Isaiah 3 and jewelry...

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by jfrog

I have one question. Am I the only one here that can make no sense out of how rdp interprets the bible?

I'm not convinced it qualifies as an interpretation, in order to interpret you must first comprehend what you read.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by rdp

I'm not talking about the definitions of the words, though certainly applicable, but rather the actual Greek Manuscripts of the verse. This is why the more modern translations [taken from manuscripts far older than what the KJV had available to them] adopt the verse as I state above [see NKJV, RSV, NIV, NASB].

But, really, all of this is a departure from the original topic. Does God condemn personal ornamentation by His people in His Word? Yes [See Deut. 7:25, I Tim. 2:9, for ex.].

1 Peter 3:3 NKJV Do not let your adornment be merely outward—arranging the hair, wearing gold, or putting on fine apparel

1 Peter 3:3 NIV Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes.

1 Peter 3:3 RSV Let not yours be the outward adorning with braiding of hair, decoration of gold, and wearing of fine clothing,

1 Peter 3:3 NASB Your adornment must not be merely external --braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses;

Seems two of the 4 versions rdp cites totally agrees with us on those verses... interesting

Also, older manuscripts are not necessarily more accurate than the not as old ones, I read a great article on this a long time ago (I do not have it now), but age alone of a manuscript does not indicate corruption or lack of corruption

[Erasmus]

I'm a little late to this thread - but I think at the heart of this discussion is "tradition." While many UPCI ministers claim they have rejected tradition, they are talking mostly about doctrinal issues, not righteousness issues. While the UPCI has only been around (officially) for about 60 years, they have developed their own traditions. When you are taught something your whole life, it is VERY difficult to give up on it -- especially when you were taught that giving up those things is sinful, or "moving the landmarks," or whatever terminology is used in sermons throughout the years.

Personally, I don't believe God is upset by jewelry, any more than He is upset by anything else a person wears -- as long as the person's spirit is right. Lasciviousness (wearing clothing to excite sexually) or pride (wearing something to show off wealth) are obviously sins -- but I don't see how God could get upset by someone wearing inexpensive jewelry modestly. At least, I can't find Scriptures to support this view.

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by Erasmus

I'm a little late to this thread - but I think at the heart of this discussion is "tradition." While many UPCI ministers claim they have rejected tradition, they are talking mostly about doctrinal issues, not righteousness issues. While the UPCI has only been around (officially) for about 60 years, they have developed their own traditions. When you are taught something your whole life, it is VERY difficult to give up on it -- especially when you were taught that giving up those things is sinful, or "moving the landmarks," or whatever terminology is used in sermons throughout the years.

Personally, I don't believe God is upset by jewelry, any more than He is upset by anything else a person wears -- as long as the person's spirit is right. Lasciviousness (wearing clothing to excite sexually) or pride (wearing something to show off wealth) are obviously sins -- but I don't see how God could get upset by someone wearing inexpensive jewelry modestly. At least, I can't find Scriptures to support this view.

Or even expensive jewelry for that matter as long as it is worn with the right attitude.

Honestly, how someone can read the Word where jewelry is spoken about again and again in such glowing terms, then turn around and say "Well God is speaking about the JEWEL itself and doesn't actually want you to wear it....", even though He spoke about doing just that in a positive light. "THAT was just symbolic!"

[Sam]

Originally Posted by rdp

.....the verse in question is Ezek. 16, where God says that He covered Jerusalem w/ His "skirt." Should we then interpret this to mean that He literally "covered" the entire city in His "skirt"....& then put a "nose-ring" in the city of Jerusalem's nose?!?!?

Clearly, the passages employed by jewelry advocates are to be understood as figures of speech reflecting the beauty [as the jewels] of God's Mercy, & not in any way endorsing personal ornamentation.

Jesus wept and said, "O Jerusalem. Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee..." He was not implying that the houses, shops, streets, etc had physically done this but the people of the city. The same way I could say that Cincinnati is playing Chicago this Sunday in the Bengals stadium. The Carew Tower and the Ohio River and Main Street are not playing against the Sears Tower, Lake Michigan, and Maxwell Street but people are playing against people. YHWH was not talking in Ezekiel 16 about the buildings, streets and rocks but about the people. So we agree there.

However, YHWH said that He had decked out His child bride in nose rings, clothing, etc. Yes, there may have been spiritual meanings for each of those items, but if the nose rings and clothing were sinful or wrong He would not have used them in a pictorial way. He was actually saying that literal nose rings and clothing were acceptable adornment for His people and He was using them in a figurative way. He used adultlery/fornication/whoredom in a figurative way to depict their sin because adultery/fornication/whoredom are sinful literally also.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by jfrog

I have one question. Am I the only one here that can make no sense out of how rdp interprets the bible?

"The natural mind receiveth not the things of God." [I Cor.]. The carnal mind "is not subject to the things of God, neither indeed CAN be." {Rom. 8}.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

I'm not convinced it qualifies as an interpretation, in order to interpret you must first comprehend what you read.

".....not the wearing of gold jewelry,...." [Amplified]. That's reeeeeeeeeal hard to "comprehend" eh?? LOL...........

[rdp]

Originally Posted by jfrog

1 Peter 3:3 NKJV Do not let your adornment be merely outward—arranging the hair, wearing gold, or putting on fine apparel

1 Peter 3:3 NIV Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes.

1 Peter 3:3 RSV Let not yours be the outward adorning with braiding of hair, decoration of gold, and wearing of fine clothing,

1 Peter 3:3 NASB Your adornment must not be merely external --braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses;

Seems two of the 4 versions rdp cites totally agrees with us on those verses... interesting

Also, older manuscripts are not necessarily more accurate than the not as old ones, I read a great article on this a long time ago (I do not have it now), but age alone of a manuscript does not indicate corruption or lack of corruption

The NASB alone [that would be 1...not 2] agrees w/ your particular angle [to the violation of context]. Besides, I've repeatedly cited the Greek manuscript here....only to have it ignored [go figure].

The RSV & NKJV derive from the MT [Received Text], not the CT [Alexandrian Text], & they both translate the verse w/ "fine apparel". Try again!

Do you folks know what "not" means? Sheesh!

[rdp]

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

Or even expensive jewelry for that matter as long as it is worn with the right attitude.

Honestly, how someone can read the Word where jewelry is spoken about again and again in such glowing terms, then turn around and say "Well God is speaking about the JEWEL itself and doesn't actually want you to wear it....", even though He spoke about doing just that in a positive light. "THAT was just symbolic!"

Also spoke about "covering" Jerusalem in His "skirt" positively. When is the last time you literally tried this???? Be consistent............

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by rdp

"The natural mind receiveth not the things of God." [I Cor.]. The carnal mind "is not subject to the things of God, neither indeed CAN be." {Rom. 8}.

No wonder you have such a problem receiving the things we are telling you...