Isaiah 3 and jewelry...

[mfblume]

Mike, you're ignoring the pronoun modifications & relationships.

No I am not. Of course the pronoun relationships are the way they are. How else would God say what I propose without using them? But you are ignoring the distinction of the idols. If God was only dealing with jewelry as you claim, then He would not have to mention idols. One would know to not take any jewelry whether idols are mentioned or not, even it if it was a situation where idols were involved. A broad swoop of the brush against jewelry, period, would be all that is sufficient.

That is, you're exchanging the actual grammar for your theology. The text "says" nothing of the sort of what you assert above. Again, the grammar necessitates that the "them," relates back to the "their," as in "their [people in the promised land] gods". The false "gods" were to be burned, then the Israelites were not to be ensnared w/ their gold & silver that was "on them." Of course I recognize that the context was idolatry, but there's also idolatry of/in the heart. "Thou shalt have no other gods before me."

I deny none of the things you state, but the point is idolatry and worship of the jewelry was noted. That is the reason the next verse stated they cannot bring any abominations into their homes.

Recall Achan. What is wrong with a garment? Nothing. But a Babylonish garment? Achan ceoveted them. To wear them? Of course not! Imagine a Hebrew wearing in broad daylight a Babylonish garment. He'd be stoned on the spot. But he hid it. Obviously not to wear. It was associated with idolatry.

Which has nothing to do w/ this passgae.

I am speaking of the principle of the thing.

For about the 7th time now, the grammar NECESSITATES that the silver & gold was on the people...not the idols!

Of course. You are still not hearing me. Whether they wore them or not, and the text DOES NOT say they would even wear the jewelry, they took the jewels to themselves. In other words, they would KEEP the jewels as their own property.

Jos 11:14 And all the spoil of these cities, and the cattle, the children of Israel took for a prey unto themselves; but every man they smote with the edge of the sword, until they had destroyed them, neither left they any to breathe.

Did that mean they WORE the prey?

But worn or not, which is not stipulated nor is the point anyway, possessing the things involved temptation to worship them. Possessing these things was the point. They were considered sacred by heathens. Israel was tempted again and again to worship idols. It's weird, but it's true. Over and over throughout the entire Old Testament we find Israel tempted with idols.

You're ignoring the grammar of the text. While you're appealling to Gen. w/ Rebekah, will you also appeal to Gen. 35 w/ Jacob & the jewelry? I doubt it.

Gen 35:4 And they gave unto Jacob all the strange gods which were in their hand, and all their earrings which were in their ears; and Jacob hid them under the oak which was by Shechem.

What has that got to do with it?

They took earrings from IDOLS. Idolatry was associated with bejeweling those same idols. Notice that idols and jewelry are repeatedly associated. Look at modern idolatry in the east. They gave luscious gifts of food to idols and jewels and precious stones. Such things when rendered to false gods are considered holy and sacred. They were dedicated to false gods. That renders them sacred to those gods. You're missing the forest for the trees in all of this. Even in the New Testament, Paul said meat offered to idols is okay to eat, just DO NTO EAT IT IN THE IDOL'S TEMPLE. Religiosity is likewise associated with such jewelry.

You actually defeat your own point with Genesis 35. That was the same era when Rebekka wore jewelry. So jewelry IN THAT SAME DAY was not considered taboo. But when it was associated with idols, it was taboo! So the instances in which you find jewelry banned in the Old Testament are always instances of idolatry and harlotry. You claim what was acceptable became unacceptable over time. You have no statement in the bible that says that, though. That is why I said you concoct these things. We need explicit statements. While you repeat and repepat and repeat the explicit words "NOT THE WEARING OF GOLD," you inconsistently see no need to stand on a single verse, let alone explicit words, that says God accepted jewelry at one point in time and then banned it later in time.

Then you respond by saying DIVORCE was hated but yet God did it, you fail to realize you are making associations that are not explicitly made by the bible itself. When I do the same, you accuse me of talking about something that has nothing to do with the issue. Well, what has divorce got to do with jewelry? Nothing. But yet you say to me that Israel worshiping a brazen serment has nothing to do with the issue, when it actually does in principle. You are violating your own rules of what a person can use for bases.

The fact remains, that Rebekkah wore these things in the same general era whan Jacob hid jewels from the idols, showing us that, as I stated again and again, it is not wearing jewelry that is wrong, but an abuse of it as in harlotry or idol worship. FOR THAT REASON, God used the picture as a figure for showing His love and heart to His bride. Like your computer on the net -- for porn or Christian chat.

Now, divorce IS NEVER SOMETHING SHOWN IN A POSITIVE WAY, like jewelry. You mistakenly said God tolerated jewelry at one time and rejected it at a later time, without any scripture saying so, because you feel it is like divorce. God hated divorce but divorced Israel, Himself. But the huge difference is that DIVORCE was never used to show or signify something done in a positive manner and in quite a holy and pure manner as was frguratively giving His bride jewelry.

Yes, God is very concerned w/ what His people set up in their house...remember that at "Christ-Mass" & w/ your television set.

Remember your computer with all the sinful porn at your fingertips that outweigh any evil ever portrayed on TV. It still amazes me that people think TV is wrong and use computers on the net. Wow! Talk about making up excuses.

[did you read that Mike?]

Oh please. HOW MANY TIMES HAVE I ASKED YOU WHY PETER SAID "NOT WEARING OF APPAREL" and you never answered? You said something about the Greek which you stated to someone else, and I asked you to repeat it to me, and never saw you tell me what your point was.