Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | 1 Corinthians 11:5 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. |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | 1 Corinthians 11:5 And every woman who prays or prophesies when she has her head uncovered disgraces her head; for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved [in disgrace]. |
Bible Question: I did state that this is a difficult passage to interpret. I was offering my view and my reason for that view. I do not claim to have all truth or revelation. There is much about the Bible that I do not know. But I do believe in intrepreting the passages that seem 'more obscure' based upon passages that are clearer. I do agree, obviously, that 1 Cor 11:10 says, 'because of the angels.' Where I'm 'fuzzy' is, what does that mean? Paul doesn't explain it. Yes, 1 Pet 1:12 does say that angels long to look into these things (our redemption) but I don't have a firm grasp as to the meaning. And though we may respect Charles Ryrie as a great theologian, his commentary is not divinely inspired. Do you believe that women should keep completely silent in the church building i.e. no talking, no singing, no teaching Sunday School? Where does it say in scripture that the angels are offended and what the repurcusions of that are? |
Bible Answer: You and I both know that nowhere in Scripture does it say, "that the angels are offended and what the repurcusions of that are." You have every right to put your own opinion above Ryrie's explanation, though he arrived at his through years and years of carefully studying the Scriptures in the original languages. Neither Ryrie, nor you nor I claim infallibility for ourselves. . . . But I would ask, "If you do not accept his explanation of what is meant by 'because of the angels', then I would be happy to hear your explanation of this phrase, if you have one. If not, why dismiss an explanation that contradicts no known verse of Scripture?" . . . Along with you, I too "believe in intrepreting the passages that seem 'more obscure' based upon passages that are clearer." This is a valid principle of interpretation, but not the only principle of interpretation to consider. . . . I also believe in interpreting difficult NT passages based on the meaning of the Greek words used in the Greek text. Another important principle of interpretation is to compare the verse in question with what THE ENTIRE BIBLE teaches on that same subject. To assert that there is but ONE principle of interpretation and to imply that if an interpretation doesn't adhere to your one principle, therefore it must not be valid, is not very good logic. . . . Another thing I don't understand: You write: "I do not claim to have all truth or revelation. There is much about the Bible that I do not know" and "I don't have a firm grasp as to the meaning". After saying all that, how can one then dismiss without disproving the explanation of another. |