Isaiah 3 and jewelry...

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

The transliteration of the Greek is actually "apparel ADORNING." The NIV, among others, clearly demonstrates this. Not to mention that the passage is a companion verse w/ I Tim. 2:9, which couldn't be plainer.

As usual, you guys make logical errors. You can't deal w/ "NOT the wearing of gold," so you go to something that you THINK invalidates the rest of the passage??
Gotta' run...busy today...look in tommorrow.

I've "dealt with that" passage at least a half-dozen times in this thread.

Is that how you win an argument? Just keep repeating the same thing over and over and over and over and pretend no one has interacted with your claim?

Just again, so you can read it --- that "not" gives the passage a "not this, but this" tone, with is primarily used as a "for example" clause.

EXAMPLE:
"Let us be followers of Jesus. Not of those who attend services on Sunday, but of those who follow Him daily." My passage is not a prohibition on meeting together on Sundays, it's an exhortation to what is primary, real, of value, etc.

Imagine one of our letters getting abused as much as poor Paul's has.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

I've "dealt with that" passage at least a half-dozen times in this thread.

I was referring to the portion that clearly states "N-O-T...the wearing of gold." If you'd get off your ad hominem horse, you might could comprehend what the writer is saying!

Is that how you win an argument? Just keep repeating the same thing over and over and over and over and pretend no one has interacted with your claim?

You guys crack me up! Above, you can be as scornful as you want to be, which is apparently fine. But, when I return the favor, I have a "Pharisee" spirit!?!?! Tooooooooo funny!

Just again, so you can read it --- that "not" gives the passage a "not this, but this" tone, with is primarily used as a "for example" clause.

Nice excercise in eisegesis Jeffrey! Problem is the text doesn't support your assertions, as usual. Your "but this" actually reads "apparel adorning" in the Greek...for about the 5th time now..."just so you can read it." Isn't this fun?

EXAMPLE:
"Let us be followers of Jesus. Not of those who attend services on Sunday, but of those who follow Him daily." My passage is not a prohibition on meeting together on Sundays, it's an exhortation to what is primary, real, of value, etc.

Save your pholosophy for the naive, I'm sticking w/ the Bible...including I Ptr. 3 in its entirety!

Imagine one of our letters getting abused as much as poor Paul's has.

Ughhh, we're discussing I Peter., not I Paul! And yes, you certainly take your liberties w/ Peter's [& Paul's for that matter] letter. Astounding how people apparently are not afraid to tamper w/ the Word of God like that, instead of allowing the text to simply define itself.

Look, don't have time for this non-sense....may check in periodically...rdp.

[SeekingOne]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

What I see here is more like what some Christians do when they get dressed up in their best to go to church thinking God is pleased with this. When in fact God just wants us to circumcise the forskin of our hearts. All of our finery does not impress God when we have judgment and disputations in our hearts. Whether your finery is a suit and tie, or elaborite hair do. God does not care one way or the other. What he cares about is how we look from the heart.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

Ughhh, we're discussing I Peter., not I Paul! And yes, you certainly take your liberties w/ Peter's [& Paul's for that matter] letter. Astounding how people apparently are not afraid to tamper w/ the Word of God like that, instead of allowing the text to simply define itself.

Look, don't have time for this non-sense....may check in periodically...rdp.

Not one of your cute little "comebacks" were anything close to a legitimate response on any of the items that have been submitted to you. I think the same would go for what Blume has interacted with you on. Yes, let's talk about a "waste of time" shall we?

I mean, in one response, you decried being called a Pharisee in a post that did not have the word anywhere near it! Are you still living 5 posts ago? That's your response?

Eisegesis? Oh puhhhleaze. You've probably been taught jewelry was wrong since your days of youth and you consider yourself a great defender of those "truths," trying hard to prove your points. The example I gave you was almost a verbatim example from a hermeneutic textbook. If you disagreed, you should state why, not just "too much liberty yada yada yada."

"not this, but this" is the language syntax of the verse. Pull out a few exegetical commentaries and you'll see others having the same "eisgetical" opinion.

This is why we return to dealing more with you than your words. You deflect, deflect, deflect. Quite annoying.

Turn you binoculars around for once. May help!

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Not one of your cute little "comebacks" were anything close to a legitimate response on any of the items that have been submitted to you. I think the same would go for what Blume has interacted with you on. Yes, let's talk about a "waste of time" shall we?

I see, & your "comebacks" automatically qualify as "legitimate response"?? Typical hypocrisy from the Jeffrey dugout! Finally something we can agree on, "waste of time." Moving right along....

I mean, in one response, you decried being called a Pharisee in a post that did not have the word anywhere near it! Are you still living 5 posts ago? That's your response?

Ughhh, you fella's have referenced the "legalism/pharisee" issue ad nauseum. Does it matter if it was 1 or 5 posts ago? Or, are we now restricted to only referencing terms mentioned in the previous post? Absurd.....

Eisegesis? Oh puhhhleaze. You've probably been taught jewelry was wrong since your days of youth and you consider yourself a great defender of those "truths," trying hard to prove your points. The example I gave you was almost a verbatim example from a hermeneutic textbook. If you disagreed, you should state why, not just "too much liberty yada yada yada."

Wrong again Jeffrey. I did not come to pentecost until I was about 28 yrs. old. I've sincerely studied & examined the claims in light of close scrutinization of the Word...which is the ONLY reason that I reject ornamentation! The Bible says so & I've got enough brains to believe it...oughta' try it sometime! Regarding taking your liberties, here's a little advice: You guys cannot just make up your own Bible! It speaks for & defines itself [exegetical principle, while you're referencing it!].

"not this, but this" is the language syntax of the verse. Pull out a few exegetical commentaries and you'll see others having the same "eisgetical" opinion.

Hmmm, I'd be curious to see where the actual Greek syntax mentions "not this, but this,"....Ooops, it doesn't! That's found in the 23rd chp. of Jeffrey's imagination...& you're talking to ME about hermeneutics??????

This is why we return to dealing more with you than your words. You deflect, deflect, deflect. Quite annoying.

And you explain away, explain away, explain away..."quite annoying" indeed....next....

Turn you binoculars around for once. May help!

Take the Word of God for what is says for once, "N-O-T with gold, pearls...." May help! See ya' around...........

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

Take the Word of God for what is says for once, "N-O-T with gold, pearls...." May help! See ya' around...........

Wrong again Jeffrey. I did not come to pentecost until I was about 28 yrs. old. I've sincerely studied & examined the claims in light of close scrutinization of the Word...which is the ONLY reason that I reject ornamentation! The Bible says so & I've got enough brains to believe it...oughta' try it sometime! Regarding taking your liberties, here's a little advice: You guys cannot just make up your own Bible! It speaks for & defines itself [exegetical principle, while you're referencing it!].

What's your story? What church did you "get saved" in? What did they believe? You objectively sat on an island with the Bible and happened to come to the same conclusions as the church you attended?

Your empty sayings of "making up your own Bible" is pointless. We are talking about the Bible in this thread, smart guy.

"not this, but this" is the language syntax of the verse. Pull out a few exegetical commentaries and you'll see others having the same "eisgetical" opinion.

Hmmm, I'd be curious to see where the actual Greek syntax mentions "not this, but this,"....Ooops, it doesn't! That's found in the 23rd chp. of Jeffrey's imagination...& you're talking to ME about hermeneutics??????

Shall I cite my sources for you? Would that even matter to you?

Are you aware that "Greek Syntax" is not the whole of exegesis?

Have you even hit "pause" for a moment to consider what I said? Do you read all books the same way you read the Bible? Though the letter is accepted as part of a NT canon, you do understand that it is still a letter, and it follows the structure of most all Greek-Roman-style letters of the time? That it includes rhetorical devices, language devices, metaphors, phrases, appeals, arguments, etc? You do realize that language is not uni-dimensional?

For you to read Paul's letter to Timothy as if he is writing to begin a practice of banning wearing jewelry is to misunderstand the general message. Can you at least tell me what the theme of this part of the Text is? Are you able pan back your view for a moment? Can you do that?

You still have also not dealt with Blume's points concerning the OT passages -- or mine. Taking a phrase from a verse and demanding literal obedience is irresponsible. You should understand by now that context gives our words (and phrases) definition.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

What's your story? What church did you "get saved" in? What did they believe? You objectively sat on an island with the Bible and happened to come to the same conclusions as the church you attended?

Same could be said of you & the church that you attend. Did you just happen to end up in achurch that had it all right?? In my case, I was at a trinitarian church, but the Lord led me out into the truth through careful study & debate w/ others...who were right! What's funny is you're constantly asking me if I've ever considered that I could be wrong....& the reason that I'm where I'm at today is that I WAS wrong before!!

Your empty sayings of "making up your own Bible" is pointless. We are talking about the Bible in this thread, smart guy.

I din't say that we weren't talking about the Bible...I said that you weren't free to make up your OWN Bible! If you don't understand the difference, no wonder we're not progressing very much!



Shall I cite my sources for you? Would that even matter to you?

Are you aware that "Greek Syntax" is not the whole of exegesis?

Oh, I'm definitely aware & couldn't agree more. Syntax, word meanings, cases, tenses, etc. mean what they do according to the genre & context in which they're couched. But you're the one who introduced it w/ regard to I Ptr. 3.

Have you even hit "pause" for a moment to consider what I said? Do you read all books the same way you read the Bible? Though the letter is accepted as part of a NT canon, you do understand that it is still a letter, and it follows the structure of most all Greek-Roman-style letters of the time? That it includes rhetorical devices, language devices, metaphors, phrases, appeals, arguments, etc? You do realize that language is not uni-dimensional?

Yes, well said. But when we're finished w/ all of the literary analysis, the text still instructs "NOT with gold, pearls....". Then, to tie things up nicely, Paul instructs Timothy [a young Pastor], "THESE things COMMAND and TEACH," which is precisely why I do the same!

For you to read Paul's letter to Timothy as if he is writing to begin a practice of banning wearing jewelry is to misunderstand the general message.

Then neither was he "beginning a practice" of wearing "modest apparel." Now, will you be consistent & say that the early Jewish-Christian church of Paul's day went around immodest?? I think not. BTW, he wasn't "beginning" a prohibition, but instructing Timothy on church order.

Can you at least tell me what the theme of this part of the Text is? Are you able pan back your view for a moment? Can you do that?

You still have also not dealt with Blume's points concerning the OT passages -- or mine. Taking a phrase from a verse and demanding literal obedience is irresponsible. You should understand by now that context gives our words (and phrases) definition.

Ughh, I've responded to Rebekah & Ezek. 16 ad nauseum & you say I've "not dealt w/ the OT passages"????????? Sheeesh....why am I still here?

[Maximilian]

RDP, I don't know why you are.

It's not a conversation. We both just talk at each other. It's impossible to have a discussion with you. I give.

You refuse to interact with evidence. Your response to all I submitted for consideration is "the Text still instructs 'not with gold'" You aren't realizing that that's precisely what we're discussing. We're finding context for the meaning of "not with Gold."

[mfblume]

RDP, you have to make things up in order to say God condoned jewelry in one place and banned it in another. The truth is that jewelry is said by Paul and Peter to not be our "worlds: (adornement in Greek). Women have temptation to go too far with it, but this by no means says they should never touch it.

John Gill said it best:

Or gold, or pearls, or costly array: not that the apostle forbids all use or wear of such things by proper persons, whose circumstances would admit of it, and upon proper occasions, and at proper times: certain it is, that earrings and bracelets of gold, and jewels set in silver and gold, and raiment, costly raiment, were sent by Abraham, and given to Rebekah, and wore by her, who was a woman professing godliness so the church in Psa_45:9 though in figurative expressions, yet in allusion to what is literal, and honourable, and commendable, is said to be in gold of Ophir, and her clothing to be of wrought gold, and to be brought to the king in raiment of needlework: but however justifiable such a dress may be at other seasons, the apostle judged it very improper at the time of public prayer, or at the time of public worship; seeing it might swell the heart of the wearer with pride, so as to forget herself and the business she was come about, and draw the eyes of others upon her; and so cause a general inattention. It was a complaint of Chrysostom's many hundreds of years ago, that some who came to public worship, appeared in such a dress, as if they came rather to dance than to pray; such apparel should be avoided: it is said of Pythagoras (o), that he taught the inhabitants of Crotona, the men literature, and the women chastity and modesty; and by his disputations so far prevailed upon the latter, as to lay aside their garments of gold and other ornaments of their dignity, as instruments of luxury; all which they brought into the temple of Juno, and dedicated them to that goddess; declaring, that shamefacedness or chastity, and not garments, are the true ornaments of matrons.

Other than such a balanced outlook, silly ideas must be concocted that are no where ever stated in scripture, and one therefore Adds to the scripture to make such stands against jewelry of all forms at all times.

Albert Brnes said:

Or gold, or pearls - It is not to be supposed that all use of gold or pearls as articles of dress is here forbidden; but the idea is, that the Christian female is not to seek these as the adorning which she desires, or is not to imitate the world in these personal decorations. It may be a difficult question to settle how much ornament is allowable, and when the true line is passed. But though this cannot be settled by any exact rules, since much must depend on age, and on the relative rank in life, and the means which one may possess, yet there is one general rule which is applicable to all, and which might regulate all. It is, that the true line is passed when more is thought of this external adorning, than of the ornament of the heart. Any external decoration which occupies the mind more than the virtues of the heart, and which engrosses the time and attention more, we may be certain is wrong. The apparel should be such as not to attract attention; such as becomes our situation; such as will not be particularly singular; such as shall leave the impression that the heart is not fixed on it. It is a poor ambition to decorate a dying body with gold and pearls. It should not be forgotten that the body thus adorned will soon need other habiliments, and will occupy a position where gold and pearls would be a mockery. When the heart is right; when there is true and supreme love for religion, it is usually not difficult to regulate the subject of dress.

Otherwise, it makes God to look like a fool.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by mfblume

RDP, you have to make things up in order to say God condoned jewelry in one place and banned it in another.

So, I give biblical example after example where God PERMITTED some things that He "hated" in the OT, but now calls all men to repentance in the NT & all you can say is "You're making things up"??? Here's an idea Mike, how about interacting w/ the texts that I gave istead of just ignoring them! Next....

The truth is that jewelry is said by Paul and Peter to not be our "worlds: (adornement in Greek). Women have temptation to go too far with it, but this by no means says they should never touch it.

The "truth" is that both Apostles, under the auspicies of the Holy Spirit penned "N-O-T with gold, pearls, or costly array. And, "not...the wearing of gold...". Sheesh, what in the world can you guys not understand about the term "not"?

John Gill said it best:

Or gold, or pearls, or costly array: not that the apostle forbids all use or wear of such things by proper persons, whose circumstances would admit of it, and upon proper occasions, and at proper times: certain it is, that earrings and bracelets of gold, and jewels set in silver and gold, and raiment, costly raiment, were sent by Abraham, and given to Rebekah, and wore by her, who was a woman professing godliness so the church in Psa_45:9 though in figurative expressions, yet in allusion to what is literal, and honourable, and commendable, is said to be in gold of Ophir, and her clothing to be of wrought gold, and to be brought to the king in raiment of needlework: but however justifiable such a dress may be at other seasons, the apostle judged it very improper at the time of public prayer, or at the time of public worship; seeing it might swell the heart of the wearer with pride, so as to forget herself and the business she was come about, and draw the eyes of others upon her; and so cause a general inattention. It was a complaint of Chrysostom's many hundreds of years ago, that some who came to public worship, appeared in such a dress, as if they came rather to dance than to pray; such apparel should be avoided: it is said of Pythagoras (o), that he taught the inhabitants of Crotona, the men literature, and the women chastity and modesty; and by his disputations so far prevailed upon the latter, as to lay aside their garments of gold and other ornaments of their dignity, as instruments of luxury; all which they brought into the temple of Juno, and dedicated them to that goddess; declaring, that shamefacedness or chastity, and not garments, are the true ornaments of matrons.

And Paul & Peter said it better: "not with gold, pearls, or costly array...". "These things COMMAND and TEACH." Work around it all day long fella's, it'll still be staring you in the face when you're thru. BTW, I've dealt w/ Rebekah 'till I'm blue in the face. Hmmm, Peter appealled to the "holy women of old" as examples of "not...the wearing of gold...".

Other than such a balanced outlook, silly ideas must be concocted that are no where ever stated in scripture, and one therefore Adds to the scripture to make such stands against jewelry of all forms at all times.

I see, I quote directly from the Bible, "NOT with gold, pearls, or costly array..."; I reference Is. 3, Ex. 33, Exek. 23, Gen. 35, Hosea 2, Jer. 4, I Ptr. 3:3, I Tim. 2:9....yet by quoting & referencing God-Breathed verses, I'm somehow "adding to the Scriptures"?????????? Alrighttttttty then !

Albert Brnes said:

Or gold, or pearls - It is not to be supposed that all use of gold or pearls as articles of dress is here forbidden; but the idea is, that the Christian female is not to seek these as the adorning which she desires, or is not to imitate the world in these personal decorations. It may be a difficult question to settle how much ornament is allowable, and when the true line is passed. But though this cannot be settled by any exact rules, since much must depend on age, and on the relative rank in life, and the means which one may possess, yet there is one general rule which is applicable to all, and which might regulate all. It is, that the true line is passed when more is thought of this external adorning, than of the ornament of the heart. Any external decoration which occupies the mind more than the virtues of the heart, and which engrosses the time and attention more, we may be certain is wrong. The apparel should be such as not to attract attention; such as becomes our situation; such as will not be particularly singular; such as shall leave the impression that the heart is not fixed on it. It is a poor ambition to decorate a dying body with gold and pearls. It should not be forgotten that the body thus adorned will soon need other habiliments, and will occupy a position where gold and pearls would be a mockery. When the heart is right; when there is true and supreme love for religion, it is usually not difficult to regulate the subject of dress.

Now Mike, do I need to reference & quote Clement, Tertullian, Calvin, etc.?? Then will you believe me? For I assure that they were stricter than I. In sum, appeals external to the text have nothing to do w/ the actual text itself....try again! Besides, do you also agree w/ these men regarding their Godhead doctrines & soteriological constructs? Ever heard of consistency?

Otherwise, it makes God to look like a fool.

Yes, to say that He approves jewelry on His people when He repeatedly condemns their literal ornamentation [Ex. 33, Is. 3, etc.], then to use metaphorical passages taken from the OT to nullify clear NT instructions to the church, is indeed [I'll be kind] "non-sense".

Believe whatever you will, I'm sticking w/ the Bible [including I Tim. 2:9]!