If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils, then it can be argued that the most often cited verse is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states: “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.” According to many of those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse supposedly implies that a woman’s uncovered head is a woman who does not wear a veil. Such a woman is either dishonoring God, their own physical head or her husband for failing to wear it which implies that they are in disobedience. Some have gone so far as to say it is a sin. Another assumption is that the woman being referred to already has long hair and since they conclude that the covering is a veil then it must be referring to an “additional” covering otherwise it would clash with verse 15 stating that God gave women long hair for a covering. Another conclusion is that women ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying and for men to be uncovered, which would make it seem as though it were something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil. You’ve probably noticed by now it takes several assumptions to reach the conclusion that women ought to wear a foreign object on their heads, despite the lack of evidence. * Does the Bible really give a clear command that women should wear a veil? The first thing that everyone must understand when talking about this topic is that it DOES NOT use the word “veil” or “cloth” or any other physical headwear, as far as the KJV is concerned. It surely mentions that the woman’s head should be covered, and no one disputes this, but it does not say that it should be covered with a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or any other specific headwear. Some will use the phrase “head covering” to claim that the passage refers to it when this phrase is not found in the verses within 1st Corinthians 11:1-16. One can find them separately but not together to mean a synthetic covering. Therefore, it would be disingenuous to say that it does. The passage includes the words, cover, covered, uncovered, and covering, but that does not mean we can translate this to mean specifically a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or anything else similar. In fact, it would seem more like an adverb rather than a noun. Nevertheless, the word “cover” is unfortunately interpreted by head covering promoters to mean a veil above all other types of headwear, even if there is no evidence to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. To do so would mean that one is trying to read more into the verse than what is stated and is not truly seeking an exegesis of the Scriptures. Some have claimed that they are referring to a physical synthetic head covering because the Scriptures seem to indicate that there are two exclusive conditions to wear one and that is when a woman is either praying and/or prophesying. But does this interpretation stand up to logic? If we were to believe that under certain conditions a woman ought to wear a physical head covering, then it stands to reason that under OTHER conditions a woman should be able NOT to wear one. For example, if you are going to argue that a woman ought to wear a veil because the Bible claims there are two conditions, then it is logical to presume that any other condition would ALLOW them to be without one, like speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. Now if a head covering promoter should claim that there are MORE conditions, then they admit that there aren’t really “two” conditions thereby nullifying the two-condition argument. The reasoning behind why the “two-condition” argument is important for veil promoters is because if these words were actual conditions, then it would seem as though the covering were something that can be placed on or taken off. So even though it does not literally or EXPLICITLY say anything about putting on or taking off a veil. Veil promotors form this belief based on what they believe to be IMPLIED and not by a direct statement. Many people like to believe this because they ASSUME that praying and prophesying are two conditions instead of seeing them as mere examples. * Praying and prophesying were meant to be viewed as examples, not conditions… Now I can understand how someone can mistakenly conclude praying and prophesying as conditions in verse 5, on the surface, but once you read the rest of the verses in context one cannot reach that conclusion. If they were meant to be conditions, then why would Paul say in verse 7… “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.” If the reason for men not to cover their heads in this verse is because he is the “image and glory of God,” then why assume Paul was saying that there were only TWO conditions in verse 4? Wouldn’t 7 override any supposed conditions? Shouldn’t that make you question that perhaps Paul was just giving a couple of examples? But let’s continue. Verses 8 and 9 give us another understanding that Paul must have been referring to praying and prophesying as examples because he adds the order of creation into the mix. “For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man CREATED for the woman; but the woman for the man.” If Paul states that the creation order has something to do with the reason as to why women ought to cover (in long hair) and men to be uncovered (aka have short hair) then we can conclude that this doctrine must be bound in NATURE. That is to say that it must have taken place since the creation of Adam and Eve and BEFORE the manufacturing of veils or hats, and BEFORE the creation of churches, which is another reason why hair easily fits the mold. This is confirmed when reading verses 13 and 14 when Paul asks you to make an observational judgment that if it is comely (aka pleasant looking/attractive) for a woman to pray uncovered (in short hair) and that even NATURE teaches us that a man with long hair is shameful. The answer of which should obviously be no. Why would Paul ask you to think that something as unnatural as a woman without a hat would look unattractive and then say something as natural as long hair would look off on a man? Paul was saying that not being covered in long hair while praying looks especially uncomely and in the same breath he continues and says men with long hair also looks naturally wrong. * So Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? ….. If we examine all the verses from verses 4 to 15 without bias, we should at least agree that at certain points the verses are referring to physical heads and hair. Now some have tried to argue that the covering is somehow Jesus or men (some erroneously add husband here as well). The reason is that they are intermingling the word head in verse 3 that refers to authority with the other word “head” that is being used to refer to the literal head of the human body. One can easily dismiss their interpretation because it wouldn’t make sense if we were to replace the word covering, covered or uncovered with Jesus, man or husband and that the context includes the idea of hair and the shaving and cutting thereof. So, do the words “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” refer to long and/or short hair or some kind of foreign head covering? Some will even say all the above, but if we carefully examine verse 15 we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions these words. “But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering." KJV So if the covering is long hair, then the words “covered” or “cover” (which are synonymous with “covering”) should be understood as long hair as well. If that’s true, then to be “uncovered” would mean “short hair.” If so, then we can get a better picture of verse 4 when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered.” Note the similarity of verse 4 to verse 14 that’s because they are both referring to being covered in LONG hair. Therefore there are no two coverings just one which Paul refers to as being covered which he means to be covered in long hair.

If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils, then it can be argued that the most often cited verse is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states: “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.” According to many of those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse supposedly implies that a woman’s uncovered head is a woman who does not wear a veil. Such a woman is either dishonoring God, their own physical head or her husband for failing to wear it which implies that they are in disobedience. Some have gone so far as to say it is a sin. Another assumption is that the woman being referred to already has long hair and since they conclude that the covering is a veil then it must be referring to an “additional” covering otherwise it would clash with verse 15 stating that God gave women long hair for a covering. Another conclusion is that women ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying and for men to be uncovered, which would make it seem as though it were something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil. You’ve probably noticed by now it takes several assumptions to reach the conclusion that women ought to wear a foreign object on their heads, despite the lack of evidence. * Does the Bible really give a clear command that women should wear a veil? The first thing that everyone must understand when talking about this topic is that it DOES NOT use the word “veil” or “cloth” or any other physical headwear, as far as the KJV is concerned. It surely mentions that the woman’s head should be covered, and no one disputes this, but it does not say that it should be covered with a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or any other specific headwear. Some will use the phrase “head covering” to claim that the passage refers to it when this phrase is not found in the verses within 1st Corinthians 11:1-16. One can find them separately but not together to mean a synthetic covering. Therefore, it would be disingenuous to say that it does. The passage includes the words, cover, covered, uncovered, and covering, but that does not mean we can translate this to mean specifically a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or anything else similar. In fact, it would seem more like an adverb rather than a noun. Nevertheless, the word “cover” is unfortunately interpreted by head covering promoters to mean a veil above all other types of headwear, even if there is no evidence to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. To do so would mean that one is trying to read more into the verse than what is stated and is not truly seeking an exegesis of the Scriptures. Some have claimed that they are referring to a physical synthetic head covering because the Scriptures seem to indicate that there are two exclusive conditions to wear one and that is when a woman is either praying and/or prophesying. But does this interpretation stand up to logic? If we were to believe that under certain conditions a woman ought to wear a physical head covering, then it stands to reason that under OTHER conditions a woman should be able NOT to wear one. For example, if you are going to argue that a woman ought to wear a veil because the Bible claims there are two conditions, then it is logical to presume that any other condition would ALLOW them to be without one, like speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. Now if a head covering promoter should claim that there are MORE conditions, then they admit that there aren’t really “two” conditions thereby nullifying the two-condition argument. The reasoning behind why the “two-condition” argument is important for veil promoters is because if these words were actual conditions, then it would seem as though the covering were something that can be placed on or taken off. So even though it does not literally or EXPLICITLY say anything about putting on or taking off a veil. Veil promotors form this belief based on what they believe to be IMPLIED and not by a direct statement. Many people like to believe this because they ASSUME that praying and prophesying are two conditions instead of seeing them as mere examples. * Praying and prophesying were meant to be viewed as examples, not conditions… Now I can understand how someone can mistakenly conclude praying and prophesying as conditions in verse 5, on the surface, but once you read the rest of the verses in context one cannot reach that conclusion. If they were meant to be conditions, then why would Paul say in verse 7… “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.” If the reason for men not to cover their heads in this verse is because he is the “image and glory of God,” then why assume Paul was saying that there were only TWO conditions in verse 4? Wouldn’t 7 override any supposed conditions? Shouldn’t that make you question that perhaps Paul was just giving a couple of examples? But let’s continue. Verses 8 and 9 give us another understanding that Paul must have been referring to praying and prophesying as examples because he adds the order of creation into the mix. “For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man CREATED for the woman; but the woman for the man.” If Paul states that the creation order has something to do with the reason as to why women ought to cover (in long hair) and men to be uncovered (aka have short hair) then we can conclude that this doctrine must be bound in NATURE. That is to say that it must have taken place since the creation of Adam and Eve and BEFORE the manufacturing of veils or hats, and BEFORE the creation of churches, which is another reason why hair easily fits the mold. This is confirmed when reading verses 13 and 14 when Paul asks you to make an observational judgment that if it is comely (aka pleasant looking/attractive) for a woman to pray uncovered (in short hair) and that even NATURE teaches us that a man with long hair is shameful. The answer of which should obviously be no. Why would Paul ask you to think that something as unnatural as a woman without a hat would look unattractive and then say something as natural as long hair would look off on a man? Paul was saying that not being covered in long hair while praying looks especially uncomely and in the same breath he continues and says men with long hair also looks naturally wrong. * So Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? ….. If we examine all the verses from verses 4 to 15 without bias, we should at least agree that at certain points the verses are referring to physical heads and hair. Now some have tried to argue that the covering is somehow Jesus or men (some erroneously add husband here as well). The reason is that they are intermingling the word head in verse 3 that refers to authority with the other word “head” that is being used to refer to the literal head of the human body. One can easily dismiss their interpretation because it wouldn’t make sense if we were to replace the word covering, covered or uncovered with Jesus, man or husband and that the context includes the idea of hair and the shaving and cutting thereof. So, do the words “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” refer to long and/or short hair or some kind of foreign head covering? Some will even say all the above, but if we carefully examine verse 15 we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions these words. “But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering." KJV So if the covering is long hair, then the words “covered” or “cover” (which are synonymous with “covering”) should be understood as long hair as well. If that’s true, then to be “uncovered” would mean “short hair.” If so, then we can get a better picture of verse 4 when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered.” Note the similarity of verse 4 to verse 14 that’s because they are both referring to being covered in LONG hair. Therefore there are no two coverings just one which Paul refers to as being covered which he means to be covered in long hair.

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. 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? 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.

Paul made it clear that the head-covering is one of the traditions he passed down to them. It has nothing to do with a specific culture. All women in the Old Testament were required to wear face coverings and not expose one inch of their skin. This rule continued in the New Testament. All of the church fathers agree, women are to cover their faces. We made a video on the subject. Stop teaching your own man-made interpretation.

What denomination is this church? Are you confessional?

What an absolutely ridiculous conclusion. It's an optical illusion, not evidence of a god.

There's laid out pattern of scrupsture that the prophets SAID that they did what god said... What god said and what was actually done is wholly unfounded. Thank you for listening to my ted talk, leave your cult

Love the strangers in your land, reject idolatry.

Your church should lose its tax exempt status.

I think Utah is a pretty decent example of this at the state level.

Amen to this 🙏

"He gets to define good" therein lies the problem. Your god is evil and benevolent and HIGHLY jealous. He's also not real. Read your bible and stop thinking that its worded the same way the pastors say it is. Its lies and they have to continue the lie to keep it relevant. Idk whats out there, if anything, but i sure af hope its not your god.

This is not really my area, but Pastor Knox asked me to comment so I suppose I will. And while I think I understand your argument here, that the genocide was justified because of the nature of the sins of the Canaanites, I'm not really sure it works as an explanation for me to be honest? I just don't honestly see how you justify punishing the Canaanites for the sacrifice and killing of some of their babies, by going in and killing ALL of their babies? To show that killing babies is wrong? Even though God killed all the babies on earth during the flood? It just seems to boil down to me that if God ordered it, then it was just and good. It just seems like another one of those things in the Old Testament (like the condoning of slavery amongst many others), that we have to find an excuse for. And it's not just today that people struggle with the seemingly different characters of God between the old and new testaments. Within a 100 years of Jesus, Marcion, a Christian, argued that the God of the Old Testament was not the same God as the God of the New Testament. And it's because of stories like this. The NT is all about love, forgiveness and turning the other cheek, while in the OT it was killing and genocide? To me at least it boils down to what at least sounds like a religious war. We were justified in what we were doing because the other side is worshiping the wrong God. And we want their land because God told us it was ours. We have the correct God and you don't. History is littered with this rationale for wars, and Christianity seems to be little if no different? At least to me. And I in no way mean that in a mean, spiteful or disrespectful way. That is not my intent here at all. In fact, I wouldn't have even left a comment here if I wasn't asked to. But as I said, I don't see how you punish a people for killing some of their babies by going in and killing all of their babies. And all of them as well. It just sounds like a "Do as I say, not as I do" sort of thing. And to me, I would have expected better from God? And again, I know that sounds horribly sacrilegious and I apologize for that. I'm just being honest here.

You are so close to realizing that your scriptures are the rambling mythology of ignorant, superstitious, barbaric, bronze-age goat herders. Keep going. You'll get there. God is clearly ENDORSING slavery in Leviticus 25:44-46. You try to doge this by focusing on the word "may", but that word is not in the original Hebrew. That is only in English translations, and even then only in some of them. Other translations do, in fact, use the word "shall". God clearly sees foreign slaves as his gift to the Israelites. Psalm 2:8 "Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession." Deuteronomy 23:15-16 did not apply to slaves of the Hebrews. It only applied to slaves escaping from enemy nations. There was nothing revolutionary about that. It's a strategic tactic for war. Exodus 21 only provides protections to Hebrew indentured servants. Those protections did not apply to foreign chattel slaves. Read Exodus 21:2. I'm pretty sure you were told this previously, so what is your excuse for avoiding it? Leviticus 19:20-21 does not provide any punishment for raping a female slave that is your property. The crime it describes is a property crime against what man owns the woman.

I like the way this was done, as a dialogue between both sides of the issue. But one of your major foundations for your apologetics is, in your words: "God knows they would be unwilling to eradicate slavery because of the pervasiveness of slavery in the culture around them" Which sounds like a reasonable argument until you realize that God told them they could own slaves BEFORE they ever owned their first slave. So there was no pervasiveness of slavery within the Hebrew culture when God told them they could own slaves. But it was in the cultures all around Israel one they got to the promised land you might say. To which I guess I would respond, So? God was laying down laws based on the laws that already surrounded Israel was He? Wasn't Israel supposed to be the example to the surrounding nations? He instituted numerous laws that were different from the surrounding nations. That was part of Israels purpose. To be an Godly example to the world. And yet slavery is the exception. And one of the reasons why this is an issue. Why couldn't God have just thrown in one sentence, keep all the same rules and regulations if you want, but just tell us it was wrong, a sin, immoral or against His will. Take your pick. Just like Jesus did with divorce. Jesus could have thrown in slavery to that discussion and I don't think you would have to make videos like this. It literally would have been that simple. But He didn't. And I just can't wrap my head around that. It is exactly the opposite of what I would have expected the Bible to say on something as bad as slavery. But conversely, pretty much exactly what I would have expected a group of Bronze Age people to have come up with. Who didn't actually think slavery was wrong in the first place. You have to admit, that makes more sense doesn't it? Just something to think about I guess?