Isaiah 3 and jewelry...

[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!

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

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 see, & your "comebacks" automatically qualify as "legitimate response"?? Typical hypocrisy from the Jeffrey dugout! Finally something we can agree on, "waste of time." Moving right along....

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?

Ughhh, you fella's have referenced the "legalism/pharisee" issue ad nauseum. Does it matter if it was 1 or 5 posts ago? Or, are we now restricted to only referencing terms mentioned in the previous post? Absurd.....

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."

Wrong again Jeffrey. I did not come to pentecost until I was about 28 yrs. old. I've sincerely studied & examined the claims in light of close scrutinization of the Word...which is the ONLY reason that I reject ornamentation! The Bible says so & I've got enough brains to believe it...oughta' try it sometime! Regarding taking your liberties, here's a little advice: You guys cannot just make up your own Bible! It speaks for & defines itself [exegetical principle, while you're referencing it!].

"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.

Hmmm, I'd be curious to see where the actual Greek syntax mentions "not this, but this,"....Ooops, it doesn't! That's found in the 23rd chp. of Jeffrey's imagination...& you're talking to ME about hermeneutics??????

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

And you explain away, explain away, explain away..."quite annoying" indeed....next....

Turn you binoculars around for once. May help!

Take the Word of God for what is says for once, "N-O-T with gold, pearls...." May help! See ya' around...........

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

Take the Word of God for what is says for once, "N-O-T with gold, pearls...." May help! See ya' around...........

Wrong again Jeffrey. I did not come to pentecost until I was about 28 yrs. old. I've sincerely studied & examined the claims in light of close scrutinization of the Word...which is the ONLY reason that I reject ornamentation! The Bible says so & I've got enough brains to believe it...oughta' try it sometime! Regarding taking your liberties, here's a little advice: You guys cannot just make up your own Bible! It speaks for & defines itself [exegetical principle, while you're referencing it!].

What's your story? What church did you "get saved" in? What did they believe? You objectively sat on an island with the Bible and happened to come to the same conclusions as the church you attended?

Your empty sayings of "making up your own Bible" is pointless. We are talking about the Bible in this thread, smart guy.

"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.

Hmmm, I'd be curious to see where the actual Greek syntax mentions "not this, but this,"....Ooops, it doesn't! That's found in the 23rd chp. of Jeffrey's imagination...& you're talking to ME about hermeneutics??????

Shall I cite my sources for you? Would that even matter to you?

Are you aware that "Greek Syntax" is not the whole of exegesis?

Have you even hit "pause" for a moment to consider what I said? Do you read all books the same way you read the Bible? Though the letter is accepted as part of a NT canon, you do understand that it is still a letter, and it follows the structure of most all Greek-Roman-style letters of the time? That it includes rhetorical devices, language devices, metaphors, phrases, appeals, arguments, etc? You do realize that language is not uni-dimensional?

For you to read Paul's letter to Timothy as if he is writing to begin a practice of banning wearing jewelry is to misunderstand the general message. Can you at least tell me what the theme of this part of the Text is? Are you able pan back your view for a moment? Can you do that?

You still have also not dealt with Blume's points concerning the OT passages -- or mine. Taking a phrase from a verse and demanding literal obedience is irresponsible. You should understand by now that context gives our words (and phrases) definition.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

What's your story? What church did you "get saved" in? What did they believe? You objectively sat on an island with the Bible and happened to come to the same conclusions as the church you attended?

Same could be said of you & the church that you attend. Did you just happen to end up in achurch that had it all right?? In my case, I was at a trinitarian church, but the Lord led me out into the truth through careful study & debate w/ others...who were right! What's funny is you're constantly asking me if I've ever considered that I could be wrong....& the reason that I'm where I'm at today is that I WAS wrong before!!

Your empty sayings of "making up your own Bible" is pointless. We are talking about the Bible in this thread, smart guy.

I din't say that we weren't talking about the Bible...I said that you weren't free to make up your OWN Bible! If you don't understand the difference, no wonder we're not progressing very much!



Shall I cite my sources for you? Would that even matter to you?

Are you aware that "Greek Syntax" is not the whole of exegesis?

Oh, I'm definitely aware & couldn't agree more. Syntax, word meanings, cases, tenses, etc. mean what they do according to the genre & context in which they're couched. But you're the one who introduced it w/ regard to I Ptr. 3.

Have you even hit "pause" for a moment to consider what I said? Do you read all books the same way you read the Bible? Though the letter is accepted as part of a NT canon, you do understand that it is still a letter, and it follows the structure of most all Greek-Roman-style letters of the time? That it includes rhetorical devices, language devices, metaphors, phrases, appeals, arguments, etc? You do realize that language is not uni-dimensional?

Yes, well said. But when we're finished w/ all of the literary analysis, the text still instructs "NOT with gold, pearls....". Then, to tie things up nicely, Paul instructs Timothy [a young Pastor], "THESE things COMMAND and TEACH," which is precisely why I do the same!

For you to read Paul's letter to Timothy as if he is writing to begin a practice of banning wearing jewelry is to misunderstand the general message.

Then neither was he "beginning a practice" of wearing "modest apparel." Now, will you be consistent & say that the early Jewish-Christian church of Paul's day went around immodest?? I think not. BTW, he wasn't "beginning" a prohibition, but instructing Timothy on church order.

Can you at least tell me what the theme of this part of the Text is? Are you able pan back your view for a moment? Can you do that?

You still have also not dealt with Blume's points concerning the OT passages -- or mine. Taking a phrase from a verse and demanding literal obedience is irresponsible. You should understand by now that context gives our words (and phrases) definition.

Ughh, I've responded to Rebekah & Ezek. 16 ad nauseum & you say I've "not dealt w/ the OT passages"????????? Sheeesh....why am I still here?