Isaiah 3 and jewelry...

[Jeffrey]

I don't need a grammar instruction on the word "not," apparently you do. What is dependent on the word "not" in this verse? What does it mean? What's the significance of the word "not?" Also, do you ever ask that about a passage -- what is Paul saying?? What's he getting at? Is he trying to deliver a prohibition so legalists like yourself can hang other believers, or is he pointing to something else?

So, when I come at you strong, I have a "bad spirit," but you can call me names such as "Legalist/Pharisee." So, again, I state that I would rather be "legal" than "illegal," One label is just as good as the next! What now, back to the text!

Answer the question.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

I don't need a grammar instruction on the word "not," apparently you do. What is dependent on the word "not" in this verse? What does it mean? What's the significance of the word "not?" Also, do you ever ask that about a passage -- what is Paul saying?? What's he getting at? Is he trying to deliver a prohibition so legalists like yourself can hang other believers, or is he pointing to something else?

He's saying not to draw attention to oneself thru jewlery, costly apparel, elaborate hairstyles, etc. He means what he said!



Answer the question.

Ughhh, that's what I've been doing for about a week now.

[Jeffrey]

1Likewise, wives,(A) be subject to your own husbands, so that(B) even if some do not obey the word,(C) they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, 2when they see your(D) respectful and pure conduct. 3(E) Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear— 4but let your adorning be(F) the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious.

Can't get any more clear than this

Very good Jeffrey...did you see where it "clearly" says "Do N-O-T let your adorning be external...putting on of GOLD JEWELRY..." Dude, can not read??? Astounding how you can quote it & then deny it!

Reading comprehension. Someone pass out a test.

I guess when you are set on repeating the words "NOT" over and over and over again, despite us addressing the verse and the phrase its a sign of stubborn defeat.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Reading comprehension. Someone pass out a test.

I guess when you are set on repeating the words "NOT" over and over and over again, despite us addressing the verse and the phrase its a sign of stubborn defeat.

Then you "guess" wrong! I didn't put the term "not" there. The Holy Spirit did to the 2 fore-most apostles. One to the Gentiles, the other to the Jewish-Christians. They both said the same thing: "Not with gold jewelry...". You come along & torture the text, so that when you're finished, it means exactly the opposite of what it says! Then you wanna' talk to M-E about "exegesis" ???

Shame on you......

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

Then you "guess" wrong! I didn't put the term "not" there. The Holy Spirit did to the 2 fore-most apostles. One to the Gentiles, the other to the Jewish-Christians. They both said the same thing: "Not with gold jewelry...". You come along & torture the text, so that when you're finished, it means exactly the opposite of what it says! Then you wanna' talk to M-E about "exegesis" ???

Shame on you......

Care to share some exegetes with credibility on the subject that agree with your looney interpretation? I can list scores that agree with what I've stated here multiple times. So send the laughy face right back atcha. Once again.... no response, just the same ol' same ol.

The word "not" has you in a knot. Forest for the trees, my friend.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Care to share some exegetes with credibility on the subject that agree with your looney interpretation? I can list scores that agree with what I've stated here multiple times. So send the laughy face right back atcha. Once again.... no response, just the same ol' same ol.

The word "not" has you in a knot. Forest for the trees, my friend.

What you guys do not see is that you're importing your own ideas into the text of God's Word that NEVER states the same. Then you wanna' tell ME that I'm off base???? Save it for the more simple, I see thru your ruse. I don't follow people who make up their own Bible, as Thomas Jefferson did.

Now, let me help you fella's out here a bit. According to your angle w/ I Ptr. 3 & I Tim. 2, Paul & Peter meant to actually wear jewelry, but don't let your beauty be derived from it. Problem is, this is not in the text, nor the context. It's supplied exclusively by the liberal crowd...not the Bible.

But, let's test your theory. Using the ol' idiomatic rule that you force into I Ptr. 3 & I Tim. 2, let's apply the same rule to Eph. 5:18, which has the same basic greek syntax: "And be N-O-T drunk 'ONLY' with wine, wherein in excess, but be filled with the Spirit 'ALSO'." Thus, instead of there being a "total prohibition" on being drunk, we're now actually encouraged to be so, so long as we're also filled w/ the Spirit!?!? Hmmm, very strange method of interpretation that you fella's have.

But, let's try it elsewhere & maybe we'll come out better w/ Rom. 13:13: "Let us walk honestly, as in the day; NOT in rioting and drunkenness 'ONLY,' NOT in chambering and wantonness 'ONLY.' But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ 'ALSO.'" Now, according to your method of interpretaion in I Tim. 2 & I Ptr. 3, we can have honesty, rioting, drunkeness & Christ all at the same time!

Ooops, the consistency test fails when applied to other verses. Why don'y you guys just believe [& quit tampering w/] the Bible & save yourselves this embarrassment?

I could go on & on w/ these examples, but I'm a busy man. The fact is that your method of interpreation changes the very meanings of God-breathed Scripture, which is the basic meaning of heresy. From there you begin to wrest the Scriptures to your own destruction; not only your destruction, but the destruction of those that hear & believe you. If you want to do opposite from what the Scriptures actually say [esp. in regard to NT instructions to the church], you're free to do so, but pls. have the integrity to leave the Word of God alone!

More coming later about Rebekah, time permitting.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

What you guys do not see is that you're importing your own ideas into the text of God's Word that NEVER states the same. Then you wanna' tell ME that I'm off base???? Save it for the more simple, I see thru your ruse. I don't follow people who make up their own Bible, as Thomas Jefferson did.

Now, let me help you fella's out here a bit. According to your angle w/ I Ptr. 3 & I Tim. 2, Paul & Peter meant to actually wear jewelry, but don't let your beauty be derived from it. Problem is, this is not in the text, nor the context. It's supplied exclusively by the liberal crowd...not the Bible.

Liberal crowd???? The orgs that espouse this and people that do come from every theological stripe... unless anyone that doesn't prohibit jewlery is your small square called conservative. What a silly thing to say!

And yes, of course it's "in the text", that's where were getting this from

But, let's test your theory. Using the ol' idiomatic rule that you force into I Ptr. 3 & I Tim. 2, let's apply the same rule to Eph. 5:18, Before you make a smart alec, lazy interjection, you can't necessarily apply a blanket rule on all passages... they are all unique, and should be exegeted as they are.... now I'll continue

which has the same basic greek syntax: "And be N-O-T drunk 'ONLY' with wine, wherein in excess, but be filled with the Spirit 'ALSO'." Thus, instead of there being a "total prohibition" on being drunk, we're now actually encouraged to be so, so long as we're also filled w/ the Spirit!?!? Hmmm, very strange method of interpretation that you fella's have. The problem is, drunkenness is articulated specifically throughout scripture as sin. There's no codifying, mystery solving, type and shadow abusing needed. It's quite explicit throughout. The reason? Drunkenness leads often to sinful actions.

TheMessage captures this passage beautifully: 17Don't live carelessly, unthinkingly. Make sure you understand what the Master wants.

18-20Don't drink too much wine. That cheapens your life. Drink the Spirit of God, huge draughts of him.

The reality is, the Apostle is doing at least something similar here as the other "NOT" passage we dealt with. He's writing to them about being vigilant, alive to Christ, not careless, and he paints a picture. Not this, but that. While we know drunkenness is a sin, it's clearly not Paul's primary goal at least in this passage. His goal is an exhortation...

what's different here is how the "NOT" is used. Here's the ESV rendering:

Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what(AJ) the will of the Lord is. 18And(AK) do not get drunk with wine, for that is(AL) debauchery, but(AM) be filled with the Spirit, 19addressing one another in(AN) psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart, 20(AO) giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father(AP) in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, 21(AQ) submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.

The most obvious difference would be the additional contrast found in 1 Pet 3 -- not external but hidden is your true adorning. He's not replacing clothes or giving out uniforms, he's going to the heart of beauty.

The ESV rendering for 1 Peter 3:
3(E) Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear— 4but let your adorning be(F) the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious.

Quite clearly the Apostle is making a contrast here.


But, let's try it elsewhere & maybe we'll come out better w/ Rom. 13:13: "Let us walk honestly, as in the day; NOT in rioting and drunkenness 'ONLY,' NOT in chambering and wantonness 'ONLY.' But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ 'ALSO.'" Now, according to your method of interpretaion in I Tim. 2 & I Ptr. 3, we can have honesty, rioting, drunkeness & Christ all at the same time! You make the mistake of assuming all scriptures are exegeted the same based on one word (in your case, "NOT", which varies by the way with versions you use). The fact is, what helped us get the "not this, but this" idea from the text was not exclusively the word "not," it was other mechanics in the verse, not external but hidden... an obvious contrast. However, I think the same could be applied to this verse in a sense. He's making a similar contrast. We know, in this case, these things he's referring to our obvious sins, but that doesn't mean whenever the "not this but that is used" it's all to be read with the same definition as these words. When Paul does this, he points from one thing earthly, to another thing mystical, hidden, heavenly even. Same thing he does here.

Ooops, the consistency test fails when applied to other verses. Why don'y you guys just believe [& quit tampering w/] the Bible & save yourselves this embarrassment? Not really, rdp. It's not an embarrassment. It's exegesis. You're attempting to do what no exegete would do, use a broad brush to insist anytime uses the "not this, but that" language, all his subjects have the same value.

I could go on & on w/ these examples, but I'm a busy man. The fact is that your method of interpreation changes the very meanings of God-breathed Scripture, which is the basic meaning of heresy. No, the approach I've used has helped me and others understand how to read a 1st Century Roman/Greek letter. You can stop with the heresy bologna. The heresy going on is those who block the kingdom with laws they make up... straining gnats that aren't even there. From there you begin to wrest the Scriptures to your own destruction; not only your destruction, but the destruction of those that hear & believe you. If you want to do opposite from what the Scriptures actually say [esp. in regard to NT instructions to the church], you're free to do so, but pls. have the integrity to leave the Word of God alone! Actually, Mr. Word of God, we have a DUTY to rightfully handle the Word of Truth. We LOVE the blessings of word he's givne us. We value it and treasure it. We see beyond the legalistic eyes of dead religion and into the vivid, lively colors of life. This Word frees us. Saves us. Gives us life. Please don't pretend you have the corner on it.

More coming later about Rebekah, time permitting.

See above.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

But, let's test your theory. Using the ol' idiomatic rule that you force into I Ptr. 3 & I Tim. 2, let's apply the same rule to Eph. 5:18, which has the same basic greek syntax: "And be N-O-T drunk 'ONLY' with wine, wherein in excess, but be filled with the Spirit 'ALSO'." Thus, instead of there being a "total prohibition" on being drunk, we're now actually encouraged to be so, so long as we're also filled w/ the Spirit!?!? Hmmm, very strange method of interpretation that you fella's have.

But, let's try it elsewhere & maybe we'll come out better w/ Rom. 13:13: "Let us walk honestly, as in the day; NOT in rioting and drunkenness 'ONLY,' NOT in chambering and wantonness 'ONLY.' But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ 'ALSO.'" Now, according to your method of interpretaion in I Tim. 2 & I Ptr. 3, we can have honesty, rioting, drunkeness & Christ all at the same time!

Ooops, the consistency test fails when applied to other verses. Why don'y you guys just believe [& quit tampering w/] the Bible & save yourselves this embarrassment?

I could go on & on w/ these examples, but I'm a busy man. The fact is that your method of interpreation changes the very meanings of God-breathed Scripture, which is the basic meaning of heresy. From there you begin to wrest the Scriptures to your own destruction; not only your destruction, but the destruction of those that hear & believe you. If you want to do opposite from what the Scriptures actually say [esp. in regard to NT instructions to the church], you're free to do so, but pls. have the integrity to leave the Word of God alone!

More coming later about Rebekah, time permitting.

The Fallacy of Equivocation

Thanks for bringing that up, rdp.

You've been called out, and caught red-handed.

[Jeffrey]

RDP, so if I wrote a letter, and in it said:

"It's not going to church that redeems the world, it's about being the church."

You'd make this to read a prohibition against going to church, or a further exhortation?

Would you keep repeating to those who read the verse with the latter in mind, "It says NOT going to church -- clear and plain!" See how silly that sounds?

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

RDP, so if I wrote a letter, and in it said:

"It's not going to church that redeems the world, it's about being the church."

You'd make this to read a prohibition against going to church, or a further exhortation?

Would you keep repeating to those who read the verse with the latter in mind, "It says NOT going to church -- clear and plain!" See how silly that sounds?

Well, that's a pretty good analogy, but what if you stated in the letter, "When you come to church, do not draw attention to yourself with screaming aloud." I would then take you to mean what you said.

The plain, ordinary understanding of I Tim. 2:9 is not to draw attention to yourself thru the external ornamentations of gold jewelry, pearls, costly array, etc. I think I'm safe to assume that Paul meant what he said in these instructions.