Isaiah 3 and jewelry...

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Yeah, it says "not with gold" so no need to bother with context. Pesky little details those things.

The "context" was not the showy...which gold is!! Good grief, you guys are a trip.


I've never argued that Paul suggested people going naked, nor has Blume from what I read, but rather Paul is suggesting ...

Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes. 4Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God's sight.

Notice what he suggests rather than gold and clothes.... notice it. Keep noticing it.

Yes, very good jeffrey, I am "noticing" it. It says not to wear gold, pearls, or costly array...do you "notice" it? Context compliments the words on the page, not nullifies them as you try to do...then wanna' talk to ME about "hermeneutics". Puhleeeeeeeeeezzzeee....

Like I said, you have NO business whatsoever claiming any knowledge of hermeneutics. It's gross how you treat the text. The PLAIN "meaning" of a Text is only as meaningful as its context. Way to rape Paul's words though.

I see, you can somehow erase the plain words "not the wearing of gold, pearls, or costly array." So, Jeffrey, are we now free to be decked out in ornaments, w/ &1000 suits on? No....then to what Scriptures will you appeal, since we apparently cannot take I Tim. 2 at face value??? Then wanna' chide me for a lack of "hermeneutics."???? Toooooo funny!

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

I see, you can somehow erase the plain words "not the wearing of gold, pearls, or costly array." So, Jeffrey, are we now free to be decked out in ornaments, w/ &1000 suits on? No....then to what Scriptures will you appeal, since we apparently cannot take I Tim. 2 at face value??? Then wanna' chide me for a lack of "hermeneutics."???? Toooooo funny!

I didn't erase the words, I exegeted the verse.

No, I think the NT is very clear on modesty. Paul points us to what he's talking about in the end of the verse -- her meek spirit. If you want to be beautiful, here's how. It's not a prohibition on anything, it's an exhortation toward a beautiful spirit.

You want to turn something beautiful like sanctification into a uniform. Not going to happen. Wasn't the NT apostle's intent, no matter how you try to read back into their words whatever you please.

I do, in fact, take these scriptures at face value That doesn't mean reading in to them whatever we please. If by "face value" you mean throwing out good sense, hermeneutics and exegesis, then maybe your probably with "defining things" goes well beyond the passages you are throwing out.

So let's run the cycle and now go back to the OT verses that "prove" jewelry is a sin. *chuckle*

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

I didn't erase the words, I exegeted the verse.

My eyes bugged out of my head on this one! If you call this "exegesis," pls., pls., pl. do not ever talk to ME about "proper hermeneutics" again...seriously. You've not provided cases, tenses, word definitions, etc.....but you classify that as "exegesis"??????????

No, I think the NT is very clear on modesty. Paul points us to what he's talking about in the end of the verse -- her meek spirit. If you want to be beautiful, here's how. It's not a prohibition on anything,

Wow, "not a prohibition on ANYTHING," no wonder you wouldn't have a problem w/ me in tongue rings, nose rings, etc. Hmmm, I suppose this also means that Paul/Peter would've condoned short pants on mem & women in the church eh' Jeffrey!?!? Who takes you seriously other than those just as far off?!

it's an exhortation toward a beautiful spirit.

Agreed & the contrast was between the external & internal. The external had a "not" connected to it, while the internal had a "but this" tied to it. You're getting closer Jeffrey!

You want to turn something beautiful like sanctification into a uniform. Not going to happen. Wasn't the NT apostle's intent, no matter how you try to read back into their words whatever you please.

Then erase the expression "not with gold, pearls, or costly array." YOU fella's are the ones w/ your eraser out; I simply let the text speak for itself.

I do, in fact, take these scriptures at face value That doesn't mean reading in to them whatever we please.

Then quit saying that "it wasn't a prohibition on ANYTHING," since actual text says nothing of the sort. So, Jeffrey, who's supplying & importing the words? Need some help? Jeffrey & Mike, that's who!
If by "face value" you mean throwing out good sense, hermeneutics and exegesis, then maybe your probably with "defining things" goes well beyond the passages you are throwing out.

So let's run the cycle and now go back to the OT verses that "prove" jewelry is a sin. *chuckle*

Happy to oblige kind sir: Ex. 33, Gen. 35, Deut. 7, Is. 3, Hosea 2, Jer. 4, Ezek. 23. Glad you asked!