FBF: Impossible to Persuade

Thank you Sister Headcoveredlady,
for your explanation to Thankful.
She will get back to you.
Right now she is submitting to me, her husband,
dish-wise after supper.

Click here and look at some old
"Amish Ed" pix
http://eded.tripod.com/edmain.html

Headcoveredlady: "When I read the verses about
the headship veiling they say exactly what they
say and nothing else."

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.

Surely i have respect enough for my
Sister in Christ that i will allow you your
opinion. If further you believe your
opinion, i will allow that also.
But i will receive the same consideration
for my opinion/belief.
I am speaking of my opinion of what the Bible
said versus your opinion of what the Bible said.
What the Bible says is true, correct, inerrant.
What your opinion of what the Bible means
is your opinion.
What my opinion of what the Bible means
is my opinion.
Don't get your opinion of what the Bible means
get confused what what the Bible says.

 

Thank you for explaining to me how you feel. I regret that you feel that you have been called names on the BB. I can see how some of these can be very upsetting, but I caution you about thinking that people are talking behind your back. They probably are not.

I would like to point out from what I have read that these perceived names may
have been called, not because you homeschool or you wear a veil, but because the other person felt that you were condemning them for not doing so. Remember what you have said about public school teachers.

I can’t address this as I have no knowledge of this, but many of our members wear head coverings at times, hats, bonnets and no one has made fun of them, but I do believe we have a special church and that does not help you any in your walk with the Lord. When I first met my husband, I thought he was Amish.

I hope that you will take this in the spirit that I give it and in Christian Love, but examine your attitude about people who believe differently than you do. I don’t know you, but I do know that you love the Lord God with all your heart and you are trying to follow the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ to the letter. I admire you for that. I am going to pray that I will be less defensive when someone disagrees with me. Perhaps we can pray for each other. May God Bless You.

 

In John 17 Jesus said that the world will hate us because it hates Him.
Murph

 

Thankful,
If I have offended you with my statements about public school teachers I am sorry for that. I did not mean to offend you or anyone else. But, I will stand by my statement that I truly believe that most public school teachers are not Christians.

I did not say that YOU were not a Christian, just that I believe most p/s school are not and that the agenda of the government school system is not compatible with what I believe the Lord's agenda is, for me to train my children in the ways of the Lord.

As far as you not agreeing with me on this issue, I never said you were not saved because you disagree with me. However, I do believe this verse is for all Christian women everywhere and everytime. I believe it is to be taken literally.

And if I back down and say well it is ok for you not to do it and maybe it is good for me, than I am, in my opinion not being true to the Lord and His Word. I understand that we are not all cookies cut from the same mold, but when something is clearly given like, this I believe it is to be followed regardless of what the world or even other church members think about us.

Thank you for the 1611 verses.

 

HCL--

No One has ever said anyting to me about you,
and I have no need to say anything. I could easily
be wrong, but I doubt anyone has said anything.

 

Daniel. I am sorry. Now I understand fully, and will try to say something. The Greek word in question is komaô, and is found in both 1Cor. 11:14 & 15. Its number according to Strong's system is 2863. First I will quote a few reference works at my disposal, and after that I will quote some versions on these verses.

Strong's Greek lexicon:
From G2864; to wear tresses of hair: - have long hair.

Thayer Definition:
1) to let the hair grow, have long hair

Robertson's Word Pictures:

1Co 11:15 -
Have long hair (koma¯i). Present active subjunctive of komao¯ (from kome¯, hair), old verb, same contraction (̇ae¯i^a¯i) as the indicative (aei ^ a¯i), but subjunctive here with ean in third class condition. Long hair is a glory to a woman and a disgrace to a man (as we still feel). The long-haired man! There is a papyrus example of a priest accused of letting his hair grow long and of wearing woollen garments.

Vine's:
Verb,2863,komao>
signifies "to let the hair grow long, to wear long hair," a glory to a woman, a dishonor to a man (as taught by nature), 1Co_11:14-15.

all the above courtesy of e-Sword

Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament by Friberg & Friberg & Miller:

komaô - wear long hair, let one's hair grow long

The New Analytical Greek Lexicon by Perschbacher:

(2863) komaô - to have long hair, wear the hair long

Greek-English New Testament Lexicon (in Ricker Berry's Interlinear):

komaô - to wear the hair long

The Complete Word Study Dictionary, New Testament, by Zodhiates:

2863. komaô - from komê (2864), hair. To have long hair.

Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament, by Abbott-Smith:

komaô - to wear long hair

Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, by Moulton and Milligan:

komaô 2863 - An interesting illustration of this verb, which in Bibl. Greek is confined to I Cor 11:14 f., is afforded by BGU I. 16:11 (AD 159-160) (= Selections, p. 84), where a charge is brought against a priest of "letting his hair grow too long and of wearing woollen garments"...

A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature, 4th rev. and augmented ed. 1952, by Walter Bauer, transl. & adapted by Arndt & Gingrich:

komaô - wear long hair, let one's hair grow long

Liddell & Scott's, Abridged:

komaô - to let the hair grow long, wear long hair

So, the lexicons are unanimous that komaô refers to having long hair. I will quote some versions which I have on e-Sword, 1Cor. 11:14 (emph. in bold added):

ALT) Does not even nature itself teach you* that if a man indeed is wearing long hair, it is a dishonor to him?

(ASV) Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a dishonor to him?

(Darby) Does not even nature itself teach you, that man, if he have long hair, it is a dishonour to him?

(DSV) Of leert u ook de natuur zelve niet, dat zo een man lang haar draagt, het hem een oneer is?

(EMTV) Does not nature itself teach you, that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him?

(Geneva) Doeth not nature it selfe teach you, that if a man haue long heare, it is a shame vnto him?

(GLB) Oder lehrt euch auch nicht die Natur, daß es einem Manne eine Unehre ist, so er das Haar lang wachsen läßt,

(KJV) Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

(LITV) Or does not nature herself teach you that if a man indeed wears long hair, it is a dishonor to him?

(MKJV) Does not even nature itself teach you that if man has long hair, it is a shame to him?

(WEB) Doesn't even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him?

(YLT) doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man indeed have long hair, a dishonour it is to him?

1Cor. 11:15:

(ALT) But a woman, if she is wearing long hair, it is a glory to her, because her hair has been given in place of a covering.

(ASV) But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

(Darby) But woman, if she have long hair, it is glory to her; for the long hair is given to her in lieu of a veil.

(DSV) Maar zo een vrouw lang haar draagt, dat het haar een eer is; omdat het lange haar voor een deksel haar is gegeven?

(EMTV) But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory for her; because her long hair has been given to her in place of a covering.

(Geneva) But if a woman haue long heare, it is a prayse vnto her: for her heare is giuen her for a couering.

(GLB) und dem Weibe eine Ehre, so sie langes Haar hat? Das Haar ist ihr zur Decke gegeben.

(KJV) But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

(LITV) But if a woman wears her hair long, it is a glory to her; because the hair has been given to her instead of a veil.

(MKJV) But if a woman should have long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her in place of a veil.

(WEB) But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her, for her hair is given to her for a covering.

(YLT) and a woman, if she have long hair, a glory it is to her, because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her;


As for the noun komê (1Cor. 11:15), # 2864, its lexical meaning is primarily "hair" (of the head). The translations which render it as "long hair" (Darby, DSV, EMTV, including myself previously) do so from contextual inference, and the adjective "long" ought to be in italics.

Harald

 

Paul's own commentary on his epistle to the Corinthians...

1 Corinthians 3:1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.
2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.

HankD

 

It keeps being repeated, here and in previous
threads, time and time again -- the same
Scriptures. They are not going to change!

When I opened my Bible yesterday, I was fully
prepared to do what it said, commenting to my
husband, "I don't want to know what this says,
because I will have to do what it says."

I read the Scriptures. I read several translations.
I read it in three Greek Bibles. It remains that the
woman was given long hair INSTEAD of a veil,
FOR a veil. This is what the book says, and no
matter how often we read it, this is not going to
change.

While my renditions may not have been perfect
yesterday, as I was in a hurry and I cannot copy
and paste with my system, it remains that the
Scriptures say what they say. The only question
open for continued analysis, in my opinion, is
"How long is long hair?"

Long hair for one will be different for another.
Some suggest that society tells us what is long.
Well, society tells a lot that I would question! But
like one other here, I cannot lift my left arm for
long because of a car accident. Long, for me, is
the longest length I can handle and still look
decent, remembering that the Scripture, by
analysis, includes neatness.

 

Your humility is something that continues to strike me. I was impressed when you said to everyone here that you have not studied this issue.

I was referring more to the ladies I am in contact with personally. I have been told that behind me I have been questioned. And it is very hard to explain the stares and laughs from other Christian women.

And I think it was someone here who said that he observed Christian women laughing and joking about those with "plainer," appearances. That is what I am referring to.

But,the name calling was right here on the public boards for everyone to see. In pm's I have only received kind letters.

 

I'm like Abiyah "How long is long?"

It seems that my hair grows to a certain length and stops and I do not consider it long in comparison to others.

But I do know that it seems that most people who have long(?) hair, either wear a pony tail, bun (is that term still used?) pulled back from the face and piled on their head and when they do that it looks much shorter than mine. This is very confusing to me.

I am going to listen to my husband who says my hair is just fine.

 

Stunning, HCL! What can I say? I don't read very
many posts, having little time I can be here.

Further, what I find interesting is that I think
people are more blunt with others on bulletin
boards than they would be in person. (Please say
this is so, because I have seen a LOT of rudeness
among believes on BB and other boards in the
past!!) So, for people to laugh and talk about
another in their presence is shocking!

At my synagogue, one woman continuously wears
a head covering, and no one that I know of has
ever said anything of it. It is imply her choice.

As far as humility, it really wasn't; I was simply
stating facts. 8o) Thank you, though.

 

Abiyah,
You said that your translation tells you that your hair was given instead of a covering. What does your translation say about verse FIVE? For if it were only the hair then this would read like this:

But every woman that prayeth or prophesyeth with short hair dishonoureth her head.

And how about verse FOUR: Every man praying or prophesying with long hair dishonors his head.

Verse SIX: For if the woman has short hair, let her also be shorn, but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven let her have long hair.

That verse shows that there is no possible way that it can only be the hair. Because if it already short there is nothing left to shear off.

And how about verse 13? It would read: Judge in yourselves is it comely that a woman pray unto God with short hair?

So praying and prophesying are verbs. So, if it were only the hair than Paul asks the question, Is it comely that she prays with short hair?

And why do you think that God chose to include verse ten? To me when I first began studying this passage this verse really struck me as very interesting. Why did God say that a woman ought to have power on her head because of the angels? I look forward to your answers.

And thanks Harald for typing out all of that.

 

Does this apply?

1 Peter 3:1 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;
2 While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.
3 Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;
4 But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.

HankD

 

HankD,
Of course it applies. I am not sure what you are getting at though, could you explain?

 

Exactly. I never disagreed with the translation used as "long hair". My beef in this issue is that the root of this word has to do with "taking care of, providing for, etc.". If that is the root, and the word is "hair", then it primarily refers to women taking care of their hair. I don't know why this is even being argued against. HCL, are you for women having bad hair day on purpose?

Please understand, this is not about veils. I am willing to discuss that issue if you like, just not this thread. I disagree with your interpretation because it does not take into consideration the original meaning and intent. Therefore, it is a theological matter to me.

 

HCL --

I have read and reread it, and I just don't see it as
you do. 8o) Apparently, we are reading the
same words but applying them differently -- a
common problem with application of Scripture.
I know this: that if I started wearing a head
covering, my husband would be more than
disappointed. When I talked to him last night
about the Scripture and my thoughts, he said
he was glad I had come to the same conclusion
he had re the meaning.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Well! This post reappeared! Strange! I checked
for it twice, and it was not here, so I wrote another
below.

[ May 03, 2003, 11:43 AM: Message edited by: Abiyah ]

 

Daniel,
Ok, you have already said that theologically the passage is about submission and authority. I agree with you here. You also said that verse ten says a woman is to have a visible symbol of authority on her head. I agree with this also.
But, where we disagree is when you claim that the root word of hair is a neat hairdo. I never said that women ought to be messy and dirty. A woman who is truly modest will also be one is neat and clean.
Your interpretation is faulty because it makes no sense. Why would Paul tell women that if she has a neat hairdo this is her acceptable symbol of authority on her head? Do not unsaved women also have neat hairdo?

The opposite of a neat hairdo is a messy one right. So, if all this means is have a near hairdo than it would be saying in verse 13: Judge in yourselves is it comely that a woman pray unto God with messy hair?


And you are saying that the symbol that the angels recognize is the neat hairdo, am I right?

And this symbol of a neat hairdo shows the angels that this woman is in her proper place is that right?

 

Well, HCL, my answer disapeared into the Internet
Abyss!

When we read Scripture, inviarably, it is strained
through the web of our theological predisposition,
preconceived ideas, desire for the Scriptures to
say what we want them to say, and our wilingness
or lack thereof to obey.

When I opened my BIble yesterday, I was fully
prepared to obey, but I did not read what I had
expected! What I thought would be there just was
not there. I read those verses, HCL, but I simply
do not see them as you do. 8o) I have gone over
an over tem, but I do not see it, when the whole of
the Scripture is considered. I'm sorry! 8o)

 

Abiyah,
I think I have to respectfully disagree with you a bit here. For me personally the last thing I wanted to do was wear a visible symbol on my head showing to all that I am following this Scripture. I did not want to give up my pretty hairstyles and fitting in with all the other ladies at church. I liked having pretty hairstyles and fitting in.

I argued with God for a while because I was deathly afraid of man's reaction to me. But, then God showed me Gal 1:10.

I did not want to wear a headcovering. I was from an unsaved family, lived extremely wickedly as a teen, and was a feminist for a time. I do not think I had any preconcieved notions about the headcovering. Other than I though only the Amish wore them for tradition sake.

So, for me at least this is not a correct assesment. If anything my pre-conceived notions were incorrect because the last thing I wanted to do was give up fitting in.