Is the prayer veiling commmanded in scripture?

[scottlittlefield17]

I believe that the prayer veiling or covering as some call it is required in scripture for all Christian women. I would like to hear your reasons why you don't think so and I will try to address them.

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.
1Co 11:6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

The word covered there is the Greek word katakaluptō which according to Strongs means to

cover wholly, that is, veil: - cover, hide.

The Greek word for head means the

the part most readily taken hold of

i.e. the hair.

[scottlittlefield17]

Sorry about the spelling in the poll question. I didn't notice it until after i posted.

[ChaosBorders]

I believe that the prayer veiling or covering as some call it is required in scripture for all Christian women. I would like to hear your reasons why you don't think so and I will try to address them.

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.
1Co 11:6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

The word covered there is the Greek word katakaluptō which according to Strongs means to

cover wholly, that is, veil: - cover, hide.

The Greek word for head means the

the part most readily taken hold of

i.e. the hair.

If someone is going to claim the Bible as literally inerrant, then I would agree. Generally the argument against seems to be that it was meant as a culture specific stance that no longer applies. Personally I think this reasoning is quite weak if you are going with a literally inerrant stance.

Now if you go with a inerrant in purpose stance only, such a justification for not doing it is much more plausible.

Regardless of which stance the attendees claim to be going with, I personally would have a very difficult time stepping foot into a church that actually forced women to cover their heads to attend worship.

[scottlittlefield17]

Regardless of which stance the attendees claim to be going with, I personally would have a very difficult time stepping foot into a church that actually forced women to cover their heads to attend worship.

What exactly is your definition of "forced"? In our congregation to be a female member you must where a head veiling. Would that be considered "forced" in your opinion? Let me clarify that you can attend without wearing a veiling but to be a member you must. It is the persons choice whether they become a member or not.

Now if you go with a inerrant in purpose stance only...

Maybe I'm thickheaded but I'm not following you. Could you expound upon what you mean by "purpose stance only"?

[ChaosBorders]

Regardless of which stance the attendees claim to be going with, I personally would have a very difficult time stepping foot into a church that actually forced women to cover their heads to attend worship.

What exactly is your definition of "forced"? In our congregation to be a female member you must where a head veiling. Would that be considered "forced" in your opinion? Let me clarify that you can attend without wearing a veiling but to be a member you must. It is the persons choice whether they become a member or not.

If someone willingly joins your congregation as a member free of pressure, then they are not being forced. If someone is raised in it, and feels pressured by friends and family to conform, that is a more questionable issue.

Now if you go with a inerrant in purpose stance only...

Maybe I'm thickheaded but I'm not following you. Could you expound upon what you mean by "purpose stance only"?

Here is a description of different views on Inerrancy:

* Absolute/Full/Strict Inerrancy – The Bible is completely without error in all the things that it says. The authors not only intended to convey the teaching about God and salvation in a perfect way, but about intended to communicate scientific and historical details which are given in a precise way. The descriptions of theology were their specific area of "expertise" and these are completely without error. Since science or history were not their main reasons for writing God's inspired Word, these may not be 100% accurate to the detail as 21st century people might expect. Rather they are more like approximations or rounded-off numbers.
* Moderate/Partial/Limited Inerrancy – This view regards the Bible is completely inerrant in regards to its teaching about salvation (faith and practice). However, other forms of knowledge (ie. science or history) may be erroneous as they did not intend to teach on this topic, nor did they have sufficient knowledge of these topics. What they teach on "non-theological topics could be erroneous in some ways since they did not have advanced sciences like we do today.
* Inerrancy of Purpose – The purpose of the Bible is to lead people to a relationship with Christ. It does this. The purpose of the Bible is not to communicate truth, so other facts are not necessarily accurate. Proponents of this view of inerrancy usually prefer to describe the Bible as "infallible," meaning that the Bible does not make any misleading statements about matters of faith. It is "entirely trustworthy."

Inerrancy of Purpose may also be used in reference by someone with the view that The Bible serves God's Purpose for it, but who does not choose to assume knowledge on the specifics of what that purpose actually is.

[oldkjv]

I do not believe the bible teaches Ladies need to wear veils.

Proof That A Veil Is Not The Covering

1Co 11:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoreth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

Internet Definition Shave - d - the hair is cut completely to the skin using a traditional razor blade or an electric razor.

Note Shaven meant to be bald. We can clearly see that Paul is stating that if your going to cut your hair a little bit (uncovered), than its the same as being shaven.

1Co 11:6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

Internet Definition Shorn - having the hair or wool cut or clipped off as if with shears or clippers; "picked up the baby's shorn curls from the floor"; "naked as a sheared sheep"

Note Paul is clearly talking about the length of the hair here. He is saying if a women cuts here hair a little bit than it is the same to be shorn (bald). Proof this passage is talking about length of hair.

1Co 11:14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

Note this whole passage is trying to get the point across that for a women its right to have long uncut hair and for a man its right to have short hair.
The bible uses opposites to make a point clear in 1Co 11:14 it says its wrong for a man to have long hair. While in 1Co 11:15 its says its right for a women to have long hair.


What Is A Womens Covering

Fact The bible clearly states that a its right for a women to be covered and it states three times that its wrong to be uncovered. So what is the covering?

1Co 11:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

Fact The bible states that a ladies hair is her covering. Not a veil.

[scottlittlefield17]

1Co 11:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

[strike]Fact [/strike] The bible states that a ladies hair is her covering. Not a veil.

Haha no the Bible does not say the hair is her covering. Here is the reason why. The Greek word for covering in verse fifteen is COMPLETELY different than earlier. It means "Something thrown around". It is obviously not referring to the earlier verses as it is a completely different Greek word. We have no English word to match the word in verse fifteen but the word covering is misleading. :2gun:

[scottlittlefield17]

If someone willingly joins your congregation as a member free of pressure, then they are not being forced. If someone is raised in it, and feels pressured by friends and family to conform, that is a more questionable issue.

We have had numerous examples of girls who grew up and left the church. So yes there is a certain amount of pressure but they are free to leave. Also the girls do not wear coverings until they become members. They don't need to ever become members. The vast majority do and we have very little problems.

Quote:
* Absolute/Full/Strict Inerrancy – The Bible is completely without error in all the things that it says. The authors not only intended to convey the teaching about God and salvation in a perfect way, but about intended to communicate scientific and historical details which are given in a precise way. The descriptions of theology were their specific area of "expertise" and these are completely without error. Since science or history were not their main reasons for writing God's inspired Word, these may not be 100% accurate to the detail as 21st century people might expect. Rather they are more like approximations or rounded-off numbers.
* Moderate/Partial/Limited Inerrancy – This view regards the Bible is completely inerrant in regards to its teaching about salvation (faith and practice). However, other forms of knowledge (ie. science or history) may be erroneous as they did not intend to teach on this topic, nor did they have sufficient knowledge of these topics. What they teach on "non-theological topics could be erroneous in some ways since they did not have advanced sciences like we do today.
* Inerrancy of Purpose – The purpose of the Bible is to lead people to a relationship with Christ. It does this. The purpose of the Bible is not to communicate truth, so other facts are not necessarily accurate. Proponents of this view of inerrancy usually prefer to describe the Bible as "infallible," meaning that the Bible does not make any misleading statements about matters of faith. It is "entirely trustworthy."



Inerrancy of Purpose may also be used in reference by someone with the view that The Bible serves God's Purpose for it, but who does not choose to assume knowledge on the specifics of what that purpose actually is.

I see, the problem I have with that is if you don't take the bible as completely innerant then you began to excuse anything you don't want to do as being one of the parts that isn't accurate.

[ChaosBorders]

Quote:
* Absolute/Full/Strict Inerrancy – The Bible is completely without error in all the things that it says. The authors not only intended to convey the teaching about God and salvation in a perfect way, but about intended to communicate scientific and historical details which are given in a precise way. The descriptions of theology were their specific area of "expertise" and these are completely without error. Since science or history were not their main reasons for writing God's inspired Word, these may not be 100% accurate to the detail as 21st century people might expect. Rather they are more like approximations or rounded-off numbers.
* Moderate/Partial/Limited Inerrancy – This view regards the Bible is completely inerrant in regards to its teaching about salvation (faith and practice). However, other forms of knowledge (ie. science or history) may be erroneous as they did not intend to teach on this topic, nor did they have sufficient knowledge of these topics. What they teach on "non-theological topics could be erroneous in some ways since they did not have advanced sciences like we do today.
* Inerrancy of Purpose – The purpose of the Bible is to lead people to a relationship with Christ. It does this. The purpose of the Bible is not to communicate truth, so other facts are not necessarily accurate. Proponents of this view of inerrancy usually prefer to describe the Bible as "infallible," meaning that the Bible does not make any misleading statements about matters of faith. It is "entirely trustworthy."



Inerrancy of Purpose may also be used in reference by someone with the view that The Bible serves God's Purpose for it, but who does not choose to assume knowledge on the specifics of what that purpose actually is.

I see, the problem I have with that is if you don't take the bible as completely innerant then you began to excuse anything you don't want to do as being one of the parts that isn't accurate.

That certainly can be an issue. I do not mind so much if they can logically justify why they think that to be the case, but there are certainly times when the picking and choosing becomes quite ridiculous and self-serving. On the other hand, even the most strict inerrantists I've known generally don't go about stoning people to death despite some of the commands to do so.

[scottlittlefield17]

That certainly can be an issue. I do not mind so much if they can logically justify why they think that to be the case, but there are certainly times when the picking and choosing becomes quite ridiculous and self-serving. On the other hand, even the most strict inerrantists I've known generally don't go about stoning people to death despite some of the commands to do so.

Good thoughts. If you take the bible as inherent then you can logically justify some things that are not applicable. Take for example eye for eye and tooth for tooth in the OT but in the NT Jesus says do good to those people. So the eye for eye you can logically prove that it is not applicable to us today. Everything that is in the OT has been either carried into the NT or it has been fulfilled. An example of something being fulfilled is the animal sacrifices being a picture of the crucifixion of Jesus so when Jesus was crucified we had no need for that picture. So the animal sacrifices where abolished.