Changes

The foundation of this view is not of interpretation, but translation. Most of the translation error is because Because [[Koine Greek]] has no puncuation, thus it does not always clearly show quotations, the ending of sentences, and questions. All of these are put in place by the translator.

 When using the traditional translation, the Bushnell view postulates that several problems and contradictions arise. For these reasons alone we must interpret that Paul is not commanding the covering of women. Bushnell's view eliminates all these problems.

If According to the Bushnell view, if a man dishonors his Head, Christ, by covering it, then woman, whose Head is Christ also, would dishonor her Head, Christ, by covering it. This implies women should uncover.

If According to the Bushnell view, if a man should uncover because he is in the image of God, then woman, who is in the image of God, should uncover also. This implies women should uncover.

The first problem There is discovering what is meant in verse 10 by no clear consensus on the interpretation of "because of the angels." Scholars seem to agree there is no obvious interpretation.

 Paul commands women to have authority on their head. What is the "authority?" By context, it can only possibly either be a head covering, or a lack of a head covering. By According to the Bushnell view, by reasoning, a head covering is not a sign of authority; Paul forbids the men from covering because their covering a sign of sin, which makes slaves of its owners. Thus Paul must be ordering women to uncover as a sign of their authority.

 These verses say that man and woman are together. Why As pointed out by the Bushnell view, why would Paul include this in a passage where he treats men and women differently? The verses are an arguement that the same rule applies to women as to men, implying that women should unveil as well.

 Paul write wrote the lengthy letter of [[1 Corinthians ]] mostly to teach and correct. The Corinthian church is appears to have been divisive, arrogant ([[1 Cor Corinthians 4:18]]), houses housing a sexually immoral man (5:1), and Paul implies they are at least tempted by prostitution (6:16). This According to the Bushnell view, this is not a group that Paul would trust have trusted to make their own conclusions concerning women ("judge for yourselves"). Moreover, he would not write this passage instructing them on covering if he later told them to decide for themselves.

An According to the Bushnell view, an honest attempt to answer Paul's question, "Does nature teach . . ." will yield an undeniable "No." It is not a shame for a man to have long hair; the Nazarite vow ([[Numbers 6:5]]) certainly seems to deny this. If anything, Nature nature teaches that everyone should have long hair, because, left on its own, anyone's hair will grow long.

 Paul denies that neither he nor other churches have "such custom." What custom is he refering to? It According to the Bushnell view, it must be the custom of covering, for no other custom is mentioned. Thus he has contradicted himself, or at least, the view that he is commanding covering.

 Interpreting the passage as cultural and temporary brings the problemm that much of Paul's evidence is not cultural, but theological. Things like According to the Bushnell view, things such as a man and woman being binded bound together, the woman being created for man, and nature itself, are not temporary but eternalthings. If And so, if Paul uses eternal arguements, his conclusion must logically would be eternal.

 The American Standard Version translates relatively the same as all similarly to other well known translations. The following compares this with Bushnell's translation and explains her reasons. Only explanations for the more important differences are explained. Read [[God's Word to Women Lesson 32]] and [[=God's Word to Women Lesson 33 | Lesson 33]] for complete explanations.:

 Note that Bushnell's words within brackets '''[ ]''' are intended as aided interpretation. If a reader where were comfortable with her translation and interpretation, these thoughts would occur mentally while reading. They are not intended as insertions to the text; that is, if it were published within a complete translation of the Bible, they would be removed or used only in footnotes. Note also that the many minor differences between the texts are simply the result of different paths of translation. Ideally, a comparison would be made between the Revised Standard Version which Bushnell usually used herself and probably used to aid her in this translation.

 As noted above, in the Jewish tradition it was suitable punishment to shave the head of a women accused of adultery, as would an uncovered women would likely be if she were married to a nonChristian non-Jew. It was unusual for Paul to agree with any Jewish tradition, let alone not directly connected with the [[Messiah]]. It also strange that Paul would say "If it is a shame . . ." after mentioning why it would so shameful.