Wedding Rings - Page 70

Steve Epley · #**691** 05-21-2007, 09:56 PM

There nothing in the parable of the prodigal son that indicates the ring was jewelry as such but probably a signet ring which was used as a seal of authority that sometimes was on a leather strap placed on the HAND not finger. If this was for ornamentation where is the evidence the robe and shoes were not ornamental but showing his acceptance back into the family and with the ring it proves he was given full acceptance.

Scott Hutchinson · #**692** 05-21-2007, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NobodyImportant

I can't answer for others, but I can honestly say that I do not spend a great deal on these things. They're just clothes.
My wife does not plait her hair or style it for that matter. That would be inconsistent with scripture.
Who used that word anyway?
NI

See 1 Peter 3:3 Plaiting means twisted or woven.Intertwing the hair in ornament ,can women wear their long uncut hair on top of their head without plaiting it ?

Scott Hutchinson · #**693** 05-21-2007, 10:01 PM

Wheter or not the signet ring was ornamental or not if it was a ring was it jewelery in a basic form ?

#**694** 05-21-2007, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott Hutchinson

See 1 Peter 3:3 Plaiting means twisted or woven.Intertwing the hair in ornament ,can women wear their long uncut hair on top of their head without plaiting it ?

Yes, they can and mine does.
My wife generally does a simple twist which is very becoming. It is not plaited in any way.
Irregardless, this does not shorten the hair, except in a temporary fashion. It is not permanent like when it is cut, at least until it grows out again.
Yes, I do believe in uncut hair on women.
NI

Truly Blessed · #**695** 05-21-2007, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

There nothing in the parable of the prodigal son that indicates the ring was jewelry as such but probably a signet ring which was used as a seal of authority that sometimes was on a leather strap placed on the HAND not finger. If this was for ornamentation where is the evidence the robe and shoes were not ornamental but showing his acceptance back into the family and with the ring it proves he was given full acceptance.

Regardless of the reason for the ring, it was still a ring! Following your logic here, then as long as a ring serves a purpose other than as an adornment, it is okay, which means my wedding ring is justified.

#**696** 05-21-2007, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truly Blessed

You have to understand that this is simply another one of those situations where God is being inconsistent!

Right,

I love situations like these. To the casual onlooker it seems to be a puzzling double standard, or an inconvenient exception, but to the real digger the real jewel (pun intended) is found in the Truth. Once found, it sheds light on the matter making all parameters and variables understandable. The pieces of the puzzle start to come together.

Steve Epley · #**697** 05-21-2007, 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truly Blessed

Regardless of the reason for the ring, it was still a ring! Following your logic here, then as long as a ring serves a purpose other than as an adornment, it is okay, which means my wedding ring is justified.

Your definition of this ring I am thinking is different than mine it does NOT say it was placed on his FINGER but on his hand and many pictures of signates I have seen are leather straps with this seal that is used to place in wax to seal a document not a piece of jewelry at all.

#**698** 05-21-2007, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truly Blessed

Regardless of the reason for the ring, it was still a ring! Following your logic here, then as long as a ring serves a purpose other than as an adornment, it is okay, which means my wedding ring is justified.

"Here's the pitch..."

Crack!

"It's going....it's going...it's gone!"

HOMERUN!

Scott Hutchinson · #**699** 05-21-2007, 10:09 PM

Certainly we should be modest ,and dress not in a seductive manner,but would something like gold glass frames be a sin.
I think a balance is needed here anything goes is wrong , but so is extreme legalism where calling things sinful that the word doesn't say is sinful is wrong as well.

#**700** 05-21-2007, 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Your definition of this ring I am thinking is different than mine it does NOT say it was placed on his FINGER but on his hand and many pictures of signates I have seen are leather straps with this seal that is used to place in wax to seal a document not a piece of jewelry at all.

The clarification is found in the greek word for ring which denotes that it was a finger ring.