Permit me to reciprocate some considerations. You said:

“If we can assume that the opposite of long hair is shorn hair. And, form your opinion, long hair would be covered, and shorn hair would be uncovered, then how can a woman, whose hair is not covered (or, by you, shorn) get her hair shorn, again?”

To answer your question, the opposite of long is short, not shorn. Short hair and shorn (shaved) are different. To shave is to remove it all. To cut hair short is to mimic a man. If the woman is going to do the one, she may as well go all the way.

1 Corinthians 11:6 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.

Paul was stating that if a woman is going to wear short hair, she may as well shave her head because neither shaven nor short hair makes for a proper head covering.

1 Corinthians 11:14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
1 Corinthians 11:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

The opposite of man is woman. The opposite of long is short. If a man has long hair it is a shame. If a woman has short hair it is also a shame. She may as well shave it off entirely. That is what I believe the passage teaches.

You stated, “Seeing these words are different, you cannot say that 1Cor 11.5 and 1 Cor 11.15 are the same, because they arent.”

To say we need to understand the Greek to understand the English is more of a concern than whether the translators of the English Bible thought we might be confused by two matching English words in the same context. The point is moot in my opinion. The English is clear – we need no Greek clarification.

Your thoughts are appreciated. However, I think the passage is quite clear if we are willing to read what it says and believe it, rather than questioning it. What would a babe in Christ think of this passage? I think most would come to my conclusion – which is by no means original. Better men that myself have expounded this self-same teaching, including Paul .

Thanks for stopping by.
Bro. Cheek

Randomly stumbled upon this from a websearch.

I’d say it is well set out and logical.

Couple of point I’d like to add for you to consider. Don’t know if you still check this, but, I’ll write it anyway.

1. vs 6 – “For if a woman be not covered, let her also be shorn”
If we can assume that the opposite of long hair is shorn hair. And, form your opinion, long hair would be covered, and shorn hair would be uncovered, then how can a woman, whose hair is not covered (or, by you, shorn) get her hair shorn, again? This would imply that the covering is not her hair, but a seperate item (or thing or whatever)

2. vs 15 – “for her hair is given her for a covering”
The word covering here is Gr. peribolaion, and only occurs here, and in Hebrews 1.12, translated ‘vesture’
The word used in vs 6 & 7 is Gr. katakalupto.
and vs 5 as Gr. akatakalupto (the a added to make it ‘uncovered’)

Seeing these words are different, you cannot say that 1Cor 11.5 and 1 Cor 11.15 are the same, because they arent.

3. vs 14 – “Doth not even nature itself teach you…”
I would say that this verse changed from what he is teaching, to what nature teaches, just as it changed from an external covering (what he teaches) to a natural covering (what nautre teaches), not being direct evidence of what he is saying, but an example, or, similar to a type, in which we can learn from and apply it to what he was aying.

4. vs 10 – “for this cause ought the women to have [authority] on her head because of the angels”
Read Gen 6.2, 2 Peter 2.4 and Jude 6 for linking verses, which is interesting if you understand it.

5. – vs 16 – I just wanted to say that your explaination I had trouble with. I had to go to other sources, which confirmed what you wrote. Just something to think about.

Anyway, hope this finds you well, and, the Lord willing, you may learn something from what I have shared.

God Bless