Dozens of letters continually arrive asking if it is all right for women to have their hair cut. Others wonder if it is correct to use permanents since they have a problem keeping their hair neat. Many women have been taught ever since they were little girls that it is entirely wrong to cut women's hair. This teaching is supposedly derived from the statement that Paul made to the Corinthian women. You will notice in I Corinthians 11:13-15 that Paul says a woman ought to have long hair that is an honor to her. "But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her." Because long hair is mentioned. some are afraid to cut their hair at all. But the text doesn't read uncut hair, it reads long hair. Hair can be cut and still be long. Any head of hair, even though cut, if it be long enough to look feminine and honorable, is appropriate. There is no definite "Bible length," save that it must appear as a glory to the wearer. But if a woman wants to wear her hair cut so short as to look like a mm, Paul says she ought to be shorn or shaven — the symbol of a fallen woman. Too many women have developed the custom of having their hair bobbed TOO SHORT. It is up to the individual to decide according to the word of God how long her hair ought to be in order for her to appear feminine. Perhaps near shoulder length is a good average, since some women naturally have shorter hair than others. Concerning permanents. there is a problem that each woman needs to consider. Very few girls are ever taught the art of properly caring for their hair. God intended a woman's hair to be beautiful, not straggly. This is a mother's responsibility, but how sad it is that so few mothers were ever taught how to care for their hair properly. Because most women never learned how to appear neat they have resorted unnecessarily to the use of permanents. Certain women have naturally curly hair and do not need permanents; others have naturally straight hair and appear very becoming with it just as it is. If you appear neat in long straight hair, you would only be spoiling your appearance to add unnecessary curls. But there are many women who have nearly straight hair who would appear much neater with a few curls. Should such women use permanents? First, let us remember that there are different kinds of permanents. Even the same permanent will react differently with different women, because no two heads of hair are exactly alike. But nearly all permanents will in time do a certain amount of damage to the hair. Often the ends are severely burned. Sometimes they will break off shorter and shorter. A few cheap permanents have even proved damaging to the health. Although some women may find no harm in them, permanents ought to be avoided in most cases since there is a much simpler and better method by which the hair may be given beauty. It is not hard to learn the art of using curling pins with a small amount of water — and it doesn't take long, either. This method does not harm the hair. but makes it appear beautiful as God intended. It is also important to mention char although some make a ritual of washing their hair too often, many others don't wash their hair often enough, especially when it becomes dirty through work. It is very beneficial for the scalp to keep the hair clean.
Are Ducks and Geese Fit for Food?
One year ago in the "Question Box" we printed an answer to the inquiry, "What fowls are not fit for food?" In the answer to that question it was concluded that since the swan as classed among the unclean fowl, both the duck and the goose would also be unclean. It has since been brought to our attention that the word swan in the King James Bible might be u mistranslation. Through months of careful study, there is no doubt that the word swan is a MISTRANSLATION. Hence the duck, the goose and the swan are clean fowl. As proof of this the following facts should be understood. The unabridged Smith's Bible Dictionary says of the swan, "Only accidental stragglers wander so far south as the Nile, and it has not been observed by recent naturalists either in Palestine or Egypt" (article, "Swan"). The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia says of the swan, "A bird of the duck family wrongly placed among the abominations in old versions of the Bible..." Furthermore, since both geese and ducks are plentiful in Palestine and Egypt, and since the goose was offered by the Egyptians for pagan sacrifice, Moses would have included ducks and geese if they were unclean. Moses mentioned the bat, but not the duck or goose despite their abundance and use in pagan services. This fact lends proof to the conclusion that they are clean fowl. The Greek translation of the Old Testament, made by Jewish scholars two and one half centuries before the birth of Christ, does not render the word as swan, but as ibis or purple waterhen. It is this classification that is meant by Moses. The Jews to this day regard the goose and the duck as clean fowl. In preparing geese especially, be sure to allow for the removal of as much excess fat as possible.