|
|
Truth.8 posted on 12-4-2014 01:31 PM 
The whole chapther in Bible never menton that women should cover the head /or hair. Like I menti ...
Your whole copy paste does not address the issue. This is just sophistry from you.
The bible in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 stated that a woman should cover her hair.
In the OT we have numerous passages that the Israelite women cover their hair.
Even the nuns cover their hair.
Are we not in the eyes of God all the time? Its about time you admit that Christians have deviated from what the bible stated
Last edited by sam1528 on 12-4-2014 11:11 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sam1528 posted on 12-4-2014 11:10 PM
Your whole copy paste does not address the issue. This is just sophistry from you.
The bible in ...
The bible in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 stated that a woman should cover her hair.
already answered.
In the OT we have numerous passages that the Israelite women cover their hair.
really? show few verses from OT
Even the nuns cover their hair.
Are we not in the eyes of God all the time? Its about time you admit that Christians have deviated from what the bible stated
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Truth.8 posted on 13-4-2014 08:27 AM
already answered.
Not adequate because its sophistry. How can you equate 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 to be grooming oneself?
really? show few verses from OT
You don't know? Ok then -
gen24:65 - Rebekah who veiled and covered herself when biblical Isaac approached her
isa3:18 - mention of the veil and headdress
isa47:2 / Song of Solomon 5:7 - publicly humiliated when their veils are removed
Song of Solomon 4:3 - mention of the veil
This is even worse for you. The OT mention of
(1) hair covering
(2) veil
you ask them why they cover their hair ...ask them the verses to support
1 Corinthians 11:2-16 , we pray and always in the eyes of God , yes? Oops to you the said verses are about self grooming.
God view our deeds and heart not head covering..already explained above
Isn't head covering a deed?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sam1528 posted on 13-4-2014 12:59 PM
Not adequate because its sophistry. How can you equate 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 to be grooming onesel ... Not adequate because its sophistry. How can you equate 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 to be grooming oneself?
is your view but not according to Bible, infact the Quran too never mention anything about covering the head
[/quote]
[quote]You don't know? Ok then -
gen24:65 - Rebekah who veiled and covered herself when biblical Isaac approached her
isa3:18 - mention of the veil and headdress
isa47:2 / Song of Solomon 5:7 - publicly humiliated when their veils are removed
Song of Solomon 4:3 - mention of the veil
there you go again, do not understand the differences between God commandment and human choice. if a women feels that she need to cover because do not want men to touch or doing unpleasant things to them, by all mean women can cover. all those was a ancient times. do we need cover when so many cloths are fashion accordingly to moden times? no ...The Bible says wear moderate and groom.
The verses you provide all not God commandemen rather it their choice and it was a custom during that time....
This is even worse for you. The OT mention of
(1) hair covering
(2) veil
Did God instruct them or it is their choice?
[/quote]
[quote]1 Corinthians 11:2-16 , we pray and always in the eyes of God , yes? Oops to you the said verses are about self grooming.
yes proper and decent dressing....not like Jezebel....[/quote]
[quote]
Isn't head covering a deed?
already explained....not necessary to repeat...browse my above topic and read with open heart...
I believe head coverings are an excuse for sexualized men who cannot control themselves around beautiful women rather than a way to preserve beauty for their husband. The idea that beauty is given away to everyone who encounters it is nonsense as obviously physical appearance does not diminish by people staring at something. Men all have a sexual and promiscuous nature much greater than women, so the idea of hiding a womans beauty is a method of making her appear less beautiful and thus not attracting the attention of potential rape victims who cannot control their actions due to poor self control.
So, it is choice of women if they feels their life in danger if in public but such situation seldom happen in Malaysia but mostly in india and few other places.
Head covering comes from the jews and christians. Islam came 500 years later. Some gave up the tradition being influenced by cultures. Today some christian women cover their head only in church.
Bible states that our hair is our vail .
Last edited by Truth.8 on 13-4-2014 09:05 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Truth.8 posted on 14-4-2014 10:41 AM
hahahha very weak meaning yet not directy saying that women should cover the hair
You don't read and understand very well do you? From the Corpus Quran ; what do 'their head covers' mean?
already explained that not related to covering the hair. did you understand what it mean hair glory? why on earth God made hair as covering for both gender and later God says cover it?
did not your god misleading himself???
1cor11:6 - For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.
Can you explain what 'should cover her head' mean and in context what the verse mean? Nothing about self grooming.
you do not know what is the proper dressing none proper dressing or kind very sexy appealing?
here is example, compare the inproper dressing and decent dressing:
Again I am asking you what is the context of 1cor11:6? You are trying your best not to answer the question.
Rape cases in India increasing due inproper dressing. so, you cannot blame some men who not connected to spirituality who goes bizzard seeing women with sexy appealing. in this case, it ok dress up proper or covering the whole body if the women feel her life is in danger. than muslims can cover all over, but than again is not God commandment but the choice of individu person:
..but it will better to dress and groom hair neat like this:
You seem to miss the context of 1cor11:6. Again in the Quran the menfolk have been requested to lower their gaze.
By letting the text speak for itself per 1 cor11:6. What you have done is putting your own ideas into the text. That is why you come up with the idea that the said verse is about self grooming.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sam1528 posted on 14-4-2014 01:41 PM
You don't read and understand very well do you? From the Corpus Quran ; what do 'their head covers ... You don't read and understand very well do you? From the Corpus Quran ; what do 'their head covers' mean?
what is corpus quran? another version is it?
1cor11:6 - For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.
here we go again with old senile debate;
Does “covering” mean a garment, cloth, or veil?
“With her head unveiled…
The word here rendered ‘unveiled’ is [Greek: akatakaluptos]. ‘There is no intrinsic meaning in this word which suggests either the covering material or the object covered; it is simply a general word.‘ (See under 1 Corinthians 11:15.) Only in 1 Cor. 11:15 does Paul mention any kind of garment ([Greek: peribolaion]) and even there he stated that the woman’s hair took the place of it.’ [Katakaluptos] means covered completely. [Akatakaluptos] means not completely covered. Thus again, the passage falls short of mentioning any kind of garment. To suppose that Paul here meant ‘mantle’ or ‘veil’ or any such thing is to import into this text what is not in it. We have seen that he was speaking of ‘hair’ in 1 Cor. 11:4; and that is exactly what he is speaking of here. ‘Not completely covered’ would then refer to the disgraceful conduct of the Corinthian women in cropping their hair, after the manner of the notorious Corinthian prostitutes; which, if they did it, was exactly the same kind of disgrace as if they had shaved their heads. It is crystal clear that Paul is not speaking of any kind of garment; because he said in 1 Cor. 11:15, below, ‘For her hair is given her instead of a covering.’” (emp. added).
(1) This text has no applicability to us today. Paul is speaking about a ‘tradition’ that he has handed on. Hence, since this is not the tradition of the modern church, we hardly need to consider this text.
(2) The head covering is the hair. Hence, the applicability today is that women should wear (relatively) long hair.
(3) The head covering is a real head covering and the text is applicable today, in the same way as it was in Paul’s day. Within this view are two basic sub-views:
The head covering is to be worn by all women in the church service.
The head covering is to be worn by women in the church service only when praying or prophesying publicly.
(4) The head covering is a meaningful symbol in the ancient world that needs some sort of corresponding symbol today, but not necessarily a head covering. This also involves the same two sub-views as #3 above.
My own convictions are that that view 4 is correct. The sub-view within this that I adopt is the second one: women only need to wear some symbol when praying or prophesying publicly. Below is a brief interaction with the various views, including a critique of each.
No Applicability View
This view is easy to dismiss. It is based on a faulty assumption about the meaning of ‘traditions’ (παραδόσεις) in v 2, as well as ‘custom’ (συνήθειαν) in v 16. A better case could be made from v 16, but only if one ignores v 2.
The term in v 16, συνήθειαν, is the more malleable of the two. It generally has to do with a habit. The word is used but thrice in the NT (here, John 18:39, and 1 Cor 8:7). In John 18 especially the term seems to convey just a noble practice (that of releasing a prisoner during Passover). Although it might be possible to conclude that the custom in John 18 was rooted in Jewish oral tradition and hence, for the Jews, elevated to the status of a binding law (something akin to the scape goat), we have no evidence that this is the case. Morris says that the practice is “shrouded in mystery.” It, however, might be alluded to in Pesachim 8.6 (in the Mishnah), but this is problematic. Nevertheless, we simply do not have enough evidence to conclude that it was a binding custom. First Corinthians 8:7 is similar. New converts who were formerly accustomed to idols need to be handled with kid gloves when it comes to the issue of meat offered to idols. Their ‘custom’--which they, as Christians, are still somewhat observing--is not something that Paul endorses. He would certainly rather that they all be strong Christians and not have such a custom. Hence, the custom here is not binding either. It is one borne of personal preference or attitude. In sum, when someone looks just at 1 Cor 11:16, a good case could be made that the practice in the early church of women wearing a head covering may well have been no more than a community-wide habit. Once, however, v 2 is examined, it is evident that v 16 is saying much more.
In v 2 Paul praises the church because they maintain the traditions (παραδόσεις) that he has handed down (παρέδωκα) to them. In v 3 he launches into one of those traditions (transitional δέ). That this is one of the traditions is seen in the repetition of the verb ἐπαινόω in v 2 and v 17. The same theme is in mind: how the church is following Paul’s instructions regarding corporate worship. (Apparently their obedience in the head-covering issue was greater because he does not explicitly ‘not praise’ them, while in v 17 he explicitly does ‘not praise’ them concerning the Lord’s Table.)
What is significant in v 2 is the richness of the terms παραδίδωμι and παραδόσις. The verb is used very frequently for passing on the truth to the next generation. Paul uses it 19 times. In positive contexts (i.e., other than those involving the ‘handing over’ of a criminal, etc.) the verb carries the force of doctrinal commitment every time. Cf. Rom 6:17 (“you became obedient from the heart to that pattern of teaching to which you were committed”); 1 Cor 11:23 (“For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you”); 1 Cor 15:3 (on the death and resurrection of Christ). The other instances (negative) suggest a commitment of one to prison, death, etc. There is a certain applicability even here: the basic force of the verb is that one commits not just his mind, but his life to something. Christ gave himself up for us (Gal 2:20; Eph 5:2, 25).
The noun παραδόσις is no less rich in its theological implications. It is used but five times in Paul, but when it has to do with the traditions that he embraces as a Christian, such are intended to be binding on all. In 2 Thess 2:15 Paul instructs the believers to stand firm and hold on to the traditions that he had passed down to them. In 2 Thess 3:6, believers are commanded to stay away from any believers who do not abide by Paul’s traditions. Thus, the verb παραδίδωμι and its nominal cognate, παραδόσις cannot be treated lightly. They do not mean ‘tradition’ in the modern English sense of the word of a nice custom that one can dispense with if desired.
How do we reconcile 1 Cor 11:2 with 1 Cor 11:16? Verse 2 governs v 16. That is to say, because the practice was a παραδόσις, it was put on the level of orthopraxy. It was a doctrine that the early church followed. Since it was on this level, most of the churches followed it religiously. Hence, Paul could appeal to what other churches were doing (v 16) as an appeal to the reasonableness and pragmatic outworking of this ‘tradition.’ This would be like saying, “Christ died for you; therefore, you should observe the Lord’s Supper. Besides, other Christians are already doing this and none have a different practice.” The practice puts flesh to the doctrine.
In sum, the view that 1 Cor 11:2-16 has no relevance today is based squarely on the English text, but not the Greek. It assumes that such traditions are optional, while Paul used words to describe them that he had reserved for the tradition of the death and resurrection of Christ. Surely, such ‘traditions’ are not optional with Paul!1
Head Covering = Hair
One of the most popular views today is that the head covering was actually the woman’s hair. This view is more difficult to assess. The exegesis of the text that adopts this view keys in on verse 15:
ἡ κόμη α᾿ντὶ περιβολαίου δέδοται--‘her hair is given [to her] in the place of a veil’
Often the assumption is that vv 2-14 describe a woman veiling and unveiling herself. If so, then the point of v 15 is that her hair is that veil. Often Numbers 5:18 is brought into the picture. Hurley argues:
The suspected adulteress of Numbers 5:18 was accused of repudiating her relation to her husband by giving herself to another. As a sign of this, her hair, which was done up on her head, was let loose. The Hebrew word which is used to describe both the letting loose of the hair and being unveiled (פרע) is translated in the Greek Old Testament by akatakalyptos, the word which Paul uses for ‘uncovered.’ Could it be that Paul was not asking the Corinthian women to put on veils, but was asking them to continue wearing their hair in the distinctive fashion of women?2
The statement from Hurley seems to imply that the LXX of Num 5:18 has ἀκατάκαλυπτος. If so, then Paul could possibly have been thinking of that text in 1 Cor 11. However, that term is not used in the Numbers text! Indeed, not much can be based on the the LXX’s use of this adjective, as it occurs in only one verse--and that in a textual variant (Lev 13:45 in codex Ac; B has ἀκάλυπτος and A* has ἀκατάλυπτος). To argue that Paul, in 1 Cor 11, means by ἀκατάκαλυπτος ‘let loose’ is akin to the argument that ‘all Indians walk single-file. At least the one I saw did.’ Further, BAGD gives for the meaning of this word in 1 Cor 11 uncovered, without even entertaining the possibility that it means ‘let loose.’ This definition is based on the available Hellenistic and classical evidence.3 Thus, Hurley’s argument lacks sufficient basis.
On the other hand, two points are significant: (1) No word for veil occurs in vv 2-14. Thus, that the hair is regarded by Paul as a veil in v 15 is not necessarily an argument that the hair is the same as the head covering that he is describing in these verses. (2) Throughout this pericope, Paul points out the similarities of long hair with a head covering. But his doing so strongly suggests that the two are not to be identified. Precisely because they are similar they are not identical. Note the following verses.
11:5-- “but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered disgraces her head--it is one and the same thing as having her head shaved.”
11:6-- “For if a woman will not cover herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or to be shaved, she should keep it covered.
11:7-- “For a man ought not to cover his head . . .”
11:10-- “For this reason a woman ought to have [a symbol of] authority on her head”
11:13-- “Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?”
11:15-- “but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory . . .”
Several points can be made here. (1) If ‘covering’ = ‘hair,’ then all men should shave their heads or go bald because the men are to have their heads uncovered. (2) If ‘covering’ = ‘long hair,’ then v 6 seems to suggest a tautology: “if a woman will not wear long hair, then she should cut off her hair.” But this in no way advances the argument. (3) The argument caves in by its own subtlety. To see ‘hair’ = ‘head covering’ means that one has to go through several exegetical hoops. In short, it hardly appears to be the plain meaning of the text. (4) Verses 10 and 15 would have to be saying the same thing if long hair is the same as a head covering. But this can hardly be the case. In v 10, a woman is required to wear a ‘symbol of authority.’ Such a symbol represents her submission, not her glory. Paul begins the verse by pointing back to v 9 (διὰ τοῦτο in v 10, ‘for this reason,’ is inferential). Because ‘woman was created for the sake of man’ she ought to wear a symbol of authority on her head. But in v 15, a woman’s long hair is her glory. The Greek is even more emphatic: the dative αὐτῇ is a dative of advantage. A literal translation would be: ‘it is a glory to her’ or ‘a glory accruing to her,’ or ‘to her advantage.’ Surely this is not the point of v 10!
To argue, then, that long hair is the woman’s head covering seems to miss the very point of the function of the head covering and of the long hair: one shows her submission while the other shows her glory. Both of these are contrasted with an uncovered head while praying or prophesying, or a shaved head at any time: such would speak of the woman’s humiliation and shame.
Real Head Covering, Applicable Today
The argument that a real head covering is in view and that such is applicable today is, in some respects, the easiest view to defend exegetically and the hardest to swallow practically. Since it is never safe to abandon one’s conscience regarding the truth of Scripture, I held to this view up until recently. Quite frankly, I did not like it (it is very unpopular today). But I could not, in good conscience, disregard it. Essentially, this view assumes three things: (1) that a real head covering is in view;4 (2) that Paul’s argument has a greater foundation than mere convention; and (3) that the head covering itself is an essential part of his viewpoint. Note the following arguments in support of this.
Verse 2 (παραδίδωμι, παραδόσις) indicates that Paul’s instruction is part of the traditional package of doctrine that he was passing on to the Church (see discussion above, under ‘no applicability view’). But Paul here does not give any details of the instruction. That is picked up in the rest of the passage.
Verses 3-9 base this instruction on a theological hierarchy and on creation. God is the head of Christ, Christ is the head of the man, the man is the head of the woman. It is important to note that Paul is in no way arguing for the ontological inferiority of the woman to the man, for he roots his convictions in the Godhead. Christ is only functionally subordinate to the Father, not ontologically subordinate.5 The wife, too, is functionally subordinate to the husband, but in no way ontologically inferior (vv 11-12).
Verse 10 bases the woman’s symbol of subordination on a fine point of angelology (one that escapes us today, though conjectures abound).
Verses 13-15 roughly constitute an argument from nature.
Verse 16 is an argument from the collective wisdom of the church universal, for Christians elsewhere have no other practice.
Thus, the argument is a general theological conviction (as opposed to a mere sociological convention), though growing out of several key doctrines: (1) Nascent trinitarianism, (2) creation, (3) angelology, (4) general revelation, and (5) church practice. Thus, for Paul, disobedience to his instructions about the head covering smacked of a deficient angelology, defective anthropology and and ecclesiology, and a destructive trinitarianism, and ran aground on the rocks of general revelation. Further, to focus on v 16 as the sole basis (as the ‘no applicability’ view does) is to slide right through the heart of this pericope without observing anything.
The specific applications of this approach are generally two: (1) applicable whenever a woman is in the church service; (2) applicable whenever a woman prays or prophesies publicly. In brief, I take the second to be in view simply because it is explicit (vv 4-5). After the initial theological statement (vv 2-3), Paul introduces the topic at hand: men and women praying or prophesying in the assembly. That this same topic is in view is evident by its repetition in v 13 (‘if a woman prays’). It seems unwarranted to expand the application beyond what the initial topical statement (vv 4-5) suggests. That is to say, all of the arguments and all of the principles are geared toward and applicable to women praying and prophesying in the public setting. Incidentally, if this restriction is correct, this constitutes another argument against the ‘long hair’ view, for a woman cannot swap long hair for short and vice versa in a moment’s notice, as she could a head covering.
One thing remains: a critique of the real head covering as the normative symbol today.
Last edited by Truth.8 on 14-4-2014 02:29 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Meaningful Symbol View
This view adopts the exegesis of the real head-covering view with one exception. It does not regard a real head covering as essential to the view. This is the view that I currently adopt. In essence, it is based on an understanding of the role of head coverings in the ancient world vs. the modern world. In the ancient world head coverings were apparently in vogue in some parts of the Graeco-Roman empire. Some groups expected the men to wear head coverings; others expected women to wear them. Still others felt that such were optional for both men and women. It is not important to determine which group did what. The important thing to note is that the early church adopted a convention already in use in society and gave it a distinctively Christian hue. That Paul could say that no other churches had any other practice may well indicate how easily such a practice could be adopted. This finds parallels with baptism in Israel. The Pharisees did not ask John, “What are you doing?” Instead, they asked, “Why are you doing this?” They understood baptism (even though John’s baptism was apparently the first to be other-baptism rather than self-baptism); what they didn’t understand was John’s authority and what his baptism symbolized. In a similar way, the early church practice of requiring the women to wear a head covering when praying or prophesying6 would not have been viewed as an unusual request. In the cosmopolitan cities of Asia Minor, Macedonia, and Greece, no one would feel out of place. Head coverings were everywhere. When a woman wore one in the church, she was showing her subordination to her husband, but was not out of place with society. One could easily imagine a woman walking down the street to the worship service with a head covering on without being noticed.
Today, however, the situation is quite different, at least in the West. For a woman to wear a head covering7 would seem to be a distinctively humiliating experience. Many women--even biblically submissive wives--resist the notion precisely because they feel awkward and self-conscious. But the head covering in Paul’s day was intended only to display the woman’s subordination, not her humiliation. Today, ironically, to require a head covering for women in the worship service would be tantamount to asking them to shave their heads! The effect, therefore, would be just the opposite of what Paul intended. Thus, in attempting to fulfill the spirit of the apostle’s instruction, not just his words, some suitable substitute symbol needs to be found.
Two questions remain. First, how can we justify a different symbol of authority on a woman’s head if the head covering is now a symbol of humiliation? Second, what symbol should we use?
First, the justification comes from several angles. (1) It is in keeping with the spirit of 1 Cor 11 and explicitly with two of Paul’s arguments (nature, convention). If forced to make a choice, it is wiser to take a view that is in keeping with the spirit of the text rather than the letter. (2) The broader spirit of Christianity is clearly against symbols for symbols’ sake. The NT writers do not seem to push ritual and symbol, but reality and substance. (3) The reason, I suspect, that head covering was implemented in the early church was simply that it was an already established societal convention that could be ‘baptized,’ so to speak. That the symbol of head covering fit into Paul’s argument about the headship of God, Christ, and husband, is what seems to have suggested this particular symbol. But even if the symbol loses some of its symbolism, the point needs to remain the same. (That is, whatever symbol a woman is to wear should indicate her submission to her husband and/or [if not married] the male leadership of the church.8) (4) An analogy with the Lord’s Table might help. It is appropriate because there is much that is symbolic in the Eucharist and this celebration is also one of those traditions that Paul handed down (1 Cor 11:17ff.). The symbols of the wine and unleavened bread are taken directly from the Passover. In the first century the Passover involved the use of four mandatory cups of wine, lamb, bitter herbs, unleavened bread. The part of the meal that Jesus turned into the first Lord’s Supper was apparently the third cup of the Passover and the unleavened bread. The lack of leaven was an important symbol, for it represented Christ’s sinlessness. And, of course, real wine was used. Is it necessary for us today to use unleavened bread and real wine? Some churches make this a mandatory practice, others an optional one. Still others would be horrified if real wine were used. Few today have unleavened bread (saltine crackers do have some yeast in them). Should we pronounce an anathema on these folks because they have broken from the tradition--a tradition which has both historical and biblical antecedents? If the implementation of such an important tradition as the Lord’s Supper can be varied, then should not the much less important tradition of the specific role (and garb) of women be allowed some flexibility, too?
Second, if the actual symbol used is not the issue, but what it represents is, what symbol should we use today? There can be no universal answer, simply because the ‘meaningful symbol’ approach is a recognition that conventions change. If we were to canonize one symbol--especially one not mentioned in the Bible--then we would be in danger of elevating oral tradition to the level of Scripture and of externalizing and trivializing the gospel. Having said that, each church needs to wrestle with an appropriate symbol for the present time. Quite frankly, if you (and your church) think that what I’ve suggested in this paper has validity, then the leadership of the church should probably do some creative brain-storming. I would like very much to hear from you!
Still, some controls do exist. As much of the spirit and symbolism of 1 Cor 11 as can be conveyed ought to be. Some have suggested that a wedding ring would be an acceptable symbol. There are some good points to this. It is a symbol that is accepted in large segments of society. A woman would not feel self-conscious wearing a ring. It certainly shows her bond to her husband and therefore picks up the force of 1 Cor 11:9 (co-dependency!) well. However, there are problems with this symbol. The ring is insufficient for the following reasons: (1) using this as the symbol presupposes that only married women are in view; (2) it is not a symbol distinctive of women; married men would also wear such a ring; and (3) unlike a head covering, it is not a very visible symbol.
What other symbols are available? At the present time--and I emphasize the tentative nature of this position--I think the wearing of a modest dress is an appropriate symbol. It does not pick up every correspondence in the passage, but it does do justice to many. In particular--and this is most important--a woman who wears a provocative dress (too feminine) or who pushes the boundaries of propriety in the other direction (such as jeans, business suit9) is often not showing proper submission in her very attitude.10 The symbol thus corresponds to its theological reality very neatly.11
I hope and pray that this paper is not too offensive to any who would read it. My concern at all times is first to be faithful to the Scriptures. And second, I wish at all times to be sensitive to real people with real needs. Some may object that this paper is not biblical enough; others may object that it is out of step with modern culture. If someone disagrees with my position, that is fine. But to convince me to change requires a refutation of the exegesis. I may well be wrong in my exegesis, but I will need to see it. As much as I sympathize with the feminist movement (and I sympathize with much in it), I cannot betray my conscience or my understanding of Scripture. I am open to other views on the text, but will not change simply because of ad hominem arguments. All believers need to be convinced of their views in light of Scripture; none should depart from what the Bible teaches simply because such views are not popular. The real danger, as I see it, is that many Christians simply ignore what this text says because any form of obedience to it is inconvenient.
1 In addition to vv 2 and 16, there are several theological arguments within the passage that indicate the seriousness of the head covering for Paul. See discussion below.
2 J. B. Hurley, Man and Woman in Biblical Perspective (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981) 170-71.
3 LSJ also gives as the only meaning “uncovered.”
4 We are assuming that a real head covering is taught, due to the considerations against the ‘long hair’ view mentioned earlier. At issue here, however, is the combination of real head covering and present-day applicability.
5 If I may, I would like to add a personal observation. Much of the feminist viewpoint in the evangelical church today is based on a simplistic view of the Trinity, rampant among evangelicals (largely because, I suspect, in the church’s reaction to the rise of the cults of the last century, part of its theological convictions were suppressed). Evangelicals strongly affirm the ontological equality of Son with Father. Yet it is difficult to find doctrinal statements—either in churches or in seminaries—in which the Son is said to be functionally subordinate to the Father. Yet John 14:28; Phil 2:6-11; 1 Cor 11:3; 15:28 all plainly teach the eternal subordination of the Son (John 14 and 1 Cor 11 speak of his present subordination; Phil 2 speaks of his subordination in eternity past; and 1 Cor 15 speaks of his subordination in eternity future). Since these same books strongly affirm the ontological equality of Son with Father, the subordination in view must be functional.
6 I am assuming that the restriction was for women when praying or prophesying, although some who hold this view would argue that the passage does not restrict it to this. See discussion earlier.
7 It must be kept in mind that a head covering is not the same as a hat. A hat’s function is to show off the beauty of the woman, much as beautiful hair does. A head covering, however, was intended to veil her glory.
8 We have not discussed at all whether single women or married women are in view in this text. That will have to be left for another occasion. Suffice it to say that γυνή should be taken as woman (as opposed to ‘wife’) unless there are sufficient contextual reasons to argue otherwise.
9 I do not mean that women may not wear jeans! I mean, rather, that in some parts of the country for a woman to wear jeans to the worship service is tantamount to disrespect to those in authority. In the northwest, however, jeans are almost the choice of the fashion-conscious, even when attending Sunday services. (My brother has his dress jeans and his casual jeans . . . ) In that region a different symbol may well be needed. If it is difficult to come up with a good symbol that women can accept, then they should be responsible and creative enough to come up with one. Certainly this issue is one that requires some fruitful dialogue between men and women. Whatever symbol is chosen, it ought not to be one that humiliates, but simply displays the proper submission.
10 Ironically, long hair today has a similar effect. Often women who wear extremely short hair today do so to be treated like a man. Thus, even though it is not the meaning of the passage, it is possible that some churches will elect long hair worn in a certain way to be their meaninful symbol. There are still problems with this, however. For example, the tension between vv 10 and 15 would thereby be erased. And the fact of long hair—or even various styles of long hair—do not always communicate a sense of submission. Further, women who wear shorter hair for a variety of reasons would thereby be ostracized and cut out of public ministry. But climate and age often dictate the length of a woman’s hair. Ironically, if long hair becomes the standard today, the younger, less mature women would be permitted to minister publicly more than the older, more mature women.
11 At the same time, some may object to this because the symbol related to ‘head’ is entirely lost. But what head represents in the passage is authority. It is unwise to insist on one symbol because of its correspondence to another symbol, when in the process the real point gets lost in the shuffle. Such an insistence seems to smack of Pharisaism. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Truth.8 posted on 14-4-2014 02:22 PM
what is corpus quran? another version is it?
Ha ha , I kind of have pity on you by the way you display your ignorance. The meaning of 'corpus' :
a large or complete collection of writings: the entire corpus of Old English poetry.
The very least , try to understand something before you expose your ignorance.
Did you actually read and understand your copy paste? Points 6 and 7 per your post #50
6 I am assuming that the restriction was for women when praying or prophesying, although some who hold this view would argue that the passage does not restrict it to this. See discussion earlier.
7 It must be kept in mind that a head covering is not the same as a hat. A hat’s function is to show off the beauty of the woman, much as beautiful hair does. A head covering, however, was intended to veil her glory.
Some of the Christians themselves view that this verse is an instruction for head covering.
Prof Geza Vermes in his book - The Nativity, Geza Vermes, Penguin Books, 2006, p53
The idea of potential sexual rapport between angels and women continued to float in the air even as late as in the New Testament times. Indeed, when St Paul forbade the female members of the church of Corinth to attend Christian assemblies with the head uncovered, he justified this prohibition by his belief that the sight of their hair might lead astray some passing-by sons of heaven: 'That is why a woman ought to have a veil on her head, because of the angels', Paul insisted (1 Cor 11:10)
What say you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sam1528 posted on 14-4-2014 02:56 PM
Ha ha , I kind of have pity on you by the way you display your ignorance. The meaning of 'corpus' ...
u asking what say me? look the ample proof I have posted that covering of garment in head is not as per what Paul meant.
you are igroant fool who think such is from God commandement when there none.
it is BIG disgrace for peoples who have good hair but covering it with garment ...surly not God commandment.. all man made cultural or tradtional...
The Quran itself never mention anything about that issue nor the Bible...
More detail also available :
The Woman’s Headcovering
by Michael Marlowe, October 2008I Corinthians 11:2-16. Last edited by Truth.8 on 14-4-2014 03:20 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Truth.8 posted on 14-4-2014 03:14 PM
u asking what say me? look the ample proof I have posted that covering of garment in head is not as per what Paul meant.
you are igroant fool who think such is from God commandement when there none.
it is BIG disgrace for peoples who have good hair but covering it with garment ...surly not God commandment.. all man made cultural or tradtional...
The Quran itself never mention anything about that issue nor the Bible...
More detail also available :
The Woman’s Headcovering
by Michael Marlowe, October 2008I Corinthians 11:2-16.
You did not even read much less understand what you copied pasted. Excerpt from your very own source :
The “angels” are here mentioned as an additional reason for the headcovering. As watchers and agents for God, their attention is especially drawn to spiritual exercises. We might also notice that in Isaiah chapter 6 the seraphs who cried “holy, holy, holy” covered their faces and their feet with their wings in the awful presence of God. It so happens that the Septuagint version has here the word κατακαλυπτων, which Paul has been using. So perhaps Paul’s reference to the angels is meant to recall how the seraphs covered themselves, in which case the idea would be that if the angels themselves do this, how much more should a woman.
By the way , I quoted the late Prof Geza Vermes. He was acknowledged to be the foremost scholar in contemporary Jesus research. Simply put , his opinion is that in 1cor11 , women should cover their head.
My argument has the support of a foremost christian scholar whereas you have none.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sam1528 posted on 14-4-2014 05:59 PM
You did not even read much less understand what you copied pasted. Excerpt from your very own sour ...
Muslims quote:
(1 Corinthians 11:6), "If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; 1 Corinthians 11:6, "and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head."
Christian's reply: Covering head is NOT in the 1 Corinthians 11 .
It looks Mohamed while copying scriptures and stories from the Bible could not understand the real meaning like other Muslim scholars so he..so he put Muslim women in the prison of hijab.
You Muslims hate Paul but it looks you love the covering portion written by Paul.What a Hypocrisy!!
Reply to Muslims: Hair is the covering, Paul says in verse 6 about cutting hair or shaving hair for women is disgrace. The answer is found in verse 15
1 Corinthians 11:15,
1 Corinthians 11:15, But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering.
1 Corinthians 11:15 says, "for her hair is given to her for a covering"
Long Hair - Covering
Muslims say:
This is not in the bible?!? News to me... This is in Corinthians, did you not just quote a few verses after?
Christian's reply:
It is hypocrisy of Muslims that they pick few verses and twist. Why stop reading at verse 6. I already gave you the concept of the whole passage. Here is verse 15 clarifies what that covering is. It is Long Hair.
Where do you read CLOTH covering in 1 Corinthians 11?
Muslims say:
When I have consulted a priest they have told me that the head must be covered not by long hair but by cloth
Christian's reply:
Priests had not written Bible so what can they say.
Muslims say:
Mary had scarf in Bible as head covering.
Christian's reply:
Bible does not talk about Mary having scarf as head covering. Bible does not talk about CLOTH covering
Muslims say:
Anything that will cover the hair, such as a hijab, a head scarf.
Christian's reply:
Bible does not talk about scarf or hijab or any cloth covering. But Bible talks about Long Hair as head covering, I don't know from where Muslims read hijab and scarf in Bible? It looks they can't read properly the verses given in Bible.
Muslims say:
You do know that the bible instructs women to cover their hair.
Christian's reply:
Cover their HAIR????
I don't read hair in Bible but HEAD. 1 Corinthians 11:6, If a woman does not cover her head.. Bible does talk about Long Hair as head covering
Not a single Muslim could show me cloth covering in 1 Corinthians 11 Because Bible doesn't talk about cloth covering in 1 Corinthians 11 But about LONG HAIR as head covering. So what Muslims spread about head covering in Bible shows their ignorance or lack of knowledge about Bible.
The covering Paul is speaking of here cannot be a cloth covering. 1. God did not prescribe style, to denote a religious object. Therefore, it is not a religious object. 2. Since it is not a God-prescribed religious object, then it could be any cloth, if it is indeed a cloth. This includes weather protection. 3. If women's weather protection is enough to cover her head, then men's head protection is enough to cover his head too much for prayer. Does God want men to risk frostbite, in order not to dishonor Christ? The scriptures rate it a worse thing for a man to pray covered, than for a woman to pray uncovered!
Paul defines his own terms. Her hair is given to her for a covering. Just because that word is peribolaion, which is different from the word katakalupto, does not mean one is spiritual, and the other natural. Peribolaion is a noun. Katakalupto is a verb. Just as we eat(verb) using food (noun), and we do not see eat as a spiritual object, and food as a natural object, even so we need to use common sense with the Greek words here. Katakalupto means to cover down over. Peribolaion is someTHING thrown around one, as a mantle. Therefore, the peribolaion provided by God does indeed katakalupto the woman's head.
Verse 6 is used to counter this common-sense approach of allowing Paul define his own terms. "Shorn or shaven" is seen as two different lengths of hair: shorn is thought of as simply cut or trimmed hair, while shaven is seen as hair completely cut off at the scalp level. But the Scriptures define "shorn" to mean the same length as "shaven."
In Numbers 6, God gives the Law about shaving the head after keeping a vow. Paul keeps this command twice in the New Testament. In Acts 21, it says Paul shaved his head. But in Acts 18, that same law was obeyed by Paul having his head "shorn." In fact, the Greek term here is used to refer to a sheep's shorn fleece. Therefore, "shorn or shaven" both are talking about the same length of hair: completely removed at scalp level.
Verse 9 refers to Creation. Therefore, this principle existed ever since Creation, and is evident in how God wanted men and women to appear before him ever since that time. Yet, we have no commandment whatsoever in the Old Testament to women, to wear a cloth on their heads. Obviously, it was customary for both men and women to do so, but it was not a command of God.
However, in the Law, God prescribed bonnets for the priests for a glory. If it were a shame for men to pray covered, then God got it wrong. Also, God told Ezekiel to first cover his head, and then to prophesy. Again, if it is a shame for man to pray or prophesy with covered head, then God got it wrong there.
Yet, the long-feminine-hair-being-the-women's-covering is completely consistent throughout both Old and New Testaments. God said how he felt about the length of men's hair, when he prescribed the priests hair to be "neither long, nor shaven, but only polled."
Therefore, the entire passage is easily understood, if we allow Paul to define his own terms. Of course it is a shame to a woman's own head, her husband, and to her Creator, if she has a man's hairstyle! And it is a shame for a man to pray with long hair. God didn't design androgyny. He designed gender distinction.
If a man's head is too covered to pray having long hair, then a woman's head is covered enough to pray, if she has that same long hair.
shareimprove this answer
answered Apr 22 '13 at 6:45
Mary
111
add comment
up vote 0 down vote
God's glory is his authority and power. The male represents the authority and power of God, and therefore his head is uncovered. God's glory is thus unobstructed. The man is therefore unashamed to have short hair (or a shaven head), but in fact "glories" as such. We can say that such a man "beams" with the glory of God.
The woman's glory is her beauty, and therefore her head is covered. (We might also add that her head is also covered because she does not represent the authority and power of God.) She is therefore beautiful to the man. We can say that such a woman "beams" with the glory of man.
If, on the other hand, a woman would rather represent the authority and power of God, then her head should be uncovered (or shaven) to her shame.
BUT, if a woman just so happens to have short hair (for WHATEVER reasons), then she should just wear a wig, which were worn in the ancient world. THE WIG IS THEREFORE THE SO-CALLED COVERING TO WHICH PAUL REFERS.
That is, if a woman already has long hair, then her head is covered with hair; but if she has short hair, or shaven head, then she is to wear a covering (which is a WIG). If she insists on representing God's power and authority, then her head is to be left uncovered or shaven. To put it another way, even if she physically has long hair, a woman who tries to represent the authority and power of God is simply shameful, and therefore she is no different than a woman with her head shaven. In fact, Paul says, she should simply remove her hair accordingly (and "uncover" her head), since the uncovered head represents the power and glory of God by definition (which, as we noted, is the place of the male).
Finally, and not least, Paul mentions that men with long hair are "contrary to nature" as objects of beauty among men -- that is, the place of long hair is specific only to the woman. It is therefore MOST terrible when such a man with such a "covered" head is praying and prophesying.
Last edited by Truth.8 on 14-4-2014 06:58 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Truth.8 posted on 14-4-2014 06:08 PM
Muslims quote:
(1 Corinthians 11:6), "If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hai ...
You are going around in circles trying to spin the issue. This is the problem when you appeal to uneducated apologetics in order to defend your bible. Oops , to defend what you think the bible should say.
Your reference states :
Muslims quote:
(1 Corinthians 11:6), "If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; 1 Corinthians 11:6, "and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head."
Christian's reply: Covering head is NOT in the 1 Corinthians 11
Look at the underlined of 1cor11:6 - Cover her head. Suddenly the argument is covering her head is not in the verse whereas it is explicitly stated that women should cover her head. If she does not cover her head then she should have her hair cut off. How can it even be referring to hair being for the head cover per your argument?
Don't you ever think logically and question what you read? Your appeal becomes more and more absurd , now its :
BUT, if a woman just so happens to have short hair (for WHATEVER reasons), then she should just wear a wig, which were worn in the ancient world. THE WIG IS THEREFORE THE SO-CALLED COVERING TO WHICH PAUL REFERS.
You still have not responded to the learned opinion of Prof Geza Vermes (The Nativity, Geza Vermes, Penguin Books, 2006, p53)The idea of potential sexual rapport between angels and women continued to float in the air even as late as in the New Testament times. Indeed, when St Paul forbade the female members of the church of Corinth to attend Christian assemblies with the head uncovered, he justified this prohibition by his belief that the sight of their hair might lead astray some passing-by sons of heaven: 'That is why a woman ought to have a veil on her head, because of the angels', Paul insisted (1 Cor 11:10)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sam1528 posted on 14-4-2014 07:16 PM
You are going around in circles trying to spin the issue. This is the problem when you appeal to u ...
Everything already explained in crystal clear that covering head is not with garment, cloth or whatever....
It all about hair for women with long hair and if shave or short, it can cover basically paul was refering to wig because women who have short hair it look like men ...
simple thing like this do not understand...
until now not even a single verses in quran about covering the head with garment or cloth
as for your claimed : 'That is why a woman ought to have a veil on her head, because of the angels', Paul insisted (1 Cor 11:10)
t seems that the principle is timeless. That is, the head-covering (hair) for women is a timeless principle in all ages and in all places, since angels have co-existed with man since man was created. In fact, angels preexisted man.The Hebrew Bible (Job 38:7) indicates that the "sons of God" rejoiced at the creation of the world. These "sons" were angels (please click here), and therefore they preexisted man on the earth. If we recognize that the serpent in the Garden of Eden was Satan (Rev 12:9 and Rev 20:2), then angels were aware and observed Adam and the woman (Eve) in the Garden of Eden; in fact, cherubim were posted to guard the Garden of Eden so that no one could return there after Adam's disobedience (Gen 3:24). According to the Christian New Testament, angels today observe the behavior of men on earth (1 Cor 4:9; Eph 3:10; 1 Tim 3:16; and 1 Pet 1:12).
Thus angels have been aware of the creative order; that is, the man (male) was created before the woman (1 Cor 11:8-9). Before the introduction of sin into the world, the man (male) was the representative of God's authority on earth. The Lord God "crowned" him with God's authority of rulership on the earth (Ps 8:5-6). These verses in the Psalms indicate that the "head" of the man is therefore "crowned" with the glory of authority. (Incidentally and very interestingly, these same verses indicate that man was created lower than the angels --please compare Hebrews 2:7-8-- that is, the angels precede man in the creative order.) Then woman was created after the man as his "help meet" (Gen 2:18, KJV). Thus her head was not "crowned" with authority, but with the glory of the beauty of her hair (1 Cor 11:15).
God's glory is his authority (1 Chr 29:11). Man (or the male) reflects that glory as the authority of God on the earth. His head is therefore not to be "covered" with the glory of beautiful hair in the fashion of a woman (1 Cor 11:14). Although woman is "one flesh" with man (Gen 2:23), her glory on the other hand is her beauty, and therefore her head is covered with hair (or a wig, which is the alternative head-covering for a woman). She is not the glory of God (authority), but the glory of man (beauty). Otherwise a woman without hair is shamed. If a woman insists on bucking the creative order (and she happens to have long hair), then she might as well as shave her head (1 Cor 11:5), because bucking the creative order is shameful. Likewise as just mentioned, a male with long hair is shameful (to which Paul invokes "nature" as testimony in 1 Cor 11:14).
In other words, the angels have recognized the creative order between God and man, since they existed before man. (Thus man was created lower than the angels, which the angels also recognize.) Therefore the biblical principle of the created order (man, then woman) is not restricted to any cultural or era of time... but is timeless to the present day. That is, the angels also recognize God's creative order between man and the woman in creation, and the place of man, who is created lower than the angels. Man and woman are "one flesh," but the one who reflects the authority of God is man, and the one who reflects the glory of man is the woman (and not vice-versa).
Thus the principle of the "creative orders" of God are as timeless as the angels -- thus Paul mentions "because of the angels."
Last edited by Truth.8 on 14-4-2014 09:09 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Truth.8 posted on 14-4-2014 08:58 PM
Everything already explained in crystal clear that covering head is not with garment, cloth or whatever....
It all about hair for women with long hair and if shave or short, it can cover basically paul was refering to wig because women who have short hair it look like men ...
simple thing like this do not understand...
until now not even a single verses in quran about covering the head with garment or cloth
as for your claimed : 'That is why a woman ought to have a veil on her head, because of the angels', Paul insisted (1 Cor 11:10)
There is something wrong with you.
I have given you Lane Lexicon which states of the word 'khumurihinna' (transliteration) , Quran24:31 , originates from the tri lateral root 'Kha Mim Ra' which means covering and the english translation of the Quran (the Corpus Quran) confirm it to be head covering. You are a blur person aren't you? I think you don't even know the meaning of 'head covering'.
You are unable to challenge me but just deny everything and anything.
This time your copy paste do not even address the issue. It just states that the woman glory and beauty is her hair. Lets go back to the verse 1cor11:6
For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.
Breakdown of the verse
- If the woman does not cover her head
- She might as well cut off her hair
- However it is a disgrace for her to cut her hair or have her head shaven
- Therefore she should cover her head
The context of it means that regardless of having hair or not - she should cover her head. This is so simple yet you blunder big time. Suddenly its all about wigs now. This is absurd.
Worse still you appeal to uneducated apologist for your argument. Prof Geza Vermes explained this verse very clearly.
Last edited by sam1528 on 14-4-2014 09:55 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sam1528 posted on 14-4-2014 09:52 PM
There is something wrong with you.
I have given you Lane Lexicon which states of the word 'khum ... There is something wrong with you.
I have given you Lane Lexicon which states of the word 'khumurihinna' (transliteration) , Quran24:31 , originates from the tri lateral root 'Kha Mim Ra' which means covering and the english translation of the Quran (the Corpus Quran) confirm it to be head covering. You are a blur person aren't you? I think you don't even know the meaning of 'head covering'.
nothing wrong with me...your Quran verses it stated:
And tell the believing women to reduce [some] of their vision and guard their private parts and not expose their adornment except that which [necessarily] appears thereof and to wrap [a portion of] their headcovers over their chests and not expose their adornment except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands' fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers, their brothers' sons, their sisters' sons, their women, that which their right hands possess, or those male attendants having no physical desire, or children who are not yet aware of the private aspects of women. And let them not stamp their feet to make known what they conceal of their adornment. And turn to Allah in repentance, all of you, O believers, that you might succeed.
where is covering the hair???
Breakdown of the verse
- If the woman does not cover her head
- She might as well cut off her hair
- However it is a disgrace for her to cut her hair or have her head shaven
- Therefore she should cover her head
The context of it means that regardless of having hair or not - she should cover her head. This is so simple yet you blunder big time. Suddenly its all about wigs now. This is absurd.
does it says cover with garment or cloth?? it can be wig..
here I got a link :
"And tell the believing women to subdue their eyes, and maintain their chastity. They shall not reveal any parts of their bodies, except that which is necessary. They shall cover their chests, (with their Khimar) and shall not relax this code in the presence of other than their husbands, their fathers, the fathers of their husbands, their sons, the sons of their husbands, their brothers, the sons of their brothers, the sons of their sisters, other women, the male servants or employees whose sexual drive has been nullified, or the children who have not reached puberty. They shall not strike their feet when they walk in order to shake and reveal certain details of their bodies. All of you shall repent to GOD, O you believers, that you may succeed." 24:31
God does not wait for a Scholar to put the correct words for Him!
The Arabic word for CHEST, GAYB is in the verse (24:31), but the Arabic words for HEAD, (RAAS) or HAIR, (SHAAR) are NOT in the verse. The commandment in the verse is clear - COVER YOUR CHEST OR BOSOMS, but also the fabrication of the scholars and most of the translators is clear by claiming- cover your head or hair.
The last part of the verse (24:31) translates as, "They shall not strike their feet when they walk in order to shake and reveal certain details of their bodies." The details of the body can be revealed or not revealed by the dress you wear, not by your head cover.
Notice also the expression in 24:31,
"They shall not reveal any parts of their bodies, except that which is necessary."
This expression may sound vague to many because they have not understood the mercy of God. Again God here used this very general term to give us the freedom to decide according to our own circumstances the definition of "What is necessary".
It is not up to a scholar or to any particular person to define this term. God wants to leave it personal for every woman and no one can take it away from her. Women who follow the basic rule number one i.e. righteousness, will have no problem making the right decision to reveal only which is necessary.
The word "zeenatahunna" in this verse refers to the woman's body parts (beauty) that can be exaggerated by the movement of the body while walking and not to the artificial ornaments and decorations as some people interpret it or translate it. At the end of the verse, God told the women not to strike with their feet to show their "zeenatahunna." Striking the feet while walking can emphasize , exaggerate or shake certain parts of the body that do not need to be emphasized. It is important to remember that striking the feet while walking does not have this effect on the head, hair or face, they are not part of what God calls in this verse the hidden zeena.
Accepting orders from anybody but God, means idol-worship. That is how serious the matter of Hijab/khimar is. Women who wear Hijab because of tradition or because they like it for personal reasons commit no sin, as long as they know that it is not part of this perfect religion. Those who are wearing it because they think God ordered it are committing Idol-worship, as God did not order it, the scholars did. These women have found for themselves another god than the One who revealed the Quran, complete, perfect and FULLY detailed to tell them they have to cover their heads to be Muslims.
THE WORD "HIJAB" in the QURAN
"Hijab" is the term used by many Muslims women to describe their head cover that may or may not include covering their face except their eyes, and sometimes covering also one eye. The Arabic word "Hijab" can be translated into veil or yashmak. Other meanings for the word "Hijab" include, screen, cover(ing), mantle, curtain, drapes, partition, division, divider.
Can we find the word "Hijab" in the Quran??
The word "Hijab" appeared in the Quran 7 times, five of them as "Hijab" and two times as "Hijaban," these are 7:46, 33:53, 38:32, 41:5, 42:51, 17:45 & 19:17.
None of these "Hijab" words are used in the Quran in reference to what the traditional Muslims call today (Hijab) as a dress code for the Muslim woman.
God knows that generations after Muhammed's death the Muslims will use the word "Hijab" to invent a dress code that He never authorized. God used the word "Hijab" ahead of them just as He used the word "Hadith" ahead of them.
Source: Khimar" is an Arabic word that means, cover, any cover, a curtain is a Khimar, a dress is a Khimar, a table cloth that covers the top of a table is a Khimar, a blanket can be used as a Khimar..etc. The word KHAMRA used for intoxicant in Arabic has the same root with Khimar, because both covers, the Khimar covers (a window, a body, a table . . . etc.) while KHAMRA covers the state of mind. Most of the translators, obviously influenced by Hadith (fabrications) translate the word as VEIL and thus mislead most people to believe that this verse is advocating the covering of the head.
In 24:31 God is asking the women to use their cover (khimar)( being a dress, a coat, a shawl, a shirt, a blouse, a tie, a scarf . . . etc.) to cover their bosoms, not their heads or their hairs. If God so willed to order the women to cover their heads or their hair, nothing would have prevented Him from doing so. GOD does not run out of words. GOD does not forget. God did not order the women to cover their heads or their hair.link :https://answers.yahoo.com/questi ... 081115200047AArJ4Fw
Its not written anywhere in the Quran !!
There are TWO verses in the Quran regarding the dress code:
1- 24:31
2- 33:59
The verse 24:31 is an instruction under NORMAL circumstances i.e.
1- Do not expose parts of body except that which is necessary.
2- Cover their chest and curves.
3- Do not wear dresses that reveal the details of the body and do not walk to reveal them either.
While the verse 33:59 is a circumstancial instruction. The context of the verse tells about the SERIOUS situation in the vicinity at that moment.
1- It tells of taking a covering over them, so that they are recognized as honorable women and are NOT disturbed etc.
NEITHER of the TWO verses (24:31 and 33:59), say cover the head.
Last edited by Truth.8 on 14-4-2014 10:49 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Truth.8 posted on 14-4-2014 10:20 PM
nothing wrong with me...your Quran verses it stated:
And tell the believing women to redu ...
Ha ha , no wonder you are in trouble. Your argument is so naive. It appears that you have the mentality of a primary school kid.
Now you are arguing with a translation of the Quran about headcover. It is very clearly stated in the verse , bit part :
appears thereof and to wrap [a portion of] their headcovers over their chests and not expose their adornment except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands' fathers, their sons,
Now you ask me where does it state hair?
To educate you , on your head , that is where the hair grow. Covering the head automatically would mean covering of the hair. I just don't get it why do you continuously insult your own intelligence or lack of it.
A wig is not headcover. It is considered a thing for beauty.
Now you are giving me a link about lay people addressing the issue. How come you did not include the response by a person who goes by the nick 'noor'
Mohamed K and Shah RK followers
you are hypocrites, you are explaining the verses according to your RK's words.
you follow a man that claimed to be a messenger after the prophet peace be upon him, so you are not Muslims, and you words don't really count when it comes to Islamic issues.
only people like you will take your words.
about the Q.
*{Tell the believing men to lower their gaze and be modest. That is purer for them. Lo! Allah is Aware of what they do. And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent, and to draw their veils over their bosoms, and not to reveal their adornment save to their own husbands or fathers or husbands’ fathers, or their sons or their husbands' sons, or their brothers or their brothers' sons or sisters’ sons, or their women, or their slaves, or male attendants who lack vigor, or children who know naught of women's nakedness. And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment. And turn unto Allah together, O believers, in order that ye may succeed.}*
See also verse number 59 in Surah, which give the meaning of:
*{O Prophet! Tell thy wives and thy daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round them [when they go abroad]. That will be better, that so they may be recognized and not annoyed. Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful.}*
The above verses very clearly show that it is Allah Almighty Himself, Who commands the women to wear hijab, though that word is not used in the above verses. In fact, the term hijab means much more than the covering of the body; it refers to the code of modesty outlined in the verses quoted above.
Look at the expressions used: “Lower their gaze”, “be modest”, “not to display their adornment”, “draw the veils over their bosoms” “not to stamp their feet” etc.
It must be clear to any thinking person what is meant by all the above expressions in the Holy Qur’an. Women in the Prophet’s time used to wear a kind of dress that covered the head, but not the bosom properly. So when they are asked to draw their veils over their bosoms so as not to reveal their beauty, it is clear that the dress must cover the head as well as the body. And hair is considered by people in most cultures of the world - not only in the Arab culture - as an attractive part of a woman’s beauty.
Until the end of the nineteenth century, ladies in the west used to put on some kind of head gear, if not a cover for the whole hair. This is quite in conformity with the Biblical injunction for the women to cover their heads. Even in these degenerate times, people pay more respect to the more modestly dressed ladies, than to the scantily clad ones. Imagine a lady prime minister or a queen wearing a low-cut blouse or a miniskirt in an international conference! Can she command as much respect there as she would get if she were in a more modest attire?
For the above reasons, the scholars of Islam are unanimous that the Qur’anic verses quoted above clearly mean that women must cover the head and the whole body except for the face and the hands.
You quoted the allegation that the Prophet introduced the hijab, because he saw one of his wives “flirting” with another man. This is one of those baseless charges against Islam and its Prophet, coined by those who saw their fragile ideologies crumbling before the march of Islam.
Does the hijab prevent a woman from performing her day-to-day duties?
For one thing a woman does not normally wear hijab in her own house, so it shouldn’t get in the way when she’s doing housework. If she is working in a factory close to machinery or in a laboratory, for example—she can wear a different style of hijab that doesn’t have dragging ends. Actually loose trousers and a long shirt for instance lets her to bend, lift, or climb steps or ladders more easily, if her work allows that. Such a dress would certainly give her more freedom of movement while protecting her modesty at the same time.
However it is interesting to note that the very same people who find fault with the Islamic dress code for women do not find any thing improper in the dress of nuns. It is evident that the “hijab” of Mother Teresa did not prevent her from social work! And the western world honored her with the Nobel Prize! But the same people would argue that the hijab is a hindrance for a Muslim girl in a school or for a Muslim lady working as a cashier in a super market! This is the kind of hypocrisy or double standards which paradoxically some “sophisticated” people find fashionable!
Is hijab an oppression? It could certainly be so, if someone forces a woman to wear it. But for that matter, semi-nudity also can be an oppression, if someone forces a woman to adopt that style. If women in the west - or east - have the freedom to dress as they please, why not allow the Muslim women to prefer a more modest dress?
http://www.readingislam.com/servlet/Sate...
Again , your link is in support of my argument as this person has thoroughly refuted your position.
In addition , a person of the nick 'casey; has this to say :
First Corinthians Chapter 11 verse 5
It's in the Bible which the Muslims also believe to some degree.
This part they believe.
Most Christians feel that verse is a "cultural ' verse, although some wear headcover before God in church but not around their husbands. The Amish/Mennonites still wear headcover at all times.
TQ , your link completely refutes you and support me.
If you have any intelligence , it would have been employed when you read something.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sam1528 posted on 14-4-2014 11:33 PM
Ha ha , no wonder you are in trouble. Your argument is so naive. It appears that you have the ment ...
you falied again
The Arabic word for CHEST, GAYB is in the verse (24:31), but the Arabic words for HEAD, (RAAS) or HAIR, (SHAAR) are NOT in the verse. The commandment in the verse is clear - COVER YOUR CHEST OR BOSOMS, but also the fabrication of the scholars and most of the translators is clear by claiming- cover your head or hair.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Post time 12-4-2014 11:10 PM
Author
![[Edisi pungpakkepung] Azri Iskandar dan kekasih baru?](https://uf.cari.com.my/forumx/mforum/block/62/62a9916c86939915da4c31ecede21a19.jpg)
