[rdp]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Now we are getting somewhere. Though the verse in Matthew still doesn't help your cause any. It says, "All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. (As a consequence of this/Consequently/For this reason/Therefore) go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." What is a consequence of what? What is the reason for what? The consequence of Jesus having all power in heaven and earth is that the disciples are to teach all nations, baptizing them... The reason the disciples are to teach all nations, baptizing them... was because that Jesus had been given all power in heaven and in earth. *Notice the baptizing them part was not why they were to teach all nations. It was as a result of Jesus being given all power in heaven and earth. For Isaiah to read as you claim there must be an example of something after the therefore that is the reason. This is clearly not the case in the example you have cited. Try again.

Isaiah 3:16 from the NIV. This verse contains what is between the "because" and the "therefore" in the KJV.

The LORD says,
"The women of Zion are haughty,
walking along with outstretched necks,
flirting with their eyes,
tripping along with mincing steps,
with ornaments jingling on their ankles.

Your second point is much better. It does translate as ornaments jingling on their ankles. So, I guess we can conclude God wasn't to pleased with their wearing of anklets. Or is it saying that they were wearing so much jewelry that it hung all the way down to their ankles? Either way, it doesn't seem to mention much about rings which was one of your original claims. So, I'm willing to give you that it may be against anklets, if you are willing to give me that it may not be against rings.

If you want to use the mention of rings from verse 21 as something God was displeased with, then please provide me an example as I have requested first, one where the reason that something is happening is listed after the "therefore" instead of before it.

You're showing your unwillingness to accept wrong by implying that only ornaments on the ankles are displeasing to God. Come, come now, I thought better of you than that.

Your 1st paragraph is simply mind boggling to me how in the world you cannot see this. Not to mention your eisegesis of Mt. 28:19. Gotta' go......