Isaiah 3 and jewelry...

[Truthseeker]

Originally Posted by rdp

Or, do you HONESTLY believe that there's a comparison to eating & ornamention????? Remember that bit about "context"? Before you say it, the context of I Tim. 3 & I Ptr. 3 was the contrast of outward decoration w/ inward decoration. The former had a "not with" connected to it, while the latter had a "but this" appended to it!

Ever heard of the "Fallacy of Equivocation"?? Not to mention what this says about those who agreed w/ this silly post. Sorry Charlie, try again!

i wasn't comparing eating vs ornamention(what ever that is)

I was just showing how the word NOT was used to not mean a literal sense all the time in scripture.

John said love NOT in word, so does that mean we can't tell someone we love them??? You know it says not to do it.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

i wasn't comparing eating vs ornamention(what ever that is)

I was just showing how the word NOT was used to not mean a literal sense all the time in scripture.

John said love NOT in word, so does that mean we can't tell someone we love them??? You know it says not to do it.

The word "NOT", rdp. Clear and plain! Quit trying to erase the Word from God's own mouth!

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

The word "NOT", rdp. Clear and plain! Quit trying to erase the Word from God's own mouth!

Such as you do in Eph. 5/Rom. 13? Wait, gotta' pull out my lip ring.......yea' reeeeeal "Christian" !

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

Such as you do in Eph. 5/Rom. 13? Wait, gotta' pull out my lip ring.......yea' reeeeeal "Christian" !

The only "un-Christian" thing in the last couple of seconds is your judgementalism on someone who wears a ring in their lip

Way to stretch for an extreme and still fall short.

Eph 5/Romans 13? Think I handled that quite well thank you.

The issue is you want to base interpretation exclusively off the word "not" (which is why you sent those scriptures), then when others confronted with other scriptures in the same style, you appealed to context.

This is what you're doing:

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

The only "un-Christian" thing in the last couple of seconds is your judgementalism on someone who wears a ring in their lip

Oh brother...Hey Jeffrey is homosexuality a sin? Are you basing your answer off of the Bible? Watch that "legalism" now !

Way to stretch for an extreme and still fall short.

According to the wordly crew!

Eph 5/Romans 13? Think I handled that quite well thank you.

Take a good look at the guy dancing around below, this is what you did w/ Eph. 5 & esp. Rom. 13. The criteria you use in I Tim. 2 doesn't work in Eph. 5/Rom. 13...then you wanna' talk to ME about "hermeneutics"????????

The issue is you want to base interpretation exclusively off the word "not" (which is why you sent those scriptures), then when others confronted with other scriptures in the same style, you appealed to context.

Wrong again Jeffrey...you guys tried to force eating & talking into the same category as decorative ornamentation...which is laughable! Next....

This is what you're doing:

Looks like Jeffrey in Rom. 13!

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

Looks like Jeffrey in Rom. 13!

Wrong again Jeffrey...you guys tried to force eating & talking into the same category as decorative ornamentation...which is laughable! Next.

Uh... Actually we were applying your logic that insisted, because of the word "NOT" being so "clear and plain" that context must not matter. But you later changed your mind on that.

We haven't forced anything. You have. Still not getting it?

Wouldn't eating and talking be more substantive than adornment? I bet I can find more scriptures references our conduct in eating and talking than I can adornment. But alas, I of course realize interpreting verses require a consideration of context, understanding what is being said and to whom and why. And when reading the word "not" in these passages, the only explanation is that he using contrast (not that but this) to support his primary point. Getting Deja Vu.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Uh... Actually we were applying your logic that insisted, because of the word "NOT" being so "clear and plain" that context must not matter. But you later changed your mind on that.

Nope! I've never said that we don't consider context. Simply another unproveable assertion from the Jeffrey bench!

We haven't forced anything. You have. Still not getting it?

Oh, I get it just fine. The Bible says not to adorn yourselves outwardly, but inwardly. You use eating food to erase that !

Wouldn't eating and talking be more substantive than adornment? I bet I can find more scriptures references our conduct in eating and talking than I can adornment. But alas, I of course realize interpreting verses require a consideration of context, understanding what is being said and to whom and why. And when reading the word "not" in these passages, the only explanation is that he using contrast (not that but this) to support his primary point. Getting Deja Vu.

See above...for about the 20th time now...remember the term "thick?"

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

i wasn't comparing eating vs ornamention(what ever that is)

I was just showing how the word NOT was used to not mean a literal sense all the time in scripture.

John said love NOT in word, so does that mean we can't tell someone we love them??? You know it says not to do it.

rdp, I will not stand back and watch you erase the Word of God. NOT - IT'S CLEAR AND PLAIN!!!! YOU COMPROMISER. You have itching ears.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

rdp, I will not stand back and watch you erase the Word of God. NOT - IT'S CLEAR AND PLAIN!!!! YOU COMPROMISER. You have itching ears.

I honestly had to check twice to see if I had posted this TO YOU earlier...since YOU are the one w/ the eraser out. You guys use natural practices such as eating to erase unnatural practices such as decorative ornamentation, then wanna' talk to ME about "scholarship" ?????

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

I honestly had to check twice to see if I had posted this TO YOU earlier...since YOU are the one w/ the eraser out. You guys use natural practices such as eating to erase unnatural practices such as decorative ornamentation, then wanna' talk to ME about "scholarship" ?????

Explain it away all you want. It's CLEAR AND PLAIN. NOT... can read the word "NOT?????"



Btw... these are almost your actual words