From: john w {at}yahoo.com>

x-no-archive: yes
On 23 Mar 2007 05:56:30 -0700, rwknapp{at}aim.com wrote:
 C 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>On Mar 23, 12:22 am, john w {at}yahoo.com> wrote:
>> x-no-archive: yes
>> On 22 Mar 2007 06:10:20 -0700, rwkn...{at}aim.com wrote:
>>  C 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
>> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>>
>> > >On Mar 21, 2:45 am, john w {at}yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> x-no-archive: yesOn Mon, 19 Mar 2007 22:15:59 -0500,
"Rod"
 wrote:
>>
>> >>  C 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion
of this post
>> >> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>>
>> >> >>    Thanks John. But I have a question here. Does
that vow affect the
>> >> >> overall
>> >> >> hair length,
>> >> >>    or is it the sideburns, or "locks"
as some call them ? I have to
admit
>> >> >> some confusion
>> >> >>    in this area.
>>
>> >> >>    Rod
>>
>> >> >Hi Rod.  Here is the information about the Nazirite,
I just looked it
>> >> >up for you.in the encydopaedia Britannica.
>>
>> First, Ray, you continue to misspell "NazArite."
>>
>> It is spelled with two "A"s   "Nazarite", not
two "I"s
>>   "Nazirite."
>
>I just looked it up again and it is spelled as I did, "Nazirite"
>Websters dictionary.

"Webster's?"   "WEBSTER's?"
   What on EARTH does Webster's have to do with the Bible?'
      NOTHING!

>The same spelling the Bible uses: Num 6:2
>
>2 "Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: 'When either a
>man or woman consecrates an offering to take the vow of a Nazirite ,
>to separate himself to the LORD, NKJV

My apologies!
 I found the same reference in my KJV.
I keep forgetting that there are those who refuse to use anything BUT the KJV.


>
>Num 6:21
>21 "This is the law of the Nazirite  who vows to the LORD the offering
>for his separation, and besides that, whatever else his hand is able
>to provide; according to the vow which he takes, so he must do
>according to the law of his separation."
>NKJV
>
>>
>> I'd think with all the documents you have looked up, you'd have
>> noticed!
>
>I DID now you do look like you made a big boo, boo!
>
>>
>> Some people are stubborn!
>
>Yes and not to smart either to correct one that does look up the terms
>and spelling before printing it here.
>>
>> >> >"(from Hebrew nazar, "to abstain
from,"or "to consecrate oneself to"),
>> >> >among the ancient Hebrews, a sacred person whose
separation was most
>> >> >commonlymarked by his uncut hair and his abstinence from wine.
>> >> >Originally, the Nazirite was endowed with special
charismatic gifts
>> >> >and normally held hisstatus for life. Later, the term
was applied to a
>> >> >man who had voluntarily vowed to undertake special religious
>> >> >observances for a limited period of time, the
completion of which was
>> >> >marked by the presentation of offerings (Numbers 6; 1
Maccabees 3:49;
>> >> >Acts 21:24).
>>
>> >> >The early Nazirite
>>
>>   "Nazarite."
>
>I have no idea where you get that spelling as the above was not my
>writing but from a published encyclopedia.
>
>>
>> was a holy man whose peculiar endowment, credited
>
>> >> >to his possession of "the Spirit of the
Lord," was displayed in
>> >> >unusual psychic or physical qualities marked by
spontaneity, ecstasy,
>> >> >and dynamic enthusiasm. In this respect he had much
in common with the
>> >> >early ecstatic prophets and with diviners, such as
Balaam (Numbers 22-
>> >> >24), both indigenous to the Middle East. Both the
Nazirite and the
>> >> >prophet were also close to the warrior, who was
likewise in a sacred
>> >> >state while on duty. Samson the Nazirite was a holy
warrior whose
>> >> >special power was most closely related to his unshorn
hair. In Israel
>> >> >such natural powers as were represented by the growth
of hair were
>> >> >treated as signs of the power of the God of Israel,
to be used in
>> >> >God's service.
>>
>> >> >The later Nazirite as described in Numbers 6 and in
the Mishna was not
>> >> >a charismatic person. He simply retained the old
requirements of long
>> >> >hair and abstinence from wine and was forbidden to
touch a corpse.
>> >> >These requirements were treated as external signs of
a vow."
>>
>> >> >I would think that there be no cutting of the head
hair at all, not
>> >> >trimming etc.
>>
>> >> >Raymond
>>
>> >> >  Thank you Raymond, this helps to explain the icons
I've seen of Him
with
>> >> >long hair, and it explains why it long hair was
tolerated in special
>> >> >circumstances
>> >> >in jewish society. I'm going to save this post for
reference material
and
>> >> >some
>> >> >further study towards their customs. It's a big help !
>>
>> >> >Thank you Raymond !
>>
>> >>   Do make note, Rod, that the definition supplied by Ray
(not blaming
>> >> Ray), from the encyclopedia is a corrupt one, in that it
equates the
>> >> holy men of God with shamans and witches.
>>
>> >This is Raymond and there was no equation with shamans and witches in
>> >my references above from the Britannica.   Please show me where you
>> >think I did that.
>>
>>  Rather than getting into an argument with you, I would suggest you
>> might want to go back and re-read the text you posted.
>
>Argue all you like you lost before you got started.  I do not see any
>definition supplied by you that is even spelled correct if that few
>words is all you got, go ahead and argue all you like, I will pick it
>a part and give the truth as the truth will set on free.
>
>>
>> I will certainly concede that I may be incorrect.  Would you concede
>> that YOU may be incorrect?
>
>MAY BE, you ARE INCORRECT!  I am not incorrect as my facts are not
>from my head but from study and I do hold a earned degree in Theology.
>
>>
>> HOWEVER, the wording I objected to was:
>>
>> "In this respect he had much in common with the early ecstatic
>> prophets and with diviners, such as Balaam"
>>
>>    Another term for "diviner" "such as Balaam"
would be "shaman."
>
>The name "Balaam" is a person name, not a type of someone.
>Num 22:9 Then God came to Balaam  and said, "Who are these men with
>you?"
>10 So Balaam  said to God, "Balak the son of Zippor, king of Moab, has
>sent to me, saying, NKJV
>
>So why do you think "shaman".  The word is not for believers in the
>True God, it means this: "In societies practicing shamanism: one
>acting as a medium between the visible and spirit worlds; practices
>sorcery for healing or divination"
>
>For false relgions and false gods they have a "shaman" as you pointed
>to.  But you can not use a persons name and say that means shaman.  Be
>like a person saying I want to go to the "john" or in the navy the
>"head" not we would not say anyone that is named John is a toilet
>would we?  Or if you have a "head" you would be one either. Where do
>you get referance to "Balaam and Shaman"?
>
>>
>> As for the spelling, my Bible says "Nazarite."
>>  And of the 30 some hits I got on my search, EVERY SINGLE HIT spelled
>> the term "Nazarite."
>
>Try the spelling I did used "Nazirite" with out the extra
"a".
>
>>
>> john w
>>
>>
>>
>> >>   While Britannica may not make the distinction, I think
we Christians
>> >> need to be aware of it.
>>
>> >I believe you would have to prove your point then just make a
>> >statement before we need to be aware of it.   Then thank you for
>> >saying I put the referance and then you see something in it, and they
>> >you go on and say the Britannica did not say what you say it implied.
>> >Kind of confused here or was that why you said it?
>>
>> ?????
>>   AGAIN you type GIBBERISH.
>
>The gibberish is what you pointed out was yours.  You are confused.
>
>>
>> Let me give you an example of what I mean by
"gibberish".  (as kindly
>> as I can do it)  And sometimes I can decipher it, and sometimes it is
>> not decipherable.  And unlike some who will ASSUME your meaning (which
>> might be wrong) I will not assume.
>
>You can give all the meanings for the word you like, it is your post
>that is "gibberish" and if you can not decipher plain English that is
>your problem. You do assume you just did in the above.  So you have no
>point at all, except to again prove you did not study and just put in
>things with out references etc.
>
>The word "gibberish" as kindly as the dictionary can do it is
>"Unintelligible talking"
>
>> You said:
>>
>> I believe you would have to prove your point then just make a
>>
>> >statement before we need to be aware of it.
>>
>> #1 "before we need to be ..."
>>    I wasn't talking to the entire group. I was not talking to YOU. I
>> was talking to Rod. So there is no "we."  There is only
Rod. That you
>> INJECTED yourself merely means that you interrupted.
>
>When you post in a public newsgroup with others joining in it is not
>"ME" it is a "we".
>You seem to forget this is not email anyone can interrupt anyone at
>anytime and you do it and so does everyone else here, so get off you
>high horse and touch ground.  You can not tell others what they can
>do, when you do otherwise.  The subject is not to you or about you, It
>is "Paul Was A Deceiver, ..............." and the replies are to
>anyone that will read them and reply.  If you want to post to ROD then
>there is an option for that in "Google" whom to reply to, the person
>or the group, you posted as I do to the group!
>
>> --
>> Your last comment:
>> I believe you would have to prove your point then just make a
>>
>> >statement before we need to be aware of it.
>>
>>   the words "prove your point then just make a ..."
>>         wrong word.
>>    It should have been "prove your point THAN just make a..."
>
>Nope, you talk your way and I will mine, I used the word "statement"
>not only point as you said a lot more then a point, so the word
>statement was what I wanted to use.
>
>>
>>    Then thank you for
>>
>> >saying I put the referance and then you see something in it,
>>
>>   Misspelled word.  "referance"  should be "refErence."
>
>Well, it seems you made one point, then this is not a spelling test
>and the word was understood as it is clear you understood it.  I do
>type fast and am a touch typist and when doing a long post, miss a
>word once in a while or my spell check did.
>
>Have a nice week, I hope it is better they your post here is.
>
>Raymond

--- BBBS/LiI v4.01 Flag