> Off Topic Discussions

Resurrection

<< < (3/6) > >>

Dennis Vogel:
As Bob said: "atheist or people who seem not to believe in God are often more reasonable and logical than religious people."

And as Ray has pointed out, people want and need things that are physical as proof:  https://youtu.be/cSZDvJrOxKw

AwesomeSavior:
Anjel:

One of the more famous Nazarites from the Old Testament was Samson, who had 7 (nice Biblical number) locks of hair, upon which "there hath not come a razor upon my head (Judges 16:13,17). What happened when Delilah had one of her men shave off his 7 locks (H4253: also known as ringlets) of hair? "And he (Samson) wist not that the LORD was departed from him" (Judges 16:19-20). And of course it wouldn't be unusual for Nazarite men in the time of Jesus (and preceding) to have a problem wearing long hair, especially using the disastrous example of Samson in their lineage and in keeping with Numbers 6. Here is a question: What is the exact biblical definition of long hair? Ear length, shoulder length, rotator cuff length and beyond?

Regarding 1 Corinthians 11:14, if you look at the Greek word for "have long hair", it is komao (G2863), which simply defined does seems to offer the exact same explanation. That word, komao, is interesting. If you do the first root word search of it, it is kome (G2864), and Strongs' defines that word as having "ornamental" locks. In other words, something a woman might do to dress her hair up, if she is so inclined. Tresses can, by itself, simply means locks of hair, going back to the Samson example.

In conclusion, does God have a problem with a man wearing "long" hair (whatever length that represents), assuming he isn't trying to (in a nod to the Apostle Paul) make it "ornamental", and therefore making the man appear like a woman?

Dennis Vogel:
Long Hair:

1 Corinthians 11:14
(RSVA)  Does not nature itself teach you that for a man to wear long hair is degrading to him,

(CLV)  Is not yeven nature sitself teaching you that if a man, indeed, should have tresses, it is a dishonor to him,

(ESV)  Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him,

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

(NRSV)  Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is degrading to him,

(Rotherham)  Doth not, even nature herself, teach you—that, if, a man, have long hair, it is a dishonour to him;

(RSV)  Does not nature itself teach you that for a man to wear long hair is degrading to him,

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

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

Strong's G2863
κομάω
komaō
kom-ah'-o
From G2864; to wear tresses of hair: - have long hair.
Total KJV occurrences: 2

The dictionary says tresses means: "long locks or curls of hair."

AwesomeSavior:
Dennis:

Yes, I am aware that (G2863) means long hair, but the root which you mentioned (G2864), also means "locks, as ornamental" as defined by Strongs. That is my point.

Dean

Dennis Vogel:
My point was 8 of the 9 above translations chose 'long hair' and not 'locks'. That's all.

Go here for about 50 translations that use 'long hair': https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/1%20Corinthians%2011:14

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page