• 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"?

FollowingHim said:
But is there anywhere in Torah where it forbids healing on the Sabbath? It is possible that Jesus is not giving an exception, but rather in his capacity as Rabbi simply expounding the existing law. The Pharisees may have incorrectly thought Torah forbids healing on the Sabbath, and Jesus' point may be that healing is not "work" so was never covered by the law in the first place.

This is a bit of a sidetrack though, if you want to go into that in detail it's probably better elsewhere.
Click to expand...

I was just pointing out Healing is not counted as work because its an exception and Laws can have exceptions.
Same with Charity Work it is an exception.

FollowingHim said:
The Pharisees may have incorrectly thought Torah forbids healing on the Sabbath.
Click to expand...

I think He was explaining The Exception and that a Law could have an exception.
 
James Pease said:
While that's your opinion and your welcome to it, that's not what the scripture says. Every matter is to be established by the mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses. Provide the witnesses.
Click to expand...
Where’s the scripture that says everything has to be established by two or three witnesses?
 
The Revolting Man said:
Where’s the scripture that says everything has to be established by two or three witnesses?
Click to expand...
In this case we are talking of whether a head covering is required or not required. If the law does require it then we need 2 or 3 witnesses to call it a sin.

Deuteronomy 19
15¶'One witness doth not rise against a man for any iniquity, and for any sin, in any sin which he sinneth; by the mouth of two witnesses, or by the mouth of three witnesses, is a thing established.

2nd Corinthians (Paul is quoting Deuteronomy)
1¶This third time do I come unto you; on the mouth of two witnesses or three shall every saying be established;

Deuteronomy 17. No death penalty is brought without 2 or 3 witnesses either

6By the mouth of two witnesses or of three witnesses is he who is dead put to death; he is not put to death by the mouth of one witness;


Heaven and earth are the witnesses of the Torah being upheld. Yeshua also answers the pharisees here in John.

John 8
13¶The Pharisees, therefore, said to him, 'Thou of thyself dost testify, thy testimony is not true;'

14¶Jesus answered and said to them, 'And if I testify of myself -- my testimony is true, because I have known whence I came, and whither I go, and ye -- ye have not known whence I come, or whither I go.

15'Ye according to the flesh do judge; I do not judge any one,

16and even if I do judge my judgment is true, because I am not alone, but I and the Father who sent me;

17and also in your law it hath been written, that the testimony of two men are true;

18I am one who is testifying of myself, and the Father who sent me doth testify of me.'



The scripture requires 2 or 3 witnesses before someone is guilty. If it is a sin to not cover your hair then that matter should be established by 2 or 3 witnesses. If it's not a sin, then each man can require and not require at his own choosing.
 
Off-gridinwv said:
I was conjecturing that Isaiah 47:2 teaches that it' was unladylike for a woman to uncover her locks
Click to expand...
Why did Rebekah only veil herself before Isaac saw her, shouldn't she have been covered before that then? Was she only being lady like in front of her betrothed? Gen 24 for reference.

And then of course in Gen 38 we have a case were Judah thought tamar to be a whore because she covered her face.

Are you separating a head covering and a veil or calling them the same thing?
 
James Pease said:
Why did Rebekah only veil herself before Isaac saw her, shouldn't she have been covered before that then? Was she only being lady like in front of her betrothed? Gen 24 for reference.

And then of course in Gen 38 we have a case were Judah thought tamar to be a whore because she covered her face.

Are you separating a head covering and a veil or calling them the same thing?
Click to expand...
Two different things. A head covering covered the hair and a veil covered the face. The covering of the face was an act of shamefacedness when a woman knew she was about to be married (gone into). This explains why Jacob didn't know Leah and Judah thought Tamar was a harlot
 
Off-gridinwv said:
Two different things. A head covering covered the hair and a veil covered the face. The covering of the face was an act of shamefacedness when a woman knew she was about to be married (gone into). This explains why Jacob didn't know Leah and Judah thought Tamar was a harlot
Click to expand...
Same word for Rebekah and tamar
 
Off-gridinwv said:
Two different things. A head covering covered the hair and a veil covered the face. The covering of the face was an act of shamefacedness when a woman knew she was about to be married (gone into). This explains why Jacob didn't know Leah and Judah thought Tamar was a harlot
Click to expand...
Do you have any passage that requires head coverings? Where there is no law there is no transgression.
 
Just to be clear, this thread was never about physical head coverings.
 
steve said:
Just to be clear, this thread was never about physical head coverings.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. But if you understand the Corinthians passage to be a piece a cloth and not a man as your head, you will miss a lot of what the scripture has to say. Especially about conduct in the assembly.
 
Off-gridinwv said:
When a God.inspired apostle says it's an ordinance then it is
Click to expand...
He taught that a covering was necessary for a woman, like the Torah supports.

He did not teach that a piece of cloth was required for a woman to pray/prophesy in the assembly. Which is not supported by the Torah. I will do a breakdown of the highlights of the chapter and what the language actually says. If i remember right there are over 5 things added by so called scholars to try and guide you to what understanding they think you should have.
 
James Pease said:
He taught that a covering was necessary for a woman, like the Torah supports.

He did not teach that a piece of cloth was required for a woman to pray/prophesy in the assembly. Which is not supported by the Torah. I will do a breakdown of the highlights of the chapter and what the language actually says. If i remember right there are over 5 things added by so called scholars to try and guide you to what understanding they think you should have.
Click to expand...
I think the problem lies with what you and I consider to be scripture. I believe God is well able to get us His Word in the universal language of our day that's why you never see me referring to the unknown unseen thing-a-mabobs called the Greek and Hebrew. I interpret the Bible by comparing scripture with scripture and reject the private interpretations of the protestant popes
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top