Originally Posted by Pressing-On (Post 1535340)

You should go line for line. If you feel as though Costeon isn't agreeing, there are members who read without commenting and there are readers who may not log in who read.

Also, I recall several posters telling you - a long time ago - that your blue font is not easy on the eyes, yet you continue with it.

If you are going to put out long posts, wanting people to read them, please do take that advice and stop with the blue font - please.

Originally Posted by rdp (Post 1535395)

Originally Posted by houston (Post 1535404)

Write

Originally Posted by rdp (Post 1535293)

[COLOR="Blue"][FONT="Georgia"]

*Further, you are the one who started w. the nastiness by hurling words like "silly," etc. my way (cf. earlier in this thread). It never ceases to amaze me how people can dish it out, but then cry "foul ball" when the favor is returned - and live their entire lives blinded to this (& I do believe I fully know why). I preach a message along these lines entitled, "When the Offender Becomes the Victim."

Originally Posted by Costeon (Post 1535408)

This is untrue. I did not call you silly, and I have not questioned your motives or attacked you personally. Anybody following this thread can double check me on this.

I reread the thread. It was interesting because you basically questioned my motives, suggesting I was doctrinally biased, in your very first post. "The only reason I can think of would be doctrinal bias."

Your did this in your second post: "Again, the only reason anyone would opt for LSJ (who even includes simply “to cut”) is doctrinal bias, while denying the same." Here you say I'm doctrinally biased, while I deny I am.

Regarding me starting the nastiness with the word "silly," I said "What is so silly about all this going back and forth about the meaning of one word is that if uncut hair is so important why isn't there one simple unambiguous statement in the entire NT to the effect, "Women, do not cut your hair." Here I am obviously referring to the situation itself of two people bickering over a single word in an ambiguous passage, when if the doctrine is really so important we might expect one clear prohibition against cutting the hair. So I didn't say you personally are silly while excluding myself. I said the situation was. That is hardly being nasty.

To which, you said I was silly for even desiring such a prohibition: "It is "silly" to demand such a statement."

Here you say I am devious: "I do not have the time to just sit here & chase your smoke screens & diversionary tactics."

Here you suggest I can't read very well. I ask for UBS's support for their definition and you say I am deriding it. And I have consciously closed my mind to evidence: "As anyone can plainly read in the link below (& my blog), many translations do indeed render this verb as simply "to cut." I find it quite enlightening that you now have now resorted to deriding UBS (a highly reputable grammatical resource). You simply have your mind set against the grammatical evidence. Shall I post some diagrams?"

Again I am biased: "Once again your bias is demonstrated."

My logic is silly: "Silly. Using this logic . . . "

And the accusation of bias and the questioning of my motives that I finally called you on: "You simply have a religious preference to protect so you are desperately trying to spin away from their crystal-clear statements."

And this one was particularly nice. I apparently have no concern for or fear of God while seeking to understand the Bible: "one would think that you would form your conclusion in the safety and fear of God Almighty."

You began your latest post with this, that I am close minded and blindly believe while ignoring evidence: "As I have said over & over, "99% of people are going to believe what they want to believe no matter what the actual evidence itself says." This is a good case in point IMO."

So no, rdp, I didn't start any nastiness and I didn't dish out anything personal against you. Even in main quote at the top of the post, you say I am blind and you apparently have the (divine?) insight to know why. You continue in this tone in the rest of your post.


I provided you two examples in Koine Greek from the writer Lucian in reference to women cutting off their hair short and the verb is in the middle voice. But here is an example from the Word of God. In Micah 1.16, the prophet is pronouncing judgement on the men and women of Jerusalem, and he says, "Make yourself bald and cut off your hair, because of your precious children." Why? Because they are going to into captivity.

Here the prophet is addressing the people as a whole. There is no distinction made between men and women. Men and women alike are to mourn for their children. Here we have an example where the verb we are disputing about is in the middle voice and it involves women. "Make yourself bald" translates an aorist middle imperative of the same verb that is translated as "shaved" in 1 Cor 11.6, and "cut off your hair" translates an aorist middle imperative of the same verb that is translated as "shorn" in 1 Cor 11.6, the verb you maintain can only mean "to cut" when it is in the middle voice and women are involved. Here we have two imperatives in the middle voice being used as synonyms for removing the hair and they are said to men and women collectively.


Regarding commentaries, I'm referring to major commentaries that frequently show up in seminary classrooms, like the New International Commentary on the New Testament, Baker's Exegetical Commentary, Anchor Bible Commentary, The New International Greek Testament Commentary, et cetera. They are well aware of the lexical works that you keep pointing to. But they don't follow what you say.

Do you regard the CEV and the Good New Bible, aka, Today's English Version as major translations? They do read, "to cut" not "to cut off" or "cut short." I believe you mentioned some footnotes in I believe the NLT and NIV. Maybe earlier editions of these translations had footnotes that said "or, 'to cut'" but they don't appear in the latest editions. So what was relegated to a footnote as a possibility has been removed altogether. If there are others that I've overlooked you're welcome to list them. I'm referring to the major translations in use today like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NRSV, NAB, NJB, NEB, NLT. The KJV and NKJV and the RSV (few use the RSV) read "shorn." So the ones that read "to cut," who uses those for serious study or to establish doctrine on? I'm not aware of anyone who does, but perhaps you know.

And regarding your quotes from classical linguists, I did not address them because, (1) you attacked my use of LSJ which is a classical Greek resource--the one these classical linguists have spent their professional life using. So if that classical Greek work cannot be admitted to a discussion on Koine Greek, why do you get to use classical Greek resources? And (2) I didn't see them specifically discussing the verb we have been discussing translated "shorn."

But what are your thoughts on the points I made on the implications of you saying "long hair is untrimmed hair" in reference to the passage in Ezekiel and the Nazirite vow?

Finally, where does the OT forbid women from cutting their hair? It doesn't. So all quotes from encyclopedias that you could cite that Israelite women did not cut their hair are, if true, merely reporting their custom but not a practice based on the Word of God. When there is a major change from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant, Jesus or the apostles explicitly deal with it in multiple places. Jesus said several times, "You have heard that it was said, but I say to you . . . " We see the apostles discussing food laws, circumcision, justification, etc. (This happens to be one of the points I make with Trinitarians about the supposed new revelation about the Godhead in the NT.) But we don't see this regarding uncut hair.

Uncut hair was not an Old Covenant requirement. So if your view is true, then uncut hair is a New Covenant requirement. We would therefore expect it to be mentioned in several unambiguous passages. But we don't have that. We have one ambiguous passage. And it certainly is ambiguous, which is why we're arguing about it. The reason we're not going round and round about, say, the commandment "You shall not steal" is because it's not ambiguous, so we don't start threads on AFF about its true meaning.

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen (Post 1535409)

I'd have to say the evidence that has been given is phenomenal. Like what else could he show you at this point? I mean he posted a whole page of references bro. Like you can believe whatever you want, but you are not going to do that without becoming a self appointed Greek Historian, and self appointed Linguist.

I'm not saying anything is divinely inspired but even my Bible said by the mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses let all things be established. There has definitely been more witnesses of top lexical references, and top linguists that affirm what I said in the very beginning. If your not sold you never will be. Lol
:beatdeadhorse: at this point.

Originally Posted by Costeon (Post 1535410)

In the mouth of two or three Greek lexical works not verses of the Bible--that other Greek experts don't follow regarding this verse. I just gave an example of verse from the OT that refutes his main contention that this greek verb in the middle voice in reference to women only means to cut.

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen (Post 1535413)

It's saying shorn as cut in a derogatory way comparing it to shaving. Because when it comes to sheep they get sneered, when it comes to men they keep their hair short, when it comes to a woman her hair is to be long the opposite of short. So any cutting of it would compare her to being sheered as a sheep. Paul is saying this in a way to drive the point home to the woman. Speaking letting her know how shameful it is. We are forgetting that long hair is her glory altogether. Its her authority upon her head. Cutting it, would be too take away from her authority, and to subtract from her glory.