Re: Uncut Hair and the Nazirite Vow for Women
 

Ok so Corinth was under Roman Rule, and I found this:

"THE RESPECTABLE ROMAN MATRON
In the first century, Corinth was a Roman colony and its inhabitants were bound by Roman law. Some of these laws governed what men and women wore and how they presented themselves in public. As in other parts of the Roman Empire, Corinthian society was highly stratified and class conscious, and most of the laws concerning appearance were directly tied to a person’s social status.

For example, only a Roman matron, a respectable married or widowed woman, could wear a stola, a long dress worn over a basic tunic. And only a matron could wear a palla, a garment like a shawl that could be pulled over the head when stepping out of doors. Wearing a stola, and wearing a palla or veil, was a status symbol. These garments signified that a woman was married or widowed and that she was sexually unavailable. Wearing the usual garb of a Roman matron offered women protection against sexual harassment, as it was illegal for a man to ask for sex or to molest a woman when she was out in public if she was dressed as a matron.

A palla or veil did not signify subordination, as some have suggested.[2] In fact, the most subordinate of women in Roman society did not wear veils. It was illegal for slaves, prostitutes, freedwomen, and women from the lowest classes to wear either a stola or a palla. In usual social contexts, they were forbidden by law from veiling their heads in public."

So what is the context of verse 15? "But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering."
Because once again the word translated "for" comes from the Greek Word "anti" or "ἀντί". Meaning "for, instead of, in place of (something)."

Paul wouldn't be telling them to break a law. Which is why Verse 15 said what it did.

Re: Uncut Hair and the Nazirite Vow for Women
 

Paul commanded Timothy to teach Christian women to wear a katastole. This would, according to you, be a case of Paul teaching some of the Christians (who were slaves) to break the law.

Furthermore, Paul's instructions regard "praying or prophesying" not "going out in the public square." Prayer for Christians was in private homes, or (in Jerusalem) at the Temple (where Roman dress codes wouldn't apply). Having religious services not authorized by legal recognition (law of religio licit) was itself illegal under Roman law. So the legality of Christian women wearing head coverings during worship is moot.

Thirdly, all history shows Christian women ALWAYS wore head coverings during worship and especially prayer. There are ZERO historical records showing early Christian women not being covered during worship, except for the shameful sisters in Corinth whom Paul rebuked.

:thumbsup

Re: Uncut Hair and the Nazirite Vow for Women
 

Your source appears to be in error:

"The stola was a symbol of marriage, and by the late Republic all women married according to Roman law were entitled to wear it. Not all did, of course, since it was not a particularly fashionable or flattering garment, but wearing the stola was a way for a woman to publicly proclaim her respectability and adherence to tradition.

...

As the tribune pointed out, high-class Roman women did not have the same distinctions of clothing that immediately marked out the status of their male counterparts; in fact the only certain distinction of dress allowed to women was the stola, which indicated a woman's marital status, not her social class or wealth.

http://www.vroma.org/~bmcmanus/clothing2.html

Re: Uncut Hair and the Nazirite Vow for Women
 

That wasn't even what we were talking about. But a palla is what is in question. And the prostitutes had hair cut and trimmed with designs in them.

Re: Uncut Hair and the Nazirite Vow for Women
 

I am pointing out your source is in error concerning laws regarding dress in the Roman Empire. Thus your source's claims regarding the palla (which, by the way, was only one of several types of head covering), are suspect and most likely equally wrong.

Your claims about prostitutes is likewise unfounded. Prostitutes wore their hair in numerous ways. Short hair on a woman was considered ugly by Greeks and Romans, so it is doubtful hookers would make any money with bobbed hair.

Re: Uncut Hair and the Nazirite Vow for Women
 

I apologize for being unkind. I'm sure you are being sincere.

Re: Uncut Hair and the Nazirite Vow for Women
 

The readers you mention can read the translations, in particular those that render the verb differently in the two places it appears in v. 6 and those that have a footnote, and see that they do not mean "trim" when they say "cut off her hair." (This is all the more clear when they read how the all these translations render the verb in Acts 18.18.)

You say when they translated it "cut off" they mean cut "at all."
But the ESV means by "cut off" "cut her hair short."
But the NTE means by "cut off" "shave."
But the RSV means by "cut off" "to be shorn."
But the CEB means by "cut off" "to have short hair."
The NASB means by "cut off" "shear herself."
The DLNT means by "cut off" "have herself sheared," etc.

Again, one and only one translation, the GNT, has "cut" in both places. One out of 48.

Unless someone is committed to the doctrine of uncut hair, no one reading "cut off her hair" would think "trim," especially not when Paul first mentions shaved, then says cut off, and shave again.

The way you talk about the UBS Handbook, are you saying translators had it with them while translating or something? Why again do they so often not follow what the UBS Handbook said it "probably" referred to?

As can be easily seen from 47 translations and how the word is used in the NT and Greek OT and all the examples from Greek literature that BDAG gives that the range of meaning for keiro is shave slick bald to cutting hair short.

47 translations don't agree with you. 1 possibly does.

47 translations don't agree with you. 1 possibly does.

47 translations don't agree with your Greek teacher. 1 possibly does.

I maintain that 47 translations don't follow you and that BDAG gives the same definition for all the contexts it lists in its entry for keiro.

It would be great if you could. I would rather you take screen shots or pics of the complete entry though. This would require a lot less effort and then we can see the exact resources for ourselves.

I would advise those who are placing on women a doctrine that they will go to hell if they trim their hair at all that you owe it to them to provide them multiple passages that teach uncut hair.

What other doctrines that Apostolics teach as essential to salvation are based on only one passage?

Since we can't agree on what this passage means, what other passages will you bring to the discussion to teach this doctrine?

Re: Uncut Hair and the Nazirite Vow for Women
 

We could at least present multiple passages of Scripture about speaking in tongues. We have no other passages about uncut hair. Since we disagree on what 1 Cor 11 means, what are the other passages that can be used to teach the same doctrine?

Re: Uncut Hair and the Nazirite Vow for Women
 

The Holy Ghost could have inspired one clear command or multiple passages about uncut hair. He did not. Since he didn't the conclusion is the passage is not intended to teach universal principles about human hair for all people for all times.

Re: Uncut Hair and the Nazirite Vow for Women
 

In short, if I don't accept your and rdp's view on uncut hair, then I am in rebellion against the Word of God and cannot be right in God's sight. Correct?