Isaiah 3 and jewelry...

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

Contrare' Monfrare....Deut. 7:25 calls wearing of Gold & Silver an abomination to the Lord. If an abomination to the Lord isn't "sin," then pls. provide what is:__________?

Regarding the above translation, all you've done is appealled to a "Dynamic Equivalent" that takes its liberties w/ the Word. Why don't you interact w/ the "Formal/Literal Correspondance" translations such as the NKJV, NASB, etc.?

Hmmmm, I smell bias in the house!

Are we not being honest with your proof-text in Deut here???? I mean, it's glaring! The subject is idolatry (the abomination), the issue is graven images.

Finally, in the context of the chapter, God is promising to take care of them, they won't win this battle on their own, he will bring it. Similar to the battles of Joshua, he's basically giving them strict orders about the spoils of this war.

The abomination was idolatry. Connected to that abomination were idols. In the OT they didn't even eat food that they even thought might be offered to idols (we see this in early 1st Century Judaism as well). The idols corrupted a good thing. Same was true for the gold and silver.

Nice try though.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Are we not being honest with your proof-text in Deut here???? I mean, it's glaring! The subject is idolatry (the abomination), the issue is graven images.

Finally, in the context of the chapter, God is promising to take care of them, they won't win this battle on their own, he will bring it. Similar to the battles of Joshua, he's basically giving them strict orders about the spoils of this war.

The abomination was idolatry. Connected to that abomination were idols. In the OT they didn't even eat food that they even thought might be offered to idols (we see this in early 1st Century Judaism as well). The idols corrupted a good thing. Same was true for the gold and silver.

Nice try though.

I do not have the text in front of me, but if memory serves me right, it says: "The graven images of THEIR gods, you shall burn with fire. You shall not desire the silver or gold that is on THEM, nor take it for yourself, lest you be snared therein, for it is an abomination to the LORD your God."

Grammatically, the pronoun "them" above relates back to "their" in the earlier portion of the text [which I have in caps above]. Of course the text was dealing w/ the idolatry of the surrounding nations...who manifest that idolatry w/ the wearing of jewelry! That's the whole point that I'm making! Then God says to His people in effect, "You do not mimic the practices & ornamenation of those who aren't in covenant relationship w/ me!"

Jewelry walks hand-in-hand w/ idolatry, & God called the wearing of it an "abomination" to Him! Is what's an "abomination" to Him in the OT still an "abomination" to Him in the NT??? Of course it is....try again Jeffrey.

[Godsdrummer]

Originally Posted by rdp

Jewelry walks hand-in-hand w/ idolatry, & God called the wearing of it an "abomination" to Him! Is what's an "abomination" to Him in the OT still an "abomination" to Him in the NT??? Of course it is....try again Jeffrey.

It just never ceases to amaze me the lengths some people will go to try and back up a doctrine that is no where in the scripture.

Where in the world do you get the idea that Jewelry walks hand in hand with idolitry and the wearing of it is an abomination?

And as for an abomination OT being an abomination in the NT? I can think of several, eating of Pork for one did not God tell Peter to take and eat in the vision? Working on the Sabbath for two. Did not Jesus tell the religious leaders of his day that he was the Lord of the Sabbath also, when his diciples were shucking and eating corn on the Sabbath?

Heres the deal as far as I am concerned, if you have to be a bible scholor to find salvation or have someone that has been studied for years show you the way then one is making too much out of salvation.

God does not give his spirit to those he does not accept. So your preaching to the chour, that is like judging someone that eats meat when you think it is sin. Who are you to judge when God has already accepted them. God is thier master.
Rom 14:3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.
Rom 14:4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.

Oh and as for my paraphras of the the scripture above I don't pick and choose one translation over the other. The same message can be found in all Gods word regarless of who translated them into the English. Do you realy think God would let his word be mis translated? Thats like saying God can't heal any more or God does'nt save any more or God is not in control.

We just did not want to use other translations because they did not make it easy to preach the doctrines we already preached. And we might have to admit we were wrong, and God forbid that. If God can admit he was wrong why can't you.

[Godsdrummer]

Check the Hebrew out on this:

Eze 16:9 Then washed I thee with water; yea, I throughly washed away thy blood from thee, and I anointed thee with oil.
Eze 16:10 I clothed thee also with broidered work, and shod thee with badgers' skin, and I girded thee about with fine linen, and I covered thee with silk.
Eze 16:11 I decked thee also with ornaments, and I put bracelets upon thy hands, and a chain on thy neck.
Eze 16:12 And I put a jewel on thy forehead, and earrings in thine ears, and a beautiful crown upon thine head.
Eze 16:13 Thus wast thou decked with gold and silver; and thy raiment was of fine linen, and silk, and broidered work; thou didst eat fine flour, and honey, and oil: and thou wast exceeding beautiful, and thou didst prosper into a kingdom.

Its funny how one can make Gold and silver into jewelry and then symbolize jewelry. Read on it was not the jewely God gave her that was her sin. It was what she did with it that became the sin. Or maybe good ole King James got it wrong with his translation here HMM.

[Godsdrummer]

If the previous post is not enough:

Eze 28:13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.
Eze 28:14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.
Eze 28:15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

Again God was the one that made him this way with all the precious stones as his covering. And he was perfect, until iniquity was found in him.

All the beautiful things that God created him with were not his sin. His sin was because he became prideful because of his beauty.

Here's the problem "standards of holiness" has become the jewelry of some people and is just as wrong as the wearing of Jewelry is for some. This is what Peter and Paul are saying in the passages in question. I Timothy 2:9, I Peter 3:3. What the putting on of Gold and costly array were for them back then is the putting on of "holiness standards" today. "Let it not be the putting on of aparrel" but rather that which comes from the heart.

This is not a command to wear or not to wear, but rather that what we wear should be a reflection of the inner man of the heart.

"Let not your holiness be the putting on of aparrel but rather the hidden man of the heart" As this was how women of old adorned themselves being in subjection to their own husband."

Which brings up the point who are we subject to the pastor or the husband?

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

If the previous post is not enough:

Eze 28:13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.
Eze 28:14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.
Eze 28:15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

Again God was the one that made him this way with all the precious stones as his covering. And he was perfect, until iniquity was found in him.

All the beautiful things that God created him with were not his sin. His sin was because he became prideful because of his beauty.

Here's the problem "standards of holiness" has become the jewelry of some people and is just as wrong as the wearing of Jewelry is for some. This is what Peter and Paul are saying in the passages in question. I Timothy 2:9, I Peter 3:3. What the putting on of Gold and costly array were for them back then is the putting on of "holiness standards" today. "Let it not be the putting on of aparrel" but rather that which comes from the heart.

This is not a command to wear or not to wear, but rather that what we wear should be a reflection of the inner man of the heart.

"Let not your holiness be the putting on of aparrel but rather the hidden man of the heart" As this was how women of old adorned themselves being in subjection to their own husband."

Which brings up the point who are we subject to the pastor or the husband?

So now we've stooped to appealing to Lucifer for our doctrinal support?? Might wanna' try another source, as this only helps my position!

I've explained the Greek ad nauseum to you regarding the "putting on of apparel" in I Ptr. 3....yet you just plod along like you don't even see it.

Yes, our apparel is a reflection of the inner man...which is my whole point! Ornamentation, make-up, etc. reveals what's in the heart...precisely my point my dear Watson!

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by rdp

So now we've stooped to appealing to Lucifer for our doctrinal support?? Might wanna' try another source, as this only helps my position!

I've explained the Greek ad nauseum to you regarding the "putting on of apparel" in I Ptr. 3....yet you just plod along like you don't even see it.

Yes, our apparel is a reflection of the inner man...which is my whole point! Ornamentation, make-up, etc. reveals what's in the heart...precisely my point my dear Watson!

Maybe that is why the harlot in the New Testament had more on board in her heart, that caused her to finally come to Jesus, than all the pharisees who were whited sepulchers of modesty,

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

Check the Hebrew out on this:

Eze 16:9 Then washed I thee with water; yea, I throughly washed away thy blood from thee, and I anointed thee with oil.
Eze 16:10 I clothed thee also with broidered work, and shod thee with badgers' skin, and I girded thee about with fine linen, and I covered thee with silk.
Eze 16:11 I decked thee also with ornaments, and I put bracelets upon thy hands, and a chain on thy neck.
Eze 16:12 And I put a jewel on thy forehead, and earrings in thine ears, and a beautiful crown upon thine head.
Eze 16:13 Thus wast thou decked with gold and silver; and thy raiment was of fine linen, and silk, and broidered work; thou didst eat fine flour, and honey, and oil: and thou wast exceeding beautiful, and thou didst prosper into a kingdom.

Its funny how one can make Gold and silver into jewelry and then symbolize jewelry. Read on it was not the jewely God gave her that was her sin. It was what she did with it that became the sin. Or maybe good ole King James got it wrong with his translation here HMM.

So we take figurative passages & use them to override God's repeated condemnation of the literal wearing of jewlery?? As usual, poor scholarship.

But, if you want to force a literal interpretation into this, can I show up for church Sun. "decked with gold and silver...fine linen, and silk..." w/ "a beautiful crown upon my head, earrings, noserings, badger's skins.....". How consistent will you be????

But while you're in Ezek., how about looking at Chp. 23:40??? Will you apply the same criteria to this passage as the others? I doubt it!

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

So we take figurative passages & use them to override God's repeated condemnation of the literal wearing of jewlery?? As usual, poor scholarship.

But, if you want to force a literal interpretation into this, can I show up for church Sun. "decked with gold and silver...fine linen, and silk..." w/ "a beautiful crown upon my head, earrings, noserings, badger's skins.....". How consistent will you be????

But while you're in Ezek., how about looking at Chp. 23:40??? Will you apply the same criteria to this passage as the others? I doubt it!

You should really lower your tones and announcements slapping others down for "poor scholarship." Really makes you look like an ass. The stubborn, 4-legged variety of course.

Take away the exclamation marks a second and actually give GD a response. Why the heck would God use a figurative OBJECT that is an abomination (something he hates) to decorate someone he loves with? Think about that smarty pants. The answer may just be the thing he hated was.... drum roll please... IDOLATRY. See how that may answer both scenarios now?

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

You should really lower your tones and announcements slapping others down for "poor scholarship." Really makes you look like an ass. The stubborn, 4-legged variety of course.

Take away the exclamation marks a second and actually give GD a response. Why the heck would God use a figurative OBJECT that is an abomination (something he hates) to decorate someone he loves with? Think about that smarty pants. The answer may just be the thing he hated was.... drum roll please... IDOLATRY. See how that may answer both scenarios now?

As usual, you do not respond to my arguments regarding Ezek. 23:40, Jer. 4:30, etc. Hmmm, God also uses jewlery as a figure of harlotry. Why would he use something that he approves of in such a horrible sense? Cuts both ways Jeffrey! Now what, back to the text, which repeatedly condemns the literal ornamentation of His people...in both the OT & NT.

Sorry Charlie, try again!