Thank you! If you haven't already listened, you might like my latest two albums. Even Dragons Shall Him Praise is heavy on Psalms, and Hearth Songs is a 7-song album of original songs about the glory of ordinary Christian life and family. You can find both wherever music is found as well as here on my KZbin channel!

I would like to add my two cents here after reading this discussion. First of all I believe we should follow the teaching in 1st Corinthians 11. The main problem here is the misunderstanding of 1st Corinthians 11 altogether. I also have made an intense study of this passage, and the obvious conclusion is that Paul was referring to long hair being the covering. The first thing one should take notice is the lack of wording required to conclude that a veil is being referred to here. The word veil or cloth is not in the text if we read from the King James version. If you read from the “modern” versions then you might get that view but not from the Textus Receptus. I would like for you to reread the verses that allegedly refer to a veil which is 4-7 and 13. In those verses we read the words, cover, uncovered and not covered. According to scholars these are used as adverbs. Like if you were to say I am going to cover my feet. No one should be thinking of a veil just the action of being covered. What is missing in these verses are nouns that would prove the idea of veils. Since we should not be assuming anything we should be asking the question what is the thing that a woman should be covered WITH based on the passage ALONE? So if you do the math you would find that Paul refers to hair directly 3 times and then indirectly 4 times with the words shorn and shaven. So if there is no noun for the word veil or cloth yet there are 7 instances of idea of hair, then what are we to conclude? That Paul is referring to hair whether it be short or long. But the counterargument would be that Paul is allegedly telling women to put something on or men to take something off. But that is not exactly true it says a woman should be covered, but he is referring to long hair based on the surrounding verses. But what about that a woman ought to be covered when praying or prophesying or men not being covered? The assumption is a that Paul was referring to only two instances which is not true he was merely giving us two examples. This also applies to men about being uncovered. Evidence of this is written in the forgoing verses. Paul writes that men ought not to cover because he is the image and glory of God. And then Paul goes into how woman was made for man and is the glory of the man. So it would seem that man shouldn’t be covered at any time if he is the glory and image of God. Paul also mentions that the mere observation of a praying woman should make us note how uncomely (unappealing in appearance) for a woman to be uncovered. Paul states this in a way that it should be obvious to anyone that she looks off in verse 13. He does this again in verse 14 about how shameful it looks if a man has long hair. He says it this way… Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? KJV So this judgement that we should make is exclusively based on observation of an “uncovered” woman as well as a long haired man. Two consecutive questions both appealing to something innate or within us. Paul is in essence saying that it should be obvious to see that something is wrong or off. So how is it that for the women we are somehow to know within us that a woman would be unappealing in appearance without a manufactured veil? That does not seem logical especially since the word veil is never mentioned. Unless that is not what Paul is meaning but rather that if the woman was not covered in long hair (meaning her hair is short) doing something holy or godly LIKE praying or prophesying. I think most people can relate that looking at a woman with short hair does have an unappealing appearance. It naturally provokes head turns. And if there was any question Paul flat out states what he was talking about in verse 15. So the facts are that there no nouns to use as evidence of a veil. There is evidence that Paul was using praying and prophesying as examples. Paul appeals to nature and something innate within us to judge that being uncovered or covered (meaning having short hair or long hair) should be obvious to all. So this cannot make sense with a manufactured veil.

@@robertmiller812 I love that your argument started with pointing out the distinctions in the received text vs other manuscripts and newer translations. we find a loooot of differences between the two. which do we trust? scrolls discovered in recent times? or scrolls passed on through church history like family heirlooms? I'm super new to this topic but i find myself asking those questions

Thank you!

Thank you!

Feel free to use it for free. I don't register stuff with CCLI on purpose so you don't have to pay for it.

Thank you!

There are lots of folks on X with Sauvé Derangement Syndrome.

@Brian_Sauve well over here sauve is a household name. Please make your hearth songs album into a vinyl so my daughter can play it on her record player. She absolutely loves old Neptune.

@@jeffreyAferguson Thank you! You can actually already get it on vinyl here: www.briansauve.com/vinyl

@Brian_Sauve thanks brother, i just bought it!

@@jeffreyAferguson Thank you!

The KZbin-based ads are annoying but I love that a Christian household is earning money from them. So I'm all for the ads, honestly, if viewing them helps a bit. I just mute them and skip them anyways.

Sin is any *want* of conformity unto or transgression of the law of God. The want of something means you lack it; it's just a somewhat archaic phrase.

​@@Brian_Sauve *Law, thank you for responding. Looks like I haven't picked up my KJV in a while. It's the lack of rather than the desire for.

Called to cover? I don't see that part in the bible. Verse 15 says the long hair is the covering. Paul is talking about women having to cover their heads with long hair as God planned. Obviously women in Corinth were not doing that and Paul steps in to clarify that they need to keep the tradition of women having long hair and men having short hair. It is very clear in the Bible.

@@SheldonVazquez-ib8ib Paul never spoke of a calling to cover. Where is this mystical idea coming from? People are playing a dangerous game here when now scripture does not suffice and people need to be allegedly "called."

Sounds like you are making up the rules here. Where does it say that only women who fully submit themselves to God are "called" to cover? Also where are you getting the idea of being "called" to cover? What does that even mean? Plus isn't it a contradiction to say being called which one can only assume means means being called by God YET call it a natural instinct? This passage is just about keeping the tradition of long hair on women and short hair on men. There is no need to complicate this passage or make it seem mystical with idea of "callings." Just follow the scriptures as written (exegesis).