Isaiah 3 and jewelry...

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

Honestly, I don't have the time to just repeat this ad nauseum like this. Go back & reread my previous posts....which you told ME to do earlier. Take your own advice!

Out of pocket 'till Monday.

That's pretty much all you're doing. You've failed to even give a reasonable interaction with the pretty strong evidence passed your way.

I do appreciate you staying online anyway... you've helped AFF readers get a good read on the subject.

[Sam]

What do these verses really say?


1 Peter 3:3, 4

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

Your adornment must not be merely external--braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses; but let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God. NASB

Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes. Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God's sight.. NIV

What matters is not your outer appearance—the styling of your hair, the jewelry you wear, the cut of your clothes—but your inner disposition. Cultivate inner beauty, the gentle, gracious kind that God delights in. The Message

Don’t be concerned about the outward beauty of fancy hairstyles, expensive jewelry, or beautiful clothes. You should clothe yourselves instead with the beauty that comes from within, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is so precious to God NLT

Let not yours be the [merely] external adorning with [elaborate] interweaving and knotting of the hair, the wearing of jewelry, or changes of clothes; But let it be the inward adorning and beauty of the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible and unfading charm of a gentle and peaceful spirit, which [is not anxious or wrought up, but] is very precious in the sight of God. The Amplified Bible

Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear— but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious. ESV

Do not let your adornment be merely outward—arranging the hair, wearing gold, or putting on fine apparel— 4 rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God. NKJV

1 Timothy 2:9-10

In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. KJV

Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness. NASB

I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God. NIV

And I want women to get in there with the men in humility before God, not primping before a mirror or chasing the latest fashions but doing something beautiful for God and becoming beautiful doing it. The Message

And I want women to be modest in their appearance They should wear decent and appropriate clothing and not draw attention to themselves by the way they fix their hair or by wearing gold or pearls or expensive clothes. For women who claim to be devoted to God should make themselves attractive by the good things they do. NLT

Also [I desire] that women should adorn themselves modestly and appropriately and sensibly in seemly apparel, not with [elaborate] hair arrangement or gold or pearls or expensive clothing,But by doing good deeds (deeds in themselves good and for the good and advantage of those contacted by them), as befits women who profess reverential fear for and devotion to God. The Amplified Bible

likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works. ESV

in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works. NKJV

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Wow. All that from memory? So proud.

I said "from memorization" because I'm sure that that's not the exaxt way that it was stated...not to be "proud."

What you described is from the text book of the Literal Method of Interpretation. What you fail to understand is this, also included in the "Golden Rule":

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.

Very ggod Jeffrey, now apply that to the exact transliteration of I Ptr. 3 from the Greek: "whose let it be NOT the OUTWARD of braiding of hair, and putting around of gold, or putting on of garments ADORNING." [caps added for emphasis].

Now, apply the literal hermeneutic to "each word," including "NOT" & "garments ADORNING." It's not that hard Jeffrey.....

That's all I've argued on here. To give to the meaning of the verse what it should in customary usage.... nothing else. No one is saying the Apostle is speaking in a metaphor here and that all his words are symbolic.


http://www.biblefragrances.com/studies/interp.html

It's a good site

Not exactly the stuff I've read from Fee and Stewart or from Duvall.

You're making a false accusation, brother. There's no getting around the fact that you've responded to a well-reasoned point with basically nothing.

How typical....I've provided Scripture after Scripture, the exact transliteration of I Ptr. 3, etc., etc.....but hey, still "nothing". Well, I guess if you call God-breathed Scripture "nothing," then that's your decision. Think I'll stick w/ the Book, which says "N-O-T the wearing of gold...." Couldn't be plainer.

[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.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

That's pretty much all you're doing. You've failed to even give a reasonable interaction with the pretty strong evidence passed your way.

I do appreciate you staying online anyway... you've helped AFF readers get a good read on the subject.

! That's all I've got to say to your "strong evidence." Wonder if this "strong evidence" also applies to Eph. 5:18??? I doubt it!

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

It was a darn good and accurate parallel analogy. Yours was... well... incomplete. You left it in the form of a command.... the "not" is there, but there's no secondary clause Pesky details... Furthermore, the subject of beauty is rather abstract -- not quite the same as didactic instruction for conduct in worship.

Oh, well of course mine was "incomplete," while yours was perfectly fine! Toooo funny! Problem is, Paul & Peter also left theirs in the imperative mood! You hurt yourself every time you try Jeffrey!

Sigh... still in "nots" aren't you.

Ughhh, I'm the only one on here who seems to understand the word "not!" Except, of course, until we come to Eph. 5:18, or Rom. 13:13-14. You guys are a hoot!

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by rdp

Ughhh, I'm the only one on here who seems to understand the word "not!" Except, of course, until we come to Eph. 5:18, or Rom. 13:13-14. You guys are a hoot!

Keep patting yourself on the back. a 12 year old could understand the distinction being made in I Pete.

So under your understanding you must run a nudist colony.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

How typical....I've provided Scripture after Scripture, the exact transliteration of I Ptr. 3, etc., etc.....but hey, still "nothing". Well, I guess if you call God-breathed Scripture "nothing," then that's your decision. Think I'll stick w/ the Book, which says "N-O-T the wearing of gold...." Couldn't be plainer.

Not this, but that.

It's language, rdp.

And it's NOT really that difficult.

Before you look at this as spilled from the mouth of God, falling on our laps today and being Scripture, I think you need to understand that it's still a letter.

Your "NOT" fit accompanied with "couldn't be plainer" makes you look like a petulent little one.

Not this, but this. Not the language of prohibition, the language of exhortation... a definition of true adornment, not telling us literally to wear meekness as much he's not literally telling us to take off apparel. It's language. A beautiful thing.

[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

Ughhh, I'm the only one on here who seems to understand the word "not!" Except, of course, until we come to Eph. 5:18, or Rom. 13:13-14. You guys are a hoot!

I've addressed your claims above. If you'd like, I can copy/paste some Fee or Moo on Paul's use of "not this, but that" language. Maybe that would help.... then again, not sure what would help. We are just talking at each other anyway.