Uncut Hair and the Nazirite Vow for Women

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Costeon

You're right. You have provided two, CEV and GNT. You also have shown that, though the NLT starts with "cut off her hair," it does say "cut" in the second part of the verse, and even though I can't imagine anyone finding this significant besides someone who is committed no matter what to defending uncut hair, I will concede the point and from now on will say that you have 2.5 translations that support your view.

*I have explained this 4 times now. What are you not reading correctly? Here, for the 5th time I will point out that in 11.6b the NLT assumes too much liberty w. the text since the Greek adjective translated "all [her hair]" does not appear - but in 11.6c the NLT remains true to the text by translating the clause as "but since it is a shame for a woman to cut her hair...". I well realize that you don't like that I have provided yet another host of linguists who refute your eisegesis, but blame them, not me...I didn't write it.

*2.5 translations ? You are clearly desperate at this point and this merely demonstrates how far down you will dive to save face. Should I now begin counting the translations you have presented as merely a "half translation" for each clause that says "cut off" - even though UBS (for translators BTW!) defines the phrase "cut off" as "literally, to cut or trim her hair! You're clearly out of ammo at this point.

Originally Posted by Costeon

I've already explained this. BDAG does discuss when a word has a variety of meanings based on varied contexts--when the authors believed that a word did--and I have explained how they present that kind of data based on what they say in their foreword. BDAG doesn't do this for the entry on keiro. Anyone can see this. (If someone would like, I could also provide a picture of an entry that does provide alternate definitions.) Since they don't do this for keiro, that means they thought the word had one basic meaning and they thought that shear was sufficient to express this meaning. They offered two suggested translations regarding human hair, not to alter the meaning of the verb, but because the verb is in the middle voice, and they were giving guidance on how to express the significance of it being in the middle voice, and they referred the reader to two Greek grammars to read about the grammar that they were trying to express in their suggested definitions.

*And their two suggested translations (you know, the very thing you keep demanding?) further explicates their definition of "to shear" as simply "to have one's hair cut, or to cut one's hair."

*Please quote precisely from this source - that I have quoted repeatedly now - and show us all where they employed the terms "cut off," or "cut short":____________? You can't - because it doesn't exist, no matter how many times to stomp your foot saying it does.

Originally Posted by Costeon

You keep saying, but the say "cut" so they've changed the definition to mean "trim" or "cut at all." Esaias has pointed out that non-Apostolics not involved of this kind of debate would likely not think "trim" when they hear of a woman getting a hair cut. Here is an example from an article where we see this sort of thing: http://www.bibleandjewishstudies.net...ircovering.htm.

*Have you now sank to quoting commentaries over-against the originally inspired languages of God's Word for your orthopraxy? Though I like Esaias's posting style and information I believe that anyone can pick up BDAG, Bauer, Louw-Nida, UBS, NIDNTTE, Greek Etymology Dict., translations, etc. - and, allowing the data to speak for itself, comprehend the phrase "it is a shame for a woman to cut [or trim; UBS] her hair."

Originally Posted by Costeon

Here is an excerpt: "With regards to hair, the Bible seems to indicate that cutting a woman's hair was a way to make a woman unattractive. The sole place in the Bible depicting a woman's hair being cut is in the laws of the captive woman (Deut 21:12). After a period of one month, during which time she was permitted to mourn her family, the captor might then claim her for his wife. The fact that her hair was shaved at the beginning of her captivity, whether as a sign of her subjugation or as a part of her mourning, may also indicate to what extent hair was considered an adornment to women. Some scholars have suggested that cutting her hair made the captive less attractive to her captor, perhaps even with the intent that over the course of the month his ardor would cool and he would eventually let her go."

This author equates "cutting a woman's hair" with "her hair was shaved."

*Since you have obviously endorsed and marshaled this quote, do you also equate the verb rendered "shorn" with the verb translated "shave?" If you say "yes," then you have now abandoned everything you have said up until this point. If you respond "no," then you are being quite selective in what you accept and what you reject from your own quoted resources...just as you do w. BDAG, Bauer, UBS, Louw-Nida, NIDNTTE, etc.

Originally Posted by Costeon

Another quote from another article: "We all know that men always prefer a girl with long flowing hair. . . . Many women fear the rejection and displeasure of their life partner if they go for a shorter hair length. . . . But when a girl or a woman finally decides to cut her hair, it means she is also cutting off her fear. . . . She is confident that she will rock even with her short hair style."

*Well won't our NT Christian women be glad to know that they can now have the confidence that "she will rock, even with her short hair style" ?

*I realize that below you seek to distance yourself from these very quotes since you understand the next logical sequence - but, these sources actually confirm what I have been trying to tell you all along. If you keep nibbling away at the woman's hair you render the Word of God of no effect since, as you yourself conceded above, there will be absolutely zero universal application. Thus, the lady's in your church can be confident that they "can rock with her short hair!"

Originally Posted by Costeon

It goes without saying that I'm not endorsing everything in these articles or every other article that could be found searching on the significance of a woman cutting her hair.

*Ahh, I see, hop on board when you like where they're going, then pull the lever when you don't like where they're taking you . Remind me, why did you select these sources again ?

Originally Posted by Costeon

The point is that people are likely describing significantly cutting her hair when they speak of a woman cutting her hair.

*This is nothing more than your own ideas - that are not found in these sources themselves. I provided you w. 2 more sources above (last night) that say simply "to cut the hair."

*This combines approximately a dozen lexical-grammatical resources from Koine' linguists who have opted to define this Greek verb as "to cut or trim her hair" - but we are to believe Costeon who informs us what they "really" mean...even though they themselves never use such language? Oh, and believe it or not, I even found more late last night! Nahhh, I'll stick w. the facts and leave you to your ideas .

Originally Posted by Costeon

And so I will conclude this topic about you limiting "cut" to "trim" with the following clip:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTRKCXC0JFg

.

*So good to see you sticking by your own "congenial, cordial, respectful" debate demands! Let me guess, I made you do it...right ? Incidentally, I could easily turn this completely around and post this same clip right back to you - who claims to see something that a dozen professional Koine' and Classical linguists have not said. Simply, "thou art the man!"

Originally Posted by Costeon

Not an "avid researcher" but a "committed researcher"--a researcher who is committed to a position no matter what and will disregard the authors of BDAG's method of presenting lexical data.

*Pot, are you calling the kettle black? You just described yourself in no better words that I would use to you. You disregard the wooden and flat assertions of BDAG, Bauer, NIDNTTE, Louw-Nida, CEV, NLT, UBS, Classical and Koine' linguists - then accuse me of "disregarding authors?" Plumb silly.

*Already demonstrated above to you and others how your dodge-ball tactic does not help you out of your bind w. BDAG since you're meshing diametrically opposite contexts - which professional linguists such as BDAG would never do. And, translations are based on definitions. BDAG would not offer 2 renderings w. completely different meanings. They explicate "to shear" as "to cut one's hair" w. nothing whatsoever about "cutting short." That is provided solely from you - notwithstanding your attempt to mingle opposing contexts and demand that we submit to such shoddy hermeneutics.

*Goodness, you even went so far as to say that "regardless of the context, in BDAG the verb means the same thing." It's hard to take such assertions about renowned professional linguists seriously - even though I know you're trying to cover your tracks now concerning your statement.

*Continued....

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Costeon

I have not simply dismissed your resources or opted for Thayer. Saying things like this discredits your point because anyone reading this thread can see I have not opted for Thayer. I have shown with the resources I have access to like BDAG and Louw-Nida that you, as a committed researcher, have forced them into supporting your view.

*You once again describe yourself perfectly. Unless you're referring to your vain attempt to mesh diametrically opposing contexts, you have "shown" absolutely nothing of the sort. Not from BDAG, Bauer, UBS, Louw-Nida, NIDNTTE, LXX Dict., etc. You can claim that I am "discredited" until doomsday, I happen to know that others think the same thing about you. Here's your consistent habit:

**You marshal quotes from: Commentaries (but are careful to distance yourself from them at the same time), archaic lexicons that no serious exegete uses anymore because they're of such poor quality (& even they do not refute "cut hair"), explain away the best Koine' linguists on the market to conform to your theology by sinking to such levels as combining diametrically opposing contexts and saying, "Well, regardless of context it still means the same thing."...and then claim that I am the one who is "discredited" by pointing out your mistakes? Gotcha' - clear as mud .

Originally Posted by Costeon

No. I have said that keiro has one definition "shear" and "shear" means "remove the hair" or "cut it short." BDAG gives this same definition for contexts regarding men, women, or animals, regardless of the circumstances surrounding this shearing. You have said, "No it means trim here for 1 Cor 11.6" though BDAG gives the same definition and applies its suggested translations to situations involving men and women shearing off their hair.

*Are you suggesting here that professional linguists w. BDAG's ability are saying that "regardless of circumstances" this verb means the same thing in all contexts? Here, let's allow readers decide for themselves shall we?

κείρω fut. 2 sg. κερεῖς Pr 27:25; 1 aor. ἔκειρα; aor. mid. ἐκειράμην. Pass.: 2 aor. inf. καρῆναι (TestJob 9:3); pf. ptc. κεκαρμένος LXX (Hom. et al.; ins, pap, LXX; Jos., Bell. 6, 5; SibOr 3, 359) shear a sheep (Artem. 4, 51 πρόβατον; Babrius 51, 3; Jos., Ant. 6, 297 after 1 Km 25:2; TestJud 12:1) ὁ κείρας (v.l. ὁ κείρων [Aesop, Fab. 212 P.=382 H.]) Ac 8:32; 1 Cl 16:7; B 5:2 (all three after Is 53:7, where both readings are found) the shearer. Mid. cut one’s hair or have one’s hair cut (B-D-F §317; Rob. 809.–X., Hell. 1, 7, 8.) τὴν κεφαλήν have one’s hair cut (as the result of a vow; s. εὐχή 2) Ac 18:18. Abs. (Quint. Smyrn. 3, 686 and 688) 1 Cor 11:6ab.

*BTW, will also tell us that their assertion τὴν κεφαλήν have one’s hair cut (as the result of a vow; s. εὐχή 2) Ac 18:18 - is not intended as an explication of their definition? Or do you want your cake and eat it too?

Originally Posted by Costeon

You don't understand the word "cut" as BDAG did. They understood it as cutting in the sense of shearing off. Just see the examples they list.

*I could once again turn this assertion on its head and say the same thing about you. You are reading your theological preference into their lexicon by seeking to mesh polar opposing contexts and then saying that context doesn't matter in this entry. Thus, it is you who is misunderstanding their plain statements...as you do UBS, Bauer, Louw-Nida, NIDNTTE, etc. Shall I post them all again for you?

Originally Posted by Costeon

rdp, what is silly is you refusing to use BDAG according to its principles laid out in the foreword. You are committed to uncut hair and are attaching a meaning to "cut" (i.e., "trim") that BDAG and these other sources obviously don't. Obviously because the examples they give to illustrate the definition don't support the idea of just trimming. They support the idea of cutting off the hair or cutting it short. If they only meant "trim" or "cut at all" they could have said that and could have provided examples where it obviously means that. They don't.

*You are committed to "short hair" and refuse to allow their chosen and carefully selected translations (you know, the very thing you kept asking for earlier) on their own strength - as you do w. every other professional linguist that reference. Here you say:

Originally Posted by Costeon

If they only meant "trim" or "cut at all" they could have said that and could have provided examples where it obviously means that. They don't.

*You can't be serious? Now you reject their translations because they didn't say "trim" or "cut at all" - and I'm the one who is "discredited"? They could have just as easily said "cut short" couldn't they? You have placed your desperation on full display for all to see w. this wild-eyed swing.

Originally Posted by Costeon

Would BDAG et. al. mean "cut at all" or "trim" but then illustrate their definition with examples that don't mean that? Obviously not. That's how lexicons work. They find places where the word appears in the NT, OT, and other Koine literature. They note if their is a range of meanings based on differing contexts. They list these meanings and then justify them by giving the supporting evidence, i.e., the verses or passages that illustrate that particular meaning. BDAG doesn't do this for keiro because they understood it to have one basic meaning.

*How many times do I have to quote for you UBS, A Translators Handbook to the Greek NT" that specifically appends the terms "to cut or trim her hair" for you? You're simply swinging wildly in the dark now. And I have written symposium papers addressing how lexicons work, but thanks for the refresher course . Any corpus of literature does not combine diametrically opposing contexts and then feign "it all means the same thing regardless of the circumstances." Plumb silly.


*The bottom line is that "keiro" has a semantic range and will only be defined by clear contexts - not by illegitimately transferring word meanings devoid of any context. This is a very sophomoric mistakes that I am surprised you continue to try to advance.

*Back soon !

[1ofthechosen]

Originally Posted by Costeon

The main thing I'm sold on is that this is an ambiguous passage capable of multiple interpretations by sincere Christians, and therefore it can't be the basis for the doctrine of uncut hair.

There no other passages this view is based on, and there are no simple commands from God establishing this teaching.

Of course I'm not ok "with having a modern day understanding," which is why I have based my arguments on Scripture and other ancient witnesses that BDAG and other lexical resources have mentioned.

It's fine if you disagree with my handling of the ancient evidence but what is it that compels you and others to mischaracterize my approach? Just say, "I don't think you have made a compelling case based on the evidence" or whatever.

And after you totally mischaracterize my approach, why patronize me with "then hey, Lord Love you Brother and God bless, in Jesus name!" as if you really mean that?

Bro you cant win for losing with you. You will get offended about anything I say nice or otherwise. For 1000's of years in middle eastern culture women didn't cut their hair. It's all about headship. This whole thing about modern women getting ran off by it, is ridiculous. It's the same as this whole idea there's mighty men of God with beards that are rejected by the church of the living God. All of that is backwards. If you can't come under obedience, then you are on a bad path in the first place.

You can't submit unless you can obey. Obedience is the first step, but submission is something that comes from wanting more than anything to please God, and the authority He's placed in your life. "Whatever you do whether in word or in deed, do it all in the name of the Lord", everything else will work itself out. You can have God's way or your own, and sometimes obedience has nothing to do with whether you understand why. Revival and a move of God come from Unity and purity, you lose holiness inwardly and outwardly and the glory will depart. It doesn't just all go at once.

Advising people to be self willed is never a good thing, because some people are only looking for a excuse.

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by rdp

*I have explained this 4 times now. What are you not reading correctly? Here, for the 5th time I will point out that in 11.6b the NLT assumes too much liberty w. the text since the Greek adjective translated "all [her hair]" does not appear - but in 11.6c the NLT remains true to the text by translating the clause as "but since it is a shame for a woman to cut her hair...". I well realize that you don't like that I have provided yet another host of linguists who refute your eisegesis, but blame them, not me...I didn't write it.

*2.5 translations ? You are clearly desperate at this point and this merely demonstrates how far down you will dive to save face. Should I now begin counting the translations you have presented as merely a "half translation" for each clause that says "cut off" - even though UBS (for translators BTW!) defines the phrase "cut off" as "literally, to cut or trim her hair! You're clearly out of ammo at this point.



*And their two suggested translations (you know, the very thing you keep demanding?) further explicates their definition of "to shear" as simply "to have one's hair cut, or to cut one's hair."

*Please quote precisely from this source - that I have quoted repeatedly now - and show us all where they employed the terms "cut off," or "cut short":____________? You can't - because it doesn't exist, no matter how many times to stomp your foot saying it does.



*Have you now sank to quoting commentaries over-against the originally inspired languages of God's Word for your orthopraxy? Though I like Esaias's posting style and information I believe that anyone can pick up BDAG, Bauer, Louw-Nida, UBS, NIDNTTE, Greek Etymology Dict., translations, etc. - and, allowing the data to speak for itself, comprehend the phrase "it is a shame for a woman to cut [or trim; UBS] her hair."



*Since you have obviously endorsed and marshaled this quote, do you also equate the verb rendered "shorn" with the verb translated "shave?" If you say "yes," then you have now abandoned everything you have said up until this point. If you respond "no," then you are being quite selective in what you accept and what you reject from your own quoted resources...just as you do w. BDAG, Bauer, UBS, Louw-Nida, NIDNTTE, etc.



*Well won't our NT Christian women be glad to know that they can now have the confidence that "she will rock, even with her short hair style" ?

*I realize that below you seek to distance yourself from these very quotes since you understand the next logical sequence - but, these sources actually confirm what I have been trying to tell you all along. If you keep nibbling away at the woman's hair you render the Word of God of no effect since, as you yourself conceded above, there will be absolutely zero universal application. Thus, the lady's in your church can be confident that they "can rock with her short hair!"



*Ahh, I see, hop on board when you like where they're going, then pull the lever when you don't like where they're taking you . Remind me, why did you select these sources again ?



*This is nothing more than your own ideas - that are not found in these sources themselves. I provided you w. 2 more sources above (last night) that say simply "to cut the hair."

*This combines approximately a dozen lexical-grammatical resources from Koine' linguists who have opted to define this Greek verb as "to cut or trim her hair" - but we are to believe Costeon who informs us what they "really" mean...even though they themselves never use such language? Oh, and believe it or not, I even found more late last night! Nahhh, I'll stick w. the facts and leave you to your ideas .



*So good to see you sticking by your own "congenial, cordial, respectful" debate demands! Let me guess, I made you do it...right ? Incidentally, I could easily turn this completely around and post this same clip right back to you - who claims to see something that a dozen professional Koine' and Classical linguists have not said. Simply, "thou art the man!"



*Pot, are you calling the kettle black? You just described yourself in no better words that I would use to you. You disregard the wooden and flat assertions of BDAG, Bauer, NIDNTTE, Louw-Nida, CEV, NLT, UBS, Classical and Koine' linguists - then accuse me of "disregarding authors?" Plumb silly.

*Already demonstrated above to you and others how your dodge-ball tactic does not help you out of your bind w. BDAG since you're meshing diametrically opposite contexts - which professional linguists such as BDAG would never do. And, translations are based on definitions. BDAG would not offer 2 renderings w. completely different meanings. They explicate "to shear" as "to cut one's hair" w. nothing whatsoever about "cutting short." That is provided solely from you - notwithstanding your attempt to mingle opposing contexts and demand that we submit to such shoddy hermeneutics.

*Goodness, you even went so far as to say that "regardless of the context, in BDAG the verb means the same thing." It's hard to take such assertions about renowned professional linguists seriously - even though I know you're trying to cover your tracks now concerning your statement.

*Continued....

Such a strange post.

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by rdp

*You once again describe yourself perfectly. Unless you're referring to your vain attempt to mesh diametrically opposing contexts, you have "shown" absolutely nothing of the sort. Not from BDAG, Bauer, UBS, Louw-Nida, NIDNTTE, LXX Dict., etc. You can claim that I am "discredited" until doomsday, I happen to know that others think the same thing about you. Here's your consistent habit:

**You marshal quotes from: Commentaries (but are careful to distance yourself from them at the same time), archaic lexicons that no serious exegete uses anymore because they're of such poor quality (& even they do not refute "cut hair"), explain away the best Koine' linguists on the market to conform to your theology by sinking to such levels as combining diametrically opposing contexts and saying, "Well, regardless of context it still means the same thing."...and then claim that I am the one who is "discredited" by pointing out your mistakes? Gotcha' - clear as mud .



*Are you suggesting here that professional linguists w. BDAG's ability are saying that "regardless of circumstances" this verb means the same thing in all contexts? Here, let's allow readers decide for themselves shall we?

κείρω fut. 2 sg. κερεῖς Pr 27:25; 1 aor. ἔκειρα; aor. mid. ἐκειράμην. Pass.: 2 aor. inf. καρῆναι (TestJob 9:3); pf. ptc. κεκαρμένος LXX (Hom. et al.; ins, pap, LXX; Jos., Bell. 6, 5; SibOr 3, 359) shear a sheep (Artem. 4, 51 πρόβατον; Babrius 51, 3; Jos., Ant. 6, 297 after 1 Km 25:2; TestJud 12:1) ὁ κείρας (v.l. ὁ κείρων [Aesop, Fab. 212 P.=382 H.]) Ac 8:32; 1 Cl 16:7; B 5:2 (all three after Is 53:7, where both readings are found) the shearer. Mid. cut one’s hair or have one’s hair cut (B-D-F §317; Rob. 809.–X., Hell. 1, 7, 8.) τὴν κεφαλήν have one’s hair cut (as the result of a vow; s. εὐχή 2) Ac 18:18. Abs. (Quint. Smyrn. 3, 686 and 688) 1 Cor 11:6ab.

*BTW, will also tell us that their assertion τὴν κεφαλήν have one’s hair cut (as the result of a vow; s. εὐχή 2) Ac 18:18 - is not intended as an explication of their definition? Or do you want your cake and eat it too?



*I could once again turn this assertion on its head and say the same thing about you. You are reading your theological preference into their lexicon by seeking to mesh polar opposing contexts and then saying that context doesn't matter in this entry. Thus, it is you who is misunderstanding their plain statements...as you do UBS, Bauer, Louw-Nida, NIDNTTE, etc. Shall I post them all again for you?




*You are committed to "short hair" and refuse to allow their chosen and carefully selected translations (you know, the very thing you kept asking for earlier) on their own strength - as you do w. every other professional linguist that reference. Here you say:



*You can't be serious? Now you reject their translations because they didn't say "trim" or "cut at all" - and I'm the one who is "discredited"? They could have just as easily said "cut short" couldn't they? You have placed your desperation on full display for all to see w. this wild-eyed swing.



*How many times do I have to quote for you UBS, A Translators Handbook to the Greek NT" that specifically appends the terms "to cut or trim her hair" for you? You're simply swinging wildly in the dark now. And I have written symposium papers addressing how lexicons work, but thanks for the refresher course . Any corpus of literature does not combine diametrically opposing contexts and then feign "it all means the same thing regardless of the circumstances." Plumb silly.


*The bottom line is that "keiro" has a semantic range and will only be defined by clear contexts - not by illegitimately transferring word meanings devoid of any context. This is a very sophomoric mistakes that I am surprised you continue to try to advance.

*Back soon !

A stranger post.

Why are you so angry all the time? Look, we disagree. So what. I would imagine it can't be "so what" with you because as a pastor and apologist you are used to telling people what things mean and its seems you take it as a personal affront if someone disagrees with you and you can't leave it at that. I remember watching some of your debate with James White and reading the comments. So many noted how angry you seemed to be, and complained about your shouting and general unpleasantness. I felt embarrassed for you because as a fellow Oneness believer I supported you in the debate, but I couldn't help but agree with the criticisms of your style. I have lost my cool with you. I don't like that I did. This is not characteristic of my interactions on this forum. But I don't do well with mocking or snearing. And so I let my annoyance come out. I shouldn't.

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

Bro you cant win for losing with you. You will get offended about anything I say nice or otherwise.

I'm sorry I didn't recognize anything you said as nice. If you meant something as nice but I didn't notice, I apologize.

This whole thing about modern women getting ran off by it, is ridiculous.

I suppose it's easier for a man to regard it as ridiculous.

It's the same as this whole idea there's mighty men of God with beards that are rejected by the church of the living God.

I don't know what this means.

You can't submit unless you can obey.

Indeed. You can't obey unless you can submit.

Advising people to be self willed is never a good thing, because some people are only looking for a excuse.

I don't recall doing that.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Costeon

This is so weird. I would be glad for anyone to go back and reread what I said on this thread and on B-Greek about Thayer. (I cut and pasted from my post on B-Greek to this thread so people could conveniently read it.) If they'll take the time to do so they will see you are discrediting yourself by obviously mischaracterizing me.

*Oh please. You have consistently appealed to archaic resources on here, while doing your best to dodge the most current-up-to-date philological works. Oh, and man-o-man! - did I ever find something last night that destroys your eisegesis. Need to develop it more, but trust me, I will do so .

*Ironically, you have discredited yourself repeatedly in this thread - esp. the last several posts - by making outlandish statements that conclude "regardless of circumstances or context, the verb keiro means the same thing!" You seek to defend yourself at every turn and then feign the high ground of victory by thumping your chest while claiming you have "shown" my position untenable. The raw dats and hard facts are that you cannot demonstrate what you speculate from BDAG, Bauer, Louw-Nida, UBS, NIDNTTE, etc. I can allow their definitions, translations, and context to stand on their own strenght. You have not, cannot, and will not do that.

Originally Posted by Costeon

Mounce doesn't opt for this because he doesn't think it means that in context, in particular the context of 1 Cor 11.6. The fact is these lexicographers and professional translators don't understand "cut" the way you do. You accused me above of having been caught with my hand in the cookie jar and am now desperately attempting to spin out of it. What is laugh out loud funny about this is that this is what happened to you regarding Mounce. You mentioned him several times as if he supported your position, but when it was demonstrated that this was obviously not true based on his dictionary and especially his translation, you started the spin.

*Thought you said there was no need to discuss Mounce anymore? Ummm, while you're "laughing-out-loud-funny" (appreciate your ridicule and scorn "Christian" demeanor BTW ) - you might want to cover your mouth since Mounce also includes simply "to cut" in his provided gloss. I only mentioned Mounce in passing. Am I to also conclude that when you quote sources above that affirm that women can "have confidence that they can still rock with short hair" - that this is equally in "support of your position" (which, again, is the natural outcome of the same).

*For the 4th time now, he himself does not opt for this rendering in I Cor. 11.6, but what do you think that proves other than what I have been attempting to inform you all along regarding the semantic range of this verb - which you stomp your foot in protest screaming doesn't exist . Honestly not sure what you cannot - or will not - see about this simple fact.

*Yes, we know Costeon, I am "misunderstanding" allll of these mountains of professional Koine' linguists who affirm that "shorn" in I Cor. 11.6 defines as simply and cumulatively as: "to cut, trim or have her hair cut" - with absolutely nothing stated about "to cut short." They surely should have consulted your expertise prior to making these plain declarations (and that, both in corroboration with and independent of one another). What they ever thinking?

Originally Posted by Costeon

"WHEN IN HIS OWN TRANSLATION HE TRANSLATES IT AS 'CUT SHORT'?!"

Yes, after 41 pages of your style and refusing to concede anything about Mounce, I got a little annoyed.

*Ahhh yes, here it is. Excuse in yourself what you demand in me. Unbeknownst to you I have received contact from others who have stated that my demeanor on here has been acceptable. I have been very complimentary of you repeatedly. You are simply now out of ammo (I'm just getting warmed up) and have now resorted to self-justification for your ridicule and scorn (which is completely anticipated on this forum).

*There's nothing to concede about Mounce. I have repeatedly posted his interpretive choices relative to this word. It is YOU who refuses to concede about the crystal-clear assertions of BDAG, Bauer, UBS, Louw-Nida, LXX Dict., NIDNTTE, translations, etc. Simply, take your own medicine before you write prescriptions for someone else Dr. Costeon .

Originally Posted by Costeon

I know that you think you are very gracious in your overall approach. (But reflect on the comments on youtube on your debate with James White and what was noted so many times about your style.) Readers of this thread will have to decide if that's how you come across overall. I have appreciated your apology and compliments, only to then read another post of you making things personal again.

*Oh, you mean the debate where the host Trinitarian pastor, his wife and people in his congregation explicitly told me they despised White's pomp and arrogance? You mean the debate where the moderator (a judicial moderator in AUS) approached me immediately after the debate and said that if he were judging the debate on points he would have voted for me (I never make these assertions myself) - and then literally cussed White to me for his nasty demeanor? The debate where afterwards the host Trinitarian pastor and others in his congregation told me they were so glad I didn't let him bully me as he had done so many others. The debate wherein I have received contacts from all over the world expressing the identical thing? Yea', I do remember that one !

*Simply, if you can dish it out be fully prepared to receive it. How many YouTube videos have I posted toward you in ridicule, or how many times have I posted in ALL CAPS with exclamation points at the end of the sentence? Zero. Here, my gift of discernment is kicking in: "Hogwash!"

*Back soon to continue the party !

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Costeon

Such a strange post.

*Such a "substantive" post .

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by rdp

*Such a "substantive" post .

To yours

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Costeon

A stranger post.

Why are you so angry all the time? Look, we disagree. So what. I would imagine it can't be "so what" with you because as a pastor and apologist you are used to telling people what things mean and its seems you take it as a personal affront if someone disagrees with you and you can't leave it at that. I remember watching some of your debate with James White and reading the comments. So many noted how angry you seemed to be, and complained about your shouting and general unpleasantness. I felt embarrassed for you because as a fellow Oneness believer I supported you in the debate, but I couldn't help but agree with the criticisms of your style. I have lost my cool with you. I don't like that I did. This is not characteristic of my interactions on this forum. But I don't do well with mocking or snearing. And so I let my annoyance come out. I shouldn't.

*Silly attempt to paint me as the aggressor all the while you post in all CAPS (then blame it on me), post ridiculing YouTube's, constant scorn, etc. Gimme' a break.

*I already told you about how many contacts I have personally received from others, including the on-site Trinitarians who were elated that I took White to task. No need to feel embarrassed for me - I would do it all over again! In fact, by God's grace, several people have walked away from Trinitarianism due to that debate. A Muslim man was baptized in Jesus' Name and received the Holy Spirit due to that debate. Another man called me and saud that he was now Oneness due to that debate. How many professional apologists and linguists have you formally debated again?

*I simply will not sit back and take your, White', nor anyone else's non-sense. I feel embarrassed for you at this point as you have clearly moved the discussion away from the actual evidence into the realm of ad-hominem attacks (they very thing you're charging me w.). This is always a sign of desperation on the part of the attacker.

*Anyone can read my gracious compliments to you, apology (which you refused to do until recently BTW), and kind remarks about your research style. You have truly challenged my understanding of these texts and I have expressed my appreciation of that many times now. Yet, you are the one who continues w. the nastiness - to which I will always return the favor. Again, this never ceases to amaze me in people how blind they can be to this.

*Next?