Isaiah 3 and jewelry...

Baron1710 · #1 07-20-2010, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

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

Btw... these are almost your actual words

Jeffrey, apparently our thick friend here doesn't understand that notes at the back of a chapter doesn't mean that all those people agree with the opinions of the author. A quote by this one or that one with an endnote does not mean a scholar interprets this passage the way you are. The fact is Bernard did not cite a single scholar that agrees with your view.

rdp · #2 07-20-2010, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baron1710

Jeffrey, apparently our thick friend here doesn't understand that notes at the back of a chapter doesn't mean that all those people agree with the opinions of the author. A quote by this one or that one with an endnote does not mean a scholar interprets this passage the way you are. The fact is Bernard did not cite a single scholar that agrees with your view.

I see, so a note gas to be w/in the chp. to be credible! Why do I waste my time? Oh, BTW, I thought the Bible said "Let God be true and EVERY MAN a liar." Let me guess, we need a "scholar" to tell us what that means right??? Plumb silly............

Jeffrey · #3 07-20-2010, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rdp

I see, so a note gas to be w/in the chp. to be credible! Why do I waste my time? Oh, BTW, I thought the Bible said "Let God be true and EVERY MAN a liar." Let me guess, we need a "scholar" to tell us what that means right??? Plumb silly............

Do you or do you not believe in the value of exegesis?

Did you or did you not appeal to a list of scholars (on your own) that included such lofty names as David Bernard and Nate Wilson?

Did you get called out on false references to "sources" and then claim it wasn't really important anyway?

rdp · #4 07-20-2010, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Do you or do you not believe in the value of exegesis?

Of course, but "exegesis" seeks to explain the text, not erase it...next.....

Did you or did you not appeal to a list of scholars (on your own) that included such lofty names as David Bernard and Nate Wilson?

And?????

Did you get called out on false references to "sources"

No, I did not. Bernard reference several scholars. BTW, I count Bernard as a scholar as well [not to mention a fine Christian/Praying man]. Or, do we have to own Post-Doctoral works before we're deemed scholars? Silly!
and then claim it wasn't really important anyway?

My point is that supposed scholars are external appealls to the actual text. Does Paul & Peter qualify as "scholars"? Oh, & by the way, YOU [& Baron] was the one's who asked for the scholars [as opposed to "on my own." Man, you just won't ever get it will ya'????

Jeffrey · #5 07-20-2010, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rdp

My point is that supposed scholars are external appealls to the actual text. Does Paul & Peter qualify as "scholars"? Oh, & by the way, YOU [& Baron] was the one's who asked for the scholars [as opposed to "on my own." Man, you just won't ever get it will ya'????

You offered it up without provocation. You can claim peer pressure all day.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey
Do you or do you not believe in the value of exegesis?

rdp
Of course, but "exegesis" seeks to explain the text, not erase it...next.....

no buts about it. don't accuse anyone of "needing scholars" if you understand the value of exegesis. yes, scholars help us understand what was written as an ancient letter..... glad you agree.

Quote:

Did you get called out on false references to "sources"

No, I did not. Bernard reference several scholars. BTW, I count Bernard as a scholar as well [not to mention a fine Christian/Praying man]. Or, do we have to own Post-Doctoral works before we're deemed scholars? Silly!

YES. Affirmative. Glad you're getting it.

You eluded that he made scholastic references to points you are supporting. That was false.

rdp · #6 07-20-2010, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

You offered it up without provocation. You can claim peer pressure all day.

Ughhh, Hello, is anyone at home in there? YOU are the one's who've been screaming "we need scholars" for about a week or so now! Good grief....sinking fast Jeffrey!

no buts about it. don't accuse anyone of "needing scholars" if you understand the value of exegesis. yes, scholars help us understand what was written as an ancient letter..... glad you agree.

Yes...as long as they are faithful to the text...Yes, I "agree"!

YES. Affirmative. Glad you're getting it.

You eluded that he made scholastic references to points you are supporting. That was false.

Nope... not at all! He did indeed refernce scholars who were far stricter than we are....that is, IF you can call Calvin a "scholar," which is another thread!

Jeffrey · #7 07-20-2010, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rdp

Nope... not at all! He did indeed refernce scholars who were far stricter than we are....that is, IF you can call Calvin a "scholar," which is another thread!

I'm not saying we haven't brought in the issue of scholarship. I think it's huge and says a lot that contemporary scholarship lends you no support on these issues.

That's also not to say you didn't bring your "scholars' to the table without provocation.

Also, another poster reading your posts noticed you were almost word-for-word from one of your sources as well. You don't.... ahhh nevermind.
\

Baron1710 · #8 07-20-2010, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rdp

I see, so a note gas to be w/in the chp. to be credible! Why do I waste my time? Oh, BTW, I thought the Bible said "Let God be true and EVERY MAN a liar." Let me guess, we need a "scholar" to tell us what that means right??? Plumb silly............

Follow real close...a note at the end of the chapter that DOES NOT refer back to the portion of the chapter that you claim it does means you either don't understand how notes work or you are being dishonest.

He quotes scholars in the chapter without a doubt but he does not quote a scholar that supports the view you are stating.

Are you getting this or should I type slower?

Baron1710 · #9 07-20-2010, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baron1710

Follow real close...a note at the end of the chapter that DOES NOT refer back to the portion of the chapter that you claim it does means you either don't understand how notes work or you are being dishonest.

He quotes scholars in the chapter without a doubt but he does not quote a scholar that supports the view you are stating.

Are you getting this or should I type slower?

No comment?

I guess if you can't copy the contents of a book you can't respond.

rdp · #10 07-20-2010, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baron1710

Follow real close...a note at the end of the chapter that DOES NOT refer back to the portion of the chapter that you claim it does means you either don't understand how notes work or you are being dishonest.

I could put this in all caps so you could understand it, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for this one. Bernard directly quotes Calvin, Clement, & others who were far stricter than we are in these matters...or did you not R-E-A-D that portion????

He quotes scholars in the chapter without a doubt

Ohhh, so now he does quote "scholars," isn't this soooo silly!
but he does not quote a scholar that supports the view you are stating.

Where does it say that they don't support the view that we [not just me] espouse here:_________? C'mon Baron, surely you find this quotation affirming you assertion above...can't you???

Are you getting this or should I type slower?

Got it just fine...just as I do "not with gold, pearls, or costly array." Did Y-O-U "get it"?