Biblical Hair Study

[Steve Epley]

When Sab was posting he cited lexicon after lexicon that included 'cut or cut off' in the definition and so did Newman in her own sources it included them also. So even though they are NOT the only definitions they are included should a woman be reckless to ignore what it COULD mean?

[SavedLou]

Originally Posted by Raven

Heavenly One

In response to Sister Alvear's question as to any changing their mind. I'm familiar with an author, who graduated with me from BC ,who wrote a book about hair that is "quoted" often, who wishes he had never written the book.
That's the problem with writing a book before the Spirit gets through teaching you something. You may want to go back and "edit" your work when you've grown a little wiser.
Raven

I have also heard that Ruth (formally) Reider regrets writing some of the things in her hair books. Who knows. I remember reading the first book of hers and feeling like it was all soooo true at the time. Years later I have realized that parts of it were more like adding to the scriptures than anything...very mystical-like. I think at times we Pentecostals will take one scripture and RUN with it. People like to interpret the hair passage VERY literally and not take it in it's proper context as a cultural issue, but as Heavenly One said, people WILL interpret the "shame for a woman to speak in church" as a cultural issue.

[Rev]

Originally Posted by Fiyahstarter

Rev -

Is this the message the Lord is laying on your heart to share with the world?

Sad.

He told me to go preach the word with out fear or favor.

[Rev]

Originally Posted by Fiyahstarter

Rev -

Is this the message the Lord is laying on your heart to share with the world?

Sad.

In the churches were I've preached I've never had to preach on standards because the pastors had done their jobs and taught the people right.

Originally Posted by Rev

In the churches were I've preached I've never had to preach on standards because the pastors had done their jobs and taught the people right.

So every church you have preached at they had the same standards as you?
haha, I HIGHLY doubt that.

Every church I have been to the standards have been different...no not one has been the same.

Originally Posted by Rev

In the churches were I've preached I've never had to preach on standards because the pastors had done their jobs and taught the people right.

Also I have heard of evangelists trying to impose their standards to a congregation and the pastor will stop them or never invite them back again.

I have a story about an evangelist preaching about the Holy Ghost and he made fun of this guy who was 'seeking' it in our church. He was never invited back because of the comments he made.

The Pastors run the show at their church. This is what is hurting the 5-fold ministry!

[Praxeas]

We had a well known Pastor preach at our church once....not sure he was actually an evangelist. Anyways he is well know for preaching his own strict version of standards at someone elses church. At ours he was preaching that women could not have zippers on their skirts nor pockets....on the zipper part he pointed as his crouch and said "that zipper belongs to me"...my pastor was just looking at him like he lost his mind. Afterwards my pastor told the congregation to disregard what the preacher said, we don't believe like that.

At another church the pastor infact did stop him in the middle and kicked him to the curb...and that church is a UC church...

You have to wonder then...did that preacher hear from God or was he preaching just his opinion? If he did hear from God the the pastor was wrong....

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Raven

Heavenly One

In response to Sister Alvear's question as to any changing their mind. I'm familiar with an author, who graduated with me from BC ,who wrote a book about hair that is "quoted" often, who wishes he had never written the book.
That's the problem with writing a book before the Spirit gets through teaching you something. You may want to go back and "edit" your work when you've grown a little wiser.
Raven

Originally Posted by SavedLou

I have also heard that Ruth (formally) Reider regrets writing some of the things in her hair books. Who knows. I remember reading the first book of hers and feeling like it was all soooo true at the time. Years later I have realized that parts of it were more like adding to the scriptures than anything...very mystical-like. I think at times we Pentecostals will take one scripture and RUN with it. People like to interpret the hair passage VERY literally and not take it in it's proper context as a cultural issue, but as Heavenly One said, people WILL interpret the "shame for a woman to speak in church" as a cultural issue.

The problem is isogesis....people, rather than just using the word of God and going by what it says start out with a doctrinal position and read it INTO what the word says...and then are so desperate to prove their view right that they say and teach things that are just untrue. When it gets immortalized in writing and they later realize their goof it's quite an embarrasment

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

The problem is isogesis....people, rather than just using the word of God and going by what it says start out with a doctrinal position and read it INTO what the word says...and then are so desperate to prove their view right that they say and teach things that are just untrue. When it gets immortalized in writing and they later realize their goof it's quite an embarrasment

It is very possible, and all too common, to pick literally any theory or idea you want, make it doctrine, and THEN find scripture to support it. Twisting it, turning it, and reading it out of context, all the way.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

When Sab was posting he cited lexicon after lexicon that included 'cut or cut off' in the definition and so did Newman in her own sources it included them also. So even though they are NOT the only definitions they are included should a woman be reckless to ignore what it COULD mean?

I already did this with HO...but there are two words there. Why would Paul used two words that meant the exact same thing? It's redundant. So perhaps Paul is saying "not only should you not shave your head, you should not even cut your hair"?

I have to note though for me that I do not necessarily believe Paul is teaching to cut you hair is a sin. I can make good arguments pro and con.

The one position I do hold though is that Paul is certainly teaching women should have long hair...what is long? I believe Long is to grow it as long as you can get it...to me then trimming the split ends is not an issue if that were the case...

Thayer says the word for "long hair" means to let the hair grow.