Covering:Veil or Hair: Part II? Answers Inside
 

Pelthais & Mblue,

Please read carefully and open-minded.

There's no indication within the Old Testament where women were required to utilize a veil during worship/prayer (see Deuteronomy). In 1st Corinthians 3:13 the Apostle Paul mentions Moses' (Greek:Kaluma), an actual veil. There's no other Greek word utilized within the New Testament specifically referring to only "veil." Therefore, we can't positively conclude that Paul's statement about a female's covering referred to an actual veil, in oppose to her hair.

Now, Mfblube and Pelthais, I would like to explore your ideology, that possibly Apostle Paul referred to an actual cloth as a head covering within the eleventh chapter of 1st Corinthians, as you claim this was a practice amongst the early church. Well allow me the opportunity to prove you wrong!

Read the following very carefully:

Peter 3:1 & 3

1) Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands.......
3) Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;

Within the above scriptures Peter cautioned wives about glamorous hairdos, having hair intertwined with gold. In order to see a women's hair plated gold, their hair must be visible, in plain sight, thus rendering your ideology obsolete. If women were required to wear veils, such as you suggested, within the early church, Peter would have never commanded females to abstain from fancy hair styles.

Should I also mention that in the Old Testament, the high priest (a male) prayed while wearing his garment. Needless to say this garment had a hood attached, which the high priest wore on his head while praying, etc. Or should I also mention that Ezekiel prophesied while having his head covered (Ezekiel 24:17)?

If Paul in fact was actually speaking of a "cloth" as a covering in 1 Corinthians 11:4, then Ezekiel, the high priest, and various others dishonored their head!



1 Corinthians 11:
4) Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.


Also notice Romans 1:
27) And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly........


Romans states that nature teaches sexual relations are only between men and women (after marriage).


Now read what Paul states in 1 Corinthians 11

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

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

Regarding a covering, how natural is a cloth on a female or male's head? Remember, Paul referenced nature itself teaches us about this head "covering." Understanding veil (cloth) is nowhere near natural, the only natural reference Paul can address is hair and hair length, which is natural on a human being.

Re: Covering:Veil or Hair: Part II? Answers Inside
 

Bro., you miss something. :)

Paul said there was no other CUSTOM than what he showed for the church. He was delineating Old Covenant and every other religion or group from the church's UNIQUE custom of women ALONE wearing veils, and not men. Old Covenant saw both. Other cultures had men alone wearing coverings. But ONLY the church at that time had ONLY WOMEN wearing them.

Re: Covering:Veil or Hair: Part II? Answers Inside
 

Also consider this, openly.

The BIBLE did not demand a covering outside of Paul's words in 1 Cor 11. Paul would not rebuke a people for doing something demanded by God in and of itself if it was not already written in the scripture. For example, you can tell someone not to kill in a rebuke because it is written in commandment form outside of rebuke. A rebuke is always referencing something already commanded.

But Paul, here, rebukes them from something not already commanded in scripture. So why rebuke them for that? It is for the same reason Paul rebuked people for eating meat IF IT OFFENDED A BELIEVER. And that is actually the same sort of context in which 1 Cor 11 falls into after reading 1 Cor 10.

As you ask where it was commanded for women to wear veils, I am asking you where it was commanded for women to not cut their hair outside of Paul's rebuke? If it cannot be found in commandment form outside of a rebuke, then it has to do with not offending due to culture or whatever other NON-SCRIPTURAL requirement.

Re: Covering:Veil or Hair: Part II? Answers Inside
 

I believe you missed this:

Peter 3:1 & 3

1) Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands.......
3) Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;

Within the above scriptures Peter cautioned wives about glamorous hairdos, having hair intertwined with gold. In order to see a women's hair plated gold, their hair must be visible, in plain sight, thus rendering your ideology obsolete. If women were required to wear veils, such as you suggested, within the early church, Peter would have never commanded females to abstain from fancy hair styles.

Re: Covering:Veil or Hair: Part II? Answers Inside
 

The instruction was for specific times (while engaging in prayer or prophesy) - Paul did not instruct her to cover her head at ALL times.

Re: Covering:Veil or Hair: Part II? Answers Inside
 

The veil was only for prayer and prophesying, not all the time, bro. :)

Re: Covering:Veil or Hair: Part II? Answers Inside
 

Lookie here, Bro Hoover and I said the same thing in the same minute,. Now, is that a witness, or what?

Re: Covering:Veil or Hair: Part II? Answers Inside
 

Ten points for veils. LOL!

Re: Covering:Veil or Hair: Part II? Answers Inside
 

Woohoo!

And 0 for hair. ;)

Just kidding, 1cor. All in good fun.

Anyway, we can disagree while we fellowship.

Re: Covering:Veil or Hair: Part II? Answers Inside
 

I see......so subjection between women to man, and man to God is only intermittent? :D

Re: Covering:Veil or Hair: Part II? Answers Inside
 

A veil is not natural, and that is the point. Paul proposed the covering, and did not say what it was. He only said a woman must be covered for various reasons. WHEN is something Paul noted when he said "praying or prophesying." Hair cannot be put on or off around such times. If it was hair, he would not have stipulated a time.

Anyway, amongst all the arguments he gives for a covering, he finally appeals to NATURE. And when he does, he says hair is "A COVERING". Nature had not been introduced before this, which is why hair was not said to be a covering before this. Paul only said that if a woman refuses a covering she should be shorn or shaven, which means embaldened using scissors or razor. Since NATURE became an appeal to Paul, HAIR was mentioned. As much as a man looks shameful with long veil-like hair, and a woman looks glorious, so does a veil suit a woman and not a man. Hence, the reference to nature showing its form of a covering to support Paul's argument.

Re: Covering:Veil or Hair: Part II? Answers Inside
 

One has to follow the pattern of glory and veiling from the old covenant to get this point.

All are submitted under God, anyway. Christ under God, man under Christ and woman under man. But woman and man both showed it before grace because man is God's glory (1 Cor 11:7) and glory of God was not revealed until the cross. The veil was removed from the holiest to reveal God's glory.

1 Corinthians 11:7 KJV For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

God's glory (represented by man) was not revealed, so men and women were both covered before the cross.

Re: Covering:Veil or Hair: Part II? Answers Inside
 

The role of veils in the OT does not make it relevant in the new. Paul is teaching on headship in view due to the revelation of Christ as our head thus he gives divine order and reasoning on how women and men should be covered. This is in respect to the Bride of Christ in relationship to Christ and God.

Also Paul showing and teaching on how the Body of Christ should be covered in relationship to others would be proper. As local custom would have been a issue and thus Paul gives REASONING why we cover the way we do. Thus Paul gives reasoning starting at the top with headship and goes on to the order of creation etc... He was presenting the theological purpose WHY Christians should and should not be covered. to say this is simply only to appease local custom makes little sense of his argument. Teaching how and why we should due to confusion brought forth by pagan customs in which there acts would disgrace there head. Thus Paul at the least is not appeasing but arguing for proper head covering for the daily Christian in view of headship in the body of Christ, thus NOT appeasing local pagans.

In all his comments don't allow for a temporary view to local custom but a view of Christian life and how we relate to our head.

Re: Covering:Veil or Hair: Part II? Answers Inside
 

I'm curious, does your wife wear a had covering as Paul required it? Not a doily or bonnet or snood, but what Paul was talking about?

Re: Covering:Veil or Hair: Part II? Answers Inside
 

She wears a covering by her own conviction and not mine. Cloth covering the head to the shoulders. Pretty much same way in which her hair covers so does her cloth. I don't get picky on that as sometime it cover half the top of her head and sometimes all of it. I don't see any legal or technical way except hair as a possible example.

Re: Covering:Veil or Hair: Part II? Answers Inside
 

1Corinth2v4, I’d like to share my thoughts if you don’t mind.

You’re right, there was nothing requiring the use of the veil, however, it was a common custom throughout the Middle East…. and still is today. There are plenty of references of women wearing veils throughout the Old Testament to demonstrate this.

This is a tragic leap of logic. Anyone schooled in history and the arts knows that Hellenist women and women throughout the Middle East not only styled and plaited their hair, but then wore coverings that were often ornate and made of fine fabrics such as silk. Peter’s guidance in no way disproves the widespread use of various head coverings in the ancient world.

Details and context are needed:

Paul was instructing Christian men not to follow after the custom of the Jewish men who pray with their heads covered. If a Christian man prays as though still under the Law he dishonors Christ, so men are told they are not to follow after the custom of the Jewish authorities. However, the women evidently felt that they too were not expected to maintain a head covering. Paul refutes this notion. While a Christian man is no longer bound to pray with a head covering, women are. Why? First, they were told that if a woman prays without her head covering it was the same as if she were shorn or shaven. This is an allusion to the Law and ancient custom of cutting the hair of a harlot or adulterous woman to shame her. But since it is evident that it is a shame to be shorn or shaven, let also a woman wear her head covering. It’s a modesty issue. Paul continues by explaining that a woman should be in submission to her head, her husband, and refusing this propriety dishonors her husband. She is to submit and wear the veil so as not to be condemned in rebellion as were the angels who refused to accept headship. Then he asks them a question going back to their cultural understanding of modesty, he asks them to judge in themselves as to if it is comely (proper) for a woman to pray uncovered? Then Paul pulls an example from nature, doesn’t even nature teach that a woman is to be covered? Is not her hair given her for a covering by nature itself? This being evident from common understanding and nature itself, women should embrace the head covering and maintain a proper and modest appearance in worship.

The issue was modesty and propriety during worship and how the ladies were abandoning the common standard of modesty of their day. You could say he was addressing some early women's libbers. lol

Re: Covering:Veil or Hair: Part II? Answers Inside
 

I would agree with much of this. Though your point of due to modesty of there day negates in part my point Paul uses clear teaching this is not restricted to culture but is a aspect of divine order. It was propriety but in relation to divine order of a covering that was needed do to divine order not due to custom demand.

Re: Covering:Veil or Hair: Part II? Answers Inside
 

Paul’s point was that women should be modestly veiled in public worship. Paul then gives four reasons why:

1.) Refusal to adhere to modesty dishonors their husband.

2.) Its shamefully immodest, like a woman having her hair sheered or shaven (penalty for an adulterous woman).

3.) Rebellion brings judgment as we see with the angels that rebelled.

4.) Even nature teaches that a woman should be veiled because it has given her hair for a covering.

Re: Covering:Veil or Hair: Part II? Answers Inside
 

So Aquila are you saying women don't need a covering at all now? That clearly goes against the meaning of the text.

Re: Covering:Veil or Hair: Part II? Answers Inside
 

Points Above!

Re: Covering:Veil or Hair: Part II? Answers Inside
 

Let’s look at the text putting each verse in context:

I Corinthians 11:1-16
{11:1} Be ye followers of me, even as I also [am] of
Christ.

{11:2} Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me
in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered [them]
to you. {11:3} But I would have you know, that the head of
every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the
man; and the head of Christ [is] God.

Here Paul lays down divine order, next he begins to address an issue…

{11:4} Every man
praying or prophesying, having [his] head covered,
dishonoureth his head.

If a man prays with head covered, as do the Jews, he dishonors Christ by living as though under the Law.

{11:5} 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.

Wow. Here it is, if a woman goes without a covering it’s as though she were shaven. In other words it’s immodest and unsightly.

{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.

If a woman will not wear her covering, let her be shorn. Why? Because she’s acting like an immodest harlot. But since it’s a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her simply obey and be covered.

{11:7} For a man indeed ought
not to cover [his] head, forasmuch as he is the image and
glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

A man ought not cover his head because he is the image and glory of God. He’s been set free from the Law and symbolically represents Christ, the groom of the bride. The woman is the glory of the man, as the church is the glory of Christ.

{11:8}
For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the
man. {11:9} Neither was the man created for the woman;
but the woman for the man.

Women may not like this standard, but they are called to be in subjection because they were made for their husbands.

{11:10} For this cause ought
the woman to have power on [her] head because of the
angels.

The woman is to have authority and reverence given to her head (her husband) instead of this immodesty failure to cover, because failure to cover is rebellion and she will reap judgment for her rebellion as did the angels.

{11:11} Nevertheless neither is the man without the
woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
{11:12} For as the woman [is] of the man, even so [is] the
man also by the woman; but all things of god.

In light of this however, each should give mutual respect. Women are not door mats to be bossed around because even man owes his life to woman.

{11:13}
Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto
God uncovered?

Paul asks them about their cultural sensitivity. Is it proper that a woman be uncovered? The answer would be an obvious “no” in first century context.

{11:14} Doth not even nature itself teach
you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
{11:15} But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her:
for [her] hair is given her for a covering.

Paul now appeals to nature itself, for even nature teaches us that a woman should be covered, her hair serving as this example.

{11:16} But if any
man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom,
neither the churches of God.

If any man be contentious against the principles of modesty that Paul is laying down, the church has no such custom.

The eternal principle is modesty. Paul was addressing the necessity of head coverings to maintain modesty. Today we don’t wear head coverings, but this serves as an example showing us how to address other modesty issues in all cultures. If attending church in Pakistan a woman should most likely wear a head covering. In America, it’s not issue. But we might ask, should a woman wear panty hose? Some don’t care. But in today’s culture it’s alluring and if she is uncomely or improper in worship, she dishonors her head, her husband. As you can see, the same principle is in play though head coverings aren’t required anymore.

That’s my understanding bro. God bless ya.

Re: Covering:Veil or Hair: Part II? Answers Inside
 

I re read and see you don't believe in any head covering.

Re: Covering:Veil or Hair: Part II? Answers Inside
 

Sorry can't agree with your end result. Paul clearly teaches women should as a matter headship. To say "WELL, we don't wear headcoverings today" is not argument that we are not to....

Culture does not determine principle and biblical truths. It might be applied in part to culture but it does not negate it. Head covering per Paul are of divine order and his reasoning goes beyond the bounds of "well you don't have to as this is only a temporal thing and if this not where you are it doesn't matter"! Sorry that tone is not given by Paul!

Re: Covering:Veil or Hair: Part II? Answers Inside
 

Isn't it true that for something to truly be a Biblical doctrine, it should be supported elsewhere in scripture? Where else in the Bible does it say that a woman is required to wear a physical headcovering?

Or, for that matter, where else does it say that a woman should not cut her hair (if you believe that this is what those scriptures teach)?

Re: Covering:Veil or Hair: Part II? Answers Inside
 

The way I see it is that you’re looking at the letter of the law, so to speak. Paul was talking about head coverings, therefore head coverings are required. I’m looking at the spirit of the law, so to speak. Paul was addressing a modesty issue in relation to head coverings worn at the time. While head coverings are no longer worn or required, the principles of modesty still stand. If a woman isn’t modest and wearing appropriate attire in worship, while praying or prophesying, she dishonors her head, i.e. her husband. So your position might say that a woman dishonors her husband without a head covering. I say it’s more than that. She dishonors him if her blouse is cut too low, her dress is too tight, her skirt is too short, her slit to open, etc. It’s all part of the same big picture, Paul just happened to be addressing head coverings in the first century Corinthian church. If a woman rebels against modesty in any way, the point not being head coverings, she rejects headship and dishonors her head, her husband.

It’s a principle, not a law. ;)

Re: Covering:Veil or Hair: Part II? Answers Inside
 

Not necessarily. The Bible is God’s Word. If something is taught only once we are bound to heed it. Though I think here the issue is a principle of modesty, not a law requiring head coverings.

Technically, the Scriptures do not condemn a woman cutting her hair. It simply implies that it was a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven. This was typically done to publicly humiliate harlots.

Re: Covering:Veil or Hair: Part II? Answers Inside
 

(It does not say that! Though I am not going to say nothing can be pointed in total in that direction it totaly is out of bounds as Paul clearly would have said "law" if he was addressing such. He is addressing the realization of Christ but you argument that is due to the detriment of the Jews etc.... is at best speculation)

(Again speculation not saying it's not possible but it still seems out of bounds as Paul clearly would have referenced "the law" as is his normal trait and give more direct teaching. Also your arguement does not help for a temporal aspect to veiling but gives a even more permanent aspect of which I would agree. Also we are not freed from "law" we just realize it through a different administation. We are set free from the body of sin and death which is the flesh as it is cricumcised from us, so we can live according to the "law" of the Spirit which is the "the law" put on our hearts. The law was not sin but the flesh being weak caused sin due to us realizing that which was right and us being contrary to it in action and deed)


Which is why women fight headcoverings today as it is clearly an outward demeaning symbol to them. Gotta look that part ya know!

(Again, the text shows for a permanent aspect not temporal. Again it is immodesty of headship of divine order not in reference to pagan culture but within the church and of order within the body. This being the case we should not change a truth because of womens lib or whatever but embrace the clear teaching of Paul that is order and culture given by God himself. Who are we to cast of this aspect of truth which CREATES THE CULTURE. Gods truth creates a culture. So to cast of this truth is to deny the culture which God creates in his body. I see no way this can be temporal)

Would agree, again also shows a more permanent vs temporal teaching.

(true, but Paul pointing to something in which they all understood would be a argument of familiarity not that it is only for that time and place.)


TOTALY agree!

Again, you keep making it about only modesty in relationship to the pagan culture. Paul's point all throughout is that headship and being covered is a principle of divine order not just some little aspect to be modest of local custom.



True in part but propriety due to the divine order is the central point and the "eternal principle" . Modesty is a recognizable attribute not the central figure.


Again not modesty but divine order! The covering being modest is only recognized as such do to the emphasis of divine order. Because distinction in headship is needed the covering is seen as modesty and thus the symbol of it. Why? Because of creation. To say women don't need a covering today, negates the very eternal principle by which Paul taught.

Why don't we? Maybe because of feminism and women casting off there natural role?
Paul is not talking about other cultures he is talking about the creating of culture within the church and headship due to the revelation of Christ.
Also your point that we don't wear headcoverings today means nothing! Because our culture has cast of the divine order of headship for todays' feminism doesn't support your argument. Also lack of discernment of what the scripture says is not an excuse for negating the creative order and how our relationship to God in that order should be maintained when approaching him.


Because the churches are wrong about alot of things that has a effect on the culture gives the reason to negate the truth? Again, Pauls points are clear concerning the reason for a covering is headship due to his divine order in creation and submission before him. When we come to him we are to be seen in submission in the proper way in which he created us. To say women do not need to be covered today negates the whole chapter and teaching of Paul is virtually meaningless teaching that one need to be covered.

God Bless you and I enjoy your take on things!

Re: Covering:Veil or Hair: Part II? Answers Inside
 

sorry, have to disagree again. Modesty is all those things and they are clearly taught in scripture! Sorry but Spirit does not negate letter. The Spirit of the law is considerate of all the law into one action. The teaching of the letter vs spirit is taking one part of the law and negating the whole teaching of the law to come to a conclusion. To bring judgement to the letter, without love, mercy etc... is judgment by the letter. Paul's teaching has nothing to do with the Spirit of the law directly as you put it. Paul is clearly teaching something that is not to be done away with. Having and not having a covering on the head is clear. Now how to cover it properly could be seen in the SPirit of the law but not the direct teaching that someone should have a covering. You negate the WHOLE teaching for the excuse of "Spirit of the Law" In reality you are negating truth all togethor letter or Spirit.

Being covered is law brought about by the principle of headship and divine order which in reality is law as well. Law in many cases can be principle as well! Depends on the context and application.

Re: Covering:Veil or Hair: Part II? Answers Inside
 

There are many things in the law that are no longer required, everything from eating pork, to sabbath observance, and so on. The issue is that these things all had a purpose in their time and place, however, the principle is what we are to abide by, not the letter of said law. Paul was giving practical advice on modesty and explaining that immodest women dishonor their husbands and if they rebel from said modesty they are denying the headship of their husbands. It's about more than head coverings. Paul wasn't talking about a mystical meaning in a head doily, or the talismanic virtue of a magic head covering (be it cloth or hair). It just some really practical down to earth advice to women regarding how they should appear when attending worship. The women's refusal to wear a head covering just forced the issue and so Paul was addressing it in relation to the issue at hand.

Today, he might have to talk about women making sure their knees are covered. Same deal, he'd explain they were dishonoring their husbands by being immodest.

Re: Covering:Veil or Hair: Part II? Answers Inside
 

Women are always required to submit to husbands. But how that was symbolized so as to not offend in the culture of the day was Paul's issue.

Re: Covering:Veil or Hair: Part II? Answers Inside
 

This is an absolutely untrue statement.

Re: Covering:Veil or Hair: Part II? Answers Inside
 

I have seen many scholars point this out of why we don't do that today because it would be demeaning etc....

Re: Covering:Veil or Hair: Part II? Answers Inside
 

Pauls points are clear. Heads should be covered and uncovered respectively BECAUSE of creation not culture!

Re: Covering:Veil or Hair: Part II? Answers Inside
 

I would have to disagree here as well. I also thought you believed observing sabbath was a blessing? Also concerning pork etc... either you can observe common sense given by God or ignore it at the peril of your own health. Also neither of the things you bring up supports not wearing a veil,when Paul basis his reason on creation and headship with Christ in view among a few things. The rest of your points are subjective and speculation. Paul does not give a reason not to but the reason for.

Re: Covering:Veil or Hair: Part II? Answers Inside
 

The issue Paul was addressing was how the women were dishonoring their husbands through their immodesty. Today we demean women if we force them into a first century mold. No magic head coverings or magic hair is needed. Just modesty.

Re: Covering:Veil or Hair: Part II? Answers Inside
 

Absolute speculation and is not supported by the text by which Paul gives creation the reason for coverings not culture.

Also Paul is creating the culture due to the revelation of Christ! He is teaching the body how one is to approach God in prayer and prophecy with creation and divien order in mind. Sorry but you have no support from the text for extras you teach.

Re: Covering:Veil or Hair: Part II? Answers Inside
 

Luke 2447 is doing a fine job here with the scriptures. Mike and Aquila also but then they fall and say it was just for back then.

Paul in no one meant it that way but rather as an ordinance of the Church.

2: Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

He introduces the topic by saying so.

Its good to see this truth being brought forth and will deliver Apostolics from the error of uncut hair doctrine and into the light of obedience to the teaching of Christ.

Re: Covering:Veil or Hair: Part II? Answers Inside
 

Paul wasn’t “creating” anything. He was just addressing the issue of women ditching a head covering in public worship. It offended the cultural sensibilities of the men and dishonored their husbands. Most likely a letter from the Corinthians preceded this explaining how some men had complained to the elder about the women’s renunciation of head coverings and the elder was seeking advice as to how to address this issue. Paul’s letters aren’t didactic teachings. Paul most likely never knew his letter would become canon when it was first written.

Bro Luke, why “head coverings”? Nowhere in Scripture is any deeper relevance established. I’m glad Paul wasn’t addressing the inner garments worn by women; you’d demand they were necessary today. lol

Re: Covering:Veil or Hair: Part II? Answers Inside
 

What I find amazing is with this divine order in which we properly approach God. Would not Satan want to destroy such? So he brings along false doctrine which goes against order and for disorder "because of the angels" yet the one fallen angel wants to destroy that order. He brings in false teaching and thus culture is changed among the church to scratch the itching ears. Then we have Aquila pointing to culture and today that we don't do this and thus it doesn't matter. Which is not based on scripture and the principle of divine order and creation but current feminism and culture based on false teaching which NEGATES, the needing of divine order and a covering which Pauls says you need to approach God properly. LOL! Nice circle for a argument! I will stick with the plain teaching of the text while you say NO COVERING is needed at all because...........


1) todays' culture does not wear them (not sure how that is based on biblical truth and not circular)
2) was only for that culture (when Paul basis wearing a covering on creation, angels, headship,submission, nature which are all eternal principles except maybe the angels which depends to what aspect Paul is referring)

Re: Covering:Veil or Hair: Part II? Answers Inside
 

Bro., to say this was not for back then is to say that the bible teaches elsewhere, outside of rebuking people in 1 Cor 11, that a covering is to be worn. And the bible does not teach this anywhere else. So where did the Corinthians gain that understanding in order to be rebuked for not doing it, if it was not from the bible? Answer? CULTURE.

And to disagree is to also overlook the fact that chapter 10 immediately before this deals with offending people due to cultural issues. And chapter 11 begins its first verse with a note from chapter 10 about following Paul in not offending.

At any rate, we agree the issue was a veil and not hair.