Isaiah 3 and jewelry...

[Truthseeker]

3Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes NIV


Do not let your adornment be merely outward—arranging the hair, wearing gold, or putting on fine apparel NKJV



3Let not yours be the [merely] external adorning with [elaborate] [b] interweaving and knotting of the hair, the wearing of jewelry, or changes of clothes; AMP







What is finre clothes?? Suits/ ties/fancy dresses??? If it doesn't mean to not adorn with clothes, then waht does it mean?





BTW NJ city is indeed the church.


Rev 21:9-10

9 And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife .

10 And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,
KJV


Notice he tell John he's gonna show him the bride, the lanbs wife then take him to a mountain showing him the city, new jerusalem.

Will their be sinners on the earth when the NJ city comes down??

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

3Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes NIV


Do not let your adornment be merely outward—arranging the hair, wearing gold, or putting on fine apparel NKJV



3Let not yours be the [merely] external adorning with [elaborate] [b] interweaving and knotting of the hair, the wearing of jewelry, or changes of clothes; AMP







What is finre clothes?? Suits/ ties/fancy dresses??? If it doesn't mean to not adorn with clothes, then waht does it mean?

I'll tell ya' what it is. It's when you go these churches that wouldn't DARE wear rings, necklaces, etc., BUT have no problem w/ elaborate suits that cost at least $300-$500. They have no problem wearing flashy watches in the name of a "time-piece." Their women have no problem wearing these goofy looking high hair-do's [as Jezebel did], etc. ad nauseum. Yes, the inconsistency is absurd & I have noooo desire to fellowship such non-sense...finally we agree on something.





BTW NJ city is indeed the church.


Rev 21:9-10

9 And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife .

10 And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,
KJV


Notice he tell John he's gonna show him the bride, the lanbs wife then take him to a mountain showing him the city, new jerusalem.

Will their be sinners on the earth when the NJ city comes down??

Did you not read my earlier post??? Why did you tatally ignore my point about the bride being arrayed in pure white, in contrast to the whore of Babylon decked out in jewels??? BTW, are you just gonna' evade my point about God's historical dwelling places ON EARTH? Not very honest apologetics.

Besides, your "example" above still fails, since we're not at the end of the eschaton right now...as your example is. Your meshing time frames & pawning it off as relevant to the present....Equivocation Fallacy.

But, still waiting on you to fill out my blank. Do you believe the words of Paul in I Tim. 2, "not with gold jewelry, pearls, or costly apparel.":____________? C'mon, pretty please just fill in ONE blank!?

Out of pocket for the rest of the day.

[Truthseeker]

Originally Posted by rdp

Did you not read my earlier post??? Why did you tatally ignore my point about the bride being arrayed in pure white, in contrast to the whore of Babylon decked out in jewels??? BTW, are you just gonna' evade my point about God's historical dwelling places ON EARTH? Not very honest apologetics.

Besides, your "example" above still fails, since we're not at the end of the eschaton right now...as your example is. Your meshing time frames & pawning it off as relevant to the present....Equivocation Fallacy.

But, still waiting on you to fill out my blank. Do you believe the words of Paul in I Tim. 2, "not with gold jewelry, pearls, or costly apparel.":____________? C'mon, pretty please just fill in ONE blank!?

Out of pocket for the rest of the day.

it's funny, you act like your saying stuff I never thought of or read before. You point about the gold on the inside of the tabernacle is point to consider, but so is the outside was badger skin if I remember right, so much for fancy clothes we wear today.


Of course, I believe all of Paul words, proper understanding might be another thing though.

I know in Tim 2 it says costly apparel while in peter just mentions apparel, I missed your greek lesson on it, so how is adorning with close ok again? You mention 300-500 suits but clothes don't have to be expensive to be adoning? Would a 50 dollar red suit be OK?

For the record, My wife and I do not wear jewelry, well she does wear a bracelet that tells time, but I wear nothing. I'm just looking at this subject from all angles.


You didn't answer my question about if sinners will be outside the NJ city? Do you believe earth will be burnt up before the NJ city comes??

[Maximilian]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

it's funny, you act like your saying stuff I never thought of or read before. You point about the gold on the inside of the tabernacle is point to consider, but so is the outside was badger skin if I remember right, so much for fancy clothes we wear today.


Of course, I believe all of Paul words, proper understanding might be another thing though.

I know in Tim 2 it says costly apparel while in peter just mentions apparel, I missed your greek lesson on it, so how is adorning with close ok again?

For the record, My wife and I do not wear jewelry, well she does wear a bracelet that tells time, but I wear nothing. I just looking at this subject from all angles.


You didn't answer my question about if sinners will be outside the NJ city? Do you believe earth will be burnt up before the NJ city comes??

People that use type/shadows to make literal applications to the nth degree are confounding. Most people believe the Temple spoke of how the Kingdom of God comes in servant clothes, the riches are to be discovered.... or that the beauty of the inside is in the Temple... But when someone uses a metaphorical type/shadow without biblical instruction to demand we wear clothes like badger skins, I can't help but chuckle. The only use of our bodies as the temple are from Paul who spoke against those who were giving their bodies over to sexual immorality --- he reminded them that they are the living, breathing, temples where God wants to live and that flagrant sin is not appropriate (of course he also used the "temple of God" analogy corporately in another setting, not individually).

Using the Temple of God analogies to talk about how we should be plain on the outside really is done with poor Biblical interpretation and is unfortunate.

And I should remind you that the Kingdom of God is no longer badger skins, but a bright-shining city set upon a hill (just to update the word-picture), the Kingdom of God is the New Jerusalem coming down from above, a shining city whose builder and maker is God. Like our redemptions, that city is both now and later.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Maximilian

People that use type/shadows to make literal applications to the nth degree are confounding. Most people believe the Temple spoke of how the Kingdom of God comes in servant clothes, the riches are to be discovered.... or that the beauty of the inside is in the Temple... But when someone uses a metaphorical type/shadow without biblical instruction to demand we wear clothes like badger skins, I can't help but chuckle.

"Chuckle" all day long. "Whatsoever things were written before hand were written FOR OUR ADMONITION..." [I Cor. 10. in discussing the Israelites].

The only use of our bodies as the temple are from Paul who spoke against those who were giving their bodies over to sexual immorality --- he reminded them that they are the living, breathing, temples where God wants to live and that flagrant sin is not appropriate (of course he also used the "temple of God" analogy corporately in another setting, not individually).

Using the Temple of God analogies to talk about how we should be plain on the outside really is done with poor Biblical interpretation and is unfortunate.

Then using the Red Sea as a type of our applicability of water baptism was also "poor biblical interpreation" & "unfortunate" ! Poor Paul, what was he thinking??????????

And I should remind you that the Kingdom of God is no longer badger skins, but a bright-shining city set upon a hill (just to update the word-picture), the Kingdom of God is the New Jerusalem coming down from above, a shining city whose builder and maker is God. Like our redemptions, that city is both now and later.

And I should remind YOU that I Tim. 2 & I Ptr. 3 was addressed to this "city" in a very literal sense. Ever heard of the Golden Rule of Interpretation?

[TGBTG]

Originally Posted by rdp

Ever heard of the Golden Rule of Interpretation?

Just bear in mind that the Golden rule of interpretation is a man-made philosophy.

Scriptural understanding has to come by revelation from the Holy Spirit (The Holy Spirit leads us into ALL truth)

Rom 7:6
But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter

2 Cor 3:6
Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

Looking at 1 Peter 3

3 Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;

4 But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.

I believe this scripture contextually is saying that outward beauty should not be the primary focus of a Christian woman, but rather the inward man should be decked with meekness and a quiet spirit. If a woman (or a man as the case may be) is focused on spiritual disciplines, I don't think there will be an unnecessary emphasis on outward beauty. In fact, we know from the bible that our present body will not inherit heaven, so why would a Christian care so much about "outward beauty".

1 Cor 7:31
And they that use this world, as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world passeth away

Coupling this scripture with 1 Peter 3:3-4 and 1 Tim 2:9, I see all three scriptures saying be modest.

However, if someone else reads the scriptures and comes away with the understanding that gold jewelry is wrong to put on, I'd have to ask is it okay if I put on silver jewelry or aluminum jewelry?

[rdp]

Originally Posted by TGBTG

Just bear in mind that the Golden rule of interpretation is a man-made philosophy.

Scriptural understanding has to come by revelation from the Holy Spirit (The Holy Spirit leads us into ALL truth)

Rom 7:6
But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter

2 Cor 3:6
Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

Looking at 1 Peter 3

3 Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;

4 But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.

I believe this scripture contextually is saying that outward beauty should not be the primary focus of a Christian woman, but rather the inward man should be decked with meekness and a quiet spirit. If a woman (or a man as the case may be) is focused on spiritual disciplines, I don't think there will be an unnecessary emphasis on outward beauty. In fact, we know from the bible that our present body will not inherit heaven, so why would a Christian care so much about "outward beauty".

1 Cor 7:31
And they that use this world, as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world passeth away

Coupling this scripture with 1 Peter 3:3-4 and 1 Tim 2:9, I see all three scriptures saying be modest.

However, if someone else reads the scriptures and comes away with the understanding that gold jewelry is wrong to put on, I'd have to ask is it okay if I put on silver jewelry or aluminum jewelry?

Both the context & actual text itself would prohibit any form of decorative ornamentation. So far as the silver goes, see Deut. 7:25. The plural pronoun "them" grammatically relates back to "their" [i.e., nations in the promised land] in the first clause of the sentence structure.

I would actually agree w/ your take on I Ptr. 3:3, but simply point you to the NIV, NLT for a more contextual translation.

[Maximilian]

Originally Posted by rdp

And I should remind YOU that I Tim. 2 & I Ptr. 3 was addressed to this "city" in a very literal sense. Ever heard of the Golden Rule of Interpretation?

Why, of course I've heard of it. It's a literal method of interpretation (one of many).

The literal method of interpretation is that method that gives to each word the same exact basic meaning it would have in normal, ordinary, customary usage, whether employed in writing, speaking or thinking.

If the words are employed in their natural and primitive signification, the sense which they express is the proper literal sense; whereas, if they are used with a figurative and derived meaning, the sense, though still literal, is usually called the metaphorical or figurative sense. Examples through comparing John 1:6 and 1:29.

A secondary application in this area is to realize that the King James
Version of the bible uses the English language of AD 1611. Many words and phrases have no meaning to us today or have entirely different meanings than what they had 380 years ago. This has led to serious misunderstandings of the bible and many erroneous practices and false doctrines.

The GROI is pretty elementary and a pre-interpreter's introduction to exegetical learning.

And everything I said that you replied employed an interpretive choice, which I explained. These rules are not rigid, static laws, but are rather tools (that must be decided when to use which one) for dynamic interpretation of learning what the passage meant originally, from the original writer to the original audience, and then understanding what that could mean to a contemporary reader.

[Maximilian]

Originally Posted by rdp

And I should remind YOU that I Tim. 2 & I Ptr. 3 was addressed to this "city" in a very literal sense. Ever heard of the Golden Rule of Interpretation?

Then using the Red Sea as a type of our applicability of water baptism was also "poor biblical interpreation" & "unfortunate" ! Poor Paul, what was he thinking??????????

Actually, we have permission to use the Red Sea as a figurative type of baptism, since the Apostle has already done so in 1 Corinthians 10:1-2.

The "Golden Rule" of using types and shadows

Also, Paul was not saying our Baptism is literally the same as miraculously passing through the Red Sea -- it served as a metaphor (obviously) of their new life away from Egypt (the place of slavery and bondage).

People can get carried away with types and shadows until they begin forming doctrines BASED on types and shadows, rather than types and shadows serving as illustrations for teachings BASED on Scripture.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Maximilian

Actually, we have permission to use the Red Sea as a figurative type of baptism, since the Apostle has already done so in 1 Corinthians 10:1-2.

The "Golden Rule" of using types and shadows

Also, Paul was not saying our Baptism is literally the same as miraculously passing through the Red Sea -- it served as a metaphor (obviously) of their new life away from Egypt (the place of slavery and bondage).

People can get carried away with types and shadows until they begin forming doctrines BASED on types and shadows, rather than types and shadows serving as illustrations for teachings BASED on Scripture.

Yes, but the gold/silver served as types of glory [gold/purity] & redemption [silver]..all of which are internal as opposed to external, as it was then, to God's place of dwelling. Do you deny this?