1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Hair, Ink and Piercings

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Gib, Apr 16, 2004.

  1. Johnv

    Johnv New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    The cultural norm is the line. Both my daughters have their ears pierced. My older one has not just the lobe, but the upper ear cartilage pierced. I allowed that her for her 16th birthday. Since, to date, both the girls are rather open and devout witness for the Lord, their piercings have had no effect on their personal relationships with Christ, and have not adversely affected their ability to witness to other people.
     
  2. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
     
  3. Mike McK

    Mike McK New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2001
    Messages:
    6,630
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not really. The use of the word "nor" here indicates that this is all one thought.

     
  4. Travelsong

    Travelsong Guest

    Now that's the Mike on fire I like to see!
     
  5. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
     
  6. Mike McK

    Mike McK New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2001
    Messages:
    6,630
    Likes Received:
    0
    So then, do you believe that the KJV is wrong when it specifies for the dead?

    Yes, this was my point. So then, you agree now?

    Nevertheless, the verse specifies for the dead.

     
  7. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    I agree, to a point, but in this case, he's speaking specifically of fornication. </font>[/QUOTE]And by the same logic 1Cor.8:13 speaks of offending your brother only when meat is offered to idols. It has no other application. For this is the context of the passage. See how ludicrous your method of interpretation or hermeneutic becomes.

    "If meat makes my brother to offend I will eat no meat while the world stands lest I make my brother to offend."

    This in no way applies to me because I am never in a situation where meats are offered to idols. This is your interpretation. And this is exactly how you are interpreting 1Cor.6:19,20--strictly according to context without any further application.
    DHK
     
  8. Mike McK

    Mike McK New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2001
    Messages:
    6,630
    Likes Received:
    0
    1 Cor 8:13 is another discussion for another day. Today we're discussing 1 Cor 6.

    Yes, don't I feel silly for following letting the context interpret the passage, rather than making a charge and hoping the passage fits. Yeah, you got me.

    Actually, I haven't said anything about this verse at all. Are you now having to resort to putting words in my mouth?

    Yes, Heaven forbid we should consider the context of a passage.
     
  9. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    I realize you have said nothing about 1Cor.8:13 Mike. That's the problem. It is a question of hermeneutics. There is one interpretation, but many applications. You fail to consider that principle.
    DHK
     
  10. Mike McK

    Mike McK New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2001
    Messages:
    6,630
    Likes Received:
    0
    So then, if you know I haven't said anything, quit telling me how I interpreted it.

    Or so you keep saying. It's good to know that word-a-day calender is finally paying off for you.

    Don't you know that hermeneutics is meaningless without a healthy does of exegetical integrity?

    No, I have considered it. I simply choose not to apply it across the board, when it is specifically dealing with one circumstance.

    What you're advocating is the same logic that people used for hundreds of years to justify slavery and segregation.

    It's been used to justify every false teaching under the sun.

    As good fundamentalists, we believe in a literal translation of scripture but what you're talking about is hyperliteralism, which leads to isegesis (yes, I know I misspelled that), prooftexting and a sloppy hermeneutic.

    Don't get me wrong, I don't believe that you would do any of this on purpose but it's still a little ironic to hear you bellowing about "hermeneutics", when you practice such a careless brand of hermeneutic.
     
  11. Pete Richert

    Pete Richert New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2001
    Messages:
    1,283
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm going to take a guess that this passage in the original is ambigious with respect to whether "for the dead" refers to the first phrase only or for both. Hebrew does not rely on word order as English and it is probably up to the editor to decide. Such is common common practice in Greek and my less extensive study of Hebrew has shown similar results, especially since there is no punctuation in the original Hebrew manuscripts and Hebrew Sentence structure does not follow English rules..

    I agree with DHK that we might not limit the priciple of not doing dishonoring things (to our body) to it being a temple. But that only gets us half way, for that doesn't define what indeed is dishonoring. This passage specifically indentifies that fornication is dishonoring so we know that this is sin. Other parts signify that drunkness is dishonoring, so that can be applied. But you can't just attach whatever you find dishonoring without other biblical support.

    What, you eat french fries? Don't you know your body is the temple of the . . .

    What, you spend how many hours on the BB and not exercising, don't you know your body is the temple of the . . .

    What, you drink soda? Don't you know your body is the temple of the . . .

    What you color your hair? What, you braid your hair? What, you were lipstick? What, you don't take calcium supplementss? What, you don't eat at least five servings of vegatables? What, you sleep in past 8:00 . . .
     
  12. Daniel David

    Daniel David New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Pete, you do all those things?
     
  13. Mike McK

    Mike McK New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2001
    Messages:
    6,630
    Likes Received:
    0
    According to DHK, Jamieson, Faucett, and Brown say that's exactly what it's referring to.
     
  14. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    I agree with you Pete. But we must make sure what is dishonoring to the body, and that in itself becomes a matter of soul liberty in some of things that you have mentioned. However in matters such as smoking where there is clear evidence that it causes lung cancer, and thus harms the body, I believe it is wrong. This verse can be used for those things which clearly are an abuse to the body.
    There is some evidence that tattooing is an abuse to the body. I believe some have already posted to that effect. The main principle that we draw from the passage is its association with pagan religions. It is interesting to note what the scholar Adam Clarke has to say on this verse:

    http://www.godrules.net/library/clarke/clarkelev19.htm
    DHK
     
Loading...