Is a woman required to cover her head today?

[Ronald Nolette]

"Notice how the text in brackets was not part of the original quote but provided context to help the reader understand what was being discussed." - source

"What are brackets?​

Brackets, [ ], show that text has been added to a quotation. They’re generally used by writers and editors to separate the original wording from any additions." - source

Your false accusation again falls flat

So you have to add a word not inspired by God in the original, to help us understand what God was trying to say? Do you think God needs an editor?

English Grammar 101 says otherwise. Your ignorance of the use of bracket punctuation is no excuse.

English grammar 001 says a bracketed word can completely change the meaning of a sentence. Just look at the New World Translation of the Jehivahs Witness and learn.

That's not the gist of the passage. Also, because you do not discern, you falsely accuse yet again; I never said that "men are not to have a head covering." (neither did Paul)

Paul specifically said men should not cover their heads, you are wrong.

Q: Who is being directed to pray directly to God in that instance? Hint: It isn't the woman...

The whole passage ends with the point: A woman requires spiritual power on her head - not a garment!

Sorry but that is not what god originally inspired to be written. Why should I believe your allegorized reinterpretation over the original inspired word?

I've posted much scripture; you've posted opinion.

I have posted the passage.

You have yet to defend your opinion that "angels" in this passage means the fallen angels (demons) and the Nephilim- that is opoinion without Scriptural evidence.

 

[Bombastic]

So you have to add a word not inspired by God in the original, to help us understand what God was trying to say? Do you think God needs an editor?

I always find these kinds of comments amusing. I am literate in ancient Hebraic and modern Hebrew.
Some cats get ticked off when editing their KJVs; there are no direct word-for-word translations. Translations require interpretation.
Those guys are ticked off, as they never say much when confronted by the New KJV translations. Of course, the sacred or holy tongue has been buried under the Greek layers and Gentile translations.
To answer your question directly, I don't think G-d needs an editor (direct vs. dynamic translation). Why is it that some learn the original language and others don't? Jesus tore the curtain only to replace the high priest with other translators, interpreters, and priests.
And @Ronald Nolette I am not siding against you, just sharing something that amuses me. I have personally translated the Bible from ancient Hebraic to modern Sephardic Hebrew, and I hate translating my personal works into Pig Latin.
I love what you conveyed; the goal is to understand what the author meant to convey and not the reader. That is the difference between exegesis and eisegesis (people forget to ask who, what, where, and why in the original context). Rock on! And question anybody hiding behind institutionalized credentials. And even those that don't. G-d is no respecter of "persons" or offices; no individual can hide behind them by proxy.

 

[doctrox]

So you have to add a word not inspired by God in the original, to help us understand what God was trying to say? Do you think God needs an editor?

Still beating that tired drum?

English grammar 001 says a bracketed word can completely change the meaning of a sentence. Just look at the New World Translation of the Jehivahs Witness and learn.

Rather, learn the meaning of brackets.

Paul specifically said men should not cover their heads, you are wrong.

Your problem remains: You do not discern between physical and spiritual.

Hats protect no one spiritually.

Sorry but that is not what god originally inspired to be written. Why should I believe your allegorized reinterpretation over the original inspired word?

You are unable to process anything that does not endorse your preconceptions. Selah.

You have yet to defend your opinion that "angels" in this passage means the fallen angels (demons) and the Nephilim- that is opoinion without Scriptural evidence.

You have continually avoided the "angels" for lack of an accommodating A.I. "commentary."

It's a no-brainer, as Paul sums by telling us that a woman needs power on her head (not some garment!) because of the angels. If you think that such power is found in a hat, then by all means feel free to pick a pleasant color.

The Magical Mystical Hat (1 Cor. 11)

Paul patiently spends much time in this chapter exposing errors of the church that cause divisions and bring death. The head covering misunderstanding is but one of those errors.

After illustrating what constitutes proper headship, Paul sums by stating a woman needs power on her head because of the angels.

"For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels." (v. 10)

While members of the church Paul is addressing are certainly free to continue to physically wear a hat, it is NOT the power.

power = exousia; it appears over 100 times as:
- power...
- authority...
- jurisdiction...
- strength...
- right...
- liberty...
OVER WHAT? Over the angels. IOW, where there is proper spiritual alignment, there remains an effective spiritual mechanism to deal with those angels.

But because folks don't spiritually discern, they default to arguing over a piece of clothing (or hair length). Paul said he and God's churches have no such custom, so why would we?

As water baptism doesn't save anyone from hell, wearing a hat doesn't protect anyone from malevolent angels.

Ppl who argue for a mere hat are attempting to synthesize the physical with the spiritual. Such spiritualizing results only in harm to the exposed woman.

Rather, this is the takeaway: Husbands, protect/cover your wives - not with some hat but with proper spiritual headship/authority.

Paul goes on to cite further examples where ppl are coming together in the churches for worse and not for better (v. 17 et al), causing divisions and bringing heresies, which result in becoming weak, sickly and dead (v. 30). "And the rest will I set in order when I come" (v. 34).

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Rather, learn the meaning of brackets.

It is the drum worth beating!




Like
Dislike

Can Adding a Word in Brackets Alter the Meaning of a Sentence?​

Yes — adding a word in brackets can change the meaning of a sentence, depending on what you insert and how it’s used.

Why brackets matter​

Square brackets [ ] are used to indicate that the enclosed words are not part of the original text but are added for clarification, explanation, or integration into your sentence Writing Commons+1. If you insert a word or phrase in brackets without signaling it as an addition, readers may mistakenly think it’s part of the original quote or statement, which can mislead or misrepresent the meaning University of the People.

How meaning can change​

• Clarification vs. substitution: If you insert a word to replace an undefined pronoun or vague term, it can make the sentence clearer but may subtly shift emphasis. For example:
  “It [driving] imposes a heavy procedural workload…” clarifies “it” as “driving,” so the meaning is now about driving’s cognitive load Writing Commons.
• Adding detail: If you insert a definition or explanation, you’re expanding the sentence’s scope. For example:
  “[D]riving is not as automatic as one might think; in fact, it imposes a heavy procedural workload [visual and motor demands]…” adds specific demands to the original idea Writing Commons.
• Changing emphasis or tone: Even a single word in brackets can alter the nuance. For example, adding “[the exam]” to “It took me three hours” changes the focus from an unspecified “it” to a specific subject GRAMMARIST.

When meaning stays the same​

If the bracketed word is purely explanatory and doesn’t change the core proposition, the meaning may remain the same. For example:
“He [Mr. Jones] didn’t sleep well last night.” — the core meaning is unchanged, but the reader now knows who “he” is University of the People.

Key takeaway​

Brackets are a signal that you’ve added something. If you omit them, the reader may interpret the added word as part of the original text, which can distort meaning. Always use [ ] to mark additions so readers know what’s been inserted and how it affects the sentence Writing Commons+2.

from Microsoft co-pilot

 

[Bombastic]

It is the drum worth beating!



Like
Dislike

Can Adding a Word in Brackets Alter the Meaning of a Sentence?​

Yes — adding a word in brackets can change the meaning of a sentence, depending on what you insert and how it’s used.

Why brackets matter​

Square brackets [ ] are used to indicate that the enclosed words are not part of the original text but are added for clarification, explanation, or integration into your sentence Writing Commons+1. If you insert a word or phrase in brackets without signaling it as an addition, readers may mistakenly think it’s part of the original quote or statement, which can mislead or misrepresent the meaning University of the People.

How meaning can change​

• Clarification vs. substitution: If you insert a word to replace an undefined pronoun or vague term, it can make the sentence clearer but may subtly shift emphasis. For example:
  “It [driving] imposes a heavy procedural workload…” clarifies “it” as “driving,” so the meaning is now about driving’s cognitive load Writing Commons.
• Adding detail: If you insert a definition or explanation, you’re expanding the sentence’s scope. For example:
  “[D]riving is not as automatic as one might think; in fact, it imposes a heavy procedural workload [visual and motor demands]…” adds specific demands to the original idea Writing Commons.
• Changing emphasis or tone: Even a single word in brackets can alter the nuance. For example, adding “[the exam]” to “It took me three hours” changes the focus from an unspecified “it” to a specific subject GRAMMARIST.

When meaning stays the same​

If the bracketed word is purely explanatory and doesn’t change the core proposition, the meaning may remain the same. For example:
“He [Mr. Jones] didn’t sleep well last night.” — the core meaning is unchanged, but the reader now knows who “he” is University of the People.

Key takeaway​

Brackets are a signal that you’ve added something. If you omit them, the reader may interpret the added word as part of the original text, which can distort meaning. Always use [ ] to mark additions so readers know what’s been inserted and how it affects the sentence Writing Commons+2.

from Microsoft co-pilot

Come on, fellas, admit it, between us, a group of men, we love beating the dead horse!

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Come on, fellas, admit it, between us, a group of men, we love beating the dead horse!

View attachment 86526

View attachment 86527

View attachment 86528

Sorry, but his brackets altered teh meaning of the passage in Scripture. It did not clarify, but altered

 

[Bombastic]

Sorry, but his brackets altered teh meaning of the passage in Scripture. It did not clarify, but altered

Point taken, even more so that you recognized it.
What if new translations began using that methodology rather than a numerical reference for a footnote?
How many people actually scroll down to the bottom of the page and read every footnote from the translation teams?
Those footnotes, if done by the original translation team, indicate the interpretation used for translation.
I remember looking up the credentials for the ESV team; I was shocked that only one person had any credentials in English.
Generally, a native speaker in English is considered credible. It might be amusing if somebody that spoke Ebonics was added to the translator teams. Why are there no dialects outside Elizabethan English? Shouldn't we welcome those Cajuns?
@Ronald Nolette I don't believe @doctrox was trying to pull a fast one, obviously, because he used brackets, a different methodology than references for footnotes, or like what most people here do, they write between the verses or lines in the margins.