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.

[mfblume]

1Pe 3:3 Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;

Now, look at it again. If your idea of "NOT WEARING OF GOLD" means never wear gold, then by the same token "OR THE PUTTING ON OF APPAREL" means to live life in the public naked. Now why do you not see that?

[Did you notice this word Mike?]

You left part of the definition out Mike...it included "decoration". Selectivity will catch you everytime!

I did not intentionaly avoid anything.

Here is the full quote:

G2889
κόσμος
kosmos
kos'-mos
Probably from the base of G2865; orderly arrangement, that is, decoration; by implication the world (in a wide or narrow sense, including its inhabitants, literally or figuratively [morally]): - adorning, world.

Now, does decoration refute the remainder of the definition? Is not KOSMOS used as WORLD, showing a nuance of the term that your teaching refuses to acknowledge?

That's your opinion. I think you're a pretty bright fellow! Besides, do you also agree w/ Gill on his Godhead theology. How about the plan of salvation?

Brother, the MAJORITY OF scholars who are eggheads, compared to you and I, in Greek issues show this to be the case. If you were a Greek scholar I would consider your words next to theirs, but neither you nor I are Greek scholars. We're like janitors compared to brain surgeons in this issue. So do not pretend to know more of the meaning of a Greek phrase or term than the scholars know. And your comparison of that to Godhead and soteriological theology is the old-fashioned, but severely lacking, guilt by association. You actually think you have right to critique their views on the manner greek phrases and issue because the same men misunderstand Godhead and Salvation? When I spoke of Israel worshiping the brazen serpent, you said they are not related. And yet you can talk about issues that are not related to each other by far, more than brazen serpents are not related to jewelry of idols, by saying Godhead was incorrect in their theology, so their idea on the meaning of Peter's words must be wrong, too. That is so illogical I cannot begin to describe it. You know better than that!

I checked about 7 translations last night & everyone one of them say "NOT with....". I have to have an honest heart w/ that Mike.

Moot point! The same verse says "1Pe 3:3 Whose adorning let it not be... putting on of apparel;" But you refuse to apply your same logic to that phrase.

Blessings.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by mfblume

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.

In effect, God was telling His people not to imitate the heathen nations in the promised land...including "their" "silver & gold that is on them." It's still there Mike! Next....



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.



I am speaking of the principle of the thing.



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.

You again assume your theology into the text, which never states the same. Israel was infamous for reflecting the practices of the heathen nations, which God was trying to circumvent in Deut. 7:25. "you shall not desire the silver or gold that is ON THEM....". He was warning them not to do what they did...including the wearing of silver & gold, which, of course, was reflective of their idolatry.

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?

Mike, you've gotten' plumb silly now. How can you "wear" a cow???

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.

Agreed.

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.

Where does the actual text state that they "took earrings from the idols?" The earings were on Jacob's family. Mike, idols DO NOT HAVE EARS...people do! But, you're getting closer when you state that "idols & jewels were repeatedly associated." This has been my point all along!

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.

Same Paul said "NOT with gold, pearls, or costly array." Hey Mike, do you believe that Christian women should run around in bikini's? If no, to what NT Scripture will you appeal to:________?

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.

Contrare Monfrare'...Is. 3 says nothing about idolatry or harlotry. It was simply the vanity associated w/ jewelry & ostentaion by the women of Jerusalem. God then calls all of it "filth" [Is. 4:4]. Can I remind you that he does not change?

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.

How much more "explicit" can I be than to quote Paul & the phrase "N-O-T with gold, pearls, or costly array."? I'll not allow you guys to just explain this clear passage away...particularly when it's instructions to the NT church.


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.

Not a "single verse." Ex. 33, Gen. 35, Is. 3, Jer. 4, Hosea 2, I Tim. 2, I Ptr. 3, etc. Again, God also "accepted" divorce in the OT...which He "hated." But, He amended it in the NT. Are you denying this biblical truism?

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.

Wrong! Fact remains that He disapproved of divorce in the OT, yet did it....just as he did w/ jewelry. Same principle!

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.

Wrong...God permitted both, yet showed His displeasure w/ it again & again. In the NT, He addresses the issues quite clearly. There are reasons for it that I do not feel like going into on here, because you guys do not appreciate the beautiful things of God's clean/righteous ways.

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.

In the jewelry/divorce issue, I made a point about things that God "hated," yet seemed to permit at times in the OT. The NT amends the issue quite lucidly...just as it does w/ ornamentaion on His people. I suppose that I can agree that the brazen serpent is connected to jewelry, but that would only solidify my point further. Jewelry & idolatry walk hand in hand.

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.

I see, so now you use Gen. 24 to override NT instructions to the church? My use of the OT butresses NT instructions. To make matters worse, even in your Ezek. 16 passage, Israel got in trouble w/ the jewels, if you would just read down a little further...."context, context, context".

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,

Wrong, I Tim. 2 could not be plainer...despite how you attempt to eradicate it from the pages of Holy Writ.

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.

Okay, but he also used nose rings in a positive figure...can I now do that also? Then, YOU tell ME that times are different today, which is precisely my point regarding I Tim. 2 & the Rebekah scenario. Thus, what you require of me, you yourself violate!



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.

The difference is that w/ TV, they feed me what they [hollywood, etc.] want. With internet, I feed me what I want! Yes, there is a vast difference in internet & hollywood!



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.

Honestly, I don't have the time to just repeat this ad nauseum like this. Go back & reread my previous posts....which you told ME to do earlier. Take your own advice!

Out of pocket 'till Monday.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

Honestly, I don't have the time to just repeat this ad nauseum like this. Go back & reread my previous posts....which you told ME to do earlier. Take your own advice!

Out of pocket 'till Monday.

That's pretty much all you're doing. You've failed to even give a reasonable interaction with the pretty strong evidence passed your way.

I do appreciate you staying online anyway... you've helped AFF readers get a good read on the subject.

[Sam]

What do these verses really say?


1 Peter 3:3, 4

Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.KJV

Your adornment must not be merely external--braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses; but let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God. NASB

Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes. Instead, 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.. NIV

What matters is not your outer appearance—the styling of your hair, the jewelry you wear, the cut of your clothes—but your inner disposition. Cultivate inner beauty, the gentle, gracious kind that God delights in. The Message

Don’t be concerned about the outward beauty of fancy hairstyles, expensive jewelry, or beautiful clothes. You should clothe yourselves instead with the beauty that comes from within, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is so precious to God NLT

Let not yours be the [merely] external adorning with [elaborate] interweaving and knotting of the hair, the wearing of jewelry, or changes of clothes; But let it be the inward adorning and beauty of the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible and unfading charm of a gentle and peaceful spirit, which [is not anxious or wrought up, but] is very precious in the sight of God. The Amplified Bible

Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear— but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious. ESV

Do not let your adornment be merely outward—arranging the hair, wearing gold, or putting on fine apparel— 4 rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God. NKJV

1 Timothy 2:9-10

In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. KJV

Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness. NASB

I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God. NIV

And I want women to get in there with the men in humility before God, not primping before a mirror or chasing the latest fashions but doing something beautiful for God and becoming beautiful doing it. The Message

And I want women to be modest in their appearance They should wear decent and appropriate clothing and not draw attention to themselves by the way they fix their hair or by wearing gold or pearls or expensive clothes. For women who claim to be devoted to God should make themselves attractive by the good things they do. NLT

Also [I desire] that women should adorn themselves modestly and appropriately and sensibly in seemly apparel, not with [elaborate] hair arrangement or gold or pearls or expensive clothing,But by doing good deeds (deeds in themselves good and for the good and advantage of those contacted by them), as befits women who profess reverential fear for and devotion to God. The Amplified Bible

likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works. ESV

in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works. NKJV

[Mirth1981]

Originally Posted by Sam

What do these verses really say?


1 Peter 3:3, 4

Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.KJV

Your adornment must not be merely external--braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses; but let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God. NASB

Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes. Instead, 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.. NIV

What matters is not your outer appearance—the styling of your hair, the jewelry you wear, the cut of your clothes—but your inner disposition. Cultivate inner beauty, the gentle, gracious kind that God delights in. The Message

Don’t be concerned about the outward beauty of fancy hairstyles, expensive jewelry, or beautiful clothes. You should clothe yourselves instead with the beauty that comes from within, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is so precious to God NLT

Let not yours be the [merely] external adorning with [elaborate] interweaving and knotting of the hair, the wearing of jewelry, or changes of clothes; But let it be the inward adorning and beauty of the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible and unfading charm of a gentle and peaceful spirit, which [is not anxious or wrought up, but] is very precious in the sight of God. The Amplified Bible

Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear— but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious. ESV

Do not let your adornment be merely outward—arranging the hair, wearing gold, or putting on fine apparel— 4 rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God. NKJV

1 Timothy 2:9-10

In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. KJV

Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness. NASB

I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God. NIV

And I want women to get in there with the men in humility before God, not primping before a mirror or chasing the latest fashions but doing something beautiful for God and becoming beautiful doing it. The Message

And I want women to be modest in their appearance They should wear decent and appropriate clothing and not draw attention to themselves by the way they fix their hair or by wearing gold or pearls or expensive clothes. For women who claim to be devoted to God should make themselves attractive by the good things they do. NLT

Also [I desire] that women should adorn themselves modestly and appropriately and sensibly in seemly apparel, not with [elaborate] hair arrangement or gold or pearls or expensive clothing,But by doing good deeds (deeds in themselves good and for the good and advantage of those contacted by them), as befits women who profess reverential fear for and devotion to God. The Amplified Bible

likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works. ESV

in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works. NKJV

Even the world knows that true beauty comes from the inside, and not just from the outside. There's a new reality tv show called "True Beauty" and the basis for it is that the contestants are super models who think they will win the show based on their looks, but what they don't know is it is mostly based on their integrity and good character. I wouldn't recommend this show because it can get risque', but I did find the premise very interesting.

[Maximilian]

Originally Posted by Mirth1981

Even the world knows that true beauty comes from the inside, and not just from the outside. There's a new reality tv show called "True Beauty" and the basis for it is that the contestants are super models who think they will win the show based on their looks, but what they don't know is it is mostly based on their integrity and good character. I wouldn't recommend this show because it can get risque', but I did find the premise very interesting.

I think we pay a great deal of lip service to this ideal. Everything else in contemporary mass media says otherwise.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Maximilian

I think we pay a great deal of lip service to this ideal. Everything else in contemporary mass media says otherwise.

Oh my goodness!! Hello!!! Exactly!!! Thank you!!!!

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

That's pretty much all you're doing. You've failed to even give a reasonable interaction with the pretty strong evidence passed your way.

I do appreciate you staying online anyway... you've helped AFF readers get a good read on the subject.

! That's all I've got to say to your "strong evidence." Wonder if this "strong evidence" also applies to Eph. 5:18??? I doubt it!