Isaiah 3 and jewelry...

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

How true much like a debate going on in the debate room.



That is right, although I use to view things like he did, God showed me the light, years ago. I found that the best way is to just live truth before others and let God show them on his time. My daughter and son in-law were that way. Took them two years after I quit arguing with them, and just ask God, If what I saw was truth show my son in-law and daughter.

What is amazing is how God's spirit shines through our lives with out the legalistic trappings I used to call our separation from the world.

I will not validate my beliefs with phrases like "God showed me." I find that such a mindset prevents me from changing that view again if I need to.

And it reminds me too much of that time in my life when I was certain I was right about every doctrine. I've since found I'm more often wrong than right.

[Godsdrummer]

Originally Posted by jfrog

I will not validate my beliefs with phrases like "God showed me." I find that such a mindset prevents me from changing that view again if I need to.

And it reminds me too much of that time in my life when I was certain I was right about every doctrine. I've since found I'm more often wrong than right.

I understand the wording does not set well with some, what I came to realize years ago having been raised Apostolic, UPCI. That we did not have the whole truth, as had been the banner that was flown.

Truly I went to God, for the answers, the big difference is I understand that God teaches line upon line here a little there a little. And though God may have shown me one point I don't have all the answers and never will. Therefore I can change what God has reveled to me as I see more clearly each subject.

With that being said I would rather trust God to quicken my heart to his word than man, Too many today lean on thier own understanding instead of acknowleging him in all thier ways. I care not what man says I care what God say and thinks of me.

On the flip side I try not to put others down for the way they see things as I was just like them in many ways in my younger years. Instead I try to throw out points that will cause them to look at scripture from a different angle than they have before.

The point is it is ok to give God glory for your understanding, what is not ok is to think you are better than those that don't see things your way. And to go around beleiving you have all the answers.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by rdp

jfrog: 1. The NKJV, by italicizing the word costly, debunks the idea that the word was translated from any Greek word in the Textus Receptus.

rdp: The RSV [among others] is also taken from the Textus Receptus & it includes the term before apparell [I think...from memory]. Do you reeeeeeally believe that Peter was instructing the church to go naked???? Isn't this soooo silly? You're equivocating clotes w/ decorative ornamentation....kinda' like comparing eating/talking to the same.

jfrog: 1 Peter 3:3 is identical in both the Textus Receptus and Majority Text.

rdp: Then "costly" must included in the text if the MT & CT are identical. For the NIV/NLT/HCSB etc. includes the term. In fact, I'm quite certain that a comparison of the various translations would demostrate that more of them include the term than omit the term! Just a guess though. Either way, the term is included in many translations, which they derived from the Greek. Why don't you render the affection to the NIV/NLT/HCSB that you are to the NKJV?

jfrog: Therefore, the NKJV debunks the idea that the greek word for adorning (kosmos) was translated into the word costly for any translation based on the Byzantine/Majority Text.

rdp: Then the NIV, NLT, RSV, HCSB debunks the idea that the greek word for adorning does not apply to apparell. Will you be consistent?

jfrog: 2. Although the Majority Text and Critical Text disagree on many verses they also are in agreement on many. 1 Peter 3:3 is one verse that they are in agreement on.

rdp: Good, then this means that we can trust in the NIV, NLT, HCSB, RSV as accurate reflections of the Greek!

jfrog: Therefore, since the NKJV shows that the word costly does not have a greek word basis in the Majority Text then the word costly also does not have a greek word basis in the Critical Text.

rdp: Therefore, since the NIV, NLT, HCSB, RSV includes the term, we can safely assume that they all [independent of one another] translated the passage accurately! You see, the same criteria that you appeal to in the NKJV destroys your theory in the NIV.....

jfrog: So your claim that the greek word for adorning is where the word costly comes from is false. Also, your claim that the Critical Text gives a greek word basis for the word costly is false.

rdp: So you see something that approximately 337 linguistical experts missed? Hmmm, I'd be curious to see you credentials in the Greek to w/stand all of the men:___________?

I see what you did there. You tried to flip my logic around on me. Well guess what, that tactic won't work this time.

The problem with your argument that other translations show the term costly should be there is based on the false assumption that if they include the word then it was derived from some word in the actual text. Translations don't often work that way. So just because a word is there doesn't mean it wasn't added by translators.

My argument is stronger because when a translation tells you a word was added by the translators then that conclusively means the word was added.

So my question for you is why did the NKJV translators say they added the word (by using italics) if there is actually a basis for the word being there? And keep in mind that you can't argue they used a different TEXT since both TEXTS render this verse the same. So why did the NKJV say the word was added? Did they somehow overlook the greek word for costly and thus mistakenly add the italics in that verse? What happened?

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Socialite

The only logical fallacy here is the obnoxious throwing around of logical phrases you do in each post.

Christians as a whole, consist of nations as a whole. The largest Christian communities exist in Africa, South Korea, etc. Of course, maybe the Scriptures mean "people who speak in tongues, stop cutting their hair, don't wear make-up and wear bhurka's" won't beg

Of course this is all so silly since the language in Psalms is not literal, but quite poetic. The meaning we can get is more "I've never seen a believer abandoned" -- and the next part is actually about his "seed"! Another poetic phrase that would make sense to a Hebrew audience, the dignity and pride of generations, etc. Either way, the man "not begging for bread" is the seed of the righteous person in Psalm 37. If you want to apply a literal sponge on a genre of literature that is not literal, you have just made this whole situation a lot more complex... as always

How typical....allegorize Scripture so it fits your theology. Hmmm, maybe we should now start doing the same w/ verses about faith, repentance, etc. "Full well you make the word of God of no affect that you may keep your own traditions".....such as women cutting their hair, wedding bands, etc. ad nauseum.

Then, you wanna' talk to ME about proper hermenutics???? Spare me.....I believe the Bible, ya' oughta' try it sometime...it's quite liberating from the opinions of men!

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Socialite

Follow the conversation. This is responding to MB's claim about those who receive assistance from the government or others. This is an equivalent of a beggar. Someone asking for assistance, and getting that assistance. Must they wear a robe, have sores and sit at the city gates to be qualified as a beggar?

(And the Psalm doesn't say "beggar" it says "seed begging bread." Ahem... hungry. Running the streets. Not provided for)

Yeah, that is SOOOOOOOO hilarious that a guy would think it unsinful for a preacher to have shorts on. Oh man, I'm slapping my knee over here.

Not surprising at all !

[rdp]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

rdp,

You do not want to take I Timothy 2 literally, because if you do, you will have to allow jewelry that isn't made of gold or pearls or costly metals. It mentions specifics and doesn't say that decorative pieces aren't allowed. If you use CONTEXT, however, you can support the point that overall, modesty in all things is preferred. If you take a literal approach, there are holes in your list of rules. I also hope you preach against buying expensive clothing. (To be consistent, I'm sure you do - but I would prefer a confirmation on your part.)

Additionally, there's the question of costly array; do we go by what it actually cost? Or by what it SHOULD have cost? I routinely buy clothing at a discount or on consignment that cost much more originally, but I didn't pay that price. So is it "costly" if it's high quality and has a related value? Or is it costly if I buy something I can't afford? Is it only "costly" if it's expensive, and what would you call expensive? Is it more important that my clothing LOOK cheap or actually BE cheap? Should we strive to avoid offense and make sure that whatever clothes we purchase look like they were sewn together by elves, using the cheapest, lowest quality fabric available?

P.S. I hope you preach against braided hair.

If I take the verse literally, then there is a LOT of jewelry I am free to wear.

I've already responded to most of these type arguments previously in this thread. So, you'll have to go back & reread them if you want clarity. But, YES, we preach against braided hair, costly apparel, etc......Why? Because it's in God's Word! Also, you cannot offer a radical separation of the literal text & context as you suggest above. It takes the former to get to the latter!

[Sabby]

Originally Posted by rdp

No worries....we do not fellowship those who explain away God's Word, or those as yourself who are worldly, for "the love of the Father is not in him." [I Jn. 2]. Problem w/ the libs is they can dish it out, but..............

How do you feel about this statement: "The Bible is God's word given to us in order to discover Jesus Christ?"

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by rdp

I've already responded to most of these type arguments previously in this thread. So, you'll have to go back & reread them if you want clarity. But, YES, we preach against braided hair, costly apparel, etc......Why? Because it's in God's Word! Also, you cannot offer a radical separation of the literal text & context as you suggest above. It takes the former to get to the latter!

I give you props for consistency then. At least there's something!

I agree with the overall concept of modesty and moderation, and "decorating" ourselves with good works rather than what we wear. I'm just not convinced that the meaning of the passage is that specifically wearing those materials or wearing a beautiful dress is sinful! It's pointing out traditionally decorative items, and saying that good works is the preferable adornment for a woman. I agree with that principle.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by rdp

How typical....allegorize Scripture so it fits your theology. Hmmm, maybe we should now start doing the same w/ verses about faith, repentance, etc. "Full well you make the word of God of no affect that you may keep your own traditions".....such as women cutting their hair, wedding bands, etc. ad nauseum.

Then, you wanna' talk to ME about proper hermenutics???? Spare me.....I believe the Bible, ya' oughta' try it sometime...it's quite liberating from the opinions of men!

Allegorize? You use words like "exegete" quite often and you accuse what I just said of "allegorizing" scripture? Do you not believe that the literary devices used in scripture range from narrative, poetry, allegory, parable, monologues, dialogues, etc? I'm not quite sure what to make of your accusations and subsequent hysteria.

If you believe the Bible, you should understand what the Bible is. It didn't get literally barfed from God's mouth into your lap. There's some reality there waiting to be discovered -- and it will help you to know how to read and use it.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

I give you props for consistency then. At least there's something!

I agree with the overall concept of modesty and moderation, and "decorating" ourselves with good works rather than what we wear. I'm just not convinced that the meaning of the passage is that specifically wearing those materials or wearing a beautiful dress is sinful! It's pointing out traditionally decorative items, and saying that good works is the preferable adornment for a woman. I agree with that principle.

MB, specifically, and to his audience, do you know what Paul was addressing?

We know the Apostles didn't just start scratching together lists of rules. So what is going on that he's making these remarks? Any idea?