Isaiah 3 and jewelry...

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

No problem w/ this Jeffrey....we all quote sources...including Jesus! Do you also agree w/ "contemporary [nice shift, by the way] scholars" about the trinity doctrine...just wondering.

It's not a shift. I can reference the majority opinion of church fathers on this as well. You may pull here and there from different church fathers as is appropriate, especially those ascetics with extreme views, but that's in no ways a conclusive ownership of 2nd-4th century scholarship.

I'd appeal to history, but you gripe that it's not the BIble -- not understanding history helps develope context which YOU said was critical in determining the meaning of a verse.

Do you also agree with Tertullian on the Trinitarian doctrine? On his discouragement of ejaculatory orgams? On celibacy?

No, I don't perfectly agree with contemporary scholarship on most things. In fact, that's hard to bundle them together for agreement because of the diversity. We agree on the essentials (for the most part) and then read great intellectual discussions about the non-essentials. But your 1 Peter 3 gets absolutely no legit consideration from contemporary scholarship (where we live -- having the advantage of history).

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

I've haven't MADE anything of the Bible. I've read it in ways I was trained to do. I've relied on scholarship, reviewed their evidence and reached a conclusion.


Still on the "literally says" kick? I thought we kicked that in the butt? Remember when those other guys provided scriptures and you referred to context? Remember that? So let's be careful with the word "literal" that it doesn't really mean "stupid."

The Bible over Jeffrey? LOL You keep to the same game. "PLain and simple" "stick to the Bible" etc Yet, when it's convenient to your argument, the "plain and simple" and "sticking to the Bible" literalism gets abandoned.

Let's be real clear... there is nothing "plain and simple" about 1st Century writings to a 21st Century Westerner.

Oh brother....honestly, how many times ad nauseum have I shown the context of I Tim 2 & I Ptr. 3 to be "not" the external, "but the" internal??? Seriously...are you really reading what the text says....sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh !

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

It's not a shift. I can reference the majority opinion of church fathers on this as well. You may pull here and there from different church fathers as is appropriate, especially those ascetics with extreme views, but that's in no ways a conclusive ownership of 2nd-4th century scholarship.

I'd appeal to history, but you gripe that it's not the BIble -- not understanding history helps develope context which YOU said was critical in determining the meaning of a verse.

Do you also agree with Tertullian on the Trinitarian doctrine? On his discouragement of ejaculatory orgams? On celibacy?

No, I don't perfectly agree with contemporary scholarship on most things. In fact, that's hard to bundle them together for agreement because of the diversity. We agree on the essentials (for the most part) and then read great intellectual discussions about the non-essentials. But your 1 Peter 3 gets absolutely no legit consideration from contemporary scholarship (where we live -- having the advantage of history).

So, I take that to mean that you don't agree w/ them on the trinity doctrine...is that right, or no:_________? Watch that banana peel!

Gotta' go......see ya' later.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by rdp

I told you already that I don't have the books w/ me, but I recently read where Calvin was adamant aginst wigs, hair dyes, etc. I pretty well quote from memory since I don't own a computer in my house & don't cart around my references.

Gotta' run...try to check back in a couple of days...very busy for the next couple of days...waste of my time anyway 'till you can simply believe the Bible for what it says!

Oh...um...well you want me to back up what I said...um uh...gotta run....uh no time...just a waste of time that you challenged my made up references...

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

Oh brother....honestly, how many times ad nauseum have I shown the context of I Tim 2 & I Ptr. 3 to be "not" the external, "but the" internal??? Seriously...are you really reading what the text says....sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh !

Great. Progress.

Not the external --- notice he's not prohibiting external beauty --- but the internal.

Progress.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

So, I take that to mean that you don't agree w/ them on the trinity doctrine...is that right, or no:_________? Watch that banana peel!

Gotta' go......see ya' later.

Banana peel? Did you read anything I wrote?

You appealed to Tertullian. Do you agree with the Trinity? lol

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by rdp

In response to your earlier response in bold [which I figured you would say], you're doing the same thing w/ the NIV, RSV, HCSB, etc. In the final analysis, textual critics state both based upon a reading of the greek "adorning". But, then we have to consider if we're dealing w/ the Majority Text, or the Critical Text...which enhances the discussion significantly.

Are you suggesting that these textual critics made their own stuff up, or was there something in the greek that caused them [about 337 linguistical experts] to come up w/ this...independent of the others? Let's be honest here.....

I am suggesting that very few translations actually tell you which words they added. The reason most don't is because the way in which they are translated doesn't allow for an easy time in showing exactly which words were added. I am suggesting that if any word (specifically costly) was added in one translation then this is evidence that it was added in the others. I am not suggesting that the translators were wrong in adding the word for even the NKJV adds it, although it makes it clear that it was added. I am not even suggesting that the translators were wrong in adding the word and not italicizing it because some methods of translation make it difficult to show which words were added. I am loudly proclaiming that there is no greek word in any text to back up the word costly being in that verse.

I am also loudly proclaiming that regardless of what you want to say, none of the translations are putting the word costly in that verse because the greek word for adorning is after the greek word for clothes.

I am also loudly proclaiming that regardless of the fairy tales you want to believe, there is no difference in how the last 3 words of this verse are rendered in any of the texts. What this means is that if the word costly was added in one translation then it was added in all. Costly was added in the NKJV. Therefore...

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

Either you are a liar or you are not quoting from the book you say you are.

Either you are "thin" or you're reading a different book! Chp. 8 quotes from Clement, Calvin, Cyprian, Tertullian, etc. They ALL condemned jewelry, as well as make-up, & wordly entertainment. Calvin attempted to enforce these issues as laws in Geneva. Sorry Charlie...go back & reread!

I challenge you to post where Calvin supports your view.

Chp. 8....Practical Holiness....Tks. for asking!

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

It's not a shift. I can reference the majority opinion of church fathers on this as well. You may pull here and there from different church fathers as is appropriate, especially those ascetics with extreme views, but that's in no ways a conclusive ownership of 2nd-4th century scholarship.

I'd appeal to history, but you gripe that it's not the BIble -- not understanding history helps develope context which YOU said was critical in determining the meaning of a verse.

Do you also agree with Tertullian on the Trinitarian doctrine? On his discouragement of ejaculatory orgams? On celibacy?

No, I don't perfectly agree with contemporary scholarship on most things. In fact, that's hard to bundle them together for agreement because of the diversity. We agree on the essentials (for the most part) and then read great intellectual discussions about the non-essentials. But your 1 Peter 3 gets absolutely no legit consideration from contemporary scholarship (where we live -- having the advantage of history).

And most "contemporary scholarship" believes in a "3-personed deity" also. Tell me Jeffrey, do you also believe in this? Remember that bit about "pulling from here and there as is appropriate for you?"

Round & round it goes!

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

Oh...um...well you want me to back up what I said...um uh...gotta run....uh no time...just a waste of time that you challenged my made up references...

Hmmm, I've been on here for about 3-4 weeks now....but you think I'm afraid to deal w/ you now ??????????? You're a hoot!