Close Please enter your Username and Password
Reset Password
If you've forgotten your password, you can enter your email address below. An email will then be sent with a link to set up a new password.
Cancel
Reset Link Sent
Password reset link sent to
Check your email and enter the confirmation code:
Don't see the email?
  • Resend Confirmation Link
  • Start Over
Close
If you have any questions, please contact Customer Service

Meriam's Guy

Does Global Warming Exist??
Posted:Dec 13, 2007 11:05 am
Last Updated:Mar 3, 2024 10:24 am
1626 Views

Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?
By Timothy Ball
Monday, February 5, 2007

Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was one of the first Canadian Ph.Ds. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening.

Here is why.

What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?

Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification

For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.

No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?

Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our , our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.

I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.

Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.

No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.

I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.

In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?

Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.

I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.

Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.

I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.

As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.

Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.

Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.

I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky's book "Yes, but is it true?" The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky's findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky's students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction.
0 Comments
Al Gore's Global Warming lies dressed down by Scientists
Posted:Dec 13, 2007 10:56 am
Last Updated:Mar 3, 2024 10:24 am
1650 Views

Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe
"The Inconvenient Truth" is indeed inconvenient to alarmists

By Tom Harris

"Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the truth as they see it," Al Gore sensibly asserts in his film "An Inconvenient Truth", showing at Cumberland 4 Cinemas in Toronto since Jun 2. With that outlook in mind, what do world climate experts actually think about the science of his movie?

Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."
See also:
Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?
US being hoodwinked into draconian climate policies
The Gods must be laughing
A sample of experts' comments about the science of "An Inconvenient Truth":
But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree with the "vast majority of scientists" Gore cites?

No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.

Even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. "While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball. "They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies."

This is highly valuable knowledge, but doesn't make them climate change cause experts, only climate impact experts.

So we have a smaller fraction.

But it becomes smaller still. Among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. "These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios," asserts Ball. "Since modelers concede computer outputs are not "predictions" but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts."

We should listen most to scientists who use real data to try to understand what nature is actually telling us about the causes and extent of global climate change. In this relatively small community, there is no consensus, despite what Gore and others would suggest.

Here is a small sample of the side of the debate we almost never hear:

Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.

Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, takes apart Gore's dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea. "The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier," says Winterhalter. "In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form."

Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, admits, "Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems."

But Karlen clarifies that the 'mass balance' of Antarctica is positive - more snow is accumulating than melting off. As a result, Ball explains, there is an increase in the 'calving' of icebergs as the ice dome of Antarctica is growing and flowing to the oceans. When Greenland and Antarctica are assessed together, "their mass balance is considered to possibly increase the sea level by 0.03 mm/year - not much of an effect," Karl»n concludes.

The Antarctica has survived warm and cold events over millions of years. A meltdown is simply not a realistic scenario in the foreseeable future.

Gore tells us in the film, "Starting in 1970, there was a precipitous drop-off in the amount and extent and thickness of the Arctic ice cap." This is misleading, according to Ball: "The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology."

Karlen explains that a paper published in 2003 by University of Alaska professor Igor Polyakov shows that, the region of the Arctic where rising temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears showed fluctuations since 1940 but no overall temperature rise. "For several published records it is a decrease for the last 50 years," says Karl»n

Dr. Dick Morgan, former advisor to the World Meteorological Organization and climatology researcher at University of Exeter, U.K. gives the details, "There has been some decrease in ice thickness in the Canadian Arctic over the past 30 years but no melt down. The Canadian Ice Service records show that from 1971-1981 there was average, to above average, ice thickness. From 1981-1982 there was a sharp decrease of 15% but there was a quick recovery to average, to slightly above average, values from 1983-1995. A sharp drop of 30% occurred again 1996-1998 and since then there has been a steady increase to reach near normal conditions since 2001."

Concerning Gore's beliefs about worldwide warming, Morgan points out that, in addition to the cooling in the NW Atlantic, massive areas of cooling are found in the North and South Pacific Ocean; the whole of the Amazon Valley; the north coast of South America and the Caribbean; the eastern Mediterranean, Black Sea, Caucasus and Red Sea; New Zealand and even the Ganges Valley in India. Morgan explains, "Had the IPCC used the standard parameter for climate change (the 30 year average) and used an equal area projection, instead of the Mercator (which doubled the area of warming in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Ocean) warming and cooling would have been almost in balance."

Gore's point that 200 cities and towns in the American West set all time high temperature records is also misleading according to Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. "It is not unusual for some locations, out of the thousands of cities and towns in the U.S., to set all-time records," he says. "The actual data shows that overall, recent temperatures in the U.S. were not unusual."

Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."

In April sixty of the world's leading experts in the field asked Prime Minister Harper to order a thorough public review of the science of climate change, something that has never happened in Canada. Considering what's at stake - either the end of civilization, if you believe Gore, or a waste of billions of dollars, if you believe his opponents - it seems like a reasonable request.
0 Comments
Meteorologist Likens Fear of Global Warming to 'Religious Belief'
Posted:Dec 13, 2007 10:53 am
Last Updated:Mar 3, 2024 10:24 am
1584 Views

Meteorologist Likens Fear of Global Warming to 'Religious Belief'
By Marc Morano
CNSNews. Senior Staff Writer
December 02, 2004

Washington (CNSNews) - An MIT meteorologist Wednesday dismissed alarmist fears about human induced global warming as nothing more than 'religious beliefs.'

"Do you believe in global warming? That is a religious question. So is the second part: Are you a skeptic or a believer?" said Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Richard Lindzen, in a speech to about 100 people at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.

"Essentially if whatever you are told is alleged to be supported by 'all scientists,' you don't have to understand [the issue] anymore. You simply go back to treating it as a matter of religious belief," Lindzen said. His speech was titled, "Climate Alarmism: The Misuse of 'Science'" and was sponsored by the free market George C. Marshall Institute. Lindzen is a professor at MIT's Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences.

Once a person becomes a believer of global warming, "you never have to defend this belief except to claim that you are supported by all scientists -- except for a handful of corrupted heretics," Lindzen added.

According to Lindzen, climate "alarmists" have been trying to push the idea that there is scientific consensus on dire climate change.

"With respect to science, the assumption behind the [alarmist] consensus is science is the source of authority and that authority increases with the number of scientists [who agree.] But science is not primarily a source of authority. It is a particularly effective approach of inquiry and analysis. Skepticism is essential to science -- consensus is foreign," Lindzen said.

Alarmist predictions of more hurricanes, the catastrophic rise in sea levels, the melting of the global poles and even the plunge into another ice age are not scientifically supported, Lindzen said.

"It leads to a situation where advocates want us to be afraid, when there is no basis for alarm. In response to the fear, they want us to do what they want," Lindzen said.

Recent reports of a melting polar ice cap were dismissed by Lindzen as an example of the media taking advantage of the public's "scientific illiteracy."

"The thing you have to remember about the Arctic is that it is an extremely variable part of the world," Lindzen said. "Although there is melting going [on] now, there has been a lot of melting that went on in the [19]30s and then there was freezing. So by isolating a section ... they are essentially taking people's ignorance of the past," he added.

'Repetition makes people believe'

The climate change debate has become corrupted by politics, the media and money, according to Lindzen.

"It's a sad story, where you have scientists making meaningless or ambiguous statements [about climate change]. They are then taken by advocates to the media who translate the statements into alarmist declarations. You then have politicians who respond to all of this by giving scientists more money," Lindzen said.

"Agreement on anything is taken to infer agreement on everything. So if you make a statement that you agree that CO2 (carbon dioxide) is a greenhouse gas, you agree that the world is coming to an end," he added.

"There can be little doubt that the language used to convey alarm has been sloppy at best," Lindzen said, citing Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbles and his famous observation that even a lie will be believed if enough people repeat it. "There is little question that repetition makes people believe things [for] which there may be no basis," Lindzen said.

He believes the key to improving the science of climate change lies in altering the way scientists are funded.

'Alarm is the aim'

"The research and support for research depends on the alarm," Lindzen told CNSNews following his speech. "The research itself often is very good, but by the time it gets through the filter of environmental advocates and the press innocent things begin to sound just as though they are the end of the world.

"The argument is no longer what models are correct -- they are not -- but rather whether their results are at all possible. One can rarely prove something to be impossible," he explained.

Lindzen said scientists must be allowed to conclude that 'we don't have a problem." And if the answer turns out to be 'we don't have a problem,' we have to figure out a better reward than cutting off people's funding. It's as simple as that," he said.

The only consensus that Lindzen said exists on the issue of climate change is the impact of the Kyoto Protocol, the international treaty to limit greenhouse gases, which the U.S. does not support.

Kyoto itself will have no discernible effect on global warming regardless of what one believes about climate change," Lindzen said.

"Claims to the contrary generally assume Kyoto is only the beginning of an ever more restrictive regime. However this is hardly ever mentioned," he added.

The Kyoto Protocol, which Russia recently ratified, aims to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by the year 2010. But Lindzen claims global warming proponents ultimately want to see a 60 to 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gasses from the 1990 levels. Such reductions would be economically disastrous, he said.

"If you are hearing Kyoto will cost billions and trillions," then a further reduction will ultimately result in "a shutdown" of the economy, Lindzen said.
0 Comments
Do You believe in Remarriage?
Posted:Dec 13, 2007 4:30 am
Last Updated:Dec 13, 2007 7:03 am
1574 Views

I was recently involved in a discussion on a blog where a woman had written how she had left an adulterous marriage. Nah, not exactly what you are thinking.

She left because she felt she did not line up with God's word on a reason to divorce or remarry. So she left a marriage she had entered into, that was a good marriage and he also was a Christian because she felt it to be adultery.

So now in her proclamations, she is making others feel bad about remarrying.

It says the letter of the Law Kills. Really lost in all of this is why was a law given in the first place? It was given because Jewish men need only repeat 3 times publicly that "I divorce You" and that was enough for the divorce to take place.It was much more rampant then than anything we see today.

1 Tim 1:9 says that the law was only given in the first place for the unrighteous.

In our New Covenant of Grace, our lives are to be lead by the Spirit and not by the law which was done away with on the cross.(Hebrews 8:13)

But God has replaced the law in the believers with right and wrong written on our hearts. Jer 31:31-34. He has called us to peace. We know what we should or shouldn't do.

But, he will not ask us to break a new covenant of marriage because everything did not line up to a law that was only given to the Jewish people in the first place.

He hates divorce, not because of some silly law, but rather because of what it does to the people he so dearly loves.
0 Comments
the old washers
Posted:Dec 13, 2007 4:18 am
Last Updated:Mar 3, 2024 10:24 am
1614 Views
Remember the old hand washing machines? Not the scub board, but the ones that you ran through the ringer before you hung them up. The clothes when ran through the ringer cam out lifeless and ready to be hung out to dry.

Have you ever felt like you were left out to dry and perhaps brainwashed by churchianty? And long for the life in the Spirit found in Christ?

0 Comments
mommies
Posted:Dec 13, 2007 3:56 am
Last Updated:Dec 13, 2007 7:04 am
1686 Views

many times see their moms as mean, not realizing that their meaness is instead a Love that will overcome the snares that lay down the road.
0 Comments
Purple Orchids
Posted:Dec 12, 2007 6:57 am
Last Updated:Dec 15, 2007 7:44 pm
1831 Views

the beauty of his holiness
0 Comments
Is Tithing scriptural?
Posted:Dec 7, 2007 5:52 am
Last Updated:May 9, 2008 4:02 am
1596 Views

The following essay is a summary of my book, Should the Church Teach Tithing?

A Theologian’s Conclusions about a Taboo Doctrine. The book itself is a greatly expanded version of my Ph. D. thesis. I encourage Bible educators to be bold, to open up their seminary level research and to promote studies on this subject in the Masters, Doctorate and Ph. D. levels. This doctrine is simply too important to ignore.



In many churches today the doctrine of tithing has reached the level of a modern scandal. While on the one hand, most seminary-level textbooks on systematic theology and hermeneutics by highly educated theologians omit tithing, on the other hand, the practice is quickly becoming a requirement for church membership in the very denominations which insist on solid Bible-based doctrines. There is also increasing evidence that lay persons who question the legitimacy of New Covenant tithing are usually criticized and ignored as being troublemakers or weak Christians. Sincere Christian leaders should always be open and available to discuss God’s Word. Failure to do suggests doubt and insecurity. More “holy boldness” is needed.



Modern Tithing is Based on Many False Assumptions



One denomination’s statement on stewardship is typical of what many others teach about tithing. It says that "tithing is the minimum biblical standard and the beginning point which God has established that must not be replaced or compromised by any other standard." It adds that the tithe is from gross income which is due to the church before taxes.



The following points of this essay contrast the false teachings used to support tithing with what God’s Word actually says.



Point #1: N. T. Giving Principles in Second Corinthians 8 and 9 are Superior to Tithing.



The false teaching is that tithing is a divine mandatory expectation which always must precede free-will giving.



Free-will giving existed before tithing. The following New Covenant free-will principles are found in Second Corinthians, chapters 8 and 9: (1) Giving is a "grace.” These chapters use the Greek word for "grace" eight times in reference to helping poor saints. (2) Give yourself to God first (8:5). (3) Give yourself to knowing God’s will (8:5). (4) Give in response to Christ’s gift (8:9; 9:15). (5) Give out of a sincere desire (8:8, 10, 12; 9). (6) Do not give because of any commandment (8:8, 10; 9). (7) Give beyond your ability (8:3, 11, 12). ( Give to produce equality. This means that those who have more should give more in order to make up for the inability of those who cannot afford to give as much (8:12-14). (9) Give joyfully (8:2). (10) Give because you are growing spiritually (8:3, 4, 7). (11) Give because you want to continue growing spiritually (9:8, 10, 11). (12) Give because you are hearing the gospel preached (9:13).



Point #2: In God’s Word the Tithe is Always Only Food!



The false teaching is that biblical tithes include ALL sources of income.



Use God’s Word to define “tithe.” Do not use a secular dictionary! Open a complete Bible concordance and you will discover that the definition used by tithe-advocates is wrong. In God’s Word “tithe” does not stand alone. Although money existed before tithing, the original source of God's "tithe" was never money. It was the “tithe of food.” This is very important: True biblical tithes were always only food from the farms and herds of only Israelites who only lived inside God’s Holy Land, the national boundary of Israel. The increase was gathered from what God produced and not from man's craft or ability.



There are 15 verses from 11 chapters and 8 books from Leviticus 27 to Luke 11 which describe the contents of the tithe. And the contents never (again), never included money, silver, gold or anything other than food from inside Israel! Yet the incorrect definition of "tithe" is the greatest error being preached about tithing today! (See Lev. 27:30, 32; Numb. 18:27, 28; Deut. 12:17; 14:22, 23; 26:12; 2 Chron. 31:5, 6; Neh. 10:37; 13:5; Mal. 3:10; Matt. 23:23; Luke 11: 42).



Point #3: money Was an Essential Non-Tithed Item



The false assumption is that food barter usually replaced money.



One argument to support non-food tithing is that money was not universally available and barter from food must have been used for most transactions. This argument is not biblical. Genesis alone contains “money” in 32 texts and the word occurs 44 times before the tithe is first mentioned in Leviticus 27. The word shekel also appears often from Genesis to Deuteronomy.



In fact many centuries before Israel entered Canaan and began tithing food from God’s Holy Land money was an essential everyday item. For example money in the form of silver shekels paid for slaves (Gen 17:12+); land (Gen 23:9+); freedom (Ex 23:11); court fines (Ex 21 all; 22 all); sanctuary dues (Ex 30:12+); vows (Lev 27:3-7); poll taxes (Num 3:47+), alcoholic drinks (Deu 14:26) and marriage dowries (Deu 22:29).



According to Genesis 47:15-17 food was used for barter only after money had been spent. Banking and usury laws exist in God’s Word in Leviticus even before tithing. Therefore the argument that money was not prevalent enough for everyday use is false. Yet the tithe contents never include money from non-food products and trades.



Point #4: Abraham’s Tithe to Melchizedek Reflected Pagan Tradition.



The false teaching is that Abraham freely gave tithes because it was God’s will.



For the following reasons, Genesis 14:20 cannot be used as an example for Christians to tithe. (1) The Bible does not say that Abraham "freely" gave this tithe. (2) Abraham’s gift was NOT a holy tithe from God’s holy land gathered by God’s holy people under God’s holy Old Covenant. (3) Abraham’s tithe was only from pagan spoils of war and was required in many nations. (4) In Numbers 31, God only required 1% of spoils of war. (5) Abraham’s tithe to Melchizedek was a one-time recorded event. (6) Abraham’s tithe was not from his own personal property. (7) Abraham kept nothing for himself; he gave everything back. ( Abraham’s tithe is not quoted anywhere in the Bible to endorse tithing. (9) Genesis 14, verse 21, is the key text. Since most commentaries explain verse 21 as an example of pagan Arab tradition, it is contradictory to explain the 90% of verse 21 as pagan, while insisting that the 10% of verse 20 was God’s will. (10) If Abraham is an example for Christians to give 10% to God, then he should also be an example for Christians to give the other 90% to Satan, or to the king of Sodom! (11) As priests themselves, neither Abraham nor Jacob had a Levitical priesthood to support; they probably left food for the poor at their altars.



Point #5: Tithing Was Not a Minimum Required from All Old Covenant Israelites

The false teaching is that everybody was to begin their giving level at ten per cent.

Only those Israelites who earned a livelihood from farming and herding inside Israel were required to tithe under the Mosaic Law. Their increase came from God’s hand. Those whose increase came from their own crafts and skills were not required to tithe products and money. The poor and needy who did not tithe and received from the tithe gave freewill offerings.



Point #6: First-Tithes were Received by Servants to the Priests.



The false teaching is that Old Testament priests received all of the first tithe.



The "whole" tithe, the first tithe, did not go to the priests at all. According to Numbers 18:21-24 and Nehemiah 10:37b, it went to the servants of the priests, the Levites. And according to Numbers 18:25-28 and Nehemiah 10:38, the Levites gave the best “tenth of this tithe” (1 which they received to the priests who ministered the sin sacrifices and served inside the holy places. Priests did not tithe



It is also important to know that, in exchange for receiving these tithes, both Levites and priests forfeited all rights to permanent land inheritance inside Israel (Numb. 18:20-26; Deut. 12:12; 14:27, 29; 18:1, 2; Josh. 13:14, 33; 14:3; 18; Ezek. 44:2. Even if tithes were New Covenant they would first go to the (Levites) deacons to assist the preachers and maintain the buildings.



Point #7: "It is Holy to the LORD" Does Not Make Tithing an Eternal Moral Principle.



The false teaching is that Leviticus 27:30-33 proves that the tithe is an "eternal moral principle" because "it is holy to the LORD."



The phrases “it is HOLY unto the LORD” and “it is MOST HOLY unto the LORD” are very common in Leviticus. However, almost every other use of these same two phrases in Leviticus has long ago been discarded by Christians. These phrases are used to describe all of the festivals, the sacrificial offerings, the clean food, the old covenant priests and the old covenant sanctuary. Especially read verses 28 and 29 in the same chapter.



While the “tithe of the tithe” (1 which was given to the priests was the “best” of what the Levites received, the tithe which the Levites received was only “one tenth” and not the “best” (Lev. 27:32, 33).



Point #8: First-fruits are Not the Same as Tithes



The false assumption is that tithes are first-fruits.



The first-fruit was a very small amount of the first crop harvest and the first-born was the first offspring of animals. The first-fruit was small enough to fit into a hand-held basket (Deut. 26:1-4, 10; Lev. 23:17; Num. 18:13-17; 2 Chron 31:5a).



First-fruit and first-born offerings went directly to the Temple and were required to be totally consumed by ministering priests only inside the Temple (Neh. 10:35-37a; Ex. 23:19; 34:26; Deut. 18:4).



The whole Levitical tithe went first to the Levitical cities and portions went to the Temple to feed both Levites and priests who were ministering there in rotation (Neh. 10:37b-39; 12:27-29, 44-47; Num. 18:21-28; 2 Chron 31:5b). While the Levites ate the tithe, the priests could also eat from the first-fruit, first-born offerings and other offerings.



Point #9: There are Four Different Tithes Described in the Bible.



The false teaching ignores all other tithes and focuses on an incorrect interpretation of the first religious tithe.



The first religious tithe, called the "Levitical tithe," had two parts. Again, the whole first tithe was given to the Levites who were only servants to the priests (Numb. 18:21-24; Neh. 10:37). The Levites, in turn, gave one tenth of the whole tithe to the priests (Numb. 18:25-28; Neh. 10:3. According to Deuteronomy 12 and 14, the second religious tithe, called the "feast tithe," was eaten by worshipers in the streets of Jerusalem during the three yearly festivals (Deut. 12:1-19; 14:22-26). And, according to Deuteronomy 14 and 26, a third tithe, called the "poor tithe," was kept in the homes every third year to feed the poor (Deut. 14:28, 29; 26:12, 13). Also, according to First Samuel 8:14-17, the ruler collected the first and best ten per cent for political use. During Jesus’ time Rome collected the first ten per cent (10 of most food and twenty per cent (20 of fruit crops as its spoils of war. One wonders what "churches" are trying to hide when they single out the one religious tithe which best suits their purposes and ignore the other two important religious tithes.



Point #10: Jesus, Peter, Paul and the Poor Did Not Tithe



The false teaching is that everybody in the Old Testament was required to begin their giving to God at the ten per cent level.



The poor were not required to tithe at all! Neither did the tithe come from the results of man’s craft, hands and skill. Only farmers and herdsmen gathered what God produced as tithe increase. Jesus was a carpenter; Paul was a tentmaker and Peter was a fisherman. None of these occupations qualified as tithe-payers because they did not farm or herd animals for a living. It is, therefore, incorrect to teach that everybody paid a required minimum of a tithe and, therefore, that New Covenant Christians should be required to at least begin at the same minimum as Old Covenant Israelites. This common false assumption is very often repeated and completely ignores the very plain definition of tithe as food gathered from farm increase or herd increase.



It is also wrong to teach that the poor in Israel were required to pay tithes. In fact, they actually received tithes! Much of the second festival tithe and all of a special third-year tithe went to the poor! Many laws protected the poor from abuse and expensive sacrifices which they could not afford (see also Lev. 14:21; 25:6, 25-28, 35, 36; 27:8; Deu. 12:1-19; 14:23, 28, 29; 15, 8, 11; 24:12, 14, 15, 19, 20; 26:11-13; Mal. 3:5; Matt. 12:1, 2; Mark 2:23, 24; Luke 2:22-24; 6:1, 2; 2 Cor. 8:12-14; 1 Tim. 5:8; Jas. 1:27).



Point #11: Tithes were Often Used as Political Taxes.



The false teaching is that tithes are never comparable to taxes or taxation.



In the Hebrew economy, the tithe was used in a totally different manner than it is preached today. Once again, those Levites who received the whole tithe were not even ministers or priests -- they were only servants to the priests! Numbers chapter 3 describes the Levites as carpenters, metal workers, leather-craftsmen and artists who maintained the small sanctuary. And, according to First Chronicles, chapters 23-26, during the time of King David and King Solomon the Levites were still skilled craftsmen who inspected and approved all work in the Temple: 24, 000 worked in the Temple as builders and supervisors; 6,000 were officials and judges; 4,000 were guards and 4,000 were musicians. As political representatives of the king, Levites used their tithe income to serve as officials, judges, tax collectors, treasurers, temple guards, musicians, bakers, singers and professional soldiers (1 Chron. 12:23, 26; 23:2-5; 26:29-32; 27:5). It is obvious why these examples of using biblical tithe-income are never used as examples in the church today.



It is also important to know that Old Covenant tithes were never used for evangelism of non-Israelites. Tithing failed! See Hebrews 7:12-19. Tithes never stimulated Old Covenant Levites or priests to establish a single mission outreach or encourage a single Gentile to become an Israelite (Ex. 23:32; 34:12, 15; Deut. 7:2). Old Covenant tithing was motivated and mandated by Law, not love. In fact, during most of Israel’s history the prophets were God’s primary spokesmen ‒ and not the tithe-receiving Levites and priests.



Point #12: Levitical Tithes Were Usually Taken to the Levitical Cities.



False teachers want us to think that all tithes were formerly taken to the Temple and should now be taken to the "church storehouse” building.



The “whole” tithe NEVER went to the Temple! In reality, the overwhelming majority of Levitical tithes never went to the Temple! Those who teach otherwise ignore the Levitical cities and the 24 courses of the Levites and priests. According to Numbers 35, Joshua 20, 21 and First Chronicles 6, Levites and priests lived on borrowed land like Jericho and Hebron surrounding the Levitical cities where they farmed and raised (tithed) animals. And it is clear from Second Chronicles 31:15-19 and Nehemiah 10:37 that the ordinary people were expected to bring their tithes to the Levitical cities. Why? That is where 98% of the Levites and priests lived with their families most of the time. See also Josh. 20, 21; Numb, 35; 1st Chron.6:48-80; 2nd Chron. 11:13-14; Neh. 12:27-29; 13:10 and Mal. 1:14 for Levitical cities.



Point #13: Malachi 3 is the Most Abused Tithing Text in the Bible.



The false teaching about tithes from Malachi 3 ignores five important Bible facts.



(1) Malachi is Old Covenant context and is never quoted in the New Covenant to validate tithing (Lev. 27:34; Neh. 10:28, 29; Mal. 3; 4:4). (2) In 1:6; 2:1 and 3:1-5, Malachi is very clearly addressed to dishonest priests who are cursed because they had stolen the best offerings from God. (3) The Levitical cities must be considered and Jerusalem was not a Levitical city (Josh 20, 21). It makes no sense to teach that 100% of the tithe was brought to the Temple when most Levites and priests did not live in Jerusalem. (4) In Malachi 3:10-11 tithes are still only food (Lev. 27:30-33). (5) The 24 courses of Levites and priests must also be considered. Beginning with King David and King Solomon, they were divided into 24 families. These divisions were also put into place in Malachi’s time by Ezra and Nehemiah. Since normally only one family served in the Temple for only one week at a time, there was absolutely no reason to send ALL of the tithe to the Temple when 98% of those it was designed to feed were still in the Levitical cities (For courses see 1 Chron. chapters 23-26; 28:13, 21; 2 Chron. 8:14; 23:8; 31:2, 15-19; 35:4, 5, 10; Ezra 6:18; Neh. 11:19, 30; 12:24; 13:9, 10; Luke 1:5).



Therefore, when the context of the Levitical cities, the 24 families of priests, under-age , wives, Numbers 18:20-28, 2 Chronicles 31:15-19, Nehemiah 10-13, and all of Malachi are all evaluated, only about 2% of the total first tithe was normally required at the Temple in Jerusalem.



Both the blessing and the curse of Malachi 3:9-11 only lasted for Israelites until the Old Covenant ended at the cross. Malachi’s audience had willingly reaffirmed the Old Covenant (Neh.10:28, 29). “Cursed be he that confirms not all the words of this law to do them. And all the people shall say, Amen” (Deut. 27:26 quoted in Gal. 3:10). And Jesus ended the curse. “Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangs on a tree” (Gal. 3:13).



Today the very lowest income class pays the largest percentage to charity. Yet most remain in poverty. Neither the lottery, nor the tithe is a magic get-rich-quick answer to replace education, determination and hard work. If Malachi 3:10 really worked for New Covenant Christians, then millions of poor tithing Christians would have escaped poverty and would have become the wealthiest group of people in the world instead of remaining the poorest group. There is no evidence that the vast majority of poor “tithe-payers” are ever blessed financially merely because they tithe. The Old Covenant blessings are not New Covenant blessings (Heb. 7:18, 19; 8:6-8, 13).



Point #14: The New Testament Does Not Teach Tithing.



The false teaching is that Jesus taught tithing in Matthew 23:23 which, they say, is clearly in the New Testament.



The New Covenant did not begin at the birth of Jesus, but at his death (Gal. 3:19, 24, 25; 4:4, 5). Tithing is not taught to the church after the cross! When Jesus discussed tithing in Matthew 23:23, “you” referred to Jewish obedience to the Old Covenant Law which he endorsed and supported until the cross (note “of the law” in 23:23). In Matthew 23:2 and 3 (the context of 23:23) Jesus told his Jewish followers to obey the scribes and Pharisees "because they sit in Moses’ seat." Yet He did not command Gentiles whom He healed to present themselves to the priests and obey the Law of Moses (compare Matt. 5:23, 24 and 8:4). And churches do not collect tithes from garden herbs as Jesus commanded.



There is not a single New Testament Bible text which teaches tithing after the cross ‒ period! Acts 2:42-47 and 4:32-35 are not examples of tithing to support church leaders. According to 2:46 the Jewish Christians continued to worship in the Temple. And according to 2:44 and 4:33, 34 church leaders shared what they received equally with all church members. (This is not done today). Finally Acts 21:20-25 proves that Jewish Christians were still zealously observing all of the Mosaic Law 30 years later ‒and that must include tithing–otherwise they would not have been allowed inside the Temple to worship. Therefore, any tithes collected by the early Jewish Christians were given to the Temple system and not to support the church.



Point #15: Limited Old Covenant Priests Were Replaced by All Believer-Priests.



The false teaching is that New Covenant elders and pastors are simply continuing where the Old Covenant priests left off and are due the tithe.



Compare Exodus 19:5, 6 with First Peter 2: 9, 10. Before the incident of the golden calves, God had intended for every Israelite to become a priest and tithing would have never been enacted. Priests did not tithe but received one tenth of the first tithe (Numb. 18:26-28; Neh. 10:37, 3.



The function and purpose of Old Covenant priests were replaced, not by elders and pastors, but by the priesthood of every believer. Like other ordinances of the Law, tithing was only a temporary shadow until Christ (Eph. 2:14-16; Col. 2:13-17; Heb. 10:1). In the New Covenant every believer is a priest to God (1 Pet. 2:9, 10; Rev. 1:6; 5:10). And, as a priest, every believer offers sacrifices to God (Heb. 4:16; 10:19-22; 13:15, 16). Therefore, every ordinance which had previously applied to the old priesthood was blotted out at the cross. Since Jesus was not from the tribe of Levi, even He was disqualified. Thus the original temporary purpose of tithing no longer exists (Heb. 7:12-19; Gal. 3:19, 24, 25; 2 Cor. 3:10-1.



Point #16: The New Covenant Church is Neither a Building nor a Storehouse.



The false teaching is that Christian buildings called "churches," "tabernacles" or "temples" replaced the OT Temple as God’s dwelling places.



God’s Word never describes New Covenant churches as "tabernacles," "temples" or "buildings" in which God dwells! God’s church, God’s dwelling place, is within the believers. Believers do not "go to church" -- believers “assemble to worship.” Also, since OT priests did not pay tithes, then tithing cannot logically continue. Therefore it is wrong to call a building "God’s storehouse" for tithes. (1 Cor. 3:16, 17; 6:19, 20; Eph. 1:22, 23; 2:21; 4:12-16; Rev. 3:12). For "storehouse" compare 1 Corinthians 16:2 with 2 Corinthians 12:14 and Acts 20:17, 32-35. For several centuries after Calvary Christians did not even have their own buildings (to call storehouses) because Christianity was an outlaw religion.



Point #17 The Church Grows by Using Better New Covenant Principles.



The false teaching implies that principles of grace giving are not as good as Old Covenant principles of giving.



Under the New Covenant: (1) According to Galatians 5:16-23, there is no physical law which controls the fruits of the Holy Spirit. (2) Second Corinthians 3:10 says that the Old Covenant has "no glory" when compared to the "surpassing" glory and liberty of the Holy Spirit. (3) Hebrews 7 is the only post-Calvary mention of tithing and it is an explanation of why the Levitical priesthood must be replaced by Christ’s priesthood because it was weak and unprofitable. Study Hebrews 7 and follow the progression from verse 5 to verse 12 to verse 19. (4) The manner in which tithing is taught today reflects a failure of the church to believe and act on the far better principles of love, grace and faith. Mandatory giving principles cannot, has not and will not prosper the church more than principles guided by love for Christ and lost souls (2 Cor. 8, .



Point #18: The Apostle Paul Preferred That Church Leaders Be Self-Supporting.



The false teaching is that Paul taught and practiced tithing.



As a Jewish rabbi, Paul was among those who insisted on working to support himself (Acts 18:3; 1 Thess. 2:9, 10; 2 Thess. 3:8-14). While Paul does not condemn those who are able to receive full-time support, neither does he teach that full-time support is the mandatory will of God for advancing the gospel (1 Cor. 9:12). In fact, twice, in Acts 20:29-35 and also in 2 Corinthians 12:14, Paul actually encouraged church elders to work to support needy believers inside the church.



For Paul, "living of the gospel" meant "living by gospel principles of faith, love and grace" (1 Cor. 9:14). While Paul realized that he had a "right" to some support, he concluded that his "liberty," or freedom to preach unhindered was more important in order to fulfill his calling from God (1 Cor. 9:12, 15; 2 Cor. 11-13; 12:13, 14;1 Thess. 2:5, 6). While working as a tent-maker, Paul accepted limited support but boasted that his pay, or salary, was that he could preach the gospel for free, without being a burden to others (1 Cor. 9:16-19).



Point #19: Tithing Did Not Become a Law in the Church until A. D. 777.



The false teaching is that the historical church has always taught tithing.



The earliest Christian assemblies patterned themselves after the Jewish synagogues which were led by rabbis who, like Paul, refused to gain a profit from preaching and teaching God’s Word. There are many books on Jewish social life which explain this in great detail.



From Christ’s death until Christianity became a legally recognized religion almost 300 years later, the majority of great church leaders took self-imposed vows of poverty. This is historically documented! They took Jesus’ words to the rich young ruler in Luke 18:22 literally “sell all that you have, give it to the poor, and follow me.” Most church historians agree that these early church leaders for at least the first 200 years worked for a living and were self-supporting. A Christian leader could not tell a Roman census-taker that he was a full-time preacher of an “outlaw” religion.



Clement of Rome (c95), Justin Martyr (c150), Irenaeus (c150-200) and Tertullian (c150-220) all opposed tithing as a strictly Jewish tradition. The Didache (c150-200) condemns traveling apostles who stay longer than three days and ask for money. And travelers who decided to remain with them were required to learn a trade. These early opponents of tithing are not quoted by tithe-teachers.



Cyprian (200-25 tried unsuccessfully to impose tithing in Carthage, North Africa around A. D. 250. However at his conversion Cyprian gave away great personal wealth to the poor and lived under a vow of poverty. His idea of tithing included equal re-distribution to the poor. And ‒we must remember– his ideas of tithing were not adopted.



When tithe-teachers quote Ambrose, Chrysostom and Augustine as so-called “church fathers” they conveniently leave out the first 200 years of church history. Even after Christianity became legal in the fourth century many of the greatest spiritual leaders took vows of deep poverty and preferred to live unmarried lives in monasteries. If these tithe-teachers are quoted, then the church should also be told what kind of lives they usually led.



While disagreeing with their own theologians, most church historians write that tithing did not become an accepted doctrine in the church for over 700 years after the cross. According to the very best historians and encyclopedias, it took over 500 years before the local church Council of Macon in France, in the year 585, tried unsuccessfully to enforce tithing on its members. It was not until the year 777 that Charlemagne legally allowed the church to collect tithes. That, my friend, is the history of tithing found in the Encyclopedia Britannica, Encyclopedia Americana and the Roman Catholic Encyclopedia for everybody to read. These historical facts ought to prove something to somebody.



CONCLUSION:



In God’s Word, “tithe” does not stand alone. It is the “tithe of FOOD.” The biblical tithe was very narrowly defined and limited by God Himself. True biblical tithes were always: (1) only food, (2) only from the farms and herds, (3) of only Israelites, (4) who only lived inside God’s Holy Land, the national boundary of Israel, (5) only under Old Covenant terms and (6) the increase could only be gathered from what God produced.



Therefore, (1) non-food items could not be tithed; (2) clean wild game animals and fish could not be tithed; (3) non-Israelites could not tithe; (4) food from outside God’s holy land of Israel could not be tithed; (5) legitimate tithing did not occur when there was no Levitical priesthood; and (6) tithes did not come from what man’s hands created, produced or caught by hunting and fishing.



I invite church leaders into an open discussion of this subject. The careful and prayer-full study of God’s Word is essential for church growth. May God bless you in that study.



(I encourage you to reprint and distribute this article.)



BOOK: POLISH TRANSLATION
ESSAYANISH LANGUAGE
ESSAY: PORTUGUESE (BR) LANGUAGE
ESSAY: SPANISH LANGUAGE

PAGAN TITHES: GENESIS 14

Research by DAVID ROOT;

The custom was almost universal in antiquity; for Greece and Rome see Pauly-Wissowa, Realencyclopädie, iv. 2306, 2423; for Babylon, M. Jastrow, Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, p. 668; for China, J. Legge, Chinese Classics, i. 119; for Egypt, G. Maspero, Struggle of Nations, p. 312.f The general notion of tax or tribute often prevailed over that of "the tenth" part, so that in Dion Halicarnassus (i. 23) and Philo (Dc mutat. noin.~. 607) hirapxai and &thTat are synonymous, and in Mahommedan law the "tithe" is sometimes only -510th or ~f'eth." (1911 Encyclopedia)



"In the same manner the Greeks too, the Carthaginians, and the Romans devoted a tenth portion of the spoils of war to their deities." (On the Acquisition of Territory and Property by Right of Conquest)



"The Greek League against Persia, founded in 481 vows a tenth of the spoils of war to the shrine (7:132), and this happens, after Salamis and Plataea." (Herodotus on Greek Religion)



"During the twelfth century, evidence points clearly to the growing significance of warfare in the life of the towns, especially in Portugal, Leon, Castile and Aragon. Precise indications of this development are demonstrated in the increasing concern demonstrated by the makers of the municipal charters in three areas closely related to booty. The first is the royal demand to collect the one-fifth tax on the spoils of war, a tax the Christian rulers inherited from the Muslim practice of laying aside a portion of the gains of the jihad for Allah." (Spoils and Compensations)



"For his courageous role in helping to take the Volscian town of Corioli, Caius Marcius, declining to accept one-tenth of the spoils, was named Coriolanus" (Roman Expansion to 133 BC)



"In the days of Abu Bakr much wealth came to the state on account of the spoils of war. The movable property won as booty on the battlefield was known as "Ghanimah". Four-fifth of the spoils of war was immediately distributed among the soldiers who had taken part in the battle. The remaining one-fifth went to the State. The State's one-fifth share was further divided into three parts. One part went to the family of the Holy Prophet, one part went to the Caliph, and one part was spent for welfare purposes." (Political, Social, Economic and Military Organization)

"TITHES, a form of taxation, secular and ecclesiastical, usually, as the name implies, consisting of one-tenth of a man's property or produce. The tax probably originated in a tribute levied by a conqueror or ruler upon his subjects, and perhaps the custom of dedicating a tenth of the spoils of war to the gods led to the religious extension of the term, the original offerings to deity being "firstfruits."



"To maintain a warband a lord needed a constant supply of commodities to support the warriors and gold and silver to give out as gifts. There were two ways in which these could be obtained. If the warband were strong enough they could raid neighbouring regions and either force them to yield tribute or just carry off valuables. Cattle were a particular target of this activity, because of the relative ease of driving them from one area to another. Since raids would often lead to battles, another type of booty would be the wargear of vanquished opponents. The pillaging of the dead is frequently mentioned in poetry; Ongentheow's body is stripped of his sword and helmet (Beowulf line 2986) and a Viking warrior attacks Byrhtnoth with the intention of taking his sword, armour and rings (Battle of Maldon line 160). It is not clear how these spoils of war would be divided, but it is likely that the majority would have been distributed among the participants in the raid with a proportion being retained by the lord." (The Social Context of Warfare in Anglo-Saxon England)



"The inscription on the base reads: "The Messenians and Naupactians dedicated this to Olympian Zeus, a tithe from the spoils of war. Paionios of Mende made this, and was victor [in the competition] to make the akroteria for the temple"." (The Nike of Paionios)



"Through the spoils of war, Edward was able to refill the bankrupt treasury. Heavily ransomed prisoners, brought fortunes in gold coin to their noble captors--who, in turn, paid a handsome tithe to the King." (Edward III: King of Illusions)



"It was traditional to give the Byzantine Government a set percentage of the spoils of war." (Chapter III: Eastern Expansion, emphasis added)



There are quite a number of books that have been written against tithing, and you can view the entire text of one of these books (or purchase it) online (see Should the Church Teach Tithing? by Dr. Russell Kelly). Dr. Kelly brought to my attention the fact that Abraham tithed on the spoils of war (which was a common practice in those days), as well as the proper interpretation of Malachi 3:8-10, which (after a lot of prayerful study) resulted in my change of mind concerning "New Testament tithing." Dr. Kelly's book examines in detail every passage of Scripture concerning tithing, and it has a chapter which answers various objections that people often make against the view that Christians do not need to tithe.

0 Comments
somewhere over the rainbow...........
Posted:Dec 7, 2007 4:04 am
Last Updated:Dec 7, 2007 3:58 pm
1707 Views
Somewhere over the rainbow my future resides
where dreams and Visions collide
and become a reality

So I look at all the beauty that wells inside
and know that its more than a thought
because the Lord speaks true

When you realize that its more than you ever hoped for and your dreams match
its just a matter of time

Life will always try and take your dreams away
it will cast doubt and also lie
Yet truth reigns over fabrications

Jesus is Lord

0 Comments
if Jesus was the same, yesterday, today and tommorrow.....
Posted:Dec 5, 2007 4:43 am
Last Updated:Mar 3, 2024 10:24 am
1649 Views

Interesting thing is we look at history as a people so strangely. In the last 40 years alone slang phrases have changed to mean different things in our cultures.

If we go across an ocean to another land, the cultures are vastly different. It is all very strange. Both ways it is strange. because our norm in not their norm.

The original fellowships for the early Christians in no way are like the organized churches we have today. It was 330 years after Christ died when Constantine introducded "Christian Church buildings". Why do you think it took that long? Christianity was the only belief system thast did not have a building built to worship in.

The same thing happened with pastors. Why was it 330 years after Christ before Pastors became mouth pieces in groups? Before that they were overseers and servants in the groups. Everyone shared as it speaks in Psalms.

They were felliowships, not bussinesses..why are fellowships bussinesses now?
0 Comments

To link to this blog (Tropical_Man) use [blog Tropical_Man] in your messages.