Head Coverings Predated Christianity

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Yes, therefore we see Jesus Messiah manifesting the fulfillment of the law, saying "thus you have heard it said, but I say unto you ....." bringing further revelation.

100% as always Sister Amanah

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Okaaay....then. That's a rather pointed comment,

Then cover it with your hat.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

don't you think, reader?

No, they don't think so, I guess since they haven't sprung to your defense, they pretty much like it.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Someone does not want to have meaningful Bible discussion today, wanting to sling mud instead.

Oh, I've tried, but as others before me found out, you only look for an echo. You are an ecclesiastical glamor boy. You want everyone to gather around your feet while you tell one and all how you have a deeper understanding of the scriptures.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

One point I made- that there are no OT commands for head covering doctrine - cannot be denied. No one ever quotes a reference to any such OT verse, because they can't. Thus it is a valid point.

Actually, I already explained that, but you don't care to read my posts or to show me how I'm wrong.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Why this is significant: Paul indicates the base for his God's Order of Authority doctrine is found in the Beginning. 1Co11.7-10. If the base is there, then the symbol should be too, when it is realized that all humans of all time (incl A&E) would need to show regard to God's Order of Authority - using a symbol. If the base is in the Beginning, Ge2, then it would be expected that the symbol would also be indicated. But God has not OT indicated by command either His Order of Authority or the symbol. As shown in my 1Co11 commentary, there is a reason for this.

You ever read 2 Thessalonians 2:15? These traditions were transmitted orally, and in epistles to the Body of Christ. They were revelations of Jesus Christ, and the Apostles. The Apostle Paul's epistles were considered holy scripture by the Apostle Peter, 2 Peter 3:15-16 .

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Some then would even deny the reality of valid Biblical points, especially when this reality contradicts their head-covering views!

Your points discount the teachings (traditions) of Christ and His Apostles, which Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11 is where he gets his information.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Dom should try making up a Bible verse and pass it off for a real one. This would be similar to denying Biblical reality. Who would want someone who denies Bible reality teaching them doctrine?

Really? This is coming from you? The individual who believes that the Apostle Paul was just making things up as he went along? Using his intuition? You believe he used his "instinct?" Don, you are real silly man.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

There are times when someone will want someone else to disappear from off the face of the earth.

What? What are you saying?

Polishing off a few more Molsons I see.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

They will use extreme measures, like denying reality, to indicate this. But why? It is so easy to accept truth.

You are gone man, Don, what on earth is wrong with you now?

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Amanah

.

Part1/2.

Did you see that, Evang. Dominic Benincasa (Dom, for short), how Amanah puts forward pointed rebuttals without the nastiness used by you? That's how it can be done. She is a good example for you to follow, getting her points across, with grace, seasoned with salt.

To interpret 1 Corinthians 11:3-10 accurately, we must look past the Greek text to the Hebrew concepts of creation and honor that Paul, a trained Rabbi, was utilizing. Exactly! View and interpret the facts as Paul would have done in light of the times he lived in, with the knowledge he would have had. Think about this topic as he would have thought.

1. Head (Greek: Kephale / Hebrew: Rosh
In verse 3, Paul establishes a hierarchy of "headship." In Hebrew thought, the "Rosh" is not merely a "boss" but the "source" or "beginning." Paul’s logic is rooted in the order of creation: just as God is the source of Christ’s incarnate mission, and Adam was the source of Eve’s physical being, the "head" represents a relational origin that demands respect for the order God established. Scholars have long-debated which definition of Kephale Paul uses.

2. Image and Glory (Greek: Eikon & Doxa / Hebrew: Tselem & Kavod)
In verse 7, Paul discusses "image" and "glory." The Hebrew "Tselem" (Image) refers to a representative likeness, while "Kavod" (Glory) literally means "weight" or "significance." Paul argues that man manifests God’s glory directly, while woman is the "Kavod" of man—meaning she is the "crown" or "excellence" of the human race. Perhaps rather, she is the glory of her man because, even as significant as Eve was, she was made for him. That something as great as woman was made specifically for Adam indicates he was 'something else', remarkable. Thus, her presence indicates his glory. In a worship setting, Paul’s Hebraic view is that human "glory" (the head/hair) should be veiled so that only God’s "Kavod" is the focus of the assembly. You later say "Summary of Interpretation" Every Christian who takes the Word seriously takes the statements given in the Word, and uses them to form an interpretation, just as you have done.

I presume to think you here refer to Paul's words in 1Co11, where we say he speaks of an assembly or a church service. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. 6 For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered.

When Paul does not show references using either OT example nor OT command of God asking for a veil head-covering, which would then give the context used to provide an interpretation of his words, it then is left open for readers to decide how they will be interpreted.

Because Paul loves and is a scholar of the OT, the only Bible he has, which contains no command asking for a veil, nor example/story of a veiled woman exemplifying veiling as the specific symbol to show respect to God's Order of Authority, it then leaves these verses open for interpretation in many ways.

Did OT saints veil? Yes. Did they veil because of culture or command of God? That no veil command can be found lends credence that Paul's words references the veil which is seen in many ancient nations, not just Israel.

Plz someone, give an explanation why no OT command is seen for either a hair head-covering or the veil head-covering. I have done so, in my commentary. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...it?usp=sharing

If the known history of the Co culture is taken into consideration as the context for this 1Co11 writing, then Paul's words can be interpreted as referring to the cultural custom of the time. Doesn't it make sense to think that Paul would teach, for the NT, the things the OT Word he loves has indicated. When it had not indicated a veiling command then it would be unusual for Paul to NT command something not seen in the Book.

Scholars frequently remind us, when formulating Bible doctrine, to read and use the whole Book to do so. The vv does not do this by referencing any OT command for veiling. Why not? Instead, its scriptural support is mostly verses seen in the NT.

At least two doctrines are indicated in 1Co11. 1) God's Order of Authority. 2) Head-covering. The latter does not exist without the former. The first can exist without the second.

The doctrine Paul teaches, 1) God's Order of Authority, is seen in the Beginning by Paul. It should be seen that that which is of OT origin should also have OT commands showing support. Why are none found? I have put forward a reason, but most, if not all, in AFF have rejected it, though it is a scripturally based explanation, while they in AFF do not provide an explanation as to why not.

Funny that, the supporters of the vv cannot provide an explanation but still reject a view which does explain. What thing prevents the acceptance of scriptural explanations, in the absence of a view which does not? Sometimes this is explained as 'denominationalism' or 'dogmatism'. Therefore, "I can't leave behind what my group believes, even while scriptural evidence indicates I should". (Shuddering disbelief expressed)

3. Authority (Greek: Exousia / Hebrew: Mimshal)
In verse 10, the "symbol of authority" on a woman's head relates to the Hebrew concept of "Mimshal" (rule or domain). Within the context of "because of the angels," Referencing 'because of the angels' does not yet clearly indicate which specific symbol is noticed by angels. Thus, it is only a statement worth noting as indicating something, without noting what exactly this something is. Paul is drawing on Second Temple Jewish tradition which taught that angels were present during prayer to ensure divine order. What you do here is what some do when giving an explanation using culture. Some refer to the Greek cultural practices of veiling and you here refer to Jewish cultural practices of veiling. What none can do is refer to an OT command for veiling. It does not exist. Any who say Paul refers to a veiling Jewish Second Temple practice are making educated guesses of this, and not wrong to do so. But usually doctrine is formulated from clearly made commands indicating God's will. It is normal to think that the head is the logical place for the location of symbols, because our eyes normally focus on the head when meeting or communicating with someone.

Continued in 2/2...

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Amanah

.

...Continued from 1/2

The Greeks, and others also, developed a practice of the use of a symbol to portray fidelity to marriage relationships - veils. A woman would not display the glory of beautiful hair publicly, doing so to avoid unwanted romantic attention, by veiling it. Thus, fidelity was symbolized by the veil but this not from a command of God asking for it. This was a man-made tradition.

Another symbol is also located on a woman's head - long hair. It symbolizes she will take the effort to plz her man, who likes the looks of long hair. Women will testify that it is easier to keep short hair, but have long hair in spite of the extra work. Men love the look of long hair on a woman. If a woman wishes to diss her man, then she may spite him by cutting her hair short. The feminist movements demonstrated this quite well. They said 'cut your hair' as a protest against who? Male chauvinism.

Thus, a woman's hair symbolizes respect for men's desires. She shows regard to God's Order of Authority doing so. This is seen 1) in that Eve was created for Adam's purposes and also 2) in God's words to her after the Fall, Your desire shall be for your husband, And he shall rule over you. God 'willed' for her to have the nature which showed this. She may reject man's rule by removing the things he likes, her hair. This does not show her keeping to God's 'will' to desire for him.

Thus, it can be interpreted that Paul refers to two separate head symbols. Neither of these were commanded for those in the OT, those who we could assume loved and obeyed God. This can be confidently said, because reading the OT does not show this command. Paul cannot see these practices as commands in his reading of the OT and would not NT teach that which he did not see in the OT Word.

If the OT has no command indicating the keeping of a symbol, then how could it ever come to be for Paul to command a thing he has not seen there, for the NT? Answer: Instincts.

The God-given instincts shown in the God-given nature of women seen in Ge3.16 revealed it as a symbol. Yet for Paul to see that long hair is a symbol coming from the instincts in the nature given women does not indicate that he would command long hair for the NT. If God had not seen fit to command it in the OT, then he would follow God's example and not command it in the NT.

Men like long hair on a woman and God said women would naturally have a desire for their husband. If a woman has the long hair a man likes, it then is a symbol of her showing her desire for your husband. It shows respect for how God made her - for her man. We call this: giving respect to God's Order of Authority.

If God has not commanded either veil or long hair in the only Book Paul has to read, the OT, and it really is instinct which motivates a woman to have long hair, then which instincts motivated the veil?

Does the jealousy a man might have, come because his woman got romantic attraction from showing her hair, this coming from an instinct? Is a woman's normal desire to protect herself and her marriage from unwanted romantic attraction, coming by a veiling instinct?

Rather than from instincts, these things may be seen coming about from Man's carnal Fallen nature. Carnal nature suspiciously thinks ill of others, and not showing the trust which jealousy denies. Her fears of the jealous one (or, just of any unwanted romantic attention she may herself not want to get when exposing her hair) and its repercussions, leads a woman to take means to make it not happen - by veiling herself. Veiling was a human invention used to cover the glory of hair which comes naturally. A head covering served as a visual "Exousia," signaling to the spiritual realm that the woman was operating within the protected boundaries of God’s created order. This signalling could be done by either the long hair cover or the veil cover. Both are plainly visible to angels. If neither are OT commanded of God, then which one naturally points to the one angels would observe?

Long hair is not a human invention. Veiling is. Therefore, there would have been a time when veils did not exist. Estimates of the first use are 2000-1400 BC. If accurate, then 2000 yrs of history previous had no veiling, and a woman was then without the symbol the angels look for. And for 2000 yrs she would not been seen to show regard to God's Order of Authority if the veil is the means - unless she does so from following her instincts for long hair. If there is no command of God to show the symbol, then instincts from her God-given nature may provide the means to do so. It is inconceivable that those women of God of that time did not show regard to God's Order of Authority. Instincts provide the means when no commandments are known for it. The symbol which the angels observe is long hair.

It thus is more natural to think this angelic-observance first started with the creation of Man. From the git-go the angels would have observed a symbol but not the veil. Eve would have been expected to show regard to God's Order of Authority even before the Fall, right? Yes, of course.

The dominant purpose of God's giving of hair is adornment. For, what biological purposes does it have if not mostly ornamental? If not mostly for those who would see it on someone else and not so much on themselves, then would it be only mostly for the person growing it? No. Well, yes for both, but would it be wrong to think it would be more for others, including angels?

Summary of Interpretation
For Paul, this passage isn't about social inferiority, Plz define what social inferiority is in relation to 1Co11. If undefined it then lacks proper meaning for those without the definition. but about the "proper placement" of glory. By understanding these Hebrew roots, we see that the physical act of covering or uncovering the head was a way of honoring one's "Source" (Rosh) and ensuring that in the presence of the Holy, all human "weight" (Kavod) is surrendered to God. It can be said that applying these Hebrew root-meanings can be seen to apply to the vv interpretation. They will fit it. And these same root meanings can also be applied elsewhere, in another interpretation. Seeing that they can be seen to fit does not yet provide firm evidence of which head-covering view is the best view. Had the Lord actually made a clear command for head-coverings, either OT or NT, then the many interpretations would not have appeared. The absence of this command is telling of something: God has not commanded head coverings. What is written in 1Co11 is from a view point that is not commanding anything.

God does not give commands for every detail in life. God has not made Man robotic, that every minute must be controlled by statute. Apparently, he gives Man life, stands back and thinks: I wonder what Man will make of what I've given them. Go for it Man - surprise me.

Here is a glossary of the key Hebrew terms used to understand 1 Corinthians 11:3–10 through a Hebraic lens. Why Hebrew Amanah? What makes this better than the Greek. The Biblical writers and readers grew up in worlds where Greek was dominant, the language of the day, spoken and read by most in many nations. Thus, it is the cultural language most everyone grew up in, were steeped in, for thought and the words used to communicate ideas with. Isn't it thought by Bible translators that God gifted the world with the Greek language as the best language, for translation of the Word of God, into other languages? Why do you wish to add another unnecessary step into the process of our understanding, Gk to He to En, when the direct from Gk to En is the most logical? Paul is well able to convey Hebrew concepts he grew up with through the Greek language. Paul writes 1Co11 to the Co in their own native tongue.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

When Paul does not show references using either OT example nor OT command of God asking for a veil head-covering, which would then give the context used to provide an interpretation of his words, it then is left open for readers to decide how they will be interpreted.

Please tell us where we can find the Old Testament command which tells us to "Hate our Enemy?" Matthew 5:43

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Because Paul loves and is a scholar of the OT, the only Bible he has, which contains no command asking for a veil, nor example/story of a veiled woman exemplifying veiling as the specific symbol to show respect to God's Order of Authority, it then leaves these verses open for interpretation in many ways.

No, it does not. The Apostle Paul tells the Corinthian church that there was no debate over this issue. Therefore logic dictates that the Apostle didn't believe in multiple interpretations of his teaching. Just the one, the one which he taught. 1 Corinthians 11:16 the Apostle Paul admonishes the Corinthians that if anyone wanted to argue over what he taught, that "THEY" have no other PRACTICE. Meaning everything he taught was to be obeyed. Sorry, Don, but your intuition teaching of human instinct over the Holy Ghost is false.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Did OT saints veil? Yes. Did they veil because of culture or command of God? That no veil command can be found lends credence that Paul's words references the veil which is seen in many ancient nations, not just Israel.

Yet, what Paul teaches is specific to the Body of Christ. Not the Babylonians, Romans, Greeks, or Judeans.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Plz someone, give an explanation why no OT command is seen for either a hair head-covering or the veil head-covering. I have done so, in my commentary.

The Apostle Paul is delivering a teaching which was held in all the churches 1 Corinthians 4:17. Hence he also makes this comment in 1 Corinthians 11:16

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

If the known history of the Co culture is taken into consideration as the context for this 1Co11 writing, then Paul's words can be interpreted as referring to the cultural custom of the time. Doesn't it make sense to think that Paul would teach, for the NT, the things the OT Word he loves has indicated. When it had not indicated a veiling command then it would be unusual for Paul to NT command something not seen in the Book.

The Apostle Paul states that he taught the tradition of the Apostles as they were handed down to him 1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:15. Also the Apostle Paul wasn't taken into consideration the CULTURE of his time. Because the culture of his time not only had women veiled, but specifically men had to be veiled in holy observances. Also, if we just considered the Greeks, they went bare headed in religious observances called the ritus graecus "Greek Right." The went bare headed with a wreath of laurel leafs crowning their heads in religious activities. So, your argument is illogical when we understand the ancient culture of Paul's Roman Corinthian city.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Scholars frequently remind us, when formulating Bible doctrine, to read and use the whole Book to do so. The vv does not do this by referencing any OT command for veiling. Why not? Instead, its scriptural support is mostly verses seen in the NT.

Where is a lake of fire spoken of in the Old Testament? I love the way individuals sitting behind a computer on a religious forum referring to unnamed or unknown "scholars," "experts," or "studies" to bolster their claims. It is just an example of an Appeal to Anonymous Authority logical fallacy.

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

...Continued from 1/2

The Greeks, and others also, developed a practice of the use of a symbol to portray fidelity to marriage relationships - veils. A woman would not display the glory of beautiful hair publicly, doing so to avoid unwanted romantic attention, by veiling it. Thus, fidelity was symbolized by the veil but this not from a command of God asking for it. This was a man-made tradition.

Another symbol is also located on a woman's head - long hair. It symbolizes she will take the effort to plz her man, who likes the looks of long hair. Women will testify that it is easier to keep short hair, but have long hair in spite of the extra work. Men love the look of long hair on a woman. If a woman wishes to diss her man, then she may spite him by cutting her hair short. The feminist movements demonstrated this quite well. They said 'cut your hair' as a protest against who? Male chauvinism.

Thus, a woman's hair symbolizes respect for men's desires. She shows regard to God's Order of Authority doing so. This is seen 1) in that Eve was created for Adam's purposes and also 2) in God's words to her after the Fall, Your desire shall be for your husband, And he shall rule over you. God 'willed' for her to have the nature which showed this. She may reject man's rule by removing the things he likes, her hair. This does not show her keeping to God's 'will' to desire for him.

Thus, it can be interpreted that Paul refers to two separate head symbols. Neither of these were commanded for those in the OT, those who we could assume loved and obeyed God. This can be confidently said, because reading the OT does not show this command. Paul cannot see these practices as commands in his reading of the OT and would not NT teach that which he did not see in the OT Word.

If the OT has no command indicating the keeping of a symbol, then how could it ever come to be for Paul to command a thing he has not seen there, for the NT? Answer: Instincts.

The God-given instincts shown in the God-given nature of women seen in Ge3.16 revealed it as a symbol. Yet for Paul to see that long hair is a symbol coming from the instincts in the nature given women does not indicate that he would command long hair for the NT. If God had not seen fit to command it in the OT, then he would follow God's example and not command it in the NT.

Men like long hair on a woman and God said women would naturally have a desire for their husband. If a woman has the long hair a man likes, it then is a symbol of her showing her desire for your husband. It shows respect for how God made her - for her man. We call this: giving respect to God's Order of Authority.

If God has not commanded either veil or long hair in the only Book Paul has to read, the OT, and it really is instinct which motivates a woman to have long hair, then which instincts motivated the veil?

Does the jealousy a man might have, come because his woman got romantic attraction from showing her hair, this coming from an instinct? Is a woman's normal desire to protect herself and her marriage from unwanted romantic attraction, coming by a veiling instinct?

Rather than from instincts, these things may be seen coming about from Man's carnal Fallen nature. Carnal nature suspiciously thinks ill of others, and not showing the trust which jealousy denies. Her fears of the jealous one (or, just of any unwanted romantic attention she may herself not want to get when exposing her hair) and its repercussions, leads a woman to take means to make it not happen - by veiling herself. Veiling was a human invention used to cover the glory of hair which comes naturally. A head covering served as a visual "Exousia," signaling to the spiritual realm that the woman was operating within the protected boundaries of God’s created order. This signalling could be done by either the long hair cover or the veil cover. Both are plainly visible to angels. If neither are OT commanded of God, then which one naturally points to the one angels would observe?

Long hair is not a human invention. Veiling is. Therefore, there would have been a time when veils did not exist. Estimates of the first use are 2000-1400 BC. If accurate, then 2000 yrs of history previous had no veiling, and a woman was then without the symbol the angels look for. And for 2000 yrs she would not been seen to show regard to God's Order of Authority if the veil is the means - unless she does so from following her instincts for long hair. If there is no command of God to show the symbol, then instincts from her God-given nature may provide the means to do so. It is inconceivable that those women of God of that time did not show regard to God's Order of Authority. Instincts provide the means when no commandments are known for it. The symbol which the angels observe is long hair.

It thus is more natural to think this angelic-observance first started with the creation of Man. From the git-go the angels would have observed a symbol but not the veil. Eve would have been expected to show regard to God's Order of Authority even before the Fall, right? Yes, of course.

The dominant purpose of God's giving of hair is adornment. For, what biological purposes does it have if not mostly ornamental? If not mostly for those who would see it on someone else and not so much on themselves, then would it be only mostly for the person growing it? No. Well, yes for both, but would it be wrong to think it would be more for others, including angels?

Summary of Interpretation
For Paul, this passage isn't about social inferiority, Plz define what social inferiority is in relation to 1Co11. If undefined it then lacks proper meaning for those without the definition. but about the "proper placement" of glory. By understanding these Hebrew roots, we see that the physical act of covering or uncovering the head was a way of honoring one's "Source" (Rosh) and ensuring that in the presence of the Holy, all human "weight" (Kavod) is surrendered to God. It can be said that applying these Hebrew root-meanings can be seen to apply to the vv interpretation. They will fit it. And these same root meanings can also be applied elsewhere, in another interpretation. Seeing that they can be seen to fit does not yet provide firm evidence of which head-covering view is the best view. Had the Lord actually made a clear command for head-coverings, either OT or NT, then the many interpretations would not have appeared. The absence of this command is telling of something: God has not commanded head coverings. What is written in 1Co11 is from a view point that is not commanding anything.

God does not give commands for every detail in life. God has not made Man robotic, that every minute must be controlled by statute. Apparently, he gives Man life, stands back and thinks: I wonder what Man will make of what I've given them. Go for it Man - surprise me.

Here is a glossary of the key Hebrew terms used to understand 1 Corinthians 11:3–10 through a Hebraic lens. Why Hebrew Amanah? What makes this better than the Greek. The Biblical writers and readers grew up in worlds where Greek was dominant, the language of the day, spoken and read by most in many nations. Thus, it is the cultural language most everyone grew up in, were steeped in, for thought and the words used to communicate ideas with. Isn't it thought by Bible translators that God gifted the world with the Greek language as the best language, for translation of the Word of God, into other languages? Why do you wish to add another unnecessary step into the process of our understanding, Gk to He to En, when the direct from Gk to En is the most logical? Paul is well able to convey Hebrew concepts he grew up with through the Greek language. Paul writes 1Co11 to the Co in their own native tongue.

Because we have the old testament in Hebrew and Greek (the Septuagint). People have been able to compare and map which Greek words were chosen to express Hebrew words. Seeing the Hebrew behind the Greek can bring additional depth of understanding.

[Amanah]

Using Strong's Concordance to trace a Greek New Testament word back to its Hebrew root (via the Septuagint) provides deeper theological context. A prime example is the word "Lord" in Romans 10:13, where the Greek Kyrios (G2962) refers back to the Hebrew Yahweh (H3068), transforming a general title into a direct, covenantal declaration of Jesus’s divinity.

Example: "Calling on the Name of the LORD" (Romans 10:13)
Scripture: "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved" (Romans 10:13, KJV).

The Greek Word: The word "Lord" is Kyrios (G2962), which means master, owner, or lord. In a Roman context, this could simply mean a polite address or a reference to Caesar.
The Hebrew Root: Paul is quoting Joel 2:32. In the Hebrew text of Joel, the word is Yahweh (H3068), the personal, covenantal name of God (often translated as LORD in all caps in the Old Testament).

Depth of Understanding:
By looking up the Hebrew root through the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament that the NT writers frequently used), we discover that Kyrios in this passage is not just a title of respect, but a specific replacement for the divine name of God.

Conclusion: Paul is explicitly equating Jesus with Yahweh of the Old Testament. Calling on the name of the Kyrios is not just a request for help; it is an act of worship acknowledging Jesus as the covenant-keeping God of Israel.

How to find this:
Look up "Lord" in Romans 10:13 in a Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance.
Find the number G2962 (Kyrios).
Look at the cross-references in the Blue Letter Bible or Bible Hub for that verse, which will show it quotes Joel 2:32, where the underlying word is H3068 (Yahweh).
Other excellent examples include studying "grace" (charis) by looking at the Hebrew chen (favor/grace) or "peace" (eirene) by looking at Shalom (wholeness/completeness).

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Because we have the old testament in Hebrew and Greek (the Septuagint). People have been able to compare and map which Greek words were chosen to express Hebrew words. Seeing the Hebrew behind the Greek can bring additional depth of understanding.

Originally Posted by Amanah

Using Strong's Concordance to trace a Greek New Testament word back to its Hebrew root (via the Septuagint) provides deeper theological context. A prime example is the word "Lord" in Romans 10:13, where the Greek Kyrios (G2962) refers back to the Hebrew Yahweh (H3068), transforming a general title into a direct, covenantal declaration of Jesus’s divinity.

Example: "Calling on the Name of the LORD" (Romans 10:13)
Scripture: "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved" (Romans 10:13, KJV).

The Greek Word: The word "Lord" is Kyrios (G2962), which means master, owner, or lord. In a Roman context, this could simply mean a polite address or a reference to Caesar.
The Hebrew Root: Paul is quoting Joel 2:32. In the Hebrew text of Joel, the word is Yahweh (H3068), the personal, covenantal name of God (often translated as LORD in all caps in the Old Testament).

Depth of Understanding:
By looking up the Hebrew root through the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament that the NT writers frequently used), we discover that Kyrios in this passage is not just a title of respect, but a specific replacement for the divine name of God.

Conclusion: Paul is explicitly equating Jesus with Yahweh of the Old Testament. Calling on the name of the Kyrios is not just a request for help; it is an act of worship acknowledging Jesus as the covenant-keeping God of Israel.

How to find this:
Look up "Lord" in Romans 10:13 in a Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance.
Find the number G2962 (Kyrios).
Look at the cross-references in the Blue Letter Bible or Bible Hub for that verse, which will show it quotes Joel 2:32, where the underlying word is H3068 (Yahweh).
Other excellent examples include studying "grace" (charis) by looking at the Hebrew chen (favor/grace) or "peace" (eirene) by looking at Shalom (wholeness/completeness).

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

When Paul does not show references using either OT example nor OT command of God asking for a veil head-covering, which would then give the context used to provide an interpretation of his words, it then is left open for readers to decide how they will be interpreted.

This is an outrageous statement! Don, I would rather give a rabid blind one legged chimpanzee a Word serving position, than YOU.

I have mentioned this before many times, how through your nonsensical view of the Apostle Paul's teachings to the Church, you're actually bringing those teachings into question? You really haven't the foggiest idea what is being said in 1 Corinthians 11:16!?! You don't know! You think Paul is a madman! That he penned out 15 verses, only to finally disqualify those prior verses with 1 Corinthians 11:16? You ecclesiastical ninny

Don, do they speak in English in Canada? Do they read English where you come from? Don, you can't read English, you most certainly can't read or understand the Elizabethan English of the KJV! I know you don't understand GREEK! You know Hebrew as well as you do ancient Klingon.

So, taking that all into consideration allow me to give you the Dick and Jane reader version of 1 Corinthians 11:16 "Some people may want to argue about this. But I have told you what we do. And all of God's people in the different churches do the same thing" EasyEnglish Bible.

How about this? "If someone wants to fight about these rules, know that all churches follow this tradition, so stop arguing."

Don, you are wrong, you are always wrong because your doctrine of touchy feely Churchanity is a meteor hurtling towards a Lake of Fire!

Oh, where is the Lake of Fire mentioned in the Old Testament?

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Using Strong's Concordance to trace a Greek New Testament word back to its Hebrew root (via the Septuagint) provides deeper theological context. A prime example is the word "Lord" in Romans 10:13, where the Greek Kyrios (G2962) refers back to the Hebrew Yahweh (H3068), transforming a general title into a direct, covenantal declaration of Jesus’s divinity.

Example: "Calling on the Name of the LORD" (Romans 10:13)
Scripture: "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved" (Romans 10:13, KJV).

The Greek Word: The word "Lord" is Kyrios (G2962), which means master, owner, or lord. In a Roman context, this could simply mean a polite address or a reference to Caesar.
The Hebrew Root: Paul is quoting Joel 2:32. In the Hebrew text of Joel, the word is Yahweh (H3068), the personal, covenantal name of God (often translated as LORD in all caps in the Old Testament).

Depth of Understanding:
By looking up the Hebrew root through the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament that the NT writers frequently used), we discover that Kyrios in this passage is not just a title of respect, but a specific replacement for the divine name of God.

Conclusion: Paul is explicitly equating Jesus with Yahweh of the Old Testament. Calling on the name of the Kyrios is not just a request for help; it is an act of worship acknowledging Jesus as the covenant-keeping God of Israel.

How to find this:
Look up "Lord" in Romans 10:13 in a Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance.
Find the number G2962 (Kyrios).
Look at the cross-references in the Blue Letter Bible or Bible Hub for that verse, which will show it quotes Joel 2:32, where the underlying word is H3068 (Yahweh).
Other excellent examples include studying "grace" (charis) by looking at the Hebrew chen (favor/grace) or "peace" (eirene) by looking at Shalom (wholeness/completeness).

Amen. I too, have read that which shows the Greek translated as the English 'Lord' shows us equivalency between it and the Hebrew translated to the English 'Jehovah or Yahweh', seen so in the LXX. This provides an astounding discovery all should know, which I 100% agree with. Jesus=Jehovah in a man.

You've also made a good point about Hebrew and the LXX and the Greek language.

I would like to point out that regardless of which language the Word of God comes to us by, interpretations of it would still be the same. Near equivalency between languages would all lead in the same direction, to the same conclusions.

Regardless of which language the Word is in, no amount of lexical sleuthing will change the fact that there are NO head-covering commands, of either hair or veils, in the OT.

The error RDP and others make, as used in Uncut Hair and the Nazirite Vow for Women AFF thread, was treating human lexical work on original language definitions, as if they are the infallible Word of God. They are from fallible humans, tainted by Man but invaluable tools nonetheless. I would again say my deepest thanks to Costeon, for he provided me great, great inspiration from that thread. He stood up for truth though against the standard Apostolic line. God bless you!

Instead of focussing on original languages, the main point made in post 33,34 is not given attention. Why do posters ignore the meat on the plate, to focus on the crumbs which fell off the bread? Disproving the main point - no OT commands for head-coverings - would be a great blow to the validity of the iv.

Paul reads, loves, and formulates his doctrine from what he reads in the OT, the only Book he has. He would not formulate head-covering doctrine on the OT, because it does not show any command to base it on.

Yet, here we are, discussing a view, the vv, which breaks the hermeneutic rules which tell us to use the whole Book to make doctrine. The vv's base does not include the only Book Paul had in his hands when writing 1Co11, the OT.

And the holders of the vv would say that it is Paul's view who held God's view. Yet the OT does not give a command which could be said to be God's view (and Paul had only the OT to get his views from, which doesn't contain facts to rely on for the vv).

Can you see how that this is a problem, that someone would say that what is said about the vv is by misinterpretation of the facts?

Logical conclusions would correctly say that the vv is a misinterpretation of the facts. Therefore, I present an alternate scripturally-based head-covering view - the iv - which encompasses the facts of both the OT and NT. It better explains the facts which are seen and also explains that which is not seen - that the OT does not have a command for either God's Order of Authority or for Head-covering.

Neither the ulv nor the vv offer satisfactory explanations why no commands for either GOOA or H-C are not seen in the OT, when logic tells us they should be there in plain site.