Quote:
Originally Posted by donfriesen1
When Paul is seen to say v15, But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering., it causes conflicts (holes) with the veil view (which says the veil is the cover). A view with the least holes should have a way to explain away this hole. Thus far, the holders of the veil view, Esaias and Amanah, have not done so. Silence is all that is heard. Why do these two, who usually have many words, why have they remained silent? Because their view does not have a come-back because it doesn't allow it.
|
Don thinks this is my first rodeo, apparently.
1. The word used in "her hair is given her for a covering" is a different word than the words used both in
1 Cor 11 and in the Septuagint Greek old testament to represent a head covering. The word used is properly a "mantle" or shawl, a "wrap-around". It is therefore something different than what is being commanded.
2. The "her hair is given her for a covering" is part of the lesson from "nature" that illustrates the spiritual covering the woman needs when praying or prophesying. Therefore it is not the very same thing being commanded. That which illustrates something is not the very thing being illustrated. Paul is saying that since nature provides a "covering" for the woman this shows that nature is in alignment with and supportive of the need for the woman to have a spiritual covering when praying or prophesying. Not that since nature provides a covering for the woman she doesn't need a spiritual covering.
3. The fact the subject matter is "praying or prophesying" indicates the covering is relevant to THAT, and not to "everyday all day at night every time all the time", which would be the case in regards to hair length. One does not alter the length or "uncut status" of one's hair every time one prays or prophesying. Paul would not be addressing the TIMES of praying or prophesying if he was simply talking about appropriate hair length on people. But it would make perfect sense for him to address the times of praying and prophesying if he were speaking of the need for men to remove a covering and for women to don a covering when praying or prophesying.
4.
1 Corinthians 11:5 KJV
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.
Here Paul specifies that if the woman prays or prophesies with her head uncovered it is AS IF she were shaven. Thus, being uncovered is not the very same thing as not having long hair, but is AS IF her hair had been shaved off. If one were to say "going to church without wearing your Sunday best is AS IF you showed up naked" would never be taken to mean that not wearing your Sunday best literally means not wearing clothes at all. The fact Paul says it is AS IF she were shaven means he is not saying she already is shaven, only that it has the same IMPORT.
5.
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.
Here Paul states if the woman be not covered then let her ALSO be shorn. This proves beyond any possibility of doubt that the woman being uncovered when praying or prophesying does NOT mean she has cut hair. Rather, it clearly and undoubtedly means that IF she is uncovered, then IN ADDITION TO her being uncovered she should ALSO have her hair cut off. If one were to say "if you go to the store then ALSO go to the bank" nobody would think that the person meant going to the store and going to the bank are the same thing. Rather, that IN ADDITION to going to the store, one is to ALSO go to the bank. So here Paul says that IN ADDITION to praying or prophesying uncovered, she is to ALSO be shorn.
The argument that "her hair is given her for a covering" is an old objection to the apostolic headcovering, which EVERY advocate of the headcovering is quite familiar with. The idea that "silence is their only response because blah blah blah" is quite silly. Don thinks this is some kind of "gotcha" moment, but that is because Don has apparently never encountered anyone who agrees with Paul on the issue of the headcovering. Personally, I don't remember Don even raising the issue before. It may be that he has, and it was overlooked. If it was overlooked, it was either because Don's post formatting is horrible and doesn't contribute to reading everything he types, or else because his fundamental premises are so obviously wrong that it doesn't require exhaustive refutation of every minute detail of his ramblings. As stated previously, a journey of a thousand miles begins with one step, but if that first step is in the wrong direction there is no need to proceed further.