Isaiah 3 and jewelry...

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

Then at least I'm consistent in my steps...which is more than I can say for you!

My goal is not hyper-literal consistency. It's to try hard to be exegetically consistent

[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]

Originally Posted by rdp

Or, do you HONESTLY believe that there's a comparison to eating & ornamention????? Remember that bit about "context"? Before you say it, the context of I Tim. 3 & I Ptr. 3 was the contrast of outward decoration w/ inward decoration. The former had a "not with" connected to it, while the latter had a "but this" appended to it!

Ever heard of the "Fallacy of Equivocation"?? Not to mention what this says about those who agreed w/ this silly post. Sorry Charlie, try again!

The point is "labor not with meat that perishes, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you." In other words, it's a great example of not this, but this. According to your rebuttal (an awful attempt to "foil my logic"), the "not" should be interpreted the same in all cases. You went to your logic thesauraus again and sloshed around the term "fallacy of equivocation." Ironically, it's exactly what your argument was! Yup, clear and plain.

TS's scripture is a perfect example of the "not this, but this" phrasing.

And no, Paul's primary intent was not to prohibit drunknenness, it was to point to the Spirit. However, with the dozens of other OT and NT instructions and teachings against drunknenness, it's no question that Paul used the "not this, but this" analogy within his larger argument of "children of the day" and "children of the night" -- which are clearly good and evil contrasts.

See -- context definitely helps.

[Truthseeker]

Originally Posted by rdp

Or, do you HONESTLY believe that there's a comparison to eating & ornamention????? Remember that bit about "context"? Before you say it, the context of I Tim. 3 & I Ptr. 3 was the contrast of outward decoration w/ inward decoration. The former had a "not with" connected to it, while the latter had a "but this" appended to it!

Ever heard of the "Fallacy of Equivocation"?? Not to mention what this says about those who agreed w/ this silly post. Sorry Charlie, try again!

i wasn't comparing eating vs ornamention(what ever that is)

I was just showing how the word NOT was used to not mean a literal sense all the time in scripture.

John said love NOT in word, so does that mean we can't tell someone we love them??? You know it says not to do it.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by rdp

jfrog, I've explained the Greek in I Ptr. 3 'till I could drop dead! Will not just sit here & repeat the same thing over & over. Go back & reread my former posts regarding I Ptr. 3.

I'm verrrrry busy these days, but try to fit this in where I can. Probably be Thurs. before I can get back to you guys....I own my own company on the side.

Originally Posted by rdp

The transliteration of the Greek is actually "apparel ADORNING." The NIV, among others, clearly demonstrates this. Not to mention that the passage is a companion verse w/ I Tim. 2:9, which couldn't be plainer.

As usual, you guys make logical errors. You can't deal w/ "NOT the wearing of gold," so you go to something that you THINK invalidates the rest of the passage??

Gotta' run...busy today...look in tommorrow.

Here is a word by word transliteration of 1 Peter 3:3-4 from the greek. I used this site to help. http://scripturetext.com/1_peter/3-4.htm

1 Peter 3:3
ων εστω ουχ ο εξωθεν εμπλοκης τριχων και περιθεσεως χρυσιων η ενδυσεως ιματιων κοσμος

1 Peter 3:4
αλλ ο κρυπτος της καρδιας ανθρωπος εν τω αφθαρτω του πραεος και ησυχιου πνευματος ο εστιν ενωπιον του θεου πολυτελες

1 Peter 3:3-4
whose

be thou

not

that

externally

plaiting

hair

and

wearing

gold

rather

putting on

clothes

adorning

but(even)

that

inward

one

the heart

man-faced

by

that

uncorruptible

that

mild

and

peacable

mind

which

is

before

the

God

costly
-----------------------

After doing this exercise I am even more convinced that this verse is not a prohibition against jewelry.

So rdp, what was you saying about adorning being right beside clothes/apparel in the greek?

[Jeffrey]

Thanks jfrog.

Not making yourself beautiful (adorning) with jewelry, your new hair do or your wardrobe, but make yourself beautiful (adorn) with a beautiful spirit.

Not sure what rdp is trying to insist the NIV (and others he says) are saying with regard to apparel.

[Truthseeker]

I have never been to a church, even cons, that didn't have some adornment such as gold watches, wedding rings, ties, suits, or colorful outfits on the sisters.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

I have never been to a church, even cons, that didn't have some adornment such as gold watches, wedding rings, ties, suits, or colorful outfits on the sisters.

Yes, to a modern context. Paul would remind the women, your real beauty is not those things you "wear" -- like hats, curls in your hair, perfume, fancy pumps, dresses and blouses.... your true beauty is _____.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Thanks jfrog.

Not making yourself beautiful (adorning) with jewelry, your new hair do or your wardrobe, but make yourself beautiful (adorn) with a beautiful spirit.

Not sure what rdp is trying to insist the NIV (and others he says) are saying with regard to apparel.

rdp is trying to insist that apparel ought to be modified specifically be "adorning". This would have the effect of putting beautiful or costly in front of the word apparel. This would negate our earlier argument that it's not a prohibition because it would be prohibiting clothes if it was. If beautiful/costly was added in front of apparel then the verse could be a prohibition to all those things since it wouldn't be prohibiting clothes in general.

Of course when I made a transliteration of this verse I found something even more amazing. The apparel the verse mentions isn't literal apparel at all, it's totally figurative, and the verse isn't telling us not to wear the apparel it speaks of, it's telling us to wear it because the apparel it speaks of is the kind that covers the heart, an incorruptible, mild/humble and peaceable mind/spirit.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by jfrog

rdp is trying to insist that apparel ought to be modified specifically be "adorning". This would have the effect of putting beautiful or costly in front of the word apparel. This would negate our earlier argument that it's not a prohibition because it would be prohibiting clothes if it was. If beautiful/costly was added in front of apparel then the verse could be a prohibition to all those things since it wouldn't be prohibiting clothes in general.

Of course when I made a transliteration of this verse I found something even more amazing. The apparel the verse mentions isn't literal apparel at all, it's totally figurative, and the verse isn't telling us not to wear the apparel it speaks of, it's telling us to wear it because the apparel it speaks of is the kind that covers the heart, an incorruptible, mild/humble and peaceable mind/spirit.

I get that. Neither do I straight-face suggest Peter has in mind wearing clothes (the opposite of going naked). If he's on the subject of adornment, things people wear to beautify, it would make sense that the clothing is being worn in such a way as to beautify the woman... something quite common for women. The statement ultimately is getting to the heart of "where does beauty come from?" Further, it states what true adorning is (as we see in v5). By "true adorning," it doesn't prohibit the others, it rather sets them in perspective.