Isaiah 3 and jewelry...

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

But, let's test your theory. Using the ol' idiomatic rule that you force into I Ptr. 3 & I Tim. 2, let's apply the same rule to Eph. 5:18, which has the same basic greek syntax: "And be N-O-T drunk 'ONLY' with wine, wherein in excess, but be filled with the Spirit 'ALSO'." Thus, instead of there being a "total prohibition" on being drunk, we're now actually encouraged to be so, so long as we're also filled w/ the Spirit!?!? Hmmm, very strange method of interpretation that you fella's have.

But, let's try it elsewhere & maybe we'll come out better w/ Rom. 13:13: "Let us walk honestly, as in the day; NOT in rioting and drunkenness 'ONLY,' NOT in chambering and wantonness 'ONLY.' But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ 'ALSO.'" Now, according to your method of interpretaion in I Tim. 2 & I Ptr. 3, we can have honesty, rioting, drunkeness & Christ all at the same time!

Ooops, the consistency test fails when applied to other verses. Why don'y you guys just believe [& quit tampering w/] the Bible & save yourselves this embarrassment?

I could go on & on w/ these examples, but I'm a busy man. The fact is that your method of interpreation changes the very meanings of God-breathed Scripture, which is the basic meaning of heresy. From there you begin to wrest the Scriptures to your own destruction; not only your destruction, but the destruction of those that hear & believe you. If you want to do opposite from what the Scriptures actually say [esp. in regard to NT instructions to the church], you're free to do so, but pls. have the integrity to leave the Word of God alone!

More coming later about Rebekah, time permitting.

The Fallacy of Equivocation

Thanks for bringing that up, rdp.

You've been called out, and caught red-handed.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

The Fallacy of Equivocation

Thanks for bringing that up, rdp.

You've been called out, and caught red-handed.

Say what???? You guys treat the text of I Tim. 2/I Ptr. 3 as idiomatical expressions, then, when I use other texts [Eph. 5/Rom. 13] using the same criteria you're forced to come up w/ all sort of "explanations" why the model doesn't fit?

You use natural things like eating/speaking in the same breath as unnatural ornamentation....and YOU'RE accussing ME of "equivocating"?????

Good grief, does it get any worse?????

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by rdp

Say what???? You guys treat the text of I Tim. 2/I Ptr. 3 as idiomatical expressions, then, when I use other texts [Eph. 5/Rom. 13] using the same criteria you're forced to come up w/ all sort of "explanations" why the model doesn't fit?

You use natural things like eating/speaking in the same breath as unnatural ornamentation....and YOU'RE accussing ME of "equivocating"?????

Good grief, does it get any worse?????

rdp, what they are saying is that such expressions can be used EITHER WAY. They are saying that the use is dependent upon the context and not upon the grammar and structure. They even offered some examples of verses with the same basic grammar and structure that couldn't be taken as ban on the "not ______" It is you that is claiming that every use of the word "not ______" must be used the same way, as a prohibition.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by jfrog

rdp, what they are saying is that such expressions can be used EITHER WAY. They are saying that the use is dependent upon the context and not upon the grammar and structure. They even offered some examples of verses with the same basic grammar and structure that couldn't be taken as ban on the "not ______" It is you that is claiming that every use of the word "not ______" must be used the same way, as a prohibition.

No, I fully agree w/ context. But the context of I Ptr. 3 & I Tim. 2 was the external w/ the internal. The former had a "no" tied to it, while the latter had a "yes" tied to it.

There's much, much more that I could state about NT believers being the dwelling/temple of God, but have gotta' run....probably wouldn't be considered anyway!

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

No, I fully agree w/ context. But the context of I Ptr. 3 & I Tim. 2 was the external w/ the internal. The former had a "no" tied to it, while the latter had a "yes" tied to it.

There's much, much more that I could state about NT believers being the dwelling/temple of God, but have gotta' run....probably wouldn't be considered anyway!

WTH?

Tripping over your own logic here. Careful... it's getting slippery.

When confronted with your inconsistency, you pulled the "well, that's different" card (natural vs. whatever it is you said). That's exactly the point!!! I believe the theme/content dictates the severity and full range of expressions/what they mean! That's what I've been saying. So, when in a corner, you finally agree to interpret things by context. However, your criteria is somewhat shaky --- natural vs. unnatural -- or whatever you said. Like you just make things up.

Clear and plain, rdp. Clear and plain! Don't you know what "NOT" means!!!! Quit erasing the word!

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

WTH?

Tripping over your own logic here. Careful... it's getting slippery.

Problem is you don't even know the difference in the contexts..."slippery" indeed!

When confronted with your inconsistency, you pulled the "well, that's different" card

Oh, you mean I pulled a card from Jeffrey's deck over in Eph. 5 & Rom. 13? I'm not the one who compares talking & eating to decorative ornamentation !

(natural vs. whatever it is you said).

Which only demostrates that you don't read "whatever I said." You simply want to defend your theology.


That's exactly the point!!! I believe the theme/content dictates the severity and full range of expressions/what they mean! That's what I've been saying. So, when in a corner, you finally agree to interpret things by context.

Very good Jeffrey....& for about the 20th time now I've demonstrated that the context of I Ptr. 3 & I Tim. 2 was the external showiness of "gold, pearls, costly array" & the internal meekness of the heart. The former said "NO," the latter said "YES." Sheesh....BTW, how old are you Jeffrey? Does your Mom know that your on here after hours?

However, your criteria is somewhat shaky --- natural [ Here, I'll make it easy on you: talking & eating] vs. unnatural [[Decorative Ornamentation] -- or whatever you said. Like you just make things up.

Speaking evil of the things which you are ignorant of again eh' Jeffrey? Peter warned us about you fella's...isn't this fun?

Clear and plain, rdp. Clear and plain! Don't you know what "NOT" means!!!! Quit erasing the word!

Why yes, I do. That's been my point all along. I understand the context & grammar of I Ptr. 3 & I Tim. 2. Just as Paul taught us "not" to be drunk, he also told us not to wear jewelry. You hedge on Eph. 5/Rom. 13 [when the syntax/grammar is identical] , then wanna' talk to ME about "consistency"???? Save it for the simple Jeffrey!