Isaiah 3 and jewelry...

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

I get a kick out of you.

Likewise.....

Women, your true adorning is not external (not a prohibition on all things external), but it's internal. The weightier things are immaterial.



It's not a prohibition. It's called the human language. It's a beautiful thing when you let the Apostle say what he wants.

I do, which is exactly why we do not wear & teach aginst jewelry. The 2 foremost apostles told us not to! You should simply believe what he says.

Ever heard of the Golden Rule Of Interpretation Jeffrey? See here [paraphrased from memorization]: When the common sense understanding of the text makes plain sense, seek no other sense. Therefore, let every statement stand on its own merit, unless the immediate context dictates otherwise.

No Jeffrey, I didn't just make that up...you should give this hermeneutical principle a try sometime...instead of deriding things you apparently do not understand.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

I do, which is exactly why we do not wear & teach aginst jewelry. The 2 foremost apostles told us not to! You should simply believe what he says.

Ever heard of the Golden Rule Of Interpretation Jeffrey? See here [paraphrased from memorization]: When the common sense understanding of the text makes plain sense, seek no other sense. Therefore, let every statement stand on its own merit, unless the immediate context dictates otherwise.

No Jeffrey, I didn't just make that up...you should give this hermeneutical principle a try sometime...instead of deriding things you apparently do not understand.

Wow. All that from memory? So proud.

What you described is from the text book of the Literal Method of Interpretation. What you fail to understand is this, also included in the "Golden Rule":

The literal method of interpretation is that method that gives to each word the same exact basic meaning it would have in normal, ordinary, customary usage, whether employed in writing, speaking or thinking.

That's all I've argued on here. To give to the meaning of the verse what it should in customary usage.... nothing else. No one is saying the Apostle is speaking in a metaphor here and that all his words are symbolic.


http://www.biblefragrances.com/studies/interp.html

It's a good site

Not exactly the stuff I've read from Fee and Stewart or from Duvall.

You're making a false accusation, brother. There's no getting around the fact that you've responded to a well-reasoned point with basically nothing.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Wow. All that from memory? So proud.

I said "from memorization" because I'm sure that that's not the exaxt way that it was stated...not to be "proud."

What you described is from the text book of the Literal Method of Interpretation. What you fail to understand is this, also included in the "Golden Rule":

The literal method of interpretation is that method that gives to each word the same exact basic meaning it would have in normal, ordinary, customary usage, whether employed in writing, speaking or thinking.

Very ggod Jeffrey, now apply that to the exact transliteration of I Ptr. 3 from the Greek: "whose let it be NOT the OUTWARD of braiding of hair, and putting around of gold, or putting on of garments ADORNING." [caps added for emphasis].

Now, apply the literal hermeneutic to "each word," including "NOT" & "garments ADORNING." It's not that hard Jeffrey.....

That's all I've argued on here. To give to the meaning of the verse what it should in customary usage.... nothing else. No one is saying the Apostle is speaking in a metaphor here and that all his words are symbolic.


http://www.biblefragrances.com/studies/interp.html

It's a good site

Not exactly the stuff I've read from Fee and Stewart or from Duvall.

You're making a false accusation, brother. There's no getting around the fact that you've responded to a well-reasoned point with basically nothing.

How typical....I've provided Scripture after Scripture, the exact transliteration of I Ptr. 3, etc., etc.....but hey, still "nothing". Well, I guess if you call God-breathed Scripture "nothing," then that's your decision. Think I'll stick w/ the Book, which says "N-O-T the wearing of gold...." Couldn't be plainer.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

How typical....I've provided Scripture after Scripture, the exact transliteration of I Ptr. 3, etc., etc.....but hey, still "nothing". Well, I guess if you call God-breathed Scripture "nothing," then that's your decision. Think I'll stick w/ the Book, which says "N-O-T the wearing of gold...." Couldn't be plainer.

Not this, but that.

It's language, rdp.

And it's NOT really that difficult.

Before you look at this as spilled from the mouth of God, falling on our laps today and being Scripture, I think you need to understand that it's still a letter.

Your "NOT" fit accompanied with "couldn't be plainer" makes you look like a petulent little one.

Not this, but this. Not the language of prohibition, the language of exhortation... a definition of true adornment, not telling us literally to wear meekness as much he's not literally telling us to take off apparel. It's language. A beautiful thing.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Not this, but that.

Very good Jeffrey. The "not this" was the outward "gold, pearls, or costly array." The "that" was the inward meekness. The 2 stand in grammatical opposition to one another...you're getting there!

It's language, rdp.

Yes, very good!

And it's NOT really that difficult.

Amen!

Before you look at this as spilled from the mouth of God, falling on our laps today and being Scripture, I think you need to understand that it's still a letter.

Yes, a God-breathed letter to the church! You're getting pretty good...

Your "NOT" fit accompanied with "couldn't be plainer" makes you look like a petulent little one.

Oh the maturity level from those who then slander me when I put the ball back in your court. Sounds like some can dish it out, but....

Not this, but this. Not the language of prohibition, the language of exhortation... a definition of true adornment, not telling us literally to wear meekness as much he's not literally telling us to take off apparel. It's language. A beautiful thing.

Indeed, inward humilty is a "Beautiful Thing," but the outward ornamentation isn't....which is exactly the point of the passages. Sorry Charlie, it's still there!

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

Indeed, inward humilty is a "Beautiful Thing," but the outward ornamentation isn't....which is exactly the point of the passages. Sorry Charlie, it's still there!

Inward beauty is real beauty, that doesn't disqualify us from beautifying ourselves. Also, you get pretty flimsy with the text when you read 1 Peter 3 as saying all outward adorning or "beautifying" is evil. That's not what he's saying at all. And when you accuse of the "real, clear, plain meaning of the text" 1 Peter 3 isn't where we hear about "costly array" (though I doubt one would use rags as analogy of beauty), it clearly, plainly, simply says the wearing of clothes. Talk about plain. The ESV uses a dash, NIV translates the dash with a "such as," the Amplified inserts the word "merely" -- all these exegetes get it. The wearing of clothes, jewlelry and decorating of hair are what women likely did. Paul reminded them that there adording is not external SUCH AS (and he gives some examples), but their adorning is internal (and he gives a beautiful description of that). We molest this scripture to say anything other than that, rdp.

You'd have a better argument with 1 Timothy than 1 Peter. 1 Peter is saying the same thing, but if you want to try reading into a text, I think 1 timothy would be more attractive for you.