First off, there IS a sentence after "....and teach all nations, BAPTIZING [note the suffix, "-ing" indicating continual action] all nations....."
Secondly, in Is. 3, you need to look up the term "tinkling," which the NIV accurately translates "tinkling ORNAMENTS." So, sorry jfrog, jewelry IS mentioned in the verse between "Because" & "therefore".
Honestly, I do not see how you can't see this......but, blessings on the journey anyway!
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.
Wrong about the Law "nowhere" prohibiting jewelry. Deut. 7:25, "thou shall not desire the SILVER OR GOLD THAT IS ON THEM, NOR TAKE IT TO YOURSELF........" Ex., "PUT OFF NOW THY ORNAMENTS, THAT I MAY KNOW WHAT TO DO.............."
Let's just start there, since there are MANY more! Probably won't waste much more time w/ this...................
WOW! Context rdp!!!! Clearly the only prohibition in Deut. 7:25 is wearing silver and gold that was on idols. On further thought, there is nothing good that can be said about your use of Deuteronomy 7:25. You ignored everything it said about idols in your quote of it. Either you really did understand it to be a general prohibition against gold and silver, or you purposefully twisted it. Neither of these scenarios are very good. However, if for some reason it was that you really understood it to be against gold and silver in general, then you should admit your oversight of it only applying to idols, and be more careful in the future not to make such obvious oversights. I will not continue to debate you on this issue of Isaiah 3 until this is done.
Last edited by jfrog; 10-13-2009 at 05:22 PM.
Reason: on further thought, this was just too bad of a misuse of scripture
Wrong about the Law "nowhere" prohibiting jewelry. Deut. 7:25, "thou shall not desire the SILVER OR GOLD THAT IS ON THEM, NOR TAKE IT TO YOURSELF........" Ex., "PUT OFF NOW THY ORNAMENTS, THAT I MAY KNOW WHAT TO DO.............."
Let's just start there, since there are MANY more! Probably won't waste much more time w/ this...................
Just a few of many....
Genesis 24:53
And the servant brought out jewelry of silver and of gold, and garments, and gave them to Rebekah. He also gave to her brother and to her mother costly ornaments.
Exodus 3:22
but each woman shall ask of her neighbor, and any woman who lives in her house, for silver and gold jewelry, and for clothing. You shall put them on your sons and on your daughters. So you shall plunder the Egyptians."
Exodus 12:35
The people of Israel had also done as Moses told them, for they had asked the Egyptians for silver and gold jewelry and for clothing.
Genesis 24:53
And the servant brought out jewelry of silver and of gold, and garments, and gave them to Rebekah. He also gave to her brother and to her mother costly ornaments.
Isaiah 61:10
I will greatly rejoice in the LORD;my soul shall exult in my God, for he has clothed me with the garments of salvation;he has covered me with the robe of righteousness,as a bridegroom decks himself like a priest with a beautiful headdress, and as a bride adorns herself with her jewels.
Genesis 24:22
When the camels had finished drinking, the man took a gold ring weighing a half shekel, and two bracelets for her arms weighing ten gold shekels,
Genesis 24:47
Then I asked her, 'Whose daughter are you?' She said, 'The daughter of Bethuel, Nahor’s son, whom Milcah bore to him.' So I put the ring on her nose and the bracelets on her arms.
Ezekiel 16:11
And I adorned you with ornaments and put bracelets on your wrists and a chain on your neck.
Nice appeal outside of the actual text............
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeavenlyOne
I challenge you to start a poll on this forum about whether or not 1 Cor. 11 is referring to headship in marriage. If you find one person that agrees with you that it does NOT, well, I might eat my own liver.
Ever heard of the logical fallacy "Argumentum Ad Populum"..........need to look it up before you post silly stuff like this................
I already gave you the link. I'm not repeating it.
As for Deborah 'spontaneously revealing God's plans', isn't that what the other prophets did, yet they are mentioned as 'preaching'?? So, it's preaching when a man does it, regardless as to whether or not he has a 'congregational audience', but there's no way it can be the same when a woman does?
Well, that's your opinion. I'll stick to the Bible.
You have yet to show me that preaching can only be such when it's a prepared sermon of already written scripture spoken to a congregational audience, as you keep claiming. Got a source for that, or will you leave that _______ blank?
.....you would obey I Tim. 2: 11-15, I Cor. 14:34, I Tim. 3:1-8, etc. ad nauseum. Hmmmm, those are from the Bible aren't they????????
I've repeatedly said that we can accurately call prophecy a form of preaching, in the sense of a spontaneous utterance, just as the Bible repeatedly demonstrates. I mean, really, can you not read?
But prophecy IS NOT sermon from the Scriptures.......sheeeeesh, I mean how many times do I have to demonstrate this?
I'd say it's about time to dust off my feet, since you apparently cannot address my verses "to the church". You NEVER answer my questions, yet expect me be at your beckoning call [which I've heard your "proofs" for years}. When it's all said & done, we have positive, very clear Scripture forbidding women in to preach/teach in a church setting.which you try as hard as you can to erase wawy via your pre-disposed "theology". Yet, we search in vain for the "woman preacher" [as is used in contemporary usage] in either testament.
I mean really, it's a no-brainer! Probably won't waste my time w/ this any more........have too many HONEST folks to work w/.
Linear Mode
