Again, we examine year-round HAIRSTYLES as to what by inference is acceptable to show in general public view in stark contrast to what is lasciviously indecent (i.e. pornographic)
to flaunt in questionable innocence and ignorance or instead with blatant defiant belligerance, whether subtly and silently, or instead overtly.
The first passage of Scripture considered concerning improper hairstyle is Numbers 5:18 in the Old Testament of The HOLY BIBLE:
Notice the selected words identified alphanumerically as H6544 and H7218. Key words used in the lexicon explanation are to loosen hair and shake the head.
Certain in-this-case-faulty bible translations (e.g. the KJV, NIV, etc.) instead convey the idea of merely "uncovering the head"
in a sort of polite removal of a scarf, shawl, or cap on the head without messing up the hair. Not so!
What is intended is what the Revised Standard Version and New American Standard Version instead describe as unbind the woman's hair and loosening the woman's hair.
Such unbinding and unloosening is not for sexually-erotic stimulation or sensual gratification, but rather as a condemnatory accusation of suspected adulterous infidelity on the part of the woman involved.
It is, in essence, to shame and punish her by the local priest loosening her hair.
The next Scripture considered concerning improper hairstyle is Song of Solomon 7:5:
Observe the alphanumeric H1803. Key words used in the lexicon explanation mention dangling loose threads or hair.
Lamentably, both the KJV, the NIV, and other in-this-case-incorrect bible translation simply state the wrong word "hair" instead of the
flowing locks loose long hair (i.e. mopheaded, with hair hanging below mouth-level) phenomenon.
This time, the loose long hair described IS indeed meant to be erotically captivating and sensuously enjoyed...but not intended to be exhibited indiscriminately as
lewd and lurid, non-asked-for, street-gutter wastewater to and against everyone in "general" public view (that is, mixed-gender view, as not presently belonging in marriage to the mopheaded one) -
but only to the mophead's own husband in the secluded privacy of their bedroom or whatever hidden-enclosure
sexual interaction with him alone in marriage typically takes place.
The final Scripture considered concerning improper hairstyle is First Corinthians 11:15-16:
The New Testament of the RSV and NASV are deplorably lacking accuracy in many vital verses, but which the scholar can compensate for by exploring and carefully examining the KJV and KJV-type Bibles (such as the KJ21, NKJV, etc.).
That is because certain RSV and NASV translators who concocted the misrepresentation involving those verses changed and/or omitted words (in striking contrast to the KJV-type Bibles),
basing their errancy on such significantly-corrupt Greek texts as the Westcott-Hort, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, UBS, Aland-Metzger, and Nestle texts.
In contrast, the King James Version and KJV-type Bibles based their English wording on Received Text of such faithful men as Erasmus, Beza, Elzevir, Stephens, etc.
which texts were finally synthesized into THE inerrant Greek Text of the New Testament by F.H.A. Scrivener in 1894 and now known as the Trinitarian Greek Text
available from Baker Books of Grand Rapids MI, Sovereign Grace Publishing of Lafayette IN, and Hendrickson Publishing of Peabody MA.
Why this webpage author mentioned that is because the studious webpage reader will notice that some translation use the words "instead of" rather than "for" (a head-covering veil) in First Corinthians 11:15.....and use the words "no such" rather than "no other" (custom) in First Corinthians 11:16. Clearly, the RSV is in error by their use of the words "no other" (instead of "no such") in their mis-rendition of and against that verse.
It appears that author Paul was conveying the idea that it is not the custom of the churches of God for a woman to regard her glorious loose long hair as sufficient or adequate as a prayer-covering veil. That would especially be true in general-public (both-genders) view, as within a church congregation during worship services and/or church-picnic luncheons.
Now to be considered is Second Samuel 13:18 (such as rendered in the here-significantly-correct RSV and NASV) involving proper armwear as opposed to sleeveslessly baring naked ARMS in mixed-gender general public view:
Tragically, the KJV and KJV-type bibles plus the NIV completely miss the point intended by the Scriptural author (informing us of
the long-sleeved full-length dress or gown traditionally worn by royal young ladies) - when they instead absurdly and ridiculously refer to a "multi-colored" garment.
The soles-to-feet inclusion stated in the lexicon explanation speaks for itself on that one......and brief reference to "divers colors" was committed and not performed by
the imperfect human lexicon source because of demonic brainwashing and satanic duress from arms-baring slut-like plus male-patsy perverts.
It is obvious
that indecently-hairstyled children
mimic their indecently-hairstyled parents....
with their parents prodding.
And:
Proverbs 20:11
Even a child makes himself [or herself] known by his [or her] acts,
whether what he [or she] does is pure and right.
Rather than elaborating with profuse dissertational wording describing not simply styles and fashions implied by the title of this piece, plus practical call for
thoughtful and responsible consistently-decent appearance in general public view whatever the season of the year, licentuous (i.e. porno) pictoral snapshots of
indecent hairstyles, sleeveslessness, slackslessness, and soxlessness against associated Scripture verses with
corresponding lexicon-meaning elaboration (involving hairstyles, armwear, legwear, and feetwear) could be shown below.
Lasciviously widespread especially during warm-weather days is the sights of both women and girls exposing parts of or complete soxless bare feet with flip-flops, sandals, and other open-toe shoes.
We are not talking about tennis shoes nor boots nor slippers - but rather open-toe footwear worn without opaque socks which expose parts of bare-naked feet.
There is a heretical perverse excuse many human females might impose as to a presumed self-justifying "religious" excuse for doing so, namely: "They wore sandals in biblical times."
Such is declared as a entirely-misrepresentative misrationalization for doing exactly what Scripture admonishes women and girl to NOT do, and that is to NOT appear immodestly indecent in general public view by NOT exposing parts or all of
the nakedness of their bare feet to mixed-gender general public view so as to not incite sexual-harassing and assaultive erotic lust in men not
pressently married to them, whether or not their father or husband accompanies publicly them at the time.
There is NO reference whatsoever throughout the entire Bible of men washing women's feet, and "sandals" are NEVER mentioned as the footwear of women through the entire Bible except
once in Song of Solomon chapter 7 where the context is a private husband-with-bride body parts observance and appreciation specifically for secluded spousal lovemaking.
Indeed, Song of Solomon 5:3 speaks of a woman having bathed her feet and not wanting them to get dirty - and such would get soiled if she went out and about soxlessly wearing sandals and not slippers in general public view.
So, [nude] FEET (of human toddlers and older aged females) should (instead of being partially bared with sockless sandals or flip-flops especially during warm weather) always be completely covered with opaque socks, shoes, or boots in mixed-gender general-public view!
Scripture references involving that consist of Song of Solomon 7:1 where the word footsteps or equivalent is shown - instead of the overly-graphic and overly-explicit word feet.....and Jeremiah 2:25 in before-and-after context as shown below:
Words alone are fine and create a comprehensible framework for both universal verbal and written intellectual description and evaluation, but that mere abstract collection of English letters can and many times should be
supplemented by photo examples of actual-person modesty which should be the noble and respectable overwhelming rule rather than the aberrant minority exception - contrary to the immodesty so presently widespread and prevalent:
