aletheia:

An interesting exchange. Just a brief comment here: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. . .

Very astute observation there - and I will not argue against that.

The problem I have is for people reading such 'tradition' into Abraham's case in Genesis 14. If anyone would like to push that idea of Abraham fulfilling a "custom" or "tradition", then they would just simply have to show how that is so, especially in light of Scripture.

The reason why I challenge such an idea when passed as an assertive argument for anti-tithing, is because it has no basis in Scripture at all for Abraham. To this end, questions must be asked:

1.  Why would it have been Melchizedek and not some other king that Abraham would have tithed to? (another way to ask this is - On what jurisdiction/jurisprudence could Melchizedek have been the proper king among other kings to have received Abraham's tithes?)

2.  If Abraham's tithes were in fulfilment of a pagan tradition (so that it could be called an example of 'pagan tithe'), does that not seriously affect other things as well? Such things are:

[list](a)  those who call Abraham's tithes 'pagan' are just wishing it so, for they desperately ignore the fact that Melchizedek was the priest of the most high God - Abraham's God.[/list]

[list](b)  they also forget the implication of that assertion - the implication being that, Christianity would be nothing short of paganism! Why? Because the Christian priesthood is after the order of Melchizedek - and if Melchizedek was a pagan priest, then Christianity could be argued to be founded on a pagan priesthood (which is not what Scripture teaches at all).[/list]

[list](c)  to argue paganism into Abraham's tithes would mean that the Levitical priesthood was also obeying paganism - afterall, Levi gave tithes while still in the loins of Abraham (Hebrews 7:9).[/list]

But not minding this, I shall discuss the main reason why Melchizedek received a tithe from Abraham and recognized it as ABRAHAM's TITHES. If Abraham gave from what was not his, then it would be an exchange of thefts, not tithes. History shows this, and as far as I know, the civil and political laws of ancient nations also bear testimony to the fact. However, the basic reason why Melchizedek received the tithes from Abraham has been hinted at by the same Hugo Grotius (whom Russell Kelly cited) - and that reason is this: "Abraham devoted to God a tenth part of the spoils."

This simple point is what Ph.D anti-tithing theologians find a bitter pill to swallow - and that is why they want to cut corners and keep dubiously shouting paganism into Abraham's tithes. That is why I opened this thread to rub minds with nuclearboy - and by extension to challenge that fallacy of "pagan tradition" deliberately read into Abraham's tithes in Genesis 14.

No, Viaro:

I find myself unable to accept much of what you've stated here. My reasons are simple - every question I've asked has been turned into a different question and the answer obviously has thus become answer to a different question. I guess you know why you do this - my concern is for those who read this thread seeing it as a "winning" exercise like Tonye-T has just done. You're providing a means of denial.

I won't bother to count how many times I asked who got the rest that Abram would not touch ASIDE of what Aner, Eshcol and Mamre took. The passage states there was something left aside what was eaten and the portion of those men. I didn't get an answer but a very professional evasiveness that made things go off on an unrelated tangent which yet brought a "conclusion".

I won't bother to count how often I stated that Abram's example was one of Christian free-will offering. Your assertions have reduced him to a robber baron who believed in might at war rather than the blessings God promised him that the passage says he was looking forward to. For the first time, I wonder how Abram could ever be considered worthy of emulation in terms of looking ahead for the fulfillment of God's Promise. Interesting how language and interpretation can be used to change meanings even when clear. Maybe thats why Christian leaders today also have become robber barons. Your Abram is the one they follow.

I won't bother to state how many times I stated here that Sodom had no legitimate claims to the spoils BUT only begged for the people. That alone makes me wonder why you hold on to this one point since the passage informs us that Sodom knew he had no claim. But you repeatedly sit on this turning it left and right and making it the subject of this discussion rather than face the import of Abraham's words themselves.

The issues of "Pd.H" and "Russell whatever" mean nothing to me. Ancient peoples gave tenths. I've made references available which state so. Abram gave a tenth. Why ONLY HIM was different from others in motive, is your position and I leave to you! He gave to the only king that welcomed him, prayed for him and who was a priest (I know this will get lost in your next post). Why you then still keep asking "WHY MELCHIZEDEK" and FOR THIS ALONE require "the light of Scripture", beats me.  Repeated allusions and treatises on Paganism, Ph.D holders and Russell "whatever" is simple quite, well, space filling and an amazing way to evade issues.

There is only one analysis here - Abram's Words! 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

What belonged to Sodom that he would not accept? NOTHING   WHAT WAS SODOM OFFERING HIM THAT HE REJECTED BY THE OATH? Why is that phrase there or was the Bible needing to fulfill a quota of words? I'll take nothing but their share plus what we ate - Share of what and what happened to the "balance"? If their share was everything, why then say "I'm taking nothing but their share plus what we ate". The words "plus what we ate" show the sum was greater than their share.

I used to argue to win but stopped as I advanced in years. I see the exact tactics I used then here so maybe the chickens have come home to roost. But I wonder if this is the sort of thing one wins especially with Christianity the way it is now considering the support this coming from "Viaro" would give?

I want help here. Could others (preferably Aletheia, Krayola, Jesoul, Inesqor) help me see what I'm not seeing here or conversely, show Viaro what I'm saying? I've gone as far as I can personally

nuclearboy:

No, Viaro:

I find myself unable to accept much of what you've stated here. My reasons are simple - every question I've asked has been turned into a different question and the answer obviously has thus become answer to a different question. I guess you know why you do this - my concern is for those who read this thread seeing it as a "winning" exercise like Tonye-T has just done. You're providing a means of denial.

On the contrary, I have not tried to turn the thread into a 'winning' exercise or turn your questions into other questions and thus answered the new questions. What I have done is discussed the essentials in detail and left you to provide counter arguments with cogent references. You don't seem to have done that, and that is why I cannot just accept your assertions to fly in the face of simple attestations on this subject.

nuclearboy:

I won't bother to count how many times I asked who got the rest that Abram would not touch ASIDE of what Aner, Eshcol and Mamre took. The passage states there was something left aside what was eaten and the portion of those men. I didn't get an answer but a very professional evasiveness that made things go off on an unrelated tangent which yet brought a "conclusion".

I have answered this question so many times - unless you just want to say that you don't see it or don't wish to see it. I have said plainly that the king of Sodom did NOT get anything 'back' from Abraham; and I've also discussed why that is so. On the other hand, if you are going to maintain what Scripture does not tell us (such as the highlighted), then you would also have to answer the basic question of what grounds any defeated king would have been qualified to lay claim to spoils of war that are not his own. Do you have any such references? If you don't want to pay any attention to that fact, could it be probably that you cannot find any reference anywhere to maintain your arguments for the eisegesis you inferred for the king of Sodom getting back a 90% from Abraham?

nuclearboy:
I won't bother to count how often I stated that Abram's example was one of Christian free-will offering. Your assertions have reduced him to a robber baron who believed in might at war rather than the blessings God promised him that the passage says he was looking forward to. For the first time, I wonder how Abram could ever be considered worthy of emulation in terms of looking ahead for the fulfillment of God's Promise. Interesting how language and interpretation can be used to change meanings even when clear. Maybe thats why Christian leaders today also have become robber barons. Your Abram is the one they follow.

Dear sir, at this point I would have to say that you have arrived at a very far-fetched conclusion that are not in one instance in my arguments at all. Let's review:

1. If we (you and I) can agree that Abraham's example was one of Christian free-will, what then would be the grounds of anyone in this thread arguing anything to make Abraham's tithes a matter of 'pagan tradition'? Remember that far back in post #12 this thread, I have agreed with you on this same issue in saying:

      -  'We can follow Abraham's example without trying to be a legalistic
         clone of the patriarch.' . . . and:
      -  'What I see in all this is simply a principle and not legalism.'

2.  I made those two comments in answer to your comments that 'the tenth was an ancient acceptable "pagan" custom whist the 9/10 was the "gift"' (see again your own quote in my rejoinder in #12). And I have maintained throughout that Abraham's tithes are not taught as fulfilling any 'pagan tradition or custom' - which was why I have consistently challenged such an interpretation and asked you to show me why you have done held that idea. You have not shown me any thing at all to justify such a 'pagan'  interpolation for Abraham's tithes; and I wonder now that you are alleging I had reduced the patriarch to a robber baron. I don't think that is a fair submission on your part - please go back and carefully read my comments again.

3.  So, as long as we are agreed on the fact that Abraham's tithes could be an example of Christian free-will, our concerns diverge on the basis of how we came to draw any such conclusions. You implied that it was 'pagan custom'; I argued seriously that it is not so - the reason for my arguments is that such an interpretation has serious implications for us as Christians. The basic of all is this: infer paganism into Abraham's tithes, and you get nothing short of a pagan priesthood for Christianity! If you want to maintain that idea of paganism into the tithes of Abraham, then please pay some attention to its implication.

nuclearboy:

I won't bother to state how many times I stated here that Sodom had no legitimate claims to the spoils BUT only begged for the people. That alone makes me wonder why you hold on to this one point since the passage informs us that Sodom knew he had no claim. But you repeatedly sit on this turning it left and right and making it the subject of this discussion rather than face the import of Abraham's words themselves.

If you had simply let Scripture speak for itself, I would not press it further. But to acknowledge that the king of Sodom had no claims to the spoils and then maintain that he got a 90% back from Abraham is quite a whopper, sir! That is very misleading, not to mention 'contradictory' in the absence of all arguments to the contrary! I have discussed the meaning of Abraham's reply to the king of Sodom - and I did so both from Scripture (Genesis 14 and Deuteronomy 20) as well as the very reference that Ph.D anti-tithers have cited: Hugo Grotius! I did not find you showing me any references for what you argue - and that is why I cannot just let your eisegesis sit on this matter at all.

nuclearboy:

The issues of "Pd.H" and "Russell whatever" mean nothing to me.

That's fine - you should not be recycling his absolutely dubious 'research' as you did in post #10.

nuclearboy:

Ancient peoples gave tenths. I've made references available which state so. Abram gave a tenth. Why ONLY HIM was different from others in motive, is your position and I leave to you!

I have asked you to consider the text of Scripture and show me where Abraham's tithing to Melchizedek was fulfilling "tradition's demand" - that was all. I have reasons to show why Abraham's tithes to Melchizedek could not have been qualified to any other king at all. Aside from Hugo Grotius work (which showed that Abraham devoted a tenth of the spoils to GOD), I have reasons in Scripture to show that inferring pagan culture into Abraham's tithes is a farce as far as Scripture is concerned. I have no hidden motives for this - and that is why I like to show issues openly by maintaining what I can attest from Scripture. The weakness of eisegesis is simply this: it makes statements that it cannot sustain when closely examined - and that is why I shy away from such tendencies and hold unto only what I can point out from Scripture.

nuclearboy:

He gave to the only king that welcomed him, prayed for him and who was a priest (I know this will get lost in your next post). Why you then still keep asking "WHY MELCHIZEDEK" and FOR THIS ALONE require "the light of Scripture", beats me.

Please. If you don't want to look into Scripture, I won't press. As far as making statements that fly in the face of simple references are concerned, I won't go there. There is a reason why it was to Melchizedek that Abraham could have tithed to - I already alluded to them, and then asked you if you would like me to elaborate. Yes, I am willing to elaborate - if you would be willing to listen. If not, I won't go there, hehe.

nuclearboy:

Repeated allusions and treatises on Paganism, Ph.D holders and Russell "whatever" is simple quite, well, space filling and an amazing way to evade issues.

Please show me where I evaded any issues. I am really tired up to here with this allegation of evasion (even though I have been pateintly waiting for you to offer answers to some of the simple questions I asked and you have not done so). Please show me where I evaded anything - and I shall re-quote where I offered answers to your concerns.

nuclearboy:

There is only one analysis here - Abram's Words! 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

I have discussed the meaning of Abraham's response - see post #19 previous page. Unless you missed it and want me to re-post it. However, it seems you are not considering what I explained and are just repeating yourself over and over again on what you have made up your mind on.

nuclearboy:

What belonged to Sodom that he would not accept? NOTHING Why is that phrase there or was the Bible needing to fulfill a quota of words?

Please show me what actually belonged to the defeated king of Sodom. Just show me. I have grown weary of asking this question - but I must ask again, because it seems you're bent on maintaining that a defeated king has rights to what does not belong to him, and if that is the case then Abraham's claim and oath would just be meaningless. Just show me with references how the defeated king would still claim that anything belonged to him - with references please.

nuclearboy:

I'll take nothing but their share plus what we ate - Share of what and what happened to the "balance"? If their share was everything, why then say "I'm taking nothing but their share plus what we ate". The words "plus what we ate" show the sum was greater than their share.

This is just wishful thinking. If Abraham said he would take NOTHING and yet has already taken from the spoils to give as his own tithes to Melchizedek, does that not strike you at all? How can you maintain that someone said that he would take NOTHING and yet has taken something - and yet you are claiming the rest for the defeated king?!? Where is that done anywhere - and on what law of conquest in any nation, nuclearboy?

It is either Abraham took nothing or indeed he had taken something from the spoils. The question is: to whom did the spoils belong in the first place? If to Abraham, what other arguments are there to then treat the spoils as belonging to anyone else?

nuclearboy:

I used to argue to win but stopped as I advanced in years. I see the exact tactics I used then here so maybe the chickens have come home to roost. But I wonder if this is the sort of thing one wins especially with Christianity the way it is now considering the support this coming from "Viaro" would give?

I'm not arguing to win. From page one, I stated why I opened the thread - and that was simply to understand your arguments. Two pages running now, and what I have seen so far are assertions that cannot be pointed out from Scripture. I didn't try to "win" any argument to persuade anyone to change their minds; but I was deeply concerned that your response to Olaadegbu in the other thread was way off the road, which was why I brought us here to rub minds and to show you why that was so. I didn't mean any harm, trust me.

nuclearboy:
I want help here. Could others (preferably Aletheia, Krayola, Jesoul, Inesqor) help me see what I'm not seeing here or conversely, show Viaro what I'm saying? I've gone as far as I can personally

I understand what you're saying - but for the most part, they are just assertions made on eisegesis.

exegesis not eisegesis, Viaro.

Rather ^^^ over and over again, put me out of my "ignorance" by

[1] showing the reasons why it was a "tithe" to Melchizedek
[2] showing the reasons why inferring "paganism" into it are a farce
[3] showing why it was to Melchizedek and him alone that he could have paid the "tithe" to
[4] explaining Abram's statement

Gen 14:21-24(Amplified version)
(21)  And the king of Sodom said to Abram, Give me the persons and keep the goods for yourself.
(22)  But Abram said to the king of Sodom, I have lifted up my hand and sworn to the Lord, God Most High, the Possessor and Maker of heaven and earth,
(23)  That I would not take a thread or a shoelace or anything that is yours, lest you should say, I have made Abram rich.
(24)  [Take all] except only what my young men have eaten and the share of the men [allies] who went with me--Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre; let them take their portion.

Gen 14:21-24(CEV)
(21)  The king of Sodom said to Abram, "All I want are my people. You can keep everything else."
(22)  Abram answered: The LORD God Most High made the heavens and the earth. And I have promised him
(23)  that I won't keep anything of yours, not even a sandal strap or a piece of thread. Then you can never say that you are the one who made me rich.
(24)  Let my share be the food that my men have eaten. But Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre went with me, so give them their share of what we brought back.

All I can deduce from these verses are the simple fact that The King of Sodom begged for his people from Abram who had come into possession of them along with the goods of sodom by defeating those who took them from Sodom.

As far as I can see/conclude, Abram defeated those kings for the sole purpose of rescuing Lot;he wasn't interested in the booty/bounty that resulted;it was just a windfall which he could do whatever he wanted with.

The king of Sodom pleaded for his people.Abram,who never really had an interest in the spoils, was willing to release the balance of the spoils(after tithe and food and what his allies wanted). He had already sworn not to take anything of the spoils except what he mentioned(food eaten by his men and what his allies wanted).

This is the clear cut and simple scenario presented by the verses.
Whether the king of sodom took what was left for him or not; or was happy about what he got or not is not an issue here.But the fact
remains that Abram's statement indicated that a balance would be left for him to take.

Verses 22 - 24 highlight the fact that Abram considered the spoils of war which were his by conquest to still be the goods or possessions of the King of sodom;although not exclusively.
He considered them to be the king of Sodom's but were his(Abram's) to determine their fate.

nuclearboy:

exegesis not eisegesis, Viaro.

Okay commander, three honours salute!
Exegesis - 'The study of the text of Scripture in order to bring out the meaning of it. This is to be distinguished from the error of eisegesis, i.e. reading a meaning into the text.'

(also here - 'Exegesis: Reading out of a writing what is in the writing. Eisegesis: Putting into a writing what is not in it. The first is valid; the second is not.')

nuclearboy:

Rather ^^^ over and over again, put me out of my "ignorance" by

No, you're not 'ignorant' - I wouldn't say that. I'm trying to follow your exegesis and decline the eisegesis.

nuclearboy:

[1] showing the reasons why it was a "tithe" to Melchizedek

Exegetically, because Scripture uses both the terms 'tithes' (Gen. 14:20) and 'tenth' (Heb. 7:2 & 4) for what Abraham gave to Melchizedek. That is the reason why it was a "tithe" to Melchizedek - Scripture says so.

nuclearboy:

[2] showing the reasons why inferring "paganism" into it are a farce.

Paganism could not be inferred into Abraham's tithes - because Scripture does not teach us so. First, Melchizedek was not a pagan priest, for twice over he was called the priest of the most high God (Gen. 14:18 and Heb. 7:1) - the same as Abraham's God.

Second, it could not be a tithe fulfilling a 'pagan culture', because exegetical sources which even anti-tithing theologians are happy to acknowledge have said that Abraham devoted a tenth of the spoils to God (see Hugo Grotius' "De Jure Belli ac Pacis", cited in post #17). I wonder how such an inference could then have turned into 'pagan culture/tithe' without showing from Scripture that it is so - and to maintain such an inference is to force one's eisegesis into the text.

nuclearboy:

[3] showing why it was to Melchizedek and him alone that he could have paid the "tithe" to

Okay, I shall show that. If Abraham's tithes were merely to fulfill "tradition's demand" such that it could be said to be a pagan tithe in his own case, then Abraham could have given the tithes to another king indeed, for he was not under the jurisdiction of Melchizedek when the latter met him (same as when the king of Sodom met the patriarch at the valley of Shaveh).

The serious point that has been ignored here is the question of jurisdiction. Pagan customs (such as has been cited in the excerpts you gave in post #10), as well ancient political and civil laws, recognize that only subjects under a certain sovereignty could be tithed or taxed or levied by their rulers or sovereignties. The same applies today - for example, you don't live in Nigeria and then forward your tithes or taxes or levies to the UK government. In this case, as king of Salem, Melchizedek had no claim whatsoever upon Abraham, for the patriarch was not under his jurisdiction when the king-priest met him. This is why the Scripture tells us that Melchizedek met Abraham (Heb. 7:2), and not the other way round.

Third, if Abraham wanted to fulfill a pagan custom, then the most probable king to have tithed to would have been the ruler over the jurisdiction of Mamre - for that is where Abraham had dwelt when these things were reported (Gen. 14:13 - 'he dwelt in the plain of Mamre the Amorite'). Following the laws of territorial jurisdiction, you could only have had recourse to the ruler over the area of your jurisdiction if you wanted to fulfill any 'custom' - pagan or ancient. But Abraham's tithes were not in fulfilment of any such ancient traditions, which was why he gave tithes to another king (Melchizedek king of Salem) that had no territorial jurisdiction over Mamre where Abraham dwelt.

For this reason, there was something far more intrinsic in Abraham's tithing to Melchizedek - it was a question of priesthood. Indeed, Melchizedek was a king; but it was rather his priesthood that Scripture emphasizes in connection to the tithes. If it was a matter of 'blessing', any king could as well have said a few words of 'blessing' upon Abraham, which would not have mattered as much as the "greatness" of the priest. Abraham was a "great" man, no doubt, for Scripture calls him a "prophet" even in the presence of a king (Gen. 20:7); but it was more a question of the priesthood that the tithes were connected - and that is the same point that Hebrews 7 brings out in the discussion about tithes.

Consequently, the greatness of the priest Melchizedek was what singled him out from all other kings and above all talk of any tradition or pagan custom. It is as if to say that Abraham broke with all so-called conventions of 'customs' and gave tithes to the priest-king Melchizedek, even though custom would infer that it was properly fitting for the patriarch to have given his tithes to the ruler over the jurisdiction of Mamre. No, but he rather gave tithes to a king that had no jurisdiction over Mamre - because he was looking forward to something far more than has been recognized by some who study that passage.

What was he looking forward to? Hear the Lord Jesus Christ: "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad" (John 8:56). The priesthood of Melchizedek is the foundation of the tithes in Abraham's case - it was again the foundation of the tithes in the NT discussion in Hebrews 7; and it was also the foundation of Levi's tithes. Being merely 'king of Salem' does not so much make for this; but the priesthood is what Abraham recognized - and that was what moved him to have singled out Melchizedek above every other king, above pagan customs, above any so-called 'tradition' or 'coventions' of pagan societies, and above any eisegesis to the contrary: and upon the basis of that priesthood, Abraham gave tithes.

nuclearboy:

[4] explaining Abram's statement

Please see post #19 previous page - I did so already.

ttalks:

Verses 22 - 24 highlight the fact that Abram considered the spoils of war which were his by conquest to still be the goods or possessions of the King of sodom;although not exclusively.
He considered them to be the king of Sodom's but were his(Abram's) to determine their fate.

Haha . . . that, my bro, is another classic eisegesis deliberately read into the text. It is a neat example of pretext, not context.

1.  There is no reference anywhere for that kind of double possession. Nada, zilch, nix. It is either the victor possessed ALL the spoils of war (see Deuteronomy 20:11-14) or nothing at all. Scripture shows this is the case, and external references show the very same thing (I have lost count of how many times I've cited Hugo Grotius' work).

2.  People arguing that the spoils belonged to Abraham and then also that Abraham considered them to belong to the king of Sodom are only wishing their eisegesis into the texts. I would really like to see these folks show us some exegetical references to the point, and not eisegesis of their own ideas. Any such references to show for that? I'll be delighted to see it or them.

3.  After all is said and done, let's lay aside all eisegesis and follow the simple principles of Biblical exegesis - you know those principles, I guess; so apply them as see if your interpretation or conclusions stand at all. If we cannot compare Scripture with Scripture to show where a defeated king qualifies to still lay claim to goods that are not his by conquest, then everything else collapses and all we have to do is just keep reading pretexts into the texts and leave off contexts.

4.  As a friendly offer, here is a collection of terms that we should be familiar with in obtaining an exegetical understanding that is free from eisegesis:

Exegesis: Reading out of a writing what is in the writing. Eisegesis: Putting into a writing what is not in it. The first is valid; the second is not.

Hermeneia: Interpretation, hermeneutics. We are to use the right hermeneuties (principles of interpretation) in studying the Bible, so that we are putting God's Word into our hearts rather than putting our words into His mouth. . . .

Prolegomenon: First word, the introduction to a science that lays down its basic principles. Theological Prolegomenon includes the doctrine of Scripture, since all true theology must be based on the Bible. . . .

Elenchus: The logical refutation of an error.

http://faithbibleonline.net/MiscDoctrine/GreekTerms.htm
[/list]

Unless we want to abandon the principles of Biblical exgesis, there would be no need to be inferring a double possession (both by victor and defeated) in any warfare - history refutes that idea, Scripture refutes it, and common sense nowhere applauds it. On what leg therefore would such pretext of eisegesis stand in the face of Biblical exegesis??

Viaro,

It is very clear from Genesis 14:21-24 that Abram being the owner of the spoils considered them to be the possessions of the King of Sodom
which he(Abram) had taken over.

The goods/people being discussed in the verses in question were those of the King of Sodom which by circumstance now belonged to Abram.

Look at this:

Let's say in an imaginary situation, there is a law that states:
"If any body loses his money(that is,misplaces it in some way or the other); any body that finds it or comes upon it automatically becomes the owner."

Now still in this situation, Tim(an imaginary person) lost $5000 and could not find it after every effort to do so.
Tim knows the law and knows that if any other person finds the money, that money would never be his again.
Johnson(another imaginary person), knows about Tim's loss;having heard from some other person.
On a particular day, John was strolling in the evening and comes across the $5000 which Tim lost.
He takes it and by law, it is now his.
The news spreads that Johnson had found the money and everybody knew that it now belonged to him.
But Johnson;now the owner of the $5000, knows that Tim was devastated by the loss of the money and he decides to keep the money safe.
He did this becasue he didn't really need the money since he had more than enough.He took $200 out of the $5000 and bought a safe to keep the rest of the money($4800).

Tim was really devastated by his loss and decided to do what had never been done since the law was institued.
He decided to go and plead with Johnson for some of the money. On doing so, Johnson tells him that he can take $3000 of what was left
while he would keep the safe and $1800. After all, the money was now his(Johnson's) and he could decide what he wanted to do about it; . . . . keep it all
or give it back to the person who lost it.


The scenario I painted above isn't really a good one but the point I'm trying to make is that: from reading Genesis 14, The king of sodom could be said to be Tim while Abram could be said to be Johnson.

Everything I've said about this has nothing to do with whether 90% of any goods were given to any body or whether it bears any relation to tithes or not,
but simply the fact that Abram(current owner of the spoils) decided to leave a balance of the spoils to the original owner(king of Sodom).

@VIARO,  you sure you are the one putting into writing what is not in it?

Anyway, i find your quotes below interesting but  confusing. would be nice if you can offer some clarifications here. Thanks.

viaro:

The priesthood of Melchizedek is the foundation of the tithes in Abraham's case

viaro:

it was again the foundation of the tithes in the NT discussion in Hebrews 7;  

viaro:

and it was also the foundation of Levi's tithes.

I think Matthew Henry's comment on this issue is quite interesting and goes along with the idea I'm trying to pinpoint:

Matthew Henry: We have here an account of what passed between Abram and the king of Sodom, who succeeded him that fell in the battle (Gen_14:10), and thought himself obliged to do this honour to Abram, in return for the good services he had done him. Here is,
I. The king of Sodom's grateful offer to Abram (Gen_14:21): Give me the soul, and take thou the substance; so the Hebrew reads it. Here he fairly begs the persons, but as freely bestows the goods on Abram. Note, 1. Where a right is dubious and divided, it is wisdom to compound the matter by mutual concessions rather than to contend. The king of Sodom had an original right both to the persons and to the goods, and it would bear a debate whether Abram's acquired right by rescue would supersede his title and extinguish it; but, to prevent all quarrels, the king of Sodom makes this fair proposal. 2. Gratitude teaches us to recompense to the utmost of our power those that have undergone fatigues, run hazards, and been at expense for our service and benefit. Who goes a warfare at his own charges? 1Co_9:7. Soldiers purchase their pay dearer than any labourers, and are well worthy of it, because they expose their lives.
II. Abram's generous refusal of this offer. He not only resigned the persons to him, who, being delivered out of the hand of their enemies, ought to have served Abram, but he restored all the goods too. He would not take from a thread to a shoe-latchet, not the least thing that had ever belonged to the king of Sodom or any of his. Note, A lively faith enables a man to look upon the wealth of this world with a holy contempt, 1Jo_5:4. What are all the ornaments and delights of sense to one that has God and heaven ever in his eye? He resolves even to a thread and a shoe-latchet; for a tender conscience fears offending in a small matter. Now,
1. Abram ratifies this resolution with a solemn oath: I have lifted up my hand to the Lord that I will not take any thing, Gen_14:22. Here observe, (1.) The titles he gives to God, The most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth, the same that Melchizedek had just now used, Gen_14:19. Note, It is good to learn of others how to order our speech concerning God, and to imitate those who speak well in divine things. This improvement we are to make of the conversation of devout good men, we must learn to speak after them. (2.) The ceremony used in this oath: I have lifted up my hand. In religious swearing we appeal to God's knowledge of our truth and sincerity and imprecate his wrath if we swear falsely, and the lifting up of the hand is very significant and expressive of both. (3.) The matter of the oath, namely, that he would not take any reward from the king of Sodom, was lawful, but what he was not antecedently obliged to. [1.] Probably Abram vowed, before he went to the battle, that, if God would give him success, he would, for the glory of God and the credit of his profession, so far deny himself and his own right as to take nothing of the spoils to himself. Note, the vows we have made when we are in pursuit of a mercy must be carefully and conscientiously kept when we have obtained the mercy, though they were made against our interest. A citizen of Zion, if he has sworn, whether it be to God or man, though it prove to his own hurt, yet he changeth not, Psa_15:4. Or, [2.] Perhaps Abram, now when he saw cause to refuse the offer made him, at the same time confirmed his refusal with this oath, to prevent further importunity. Note, First, There may be good reason sometimes why we should debar ourselves of that which is our undoubted right, as St. Paul, 1Co_8:13; 1Co_9:12. Secondly, That strong resolutions are of good use to put by the force of temptations.
2. He backs his refusal with a good reason: Lest thou shouldest say, I have made Abram rich, which would reflect reproach, (1.) Upon the promise and covenant of God, as if they would not have enriched Abram without the spoils of Sodom. And, (2.) Upon the piety and charity of Abram, as if all he had in his eye, when he undertook that hazardous expedition, was to enrich himself. Note, [1.] We must be very careful that we give no occasion to others to say things which they ought not. [2.] The people of God must, for their credit's sake, take heed of doing any thing that looks mean or mercenary, or that savours of covetousness and self-seeking. Probably Abram knew the king of Sodom to be a proud and scornful man, and one that would be apt to turn such a thing as this to his reproach afterwards, though most unreasonably. When we have to do with such men, we have need to act with particular caution.
3. He limits his refusal with a double proviso, Gen_14:24. In making vows, we ought carefully to insert the necessary exceptions, that we may not afterwards say before the angel, It was an error, Ecc_5:6. Abram here excepts, (1.) The food of his soldiers; they were worthy of their meat while they trod out the corn. This would give no colour to the king of Sodom to say that he had enriched Abram. (2.) The shares of his allies and confederates: Let them take their portion. Note, Those who are strict in restraining their own liberty yet ought not to impose those restraints upon the liberties of others, nor to judge of them accordingly. We must not make ourselves the standard to measure others by. A good man will deny himself that liberty which he will not deny another, contrary to the practice of the Pharisees, Mat_23:4. There was not the same reason why Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre, should quit their right, that there was why Abram should. They did not make the profession that he made, nor were they, as he was, under the obligation of a vow. They had not the hopes that Abram had of a portion in the other world, and therefore, by all means, let them take their portion of this.

@Viaro, its clear to any reader of Genesis 14 that Abraham did not keep any of the spoils of war to himself. I dont know what you are trying to achieve here, really.

A few short points from skim reading the posts so far:

1. Modern considerations clearly require that a distinction should be made between the words "tithe" and "tenth" though historically they meant the same thing grammatically. It is doubtful that they are now still grammatically the same; certainly, in any event, usage alone makes clear that the word "tithe" is no longer used to connote simply a "tenth" (or a tenth simpliciter). For example, the word "tithe" is (a) now mainly used with religious connotations; you are not going to hear someone say "I sold a tithe of my shares in Guinness plc"; (b) the word "tithe" is now mostly used in connection with an obligation, a religious obligation to pay ---- save that what the obligation requires one to pay is a tenth or 10% --- and in extremely legalistic circles, it is often unclear as to 10% or a tenth of what exactly e.g. gross or net etc.

2. While one can say that technically/"legally" Abram himself owned the "spoils of war" by reason of conquest, it is clear that morally at least some of the "spoils of war" belonged to the king of Sodom; they certainly belonged to him before he lost them in war e.g. verses 11&12

And they took all the goods of Sodom and Gomorrah, and all their victuals, and went their way.

12And they took Lot, Abram's brother's son, who dwelt in Sodom, and his goods, and departed.

It is understandable that despite his conquest and taking these as spoils of war, Abram still regarded them as belonging to the king of Sodom; hence Abram only wanted provision for his soldiers - otherwise he returned the "spoils of war" that belonged (or originally belonged) to the king of Sodom. Yes, we may say that strictly what Abram returned to the king of Sodom was not 90% of the total spoils of war --- because goods originally belonging to other people other than Sodom were also involved --- the critical thing here is that Abram did not retain what belonged or was perceived as belonging to the king of Sodom -- other than provision for his soldiers.

3. When Abram gave Melchizedek a tenth of spoils of war, there was no indication whatsoever that Abram thought he was giving a tenth to God. There is no indication whatsoever that Abram himself perceived Melchizedek as representing God in any way, shape or form. Theologians and us latter day readers of the Bible are the ones who see in Melchizedek a typology of Christ.

PS Notice that I deliberately used and emphasised the word tenth in point no 3 -------- because that is all that was meant by "tithe" as used in Genesis 14. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the later Mosaic connotation of "tithe" let alone the modern/contemporary fraud.

I did not "pop in" here to debate, but rather make an observation.  I do not have time to debate as I am leaving town again.

BEFORE Abram gave the tenth, Genesis 13:2 (KJV) - And Abram was very rich in cattle, in silver, and in gold.

Now, those who are HONEST must agree, IF you stick with what we know from the scriptures, and add nothing and take out nothing,

To HONESTLY follow Abram's (or Abraham's) example:
1 - do not tithe on any cattle you have
2 - do not tithe on any silver and gold (MONEY) you have
3 - do not tithe on anything that comes from your normal, everyday vocation
4 - tithe ONLY one time, and ONLY on spoils of war, and keep nothing for yourself

No honest man can say he is following Abraham's example by giving a tenth of their income to the church.  That's just pure fabrication.

Zikkyy:

@Viaro, its clear to any reader of Genesis 14 that Abraham did not keep any of the spoils of war to himself. I dont know what you are trying to achieve here, really.

I am not trying to achieve anything other than what I stated from page 1. I brought nuclearboy here to examine the assertions which are classic anti-tithing arguments and have found them to be nothing short of eisegesis, not exegesis. This is why on so many counts, I have not found anyone pointing to simple principles of Biblical exegesis and answering simple questions.

As regards the point in yours above, I have not argued anywhere that Abraham kept anything to himself. If that was what I was arguing all along, please show me.

garyarnold:

To HONESTLY follow Abram's (or Abraham's) example:
1 - do not tithe on any cattle you have
2 - do not tithe on any silver and gold (MONEY) you have
3 - do not tithe on anything that comes from your normal, everyday vocation
4 - tithe ONLY one time, and ONLY on spoils of war, and keep nothing for yourself

If you're going to be honest, you would have understood that I am not a legalist. I have said and repeated that these things are simply based on PRINCIPLES. I have no worries that nuclearboy himself would agree on Abraham's tithes being an EXAMPLE for CHRISTIANS as a matter of FREE-WILL. If you are going to be honest, you would not be running here to argue your legalism into all this.

garyarnold:
No honest man can say he is following Abraham's example by giving a tenth of their income to the church. That's just pure fabrication.

I doubt you know the meaning of being HONEST. For one, those who are informed would say the same thing as did nuclearboy - and I agreed with him:

nuclearboy:

I won't bother to count how often I stated that Abram's example was one of Christian free-will offering.

Next time go get schooled up on the meaning of "example" before entering a discussion assuming only thou knowest how to be "honest".

I won't bother to count how often I stated that Abram's example was one of Christian free-will offering.

Yes, a free-will GIFT (NOT an offering) to a King, not a church.
Yes, a free-will GIFT (NOT an offering) of spoils of war.
Yes, a free-will GIFT (NOT an offering) ONE TIME.
NOT a free-will gift or offering of money.
NOT a free-will gift or offering from his normal vocational earnings.
NOT a free-will gift or offering to God.

Your arguments are fruitless.

Even though I believe it was custom at that time to give a tenth of the war spoils, a person can still go against custom; therefore, I have said all along that it was free-will. My book says it was free-will. I have never said it wasn't free-will.

Show me where the scriptures say Abram gave an OFFERING? Did I miss that?

I may allow for some room to hold ideas as best suited to the reader. What I do worry about is that some of the issues being asserted simply have no basis in Biblical exegesis - that is the point I have been trying to make. Whether technical, mathematical, theological, ecclesiatical, historical, grammatical, or any other '-ical', a tithe is a tenth. Period.

If one wants to get very technical about the meaning of 'tithes', I have shown that we are going to get into a lot of trouble discovering that it means far more besides than the 'tenth' we have been arguing up and down the street - for which reason I pointed out a few terms in post #7. I observed that most of the meanings given to tithes are based on Jewish understanding of that term, and we could then go on to appropriate them for ourselves if that helps in any wise at all.

For now, I would like to comment on this:

Enigma:

2. While one can say that technically/"legally" Abram himself owned the "spoils of war" by reason of conquest, it is clear that morally at least some of the "spoils of war" belonged to the king of Sodom; they certainly belonged to him before he lost them in war e.g. verses 11&12

That the goods belonged to both kings of Sodom and Gomorrah BEFORE the war is not in doubt. Yes, before the war, they both had claim to the goods ( see Genesis 14:11 - "the goods of Sodom and Gomorrah". However, there is no "moral" grounds on which either the kings of Sodom or of Gomorrah could lay claim to any of the spoils from that warfare - nothing shows this in any single line at all, whether from Scripture, or from external sources that bear testimony to the fact.

Now, just to clear the air and be far more convincing, those who want to force any grounds of claim for the defeated king(s) of Sodom and Gomorrah can only do so by pointing to Biblical texts and show where such a notion is established. To just infer it (because we want to say so) and yet have nothing to show for it, is simply not going to cut it - and it would seriously violate the principles of conscience and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. We are asked to compare scripture with scripture - and that is the most basic of all Biblical exegesis. Any other references that could be cited would bring us back to Scripture (in which case we have seen one such in Hugo Grotius' work). I have waited to see this principle applied in whatever anyone wants to infer for the defeated kings - but that wait is beginning to drag now.

If we want to simply read our own pretexts into the texts and arrive at eisegesis, then let's all agree on that - in which case anybody can infer just about anything they like into Scripture. Can we gamble on that?

Enigma:

It is understandable that despite his conquest and taking these as spoils of war, Abram still regarded them as belonging to the king of Sodom;

No, Abraham did NOT regard them as still belonging to the king of Sodom - that idea is the eisegesis I have been highlighting. We have read our pretexts into the Genesis 14 narrative rather than allowing Scripture to speak for itself. If Abraham had considered the spoils to belong to the king of Sodom, we would be asking serious questions here -

1. What part belonged to the king of Gomorrah, since it was the goods of both the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah that was taken away (Gen. 14:11)? To argue that the spoils 'morally' belonged to the king of Sodom would mean that the king of Gomorrah also had moral and legal grounds to claim back part of the spoils to himself, no? If not, why?

2. If Abraham considered the spoils to belomng  to the defeated king of Sodom, on what grounds would Abraham have gone on to take the spoils as his own and then offered a tithe of them to Melchizedek? Why did Melchizedek not reject the tithes but rather go on to bless Abraham if the latter considered that the goods were not his own in the first instance?

3.  Please, what references in God's Word show that spoils of war are considered as belonging to DEFEATED kings? I have asked again and again for this simple question to be answered, but I still don't see any answers forthcoming. Not that I am seeking to be a spoiler here, hehe. . . but I am not too sure that eisegesis is the way to go on this matter. To just make assertions and not show how they can be carried is to read our own pretexts into the texts and ignore context completely. And yes, it matters what we do here.

Enigma:

hence Abram only wanted provision for his soldiers - otherwise he returned the "spoils of war" that belonged (or originally belonged) to the king of Sodom. Yes, we may say that strictly what Abram returned to the king of Sodom was not 90% of

Please read Grotius and read Scripture (Deuteronomy 20) - you will not find that idea ^^^ justified. The king of Sodom could claim absolutely nothing - yes, he tried to; but he was greeted with a clear answer from Abraham that showed that he could not lay claim to anything in that conquest.

Besides, why would anyone have been arguing a 90% back to the king of Sodom initially - where in fact the goods carried away did not belong to Bera alone? Thank goodness you saw that point (which I will note again in the next quote - that the goods before the war belonged to other kings as well - at the very least, the king of Gomorrah also had goods in that). The goods prior to the war belonged to both kings of Sodom and Gomorrah - not just to the former. The so-called "remaining" did not go to the king of Sodom - we are just assuming it is so because we have ignored the fact that another king was involved. [when I say 'we', I'm speaking more generally, not narrowing this down to you - so please forgive any misunderstanding that may arise]. On what basis then does anyone argue a legal or moral ground of claims to spoils of war on behalf of the king of Sodom? None.

Enigma:

the total spoils of war --- because goods originally belonging to other people other than Sodom were also involved --- the critical thing here is that Abram did not retain what belonged or was perceived as belonging to the king of Sodom -- other than provision for his soldiers.

I have not argued anywhere to say that Abraham kept something for himself. I have had to repeat that point at least twice over now, so let's not stay on that. Point is, I like the fact that you recognise what many did not recognise - as highlighted above.

Enigma:
3. When Abram gave Melchizedek a tenth of spoils of war, there was no indication whatsoever that Abram thought he was giving a tenth to God. There is no indication whatsoever that Abram himself perceived Melchizedek as representing God in any way, shape or form. Theologians and us latter day readers of the Bible are the ones who see in Melchizedek a typology of Christ.

I beg to differ. The typology of Christ in Melchizedek is plainly seen in Hebrews 7:1-3 (particularly verse 3). It is not theologians of our day that have drawn this typology - it has been there all along in Scripture. But even so, many theologians recognize the fact that Abraha's tithes are in recognition of God's mercy(?). Apart from Hugo Grotius, I think that the excerpt posted by ttalks from Matthew Henry bears the same point. I post a part of this later.

Enigma:
PS Notice that I deliberately used and emphasised the word tenth in point no 3 -------- because that is all that was meant by "tithe" as used in Genesis 14. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the later Mosaic connotation of "tithe" let alone the modern/contemporary fraud.

No worries.

garyarnold:

I won't bother to count how often I stated that Abram's example was one of Christian free-will offering.

Yes, a free-will GIFT (NOT an offering) to a King, not a church.
Yes, a free-will GIFT (NOT an offering) of spoils of war.
Yes, a free-will GIFT (NOT an offering) ONE TIME.
NOT a free-will gift or offering of money.
NOT a free-will gift or offering from his normal vocational earnings.
NOT a free-will gift or offering to God.

Your arguments are fruitless.

Gary, please don't flog yourself and cry at the same time. The part you quoted in italics are not mine but nuclearboy's - and I agree absolutely with him on that. To say that "Your arguments are fruitless" is not mine to worry over, rather that would be nuclearboy's worry.

However, you're not a student of the Bible - that much is beginning to appear in your arguments. What fallacy are you foisting in here about 'free-will gift' and 'not an offering'? I really don't see the substance in such talk, but I could just take you for a ride if you want to be that technical to your own detriment. Here's a tip: go through the New Testament and show me any verse where you have the word "free-will". Just try that for size. The stupidity of folks who make so much of small matters is why I have a disdain for pretentious American 'theology' of the sort you parade.

But here is another eye-sore for you:

garyarnold:

NOT a free-will gift or offering to God.

Cry all you want; but take your quarrels over to others who recognize the fact what Abraham's tithes point to -

**Hugo Grotius (the same author that Russell Kelly Ph.D was happy to cite):
"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

I do not have any problems with that; and it would not make for serious talk to banter with you. I just don't have the time of day to worry about your bleating, Gary.

garyarnold:

Even though I believe it was custom at that time to give a tenth of the war spoils, a person can still go against custom; therefore, I have said all along that it was free-will. My book says it was free-will. I have never said it wasn't free-will.

Have I or nuclearboy argued that it was not free-will? What essentially is your problem here?

garyarnold:

Show me where the scriptures say Abram gave an OFFERING? Did I miss that?

Please show me where the Bible used "free-will GIFT" in lieu of Abraham's tithes. Did you miss that?

I have said and repeated that these things are simply based on PRINCIPLES.

You are making up the principle involved. Actually, there is NO principle with Abraham's tenth.

You seem to think that the principle is free-will giving of a tenth. I could just as well say the principle involved is that Christians should keep nothing for themselves. Or how about the principle here is that Christians should make a vow with God that they will accept NO salary/wages from their employer. That way, the employer cannot say that he made you wealthy.

The Bible gives facts, and the Bible teaches principles. But when the Bible teaches a principle, it teaches it AS a principle; i.e. give according to your means.

You take a fact and then MAKE UP a principle to substantiate what you want the Bible to teach. You are a phony; a false teacher for doing so.

garyarnold:

I have said and repeated that these things are simply based on PRINCIPLES.

You are making up the principle involved. Actually, there is NO principle with Abraham's tenth.

I am not making up the principle. If you understood what an 'example' or a 'principle' is, I don't think all this would be hard for you to grasp. A PRINCIPLE is not a clone of something - it does not mean that you have to do the exact same thing by using the exact same materials given in the exact same amount in the exact same year with the exact same experience, environment and econometrics. This exactitude is what you have been sweating all along in your theology - and that, sorry to say, is a legalism worse than anything we have come across.

When Peter said that Christ in His sufferings has left us an "example" (1 Peter 2:21), was he expecting us to literally go and be whipped by Roman soldiers and hung on a cross between two thieves? You just have issues confused for yourself, so take a hike. Just go back and learn the meaning of 'example' and 'principle' - you might surprise yourself. And when you do, come back and let's talk, if you may.

garyarnold:

You seem to think that the principle is free-will giving of a tenth. I could just as well say the principle involved is that Christians should keep nothing for themselves.

Please do as you please - you will only injure yourself in the process.
I have a scripture on that for you though - just ask and I shall furnish it pronto.

garyarnold:

Or how about the principle here is that Christians should make a vow with God that they will accept NO salary/wages from their employer. That way, the employer cannot say that he made you wealthy.

You're simply carping now. Who was Abraham's "employer"? You're a serious joke.

garyarnold:

The Bible gives facts, and the Bible teaches principles. But when the Bible teaches a principle, it teaches it AS a principle; i.e. give according to your means.

haha - the Bible teaches principles - only when it suits your theology. Please pack yourself one corner . . . you really don't have a clue about the words you use.

garyarnold:

You take a fact and then MAKE UP a principle to substantiate what you want the Bible to teach. You are a phony; a false teacher for doing so.

Thanks. Now go back to school and let's have a real debate if you may. This time, I will hold nothing back to make absolute dunces of you and your night-school profs in seminary. Try me - your life will never remain the same after viaro deals with you. Twerp.

@Gary:

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

Anyways, my prayer was answered and now I know I've not lost my mind.

Carbonated Viaro:  

I know the difference between exegesis and eisegesis. The definition I got says it better - Exegesis - drawing out the meaning of a text. Eisegesis - forcing a pre-conceived notion into text. That is why I said I wasn't engaging in eisegesis BUT exegesis! Anyway,

[1] You believe that Sodom (to me) meant that king and him alone (the individual). Wrong, bro! I used "the King of Sodom" then "Sodom" then "the sodomites" to represent ALL the original owners of the properties. You could as well have asked that I start to name every individual and local government. But again, this is a non-issue.
[2] You agree that Abram kept nothing for himself but refuse to state who got them and show this from Scripture
[3] We are back to the meaning of "tenth" as opposed to "tithe". What understanding you want again after Enigma's brilliant summation on the alternative meanings these words "portray" TODAY, beats me.
[4] Why do you quote Hugo Grotius now, when you've previously insisted on "In light of Scripture"?
[5] okay, jokes apart, whats your motive here or is this just a really big joke to you? Remember though, Tonye-T (at least) has you as the guy who's put a stumbling block before him now. I simply cannot believe its you writing this stuff when its so obvious.

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

Try me - your life will never remain the same after viaro deals with you.

Biggest laugh I've had in a long time! That's for the humor!

Gen 14:21-24(CEV)
(21)  The king of Sodom said to Abram, "All I want are my people. You can keep everything else."
(22)  Abram answered: The LORD God Most High made the heavens and the earth. And I have promised him
(23)  that I won't keep anything of yours, not even a sandal strap or a piece of thread. Then you can never say that you are the one who made me rich.
(24)  Let my share be the food that my men have eaten. But Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre went with me, so give them their share of what we brought back.


Gen 14:22-24(KJV)
(22)  And Abram said to the king of Sodom, I have lift up mine hand unto the LORD, the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth,
(23)  That I will not take from a thread even to a shoelatchet, and that I will not take any thing that is thine, lest thou shouldest say, I have made Abram rich:
(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 take their portion.


Looking closely at Abram's statement in response to that of the King of Sodom:

One can see very clearly that Abram said he wouldn't keep anything of the King's. One can decide to keep or not keep only something that is in his possession
and not something  that isn't in his possession. It is clear that they were discussing something in abram's possession but which Abram refered to as "yours" to the King of Sodom; implying that he considered them to be his.

One might argue that "keep" wasn't the word used by Abram but "take" as indicated by the KJV version; which would then mean it was in reference to freshly taking something instead of already being in possession of something(as keep would imply).
But if you look at verse 24 of the kjv version, the statement continued with "save only" which would mean "except" in the context it was used.
This means that abram was saying he wouldn't keep anything of the king's(the spoils) except for what his men had eaten out of it and whatever his allies wanted out of it.
This implies that the right word to be used was "keep" and not "take".

This clearly shows that the stuff they were deliberating about were the spoils of the war which were in Abram's possession but which Abram referred to as "yours" when speaking to the king; which implies and shows that Abram considered them the possessions of the king of Sodom.

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

Thanks, ttalks

Gen 14:24(AMP)
(24)  [Take all] except only what my young men have eaten and the share of the men [allies] who went with me--Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre; let them take their portion.

Amplified version showing that it was understood that Abram told the King to take all except . . . . . .

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

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

Gen 14:24(GW)
24 I won't take one single thing except what my men have eaten. But let my allies Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre take their share.

God's Word version saying the King of Sodom should let(allow) the allies to take their share; indicating his ownership of the goods/possessions.

ttalks:

Viaro,

It is very clear from Genesis 14:21-24 that Abram being the owner of the spoils considered them to be the possessions of the King of Sodom
which he(Abram) had taken over.

. . . .

ttalks:

I think Matthew Henry's comment on this issue is quite interesting and goes along with the idea I'm trying to pinpoint:

I understand your view, as well I'm willing to be genial enough to let anyone have theirs. I just wanted to see the basis for the assertions many of us make and wondered if there were any exegetical basis in them.

The one you gave from Matthew Henry may well be suited for what you wanted to convey - and that's all fine. But its short comings are revealed in the fact that it is rather exhortatory in general and not exegetical. I do not find the principles of Biblical exegesis in Matthew Henry's treatment of Genesis 14. I could also point you to a few exegesis from other commentaries to the point; but perhaps I should forebear.

However, let's consider the analogy you offered earlier:

ttalks:
Look at this:

Let's say in an imaginary situation, there is a law that states:
"If any body loses his money(that is,misplaces it in some way or the other); any body that finds it or comes upon it automatically becomes the owner."

. . . .
>snip<

Everything I've said about this has nothing to do with whether 90% of any goods were given to any body or whether it bears any relation to tithes or not,
but simply the fact that Abram(current owner of the spoils) decided to leave a balance of the spoils to the original owner(king of Sodom).

The analogy cannot be held against you, bro. However, it does not fit in at all with the Genesis 14 scenario.

We know that the Bible teaches us about restoring missing things back to their rightful onwers. For example, if someone has found something that was lost, by commandment he is to restore what was lost back to the owner (see Lev. 6:2-5). In such a case, there are circumstances that guide the restoring of such goods, for they concern such goods as  -

[list][li]that which was delivered him to keep,[/li]
[li]or in fellowship,[/li]
[li]or in a thing taken away by violence,[/li]
[li]or hath deceived his neighbour[/li][/list]

It is on grounds of such lost things that they be restored to the onwers (compare also Deuteronomy 22:1-4).

However, it is a very different scenario in war of nations. Spoils of war cannot be claimed by defeated kings, rulers or sovereigns. This is what Deuteronomy 20:11-14 teaches - "ALL that is in the city, even ALL THE SPOIL THEREOF, shalt thou take unto thyself". This principle has been recognized among ancient civilizations, so that before and beyond Deuteronomy 20, that is what has been applied in laws of conquest among nations.

The principle is seen in the war history of Israel. Even where disagreements emerged among them as to how spoils were to be divided, nonetheless the victors laid claim to the spoils and nothing is reserved unto the defeated kings. See 1 Samuel 30:24 for example: "For who will hearken unto you in this matter? but as his part is that goeth down to the battle, so shall his part be that tarrieth by the stuff: they shall part alike." Only those who conquered others in warfare had claim to the spoils, and in no wise do we find any case made where defeated kings had any claims to spoils of war that did not belong to them.

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

Of course, I am open to see anything to the contrary - but let it be clear references showing that defeated kings had legal rights to spoils of warfare that are not theirs. That is what I am asking for; and because I'm persuaded to the contrary, I have shown hitherto from Deuteronomy 20; 1 Samuel 30; and an external reference (Hugo Grotius's work) which is has become foundational in political law among many nations today.

garyarnold:

Try me - your life will never remain the same after viaro deals with you.

Biggest laugh I've had in a long time! That's for the humor!

Much obliged. I knew you were far more of a joke than anything else to begin with.

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

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

Enigma:

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

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

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

nuclearboy:

@Gary:

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

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

nuclearboy:

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

Thanks, ttalks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[/list]

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

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