1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Nature Itself...

Discussion in 'Fundamental Baptist Forum' started by GrannyGumbo, May 23, 2007.

  1. GrannyGumbo

    GrannyGumbo <img src ="/Granny.gif">

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2002
    Messages:
    11,414
    Ratings:
    +0
    Just wondering if someone can explain what this means - "Doth not even nature itself teach you..." 1 Corinthians 11:14a

    Not wanting to argue the issue of long vs short hair - but curious as to how nature teaches us in this matter. Thanks for any replies.
     
  2. tinytim

    tinytim <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Ratings:
    +0
    I have often wondered this myself...

    Take the Lion.. the Male has the longer hair, which would seem to contradict what Paul is saying...
     
  3. Amy.G

    Amy.G New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Ratings:
    +1
    Even in nature the male and female look different. You can tell a female lion from a male lion because of his long mane.
    A male cardinal is bright red, the female is dull.

    Hair really isn't the issue. Looking and behaving like the sex that God created you is the real issue.
     
  4. tinytim

    tinytim <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Ratings:
    +0
    But what lessons in nature teach that the human male must have short hair...
    Why not the woman have short hair, and male long hair...
    I know.. that is just not natural... but why not?

    Does women's hair grow faster?
    Or could he be even referring to baldness here? Since in nature, the human male is more susceptable to baldness than the female is...

    I agree we need to tell each other apart... but why did males start shaving and cutting their hair, and the women didn't?
     
  5. Amy.G

    Amy.G New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Ratings:
    +1
    Paul was using what was acceptable in society (hair lengths) at that time to make his point.

    In our society it's acceptable for women to have short and men to have long hair, but we still know which one is male and which is female. Now when men dress like women and wear makeup and such, then that is not acceptable because they are trying to look like a woman.
     
  6. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Ratings:
    +0
    Context is key here and your answer fits the context. It is also the answer of most of the commentators I have read.
     
  7. Amy.G

    Amy.G New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Ratings:
    +1
    The women didn't shave????:eek: :laugh:
     
  8. bapmom

    bapmom New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,091
    Ratings:
    +0
    I have heard this verse explained by one preacher as a man's hair has a natural "hairline" beyond which it does not look right. Im not sure if this is true or not.....just by my own observations Ive never seen long hair on a man that didn't look thin, scraggly, and unkempt (I mean beyond shoulder length). So by my observations Id say there's some truth to what that preacher said.....there is a "natural" growth limit to man's hair.......

    At least, from the example I mentioned, it was not referring to the animal kingdom as an example for us. Typically we're not supposed to look around at the animals in order to figure out how to act anyway.....:saint:
     
  9. I Am Blessed 24

    I Am Blessed 24 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    44,448
    Ratings:
    +0
    This is how I've heard that verse explained also.
     
  10. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Ratings:
    +127

    Don't know about that. I've seen some guys with beautiful long hair. I think Absolam would have fit that category. I've also seen plenty of women with long, scraggly, thin , and unkempt hair
     
  11. tinytim

    tinytim <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Ratings:
    +0
    pits and legs are something else!
     
  12. Gwen

    Gwen Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2004
    Messages:
    4,107
    Ratings:
    +5
    I was taught that in the Greek, the verse reads, "Does not THE nature..." not nature as in the natural world, but the nature of men having long hair is going against what society says is correct.

    Maybe someone who reads Greek could tell us if this is true...
     
  13. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    16,438
    Ratings:
    +1,329
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Indeed it does have the definite article and perhaps the NIV has caught the nuance...

    NIV 1 Corinthians 11:14 Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him.

    I believe it has something to do with the fact that men go to war and short hair makes them less vulnerable in hand-to-hand combat.

    Also, "short hair" is a subjective thing involvimg one'e culture, etc.

    And then there is the Nazirite vow (Samson).

    HankD​
     
Loading...