RE: Debunking the Claim that the Mandela Effect has Altered the Bible
Me too weapon. I think sometimes it takes a wake-up call to get us reading and studying.
The 10 percent subject is a really good one and has several very important elements. The main OT passage that most reference when it comes to tithing is Abraham paying tithes to Melchizedek, (which was amazing all in itself.) Even the terminology used ties directly to the NT. That was long before the time of Moses and the wilderness temple. There are also examples where certain prophets refused to take any monetary gifts in certain circumstances. Abraham did pay tithes to Melchizedek, (which I believe holds much more insight than actually being just about money.) However, Abraham did not accept anything from the king of Sodom. The account actually ties together in Genesis ch. 14. Elisha, in 2 Kings also refused to take any money or gifts from Naaman, and I believe that he made that decision because he wanted every ounce of the credit of Naaman's healing to go to God, and by taking anything from him would reduce that credit. That account is incredibility fascinating, considering the final outcome of Elisha's servant. In other instances, certain men of God refused to take something without paying for it, like David when he bought the threshing floor. He even said: 2 Samuel 24:24 And the king said unto Araunah, Nay; but I will surely buy it of thee at a price: neither will I offer burnt offerings unto the LORD my God of that which doth cost me nothing. So David bought the threshing floor and the oxen for fifty shekels of silver.
There's so much to consider about tithing itself, where the money comes from and why the tithe was given. The principle is in the bible, but it goes much deeper than just giving ten percent to the priests, and the ten percent wasn't always monetary, sometimes it was based on harvests, and cattle. These are some things that I've actually been looking at for a while, and am still studying as one subject leads to another subject, and there's always more to learn.
Thank you for your kind response.
Very insightful answer, but there is some confusion about who did what because of the wording, regarding tithes and Abraham. I used capital letters to try to clarify:
17 And the kING OF SODOM went out to meet him after his return from the slaughter of Chedorlaomer, and of the kings that were with him, at the valley of Shaveh, which is the king's dale. 18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.
19 And HE blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth:
20 And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all. ---WHO IS THIS "HE", BLESSING GOD AND GIVING ABRAHAM TITHES OF HIS GOODS?---
21And the KING OF SODOM SAID UNTO ABRAM, Give ME the persons, and TAKE THE GOODS TO THYSELF. 22 And Abram said to the king of Sodom, I have lift up mine hand unto the LORD, the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth, 23That I WILL NOT TAKE from a thread even to a shoelatchet, and that I will NOT take ANY THING that is THINE, lest thou shouldest say, I have made Abram rich: 24 Save only that which the young men have eaten, and the portion of the men which went with me, Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre; let them take their portion.
The King of Sodom tried to trade Abraham 10 percent of his wealth for some of Abraham's men. Abraham refused to accept the deal. All Melchizedek did was bring bread and wine.
Naaman was a Aramean (Syrian) army commander who wanted to be cured of leprosy. He intended first to pay the King of Israel to do this. The King of course knew that only God could do such things and became distraught, but the prophet pretty much said "don't worry, I've got this" (obviously not his actual words)
He of course couldn't charge a fee or accept money for a service God was going to provide, nor did he ever intend to. However:
"After Naaman had traveled some distance, 20 Gehazi, the servant of Elisha the man of God, said to himself, “My master was too easy on Naaman, this Aramean, by not accepting from him what he brought. As surely as the Lord lives, I will run after him and get something from him.”
21 So Gehazi hurried after Naaman. When Naaman saw him running toward him, he got down from the chariot to meet him. “Is everything all right?” he asked.
22 “Everything is all right,” Gehazi answered. “My master sent me to say, ‘Two young men from the company of the prophets have just come to me from the hill country of Ephraim. Please give them a talent of silver and two sets of clothing.’”
23 “By all means, take two talents,” said Naaman. He urged Gehazi to accept them, and then tied up the two talents of silver in two bags, with two sets of clothing. He gave them to two of his servants, and they carried them ahead of Gehazi. 24 When Gehazi came to the hill, he took the things from the servants and put them away in the house. He sent the men away and they left.
25 When he went in and stood before his master, Elisha asked him, “Where have you been, Gehazi?”
“Your servant didn’t go anywhere,” Gehazi answered.
26 But Elisha said to him, “Was not my spirit with you when the man got down from his chariot to meet you? Is this the time to take money or to accept clothes—or olive groves and vineyards, or flocks and herds, or male and female slaves? 27 Naaman’s leprosy will cling to you and to your descendants forever.” Then Gehazi went from Elisha’s presence and his skin was leprous—it had become as white as snow.
The only monetary issue here was Gehazi deceitfully taking money. No tithes were involved. The principle of tithing food and drink is in the bible... but you will see money was never an accepted tithe.
Yes, you are right. The reason I used the example of Gehazi is that there are many churches that focus on prophets and healing. There was a huge revival a few years ago in the area where I live. I never attended the actual services, but I did watch one through live stream. What I saw was that the the focus was on money and donations. I know that it's not about tithing, but it has monetary involvement. Throughout the live stream that I watched, the preacher/healer didn't make one biblical reference.
The money that Abraham wouldn't take from the king of Sodom had a purpose as well. I personally tie it to where tithes come from. I think it all ties together in different ways. When we give money, or tithe it's our responsibility to make sure that it's going to a cause that fully represents God. There are three forms of tithing in the bible.
Deuteronomy 14:24 And if the way be too long for thee, so that thou art not able to carry it; or if the place be too far from thee, which the LORD thy God shall choose to set his name there, when the LORD thy God hath blessed thee:
Deuteronomy 14:25 Then shalt thou turn it into money, and bind up the money in thine hand, and shalt go unto the place which the LORD thy God shall choose:
Deuteronomy 14:26 And thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever thy soul desireth: and thou shalt eat there before the LORD thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou, and thine household,
Deuteronomy 14:27 And the Levite that is within thy gates; thou shalt not forsake him; for he hath no part nor inheritance with thee.
Deuteronomy 14:28 At the end of three years thou shalt bring forth all the tithe of thine increase the same year, and shalt lay it up within thy gates:
Deuteronomy 14:29 And the Levite, (because he hath no part nor inheritance with thee,) and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, which are within thy gates, shall come, and shall eat and be satisfied; that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all the work of thine hand which thou doest.
Numbers 18:21 And, behold, I have given the children of Levi all the tenth in Israel for an inheritance, for their service which they serve, even the service of the tabernacle of the congregation.
Numbers 18:24 But the tithes of the children of Israel, which they offer as an heave offering unto the LORD, I have given to the Levites to inherit: therefore I have said unto them, Among the children of Israel they shall have no inheritance.
(Just a side note:) Most churches today are willing to use OT verses when it comes to giving tithes, but many of the tithes involved feasts, and not many churches today will go into those things.
Many times examples in the scriptures offer keen insight.
Another interesting topic you just hit on, regarding healing: What exactly was/is biblical leprosy?
Share your thoughts on it. I've always tied it to sin, because of the cleansing portions. I'd love to hear your thoughts on it.
It was in most cases, vitiligo:
"—Biblical Data:
According to the Levitical text, the characteristic features of leprosy were: (1) bright white spots or patches on the skin the hair on which also was white; (2) the depression of the patches below the level of the surrounding skin; (3) the existence of "quick raw flesh"; (4) the spreading of the scab or scall.
Comparison with Modern Leprosy.
There are two forms of modern leprosy—the tubercular, or nodular, and the anesthetic, or nervous; generally both forms are present. The nodular form begins, as a rule, as round or irregularly shaped spots, commonly of a mahogany or sepia color. These often disappear, and are followed by the appearance of nodules. In an advanced stage the face is covered with firm, livid, nodular elevations: the nose, lips, and ears are swollen beyond their natural size, the eyelashes and eyebrows are lost, and the eyes are staring; the whole producing a hideous disfigurement. As the disease progresses, insensibility of the skin and paralysis ensue, and the fingers and toes may rot away.
In the Biblical description, one is immediately impressed by the absence of all allusion to the hideous facial deformity, the loss of feeling, and the rotting of the members. If such conspicuous manifestations had existed they could not possibly have escaped observation. The Levitical code prescribed that the several examinations of the person suspected should be made at intervals of seven days, thus enabling the priest to note the progress of the disease. Leprosy is an exceedingly slow disease, particularly in the beginning, and a fortnight would show absolutely no change in the vast majority of cases. Moreover, the "lepra Hebræorum" was a curable disease. When the leper was cured the priest made an atonement before the Lord, and expiatory sacrifices in the form of a sin-offering and a trespass-offering were made also. Modern leprosy is, except in isolated instances, incurable.
Nature of "Ẓara'at."
The probabilities are that "ẓara'at" comprised a number of diseases of the skin, which, owing to the undeveloped state of medical science at that period, were not distinguished. The white spots, upon which so much diagnostic stress was laid, were in all likelihood those of vitiligo, a disease quite common in tropical countries, and characterized by bright white spots, the hairs on which also become white. Vitiligo begins as small patches, which slowly spread, often involving ultimately large areas of the body's surface. The disease is harmless, but most disfiguring in those of swarthy complexion.
In the Septuagint "ẓara'at" is translated by "lepra." It is reasonable to assume that the Hebrews attached the same meaning to "ẓara'at" that the Greeks did to "lepra," which is derived from "lepros" (= "rough" or "scaly"). According to the medical writings of Ægineta, Ætius, Actuarius, Oribasus, and others, lepra was uniformly regarded as a circular, superficial, scaly eruption of the skin; in other words, their lepra was the psoriasis of modern times. There is absolutely nothing in the Greek description of lepra that suggests even in a remote manner the modern leprosy. The Greeks, in speaking of true leprosy, did not use the term "lepra," but "elephantiasis." It is evident, therefore, that they meant by "lepra" an affection distinct and apart from the disease of leprosy as now known. The confusion and obscurity that have enveloped this subject for centuries have resulted from the use of different terms in successive ages to designate the same disease, and from the total change in the meaning and application of the word "lepra."
Segregation.
There is much reason to believe that the segregation of lepers was regarded, at any rate at certain periods, more in the light of a religious ceremonial than as a hygienic restriction. Ẓara'at was looked upon as a disease inflicted by God upon those who transgressed His laws, a divine visitation for evil thoughts and evil deeds. Every leper mentioned in the Old Testament was afflicted because of some transgression. "Miriam uttered disrespectful words against God's chosen servant Moses, and, therefore, was she smitten with leprosy. Joab, with his family and descendants, was cursed by David for having treacherously murdered his great rival Abner. Gehazi provoked the anger of Elisha by his mean covetousness, calculated to bring the name of Israel into disrepute among the heathen. King . . . Uzziah was smitten with incurable leprosy for his alleged usurpation of priestly privileges in burning incense on the golden altar of the Temple" (Kalisch). It would have been quite natural for the people by a posteriori reasoning to have regarded persons afflicted with ẓara'at as transgressors; they had violated the laws of God and their transgressions had been great, else they would not have been so afflicted.
Writers who hold the view that the exclusion of lepers had chiefly a religious significance conclude from these facts that lepers were obliged to remain outside the camp because they were regarded as likely to morally infect others. As long as the signs of the disease remained upon them they were obliged to live outside the camp. It is reasonable to believe that, although Biblical and modern leprosy are, in all probability, not the same disease, thepresent custom of segregating lepers had its origin and stimulus in the Biblical example of segregating those afflicted with ẓara'at. Had the Bible never been written it is probable that lepers would to-day be permitted to go in and out among their fellows unhindered, for leprosy is a much less actively communicable disease than several other well-known affections in the case of which segregation is not practicable.
The Biblical description of leprosy of garments and houses is strikingly analogous in its wording to that of leprosy of persons. The passages in Leviticus (xiii. 47-59) are at present inexplicable in the light of modern science. The probabilities are that the description refers to stains upon garments produced by pus and blood from boils and ulcers of various kinds. Thus alone could the greenish and reddish stains be accounted for. That the description in Lev. xiv. 33-48 could not have applied to a leprosy of walls of houses is beyond reasonable doubt: such conceptions may possibly be ascribed to Oriental fancy and love of metaphor. Chemical incrustations and mildew were doubtless in this manner endowed with the symptoms of a living and spreading disease."
http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/9774-leprosy
I also wanted to add, that Abraham's choice of not accepting gifts or payment from the King of Sodom, is a lot like Naaman's healing. Naaman was a non-believer. After Naaman was healed he believed. Elisha would not take "gifts," from Naaman because it would take away from the glory going to God. "Freely you have received, freely give.")
The battle that Abraham won, the glory was to be given to God. That is why he wouldn't accept anything from the King of Sodom.
So where and whom tithes or gifts come from is an important factor, as well as when they are acceptable.
I agree totally. But today the spirit of Gehazi is very much in play, when churches first guilt us into membership, and then members are pressed to pay monetary tithes through brinkmanship. Some churches even demand pay stubs from their members.
Yep, sadly that's true.
Deuteronomy 14:25 Then shalt thou turn it into money, and bind up the money in thine hand, and shalt go unto the place which the LORD thy God shall choose: (Jerusalem)
And thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever THY soul lusteth after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever THY soul desireth: and thou shalt EAT there before the LORD thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, THOU, and THINE household.
This passage concerning tithes is still talking about food. Notice it never says to give that money to the priest or church or anything like that. Instead, the money was to buy food and wine to be consumed only at Jerusalem with family.
There remains only one accepted tithe to God: Food, to be consumed with joy at Jerusalem.
The Levite tribe was set apart to perform only duties to God and His temple, therefore, the other 11 tribes supported them with 10 percent of their goods.
Pastors today are "ordained" by the very governments that Satan controls, after they go to seminary school, to "learn" a false version of things that God would have already imparted to them if they were in fact called by Him. They are not ordained by God. They are wolves in sheep's clothing, who teach a false gospel and rob people of money by purposely misquoting scriptures.