Originally Posted by Truthseeker (Post 1535019)

What do you think nature means in that text?

I agree with you on gender distinction.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On (Post 1535012)

It probably wasn't an issue because people didn't have social media to thoroughly discuss it without getting blowback.

Originally Posted by Costeon (Post 1533609)

Either a man or a woman could take the Nazirite vow: "When either a man or woman consecrates an offering to take the vow of a Nazirite . . ." (Num 6.2).

One of the requirements of this vow was "all the days of the vow of his separation no razor shall come upon his head" (v. 5) (The "he" here is a generic singular pronoun referring to an individual whether male or female. This is the same usage found in the other requirements as well.)

This seems to suggest that it was not the norm for Israelite women to have uncut hair, that is, to never use a razor to cut their hair. Otherwise how could this vow to abstain from cutting her hair symbolize her Nazirite consecration if she never cut it anyway?

Originally Posted by Costeon (Post 1535198)

rdp, you don't agree with the evidence I have presented; I don't agree with how you interpret the evidence, so we're at an impasse. I could go line by line and comment on your last two posts, but we know it would really accomplish nothing.

But as far as any future discussions go, I do wish you would refrain from attributing any motive to me but a sincere desire for the truth. You wrote, "You simply have a religious preference to protect so you are desperately trying to spin away from their crystal-clear statements." Why would you say that when you don't know me? You attribute sincerity to yourself—"But, since I'm a fair man"—so, why don't you give me the benefit of the doubt that I am sincere and then refrain from making it personal? I will try to do that for you. I may be mistaken in my analysis of the evidence, but I am not trying to spin anything. If you read my response yesterday to Amanah in this thread, you will see that I said that I frankly would prefer your view to be true. But, alas, I don't think the evidence points in that direction.

I would like to plainly explain my approach to BDAG. As I mentioned in other posts I have it and use it, and I do recognize it as the standard lexicon for NT Greek. But the men who created this lexicon did not come up with definitions for words in the abstract and then go find examples in Koine Greek to support their definitions. Rather, they found all the places a particular word occurs in the NT and Septuagint and in other places in Koine literature to determine the range of meaning for the word, and then they listed these various meanings along with the supporting evidence in their lexicon for others to consult.

In the case of the verb we’re arguing about, they list only one example for the meaning “to cut.” Just as we shouldn’t base an entire doctrine on one verse, we shouldn’t base our entire understanding of the meaning of a word on one example. If BDAG doesn’t provide more evidence to support their definition, then it is the responsibility of other scholars to supply the supporting data before arguing that a word has a particular definition. Gordon Fee, for example, has done so in his commentary and lists two examples where this verb is in the middle voice and is about women and in both examples it clearly means “to cut short.”

I’m not trying to discredit BDAG or any of the other lexical resources that you have mentioned, nor am I suggesting that they should not be consulted, but I am suggesting that they are not divinely inspired. Other scholars have access to all the evidence that BDAG consulted and have weighed the evidence themselves. And so, I think it is telling that none of the major commentaries on 1 Corinthians and none of the major, well-known translations understand the verb to mean “to cut” in 1 Cor 11.6. (So it is not a matter of little ole me with two years of Greek disputing the Great Lexical Authorities.) After noting the arguments of the commentaries and reading all these translations and how they translate the verb and after my own study of the verb in its various contexts in the Greek OT and NT, I find it compelling that the verb means “to cut off” in 1 Cor 11.6. You may disagree with this, and that’s fine, but at least don’t question my motives.

I do want to comment on what I have quoted above from your post.

Regarding Ezekiel 44.20, “They shall neither shave their heads nor let their hair grow long, but they shall keep their hair well trimmed" (NKJV). To me, it is not clear "that trimming the hair would prevent it from being long" or that "long hair is untrimmed hair."

First, it seems to me that it is certainly possible to have long hair and still trim it and the average person recognize that it is long hair. I have done this all my life in observing men and women who had obviously long hair but who still cut it at times. Trimming and long hair are not mutually exclusive.

Second, if "long hair is untrimmed hair," it seems to imply that as long a priest trimmed his hair at all, he could conceivably grow his hair out to his waist, for example, and it still would not be long and would not therefore violate what God had just commanded. But that clearly would violate the spirit of what God had commanded here through Ezekiel. Ezekiel's point, it seems to me, is that the priests were to adopt a moderate position between the two extremes of a shaved head and long hair, that is, their hair should be cut regularly and short enough that those in their day would recognize it as short.

And regarding 1 Cor 11.14, if "long hair is untrimmed hair" it would seem to imply that as long as I trimmed my hair ever or at all, I could grow it out as long as I wanted and it still would not be a dishonor to me. Only untrimmed hair would be long. Mine would be trimmed, so it would not be long.

Regarding the Nazirite vow, this was a unique situation in that it does explicitly state that the hair was to be uncut. This is unique, which to me implies that we are not to apply this generally to every other instance in which long hair is mentioned. In fact, as I mentioned in the original post of this thread, the fact that female Nazirites were commanded not to cut their hair at all during the time of their consecration implies that it would have been acceptable to do so at other times—even if Israelite women might not have been inclined to do so. At any rate, it would not be forbidden. Otherwise, this particular command would have no relevance for the female Nazirite.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On (Post 1535242)

All valid points. We are taught this very thing - BDAG nor any other lexical resource is divinely inspired.

I notice that the debate seems solid for the person arguing the case, if that particular Bible version or lexical resource supports the person's personal view. We, including myself, have to be careful with that.

And, I do have a few questions for RDP, maybe one, but I need to spend a bit more time re-reading his work.

Originally Posted by Costeon (Post 1535198)

rdp, you don't agree with the evidence I have presented; I don't agree with how you interpret the evidence, so we're at an impasse. I could go line by line and comment on your last two posts, but we know it would really accomplish nothing.

But as far as any future discussions go, I do wish you would refrain from attributing any motive to me but a sincere desire for the truth. You wrote, "You simply have a religious preference to protect so you are desperately trying to spin away from their crystal-clear statements." Why would you say that when you don't know me? You attribute sincerity to yourself—"But, since I'm a fair man"—so, why don't you give me the benefit of the doubt that I am sincere and then refrain from making it personal? I will try to do that for you. I may be mistaken in my analysis of the evidence, but I am not trying to spin anything. If you read my response yesterday to Amanah in this thread, you will see that I said that I frankly would prefer your view to be true. But, alas, I don't think the evidence points in that direction.

I would like to plainly explain my approach to BDAG. As I mentioned in other posts I have it and use it, and I do recognize it as the standard lexicon for NT Greek. But the men who created this lexicon did not come up with definitions for words in the abstract and then go find examples in Koine Greek to support their definitions. Rather, they found all the places a particular word occurs in the NT and Septuagint and in other places in Koine literature to determine the range of meaning for the word, and then they listed these various meanings along with the supporting evidence in their lexicon for others to consult.

In the case of the verb we’re arguing about, they list only one example for the meaning “to cut.” Just as we shouldn’t base an entire doctrine on one verse, we shouldn’t base our entire understanding of the meaning of a word on one example. If BDAG doesn’t provide more evidence to support their definition, then it is the responsibility of other scholars to supply the supporting data before arguing that a word has a particular definition. Gordon Fee, for example, has done so in his commentary and lists two examples where this verb is in the middle voice and is about women and in both examples it clearly means “to cut short.”

I’m not trying to discredit BDAG or any of the other lexical resources that you have mentioned, nor am I suggesting that they should not be consulted, but I am suggesting that they are not divinely inspired. Other scholars have access to all the evidence that BDAG consulted and have weighed the evidence themselves. And so, I think it is telling that none of the major commentaries on 1 Corinthians and none of the major, well-known translations understand the verb to mean “to cut” in 1 Cor 11.6. (So it is not a matter of little ole me with two years of Greek disputing the Great Lexical Authorities.) After noting the arguments of the commentaries and reading all these translations and how they translate the verb and after my own study of the verb in its various contexts in the Greek OT and NT, I find it compelling that the verb means “to cut off” in 1 Cor 11.6. You may disagree with this, and that’s fine, but at least don’t question my motives.

I do want to comment on what I have quoted above from your post.

Regarding Ezekiel 44.20, “They shall neither shave their heads nor let their hair grow long, but they shall keep their hair well trimmed" (NKJV). To me, it is not clear "that trimming the hair would prevent it from being long" or that "long hair is untrimmed hair."

First, it seems to me that it is certainly possible to have long hair and still trim it and the average person recognize that it is long hair. I have done this all my life in observing men and women who had obviously long hair but who still cut it at times. Trimming and long hair are not mutually exclusive.

Second, if "long hair is untrimmed hair," it seems to imply that as long a priest trimmed his hair at all, he could conceivably grow his hair out to his waist, for example, and it still would not be long and would not therefore violate what God had just commanded. But that clearly would violate the spirit of what God had commanded here through Ezekiel. Ezekiel's point, it seems to me, is that the priests were to adopt a moderate position between the two extremes of a shaved head and long hair, that is, their hair should be cut regularly and short enough that those in their day would recognize it as short.

And regarding 1 Cor 11.14, if "long hair is untrimmed hair" it would seem to imply that as long as I trimmed my hair ever or at all, I could grow it out as long as I wanted and it still would not be a dishonor to me. Only untrimmed hair would be long. Mine would be trimmed, so it would not be long.

Regarding the Nazirite vow, this was a unique situation in that it does explicitly state that the hair was to be uncut. This is unique, which to me implies that we are not to apply this generally to every other instance in which long hair is mentioned. In fact, as I mentioned in the original post of this thread, the fact that female Nazirites were commanded not to cut their hair at all during the time of their consecration implies that it would have been acceptable to do so at other times—even if Israelite women might not have been inclined to do so. At any rate, it would not be forbidden. Otherwise, this particular command would have no relevance for the female Nazirite.

Originally Posted by rdp (Post 1535293)

[FONT="Georgia"]*And, of course, I could equally go line by line once again & offer rebuttal's to this post - and, indeed, it is very tempting to do so.

Originally Posted by Esaias (Post 1535350)

I like the blue font.

Just saying...

Originally Posted by houston (Post 1535361)

It hurts my eyes