Isaiah 3 and jewelry...

[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.