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.
Hair, Ink and Piercings
Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Gib, Apr 16, 2004.
Page 2 of 2
-
Originally posted by DHK:
The key phrase "for the dead" is applicable only to the first phrase of the verse: "no make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead. That is what this prepositional phrase defines. It has nothing to do with the rest of the verse, which is an entitity in and of itself.Click to expand...
Here is what Jamieson, Faucett, and Brown, say about the phrase "nor tattoo any marks on you."
nor print any marks upon you--by tattooing, imprinting figures of flowers, leaves, stars, and other fanciful devices on various parts of their person. The impression was made sometimes by means of a hot iron, sometimes by ink or paint, as is done by the Arab females of the present day and the different castes of the Hindus. It is probable that a strong propensity to adopt such marks in honor of some idol gave occasion to the prohibition in this verse; and they were wisely forbidden, for they were signs of apostasy; and, when once made, they were insuperable obstacles to a return. (See allusions to the practice, Isa 44:5; Re 13:17; 14:1).Click to expand...Click to expand...Did you read this before you cut and pasted it? The quote you posted even acknowledges, "It is probable that a strong propensity to adopt such marks in honor of some idol gave occasion to the prohibition in this verse".
In addition, of the verses you posted, Ias 44:5 has nothing to do with the subject at hand, Rev 13:17 is dealing specifically with taking the "Mark of the Beast", not the common practice of tattoing for body art's sake, nor does Rev 14:1.
So much for that argument.
The preceding verses of 1Cor.6:19,20 may indeed be speaking of fornication. But Paul draws a conclusion that is applicable to many situations, not just one situation.Click to expand...
Your method of hermeneutics is sadly lacking here.Click to expand...
How do you interpret 1Cor.8:13:Click to expand...
In the same way, Paul draws a general application that is not just restricted to fornication.Click to expand...Click to expand... -
Now that's the Mike on fire I like to see!
-
Originally posted by Mike McK:
Originally posted by DHK:
[qb]The key phrase "for the dead" is applicable only to the first phrase of the verse: "no make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead. That is what this prepositional phrase defines. It has nothing to do with the rest of the verse, which is an entitity in and of itself.Click to expand...Not really. The use of the word "nor" here indicates that this is all one thought.Click to expand...
Leviticus 19:28 `And a cutting for the soul ye do not put in your flesh; and a writing, a cross-mark, ye do not put on you; I am Jehovah. (YLT)
Literally "a cutting for the soul." That is what the cutting of the flesh referred to. It was a specific pagan practice. The writing on the flesh or tattooing was another pagan practice, unrelated to the others. Remember that in the originals there were no verse divisions. The previus verse talks of not rounding the corners of your head, or marring the corners of your beard. Again they were prohibitions at that time, but not related to "for the dead," just as tattooing is not related "for the dead." There is no grammatical justification for it.
Here is what Jamieson, Faucett, and Brown, say about the phrase "nor tattoo any marks on you."
nor print any marks upon you--by tattooing, imprinting figures of flowers, leaves, stars, and other fanciful devices on various parts of their person. The impression was made sometimes by means of a hot iron, sometimes by ink or paint, as is done by the Arab females of the present day and the different castes of the Hindus. It is probable that a strong propensity to adopt such marks in honor of some idol gave occasion to the prohibition in this verse; and they were wisely forbidden, for they were signs of apostasy; and, when once made, they were insuperable obstacles to a return. (See allusions to the practice, Isa 44:5; Re 13:17; 14:1).Click to expand...Click to expand...Did you read this before you cut and pasted it? The quote you posted even acknowledges, "It is probable that a strong propensity to adopt such marks in honor of some idol gave occasion to the prohibition in this verse".
In addition, of the verses you posted, Ias 44:5 has nothing to do with the subject at hand, Rev 13:17 is dealing specifically with taking the "Mark of the Beast", not the common practice of tattoing for body art's sake, nor does Rev 14:1.
So much for that argument.Click to expand...
Secondly, yes I did read it before I cut and pasted it, and do quite well remember what it said about the practice of pagan idol worship being connected with the practice of tattooing. All the more we should avoid it.
Jeremiah said: "Learn not the way of the heathen!"
Paul said: "Be not conformed to this world."
Peter said:
1 Peter 1:14 As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance:
Peter is teaching that there are two ways of fashioning yourselves; two styles of living; two ways of being molded; two ways of being conformed:
1. after the former lusts that you desired when you were ignorant of the gospel and still unsaved. Peter, writing to Christians, asks them if they fashion themselves as the world does; if they follow the carnal desires of the flesh, if they live like the world, or:
2. If they fashion themselves after God, whom he describes in the following verses as "holy." So be ye holy in all manner of living. Is you life conformed to Christ in a holy way of living, or is it conformed to the world in a carnal way of living?
With all the tattoos that I have seen in my life: most from bikers (like the Hell's angels), or sailors, or people coming from an ungodly background, Peter asks should we imitate the former lifestyle that we fashioned ourselves after, even ignorantly? And the obvious answer is no! Why imitate the world?
The preceding verses of 1Cor.6:19,20 may indeed be speaking of fornication. But Paul draws a conclusion that is applicable to many situations, not just one situation.Click to expand...In other words, "context be damned, I need a straw man...quick!"Click to expand...
Your method of hermeneutics is sadly lacking here.Click to expand...This coming from a man who just attempted to convince me tattooing was wrong based on three verses that had nothing to do common, modern tattoing and pasting from a commentary in which the commentator says exactly what you are claiming was false.Click to expand...
How do you interpret 1Cor.8:13:Click to expand...We aren't talking about 1 Cor 8:13, we're talking about 1 Cor 6:19-20.Click to expand...
In the same way, Paul draws a general application that is not just restricted to fornication.Click to expand...No, he makes it clear from the context that he is speaking of fornication (not to mention that he goes so far as to specify "fornication").Click to expand...
DHKClick to expand...Click to expand... -
Originally posted by DHK:
Here is Young's Literal Translation. It should make it a bit more clear for you:Click to expand...
That is what the cutting of the flesh referred to. It was a specific pagan practice.Click to expand...
The previus verse talks of not rounding the corners of your head, or marring the corners of your beard. Again they were prohibitions at that time, but not related to "for the dead," just as tattooing is not related "for the dead." There is no grammatical justification for it.Click to expand...
Here is what Jamieson, Faucett, and Brown, say about the phrase "nor tattoo any marks on you."
[qb]First, JFB quoted the three above references, not me.Click to expand...Click to expand...Actually, you did quote them. They came from your post above.
I tend to agree with you that they have nothing to do with the subject at hand.Click to expand...
In other words no matter what evidence I present to you, you will remain unconvinced.Click to expand...
That's not evidence, that's throwing something against the wall, hoping it will stick.
You don't want to discuss 1Cor.8:13 and see the many applications that are derived from that verse, because it would be so devastating to your method of interpretation in 1Cor.6:19,20.Click to expand...No, I don't want to discuss it because it's irrelevant. You're trying to distract from the fact that you're misapplying this passage.
Show me the word "fornication" in 1Cor.6:19,20. It isn't there.Click to expand...
Paul is stating a principle, drawn from the previous verses.Click to expand...
It is a timeless principle, and has many applications--not restricted to simple fornication.Click to expand...Click to expand...Click to expand...Click to expand... -
Originally posted by Mike McK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />It is a timeless principle, and has many applications--not restricted to simple fornication.Click to expand...
"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 -
Originally posted by DHK:
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.Click to expand...
See how ludicrous your method of interpretation or hermeneutic becomes.Click to expand...
"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.Click to expand...
And this is exactly how you are interpreting 1Cor.6:19,20--strictly according to context without any further application.Click to expand... -
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 -
Originally posted by DHK:
I realize you have said nothing about 1Cor.8:13 Mike.Click to expand...
It is a question of hermeneutics.Click to expand...
Don't you know that hermeneutics is meaningless without a healthy does of exegetical integrity?
There is one interpretation, but many applications. You fail to consider that principle.Click to expand...
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. -
Leviticus 19:28 Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD.Click to expand...
1 Corinthians 6:19-20 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? 20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.Click to expand...
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 . . . -
Pete, you do all those things?
-
Originally posted by Pete Richert:
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.Click to expand... -
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:
Le 19:28
19:28 Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead,
nor print any {l} marks upon you: I [am] the LORD. (Geneva)
(l) By whipping your bodies or burning marks in them.
Verse 28. Any cuttings in your flesh for the dead] That the ancients were very violent in their grief, tearing the hair and face, beating the breast, &c., is well known. Virgil represents the sister of Dido "tearing her face with her nails, and beating her breast with her fists."Unguibus ora soror foedans, et pectora pugnis." AEn., l. iv., ver. 672.
Nor print any marks upon you] It was a very ancient and a very general custom to carry marks on the body in honour of the object of their worship.
All the castes of the Hindoos bear on their foreheads or elsewhere what are called the sectarian marks, which distinguish them, not only in a civil but also in a religious point of view, from each other. Most of the barbarous nations lately discovered have their faces, arms, breasts, &c., curiously carved or tattooed, probably for superstitious purposes. Ancient writers abound with accounts of marks made on the face, arms, &c., in honour of different idols; and to this the inspired penman alludes, Rev. xiii. 16, 17; xiv. 9, 11; xv. 2; xvi. 2; xix. 20; xx. 4, where false worshippers are represented as receiving in their hands and in their forehead the marks of the beast. These were called stigmata stigmata among the Greeks, and to these St. Paul refers when he says, I bear about in my body the MarkS (stigmata) of the Lord Jesus; Galatians vi. 17. I have seen several cases where persons have got the figure of the cross, the Virgin Mary, &c., made on their arms, breasts, &c., the skin being first punctured, and then a blue colouring matter rubbed in, which is never afterward effaced. All these were done for superstitious purposes, and to such things probably the prohibition in this verse refers. Calmet, on this verse, gives several examples. See also Mariner's Tonga Islands, vol. i. p. 311-313.Click to expand...
DHK
Page 2 of 2