viaro:

Hahaha. . . joking and teasing him, yes sir. But [size=15pt]not [/size] playing the devil's 'advocado' - [size=15pt]no[/size] sir. 

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.

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

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

Actually, looking at the text in Genesis 14 we can see the answers to some of the issues here without difficulty.

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

As I said yesterday, the passage does not make this technical distinction. Yes Abram had control of the goods having won them [back] in war, yet Abram HIMSELF regarded them and certainly described them as belonging to the king of Sodom --- "I will not take anything that is YOURS", "yours" meaning "king of Sodom's".

If the last paragraph is not enough, check this two verses out: verse 12

They also took Lot, Abram’s brother’s son who dwelt in Sodom, and his goods, and departed.

So those were Lot's goods before the war. But theeeeeeeeeeeen the Bible still described them as Lot's goods after the wars and after Abram had recovered them as "spoils of war"; verse 16

So he brought back all the goods, and also brought back his brother Lot and his goods, as well as the women and the people.

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

If one turns his mind away from a modern/Western mindset, the Abram-Sodom situation is a common situation in ancient societies and certainly existed in old Yoruba societies. For example, there were some Yoruba communities who were very warlike and saw wars as ways of surviving and being supplied with provisions; what they won in war was "spoil of war" but nonetheless they would return those to friendly nations/kings if it was established that those spoils originally belonged to those nations/kings.

Actually, this reminds me of a song (I can only remember bits unfortunately) from an old Yoruba play in the days of qualitative Nigerian/Yoruba theatre:

It was a song by a community's warrior clan imploring the permission of their king to wage war on some neighbours so they could seize some loot:

Ogun ya wa o, a fe lo jagun;   (It's time for war; we want to wage war)

Bi a ko ba jagun rara             (If we do not wage war)

A ko ni ri ounje        ( We will not have food)      {{{This bit I'm not sure I've got 100% accurate as this is where my memory of the song goes hazy; someone like Joagbaje may recognise the song, perhaps!}}}

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

Thanks Enigma. I was starting to worry why I ever joined in singing "Abraham's blessings are mine" considering he'd turned out to be a bullying warrior baron

nuclearboy:

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

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

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

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

nuclearboy:

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

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

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


__________________

Enigma:

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

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

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

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

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

nuclearboy:

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

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

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

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

Enigma:

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

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

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

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

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

viaro:

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

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

viaro:

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

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

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

To whom does the legal claims of "spoils of warfare" belong? We know (and I hope we still have this agreement) that it is to Abraham that the SPOILS of war belong in Genesis 14.

Since Abraham GAVE UP his legal right by his vow, BEFORE he went to war, Abraham never had a legal right to the spoils. He had possession, but not legal rights. The fact that the two Kings may have not known of Abraham's vow doesn't change the fact that he had GIVEN UP his legal rights to the spoils.

Without knowing all the laws at that time, we can't determine who acquired the rights that Abraham gave up. We only know who had possession of the spoils, and what was said between Abraham and the two Kings.

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

It is really becoming a fruitless discussion. Grotius is irrelevant as I've said before ----- and I can dissect the Grotius thoroughly, but just not on this irrelevance. Grotius' De Jure etc is a 17th century work, when was Genesis written? Anyway, if I continue along this line of thought we will yet get into further digression, so I'm just going to zip that.

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

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

Very interesting discussion. And I thought NL religion was dying. LOL.

@Nuclearboy & Viaro: Howdee? (Nuclearboy, I haven't forgotten o! Plus, I lost my phone so please email me your phone number again. Thanks.)

I agree with viaro where he says that Abram's action was not just tradition. Furthermore, I believe Abram gave the tihe when realized the person of Melchidezek because this King of Peace (Salem) spoke the same things that God already told him in secret in Genesis 12:2-3. In essence, he realized that Melchidezek was not just an ordinary King, but was standing as a Theophany: an eternal manifestation of God prior to the incarnation of Yeshua (Jesus), without end or beginning. Abram offered his tithe directly to God in this case.

---

On the other hand, concerning the spoil, I think both of you are splitting hairs:

Gen 14:21  The king of Sodom said to Abram, "Give me back the people but keep all the plunder for yourself."
Gen 14:22  But Abram told the king of Sodom, "I swear to GOD, The High God, Creator of Heaven and Earth, this solemn oath,
Gen 14:23  that I'll take nothing from you, not so much as a thread or a shoestring. I'm not going to have you go around saying, 'I made Abram rich.'
Gen 14:24  Nothing for me other than what the young men ate and the share of the men who went with me, Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre; they're to get their share of the plunder."

First of all, the spoils of war were double: it was not only Sodom's property before the war, but also Gomorrah's since they both fell into the tar pit valleys. Thus, saying that Sodom got it all back, is very wrong. What happens to Gomorrah?

Spoils of war belong entirely to the victor. But in the same freewill that Abram gave the tithe (and when he gave it, it was no longer his own) out of the spoil, he had the exact same freewill to do whatever he wanted with the rest.

Saying he would take nothing from Sodom, means he would choose not to take / use whatever used to belong to Sodom. It no longer belonged to the King of Sodom, who was just enjoying from Abram's generosity / the dividends of his promise to God.

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

The only thing we can know, exegetically, and for sure, from the scriptures is that Abram left with NOTHING that used to belong to Sodom, and also the young men who went with him (Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre) had the liberty to share the rest of the spoils of their war. A labourer is worthy of his wages, and it was THEIR wages for the war.

In summary, this is how the spoils of war were shared:
1. The 318 servants / young warriors who went with Abram ate some of the spoil.
2. Melchizedek got a tenth of the rest of the spoil (this was even AFTER the 318 servants ate some).
3. OF the rest [90%] of the spoil, Abraham washed his hands clean and said he would have nothing to do with the 90%. Rather he delegated the responsibility of using or sharing to the brothers, allies that he lived with. It was their discretion to either share 30% each of the rest of the spoil and leave King Bera of Sodom empty-handed, or ELSE to take only a part and give the rest to King Bera of Sodom, or ELSE to take nothing and be like Abram, rejecting any reward for their bravery and valor.

It is not known if they shared it all, or if they gave Sodom some, or if they took NOTHING and gave Sodom back its spoils.

Anything else is eisegesis.

Selah.

Where did u go inesq

InesQor

What happened to Lot's possessions/goods? Who and who shared those?

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

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

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

BTW Inesqor:

You skimmed through our posts else you'd have seen that I said I use "Sodom" to represent ALL original owners of the possession that became "spoils of war". It would have become somewhat clumsy to name each and every owner each time. The fact that Abram was discussing with Sodom encouraged me to use just that name as representative of all.

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

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

garyarnold:

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

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

_____________

Enigma:

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

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

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

Enigma:

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

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

Enigma:

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

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

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

Enigma:

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

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

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

Somethin makes me wonder where our "kabash" specialists are. Their presencehere for good or bad would have show some Bible literacy. anyways, to each his own- some are better suited as mirrors and some as amplifiers

nuclearboy:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

nuclearboy:

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

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

nuclearboy:

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

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

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



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

@viaro

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

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

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

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

InesQor:

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

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

Enigma:

@viaro

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This thread tires me for its flights into realms hitherto not planned

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

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

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

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

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


etc etc in absurdum!

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

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

Enigma:

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

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

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

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

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


etc etc in absurdum!

nuclearboy:

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

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

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

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

nuclearboy:

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

nuclearboy:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Anyhow, my commander . . .

nuclearboy:

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

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

With the gift of garb you have, I need not go with you. Go do the "needy" at Aso Rock. I'm sure no-one there stand a chance. When ready, inform me and I'll come out from behind my laptop and become landlord at Aso Rock. BTW, you'll get to head a new "ministry of eisegesis".

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

nuclearboy:

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

Yay! Halleluyah!

nuclearboy:

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

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

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

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

@jesus2:

I didn't come into this issue to "beat" Viaro. I actually think that the "winning" desire is one of the worst abasements of humanity since it takes us to the extent where we lie and eisegise to get our way.

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

@Aletheia:

YOU, I expected to make your views known. Why did you keep so quiet? Enigma was the other but I never thought he'd even notice this thread considering enigmalet's demands. Still waiting to read your views, Sir

aletheia:

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

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

________________

Jesus2:

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

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

________________

nuclearboy:

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

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