HumbledbYGrace:
https://www.nairaland.com/1094459/should-christian-women-wear-pants
That's how I got to get a glimpse on u

oh! That thread? I believe i was d most one point guy in dat thread. I refused to 'write anything in stones' and yet gave general rules, dress decently and dont dress in a manner that may cause problem for d weak ones each accding to prudence. And yet u consider me an appearance guy, it seems u wanted a particular response on dat thread and i burst ur bubble. That not withstand u body is important to God if not he wouldn't boder with d resurection so u should treat ur body with care and respect as God's creation. Scripture say ur body is d temple of d holyspirit and i simply corrected sum1 wu claimed d bible forbids long hair 4 men. It's rather unfortunate dat u think d above makes me some appearance freak.


Dont trust ur glimpse.

anukulapo:

I am not ruling out scripture authority. I am only saying no matter the scripture you try to explain,we won't be at accord because the end of your explaination will be opposite of mine.

I believe with a statement like this coming from you, like you always emphasis, those who're reading us will know whose mind mind is already sealed and those not want to compare scripture with scriptures even 'if' its against their 'believe', it doesn't change anything. Then, I do not have any obligation to even further explain verse by verse which I was going to do, taking out human ideas/assumptions/importation into the text so we can explain the truth of what Paul was saying. I will therefore not waste my precious time BECAUSE WE WON'T BE AT ACCORD AND IT WILL BE OPPOSITE OF YOURS....even if scripture teaches something otherwise to what was handed down in your worship place, it still doesn't matter. Anyway, you just told everyone exactly what's on your mind!

anukulapo:

It is simple,direct answers to the questions will be the practice of what you believe from the interpretations you get from the scripture. I am not surprised that you can't give answers to the question raised. By now, many readers must have seen the trend from your post that you can't answer the questions because...

...because what? Why can't you be bold to split out what's on your mind. I have never been fearful of any man in my life. Why are you afraid to talk. Aren't you a Christian that God has not given the spirit of fear? Like you can see from my numerous post - I'm not afraid to mention anyone's name if need be on any thread because I'm not afraid of man whatsoever.

And you want me to answer QUESTIONS that is ALL PENNED DOWN TO WHAT IS OBTAINABLE IN 'MY CHURCH' or what is obtainable in scripture - The same attitude you are demonstrating here in your thread, teaching what is obtainable in your church. Well, many people will think when Apostle Paul ended his discourse in verse 16 of 1 Corinthians 11 by saying, "neither we nor the churches of God has such custom" that EVERYONE OR CHRISTIAN is free to do whatever they like or pleases. I 'think' you fall into that category - I might be wrong in my presumption anyways, forget me if I'm wrong to assume that way.

Apostle Paul by that statement isn't saying anyone can do as they please but rather, we should seek the truth and hold on to it rather than the tradition handed down to us by men. If your pastor had interpreted those passages the way he understands and explained them to the congregation and you've following after, does that make him and his interpretation right? You have displayed not to further search the truth as far as this matter is concerned and that is what you've displayed here and even your questions portrays the same attitude. Asking questions such as it's penned with "in your church" shows your also have what is done "in your own church" also and you just confirmed with statement such as "I am only saying no matter the scripture you try to explain,we won't be at accord because the end of your explaination will be opposite of mine"

anukulapo:

Let me not distract you abeg, can you answer the questions and proceed to justifying your stand (the answers to the question) by your biblical explaination? That's fair enought. Otherwise

Okay, lemme prove that I'm bold and not afraid of you or anyone on earth as a human. I boldly declare I'M NOT ANSWERING YOUR QUESTIONS ANYMORE! - This is because they're penned questions into what's obtainable 'in my church'. You keep saying "in my church" because your church too have taken her stand and therefore whatever any other person say or share with you is irrelevant! Again, to tell our readers that I'm not scared of 'related' questions, I WILL STILL BE GLAD TO ANSWER SAME QUESTION IF, AND ONLY IF THEY ARE RE-DIRECTED TO WHAT THE SCRIPTURE SAYS, NOT WHAT IS OBTAINABLE IN MY CHURCH. Do you understand?

For instance, lemme rephrase one of the questions to what the scripture says and let's take it up from there, that is if you still wish to continue this discussion. Your #1 question goes thus:

Do all women in your church have scarfs/veils/hat on all through your worship service in your church? By that i mean is it an obtainable general standard in your church?

The question should NOT be ALL women IN MY CHURCH but rather,

Does the scripture TEACH that all women in your church have scarfs/veils/hat on all through your the worship service in your churchES or PRIVATE? [s]By that i mean is it an obtainable general standard in your church?[/s]

The ones ruled out are uncalled for because it means churches can do as they like. There is also a debate as to weather it should only be in worship places or in private when Apostle Paul taught the mind of God.

Now, you (anukulapo) knows what to do. I'm waiting sweetie! .....indeed "stucked with Goshen360" right?

Ubenedictus: oh! That thread? I believe i was d most one point guy in dat thread. I refused to 'write anything in stones' and yet gave general rules, dress decently and dont dress in a manner that may cause problem for d weak ones each accding to prudence. And yet u consider me an appearance guy, it seems u wanted a particular response on dat thread and i burst ur bubble. That not withstand u body is important to God if not he wouldn't boder with d resurection so u should treat ur body with care and respect as God's creation. Scripture say ur body is d temple of d holyspirit and i simply corrected sum1 wu claimed d bible forbids long hair 4 men. It's rather unfortunate dat u think d above makes me some appearance freak.


Dont trust ur glimpse.

I don't hv da energy

Let's not derail

HumbledbYGrace: I don't hv da energy

Let's not derail

da though neva crossed ma mind

Gosh, the basis of the thread is that one "take it personal" i.e make it practical, applied, living, not just to go gaga on highest number of Bible passages quoted. Everybody here knows fairly how to quote Bible passages. We want to see the message in YOUR life as it were. We want to read it there. It's not about wanting to fight or blackmail, not that kind of persona.

Image123: Gosh, the basis of the thread is that one "take it personal" i.e make it practical, applied, living, not just to go gaga on highest number of Bible passages quoted. Everybody here knows fairly how to quote Bible passages. We want to see the message in YOUR life as it were. We want to read it there. It's not about wanting to fight or blackmail, not that kind of persona.

Oh, now you are talking to me right? I thought you've decided to end how you making fun of yourself and not me. Well, as far as this thread is concerned, I have a 'silent' notion about you and anukulapo but I might be wrong though and that's why I'm not talking about that because I don't want to just jump to conclusion.

Anyway, it all started because of your statement from the other first thread when you said the Bible says men should not put on cap? That's an authoritative statement which is nowhere to be found in scriptures. And yet, on that thread and this one, you've not been able to show us where men cannot put on cap/hat in worship places from the Bible. Where in the word of God did you explicitly read that from or you people are just reading into the text probably because the text 'suggests' such or you're interpreting on assumptions? The same thing goes for women wearing scarfing or veil as covering. As you can see, I'm no longer talking to you anymore on this thread if not that you're referring to me now. I do not keep malice with you but just avoiding you for the sake of peace and allow you be.

Your behaviour in the recent time shows you 'probably' have some issues or something is wrong somewhere. The fact that you and I disagree on some biblical topics doesn't create any hard feelings at all, we are still one in Christ and it was Christ that brought us together otherwise I know you not from nowhere. We must prove all TRUTH and hold on the truth, not assumption, suggestions nor traditions. Again, I might be wrong in my judgment about you but that's how I feel. As far as this thread is concern, you either leave me and the OP with the readers or let's discuss how you guys interpret a man should not cover to mean he should not wear cap, likewise for the woman. This is where I stand with you and anukulapo.

Thank you.

^^^^
Gosh, Gosh, malice things ke? Na mi you write all these lullaby for? Abeg face the music jor. Face anukulapo, stop proving me right that you're getting old. Take it personal, not pasonal.

The issue of covering of hair in the Corinthian church was a marital issue . It has no spiritual relevance. Wearing cap or scarf now is only a master of personal choice.

Image123: Gosh, the basis of the thread is that one "take it personal" i.e make it practical, applied, living, not just to go gaga on highest number of Bible passages quoted. Everybody here knows fairly how to quote Bible passages. We want to see the message in YOUR life as it were. We want to read it there. It's not about wanting to fight or blackmail, not that kind of persona.

Are u sure we don't have the same blood running through our veins? We think alike

HumbledbYGrace:

Are u sure we don't have the same blood running through our veins? We think alike

na Jesus blood na.

Image123:
na Jesus blood na.

yep

Goshen360:

Well, as far as this thread is concerned, I have a 'silent' notion about you and anukulapo but I might be wrong though and that's why I'm not talking about that because I don't want to just jump to conclusion.

Goshen,You have the right to hold any notion about anybody and you are wise to keep it silent because you might be wrong. Good of you

In as much as we have different beliefs (not only us but a universal doctrinal difference which is in the body of christ), I am willing to go your way.

Take the issue the way you want it (bible exposition or otherwise) and let's see how far we can go.

HumbledbYGrace all the nazarites john the bapitst, yashua son of joseph, samsom, sameul,joseph.... in the bible kept log hair are they a disgrace to us??

MostHigh: HumbledbYGrace all the nazarites john the bapitst, yashua son of joseph, samsom, sameul,joseph.... in the bible kept log hair are they a disgrace to us??

It is required of nazrines to allow their hair grow. The jews practised a lot of religious rites. Even the apostle Paul joined in some of these practices. See Acts 21:23-26 (just saying--i'm making no issue out of this)

@ anukulapo,

Thanks for choosing to go my way. This ease my heart now. Like you said, it is doctrinal differences, not only between us here on this forum but universal. We can prove the truth weather our denomination believes otherwise or not. I have learnt not to speak the language of my denomination but of the word. Let me save all the stories anyway. Let's start exposition. I choose kjv first as AV and follow by other translations, if need be. Here we go:

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God. - 1 Corinthians 11:3 in KJV

Let's dig it in participatory format, you ask questions and I ask questions, you teach using scriptures to explain scriptures. You find meanings to important words and I do same etc

That being said, what do you think our Apostle Paul is saying in verse and how do you think this verse is related to what Paul is teaching in the passages? And how do you come to conclusion on what you think Paul is inferring by this verse?

Goshen

The head of the woman is the man hence if the woman physically exposes her hair or head or crown as I like to call it in the prescence of elders or those not intimate with her such as husband or children when speaking about the holy spirit she has exposed her husband.

In the old world amongst most religions and even now in certain cultures such as sikh,muslim or rasta we see them tying turbans.A womans hair has always been deemed a most intimate part just like the nether regions.

A womans crown exposed in the wrong settings gives her a different aura is more revealing and some might even say sensual

Weras a mans head exposed in the right settings gives immense spiritual power.

Biblically we can see that if a woman was talking God matter or breaking bread as I like to call it with other spirit filled people and her crown was open the elders would immidiately deduce she was spiritually immature and hence open to spiritual attack.
Now correct me if I am wrong but if your wife is open to spitual attack are you not being attacked also

A man must not prophesy and have his head coverd seeing he is the express image of christ.

Christ is the head of man so a man with head uncoverd is the express image of christ

there are very few industries that do research like the movie industry (Hollywood), and even though somtimes they hide some the truth they usually reveal a lot.

Can you remember ever watching a movie about yashua and the apostles and seeing thier heads uncoverd or thier faces clean shaven?

Or the women or the priests uncovering thier heads whan in public places?

If you are a nazerite as yashua son of joseph is, it would be disrepectfull unto yashau to have your head coverd while speaking about him, seeing that he is your head crown or glory.

Why would you not want to identify yourself with whom you are talking about?

all nazarites look the same with uncoverd head as they are dreadlocked this is why judas had to kiss him in the garden to identify to the police which one was the master amongsts them.

In other words you should identify with whom you are speaking of when in the spirit

The head of christ is God.

seeing christ in an intimate setting such as at home or in the upper chamber at the passover feast or in the garden of gesthamane you would be seeing his express glory the true image of God, God face to face

@ MostHigh,

I've heard you. I hope to hear from anukulapo and then, we can continue. I hope you also stay with this thread to the end.

Goshen360: @ anukulapo,

1 Corinthians 11:3 in KJV
But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God.

That is the format for the Divine order of spiritual authority.
God hath no head(not under any authority--no one can subject God) and the woman also hath no one under her (in terms of divine authority).

anukulapo:

That is the format for the Divine order of spiritual authority.
God hath no head(not under any authority--no one can subject God) and the woman also hath no one under her (in terms of divine authority).

Okay. Let's not start the teaching from this verse then. I AGREE with you that this verse establishes DIVINE AUTHORITY. Now, let's move on to see if this verse relates to the subject of head covering or not, that is was Paul talking about authority as it relates to head covering or both or using this verse to establish God's authority but using illustration of head of man and head of woman.

Besides, there are two definitions to the word head as used in scriptures. This verse uses ONLY one of the definitions - Authority and if you like to add, submission.

Every man praying or prophesying, having [his] head covered, dishonoureth his head. - 1 Corinthians 11:4

Key words:

1. Every man
2. [his] head......which one since head has two definitions?
3. covered
4. dishonoureth
5. his head........which one since head has two definitions?

What (in your own exposition and teaching) is this verse saying?

Goshen360: Every man praying or prophesying, having [his] head covered, dishonoureth his head. - 1 Corinthians 11:4

Key words:

1. Every man
2. [his] head......which one since head has two definitions?
3. covered
4. dishonoureth
5. his head........which one since head has two definitions?

What (in your own exposition and teaching) is this verse saying?

1) Every male
2) The physical head
3) Having an object (hat/cap)
4) Showing disregard
5) The divine authority (of christ) which he (the man) is under

anukulapo:

1) Every male
2) The physical head
3) Having an object (hat/cap)
4) Showing disregard
5) The divine authority (of christ) which he (the man) is under

First, I can't but laugh at you! This is not to mean an insult please! I do not mean to offend you by my statement that I can't just but laugh at you and your answer. The reason is, is this how you do exposition and/or teachings? Without showing how you arrived at your answers? Without using scriptures to explain scriptures? Without proving the text? I can't believe this! So when you're asked to prove such as A+3B, you just go ahead and give your answers without showing how you arrive at your answers? I even gave you a clue saying "in your own exposition and teaching".

Anyway, I will help you out! Perhaps this thread will set you free from your religious long held interpretation of scriptures. That's if you wish to learn and follow the truth. Okay. Let's look at your answers,

1) Every male...........THIS IS WRONG!

2) The physical head.......THIS IS RIGHT!

3) Having an object (hat/cap)...........THIS IS WRONG!. The text doesn't mention hat/cap neither does it mention covered with item. This is your addition and/or importation into God's word. Such is dangerous please! Where, here or in any other text does it mention hat/cap as covered items?

4) Showing disregard.................THIS IS RIGHT!

5) The divine authority (of christ) which he (the man) is under................THIS IS RIGHT!

Now, lemme get into the real stuff here. I will make my study and reference work known for the purpose of transparency and proving the text.

1. I use this study material for Studying the NT: The Complete Word Study New Testament By Spiros Zodhiates. The link is found below. Checking the link, click on "Additional Views" at the buttom of the front page in order to see the content.

http://www.christianbook.com/the-complete-word-study-new-testament/spiros-zodhiates/9780899576510/pd/71843?product_redirect=1&Ntt=71843&item_code=&Ntk=keywords&event=ESRCP

2. This "Complete Word Study New Testament" has an online version here: http://www.blueletterbible.org/index.cfm
(I will open the link to the online version when I reference the word study to prove the text as I teach along)

I wont go too deep sha, just a small and straight forward shot! Since we agree on your answers to: The physical head, Showing disregard and Christ being the head (Spiritual head or authority), I will not go into those one but will ONLY deal with the TWO we disagree on; That is, the "Every male" and "Having an object (hat/cap)"

Every man praying or prophesying, having [his] head covered, dishonoureth his head. - 1 Corinthians 11:4

1. Every man: There are two Greek words for 'man' in scriptures. One for man as a human being; the other contrasting man with woman or child. The latter form is used for every man in this instance as we clearly see from the context. It is wrong to understand this in the generic sense as 'every man or woman.' and as every human beings.

2. Covered: This word "covered" is the Greek kata and it means 1) down from, through out and 2) according to, toward, along.

The Greek meaning of the word, "covered" culled from here:

http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Cr&c=11&v=4&t=KJV#conc/4 (This link takes you to 1 Corinthians 11:4 and gives you the Greek key words and entry numbers)

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2596&t=KJV (This link takes you into the meaning of the word being studied, See for yourself)

Now, it could mean having [something] down from his head. What the [something] is is neither stated nor implied in 1 Cor. 11:4. To better understand the text since we now have the meaning in Greek. We need to substitute the meaning for the word "covered" and let's see how it reads,

Every man praying or prophesying, having [i](something) down from [his] head, dishonoureth Christ.[/i]

The notion and import into the text that Paul in this place referred to the [Hebrew: tallith] (shawl), or [Greek: yarmelke] (skull cap) worn by Jewish worshipers is refuted by the fact that the Greek New Testament does not indicate in this verse any artificial covering of any kind as seen from the Greek Study tools. Significantly, the words 'down from' in the Greek word study strongly resemble Paul's words 'having something down from his head'. The scriptural understanding of this would refer it to 'long hair' being long enough to hang down from (remember the Greek definition of 'covered') the head, as clearly indicated by the apostles' words a moment later: 'If a man have long hair, (down from his head - mine added) it is a dishonor to him' (1 Corinthians 11:14). This same 'dishonour' fits into verse 4.

The ancients accepted Paul's dictum on this and went so far as to define the length of hair that was considered an infraction of Paul's words. The hair of the head may not grow so long as to come down and interfere with the eyes; cropping is to be adopted. Let not twisted locks hang far down from the head, gliding into womanish ringlets. We may therefore interpret this verse as a simple admonition that it was a disgrace for any long-haired Christian male to participate in praying and prophesying; and this interpretation certainly harmonizes with verse 14.

Goshen,too many words,too little influence. I cannot but agree that "knowledge puffs up".
I was not interested in a theory based truth revealing style (which you pride yourself in) which in its-self (bible exposition) is not wrong but I just want to justify you,or rather have you justify your position by what you do. Like James demanded that we "show our faith by works".

I also cannot but giggle at your response. I though you'll ask me why I didn't do any exposition (anybody can google and paste supports for the doctrines that believe even if they don't know anything about it). You are too quick to pick ridiculous ways to try to rob off your ego on people(thus I perceive)

I just gave you direct answers to let you come out of the "box". You just want to talk about what you know and not what you do.

Did you even notice that I didn't ask you any question like you said I should?

*****Let's dig it in participatory format, you ask
questions and I ask questions, you teach using
scriptures to explain scriptures. You find
meanings to important words and I do same
etc*****

Please,refer to the thread topic and the OP. In the mean time,educate us and I'll ask you questions.

Like I said earlier,anybody can "google" "copy and paste" anything--it's a free resource to every internet user. However,I encourage you to read this before commenting.


First, in verse 4, the expression translated
"having his head covered" in the King James
Version is literally "having down on a head." The
New American Standard Version translates it
"who has something on his head." This expression would hardly refer to a man wearing long hair. Infact, Plutarch uses a very similar expression ("having the cloak down on the head" to refer to a man pulling his cloak up over his head. And in Esther 6:12 most manuscripts of the Greek Old Testament read that Haman went to his house "mourning down on a head"—a way of saying he put something over his head to show his mourning.
Second, the word group which includes the
words translated "cover" and "uncover" in verses 5, 6, 7, and 13 is not used elsewhere to refer to the hair, but is used to refer to some other type of covering. "Cover" ("veil"—ASV, RSV of verse 6) in verses 6 and 7 translates katakalupto which means "cover, veil" and in the middle voice "cover oneself."25 The word occurs only here in the New Testament, but it is found several times in the Greek Old Testament. It is used in Genesis 38:15 of Tamar where it is said that she had "covered" her face. It can easily be seen from the preceding verse that she did not cover her face with her hair but with a veil.

Similarly the word is used in three manuscripts in Esther 6:12 where it says that Haman hurried to his house in mourning with his head "covered." Here again it is obvious that Haman had not grown his hair long to show his shame, but had thrown something over his head.
"Uncovered" ("unveiled"—ASV, RSV of verse 5) in
verses 5 and 13 translates akatakaluptos which
simply means "uncovered."

This word also is found nowhere else in the New Testament and only once in the Greek Old Testament. One manuscript contains the word in Leviticus 13:45 where it is said that one with a leperous baldness should "uncover" his head. (For this see the King James Version; the Hebrew literally says, "let the hair of his head hang loose." Here again it can be seen that "uncover" is not cutting off the hair. The noun forms of this word group (katakalupsis and katakalumma, both meaning "covering" are not found in the New Testament. Katakalupsis does occur in the second century Christian writing, The Shepherd of Hermas, Vision 4, 2, 1: ". . . a virgin arrayed as if she were going forth from a bride- chamber, all in white and with white sandals, veiled up to her forehead, and her head-covering [katakalupsis] consisted of a turban, and her hair was white."

Here once again it is obvious that the covering is not hair, but a turban. Of the seventeen times that katakalumma occurs in the Greek Old Testament, only once does it refer to a head covering. See Isaiah 47:2. (The King James
Version and the New English Bible take the
Hebrew word behind katakalumma to mean
"locks" or "tresses," but the other modern
translations and Hebrew lexicons28 define the
word as "veil."

I learnt nothing on this thread but a personal attack on Bro. Goshen

Saddening

@Goshen360...I like how you handle issues and even though no human is 100 percent right on the matter of the gospel (I am not in anyway referring to this thread), you have shown yourself diligent...It's a shame I no longer enjoy this section because almost everyone is puffed up with vain pride forgetting the babies that are still on milk!

@OP: I doubt these little things will hinder anyone from rapture and if it wouldn't...what joy is there in making a mockery of the gospel. To each his own but let us all be aware that the goal is heaven and arguments will not take us there...
I am everly fond of II Peter 1:5-9...special emphasis on 9...
No castigate me oh OP...we are still paddies oh but still...you know how I am on anything that isn't edifying and this isn't....in my humble opinion...

Shalom!

Enoquin: I learnt nothing on this thread but a personal attack on Bro. Goshen

Saddening

@Goshen360...I like how you handle issues and even though no human is 100 percent right on the matter of the gospel (I am not in anyway referring to this thread), you have shown yourself diligent...It's a shame I no longer enjoy this section because almost everyone is puffed up with vain pride forgetting the babies that are still on milk!

@OP: I doubt these little things will hinder anyone from rapture and if it wouldn't...what joy is there in making a mockery of the gospel. To each his own but let us all be aware that the goal is heaven and arguments will not take us there...
I am everly fond of II Peter 1:5-9...special emphasis on 9...
No castigate me oh OP...we are still paddies oh but still...you know how I am on anything that isn't edifying and this isn't....in my humble opinion...

Shalom!

The thread was not opened with the intention of bible teaching nor personal attack on Bro. Goshen. With due respect,I learn a lot from him too (and other knowledgeable NLders).
If you read my opening post,I simply questioned a position of doctrine and our dear brother Goshen was not the only person I requested to honour my questions. As a matter of fact,I called them because I know they are knowledgeable and I wanted them to separate "what we say the bible says" from "what we do".

"I learnt nothing on this thread but a personal attack on Bro. Goshen"

To say that you learnt nothing may be true (your opinion) and therefore acceptable but the "attack" part is a bias (in my opinion) based on the respect of Goshen's popularity (again,my opinion). I choose not to quote all his "ridiculous" choice of words in response to other posts on this thread (because this is not my purpose for responding to you).

*****I doubt these little things will hinder anyone from rapture and if it wouldn't...what joy is there in making a mockery of the gospel. To each his own but let us all be aware that the goal is heaven and arguments will not take us there...*****

Since the above comment is directed to me and not to all on the thread with different views (as well as other believers who have conflicting views on various christian doctrines), from my understanding, it is as if you are saying that by my asking for clarifications about the difference of our doctrinal view,I am mocking the gospel--joyfully (I stand to be corrected but that's how I understand your post).

It is well,I understand that you are trying to say "for meat destroy not the work of God...". However,the scripture was written to both them that eat and them that eat not meat and not one sided.

@ anukulapo,

Okay. I get your teachings. Still from the translations you quoted, let's agree it says 'having something on his head' it still doesn't mention specifically what that 'something' is or should be. You're the one reading that something to be cap/hat. The only thing Paul talked about IN THIS CONTEXT as related to HEAD covering is HAIR. Okay, if you're saying otherwise, kindly confirm if what I extracted from your teachings as below is true:

1. To 'Cover' and 'covering' IS NOT with hair right?
2. Cover = veil
3. If your answer to (2) above is that cover = veil; Cover(ing) for a woman, IS IT TO WEAR or USE A VEIL also?

Is this what you're saying? If not, kindly explain to the above questions then we can continue. Thank you!

Goshen360: @ anukulapo,

Okay. I get your teachings. Still from the translations you quoted, let's agree it says 'having something on his head' it still doesn't mention specifically what that 'something' is or should be. You're the one reading that something to be cap/hat. The only thing Paul talked about IN THIS CONTEXT as related to HEAD covering is HAIR. Okay, if you're saying otherwise, kindly confirm if what I extracted from your teachings as below is true:

1. To 'Cover' and 'covering' IS NOT with hair right?
2. Cover = veil
3. If your answer to (2) above is that cover = veil; Cover(ing) for a woman, IS IT TO WEAR or USE A VEIL also?

Is this what you're saying? If not, kindly explain to the above questions then we can continue. Thank you!

You got me right.

anukulapo:

You got me right.

Okay! Very good. Now, can you help all of us to check the mean of "covering" in this verse please.

But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for [her] hair is given her for a covering. - 1 Cor. 11:15.

If you have a concordance/dictionary, kindly help us check the meaning of the word highlighted in RED, "covering" so that everybody can read and learn. Take your time please. When you get the meaning, kindly post it here (maybe with your source) and we continue. Thanks. I hope I'm not asking too much? We are all learning you know.

katakatagoshtos i dey learning mode oh.

Goshen360:

Okay! Very good. Now, can you help all of us to check the mean of "covering" in this verse please.

But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for [her] hair is given her for a covering. - 1 Cor. 11:15.

If you have a concordance/dictionary, kindly help us check the meaning of the word highlighted in RED, "covering" so that everybody can read and learn. Take your time please. When you get the meaning, kindly post it here (maybe with your source) and we continue. Thanks. I hope I'm not asking too much? We are all learning you know.

Note that this study is not an isolation of verse 15 because the word “cover” (and other related forms) appears in other verses too. Except you want to say that cover and covering have different meanings and not state (as in verb/noun)

AND

The two dictionaries I have (smith’s handi reference bible dictionary and Holman illustrated bible dictionary) refers to covering as with veil. I don’t have more than two. If you have another that says otherwise, let me know. I go find person wey get am even if I no fit buy am.

By the way, did you read Weymouth New Testament translation when you were studying?
11:14 Does not Nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair it is a dishonor to him,
11:15 but that if a woman has long hair it is her glory, because her hair was given her for a covering?

Did you notice that Weymouth ended verse 14 with a comma sign while verse 15 ended with a question mark? while others did not--that is because the epistle(letter) written by Paul’s hand was not written in verses and chapter but as a single letter (just like every other books of the bible except proverbs that some verses are actually a single sentence on their own)

Anyways

The points from verse 14 and 15 are Paul's last argument in his series of arguments, now appealing to common sense and observation: He uses nature as an illustration for the covering issue. Saying, even nature provided women with a natural covering (which adds glory to them) which is the counterpart to the covering (the natural equivalent to the veil women shall wear during prayer and while prophesying).

That by nature we should observe that the hair given to women is an indication/example of the expectation to have a covering (veil).
Also, He spoke concerning two specific actions "praying and prophesying".

Is it that a woman can have short hair when they are not engaged in these actions but must have long hair when doing these?

E no make sense!

Also, how can hair be cut off if it is already short? Or can men have long hair any other time except when they pray and prophesy?




Here’s a little background on Weymouth's translation.

Richard Francis Weymouth's popular translation of the New Testament into English was first published in 1903 and has been in print through numerous editions ever since with millions of copies sold. Weymouth's aim has been to discover how the inspired writers themselves would have expressed and described the events of the New Testament and Gospels, had they been actually writing in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. In doing so, he has succeeded in rendering it into a dignified modern English edition without ecclesiastical nor doctrinal bias making it desirable to Christian readers of all denominations. The Resultant Greek Testament was prepared for final publication by Reverend Ernest Hampden-Cook (Weymouth's assistant associate) in 1903. The Resultant Greek Testament, by Richard Francis Weymouth, exhibited the text in which the majority of modern editors agreed, and contained readings of Stephens (1550), Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf, Lightfoot, Ellicott, Alford, Weiss, The Bâle Edition (1880), Westcott and Hort, and the Revision Committee of London.