Hair and Nature?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by justlookin

I think it's subjective.

I've found that men who let their hair grow long (whatever long is) never 'fixes' it, it's long and it's flowing freely. On the other hand, women with long hair (whatever long is) will many times style their hair so that it's really no longer, in appearance, than women who have shorter (whatever shorter is) hair. For example, both women will expose the neck in their hair styles. So, what's the difference between the woman who has longish (whatever longish is) hair that is above the shoulders and the woman who styles her hair, though it be longer (whatever long is) so that it's appearance is the same as the woman with the shorter hair?

Here's a couple of examples, one with hair longer than the other but visually about the same.





In my subjective view, the woman's hair in the top image is more appealing. Is that nature telling me, instructing me, or is that just visually a personal preference? And would the bottom hair length be long on a man?

Back to the question of how short is short and how long is long. Or maybe the question should be what is short and what is long?

No. See definition of what Nature means in first post.

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

No. See definition of what Nature means in first post.

ok, well, definitions of any word morph over time, Prax; i note your def did not encompass my def...well, maybe peripherally. the lexicon (which is prolly as bad as a new strong's ) seemed to vary...

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by shazeep

ok, well, definitions of any word morph over time, Prax; i note your def did not encompass my def...well, maybe peripherally. the lexicon (which is prolly as bad as a new strong's ) seemed to vary...

They morph over time so we can pick and choose which ever we want?

My Lexicon is as bad as a Strongs? And you say that why?

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

They morph over time so we can pick and choose which ever we want?

ah no, don't know about that--i think one should pick the def--when there are multiple possibilities--that fits the situation. Our understanding of the def of Nature didn't seem to make sense to me here (either), so i was just trying some new shoes on there. Like a "hope" = 'confident expectation' thing.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

My Lexicon is as bad as a Strongs? And you say that why?

oh, hmm, i meant the lex quote that I gave for "Nature," (i think), and i just noted that your orig def wasn't part of it? Biblehub, for what it's worth. Surely yours is better. I just found a resource for the old Strong's, interestingly enough, hmm

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by shazeep

ah no, don't know about that--i think one should pick the def--when there are multiple possibilities--that fits the situation. Our understanding of the def of Nature didn't seem to make sense to me here (either), so i was just trying some new shoes on there. Like a "hope" = 'confident expectation' thing.
oh, hmm, i meant the lex quote that I gave for "Nature," (i think), and i just noted that your orig def wasn't part of it? Biblehub, for what it's worth. Surely yours is better. I just found a resource for the old Strong's, interestingly enough, hmm

I won't use Strongs. Strongs is outdated. It's mostly a concordance not a comprehensive lexicon and it really only gives a list of how words are translated in the KJV.

Also it tends to lump everything under one heading. For example the Greek word for one. There are three genders and the gender can affect the meaning or use but Strongs does not really tell you that. It lumps them all under the masculine Heis. So people wrongly think every greek word is Heis for One

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I won't use Strongs. Strongs is outdated. It's mostly a concordance not a comprehensive lexicon and it really only gives a list of how words are translated in the KJV.

Also it tends to lump everything under one heading. For example the Greek word for one. There are three genders and the gender can affect the meaning or use but Strongs does not really tell you that. It lumps them all under the masculine Heis. So people wrongly think every greek word is Heis for One

I remember this conversation. I don't see Strong's as a useless tool at all. After all the lengthy pontificating, Strong's usually, IMO, nutshells with the same information.

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...&postcount=225

Quote from RPD;
Prax, while it is true that the neuter hen generally means "one" in the sense of unity, as I would imagine you know, there are numerous places in the NT where it can also means "one" in person.

Romans 12:5 So we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.

The above verse will perhaps help illustrate what I am saying. Here is the exact parsing of the verse:

http://interlinearbible.org/romans/12-5.htm

As you will see, the first "one," as in "one body" is the neuter sing. "hen," while the second "one," as in "individually members 'ONE' of another" is the masc. sing. heis. And, it even contains the same plural verb (ἐσμεν/esmen) as in Jn. 10.30.

The "one" that appears in the independent clause could be taken to mean "one person" inasmuch as "one body" is never more "one person." Conversely, it could also be interpreted to mean "one in unity" due to "many members" clearly are not "one person." Here is where context will enter the picture to be the final judge.

However, the "one" that appears in the dependent clause is clearly talking about "one 'individual' person" (talk about demolishing the "multiple-divine-persons," or "Trinity".....the Masc. Sing. does it!).


Personally, due to context, I think Jesus intended one-person in Jn. 10.30 based upon the response of those standing on the spot. "You being a man are MAKING YOURSELF GOD."

There was something in the force of His usage of "one" which caused them understand His assertion as a statement of identity as not just "in unity" with the Father....But in reality "making yourself God."

28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.”


He seems to be telling them, "I and the Father have the same Hand....We are 'ONE'." This is what incited the Jews extreme anger, whereas, IMO, a statement of "unity" would not have elicited their precise wording (esp. since the pious Pharisee's-Chief Priests made the same assertion all the time).

Just some random musings...........

[justlookin]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

5 sn Paul does not mean nature in the sense of "the natural world" or "Mother Nature." It denotes "the way things are" because of God's design.

Originally Posted by justlookin

Or maybe the question should be what is short and what is long?

Originally Posted by Praxeas

No. See definition of what Nature means in first post.

What conclusion would you come to when you apply the definition you posted in the first post to the photos above? In other words, which photo is showing God's design?

We then can take the answer and apply it to these photos.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by justlookin

What conclusion would you come to when you apply the definition you posted in the first post to the photos above? In other words, which photo is showing God's design?

We then can take the answer and apply it to these photos.

The definition was applied to a word used in scriptures, not yours nor mine subjective feelings regarding pictures

[justlookin]

Originally Posted by justlookin

I think it's subjective.

I've found that men who let their hair grow long (whatever long is) never 'fixes' it, it's long and it's flowing freely. On the other hand, women with long hair (whatever long is) will many times style their hair so that it's really no longer, in appearance, than women who have shorter (whatever shorter is) hair. For example, both women will expose the neck in their hair styles. So, what's the difference between the woman who has longish (whatever longish is) hair that is above the shoulders and the woman who styles her hair, though it be longer (whatever long is) so that it's appearance is the same as the woman with the shorter hair?

Here's a couple of examples, one with hair longer than the other but visually about the same.





In my subjective view, the woman's hair in the top image is more appealing. Is that nature telling me, instructing me, or is that just visually a personal preference? And would the bottom hair length be long on a man?

Back to the question of how short is short and how long is long. Or maybe the question should be what is short and what is long?

Originally Posted by justlookin

What conclusion would you come to when you apply the definition you posted in the first post to the photos above? In other words, which photo is showing God's design?

We then can take the answer and apply it to these photos.

BUMP.

[johnny44]

Originally Posted by justlookin

What conclusion would you come to when you apply the definition you posted in the first post to the photos above? In other words, which photo is showing God's design?

We then can take the answer and apply it to these photos.

The two male pictures reminded me of something that happened at work.Electrician short hair man drilling down thru ceiling to run wire thru hole.Long hair man inside room just below I think he was drilling holes thru wall to run wire also.Drills are run by air that had ports that let air out that blew by your face.Short hair guy drilling down long hair guy drilling below with air blowing by face and long hair comes in contact with drill bit.It was ahair raising event or should I say pulling.