Isaiah 3 and jewelry...

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

I was seriously chuckling on that one. What was better was:

"Bernard, Wilson, Tertullian,..."

hahahahahahahaaha

The funniest part is Bernard only had a JD when he wrote Practical Holiness, so to credit him with his Doctorate is really dishonest. His Doctorate doesn't apply retroactive to the stuff he wrote 20 + years ago.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

The funniest part is Bernard only had a JD when he wrote Practical Holiness, so to credit him with his Doctorate is really dishonest. His Doctorate doesn't apply retroactive to the stuff he wrote 20 + years ago.

And Wilson did not have his Doctorate when he wrote In Bonds of Love (not an exegetical commentary btw). Furthermore, his Doctorate was in a non-Biblical theology field: Education. His Master's was in theologically broad field: religion.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Then accept the KJV translation.

Not hardly....I'm NOT a KJV only man.

1 Peter 3:3 Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;

Notice how adorning is not beside of apparel in the english sentence! So stop trying to act like it somehow ought to be there since you accept this translation.

Contrare Monfrare...The NLT, NIV, HCBS, RSV, NKJV all reference apparell as immediately connected to terms such as "fine/costly/etc.". This combines the textual criticisms of about 350 linquistical scholars! Sorry Charlie...try again!


I also want you to realize that the KJV translators didn't just throw away the word adorning, they just moved it to right after "whose" because that is where it ought to go in the english sentence. This is what the KJV scholars have declared by their work and not me.

Okay then also accept their scholarship w/ I Jn. 5:7, the term "Easter" in Acts & so on! Not hardly........

[rdp]

Originally Posted by jfrog

They don't have doctorates in greek do they?

No, but they [not to mention Norris, Segraves, Beardsley, etc.] have to be able to speed read & transliterate greek in their excelled classes....Segraves told me this personally.

No, I won't even bring Talmadge French or Treece into the picture. In sum, they have just as much scholarship as many of the guys you fella's quote...which seems perfectly acceptable????

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Appeal to whomever you want Scholars preferrably...

Only deemed acceptable by the Jeffrey board...right?

So a Doctorate degree is how you determine scholarship?

Are you denigrating the time/work that goes into a doctorate degree? Funny thing is that I knew this would be your response...you're soooo predictable!

You must've missed that thread we had here on AFF recently. It'd be good for your blood pressure to go check out.

What's Nate Wilson's degree in? What's DKB's degree in? What schools have them graduated from? How much work have they done in published and recognized exegesis? How many years of handling and reading Koine Greek do they have among them? I think it's humorous you'd include them as a scholarly appeal that's all....

Segraves gave me a breakdown of it several years ago, which included speed reading Greek & being able to translate it from the greek text. You're a hoot Jeffrey...not to mention predictable! Geee, how did I know you'd deride their scholastics. Hmmm, wonder how your credentials would stack up next to theirs...if you even have any!

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Oh, I'm sure you will. Just repeating the same illogical, ignorant junk.

Pretty much done with your merry-go-round. The peanut gallery works better.

I see, & your "Oh brother" post qualifies as "evidence"???/ And, if you wanna' call my simply quoting the Bible "junk," then go right ahead. I fear God too much to do that.

But, tell ya' what, when I decide to pierce my tongue, lip, ears etc....I'll look up your "church," since you apparently would have no problem w/ it!

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

That is roll-around-on-the-ground-laugh-until-your-side-hurts-and-you-can't breath funny.

Bernard and Wilson....

Wow, all that "evidence" again! Scorn does not dismiss their years of education...from accredited schools! BTW, what was your last doctorate degree in:_________?

Ooops, probably don't have one!

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by rdp

Not hardly....I'm NOT a KJV only man.

Contrare Monfrare...The NLT, NIV, HCBS, RSV, NKJV all reference apparell as immediately connected to terms such as "fine/costly/etc.". This combines the textual criticisms of about 350 linquistical scholars! Sorry Charlie...try again!

Okay then also accept their scholarship w/ I Jn. 5:7, the term "Easter" in Acts & so on! Not hardly........

Then accept the NKJV authority on the matter.

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

Why is the word fine in italics? Because it was added by the translators. So, the NKJV agrees with me that there is no greek word for fine in this passage. In fact, they added the words, "merely" and "fine" because they felt those additions helped the passage make sense and not because those words are found in the greek.

Further, what of bible versions such as the NASB, ESV, ASV, YLT, DT that all leave out the word "fine/costly/etc"? What of all the scholars involved in these works? Did they just forget there was a greek word that should be translated as "fine/costly/etc" there? Or is the simple truth that the greek does not support such a word being there and that it was added to many of the modern translations for readability just like it was added to the NKJV?

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by rdp

Wow, all that "evidence" again! Scorn does not dismiss their years of education...from accredited schools! BTW, what was your last doctorate degree in:_________?

Ooops, probably don't have one!

Actually I have the same one Bernard did when he wrote his books on Holiness.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

WTH?

Tripping over your own logic here. Careful... it's getting slippery.

Problem is you don't even know the difference in the contexts..."slippery" indeed!

When confronted with your inconsistency, you pulled the "well, that's different" card

Oh, you mean I pulled a card from Jeffrey's deck over in Eph. 5 & Rom. 13? I'm not the one who compares talking & eating to decorative ornamentation !

(natural vs. whatever it is you said).

Which only demostrates that you don't read "whatever I said." You simply want to defend your theology.


That's exactly the point!!! I believe the theme/content dictates the severity and full range of expressions/what they mean! That's what I've been saying. So, when in a corner, you finally agree to interpret things by context.

Very good Jeffrey....& for about the 20th time now I've demonstrated that the context of I Ptr. 3 & I Tim. 2 was the external showiness of "gold, pearls, costly array" & the internal meekness of the heart. The former said "NO," the latter said "YES." Sheesh....BTW, how old are you Jeffrey? Does your Mom know that your on here after hours?

However, your criteria is somewhat shaky --- natural [ Here, I'll make it easy on you: talking & eating] vs. unnatural [[Decorative Ornamentation] -- or whatever you said. Like you just make things up.

Speaking evil of the things which you are ignorant of again eh' Jeffrey? Peter warned us about you fella's...isn't this fun?

Clear and plain, rdp. Clear and plain! Don't you know what "NOT" means!!!! Quit erasing the word!

Why yes, I do. That's been my point all along. I understand the context & grammar of I Ptr. 3 & I Tim. 2. Just as Paul taught us "not" to be drunk, he also told us not to wear jewelry. You hedge on Eph. 5/Rom. 13 [when the syntax/grammar is identical] , then wanna' talk to ME about "consistency"???? Save it for the simple Jeffrey!