Biblical Hair Study

[Coonskinner]

Originally Posted by RevDWW

What do you make of this?

God allowed, and even encouraged, many things in the Old Testament that were unacceptable in the New Covenant.

That is a very elementary Scriptural concept.

[Scott Hutchinson]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Could you explain a little more in detail?

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/

http://www.amazon.com/Threat-Within-...d_bxgy_b_img_b

Well would not shorn mean to have the hair cut close ?,shaven mean entirely shaved with a razor.
I'm looking at Vincent's word studies in the new testament.

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by Neckstadt

None of the following are sin...... Shame, Shorn, Shaven, Prophesieth, Covering.

None of it adds up to sin.

If it were a sin the Apostle you choose to lable the commandment Apostle (Paul) does not call it a Sin.

"Paul called it a shame, but not a sin", [so therefore its ok?] ?? What kind of argument is that?

I keep hearing people say that it was a shame, but not a sin for a man to have long hair.

Even if that were the case, why would any Christian want to do something the bible describes as being a shame? Makes no sense to me.

...

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Scott Hutchinson

Well would not shorn mean to have the hair cut close ?,shaven mean entirely shaved with a razor.
I'm looking at Vincent's word studies in the new testament.

Ok, shave means bald like you and cut means to clip.

you have to remember that the Greeks used these words in everyday life, and so there meanings didn't just mean to crop close to the head. Cut from the tip all the way to the scalp is still cutting in our own English, the same applies to the Greek.

I hope this helps.

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/

http://www.amazon.com/Threat-Within-...d_bxgy_b_img_b

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Scott Hutchinson

Not to be arguemenative,but if a man had hair down past his shoulders and trimmed the ends would he then have short hair?
I do believe men and women are to have differning hair lengths and be gender distinctive in their appearance.

Brother Scott the idea is that a man not look like a woman.

Plain and simple, and therefore the man's hair was short just like the religious Jews and Romans of that time.

Hence the reason that Paul called it Vile and DISGUSTING that a man have long hair.

Women if they leave their hair unhindered by cutting can have all types of length, but a man was to have short hair.

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/

http://www.amazon.com/Threat-Within-...d_bxgy_b_img_b

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Could you explain a little more in detail?

Originally Posted by Scott Hutchinson

Not to be argumentative,but if a man had hair down past his shoulders and trimmed the ends would he then have short hair?
I do believe men and women are to have differing hair lengths and be gender distinctive in their appearance.

Originally Posted by Scott Hutchinson

Well would not shorn mean to have the hair cut close ?,shaven mean entirely shaved with a razor.
I'm looking at Vincent's word studies in the new testament.

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Ok, shave means bald like you and cut means to clip.

you have to remember that the Greeks used these words in everyday life, and so there meanings didn't just mean to crop close to the head. Cut from the tip all the way to the scalp is still cutting in our own English, the same applies to the Greek.

I hope this helps.

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Brother Scott the idea is that a man not look like a woman.

Plain and simple, and therefore the man's hair was short just like the religious Jews and Romans of that time.

Hence the reason that Paul called it Vile and DISGUSTING that a man have long hair.

Women if they leave their hair unhindered by cutting can have all types of length, but a man was to have short hair.

Benincasa, if I can clarify what it seems like Scott might have been suggesting here ... (Scott, correct me if I'm off on this)

Paul says a woman's hair should not be shorn (greek word - keiro). The literal word there is "shorn" (grk - keiro), not "cut" (grk - copto). So if a woman's hair was way down her back, then she cut it to shoulder length, the hair would still be long, even though it had been cut. But it would not have been shorn, since shorn refers to hair being cut very close-cropped. Thus, she would still be gender distinctive in her appearance, as opposed to her husband who would have short hair.

...

[Rev]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

Benincasa, if I can clarify what it seems like Scott might have been suggesting here ... (Scott, correct me if I'm off on this)

Paul says a woman's hair should not be shorn (greek word - keiro). The literal word there is shorn (grk - keiro), not cut (grk - copto). So if a woman's hair was way down her back, then she cut it to shoulder length, the hair would still be long, even though it had been cut. But it would not have been shorn, since shorn refers to hair being cut very close-cropped. Thus, she would still be gender distinctive in her appearance, as opposed to her husband who would have short hair.

...

I totally disagree. I put five Greek - English word studies on the front page that also disagree with you. Dr. Treese also disagrees with you.

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by Rev

I totally disagree. I put five Greek - English word studies on the front page that also disagree with you. Dr. Treese also disagrees with you.

Fine.
I dont need to argue with you, Dr. Treece, or anyone else on this.

I just posted in order to clarify to Ben what I thought Scott was trying to say.

I'm more passionate about winning souls, than arguing about hair, standards, etc.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

Benincasa, if I can clarify what it seems like Scott might have been suggesting here ... (Scott, correct me if I'm off on this)

Paul says a woman's hair should not be shorn (greek word - keiro). The literal word there is shorn (grk - keiro), not cut (grk - copto). So if a woman's hair was way down her back, then she cut it to shoulder length, the hair would still be long, even though it had been cut. But it would not have been shorn, since shorn refers to hair being cut very close-cropped. Thus, she would still be gender distinctive in her appearance, as opposed to her husband who would have short hair.

...

The Greek word katakalupto means to totally cover completely. This would indicate that the woman should have hair that covers her as totally as the veil would.

Therefore to cut or shave would be disgraceful, also meaning shameful as embarrassing. Yet the shame that is used referring to a man is Vile and Disgusting.

I hope that helps.

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/

http://www.amazon.com/Threat-Within-...d_bxgy_b_img_b

[Rev]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

Benincasa, if I can clarify what it seems like Scott might have been suggesting here ... (Scott, correct me if I'm off on this)

Paul says a woman's hair should not be shorn (greek word - keiro). The literal word there is shorn (grk - keiro), not cut (grk - copto). So if a woman's hair was way down her back, then she cut it to shoulder length, the hair would still be long, even though it had been cut. But it would not have been shorn, since shorn refers to hair being cut very close-cropped. Thus, she would still be gender distinctive in her appearance, as opposed to her husband who would have short hair.

...

(I Co 11:6) εἰ γὰρ οὐ κατακαλύπτεται γυνή, καὶ κειράσθω: εἰ δὲ αἰσχρὸν γυναικὶ τὸ κείρασθαι (root word being (κείρω) ἢ ξυρᾶσθαι, κατακαλυπτέσθω.

Not sure where you came up with your translation?