Mark Johnston Drops from UPCI, Garner Next???

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I'll look at it again, which I've done several times already, but it looks to me that he has changed the subject and moved on to another topic. So, right now, I'm not totally in agreement with you. And I am not arguing about this, just knocking around some ideas.

It is a change of subject, but the theme of offense carries on into the issue of custom.

I don't think I am saying, "required" as much as it was just done. Here we have women covering their faces and we have women who wore no veils at all:

"The veil was the distinctive female wearing apparel. All females, with the exception of maidservants and women in a low condition of life, wore a veil. They would usually never lay it aside, except when they were in the presence of servants, or on rare occasions. When traveling, women may throw the veil over the back part of their head, but if they see a man approaching, they place it back on it's original position. Thus Rebekah, when she saw Issac approaching her camel caravan, covered her face with her veil (Gen. 24:64-65). When women are at home they do not speak to a guest without being veiled and in the presence of maids. They do no enter the guest's chamber, but rather, standing at the door, they make it known to the servant what is wanted (See II Kings 4:12-13). It is well to remember that prostitutes went unveiled. When a woman kept her veil down, it was forbidden for anyone to lift it, but she was free to do so if she chose." Manners and Customs of Bible Lands

Why does the bias always have to be interjected here? It's just a word being defined. And, logically, it's two tools being used. Blade shears or scissors don't take off all of the wool from a sheep. That's a little different than what a razor can do.

The difference is plain but the conclusion is the same. To remove ALL hair or as much as possible. It's just the definition. BIAS is mentioned because in light of the definition that is all that can account for a variance.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

And, BTW, I forgot to add this to my post.

1 Corinthians 11:6 "For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered."

You'd have to translate that as:

1 Corinthians 11:6 "For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be bald or bald, let her be covered."

Why would Paul use the word twice like that, if the definitions are the same? Aren't you saying that shorn and shaven mean the same thing?

Paul was saying that if the women of Corinth's church agreed that it is a shame for a woman to remove all her hair, whether by shears or razors, then why do they not abide by the other custom as well regarding veiling.

The Bible OFTEN repeats the same notion using different terms in this manner.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by mfblume

It is a change of subject, but the theme of offense carries on into the issue of custom.

I'm trying to agree. I'll have to read it again. LOL!

The difference is plain but the conclusion is the same. To remove ALL hair or as much as possible. It's just the definition. BIAS is mentioned because in light of the definition that is all that can account for a variance.

If bald is the definition, how can you remove ALL hair OR as much as possible? That means that some is left, doesn't it?

Isn't this getting redundant?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Paul was saying that if the women of Corinth's church agreed that it is a shame for a woman to remove all her hair, whether by shears or razors, then why do they not abide by the other custom as well regarding veiling.

I don't know, that still sounds confusing. I don't know why he would describe both tools to get to the point. I'll have to think about it. Thanks for taking the time.

The Bible OFTEN repeats the same notion using different terms in this manner.

Can you give me an example so I could get a better handle on it?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I'm trying to agree. I'll have to read it again. LOL!



If bald is the definition, how can you remove ALL hair OR as much as possible? That means that some is left, doesn't it?

Isn't this getting redundant?

The point is to remove all the hair. If a razor is not present the next best thing was shears. But the definition says it all and solves it all, really. To make bald by scissors.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by mfblume

The point is to remove all the hair. If a razor is not present the next best thing was shears. But the definition says it all and solves it all, really. To make bald by scissors.

Man, I just don't know. I'll have to think about it. I just don't think scissors can make you bald. They leave some wool on a sheep. I looked it up. LOL!

It just seems to me that if the text is speaking about a man's hair being short, he is probably not using a razor but scissors. And if he is saying a woman's long hair is her dignity, I'm thinking he doesn't want her to have a man's hair cut/style - short hair or a bald head like a man.

Okay, thanks for being a sport!

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I don't know, that still sounds confusing. I don't know why he would describe both tools to get to the point. I'll have to think about it. Thanks for taking the time.
[B]

Can you give me an example so I could get a better handle on it?

Sure! I see it a lot in Psalms and similar books. It's almost redundant, but it is used to make emphasis. I would have to take some time and find good examples.

But in the meantime check out scholars:

VINE'S
1Co 11:6
Shorn or shaven (κείρασθαι ἢ ξυρᾶσθαι)
To have the hair cut close, or to be entirely shaved as with a razor.


ROBERTSON
To be shorn or shaven (to keirasthai kai xurasthai). Articular infinitives subject of copula estin understood, keirasthai first aorist middle, xurasthai present middle. Note change in tense.

GILL
but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven: as it is accounted in all civilized nations: the very Heathens (a) speak of it as a thing abominable, and of which there should not be one single dreadful example: then let her be covered; with a veil, or any sort of covering in common use.

CLARKE:
but if it be a shame - if to be shorn or shaven would appear, as it must, a badge of infamy, then let her be covered - let her by all means wear a veil. Even in mourning it was considered disgraceful to be obliged to shear off the hair; and lest they should lose this ornament of their heads, the women contrived to evade the custom, by cutting off the ends of it only. Euripides, in Orest., ver. 128, speaking of Helen, who should have shaved her head on account of the death of her sister Clytemnestra, says: ειδετε παρ’ ακρας ὡς απεθρισεν τριχας, σωζουσα καλλος, εστι δε ἡ παλαι γυνη: “see how she cuts off only the very points of her hair, that she may preserve her beauty, and is just the same woman as before.” See the note on 1Co_11:5.
In Hindostan a woman cuts off her hair at the death of her husband, as a token of widowhood; but this is never performed by a married woman, whose hair is considered an essential ornament. The veil of the Hindoo women is nothing more than the garment brought over the face, which is always very carefully done by the higher classes of women when they appear in the streets. - Ward’s Customs.

BARNES
But if it be a shame ... - If custom, nature, and habit; if the common and usual feelings and views among people would pronounce this to be a shame, the other would be pronounced to be a shame also by the same custom and common sense of people.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Sure! I see it a lot in Psalms and similar books. It's almost redundant, but it is used to make emphasis. I would have to take some time and find good examples.

But in the meantime check out scholars:

VINE'S
1Co 11:6
Shorn or shaven (κείρασθαι ἢ ξυρᾶσθαι)
To have the hair cut close, or to be entirely shaved as with a razor.


ROBERTSON
To be shorn or shaven (to keirasthai kai xurasthai). Articular infinitives subject of copula estin understood, keirasthai first aorist middle, xurasthai present middle. Note change in tense.

GILL
but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven: as it is accounted in all civilized nations: the very Heathens (a) speak of it as a thing abominable, and of which there should not be one single dreadful example: then let her be covered; with a veil, or any sort of covering in common use.

CLARKE:
but if it be a shame - if to be shorn or shaven would appear, as it must, a badge of infamy, then let her be covered - let her by all means wear a veil. Even in mourning it was considered disgraceful to be obliged to shear off the hair; and lest they should lose this ornament of their heads, the women contrived to evade the custom, by cutting off the ends of it only. Euripides, in Orest., ver. 128, speaking of Helen, who should have shaved her head on account of the death of her sister Clytemnestra, says: ειδετε παρ’ ακρας ὡς απεθρισεν τριχας, σωζουσα καλλος, εστι δε ἡ παλαι γυνη: “see how she cuts off only the very points of her hair, that she may preserve her beauty, and is just the same woman as before.” See the note on 1Co_11:5.
In Hindostan a woman cuts off her hair at the death of her husband, as a token of widowhood; but this is never performed by a married woman, whose hair is considered an essential ornament. The veil of the Hindoo women is nothing more than the garment brought over the face, which is always very carefully done by the higher classes of women when they appear in the streets. - Ward’s Customs.

BARNES
But if it be a shame ... - If custom, nature, and habit; if the common and usual feelings and views among people would pronounce this to be a shame, the other would be pronounced to be a shame also by the same custom and common sense of people.

Look at what Gill says for verse six. This is how I viewed it before I read his commentary.

let her also be shorn; let her hair be cut short; let her wear it as men do theirs; and let her see how she will look, and how she will like that, and how she will be looked upon, and liked by others; everybody will laugh at her, and she will be ashamed of herself:

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Look at what Gill says for verse six. This is how I viewed it before I read his commentary.

let her also be shorn; let her hair be cut short; let her wear it as men do theirs; and let her see how she will look, and how she will like that, and how she will be looked upon, and liked by others; everybody will laugh at her, and she will be ashamed of herself:

Amen. But it does not mean to merely trim as though it was down her back and she trimmed off an inch.

ROBERTSON:
1Co 11:6
Let her also be shorn (kai keirasthō). Aorist middle imperative of keirō, to shear (as sheep). Let her cut her hair close.

JOHNSON
For if the woman be not covered. If she defies decorum by an uncovered head, let her go further, and be shaven.

JFB
1Co 11:6
A woman would not like to be “shorn” or (what is worse) “shaven”; but if she chooses to be uncovered (unveiled) in front, let her be so also behind, that is, “shorn.”

HENRY
She might, with equal decency, cut her hair short, or cut it close, which was the custom of the man in that age. ...

III. The thing he reprehends is the woman's praying or prophesying uncovered, or the man's doing either covered, 1Co_11:4, 1Co_11:5. To understand this, it must be observed that it was a signification either of shame or subjection for persons to be veiled, or covered, in the eastern countries, contrary to the custom of ours, where the being bare-headed betokens subjection, and being covered superiority and dominion. And this will help us the better to understand,

[Socialite]

LOL you guys are still contending for a point that was simply an illustration!

That's not even the primary issue in Corinth (cut hair). The issue had to do with a custom during times of worship specifically.