Isaiah 3 and jewelry...

Jeffrey · #1 07-20-2010, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rdp

Smart alec beats "dumb alec"!

Are you transcribing straight from a book? lol

You are really not getting it. I don't believe a word has one meaning regardless of context? Are you okay?

Re-read my post without breaking it up with comments, as one piece, Maybe you'll get what I just said.

I critiqued your handling of 1 Peter 3, giving context to the "plain and clear" "NOT" that you moaned about for weeks. When I did, you just went back to "plain and clear" and called my handling with the context -- and broad meaning -- an "erasing of the Word of God." Then you attempted to apply this logic in a few scriptures that you thought really showed off your argument. Other posters chimed in more verses that were quite obvious. You agreed context matters..... so if that's where you are, then we can go back to 1 Peter 3 and talk about word context... the "not this, but that" phrase and look at what Paul was saying. You took an exhortation toward something (beautiful spirit) and turned it into a prohibition against something (fashion, shopping, wearing jewelry, make-up, etc). He didn't offer an alternative way of physical beauty, he pointed to a spiritual beauty -- the real us. This doesn't mean we don't beautify ourselves, and that women don't try to look pretty. It's a perspective-changer.

You turned a good steak into a can of Alpo.

rdp · #2 07-20-2010, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Are you transcribing straight from a book? lol

You are really not getting it. I don't believe a word has one meaning regardless of context? Are you okay?

Re-read my post without breaking it up with comments, as one piece, Maybe you'll get what I just said.

I critiqued your handling of 1 Peter 3, giving context to the "plain and clear" "NOT" that you moaned about for weeks. When I did, you just went back to "plain and clear" and called my handling with the context -- and broad meaning -- an "erasing of the Word of God." Then you attempted to apply this logic in a few scriptures that you thought really showed off your argument. Other posters chimed in more verses that were quite obvious. You agreed context matters..... so if that's where you are, then we can go back to 1 Peter 3 and talk about word context... the "not this, but that" phrase and look at what Paul was saying. You took an exhortation toward something (beautiful spirit) and turned it into a prohibition against something (fashion, shopping, wearing jewelry, make-up, etc). He didn't offer an alternative way of physical beauty, he pointed to a spiritual beauty -- the real us. This doesn't mean we don't beautify ourselves, and that women don't try to look pretty. It's a perspective-changer.

Yes, & YOU are the one who "changed" the perspective to mean exactly the opposite of what the text literally says! Yet, in Eph. 5 & Rom. 13...time to do some fancy footwork to justify ourselves! Sorry Charlie, I'm sticking w/ the Bible...not Jeffrey!

You turned a good steak into a can of Alpo.

And you've made the Bible of no affect...shame on you!

Jeffrey · #3 07-20-2010, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rdp

And you've made the Bible of no affect...shame on you!

I've haven't MADE anything of the Bible. I've read it in ways I was trained to do. I've relied on scholarship, reviewed their evidence and reached a conclusion.

Quote:

Yes, & YOU are the one who "changed" the perspective to mean exactly the opposite of what the text literally says! Yet, in Eph. 5 & Rom. 13...time to do some fancy footwork to justify ourselves! Sorry Charlie, I'm sticking w/ the Bible...not Jeffrey!

Still on the "literally says" kick? I thought we kicked that in the butt? Remember when those other guys provided scriptures and you referred to context? Remember that? So let's be careful with the word "literal" that it doesn't really mean "stupid."

The Bible over Jeffrey? LOL You keep to the same game. "PLain and simple" "stick to the Bible" etc Yet, when it's convenient to your argument, the "plain and simple" and "sticking to the Bible" literalism gets abandoned.

Let's be real clear... there is nothing "plain and simple" about 1st Century writings to a 21st Century Westerner.

rdp · #4 07-20-2010, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

I've haven't MADE anything of the Bible. I've read it in ways I was trained to do. I've relied on scholarship, reviewed their evidence and reached a conclusion.

Still on the "literally says" kick? I thought we kicked that in the butt? Remember when those other guys provided scriptures and you referred to context? Remember that? So let's be careful with the word "literal" that it doesn't really mean "stupid."

The Bible over Jeffrey? LOL You keep to the same game. "PLain and simple" "stick to the Bible" etc Yet, when it's convenient to your argument, the "plain and simple" and "sticking to the Bible" literalism gets abandoned.

Let's be real clear... there is nothing "plain and simple" about 1st Century writings to a 21st Century Westerner.

Oh brother....honestly, how many times ad nauseum have I shown the context of I Tim 2 & I Ptr. 3 to be "not" the external, "but the" internal??? Seriously...are you really reading what the text says....sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh !

Jeffrey · #5 07-20-2010, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rdp

Oh brother....honestly, how many times ad nauseum have I shown the context of I Tim 2 & I Ptr. 3 to be "not" the external, "but the" internal??? Seriously...are you really reading what the text says....sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh !

Great. Progress.

Not the external --- notice he's not prohibiting external beauty --- but the internal.

Progress.

rdp · #6 07-21-2010, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Great. Progress.

Not the external --- notice he's not prohibiting external beauty --- but the internal.

Wrong again Jeffrey. He is precisely prohibiting outward ornamentation [jewelry, costly array, elaborate hairstyles]...in exchange for inward ornamentaion [meekness, humility, etc.]. That's the whole tenor of the passages in question.

Progress.

Yes, "progress."

Jeffrey · #7 07-22-2010, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rdp

Yes, "progress."

Quote:

Wrong again Jeffrey. He is precisely prohibiting outward ornamentation [jewelry, costly array, elaborate hairstyles]...in exchange for inward ornamentaion [meekness, humility, etc.]. That's the whole tenor of the passages in question.

Sorry... close... but not quite worthy of a cigar!

They aren't being LITERALLY exchanged. We still adorn ourselves smart guy. Women still brush their glory, shop for pretty clothing, groom themselves, make themselves smell good, vaseline the eyes, pinch the cheeks, look for colors that accent their eyes... It's impossible to not adorn ourselves. But we see, in a Gospel way, that our truest beauty is that which is incorruptible, and that comes with a heart submitted to the cross. That's true beauty.

So... you are pretty close. But far enough away to fit your own private interpretation