Isaiah 3 and jewelry...

[rdp]

[QUOTE=Jeffrey;942106]His next scholarly appeal will be Lee Stoneking, Bobby the Attorney at his church and Douglas Moo. All in one breath [/QUOTT

Typical venom from the wordly crowd! Not to mention all of that "evidence" !

[rdp]

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.

So if you negate his teachings BEFORE his doctorate, will you know accept his teachings AFTER his doctorate? He still believes the same thing...I know him.

Watch that banana peel Baron....you guys are hilarious!

[rdp]

Originally Posted by jfrog

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.

Very good Jfrog, but I'm well aware of the italics...which do N-O-T [remember that word] appear in the NIV, NLT, HCSB, RSV, etc. Funny how you left those out...which means that you basically threw away the textual criticisms of about 337 linguistical experts!

Hmmm, I smell a bias in the house!

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

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

What's comical is that we quote from the same scholars that those w/ doctrorates do...but alas, we miss the mark by not having "doctorates." And you wanna' call US "pharisee's" .

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by rdp

So if you negate his teachings BEFORE his doctorate, will you know accept his teachings AFTER his doctorate? He still believes the same thing...I know him.

Watch that banana peel Baron....you guys are hilarious!

Nothing slippery about it.

I reject his teaching because they are wrong not because he has a degree.

He defends positions he took prior to his education, which tells me he didn't learn to much. Contrast that with Segraves and you will see a ton of changes in the way he handles Scripture.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by rdp

What's comical is that we quote from the same scholars that those w/ doctrorates do...but alas, we miss the mark by not having "doctorates." And you wanna' call US "pharisee's" .

Really? You quoted a scholar that agrees with your twisted view of this passage?

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

Nothing slippery about it.

I reject his teaching because they are wrong not because he has a degree.

He defends positions he took prior to his education, which tells me he didn't learn to much. Contrast that with Segraves and you will see a ton of changes in the way he handles Scripture.

Well how much "education" does it take to comprehend "not with gold, pearls, or costly array."???????

No wonder Jesus by-passed Beth-Hillel & Beth-Shammai to get His disciples. They were probably ruined by the Baron's/Jeffrey's of the day...who only explain away...making the Word of God of no affect.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by rdp

Well how much "education" does it take to comprehend "not with gold, pearls, or costly array."???????

No wonder Jesus by-passed Beth-Hillel & Beth-Shammai to get His disciples. They were probably ruined by the Baron's/Jeffrey's of the day...who only explain away...making the Word of God of no affect.

You really do come across as rather thick...this verse isn't about wearing clothes or braiding the hair or putting on Jewelry. You can't seem to get it...seems plain to me...oh and every scholar out there that doesn't have an agenda.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

Really? You quoted a scholar that agrees with your twisted view of this passage?

I see, I'm "twisted" because I believe what the Bible actually says???? Can you not see how far off you are?

BTW, Bernard/Wilson,etc. repeatedly reference scholarly quotations in their works that agree...even trinitarians! But, unless they meet the approval of the Baron/Jeffrey board....sorry, throw their years of learning out the window! Hilarious!

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by jfrog

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?

Originally Posted by rdp

Very good Jfrog, but I'm well aware of the italics...which do N-O-T [remember that word] appear in the NIV, NLT, HCSB, RSV, etc. Funny how you left those out...which means that you basically threw away the textual criticisms of about 337 linguistical experts!

Hmmm, I smell a bias in the house!

I had added some to my initial comment before I seen your response (It is in bold).

Also, to specifically address your concern of the word costly not appearing in italics in the NIV, NLT, HCSB, RSV, etc. Do any words appear in italics in those translations?