Quote
With all due respect, why won't you EXEGETE the passage to prove your contention that "a woman's head should be covered because it is consider an object of shame and disgrace."? I nor any commentator worth his salt can find any such nonsense. Paul would never and could never contradict himself nor would he write anything that contradicted any other biblical passage since he wrote under divine inspiration.

Ahhh, I have EXEGETE it both in the literal (as what the headcovering promotes to taking the passage literally!) and the figurative interpretation. Where have you been? I have shown you how the literal interpretation is inconsistent to the rest of Scriptures. Which part of the literal interpretation don't you understand? Apparently you feel that the "head" in verses 5-6 is the object that sits on the woman's shoulder, otherwise you wouldn't go insisting that she covers it, now would you? But you seem to ignore the fact that what those verses also states is that she has to cover her head because it's considered shameful and disgraceful. Read the passage literally and see what the "cover" serves to do and why; you can't ignore it. It clearly associates the head with shame and disgrace. Maybe you should try to EXEGETE how you can get from those verses that one should covers one's head without taking the verse literally rather than just referring me to some link I've already read. But logically if you don't take those verses literally then you cannot take out from that passage the justification to insist that a woman should cover her physical head.

Of course I disagree with this nonsense NOT because it marks the woman's head simply as an object of shame but God in his Word has said that when He made woman, He said it was GOOD. There is nothing in Genesis to indicate that God has marked the woman's head in creation as an object of shame and disgrace (and hence should be covered). And when God presented Eve to Adam, even as the heavenly host watched, did Scriptures indicate that she had a cloth over her head?! NO. So I know this isn't what He means and that passage shouldn't be taken literally (e.g. insisting that the woman's head should be covered), otherwise it would contradict the account in Genesis. And if you really follow through with the figurative interpretation, as I have already explained before, it flows very well with the rest of Scriptures and why Paul calls the woman's hair (the symbol of this authority headship over her) as "her glory". After reading what that woman wrote and how she explained the figurative interpretation, that passage just clicked! No somersaults needed as I've read in other interpretations.

All those 3 points you've pointed out, that's clearly seen in the figurative interpretation as I've noted in previous posts and above. But if you take the literal interpretation, there's nothing in that passage that connects such a practice to your points. From all that I see of such a view, it demeans the view of women; it marks the woman's head as an object of scorn, as vs 5-6 CLEARLY notes.

It's alright if you don't agree. You're entitled to your views. I just thought what that woman wrote gave me some insights that seemed to just click. It was balanced and sound.


Last edited by heidi; Mon May 25, 2009 1:00 AM.