Isaiah 3 and jewelry...

[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.