Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Discussion Topic - Head Coverings.


Recommended Posts

  • Members


If you go literally, neither would make sense as if she doesn't have any hair, there would be nothing to shave bald.


Exactly!
1 Corinthians 11:6 (KJV) 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.

If the covering were truly the hair, the only way this verse could be understood would be

1 Corinthians 11:6 (KJV) For if the woman have no hair, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her have hair.


It would make no sense whatsoever if the covering were hair. Edited by Standing Firm In Christ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

So Paul lied in verse 15. Nice. And it doesn't say "hair," in verse 6 - it says covering. If her hair isn't the proper length, she isn't covered. There is no contradiction between the two verses, but if you are correct, there is.

HC,
What other explanation can be given when verse 6 clearly shows that the covering cannot be hair?

After all how can one also be shaved bald who already has no hair?

Could it be that Paul meant in verse 15 that the hair was given 'to be covered'?

I am in no way saying that Paul lied in verse 15. But Scripture must interpret Scripture and hair does not fit as a covering in verse 6

And Paul does not say 'if her hair isn't the proper length she isn't covered, he says 'if she has no covering, let her also be shorn.' If covering here means hair, then what Paul said is nonsense. Edited by Standing Firm In Christ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators


HC,
What other explanation can be given when verse 6 clearly shows that the covering cannot be hair?
How about the one I already gave - that her neck is to be covered with her hair
After all how can one also be shaved bald who already has no hair?

Could it be that Paul meant in verse 15 that the hair was given 'to be covered'? Her hair was given to be covered? No - I imagine Paul, who was really quite good at words, would have said that instead of saying that her hair was given "for a covering." for and to be mean different things...

I am in no way saying that Paul lied in verse 15. But Scripture must interpret Scripture and hair does not fit as a covering in verse 6 Yes, Scripture must interpret Scripture...and verse 15 specifies that a woman's hair is given to her for a covering...not "to be covered."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

And what exactly is 'proper length'?

My aunt's hair is about 19 inches long, while my cousin's is nearly 3 foot long. Is one of them not covered properly?

I would venture to say that 19 inches long covers the neck, no? I don't know - by your definition, is one of them not covered properly?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members



So, explain verse 6. Not on the premise of short hair, for that is not what Paul said. Explain it for how it says.

1 Corinthians 11:6 (KJV) 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.

If her hair is her covering (which I don't believe) 'if the woman be not covered' can only mean one thing... she is bald. How does one shear one who has no hair?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members


So, explain verse 6. Not on the premise of short hair, for that is not what Paul said. Explain it for how it says.

1 Corinthians 11:6 (KJV) 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.

If her hair is her covering (which I don't believe) 'if the woman be not covered' can only mean one thing... she is bald. How does one shear one who has no hair?


It's the degree to which the hair is covering, perhaps. In other words, if she's going to have short hair, she might as well just have it be shaved. But really, she should have it longer as a covering......
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The truth is, it is legalistic to say one has to have hair 'x' amount of length, since Paul did not say who long is long and how short is short.

It is wrong to say the hair must cover completely one's neck when Paul never said how long he meant. Some women are not able to grow hair long at all due to genetic influence. Does this then mean they are to shave themselves completely because they do not meet your standard for what a woman's hair length is to be?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members



It's the degree to which the hair is covering, perhaps. In other words, if she's going to have short hair, she might as well just have it be shaved. But really, she should have it longer as a covering......

But Paul did not say if she have a short covering, he said if she have no covering. Your theory of it being short or long fails when he says no covering. No means none at all.

And Paul does not say what he means by covering. Covering what? Her ears? Her neck? Her back? He does not say neck, so it is wrong to assume that he meant such. In the same light, he did not say backside, so maybe all women should wear their hair like Crystal Gayle.

Many women get headaches when they wear long hair. What is the best solution there?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

Most women who get headaches from their hair have hair waaaay below their waists. Is that necessary? No, of course not.

Paul did say what he meant by covering: verse 15 is quite clear on that.

Sorry, standing - but there are indications in the wording that it's something we are taught in nature - and, again, I point out the natural hair line...There are times in the Bible that the word naked is used - and it means (in context) not completely clothed. I believe it's the same thing here. There is no covering if it's not long enough (and it's not legalistic to suggest that the neck needs to be covered: there has been no link to salvation here, so let's not go there, okay?). Therefore, if it's not long enough, it may as well be shorn (cut even shorter) or shaved.

And, standing, I did explain what I meant more than once. And I've said it was my opinion. Based on BOTH verses, not just one. You are ignoring verse 15, and then trying to change the wording. You're the one who is saying women need something besides their hair to be covered - so you have to answer your own question as to whether the ladies in your family are properly covered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Most women who get headaches from their hair have hair waaaay below their waists. Is that necessary? No, of course not.

Paul did say what he meant by covering: verse 15 is quite clear on that.

Sorry, standing - but there are indications in the wording that it's something we are taught in nature - and, again, I point out the natural hair line...There are times in the Bible that the word naked is used - and it means (in context) not completely clothed. I believe it's the same thing here. There is no covering if it's not long enough (and it's not legalistic to suggest that the neck needs to be covered: there has been no link to salvation here, so let's not go there, okay?). Therefore, if it's not long enough, it may as well be shorn (cut even shorter) or shaved.

And, standing, I did explain what I meant more than once. And I've said it was my opinion. Based on BOTH verses, not just one. You are ignoring verse 15, and then trying to change the wording. You're the one who is saying women need something besides their hair to be covered - so you have to answer your own question as to whether the ladies in your family are properly covered.
You are inserting your own definition of long into the text. Paul does not say long means to cover the neck wholly... that is your definition of long. As was pointed out, some cannot grow their hair that long. If we are to accept your theory, then those who are not able to grow their hair long should be shaved bald.

Why? Is it their fault their hair doesn't grow? What about aged women whose hair begins to thin and fall out? Are we to yield to HC and shave them bald because their hair is not to HC's specifications?

Yes, it is being legalistic.

And Paul did not say the covering in verse 6 was meant to cover the neck.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

You are inserting your own definition of long into the text. Paul does not say long means to cover the neck wholly... that is your definition of long. As was pointed out, some cannot grow their hair that long. If we are to accept your theory, then those who are not able to grow their hair long should be shaved bald.

Why? Is it their fault their hair doesn't grow? What about aged women whose hair begins to thin and fall out? Are we to yield to HC and shave them bald because their hair is not to HC's specifications?

Yes, it is being legalistic.

And Paul did not say the covering in verse 6 was meant to cover the neck.

No, I'm not inserting anything because I have stated all along that it is my OPINION. Something you can't seem to catch in all of the posts in which I stated that. There's a lot that isn't mentioned in that scripture, and there are a number of things which are and have been debated for many a year.

If you had read my previous posts, you would see that I mentioned ladies whose hair doesn't grow. You don't have to yield to me on anything - personally, I don't care how long or short your wife's hair is! Nor am I worried about the hair of other women. Mine is what I have to worry about. If I had a daughter, hers too. And if a woman asks me, I will venture my opinion. The decision is her head's though, not mine. There is no need to be snide and assume that I am declaring absolute truth (like you are trying to do) when I've stated otherwise.

And, no, it is not legalistic. Legalism is adding to salvation. My opinion has nothing to do with it. It's so easy to throw the word legalistic around when someone advocates standards. That's a shame.

How many times do I need to say that I know that Paul doesn't indicate what long is? Surely once should be enough...and I know Paul didn't say anything about covering the neck. That's OPINION. Should I say it again? OPINION. Mine. Do I teach it as gospel truth? No. Opinion. But it is based on the idea of "nature."

And you've never answered whether or not those ladies are properly covered according to your definition...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...