• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Do all women need a "covering"? And what is a "covering"?

James Pease said:
Can you rephrase or elaborate your question of why a verse with universal application is limited in the text. ?
Click to expand...
You’re stalling. Verses 4-5 state that men that prays with his head covered dishonors his head. And that women that pray with their head uncovered dishonor her head.

The dishonor is only incurred in a limited circumstance, when praying. A man can cover his head while not praying and not dishonor his head. A woman can uncover her head while not praying and not dishonor her head.

The teaching is conditional. It does not always apply. Yet you claim that it means a woman must always be “covered” by a man. However if the “cover” in this passage is a man then the woman only needs a man when she’s praying. You can’t claim that the passage requires a permanent covering.

Since we know that men give their women permanent covering the. This passage can not be about the covering a man gives a woman.
 
James Pease said:
No breaks brother, it just flows. Verse 10 says because of this. Because of what? Read it in context.

6for if a woman is not covered -- then let her be shorn, and if it is a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven -- let her be covered;

7for a man, indeed, ought not to cover the head, being the image and glory of God, and a woman is the glory of a man,

8for a man is not of a woman, but a woman is of a man,

9for a man also was not created because of the woman, but a woman because of the man;

10because of this the woman ought to have a token of authority upon the head, because of the messengers;

11but neither is a man apart from a woman, nor a woman apart from a man, in the Lord,

12for as the woman is of the man, so also the man is through the woman, and the all things are of God.

13¶In your own selves judge ye; is it seemly for a woman uncovered to pray to God?

14doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man indeed have long hair, a dishonour it is to him?

15and a woman, if she have long hair, a glory it is to her, because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her;

16and if any one doth think to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the assemblies of God.
Click to expand...
You said no breaks and then broke. Start the passage where it starts, at bare minimum in verse 4.
 
James Pease said:
No read it in context. Christ is the head of man, any man praying with his head covered dishonors his head.

If you (a man) put authority between you and Christ you have broken the structure just presented. Man is made to be uncovered and the Glory of God. Woman is made to be covered and the Glory of man. If you interject a man into the place of the messiah, you ruin the structure. Of there is authority between woman and Christ, the structure fits perfectly.

Once again for the third time, if praying or prophesying with a hat (word used for simplicity since calling it a piece of cloth is offensive to some) dishonors Christ, then the clothing that God commanded the priest and High priest made them shameful when they blessed the people, prayed, and prophesied.
Click to expand...
Tangent question- what if we are using the word Christ incorrectly? Does not "Christ" mean "the annointed"? So if this should say "the annointed (annointing)" is the covering of a man perhaps it could a new paradigm?
 
The Revolting Man said:
You said no breaks and then broke. Start the passage where it starts, at bare minimum in verse 4.
Click to expand...
4Every man praying or prophesying, having the head covered, doth dishonour his head,

5and every woman praying or prophesying with the head uncovered, doth dishonour her own head, for it is one and the same thing with her being shaven,

6for if a woman is not covered -- then let her be shorn, and if it is a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven -- let her be covered;

7for a man, indeed, ought not to cover the head, being the image and glory of God, and a woman is the glory of a man,

8for a man is not of a woman, but a woman is of a man,

9for a man also was not created because of the woman, but a woman because of the man;

10because of this the woman ought to have a token of authority upon the head, because of the messengers;

11but neither is a man apart from a woman, nor a woman apart from a man, in the Lord,

12for as the woman is of the man, so also the man is through the woman, and the all things are of God.

13¶In your own selves judge ye; is it seemly for a woman uncovered to pray to God?

14doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man indeed have long hair, a dishonour it is to him?

15and a woman, if she have long hair, a glory it is to her, because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her;

16and if any one doth think to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the assemblies of God.
 
The Revolting Man said:
You’re stalling. Verses 4-5 state that men that prays with his head covered dishonors his head. And that women that pray with their head uncovered dishonor her head.

The dishonor is only incurred in a limited circumstance, when praying. A man can cover his head while not praying and not dishonor his head. A woman can uncover her head while not praying and not dishonor her head.

The teaching is conditional. It does not always apply. Yet you claim that it means a woman must always be “covered” by a man. However if the “cover” in this passage is a man then the woman only needs a man when she’s praying. You can’t claim that the passage requires a permanent covering.

Since we know that men give their women permanent covering the. This passage can not be about the covering a man gives a woman.
Click to expand...
Not stalling, legitimately wanting to answer your question. So what does nature teach us then? Than only during praying that ita dishonorable for a woman to have her head covered?
I see Paul expanding on an already known concept that a woman should be covered. Nature teaches us this. Literally that's how simple this can be. Paul was pointing out that while praying an prophesying this brings dishonor. That's how I understand this passage. Is it dishonorable for a woman to be uncovered? Im not sure, I lean toward yes but I also know widows are provided for through the tithe. Should a woman seek a covering? Well what does nature tell you?

Can a woman be uncovered? Yes. Should a woman be uncovered? I believe that answer to be no, you believe it to be yes or at least a choice. We are at a wall that we can't pass. I will never accept a tradition that made priests dishonorable, or assume Paul meant to add some exception and forgot to.
 
James Pease said:
Not stalling, legitimately wanting to answer your question. So what does nature teach us then? Than only during praying that ita dishonorable for a woman to have her head covered?
I see Paul expanding on an already known concept that a woman should be covered. Nature teaches us this. Literally that's how simple this can be. Paul was pointing out that while praying an prophesying this brings dishonor. That's how I understand this passage. Is it dishonorable for a woman to be uncovered? Im not sure, I lean toward yes but I also know widows are provided for through the tithe. Should a woman seek a covering? Well what does nature tell you?

Can a woman be uncovered? Yes. Should a woman be uncovered? I believe that answer to be no, you believe it to be yes or at least a choice. We are at a wall that we can't pass. I will never accept a tradition that made priests dishonorable, or assume Paul meant to add some exception and forgot to.
Click to expand...
That’s foolishness. You’re still applying “cover” to mean married. You’ve never established that link. You can’t justify that claim and you haven’t even tried. Cover doesn’t mean married. If you think it does then prove it. I defy you. You can’t. And without you have nothing, your whole idea collapses.

And you haven’t even done the research on the priest thing. You’re just making an assumption. Off the top of my head I’d say praying and prophesying is vastly different than sacrificing. But you are too covered, I mean married, to this idea that you can’t defend and haven’t looked at in depth.
 
The Revolting Man said:
That’s foolishness. You’re still applying “cover” to mean married. You’ve never established that link. You can’t justify that claim and you haven’t even tried. Cover doesn’t mean married. If you think it does then prove it. I defy you. You can’t. And without you have nothing, your whole idea collapses.

And you haven’t even done the research on the priest thing. You’re just making an assumption. Off the top of my head I’d say praying and prophesying is vastly different than sacrificing. But you are too covered, I mean married, to this idea that you can’t defend and haven’t looked at in depth.
Click to expand...
I didn't even mention the word marriage anywhere in my statement.
 
James Pease said:
I didn't realize they excluded God in the blessing and that there was no prophecy involved. My bad.
Click to expand...
It’s fine, you’ve had a lot of them in this conversation. I’ve grown used to it. I’m willing to overlook it and help you as long as you can be humble and admit your mistakes.
 
I’ve heard of The Law of Unintended Consequences, is this The Unintended Law?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top