Isaiah 3 and jewelry...

[rdp]

Originally Posted by mfblume

This is the rife nonsense argued against Ezekiel 16 to excuse away something God did in His eyes for His lady as though He did something He PERMITTED, but later showed displeasure over. As if.

Re. Ezekiel 16, rdp said...


In order for God to show permission for something and later show displeasure, as rdp said here, and yet see GOD HIMSELF said HE CLOTHED Israel in jewelry, is to make God double minded. Permitting someone to do something YOU DO NOT FAVOUR does not mean YOU DO IT YOURSELF.



GOD DIVORCED ISRAEL. Hating it means God hated the idea it had to occur. But people have to reconcile the FACT that God divorced Israel Himself with the FACT He hates divorce. The only way to reconcile that is to use common sense and realize the ACT of divorcing is not wrong, OR GOD DID SOMETHING WRONG. It means the situation requiring it is what He hates.

RDP, see if you can answer this directly without hedging. DID GOD DO WRONG WHEN HE DECKED ISAEL WITH JEWELRY? DID GOD DO WRONG WHEN HE DIVORCED ISRAEL?


Did God ALLOW HIMSELF, when in actuality He knew it was wrong, to divorce and to deck Israel with jewelry? Yes or no?



Why would God do something Himself that He tolerated for men to do but later showed His displeasure in? I really want to see that answer from you.



So, God in weakness had a problem with pride and later straightened Himself and everyone else out? That seems to be what you are saying.

Let's see some answers, RDP. Try to use a little scholarliness at least instead of the juvenile multitude of question marks and letters in a words.

I responded to this in detail last night, & then the computer wouldn't let me post it! Ughhhh.....so I gave up for the night.

It's humorous how you require me to answer your every question [which is no problemo!], then you entirely ignore mine. Thus, what you adamantly require of me, you yourself do not practice!

So, let's try this again: Mike, since you apparently do not undertand that Ezek. 16 uses jewelry in a metaphorical way & is NOT talking about God LITERALLY putting "nose rings and fine linen" on Israel.....would you have a problem w/ a preacher being "decked" out from head to toe in jewels [including nose rings] & preaching to you about modesty & temperance:___________?

Can't you just fill out ONE of these blanks Mike? When you do....then I'll answer your questions [which I did last night anyway].

Either way you go....I'll be waiting w/ a response! Much more I want to say right now, but am pressed for time today.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by rdp

[B][COLOR="DarkRed"]So, let's try this again: Mike, since you apparently do not undertand that Ezek. 16 uses jewelry in a metaphorical way & is NOT talking about God LITERALLY putting "nose rings and fine linen" on Israel.....

Everyone knows it is metaphorical. However, God would not use a metaphor of an evil practice and let it stand metaphorically for a holy thing. I told you that before as well. It's like you are saying the metaphor is an evil thought when translated literally, but is not when used as a metaphor. That's like saying it is good to metaphorically say God would adulterate with Israel and abandon his actual wife and leave his kids starving as a metaphor to show how much He loves Israel. That would be ridiculous.

By sheer virtue of that fact, we know the things in the metaphor given to Israel are not literally wrong if they were not a metaphor.

would you have a problem w/ a preacher being "decked" out from head to toe in jewels [including nose rings] & preaching to you about modesty & temperance:___________?

This metaphorical decking of jewelry is speaking about giving it TO A WOMAN. And so if you replaced the question with a WOMAN "decked" out, I would say I DO NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT. No. the bottom line is that God would not use a metaphor that was wrong if practiced literally. This in turn means, a literal decking of a woman in the items mentioned is not wrong. And that in turn means you are misinterpreting the contextual meaning of "Not the wearing of gold." I asked you way back when about what you would say about "not the wearing of apparel", and you refused to answer. I do not know if you answered it for anyone else since then. But your inability to answer shows you know "Not the wearing of apparel" does not mean do not wear clothing. And you know that the same manner of speech about "not the wearing of gold" cannot mean no gold at all BY THE SAME TOKEN.

Regarding the nose ring, obviously nose rings IN THAT DAY were acceptable. Since cultures change and they appear weird to us, then you cannot ask if I would think a woman should wear a nose ring today. The point is that everything God said He did with Israel was obviously acceptable to God and people of that time in that culture, and there was therefore nothing wrong with it at all. Take similar items that are acceptable in our culture and there is nothing wrong with women wearing them.

If you can drop the childish rant and tripe and talk scholarly about this without dozens of juvenile question marks, then we can discuss this wonderfully. Your recent manner is very obnoxious, and betrays a juvenility that causes one to think your intelligence is not to be wondered at in regarding this issue in light of the tone you write with.. Is that alright? Can we go on without that now? Thanks.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Everyone knows it is metaphorical. However, God would not use a metaphor of an evil practice and let it stand metaphorically for a holy thing. I told you that before as well. It's like you are saying the metaphor is an evil thought when translated literally, but is not when used as a metaphor. That's like saying it is good to metaphorically say God would adulterate with Israel and abandon his actual wife and leave his kids starving as a metaphor to show how much He loves Israel. That would be ridiculous.

By sheer virtue of that fact, we know the things in the metaphor given to Israel are not literally wrong if they were not a metaphor.



This metaphorical decking of jewelry is speaking about giving it TO A WOMAN. And so if you replaced the question with a WOMAN "decked" out, I would say I DO NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT. No. the bottom line is that God would not use a metaphor that was wrong if practiced literally. This in turn means, a literal decking of a woman in the items mentioned is not wrong. And that in turn means you are misinterpreting the contextual meaning of "Not the wearing of gold." I asked you way back when about what you would say about "not the wearing of apparel", and you refused to answer. I do not know if you answered it for anyone else since then. But your inability to answer shows you know "Not the wearing of apparel" does not mean do not wear clothing. And you know that the same manner of speech about "not the wearing of gold" cannot mean no gold at all BY THE SAME TOKEN.

Regarding the nose ring, obviously nose rings IN THAT DAY were acceptable. Since cultures change and they appear weird to us, then you cannot ask if I would think a woman should wear a nose ring today. The point is that everything God said He did with Israel was obviously acceptable to God and people of that time in that culture, and there was therefore nothing wrong with it at all. Take similar items that are acceptable in our culture and there is nothing wrong with women wearing them.

If you can drop the childish rant and tripe and talk scholarly about this without dozens of juvenile question marks, then we can discuss this wonderfully. Your recent manner is very obnoxious, and betrays a juvenility that causes one to think your intelligence is not to be wondered at in regarding this issue in light of the tone you write with.. Is that alright? Can we go on without that now? Thanks.

For the "not wearing apparel" part, rdp thinks that it should be rendered as "not wearing costly apparel" as some translations of today render it. And even after I showed him that the word costly was a word added by translators as clearly seen be its italics in the NKJV he still thinks it can be found in the greek and that somehow the NKJV translators were wrong to italicize that word.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by jfrog

For the "not wearing apparel" part, rdp thinks that it should be rendered as "not wearing costly apparel" as some translations of today render it. And even after I showed him that the word costly was a word added by translators as clearly seen be its italics in the NKJV he still thinks it can be found in the greek and that somehow the NKJV translators were wrong to italicize that word.

1Pe 3:3 KJV+ WhoseG3739 adorningG2889 let it notG3756 beG2077 thatG3588 outwardG1855 adorning of plaitingG1708 the hair,G2359 andG2532 of wearingG4025 of gold,G5553 orG2228 of putting onG1745 of apparel;G2440

PUTTING ON
G1745
ἔνδυσις
endusis
en'-doo-sis
From G1746; investment with clothing: - putting on.

OF APPAREL
G2440
ἱμάτιον
himation
him-at'-ee-on
Neuter of a presumed derivative of ἕννυμι hennumi (to put on); a dress (inner or outer): - apparel, cloke, clothes, garment, raiment, robe, vesture.

Where is any idea of costly here?

He RDP is wrong and has added to the Word.

Greek Scholar AT Robertson said:

Of wearing (peritheseōs). Late and rare word (Galen, Arrian) from peritithēmi (Mat_27:28), to put around, a placing around. Ornaments of gold were worn round the hair as nets and round the finger, arm, or ankle.
Or of putting on (enduseōs). Old word from enduō (to put on), here only in N.T. Peter is not forbidding the wearing of clothes and ornaments by women, but the display of finery by contrast. Cf. 1Ti_2:9-13; Isa_3:16.

[mfblume]

The true sense of 1 Pe 3:3 is related as follows:


1 Peter 3:3 Wives must not let their beauty be something external. Beauty doesn't come from hairstyles, gold jewelry, or clothes.

This does not mean do not engage in the above things, but realize true beauty is beyond those things. That way a person does not trust in THOSE things to be beautiful, although they have an innocent part to play in one form of beauty. It's just that one trusts in spiritual things to truly be beautiful. It's like saying we should not trust in the arm of flesh, but we know that does not mean you cannot make a deal with someone and trust them to follow through. It speaks of ultimates.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by mfblume

The true sense of 1 Pe 3:3 is related as follows:


1 Peter 3:3 Wives must not let their beauty be something external. Beauty doesn't come from hairstyles, gold jewelry, or clothes.

This does not mean do not engage in the above things,

Oh reeeeeeally? Where does the literal text state this Mike:________? Oooops...it doesn't! And you're talking to ME about "adding to the Word"?????

but realize true beauty is beyond those things. That way a person does not trust in THOSE things to be beautiful, although they have an innocent part to play in one form of beauty. It's just that one trusts in spiritual things to truly be beautiful. It's like saying we should not trust in the arm of flesh, but we know that does not mean you cannot make a deal with someone and trust them to follow through. It speaks of ultimates.

Nice eisegesis Mike....problem is I Tim. 2 & I Ptr. 3 WILL NEVER say what you affirm above.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by rdp

Oh reeeeeeally? Where does the literal text state this Mike:________? Oooops...it doesn't! And you're talking to ME about "adding to the Word"?????

(There you go with that juveniile nonsense of writing. Would you please quit and appear a little more scholarly for goodness' sake?)

Literal text?

It literally says beauty does not come from clothes. But that does not mean do not wear clothes!

Nice eisegesis Mike....problem is I Tim. 2 & I Ptr. 3 WILL NEVER say what you affirm above.

It is not eisegesis. IT says what I showed abode. You just refuse to consider anything different than your tradition.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by mfblume

The true sense of 1 Pe 3:3 is related as follows:


1 Peter 3:3 Wives must not let their beauty be something external. Beauty doesn't come from hairstyles, gold jewelry, or clothes.
...

yeppers

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by mfblume

1Pe 3:3 KJV+ WhoseG3739 adorningG2889 let it notG3756 beG2077 thatG3588 outwardG1855 adorning of plaitingG1708 the hair,G2359 andG2532 of wearingG4025 of gold,G5553 orG2228 of putting onG1745 of apparel;G2440

PUTTING ON
G1745
ἔνδυσις
endusis
en'-doo-sis
From G1746; investment with clothing: - putting on.

OF APPAREL
G2440
ἱμάτιον
himation
him-at'-ee-on
Neuter of a presumed derivative of ἕννυμι hennumi (to put on); a dress (inner or outer): - apparel, cloke, clothes, garment, raiment, robe, vesture.

Where is any idea of costly here?

He RDP is wrong and has added to the Word.

Greek Scholar AT Robertson said:

Of wearing (peritheseōs). Late and rare word (Galen, Arrian) from peritithēmi (Mat_27:28), to put around, a placing around. Ornaments of gold were worn round the hair as nets and round the finger, arm, or ankle.
Or of putting on (enduseōs). Old word from enduō (to put on), here only in N.T. Peter is not forbidding the wearing of clothes and ornaments by women, but the display of finery by contrast. Cf. 1Ti_2:9-13; Isa_3:16.

Yes, the key word is the "contrast" between the two.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Yes, the key word is the "contrast" between the two.

Yes! That is the point. That is why Peter continues to show the greater beauty.


1 Peter 3:4 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.