anukulapo:
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)

Thanks for the reply. First, I do not lay claim to omniscience in anything I teach but still seek after perfection that I may be a servant of Christ. The word "cover" and "covering" as you mentioned are NOT in isolation of verse 14-15 as you mentioned. Maybe it's the way we understand things and I do not say they have different meaning.

anukulapo:
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.

Okay. I have Strong's concordance (hardcopy) and The Complete Word Study New Testament By Spiros Zodhiates (hardcopy) which I gave the link before: (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). Checking the link, click on "Additional Views" at the buttom of the front page in order to see the content. Also, the "Complete Word Study New Testament" IS THE SAME AS THIS STUDY SOFTWARE, THE SAME: http://www.blueletterbible.org/index.cfm
(At least, you can check for yourself online version)

In this study aids, "covering" in verse 15 is translated as 1) a covering thrown around, a wrapper. a) a mantle. b) a veil.

Here, I opened the verse: http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Cr&c=11&v=15&t=KJV#conc/15

Here, I opened the word meaning for covering: http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4018&t=KJV

Now if the word covering is translated as above and the verse says,

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.

It's therefore self explanatory and re-read thus:

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

She already have a covering which is her LONG HAIR thrown around, as a wrapper, as mantle and as veil. How can something be given by nature as a veil for cover(ing) and one is still seeking another cover(ing)? The veil here is not to cover her from head to toe unlike that of the temple mentioned in Matthew 27:51, KJV.

This also follows ALL TRANSLATIONS to be TRUE and correct. ALL TRANSLATIONS available, especially the ones that says it different from the usual KJV translation that, "the (long) hair is given to her for a covering". They ALL have it that the long hair of a woman serves as or has been given by nature in place of the veil, (mantle, covering thrown around and wrapper...if you would). Check all translations available to us today from these three bible websites:

http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/11-15.htm

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2011:15&version=KNOX

http://www.blueletterbible.org/index.cfm

Ok. Just to acknowledge reading your reply. I'll do more explanations tomorrow as I cannot type so lengthy text with my phone.

In the mean time,verify the dictionary meanings I provided from those sources and tell us if they really say so.

I have hard copies of both too but didn't bother to find others on the internet.

We may continue the scholastic/theological debate but if you'll want me to,I'll explain the text (1 cor 11:2-16) in summary and you can tell us if the explanation I'll give is true otherwise,I'll ask some other questions which if you provide answers to them,will help a great deal.

Stay blessed.

hope nobody's going to give me a dirty slap from behind for posting with efficos.
just wanted to point out that the phrase "FOR a covering" is not the same as "AS a covering". You don't need any links or study materials to see that, do you?

Image123: hope nobody's going to give me a dirty slap from behind for posting with efficos.
just wanted to point out that the phrase "FOR a covering" is not the same as "AS a covering". You don't need any links or study materials to see that, do you?

no u dont, d concordance i use also says 'for a covering'. Let me see how d discussion will go.

Image123: hope nobody's going to give me a dirty slap from behind for posting with efficos.
just wanted to point out that the phrase "FOR a covering" is not the same as "AS a covering". You don't need any links or study materials to see that, do you?

My dear Brother, this is the same thing other Christian brothers are trynna tell you on the other thread: Why many Christians fall for false doctrines. The Bible wasn't originally written in English; it was translated INTO English and other available languages. In the course of translation, some translators "might" loose the original meaning of words and hence, there is need for finding meaning to "uncertain and unsure" words and parallel it within the context. This will do a lot of good than harm. anukulapo accused of puffing of in knowledge the other time. How does one apply or do the word he or she doesn't know or understand? Certainly, there will be wrong application.

THEREFORE, YES, we NEED study materials or aids to better understand the text; of course in conjunction with the SPIRIT of TRUTH. That's what separate the truth from error, by examining the text in its original language. We're only showing the links so as to be transparent in our teaching because here is a public forum.

I was only using the "FOR" and "AS" as covering INTERCHANGEABLY in my "own" words when I replied anukulapo. I never meant it to be changed to "AS", the word in KJV is "FOR" and Ubenedictus also confirmed the concordance translates it "FOR a covering". It's very simple, go to the Greek meaning of "FOR" as used in the context of 1 Cor. 11:15. Here you have it,

"FOR" as used in that context, in English is a preposition. In Greek it is the word "anti" and means,

1) over against, opposite to, before

2) for, instead of, in place of (something)
a) instead of
b) for
c) for that, because
d) wherefore, for this cause.

I will also like to stir you up to challenge you with this scripture though it's not relevant to this topic but just to let you see the need (if you can) for word study in Greek and Hebrew.

King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brothers, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. - Luke 14:26

New Living Translation (©2007)
"If you want to be my disciple, you must hate everyone else by comparison--your father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters--yes, even your own life. Otherwise, you cannot be my disciple.

Oh my God! Are you telling me Christ gave a condition for me to HATE everyone else even my father and mother in order to follow him? Christ must be preaching hatred then. Kindly check the meaning to the word "HATE" as used in this context. That is when the beauty of scriptures come out alive to you.

some posts like the above, i need to answer using a computer, so have some patience please.

Like Jo said (https://www.nairaland.com/1171845/carnality-corinthians-churches-abuse-speaking) "You need to understand the code of a writing. Just as paul gave the code about covering of hair. Head of woman is. . . Head of man is. . .anybody who miss that part will lose the truth about that passage."

You must first understand that 1 cor 11:2-16 is about "headship and glory" (verse 3). The introduction gave such indication -- I'll have you know that...

From verse 4, he started the analogy of headship pointing the order even existing between God and Christ. In order words, having a head and being subject to some else’s authority is part of the nature within God Himself, and – consequently – is reflected in creation.

He then goes to an application while praying and prophesying – or more general: He speaks about the assembly (which becomes clear from verse 17 that confirms verses 2-16 as a command ["in commanding this I do not praise you"] and connects it to the second tradition he handed down to the church [the Lord's Supper] – note the plural of tradition in verse 2, which gives in fact equal weight to both!).

The order between God-Christ-Man and Woman shall be shown in a symbol that involves our physical heads. How they are covered or uncovered is a statement on headship: The Man’s uncovered head represents the “uncovered authority” of Christ. A woman covering her head, covers the man and is at the same time a confession that – yes – leadership is male. But that the man is symbolically covered in prayer and prophecy is significant, because it stresses, that human authority must be silent in the presence of Christ.

The second argument deals with golry, and it follows the same direction: Man, as the image and glory of God must be uncovered, woman as the glory of man (and human) must be covered. And in doing this, she also covers her own glory, which is her long hair. The point that is made is obvious: All human glory must be veiled in the assembly, only God’s glory may remain uncovered.

Though, in the eyes of God,both are the same but for (divine) order sake, man is the head of the woman and the man (as the head amongst humans) represents the head (head--in absolutism is the headship of God whom i pointed out sometime earlier in my posts is under no one's authority)

It is all about the glory of God and the authority of Christ and to underline that, it has nothing to do with culture whatsoever. Paul adds, that this symbol is important for the angels. He does not explain how or why, he just hints to this unseen reality. This reminds us we should not only ponder what seems important and relevat to us only, but get a feel for heavenly realities.

Now, in equating the “peribolaion” with which nature “naturally” provides women with the kaluma, the words katakalupto and akatakalupto speak of, Woman’s glory may be covered, thus man’s glory remains covered – both human glories are equally “present” in the presence of God’s Glory: This is putting man on the same level as God amongst humans and the woman in the place of humans! Do you get the point?

The reason Paul uses nature as an analogy is that Greeks were used to pray uncovered (or better: they were pretty much indifferent)! They somehow needed to be convinced that a veil is not something strange at all!

So Paul is kind of saying "Nature does the same: It makes a clear and visible distinction between the physical look of the head of a woman and that of a man. And we view this as glorious, when a woman has long hair and appears truly female; and vice versa we reagrd as shameful when a man looks like a woman. The long hair veils her like a “peribolaion”-veil. But – mark this – this her glory must be covered with a “kaluma”- covering tin in the assembly Because this is not the time to “show off” men’s or women’s (humans') glories but to focus on God’s glory alone. This reminds us also that both Paul and Peter fordbid women to draw unnecessary attention to themselves through elaborate hairstyles, which somehow most women do up to this day. If we allow women to be uncovered, we also have these more or less “swaggar/pimped/braggy” hairstyles in front of our eyes, don’t we?

https://www.nairaland.com/808947/there-female-angels/1

Goshen360:

My dear Brother, this is the same thing other Christian brothers are trynna tell you on the other thread: Why many Christians fall for false doctrines. The Bible wasn't originally written in English; it was translated INTO English and other available languages.

Did i at any time say that the Bible was originally written in english?

In the course of translation, some translators "might" loose the original meaning of words and hence, there is need for finding meaning to "uncertain and unsure" words and parallel it within the context. This will do a lot of good than harm. anukulapo accused of puffing of in knowledge the other time. How does one apply or do the word he or she doesn't know or understand? Certainly, there will be wrong application.

Most times scriptures interprete scriptures. Study the scriptures, search the scriptures. have the Spirit. You'd hardly lose your way. The point, the simple and straight point i emphasized on the thread you referred to is that Sheol is an Hebrew word, Hell is an English word, and Hades is a greek word. And that they three can safely be paralleled. Your other brethren couldn't come to grips with that. Many English speakers know and are familiar to an extent of the word 'Hell'. But your brothers want it to be 'Hades'. According to you as i just quoted, How does one apply or do the word he or she doesn't know or understand? Certainly, there will be wrong application. It is this your opinion that i was telling them oh.

THEREFORE, YES, we NEED study materials or aids to better understand the text; of course in conjunction with the SPIRIT of TRUTH. That's what separate the truth from error, by examining the text in its original language. We're only showing the links so as to be transparent in our teaching because here is a public forum.

What we need is God's Spirit. Ask the pharisees, they understand greek and hebrews and remain in darkness.

I was only using the "FOR" and "AS" as covering INTERCHANGEABLY in my "own" words when I replied anukulapo. I never meant it to be changed to "AS", the word in KJV is "FOR" and Ubenedictus also confirmed the concordance translates it "FOR a covering". It's very simple, go to the Greek meaning of "FOR" as used in the context of 1 Cor. 11:15. Here you have it,

"FOR" as used in that context, in English is a preposition. In Greek it is the word "anti" and means,

1) over against, opposite to, before

2) for, instead of, in place of (something)
a) instead of
b) for
c) for that, because
d) wherefore, for this cause.

Note the bolded 'd' part of your definitions, that's the little point i'm bringing up and hoping not to be slapped from behind. The original says 'FOR' as against 'AS'. That is perhaps the key difference you are missing in your interpretation of that verse.

I will also like to stir you up to challenge you with this scripture though it's not relevant to this topic but just to let you see the need (if you can) for word study in Greek and Hebrew.

King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brothers, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. - Luke 14:26

New Living Translation (©2007)
"If you want to be my disciple, you must hate everyone else by comparison--your father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters--yes, even your own life. Otherwise, you cannot be my disciple.

Oh my God! Are you telling me Christ gave a condition for me to HATE everyone else even my father and mother in order to follow him? Christ must be preaching hatred then. Kindly check the meaning to the word "HATE" as used in this context. That is when the beauty of scriptures come out alive to you.

i never needed any study aid to understand that verse. A study of the Bible would give us the full picture, and Jesus' context. that's why i usually emphasize a cumulative learning, instead of selective or isolated. Anyone who knows Jesus knows what He means in that verse. You don't exactly need a greek or hebrew dictionary to know that Jesus wants to take number 1 position and priority as against any other person ot thing. Also, the verse would so much contradict all other scripture on love for instance. You don't need to possess aids to figure that out. i'm not against aids, i have them and even use them. i'm against glorifying them or putting them forward as the solution. They are not, actually they are more of the confusion than the solution.

woah, just went through anukulapo's last post and they are indeed, words on marble.
katakatalupopo, i feel like speaking in tongues mehn. no wonder those guys from J's church almost lose control when their Pastor starts greeking them(if u know what i mean). lol.

Plenty work for me to do here, I will be back

frosbel: Plenty work for me to do here, I will be back

why not sit back on this one, you might actually gain something.

Image123: woah, just went through anukulapo's last post and they are indeed, words on marble.
katakatalupopo, i feel like speaking in tongues mehn. no wonder those guys from J's church almost lose control when their Pastor starts greeking them(if u know what i mean). lol.

LWKMD @ katakatalupopo. Na so u dey kabash? LOL

Oh,it's tag team time. Oga frosbel is warming up.


@GOSHEN,I have a question. Can I ask?

Anikulapo

Thank you for your commentry very on point

remain blessed


Peace love and joy!!!

MostHigh: Anikulapo

Thank you for your commentry very on point

remain blessed


Peace love and joy!!!

Thanks for the compliment. Just laboring for the truth and the true doctrine like many other NLders.

More to come by God's grace.

By the way,it's Anukulapo not Anikulapo.

Thanks.

Goshen,what is the implication of this excerpt from your post as quoted below?

Goshen360:

In this study aids, "covering" in verse 15 is translated as 1) a covering thrown around, a wrapper. a) a mantle. b) a veil.

I also want to ask if you verified the sources (bible dictionaries) I used--smith’s handi
reference bible dictionary and Holman
illustrated bible dictionary which I said refers to covering as with veil.
verify and tell us "so that everybody can read and learn. Take your time please...and we continue.

Thanks. I hope I'm not asking too
much?
We are all learning you know.
Please,let me know. So that we can all learn"

Sorry for borrowing your words.

@GOSHEN,we are still waiting on you.

@Frosbel,You said you'll be back. I hope you're not stuck in traffic.

^^^
Okay, here I am for my sign off post. However, I will honour you again IF NEED BE, for the sake of other viewers,

Looking at your teachings, that is you, anukulapo, what you're simply teaching is "HAIR" covering, NOT "HEAD" covering. The passage doesn't discuss "HAIR" covering BUT "HEAD" covering. When it says,

5 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. 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.

You can see that a woman scrapping off (shave) her HAIR is what is called UNCOVERED to her physical HEAD. This passage is as clear as it is. You're the one reading cap/hat/veil into the passage. There's NO WHERE it mentions hat/cap/veil as covering for HEAD etc. So when you come to verse 14-15, Apostle Paul begins to parallel the HEAD covering EXACTLY what he meant by introducing HAIR into the discussion.

14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long HAIR, it is a shame unto him? 15 But if a woman have long HAIR, it is a glory to her: for her (LONG, mine added) HAIR is given her for a covering.

...for a covering for WHAT? The context of covering is "HEAD" covering and uncovering, NOT "HAIR" covering/uncovering and NOW he tells us the LONG hair is given her for a covering [and we see the meaning of covering as in our study aids, as 1) a covering thrown around, a wrapper. a) a mantle. b) a veil.]

The Apostle is hereby making it plain as he introduced HAIR as the covering FOR HEAD. When you say people can use veil or mantle or scarf or wrapper, you are saying what they cover or covering is HAIR, NOT HEAD because the HAIR is already GIVEN FOR a covering mantle, scarf, veil, wrapper (substitute the meaning of covering therein).

Goshen360:

In this study aids, "covering" in verse 15 is translated as 1) a covering thrown around, a wrapper. a) a mantle. b) a veil.

Ok teacher GOSHEN,from your statement was the above extracted. The study aids YOU (GOSHEN) used, covering as it appears in verse 15 is translated
" 1) a covering thrown around, a wrapper. a) a mantle. b) a veil. "

So,tell us sir,what is the implication of this when substituted into the verse?


You have also be dodging the question asked.

Tell us, did you verify the sources (bible dictionaries) I provided --smith’s handi reference bible dictionary and Holman illustrated bible dictionary which I said refers to covering as with veil.

At least,I am not Holman nor Smith.

anukulapo:

Ok teacher GOSHEN,from your statement was the above extracted. The study aids YOU (GOSHEN) used, covering as it appears in verse 15 is translated
" 1) a covering thrown around, a wrapper. a) a mantle. b) a veil. "

So,tell us sir,what is the implication of this when substituted into the verse?

Are you sure you are reading these posts very well? I don't mean no insult for asking please. Okay let me repost the answers by just quoting the former replies,

Below, you have the definition of the word "FOR" as against "AS" covering. The verse says, "The HAIR is given to her FOR a COVERING"

We got the definition of "FOR" from the Strongs Concordance and disctionary and given as below,

Goshen360:
I was only using the "FOR" and "AS" as covering INTERCHANGEABLY in my "own" words when I replied anukulapo. I never meant it to be changed to "AS", the word in KJV is "FOR" and Ubenedictus also confirmed the concordance translates it "FOR a covering". It's very simple, go to the Greek meaning of "FOR" as used in the context of 1 Cor. 11:15. Here you have it,

"FOR" as used in that context, in English is a preposition. In Greek it is the word "anti" and means,

1) over against, opposite to, before

2) for, instead of, in place of (something)
a) instead of
b) for
c) for that, because
d) wherefore, for this cause.

I also went further to get the original greek meaning of the word "COEVRING" as used in the context from same Strong's concordance and dictionary and stated below,

Goshen360:
In this study aids, "covering" in verse 15 is translated as 1) a covering thrown around, a wrapper. a) a mantle. b) a veil.

Now, back to your question - "So,tell us sir,what is the implication of this when substituted into the verse"?

The verse will then read thus:

15 But if a woman have long HAIR, it is a glory to her: for her HAIR is given her FOR (instead of, in place of, instead of) a covering (1) a covering thrown around, a wrapper. a) a mantle. b) a veil. OR scarf/hat/cap etc.

So therefore, anyone that pays close attention to your teaching will understand that you're teaching nothing BUT HAIR covering NOT HEAD covering. When the scripture says the HAIR is given IN PLACE OF/INSTEAD OF (by Strong Greek meaning) a WRAPPER/MANTLE/VEIL or SCARF/HAT/CAP etc for the HEAD but you, anukulapo is saying there's still need for scarf/hat/cap/veil/mantle etc; then what you're teaching is HAIR covering, not HEAD covering. When you teach that a woman still need use scarf/veil/scarf/mantle/cloth/cap to cover, you're simply teaching she's covering the HAIR, not HEAD because the HAIR is already given her FOR a covering FOR her physical HEAD.

Do you understand Apostle Goshen360

anukulapo:

You have also be dodging the question asked.

Tell us, did you verify the sources (bible dictionaries) I provided --smith’s handi reference bible dictionary and Holman illustrated bible dictionary which I said refers to covering as with veil.

At least,I am not Holman nor Smith.

Do not assume I'm dodging questions. Not everybody use smith or Holman. Most of us use Strong's concordance and dictionary and that's what I use. At least, Strong's concordance is verifiable online version which I gave you the link. Yes, you're not Smith nor Holman but every materials MUST be subject to scrutiny for verification.

Gosh, you dey ask yoursef question again, do you understand apostle Gosh? well, i advice you use the 'd' part of your dictionary definition, and also consider previous verses instead on interpreting verse 15 in isolation.
And judge in yourself, what is shaved, the head or the hair? And is it reason to cover the glory of the man and uncover the glory of the woman?

Which verse 15 am I interpreting in isolation? Did Paul ever mentioned anything like scarf/hat/veil/mantle as covering FOR "HEAD" or "HAIR". Didn't Paul say if a woman shave is the SAME AS THOUGH SHE'S NOT COVERED? The same Paul now said the HAIR is give her as covering FOR THE HEAD.

I know it takes God and humility to accept you guys were wrong for years. What you teaching is HAIR covering NOT HEAD covering.

i was only advising you. it should be obvious to you that I'm not into question and answer sessions on this thread, it's between you guys and anukulapo.

Image123: i was only advising you. it should be obvious to you that I'm not into question and answer sessions on this thread, it's between you guys and anukulapo.

Aren't you the same anukulapo with another handle? Stop pretending cos it's obvious and I can read between the lines.

Studying the root greek/hebrew words has never solved the doctrinal differences in christiandom and I see this is where you've committed your strength into.

Greek/hebrew word study is just a LOGOS exercise that is why this thread is a questions about how YOU (GOSHEN) and others that I invited practice what you translate the scripture to mean.

Goshen360: Which verse 15 am I interpreting in isolation? Did Paul ever mentioned anything like scarf/hat/veil/mantle as covering FOR "HEAD" or "HAIR". Didn't Paul say if a woman shave is the SAME AS THOUGH SHE'S NOT COVERED? The same Paul now said the HAIR is give her as covering FOR THE HEAD.

I know it takes God and humility to accept you guys were wrong for years. What you teaching is HAIR covering NOT HEAD covering.t

No,Paul did not mention scarf nor hat and that is exactly why I said we should use another approach instead of the same old Debate about LOGOS. If differentiation won't work,let's intergrate; let's work from what we do to get what we believe.

This is the major theme of this thread and you have refused to answer it personally nor on behalf of your congragation.

Here it goes again:

iF IT IS NOT ABOUT SCARF/HAT, why then do the men (in the churches where your view is being held) not put on hat/cap at random as the women in such congregation do?

If you can't answer these question, then you don't believe what you preach.