A Blatant Disregard for the Clear Teachings of the Scriptures

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Pioneer, May 2, 2003.

  1. Pioneer

    Pioneer
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    The above statements are a blatant disregard for the clear teachings of the scriptures and a clear denouncing of the King James Bible.

    In reference to the term "long hair" in I Cor. 11:14,15, I found this information:

    Strongs Concordance (Greek Dictionary)

    The term "long hair" is from the Greek work "komao {kom-ah'-o}" (Strongs number 2863). It means to wear tresses of hair. In other words, to have long hair.

    Note: The word "tresses" means "locks of hair" or "long loose hair"


    Easton Bible Dictionary

    "Among the Hebrews the natural distinction between the sexes was preserved by the women wearing long hair (Luke 7:38; John 11:2; 1 Cor. 11:6), while the men preserved theirs as a rule at a moderate length by frequent clipping."

    There is absolutely no support for saying that the text refers to a "neat hairdo." That claim is a fraud and to claim that "the KJV translators picked one of two options" is a smoke screen to cover up that fraud.

    [ May 02, 2003, 10:46 PM: Message edited by: Pioneer ]
     
  2. russell55

    russell55
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2002
    Messages:
    2,424
    Likes Received:
    0
    I gotta say you lost me on that one. Please explain.

    How is saying that the KJV translators picked one of two possible tranlations of a word denouncing the KJV?
     
  3. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Recommend you read the King James Bible in
    the original version (instead of the
    KJV1769 or KJV1873) [​IMG]

    I.Corinthians XI:15 (KJV1611):

    But if a woman haue long haire,
    it is a glory to her: for her haire is giuen
    her for a || couering.


    sidenote: || Or, vaile.

    So, according to the 50 blessed translators
    of the King James Version of 1611 (missing
    in most modern versions of the KJV) this is
    the second best translation:

    I.Corinthians XI:15 (KJV1611):

    But if a woman haue long haire,
    it is a glory to her: for her haire is giuen
    her for a vaile.


    I read this to say that a woman with her
    long hair already has on a veil. Therefor
    it is unnecessary for a woman with long hair
    and already veiled thereby to futher have
    to add a cloth hair covering. However, if
    they do, no problem with me.
     
  4. Daniel David

    Daniel David
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Pioneer, your inability to follow the discussion is evident by your whining about it to another forum.

    I gave all the reasons to believe what I do. I posted the original word and its root. Your problem is realizing that KJVO is bankrupt theology.
     
  5. Headcoveredlady

    Headcoveredlady
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,388
    Likes Received:
    0
    Edifier,
    Thank you for typing that out. I am wondering what verse six says in the 1611 version. Would you be so kind as to share that one as well? Thank you.
     
  6. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    I.Corinthians XI:6 (KJV1611);

    For if the woman be not couered,
    let her also bee shorne: but if it bee a
    shame for a woman to be shorne or shauen,
    let her be couered.
     
  7. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is a virtual duplication of a thread already in progress in another forum, and it smacks of an attempt to circumvent BB rules. It is closed.
     

Share This Page

Loading...