วีดีโอ

I'd love that! :) Subscribed to yours!

@@FaithInEveryDay thank you so much also!!

@@TheChan7 Seems like you are much further along with homeschooling and look forward to learning from your videos!

@@FaithInEveryDay I still enjoy getting new perspectives and inspiration. Homeschool videos are literally my addiction. lol.

That’s such a beautiful testimony, thanks for sharing!

If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils, then it can be argued that the most often cited verse is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states: “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.” According to many of those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse supposedly implies that a woman’s uncovered head is a woman who does not wear a veil. Such a woman is either dishonoring God, their own physical head or her husband for failing to wear it which implies that they are in disobedience. Some have gone so far as to say it is a sin. Another assumption is that the woman being referred to already has long hair and since they conclude that the covering is a veil then it must be referring to an “additional” covering otherwise it would clash with verse 15 stating that God gave women long hair for a covering. Another conclusion is that women ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying and for men to be uncovered, which would make it seem as though it were something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil. You’ve probably noticed by now it takes several assumptions to reach the conclusion that women ought to wear a foreign object on their heads, despite the lack of evidence. * Does the Bible really give a clear command that women should wear a veil? The first thing that everyone must understand when talking about this topic is that it DOES NOT say the word “veil” or “cloth” or any other physical headwear, as far as the KJV is concerned. It surely mentions that the woman’s head should be covered, and no one disputes this, but it does not say that it should be covered with a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or any other specific headwear. The verses in question within 1st Corinthians 11 mention the words, cover, covered, uncovered, and covering, but that does not mean we can translate this to mean specifically a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or anything else similar. In fact, it would seem more like an adverb rather than a noun. Nevertheless, the word “cover” is unfortunately interpreted by head covering promoters to mean a veil above all other types of headwear, even if there is no evidence to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. To do so would mean that one is trying to read more into the verse than what is stated and is not truly seeking an exegesis of the Scriptures. Some have claimed that they are referring to a physical synthetic head covering because the Scriptures seem to indicate that there are two exclusive conditions to wear one and that is when a woman is either praying and/or prophesying. But does this interpretation stand up to logic? If we were to believe that under certain conditions a woman ought to wear a physical head covering, then it stands to reason that under OTHER conditions a woman should be able NOT to wear one. For example, if you are going to argue that a woman ought to wear a veil because the Bible claims there are two conditions, then it is logical to presume that any other condition would ALLOW them to be without one, like speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. Now if a head covering promoter should claim that there are MORE conditions, then they admit that there aren’t really “two” conditions thereby nullifying the two-condition argument. The reasoning behind why the “two-condition” argument is important for veil promoters is because if these words were actual conditions, then it would seem as though the covering were something that can be placed on or taken off. So even though it does not literally or EXPLICITLY say anything about putting on or taking off a veil. Veil promotors form this belief based on what they believe to be IMPLIED and not by a direct statement. Many people like to believe this because they ASSUME that praying and prophesying are two conditions instead of seeing them as mere examples. * Praying and prophesying were meant to be viewed as examples, not conditions… Now I can understand how someone can mistakenly conclude praying and prophesying as conditions in verse 5, on the surface, but once you read the rest of the verses in context one cannot reach that conclusion. If they were meant to be conditions then why would Paul say in verse 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.” If the reason for men not to cover their heads in this verse is because he is the “image and glory of God,” then why assume Paul was saying that there were only TWO conditions in verse 4? Wouldn’t 7 override any supposed conditions? Shouldn’t that make you question that perhaps Paul was just giving a couple of examples? But let’s continue. Verses 8 and 9 give us another understanding that Paul must have been referring to praying and prophesying as examples because he adds the order of creation into the mix. “For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man CREATED for the woman; but the woman for the man.” If Paul states that the creation order has something to do with the reason as to why women ought to cover (in long hair) and men to be uncovered (aka have short hair) then we can conclude that this doctrine must be bound in NATURE. That is to say that it must have taken place since the creation of Adam and Eve and BEFORE the manufacturing of veils or hats, and BEFORE the creation of churches, which is another reason why hair easily fits the mold. This is confirmed when reading verses 13 and 14 when Paul asks you to make an observational judgment that if it is comely (aka pleasant looking) for a woman to pray uncovered (in short hair) and that even NATURE teaches us that a man with long hair is shameful. Why would Paul ask you to think that something as unnatural as a woman without a hat would look off and then say something as natural as long hair would look off on a man? Paul was saying that not being covered in long hair especially while praying looks uncomely and in the same breath he continues and says men with long hair also looks naturally wrong. * So Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? ….. If we examine all the verses from verses 4 to 15 without bias, we should at least agree that at certain points the verses are referring to physical heads and hair. Now some have tried to argue that the covering is somehow Jesus or men (some erroneously add husband here as well). But since the passage in 1st Corinthians 11 already states that the man or Jesus are already referred to as the heads one should not mix things up and add that they are the covering especially when this word is referring to something else entirely, Plus it wouldn’t make sense if we were to replace the word covering, covered or uncovered with Jesus, man or husband. So, do the words “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” refer to long and/or short hair or some kind of foreign head covering? Some will even say all the above, but if we carefully examine verse 15 we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions these words. “But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering." KJV So if the covering is long hair, then the words “covered” or “cover” (which are synonymous with “covering”) should be understood as long hair as well. If that’s true, then to be “uncovered” would mean “short hair.” If so, then we can get a better picture of verse 4 when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered.” Note the similarity of verse 4 to verse 14 that’s because they are both referring to being covered in LONG hair.

I would like to add my two cents here after reading this discussion. First of all I believe we should follow the teaching in 1st Corinthians 11. The main problem here is the misunderstanding of 1st Corinthians 11 altogether. I also have made an intense study of this passage, and the obvious conclusion is that Paul was referring to long hair being the covering. The first thing one should take notice is the lack of wording required to conclude that a veil is being referred to here. The word veil or cloth is not in the text if we read from the King James version. If you read from the “modern” versions then you might get that view but not from the Textus Receptus. I would like for you to reread the verses that allegedly refer to a veil which is 4-7 and 13. In those verses we read the words, cover, uncovered and not covered. According to scholars these are used as adverbs. Like if you were to say I am going to cover my feet. No one should be thinking of a veil just the action of being covered. What is missing in these verses are nouns that would prove the idea of veils. Since we should not be assuming anything we should be asking the question what is the thing that a woman should be covered WITH based on the passage ALONE? So if you do the math you would find that Paul refers to hair directly 3 times and then indirectly 4 times with the words shorn and shaven. So if there is no noun for the word veil or cloth yet there are 7 instances of idea of hair, then what are we to conclude? That Paul is referring to hair whether it be short or long. But the counterargument would be that Paul is allegedly telling women to put something on. But that is not exactly true it says a woman should be covered, but he is referring to long hair based on the surrounding verses. But what about that a woman ought to be covered when praying or prophesying? The assumption is a that Paul was referring to only two instances which is not true he was merely giving us two examples. This also applies to men about being uncovered. Evidence of this is written in the forgoing verses. Paul writes that men ought not to cover because he is the image and glory of God. And then Paul goes into how woman was made for man and is the glory of the man. So it would seem that man shouldn’t be covered at any time if he is the glory and image of God. Paul also mentions that the mere observation of a praying woman should make us note how uncomely (unappealing in appearance) for a woman to be uncovered. Paul states this in a way that it should be obvious to anyone that she looks off in verse 13. He does this again in verse 14 about how shameful it looks if a man has long hair. He says it this way… Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? KJV So this judgement that we should make is exclusively based on observation of an “uncovered” woman as well as a long haired man. Two consecutive questions both appealing to something innate or within us. Paul is in essence saying that it should be obvious to see that something is wrong or off. So how is it that for the women we are somehow to know within us that a woman would be unappealing in appearance without a manufactured veil? That does not seem logical especially since the word veil is never mentioned. Unless that is not what Paul is meaning but rather that if the woman was not covered in long hair (meaning her hair is short) doing something holy or godly LIKE praying or prophesying. I think most people can relate that looking at a woman with short hair does have an unappealing appearance. It naturally provokes head turns. And if there was any question Paul flat out states what he was talking about in verse 15. So the facts are that there no nouns to use as evidence of a veil. There is evidence that Paul was using praying and prophesying as examples. Paul appeals to nature and something innate within us to judge that being uncovered or covered (meaning having short hair or long hair) should be obvious to all. So this cannot make sense with a manufactured veil.

You seem to be everywhere trying to push the idea that men should also wear a head covering. But you seem to be very confused about this matter. For example, you use the idea that some women would wear “…a hair tie that contains the Ten Commandments in order to obey Deut. 6:8-9.” Um that was not meant to be taken literally otherwise would you also believe that people are to bind God’s words in their heart to mean that one should perform open heart surgery? No right? Also, you are mistaken to believe that Paul described covering all of the hair. Which verse are you taking this from or better yet what Bible version are you reading from? If Paul said anything he said cover the head NOT the hair. The covering Paul was referring to was long hair as so noted in 1 Cor 11:15. Then you somehow combine this with the “armor of God” but the armor of God is not a man made object it is a spiritual armor, so you cannot combine a head covering with that passage. I don’t understand why would you be mixing these things together with no evidence? Lastly you stated that If the head of woman is the man, then why isn't the man's head covered? But seem to forget that the head of the woman is man and that the head of the man is Christ. The Bible is quite explicit in this that it would be very hard or very biased to overlook it. I hope God helps you because you seem to be very lost in this. I will be praying.

I would like to preface this topic by addressing the importance of using the correct version of the Bible. It can be argued that the confusion about women having to wear a veil or something similar could be attributed to the version one is referencing. For example, if we focus on the chapter where this doctrine is almost entirely derived from, 1st Corinthians 11, in the King James Version (KJV) you’ll see the word “cover” where some modern versions have translated it to “veil,” when it shouldn’t. Why? Mainly, because the definition of a “cover” is not exclusively interpreted as a veil, neither a hat nor a bonnet, etc. Some versions also use a variety of other words not found in this passage in the KJV like the words: “symbol,” “sign of authority,” “veiled,” “unveiled,” “public worship,” “wear,” “assembly” etc. Also, some versions use the words “wife” and “husband” whereas the KJV and other Bibles use the words “woman” and “man.” As a result of this some people believe the chapter refers only to married couples, but that is not how it is understood in the KJV. A misunderstanding in just a few words can throw off the entire meaning of this chapter. Therefore, I would like to use the King James Version in this matter, as I have done extensive research about bible versions and have found it to be the strongest and purest version of what the writers of the Bible were trying to convey. In addition, I will be mainly focusing on the woman’s side of this topic and that is because when it comes to head coverings the focus is usually on how women ought to wear something on their heads whereas men do not. But I will interject a quick discussion on the men’s side of this because there are false beliefs surrounding this topic for them as well. * The verse that pretty much started it all… If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils, then it can be argued that the most often cited verse is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states: “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.” According to many of those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse supposedly implies that a woman’s uncovered head is a woman who does not wear a veil. Such a woman is either dishonoring God, their own physical head or her husband for failing to wear it which implies that they are in disobedience. Some have gone so far as to say it is a sin. Another assumption is that the woman being referred to already has long hair and since they conclude that the covering is a veil then it must be referring to an “additional” covering otherwise it would clash with verse 15 stating that God gave women long hair for a covering. Another conclusion is that women ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying and for men to be uncovered, which would make it seem as though it were something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil. You’ve probably noticed by now it takes several assumptions to reach the conclusion that women ought to wear a foreign object on their heads, despite the lack of evidence. * Does the Bible really give a clear command that women should wear a veil? The first thing that everyone must understand when talking about this topic is that it DOES NOT say the word “veil” or “cloth” or any other physical headwear, as far as the KJV is concerned. It surely mentions that the woman’s head should be covered, and no one disputes this, but it does not say that it should be covered with a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or any other specific headwear. The verses in question within 1st Corinthians 11 mention the words, cover, covered, uncovered, and covering, but that does not mean we can translate this to mean specifically a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or anything else similar. In fact, it would seem more like an adverb rather than a noun. Nevertheless, the word “cover” is unfortunately interpreted by head covering promoters to mean a veil above all other types of headwear, even if there is no evidence to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. To do so would mean that one is trying to read more into the verse than what is stated and is not truly seeking an exegesis of the Scriptures. Some have claimed that they are referring to a physical synthetic head covering because the Scriptures seem to indicate that there are two exclusive conditions to wear one and that is when a woman is either praying and/or prophesying. But does this interpretation stand up to logic? If we were to believe that under certain conditions a woman ought to wear a physical head covering, then it stands to reason that under OTHER conditions a woman should be able NOT to wear one. For example, if you are going to argue that a woman ought to wear a veil because the Bible claims there are two conditions, then it is logical to presume that any other condition would ALLOW them to be without one, like speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. Now if a head covering promoter should claim that there are MORE conditions, then they admit that there aren’t really “two” conditions thereby nullifying the two-condition argument. The reasoning behind why the “two-condition” argument is important for veil promoters is because if these words were actual conditions, then it would seem as though the covering were something that can be placed on or taken off. So even though it does not literally or EXPLICITLY say anything about putting on or taking off a veil. Veil promotors form this belief based on what they believe to be IMPLIED and not by a direct statement. Many people like to believe this because they ASSUME that praying and prophesying are two conditions instead of seeing them as mere examples. * Praying and prophesying were meant to be viewed as examples, not conditions… Now I can understand how someone can mistakenly conclude praying and prophesying as conditions in verse 5, on the surface, but once you read the rest of the verses in context one cannot reach that conclusion. If they were meant to be conditions then why would Paul say in verse 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.” If the reason for men not to cover their heads in this verse is because he is the “image and glory of God,” then why assume Paul was saying that there were only TWO conditions in verse 4? Wouldn’t 7 override any supposed conditions? Shouldn’t that make you question that perhaps Paul was just giving a couple of examples? But let’s continue. Verses 8 and 9 give us another understanding that Paul must have been referring to praying and prophesying as examples because he adds the order of creation into the mix. “For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man CREATED for the woman; but the woman for the man.” If Paul states that the creation order has something to do with the reason as to why women ought to cover (in long hair) and men to be uncovered (aka have short hair) then we can conclude that this doctrine must be bound in NATURE. That is to say that it must have taken place since the creation of Adam and Eve and BEFORE the manufacturing of veils or hats, and BEFORE the creation of churches, which is another reason why hair easily fits the mold. This is confirmed when reading verses 13 and 14 when Paul asks you to make an observational judgment that if it is comely (aka pleasant looking) for a woman to pray uncovered (in short hair) and that even NATURE teaches us that a man with long hair is shameful. Why would Paul ask you to think that something as unnatural as a woman without a hat would look off and then say something as natural as long hair would look off on a man? Paul was saying that not being covered in long hair especially while praying looks uncomely and in the same breath he continues and says men with long hair also looks naturally wrong. * So Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? ….. If we examine all the verses from verses 4 to 15 without bias, we should at least agree that at certain points the verses are referring to physical heads and hair. Now some have tried to argue that the covering is somehow Jesus or men (some erroneously add husband here as well). But since the passage in 1st Corinthians 11 already states that the man or Jesus are already referred to as the heads one should not mix things up and add that they are the covering especially when this word is referring to something else entirely, Plus it wouldn’t make sense if we were to replace the word covering, covered or uncovered with Jesus, man or husband. So, do the words “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” refer to long and/or short hair or some kind of foreign head covering? Some will even say all the above, but if we carefully examine verse 15 we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions these words. “But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering." KJV So if the covering is long hair, then the words “covered” or “cover” (which are synonymous with “covering”) should be understood as long hair as well. If that’s true, then to be “uncovered” would mean “short hair.” If so, then we can get a better picture of verse 4 when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered.” Note the similarity of verse 4 to verse 14 that’s because they are both referring to being covered in LONG hair.

@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter I appreciate your lengthy response but I will only address a few major points. I understand your sentiment for the Kings James translation which is a trustworthy translation but I would deem the NASB1995 translation also a very trustworthy translation that uses the current vernacular. It is a formal translation that uses a word for word translation of the original language that makes up the Bible. When studying the Koine New Testament Greek, the root word that is used for covering is κατακαλύπτω (English Transliteration: katakalyptō) which means to cover up; to veil or cover one's self. Thus the Greek refers to an external covering, equivalent to that of a veil, which is to be used. Now that we have the proper understanding of the definition, we can better follow the logic of 1 Corinthians 11:5-6, “But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head” (NASB1995). The section of the verse that states “TO HAVE HER HAIR CUT OFF…” is referring to that of short hair, and the statement “…OR HER HEAD SHAVED” is referring to her head being completely bald. Thus, your assertion that the uncovering warning in this passage is speaking about short hair is incorrect. Furthermore, for approximately 1,970 years the church interpreted this passage as a cloth type of head covering and many juggernauts in theology prior to the 1970s agreed with this interpretation. It wasn’t until 1968 when the feminist group National Organization for Women (N.O.W.) issued this statement: "Because the wearing of a head covering by women at religious services is a symbol of subjection with many churches, NOW recommends that all chapters undertake an effort to have all women participate in a ‘national unveiling’ by sending their head coverings to the task Force chairman. At the Spring meeting of the task Force of women and religion, these veils will be publicly burned to protest the second class status of women.” On Easter Sunday of 1969, what occurred is known as “The Easter Bonnet Rebellion” or “The Easter Bonnet Protest” when women began to burn their head coverings as a public display of rebellion against female subjection. Unfortunately the mainstream denominations acquiesced to this cultural shift and started to conclude that 1 Corinthians 11 was only cultural in nature. I would submit that themes of the passage such as the hierarchy as ordained by God in the creation account, the angelic witnesses, and the appeal to nature are all arguments for a timeless and universal command. As for any alleged bias, I used to hold to your original assertion about the hair being the covering until I conducted a thorough research on the matter starting with the biblical text.

The woman covers her hair to cover the glory of man. If she doesn’t cover her hair then it’s as if her head were shaven (glory removed) because God will not share His glory with the glory of man. So a woman who never covers her head is taking the role of a man since man is the glory of God (that’s why his head remains uncovered). She is not supposed to be in the role of authority naturally so in order to properly take a role of authority while praying or prophesying she covers her head. This actually allows her to remain a woman instead of becoming a man (which she makes herself when she prays with her head uncovered, the same as being shaved- likening her to a man).

Have you read Ephesians 3:9-10?

I see you didn’t watch the video haha

The Blue Letter Bible. However, feel free to check this video out that explains it far better than I could. th-cam.com/video/XqzYQR2olF4/w-d-xo.htmlsi=m2C-Lh2hHgiauPGt

@@FaithInEveryDay I listened to that. if it is an artificial covering, could you explain why God would command the Levite priests to wear a turban as part of they're outfits? Would that not contradict " man should pray with his head uncovered" If it were artificial? Any thoughts?

@@alexgrubb6640 I haven’t studied that in depth, but it was commanded for a specific temple duty for priests who do very hard manual work of the sacrifices. Some basic research suggests that it’s to keep sweat from making the sacrifice impure. Something to dig into more though.

​@@alexgrubb6640The church and the temple are two different systems. The Levites operated under the Aaronic priesthood. Jesus operates in the order of Melchizedek. I think one thing to remember is that Paul, an astute Torah scholar, lived while the temple was standing while writing this letter with the witness of every church in all places adhering to this decree. Paul said in 1st Corinthians 10 not to give offense to Greeks, Jews, or the church of God. Therefore, while in the assembly of God, we do not dishonor the creation hierarchy, which includes Christ. Hope that helped😊

I would not be too quick to fully embrace the link given to you as it is from an extremist group and can be pretty easily debunked. The guy makes 5 different arguments against long hair being the covering. He tries to prove that 1st Corinthians 1:6 does not make any sense by replacing the word “covered” with the word “having long hair.” But the problem is that he uses a very bad translation. Note that he goes from one version to another to try to prove his point. He states: “…in verse 6. Where we see the words "cover her head", let's replace that with "have long hair." “For if a woman does not [have long hair], let her also have her hair cut off” [NASB]. Let's look at it again in another Bible translation. “For if a wife will not [have long hair], then she should cut her hair short.” [ESV]. If you refuse to have long hair, you should cut your hair short? But you'd already have short hair! This argument wouldn't make any sense. He has to be talking about an artificial covering.” But reading from the KJV: “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.” Replacing the words with the KJV it is: “For if the woman be not covered (in long hair,) let her also be shorn (meaning cut bald): but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven (shaved bald), let her be covered (in long hair)” Can people have short hair and at the same time not be shorn? Of course. Therefore, his analysis is completely off. One, because he doesn’t understand the word used for shorn is more like a buzz cut where you can see the scalp, and two, mainly because he found a SECOND translation to fit his logic; otherwise, he wouldn’t have been able to prove his point. This again is proof that the Bible versions you use can make you understand something completely different from another translation, thereby preventing one from understanding the true meaning.

Tell me more about what you are observing.

That is definitely an issue especially among extremists.

@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter I’d love an example.

@FaithInEveryDay Well, there are so many examples it would be hard to miss. From what I can tell you even have about 3 or 4 videos to this idea, but there are many others that over-focused on this with many more videos. With titles like “head covering journey or testimony” which is an unprecedented view. Never before was this idea brought to the forefront in this fashion as though it involved a journey or much less a testimony. For your convenience here are a couple of examples: www.youtube.com/@TRUTHATHOME/videos In this channel I count about 10 videos on the subject of head covering out of 44 videos which is around a quarter of all her videos. www.youtube.com/@GrlRock/search?query=veil In this channel I count about 5 videos which mentions the odd idea of a head covering journey. www.youtube.com/@keterhayofi/search?query=veil In this channel I count about 15 videos Now if I had more time, I could easily show you many more, but I am leaving the best for last and that is the "Head covering movement." It is a channel practically dedicated to head covering. With 40 videos over 90% of their videos are on head covering. They are so serious about this subject that they even have their own website and Facebook channel if naming themselves the Head covering movement wasn’t enough to show their dedication. So, if there was ever an example of extremism this is it. I hope this answers your question.

@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter I wouldn't classify that as religious extremism, just people sharing what is important to them. This channel is a faith based channel, based on how I practice my faith. Of course I am going to share how my faith has lead me to head cover - its a part of my story which is the definition of testimony. I don't see how people sharing what is important to them and their faith journey is religious extremism especially because head covering has been a typical show of faith for different religions over thousands of years.

I appreciate your comment. However there was abuse involved and a refusal to allow me to practice my faith. My church elders agreed not only that he was abandoning me as a nonbeliever (1 Cor 7) but that it was ok to remarry due to my circumstances. Remember to take the whole Bible, not just verses out of context of the situation. And the elders are there to make final decision. Life is not black and white, nor is the Bible.

If you are interested in hearing how Yah has worked through and redeemed a painful situation feel free to watch this video: th-cam.com/video/ZQqmQ1sFAjk/w-d-xo.htmlsi=-s0sayn2nzwYH3pk

I’d love to see what it looks like as a modified Israel veil!

@@FaithInEveryDay it's pretty common, you see it pretied with the tails up front, to wrap, or not. The back is tucked in, where you're hair would be, classic jewish tichel, but that style exposes your neck, and if you went through chemo hair loss, it's more flattering to not tuck in the back of the scarf, just let it hang down, obscuring the head line, the way your hair used to. Much easier than trying to fake a nonexistent bun!😂 breathable too!

I definitely understand that one! I struggle with headaches if they are tied too. I have found the head wraps from Garlands of Grace that are stretchy and just slip over, or have a clip are loose enough not to give me a headache. The key to those are a thin velvet headband for underneath to keep them from slipping. Hope you find one that is comfortable for you!

Yes! Sometimes I can be quiet :) Yah, short for YHWH I pray YHWH will bless you, and provide for all of your needs, as well as the trust and faith in the waiting <3

@@FaithInEveryDay thank you, God bless you!

Amen! Praise Yah

Thank you so much for this encouragement!

What a wonderful time to focus on setting your eyes on what God has for your life. Your worth is only decided by the creator and God has made you for a unique purpose! I recommend using this time of waiting to get systems in place, habits, routines, etc because from experience it’s far harder to do that with kids under toe! So happy to have you here, I pray my videos may be an encouragement to you!

So glad you found it encouraging! :) My prayer is that God would use this channel to encourage and uplift!

Take heart Sister! You may be the only one in your church, but you are definitely not the only one who has come to that conclusion and been convicted on this point. It is all about the heart, and where God has brought you in your walk of obedience with him. If you haven’t checked out my head covering update yet, definitely watch that one. I chat about the blessings that I have seen from head covering in my life. here is the link th-cam.com/video/MunA-eJWTvI/w-d-xo.htmlsi=K8uMefz6PCDJNs6o I don’t have links to more inspiration or pictures but I will make sure to add that to things that post! I have 9 years of pictures I can post for inspiration :) My God bless you! 💜

While you may be the only one in your church, you are not alone! It is such a blessing and it is a witness to those around you! What blessings have you seen come from it if you don’t mind sharing?

I cover my head since just a few weeks! Still very new to me…😊

I would never give away those things, even to a loved one and I have about no idea why anyone would.

I have considered that, however it’s not specific so I have to look at context and what was said before and after. Ultimately I still am working through this, but the text before is addressing behavior outside of the church and the one after is specifically addressing the church. It also is clearly bringing in the marriage covenant and headship, so it’s hard to just do that in the church. The pray without ceasing is why many Christian denominations wear the head covering 100% of the time, I have gone back and forth. I can bring a head covering when we are out of the need to pray arises but I can see the benefit to wearing it all the time for convenience.

I’m so glad it was thought provoking for you! I think that we are hesitant because just less than 100 years ago there were just 1 or 2 family bibles that needed to stay usable for generations.