Thank you, Professor Mounce. Highlights the importance of our "heart issues" and motivation as we come to the Cross. As well as how easily legalism creeps into obscure the Gospel.

Thank you, Dr. Mounce. This was very helpful.

Wow! Well presented truth!

Excellent!

Really glad… you said these things. God bless you. In Jesus Name, amen.

I have very long hair. It gets tangled if I don't brush and braid it. I get more attention if I have it loose believe it or not.I don't braid for men to oogle a like a perv I braid for practical reasons at home and wear a messy bun outside.

Word of God is living word doesn't just address that time or ancient time it's living if it says no then no God words doesn' expired for certain time I am praying over this verse as woman and Pray God will show me more about it.

Hello there, I’m looking this verse up in blue letter Bible and the original Hebrew does not say ‘kai’ between broided hair and gold. It says ‘e’ which means or.

Would a paraphrase of “not flaunting their riches by working gold or pearls into their braids or clothes” fairly express the heart of this verse?

Genuinely speaking, I believe we are nitpicking the gospel. 1. There was a context that precipitated Paul's advice. This context is one that may or may not apply to us today. 2. Braiding is a matter of practicality 3. God is not against beauty since the priests were to dress both for glory and for beauty. With all honesty, provided one aligns him/herself with the true gospel of Christ and keeps the ten commandments one shouldn't be bothered if they choose to braid their hair or not. Notwithstanding, every place has a set of rules of engagement and churches are no exception. If your church has rules against braiding or wearing expensive clothing you have the choice to either look for another congregation, another religion, oblige or appeal for the dictates to be altered. It is really that simple. Let us not drag spirituality into affairs dealing with personal opinion and earthly experiences.

Nailed it.

Modesty starts at the heart, with what motivation are you dressing the way you are? Is it causing or can it cause distraction to young men and other menin the congregation or other places? The concern is putting Christ first so you minister from inner beauty and no so much outter one.

@elizabethmcnamara6548

2 ай бұрын

Yes but men should wear tops on hot days also to not make the women go astray also.

@oterosocram25

2 ай бұрын

@@elizabethmcnamara6548 although you have a point, woman are not as visual as men are.

I don't know what other hairstyle I could wear that will not tangle at at night.

Uh-oh! I completely agree with your end conclusions, and would helpfully even go so far as to point out that you should have quoted 1 Peter 3:3 to further support it, BUT (!) I did not miss the comment, at 1:14 in the video, "...interesting variant right here: You can see that some manuscripts replace the και with the η, with the "or"...I'm glad that's not what the original text was. The original text was the και." Rather, it is the "the Majority Text" manuscripts, i.e. all the Reformation-era manuscripts, denoted by the little, highly Romanized "M" character, 𝔐, in your NA28 critical apparatus shown on the screen, plus a bunch of other manuscripts on top of that. Then you jump to "I'm glad that's not what the original text was," as if it is settled. Now, I am not necessarily a "Majority" or so-called "Textus Receptus" advocate, much less KJV-only fanatic, but as a matter of academic integrity, at least, you can't just brush off and dismiss a manuscript variation like that in such a cavalier way, as if everyone would be assumed to agree with you. Then, later, you say, "I wish Paul would have done και here, but he didn't," which, given that I hope you would agree that the scriptures are "God-breathed," translates into, "I wish God would have done και here, but he didn't," indicating your desire that the inspired, Holy Scriptures would have said something else according to your better (?) judgment. At least that's the take-away I get from hearing you make that comment.

@clarkemorledge2398

Жыл бұрын

@Garth D. Wiebe Granted, Dr. Mounce could have qualified his statement by saying that his understanding is the most PROBABLE reading. It is always possible that some new copy of 1 Timothy might show up that predates our best early Alexandria texts to support the Majority Text reading. But we do not have any such evidence. So, we simply go with the evidence that we have, not the evidence we do not have..... As to Dr. Mounce's statement "I wish Paul would have done και here, but he didn't," I think you are reading a bit too much into that. For if Paul had put "και" here it would add greater clarity. That is all. A string of logical ORs like that can be confusing. In Paul's mind it probably was not confusing..... but we are not always so privileged to understand the mind of the great apostle. We only have his letters to go on.

Interestingly, the problem of nitpicking the translations based on textual variants [in this case, the coordinating conjunction (καὶ) found in the Alexandrian-backed NA28 (א, B), replacing the particle (ἢ) found in the Byzantine texts (𝔐)] is, that the whole argument is a vain exercise in futility. This is especially true in 2 Tim. 2:9, where we are in agreement with the point of the passage being one of modesty and moderation rather than a list of prohibited fashion statements (nevertheless, some do misapply the teaching). Whereas good and faithful translation is important, however, it really does not matter how proficient one's Greek is, if one is translating from a corrupted textual family. All who are interested in the truth behind the texts should consider the allegations leveled against Dr. Tischendorf by the man who claimed to have written the Siniaticus. The historical sources are documented by Dr. David H. Sorenson in his book "Neither Oldest Nor Best: How the Foundational Manuscripts of Modern Bible Translations are Fraudulent," 2nd Ed. (Duluth, MN: Northstar, 2019).

@GarthDWiebe

Жыл бұрын

Now, see, here we go with the opposite extreme. Mounce confidently talks as though it is all settled and there is no dispute about the NA28 main text ("...interesting variant right here: You can see that some manuscripts replace the και with the η, with the "or"...I'm glad that's not what the original text was. The original text was the και." at 1:14), which I just called him on in another comment to this video. Meanwhile, you go the opposite extreme and promote a KJV-only apologist, in your case, David H. Sorenson. For readers who are wondering who is "the man who claimed to have written the Siniaticus," that would be Constantine Simonides. I actually recently watched the new, recent, three-hour long Parable/Adullam video full of drama, wild speculations, and conspiracy theories, to the point of demonizing their nemeses, complete with character assassinations and etc., such as Tischendorf himself on video repeatedly celebrating himself with a glass of champagne and a sinister smile, and I wrote up a lengthy critique in its KZread comments, which currently is pretty much buried now in 800 mostly fan-mail comments as of this writing. The conclusions about Simonides vs. Tischendorf are unresolved and clearly speculative in the outcome. For you, I would recommend Mark Ward's KZread video critique, "Why Won't David Sorenson Answer a Simple Question?"