You take all the same thoughts I have all jumbled up in my brain and express them so eloquently. Thank you for being such a rock solid example for covering Christian women. God bless you (and your very understanding husband). :-)
If you base the idea of wearing a covering "all the time" on 1Thes. 5:17, "Pray without ceasing.",then men should NEVER wear hats because they are to be "Praying without ceasing" also and they'd be violating 1Cor.11:7,"For a man ought not to cover his head..".
In 1Thes.5:17, "Pray without ceasing does not mean pray repetitiously or continuously without ever a break, but rather to pray persistently and regularly.
In 1Cor.11:5, Paul is clearly speaking of while PRAYING and PROPHESYING only.
@shiphrahhopeful Ok I think your missing the point of this video. She is not saying you HAVE TO do this. Prayer is not I am going to sit down and say words, its not a speach act. Its is a state of act and eventually a state of being closer to God. She is speaking this is why she does it...not that you or others or anyone eles should do this. It is a personal decision that helps her in her daily walk with the Lord.
@Shirotora1979 It's commendable that she wants to be closer to God. But I do not believe that she made most of what you just stated,very clear in the video, and I think it's important that she does clarify those things.Because of the Scripture references, it appeared as if she was basing her decision to always cover upon Scripture, rather than JUST a PERSONAL decision. I just want to make sure that everything I do is based upon Scripture,which has been "rightly divided",and not only my feelings.
@shiphrahhopeful Yes, I made a personal decision to cover most of the time based upon the tradition of my Church in interpreting the scriptures that I quoted. I trust and believe in the authority of my Church (since it is one of only a few that can trace its origins to the Apostles) to rightly divide the scriptures, therefore I want to cover my head as a symbol of obedience and as a reminder to remember God in prayer more and more often, until I can do it, Lord willing, without ceasing.
Bless you!!! I wish more people beleived this way, and also practiced some tznuit(biblical modesty)... I am not saying we should walk around in burkas... but I think women that dress and NOT show so much skin get more respect. Bless you for covering : )
we follow the 10 commandments who r we to choose what we r going to follow and what we are not. women wore headcovering all the time so what has changed?
headship over his wife & a wife's submission to her husband is supposed to be done out of agape love not so much as duty or the law as many legalists often like to put. In fact many legalist churches love to place a heavier burdens on the wife's or women subordination to her husband or men in general but at the same time require less expectation from the men which is not of God. Mnay of these churches are actually abusive & not true churches of Christ, but cults.
I totally agree. Unfortunately that's what some churches teach and it's not okay. That's why when a Christian woman chooses to wear something other than long hair, if that's how she understands the passage, some people automatically assume she's being abused or controlled. That's exactly the issue I was addressing in this video.
I want to say you get the video and I have no problem with your views. Thank you for your kind words and well done explination. One thing I think edward is missing to be honest is she nor I am saying that a Christian woman HAS TO cover her head with a head covering but that it is her choice and that understand is biblical. This is one of the areas of the bible that has to be left up to the heart of the person. So many great points in your comments and thank you for it.
meet. It seems as though God created the woman to be desireable to her husband & the man to be his wife's shining armour (protector) of her and his household. But, both the husband & wife should both share in the decision making & not just the man making all the decisions irregardless on how his wife may feel or know about things. The man being the head of the household doesn't mean he rule over her nor the wife's submissiveness means she does as she's told without careful thought. A husband's
Quite an interesting video. I really enjoy watching this video because you two seem to be very happy with each other. You also respect each other as husband & wife as well which I totally agree with because respect is a two way street in a marriage. I also enjo viewing edwardpf123 video too. However, I do agree with edwardpf123 about how God meant for godly women to have longer hair than the godly man because on how God designed the marriage where the man is the head, but the woman is his help
The author of an essay I linked to in the sidebar made what I thought was a good point. The noun "veil" never occurs, and the words that refer to having a garment on the head are all verbs and adjectives, for a good reason. The Holy Spirit, speaking through Paul, is giving us freedom of style. No particular garment is required; the idea is to wear something - scarf, hat, cap, bonnet - whatever you or your milieu fancies.
I at one time did think it was necessary, but I learned later it wasn't. But it has come in handy when others run to it to claim it says something it doesn't.
God works in mysterious ways.
I notice that my video response hasn't been posted. I would be happy to post your video as a response to mine.
I thought you have to do something like request that it be a video response to this video and then Rob can approve it. (I can't, this is my husband's channel and I forget his password.) But I could be wrong; I don't know how to work youtube real good. Send Shirotora1979 a pm or something and I'm sure y'all can figure out how to make it video response to this one.
Yes, just go to my video and you will see video replies. Then you will get a list of vidoes you want to reply with from your videos, you simply click your video on and it will send the request to me to approve it, which I will.
You seem to be confused. I said I would be happy to link yours as a reply to this video, since our discussion started as comments on this video. But I made this video months ago and it has nothing to do with you or your ideas, so there's no reason for it to be a reply to your video. Feel free to link to it in the sidebar of yours if you wish so people who watch yours can see what you're responding to, but if you don't want to do that, that's okay too.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Your video is saying that for a woman to be 'covered', she needs to have something on her head other then her long hair. And you attempt to use to scripture to justify that point of view.
My video refutes that view and says that all a woman needs is her long hair as a covering.
What does rehashing your argument have to do with anything? You described how to make my video a reply to yours, if I understand correctly, and I'm merely saying that my video was made months ago for reasons that have nothing to do with you, and I'm not interested in mine being indexed as a reply to yours. I offered to link to yours as a reply to mine, (since you mention me, it's pretty clear it's a reply) but if you're not interested, that's perfectly okay.
Try sending it again and it will be approved. I don't know what the problem is.If it were my intention to not approve it as a response, we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place. And how long ago I made the video is relevant because the video is in no way a response to you. I am under no burden to prove anything to you.You have your opinion, I have mine; I'm not interested in discussing it further. I don't know how I can be any more clear.
Well shoot. I don't know what happened then, unless it was a YT glitch as my husband suggested. You could put a link to it in the sidebar of your video so people will know what you're responding to. Or not. Whatever you want to do.
you vid never actually appeared as a resoponse. I think you did it right before the last matnince so YT just glitched again. Post it as a response again and I will approve it.
you a correct...cant argue with that...our chrisian rules had changed so much that those words sound like some kind of herecy to some christians....but its true you are wright
@edwardpf123: Just a couple of simple questions. All Greek vocabulary aside, can you define "short" for me in this context? How short does a woman's hair have to be before it is too short? Do we measure it in inches? Is "shoulder length" long enough? Can a woman ever cut her hair?
A woman's hair should be shorter then her husbands, and the man's should be short so that it doesn't go over the eyes like a veil or draw attention to it.
Ofcourse a woman can cut her hair, just not so short that no one mistakes her for a man.
I'll assume that was a typo, and you meant "a woman's hair should be LONGER than her husbands." I think a little perspective from the surrounding chapters of 1Cr. is needed here for context. How about "Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another [man's] conscience? "
Yes, you are correct, I meant to say, the woman's hair should be longer.
No, this is not an issue that Paul says is to be disputed about, since even nature teaches us this.(1Cor.11:14) and the church isn't even to argue about this (1Cor.11:16)
MrsShirotora can and already did explain the differences in those verses, but I understand that you don't believe the original Greek has any bearing on this. That's OK. What I don't get is, in this video she explains why it was her personal decision to cover her head. She is not preaching nor demanding this from everyone. Isn't it better to err on the side of caution? Is she preventing anyone's salvation with her scarf?
The point of the video was to explain why I decided to where a headscarf. Why are you so concerned that I not wear it? Because your wife doesn't? Good for her! I have no servant to judge. But if on the last day Christ says to me, and I mean me not you, "You thought the Bible said this and you didn't do it?" how will I answer? I didn't want to argue Greek semantics in the first place, or I would have in the video.
To say that the Bible is teaching that wearing the scarf is the 'covering' is a false teaching. If the woman has shorter hair then her husband, and wears a scarf,
she is still 'uncovered' in the eyes of God.
Her hair was given to her for glory and her covering.
I didn't bring up the Greek, the English is clear enough and there is nothing in the Greek that changes anything the English says clearly.
I'm sorry, I thought that since you were quoting Greek, that meant you understood Greek. If you'd like to learn, maybe even just to understand your interlinear better, I can recommend good textbooks. (Really. I'm not being snarky.) You're right. I cited what I thought was the dictionary form of the word "peribolaios." The dictionary form is actually "peribolaion." It occurs in the genitive singular form "peribolaiou," as required after the preposition "anti."
"Akatakaluptos" (the dictionary form) occurs in v. 5 and means "uncovered." KJV: But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoreth her head..." Since the word is derived from the same root as the word "kaluptra," "a woman's veil," it would have been obvious to a Greek-speaker of the time that Paul meant a woman not having a veil on her head. It is as if he said, "but every woman that prayeth un-hatted." I guess the translators didn't think un-hatted was a good cont
English word, so unfortunately the English is more obscure than the Greek. However, at the time the KJV was produced, women in every church wore coverings to worship, so the translators probably didn't anticipate having to be more clear than that.
No, the English is very clear, and you are simply trying to change the clear meaning with the Greek hoping that no one will actually read what the Greek says.
It says nothing in context about anything additional on anyone's head. It is referring to the man and woman's hair as their covering. The woman's hair is her glory and shouldn't be covered, since she is the glory of man.
your right it is. That it is biblical to have a woman have her head coverd with a Veil..its very simple in the Greek. I agree I disagree with your assumption that changes the Greek meaning.
You made the error, and you are telling me about learning Greek?
Yes, I do understand Greek and your appeal to it didn't change the meaning of the word, which is 'covering'. The Greek word is referring to the women's hair, just as the English plainly states.
Your REAL appeal to another item on the head, beside the hair, is simply tradition, not the verse.
Ummm..she made one error and is going on to explain the verse and the root words and the whole context of verses. She is showing how it is biblical and explaining in detail that it is a biblical tradition. She is even trying to explain how it was translated into this. It seems you are not dealing or refuting her points but rather just keep saying its tradition...and it is...biblical tradition.
You're either ignorant or disingenious, and I was trying to be charitable by assuming you're ignorant. Okay, assuming you understand the Greek text and Greek grammar in general, you should have caught my error. By the rules of Greek morphology, "peribolaiou" can be derived from two different hypothetical nominative forms: "peribolaios" or "peribolaion." In my haste I picked the wrong the one. I might have tried to cover it up and claim it was a typo, but instead I admitted the error and went on.
That you didn't comment on the error intially, but rather said the word doesn't even occur, suggests you are being disingenious. You insist the word means merely "covering," and all my efforts trying to explain the nuances of the term are in vain. Well, I can't explain theory of translation to you in a youtube comment format. You seem to have to the (untenable) assumption that the English text is primary anyway, and nothing I say will sway you. Go ahead, have the last word. I'm done.
The word doesn't occur in that form as you admitted! I was looking at particular words, it wasn't until I looked at the entire Greek sentence that I saw the word you were discussing.
You haven't explained any 'nuances' at all.
All you did is make up a meaning for a Greek word and then hoped that no one would call you on it.
The English text explains the Greek exactly. You haven't shown that any Greek word should be translated differently then how it is translated in English.
I apologize. I can't be silent while you try to mislead the less educated. Once again, I cited the dictionary forms of the words, the error in gender notwithstanding. I "made up a meaning" trying to explain what the obvious etymology of the word would sound like to the ears of an English speaker. Let us assume that the words derived from the root "kalupt-" refer to hair. (Kaluptra is veil.) Since a man ouk opheilei kata kaluptesthai thn kephalhn, should he shave his head to be uncovered?
I wasn't chiding you on making a mistake, only explaining why I hadn't spotted the wored you were referring to. Please don't talk about the 'etymology' of the word and the sounds of the word. We are speaking of Kione Gr. not modern Gr.
The man must have shorter hair then the woman to be uncovered.
There is nothing to assume about the fact that the same Gr. can be translated different ways based on context.
Thank you. I'm sorry I'm jumping to conclusions. I just love Greek and my headscarf so much! I'm aware that we're talking about Koine Greek. The word still has an etymology. I could have been more precise and said "its obvious derivational morphology." And there is everything to assume based on two possible translations, especially since Paul uses a general term with a figurative connotation to refer to hair, while he uses a specific term derived from "veil" to refer to praying uncovered.
The same word is used for both men and women when referring to being covered or uncovered.
And it always refers to hair length. Nowhere in the passage is a scarf mentioned. You are inserting that as your own private intepretation to justify wearing your scarf as being scriptural.
if that were true, then the women who don't wear scarfs are being unscriptural, which they aren't.
The issue is the hair length, not any scarf on the head.
Since this issue is clearly so important to you, might I suggest you go make your own video on it and stop using the comments section of mine as a platform for your interpretation? You've made yourself clear. I have made myself clear. You're not going to convince me because we come from very different starting assumptions about the nature and use of Scripture and Tradition, although I maintain that's Paul's language clearly means all women in all the churches wore veils.
What I have made a fact of the intepretation is your attempt to use to the Greek to try to force a false view of 1Cor.11. There is nothing in any Greek word that would suggest that an additional covering is needed on a woman's hair other then the hair itself.
You want to appeal to tradition that is a different issue, but don't claim you have scriptural support and then run to the Gr. and put out nonsense about what the Gr. says, when it says exactly what the English does.
Like I said, go make your own video about this. You can even make it a video reply to this video and I'm certain my husband will link to it. But please stop using the comments section of my video to attack me. I'd be happy to put you in touch with my former Greek professors so you can tell what a terrible job they did.
Yes, I think they would be very unhappy with the liberties you have taken with the language. There is nothing in the Greek that has any notion of anyother covering then the woman's hair.
I'm going to make this as clear as I can: Hair is called a covering once in the passage. It is Paul's appeal to nature as a witness. He uses a general term meaning covering, that is used in many contexts for many kinds of coverings. Every other time he uses a word meaning "covered" or "uncovered" the word is derived from the same root that forms the word for "veil." He is literally saying "veiled" or "unveiled." Now, just so I know what I'm into, where did you study Greek and for how long?
actually I find your understanding of greek very limited. The bible says exactly what she is saying...and it is biblical. The Earliest Chruches beleived this so did the Churches of King James day. The headcovering has only in recent history been moved aside. It is biblical as my wife has been showing you over and over but your very VERY limited understanding of Greek, History and Etymology is keeping you from seeing this. Even the English supports her stance and for THOUSANDS cont.
of years people understood the bible to say exactly what it does...which supports her stance. I have even been sending this to Greek linguists as well as Jewish Rabbi and a few people that have their PHd in Linguistics asking if she is off the mark. So far everyone has supported her stance. It is biblical Tradition...meaning it is a biblical stance but by no means is it a Sin not to do so. This is also her stance but you seemed to be offended by it and wonder why. Why does it offend cont.
offend you so much that you have to try and fight it? She is following what she undersands as biblical (and is supported by not only Greek Linguistics and History and even the English) that you have to attack it. Understand that it is biblical but you can have a different thoughts on it without it becoming a fight? )Why do you feel the need to fight this practice that is even supported by the Churches of King James day and was considered common knowledge (pointing this out since your KJV only
Ummm..she has been showing you over and over that it is SCRIPTUAL. Its your lack of undersanding and your obsession with having to have the Greek agree with your assumption that the KJV is perfect. It is scripture and if actually read what she is saying and look at the links given to you, you may start to understand this. Now could you answer my questions I asked you in my posts? Even the KJV translatiors agree with my wife if you would actually study your history.
Ummm.....the verse you keep bringing up is speaking of a Veil..you just want to ignore it over and over. SHe has shown you how it is scriptual and so did the early church and even King James and the Christians of the Time that hte KJV was translated.
Also it goes on to speak of actual head covering over and over and even in other translations BEFORE and after the KJV it specifically speaks of a cloth headcovering in this verse.
I am now going trouigh various translations of this passage and EVERYONE speaks of a covering, not her hair but a cloth covering over and over. Even the footnotes of many KJV say this is speaking of a cloth covering not her hair. In fact if YOUR interpretation is correct it renders much of the following verses into absurdity. Also if its not there then why did this practice which is considered biblical for thousands of years come about?
The footnotes in the KJB don't say a word about 'a cloth covering. The only footnote on the passage states,
'That is the covering in figure that she is under the power of her husband'
No, my reading of the verse makes the other verses make sense. Since,1Cor.11:14-15 define what a 'covering' is and any man with long hair is covered no matter if he wears a hat or not. And any woman is uncovered if she has short hair.
I see the NLT trans. vs.6 as 'a head covering' changing the verb into a noun
So much for the 'Greek'
εἰ γὰρ οὐ κατα καλύπτεται γυνή,
Now, according to your false tradition, a woman ought to have something additional on her head besides her hair for a covering, which is nowhere stated in the Bible. There is only one way a woman shames her husband, it is by having hair shorter then his, that is what makes her 'uncovered'
There is no 'veil' in the passage. The word can be translated as 'covering' as well, (BAG). The passage is discussing both men and women, and their 'covering' not their veiling. There is a Gr. word for veil that is used in 2Cor.3, which is not the same as the one used in 1Cor.11.
There is nothing scriptural about adding to the word of God, there is nothing being discussed in 1Cor.11 except hair as a covering.
The word 'veil' isn't used in any translation for this verse. it is referring to a covering since the same Gr. word is used for both the man and woman.
God is telling us how a man can be uncovered and a woman covered and it has nothing to do what we place on our heads, it has to do with what God gives us, our hair.
ummm..Many KJV footonotes explain its speaking of a Cloth covering of the head....the NIV...COntemporary....their are many who go on to explain its speaking of a actual covering of the head. Now instead of your childish No it doesn't argument how about actually answering the many questions I have posed to you? My Wife explained to you exactly how this is but you refuse to actually listen and to say something about how Entomology doesn't apply to the bilbical greek was so ignorant it was sad
Ok it Etymology (mispelled before). Now in many KJV footnotes it does speak of it being footnotes of many but not all KJV version footnotes. Now could you explain where did you learn your Greek and how many YEARS of study of Greek makes it so you know what your speaking about. TO move on though why do you feel its your right to go against what MILLION of people including the translators of King James time (to include the Church of King James) felt that headcovering are biblical.
You must be referring to KJB study Bibles. In that case that is the opinion of the men who put out the study Bible. learned my Greek at the University of Houston and had four years of it. And have been reading it for almost 30 years.
Now, the Gr. word '
κατακαλύπτεται simply means that the hair hangs down as a 'veil', a covering. A veil doesn't cover a woman if she has short hair and unnecessary if she has long hair.
Ok let me ask you this then if that is just there opinion? What makes that their opinion and yours fact? It obviously trough the study that they did (including the translators of the KJV if you study the history of the KJV in detail) that it means a Cloth covering of the head. To them its exactly what it meant and was even common knowledge at the time. See million today believe that is what it says not to count that this being uncovered is a new idea. Look at history and almost every cont
Major sect of Chrisitanity took this to mean a Head covering. The RCC, Eastern Orthadox, Jehova Witnesses, Early Babtist, Many Babtist Churhces today, CHurch of Christ, Jews (know there not christians but still practice fromt teachings of the OT), Prespeterians, Lutherins and many more. Now some no longer do it. One thing though is you seem to think that she is saying if you don't do it then your sinning....that is NOT what she is saying and still trying to figure out exactly what your issue is.
If it were scriptural that a woman needs to have an item on her head (other then longer hair) then if a woman doesn't have one, she would be in violation of scripture and she would be 'uncovered'
Paul is making this an absolute standard of glory and shame. There is no option between a man having short hair and a woman having longer hair then the man.
If a man has long hair is he considered to dishonor Christ his head? If a woman has shorter hair then her husband, is she dishonoring him? That is what 1Cor.11 is discussing. If wearing an item on the woman's head is necessary then she would be dishonoring the man by not wearing it.
I'm telling you that's not what the Greek words mean, and the Greek Fathers of the Church, whose native language was the same as the New Testament and who understood Paul's letters as clearly as you read the newspaper, agree with me. You can look it up for yourself. Now please stop repeating yourself - you've made your point.
Furthermore, long hair is a "peribolaios" something "thrown around." It's a very general term used in lots of contexts and has a somewhat metaphorical conotation. OTOH, a woman is disgraced when she prays "akatakaluptos," from the same root as "kaluptra," literally, a woman's veil. So, my long hair, according to Paul, is what nature throws around me as a prefigurement of the second covering, the cloth over my hair that shows the cooperation of my will with the ordained order of God's creation.
Edward she just showed you biblically and in the Greek on exactly where it supports her yet you keep saying the same thing over and over. How much more clear can she be?
So, edward, let's paraphrase verse six with your interpretation in mind: If a women has short hair (that is, doesn't cover her head with long hair) let her also have her hair cut off. Assuming the hair is the covering reduces this passage to absurdity.
No, because a sign of disgrace for a woman is too have short hair, which is why those women who collaborated with the Nazi's in World War 2 had their heads shaved. Paul is saying if the woman doesn't have long hair for her glory, let it be shaved to show her shame.
I would also suggest you read the links since they show you by SCRIPTURE how it is apporprate for those who CHOOSE to follow it. By no means is it required.
The long hair IS required. So that is the true Biblical covering. If a woman gets a very short haircut (for non-medical reasons) and still wears a hat, she is in disobedience to God. The hair length, both on the man and woman, shows a view towards God's authority. Long hair on the man and short hair on the woman, shows a rejection of the order that God has given for mankind to follow.
Also the verses you speak are speaking in FAVOR of wearing headcovering, its says NOTHING about her hair...that is part of a NIV footnote and that is all. The verses you speak of actually are in support of my wifes choice.
This is an example of Scripture twisting to make the Bible say what one wants it to say. The Greek cannot be translated as it is in the NIV footnote. Words were added to and subtracted from the Greek to get this interpretation. The NIV is not a word for word translation. There are many places where the biases of the translators comes through. This is one of them. I have not been able to find any basis in history or in studying the Greek for this interpretation. cont...
not sure if you see my wifes reply to you so just letting you know. Also I see its as submission to the Lord first and formost. and sorry about not seeing your sooner in all honesty.
No problem, the issue of to wear a veil or not isn't a real issue. What the issue is the length of hair for both men and women. There is a hierarchy in God's order, and hair shows that structure, the very real differences between men and women.
As a married man with a daughter it is hard to go into Walmart for an example and not see many stumbling blocks (women dressed skimpy). Thank you for being one less stumbling block and helping other Christian men in the world be stronger.
Mary is an example of being a Saint and how she lived in faith. Its not worshiping her but rather an example of how to live in Faith and Christ. Let me wife explain in a while.
I believe whatever makes you feel more connected to your spirituality is what's most important. It isn't like mrs shirotora is being forced to practice this tradition by her hubby ;)
Love this...I am a full time covering Orthodox Christian.
Also...the angels see the humility of a covered woman...both Holy and fallen... the Holy Angels are more able to protect a humble woman. who covers the fallen ones hates the humble headcovering. Much love!
I like how you explain things I wear headcoverings all the time too I'm a Catholic woman... I live in a big amish/mennonite community so I wear a scarf covering simliar to theirs but longer... I have been happily married for 12 years and humble and happily submit to my wonderful husband as the head of the family.
MaGicKaL HuMMiNgBiRd I am so very sorry I acdently deleted your comment and I profusly appologise for it. Please repost it. Since it was a public deletion I owe you this appology in addition to the the mail i sent you.
I liked your explaination about this. I'm on a messageboard and some people didn't know why some orthodox women wear headcoverings. Yours is the best explaination I can find. I was wondering if you would mind if I posted it on that messageboard.
No offence taken at all man. Thing is not everyone even in the EO does it..its just something that she belives and follows and it helps her get more in touch with God then more power to her.
I am totally cool with that. It is refreshing to watch your videos. There is so much religious hatred on youtube. I fight the good fight, but what is the point. Zealots will not listen.
You folks seem to have it down proper. Thank you and congratulations.
Well I think the fight is the point. Even if the Zelots won't listen we can't let them take over at all. Stand up for your faith and proudly but don't become like them. Thing is if Evil isn't stood against it wins every time.
That's what I do. I got all these people preaching at me and really they do not have the wisdom to do so. One guy actually scolded me because I defended Obama and he told me how could I defend him when he has not done anything yet.
Well how could that guy judge him when he has not done anything yet. LOL
Nice video. I think you should be allowed to wear head covering for whatever reasons, religous,cultural, or otherwise if it's what makes you comfortable without people thinking you're losing any sort of freedom and being opressed against your will. I agree with wearing it to a job interview. If you're gonna wear symbols of your faith,culture,or whatever to work then if they can't handel it at a job interview,that's not the right work environment for you to be in.
This is actually one of the best teachings on Christian female Submission I have seen. Nicely done, not that I agree with all of it, but very nicely done!
Its Rob. One thing that I think people are missing and we really didn't say it out loud is in the end that its really about Submission to each other. Males are the head in the sence that we Confront the dangers of the World and protect our wives with all that we are. One thing though its not about males are better then females or vice versa or that female are to be subservant to all males. That is what she said about the wrong logical conclusions.
Thank you for explaining it! That was a little confusing. I think, also, that in this day and age, women are becoming very defiant in the way that they think that anything a man can do, a woman can do just as well. I know there are some people who are an exception to this rule, but generally, there are some things that women can do better than men, and in turn, some things that men can do better than women. We're just built that way, no need to get all huffy over it.
I don't know quite how to take this. I gave you 5/5 because I appreciate you (both) doing this video and sharing your beliefs... But... to me, it still looks like women are assigned a lower rank in the job of being human than men. The power structure in your relationship is up to you guys, but it's not one I would accept. To put it very bluntly, be it submissive or dominant, I couldn't do a 24/ 7 thing.
Hi Aneth, Jenn here. I must have been unclear. It's not primarily about the power structure of our relationship. I believe that to deny one's own will is a Biblical virture, no matter what our culture says, and if I am unwilling to be obedient to something so trifling as covering my head, how do I expect to make any progress in important stuff like forgiveness and not judging others and remembering to pray? Nuns cover their heads; who are they being submissive to?
MrsShirotora, you are awesome.
You take all the same thoughts I have all jumbled up in my brain and express them so eloquently. Thank you for being such a rock solid example for covering Christian women. God bless you (and your very understanding husband). :-)
knitmama06 9 months ago
If you base the idea of wearing a covering "all the time" on 1Thes. 5:17, "Pray without ceasing.",then men should NEVER wear hats because they are to be "Praying without ceasing" also and they'd be violating 1Cor.11:7,"For a man ought not to cover his head..".
In 1Thes.5:17, "Pray without ceasing does not mean pray repetitiously or continuously without ever a break, but rather to pray persistently and regularly.
In 1Cor.11:5, Paul is clearly speaking of while PRAYING and PROPHESYING only.
shiphrahhopeful 1 year ago 2
@shiphrahhopeful Ok I think your missing the point of this video. She is not saying you HAVE TO do this. Prayer is not I am going to sit down and say words, its not a speach act. Its is a state of act and eventually a state of being closer to God. She is speaking this is why she does it...not that you or others or anyone eles should do this. It is a personal decision that helps her in her daily walk with the Lord.
Shirotora1979 1 year ago
@Shirotora1979 It's commendable that she wants to be closer to God. But I do not believe that she made most of what you just stated,very clear in the video, and I think it's important that she does clarify those things.Because of the Scripture references, it appeared as if she was basing her decision to always cover upon Scripture, rather than JUST a PERSONAL decision. I just want to make sure that everything I do is based upon Scripture,which has been "rightly divided",and not only my feelings.
shiphrahhopeful 1 year ago
@shiphrahhopeful Yes, I made a personal decision to cover most of the time based upon the tradition of my Church in interpreting the scriptures that I quoted. I trust and believe in the authority of my Church (since it is one of only a few that can trace its origins to the Apostles) to rightly divide the scriptures, therefore I want to cover my head as a symbol of obedience and as a reminder to remember God in prayer more and more often, until I can do it, Lord willing, without ceasing.
MrsShirotora 1 year ago
Bless you!!! I wish more people beleived this way, and also practiced some tznuit(biblical modesty)... I am not saying we should walk around in burkas... but I think women that dress and NOT show so much skin get more respect. Bless you for covering : )
robingreen09 1 year ago
head covering is submission to the lord christ and the husbend . . my the lord christ keep you safe . god bless you always sister . amen
abcbee1308za 1 year ago
we follow the 10 commandments who r we to choose what we r going to follow and what we are not. women wore headcovering all the time so what has changed?
melevlent 1 year ago
God bless you!
cvgashenoud 2 years ago 4
headship over his wife & a wife's submission to her husband is supposed to be done out of agape love not so much as duty or the law as many legalists often like to put. In fact many legalist churches love to place a heavier burdens on the wife's or women subordination to her husband or men in general but at the same time require less expectation from the men which is not of God. Mnay of these churches are actually abusive & not true churches of Christ, but cults.
newjerus777 2 years ago
I totally agree. Unfortunately that's what some churches teach and it's not okay. That's why when a Christian woman chooses to wear something other than long hair, if that's how she understands the passage, some people automatically assume she's being abused or controlled. That's exactly the issue I was addressing in this video.
MrsShirotora 2 years ago
I want to say you get the video and I have no problem with your views. Thank you for your kind words and well done explination. One thing I think edward is missing to be honest is she nor I am saying that a Christian woman HAS TO cover her head with a head covering but that it is her choice and that understand is biblical. This is one of the areas of the bible that has to be left up to the heart of the person. So many great points in your comments and thank you for it.
Shirotora1979 2 years ago
meet. It seems as though God created the woman to be desireable to her husband & the man to be his wife's shining armour (protector) of her and his household. But, both the husband & wife should both share in the decision making & not just the man making all the decisions irregardless on how his wife may feel or know about things. The man being the head of the household doesn't mean he rule over her nor the wife's submissiveness means she does as she's told without careful thought. A husband's
newjerus777 2 years ago
Quite an interesting video. I really enjoy watching this video because you two seem to be very happy with each other. You also respect each other as husband & wife as well which I totally agree with because respect is a two way street in a marriage. I also enjo viewing edwardpf123 video too. However, I do agree with edwardpf123 about how God meant for godly women to have longer hair than the godly man because on how God designed the marriage where the man is the head, but the woman is his help
newjerus777 2 years ago
The author of an essay I linked to in the sidebar made what I thought was a good point. The noun "veil" never occurs, and the words that refer to having a garment on the head are all verbs and adjectives, for a good reason. The Holy Spirit, speaking through Paul, is giving us freedom of style. No particular garment is required; the idea is to wear something - scarf, hat, cap, bonnet - whatever you or your milieu fancies.
MrsShirotora 2 years ago
Kids! Don't take my word for it! Don't take anybody's word for it! Babies in ancient Greece learned Greek! You can too! Greek for everybody!
MrsShirotora 2 years ago
Who said they can't learn Greek. It just won't help them understand the Bible any better.
edwardpf123 2 years ago
If you really think that, why did you bother to learn Greek in the first place?
MrsShirotora 2 years ago
I at one time did think it was necessary, but I learned later it wasn't. But it has come in handy when others run to it to claim it says something it doesn't.
God works in mysterious ways.
I notice that my video response hasn't been posted. I would be happy to post your video as a response to mine.
edwardpf123 2 years ago
I thought you have to do something like request that it be a video response to this video and then Rob can approve it. (I can't, this is my husband's channel and I forget his password.) But I could be wrong; I don't know how to work youtube real good. Send Shirotora1979 a pm or something and I'm sure y'all can figure out how to make it video response to this one.
MrsShirotora 2 years ago
Yes, just go to my video and you will see video replies. Then you will get a list of vidoes you want to reply with from your videos, you simply click your video on and it will send the request to me to approve it, which I will.
edwardpf123 2 years ago
You seem to be confused. I said I would be happy to link yours as a reply to this video, since our discussion started as comments on this video. But I made this video months ago and it has nothing to do with you or your ideas, so there's no reason for it to be a reply to your video. Feel free to link to it in the sidebar of yours if you wish so people who watch yours can see what you're responding to, but if you don't want to do that, that's okay too.
MrsShirotora 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Your video is saying that for a woman to be 'covered', she needs to have something on her head other then her long hair. And you attempt to use to scripture to justify that point of view.
My video refutes that view and says that all a woman needs is her long hair as a covering.
So, where am I confused?
So, where am I confused?
edwardpf123 2 years ago
What does rehashing your argument have to do with anything? You described how to make my video a reply to yours, if I understand correctly, and I'm merely saying that my video was made months ago for reasons that have nothing to do with you, and I'm not interested in mine being indexed as a reply to yours. I offered to link to yours as a reply to mine, (since you mention me, it's pretty clear it's a reply) but if you're not interested, that's perfectly okay.
MrsShirotora 2 years ago
And what does how long ago you made it have to do with anything? I did try to post my video as a reply to yours, but you are not allowing it.
edwardpf123 2 years ago
Try sending it again and it will be approved. I don't know what the problem is.If it were my intention to not approve it as a response, we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place. And how long ago I made the video is relevant because the video is in no way a response to you. I am under no burden to prove anything to you.You have your opinion, I have mine; I'm not interested in discussing it further. I don't know how I can be any more clear.
MrsShirotora 2 years ago
I never said it was a response to mine, only that people could get both sides.
I cannot resend it since you to click either approve it or ignore on the request to post a reply.
edwardpf123 2 years ago
Well shoot. I don't know what happened then, unless it was a YT glitch as my husband suggested. You could put a link to it in the sidebar of your video so people will know what you're responding to. Or not. Whatever you want to do.
MrsShirotora 2 years ago
you vid never actually appeared as a resoponse. I think you did it right before the last matnince so YT just glitched again. Post it as a response again and I will approve it.
Shirotora1979 2 years ago
you a correct...cant argue with that...our chrisian rules had changed so much that those words sound like some kind of herecy to some christians....but its true you are wright
voiceofreason72 2 years ago
@edwardpf123: Just a couple of simple questions. All Greek vocabulary aside, can you define "short" for me in this context? How short does a woman's hair have to be before it is too short? Do we measure it in inches? Is "shoulder length" long enough? Can a woman ever cut her hair?
theBarefoot 2 years ago
A woman's hair should be shorter then her husbands, and the man's should be short so that it doesn't go over the eyes like a veil or draw attention to it.
Ofcourse a woman can cut her hair, just not so short that no one mistakes her for a man.
edwardpf123 2 years ago
and where do you get these lengths?
Shirotora1979 2 years ago
The hair is not to be a 'covering' for a man and his glory, the woman's hair is to be both.
edwardpf123 2 years ago
I'll assume that was a typo, and you meant "a woman's hair should be LONGER than her husbands." I think a little perspective from the surrounding chapters of 1Cr. is needed here for context. How about "Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another [man's] conscience? "
theBarefoot 2 years ago
Yes, you are correct, I meant to say, the woman's hair should be longer.
No, this is not an issue that Paul says is to be disputed about, since even nature teaches us this.(1Cor.11:14) and the church isn't even to argue about this (1Cor.11:16)
edwardpf123 2 years ago
MrsShirotora can and already did explain the differences in those verses, but I understand that you don't believe the original Greek has any bearing on this. That's OK. What I don't get is, in this video she explains why it was her personal decision to cover her head. She is not preaching nor demanding this from everyone. Isn't it better to err on the side of caution? Is she preventing anyone's salvation with her scarf?
theBarefoot 2 years ago 2
The verses in 1Cor.11 never mention a single word about any additional covering other then the hair.
She hasn't explained a single thing, except to throw out nonsense about Greek 'nuances' that don't exist.
She is saying that for a woman to be 'covered' she ought to have something over her hair, and not the hair itself, which is not what the Bible says.
edwardpf123 2 years ago
And I agree with the main point of the video, that being subject to someone is not a weakness, in Christianity it is a strength.
'But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant' (Matt.23:11)
I do regret that the veil issue distracted from that truth expressed in the video.
edwardpf123 2 years ago
The point of the video was to explain why I decided to where a headscarf. Why are you so concerned that I not wear it? Because your wife doesn't? Good for her! I have no servant to judge. But if on the last day Christ says to me, and I mean me not you, "You thought the Bible said this and you didn't do it?" how will I answer? I didn't want to argue Greek semantics in the first place, or I would have in the video.
MrsShirotora 2 years ago
To say that the Bible is teaching that wearing the scarf is the 'covering' is a false teaching. If the woman has shorter hair then her husband, and wears a scarf,
she is still 'uncovered' in the eyes of God.
Her hair was given to her for glory and her covering.
I didn't bring up the Greek, the English is clear enough and there is nothing in the Greek that changes anything the English says clearly.
edwardpf123 2 years ago
ὅτι ἡ κόμη ἀντὶ περιβολαίου δέδοται [αὐτῇ].
I found the Gr. word you were referring to
'peribolaiou' not 'peribolias',
'For her hair is given to her for a covering'
Nothing could be stated more clearly. No other coverings are mentioned.
As for the Angels, that refers back to Gen.6 when 'the sons of God (angels) took women as wives which was forbidden to them (2Pe.2:4)
edwardpf123 2 years ago
I'm sorry, I thought that since you were quoting Greek, that meant you understood Greek. If you'd like to learn, maybe even just to understand your interlinear better, I can recommend good textbooks. (Really. I'm not being snarky.) You're right. I cited what I thought was the dictionary form of the word "peribolaios." The dictionary form is actually "peribolaion." It occurs in the genitive singular form "peribolaiou," as required after the preposition "anti."
MrsShirotora 2 years ago
"Akatakaluptos" (the dictionary form) occurs in v. 5 and means "uncovered." KJV: But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoreth her head..." Since the word is derived from the same root as the word "kaluptra," "a woman's veil," it would have been obvious to a Greek-speaker of the time that Paul meant a woman not having a veil on her head. It is as if he said, "but every woman that prayeth un-hatted." I guess the translators didn't think un-hatted was a good cont
MrsShirotora 2 years ago
English word, so unfortunately the English is more obscure than the Greek. However, at the time the KJV was produced, women in every church wore coverings to worship, so the translators probably didn't anticipate having to be more clear than that.
MrsShirotora 2 years ago
No, the English is very clear, and you are simply trying to change the clear meaning with the Greek hoping that no one will actually read what the Greek says.
It says nothing in context about anything additional on anyone's head. It is referring to the man and woman's hair as their covering. The woman's hair is her glory and shouldn't be covered, since she is the glory of man.
edwardpf123 2 years ago
I agree.
I used to confused about this passage, but I read it one day and I found out what the covering is supposed to be. :)
1 Corinthians 11:15
But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
Kloudes 2 years ago
It is just that simple. In both Greek and English!
edwardpf123 2 years ago
your right it is. That it is biblical to have a woman have her head coverd with a Veil..its very simple in the Greek. I agree I disagree with your assumption that changes the Greek meaning.
Shirotora1979 2 years ago
:)
I'll just have to take your word for it, because I don't really read Greek.
I don't know if I ever will pursue that, but I haven't even read it in english, so I gotta get busy, lol!
Kloudes 2 years ago
No, what it meant is the women had short hair since long hair was her covering.
Peribolaion also means 'veil', so 'covering of the hair, was the woman's veil. The Greek changes nothing.
Every woman praying with short hair is uncovered and every man praying with long hair IS covered.
And the Greek word being used for the man's covering is the same used for the woman's covering.
ἀνὴρ μὲν γὰρ οὐκ ὀφείλει κατα καλύπτεσθαι τὴν κεφαλήν,
edwardpf123 2 years ago
You made the error, and you are telling me about learning Greek?
Yes, I do understand Greek and your appeal to it didn't change the meaning of the word, which is 'covering'. The Greek word is referring to the women's hair, just as the English plainly states.
Your REAL appeal to another item on the head, beside the hair, is simply tradition, not the verse.
edwardpf123 2 years ago
Ummm..she made one error and is going on to explain the verse and the root words and the whole context of verses. She is showing how it is biblical and explaining in detail that it is a biblical tradition. She is even trying to explain how it was translated into this. It seems you are not dealing or refuting her points but rather just keep saying its tradition...and it is...biblical tradition.
Shirotora1979 2 years ago
You're either ignorant or disingenious, and I was trying to be charitable by assuming you're ignorant. Okay, assuming you understand the Greek text and Greek grammar in general, you should have caught my error. By the rules of Greek morphology, "peribolaiou" can be derived from two different hypothetical nominative forms: "peribolaios" or "peribolaion." In my haste I picked the wrong the one. I might have tried to cover it up and claim it was a typo, but instead I admitted the error and went on.
MrsShirotora 2 years ago
That you didn't comment on the error intially, but rather said the word doesn't even occur, suggests you are being disingenious. You insist the word means merely "covering," and all my efforts trying to explain the nuances of the term are in vain. Well, I can't explain theory of translation to you in a youtube comment format. You seem to have to the (untenable) assumption that the English text is primary anyway, and nothing I say will sway you. Go ahead, have the last word. I'm done.
MrsShirotora 2 years ago
The word doesn't occur in that form as you admitted! I was looking at particular words, it wasn't until I looked at the entire Greek sentence that I saw the word you were discussing.
You haven't explained any 'nuances' at all.
All you did is make up a meaning for a Greek word and then hoped that no one would call you on it.
The English text explains the Greek exactly. You haven't shown that any Greek word should be translated differently then how it is translated in English.
edwardpf123 2 years ago
I apologize. I can't be silent while you try to mislead the less educated. Once again, I cited the dictionary forms of the words, the error in gender notwithstanding. I "made up a meaning" trying to explain what the obvious etymology of the word would sound like to the ears of an English speaker. Let us assume that the words derived from the root "kalupt-" refer to hair. (Kaluptra is veil.) Since a man ouk opheilei kata kaluptesthai thn kephalhn, should he shave his head to be uncovered?
MrsShirotora 2 years ago
I wasn't chiding you on making a mistake, only explaining why I hadn't spotted the wored you were referring to. Please don't talk about the 'etymology' of the word and the sounds of the word. We are speaking of Kione Gr. not modern Gr.
The man must have shorter hair then the woman to be uncovered.
There is nothing to assume about the fact that the same Gr. can be translated different ways based on context.
Kaluptro-cover someone up, hide, veil. (BAG)
Another Gr. word for veil is Kalumma.
edwardpf123 2 years ago
Thank you. I'm sorry I'm jumping to conclusions. I just love Greek and my headscarf so much! I'm aware that we're talking about Koine Greek. The word still has an etymology. I could have been more precise and said "its obvious derivational morphology." And there is everything to assume based on two possible translations, especially since Paul uses a general term with a figurative connotation to refer to hair, while he uses a specific term derived from "veil" to refer to praying uncovered.
MrsShirotora 2 years ago
The same word is used for both men and women when referring to being covered or uncovered.
And it always refers to hair length. Nowhere in the passage is a scarf mentioned. You are inserting that as your own private intepretation to justify wearing your scarf as being scriptural.
if that were true, then the women who don't wear scarfs are being unscriptural, which they aren't.
The issue is the hair length, not any scarf on the head.
Kalupto-means 'covering', not just veil.
edwardpf123 2 years ago
Since this issue is clearly so important to you, might I suggest you go make your own video on it and stop using the comments section of mine as a platform for your interpretation? You've made yourself clear. I have made myself clear. You're not going to convince me because we come from very different starting assumptions about the nature and use of Scripture and Tradition, although I maintain that's Paul's language clearly means all women in all the churches wore veils.
MrsShirotora 2 years ago
What I have made a fact of the intepretation is your attempt to use to the Greek to try to force a false view of 1Cor.11. There is nothing in any Greek word that would suggest that an additional covering is needed on a woman's hair other then the hair itself.
You want to appeal to tradition that is a different issue, but don't claim you have scriptural support and then run to the Gr. and put out nonsense about what the Gr. says, when it says exactly what the English does.
edwardpf123 2 years ago
Like I said, go make your own video about this. You can even make it a video reply to this video and I'm certain my husband will link to it. But please stop using the comments section of my video to attack me. I'd be happy to put you in touch with my former Greek professors so you can tell what a terrible job they did.
MrsShirotora 2 years ago
Yes, I think they would be very unhappy with the liberties you have taken with the language. There is nothing in the Greek that has any notion of anyother covering then the woman's hair.
Your appeal to the 'greek' was simply hot air.
edwardpf123 2 years ago
I'm going to make this as clear as I can: Hair is called a covering once in the passage. It is Paul's appeal to nature as a witness. He uses a general term meaning covering, that is used in many contexts for many kinds of coverings. Every other time he uses a word meaning "covered" or "uncovered" the word is derived from the same root that forms the word for "veil." He is literally saying "veiled" or "unveiled." Now, just so I know what I'm into, where did you study Greek and for how long?
MrsShirotora 2 years ago
Comment removed
MrsShirotora 2 years ago
No, the verses in 1Cor.11:14-15 define what God is saying about covering.
If a man has long hair, he is 'covered' whether he wears a hat or not.
If a woman has short hair, she is 'uncovered'
The hair is given by God to represent the differences, not any man-made devices.
edwardpf123 2 years ago
actually I find your understanding of greek very limited. The bible says exactly what she is saying...and it is biblical. The Earliest Chruches beleived this so did the Churches of King James day. The headcovering has only in recent history been moved aside. It is biblical as my wife has been showing you over and over but your very VERY limited understanding of Greek, History and Etymology is keeping you from seeing this. Even the English supports her stance and for THOUSANDS cont.
Shirotora1979 2 years ago
of years people understood the bible to say exactly what it does...which supports her stance. I have even been sending this to Greek linguists as well as Jewish Rabbi and a few people that have their PHd in Linguistics asking if she is off the mark. So far everyone has supported her stance. It is biblical Tradition...meaning it is a biblical stance but by no means is it a Sin not to do so. This is also her stance but you seemed to be offended by it and wonder why. Why does it offend cont.
Shirotora1979 2 years ago
offend you so much that you have to try and fight it? She is following what she undersands as biblical (and is supported by not only Greek Linguistics and History and even the English) that you have to attack it. Understand that it is biblical but you can have a different thoughts on it without it becoming a fight? )Why do you feel the need to fight this practice that is even supported by the Churches of King James day and was considered common knowledge (pointing this out since your KJV only
Shirotora1979 2 years ago
She is not supported by ANY Greek Lingustics, so stop claiming she is.
And there is nothing in the English that states anything other then a woman's hair is being discussed.
The Gr. used word is the same word for 'covering' and no other object is discussed in the verse.
So, again your only defense for a woman covering what God has told her to show, is tradition, not scripture.
edwardpf123 2 years ago
Ummm..she has been showing you over and over that it is SCRIPTUAL. Its your lack of undersanding and your obsession with having to have the Greek agree with your assumption that the KJV is perfect. It is scripture and if actually read what she is saying and look at the links given to you, you may start to understand this. Now could you answer my questions I asked you in my posts? Even the KJV translatiors agree with my wife if you would actually study your history.
Shirotora1979 2 years ago
Really? I hear a lot of rhetoric, but no prove from the scriptures themselves.
edwardpf123 2 years ago
Ummm.....the verse you keep bringing up is speaking of a Veil..you just want to ignore it over and over. SHe has shown you how it is scriptual and so did the early church and even King James and the Christians of the Time that hte KJV was translated.
Shirotora1979 2 years ago
Also it goes on to speak of actual head covering over and over and even in other translations BEFORE and after the KJV it specifically speaks of a cloth headcovering in this verse.
Shirotora1979 2 years ago
I am now going trouigh various translations of this passage and EVERYONE speaks of a covering, not her hair but a cloth covering over and over. Even the footnotes of many KJV say this is speaking of a cloth covering not her hair. In fact if YOUR interpretation is correct it renders much of the following verses into absurdity. Also if its not there then why did this practice which is considered biblical for thousands of years come about?
Shirotora1979 2 years ago
The footnotes in the KJB don't say a word about 'a cloth covering. The only footnote on the passage states,
'That is the covering in figure that she is under the power of her husband'
No, my reading of the verse makes the other verses make sense. Since,1Cor.11:14-15 define what a 'covering' is and any man with long hair is covered no matter if he wears a hat or not. And any woman is uncovered if she has short hair.
edwardpf123 2 years ago
I see the NLT trans. vs.6 as 'a head covering' changing the verb into a noun
So much for the 'Greek'
εἰ γὰρ οὐ κατα καλύπτεται γυνή,
Now, according to your false tradition, a woman ought to have something additional on her head besides her hair for a covering, which is nowhere stated in the Bible. There is only one way a woman shames her husband, it is by having hair shorter then his, that is what makes her 'uncovered'
I will be doing a video on this.
edwardpf123 2 years ago
There is no 'veil' in the passage. The word can be translated as 'covering' as well, (BAG). The passage is discussing both men and women, and their 'covering' not their veiling. There is a Gr. word for veil that is used in 2Cor.3, which is not the same as the one used in 1Cor.11.
There is nothing scriptural about adding to the word of God, there is nothing being discussed in 1Cor.11 except hair as a covering.
edwardpf123 2 years ago
The word 'veil' isn't used in any translation for this verse. it is referring to a covering since the same Gr. word is used for both the man and woman.
God is telling us how a man can be uncovered and a woman covered and it has nothing to do what we place on our heads, it has to do with what God gives us, our hair.
edwardpf123 2 years ago
ummm..Many KJV footonotes explain its speaking of a Cloth covering of the head....the NIV...COntemporary....their are many who go on to explain its speaking of a actual covering of the head. Now instead of your childish No it doesn't argument how about actually answering the many questions I have posed to you? My Wife explained to you exactly how this is but you refuse to actually listen and to say something about how Entomology doesn't apply to the bilbical greek was so ignorant it was sad
Shirotora1979 2 years ago
Ok it Etymology (mispelled before). Now in many KJV footnotes it does speak of it being footnotes of many but not all KJV version footnotes. Now could you explain where did you learn your Greek and how many YEARS of study of Greek makes it so you know what your speaking about. TO move on though why do you feel its your right to go against what MILLION of people including the translators of King James time (to include the Church of King James) felt that headcovering are biblical.
Shirotora1979 2 years ago
You must be referring to KJB study Bibles. In that case that is the opinion of the men who put out the study Bible. learned my Greek at the University of Houston and had four years of it. And have been reading it for almost 30 years.
Now, the Gr. word '
κατακαλύπτεται simply means that the hair hangs down as a 'veil', a covering. A veil doesn't cover a woman if she has short hair and unnecessary if she has long hair.
edwardpf123 2 years ago
Ok let me ask you this then if that is just there opinion? What makes that their opinion and yours fact? It obviously trough the study that they did (including the translators of the KJV if you study the history of the KJV in detail) that it means a Cloth covering of the head. To them its exactly what it meant and was even common knowledge at the time. See million today believe that is what it says not to count that this being uncovered is a new idea. Look at history and almost every cont
Shirotora1979 2 years ago
Major sect of Chrisitanity took this to mean a Head covering. The RCC, Eastern Orthadox, Jehova Witnesses, Early Babtist, Many Babtist Churhces today, CHurch of Christ, Jews (know there not christians but still practice fromt teachings of the OT), Prespeterians, Lutherins and many more. Now some no longer do it. One thing though is you seem to think that she is saying if you don't do it then your sinning....that is NOT what she is saying and still trying to figure out exactly what your issue is.
Shirotora1979 2 years ago 3
If it were scriptural that a woman needs to have an item on her head (other then longer hair) then if a woman doesn't have one, she would be in violation of scripture and she would be 'uncovered'
Paul is making this an absolute standard of glory and shame. There is no option between a man having short hair and a woman having longer hair then the man.
edwardpf123 2 years ago
If a man has long hair is he considered to dishonor Christ his head? If a woman has shorter hair then her husband, is she dishonoring him? That is what 1Cor.11 is discussing. If wearing an item on the woman's head is necessary then she would be dishonoring the man by not wearing it.
edwardpf123 2 years ago
ummm...not in the KJB I have and I have checked the 'original' 1611 version and not a word is said about a cloth covering the head.
What questions did you raise that I didn't answer? I answered them all.
And again, deal with what the scriptures actually say. Not a word is said about anything in that chapter other then a man and woman's hair.
edwardpf123 2 years ago
Where does the English in 1Cor.11 state that anything other then hair is the covering?
edwardpf123 2 years ago
I'm telling you that's not what the Greek words mean, and the Greek Fathers of the Church, whose native language was the same as the New Testament and who understood Paul's letters as clearly as you read the newspaper, agree with me. You can look it up for yourself. Now please stop repeating yourself - you've made your point.
MrsShirotora 2 years ago
What Greek word are you talking about?
And as for the 'Greek Father's' reading Greek doesn't mean they were correct. Origen read Greek and many of greatest heresies come from his works.
The Greek word being used for 'long hair' is 'Komao'
' to wear tresses of hair:--have long hair.'
'Peribolias'? That word isn't even in the chapter!
Stop pretending that the Greek is saying the English isn't!
edwardpf123 2 years ago
Furthermore, long hair is a "peribolaios" something "thrown around." It's a very general term used in lots of contexts and has a somewhat metaphorical conotation. OTOH, a woman is disgraced when she prays "akatakaluptos," from the same root as "kaluptra," literally, a woman's veil. So, my long hair, according to Paul, is what nature throws around me as a prefigurement of the second covering, the cloth over my hair that shows the cooperation of my will with the ordained order of God's creation.
MrsShirotora 2 years ago
The cloth on your head isn't mentioned in the Bible, only the hair is and that should be longer then your husbands.
The woman's veil is her hair, not anything she covers her with. If you have long hair already, the veil you put on adds nothing.
edwardpf123 2 years ago
Edward she just showed you biblically and in the Greek on exactly where it supports her yet you keep saying the same thing over and over. How much more clear can she be?
Shirotora1979 2 years ago
She hasn't shown anything in either the Bible or the Greek that supports a woman wearing a veil on her head.
edwardpf123 2 years ago
So, edward, let's paraphrase verse six with your interpretation in mind: If a women has short hair (that is, doesn't cover her head with long hair) let her also have her hair cut off. Assuming the hair is the covering reduces this passage to absurdity.
MrsShirotora 2 years ago
No, because a sign of disgrace for a woman is too have short hair, which is why those women who collaborated with the Nazi's in World War 2 had their heads shaved. Paul is saying if the woman doesn't have long hair for her glory, let it be shaved to show her shame.
edwardpf123 2 years ago
The woman's long hair is her covering.
(1Cor.11:14-15) to show that she is made for man and not the Angels (1Cor.11:10)
edwardpf123 2 years ago
Ummm......and your point is? Keep in mind its not required but a personal choice that is from Chrisitan tradition.
Shirotora1979 2 years ago
The tradition is denying what the Bible says about what the covering of the woman is, her long hair (longer then the man's). The tradition is wrong.
edwardpf123 2 years ago
Ummm....actually its denying nothing and if you look at Biblical history you will know this. How does it deny anything..its tradition that is all.
Shirotora1979 2 years ago
I would also suggest you read the links since they show you by SCRIPTURE how it is apporprate for those who CHOOSE to follow it. By no means is it required.
Shirotora1979 2 years ago
The long hair IS required. So that is the true Biblical covering. If a woman gets a very short haircut (for non-medical reasons) and still wears a hat, she is in disobedience to God. The hair length, both on the man and woman, shows a view towards God's authority. Long hair on the man and short hair on the woman, shows a rejection of the order that God has given for mankind to follow.
edwardpf123 2 years ago
Also the verses you speak are speaking in FAVOR of wearing headcovering, its says NOTHING about her hair...that is part of a NIV footnote and that is all. The verses you speak of actually are in support of my wifes choice.
Shirotora1979 2 years ago
'But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her, for her hair is given for a covering'
(1Cor.11:15) (KJB)
That IS the covering, the long hair.
edwardpf123 2 years ago
This is an example of Scripture twisting to make the Bible say what one wants it to say. The Greek cannot be translated as it is in the NIV footnote. Words were added to and subtracted from the Greek to get this interpretation. The NIV is not a word for word translation. There are many places where the biases of the translators comes through. This is one of them. I have not been able to find any basis in history or in studying the Greek for this interpretation. cont...
Shirotora1979 2 years ago
It is fairly clear from history and the Greek that 1 Corinthians 11 is saying that women should have two coverings - long hair and a veil.
This is from the very first link she provided and once again the verses you gave SUPPORT her stance.
Shirotora1979 2 years ago
The KJB states it very clearly. And nothing in the 'Greek' changes a word of the translation.
γυνη δε εαν κομα δοξα αυτη εστιν οτι η κομη αντι περιβολαιου δεδοται αυτη
Where do you see two coverings?
edwardpf123 2 years ago
Once again this supports her stance edward. You seem to want to argue for arguments sake.
Shirotora1979 2 years ago
No, I am not arguing for the sake of arguing at all. Nothing additional is needed if a woman has long hair, that is her covering.
Whatever she wears in addition is not a covering for her head that shows her submission to her husband.
If that is her stance, then we are in agreement and I apologize if I caused any confusion.
If you agree with that, then
edwardpf123 2 years ago
not sure if you see my wifes reply to you so just letting you know. Also I see its as submission to the Lord first and formost. and sorry about not seeing your sooner in all honesty.
Shirotora1979 2 years ago
No problem, the issue of to wear a veil or not isn't a real issue. What the issue is the length of hair for both men and women. There is a hierarchy in God's order, and hair shows that structure, the very real differences between men and women.
edwardpf123 2 years ago
Very interesting video and thanks for taking time out to do it.
Am I correct in assuming you wear your head covering all the time, not just when your church meets?
Every blessing.
excatholics 2 years ago
I can answer that. Yes she does lol. It actually took me awhile to understand it.
Shirotora1979 2 years ago
way to go sister - keep serving the Lord!!
joyfulhelpmeet 2 years ago
I too dress modest and feminine and practice fulltime headcovering.
Pax Christi
DaughterofStFrancis 2 years ago
Thank you.
As a married man with a daughter it is hard to go into Walmart for an example and not see many stumbling blocks (women dressed skimpy). Thank you for being one less stumbling block and helping other Christian men in the world be stronger.
abendugo 2 years ago
Should we be using Mary Icons as an example. We should worship Christ rather than Mary
Great video none the less.
savedbygrace1972 2 years ago
Mary is an example of being a Saint and how she lived in faith. Its not worshiping her but rather an example of how to live in Faith and Christ. Let me wife explain in a while.
Shirotora1979 2 years ago
Women have a natural hair covering and thats why they have long hair, but long hair on men is considered a shame in Christian teaching.
DemarchyTheory 2 years ago
Wow, you got five negative ratings on that true statement!
edwardpf123 2 years ago
As a woman thinking of covering, thank you so much for this inspiring video both of you :)
meowmeowtoo 3 years ago 2
I believe whatever makes you feel more connected to your spirituality is what's most important. It isn't like mrs shirotora is being forced to practice this tradition by her hubby ;)
AmberThinks 3 years ago
God give you courage. I too cover fulltime
FollowingStFaustina 3 years ago 2
Love this...I am a full time covering Orthodox Christian.
Also...the angels see the humility of a covered woman...both Holy and fallen... the Holy Angels are more able to protect a humble woman. who covers the fallen ones hates the humble headcovering. Much love!
Felicitia 3 years ago 4
I like how you explain things I wear headcoverings all the time too I'm a Catholic woman... I live in a big amish/mennonite community so I wear a scarf covering simliar to theirs but longer... I have been happily married for 12 years and humble and happily submit to my wonderful husband as the head of the family.
Ginnamom 3 years ago
great, great video. Thank you.
kristinsdottir 3 years ago
oops, sorry, just sent a message to you thinking I was writing to your wife. Pass it along?
Best wishes!
kristinsdottir 3 years ago
lol. Already have and she knew who it was for. I would look funny with a headwrap don't ya think? :P
God Bless
Shirotora1979 3 years ago
MaGicKaL HuMMiNgBiRd I am so very sorry I acdently deleted your comment and I profusly appologise for it. Please repost it. Since it was a public deletion I owe you this appology in addition to the the mail i sent you.
Shirotora1979 3 years ago
they really need to put a comfrimation pop up with that remove button or move it somewhere away from the reply buttong. again I appologise.
Shirotora1979 3 years ago
I liked your explaination about this. I'm on a messageboard and some people didn't know why some orthodox women wear headcoverings. Yours is the best explaination I can find. I was wondering if you would mind if I posted it on that messageboard.
mirandakane 3 years ago
Rob here. Feel free I know she won't mind at all. She would consider it an honor.
Shirotora1979 3 years ago
Where do you come up with this stuff, Jenn. Do your parents know about this?
theBarefoot 3 years ago 2
:P lol
Shirotora1979 3 years ago
Actually, with all due respect, I think Paul was a racist sexist homophobe.
He was ignorant to the fact of course, but I do not follow a lot of Pauls teachings. The cultural rules of that ancient society no longer exist.
Peace.
Poseidon500 3 years ago
No offence taken at all man. Thing is not everyone even in the EO does it..its just something that she belives and follows and it helps her get more in touch with God then more power to her.
Shirotora1979 3 years ago
I am totally cool with that. It is refreshing to watch your videos. There is so much religious hatred on youtube. I fight the good fight, but what is the point. Zealots will not listen.
You folks seem to have it down proper. Thank you and congratulations.
Poseidon500 3 years ago
Well I think the fight is the point. Even if the Zelots won't listen we can't let them take over at all. Stand up for your faith and proudly but don't become like them. Thing is if Evil isn't stood against it wins every time.
Shirotora1979 3 years ago
The trick is not to fight Fire with Fire. Hate can only be stoped with Understanding and love...I honestly belive this.
Shirotora1979 3 years ago
That's what I do. I got all these people preaching at me and really they do not have the wisdom to do so. One guy actually scolded me because I defended Obama and he told me how could I defend him when he has not done anything yet.
Well how could that guy judge him when he has not done anything yet. LOL
He never responded to me after that.
Poseidon500 3 years ago
lmao. Good point. While i didn't vote for him I am willing to see how he does. Btw I didn't vote for Mccain either but I did vote.
Shirotora1979 3 years ago
I knew about that passage in Corinthians, but I never really knew any Christian woman who still followed it today (other than maybe some nuns).
Good video! :)
lewisfisher 3 years ago 2
Nice video. I think you should be allowed to wear head covering for whatever reasons, religous,cultural, or otherwise if it's what makes you comfortable without people thinking you're losing any sort of freedom and being opressed against your will. I agree with wearing it to a job interview. If you're gonna wear symbols of your faith,culture,or whatever to work then if they can't handel it at a job interview,that's not the right work environment for you to be in.
SweetNSourAngel 3 years ago
It took me a while to understand this as well. I admite where I was wrong.
Shirotora1979 3 years ago
nice to see a happy couple! Nice too that your on the same page spiritually,so to speak.
BB
septemberwitch 3 years ago
Ya know this is the first time I have heard Christians speak of this and not have it come accross as women having to complete servents to men.
Mysticblue1212 3 years ago
SO YOU AND ROBERT REALLY DO GET ALONG THAT WELL. ? i wish my wife and i could .
peace to you.
PROPHETPAUL3 3 years ago
Hey PROPHETPAUL3. Keep the communication lines open with your wife. Listen to each other and stop the not getting along.
That's the only advice I can give about that.
Poseidon500 3 years ago
This is actually one of the best teachings on Christian female Submission I have seen. Nicely done, not that I agree with all of it, but very nicely done!
dumoktheartist 3 years ago
Its Rob. One thing that I think people are missing and we really didn't say it out loud is in the end that its really about Submission to each other. Males are the head in the sence that we Confront the dangers of the World and protect our wives with all that we are. One thing though its not about males are better then females or vice versa or that female are to be subservant to all males. That is what she said about the wrong logical conclusions.
Shirotora1979 3 years ago
*wavies* Hello there you two :) Nice vid
masticina 3 years ago
you two are very cute together
thankyou for being so kind
- Daevon
DahKoDaeVonos 3 years ago
I was smiling all the way through this video. Great explanation.
TheRantingBrit 3 years ago
thanks guys, your video actually is hiting home for me .
my wife and i dont always get along as well as you guys.
its made me think about some stuff.
you guys are really cool.
PROPHETPAUL3 3 years ago
Thank you for explaining it! That was a little confusing. I think, also, that in this day and age, women are becoming very defiant in the way that they think that anything a man can do, a woman can do just as well. I know there are some people who are an exception to this rule, but generally, there are some things that women can do better than men, and in turn, some things that men can do better than women. We're just built that way, no need to get all huffy over it.
PerianArdocyl 3 years ago
agreed 100%
Shirotora1979 3 years ago
ok i now understand the head covering thank you... but could you explain the religious significance of Robs bath robe hahahaha love you guys
abominableangel 3 years ago
Its just really comfy.
Shirotora1979 3 years ago
so not a budding jedi knight thing then haha
toga tango night?? lol haha
abominableangel 3 years ago
You two are adorable, I love how you can explain your point without attacking others. Kudos to you, your both great.
pinkerstick 3 years ago
I don't know quite how to take this. I gave you 5/5 because I appreciate you (both) doing this video and sharing your beliefs... But... to me, it still looks like women are assigned a lower rank in the job of being human than men. The power structure in your relationship is up to you guys, but it's not one I would accept. To put it very bluntly, be it submissive or dominant, I couldn't do a 24/ 7 thing.
AnethSvartalf 3 years ago 2
Understand but its not really a Sub Dom thing at all. Its just a matter of mutal respect where were actually both submissive to each others needs.
Shirotora1979 3 years ago
Hi Aneth, Jenn here. I must have been unclear. It's not primarily about the power structure of our relationship. I believe that to deny one's own will is a Biblical virture, no matter what our culture says, and if I am unwilling to be obedient to something so trifling as covering my head, how do I expect to make any progress in important stuff like forgiveness and not judging others and remembering to pray? Nuns cover their heads; who are they being submissive to?
Shirotora1979 3 years ago