[Godreignsoveral]

I've copied this post from another thread which ended up closed because some people were having trouble communicating in a manner considered acceptable on this site. I hope this thread will not suffer a similar fate. This is actually open for anyone's thoughts, but I start it directly to Travis as he's the one I was interacting with in the other thread. Please, people... I enjoy this site because it helps me to see other angles on scripture, grow, and share. Don't kill that with snide garbage. None of this is worth anything without love. Let's aim for that, eh?


-------As Previously Stated---------
Hey Travis, as always, I appreciate you taking the time to reply. I do have some thoughts to share in response to your post.

Originally Posted by Travis

When we have commands found in Scripture, surely we are going to have to presume that they are binding upon us unless we have reason to believe otherwise. This simply because God is the sovereign law-giver, and we do not have the right to disregard anything He has said.

Amen.

Originally Posted by Travis

Now, if we are going to take something as being a particular cultural application which no longer applies to us, surely the burden of proof will be on the one making that claim.

True. And I do apologize for not being able to defend the stance properly myself as I have never really faced the issue. I've just followed it up to this point.

Originally Posted by Travis

Otherwise, we could simply disregard anything God commanded as being "cultural", as many people even try to do with the Bible's prohibitions of homosexuality!

And see, in the circles I've been around, none ever dare try to excuse homosexuality. And what a blessing that is. When I hear that in news articles and the likes, it really boggles my mind.

Originally Posted by Travis

Let's take a look at the passage in context:

1 Cor. 11:1-16
Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ. 2 Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you. 3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, 5 but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as if her head were shaven. 6 For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head. 7 For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9 Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; 12 for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God. 13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, 15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. 16 If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.

Okay. Thank you for digging up the proper passage.

Originally Posted by Travis

Do you see anything here that would tell us that Paul's command for a woman to have her head covered (and her hair is the covering) is cultural?

Yes. Let me show you what I question...

First, verse 6. The translation you quote seems pretty cut and dry, as does my old trusty KJV. But one thing I've learned on this board is to look around. So I have. There seem to be several translations that see it differently. This very statement seems negotiable. Let me show you what I mean:

NIV - 1Co 11:6 If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head.

NKJV - 1Co 11:6 For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered.

YLT - 1Co 11:6 for if a woman is not covered--then let her be shorn, and if it is a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven--let her be covered;

NAB - 1Co 11:6 For if a woman does not have her head veiled, she may as well have her hair cut off. But if it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should wear a veil.

NET - 1Co 11:6 For if a woman will not cover her head, she should cut off her hair. But if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or be shaved, she should cover her head.

NASB - 1Co 11:6 For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head.

This leads me to have the feeling that something he's saying here is negotiable/potentially cultural.

Secondly, Paul does use custom as part of his argument right at the end. Not only nature, but our own practices and the practices of the church of God. Right? So it seems to me his eternal truth of long haired girls is preceeded and followed by optional statements, making the "eternal truth by nature" statement questionable and in need of reconsideration as such.

Originally Posted by Travis

No. On the contrary, Paul explicitly tells us the reason, and it is beacuse of how man and woman were created in the first place. After he says that women should have their heads covered, he says, "For [Greek: gar, meaning "because"] man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head..."

I do apologize. I'm not grasping the idea here. Could you expound... perhaps with another example or two to be able to picture the idea you're working with here?

Originally Posted by Travis

Clearly, then, this command is not based on the culture of the time at all, but on "nature" (v. 14) and on inherent differences between man and woman because of the way in which God made them.

I agree that part of his argument is based on nature... and there are inherent differences between men and women. I look forward to hearing more from you soon.

Mark

[Travis]

Originally Posted by Godreignsoveral

True. And I do apologize for not being able to defend the stance properly myself as I have never really faced the issue. I've just followed it up to this point.

Just for the record, I want to make it clear that I realized you weren't actually making the claim, but were rather just asking for support either way. In what I said about the burden of proof being on the one making the claim that a certain particular command was cultural, I was making a sort of "in general" statement about the way this question would always have to proceed; that is, with the presumption that the command is to us.

Originally Posted by Godreignsoveral

Yes. Let me show you what I question...

First, verse 6. The translation you quote seems pretty cut and dry, as does my old trusty KJV. But one thing I've learned on this board is to look around. So I have. There seem to be several translations that see it differently. This very statement seems negotiable. Let me show you what I mean:

NIV - 1Co 11:6 If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head.

NKJV - 1Co 11:6 For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered.

YLT - 1Co 11:6 for if a woman is not covered--then let her be shorn, and if it is a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven--let her be covered;

NAB - 1Co 11:6 For if a woman does not have her head veiled, she may as well have her hair cut off. But if it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should wear a veil.

NET - 1Co 11:6 For if a woman will not cover her head, she should cut off her hair. But if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or be shaved, she should cover her head.

NASB - 1Co 11:6 For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head.

This leads me to have the feeling that something he's saying here is negotiable/potentially cultural.

1. First, I have to confess that I’m really not seeing what, in any of these translations, would lead us to believe that the command is cultural—certainly not when the context is considered. Could you explain what it is, exactly, that’s giving you that feeling?

2. I could go to the Greek and try to formulate a very literal translation if you’d like. (It would help if you clarified what exactly you thought was in question so I could address that specifically.) However, from the little Greek I know, and from my Christian friends who know Greek extremely well, the ESV is basically to be considered the best translation out there (NASB would probably be a close second).

Originally Posted by Godreignsoveral

Secondly, Paul does use custom as part of his argument right at the end. Not only nature, but our own practices and the practices of the church of God. Right? So it seems to me his eternal truth of long haired girls is preceeded and followed by optional statements, making the "eternal truth by nature" statement questionable and in need of reconsideration as such.

Paul does indeed state that the church of God has no other practice (v. 16). This in and of itself ought to tell us something. But this isn’t the reason Paul gives for the command; he simply notes the fact that this is what the church of God does (seemingly as an additional way of saying “this is what ought to be done”). I pointed out before, the reason Paul gives for the need for a woman to have this “symbol of authority”—namely, a head covering, which is her hair—is “For man was not made from woman, but woman from man” (v. 8). Paul tells us that women should have their heads covered, that it is shameful to do otherwise, and then says “for [because], man was not made from woman, but woman from man.” So women should have their heads covered because of this particular truth about the way God created them. Ultimately, this is the reason women should have their heads covered, and being creational, clearly it transcends all cultures.

[Godreignsoveral]

Originally Posted by Travis

Just for the record, I want to make it clear that I realized you weren't actually making the claim, but were rather just asking for support either way. In what I said about the burden of proof being on the one making the claim that a certain particular command was cultural, I was making a sort of "in general" statement about the way this question would always have to proceed; that is, with the presumption that the command is to us.

Thanks for the clarification.

Originally Posted by Travis

1. First, I have to confess that I’m really not seeing what, in any of these translations, would lead us to believe that the command is cultural—certainly not when the context is considered. Could you explain what it is, exactly, that’s giving you that feeling?

2. I could go to the Greek and try to formulate a very literal translation if you’d like. (It would help if you clarified what exactly you thought was in question so I could address that specifically.) However, from the little Greek I know, and from my Christian friends who know Greek extremely well, the ESV is basically to be considered the best translation out there (NASB would probably be a close second).

Oh, I'm sorry. One of the parts I put in bold in my post (in the closed thread) didn't get the same formatting here. The "if's" all of my example translations carry. I'll repost so you can see what I mean.

NIV - 1Co 11:6 If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head.

NKJV - 1Co 11:6 For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered.

YLT - 1Co 11:6 for if a woman is not covered--then let her be shorn, and if it is a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven--let her be covered;

NAB - 1Co 11:6 For if a woman does not have her head veiled, she may as well have her hair cut off. But if it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should wear a veil.

NET - 1Co 11:6 For if a woman will not cover her head, she should cut off her hair. But if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or be shaved, she should cover her head.

NASB - 1Co 11:6 For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head.

The if's shown above seem to imply that it is possible that it may not be a disgrace in some culture/situation/something. Do you see what I mean? It sounds a bit "iffy" to me...

Originally Posted by Travis

Paul does indeed state that the church of God has no other practice (v. 16). This in and of itself ought to tell us something. But this isn’t the reason Paul gives for the command; he simply notes the fact that this is what the church of God does (seemingly as an additional way of saying “this is what ought to be done”).

It does tell us something, but it doesn't necessitate eternal truth... only their practice. I'm not saying this is proof the other way either... just that I don't think him saying the church does this presently can be used as proof text in this particular issue. I understand that he's saying... sort of, in case anyone has any issue with what I've already presented, make note that none of the church follows such a custom as short hair either. Right?

Originally Posted by Travis

I pointed out before, the reason Paul gives for the need for a woman to have this “symbol of authority”—namely, a head covering, which is her hair—is “For man was not made from woman, but woman from man” (v. 8). Paul tells us that women should have their heads covered, that it is shameful to do otherwise, and then says “for [because], man was not made from woman, but woman from man.” So women should have their heads covered because of this particular truth about the way God created them. Ultimately, this is the reason women should have their heads covered, and being creational, clearly it transcends all cultures.

Okay, covered seems to be pretty sure, other than the whole "if" issue I've asked and will wait to hear more on... but what of the idea that I think I vaguely remember some presenting that covering can be hats and veils and other such items if not the long hair? Does that hold any weight? Do many hold to that idea?

Mark

[Godreignsoveral]

Does anyone else have a different view on any of this? Does everyone in CGR see this verse and understand it truly to mean always and forever, women = long hair? If some disagree, can you present your argument so I can see the "other" sides reasoning?

Mark

[krissy]

i am amused by the topic guys.well,i hope i can make sense in this.i personally am a long haired girl.as far as i can remember, i had only had my hair short twice.my dad wouldn't allow me to cut my hair short because he said it's his honor.hehe.and as much as i'm no technical in terms of the Scriptures, i think the covering of the hair could be cultural.you see, in some part of the world with hot weather, it would be impractical to wear veils.and if you are familiar with Muslims,their gilrs wear veils.for that, i think the veil wearing is now associated with the Muslims.

i met someone before who asked me if i'm a Oneness.i was surprised because she said so basing on my hair.she's just wondering why i'm wearing jeans because Oneness' don't wear jeans or pants.

[+Donny]

Originally Posted by Godreignsoveral

Does anyone else have a different view on any of this? Does everyone in CGR see this verse and understand it truly to mean always and forever, women = long hair? If some disagree, can you present your argument so I can see the "other" sides reasoning?

Mark

Do a search on head coverings in this forum or maybe in the old theology forum. I have posted my views a couple times, but don't have any time to elaborate right now. I think it's cultural/redemptive historical and think Travis is a poopyhead, though that is not necessarily related to this thread.

[Godreignsoveral]

Originally Posted by +Donny

Do a search on head coverings in this forum or maybe in the old theology forum. I have posted my views a couple times, but don't have any time to elaborate right now. I think it's cultural/redemptive historical and think Travis is a poopyhead, though that is not necessarily related to this thread.

How do I do a search for "Defeat of the poopyheads!"... no... Sorry Travis, just running with the joke. I'm sure Donny will be happy to take full responsibility for any actions that come as a consequence of his own wordage. On a more serious note, , how do I do a search for other threads about hair?

Mark

[Godreignsoveral]

Originally Posted by krissy

i am amused by the topic guys.well,i hope i can make sense in this.i personally am a long haired girl.as far as i can remember, i had only had my hair short twice.my dad wouldn't allow me to cut my hair short because he said it's his honor.hehe.and as much as i'm no technical in terms of the Scriptures, i think the covering of the hair could be cultural.you see, in some part of the world with hot weather, it would be impractical to wear veils.and if you are familiar with Muslims,their gilrs wear veils.for that, i think the veil wearing is now associated with the Muslims.

i met someone before who asked me if i'm a Oneness.i was surprised because she said so basing on my hair.she's just wondering why i'm wearing jeans because Oneness' don't wear jeans or pants.

Hey Krissy, I appreciate you taking the time to post. Do you have any scriptural reasoning as to why you believe the passage to be cultural or have you accepted it based purely on your own logical thinking of it out?

Mark

[mlqurgw]

This may help.
http://www.christianguitar.org/forum...=head+covering

[Travis]

Originally Posted by +Donny

Do a search on head coverings in this forum or maybe in the old theology forum. I have posted my views a couple times, but don't have any time to elaborate right now. I think it's cultural/redemptive historical and think Travis is a poopyhead, though that is not necessarily related to this thread.

What are your reasons for thinking it is cultural? Paul appealed to creation. Let us see you answer that, please, if you're going to claim contrary to what I said.

How could it be a "redemptive" law if it was given after Christ? By redemptive, I am thinking you are saying it historical and was foreshadowing Christ, for that is how I am used to seeing the term used. Frankly that just sounds positively ludicrous, since it was given by Paul after Jesus had already ascended. Further, you didn't offer any evidence toward this conclusion. Reading through old threads can be helpful sometimes, but why not actually give your reasons here?

[goldenchild]

Hey Travis, could you give us some insight on 1 Cor. 11:6? He makes an interesting point with it. The Douay-Rheims and the NAB both have that IF clarification as well.

[ddts]

Originally Posted by mlqurgw

This may help.
http://www.christianguitar.org/forum...=head+covering

Haha....did you read that thread or just search it then post?
Because there's not very much useful information in it at all and it gets closed after like 9 posts....

[krissy]

Originally Posted by Godreignsoveral

Hey Krissy, I appreciate you taking the time to post. Do you have any scriptural reasoning as to why you believe the passage to be cultural or have you accepted it based purely on your own logical thinking of it out?

Mark

my stand was basically from my own understanding.you see there are some verses in the Scriptures that aren't applicable now but are still usefull in context.like the observance of the Sabbath, the sacrifices and women leaders in church.if you could see them in a different perspective, you can say that these still are useful,if you see what i mean. but we are not doing these things now.is there anyone who still offers cattles and doves at church?i'm not sure about the Jews though.

and for the hair thing, i think there are far more important Christian things to be busy about than worrying on how the girls should wear their hairs.like the Great Commission, maybe.hehe.yeah, i know, this is for the sake of arguement.

[Godreignsoveral]

Originally Posted by Travis

What are your reasons for thinking it is cultural? Paul appealed to creation. Let us see you answer that, please, if you're going to claim contrary to what I said.

As I noticed in the referenced thread somewhere... the seventh day rest is also from the beginning of creation. Do you believe we should be following Saturday Sabbath?

Mark

[patrick1]

1Co*11:13
Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
1Co*11:14
Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
14. Easton Torrey
1Co*11:15
But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

self explanatory