Featured Retraction

And I believe that's exactly what I said. As to the distinction that their tithe was to be grain, produce and livestock, all those were also used as barter in Israel, which makes those items the same thing as cash. Israel didn't mint coins until the first century B.C.

 

That is all I wanted to hear.

Just Kidding, bro.

May we all be blessed with your humility. I normally make an absolute fool out of myself before I change my views!

Sola Scriptura! Soli Deo Gloria!

 

As much as I possibly can. I would guess (this is just a guess) normally around 15 to 20 percent.

 

Completely false my friend. Money has been used in Israel since before it was even an official country. We know this not just from archaeology, but the Bible.

Deu 14:22 "You shall tithe all the yield of your seed that comes from the field year by year.
Deu 14:23 And before the LORD your God, in the place that he will choose, to make his name dwell there, you shall eat the tithe of your grain, of your wine, and of your oil, and the firstborn of your herd and flock, that you may learn to fear the LORD your God always.
Deu 14:24 And if the way is too long for you, so that you are not able to carry the tithe, when the LORD your God blesses you, because the place is too far from you, which the LORD your God chooses, to set his name there,
Deu 14:25 then you shall turn it into money and bind up the money in your hand and go to the place that the LORD your God chooses
Deu 14:26 and spend the money for whatever you desire—oxen or sheep or wine or strong drink, whatever your appetite craves. And you shall eat there before the LORD your God and rejoice, you and your household.



ONLY grain and livestock was permitted for the tithe. Giving money was forbidden. If a person could not bring the tithe, the money was returned to them, to use for "whatever they desire."

 

Abraham purchased land and a burial place for Sarah with Shekels of Silver....Money was used AGES before godless humanists claim that stupid ancient man used it.

Money (as a currency) was used as I recall something like 40 times in the book of Genesis alone......
People knew what money was.

 

Silver and gold, that is what we are talking about here, not coins but the raw precious metals, though other nations around Israel did mint coins. What I said was that Israel didn't coin money until the first century B.C., and that is absolutely correct, so I'd thank you not to call my statements "false." I will occasionally make a mistake, but I, for the most part, will never make a statement that is not well researched and therefore easily disproven. References to talents, shekels, etc., referred to weights of precious metals. Israel did not mint coins. People would keep foreign coins, but they generally would forego the use of foreign coins in transactions, whether with their brothers or with foreigners. All the civilizations in that world were agrarian in nature, therefore barter was the accepted form of payment on virtually all contracts.

Yes, grain, produce and livestock was the acceptable tithe. That does not, however, preclude those same items being barter, which they were. The preferred "cash" in Israel was the items named here.

 

Worst crime perpetuated upon Christian Theology....

Mankind was a mass of un-civilized rubes who didn't utilize currency...load of crap. If I'm not mistaken...currency (as a method of exchange) is spoken of in Genesis scores of times.

 

A society may comfortably and regularly utilize currency without having minted their own. Whether they personally "Mint it" or not...currency as a medium of exchange is not a difficult concept.....The Jews "plundered" the Egyptians of their gold and silver as God prospered them to according to the book of Exodus....

It doesn't take a genius to comprehend that the shiny stuff is nice. :thumbs:

 

I thought that the Shekel was an Israeli coin from the 3rd century BC. Am I wrong?

 

Your statement is wrong. Of course I will say your statements are "False" when they are "false."

The common practice of ancient Israel was to sell your grain and livestock for money. Yes, they used measures of silver for money (although we have Israeli/Judean coins from nearly 600 years B.C....and there is NO proof it was not minted earlier). The point being you could NOT bring money for the tithe. If you could not bring your tithe of grain and livestock, you sold it, and KEPT the money for something else. You were not allowed to sell it and bring money.

The fact remains that the tithe is not money, it was specifically forbidden from being money, even though purchasing with money was the normal practice of the time.

 

Strange how the BB takes a thread that is offered as a truly sincere retraction of a once held thinking, and continue to dig in the sand to discover other areas of disagreement.

I can picture BB members walking down Main Street of heaven arguing about the color of the pavement.

Yellow,
Blonde,
Flaxen,
Ochroid,

Then some declare that it isn't about the color, it is about the comfortable walk of the smooth pavement where the foot is not bruised by old world stones.

Of course the discussion degrades into how anyone would consider that the golden street was anything more than a mere path, and anyone who disagrees must be contemptible.

I wonder if the moderators ever get into a disagreement with each other behind the scenes of the BB?

Do they give each other awards for good manners?

:1_grouphug:

 

If that's your perception of what is occurring than you are deranged. Stop trying to be "too cool for school", you aren't. That was not an enlightening post.

Luke didn't change his mind about a critical doctrinal point by having Haven's-dad proclaim that "Tomato"-"Tohmahhhto"....who cares.

That's not what happened.

 

Not true.. Abraham (as a non-Jew) paid tithes (according to Gen and Hebrews) and yet his tithes, which were prior to the Law, included things other than livestock and food. It was what he received via the his conquest to get Lot back after defeating the kings - his increase. Thus we find in the Law this same view of giving according to their increase.

The problem with people shouting - we are not under the Law, tend to forget the principle of the Tithe was before the Law, and it was even before Israel.

Also, the guidelines you are refering to (though not in Law but principle) are found in the NT very prominately in relation to Elders/Pastors. Paul tells us they are to taken care of and uses the OT Law to establish his point. We can note this as the Law in Num 18:21-24 tells us that how they (the OT priests) were taken care of, through the tithes. Pauls speaks back this very thing in saying.. does a soldier serve at his own expense?.. ect, in 1 Cor 9:4-14 and quotes the Law about muzzling the Ox while he is threshing.. and you see the two tied together in vss 13 and 14

The first is speaking of the Law and through the tithes providing for those who are the ministers (priests) there, and vs 14 we see the Lord has ordained should be provided for by the guidelines. And Paul apparently did not make the distinction of being provided for as being crops or food, as he speaks often of monetary provisions.

The Law, vai the tithe is noted in this instance as still being our guideline. Again, My statement is that we should be operating on the tithe principle, not the tithing law. We are to give but sacrifically, joyfully, and out of love for God and His people, not minimumally. I beleve people are asking the wrong question when they ask, how much should I give to God? that typically reveals either a heart of greed or ignorance (having no knowledge). The question we should be asking is How much does God desire me to keep?

If we are Stewards and all things belong to God, then what you make is God's alone - all of it, not just 10%. We must ask the original owner how much we are to keep of His money, not how much should we give him.

BUT FOR LUKE - if that is where God has lead you, and you will continue to give as God has blessed you and leads you.. THEN PRAISE GOD and continue to do so.

Just my nickle in the bucket.

 

:thumbs: I think me and Luke would agree that "Iron Sharpens Iron." Not my job to be "nice"...its my job to strive for truth.

Feeling Driven Christianity is destroying the church. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6C-ritKYceg

 

You are over the top. That kind of language is totally unnecessary.

 

Agreed...I won't agree with you on a LOT!!! of things, but you didn't "pussy-foot" around with Luke. You weren't mean, you weren't gratuitously rude. You were as gentlemanly as possible while simultaneously saying:

"You are wrong, and this is why"....(see e.g. the Bible)

Nothing wrong with what you did.


Now, once I convince you that Calvinism is false and that Dispensationalism is correct then WE'LL be on the same page too :thumbs::laugh:

 

Sure it is .....o.k.

and I care how much???

Dude, you are only saying that because you are aware of my Theological bents...not because you objectively feel that I (as a poster) need this correction.

You are just being subjectively caustic. Good for you.

Grow up.

 

You were "mean and gratuitously rude" to use your own words.

 

Oh, my, but you are making much to do about foam.

I took Luke's statements at face value.

I was reflecting how the BB folks respond and move a thread to areas of disagreement.

I make light of such movement, because some expect it not to happen, and unless a person who originates the thread stays "on top" of the discussion, there is no telling where the rabbit trails will go.

I commend Luke for what he did by his proclamation, because for one to move from one perspective to another is a rare occurrence on the board.

That you expect more from the OP, is unwarranted.

That you take issue with my post, perhaps shows that you have made too great of an investment into matters divergent from what is the stated purpose of the tread (as declared by the OP).

 

No, I was not...
You simply mean to denigrate my every post because you are aware of my Theological bents and they disagree with yours significantly...

That does not (in itself) bother you...what bothers you, is that I'm pretty darned GOOD at debating my view and that spins you into a dimension that you have a hard time gaining control of...

I don't apologize for it.

I have not been rude...I have not "crossed any line" nor have I insulted anyone...

Any reader on here can see that. You are simply denigrating the character of someone you don't agree with and don't like...

join the club...you are neither unique nor alone in that respect.....
you are one of a MILLION who hates people who don't "Kow-tow" to your particular brand of Theology....

You are person# 456,782.25....who would disparage the very character of those who disagree with you Theologically. Join the masses. :sleep: