Uncut Hair and the Nazirite Vow for Women

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by rdp

I know and I completely agree (this is very good BTW) - but you have been demanding other passages that "explicitly says" that NT Christian women should not cut their hair (when I feel like I've presented you w. more than 1 already) - but my point is that there is only a sole passage that "explicitly says" that NT believers should not "forsake" their "assembling."

*You are smart enough to understand this point .

Thank you. What I'm trying to show here is that there are many other passages that show someone has to be an active member of a congregation. So regarding the doctrine of uncut hair, what I've been saying is that surely there are many verses that could be listed that point to uncut hair.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by rdp

[COLOR="Blue"][FONT="Georgia"]

*I know Bro. Bernard and I respect his scholarship, but I was contacted by many other preachers who felt like he went wayyy too soft on White in their debates. I completely agreed. Again, you are welcome to your opinion - but it's absolutely nothing more than just that.

Wayyy too soft? And you thought coming in like the Sheriff In Town was going to change his mind? We aren't taught to present the Gospel in that fashion to people who are lost and we are taught not to debate people who don't really want to listen.

*No, they are not. All three of these excellent translations adopt the rendering "to cut [her hair]" regarding the verb we have been discussing. And, I have more data that I will post soon on the viability of these translations (that Costeon informed us hardly anyone knew about...which is flatly false).



*And I have pointed out approx. 10 times on this thread that in their rendering "cut off all her hair" the NLT adds words that are found in no Greek MS that I am aware of (there's no textual variant listed here in my critical editions).

*However, when it comes to their rendering "it is a shame for a woman to cut her hair" - they reflect the exact wording of the Greek text. Honestly, at this point I don't know how else to communicate this fact.

Listen, let's take just one of your verses and focus on that. If you could be more plain and drop the added verbiage, it would help.
Remember, I am just a peon.

Please explain, in the way the scripture is constructed, why when it says that it is "a disgrace for a woman to shave her head or cut her hair" that it is not talking about the same thing when it says - BUT - "if she refuses to wear something on her head, let her cut OFF her hair."

He ends the whole instruction with - CUT OFF HER HAIR. OFF is a baseline measurement - OFF. OFF isn't a little - it is OFF.

My all caps are not for the purpose of yelling.

Originally Posted by rdp

Contemporary English Version
A woman should wear something on her head. It is a disgrace for a woman to shave her head or cut her hair. But if she refuses to wear something on her head, let her cut off her hair.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Costeon

Thank you. What I'm trying to show here is that there are many other passages that show someone has to be an active member of a congregation. So regarding the doctrine of uncut hair, what I've been saying is that surely there are many verses that could be listed that point to uncut hair.

Thank you. I, for one, didn't need the explanation. I got it the first time.

I plan on using your information and still believe it needs its own thread. Aside from the hair, this issue of not assembling ourselves is very important today!

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Hasn't Seagraves since changed his position?

Originally Posted by berkeley

I believe so.

I thought that change was concerning the KJV? Ask Praxeas. He knows more about this, I believe.

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by rdp

There are two questions about these translations: Which approach yields the more accurate translation? Is one superior to the other in its faithfulness to the revealed Scriptures? My frank opinion is that we need both types of translations.

In fact, I tell people in Bible study seminars that if they don’t know Hebrew or Greek, the best thing they can do is take a literal version like NASB or ESV as their control, then compare them to five or six others and ask why the TNIV or NLT translate the text differently. Then they get a feel for how to understand the passages better.

The basic problem with a literal approach is that no two languages communicate their meanings alike. What is a single word in one language will need to be translated by an entire phrase in another. Hebrew vocabulary is half as large as Greek, and both are much smaller than English.

This means that a single word in Greek or Hebrew will have to stand for many different terms in English. There can be as many as thirty to forty different possible translations of a biblical term in English. The choice of the correct option depends on both the context of the sentence and the idiom in the receptor language that best communicates that idea. The goal is to find which terms or phrases best communicate that original intention.

A classic error is the belief that the individual Hebrew or Greek term should always be translated by the same English word. In reality this would be a huge fallacy and twist the meaning of the text again and again. Rarely if ever does a term in any language always mean the same thing (e.g., “She snowed the teacher in her essay”). Context is everything, (**Seems like someone else told you that also?) and the choice of a term or phrase affects the meaning of the whole. [/I][/B][/COLOR]

I agree with this.

But sometimes there is one-to-correspondence. For example with keiro, BDAG says that the lone word "shear" adequately expresses the meaning of this Greek word.

Also, in the case of translations of 1 Cor 11.6, I listed formal equivalent translations, dynamic equivalent translations, and paraphrases that all translated the verb to mean removing the hair, not just a simple trim.

*Wrong - also used "until eternity" - caught ya' slippin' once again !

This is funny that you responded to this, I hope not seriously, since I was joking. There you go again high-fiving yourself again.

*Who says this is a "red herring?" Do you really know what a red herring is? You have misused it several times in this thread. Red herring is a logical fallacy that is an irrelevant topic introduced in an argument to divert the attention of readers [or listeners] away from the original issue.

I know what it means and agree with your definition, which is why I said this is what you have done several times, because it perfectly describes your actions.

You have in response to me using certain resources to rebut you have brought up that they are not Oneness or whatever as if that matters. It was a diversionary tactic on your part to bring up something that had no bearing on the issue at hand. Their views on the godhead or Acts 2.38 have nothing to do with whether or not they understand 1 Cor 11.6 accurately. The ironic thing is while you have brought this up against me several times you have based your whole argument on scholars who would reject if not despise your doctrine.

*And, why on earth would I concede what is completely false?

I had said that one translation has "cut" in both places keiro appears. Is this true or false?

I had said that two translations have "cut" in one of the places keiro appears while having something else for the other place it appears. Is this true or false?

Three highly regarded translations and their cumulative committee's of professional linguists render the verb in question as simply "to cut" as anyone can scroll up and read for themselves. This is honestly just plain weird that you keep denying this - and I've explained and demonstrated their additions (cf., e.g., NLT) until I could pass out. What do you do? Keep your fingers in your ears and keep repeating outright false information...very odd.

No, this is actually weird. First, I obviously have not denied in one place they translated the verb as "cut." I've said that multiple times. Second, you praise the NLT and CEV to high heaven when they support you, but when they don't support you, suddenly they have added to the Scripture--suddenly they cannot in fact be trusted. If the NLT, for example, is so great, why do you reject it and claim they have added to the Word of God? So they're great but not great in the same verse. Ok.

*And, if the church I pastor - or those who know me well - heard you make the claims above regarding me saving face to protect myself, they would howl you out of the room. You could not be more wrong if you tried.

Then your public forum persona is markedly different from what you are in person.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Wayyy too soft? And you thought coming in like the Sheriff In Town was going to change his mind? We aren't taught to present the Gospel in that fashion to people who are lost and we are taught not to debate people who don't really want to listen.

*Umm, no we're not. Paul debates w. the Jews ad-nauseum, and they surely didn't "want to listen" (cf. Acts 17.17; Rom. 10). Sorry, you can't just make things up.

*Yes, Elder Bernard was far too soft on White - and, for the second time I cannot tell you how many other pastors have communicated this to me personally. Believe whatever you want to believe.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Listen, let's take just one of your verses and focus on that. If you could be more plain and drop the added verbiage, it would help. Remember, I am just a peon.

*And I have already warned you that as long as you continue w. your typical (AFF) vitriol, scorn and ridicule I will not "drop" anything. I do not now - nor will I ever - post how you want me to. Capeesh?

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Please explain, in the way the scripture is constructed, why when it says that it is "a disgrace for a woman to shave her head or cut her hair" that it is not talking about the same thing when it says - BUT - "if she refuses to wear something on her head, let her cut OFF her hair."

*The "Scripture is constructed" like this:

εἰ γὰρ οὐ κατακαλύπτεται γυνή, καὶ κειράσθω· εἰ δὲ αἰσχρὸν γυναικὶ τὸ κείρασθαι ἢ ξυρᾶσθαι, κατακαλυπτέσθω.

*Most literal translation, with no English suppliers for euphony:

"If indeed not covers her head woman, also let her be shorn. If but shame woman to shorn or to shave, she is to cover her head."

*Though I have quoted and explained this numerous times on here already, as anyone can see for themselves, the words "off," "short," or "all her hair" as adopted in some of these translations (including the ones Costeon has marshaled) appear absolutely nowhere in the Greek text. Conversely, the term for "cut [her hair]" is seen in the verb κείρασθαι ("shorn" above).

*Maybe this will somehow help y'all (since I don't know how else to word this for y'all): http://biblehub.com/text/1_corinthians/11-6.htm

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

He ends the whole instruction with - CUT OFF HER HAIR. OFF is a baseline measurement - OFF. OFF isn't a little - it is OFF.

*This is nothing more than your theology - not "the Scriptures" themselves as shown above by directly quoting (for about the 5th time) this Greek text itself. If the originally-inspired grammar is allowed to stand on its own strength and to speak for itself, absolutely nothing is in this text about "cutting off short." However, "to cut the hair" is found in this same grammar in this setting...case closed .

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Costeon

Also, in the case of translations of 1 Cor 11.6, I listed formal equivalent translations, dynamic equivalent translations, and paraphrases that all translated the verb to mean removing the hair, not just a simple trim.

*I think you are assuming that "cut off" (which, again, does not appear in the linguistic encoding of this verb) denotes "short hair." I have already stated that I do believe this is a possible interpretation of this verb, but, it's just that - an interpretive gloss and not the actual Greek term itself...not to reiterate that UBS for translators explains the phrase "cut off" as "to cut or trim her hair."

*Simply, the grammar standing alone will always be my conclusive hermeneutical methodology. I well understand this places me outside of 98% of Pentecost, but, honestly, I don't care. I believe the Scriptures themselves and teach the churches I have pastored and the younger pastors that I am currently mentoring the same (i.e., Sola-Scriptura).

Originally Posted by Costeon

This is funny that you responded to this, I hope not seriously, since I was joking. There you go again high-fiving yourself again.

*Yea', was all in jest - although I was not "high-fiving myself again" (?).

Originally Posted by Costeon

I know what it means and agree with your definition, which is why I said this is what you have done several times, because it perfectly describes your actions.

*Actually, it perfectly does not - which is why I said you continue to misuse the expression - as I point out (again) below.

Originally Posted by Costeon

You have in response to me using certain resources to rebut you have brought up that they are not Oneness or whatever as if that matters. It was a diversionary tactic on your part to bring up something that had no bearing on the issue at hand. Their views on the godhead or Acts 2.38 have nothing to do with whether or not they understand 1 Cor 11.6 accurately. The ironic thing is while you have brought this up against me several times you have based your whole argument on scholars who would reject if not despise your doctrine.

*Completely wrong. For the 3rd time now (this is really just odd how I have to keep repeating myself to y'all?), it was you who appealed to the interpretations of translators and asked for "major commentaries." In response to your appeal (did you get that ?), I pointed out that these same "major commentaries" and translators would classify you and I as Hell-bound heretics.

*Oddly, every time I point this out you respond with, "Enough of your 'red herrings'!? Umm, say what? It was your polemics-methodology - not mine. It's not a "red herring," it's an appeal to consistent argumentation. Contra, I have never appealed to their interpretations, but rather the actual-raw-linguistic-data standing on its own merit. Sincerely, for the life of me, it's just plain odd that I have to keep saying the same thing over and over and over and over (?).

Originally Posted by Costeon

I had said that one translation has "cut" in both places keiro appears. Is this true or false?

I had said that two translations have "cut" in one of the places keiro appears while having something else for the other place it appears. Is this true or false?

*Anyone can read above where you (smugly) claimed: "rdp has ony 1 translation, rdp has only 1 translation, rdp has only 1 translation." {Gotta' love your "respectful tone" !}

*I have been pointing out that this is completely untrue. If we included BDAG, UBS, Louw-Nida, CEV, NLT, GNT (that you informed us no academics use ), and now, I provide the NIRV below - this equals 7 translations that say it is a shame for a woman to cut or trim her hair in I Cor. 11.6.

{NIRV}: What if a woman does not cover her head? She might as well have her hair cut off. But it is shameful for her to cut her hair or shave her head. So she should cover her head.

*See how they use the phrase "cut off" - then translate it as simply "to cut her hair"? I realize you think this solidifies your point, and it may be the case as I have already stated - but it could equally solidify my point. So, unless I am misunderstanding you somehow, no, your assertions are flat false. Regardless, this has absolutely nothing to do w. the Greek text itself.

Originally Posted by Costeon

No, this is actually weird. First, I obviously have not denied in one place they translated the verb as "cut." I've said that multiple times. Second, you praise the NLT and CEV to high heaven when they support you, but when they don't support you, suddenly they have added to the Scripture--suddenly they cannot in fact be trusted. If the NLT, for example, is so great, why do you reject it and claim they have added to the Word of God? So they're great but not great in the same verse. Ok.

*Below you chide me for my "public forum persona" - then, as anyone can scroll up view for themselves, you continue to make your ridiculing remarks of derision and scorn - and then deflect responsibility for your actions and blame me . Psst, take your own medicine before you write prescriptions for me.

*Secondly, for about the 10th time now, here is the actual Greek text:

εἰ γὰρ οὐ κατακαλύπτεται γυνή, καὶ κειράσθω· εἰ δὲ αἰσχρὸν γυναικὶ τὸ κείρασθαι ἢ ξυρᾶσθαι, κατακαλυπτέσθω.

"If indeed not covers her head woman, also let her be shorn. If but shame woman to shorn or to shave, she is to cover her head." {http://biblehub.com/text/1_corinthians/11-6.htm}

*Though I have quoted and explained this numerous times on here already, as anyone can see for themselves, the words "off," "short," or "all her hair" as adopted in some of your selected translations appear absolutely nowhere in the Greek text. Conversely, the term for "cut [her hair]" is indeed seen in the verb κείρασθαι ("shorn" above).

*There is no question if the NLT "suddenly added to the Scripture" in 11.6a - it is a 100% verifiable fact for all the world to view above! If you continue to deny this then please show us the Greek adjective for "all" (pas) in this Greek text:_________? I have asked you this 4 times already and you have not answered, but just continue to stubbornly parrot your erroneous claims. You think there might be a wee-little reason you cannot provide any response ?

*No, what is weird is that you keep making the same charges when they're demonstrated to be utterly false (unless we're shooting over each others heads?).

Originally Posted by Costeon

Then your public forum persona is markedly different from what you are in person.

*Oh, you mean my "public forum persona" that has complimented you, apologized to you, and responded to your smugness? Yea', gotcha' !


*Again, you need to look in your medicine cabinet - I'm pretty sure you will find a pill bottle w. your name on it for the symptoms you charge me with !

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by rdp

*Yes, Elder Bernard was far too soft on White - and, for the second time I cannot tell you how many other pastors have communicated this to me personally. Believe whatever you want to believe.

Too bad all these pastors who would have been harder on White weren't known or qualified enough to be challenged by White to a debate.

*And I have already warned you that as long as you continue w. your typical (AFF) vitriol, scorn and ridicule I will not "drop" anything. I do not now - nor will I ever - post how you want me to. Capeesh?

Anybody can go read from about page 8 when you started posting in this thread to see who started with the bluster and mocking and questioning motives and who has made an art of it throughout this post.

For argument's sake, let's just say we started it all. Why don't you lead the way and not be this way--not return fire as you have described? As a pastor and apologist you would be an especially good example to follow.

*Though I have quoted and explained this numerous times on here already, as anyone can see for themselves, the words "off," "short," or "all her hair" as adopted in some of these translations (including the ones Costeon has marshaled) appear absolutely nowhere in the Greek text.

So again according to your correction of them, the CEV and NLT are no good for this verse.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Costeon

If you think that, you (and Amanah) didn't understand what I meant. I said really nothing more than what I said on page 1 (!) of this thread.

"But does "shorn" simply mean "to cut"? If someone looked the word up in a Greek lexicon, they might be able to maintain this definition, but the meaning of words is not determined by looking at a lexicon or dictionary alone; you have to look up the contexts in which the word occurs to determine the range of meaning of this word and to truly understand the lexicon definition."

Of course this was before I had read the foreword of BDAG and realized you and I had not been talking about the entry for keiro as they intended, and I didn't fully understand how they presented the lexical data. It was only after reading the foreword did I realize, according to their own words and not our interpretations of their words, they give one only one definition for keiro, "to shear." If I would have read the foreword before page 1 of this thread I would have already known that BDAG does not list several meanings for keiro based on varied contexts, as they do for many other words, but gives only the one-word formal equivalent shear for all the contexts the verb appears in.

Still the general point I made on page 1 stands. The full meaning of words is seen in the context of actual Greek texts. You have taken their one definition and tried to make it have various meanings. I have showed how all the verses from the Bible and the passages from secular Greek literature they list as evidence for the meaning "shear" or the evidence listed after their suggested translations to bring out the significance of the verb being in the middle voice involve cutting short the hair.

*I have repeatedly stated that the verb enjoys a semantic range. But you are opting for "to cut short" when this is not what the most authoritative lexicographers in existence plainly state.

*I really don't see much else to respond to here, other than to point out that the immediate biblical context will be what defines the meaning - as apparently all of these lexicographers have concluded (& again, every Greek prof. I've ever listened to has affirmed).

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Costeon

Anybody can go read from about page 8 when you started posting in this thread to see who started with the bluster and mocking and questioning motives and who has made an art of it throughout this post.

*And anyone can read where I apologized for any terse remarks, complimented your research skills and character, etc. - all the while y'all continued to post ridiculing remarks and scorn (typical for libs)...then complain when the favor is returned. Sorry, doesn't work that way - and never will for me.

Originally Posted by Costeon

For argument's sake, let's just say we started it all. Why don't you lead the way and not be this way--not return fire as you have described? As a pastor and apologist you would be an especially good example to follow.

*Behold the double standards. Here's a couple of verses for you:

A false balance is an abomination to the LORD, But a just weight is His delight. (Proverbs 11.1)

The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God. (Deut. 22.5)


*Any man who will condemn in others what he excuses in himself might as well go put on a dress - since both are designated as "an abomination to the LORD" .

*And, as a "Christian" surely you should have some "examples" for us to "follow" ?

Originally Posted by Costeon

So again according to your correction of them, the CEV and NLT are no good for this verse.

*LOL - nice try. Deal w. the actual textual evidence I have presented above instead of your "red herrings" (not "my correction" - it's the Greek text itself) .

*Since I'm such a fair feller', here's the question once again:

Where does the Greek adjective "all" (πᾶν) appear below in 11.6a:__________?

εἰ γὰρ οὐ κατακαλύπτεται γυνή, καὶ κειράσθω· εἰ δὲ αἰσχρὸν γυναικὶ τὸ κείρασθαι ἢ ξυρᾶσθαι, κατακαλυπτέσθω.

*Waiting....