Isaiah 3 and jewelry...

[Socialite]

Hyper-literalists are funny people.

And it's always funny to hear them talk about exegesis and hermeneutics and then turn around say "what does the literal text say?" Can they not hear themselves?

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Socialite

Hyper-literalists are funny people.

And it's always funny to hear them talk about exegesis and hermeneutics and then turn around say "what does the literal text say?" Can they not hear themselves?

Silly me for actually believing the instructions "not with gold jewelry"....what was I thinkin' ???? Guess we should start consulting w/ Origen & his allegorical hermeneutic???

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

Silly me for actually believing the instructions "not with gold jewelry"....what was I thinkin' ???? Guess we should start consulting w/ Origen & his allegorical hermeneutic???

Please submit Origen's exegesis for examination. Would love to read it.

Of course, in your book, Origen wasn't even saved!!

And, of course, silly rabbit, no one is saying to not accept the phrase you have produced on this thread 1,000,000,000,000,000 times. We are asking you to decide the meaning of what is being in said... in context! That's it. Not a lot to that. So as much as you get red-faced screaming "NOT WITH... can't you idiots read!" it's going to do no good. Red Herron. Straw man. You pick the "logical fallacy" that applies.... rightly handling the Word of truth. Not using a person's letter as a legal code to take a phrase and declare it's meaning "literal" without identifying the "literal context" of what is being said.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Please submit Origen's exegesis for examination. Would love to read it.

Of course, in your book, Origen wasn't even saved!!

Oh my land....Are you saying that you didn't even know that Origen was the originator of the "Allegorical Method"? And, it's not "my book"...it's God's Book! Sorry Jeffrey...try again!

And, of course, silly rabbit, no one is saying to not accept the phrase you have produced on this thread 1,000,000,000,000,000 times. We are asking you to decide the meaning of what is being in said... in context! That's it. Not a lot to that. So as much as you get red-faced screaming "NOT WITH... can't you idiots read!" it's going to do no good. Red Herron. Straw man. You pick the "logical fallacy" that applies.... rightly handling the Word of truth. Not using a person's letter as a legal code to take a phrase and declare it's meaning "literal" without identifying the "literal context" of what is being said.

So, I shouldn't interpret Paul's instructions to Timothy, which were inspired by the Holy Spirit, as "literal"???? Does this go for the passage that says that "God was manifest in the flesh...."? Is this also non-literal? Jeffrey, you're a hoot!

And just because someone quotes a verse many times, does this invalidate the force of the passage? You fella's just refuse to get it huh....'round & 'round she goes!

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

So, I shouldn't interpret Paul's instructions to Timothy, which were inspired by the Holy Spirit, as "literal"???? Does this go for the passage that says that "God was manifest in the flesh...."? Is this also non-literal? Jeffrey, you're a hoot!

And just because someone quotes a verse many times, does this invalidate the force of the passage? You fella's just refuse to get it huh....'round & 'round she goes!

What does "literal" mean to you in terms of exegesis? That it can't be exegeted? That it means only what presuppositions you bring to the Text?

When you say "literal" so proudly, what are you meaning?

When Jesus says tells us to take up our cross and follow Him, what does that mean? Literally? When Jesus says we must be perfect, what does that mean? Any exegesis needed?

You must be careful when you confuse "literal" as being the opposite of allegorical or as something meaning non-exegeted. When Paul says "not with gold," you must allow the entire paragraph, section or letter to speak. It's literal gold, but what's the point here? What's the purpose here? Those exegetical basics inform our suppositions about what the "literal" text mean. When one says something isn't literal, they aren't always saying allegorical.

And when I said "your book" that wasn't literal

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

What does "literal" mean to you in terms of exegesis? That it can't be exegeted? That it means only what presuppositions you bring to the Text?

When you say "literal" so proudly, what are you meaning?

When Jesus says tells us to take up our cross and follow Him, what does that mean? Literally? When Jesus says we must be perfect, what does that mean? Any exegesis needed?

You must be careful when you confuse "literal" as being the opposite of allegorical or as something meaning non-exegeted. When Paul says "not with gold," you must allow the entire paragraph, section or letter to speak. It's literal gold, but what's the point here? What's the purpose here? Those exegetical basics inform our suppositions about what the "literal" text mean. When one says something isn't literal, they aren't always saying allegorical.

And when I said "your book" that wasn't literal

Exegesis is the art of lifting out original authorial intent Jeffrey. Haven't you ever heard, "Scripture can never mean what it never MEANT"? Honestly here, why do you guys fight the plainness of this passage...esp. when you concede above that the verse is referring to "literal gold"? We're making progress here! If it's "literal gold," then it's also a literal "not with"!

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

Exegesis is the art of lifting out original authorial intent Jeffrey. Haven't you ever heard, "Scripture can never mean what it never MEANT"? Honestly here, why do you guys fight the plainness of this passage...esp. when you concede above that the verse is referring to "literal gold"? We're making progress here! If it's "literal gold," then it's also a literal "not with"!

I have heard of that once or twice

Just because the words or images are literal doesn't take away from the idea of authorial intent. What was originally intended by this letter? A prohibition once and for all on jewelry? That just doesn't seem to be the point.

So rather than make it so, I'd curious about learning what scripture meant, instead of reading into it what we've all thought it meant.

(And where were we all unanimous about the gold in the passage being literal, and not instead descriptive of over-the-top lavish extravagance? Point being, literal words do not a literal message make. The context, discovery process of authorial intent, all contribute to understanding the one-sided letter).