Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen (Post 1535424)

Your totally disregarding verse 15 that translates it all though it says instead of in place of a peribolaion.

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen (Post 1535425)

One question at Creation did Eve have a peribolaion? Because the text shot us back here not me.

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen (Post 1535426)

Look I will agree to a woman should cover her hair. Bur do you at least believe a woman shouldn't cut her hair? Because the text is plain on that.

Originally Posted by Esaias (Post 1535431)

Of course a woman shouldn't cut her hair. It would be a disgrace to her. The apostle plainly said it would be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaved. What I am saying is that the apostle isn't trying to make sure the women folk weren't cutting their hair, because they weren't. He was trying to get them to stop praying or prophesying uncovered.

:)

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.

Originally Posted by Costeon (Post 1535408)

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.

Originally Posted by Costeon (Post 1535408)

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.

Originally Posted by Costeon (Post 1535408)

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.

Originally Posted by Costeon (Post 1535408)

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.

Originally Posted by Costeon (Post 1535408)

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.

Originally Posted by Costeon (Post 1535408)

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."

Originally Posted by Costeon (Post 1535408)

Originally Posted by Costeon (Post 1535408)

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 rdp (Post 1535448)

*Since you keep appealing to commentaries:

The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge; Vol. 5, p. 18, informs us: “Women never cut their hair (cf. Jer. vii. 29), and long hair was their greatest ornament (Cant. iv. 1; cf. I Cor. xi 15; Cant. vii. 5).”

*The Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. 6, p. 158, “Hair”: “A woman’s hair was never cut except as a sign of deep mourning or of degradation.”

*Remember, Jesus endorsed the Jewish concept(s) of God to the woman at the well (Jn. 4) and Paul affirmed that to the Jews were written, “the oracles of God” (Rom.). Here, these 2 "major" commentaries each (independently) state that an OT woman's hair was never cut. Are they just pulling this idea out of their hat? In fact, they even reference one of the OT verses that you have actually appealed to - and they state the polar opposite of what you claim. Now what?

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa (Post 1535478)

This thread is awesome! I would like to thank Easias, rdp, and Costeon.

1ofthechosen please note that Esaias NEVER disregards anything. Just take your time in reading what everyone i posting.

The Lord bless you all for the time and study you are all putting into this. :thumbsup