Isaiah 3 and jewelry...

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by jfrog

rdp, 1 Peter 3:3 says its just as okay to wear gold as it is to put on apparel.

If 1 Timothy 2:9 is saying it is not okay to wear gold at all, then it is definetly saying that its not as okay to wear gold as it is to put on apparel.

There are only 2 ways out of this contradiction.

1. We can believe that 1 Peter 3:3 is meaning costly apparel instead of any apparel.
2. We can believe that 1 Timothy 2:9 means that broided hair, gold, pearls, costly array are all only as prohibited as putting on any apparel.

These are the only two options. Which one is the better option? I believe that since the whole new testament doesn't focus on the outward person and since jewelry wasn't prohibited in the old testament that option 2 is better and more true to the spirit of Christianity.

bump for rdp. What is your opinion?

[rdp]

Originally Posted by jfrog

bump for rdp. What is your opinion?

jfrog, I've explained the Greek in I Ptr. 3 'till I could drop dead! Will not just sit here & repeat the same thing over & over. Go back & reread my former posts regarding I Ptr. 3.

I'm verrrrry busy these days, but try to fit this in where I can. Probably be Thurs. before I can get back to you guys....I own my own company on the side.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by rdp

jfrog, I've explained the Greek in I Ptr. 3 'till I could drop dead! Will not just sit here & repeat the same thing over & over. Go back & reread my former posts regarding I Ptr. 3.

I'm verrrrry busy these days, but try to fit this in where I can. Probably be Thurs. before I can get back to you guys....I own my own company on the side.

Since you have nothing to say at all about my argument, other than claiming the Greek adds expensive/fine/beautiful, then I'll declare victory as soon as I'm done showing that this is simply not true.

In fact, we discussed this once before long ago on this very thread. We didn't even have to get into the Greek, we simply had to look at how the passage is translated in various bibles. We found that very few bibles (I think it was 5 from the bible.cc website) translate "apparel" in that verse as being modified by expensive/beautiful/fine. Strong's concordance for the word "apparel" also doesn't list anything more than merely "clothing, apparel, array, raiment, vesture".

So, unless you can offer some reason as to why that verse can mean fine clothes in the greek then we have no reason to believe that it can. Since we currently have no reason to believe that it can refer to what you need it to refer to then I see no reason as to why my argument won't hold.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Since you have nothing to say at all about my argument, other than claiming the Greek adds expensive/fine/beautiful, then I'll declare victory as soon as I'm done showing that this is simply not true.

In fact, we discussed this once before long ago on this very thread. We didn't even have to get into the Greek, we simply had to look at how the passage is translated in various bibles. We found that very few bibles (I think it was 5 from the bible.cc website) translate "apparel" in that verse as being modified by expensive/beautiful/fine. Strong's concordance for the word "apparel" also doesn't list anything more than merely "clothing, apparel, array, raiment, vesture".

So, unless you can offer some reason as to why that verse can mean fine clothes in the greek then we have no reason to believe that it can. Since we currently have no reason to believe that it can refer to what you need it to refer to then I see no reason as to why my argument won't hold.

The transliteration of the Greek is actually "apparel ADORNING." The NIV, among others, clearly demonstrates this. Not to mention that the passage is a companion verse w/ I Tim. 2:9, which couldn't be plainer.

As usual, you guys make logical errors. You can't deal w/ "NOT the wearing of gold," so you go to something that you THINK invalidates the rest of the passage??

Gotta' run...busy today...look in tommorrow.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

The transliteration of the Greek is actually "apparel ADORNING." The NIV, among others, clearly demonstrates this. Not to mention that the passage is a companion verse w/ I Tim. 2:9, which couldn't be plainer.

As usual, you guys make logical errors. You can't deal w/ "NOT the wearing of gold," so you go to something that you THINK invalidates the rest of the passage??
Gotta' run...busy today...look in tommorrow.

I've "dealt with that" passage at least a half-dozen times in this thread.

Is that how you win an argument? Just keep repeating the same thing over and over and over and over and pretend no one has interacted with your claim?

Just again, so you can read it --- that "not" gives the passage a "not this, but this" tone, with is primarily used as a "for example" clause.

EXAMPLE:
"Let us be followers of Jesus. Not of those who attend services on Sunday, but of those who follow Him daily." My passage is not a prohibition on meeting together on Sundays, it's an exhortation to what is primary, real, of value, etc.

Imagine one of our letters getting abused as much as poor Paul's has.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

I've "dealt with that" passage at least a half-dozen times in this thread.

I was referring to the portion that clearly states "N-O-T...the wearing of gold." If you'd get off your ad hominem horse, you might could comprehend what the writer is saying!

Is that how you win an argument? Just keep repeating the same thing over and over and over and over and pretend no one has interacted with your claim?

You guys crack me up! Above, you can be as scornful as you want to be, which is apparently fine. But, when I return the favor, I have a "Pharisee" spirit!?!?! Tooooooooo funny!

Just again, so you can read it --- that "not" gives the passage a "not this, but this" tone, with is primarily used as a "for example" clause.

Nice excercise in eisegesis Jeffrey! Problem is the text doesn't support your assertions, as usual. Your "but this" actually reads "apparel adorning" in the Greek...for about the 5th time now..."just so you can read it." Isn't this fun?

EXAMPLE:
"Let us be followers of Jesus. Not of those who attend services on Sunday, but of those who follow Him daily." My passage is not a prohibition on meeting together on Sundays, it's an exhortation to what is primary, real, of value, etc.

Save your pholosophy for the naive, I'm sticking w/ the Bible...including I Ptr. 3 in its entirety!

Imagine one of our letters getting abused as much as poor Paul's has.

Ughhh, we're discussing I Peter., not I Paul! And yes, you certainly take your liberties w/ Peter's [& Paul's for that matter] letter. Astounding how people apparently are not afraid to tamper w/ the Word of God like that, instead of allowing the text to simply define itself.

Look, don't have time for this non-sense....may check in periodically...rdp.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

Ughhh, we're discussing I Peter., not I Paul! And yes, you certainly take your liberties w/ Peter's [& Paul's for that matter] letter. Astounding how people apparently are not afraid to tamper w/ the Word of God like that, instead of allowing the text to simply define itself.

Look, don't have time for this non-sense....may check in periodically...rdp.

Not one of your cute little "comebacks" were anything close to a legitimate response on any of the items that have been submitted to you. I think the same would go for what Blume has interacted with you on. Yes, let's talk about a "waste of time" shall we?

I mean, in one response, you decried being called a Pharisee in a post that did not have the word anywhere near it! Are you still living 5 posts ago? That's your response?

Eisegesis? Oh puhhhleaze. You've probably been taught jewelry was wrong since your days of youth and you consider yourself a great defender of those "truths," trying hard to prove your points. The example I gave you was almost a verbatim example from a hermeneutic textbook. If you disagreed, you should state why, not just "too much liberty yada yada yada."

"not this, but this" is the language syntax of the verse. Pull out a few exegetical commentaries and you'll see others having the same "eisgetical" opinion.

This is why we return to dealing more with you than your words. You deflect, deflect, deflect. Quite annoying.

Turn you binoculars around for once. May help!

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by rdp

jfrog, I've explained the Greek in I Ptr. 3 'till I could drop dead! Will not just sit here & repeat the same thing over & over. Go back & reread my former posts regarding I Ptr. 3.

I'm verrrrry busy these days, but try to fit this in where I can. Probably be Thurs. before I can get back to you guys....I own my own company on the side.

Originally Posted by rdp

The transliteration of the Greek is actually "apparel ADORNING." The NIV, among others, clearly demonstrates this. Not to mention that the passage is a companion verse w/ I Tim. 2:9, which couldn't be plainer.

As usual, you guys make logical errors. You can't deal w/ "NOT the wearing of gold," so you go to something that you THINK invalidates the rest of the passage??

Gotta' run...busy today...look in tommorrow.

Here is a word by word transliteration of 1 Peter 3:3-4 from the greek. I used this site to help. http://scripturetext.com/1_peter/3-4.htm

1 Peter 3:3
ων εστω ουχ ο εξωθεν εμπλοκης τριχων και περιθεσεως χρυσιων η ενδυσεως ιματιων κοσμος

1 Peter 3:4
αλλ ο κρυπτος της καρδιας ανθρωπος εν τω αφθαρτω του πραεος και ησυχιου πνευματος ο εστιν ενωπιον του θεου πολυτελες

1 Peter 3:3-4
whose

be thou

not

that

externally

plaiting

hair

and

wearing

gold

rather

putting on

clothes

adorning

but(even)

that

inward

one

the heart

man-faced

by

that

uncorruptible

that

mild

and

peacable

mind

which

is

before

the

God

costly
-----------------------

After doing this exercise I am even more convinced that this verse is not a prohibition against jewelry.

So rdp, what was you saying about adorning being right beside clothes/apparel in the greek?

[Jeffrey]

Thanks jfrog.

Not making yourself beautiful (adorning) with jewelry, your new hair do or your wardrobe, but make yourself beautiful (adorn) with a beautiful spirit.

Not sure what rdp is trying to insist the NIV (and others he says) are saying with regard to apparel.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Thanks jfrog.

Not making yourself beautiful (adorning) with jewelry, your new hair do or your wardrobe, but make yourself beautiful (adorn) with a beautiful spirit.

Not sure what rdp is trying to insist the NIV (and others he says) are saying with regard to apparel.

rdp is trying to insist that apparel ought to be modified specifically be "adorning". This would have the effect of putting beautiful or costly in front of the word apparel. This would negate our earlier argument that it's not a prohibition because it would be prohibiting clothes if it was. If beautiful/costly was added in front of apparel then the verse could be a prohibition to all those things since it wouldn't be prohibiting clothes in general.

Of course when I made a transliteration of this verse I found something even more amazing. The apparel the verse mentions isn't literal apparel at all, it's totally figurative, and the verse isn't telling us not to wear the apparel it speaks of, it's telling us to wear it because the apparel it speaks of is the kind that covers the heart, an incorruptible, mild/humble and peaceable mind/spirit.