the major issue is that some have made a distinction between the words "covering" and "long hair" when it seems like they are both the same. So if a woman is to cover her head and long hair is the covering then isn't it logical to understand that Paul is saying that the woman is to cover her head in long hair? The counterargument to that is the fact it states that a woman is to cover her head while praying and prophesying and that men are to do the opposite. So there is a false "appearance" that such things were to be done only under two conditions. But that is not what we read. It doesn't say the word "only" and when we read further it says another reason men shouldn't cover their heads is because he is the "image and glory of God" so there goes the two-conditional argument. One assumes that there are two conditions when one can easily argue that Paul was giving just two examples. In that it would look off if a woman doing something holy LIKE praying and prophesying while having such a short haircut and the same can be said for the man with long hair. Logic also dictates that if a woman must wear a cloth covering based on two conditions then doesn't that imply that she CAN be without it if she were to do something else like say cast out demons, talk in tongues, or interpret tongues etc. This head covering doctrine fails once one put things into logical perspective.

@@robertmiller812you take the hair is the only covering needed into verse 6 it reads like this if she does not have her hair on let her be shorn for it is shameful to be shorn or shaven let her be have her hair on. looking at this this becomes so confusing and completely doesn't make any sense, if she hasn't got her hair on then she is bald so to say that she might as well be shorn makes no sense as without her hair she cannot be shorn.

@@lukepinn621 Well if you are explaining it that way then some might see this as logical BUT your explanation isn't exactly correct to begin with, Allow me to butt in for a moment here. The idea seems like it does not make sense as it seems to be repetitive, but this is not being understood correctly. If being uncovered or not covered means having short hair and NOT BALD then it is possible that it can be shaved or shorn off. I have short hair, but neither is it a buzz cut or shaved off bald. Therefore, even though I have short hair it doesn’t mean that it cannot be cut even shorter or shaved bald. So now it is important to understand what shorn and shaven mean. The word “shorn” is the same word used when you shear sheep. A stubble is left behind. And shaven implies using a razor which implies that all the hair would be taken clean off. Note that the word “shorn” is repeated alongside the word “shaven” in the KJV as if to confirm and clarify that Paul is referring has to do with something extreme and that it causes shame. Obviously cutting off an inch of hair is not going to cause shame therefore the meaning implies something more. And since both words imply seeing the scalp he must be referring to baldness. A quick look at any dictionary will show that these words are synonymous. Therefore, by mentioning these words side by side Paul would seem to be emphasizing the fact that women with short hair may as well be made bald. Yet some refuse to see the obvious logic and will claim that it doesn’t mean baldness but just that it simply means cut, brushing aside the fact that it has a capacity of causing shame, but they don’t do the due diligence of research. For example, the SAME word “shorn” is used when Paul makes a vow and cuts off his hair. I don’t think any normal person reading this would assume that Paul took an inch off his hair right? No, it was common back then that when someone was serious about a vow, they would do a serious act like cutting ALL their hair off. There is nowhere to run away from this, shorn just like shaven has to do with baldness. It would also be very difficult to claim that Paul was speaking metaphorically as hair seems to be the main theme here and the removal thereof repeatedly. Why would he repeat the words shaved or shorn unless he was being literal? I think most of us can agree that having short hair (like in a typical male haircut) is NOT the same as having their hair shorn or shaven aka bald. Therefore, a woman being “uncovered” simply means that she has short hair and that in doing so she might as well shave the REST of her hair off. It’s not that complicated once you understand what it means to be covered or uncovered. Everything else starts to make sense when you read the other verses knowing that they are referring to hair. Unfortunately, people tend to get stuck on just a couple of words that vaguely seem like some kind of headwear but do not consider all the verses that show that “covering” means long hair and that “uncovered” means short hair. Therefore, given all this logic and proof, how can we conclude that they are referring to a hat, bonnet, or veil? I reiterate, how can one have logical judgments in the example I gave that by merely looking at a long-haired woman performing such holy acts without a veil one would automatically assume that there is a foreign object missing? It makes no logical sense. Therefore, I implore everyone to set aside any bias and explain to themselves 1st Corinthians 11:13 thoroughly, but I suspect most people will simply ignore it. This, therefore, makes the whole veil interpretation wrong, that it cannot be substantiated and should be rejected.

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/psuqbLhi29nMcas.html

The 'covering' is the hair. A woman must be covered with her long hair. There are many scriptures.

the major issue is that some have made a distinction between the words "covering" and "long hair" when it seems like they are both the same. So if a woman is to cover her head and long hair is the covering then isn't it logical to understand that Paul is saying that the woman is to cover her head in long hair? The counterargument to that is the fact it states that a woman is to cover her head while praying and prophesying and that men are to do the opposite. So there is a false "appearance" that such things were to be done only under two conditions. But that is not what we read. It doesn't say the word "only" and when we read further it says another reason men shouldn't cover their heads is because he is the "image and glory of God" so there goes the two-conditional argument. One assumes that there are two conditions when one can easily argue that Paul was giving just two examples. In that it would look off if a woman doing something holy LIKE praying and prophesying while having such a short haircut and the same can be said for the man with long hair. Logic also dictates that if a woman must wear a cloth covering based on two conditions then doesn't that imply that she CAN be without it if she were to do something else like say cast out demons, talk in tongues, or interpret tongues etc. This head covering doctrine fails once one put things into logical perspective.

AMEN!

the major issue is that some have made a distinction between the words "covering" and "long hair" when it seems like they are both the same. So if a woman is to cover her head and long hair is the covering then isn't it logical to understand that Paul is saying that the woman is to cover her head in long hair? The counterargument to that is the fact it states that a woman is to cover her head while praying and prophesying and that men are to do the opposite. So there is a false "appearance" that such things were to be done only under two conditions. But that is not what we read. It doesn't say the word "only" and when we read further it says another reason men shouldn't cover their heads is because he is the "image and glory of God" so there goes the two-conditional argument. One assumes that there are two conditions when one can easily argue that Paul was giving just two examples. In that it would look off if a woman doing something holy LIKE praying and prophesying while having such a short haircut and the same can be said for the man with long hair. Logic also dictates that if a woman must wear a cloth covering based on two conditions then doesn't that imply that she CAN be without it if she were to do something else like say cast out demons, talk in tongues, or interpret tongues etc. This head covering doctrine fails once one put things into logical perspective.

Don't be silly!

@Biblical Broadcasting I haven't been so far. That is your job.

One is the truth and one is false

@William Haska Both are grossly false.

If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils then it can be argued that the most often cited verse in this teaching is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states: “But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.” According to those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse implies that a woman’s uncovered head is someone who does not wear a veil. That they are wrong for failing to wear it and assumes that such a person already has long hair. Therefore, the conclusion is that it must be referring to an “additional” covering. Another conclusion is that a woman ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying then it would seem as though it is something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil. If there where only two exclusive moments then one should have no problem if an “unveiled” woman speaks in tongues, interprets tongues, heals the sick, casts out devils, etc., right? Following such logic it stands to reason that the other instances that I mentioned should be acceptable WITHOUT a veil, right? Now should they say NO, then they should admit that there may be more instances; thereby making the argument that the covering is removable based on two conditions, to be false. Please keep in mind that the word “veil” is not actually mentioned here, neither anything that EXPLICITLY states that the covering is something can be placed on or taken off. People ASSUME this because they are misreading scripture. So what can we say about this? Just that Paul was giving us a couple of examples of how doing something HOLY or GODLY does not look right if she is uncovered, in other words not covered in long hair. Let’s follow the logic of verse 5 in a real life scenario. Imagine a woman with long flowing hair praying and prophesying without a veil. Would the lack of a veil really equate to someone as if they were shaven? Did people really look at unveiled women as someone shaved? I am not saying this to be funny, but people have literally stated that an unveiled woman was likened to being shaved. Given that this comparison seems illogical one should consider that someone may be reading it wrong. For if “uncovered” means “short hair” then it fits the narrative of those who understand the word “uncovered” to mean “not covered in long hair,” (aka short hair) then the verse would make more sense in that a woman with short hair might as well be shaved, since it is already short. So be honest, doesn’t it make more sense that an “uncovered” woman means a woman with short hair? Wouldn’t that be MORE closely relatable to being “shaven” than to someone who has long hair but not wearing a veil? In other words it is not a big leap to make the correlation between short hair to being shaven than to being asked to make a GIGANTIC LEAP OF LOGIC that an unveiled woman is somehow equal to being shaved. Please don’t dismiss this logic think about it for a minute. If we examine all the verses from verse 4 to 15 without bias we should at least conclude that the passages have something to do with the physical heads of both men and women as well as headship. Bit as far as the physical head is concerned the question we should ask is: When they refer to “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” are they referring to long or short hair or some kind of veil? Some will even say all of the above, but if we carefully examine verse 15 it would seem that we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions the words, “covered,” “cover” and “uncovered." “But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering." If the covering is long hair then the words “covered” or “cover” which are synonymous to “covering” should be understood as long hair as well. Then it makes sense when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered” because they are referring to being covered in LONG hair. Now logically speaking wouldn’t being “uncovered” or “not covered” then mean short hair? Therefore, if to be covered refers to “long hair” then the opposite should be true, in that to be “uncovered” should be understood as having “short” hair. Some people will try to complicate this matter by addressing the Greek translation. If we are to make an exegesis to the words presented to us in the Bible then we should be able to easily understand them without having to start studying Greek. If these verses do not move you yet then here’s one that should definitely blow your mind. Paul asks you to make a judgment call in verse 13 as if one should naturally see a problem because he asks you to: "Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?" Paul is asking us to make a judgment. Based on what? The only option is based on observation. Therefore, if “covering” really meant a veil or to be uncovered would mean to be without a veil, then one would have to explain in detail why a FABRIC VEIL would pop up into the average person’s mind when observing a woman praying? Why would you or I look at someone and think that a veil is missing and that it doesn’t look right? Someone needs to explain this logically. Again, don’t dismiss this think about it. Be honest, does looking at a woman doing this naturally create a thought that a veil is missing? I have never seen or heard anyone say: "What a shame she is not wearing a veil on her head” after looking at a woman with long hair while praying, that would be ludicrous. One would have to be literally BRAINWASHED to think that the average person would EVER think that a SEPARATE OBJECT such as a veil would be missing on such a woman’s head. There is no NATURAL or NORMAL reasoning to make such a judgment. But if the word “UNCOVERED” were to mean "SHORT HAIR." then it would make LOGICAL sense. For if I were to observe a woman who has a short haircut doing these holy things like we read in verse 5, then I can naturally judge (by sight) that something doesn’t look right. Also, the very next verse continues this line of thinking that things should be obvious to understand by mere observation in nature. "Doth not even NATURE itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him." 1st Corinthians 11:14 Note that verses 13 and 14 are two consecutive questions both of which asks you to NATURALLY or NORMALLY ASSUME or JUDGE that there is something wrong by OBSERING a woman’s head to be uncovered (having short hair) while praying and a man being covered (having long hair). I would like to also add that it is NOT jumping from a “veil” in 13 and then suddenly to “hair” in 14 like some would like to suggest, because you will note that verse 15 refers back again to the woman which FLAT OUT STATES the “covering” to mean “long hair.” Therefore there is NO EXCUSE to not understand the previous verses. By this simple understanding we can then understand the part where it states that it is shameful or dishonoring for a man to pray or prophesy with his head covered, meaning covered in long hair, like in verses 4: “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.” This “dishonoring” of the head fits perfectly with verse 14 where it mentions that it is “shameful“ for a man to have long hair, therefore the topic is the same throughout the verses in that the head “COVERED” in this verse refers to “LONG HAIR. ” I should note that verse 4 in NO WAY implies that the covering on the man can be placed on or taken off, like some like to argue, due the aforementioned false interpretation that the verse is being exclusive to two actions instead of seeing them as two examples. As stated before this verse simply states that it is dishonoring if a man does something holy or godly like praying or prophesying while covered in LONG HAIR. The same should be understood in verse 7: “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.” Again, they are NOT implying something that can be put on or taken off, ESPECIALLY in this verse, as it offers no examples or “supposed” exclusive conditions. In this instance it is to be understood that the man should not cover his head (with long hair) and the reason because he is the image and glory of God. This same idea should be included in the verses that refer to women like in verse 6: “For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.” This verse is often misinterpreted like verse 5 when it is simply mentioning in the same tone as the previous verse that if a woman has short hair then let her head be shaved BUT if it is a shame to be shaven let her be covered in long hair. It’s really not complicated once you understand what it means to be covered or uncovered. Everything else starts to make sense when you read the other verses knowing that they are referring to hair. I have seen too many times people getting stuck on just a couple of words that vaguely seems like some kind of headwear but do not take into consideration all the other verses that show that the “covering” means long hair and that the word “uncovered” is to mean short hair. Also, please keep in mind that there are various sections that would not make sense if you try to force the idea of veils. Therefore, given all this logic and proof, how can one conclude that they are referring to a hat, bonnet or veil?

@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter Well said something to consider

Thank you for this wonderful fact. It definitely contradicts those who make the claim that women who had their head uncovered were considered likely harlots. Wonderful just wonderful.

it talks about women and husbands? Um which version are you reading? My KJV says only women and men. Plus it refers to the order of creation so it def is not about marital status.

When it comes to the topic of head coverings I’ve never seen so many people make the point about how head coverings were a “cultural thing” or that the “historical evidence” shows that SOME women wore some kind of headwear for centuries and that due to certain social or cultural movements (like the feminist movement) people started to drift away from it. There are several videos online of lengthy discussions of as to how long women had been wearing something on their heads for centuries and then show how only recently women began to stop wearing them, usually because of an introduction of some evil. This is used to somehow show proof or credence to their beliefs that women ought to wear a veil or something. This is by no means a proof of any kind. One CANNOT use practices that were done by various peoples for various reasons, performed for various years as proof. If one has to resort to going outside the scope of the scriptures to prove their point then their evidence was likely very thin to begin with. Please note that Evidence that is OUTSIDE the confines of the Scriptures is NOT THE SAME LEVEL AS SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE. Often cited are the facts that there are many ancient pictures or paintings of women wearing some kind of headwear. But again what people did in the past is irrelevant to what the Bible teaches; plus people wore headwear for all sorts of reasons, it doesn’t mean that they were abiding to Scripture either. Again, length of time of a practice cannot be used as proof. For example: The fact that people believed in using CRUCIFIXES and performed INFANT BAPTISMS for CENTURIES does not mean that we ought to accept such practices. (Feel free to Google this.) Wouldn’t those who believe in this use the same reasoning as those who point to history to lend credence to wearing veils? Of course they would. False doctrines have been around for centuries, therefore, how can anyone use paintings, photos or even writings to prove their interpretation of Scripture is correct? All it shows (like crucifixes and infant baptisms) that people can be wrong for a very long period of time. One can even point in the New Testament where people were already misinterpreting Scriptures and teaching others false doctrines. Therefore, what the people did, however long ago, does not prove that what they practiced was scriptural truth. Therefore it is irrelevant if some women in certain parts of the world wore something on their heads for many years, what matters is what the Scriptures teach. Our faith should be based on rock solid verses not the flimsy writings of man.

Thanks for your response. I think the stated teachings of 1 cor 11 in combination with the historical interpretation of most Christians through all of church history is proof enough.

@@JR-kw3be Yes