Biblical Hair Study

[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.

...