Did Paul let his hair grow long?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by ManOfWord

No he did not. Show me where. And before you use Cor. you had better look at your Greek NT and see what Paul really wrote and how it is completely mistranslated.


The sentence is a statement, not a question. The text reads: "Nature itself does not teach you that if a man has long hair it is a dishonor to him."

Nature teaches us that a man's hair grows long. It is the culture which teaches us that something is shameful or not......as long as it is not expressly prohibited in God's word.

Paul's letter was a response concerning an issue reportedly troubling the Corinthian church. Paul’s primary attention through the first portion of the passage was concerning head coverings. If men were to pray or prophesy with their heads covered (as Jews did and still do) they would dishonor their “head” (meaning Christ, for he is the head of every man). If a woman were to pray or prophesy with her head uncovered (or veiled) she was immodest in public and dishonored her “head” (her husband, for the man is the head of every woman). Paul states that if a woman will not be “covered” (veiled) she is just as modest as a woman who’s hair has been shaved or shorn (treatment issued to prostitutes caught in immoral acts). Paul then ties an argument from nature itself to emphasize that even nature teaches us that women should be veiled and men should be uncovered by pointing to hair as a natural example. Nature (the natural order) illustrates that it is a “shame” for a man to have long hair because long hair is a feminine attribute and nature itself appears to thin and shorten a man’s hair as he ages. And for a woman to have short hair is like being uncovered, for long hair is a woman’s glory.

Paul’s teaching essentially emphasized head coverings as propriety and modesty in worship, drawing an example from nature itself. But the shame of the feminine styles being worn by men of the day can be seen in the Hellenistic styles of that day.

[Tyk]

Originally Posted by ManOfWord

No he did not. Show me where. And before you use Cor. you had better look at your Greek NT and see what Paul really wrote and how it is completely mistranslated.


The sentence is a statement, not a question. The text reads: "Nature itself does not teach you that if a man has long hair it is a dishonor to him."

Nature teaches us that a man's hair grows long. It is the culture which teaches us that something is shameful or not......as long as it is not expressly prohibited in God's word.

Is that really a more accurate translation?

Because it seems like it makes more sense giving the setting

[1Corinth2v4]

Originally Posted by Sister Alvear

I asked this on the wrong thread. This question and the Nazarite vow has always been an interest to me...any serious thoughts about this?

Paul preached long hair was a shame on males....I doubt he was a hypocrite.

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by ManOfWord

No he did not. Show me where. And before you use Cor. you had better look at your Greek NT and see what Paul really wrote and how it is completely mistranslated.

The sentence is a statement, not a question. The text reads: "Nature itself does not teach you that if a man has long hair it is a dishonor to him."

Nature teaches us that a man's hair grows long. It is the culture which teaches us that something is shameful or not......as long as it is not expressly prohibited in God's word.

The preponderance of the available evidence contradicts this assertion.
The vast majority of bible translations render it as a question, not a statement.
I think it's quite a stretch to say that all these bible translators and Greek scholars got it wrong:

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him,
GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
Doesn't nature itself teach you that it is disgraceful for a man to have long hair?
King James Bible
Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
American King James Version
Does not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame to him?
American Standard Version
Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a dishonor to him?
Bible in Basic English
Does it not seem natural to you that if a man has long hair, it is a cause of shame to him?
Douay-Rheims Bible
Doth not even nature itself teach you, that a man indeed, if he nourish his hair, it is a shame unto him?
Darby Bible Translation
Does not even nature itself teach you, that man, if he have long hair, it is a dishonour to him?
English Revised Version
Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a dishonour to him?
Webster's Bible Translation
Doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man hath long hair, it is a shame to him?
Weymouth New Testament
Does not Nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair it is a dishonor to him,
World English Bible
Doesn't even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him?
Young's Literal Translation
doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man indeed have long hair, a dishonour it is to him?

[Tyk]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

The preponderance of the available evidence contradicts this assertion.
The vast majority of bible translations render it as a question.
I think it's quite a stretch to say that all these bible translators and Greek scholars got it wrong:

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him,
GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
Doesn't nature itself teach you that it is disgraceful for a man to have long hair?
King James Bible
Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
American King James Version
Does not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame to him?
American Standard Version
Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a dishonor to him?
Bible in Basic English
Does it not seem natural to you that if a man has long hair, it is a cause of shame to him?
Douay-Rheims Bible
Doth not even nature itself teach you, that a man indeed, if he nourish his hair, it is a shame unto him?
Darby Bible Translation
Does not even nature itself teach you, that man, if he have long hair, it is a dishonour to him?
English Revised Version
Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a dishonour to him?
Webster's Bible Translation
Doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man hath long hair, it is a shame to him?
Weymouth New Testament
Does not Nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair it is a dishonor to him,
World English Bible
Doesn't even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him?
Young's Literal Translation
doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man indeed have long hair, a dishonour it is to him?

good point

[COOPER]

Samson

[LUKE2447]

My personal belief is that Paul is arguing that women should wear veils and he brings the natural covering as support for the veils. I personaly don't think women should cut there hair as they should let it grow. I see no reason though that women should not wear veils as well as why would Paul use the argument of natural as the reason we should wear or not wear veils if it didn't matter and was only cultural. It would make no sense. The argument that Man of Word makes is poor at the very best. It's about as bad as "geber" argument on Deut 22:5 that has no support.

[LUKE2447]

People keep bringing up nazarite or samson as some how this makes 1 Cor 11 void. God uses distinction at times as a seperation from the norm or to mark one. The nazarite vow or any other type of vow in itself it sacred which in part goesbeyond the normal means. Hair in itself is not a sin but a natural God give distinction and honor before God. If God choose to use hair in a different way concerning some type of temporal consecration.... what's wrong with that?

[COOPER]

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

People keep bringing up nazarite or samson as some how this makes 1 Cor 11 void. God uses distinction at times as a seperation from the norm or to mark one. The nazarite vow or any other type of vow in itself it sacred which in part goesbeyond the normal means. Hair in itself is not a sin but a natural God give distinction and honor before God. If God choose to use hair in a different way concerning some type of temporal consecration.... what's wrong with that?

LONG hair is not a sin on a man preiod or the NAZERITE VOW IS OF SATAN!

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

People keep bringing up nazarite or samson as some how this makes 1 Cor 11 void. God uses distinction at times as a seperation from the norm or to mark one. The nazarite vow or any other type of vow in itself it sacred which in part goesbeyond the normal means. Hair in itself is not a sin but a natural God give distinction and honor before God. If God choose to use hair in a different way concerning some type of temporal consecration.... what's wrong with that?

I think in the end, people just see what they want to see.