Isaiah 3 and jewelry...

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Nice dance?

Precisely!

You're impossible. Grammatical contrast is identical? How about contextual contrast? How about syntactical contrast? A word can be used the same way, even a phrase, and it not reflect the same meaning either time.

Ughh, all of the above are the same, therefore, you should apply the same reasoning to all. But, you don't, then wanna' throw out the ol' context card. Well, apply "context" to I Ptr. 3 & I Tim. 2, which was the external [accompanied w/ a "not"] w/ the internal [accompanied w/ a "but this].

Good grief, what in the world can you not see about that?

And even if we lived in a fantasy world where you applied rules like that to the Text (all must be interpreted identically without consideration to the message/content/theme),

Strawman alert! I never said that we didn't consider context....but the context of I Tim. 2 works against you an pointed ad nauseum! Next.....

I'd still tell you that in those cases Paul was not prohibiting

The I would tell you that you're nuts! According to this, then neither is Paul "prohibiting" drunkenness!! And I'm supposed to take you seriously?????

-- and furthermore, we have separately clear scripture and instruction on how we can view these obvious sins.

Yes, such as "not with gold, pearls, or costly array." Put down the eraser Jeffrey...it ain't goin' nowhere!

The dance is on your floor, and it appears you have two left feet.

Then at least I'm consistent in my steps...which is more than I can say for you!

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

Then at least I'm consistent in my steps...which is more than I can say for you!

My goal is not hyper-literal consistency. It's to try hard to be exegetically consistent

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

My goal is not hyper-literal consistency. It's to try hard to be exegetically consistent

Then pls. do so in Eph. 5 & Rom. 13, not to mention several others that I could enumerate......