Holiness Is Still Important

[*AQuietPlace*]

Originally Posted by proudfather

Study the issue of short hair in the old testament and you will find that on a woman, it was considered shameful.

I did a study and looked up every time the word 'hair' was used in the Bible, along with 'shorn', 'shaven', and every other variation of the word that would have anything to do with a woman cutting her hair.... and I didn't find that at all.

Completely shaving her head was shameful. As it would be today. Baldness is not a look women try to achieve (with very rare exceptions). That's why, if a woman gets cancer and loses her hair, she'll wear a cap, a scarf, a hat or a wig. Women do not at all like to be without hair. Men, on the other hand, can lose their hair from cancer, and won't bother wearing scarfs and hats. It's not so odd for a man to be without hair.

Right now, in 2010, if you see a woman who is completely bald, you assume she's had cancer. If you see a man who is completely bald, you don't even think about it. "Hair" is a woman thing, it is a woman's pride and joy, her beauty. So things haven't changed that much from the Old Testament times, concerning how women feel about their hair.

Shaving a woman bald does not even compare to a woman who trims and styles her hair nicely. That's not something the Bible condemns, not once as far as I could find.

[allstate1]

Originally Posted by proudfather

I don't remember when caffine was a sin. I never heard anybody preach against it. However, I do believe that we cons. have stepped out in the past and said some really stupid things. We've had to back off of some of those issues, because of natural progression. Television, is not included in this because it has only gotten worse throughout the years. I can't wait to see people's resonses to this one.

And we're off...

HMMM! Natural progression? Caffiene still does to the body what it did back then. The addictive nature was the sin, and caffiene has become no less addictive. Its just now these preachers need coffee to wake up in the morning!

[edjen01]

Originally Posted by proudfather

I don't remember when caffine was a sin. I never heard anybody preach against it. However, I do believe that we cons. have stepped out in the past and said some really stupid things. We've had to back off of some of those issues, because of natural progression. Television, is not included in this because it has only gotten worse throughout the years. I can't wait to see people's resonses to this one.

And we're off...

i've been around alittle longer than you...but probably not much...and here is a partial list of "sin" that i've heard preached....coffee, any drink/food that contains alcohol, women not wearing pantyhose, wearing the colors gold or red, playing checkers, going to the YMCA, joining the boys scouts, playing any sports on sundays, believing anything other than a pre-tribulation rapture, bowling, amusment parks(six flags/disney/etc..), wearing wedding rings, not wearing wedding rings, exposing your elbow, women wearing mens appearal(includes your wife putting on your t-shirt, shoes, or sweatshirt), having a christmas tree and onononononon.

How am I suppose to take these people seriously?? REALLY??

[edjen01]

Originally Posted by proudfather

I did not find your post offensive. The post before yours was a little more forceful and struck me as rude.

In response to your question, let's examine the words more closely:

The word "cover" in Verses 4-7 = "Katakalupto" - it means = "to veil, wholly cover"

The word cover in VS 15 = "Peribolaion" - it means = "to throw around" - also: "veil or mantle"

Katakalupto is a derivative of the root work "Kata" a preposition meaning = "down from, to cover or hide"

Zondervan Bible Dictionary noted that in the N.T., hair was a major distinguishing factor of the sexes.

PAUL WAS ANSWERING the CORINTH CUSTOM => He was not suggesting a break from that custom. In Corinth, to be without a veil would be a shame, therefore, if you’re not wearing one, then you might as well cut your hair also. (because in Corinth it would have the same effect)

SHAVEN: "to cut near the surface" make bare, smooth
SHORN: "to cut with shears" to remove by cutting

Study the issue of short hair in the old testament and you will find that on a woman, it was considered shameful.
Judgment begins at God’s house... (conversion) This issue is not "how long" her hair is, but that she simply stop cutting it. In I Cor 11, the issue was never if a woman should have long hair. (that was a given) It was if Corinthian women had to wear a 2nd covering.

Hope this helps.

interesting. here it is commanded by God for a man or woman to shave their head as an offering to Him.

1And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
2Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When either man or woman shall separate themselves to vow a vow of a Nazarite, to separate themselves unto the LORD:

18And the Nazarite shall shave the head of his separation at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and shall take the hair of the head of his separation, and put it in the fire which is under the sacrifice of the peace offerings.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by proudfather

I did not find your post offensive. The post before yours was a little more forceful and struck me as rude.

Oh, ok. Just checking.

In response to your question, let's examine the words more closely:

The word "cover" in Verses 4-7 = "Katakalupto" - it means = "to veil, wholly cover"

The word cover in VS 15 = "Peribolaion" - it means = "to throw around" - also: "veil or mantle"

Katakalupto is a derivative of the root work "Kata" a preposition meaning = "down from, to cover or hide"

I agree totally so far.

Zondervan Bible Dictionary noted that in the N.T., hair was a major distinguishing factor of the sexes.

PAUL WAS ANSWERING the CORINTH CUSTOM => He was not suggesting a break from that custom. In Corinth, to be without a veil would be a shame, therefore, if you’re not wearing one, then you might as well cut your hair also. (because in Corinth it would have the same effect)

Agreed. It was speaking of a veil.

SHAVEN: "to cut near the surface" make bare, smooth
SHORN: "to cut with shears" to remove by cutting

Study the issue of short hair in the old testament and you will find that on a woman, it was considered shameful.

Agreed. but this is speaking about entirely removing the hair or entirely removing it as much as possible. It was not talking about trimming it or suchlike. To shear a sheep meant to cut it off as close as possible to the flesh, for example.

Judgment begins at God’s house... (conversion) This issue is not "how long" her hair is, but that she simply stop cutting it.

Now this is where I believe you get into error. It was not cutting it, but making it short. Long means long and short mean short. It is not talking about not cutting it at all.

The overall issue is really a veil anyway. Not hair. Why is hair mentioned? Paul listed several arguments as to what would support a woman wearing a veil in prayer or prophesying. If it was hair, he would not make it at times such as when veils could be removed or worn. Paul would have simply said a woman should be covered at all times if it was hair. You cannot put on and remove hair.

So it is not even about hair. But amongst all the arguments he listed, he finally ended with NATURE. NATURE implies the covering he spoke about was unnatural, a veil. But NATURE'S support argument was hair. Even long hair better suits her a woman than a man.

In I Cor 11, the issue was never if a woman should have long hair. (that was a given) It was if Corinthian women had to wear a 2nd covering.

Hope this helps.

You are correct in your last phrase, however, thsi is not saying a woman cannot cut her hair the least bit.

And this is where my point came in.

If HAVE LONG HAIR in verse 14 is to remain with the same definition it has in verse 15, then a man cannot have "A" while a woman must have "A". "A" must be consistent in definition. Paul did not say it is a shame for a man to have "A", but if a woman has "B" it is a glory to her. HAVE LONG HAIR means the same thing for a man that it means for a woman.

That being the case, if LONG = UNCUT then a man does not "have long hair" if it is three feet down his back and he keeps it trimmed. It is not UNCUT.

See my point?

[Praxeas]

The argument that "this is what we believed" so we are compromising because if it was true for us once it should always be true and never questioned, is a fallacious one and I can prove it by simply pointing out we were all once Trinitarians and for years it was true to us until we got the revelation. Same goes with baptism.

So you see, we should check to see if what we believe is really true or not. It's not dependent on who believed it and for how long

[proudfather]

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

I did a study and looked up every time the word 'hair' was used in the Bible, along with 'shorn', 'shaven', and every other variation of the word that would have anything to do with a woman cutting her hair.... and I didn't find that at all.

Completely shaving her head was shameful. As it would be today. Baldness is not a look women try to achieve (with very rare exceptions). That's why, if a woman gets cancer and loses her hair, she'll wear a cap, a scarf, a hat or a wig. Women do not at all like to be without hair. Men, on the other hand, can lose their hair from cancer, and won't bother wearing scarfs and hats. It's not so odd for a man to be without hair.

Right now, in 2010, if you see a woman who is completely bald, you assume she's had cancer. If you see a man who is completely bald, you don't even think about it. "Hair" is a woman thing, it is a woman's pride and joy, her beauty. So things haven't changed that much from the Old Testament times, concerning how women feel about their hair.

Shaving a woman bald does not even compare to a woman who trims and styles her hair nicely. That's not something the Bible condemns, not once as far as I could find.

Please post an example of this in the Bible. I do not find where a woman ever trimmed her hair and styled it nicely in the Old or New Testament.

[*AQuietPlace*]

Originally Posted by proudfather

Please post an example of this in the Bible. I do not find where a woman ever trimmed her hair and styled it nicely in the Old or New Testament.

No, it's not mentioned at all. It's not prohibited either.

[proudfather]

Originally Posted by edjen01

interesting. here it is commanded by God for a man or woman to shave their head as an offering to Him.

1And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
2Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When either man or woman shall separate themselves to vow a vow of a Nazarite, to separate themselves unto the LORD:

18And the Nazarite shall shave the head of his separation at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and shall take the hair of the head of his separation, and put it in the fire which is under the sacrifice of the peace offerings.

Do you know any Nazarite's? I haven't met one as long as I've been around.

[proudfather]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Oh, ok. Just checking.



I agree totally so far.



Agreed. It was speaking of a veil.



Agreed. but this is speaking about entirely removing the hair or entirely removing it as much as possible. It was not talking about trimming it or suchlike. To shear a sheep meant to cut it off as close as possible to the flesh, for example.


Now this is where I believe you get into error. It was not cutting it, but making it short. Long means long and short mean short. It is not talking about not cutting it at all.

The overall issue is really a veil anyway. Not hair. Why is hair mentioned? Paul listed several arguments as to what would support a woman wearing a veil in prayer or prophesying. If it was hair, he would not make it at times such as when veils could be removed or worn. Paul would have simply said a woman should be covered at all times if it was hair. You cannot put on and remove hair.

So it is not even about hair. But amongst all the arguments he listed, he finally ended with NATURE. NATURE implies the covering he spoke about was unnatural, a veil. But NATURE'S support argument was hair. Even long hair better suits her a woman than a man.



You are correct in your last phrase, however, thsi is not saying a woman cannot cut her hair the least bit.

And this is where my point came in.

If HAVE LONG HAIR in verse 14 is to remain with the same definition it has in verse 15, then a man cannot have "A" while a woman must have "A". "A" must be consistent in definition. Paul did not say it is a shame for a man to have "A", but if a woman has "B" it is a glory to her. HAVE LONG HAIR means the same thing for a man that it means for a woman.

That being the case, if LONG = UNCUT then a man does not "have long hair" if it is three feet down his back and he keeps it trimmed. It is not UNCUT.

See my point?

Please define long then. If Paul is not speaking about uncut hair, then how must we go about obeying this scripture? We must obey the scripture because:

2 Timothy 3:16 (New International Version)
16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

So, what do you teach? Just curious.