Decent Hairstyle

Did the Lord originally intend that men and women, boys and girls (of any and every age and race) roam around NUDE publicly?



After all, He DID create Adam and Eve TOTALLY naked (Genesis 2:25). Moreover, He did not - at that time - give them the Sacred-66 HOLY BIBLE to inform them how wickedly naughty is was to appear publicly pornographic without any clothes on (whether for "doctor's exam," nude-dance-stripping exhibitionism, sunbathing, swimming, gymnastics, or whatever).



The one act of disobedience (relating to eating that forbidden fruit from "that tree") indeed brought death - both initial and more permanent - contrary to the Serpent's irrationalized lie. Part of that "death" involved a separation away from and innocent perception of public human nudity.



It is difficult for this author to imagine what it would have been like had Eve and Adam (in THAT GENDER order, by the way, per First Timothy 2:14), not sinned. I myself (like other humans) - in all honesty and frankness - react erotically (covertly and overtly) when encountering the naked opposite sex.

Apparently, however, the word "naked" was, at first, perhaps never intended to be a part of human vocabulary. God asked forbidden-fruit-filled Adam: "Who told you that you were naked?" (Genesis chapter 3)

Furthermore, as the Lord intended (by Genesis 1:28 command) for humans to "be fruitful and multiply" (i.e. have sexual connections and reproduce offspring), one wonders if there wasn't some pre-Fall factor which was involved with some at least temporary and occasional "desire" or state of mind resulting in temporary and occasional sexual conjugation among those who would have always been casually nude publicly.

After Adam and Eve transgressed, they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves "aprons" (Genesis 3:7). Go ahead and guess what body parts of theirs were still exposed for shame by such primative insufficiency!

When the Lord saw them and their genital underwear, did He reprimand them and promptly demand that they remove such needlessness to once again go totally naked? He did NOT, but instead "made for [them] garments of skins, and clothed them" (Genesis 3:21).

[ Incidently, for you spiritist and vegetarian animal worshippers: "skins" of WHAT ]?

Following all that, God gave general-public humans the Holy Bible - which is in complete and understandable accord with the shame-about-being-publicly-naked mentality of everyone from our ancestral parents to us modern folk on....along with Scriptural inferences and insinuations to desire and need to completely (but in private) temporally and occasionally expose our entire bodies to certain ones of the opposite sex we are presently married with, for all sorts of sexual positioning and copulation. But gone forever is PUBLICLY-displayed innocent, wholesome, healthy, benign, general-public-view display of sensual phenomena such as:

(1) LOOSE long hair (Numbers 5:18, Song 7:5, I Cor. 11:14)
(2) naked ARMS (II Samuel 13:18 - RSV and NASV)
(3) bare BACK and BREASTS (Proverbs 5:19 - NASV, not RSV)
(4) bare CROTCH (Isaiah 3:16-17 - KJV and RSV, not NASV)
(5) bare BUTTOCKS (Isaiah 20:4)
(6) nude THIGHS and LEGS (Isaiah 47:1-4 - KJV and NASV)
(7) bare FEET (Jeremiah 2:25 - not NIV nor TEV)

A host of Scripture verses reiterate the un-acceptability (not "non"-acceptability, in this case) of public nudity (e.g. Leviticus 18, Ezekiel 16 and 23, Jeremiah 2, Hosea 1, 1st Timothy 2:8-9, and many more).

Yet, non-pictoral (i.e. non-illustrated) plus non-obscenely-titillating descriptions and legitimate poetically-graphic admiration of private spousal body-parts beauty are profusely and righteously portrayed in the (again, NON-lewd and NON-licentuous) Old-Testament Song of Solomon..... which is appropriate reading to and for ALL ages of human beings -- as is the remainder of the entire HOLY BIBLE.

Compromising errant mis-translations of Scripture exacerbate the problem of especially Christian women and girls presuming that loose-long-haired "mopheadedness" is [ supposedly ] 'acceptable' public hairstyle in heterosexual (mixed-gender) view....and heretic mis-renditions of the Bible complicate conveyance of the solution of mandating general-public (and consistent!) wearing of (decent) interwoven back-of-head ponytail or bun/pug chignon hairstyle.

For example, the King James Version (KJV) and some other recent translations MIS-state Song of Solomon 7:5. In that Canticles passages, is the husband merely sensuously describing and longing for his bride's "hair" -- or is he instead alluding to the [sensuous] "flowing locks" of her hair as being as beautiful as 'Carmel' and 'purple' with which 'the king' is 'captivated?'

Strong's Word# 1803 for the previously-mentioned word in question within the inerrant ben-Asher Hebrew Received Text of the Old Testament is defined as:

(1) "locks hanging down," by The Gesenius Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon of the Old Testament.....
(2) "hair hanging down" by The New Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew/English Lexicon....
(3) "unbound hair" by The William Holladay Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament.

All this, of course, quite understandably correlates with modern pop and rock songs which suggest to gals preparing for sexual activity to "kick off their shoes and let their hair down." Literally! [But NO pictorial descriptions are needed now for elaboration!]

Decent Public Hairdos