Isaiah 3 and jewelry...

[rdp]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Why do you always make this subjective? Let's stick to objective discussion. We always read, "You... you need to... you are.. " Let's stay objective and deal with the issue and not one another. All of us, ookay?

Agreed!



It speaks about being snared by taking the jewelry from the idols. Israel had this problem. It does not simply say do not take jewelry lest you be ensnared. It says to not take the jewelry from the idols.

Mike, you're ignoring the pronoun modifications & relationships. That is, you're exchanging the actual grammar for your theology. The text "says" nothing of the sort of what you assert above. Again, the grammar necessitates that the "them," relates back to the "their," as in "their [people in the promised land] gods". The false "gods" were to be burned, then the Israelites were not to be ensnared w/ their gold & silver that was "on them." Of course I recognize that the context was idolatry, but there's also idolatry of/in the heart. "Thou shalt have no other gods before me."

Israel worshiped a brazen serpent.

Which has nothing to do w/ this passgae.

(Deu 7:25) The graven images of THEIR gods shall ye burn with fire: thou shalt not desire the silver or gold that is ON THEM [do you see the grammatical relationship Mike?], nor take it unto thee, lest thou be snared therein: for it is an abomination to the LORD thy God.

Of course the jewels were on the idols and God did not want the people to take them to themselves. But the fact is that they were from idols. You seem to think the idol connection is moot and irrelevant. But God stipulated it is from idols. You do not read anything about God telling people to not take jewelry, period. It is distinctly from idols. You think that has no bearing? God never said Rebekkah had an abomination and went to see Isaac, but we do read it is abomination to take that which is from idols. The very next verse mentions this.

For about the 7th time now, the grammar NECESSITATES that the silver & gold was on the people...not the idols! You're ignoring the grammar of the text. While you're appealling to Gen. w/ Rebekah, will you also appeal to Gen. 35 w/ Jacob & the jewelry? I doubt it.

(Deu 7:26) Neither shalt thou bring an abomination into thine house [Remember that when you climb in bed w/ your TV Mike], lest thou be a cursed thing like it: but thou shalt utterly detest it, and thou shalt utterly abhor it; for it is a cursed thing.

Yes, God is very concerned w/ what His people set up in their house...remember that at "Christ-Mass" & w/ your television set.



You know it is not nonsense. Be civil. If you would spend more time actually looking at the issue than thinking of how to demean those who disagree with you, this could be a good chat.

I agree, this COULD be a good chat. Perhaps even some misunderstandings about each camp could be straightened out, but you just cannot seem to see that you also throw out the condemning speech. Mike, I'm very REACTIVE in my nature. So, I would say that perhaps you should also practice what you're preaching to me.



No, it is the only sensible conclusion about the idea.

(1Pe 3:3) Whose adorning LET IT N-O-T BE [did you read that Mike?] be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;
(1Pe 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.

G2889
κόσμος
kosmos
kos'-mos
Probably from the base of G2865; orderly arrangement, that is, DECORATION [Did you notice this word Mike?]; by implication the world (in a wide or narrow sense, including its inhabitants, literally or figuratively [morally]): - adorning, world.

They were told to not make their WORLDS, or infatuation, these things. He did not say do not wear them. He said do not make them your worlds. Kosmos.

You left part of the definition out Mike...it included "decoration". Selectivity will catch you everytime!

It follows Paul's general concept.

1Co 7:30-31 And they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not; (31) And they that use this world, as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world passeth away.

It is speaking of where their hearts are.

Men smarter than you and I see the manner in which Peter wrote and showed the true sense.

That's your opinion. I think you're a pretty bright fellow! Besides, do you also agree w/ Gill on his Godhead theology. How about the plan of salvation?

John Gill:

nor are we to suppose that the apostle forbids the use of what follows, but only when used in a luxurious and extravagant manner, and to feed pride and vanity, and encourage, lasciviousness and wantonness:

1Pe 3:3-4 Don't depend on things like fancy hairdos or gold jewelry or expensive clothes to make you look beautiful. (4) Be beautiful in your heart by being gentle and quiet. This kind of beauty will last, and God considers it very special.

I checked about 7 translations last night & everyone one of them say "NOT with....". I have to have an honest heart w/ that Mike.



Bro., look at the first posts you made to us and realize how things start. Let's end it here and now, okay?

I concede this point!

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

I just had a thought I would be interested in how many have been pursuaded by RDP that Jewelry is wrong by this thread and how many see that he is wrong.

Have led many, many out of the jewelry camp over the years by just allowing the text to define itself.

I for one have had my views cemented even more from this thread. And that is on the side of you can wear Jewelry.

Yes, because you make the Word of God of no affect & simply believe what you want to believe.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

Precisely Watson! "N-O-T material things...", like jewelry! Good grief...this is crazy & a total waste of my time. Repent & believe what you quote Jeffrey!

I get a kick out of you.

Women, your true adorning is not external (not a prohibition on all things external), but it's internal. The weightier things are immaterial.

It's not a prohibition. It's called the human language. It's a beautiful thing when you let the Apostle say what he wants.

[Jeffrey]

I don't need a grammar instruction on the word "not," apparently you do. What is dependent on the word "not" in this verse? What does it mean? What's the significance of the word "not?" Also, do you ever ask that about a passage -- what is Paul saying?? What's he getting at? Is he trying to deliver a prohibition so legalists like yourself can hang other believers, or is he pointing to something else?

So, when I come at you strong, I have a "bad spirit," but you can call me names such as "Legalist/Pharisee." So, again, I state that I would rather be "legal" than "illegal," One label is just as good as the next! What now, back to the text!

Answer the question.

[Jeffrey]

1Likewise, wives,(A) be subject to your own husbands, so that(B) even if some do not obey the word,(C) they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, 2when they see your(D) respectful and pure conduct. 3(E) Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear— 4but let your adorning be(F) the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious.

Can't get any more clear than this

Very good Jeffrey...did you see where it "clearly" says "Do N-O-T let your adorning be external...putting on of GOLD JEWELRY..." Dude, can not read??? Astounding how you can quote it & then deny it!

Reading comprehension. Someone pass out a test.

I guess when you are set on repeating the words "NOT" over and over and over again, despite us addressing the verse and the phrase its a sign of stubborn defeat.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

Precisely Watson! "N-O-T material things...", like jewelry! Good grief...this is crazy & a total waste of my time. Repent & believe what you quote Jeffrey!

Repent?? LOL You really wonder why we call you a Pharisee?

Not material things - like jewelry (just one of the material examples he lists). Take away the "for examples" and it reads: Not material things/external things, but the ornaments of the heart. This isn't an either/or, it's where the young woman finds her beauty. It's stating something I've heard since I was little, that "true beauty is not found in your skin."

It's sad when someone fixates on something so hard that they can't see anything else. That's where you are, RDP. Don't have OCD here. Is Paul's intention to create New Testament list of prohibitions? You really believe that despite the evidence we've discussed?

[Jeffrey]

RDP, so if I wrote a letter, and in it said:

"It's not going to church that redeems the world, it's about being the church."

You'd make this to read a prohibition against going to church, or a further exhortation?

Would you keep repeating to those who read the verse with the latter in mind, "It says NOT going to church -- clear and plain!" See how silly that sounds?

[mfblume]

Mike, you're ignoring the pronoun modifications & relationships.

No I am not. Of course the pronoun relationships are the way they are. How else would God say what I propose without using them? But you are ignoring the distinction of the idols. If God was only dealing with jewelry as you claim, then He would not have to mention idols. One would know to not take any jewelry whether idols are mentioned or not, even it if it was a situation where idols were involved. A broad swoop of the brush against jewelry, period, would be all that is sufficient.

That is, you're exchanging the actual grammar for your theology. The text "says" nothing of the sort of what you assert above. Again, the grammar necessitates that the "them," relates back to the "their," as in "their [people in the promised land] gods". The false "gods" were to be burned, then the Israelites were not to be ensnared w/ their gold & silver that was "on them." Of course I recognize that the context was idolatry, but there's also idolatry of/in the heart. "Thou shalt have no other gods before me."

I deny none of the things you state, but the point is idolatry and worship of the jewelry was noted. That is the reason the next verse stated they cannot bring any abominations into their homes.

Recall Achan. What is wrong with a garment? Nothing. But a Babylonish garment? Achan ceoveted them. To wear them? Of course not! Imagine a Hebrew wearing in broad daylight a Babylonish garment. He'd be stoned on the spot. But he hid it. Obviously not to wear. It was associated with idolatry.

Which has nothing to do w/ this passgae.

I am speaking of the principle of the thing.

For about the 7th time now, the grammar NECESSITATES that the silver & gold was on the people...not the idols!

Of course. You are still not hearing me. Whether they wore them or not, and the text DOES NOT say they would even wear the jewelry, they took the jewels to themselves. In other words, they would KEEP the jewels as their own property.

Jos 11:14 And all the spoil of these cities, and the cattle, the children of Israel took for a prey unto themselves; but every man they smote with the edge of the sword, until they had destroyed them, neither left they any to breathe.

Did that mean they WORE the prey?

But worn or not, which is not stipulated nor is the point anyway, possessing the things involved temptation to worship them. Possessing these things was the point. They were considered sacred by heathens. Israel was tempted again and again to worship idols. It's weird, but it's true. Over and over throughout the entire Old Testament we find Israel tempted with idols.

You're ignoring the grammar of the text. While you're appealling to Gen. w/ Rebekah, will you also appeal to Gen. 35 w/ Jacob & the jewelry? I doubt it.

Gen 35:4 And they gave unto Jacob all the strange gods which were in their hand, and all their earrings which were in their ears; and Jacob hid them under the oak which was by Shechem.

What has that got to do with it?

They took earrings from IDOLS. Idolatry was associated with bejeweling those same idols. Notice that idols and jewelry are repeatedly associated. Look at modern idolatry in the east. They gave luscious gifts of food to idols and jewels and precious stones. Such things when rendered to false gods are considered holy and sacred. They were dedicated to false gods. That renders them sacred to those gods. You're missing the forest for the trees in all of this. Even in the New Testament, Paul said meat offered to idols is okay to eat, just DO NTO EAT IT IN THE IDOL'S TEMPLE. Religiosity is likewise associated with such jewelry.

You actually defeat your own point with Genesis 35. That was the same era when Rebekka wore jewelry. So jewelry IN THAT SAME DAY was not considered taboo. But when it was associated with idols, it was taboo! So the instances in which you find jewelry banned in the Old Testament are always instances of idolatry and harlotry. You claim what was acceptable became unacceptable over time. You have no statement in the bible that says that, though. That is why I said you concoct these things. We need explicit statements. While you repeat and repepat and repeat the explicit words "NOT THE WEARING OF GOLD," you inconsistently see no need to stand on a single verse, let alone explicit words, that says God accepted jewelry at one point in time and then banned it later in time.

Then you respond by saying DIVORCE was hated but yet God did it, you fail to realize you are making associations that are not explicitly made by the bible itself. When I do the same, you accuse me of talking about something that has nothing to do with the issue. Well, what has divorce got to do with jewelry? Nothing. But yet you say to me that Israel worshiping a brazen serment has nothing to do with the issue, when it actually does in principle. You are violating your own rules of what a person can use for bases.

The fact remains, that Rebekkah wore these things in the same general era whan Jacob hid jewels from the idols, showing us that, as I stated again and again, it is not wearing jewelry that is wrong, but an abuse of it as in harlotry or idol worship. FOR THAT REASON, God used the picture as a figure for showing His love and heart to His bride. Like your computer on the net -- for porn or Christian chat.

Now, divorce IS NEVER SOMETHING SHOWN IN A POSITIVE WAY, like jewelry. You mistakenly said God tolerated jewelry at one time and rejected it at a later time, without any scripture saying so, because you feel it is like divorce. God hated divorce but divorced Israel, Himself. But the huge difference is that DIVORCE was never used to show or signify something done in a positive manner and in quite a holy and pure manner as was frguratively giving His bride jewelry.

Yes, God is very concerned w/ what His people set up in their house...remember that at "Christ-Mass" & w/ your television set.

Remember your computer with all the sinful porn at your fingertips that outweigh any evil ever portrayed on TV. It still amazes me that people think TV is wrong and use computers on the net. Wow! Talk about making up excuses.

[did you read that Mike?]

Oh please. HOW MANY TIMES HAVE I ASKED YOU WHY PETER SAID "NOT WEARING OF APPAREL" and you never answered? You said something about the Greek which you stated to someone else, and I asked you to repeat it to me, and never saw you tell me what your point was.

[mfblume]

1Pe 3:3 Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;

Now, look at it again. If your idea of "NOT WEARING OF GOLD" means never wear gold, then by the same token "OR THE PUTTING ON OF APPAREL" means to live life in the public naked. Now why do you not see that?

[Did you notice this word Mike?]

You left part of the definition out Mike...it included "decoration". Selectivity will catch you everytime!

I did not intentionaly avoid anything.

Here is the full quote:

G2889
κόσμος
kosmos
kos'-mos
Probably from the base of G2865; orderly arrangement, that is, decoration; by implication the world (in a wide or narrow sense, including its inhabitants, literally or figuratively [morally]): - adorning, world.

Now, does decoration refute the remainder of the definition? Is not KOSMOS used as WORLD, showing a nuance of the term that your teaching refuses to acknowledge?

That's your opinion. I think you're a pretty bright fellow! Besides, do you also agree w/ Gill on his Godhead theology. How about the plan of salvation?

Brother, the MAJORITY OF scholars who are eggheads, compared to you and I, in Greek issues show this to be the case. If you were a Greek scholar I would consider your words next to theirs, but neither you nor I are Greek scholars. We're like janitors compared to brain surgeons in this issue. So do not pretend to know more of the meaning of a Greek phrase or term than the scholars know. And your comparison of that to Godhead and soteriological theology is the old-fashioned, but severely lacking, guilt by association. You actually think you have right to critique their views on the manner greek phrases and issue because the same men misunderstand Godhead and Salvation? When I spoke of Israel worshiping the brazen serpent, you said they are not related. And yet you can talk about issues that are not related to each other by far, more than brazen serpents are not related to jewelry of idols, by saying Godhead was incorrect in their theology, so their idea on the meaning of Peter's words must be wrong, too. That is so illogical I cannot begin to describe it. You know better than that!

I checked about 7 translations last night & everyone one of them say "NOT with....". I have to have an honest heart w/ that Mike.

Moot point! The same verse says "1Pe 3:3 Whose adorning let it not be... putting on of apparel;" But you refuse to apply your same logic to that phrase.

Blessings.

[Jeffrey]

Well said, Mikey.