Uncut Hair and the Nazirite Vow for Women

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Costeon

So this is how y'all understand 1 Cor 11.5-6?

5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with trimmed hair dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. 6 For if a woman has trimmed hair, let her also trim her hair. But if it is shameful for a woman to have trimmed hair or a shaved head, let her have untrimmed hair?

*So is this how you understand I Cor. 11.5-6?

5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with cropped hair dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. v6 For if a woman has cropped hair, let her also have cropped hair. But if it is shameful for a woman to have cropped hair or a shaved head, let her have uncropped hair?


*Got it - makes perfectly logical sense !

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by rdp

*Silly. Since you apparently just make things up as you go along, do you also believe in Bigfoot ? The verb "literally" means "to cut her hair." Sorry, but you're quite obviously out of soap.

Look, I'm kind of bored tonight, so I'm just goading you, so I can read your comebacks. I guess this is the way you like to unwind after a long day of caring for souls.

*"Literally, cut-her-hair" - I agree, it's not hard. Now you're slipping in context? LOL! Ummm, haven't you already informed us concerning BDAG that "regardless of the context the verb means the same?" You're a hoot John.

The verb means "shear." So when BDAG lists a verse that involves sheep to support their definition, it means shear its wool off. When they list verses or passages from Greek literature that involve human beings, it means shear off their hair. The verb in its various contexts refers to cutting off, shearing off, removing hair--as you would know if you would pay attention to what they say in their foreword.

In one earlier post I explained how BDAG presents their lexical data. I went through all the examples they give for keiro. Please go through them and show how they don't actually mean "cut off the hair short." You can start with the first example that they give after their suggested translations, I believe from Xenophon.

Oh, don't worry, if you act in person anything like you do on this forum you would not "find yourself in a church I pastor" very long

I would imagine anyone who doesn't abjectly submit to your pastoral authority or humbly accept your views probably doesn't last long.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

There is no point responding to him at this point.

*Finally, we agree on something - can't have rdp "returning the fire" to our scorn & ridicule after all...how dare him not bow to our double-standards !

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by rdp

*Finally, we agree on something - can't have rdp "returning the fire" to our scorn & ridicule after all...how dare him not bow to our double-standards !

Goodness. I am thankful my husband could never act like you. What a petty little man you are.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Costeon

Look, I'm kind of bored tonight, so I'm just goading you, so I can read your comebacks. I guess this is the way you like to unwind after a long day of caring for souls.

*Yes, what was I ever thinking by not bowing to your demand that I allow y'all to ridicule, scorn and question our integrity (all the while you desperately try to make God's Word of no affect )? Guess this is how you unwind from a busy day of worshiping God. Silly me, all my fault once again!

Originally Posted by Costeon

The verb means "shear." So when BDAG lists a verse that involves sheep to support their definition, it means shear its wool off. When they list verses or passages from Greek literature that involve human beings, it means shear off their hair. The verb in its various contexts refers to cutting off, shearing off, removing hair--as you would know if you would pay attention to what they say in their foreword.

*Nice dodge, but have already told you that I have read much of their foreword some years ago. If you would pay attention to their direct quote that I have provided on here twice you would know that their references are dependent on immediate context - which is not at all the same context as the verb appears in I Cor. 11. Hmm, seems like someone told you that for several weeks before I actually quoted it for you .

Originally Posted by Costeon

In one earlier post I explained how BDAG presents their lexical data. I went through all the examples they give for keiro. Please go through them and show how they don't actually mean "cut off the hair short." You can start with the first example that they give after their suggested translations, I believe from Xenophon.

*Umm, not hardly. Tell you what, you answer my many questions that I have asked you on here already and then I will gladly oblige you by simply pointing out to you (for about the 20th time) now that shame and mourning contexts are the same context as I Cor. 11 - and BDAG "explicitly" references the context of their examples in relation to I Cor. 11 - an entirely separate context (shall I post their direct quote for you again?).

*Here, let's start w. this direct question that I have posed to you repeatedly shall we?

Are you suggesting that meanings of terms used in shame, mourning, male vows, sheep - and the context of I Cor. 11 can be automatically transferred on to the meaning of I Cor. 11 "regardless of context" (your words above)?

Of course, you can continue to ignore your poor hermeneutics in this regard - hey, maybe no one will notice !

Originally Posted by Costeon

I would imagine anyone who doesn't abjectly submit to your pastoral authority or humbly accept your views probably doesn't last long.

*Yes, I usually give them a 60-day probation period to conform or subject them to the stretch rack in the basement ! I'm surprised you can even spell "pastoral authority" - did you have to use Google translate for that ?

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Goodness. I am thankful my husband could never act like you. What a petty little man you are.

*And what a hypocritical-little "Christian" woman you are. Now what?

*See how easy that was ?

[1ofthechosen]

You do realize in the English and the Greek language shorn or sheer or keiro does mean to cut, to cut off, to shave? It denotes a action of something being done, but it's not an exact term. It's like saying you compromised in English. It denotes something is done, but doesn't measure it.

The word shaven is specific, denoting a length. So knowing that what is Paul saying when he clearly references creation, and then tells you to be shorn is the same as being shaven. He is simply saying "any cut" as shorn means by definition is the same as being shaven!

Matter of fact you keep fighting for a length of shorn even "to cut off" could mean 1/8 of an inch it's not specific. Thats why the CEV and the GNT say It the way they do, denoting the unspecific of the word it comes from. So it's definitely saying "to have your hair cut at all, is the same as it being shaven, and if it's a shame to be shaven, then don't cut your hair at all."

That part I don't believe is disputable, but I'm seeing a head covering too, I think it's saying both. Not either or. But uncut hair and a head covering.

But verse 15 does say "But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering."
As we know the word "for" is "anti" in the Greek. Now, I just noticed Strong says "anti" is defined as "opposite, that is instead, or because of, rarely in addition to." I never seen that before either. So is this one of those rare cases? Brother Perkins is this the only Lexicon that renders that? I'm just wondering I only have Thayer and Strong's so i'm curious.

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by rdp

*Y'all started w. your smugness and I returned the fire - as I always will.

What is obvious is that anyone who doesn't immediately bow to your learned authority, as no doubt your congregation does, comes across as smug. It frustrates you--actually it's probably almost incomprehensible to you, after all you've mentioned all the Greek you've taken etc. and all your learning--that anyone doesn't just say, "Oh yes, pastor, you are right again."

The "kind of person" you're dealing with is someone who does not lay down at the feet of those who initiate nastiness - and demand that we bow to it. Silly rabbit, tricks are for kids. You have placed on full display for anyone to see that you can dish it out, but stomp your foot in denial and whining when the favor is returned. Nice try though John.

Obviously I'm not too worried about you and enjoy toying with your fragile ego. I will feel bad about it tomorrow, but for some reason I just keep responding to you.

*Right, and tell them that "context doesn't matter," that "mourning" and "nature" contexts demand the same word meanings, as you have told us and watch them howl you out of the room .

Nice fantasy. When they would howl is when you would tell them, "And, bless God, I also demand that the women in MY church wear skirts to their ankle!"

If I had the chance to talk to the authors of BDAG, I think I would say something like, "Why are you howling?"

"Well this pastor was telling us what our work really means."

"He didn't read your foreword?"

"Most don't! It would prevent a lot of mischief if they would."

"Indeed. Could you clarify something for me? In your foreword you explain that you put one word formal equivalents in bold italic type and say that you felt this one word sufficiently expresses the meaning of the Greek word. Now you use "shear" for your formal equivalent for keiro and give no other extended definitions to further explain what you mean. I note that for many many other words you do give multiple definitions and put those in bold non-italic type and then list all the evidence and examples for those various meanings. Since you don't do that here for keiro, again, I understand that you are saying that "shear" sufficiently expresses the meaning of keiro. So, since modern English speakers don't use "shear" for just a trim, I understand that you mean what we normally think of shearing means, that is, "removing hair." Now I notice that you list 1 Cor 11. 6 as an example of this meaning and I also notice that all the other examples you give for this definition involve various contexts or situations where they are clearly completely removing hair. The details are of course different but the basic idea of shearing off is there. Like with the sheep being sheared in Acts 8.32 and Paul cutting his hair off after his vow in Acts 18.18, and then the very interesting example that you list first right after your suggested definitions that you give to show us how to render the middle voice--by the way thanks for the specific references to those grammars. It saved me a lot of time looking for them and it also helped me see why you were offering those two translations; they represent the two main ways the middle could be expressed)--any ways, back to that very interesting example about the fall of Troy and Achilles' men and his concubine cutting off their hair and putting it on his corpse. Really interesting. So, you give one and only one definition "shear" and apply it to various contexts involving animals and men and women. (This reminds me of what Louw&Nida does as well.) So it seems to me that you actually mean that this verb means "remove hair," "shear it off" or "cut it short. Right?"

"Um, we defined it for modern English speakers as "shear" not "cut" and filled the entry with examples where they are cut off their hair short. Have you been talking to that same pastor?!"



Well I actually do feel bad for engaging in so much sarcasm in my posts this evening, so I will stop now.

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

BTW, did you ever answer this question. I'm sure he has some fun stuff for this?:

Oh yes I forgot about that one! I actually had already mentioned a couple of times that my wife doesn't cut her hair and I wouldn't dream of trying to undermine her conviction on this. (But this was about 600 pages back). No she doesn't generally braid her hair, usually just pulls it back in a bun. I like when she braids her hair though. It looks really pretty--a true ornament. :-)

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Costeon

What is obvious is that anyone who doesn't immediately bow to your learned authority, as no doubt your congregation does, comes across as smug. It frustrates you--actually it's probably almost incomprehensible to you, after all you've mentioned all the Greek you've taken etc. and all your learning--that anyone doesn't just say, "Oh yes, pastor, you are right again."

*Comical. You, by your own admission, have intentionally been ridiculing, scronrful (what you attempt to water down by calling it "goading" ), and questioned my integrity by charging me w. supposedly being "disingenuous"...but it was all just a joke and I'm "bombastic." Again, you did graduate elementary school didn't you?

*The only thing that is disappointing is how people like you & your fellow libs. fight so hard to render God's Word of no effect....and then seriously call yourselves "Christians." Mind-boggling.

*BTW, if you would wipe the froth from your mouth and simply scroll up you would see that I stated that you have actually had more Greek than I have, but, again, nice attempt to besmirch and sully my character. I declare, like Trinitarians and Democrats, you're virtually all the same in your unbridled double-standards...you simply can't help yourself.

Originally Posted by Costeon

Obviously I'm not too worried about you and enjoy toying with your fragile ego. I will feel bad about it tomorrow, but for some reason I just keep responding to you.

*Gotcha' - I respond to your "goads" (nice weasel word BTW) of scorn, ridicule, and ethics-questioning..and that means I'm "fragile" . Makes perfectly logical sense. I enjoy exposing your double-standards & poor hermeneutics (esp. when you so often provide the ammo.) - so we're having an equally good time !

Originally Posted by Costeon

Nice fantasy. When they would howl is when you would tell them, "And, bless God, I also demand that the women in MY church wear skirts to their ankle!"

*Do you play a lot of virtual-wii-games? All I would have to do is put their own finger on their own Greek words and "major commentary's" that you have repeatedly asked for. Already told you several times that I don't "demand" anything - but this is virtually always the tactics employed by ultra-liberals in their disdain of anything that smacks of authority. I put the Greek text itself on the screen for all to view and allow it to speak for itself. Quite liberating in fact (they love it) .

Originally Posted by Costeon

If I had the chance to talk to the authors of BDAG, I think I would say something like, "Why are you howling?"

"Well this pastor was telling us what our work really means."

"He didn't read your foreword?"

"Most don't! It would prevent a lot of mischief if they would."

*You seriously think we're supposed to sit here and listen to your "fantasy" conversation w. dead lexicographers? How very weird.

Originally Posted by Costeon

"Indeed. Could you clarify something for me? In your foreword you explain that you put one word formal equivalents in bold italic type and say that you felt this one word sufficiently expresses the meaning of the Greek word. Now you use "shear" for your formal equivalent for keiro and give no other extended definitions to further explain what you mean. I note that for many many other words you do give multiple definitions and put those in bold non-italic type and then list all the evidence and examples for those various meanings. Since you don't do that here for keiro, again, I understand that you are saying that "shear" sufficiently expresses the meaning of keiro. So, since modern English speakers don't use "shear" for just a trim, I understand that you mean what we normally think of shearing means, that is, "removing hair." Now I notice that you list 1 Cor 11. 6 as an example of this meaning and I also notice that all the other examples you give for this definition involve various contexts or situations where they are clearly completely removing hair. The details are of course different but the basic idea of shearing off is there. Like with the sheep being sheared in Acts 8.32 and Paul cutting his hair off after his vow in Acts 18.18, and then the very interesting example that you list first right after your suggested definitions that you give to show us how to render the middle voice--by the way thanks for the specific references to those grammars. It saved me a lot of time looking for them and it also helped me see why you were offering those two translations; they represent the two main ways the middle could be expressed)--any ways, back to that very interesting example about the fall of Troy and Achilles' men and his concubine cutting off their hair and putting it on his corpse. Really interesting. So, you give one and only one definition "shear" and apply it to various contexts involving animals and men and women. (This reminds me of what Louw&Nida does as well.) So it seems to me that you actually mean that this verb means "remove hair," "shear it off" or "cut it short. Right?"

*And Presto! - John is the victor and they all independently erase their carefully selected entries right? Why of course, what was I ever thinking? Next we'll send you over to UBS, Bauer, Louw-Nida, NIDNTTE, LXX Dict., Oxford Univ., etc....so you can equally straighten' them out also . In fact, why don't you just write your own lexicon for all of them to use as their template?

Originally Posted by Costeon

"Um, we defined it for modern English speakers as "shear" not "cut" and filled the entry with examples where they are cut off their hair short. Have you been talking to that same pastor?!"

*I'm thinking they would point you to their entry below when you informed them that "context does not matter in your word definitions":

Hair of a person’s head, (long) hair of women (Xenophon Eph. 1, 2, 6; Achilles Tat. 8, 6, 8; the contexts of these reff. suggest that the hair of the female characters was long) 1 Cor 11:15, of hair without spec. ref. to length, a matter that is treated in the clause that precedes.

*But, of course, according to John - they probably don't mean what they said here either .

Originally Posted by Costeon

Well I actually do feel bad for engaging in so much sarcasm in my posts this evening, so I will stop now.

*I see, of course, I will now humbly submit myself in sackcloth and ashes to your repeated "goads" about my character .