Apostolic Friends Forum - Head Coverings

Apostolic Friends Forum (https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/index.php)

- Fellowship Hall (https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=7)

- - Head Coverings (https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=24172)

Re: Head Coverings

Quote:

Originally Posted by Falla39 (Post 749985)

Not to offend, but that's not what I see Paul saying. Her hair is given FOR
a covering. God-given. But if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or
shaven, let her be covered. With what? Her GOD-given covering. i.e., let
her hair grow as God gave it for a covering.

Hugs,

Falla39

Very simple in indeed.

Re: Head Coverings

Quote:

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace* (Post 749993)

But you didn't address the first part of the scripture:

6For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn

If 'not covered' means she has cut her hair, or has short hair, then what he is saying is:

For if the woman have short hair, let her cut her hair short. (which is what shorn means)

That makes no sense at all. He is talking about an additional headcovering, such as they wore in those days. If she won't wear that headcovering, let her go ahead and cut all of her hair off, too, because they're both a shame. Wearing no headcovering, or having her hair cut off short.

During Paul's time it was a scandal for a married woman to cast off her headcovering. It was considered a sign of submission and modesty.

It was also a shame for a woman to have her head shaved, or her hair cropped closely (shorn).

I answered you.:thumbsup

Re: Head Coverings

Quote:

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace* (Post 749994)

I agree.

(and I'll mention once again, in case anyone thinks I have a dog in this fight ;) , that I have never cut my hair. But I do care about not taking my views and twisting scripture to say what I want it to say. Just because our churches have always taught against women cutting their hair doesn't mean that we get to twist and turn the scriptures until they back up our doctrine.

Look up the word 'hair' every time it's used in the Bible. You'll find that the Bible is amazingly quiet about women's hair.)

When the discussions first began on FCF I posted EVERY passage in the Bible concerning women's hair it was quite telling I thought.

Re: Head Coverings

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Epley (Post 750036)

I answered you.:thumbsup

Yes, I know you did, but I still disagree with your interpretation of it. ;)

Re: Head Coverings

Quote:

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace* (Post 750040)

Yes, I know you did, but I still disagree with your interpretation of it. ;)

Wellllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll if you choose to be wrong nothing I can do.:thumbsup:thumbsup

Bible speaks of being willingly ignorant.:thumbsup

Re: Head Coverings

Quote:

Originally Posted by Twisp (Post 750017)

Not only conceivably, but correct. Same as in toenails, fingernails, or hair. The parts we see are dead cells, which is why it does not hurt when we cut our toenails, fingernails, or hair. I am not limiting the word "grow". It is just a fact that no matter how short you cut your hair, unless you actually damage the follicles, you are not keeping your hair from growing.

As for the definition, Strong's does not list it as uncut. The Thayer definition you gave us was to let the hair grow, or to have long hair. The Greek Lexicon of the NT you gave us only said that in some languages it may be necessary to translate it as "to let one's hair grow long" or "to not cut one's hair". You have not posted a definitive definition yet that says "to let the hair grow" as meaning to not cut the hair.

The growing part and the length part are two separate issues. I agree that women should have some kind of separation, since that seems to be in line with the Bible. I just don't think that means uncut, since the Bible is mum on that. The issue here isn't uncut, but how long.

You ARE limiting the word "grow" or the phrase "to let grow" to only the follicles when the text says "hair".

Like I said, the definition is "to let the hair grow" and because in some languages that does not give the desired meaning it is better to translated it as uncut hair. The bible isn't mum on that...we just read it.

The issue IS uncut because the issue IS how long...how long? Let it grow. In other words long is to let it get as long as it can grow.

That does not necessarily mean "never cut it" or more specifically trim it.

It seems pretty simple to me. It's one thing to maintain healthy hair by cutting off split ends. It's another to maintain a certain shorter length by cutting in such a way as to limit the hair getting longer than it is.

In certain languages it would be necessary to say "uncut" because in certain languages they don't understand what "to let grow" means

BTW there may be a word for "uncut"...however this word we are discussing is neither a word for hair or long. It means long hair. So let me ask, if this is not the right word, what greek word is there for "uncut hair"?

Also....did Samson not cut his hair at all or did he cut 1 inch above the follicles in letting his hair grow?
Num 6:5 All the days of his vow to separate, no razor shall come upon his head. Until all the days are fulfilled in which he separates to Jehovah, he shall be holy. He shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow.

Re: Head Coverings

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve epley (Post 750041)

wellllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll if you choose to be wrong nothing i can do.:thumbsup:thumbsup

bible speaks of being willingly ignorant.:thumbsup

lol.

;)

Re: Head Coverings

Quote:

Originally Posted by freeatlast (Post 749990)

I have felt for years that Paul was using the shame of being shorn as an analogy.

It is known that a common custom was for a woman to be publiclly humiliated by by having her hair shorn for commiting certain sins in the culture that Paul is addressing.

It is clear that he refers to a physical veil that he asks the women to wear when "in church" (praying or prophesying)

I feel Paul was saying, if you married women won't honor your husband by wearing a veil in church you bring a shame upon yourself just as bad as the woman who is publiclly shorn as a punishment.

Paul further emphasizes the need for men not to wear a veil and women to wear one by making another analogy using the difference in hair style or lengths of men and women.

There is absolutly no command in 1 Cor 11 or anywhere else in old or new testamant that even hints that a female can not cut /trim some of the length of her hair of her own volition.

I Cor is not about hair at all. It addressed the "cultural custom", (which was not a commandment, just a local custom....in places of worship ie church. :foottap

There is record I have read of that there was also a PAGAN practice of men veiling and woman not veiling in idolatrous worship of idols, which helps me see why Paul addressed men to not wear a veil in temple/church.

When we fail to exegete bible doctrine without veiwing the content and context and culture and practices of the people it was addressed to, we run the risk of getting it quite wrong.

Re: Head Coverings

I didn't read your post until just now, freeatlast, so thanks for bumping. :D

Re: Head Coverings

I haven't posted here, because Bro. Epley responded back to something I wrote, and he referenced the words for covered in 1 Cor 11, one being an adjective and one being a verb, and I have yet to look it up, because I'm in "final exam mode" right now. If someone else posted a response I'd be interested to see it. However, I am on my lunch break at work, so I have a minute to post a question I am wondering about for uncut hair people.

Have the uncut hair people considered/reconciled/explained, the fact that no flesh is to glory in GOD's prescence, and that the hair is the woman's NOT GOD's glory, and that with her hair being uncovered she is glorying in the prescence of GOD? That's a popular question among some headcoverers, and although I no longer believe in headcovering, I just happened to wonder about this question as I was reading the posts here.

-Bro. Alex