On May 14, 2010 |
This is just a space for us to rub minds together. I know that as you being my 'commander', there's a risk of my being court-marshalled; but I was gravely concerned in the arguments you made in another thread in reply to Olaadegbu concerning tithes. Here is the relevant quote: nuclearboy: Perhaps a few other things may be added, as drawn from your other statements where need be; but I seriously would like to talk with you on each of the claims above in light of Scripture, that - [list](a) Abraham gave a tenth and not tithes; (b) that he gave 9/10 back to the King of Sodom; (c) that the spoils were not his own possession; (d) that he did not give his tithes.[/list] Please understand: I'm not trying to force anyone to be inclined to any side of the issues about tithe/tithing - rather, I think that even when you want to present an argument, you should not appeal to flawed reasoning to draw any conclusions on any subject. Especially so is the case when people arguing on either side of the fence think that they have the exact mind of the Holy Spirit on their on arguments. I'm not making any claims; instead, I am seeking to examine your assertions (heard them before and trashed them out elsewhere). So, please let me know if you're willing to engage. I salute again, sir. ![]() |
Re: Nuclearboy . . . On Abraham, Genesis 14 by aletheia(m): 5:18pm On May 14, 2010 |
. . .watching this space. |
Re: Nuclearboy . . . On Abraham, Genesis 14 by nuclearboy(m): 5:18pm On May 14, 2010 |
My Lord Viaro: Ok ( ![]() Gen 14:16 - "He recovered ALL the goods and brought back his relative Lot and his possessions, together with the women and the other people" [17] "After Abram returned from defeating Kedorlaomer and the kings allied with him, the king of sodom came out to meet him in the valley of Shaveh (that is, the King's Valley)" [18] "Then Melchizedek King of Salem brought out bread and wine. He was priest of God Most High, " [19] "and he blessed Abram saying, 'Blessed be Abram by God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth," [20] "And blessed be God Most High, who delivered your enemies into your hand" Then Abram gave him a tenth of everything" [21] The king of Sodom said to Abram 'Give me the people and keep the goods for yourself'" [22] But Abram said 'I have raised my hand to the Lord, God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth and have taken an oath" [23] "that I will accept nothing belonging to you, not even a sandal, so that you will never be able to say "I made Abram rich" [24] I will accept nothing but what my men have eaten and the share that belongs to the men who went with me - to Aner, Eschol and Mamre. Let them have their share" Where did I go wrong, sir? |
Re: Nuclearboy . . . On Abraham, Genesis 14 by DeepSight(m): 5:21pm On May 14, 2010 |
OMG, I never thought i'd see this day. Conflict of views within VINCLEAR? |
Re: Nuclearboy . . . On Abraham, Genesis 14 by aletheia(m): 5:24pm On May 14, 2010 |
^^^I think it's still too early for you to say so. |
Re: Nuclearboy . . . On Abraham, Genesis 14 by DeepSight(m): 5:33pm On May 14, 2010 |
Howdi Alethiea. . . I guess you are right. . .perhaps they will reach a common understanding on the subject. I will be glad to read the thread and see how i may be enlightened - although I am of the firm view that it is not an important subject - given that both and indeed, all parties agree that that which is cardinal is charity at all times to all people, especially those in need. I thus cannot imagine of what relevance to our consciousness of charity the story of an ancient nomad and his peculiar practices is. This nomad reportedly dined with angels and on one spectacular occassion was about to murder his own son on the promptings of his deity. I have no doubt that the nomad had a remarkable life, but I am at pains as to how his peculiar practices could be of any relevance to a modern man's perception of that which lies at the heart of this matter - the inner prompting to give generously both to our fellow man and to the service of God. Now, totally off-point, I have this sickening feeling that you have a double I.D. |
Re: Nuclearboy . . . On Abraham, Genesis 14 by viaro: 5:34pm On May 14, 2010 |
nuclearboy: Hehe ... sir, you know I was only seeking to rub minds with you (and I quite remember that I can't mess with you anyhow, lest I face your e-jail again without mercy this time!). Where did I go wrong, sir? I don't think it's a matter of having gone wrong. I just wanted to understand your arguments, and that was why I delineated my concerns as earlier: viaro: Those ones for now, and then (perhaps, just perhaps) others might follow. ![]() |
Re: Nuclearboy . . . On Abraham, Genesis 14 by viaro: 5:47pm On May 14, 2010 |
@nuclearboy, In general, I don't like to get very technical about the meaning of 'tithes', especially as it means a whole lot of other things than we have traditionally thought. Perhaps the only grounds for which I would really not mind doing that, is for the sake of much needed clarifications. So let's sort out a few issues before proceeding. (1) First, it seems rather odd that anyone would argue between "tithe" and "tenth". nuclearboy: The Bible uses both words interchangeably - [list](a) 'tithes' - 'And he [ie., Abraham] gave him [ie., Melchizedek] tithes of all' Gen. 14:20, KJV.[/list] [list](b) 'tenth' - 'the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils' Heb. 7:4, KJV.[/list] The whole argument to seperate 'tithe' from 'tenth' is quite quizzical, unless either you or Gary Arnold have a more cogent point to make on that. For all we know, a 'tithe' in broad terms is the same as a 'tenth'. (2) Second, the problem with being technical or pedantic with terms around tithing is that we often lose meaning in the gist of what we argue. There are multiplied connotations of 'tithe'; and drawing from the Wikipedia quote you excerpted in the other thread: nuclearboy: Now, which one of these terms is particularly applicable to the 'tithe' - [list][li]terumah?[/li][/list] [list][li]ma'aser rishon?[/li][/list] [list][li]terumat ma'aser?[/li][/list] [list][li]ma'aser sheni?[/li][/list] [list][li]ma'aser ani?[/li][/list] [list][li]ma'aser kesafim?[/li][/list] [list][li]terumah gedola?[/li][/list] The point is that all of them point to the 'tithe'; but we know they don't all mean the same thing. However, the reason why I ask questions like the above is to help us see that the broad conclusions we sometimes make from other people's arguments are unfounded. This is why I agreed with Image123 that you had based most of your arguments and conclusions on Wikipedia instead of studying issues a bit more closely for yourself. Again, people read the above Wiki excerpt and then run on to assume that tithes did not involve money at any instance. If that were true, why mention the terumah at all? If you're going to draw from other sources (like those terms mentioned in Wikipedia), no problem. However, please note that they are based more particularly on Jewish interpretations of the texts in the Hebrew Bible. That being so, perhaps we need to pay a bit more attention to the meaning given to 'tithes' by Jewish scholars, if we would obtain any balanced understanding on the subject. |
Re: Nuclearboy . . . On Abraham, Genesis 14 by viaro: 5:49pm On May 14, 2010 |
^^^ In a way, the above post seems to take care of this (a) part: viaro: So, let's look at your arguments as outlined in the other parts. |
Re: Nuclearboy . . . On Abraham, Genesis 14 by Nobody: 6:14pm On May 14, 2010 |
im waiting for noetic to join the debate |
Re: Nuclearboy . . . On Abraham, Genesis 14 by nuclearboy(m): 6:30pm On May 14, 2010 |
Mathematically, TENTH and TITHE mean THE SAME THING. However, theologically and today, they mean different things. I live in Nigeria, Viaro, and I hear "The TITHE is the Lords" all the time. It is preached and shouted from every nook and cranny. BUT you will not hear "The tenth is the Lords" if you understand what I mean. In effect, the word TITHE has come to be seen, to mean, a debt that is binding. It is only for that reason that I seperate the meaning of the two in Abram's story. He gave a tenth, NOT a "debt" tithe! So yes, Abram gave a "tenth" to Melchizedek. Why did he do this?
The above informs that this "TENTH" was a custom, not based on Holiness or Righteousness, but as a tradition of many (almost universal) ancient peoples. The Biblical passage says Abram refused to take any portion aside what his men took. For purposes of math simplicity, I call that the remaining 90% or 9/10. That went back to the Sodomites. Thats what the Word says. The issue of ownership of the SPOILS OF WAR - laws of conquest would determine that the "spoils of war" were Abram's due, since he was the one who warred and won them. However, he refused that, spoke out and said he was returning all to the sodomites who "owned" them (according to him). Lot was his reason for war rather than conquest or profit. That example informed my asking why 9/10s are not preached today amongst us - how many would ever think to give out so much? Come to think of it, the tenth was an ancient acceptable "pagan" custom whist the 9/10 was the "gift". So if we are to follow that example, Viaro, we should pay 9/10 rather than "tithe" if what we are doing is following Abram's example. Your last query is that he gave "his tithe". Well yes, he did, but most likely to fulfill traditions demands. What I see now is him giving 9/10s which ought to have come to him. Insisting we follow the tenth/tithe part today is saying we should follow a pagan tradition because Abram followed it. What we rather should do is go out of our way to help others (NOT FOR PERSONAL PROFIT) as Abram did ![]() I tithed for years on end, Viaro, until I saw a listing of every single time tithes were mentioned BEFORE the law and AFTER it. Periods during the law were omitted. It made interesting reading |
Re: Nuclearboy . . . On Abraham, Genesis 14 by nuclearboy(m): 6:37pm On May 14, 2010 |
@ Christians: The following quote made me remember who I'm supposed to be - a Christian "sincerely" searching for truth. Reminds me of another quote - DON'T confuse me with the FACTS as I already made up my mind! Truth often offends those who believe they already have it. Keep this in mind as you study contrary views. It's not uncommon for those who believe they already know what the truth is about any issue or given subject, to be offended (sometimes even angered) about an alternative. Challenging certain teachings that have been accepted as true tends to be agitating. This is often true of many Christians--in virtually any capacity--who generally don't appreciate challenges (cordial or otherwise) to doctrines they sincerely believe and have held for years. Thankfully, sincerity and time have no effect on scriptural truths. Keep in mind that with regard to all matters of faith and practice, the only standard for believers is the Bible. What we've believed for long should not be the acceptable alternative to the Word of God ![]() |
Re: Nuclearboy . . . On Abraham, Genesis 14 by viaro: 7:40pm On May 14, 2010 |
nuclearboy: Whatever people are shouting from anywhere, it does not make any sense for us to turn to unnecessary divides. So with tithe and tenth - whether mathematically, theologically, or otherwise, they mean the same thing in basic understanding. There is no reason to try so hard to make it mean something different - for doing so only makes us as guilty as others who seek unnecessary interpolations here and there. Tithe is simply the tenth. nuclearboy: It doesn't matter - Abraham gave 'tithes' (Genesis 14:20) is the same as Abraham gave 'the tenth' (Hebrews 7:4). They are the same. nuclearboy: Commander, I beg you to listen carefully to what I say and not what I did not say. I have said that my enquiry would be primarily in light of Scripture; so if you're going to appeal to other sources, I could allow for that as far as clarifications are necessary. Therefore, there is nothing in all those excerpts you quoted to show that the tithe/tenth was not based on holiness or righteousness - at best, that is what you want to force upon the issue of tithe/tenth; but that is not what Scripture presents to us. Now, to deal with the following points in yours which seem to be responding to the points I raised: nuclearboy: No sir, that is what you say and is not what the Word of God says. Quite often, we have traditionally taken the whole passage to mean that 90% went back to the king of Sodom, but that is simply wishful thinking. Let me discuss this by raising a few questions: 1. If 10% of the spoils went to Melchizedek, on what basis would any careful reader assume that the remaining 90% went back to the king of Sodom? 2. If we are to insist that 90% went back to the king of Sodom, then indeed none of Abraham's confederates got anything out of the spoils - which is not what Scripture teaches. 3. If Abraham's confederates took their portion, on what Scriptural basis could they have done so? And wouldn't that suggest that 90% did not go back to the king of Sodom? 4. On what basis at all, if any, would the king of Sodom stand to claim back any portion/percentage of the spoils of war? These preliminary questions are vital in the sense that the answers are there in God's Word; but they are not what we often conclude. Point is that, the king of Sodom did not get any 90% back from Abraham. In fact, if we carefully read the passage in context, the king of Sodom got absolutely NOTHING from Abraham. That is the most basic point; and when we miss this, all kinds of unfounded conclusions begin to emerge here and there to justify an anti-tithing stance. However, I'm leaving them open for now, for if you disagree then please furnish me with your reasons, and I shall then show you why I think you did not consider the verses in the spirit of the Word. However, please note: Abraham's tithe to Melchizedek is NOT 'pagan' - it was not out of "custom" that Abraham gave tithes to Melchizedek. If you argue to the contrary, please let me know why you do so and believe that Abraham's tithes were 'pagan tithes' and based on pagan customs. nuclearboy: Not in one bit. We don't read anywhere that Abraham was 'returning' anything to the people of Sodom. And I agree with you that the spoils belonged to Abraham - and that is why it is factually wrong for Christian theologians to argue that he tithed from what did not belong to him. Before the 'crash', I had questioned Gary Arnold on that same point (which he never in one instance obliged any answers); but then, more to the point was that, if Abraham had tithed out of what did not belong to him by right, then he would have been displaying theft and not tithe - by the same laws of conquest. I know this, because those with a Ph.D who argue tithes to make Abaraham's tithes a matter of pagan customs are being dishonest. For one, I know that Russell Kelly's argument on that is fallacious, because even where he'd cited Hugo Grotius' work, he was reading something entirely different from what Grotius had written. Of course, you may disgaree - but you would have to show me where any verse says that Abraham was returning anything to the king of Sodom, let alone that being a 90% anywhere. nuclearboy: Lol, I'm not interested in Abraham's reason for war - I would rather be interested in his reason for his tithing to Mlechizedek and to no other king! Have you thought through that? If you had, then all the preceding would be quite unnecessary - because in that very consideration lies your answer. nuclearboy: Abraham's tithes (as far as Scripture goes) is NOT presented to us as a 'pagan custom'. To insist that it was would simply mean you ignore who Melchizedek was in the first place. Besides, why would Abraham have tithed to Melchizedek and to no other king? nuclearboy: We can follow Abraham's example without trying to be a legalistic clone of the patriarch. We are called the children of Abraham in the NT, no? And if so, does the NT ask us to become clones of the patriarch? What I see in all this is simply a principle and not legalism. I tend to think that Jewish scholars also do not drag on a legalistic interpretation on Biblical tithes all the way. In fact, many Jews (especially orthodox Jews) who still tithed today, do so on their income in addition to agricultural tithes on crops grown in Israel. nuclearboy: We are agreed that he gave tithes as HIS. Good. But I do not agree with you that it was to fulfill "traditions demand". That is a fallacy as far as Scripture is concerned. If we are to argue and insist on such, my first question is this: why did he tithed to Melchizedek and not to any other king at all? A second question: what did Melchizedek "demand" from Abraham so the latter could then "fulfill" the said 'tradition'? nuclearboy: Without insisting, there are good grounds to follow Abraham's example. The only reason, IMO, why anti-tithers reject (and do not understand Abraham's tithe at all) is because they have written it all off as "pagan tithes". That is the biggest hindrance they've put themselves, and that is one reason why I wanted to rub minds with you on this subject. nuclearboy: I began to tithe after coming to an understanding that God has never called any of His people to legalism. Even under the OT, the basic tenets we preach for NT giving are all found ion the OT. It all depends on how one interpretes what he/she reads (What is written in the law? how readest thou? - Luke 10:26). If we read God's Word in such legalistic manner, we can be sure to arrive at very warped conclusions. ![]() |
Re: Nuclearboy . . . On Abraham, Genesis 14 by viaro: 7:45pm On May 14, 2010 |
nuclearboy: Hehe, if we already make up our minds in the face of facts, would there be any need to engage our thinking and hearts? My attitude often in searching out things is to adopt a big 'L' sign on my back - you know, like a learner would have on a car he's learning to drive. "Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise" - I Cor. 3:18. I I just love this: nuclearboy: Well spoken. |
Re: Nuclearboy . . . On Abraham, Genesis 14 by nuclearboy(m): 8:19pm On May 14, 2010 |
Chairman: ![]() ![]() ![]() viaro: I explained my particular aversion to the word tithe rather than tenth. I stated it is a personal thing and I thank God that someplace in your post, you allow for "personal interpretations". Death is not always death, Viaro. Death by a judge's order has the same effect as by a mob action. One is justice but the other is travesty of justice. We both know that Ok, you say it cannot be proved it wasn't due to Holiness or Righteousness. Same goes for "due to customs and traditions. In lieu of proof for the existence of newer evidence, I would suppose what would be acceptable would be what was normal in those days being the reason. That is my honest opinion. concerning your points [1], [2], [3] and [4], I wrote in my post that "for simplicity of calculation, I said 90% went to Sodom." But that in actuality, a portion went to Abram's companions. How you missed that suprises me. And the basis that the king would stand to get back anything was specified by Abram himself in saying "I take nothing belonging to you so you can never say you enriched me" Abram in effect says, the property would not be touched by himself. You say Abram returned nothing back (is that the same as gave nothing back or better still, that the King of Sodom got nothing back?). Please show me how you arrived at this. What I see is you saying that what Abram said was "the goods are mine so its not your property I'm taking so don't for a minute think you can say it was your stuff that made me rich. I paid my tithe to Melchizedek because its my property so get out of the way" Let me stop here and get a response to the above statement. That would clarify your thoughts on this. But my thoughts I make clear here - In saying "I will accept nothing belonging to you , but what my men have eaten and the share that belongs to the men that were with me", Abram was refusing to take anything. Whether those goods were then burnt or further donated to Melchizedek would then be of no import. But he had said they belonged to someone and it was the king of Sodom he was addressing. |
Re: Nuclearboy . . . On Abraham, Genesis 14 by aletheia(m): 9:51pm On May 14, 2010 |
. . .Sorry. I am going off point. Just need to respond to this: Deep Sight:Be sick no more. I do not have multiple I.D.s on this forum. . .just plain old aletheia. |
Re: Nuclearboy . . . On Abraham, Genesis 14 by viaro: 10:16pm On May 14, 2010 |
nuclearboy: Okay sir. I respect your personal aversion to the word tithe. That is quite a relief from your previous stance that: "He gave a TENTH (that word, NOT tithes, was used) to Melchizedek". When you said "NOT tithes", my brows were raised somewhat and I thought I might've been reading my Bible from the wrong page to front, haha. nuclearboy: Aiight. I just wanted to point out that both words (tithes and tenth) are used in Scripture in regards to Abraham. nuclearboy: I like your attitude and respect your opinion, although I tend to see things around this issue somewhat differently. The reasons will be shared with you in due course, and that was why I had asked why it was to Melchizedek in particular that Abraham would have tithed to, and not rather to another king. Suffice to say that if it was merely a matter of customs, Abraham would have given that tithe to someone else than to Melchizedek. nuclearboy: No, I did not miss what you stated earlier - and that was why I asked [1], [2], [3] and [4] in that sequence - they follow one another and are related. Yet, the whole point, as I have said plainly, is that the king of Sodom (Bera) in Genesis 14 got nothing back from Abraham. I shall show this in due course; but I don't go the same route as jumping to conclusions as some have done on that chapter. nuclearboy: Yes, that is what I meant - that Bera the king of Sodom got absolutely nothing back of the spoils from Abraham. I will show that in due course, sir. ![]() nuclearboy: If that is how you want to put it in military lingo, then yes sir! ![]() nuclearboy: Now I shall try to elucidate on your concerns and answer accordingly. |
Re: Nuclearboy . . . On Abraham, Genesis 14 by viaro: 10:18pm On May 14, 2010 |
Here now is the matter: nuclearboy: Yes, that is what I meant - that Bera the king of Sodom got absolutely nothing back of the spoils from Abraham. I will show that in due course, sir. ![]() From the argument that Abraham gave 90% back to the king of Sodom, two things immediately present themselves to us: [list]1. that Abraham had tithed from what did not belong to him; and -[/list] [list]2. Bera (the king of Sodom) tried to claim the spoils of war for himself.[/list] The first of these two we have dealth with and are agreed. However, for the benefit of others who have long held to such notions, I shall try and show the fallacy in the argument that the spoils of war did not belong to Abraham. As always, my answers shall be in light of Scripture. The Spoils of War Belonged to Abraham Indeed, the spoils of war belonged to Abraham - that is what Scripture teaches, and that is what I'll try and present here. One does not take other people's property without legal rights and begin to act upon them as they wish, for that would be theft - and that would seriously sully the principles of conscience and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Here then are a few reasons for Abraham's rights to the spoils of war: (a) According to Genesis 14, the warfare had involved four against five kings (verses 8-9). Verse 10 reveals the fate of Bera king of Sodom: he with the king of Gomorrah had fled and fallen at the vale of Siddim - ie., they effectively met their defeat at that place. Hence, those who had been defeated could not afterwards come back to lay legal claim to any spoils of war, for their defeat effectively showed that they had lost everything indeed (verse 11)! (b) The fact that the spoils of war belonged to Abraham is found in Melchizedek’s declaration: “blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand” (Gen. 14:20). What would that have meant in practical terms? From Deuteronomy 20:10-14, it is clear that it is always a principle of warfare that the victor claims all the spoils: [list]'When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee. And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it: And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and ALL THAT IS IN THE CITY, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.[/list] (c) Thus, when Melchizedek declared in Genesis 14:20 that 'blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand', it meant simply that ALL the spoils of war belonged to Abraham! And that was why he could effectively act upon the spoils as his own - first giving tithes (yes, TITHES of all) to Melchizedek; and afterwards portions to his confederates: Aner, Eschol and Mamre. Were it not that the spoils were legally Abraham's, he could NOT at any time had taken from it to give a tithe to anyone from them, nor could he have given portions to his confederates. (d) The giving of portions to anyone from warfare actually was the prerogative of the one who claimed victory in that warfare. For example, Israel could say to Joseph: "Moreover I have given to thee one portion above thy brethren, which I took out of the hand of the Amorite with my sword and with my bow" (Gen. 48:22). See Numbers 31 also. The above then is how we understand why the spoils of war legally belonged to Abraham - for the benefit of those who might be wondering about this. However, since a few of my friends like to argue over and over again from Ph.D anti-tithers that the spoils did not belong to Abraham, let me go directly to the source from which many of them pull out that argument and deal with it. Russell Kelly, Ph.D is one such anti-tithing theologian who makes such an argument; and it seems to me that the excerpts you had cited in post #10 above might've been taken from his webpage (scroll down to almost the bottom of this page under the sub-title: "PAGAN TITHES: GENESIS 14" ![]() Russell Kelly: "In the same manner the Greeks too, the Carthaginians, and the Romans devoted a tenth portion of the spoils of war to their deities." (On the Acquisition of Territory and Property by Right of Conquest) When you click on that link in the quote, it takes you to chapter 6 of Hugo Grotius' "De Jure Belli ac Pacis". It may shock Russell's fawning crowd to see that Grotius does not regard Abraham's tithes as "pagan". This is what comes immediately before the above quote: [list]According to this right, as we find in the fourteenth chapter of Genesis, Abraham devoted to God a tenth part of the spoils, which he had taken from the five kings: and the inspired writer in the seventh chapter of his Epistle to the Hebrews gives the same interpretation of this passage. source: http://www.constitution.org/gro/djbp_306.htm [/list] It is sad when Christian ministers and theologians try to blow smoke in people's eyes. For the life of me, I just wonder how Russell Kelly with a Ph.D on tithes would so shamelessly try to gull his readers! In citing Hugo Grotius' work to argue 'pagan tithes' for Abraham, we find that Grotius himself made no such conclusions or arguments - infact, Russell would have you believe the direct opposite of what Grotius had stated! For those who may not have noticed this cheap trick of Kelly, I hope they can rest now and stop recycling that fallacy that the spoils did not belong to Abraham, or that Abraham's tithes were pagan. There are whole loads of questions to ask Russell and his friends on that - but let's leave that for another day. Bottom line, no sincere theologian would argue against plain facts from Scripture. Abraham's tithes were not pagan; Scripture does not say so; and leaving the eisegesis of Russell aside, we can put paid to this matter. The spoils belonged to Abraham. Next, I would go on to deal with the second part of the enquiry, viz: that "2. Bera (the king of Sodom) tried to claim the spoils of war for himself" and why that is not quite true. |
Re: Nuclearboy . . . On Abraham, Genesis 14 by nuclearboy(m): 10:41pm On May 14, 2010 |
You're using a command given in Deut to "tell" Abram in Genesis that he owned the Spoils? ![]() One question you asked that I didn't answer was why it was Melchizedek he gave the tenth to rather than another king. The passage informs us that it was Melchizedek who blessed Abram. Who would you give to, Viaro? Note that we are not aware of any other "not-involved" king being present at that meeting. Chairman: Lets make this easy: - Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim and Bela lost their possessions along with Lot and his property. Abraham warred and got back these possessions. The conquest informs he, as conqueror, now owned them. Then Abram said he would take nothing of "what belonged to the king of Sodom" except what his companions had taken. What happened to the possessions aside the "tenth" and the portion belonging to Aner, Eshcol and Mamre? Please Viaro, answer this question without many words. And in the same succint response, tell us what it was he was saying belonged to the King of Sodom that he declined to take from the King of Sodom. |
Re: Nuclearboy . . . On Abraham, Genesis 14 by viaro: 10:47pm On May 14, 2010 |
As to the second concern, viz: that "2. Bera (the king of Sodom) tried to claim the spoils of war for himself" and why that is not quite true, let me draw again from yours: nuclearboy: I believe that Bera (the king of Sodom) got absolutely nothing back from Abraham. Let me show why (basically, I'm just repeating the same response to these same queries, so nothing here is original. I can't find the reference, but I'll just post them anyways). Genesis 14:18-24 does not teach that Abraham gave any 90% of the spoils to the king of Sodom. We have tended to read that idea into the text (eisegesis) rather than study them a bit more closely. Such assumptions are completely unsupported anywhere by the verses in Genesis 14, nor by any other verses in the Bible, nor even by the external references cited for it (such as Hugo Grotius’ “De Jure Belli ac Pacis”). 1. First, we have noted that Bera the king of Sodom was defeated in the vale of Siddim (Gen. 14:10). We also noted that, according to the laws of conquest (which Hugo Grotius so well encapsulates in his work), only the victor could legally lay claim to the spoils of war and not the defeated. Since the king of Sodom had lost everything in that war (verse 11), there was just no grounds for him to approach Abraham to claim anything on any legal grounds - and that is why Abraham could not have assumed that the the king of Sodom had any legitimacy of any claims. 2. Second, what could possibly be meant by Abraham’s response to the king of Sodom in verses 22-24? It’s easy to see – the moment we ignore what Melchizedek said to Abraham (because people dubiously see “pagan tithes” there), then we miss everything else. It was the Most High God that gave everything to Abraham – that was what Melchizedek recognized when he blessed Abraham: “blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand” (Gen. 14:20). 3. From the same inference given in Deut. 20:14 (”and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies“), we can understand WHY Abraham made the statement in Gen. 14:24 – “Save only that which the young men have eaten, and the portion of the men which went with me, Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre; LET THEM HAVE THEIR PORTION“. Abraham was not adjudicating over what did not belong to him; indeed, it would have been wrong of him to have taken what was not his in the victory of that war and then given them to other people (the priest of God, Melchizedek; and his confederates – Aner, Eschol and Mamre). 4. Now if Abraham gave 90% to the king of Sodom, what “portion” was he referring to in verse 24 – “and the portion of the men which went with me, Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre; let them take their portion“? The spoils belong to the conquerors (according to Deut. 20:12-14); therefore, Russell and his colleagues would have to intelligently explain where Abraham got the “portion” for his confederates if he gave 90% to the king of Sodom. More to the point is this fact that should not be ignored: if Abraham was saying that the spoils belonged to the king of Sodom (on which grounds he was getting 'back' the 90%), what then did he mean by 'I will not take any thing that is thine' in verse 23? Let's remember that Abraham said he made that statement on an oath (verse 22 - 'I have lift up mine hand unto the LORD')!! The thing to note here is this: if Abraham made an oath not to take anything that was belonging to the king of Sodom, it only means that he did not consider the spoils of war to be legally the latter's. If he did, then he had already violated that oath - because he had taken from the spoils and given tithes of it to Melchizedek as well as portions from the same spoils to his confederates! The fact that Abraham had given tithes and portions from the spoils to others only comes back to show us that he did not consider the king of Sodom to have any legal claims of rights to the spoils - more so when Bera had met his defeat in the vale of Siddim and had lost everything previously (Gen. 14:10-11). I don't find anywhere in the law of conquests that the defeated would still have any legal claims to what he had lost. For these reasons, I think that the ideas many (even those with a Ph.D) have been arguing around Abraham's tithes are fallacious when closely considered in light of Scripture. They tend to just assume things into the texts without showing anything - and in some cases (as in Russell Kelly's), they force their own eisegesis into the texts and then quote other authors in such a way as to deceive the gullible reader who does not take the time to check carefully. |
Re: Nuclearboy . . . On Abraham, Genesis 14 by viaro: 10:53pm On May 14, 2010 |
nuclearboy: No sir. Rather, I am considering issues in light of Scripture; and in face of ancillary evidence to the point I made - which was why I pointed out the fine point that Hugo Grotius had made on Abraham's tithes in Genesis 14 (the very same reference that Russell Kelly Ph.D had cited). I only considered issues by asking basic questions, such as "What would that have meant in practical terms?" If we only take our reading and give the texts our own private interpretations without looking at the bigger picture, we would be forcing our own eisegesis into God's Word - which, as we have seen, is why the anti-tithers arguing Abraham's tithes to be pagan tradition simply have no leg to stand on. nuclearboy: I had anticipated your questions and had explained accordingly - see post #19 above. ![]() nuclearboy: Please see post #19 above. |
Re: Nuclearboy . . . On Abraham, Genesis 14 by viaro: 11:11pm On May 14, 2010 |
@nuclearboy, There are still a few things I would like to pick your brains on: viaro: But I do not agree with you that it was to fulfill "traditions demand". That is a fallacy as far as Scripture is concerned. If we are to argue and insist on such, my first question is this: why did he tithed to Melchizedek and not to any other king at all? A second question: what did Melchizedek "demand" from Abraham so the latter could then "fulfill" the said 'tradition'? Perhaps a third question: on what grounds would Melchizedek be the king to have received tithes from Abraham, seeing that there were other kings within vicinity, as well that at least one other king who went out to meet Abraham? I don't think it was about fulfilling some 'traditions demand' - those questions would have to be considered in light of Scripture. However, I think that when we answer those questions, we shall get to see why the argument of 'pagan tithes' for Abraham is unfounded and altogether NOT what Scripture tells us. |
Re: Nuclearboy . . . On Abraham, Genesis 14 by nuclearboy(m): 11:16pm On May 14, 2010 |
No Viaro: You evaded my questions. Here again is what I'm saying [1] Abram gave a tenth to Melchizedek [2] His men had "eaten some" [3] He allowed that Aner and the other two had their portion [] FOR SIMPLICITY IN COMPUTATION, I ignored 2 and 3 and said Abram gave the rest back to Sodom. There is no argument over [2] and [3] above. Even before you pointed out the mathematical discrepancy, I had said myself that the use of 90% was to simplify and show that he didn't take anything for himself. My questions remain [1] what "properties" of the King of Sodom did he reject taking? [2] Who, according to the Biblical passage, did Abram (not ME or YOU or Deuteronomy) say owned these "properties"? [3] If according to your most recent post, Abram did take the properties, would he have been able to say I will not take thine so you cannot say you enriched me? Think about that statement - It was spoils of war that he believed to be his; why then say "I'm not taking what is yours so that you can't say you enriched me"? See Viaro, I have moved from one point of view to another already when I stopped believing tithes were a duty. And I assure you I find it very easy to accept when I am wrong. All you need to convince me that I was wrong is to answer these 2 questions and kill this issue once and for all. Russell et al mean nothing to me. What I read is what I'm thinking about! BTW, the King of Sodom did not, as you say, try to claim the "spoils of war" (goods and riches) for himself. All he asked for were his people. In asking for them, one gets the idea that morally, it was agreed that he "could" want the property back (but he didn't). Does it make sense to say "keep the goods which we all know are yours anyway! but give me the people which we both know are yours too since you won"? VIARO, you are not reading my posts! I answered about Melchizedek earlier - He blessed Abram and he is the only non-involved king we hear of being present. Who would you have given the "tenth" to? |
Re: Nuclearboy . . . On Abraham, Genesis 14 by viaro: 11:20pm On May 14, 2010 |
Sorry, I might have missed this: nuclearboy: Well, I really would have loved you to carefully consider that (or those) question(s). However, the last part of your comment ('that we are not aware of any other "not-involved" king being present at that meeting') does not seem to have considered Genesis 14:17 - "the king of Sodom went out to meet him after his return from the slaughter of Chedorlaomer". It was the king of Sodom that first went out to meet Abraham on the return of the warfare - in just the same way that Melchizedek is said to have met the patriarch on his return from that warfare (Heb. 7:1 - 'Melchisedec, king of Salem, . . . who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings'). Besides who first met who after the return of Abraham, my point is this: on what basis indeed could anyone have argued that Genesis 14 presents Abraham's tithes as pagan tithes that was fulfilling 'traditions demands'? How could this have been so, considering that chapter? Why would Melchizedek have been the one to whom Abraham would give tithes if it was according to the pagan tradition of the day? |
Re: Nuclearboy . . . On Abraham, Genesis 14 by nuclearboy(m): 11:45pm On May 14, 2010 |
Still evasive and avoiding what I am saying! I'm trying to picture this - Say I am the King of Sodom and you are Abram. After losing my possessions, I meet/welcome you who has just won them in war. As at this time, I am unsure how you plan to handle the issue but accept that what I lost, you gained and only just welcome you if not for getting them back "for me", at least for conquering my enemies. But there is ANOTHER king who joins us. This is Melchizedek who is a Priest. He takes bread and wine and blesses you. After Melchizedek prays for you, you give him a tenth of these goods. He is the "non-involved" king I mentioned since he was not involved in the war UNLIKE the King of Sodom. I then sheepishly come before you and plead that you let me have my people. I also say you should keep all the gold/whatever. But you say "let Aner, Esckol and Mamre have their portions". You also say your men have eaten some of the food. Aside this, you want nothing" Nothing of WHAT? you also say you do not wish I ever be able to say I enriched you. WOULD THIS NOT RESULT FROM YOU TAKING THESE PROPERTIES YOU HAD DECIDED YOU DIDN'T WANT ANY PART OF? Viaro!!!!!!!!!!! |
Re: Nuclearboy . . . On Abraham, Genesis 14 by viaro: 11:46pm On May 14, 2010 |
nuclearboy: I did not evade anything - which explains why I went into detail. However, not in one line did I argue that Abraham kept anything for himself - for that is not the issue here at all. Yes, Abraham gave it all away and retained nothing for himself - but even at that, two points stand out lucidly: (1) he did not give back anything to the king of Sodom (2) he treated the spoils as his own, so he could then give to others Whether for mathematical simplicity or not, we know that the king of Sodom got nothing 'back' from Abraham. A tenth went to Melchizedek as tithes; and the rest were divided among his confederates as 'portions'. The point here is that the king of Sodom got nothing back from Abraham; and to argue that he did is simply to wish it into the texts without showing anything for that argument. Besides, it would mean that while Abraham was making an oath that he would not take ANY THING that belonged to Sodom, he might as well have broken that oath and from from what might've belonged to the king of Sodom and given to others! What I'm trying to say is this: either we force human ideas into the text, or just ignore what the texts are saying altogether. But if we are to consider them, then a choice faces us between these alternatives - (a) Abraham said he would not take anything that belonged to the king of Sodom; (b) but he had taken from the spoils and given them to others therefore, it is either he actually took what was not rightfully his and belonged rightfully to the king of Sodom; or he did not consider anything to belong to the king of Sodom, and thefore could not stand accused of violating his own oath. nuclearboy: The king of Sodom had absolutely NOTHING to claim! I have made this point repeatedly. Look again at the laws of conquest or of any verses in Scripture and show me what legal rights that a defeated person had to claim anything in warfare? Since the king of Sodom had fallen at the vale of Siddim (v. 10 - his defeat) and had lost everything (v. 11), on what grounds would he have come back to claim anything after suffering such a defeat? Please show me answers from Scripture or from Hugo Grotius work on "On the Acquisition of Territory and Property by Right of Conquest". nuclearboy: Abraham. That is the one person who could claim any legal rights to the spoils of war - and you also acknowledged it as such. Everywhere you look - whether in Melchizedek's statement in Genesis 14; or in the Law in Deuteronomy 20; or in Hugo Grotius; or even in your own arguments, Abraham owned the spoils of war. nuclearboy: Yes, and I have explained what that meant - it simply meant that the king of Sodom had absolutely NO LEGAL RIGHTS or claims to the spoils. If we cannot see this simple fact, then we would be saying that the spoils belonged to the king of Sodom even though he had suffered the loss of all things (Gen. 14:11); and also that Abraham would have violated his oath that he would not take anything that belonged to the king of Sodom - because he had already taken from the spoils to give as tithes to Melchizedek! nuclearboy: As above - because the king of Sodom had absolutely no legal claim on anything. Show me from any source that the king of Sodom as a defeated king could then lay claim to anything - whether from Genesis 14, or Deuteronomy 20, or from Hugo Grotius. nuclearboy: Okay, bro - consider my answers above for now. nuclearboy: On what grounds would the defeated king even try to dictate who keeps what? That would be a garrulous laughter. You remind me here of someone who lost a football match, then as the loser, he tries to dictate to others what they should do with the trophy! Ha-ha! ![]() ![]() Okay, seriously now. . . forget that funny chap the king of Sodom. He had no rights to any claims as much as the king of Gomorrah also had no rights (for both of them fell at the vale of Siddim). Nobody there considered anything as belonging to the king of Sodom. nuclearboy: I saw it afterwards, sorry. Even so, that is not the reason at all. Please think about it carefully. ![]() |
Re: Nuclearboy . . . On Abraham, Genesis 14 by viaro: 11:57pm On May 14, 2010 |
nuclearboy: This is where you're getting it all wrong! The king of Sodom might've met Abraham after the conquest just as Melchizedek met him; but in the case of the king of Sodom, what makes you think it was a 'welcome' he was offering Abraham? 'Welcome' - on what grounds? I'll tell you who was doing the welcome - look at Melchizedek who met Abraham with bread and wine. Hehe, commander. . forget that loser the king of Sodom - the guy had no rights of claims anywhere and anyhow. nuclearboy: This is altogether on another plain entirely. The 'joining' is a non-starter. The king of Sodom there did not share in that meeting between Abraham and Melchizedek - for if it were otherwise so, then something intrinsic would have been presented before us. nuclearboy: Perhaps you're getting it all mixed up again. Your argument initially was inclined to say that Abraham gave tithes more as a matter of fulfilling 'tradition' - not because someone was there who stood ready to bless him. I am more concerned about this "tradition" you took, and that was why I asked why it would be Melchizedek in particular that Abraham would have given the tithes to. Was the "tradition" a matter of someone who blessed another being qualified thereto to receive the tithes? nuclearboy: No, not quite. If I do not recognize your claims to anything, I would make the same statements as did Abraham. Only if you had any legal claims of rights after the conquest, would I begin to say something else. You would never be able to claim anywhere that you made me rich, especially if you had lost everything at the vale of Siddim! I then could rightly say to you that you cannot prevent anyone from having their portion in that spoil of warfare - since you have no grounds to dictate anything to anyone. nuclearboy: Yes sir!! Three salute to my commander! ![]() |
Re: Nuclearboy . . . On Abraham, Genesis 14 by nuclearboy(m): 8:24am On May 15, 2010 |
Viaro: This is the most amazing set of responses I ever read. Its interesting you believe I am the one reading what is not there with your assertions plus you are answering what you want and ignoring others. You're really just highlighting/addressing what I would consider the most mundane issues here leaving the weightier matters. AND PLEASE NOTE - not once have I said "oh ok, now you have agreed with this and that means that". That is not a good way to "rub minds". ![]() When I say Sodom met/welcomed him, you latch on to "welcome" and turn that into a big thing - did you ever consider my choice of words means he saw him or they accidentally met or he welcomed him or whatever. I didn't say there was a ceremony involved that showed any "claims/whatever", did I? After I said the laws of conquest would infer Abram owned the Spoils, you keep and keep and keep saying Sodom had no claim and buttressing this with "the light of scripture" that comes hundreds of years after. Would it make sense to you for me to use our standards today and thus "agree" with Mazaje that Yahweh was murderous; not considering first, the ways of the "times" and the personalities involved?! And again, I have repeatedly said he didn't have a "LEGAL" claim so why you keep repeating this, I do not know. But I'll bet you will now latch on to the word LEGAL now forgetting I'm talking about a concept not a court case. [i]wondering "Am I conversing with Viaro or did the LAWYER part of DeepSight get his password?"[/i] Please, stop saying the King of sodom had no rights - that is not in consideration here. The passage discusses [1] Sodom meeting Abram [2] Melchizedek blessing him [3] Sodom discussing with him IN THAT ORDER. How you imagine Sodom wasn't a part of (or shared in) that meeting beats me. This again is another non-issue anyway and I wonder why it is of import to you My argument that Abram gave Melchizedek a "tenth" - Yes, it was an accepted tradition. We've seen that from references. YOU however, are saying that in Abram's case, it was based on something else. This is my argument - everyone has been pissing all their lives when their bladders are full. Viaro says NO, in my case, I do it when I'm hungry. AND THEN YOU ASK ME TO PROVE THAT IT IS WHEN BLADDERS ARE FULL ![]() If I DO NOT recognise your right to something, I would NOT SAY "I'm taking nothing so you cannot EVER say it was your riches that made me wealthy". And if I said "I'm taking nothing except the portions (due to the rules of conquest) that belong to the others FROM YOU", that would "normally" mean you can have the rest. I think we've beaten this issue enough. We've not seen who the rest (aside the "tenth", the portion of the 3 and what was eaten) went to. In lieu of that (except you can let me know who it went to), I believe it reasonable that it went back to Sodom's King or Peoples. Please leave the arguments and interpretations and answer just this - who got the rest (again FOR SIMPLICITY) 90% that Abram declined to take and that you've accepted he didn't take? That would prove your point easily. |
Re: Nuclearboy . . . On Abraham, Genesis 14 by nuclearboy(m): 8:33am On May 15, 2010 |
Tell you what, Viaro - this is warfare by attrition. ![]() ![]() ![]() Could other people just come in and let me know if I've lost my mind or not? Are we discussing what I'm reading in front of me. your assertions have gotten me to read these few verses close to a hundred times in under 24 hours. You're going to get me to take a "carbonated' drink this morning. ![]() Help, anyone? Have I lost it? ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Re: Nuclearboy . . . On Abraham, Genesis 14 by viaro: 9:10am On May 15, 2010 |
Good morning, commander. A few brief comments to yours: nuclearboy: Okay, I'll try and keep them at the minimum if you may, just so we rub minds. ![]() Yet, what really are the weightier matters you feel I left out? nuclearboy: You should see I was only teasing you there. However, it is inconsequential in so much that you seemed to have taken things for granted and did not consider the circumstances around them. nuclearboy: The reason I kept bringing home that point is that, even though you acknowledged Abraham's rights of claims to the spoils, somehow you want t ignore it altogether and look for lopeholes as to why the king of Sodom could have claimed anything - hence, your argument that the latter got back 90% from Abraham. You can't expect me to just nod in the face of that fallacy and assume all is well. No sir. nuclearboy: I did not assume anything - you on the other hand are reading things into the texts on your assumption. I have said that my answers would be in light of Scripture and kept to that and nothing else - which is why I have tried to discuss my points in detail and consider issues from all sides. However, if one has to consider my reasons why the king of Sodom did not join them in that fellowship, please look again at where their meeting occured - Gen. 14:17 >> it was at the valley of Shaveh that the king of Sodom met the patriarch. Does that strike you at all?!? This, of course, has no weight in what I have been asking you regarding the question of why it was Melchizedek that Abraham should have tithed to and not to any other king at all. The essential point here is WHY that should be the case, on the basis that you seemed to have earlier implied it was in fulfilling a "tradition". WHAT tradition do we find in Genesis 14 that Abraham was fulfilling - and why to Melchizedek? Whether the king of Sodom met the patriarch at the valley of Shaveh or not, still does not answer that basic question. nuclearboy: Please show me the "tradition" that Abraham was obeying in Genesis 14. The reason I keep asking this questions is because a lot of people have just taken that idea and run with it without even for one instance considering what the text says. If you want to argue it based on tradition, then please sir - tell me why it was to Melchizedek that Abraham would have "fulfilled" such a tradition to, and not to some other king at all or besides. The idea that it was because Melchizedek blessed him is not "tradition". Where you find that 'tradition' in that chapter is what I am waiting to see. nuclearboy: How is the onus on me - to provide you answers on your own argument? As far as I'm concerned, I have provided answers in DETAIL as to why the insertion of "tradition" in Genesis 14 is a farce. If you want me to elaborate, I could then accept the 'onus' to do so - and I shall keep within the references we have thus far been looking at. Shall I, sir? nuclearboy: Then why did the same Abraham not give tithes to any other king but rather to Mlechizedek alone? Your answers are flying in the face of simple stated lines in that chapter. If you say that Melchizedek was the only king present who was not involved in the war, that even takes away from the arguement - because then you are arguing against the "tradition" and not in favour of it. It would then mean for you to furnish me with evidence clearly that such was the tradition - please cite references. nuclearboy: No, that would normally mean that you are forcing your eisegesis into the text - and that is pretext, not context. If I have taken what is yours and given to others, I am violating my oath that I have NOT taken "ANY THING" (not even a shoe lace) from what belongs to you! nuclearboy: We've seen it clearly - from all references to the point (Genesis 14; Deuteronomy 20; and Hugo Grotius' work). To say we have not seen it is to deny all references to the case and just maintain the unfounded assertion that rests on mere eisegesis. nuclearboy: Those who got the rest of the spoils were Abraham's confederates - Aner, Eschol and Mamre. If you want me to elaborate and show how, I could oblige you. However, I have again and again requested that you show me WHERE or HOW any defeated king could lay claim to what he had lost. Why have I not seen you do so? ![]() |
Re: Nuclearboy . . . On Abraham, Genesis 14 by aletheia(m): 9:23am On May 15, 2010 |
An interesting exchange. Just a brief comment here: viaro:That it is "tradition" does not necessarily make it wrong. Sometimes we find that the traditions of men are a corruption of God's commands. The fact that tithing was practiced in several societies in antiquity may point to some underlying point of origin for that practice. Just some thoughts. . . |
Re: Nuclearboy . . . On Abraham, Genesis 14 by viaro: 9:32am On May 15, 2010 |
nuclearboy: Hehe, commander - you know your boy. . . viaro has to be careful with his boss so I don't risk e-jail. ![]() nuclearboy: <Hiccup!> I just recovered after my round of carbonated D's - could I join you, hehe? ![]() On a serious note, though, let me reiterate: (1) As regarding the assertion that Abraham did not tithe from what belonged to him, I have shown that the patriarch actually tithed from what belonged to him - the spoils of war belonged to Abraham, and as such, he could tithe from what he claimed was his own. If that were not true, then the patriarch would have been displaying theft rather than rightfully laying claim to the spoils. (this point has been buttressed by all references we have examined - Genesis 14, Deuteronomy 20, Hugo Grotius' work - and we could look for other references to the point). However, if anyone feels that were not so, they could point out the contrary by discussing the references/sources as well. (2) As regarding the assertion that Abraham gave 90% back to the king of Sodom, I have shown that was a fallacy deliberately read into the texts, for the king of Sodom had no legal rights to the spoils and so could not have laid any claim to them in any wise. There is no indication from any cited source (Genesis 14, Deuteronomy 20, and Hugo Grotius' "De Jure Belli ac Pacis" [ie., 'On the Law of War and Peace']) that a defeated king still qualifies to lay claim to what he had lost. Where you feel that the defeated king of Sodom and/or Gommorah qualifies as such, please show the references as well - I'm open and willing to see it. The import of this discussion is simple: although I would not aim to push anyone to change their minds on the subject of tithes, I'm rather concerned that anti-tithers often make unfounded conclusions that fly in the face of simple statements in Scripture. Such unfounded assertions include the following - (a) that Abraham gave tithes from what did not belong to him; (b) that Abraham was fulfilling 'traditions demands' (c) that Abraham returned 90% to the king of Sodom (d) that Abraham's tithes were pagan tithes and has nothing to do with God . . . and from the above, all other unfounded assertions are made, such as - (e) that Abraham's tithes were not holy (f) that Abraham was mandated and thus fulfilling an obligation to Melchizedek (g) that therefore, in all that could be argued, Abraham tithes were NOT 'tithes' (thus, the unnecessary arguments that 'tenths' were used and not 'tithes', etc., etc). If it were just a matter of saying that you have a problem with the word tithe/tithing/tithes, it would not be necessary to ask you to discuss here. However, if you want to push unfounded conclusions from public/open sources that are confusing issues, I would not let it pass (not minding that you're boss, sir). An example is the one from Wikipedia - the article there is quite unfounded in many respects, and I shown just one: terumah. You could also look up the Ma'aser kesafim, and then perhaps you might begin to understand why I agreed initially with Image123 that you are pushing unfounded arguments to the fore. We ought to carefully study issues for ourselves - and not just reharsh the arguments of other people who are just saying things here and there, regardless whether they have written a degree thesis (as in the case of Gary Arnold) or even a Ph.D on tithes (as in Russell Kelly). |
A Wise Man Is Not Cowed By Knowledge But Uses It To Guide Him / Please Convert to African Traditional Religions / The Uncaused; Origins Of The Universe... The Attributes Of The Starter.
(Go Up)
Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 297 |