Isaiah 3 and jewelry... - Page 25

Jeffrey · #**241** 07-12-2010, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rdp

"Mistranslations of history"??? Ever heard of the Bible? It says "N-O-T the WEARING of gold...."

Sheesh...what part of "not" are you having trouble with??

If you'd get your head out of.... well, get your head out of yourself for a moment, read the full-length passage, understand the message that was being communicated and cease your arbitrary hyperliteralism for a moment, you'd understand that the "not" is a "this, not that" statement, which is a "for example."

Jeffrey · #**242** 07-12-2010, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rdp

Oh brother...here we go again! How many times have I explained the Greek in this passage??????? Simply will not waste my time repeating the same thing over & over, only for you fella's to plod along like you don't see it.

Ever heard of the "Neglected Aspect Fallacy"?? Obviously not......RDP.

What's your experience with the Koine Greek? PhD from Southern Easter University? Along with LS?

You'll have a hair more luck with your egalitarian viewpoints than you will with your anti-jewlery prohibitions. Good luck finding scholarship that agrees with your expert Greek explanations. Spare us.

Digging4Truth · #**243** 07-12-2010, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Let's make this quick and easy:

If Isaiah 3 is a sermon against jewelry, it's also a sermon against beauty, smelling sweet and "well set hair."

I think that these things can also be things to be mindful and watchful of.

The Bible also says...

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

And before the standard response gets spouted out... no... I'm not saying God wants women to be homely. But if Pentecost is known for anything it is know for elaborate and even showy or gaudy hair styles.

I don't think the scripture was saying that these things, in and of themselves, is a sin. But I believe that these are things that can be just as damaging to the spirit of a person as it can lead them to haughtiness and pride.

As in all things a well balanced and moderate approach to these things that are mindful of God and His wisdom is the best route.

mfblume · #**244** 07-12-2010, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rdp

And "again" as well, you now take figurative Scriptures & use them override literal condemnation of ornamentation [poor hermeneutics].

But, "again," if you want to make Ezek. [& the other figurative passages] literal, can I now show up for church to preach Sun. morn. "arrayed in fine linen, nose rings, decked in gold, w/ badger's skins on??????

Toooooooooooooooo funny!

(roll eyes)

No matter what you argue the passages away with, God uses symbolism of jewelry to show that what He actually did, which was not with literal jewelry, was IN HIS EYES jewelry. He would not use ADULTERY to symbolize anything He did to show His love for Israel, like He sued Jewelry, because adultery is sinful. No one made anything LITERAL. Everyone has the grain of sense it takes to know Ezek 16 is speaking symbolically. BUT God would not use a sinful symbol to show his PURE and HOLY love for anyone, showing that wearing of jewelry is not sinful.

What is so ironic, is that the legalism behind self effort in standard keeping, that you abide by, produces a self righteous harshness reminiscent of the pharisees. All have noticed your arrogance, even those who agree with your standards. Your attitude speaks so loud we cannot hear you.

Sister Alvear · #**245** 07-12-2010, 03:01 PM

a humble spirit is so precious....and many times hard to find...

Digging4Truth · #**246** 07-12-2010, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sister Alvear

a humble spirit is so precious....and many times hard to find...

True, true, true Sister Alvear.

mfblume · #**247** 07-12-2010, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rdp

And you are apparently "slower" than I, since I already referenced you a Scripture that affirms both outward & inward sanctification.

Sheesh...here we go again......

Keep your sheeshes (Pentecostal swear words strangely reminiscent of cussing "Jesus").

You spoke a single post as though the outward shows the inward, and that is not always true. Period. Rahab proved it. Got it this time? If in the post to which I responded you gave a disclaimer, that would have been different. I am not going to read all of the posts in this thread to see if you did make that disclaimer.

Set aside your edge, man! Wow.

rdp · #**248** 07-12-2010, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

You clearly are missing the point. Jewlelry does not equal idolatry for all times, all places, all locations anymore than the way idolatry is seen among us today.

This "abomination" crew always has fun with the abominations they choose to

Let's just say, we know, with the continuity of scripture, that what God hates is idolatry. There's no reason to believe he hates precious metals and stones. No need for insertions of grammar and pronouns to try to beef up a flimsey argument.

Do you agree that many objects in culture are symbols. They represent something? Do you also agree that symbols are dynamic, not static, and that they certainly change with time? The symbols change, the idolatry issue doesn't. Based on what you're saying, my wife is in idolatry because she wears a gold wedding band. Step away from the computer and think about how silly that sounds.

"No need for insertions of grammar and pronouns...", SAY WHAT????? I think my eyes almost bugged out of my head! I didn't "insert" the grammar...the Holy Spirit did! Jeffrey, you should know that Theology is to be based upon the grammar of the texts.

And, yes, I'd say your wife is in violence of God-breathed Scripture. God will be her judge [& yours] in eternity. In fact, I've repeatedly turned down church after church because of their rebellion in the wedding ring matter.

rdp · #**249** 07-12-2010, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

You should really lower your tones and announcements slapping others down for "poor scholarship." Really makes you look like an ass. The stubborn, 4-legged variety of course.

Take away the exclamation marks a second and actually give GD a response. Why the heck would God use a figurative OBJECT that is an abomination (something he hates) to decorate someone he loves with? Think about that smarty pants. The answer may just be the thing he hated was.... drum roll please... IDOLATRY. See how that may answer both scenarios now?

As usual, you do not respond to my arguments regarding Ezek. 23:40, Jer. 4:30, etc. Hmmm, God also uses jewlery as a figure of harlotry. Why would he use something that he approves of in such a horrible sense? Cuts both ways Jeffrey! Now what, back to the text, which repeatedly condemns the literal ornamentation of His people...in both the OT & NT.

Sorry Charlie, try again!

rdp · #**250** 07-12-2010, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

If you'd get your head out of.... well, get your head out of yourself for a moment, read the full-length passage, understand the message that was being communicated and cease your arbitrary hyperliteralism for a moment, you'd understand that the "not" is a "this, not that" statement, which is a "for example."

Say what?? And I'M the one w/ my head where it doesn't belong?? Reeeeeeeeeeeal "Christian" language, by the way! I know, I know, refuse to look at yourself & attack me right?

Typical spirit of the liberal.........