Results 1 - 6 of 6
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | To understand one verse ! | 1 Cor 11:16 | terryandangie | 103468 | ||
My main point is that 1 Cor 11:16 is translated with two exactly opposite meanings.Compare the NKJV to NIV for example. This is odd. I hear people understand it one way or another depending on the version they use. Thanks Terry | ||||||
2 | To understand one verse ! | 1 Cor 11:16 | EdB | 103479 | ||
Terry I fail to see the conflict between the NKJV and NIV NKJV 1 Cor. 11:16 But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God. NIV 1 Cor. 11:16 If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice--nor do the churches of God. To me they read nearly the same. Where do you see a conflict? EdB |
||||||
3 | To understand one verse ! | 1 Cor 11:16 | terryandangie | 103552 | ||
EdB, 1Cor. 11:16 NKJV (we have no such custom) we dont practice this custom. Or NIV (we have no other practice) we practice this custom and not any other. NLT has it (we have no other custom than this) compare that to the NKJV. I've seen it understood as "not having the custom" and "as having the custom". Look at some cometarys like Wesleys or Darbys. My wife saw it oppasite their wiew. Other opinions I've read have been the same as hers. Did they have the custom or not? Good question. Little words can make a big difference in understanding. Thanks Terry | ||||||
4 | To understand one verse ! | 1 Cor 11:16 | EdB | 103604 | ||
Terry Aw I see your applying the "no such" or "no other" to the principals of hair length which Paul clearly states as being true in the verses before, thus the conflict. The "no such" or "no other" custom is actually applied to being contentious. We have no such custom to allow your contention or no other custom that would allow you to to be contentious. EdB |
||||||
5 | To understand one verse ! | 1 Cor 11:16 | terryandangie | 103660 | ||
Edb, Ive already heard that opinion. That point of view dosen't fit well with several translations. Amplified ( no other custom [in worship] than this]. Revised Sandard (we recognize no other practice). Try the NLT the GNT or like I quoted the NIV (we have no other practice) the word "other" is out of place when we take your view. If you apply it back to contentious you need to drop the wood "other". The amplified translators think it has to do with worship. I've just seen alot of different views on this on. I'll just leave it at that. Thanks for the input. Terry | ||||||
6 | To understand one verse ! | 1 Cor 11:16 | khuck | 103692 | ||
Here is the Coffman Commentary, I use it quite often because he oftentimes than not substantiate my own beliefs: 1 Corinthians 11:16 But if any man seemeth to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God. If any man seemeth to be contentious ... This was Paul's way of saying, "Look, we do not intend to argue this question endlessly; the whole matter is already solved by the type of behavior which marks God's churches everywhere." This is grounds for holding that in this whole passage it is decorous conduct with which Paul is concerned, since it touched on the all-important question of the proper submission of women to their husbands, and was also related to the prevailing opinion of the people in that community. This whole passage affirms the necessity for Christians to have a decent respect for the opinions of mankind, and not to flaunt social customs of any kind merely for the sake of being different. As McGarvey said, "One who follows Christ will find himself conspicuously different from the world, without practicing any tricks of singularity." QUESTIONS ON THE VERSES ABOVE If Paul meant "hair," why did he use the word "covered"? The answer is that in the vocabulary of the Old Testament "to uncover the head" was to shave off the hair. When Nadab and Abihu sinned (Leviticus 10:1), God commanded Aaron not to "uncover his head" in mourning at their death; and this meant not to cut off his hair (the customary sign of mourning). Job shaved his head when he learned his children were dead (Job 1:20). Many examples of this usage could be cited; but as Echols noted: "Wherever the expression "uncover the head" occurs in the Hebrew Old Testament, it means "remove the hair.'" The culture of that era as well as the environment at Corinth suggests that some of the Corinthian women (in the church) were violating decent rules of conduct, not by discarding the mantle (peribolaion) which there is no evidence that any of them were wearing, but by adopting the cropped hair of Aphrodite's priestesses. It is even likely that some of them had been converted and had neglected to change their hair styles. Furthermore, it must be evident to all who think about it that when Paul said in 1 Cor. 11:4 that a man praying or prophesying with his head "covered" dishonored his head, he simply COULD NOT have referred to any man's wrapping himself up in the type of mantle that was called a veil in those days. That type of veil (or mantle), as far as history reveals, was never worn by men in any circumstance. Therefore the fault Paul sought to correct in 1 Cor. 11:4 was not that of men veiling themselves like women, but that of sporting indecently long hair. Is there any word in this whole passage that unmistakably means the type of veil under consideration? Yes, the word (peribolaion) in 1 Cor. 11:15 refers to that type of covering; and this is the only word in the whole passage that does so; but this is also the verse where Paul said the Lord had given woman her hair "instead of" any such garment! What is Paul's subject in these verses? Whatever it was, it could not have been the type of veil or mantle that obscures the person of women, that having been mentioned only once. On the other hand HAIR is mentioned three times, "shaved" or "shorn" is mentioned four times; and, in this light, it appears certain that Paul's subject here was HAIR. One could not speak of a mantle's being shorn or shaved. How could this passage have been so long misunderstood? Echols' explanation is as good as any. He said: A clear understanding has been obscured by ambiguous English translations, as well as by established custom. There can be little doubt that the custom itself derived largely from Roman Catholic practice during the Middle ages. |
||||||