Isaiah 3 and jewelry... - Page 50

rdp · #**491** 07-20-2010, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

I sign off for a few hours and miss all the fun.

Is rdp still citing his "scholars?"

Silly me...I should've known to pass them thru the Jeffrey Board first!

rdp · #**492** 07-20-2010, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Didn't you already put your foot in your mouth once with this rambling comment with Baron?

I examine the evidence of other scholars. These scriptures aren't as controversial as we are making it here on AFF. Only Puritans like yourself that choose to ignore the breadth and meaning of a text.

I simply will not continue to cite the "meaning" of the text, only for you to plod along like it's not there! Believe what you will, I'm sticking w/ the Bible!

Oh yea', if I'm "pure," what's that make you:_______? Talk about "putting your foot in your mouth"...isn't this fun?

Jeffrey · #**493** 07-20-2010, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rdp

Silly me...I should've known to pass them thru the Jeffrey Board first!

Jeffrey · #**494** 07-20-2010, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rdp

I simply will not continue to cite the "meaning" of the text, only for you to plod along like it's not there! Believe what you will, I'm sticking w/ the Bible!

Oh yea', if I'm "pure," what's that make you:_______? Talk about "putting your foot in your mouth"...isn't this fun?

I didn't call you "pure."

Your mangling my words like you do Paul's. Careful now

Baron1710 · #**495** 07-20-2010, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rdp

Ughhh, do your own homework....instead of expecting me to do it for you! I don't have the books w/ me where I'm at right now. See Bernard's "Practical Holiness," "In Search of Holiness," etc. Also see Treece/Segraves regrding I Cor. 11 & the hair issue. No, I won't mention the footnote in Louw-Nida's Semantic Domain regarding the grammar of the hair issue...I won't do it!

Hmmm I have read them all...and again I don't think Segraves would uphold your understanding of the passage

rdp · #**496** 07-20-2010, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

The word "NOT", rdp. Clear and plain! Quit trying to erase the Word from God's own mouth!

Such as you do in Eph. 5/Rom. 13? Wait, gotta' pull out my lip ring.......yea' reeeeeal "Christian"

!

rdp · #**497** 07-20-2010, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

What an old and tired argument:

Silly rabbit, Baron is talking about Paul's own words.

Yes, you come off as quite "thick."

If I'm "thick" for believing what the 2 foremost apostles instructed the church to "not do," but "do this,"....then I'm "thick!" I guess it's better than being "thin"!

Try again boys...it's still there!

Jeffrey · #**498** 07-20-2010, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rdp

Such as you do in Eph. 5/Rom. 13? Wait, gotta' pull out my lip ring.......yea' reeeeeal "Christian"

!

The only "un-Christian" thing in the last couple of seconds is your judgementalism on someone who wears a ring in their lip

Way to stretch for an extreme and still fall short.

Eph 5/Romans 13? Think I handled that quite well thank you.

The issue is you want to base interpretation exclusively off the word "not" (which is why you sent those scriptures), then when others confronted with other scriptures in the same style, you appealed to context.

This is what you're doing:

rdp · #**499** 07-20-2010, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baron1710

I don't know about the others your quoting but I would be willing to bet that Segraves is not on board with the way you misuse this Scripture.

I see, so I simply believe what the Bible says, yet that's somehow classified as "misusing" the Scriptures??? You guys are hilarious!

Jeffrey · #**500** 07-20-2010, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rdp

If I'm "thick" for believing what the 2 foremost apostles instructed the church to "not do," but "do this,"....then I'm "thick!" I guess it's better than being "thin"!

Try again boys...it's still there!

Uh, no.