Isaiah 3 and jewelry... - Page 111

rdp · #**1101** 11-06-2010, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

Everyone knows it is metaphorical. However, God would not use a metaphor of an evil practice and let it stand metaphorically for a holy thing. I told you that before as well. It's like you are saying the metaphor is an evil thought when translated literally, but is not when used as a metaphor. That's like saying it is good to metaphorically say God would adulterate with Israel and abandon his actual wife and leave his kids starving as a metaphor to show how much He loves Israel. That would be ridiculous.

OT metaphorical verses should NEVER be used to override literal prohibitions....esp. to the NT church. This has been my point all along. By the way, I looked up the meaning of "gold" [in I Tim. 2:12 & I Ptr. 3:3] in my Bauer's Greek-English Lexicon, Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon, Vine's Expository Word Definitions, etc.....They ALL say this means "gold ornaments." Hmmm.....I guess we should all consult w/ Mike 1st though...since he apparently knows better than they. Won't even get into the moods of the Greek syntax here....since that probably goes beyond what you're familiar w/.

By sheer virtue of that fact, we know the things in the metaphor given to Israel are not literally wrong if they were not a metaphor.

And by sheer virtue of hemeneutics, you should NEVER use figurative passages from the OT to override the plain meaning of NT instructions to the church.....try again Mike.

This metaphorical decking of jewelry is speaking about giving it TO A WOMAN. And so if you replaced the question with a WOMAN "decked" out, I would say I DO NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT. No.

I wouldn't expect anything less from the lib crowd. 1st place, "There is NEITHER MALE NOR FEMALE....". But, let's simplify this a bit for the readers. Does Paul & Peter's instructions to the NT church of "not with gold jewelry, pearls, or COSTLY apparel" mean what it says or not:_________? Do you see yourself as in the NT church or not? Then do you teach this, since Paul instructed Timothy "these things command AND TEACH"......seems to me like all you wanna' do is run to an OT metaphorical verse to render these clear instructions to the NT church inapplicable. Then, you wanna' talk to ME about "scholarship"????? Besides, how many OT verses could I marshall that condemn the literal [not metaphorical] wearing of ornaments? Gen. 35, Ex. 33, Is. 3, Deut. 7:25, etc. ad nauseum. Hmmmm........

the bottom line is that God would not use a metaphor that was wrong if practiced literally. This in turn means, a literal decking of a woman in the items mentioned is not wrong. And that in turn means you are misinterpreting the contextual meaning of "Not the wearing of gold." I asked you way back when about what you would say about "not the wearing of apparel", and you refused to answer. I do not know if you answered it for anyone else since then. But your inability to answer shows you know "Not the wearing of apparel" does not mean do not wear clothing. And you know that the same manner of speech about "not the wearing of gold" cannot mean no gold at all BY THE SAME TOKEN.

You really need to slow down & go back & reread the myriad of posts that I made regarding the various translations [NLT, HCSB, NIV, etc.] & the actual Greek text of I Ptr. 3 before you make uninformed charges as above...it only demonstrates your knee jerk reactions based on emotion & not textual fact. No, I won't take the time to go intot he context of I Ptr. 3, since I've already done it ad nauseum in this thread.

Regarding the nose ring, obviously nose rings IN THAT DAY were acceptable. Since cultures change and they appear weird to us, then you cannot ask if I would think a woman should wear a nose ring today. The point is that everything God said He did with Israel was obviously acceptable to God and people of that time in that culture, and there was therefore nothing wrong with it at all. Take similar items that are acceptable in our culture and there is nothing wrong with women wearing them.

Ohhhh, so would you object to a Christian woman or a preacher, or praise leader w/ a nose ring? YOU are the one who wears out Ezek. 16...then you hedge & say, "Well, nose rings were just their culture"! How silly....if you're gonna' employ Ezek. 16, then use all of it & not just the portions that fit your theology!

If you can drop the childish rant and tripe and talk scholarly about this without dozens of juvenile question marks, then we can discuss this wonderfully. Your recent manner is very obnoxious, and betrays a juvenility that causes one to think your intelligence is not to be wondered at in regarding this issue in light of the tone you write with.. Is that alright? Can we go on without that now? Thanks.

Let's see, I'm juvenile, obnoxious, unscholarly, etc. ad nauseum....then you wanna' chide ME for my responses. How typical of the lib crowd....you can always make snide comments toward us, but when we return the favor, we're painted as the one w/ a "bad spirit" ! See thyself...........by the way, this an old debate tactic used to keep your opponent on the defensive, which always makes him/her look guilty. Sorry Charlie, I ain't fallin' for it! You tone it down & I'll do the same!

rdp · #**1102** 11-06-2010, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

I'm telling you... I could do a full impersonation of rdp on this forum now... after reading his posts this long. Especially on this topic. It's hilarious! There's four default answers.

Typical "substance" from the Jeffrey bench

! Let me go now Jeffrey....I need to iron my shorts & tank top to preach in 2mmorrow

!

rdp · #**1103** 11-06-2010, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfrog

For the "not wearing apparel" part, rdp thinks that it should be rendered as "not wearing costly apparel" as some translations of today render it. And even after I showed him that the word costly was a word added by translators as clearly seen be its italics in the NKJV he still thinks it can be found in the greek and that somehow the NKJV translators were wrong to italicize that word.

Say whaaaaaaaaaaat???? I quoted to you the Greek text earlier, which literally says "Greek adorning" in I Ptr. 3! Where did I ever say the NKJV were "wrong":_________? C'mon jfrog, since you made the charge surely you should be able to back it up w/ a copy & paste...right? The NIV, NLT, HCSB, etc. ALL demonstrate the term "costly, or fine". But, as usual, you fella's know more than these linguistical experts

!

rdp · #**1104** 11-06-2010, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

1Pe 3:3 KJV+ WhoseG3739 adorningG2889 let it notG3756 beG2077 thatG3588 outwardG1855 adorning of plaitingG1708 the hair,G2359 andG2532 of wearingG4025 of gold,G5553 orG2228 of putting onG1745 of apparel;G2440

PUTTING ON
G1745
ἔνδυσις
endusis
en'-doo-sis
From G1746; investment with clothing: - putting on.

OF APPAREL
G2440
ἱμάτιον
himation
him-at'-ee-on
Neuter of a presumed derivative of ἕννυμι hennumi (to put on); a dress (inner or outer): - apparel, cloke, clothes, garment, raiment, robe, vesture.

Where is any idea of costly here?

He RDP is wrong and has added to the Word.

Greek Scholar AT Robertson said:

Of wearing (peritheseōs). Late and rare word (Galen, Arrian) from peritithēmi (Mat_27:28), to put around, a placing around. Ornaments of gold were worn round the hair as nets and round the finger, arm, or ankle.
Or of putting on (enduseōs). Old word from enduō (to put on), here only in N.T. Peter is not forbidding the wearing of clothes and ornaments by women, but the display of finery by contrast. Cf. 1Ti_2:9-13; Isa_3:16.

Wow...tks. for the help Mike! Robertson demostrates from the Greek that the context is not wearing clothes...but rather "finery"! That's what I've been saying all along! BTW, will you also agree w/ Robertson in Jn. 17:5 [para in the dative case] & Jn. 1:1 [pros in the accusative case]? Why not?

rdp · #**1105** 11-06-2010, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

The true sense of 1 Pe 3:3 is related as follows:

1 Peter 3:3 Wives must not let their beauty be something external. Beauty doesn't come from hairstyles, gold jewelry, or clothes.

This does not mean do not engage in the above things,

Oh reeeeeeally? Where does the literal text state this Mike:________? Oooops...it doesn't! And you're talking to ME about "adding to the Word"?????

but realize true beauty is beyond those things. That way a person does not trust in THOSE things to be beautiful, although they have an innocent part to play in one form of beauty. It's just that one trusts in spiritual things to truly be beautiful. It's like saying we should not trust in the arm of flesh, but we know that does not mean you cannot make a deal with someone and trust them to follow through. It speaks of ultimates.

Nice eisegesis Mike....problem is I Tim. 2 & I Ptr. 3 WILL NEVER say what you affirm above.

rdp · #**1106** 11-06-2010, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

Yes! That is the point.

That is why Peter continues to show the greater beauty.

1 Peter 3:4 But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.

Yes, & the "contrast" was between the visible ornaments of gold w/ the invisible spirit of a meekness & quietude. The former had a "NOT" tied to it, & the latter had a "but this" tied to it. You're getting closer!

Socialite · #**1107** 11-06-2010, 01:20 PM

Hyper-literalists are funny people.

And it's always funny to hear them talk about exegesis and hermeneutics and then turn around say "what does the literal text say?" Can they not hear themselves?

mfblume · #**1108** 11-06-2010, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rdp

Quote:

The true sense of 1 Pe 3:3 is related as follows:

1 Peter 3:3 Wives must not let their beauty be something external. Beauty doesn't come from hairstyles, gold jewelry, or clothes.

This does not mean do not engage in the above things,

Oh reeeeeeally? Where does the literal text state this Mike:________? Oooops...it doesn't! And you're talking to ME about "adding to the Word"?????

(There you go with that juveniile nonsense of writing. Would you please quit and appear a little more scholarly for goodness' sake?)

Literal text?

It literally says beauty does not come from clothes. But that does not mean do not wear clothes!

Quote:

but realize true beauty is beyond those things. That way a person does not trust in THOSE things to be beautiful, although they have an innocent part to play in one form of beauty. It's just that one trusts in spiritual things to truly be beautiful. It's like saying we should not trust in the arm of flesh, but we know that does not mean you cannot make a deal with someone and trust them to follow through. It speaks of ultimates.

Nice eisegesis Mike....problem is I Tim. 2 & I Ptr. 3 WILL NEVER say what you affirm above.

It is not eisegesis. IT says what I showed abode. You just refuse to consider anything different than your tradition.

mfblume · #**1109** 11-06-2010, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rdp

Wow...tks. for the help Mike! Robertson demostrates from the Greek that the context is not wearing clothes...but rather "finery"! That's what I've been saying all along!

Actually it reveals our whole point you have been missing. Not wearing apparel does not mean not wearing ANY clothes, just as not wearing gold does not mean not wearing ANY gold. FINERY is not in the text. It is obvious that is the meaning. IOW, words not in the text are obviously the intention. Same with wearing of gold.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rdp

Quote:

Everyone knows it is metaphorical. However, God would not use a metaphor of an evil practice and let it stand metaphorically for a holy thing. I told you that before as well. It's like you are saying the metaphor is an evil thought when translated literally, but is not when used as a metaphor. That's like saying it is good to metaphorically say God would adulterate with Israel and abandon his actual wife and leave his kids starving as a metaphor to show how much He loves Israel. That would be ridiculous.

OT metaphorical verses should NEVER be used to override literal prohibitions....esp.

That does not even make sense and totally avoids the point I made.

Quote:

This has been my point all along. By the way, I looked up the meaning of "gold" [in I Tim. 2:12 & I Ptr. 3:3] in my Bauer's Greek-English Lexicon, Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon, Vine's Expository Word Definitions, etc.....They ALL say this means "gold ornaments."

G5553
χρυσίον
chrusion
khroo-see'-on
Diminutive of G5557; a golden article, that is, gold plating, ornament, or coin: - gold.

It is not necessarily ornaments. But since the term WEAR is there, then it obviously means ornaments. You miss the scholars' thoughts. They did not say it was gold ornaments because the Greek term CHRUSION means an ornament made from gold, but the WEARING of it makes that sense plain. Not the word itself. The same word is used as COIN!

Heb 9:4 KJV+ Which hadG2192 the goldenG5552 censer,G2369 andG2532 theG3588 arkG2787 of theG3588 covenantG1242 overlaidG4028 round aboutG3840 with gold,G5552 whereinG1722 G3739 was the goldenG5553 potG4713 that hadG2192 manna,G3131 andG2532 Aaron'sG2 rodG4464 that budded,G985 andG2532 theG3588 tablesG4109 of theG3588 covenant;G1242

Rev 21:18 KJV+ AndG2532 theG3588 buildingG1739 of theG3588 wallG5038 of itG846 wasG2258 of jasper:G2393 andG2532 theG3588 cityG4172 was pureG2513 gold,G5553 like untoG3664 clearG2513 glass.G5194

1Pe 1:18 KJV+ Forasmuch as ye knowG1492 thatG3754 ye were notG3756 redeemedG3084 with corruptible things,G5349 as silverG694 andG2228 gold,G5553 fromG1537 yourG5216 vainG3152 conversationG391 received by tradition from your fathers;G3970

See how the term is sued for MONEY and even a STREET? The scholars said it was ornamentation due to the WEARING on a PERSON.

Quote:

Hmmm.....I guess we should all consult w/ Mike 1st though...since he apparently knows better than they. Won't even get into the moods of the Greek syntax here....since that probably goes beyond what you're familiar w/.

More juvenile rant. Just talk.

Quote:

By sheer virtue of that fact, we know the things in the metaphor given to Israel are not literally wrong if they were not a metaphor.

And by sheer virtue of hemeneutics, you should NEVER use figurative passages from the OT to override the plain meaning of NT instructions to the church.....try again Mike.

Hermeneutics? You need to think a bit more about this. You are skirting the issue and dancing around the point and compounding your error. I am not using an figurative passages from the OT to override anything in the NT. Your interpretation is doing that. This shows your argument is circular. You are implying you are right about your interpretation without proving it, and demand all sorts of nonsensical rules of what a person can or cannot do with figurative thoughts.

The fact that YOUR interpretation of the New Testament passages makes it a situation where ONE MUST OVERRIDE that interpretation in order to say God would not use an unholy picture to illustrate a holy act shows that your interpretation is incorrect. The truth is that it is ridiculous since it implies God does something figuratively that is wrongdoing when done literally and alright when used figuratively.

RDP, stop and listen and answer for a moment. Why in the world would God think that a literal act that is wrong can be used to describe something holy and good in a figurative manner? You are not addressing that at all, but making up nonsensical rules as you go along to retain your tradition.

Until you answer that, everyone is wasting their time with you. (Watch folks, HE WILL NOT ANSWER THAT ONE.)

Quote:

This metaphorical decking of jewelry is speaking about giving it TO A WOMAN. And so if you replaced the question with a WOMAN "decked" out, I would say I DO NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT. No.

I wouldn't expect anything less from the lib crowd. 1st place, "There is NEITHER MALE NOR FEMALE....". But, let's simplify this a bit for the readers. Does Paul & Peter's instructions to the NT church of "not with gold jewelry, pearls, or COSTLY apparel" mean what it says or not:_________? Do you see yourself as in the NT church or not? Then do you teach this, since Paul instructed Timothy "these things command AND TEACH"......seems to me like all you wanna' do is run to an OT metaphorical verse to render these clear instructions to the NT church inapplicable

You are not responding in direct answers to our statements at all, and I doubt you ever will.
I have never seen anyone dance all around an issue like you are doing here.

You plug your ears hollering lalalalala, and do not even stop to think that your entire interpretation is flawed, and that it in effect makes God use EVIL ACTS to show HOLY LOVE. God is not that stupid, rdp. Come one, man.

Quote:

Then, you wanna' talk to ME about "scholarship"????? Besides, how many OT verses could I marshall that condemn the literal [not metaphorical] wearing of ornaments? Gen. 35, Ex. 33, Is. 3, Deut. 7:25, etc. ad nauseum. Hmmmm........

Oh please. Grow up for a moment. Others have already showed Rebecca wearing jewelry literally and many other literal actions that were not at all decried by the Lord in the context whatsoever. And for you to denounce Ezekiel 16 shows your rife ignorance.]

Quote:

the bottom line is that God would not use a metaphor that was wrong if practiced literally. This in turn means, a literal decking of a woman in the items mentioned is not wrong. And that in turn means you are misinterpreting the contextual meaning of "Not the wearing of gold." I asked you way back when about what you would say about "not the wearing of apparel", and you refused to answer. I do not know if you answered it for anyone else since then. But your inability to answer shows you know "Not the wearing of apparel" does not mean do not wear clothing. And you know that the same manner of speech about "not the wearing of gold" cannot mean no gold at all BY THE SAME TOKEN.

You really need to slow down & go back & reread the myriad of posts that I made regarding the various translations [NLT, HCSB, NIV, etc.] & the actual Greek text of I Ptr. 3 before you make uninformed charges as above...it only demonstrates your knee jerk reactions based on emotion & not textual fact. No, I won't take the time to go intot he context of I Ptr. 3, since I've already done it ad nauseum in this thread.

I am sorry, your manner and childishness is too profuse to give me concern to bother. By their fruits we know them, and you have none. That is all I really need in all of this anyway. Knee jerk reactions? on the contrary I am taking time to elucidate on the passages and all you can do is type like a child and speak in juvenile rhetoric. And then you claim you will not answer me. Typical.

Quote:

Regarding the nose ring, obviously nose rings IN THAT DAY were acceptable. Since cultures change and they appear weird to us, then you cannot ask if I would think a woman should wear a nose ring today. The point is that everything God said He did with Israel was obviously acceptable to God and people of that time in that culture, and there was therefore nothing wrong with it at all. Take similar items that are acceptable in our culture and there is nothing wrong with women wearing them.

Ohhhh, so would you object to a Christian woman or a preacher, or praise leader w/ a nose ring? YOU are the one who wears out Ezek. 16...then you hedge & say, "Well, nose rings were just their culture"! How silly....if you're gonna' employ Ezek. 16, then use all of it & not just the portions that fit your theology!

Had you even read and took note of my point you might have said something sensible in response.

Grow up, bro. This is a waste of time. Your rant made the point louder than we could.

Folks, forgive me for wasting all our time with this.

rdp · #**1110** 11-06-2010, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

Actually it reveals our whole point you have been missing. Not wearing apparel does not mean not wearing ANY clothes, just as not wearing gold does not mean not wearing ANY gold.

Contrare' Monfrare....do you HONESTLY believe that wearing clothes [which is natural/necessary] is comparable to decorative ornamentation? Ever heard of the "Equivocation Fallacy" [spare me Jeffrey!]?

You're equivocating something natural [covering one's nakedness] w/ something unnatural [ornamenting the temple of God] & attempting to pawn it off as the same thing...when it is not! Try again Mike................