FBF: Impossible to Persuade

I know why Abiyah. Some people do not like the idea of studying the Bible in depth. If they did, their pet theology would be meaningless like Natalie Maines' apology.

 

Ladies I don't feel HCL is calling any of you a millitant feminist. I do feel that we can all agree that there are those in our nation who fit this description.
Murph

 

Daniel,
So, to you these verses are about submission and authority? So, what does verse ten mean to you? Women are to have a neat hairdo because of the angels?

And if women are to just have neat hairdos than they men should not is that right?

And when a woman is done praying and prophesying she is free to have messy and dirty hair is that right?

 

Timothy --

I find it odd that people would criticize going back
to the original languages to get to the bottom of
what the Scriptures mean! Why is that? Why
would anyone recommend that we study the
Bible, which was not written in English, only in
English?

abiyah,

because, at least in my experience, people most often do it to avoid submitting to what the bible plainly says.

homosexuals do it. feminists do it. i've done it. i'm probably still doing it in ways i don't see, god help me.

i will never go back to the original languages to settle such issues. why? because with enough looking i can find a learned opinion to support just about whatever i happen to want the verse to mean. that's not submission to god.

there are those who know the original languages well, and god bless them. but i would suggest that even they be very careful - possibly the modern take on these languages and their lexicons have been corrupted as well. i trust the kjv.

[ May 02, 2003, 01:12 PM: Message edited by: timothy 1969 ]

 

1. The head of the woman is man. The head of man is Christ. The head of Christ is God. The word for head means authority. So, yes, it is about authority and submission.

2. 1 Cor. 11:10 - That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels (ESV).

Okay, the wife covers her head with a recognizable symbol demonstrating the fact that she is in submission to her husband. I do not understand your point.

Wait, I think I know where you are going here. Please explain because I don't want to jump to conclusions.

3. Women are to have neat hair (whether long or short) to demonstrate their femininity.

4. Again, you are trying to "prove" the reciprocal in the statement. Men must hair short hair. Since Paul did not specify the length that meets the requirement for long/short, we can still say with confidence that men must have shorter hair than their wife. For the record, my wife's hair is about 4-5 inches down her back. I have a very close cut.

5. Where did this come from. Don't forget that 1 Cor. 11 is about public worship. I do not believe that women should go out of their way to draw unnecessary attention to her hair.

 

HCL --

It has been years since I studied Greek, and I will
not pretend to know it anymore. However, I cannot
see where my Bibles have mistranslated it in the
Greek versions I have presently, with regard to
women wearing a veil, in verse 15.

(1) But it a woman have long hair, glory to her it is;
for the long hair instead of a covering is given to
her.

(2) But a woman, if she wears her hair long, a
glory to her it is? Because the long hair instead
of a veil has been given to her.

(3)But if a woman should adorn the hair, a glory
it is? Because the beautified instead of a veil has
been given her.

The head covering in this chapter is one of two
things: either long hair or a veil. Supposing it is
a veil, the Scriptures say:

4. Every man praying or prophesying, having a
veil, dishonors his head.
5. But every women who prays or prophesies
with a veil dishonors her head; for that is as
though she were shaved.
6. For if a woman does not wear a veil, let her
be shorn: but if it is a shame for a woman to be
shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil.
7. For a man ought not to wear a veil, for he is the
image and glory of God; but the woman of the
man.
13. Is it appropriate that a woman pray unto God
without a veil?
14. Does not even nature itself teach you that if a
man has long hair, it is a shame to him?
15 But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to
her, for hair is given to her for a veil instead of a
veil being given to her.

I am sorry, HCL, but it just does not make sense
to me.

If the covering is long hair, this is how it reads:
4. For every man praying or prophesying, having
long hair, dishonors his head.
5. But every woman who prays or prophesies
without long hair dishonors her head; for that is
as though she were shaved.
6. For if a woman does not have long hair, then
let he be shorn: but if it is a shame for a woman to
be shorn, let her have long hair.
13. . . . Is it appropriate that a woman pray unto
God without long hair?
14. Does not even nature itself teach you that if a
man has long hair, it is a shame to him?
15. But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to
her, because her hair is given to her for a covering
instead of a veil.

I am sorry, but I just don't see the Scriptures as
intending a veil. 8o)

 

Abiyah,
I am not sure which two Bibles you used for that. But, one says that the veil is the covering and the other one the hair. Nothing about a near hairdo.

Do you own a copy of the Jewish New Testament?
What do you think of the way it reads in there if you have one.

 

The Bible was written in greek. The source for my belief on this has already been explained. You are choosing to ignore it. Perhaps because you already have your theology down according to the KJV. That is fine. Just remember, the greek is what God chose, not english. When a word in greek has more than one meaning, the translators always pick what they believe is the best available choice. That does not negate the fact that it carries with it other meanings that the translation does not pick up.

 

At the top of my latest post, I copied three
quotations from three different Greek
translations, numbered (1), (2), and (3).

The next part was not quotations, but I changed
the Scripturs to read "veil" in the first set and to
read "long hair" in the second, while taking the 15th
verse from the Greek Bibles.

Sure, I have one, but I only used it for
pronunciations of Hebrew names when I first
started going to my synagogue. I learned, early
on, that it was not very trustworthy as a
translation. I trust Greek translations far more
than another English translation of Greek. I will
look at it, though. That translation was written by
one scholar with one agenda, while many other
English translations were written by groups of
scholars who checked and rechecked one
another, then had language scholars check what
these had done. 8o)

 

HCL --

I read it, and I don't agree with the translation: it
waffles entirely to much, creating commentary on
the Scripture. Sorry! 8o)

 

Daniel. You must be able to differentiate between so called semantic range of a Greek word and the contextual meaning of the same. For example, the word pistis is lexically defined as "faith", "faithfulness" etc. But when the Spirit of God took that word pistis and gave it a certain context, then pistis acquired a contextual meaning which IMO can only be one, and not whatever one chooses or prefers. One of the difficulties in translating the Greek NT into English is to discern the exact contextual meaning of a Greek word which may have a broad semantic range. While in a certain context a certain Greek word may be rendered either this or that way, lexically considered, yet only one of the meanings is exactly the one the Spirit intended, and the other lexically valid translational possibilities must be discarded because of their being contextuall invalid in the given context. Lexical possibilities are an asset, but the context is king, both the immediate context as well as the analogy of faith if need be.


Harald

 

Harald, I totally agree. In this case however, the theology of Paul revolves around authority, submission, and order. Do you agree or disagree with my usage of kome and its root in this context?

 

Daniel. I here submit an excerpt of what I once wrote to a believing couple, and you will know if we agree on this matter (names altered):


Beloved Mr. and Mrs.,

I submit a few more thoughts of mine on the headship/head covering matter.


Slightly expanded (chiefly verbal aspect defined) literal translation without explanations or comments:

1. Be ye permanently imitators of me, according as also I [am] of Christ!
2. Now, I am heaping praise on you, brethren, for ye have been remembering all things from me, and according as I delivered to you the traditions ye are holding fast.
3. But, I am desiring [for] you to know that the Christ is the head of each man, and the man [is] woman’s head, and *God [is] Christ’s head.
4. Every man praying or prophesying having [ought] down upon [his] head is disgracing his *head.
5. Furthermore, every woman praying or prophesying with the head uncovered is in the habit of disgracing her *head, for it is one and the same with her having been shaved;
6. For if a woman is not habitually covering herself, also let her shear herself at once! But if [it be] shameful for a woman *to shear herself even once, or to keep on being shaved bald, let her keep on covering herself!
7. For, indeed, a man ought not to be in the habit of covering the head, being God’s image and glory; but, woman is man’s glory;
8. For man is not from woman, but to the contrary woman out of man;
9. For also, man was not created for the sake of the woman, but to the contrary woman for the sake of the man.
10. Because of this the woman is continually under obligation to be having authority on the head because of the angels!
11. Nevertheless, neither man apart from woman, nor woman apart from man in LORD;
12. For as the woman [was] out of the man, on this wise also [is] the man via the woman, but the totality of *God as to ultimate source.
13. Judge ye among yourselves once and for all! Is it becoming [for] a woman to be in the habit of praying unto *God uncovered?
14. Or is not also *nature itself teaching you that if a man, on one hand, should be having long hair, it is a disgrace unto him?
15. But if a woman be having long hair it is a glory unto her, for the long hair hath been given to her for a covering.
16. But if anyone is seeming to be habitually contentious, as for us we are not having such an established custom, neither [do] the congregations of *God.
(asterisk indicates untranslated definite article)

Now, in the following I will take the role of one who contends for the non-artificial-covering standpoint, substituting certain definitions for the usual renderings. I will be consistent in the use of the verb for ”cover” and the adjective corresponding to the verb in the case of both men and women, so it may look somewhat humorous. Take a close look at how the sense of this portion will be then. Starting from v. 3 and onwards.

3. But, I am desiring [for] you to know that the Christ is the head of each man, and the man [is] woman’s head, and *God [is] Christ’s head.
4. Every man praying or prophesying having [ought] down upon [his] head is disgracing his *head.
5. Furthermore, every woman praying or prophesying with the head uncovered by natural womanly hair is in the habit of disgracing her *head (whether it means own head or husband as head, or ultimately both), for it is one and the same with her having been shaved;
6. For if a woman is not habitually covering herself with natural womanly hair, also let her shear (cut hair short as a man) herself at once! But if [it be] shameful for a woman *to shear (cut hair short like men) herself even once, or to keep on being shaved bald, let her keep on covering herself with womanly long hair!
7. For, indeed, a man ought not to be in the habit of covering the head with manly hair (but ought to be bald), being God’s image and glory; but, woman is man’s glory;
8. For man is not from woman, but to the contrary woman out of man;
9. For also, man was not created for the sake of the woman, but to the contrary woman for the sake of the man.
10. Because of this the woman is continually under obligation to be having womanly long hair on the head because of the angels!
11. Nevertheless, neither man apart from woman, nor woman apart from man in LORD;
12. For as the woman [was] out of the man, on this wise also [is] the man via the woman, but the totality of *God as to ultimate source.
13. Judge ye among yourselves once and for all! Is it becoming [for] a woman to be in the habit of praying unto *God not covered by womanly long hair?
14. Or is not also *nature itself teaching you that if a man, on one hand, should be having long hair, it is a disgrace unto him?
15. But if a woman be having long hair it is a glory unto her, for the long hair hath been given to her instead of an artificial head covering.
16. But if anyone is seeming to be habitually contentious, as for us we are not having such an established custom, neither [do] the congregations of *God.

Comments: You yourselves will see how consistent arguing that the covering refers to womanly long hair will turn out more or less hilarious when applied to the text in above manner. What Paul ultimately (v.16) argues for is total uniformity among the churches of God. Observe the definite article before the word ”congregations”. This means all existing churches at a given time (otherwise it is impossible to apply to modern times), and we know Paul in this verse does not refer to only the Grecian churches, but THE congregations of God everywhere. If the determiner had been wanting (lacking) before the word ”churches” it might have been argued he pressed for uniformity of only Grecian churches where (Grece) it was in use that harlots shaved themselves bald or sheared themselves into having shortcut hair. But v. 16 to me speaks that Paul does not talk about a custom or culture bound thing, this thing about women being obligated to wear artificial head coverings in corporate worship meetings, the wording ”THE congregations of God” is a strong argument herein. If today THE (genuine & true) churches (local & visible) of Christ are to be in uniformity on all doctrinal and practical points revealed in the NT (and secondarily in OT), which they are to be according to the word of God, then the existing few churches in the world today, whether in USA or Canada or England or elsewhere ought each and all practice the use of artificial head covering with respect to their wives and women attending corporate worship meetings, without any church deviating from this established Christian custom. Similarly, if the proper sense is no-artificial-head covering then no single church ought to have women with artificial head coverings. It is no adiaphora thing this time, Paul argues for uniformity of practice in this case regardless of country or religious background or prevalent cultures in the country. It is a ”church thing”. All to the end the women and wives properly and becomingly exhibit humility and submission to male and husband headship (in corporate worship meeting contexts where prayer is offered and the word is proclaimed or expounded upon), and ultimately submission to God, this is the order of the living God, He who is God of both Jews and Gentiles. And as I have understood it was the practice in a bygone era, that churches professing Christ quite unanimously strove to obey this command of Paul’s, their women and wives wearing some kind of artificial head covering as a sign of submission to man’s authority and headship, and thus ultimately showing submission to God. But as Tom Ross pointed out the deviation set in in the last century, or maybe in the late 1800’s, with the arrival of women’s liberation movements or feminism and general liberalism and apostasy increasing. I believe the churches of the Reformation era, the Particular Baptist churches in England, and the Gospel Standard Churches of England up to this day, have quite unanimously striven to obey Paul and have had their women and wives wear artificial head coverings. I believe it was quite the same with corresponding churches in USA, although I cannot prove it right now.


END OF QUOTE


Harald

 

Harald,
Thank you for sharing that. I liked especially what you said at the bottom. That this was practiced by Christian women just up until the late 1800's when the Woman's Liberation movenment began.

I have studied church history on this issue and I too have found that most of the godly men iof the past taught that women are to wear coverings. Even Calvin made a prediction about what would happen when the women stopped this practice and I believe he was absolutley correct.

He said that once they stopped wearing the veiling they would begin to expose other parts of their bodies. He was exactly right about that.

 

Just curious, but don't Muslim women wear veils and such like?

And does any of this have anything to do with whether a woman is saved or not?

[ May 02, 2003, 05:18 PM: Message edited by: KenH ]

 

KenH,
It is my understanding that Muslim women wear veils as well as Orthodox Jewish women.

However, I wear the veiling simply because it says to in 1 Corinthians 11:1-16. I believe the Jewish women wear one because of Numbers 30 and the adulterous woman, who removes her veil.

BTW, the veil that Christian women wear looks alot different than the type that Muslim women wear. There can be no mistake.

I have never been mistaken for a Muslim that I know of. I have been mistaken for a Jewish lady once though. And that was actually a huge blessing because it opened to door for me to talk to a Jewish woman about the Lord.

I KNOW THAT IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ONE'S SALVATION. But, after I became saved I began to study God's Word and learn it. Then I began applying it, that is when my troubles began.

 

Harald, I don't think you understood my question. I am not arguing artificial head coverings or not. My dispute with HCL is whether the greek word translated "long hair" is absolutely and only "long hair" or if it is primarily "hair that is neat and in order (long being referred to because of the lesbian/feminists of Paul's day who had a shaved head or military style cut)".

 

I guess I was saved at such a young age that I really do not understand why your troubles began when you started living by God's Word.

That is the joy of our salvation that we can live and serve our Lord and Savior. I find joy in it every day. I do not find trouble.

Perhaps you can explain this to me. I am sincere with this question because I have heard others say that if you are not experiencing trouble you are not living as God wants you to.

I once discussed this with my husband. I didn't think that I had experienced troubles, but then he started pointing out the things that I have been through in my life...I just thought they were part of life.

I don't think anyone's life is easy. There are struggles everyday, but with Jesus as our Lord, we can survive those struggles.

 

Thankful,
Since you asked. Well, let's see where do I begin. Here at the BB, I have been called cult member, unsaved, self-righteous, Hindu, Lidder, Amish, immature in the public forums and I am sure many other things behind my back. These are comments that were made from those who profess to know Jesus Christ.

I was called these names because I wear a headship veiling and I homeschool. I was judged to be unsaved, going to hell by professing Christians. That is what I am talking about.

I have had many wag their tongues about me behind my back in the congregations we have attended as well for my wearing of the headship veiling.

When I read the verses about the headship veiling they say exactly what they say and nothing else. I applied them literally. When I did that I became as the offscouring to many.