how about y opinion about man with long hair?

[Guest Butero]

OK Blindseeker, but just because the same Greek word was translated vile in Romans and was translated shame in 1 Corinthians, that doesn't mean there is a connection between the two passages? I think I understand what you are trying to say, but I think that is a bit of a stretch. I am not saying that to make light of it. To have written what you did in that post, it is obvious you have put much time into the subject. That is what made me wonder if you got it from a commentary? I just don't think that having the same Greek word in both places proves anything. If that was the case, you could make all kind of connections between unrelated passages in the Bible based on a word being used in both of them.

Ok Butero,

First I did not get it from a commentary.

Second, how words are used in other passages help to convey the author's intent in a passage in question. So yes, one can properly make a connection of "concept" and gain insight as to original intent by doing so.

In the Old Testament, the word abomination comes up many times. One of the Hebrew words translated abomination is towebah which means an abhorrence, especially idolatry. Let's look at a couple of verses where the word is used.

Genesis 43:32 ...the Egyptians might not eat bread with the Hebrews; for that is an towebah unto the Egyptians.

Proverbs 12:22 Lying lips are towebah to the Lord: but they that deal truly are his delight.

Since the same Hebrew word is used in both instances, does that mean there is a connection between the two?

[Guest Butero]

. . . people know within themselves what long and short is,

What would you call shoulder-length?

Hair that would touch one's shoulders. I have "Everybody Loves Raymond" on the tv right now, and Deborah's hair is shoulder length, and Raymond's hair is not. Her hair flops and his doesn't.

So, would that acceptable or unacceptable for men to wear in your understanding?

And would that be acceptable or unacceptable for women to wear in your understanding?

If my hair got as long as Deborah's hair, it is too long for me. It would be a shame to me. I believe Raymond has a man's hair cut and it is short enough to be considered short. Again, that is my personal standard. Another person might think a man with hair as long as Deborah has short hair and might find Deborah's hair too short for a woman.

[Guest Butero]

You can find the same Hebrew word translated abomination in many differen't unrelated passages. You can't reasonably say they are all talking about the same sinful behavior based on that. That is why it doesn't work.

The entire Bible was written to the entire Christian Church, but that doesn't mean it doesn't cover a multitude of unrelated topics.

yes, I understand that the entire Bible was written to the entire Christian Church, but that does not remove the fact that Paul was writing this letter to and about a specific group of people. It would actual make more sense that these two passages are related than to say they are not. Do you think Paul was just writing random stuff?

If that is what you mean, Paul wrote one letter to the church at Rome and one letter to the church at Corinth, so there would be no connection. He is dealing with entirely differen't subject matter. 2 Corinthians was a differen't letter to the church at Corinth than was 1 Corinthians, and so he is discussing differen't matters.

[Guest Butero]

I have a question based on this post. If it is legalism to say it is wrong for men to have long hair, then why is it not legalism to judge a woman based on how tight or low cut her shirt is? I would ask the same thing in relation to women's dresses today. I don't know how many in the anti-legalism crowd I have seen attacking the dresses women wear today, while calling those who say women wearing pants is wrong. If one is legalism, so is the other. If one is being judgemental, so is the other. What is decent would have to be subjective. To one person, a mini-dress might be indecent, but to another, it might be acceptable. I could use similar examples in many other areas. You will have one of the tolerant ones attacking me as legalistic for saying men should have short hair, while they will attack the use of tobacco.

yes, it is all subjective, be it long hair or what is decent or what is appropriate to wear to church.

I have had people tell me it was wrong to wear shorts to a Wednesday night Bible study. I have had people tell me that it was wrong for my daughter to wear jeans on a Sunday morning.

I think that long vs. short hair is a bit different than what is too revealing on a person though. hair is not going to lead someone to sinful thoughts, while a shirt too low or a dress too high very well might.

But all in all, I think it is wrong to condemn, or assume people are not in submission to God, based on any of the above.

maybe God was vague in telling us what long hair was so that we would not judge others by their hair length?

my hair is "short". but my hair will not grow. it doesn't matter how long i go between cuts, it gets to a certain length and then it stops. it is also thin and stringy when long. i feel better when my hair is shorter. if i felt God was saying to me that there is something wrong with short hair, i would grow it out--no matter how bad it looked. but the fact is, i have never gotten that message from Him. have gotten it from other people, but not Him. it's taken me a long time to learn to listen to the Spirit over and above the words of man, and i'm still not always so good at it. but this i know: God does not want shame to come upon me. He loves me. and if i am doing something that will cause me shame, He will let me know about it. that, i have confidence in.

we know in part right now. the Bible is a very complicated and complex book, and sometimes our understanding of it is very dim. i trust the Spirit speaking to me better than i trust my own understanding!

This post confuses me Charitow. First you say you hair will not grow, that it gets to a certain length and stops. Then you say if God wanted you to have it long in your opinion, you would grow it out, no matter how bad it looked? It comes across to me that you are simply not comfortable with long hair.

Anyway, nobody here thinks you are in sin. Even those of us who believe that you should keep your hair long, and you youself called it short, don't think you are in sin. We just acknowledge what the passage says.

[BlindSeeker]

OK Blindseeker, but just because the same Greek word was translated vile in Romans and was translated shame in 1 Corinthians, that doesn't mean there is a connection between the two passages? I think I understand what you are trying to say, but I think that is a bit of a stretch. I am not saying that to make light of it. To have written what you did in that post, it is obvious you have put much time into the subject. That is what made me wonder if you got it from a commentary? I just don't think that having the same Greek word in both places proves anything. If that was the case, you could make all kind of connections between unrelated passages in the Bible based on a word being used in both of them.

Ok Butero,

First I did not get it from a commentary.

Second, how words are used in other passages help to convey the author's intent in a passage in question. So yes, one can properly make a connection of "concept" and gain insight as to original intent by doing so.

In the Old Testament, the word abomination comes up many times. One of the Hebrew words translated abomination is towebah which means an abhorrence, especially idolatry. Let's look at a couple of verses where the word is used.

Genesis 43:32 ...the Egyptians might not eat bread with the Hebrews; for that is an towebah unto the Egyptians.

Proverbs 12:22 Lying lips are towebah to the Lord: but they that deal truly are his delight.

Since the same Hebrew word is used in both instances, does that mean there is a connection between the two?

No one is making a rule or law, simply employing a beneficial aid to gaining insight at times.

The Hebrew word translated "abomination" is used 112 times by at least 11 different authors . . .

The Greek word translated "shame" in question is used 7 times in 4 epistles by 1 author, Paul.

Think about it.

[Guest Butero]

OK Blindseeker, but just because the same Greek word was translated vile in Romans and was translated shame in 1 Corinthians, that doesn't mean there is a connection between the two passages? I think I understand what you are trying to say, but I think that is a bit of a stretch. I am not saying that to make light of it. To have written what you did in that post, it is obvious you have put much time into the subject. That is what made me wonder if you got it from a commentary? I just don't think that having the same Greek word in both places proves anything. If that was the case, you could make all kind of connections between unrelated passages in the Bible based on a word being used in both of them.

Ok Butero,

First I did not get it from a commentary.

Second, how words are used in other passages help to convey the author's intent in a passage in question. So yes, one can properly make a connection of "concept" and gain insight as to original intent by doing so.

In the Old Testament, the word abomination comes up many times. One of the Hebrew words translated abomination is towebah which means an abhorrence, especially idolatry. Let's look at a couple of verses where the word is used.

Genesis 43:32 ...the Egyptians might not eat bread with the Hebrews; for that is an towebah unto the Egyptians.

Proverbs 12:22 Lying lips are towebah to the Lord: but they that deal truly are his delight.

Since the same Hebrew word is used in both instances, does that mean there is a connection between the two?

No one is making a rule or law, simply employing a beneficial aid to gaining insight at times.

The Hebrew word translated "abomination" is used 112 times by at least 11 different authors . . .

The Greek word translated "shame" in question is used 7 times in 4 epistles by 1 author, Paul.

Think about it.

I just used the word abomination as an example. I could have just as easily done the same thing with another word that is not used that many times.

[Shiloh62]

my favourite actor going to hollywood in recent days ,and .....

so handsome the guy,but now add the plait to his head

all his fans(including me )strongly struggling with that

bcs it is toooo uglying looking

but he said that it will make him very popular in america(bcs of exotic fantastic looking)

wu...wu ...

will G-D bless him the man with long hair!!!

The Bible says it is a shame for a man to have long hair or a woman to have short hair, so that is my view.

what about John the Baptist? was it a shame for him to have long hair?

Show me the passage that says John The Baptist had long hair?

Jesus had long hair, Samson, probably alot more people that we can thing. I would even say that John did since he did have the look of a "wild man".

Yes, but they did't have barbers back then, unless you count Delilah.

[Guest Butero]

i love the way how some here are using excuses to justify reasons for men to have long hair.

whether it's historical, Paul's "perception", or not meant for us.....; one cannot avoid one scripture:

1 cor 11:14 "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?"

-close the thread

Okaya, so let's have a definition from scripture of what long hair is. And, while we're at it, let's also address the question of why God would command those under a nazirite vow not to cut their hair during the time of their vow.

This really has no relevance since the keeping of a Nazarite vow was a practice done before the cross. It comes with a lot or ordinances that wouldn't apply today, like becoming unclean if you come into the presence of a dead body, and having to shave your head and start over. The passage in Corinthians is a New Testament practice, and that is obvious from the fact it states that a man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, and the same passage shows his head to be Christ.

Again, you are wrong. Paul is recorded to have paid for the sacrifices of the men completing a nazirite vow in Acts and there is no doubt this occurred after the cross. Jewish men were praying with their heads covered for centuries before Jesus was even born. It was symbolic of the idea that sinful man was unworthy to approach a holy God. That was what changed at the cross.

Perhaps you could provide us with actual scripture that shows "Paul is recorded to have paid for the sacrifices of the men completing a nazarite vow in Acts.?" I have doubts. Prove it. Even if Jewish men were praying with their heads covered, it was a tradition, not an ordinance of God, and when a tradition is at odds with scripture, scripture trumps all.

By the way, if anyone has taken a Nazarite vow, by all means, please fulfil it.

"After these days we got ready and started to go up to Jerusalem. Some of the disciples from Caesarea also came along and brought us to the house of Mnason of Cyprus, an early disciple, with whom we were to stay. When we arrived in Jerusalem, the brothers welcomed us warmly. The next day Paul went with us to visit James; and all the elders were present. After greeting them, he related one by one the things that God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry.When they heard it, they praised God. Then they said to him, "You see, brother, how many thousands of believers there are among the Jews, and they are all zealous for the law.They have been told about you that you teach all the Jews living among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, and that you tell them not to circumcise their children or observe the customs.What then is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come. So do what we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow. Join these men, go through the rite of purification with them, and pay for the shaving of their heads. Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself observe and guard the law. But as for the Gentiles who have become believers, we have sent a letter with our judgment that they should abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication." Then Paul took the men, and the next day, having purified himself, he entered the temple with them, making public the completion of the days of purification when the sacrifice would be made for each of them. When the seven days were almost completed, the Jews from Asia, who had seen him in the temple, stirred up the whole crowd. They seized him, shouting, "Fellow Israelites, help! This is the man who is teaching everyone everywhere against our people, our law, and this place; more than that, he has actually brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled this holy place." - Acts 21:15-28

Still have doubts?

It does appear this is dealing with people that are fulfilling a Nazarite vow. The only problem is, these men were likely under the vow before they became Christians, and at a time when Christian doctrine was new. We are required to keep vows we make to the Lord, regardless. I would still say that the taking of a Nazarite vow is not a New Testament practice. There is an example in the Old Testament where a foolish vow was made where a man promised to sacrifice the first thing that came out of his home if he was victorious in battle, and he had to sacrifice his daughter as a result. God never instituted human sacrifice, but this story showed the need to fulfil one's vows.

As I said, if someone has taken a Nazarite vow, and that is why they have long hair, by all means, they should honor their vow.

[Guest Butero]

my favourite actor going to hollywood in recent days ,and .....

so handsome the guy,but now add the plait to his head

all his fans(including me )strongly struggling with that

bcs it is toooo uglying looking

but he said that it will make him very popular in america(bcs of exotic fantastic looking)

wu...wu ...

will G-D bless him the man with long hair!!!

The Bible says it is a shame for a man to have long hair or a woman to have short hair, so that is my view.

what about John the Baptist? was it a shame for him to have long hair?

Show me the passage that says John The Baptist had long hair?

Jesus had long hair, Samson, probably alot more people that we can thing. I would even say that John did since he did have the look of a "wild man".

Yes, but they did't have barbers back then, unless you count Delilah.

Nobody knows how long Jesus' hair was. We didn't have photos back then. Samson was a Nazarite, and he was only speculating about the John the Baptist.

[Shiloh62]

i love the way how some here are using excuses to justify reasons for men to have long hair.

whether it's historical, Paul's "perception", or not meant for us.....; one cannot avoid one scripture:

1 cor 11:14 "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?"

-close the thread

Okaya, so let's have a definition from scripture of what long hair is. And, while we're at it, let's also address the question of why God would command those under a nazirite vow not to cut their hair during the time of their vow.

This really has no relevance since the keeping of a Nazarite vow was a practice done before the cross. It comes with a lot or ordinances that wouldn't apply today, like becoming unclean if you come into the presence of a dead body, and having to shave your head and start over. The passage in Corinthians is a New Testament practice, and that is obvious from the fact it states that a man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, and the same passage shows his head to be Christ.

Again, you are wrong. Paul is recorded to have paid for the sacrifices of the men completing a nazirite vow in Acts and there is no doubt this occurred after the cross. Jewish men were praying with their heads covered for centuries before Jesus was even born. It was symbolic of the idea that sinful man was unworthy to approach a holy God. That was what changed at the cross.

Perhaps you could provide us with actual scripture that shows "Paul is recorded to have paid for the sacrifices of the men completing a nazarite vow in Acts.?" I have doubts. Prove it. Even if Jewish men were praying with their heads covered, it was a tradition, not an ordinance of God, and when a tradition is at odds with scripture, scripture trumps all.

By the way, if anyone has taken a Nazarite vow, by all means, please fulfil it.

"After these days we got ready and started to go up to Jerusalem. Some of the disciples from Caesarea also came along and brought us to the house of Mnason of Cyprus, an early disciple, with whom we were to stay. When we arrived in Jerusalem, the brothers welcomed us warmly. The next day Paul went with us to visit James; and all the elders were present. After greeting them, he related one by one the things that God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry.When they heard it, they praised God. Then they said to him, "You see, brother, how many thousands of believers there are among the Jews, and they are all zealous for the law.They have been told about you that you teach all the Jews living among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, and that you tell them not to circumcise their children or observe the customs.What then is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come. So do what we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow. Join these men, go through the rite of purification with them, and pay for the shaving of their heads. Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself observe and guard the law. But as for the Gentiles who have become believers, we have sent a letter with our judgment that they should abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication." Then Paul took the men, and the next day, having purified himself, he entered the temple with them, making public the completion of the days of purification when the sacrifice would be made for each of them. When the seven days were almost completed, the Jews from Asia, who had seen him in the temple, stirred up the whole crowd. They seized him, shouting, "Fellow Israelites, help! This is the man who is teaching everyone everywhere against our people, our law, and this place; more than that, he has actually brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled this holy place." - Acts 21:15-28

Still have doubts?

It does appear this is dealing with people that are fulfilling a Nazarite vow. The only problem is, these men were likely under the vow before they became Christians, and at a time when Christian doctrine was new. We are required to keep vows we make to the Lord, regardless. I would still say that the taking of a Nazarite vow is not a New Testament practice. There is an example in the Old Testament where a foolish vow was made where a man promised to sacrifice the first thing that came out of his home if he was victorious in battle, and he had to sacrifice his daughter as a result. God never instituted human sacrifice, but this story showed the need to fulfil one's vows.

As I said, if someone has taken a Nazarite vow, and that is why they have long hair, by all means, they should honor their vow.

I remember that story well. He was foolish first of all for making that vow, and second of all for fulfilling it.