Uncut Hair and the Nazirite Vow for Women

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Costeon

Signs and wonders never cease. :-)



Indeed.



Yes Brother Bernard kept cool under fire. Sometimes I wish the Oneness debater would just ask, "Oh, so you believe I am saved and your full brother in Christ?" We always let them go on and put us on the spot with "so am I your brother? am I saved?"



Yes I haven't met many like him.

I've always found it hypocritical to believe that salvalation only occurs through repentance, water baptism and receiving the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues and then not at least affirm that you don't believe they are saved when asked by someone that hasn't done those things if you believe they are saved.

It's not a trick question. It's not backing you into a corner. It's literally what you believe.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by jfrog

I've always found it hypocritical to believe that salvalation only occurs through repentance, water baptism and receiving the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues and then not at least affirm that you don't believe they are saved when asked by someone that hasn't done those things if you believe they are saved.

It's not a trick question. It's not backing you into a corner. It's literally what you believe.

I have no problem affirming James White is as lost as a goose in a chicken pot pie factory.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Costeon

I doubt it.

But here we go.

Could Paul be using keiro to refer to only a simple trim? I don’t think this is possible regardless of whether Paul is talking about cloth head coverings or just hair in 1 Cor 11.

For the sake of argument, I’ll begin with the assumption that Paul is referring to a cloth head covering in vv. 5-6 when he mentions “uncovered” and “uncovered.”

“5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. 6 For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered.”

Paul starts by asserting the general principle that if a woman prays or prophesies without a veil she is dishonoring her Head and likens this to something the Corinthians would have naturally felt was dishonorable as well: a woman having her head shaved. Here Paul compares a veil and a woman’s hair and describes both as being completely removed.

Here, to not have a veil = to not have hair.
Both are dishonorable.

Now in light of what Paul’s just said in v. 5, he continues in v. 6 by saying that if a woman has in fact completely removed her veil then she must do something, that again they would all naturally agree would be dishonorable . . . trim her hair? No, he commands an act that would be the appropriate and understandable equivalent to having completely removed her veil: completely removing her hair, in this case using a close synonym for the shaving of v. 5—shearing off her hair. Paul says that, if they want to completely remove their veils, then they must go the whole way and completely remove their natural veils. The only options are being fully covered or fully uncovered. Paul knows of course that they would think this act would be deeply shameful—their long hair was their prized ornament, their glory, after all—and so he can conclude with, “Since you would never completely remove your natural veil, then be fully covered with your other veil as well.”

So again,
To remove the veil = to remove the hair
To be covered with a veil = to be covered with long hair.

Would “trim your hair,” that is, slightly removing her hair, be an appropriate command in response to her having completely removed her veil? Would trimming be the equivalent of completely removing? No. They are not equivalent actions. Paul talking about both coverings being completely removed makes sense. Suggesting that Paul commanded a slight removing of her natural veil as an equivalent action to having completely removed her veil covering doesn’t make sense. The only thing that makes sense is recognizing that Paul is talking about them being fully uncovered, not fully uncovered regarding the veil but only barely uncovered regarding hair.

If we say keiro means to fully cut off the hair, we have the following:
To not have a veil = to not have hair.
Fully uncovered = fully uncovered.

If we say keiro means only to trim we have the following:
To not have a veil = to have trimmed hair.
Fully uncovered = Barely uncovered.

If keiro means only to trim, we would end up with a situation where a woman could appear to be covered with long hair to her waist but if it's trimmed she is not covered despite all appearances to the contrary--though she is in fact actually fully covered with hair.

To conclude, I don’t think the context will allow for the meaning of “to trim” since Paul is using the image of either being fully covered or being fully uncovered. He is not dealing with partial coverings. He only contrasts being either completely uncovered or being completely covered. There is no middle ground.

Again, for argument’s sake, let’s say Paul is not thinking of a cloth head covering at all but is only referring to trimmed or untrimmed hair throughout 1 Cor 11.

Let’s approach it differently from how I dealt with the first example. Let’s just plug in “untrimmed hair” every place “covered” appears and “trimmed hair” every place “uncovered” appears and see what follows.

5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with trimmed hair dishonors her Head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. 6 For if a woman has trimmed hair, let her also trim her hair. But if it is shameful for a woman to have trimmed hair or to be shaved, let her have untrimmed hair."

In v. 5, I’m not sure how hair that we would recognize as long—say it’s down to her waist but is nevertheless trimmed—could be the equivalent dishonor of having her head shaved. We can all see how a woman having a head shaved slick bald or having a head that has been sheared of hair would be a terrible shame to a woman. But it’s impossible for me to see how a woman with beautiful hair flowing down her back could be the equivalent shame as a woman having a shaved head. She would actually be fully covered with her glory.

In the first part of v. 6, how can a woman be commanded to trim her hair when it has already been trimmed? Does he mean trim it more?

And again with the last part of v. 6, again how can a shaved head be the equivalent shame of a woman with long beautiful hair flowing down her back that has been trimmed? It's not. As long as the woman has long hair--hair that looks like a covering, it is hers to glory in.

Your doubt was well placed.

Essentially, to argue that trimming is not in view depends upon certain presuppositions. I think the other side depends on certain presuppositions as well. Namely, both presuppose what first century Greeks would understand by keiro, komao, and kome. However, the view expressed by RDP does have one slight advantage: the terms do in fact include the possibity of trimming being in view, from a purely grammatical POV, whereas they do not exclude the idea of trimming from a grammatical POV.

Which seems to me to indicate that the "solution" either way is going to depend on certain assumptions (hopefully derived from fact based study). Pascal's Wager seems to favour the keiro = slightly trimmed view, but Occam's Razor leans the other way.

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by jfrog

I've always found it hypocritical to believe that salvalation only occurs through repentance, water baptism and receiving the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues and then not at least affirm that you don't believe they are saved when asked by someone that hasn't done those things if you believe they are saved.

It's not a trick question. It's not backing you into a corner. It's literally what you believe.

Actually it is a trick question when somebody like White asks it in a formal public debate. Bro. Bernard knows it and knows that if he were to baldly say, "Yes you are going to hell" then a great many listeners of the debate will immediately become defensive and close their minds to what he is arguing for.

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by Esaias

However, the view expressed by RDP does have one slight advantage: the terms do in fact include the possibity of trimming being in view, from a purely grammatical POV, whereas they do not exclude the idea of trimming from a grammatical POV.

The term keiro has that possibility in the abstract if we don't consider the actual examples the lexical resources list as evidence for the meaning they give this verb. If all of them in BDAG or Louw & Nida involve examples of the hair being removed and 1 Cor 11.6 comes right after these examples, well, I don't think people can be blamed for thinking, "Well, if they don't note specifically that it has a new meaning here, then I guess they probably are indicating that they mean this example has the same meaning as the others"--when for other words they do explicitly list alternative meanings if they think the word has them and provide the verses, the evidence, for these various meanings.

Oh for one simple command, "Women, do not cut your hair."

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Costeon

Actually it is a trick question when somebody like White asks it in a formal public debate. Bro. Bernard knows it and knows that if he were to baldly say, "Yes you are going to hell" then a great many listeners of the debate will immediately become defensive and close their minds to what he is arguing for.

Hypocrisy for a good reason can still be hypocrisy.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

LOL! She's just used to you.

When you come to AFF, you aren't around your comfortable circle, so anything and everything is put to a question. It just comes across as venom when you don't feel people are fawing over your words.

*LOL - Once again you demonstrate your double-standards in slyly (not quite sly enough) attacking my character. Of course, this is what people do who cannot handle evidence...and don't worry, I've uncovered much more for you to try to erase !

*There are not enough words in the human language to tell you how little I care what your opinion is of me - trusttt me, I (and some others) have mine of you also .

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

It did feel as though you both had prior disagreement before you arrived at the debate. However, I would point out that Bro. David Bernard is an exemplary example of a person giving a rebuttal while keeping a cool head. He also never comes across as intellectually superior.

If they flew you in for that reason, they were already showing a propensity to fight, which probably put you in that frame of mind. Just sayin'...

*I know Bro. Bernard and I respect his scholarship, but I was contacted by many other preachers who felt like he went wayyy too soft on White in their debates. I completely agreed. Again, you are welcome to your opinion - but it's absolutely nothing more than just that.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Excellent! God can work in the most negative circumstances. I remember Bro. Kilgore talking about how God would blind the eyes of the new converts in the midst of the trouble. And Bro. Epley received the Holy Ghost under a woman preacher! LOL!

*Of course, biblically speaking, there's no such thing as a "woman preacher" in the church. Second, I will reemphasize that you are welcome to your own opinion, but many-many pastors, academics, and ministers that I know personally completely disagree w. you.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Getting back to the issue. You posted these three translations, which are (at least two of them) in question as to your view.

*No, they are not. All three of these excellent translations adopt the rendering "to cut [her hair]" regarding the verb we have been discussing. And, I have more data that I will post soon on the viability of these translations (that Costeon informed us hardly anyone knew about...which is flatly false).

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

When I read the NLT, I am reading it as "cut off all her hair" being reiterated as "cut her hair" IOW, when the NLT says, "cut her hair", it appears to mean "cut off all her hair" without the redundancy.

Same for the CEV, except it says it backward - "cut her hair" and, again, without being redundant goes on to say, "cut off her hair".

*And I have pointed out approx. 10 times on this thread that in their rendering "cut off all her hair" the NLT adds words that are found in no Greek MS that I am aware of (there's no textual variant listed here in my critical editions).

*However, when it comes to their rendering "it is a shame for a woman to cut her hair" - they reflect the exact wording of the Greek text. Honestly, at this point I don't know how else to communicate this fact.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Costeon

Regarding the church, the very name ekklesia, the "assembly," implies that a person would not be a part of the assembly if they don't assemble. The church is the flock of God, which implies that a person is with the flock and is being shepherded by their overseers--not off in some other field alone doing their own thing--overseers that they are to submit to for they're watching over their soul (Heb 13.17). The church is the body of Christ, which implies each person is an essential part with an essential role and the body wouldn't function properly if parts of the body were absent. When we look at the Book of Acts we see they were continually devoting themselves to prayer and the apostles' teaching and to fellowship (Acts 2.42). We are to remember well those who preach and teach us and labor among us in the Word and doctrine and esteem them very highly for their work and give them double honor and imitate them, while living at peace with one another (Heb 13.7; 1 Tim 5.17; 1 Thes 5.12-13). God has appointed people to certain specific positions to train others for ministry, and God has given gifts to each person to use in the church for the profit of all (1 Cor 12; Rom 12.3-8; Ephesians 4.10-12). The very setting of the passage we are debating is the assembly. Though sometimes serious problems can arise when believers gather together in one place as a church (1 Cor 11.18-20), still we are to leave our homes and gather for the Lord's Supper--Communion--and through the Lord's Supper together to proclaim the Lord's death till He comes again (1 Cor 11.23-34). The church is the elect of God, and we are to "put on tender mercies, kindness, humility, meekness, longsuffering; bearing with one another, and forgiving one another, if anyone has a complaint against another; even as Christ forgave you, so you also must do. But above all these things put on love, which is the bond of perfection. And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which also you were called in one body; and be thankful." And while doing these things toward each other, we are to "let the word of Christ dwell in [us] richly in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord" (Col 3.12-16).

Those would be some of the things I would point to if someone were inclined to forsake assembling together with other believers (Heb 10.25).

I know and I completely agree (this is very good BTW) - but you have been demanding other passages that "explicitly says" that NT Christian women should not cut their hair (when I feel like I've presented you w. more than 1 already) - but my point is that there is only a sole passage that "explicitly says" that NT believers should not "forsake" their "assembling."

*You are smart enough to understand this point .

[1ofthechosen]

I could steal this guy's points but I would rather just post it. But he shows what the covering is by scripture. And I say just watch Brother Weatherly instead. Start the video at 19:30 and just watch his first remark. Brother RDP put this yesterday, and I checked out some of it, and I think he showed rather well passage for passage. And yes there is multiple scriptures. Check it out.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Costeon

"rdp has only one translation. rdp has only one translation. rdp has only one translation."

"The polar opposite." Lol! Your hyperbole!

*Oh, you mean the three translations that anyone can scroll up to read who can count beyond one ? Or, you mean the CEV, GNT, NLT - two of which you have informed us that hardly no one even knows exists?

*Hmm, interesting that late last night I was reading through Luke in the NET and Wallace appealed to the CEV and the NLT renderings in his translational notes...you know, the translations that you say no serious Bible student would use .

*Then I just did a software search for the CEV - and tons of data and endorsements popped up. Here's is only a sampling of their quotes. Remember the CEV, NLT, and GNT are not used by Bible students according to you:

(Handbook of NT Exegesis; Dr. Craig Blomberg): For good models here, consider especially the NLT, Good News Translation (GNT; formerly Good News Bible, orig. 1976), and Contemporary English Version (CEV, 1995). The GNT, for example, renders Romans 3:25–26 as follows:

God offered him, so that by his blood he should become the means by which people’s sins are forgiven through their faith in him. God did this in order to demonstrate that he is righteous. In the past he was patient and overlooked people’s sins; but in the present time he deals with their sins, in order to demonstrate his righteousness. In this way God shows that he himself is righteous and that he puts right everyone who believes in Jesus.

Fully functionally equivalent translations began with the GNT produced by the United Bible Societies, the main international and ecumenical organization for modern-language Bible translation...The GNT is sixteen words longer than the TNIV but is even more straightforward in its vocabulary and syntax.

(Ibid.): The CEV more resembles the GNT in that it did not originate with any existing English translation but with the Greek and Hebrew alone.

(Ibid.): The NLT is the premier example of functional equivalence in English, while the GNT and CEV are additional, stalwart examples.

(The Hermeneutical Spiral; Dr. Grant Osborne; Here Osborne is discussing Dynamic Equivalences [he actually lists CEV, NLT] vs. Formal Equivalences):

There are two questions about these translations: Which approach yields the more accurate translation? Is one superior to the other in its faithfulness to the revealed Scriptures? My frank opinion is that we need both types of translations.

In fact, I tell people in Bible study seminars that if they don’t know Hebrew or Greek, the best thing they can do is take a literal version like NASB or ESV as their control, then compare them to five or six others and ask why the TNIV or NLT translate the text differently. Then they get a feel for how to understand the passages better.

The basic problem with a literal approach is that no two languages communicate their meanings alike. What is a single word in one language will need to be translated by an entire phrase in another. Hebrew vocabulary is half as large as Greek, and both are much smaller than English.

This means that a single word in Greek or Hebrew will have to stand for many different terms in English. There can be as many as thirty to forty different possible translations of a biblical term in English. The choice of the correct option depends on both the context of the sentence and the idiom in the receptor language that best communicates that idea. The goal is to find which terms or phrases best communicate that original intention.

A classic error is the belief that the individual Hebrew or Greek term should always be translated by the same English word. In reality this would be a huge fallacy and twist the meaning of the text again and again. Rarely if ever does a term in any language always mean the same thing (e.g., “She snowed the teacher in her essay”). Context is everything, (**Seems like someone else told you that also?) and the choice of a term or phrase affects the meaning of the whole.

*These are only representative of the endorsments of all three of these translations by renowned Greek exegetes. I could literally sit here for days quoting this kind of backing for these translations from the halls of academia. For example, in my software alone the NET refers to the CEV 582 times; UBS for the Greek NT endorses the CEV 497 times and UBS for the Hebrew and LXX OT endorses the CEV 3797 times! Shall I post all these quotes for you - since you tell us that no serious Bible students use these translations ?

Originally Posted by Costeon

Well, of course, man, but do you have to repeat it over and over? We got it.

*If you've "got it" why do you keep regurgitating arguments that have explained ad nauseum?

Originally Posted by Costeon

Hey, a new one. Up to this point in the thread, it's only been "doomsday." Usin' that Greek . . .

*Wrong - also used "until eternity" - caught ya' slippin' once again !

Originally Posted by Costeon

What I'm pointing out is that your boys aren't exactly supporters of the Oneness movement and would utterly repudiate your demanding women never cut their hair and wearing only skirts, and skirts to their ankles. There's no need to keep throwing out this red herring.

*Who says this is a "red herring?" Do you really know what a red herring is? You have misused it several times in this thread. Red herring is a logical fallacy that is an irrelevant topic introduced in an argument to divert the attention of readers [or listeners] away from the original issue. You keep appealing to the interpretations of these translators, which I am pointing out to you is dead-on-arrival if you start down this road. Far from a "red herring."

*Further, if these linguists would supposedly "utterly repudiate" their own selected definitions, translations and claims - then they're the ones who need "repudiated" - not me. I can absolutely prove my positions right from the original languages of God's Word, as well as historical narrative if need be. Perhaps I am just so simplistic that I believe God's Word over your & the "conservative" constituency of AFF !

Originally Posted by Costeon

This is so true. You are so good. Thank God for such an example as you.

*Blessed is the man who sits not in the seat of the scornful .

Originally Posted by Costeon

rdp, you are a pastor and apologist with his own website. You are used to telling people what to do and what to believe and what things mean. That is, you are used to being an authority with people looking to you for guidance. You have too much to lose if you ever admitted you didn't know something about some significant topic or that you were wrong about it, and so just from a psychological perspective, since you have set yourself up publicly as an authority, and since you are obviously supremely confident in your beliefs--after all you've got your website with the formidable name, Apostolic Academics--it would be exceptionally difficult for you to ever even consider you could be wrong on an issue you regarded as essential to salvation, let alone publicly admit you had been in error. On this forum, you are one of few who people know exactly who you are, so everything you say can and will be used against you personally. And so there is nothing I could ever say and there is no amount of evidence I could ever present that would allow you to give ground and say, "I'm wrong on this." I couldn't even get you to concede that only one translation has "to cut" in both places, while two have "to cut" in one place and something else in the other place, which is an obvious fact.

*I have not "set myself up as an authority" - but nice try at the smear campaign that you accuse me of (of course, again, that is the typical double standards of AFF [and other forums as well]). I could just as easily say the same thing about you. Like the translators - I should have surely consulted you before naming my blog 'eh ? I named my blog that for a very good reason and could care less what motives and intents you try to append on to me. Now what?

*And, why on earth would I concede what is completely false? I would have to be dishonest to do so. Three highly regarded translations and their cumulative committee's of professional linguists render the verb in question as simply "to cut" as anyone can scroll up and read for themselves. This is honestly just plain weird that you keep denying this - and I've explained and demonstrated their additions (cf., e.g., NLT) until I could pass out. What do you do? Keep your fingers in your ears and keep repeating outright false information...very odd.

*And, if the church I pastor - or those who know me well - heard you make the claims above regarding me saving face to protect myself, they would howl you out of the room. You could not be more wrong if you tried. I try my best to be conscientious and honest w. God's Word (I've told you this several times on here already, but, you claim you "get it" above?). I have to stand before God someday and I desperately want to be saved - as well as those I have pastored and now pastor.

*However, you have not presented the "amount of evidence" you apparently think you have. The raw facts are that mountains of professional linguists define "shorn" as "literally, to-cut-her-hair" or to "trim" her hair. You simply don't like this so now you're feigning the high ground of "evidence" - when your earth-shattering "evidence" consists of transferring on to women the identical meanings as applied on to both men and sheep ("regardless of the context"). Mind-boggling.

*Back soon .