Hair and Nature?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

No, Im not. I was quoting a Greek Lexicon...That was the words of Greek Authorities.

I wasn't speaking to you in general. I should have written that differently. My point was that it appears to reach outside of the Greek to define "long" in a number of other languages and I don't understand why it would be necessary to do that, which was also Newman's point.

They are also unsure as to whether the term is "letting the hair grow" or "not to cut the hair".

49.25 κομάω: to wear long hair as part of one’s attire—‘to have long hair, to appear with long hair, to wear long hair.’ γυνὴ δὲ ἐὰν κομᾷ δόξα αὐτῇ ἐστιν ‘if a women wears long hair, it is a pride for her’ 1 Cor 11:15. In a number of languages it may be necessary to translate κομάω as ‘to let one’s hair grow long’ or ‘not to cut one’s hair.’

Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. (1996). Vol. 1: Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: Based on semantic domains (electronic ed. of the 2nd edition.) (526). New York: United Bible Societies

With Paul being fully aware of the Nazarite Vow, I would wonder at his imposing a voluntary vow on all women for all time. Isn't that what that would teach if the "uncut" doctrine were being taught?

[Jermyn Davidson]

I am thinking that there might be a cultural context to this that we are not understanding-- as in maybe the pagan practice of some new Christian converts included women purposefully cutting their hair to look like men, but I admit I am not sure.

Also, the Apostles didn't mention this on their list for Gentile converts to observe-- another fact that makes me think that there has to be more to this than "Christian women must let their hair and not cut their hair (ever, more that twice a year, trimming the ends is ok, or whatever someone cimes up with).

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I wasn't speaking to you in general. I should have written that differently. My point was that it appears to reach outside of the Greek to define "long" in a number of other languages and I don't understand why it would be necessary to do that, which was also Newman's point.

They are also unsure as to whether the term is "letting the hair grow" or "not to cut the hair".



With Paul being fully aware of the Nazarite Vow, I would wonder at his imposing a voluntary vow on all women for all time. Isn't that what that would teach if the "uncut" doctrine were being taught?

Actually that does not seem the case to me. It seems that it defines the word then expresses the intent by saying in SOME languages it may need to be translated that way/

Remember this is a greek Lexicon. Greek lexicons try to tell us what a word should mean in OTHER languages (notably English)

Paul does not say he is imposing a vow. He never mentions the Hebrew scriptures.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

I am thinking that there might be a cultural context to this that we are not understanding-- as in maybe the pagan practice of some new Christian converts included women purposefully cutting their hair to look like men, but I admit I am not sure.

Also, the Apostles didn't mention this on their list for Gentile converts to observe-- another fact that makes me think that there has to be more to this than "Christian women must let their hair and not cut their hair (ever, more that twice a year, trimming the ends is ok, or whatever someone cimes up with).

There IS a cultural content. But that is the point to the topic. From the original quote it seems there isn't JUST a cultural content here but a Spiritual one as well

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Actually that does not seem the case to me. It seems that it defines the word then expresses the intent by saying in SOME languages it may need to be translated that way/

Remember this is a greek Lexicon. Greek lexicons try to tell us what a word should mean in OTHER languages (notably English)

Paul does not say he is imposing a vow. He never mentions the Hebrew scriptures.

If Paul is not imposing a view on the Nazarite vow, then how does a Greek lexicon get to impose the view with their definition of intent - "in some" languages it may need to be translated that way"? If not in all languages, how is that not confusing?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

If Paul is not imposing a view on the Nazarite vow, then how does a Greek lexicon get to impose the view with their definition of intent - "in some" languages it may need to be translated that way"? If not in all languages, how is that not confusing?

Paul does not MENTION that he is speaking of the Nazarite Vow. You are confusing imposing a theological view with an expert in languages addressing translation from one language to another.

Lexicons are dictionaries that inform us of what words mean.

Im not confused by it at all. I don't see the problem.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Paul does not MENTION that he is speaking of the Nazarite Vow. You are confusing imposing a theological view with an expert in languages addressing translation from one language to another.

Lexicons are dictionaries that inform us of what words mean.

Im not confused by it at all. I don't see the problem.

Well, lay side the Nazarite Vow. It came to mind when I started reading the thread and I wanted to throw it out there.

What is confusing to me is the Greek authorities are informing us that the word for long could be "let one's hair grow" OR "not to cut one's hair".

Those are two separate views and too confusing to make a doctrine out of, IMO. Because I don't think that "letting your hair grow" ALWAYS means you didn't ever cut it or at least trim it at some point.

However, if ALL languages stated, emphatically, "not to cut one's hair", that is another story.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Well, lay side the Nazarite Vow. It came to mind when I started reading the thread and I wanted to throw it out there.

What is confusing to me is the Greek authorities are informing us that the word for long could be "let one's hair grow" OR "not to cut one's hair".

Those are two separate views and too confusing to make a doctrine out of, IMO. Because I don't think that "letting your hair grow" ALWAYS means you didn't ever cut it or at least trim it at some point.

However, if ALL languages stated, emphatically, "not to cut one's hair", that is another story.

No...he is saying it means "To let the hair grow" BUT that it may be necessary to convey that idea in some languages by translating it as "not cut".

Some languages may not be able to convey the idea of "Just let your hair grow" or it does not translate well to some of us so it's necessary to translate it as "Don't cut it"

[justlookin]

One problem is the inability or unwillingness to apply scripture equally to men and women. If the scripture is indicating long hair = not cut, then a man could have hair down to his waist, as long as it cuts it, it's short hair and a woman not cutting it would have long hair. Usually though, it's about some objective length for man to have short hair but it's not about length for a woman, it's if she cuts it or not.

The application of scripture isn't consistent.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

No...he is saying it means "To let the hair grow" BUT that it may be necessary to convey that idea in some languages by translating it as "not cut".

Some languages may not be able to convey the idea of "Just let your hair grow" or it does not translate well to some of us so it's necessary to translate it as "Don't cut it"

So, you are saying that the actual meaning, "to let the hair grow" is actually saying, " don't cut it", but in other languages, they don't want to especially be misunderstood so they say, "but it may be necessary to convey that as uncut".