Uncut Hair and the Nazirite Vow for Women

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

After 33 years, I know many-many pastors as well and I have never heard anyone teach that - - never - nilch - nada.

*Perhaps they should invest in a Bible - or you should get out more .

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Lol! Really? As though that would be reasonably likely? Too funny.

*Watch how easy this is:

*Yes, "really" (still don't get it do ya'?) !

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by rdp

[COLOR="Blue"][FONT="Georgia"]*Which only proves what I have been saying the whole time - the verb has a semantic range defined by immediate context. {Of course, there's really no need to repeat for the 20th time that UBS defines "cut off" as "to cut or trim her hair."}

[COLOR="Black"][B][I]"to take away; to cut or to clip off; to shear"

But when it actually mentions hair in the mid voice it says "cut off one's hair." The plain meaning cannot be denied or ignored.

And of course there's really no need to repeat for the 21st time that a mountain of translations reject UBS's "probably" meaning of "trim," while not even a small knoll of them follow it, just 2. (The NLT is as best a hybrid and so does't go on the knoll.)

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I've known people to do that! It's not cut if you eat it!

oh my! LOL!

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Costeon

But when it actually mentions hair in the mid voice it says "cut off one's hair." The plain meaning cannot be denied or ignored.

*Yet you're free to deny the "plain meaning" of UBS, Bauer, BDAG, Louw-Nida, NIDNTTE, LXX Dict., A New Greek and English Lexicon, Principally on the Plan of Schneider, Wharton's Etymological Lexicon of Classical Greek, and both Classical and Koine' linguists? Got it .

Originally Posted by Costeon

And of course there's really no need to repeat for the 21st time that a mountain of translations reject UBS's "probably" meaning of "trim," while not even a small knoll of them follow it, just 2. (The NLT is as best a hybrid and so does't go on the knoll.)

*Now NLT's rendering is a "hybrid?" Says who? Costeon and the "conservative" constituency of AFF? Gotcha'!

*At least we agree on one thing: There's no need to point out that one of the premier Koine' linguist societies on the planet (UBS) defines your earth-shattering "cut off" as simply, "to cut or trim her hair" .

*Of course, at this point it is crystal-clear that any linguistic source we present will be dismissed in favor of your quoted resources that support NT Christian women being confident that they can "rock in short hair."

*Welcome to AFF.

[Costeon]

[QUOTE=rdp;1540047]*Yet you're free to deny the "plain meaning" of UBS, Bauer, BDAG, Louw-Nida, NIDNTTE, LXX Dict., A New Greek and English Lexicon, Principally on the Plan of Schneider, Wharton's Etymological Lexicon of Classical Greek, and both Classical and Koine' linguists? Got it .
I've already shown so thoroughly that you misunderstand them and so misuse them.

*Now NLT's rendering is a "hybrid?" Says who? Costeon and the "conservative" constituency of AFF? Gotcha'!

After you got so bent out of shape, as usual, by just a joke about 2.5 translations, I figured I would not say 2.5 anymore. But of course NLT in no wise supports your view.

*At least we agree on one thing: There's no need to point out that one of the premier Koine' linguist societies on the planet (UBS) defines your earth-shattering "cut off" as simply, "to cut or trim her hair" .

What do you not understand about no translations, besides a couple most people would have to look up to even know what they were, supporting UBS's "probably"? Why do you keep twisting what UBS says. They say "probably" not certainly like you pretend. They're not even confident enough to take a firm stand. They're wishy washy with the Word.

*Of course, at this point it is crystal-clear that any linguistic source we present will be dismissed in favor of your quoted resources that support NT Christian women being confident that they can "rock in short hair."

You're so desperate. Another mischaracterization.

*Welcome to AFF.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Costeon

What do you not understand about no translations, besides a couple most people would have to look up to even know what they were, supporting UBS's "probably"? Why do you keep twisting what UBS says. They say "probably" not certainly like you pretend. They're not even confident enough to take a firm stand. They're wishy washy with the Word. :highfi

I can only see this as a sensible view. You can't send people to hell on a "probably".

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Costeon

I've already shown so thoroughly that you misunderstand them and so misuse them.

*Umm, you have "shown" nothing "thoroughly" - other than you mesh diametrically opposing contexts from lexical and biblical resources - and then demand the "same meaning regardless of the circumstances" .

Originally Posted by Costeon

After you got so bent out of shape, as usual, by just a joke about 2.5 translations, I figured I would not say 2.5 anymore. But of course NLT in no wise supports your view.

*LOL - Nice try from the man who posts in all caps w. exclamation points following, posts ridiculing YouTube clips toward me - and then blames me for your behavior (remember that bit about removing the beam from your own eye?) - gotcha' .

*Have demonstrated over and over that the NLT specifically says "it is a shame for a woman to cut her hair" in 11.6c, while they add to the text in 11.6b (even posted the Greek text). You are obviously free to believe what you wish - regardless of the actual evidence itself .

Originally Posted by Costeon

What do you not understand about no translations, besides a couple most people would have to look up to even know what they were, supporting UBS's "probably"? Why do you keep twisting what UBS says. They say "probably" not certainly like you pretend. They're not even confident enough to take a firm stand. They're wishy washy with the Word.

*Yea, their direct quote below seems so "wishy-washy" and unsure:

She should cut off her hair: this seems to imply that the woman herself cuts her hair. In verse 5 the implication is that someone else did the cutting...To be shorn, literally "cut-her-hair" in Greek, probably referred to a regular trimming of her hair.

*Perhaps we should hire someone to translate this for us since it's just sooo "ambiguous" that I "twist" and "pretend" that their "literal" definition does not mean what they say it does. They should have surely consulted Costeon first !

*Have already posted academic links on the excellency of the translations I have marshaled. Have more if you need them.

Originally Posted by Costeon

You're so desperate. Another mischaracterization.

*Silly rabbit, tricks are for kids. Anyone can scroll up to see your selected quotes that you have endorsed in defending your position. And I feel the same way:

Originally Posted by Costeon

[Amanah]

The intention of the passage is definitely for a woman to let her hair grow. The best way to let your hair grow is not to cut it.

Teaching that you have "long" hair if you have it past your shoulders, or maybe mid way down your back, or if you only trim 1/4 and inch off twice a year, does not make good common sense.

What about women who can't grow long hair by any measurable length, how can they determine if they are meeting the requirement?

Seems like the people want to disprove the scripture, while pretending to obey it, which will likely result in total disregard of it.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Amanah

The intention of the passage is definitely for a woman to let her hair grow. The best way to let your hair grow is not to cut it.

Teaching that you have "long" hair if you have it past your shoulders, or maybe mid way down your back, or if you only trim 1/4 and inch off twice a year, does not make good common sense.

What about women who can't grow long hair by any measurable length, how can they determine if they are meeting the requirement?

Seems like the people want to disprove the scripture, while pretending to obey it, which will likely result in total disregard of it.

Your Kung Fu is very good.