Uncut Hair

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I think Paul was saying that if any man seem to be contentious about these things, we have no such custom... meaning... we aren't contentious about modesty and a woman's place in God's order. The New Living Translation renders the verse as such:

1 Corinthians 11:16 New Living Translation (NLT)
16 But if anyone wants to argue about this, I simply say that we have no other custom than this, and neither do God’s other churches.

Aquila,

I'm not sure that you are correct, you may be but if you read several versions it seems to be interpreted in different ways. Some interpret it the way yours does in the NLV and some seem to interpret it the way I did in the KJV.

The verse begins with the word but which seems to imply that there is a change of direction in the conversation. It seems to me that if Paul had meant to reinforce his earlier points, perhaps "and" would have been more appropriate here. There is a literal meaning of notwithstanding implied in the way that I have interpreted it.

If you substitute notwithstanding for the but, then it would read thusly . . .

Notwithstanding (what I have said before) if any man be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

I have perused some commentary on this and even the commentaries are divided. Some take your position, and some take mine. Obviously there is opportunity for debate.

The word custom is important. You perceive it to refer to contention, while I believe it to refer to the custom of women wearing veils. I think if it does indeed refer to contention then it is perhaps the first and only time in the Bible that contending has been referred to as a custom. On the other hand the very chapter we are studying is about the custom of women wearing veils during prayer.

Let's talk about it! Maybe someone can shed some fresh light on the subject. So far I'm sticking to my guns. May the truth be made manifest.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Because the Greek word κομᾷ means to wear the hair as tresses long flowing ornamentation. When we read how other Greek writers before, during, and after the New Testament use κομᾷ in their writings. We see it used as having the hair as long flowing tresses. Length being secondary I would have to ask Mr Thayer. Because when you look up the Greek word and how it was used in Antiquity it always denotes growing, and flowing down. The Translators of the KJV never even dreamed that we would be hitting a stump over the word long used in the chapter. Due to their understanding of their own culture where, one women always covered their heads in some fashion, and never cut their hair. Men wore their hair either bald, or shoulder length. Mostly their cultural understanding was handed down from the Vulgate of Rome, which explains the verse as a woman have nutriat in the verse meaning to allow to grow, to nurture it as one does a child, not hindering the growth. Hence the Italian crescere, and the Spanish "crecer el cabello."

Thank you for your response. What I have on my mind is Peter in Acts 10, praying at noon and the vision he had. It was confusion to him. But, God spoke to him and His words could be confirmed by the written Word that the Apostles and Bereans used to verify any teaching.

My question is, would Peter need to look at Antiquity for proof or to get his answer? I would think it might not be as reliable. And I don't believe you can call the hair a "covenant" unless the Word speaks that it is.

[returnman]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Bro, please and also Michael. You must get restful sleep. Caffeine has a half life 5 to 6 hours. Meaning that it is ONLY to be consumed in the morning. The later you drink it, the harder it is to get rest. No "restful" sleep will pretty much kill you. What happens first is plummeting testosterone. Now, this is super dangerous. You as a male need your T levels at their optimum, and it is no joke. Hormonal imbalances can cause all sorts of issues, which show up first emotionally. Also with falling T levels you have rising cortisol levels, which not only destroy T levels, but attack brain function, joints, ligament, muscle tissue, blood circulation, motivation. Being unmotivated and being tired, doesn't mean we will achieve "restful" deep sleep. I believe Chris even posted how the screen electronics can jam up our sleep by actually keeping us awake. Also where we sleep is another factor, and a mattress which is perfect for us is important. Also pillow, also if we snore or if we stop breathing during our sleep that our body has to constantly wake us up or we suffocate. Anyway, with all that being said first, watch the caffeine (in all forms) intake.

Ouch! This preached to me. I like my afternoon cup but know it probably aids in my sleep issues. I can fall asleep pretty good but wake up usually 3ish am.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by returnman

Ouch! This preached to me. I like my afternoon cup but know it probably aids in my sleep issues. I can fall asleep pretty good but wake up usually 3ish am.

I'm serious, you can't be drinking caffeine anywhere close to the afternoon.
You fall asleep from exhaustion, hence you wake up at 3. But, what kind of awakening is that 3 o clock wake up? Are you awake, like wide awake? Or do you have to go to the bathroom awake, and after the bathroom can get right back to sleep? The latter is because of liquid intake before we go to bed. Again, restful deep sleep is important to our hormonal balance.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Thank you for your response. What I have on my mind is Peter in Acts 10, praying at noon and the vision he had. It was confusion to him. But, God spoke to him and His words could be confirmed by the written Word that the Apostles and Bereans used to verify any teaching.

My question is, would Peter need to look at Antiquity for proof or to get his answer? I would think it might not be as reliable. And I don't believe you can call the hair a "covenant" unless the Word speaks that it is.

Hair being a covenant? Did I post that? Anyway, Peter didn't have to look into antiquity meanings. He lived in antiquity, the Greek definitions would be still in use during his lifetime. He had no problem with the language because it was his language.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Hair being a covenant? Did I post that? Anyway, Peter didn't have to look into antiquity meanings. He lived in antiquity, the Greek definitions would be still in use during his lifetime. He had no problem with the language because it was his language.

My comments on the "covenant" were due to my earlier post. So, no, I didn't imply you said that.

Why does Paul not use a word in Greek for "uncut"?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

My comments on the "covenant" were due to my earlier post. So, no, I didn't imply you said that.

Why does Paul not use a word in Greek for "uncut"?

I must of missed that post.

Anyway, to answer the question about Paul, the same reason they didn't write amplified. The Bible writers wrote to their audience, and audience who were familiar with their Roman Hellenized Judean world. They understood not only the definition of κομᾷ, but how the word was used in their culture. Hence looking at the Vulgate gives us insight on a more defining word "nutriat."

They lived in a Latin, Greek, Aramaic speaking world, where their cultural usages of words and phrases we need to discover for ourselves. The Bible deals with a huge amount of symbolism, and these symbols were as common as a red octagon with white letters. We know what that means, but we might be totally lost when we read thow they used their own words, which were crystal clear to them.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

My comments on the "covenant" were due to my earlier post. So, no, I didn't imply you said that.

Why does Paul not use a word in Greek for "uncut"?

*Actually, Paul did use a Greek word meaning "not to cut" in I Corinthians 11.6. See this blog post on the grammar of this text - replete w. lexical quotations.

*{Note: Since writing this article a couple of years ago I have come across more information on this Greek text leading to the same conclusion.}

*One of many quotes from Greek grammarians:

*On p. 245 of the United Bible Societies A Translators Handbook on Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians, we read: “To be shorn, literally ‘cut-her-hair’ in Greek, probably referred to a regular trimming of her hair.”

*This is the lexical definition of the verb translated “shorn/κείρασθαι” and hence is the very thing the Holy Spirit is prohibiting through the writings of the Apostle Paul.

https://apostolicacademics.com/2016/...from-i-cor-11/

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by rdp

*Actually, Paul did use a Greek word meaning "not to cut" in I Corinthians 11.6. See this blog post on the grammar of this text - replete w. lexical quotations.

*{Note: Since writing this article a couple of years ago I have come across more information on this Greek text leading to the same conclusion.}

*One of many quotes from Greek grammarians:

*On p. 245 of the United Bible Societies A Translators Handbook on Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians, we read: “To be shorn, literally ‘cut-her-hair’ in Greek, probably referred to a regular trimming of her hair.”

*This is the lexical definition of the verb translated “shorn/κείρασθαι” and hence is the very thing the Holy Spirit is prohibiting through the writings of the Apostle Paul.

https://apostolicacademics.com/2016/...from-i-cor-11/

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by rdp

*Actually, Paul did use a Greek word meaning "not to cut" in I Corinthians 11.6. See this blog post on the grammar of this text - replete w. lexical quotations.

*{Note: Since writing this article a couple of years ago I have come across more information on this Greek text leading to the same conclusion.}

*One of many quotes from Greek grammarians:

*On p. 245 of the United Bible Societies A Translators Handbook on Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians, we read: “To be shorn, literally ‘cut-her-hair’ in Greek, probably referred to a regular trimming of her hair.”

*This is the lexical definition of the verb translated “shorn/κείρασθαι” and hence is the very thing the Holy Spirit is prohibiting through the writings of the Apostle Paul.

https://apostolicacademics.com/2016/...from-i-cor-11/

I missed this, sorry.

Correct as can be.