Six reasons Martin gives for testicle in 1 Corinthians 11 -- all fail

(1) Martin misrepresents the traditional view as translating anti as 'instead of' -- virtually all translations use 'for.' (2) Singular/plural argument is valid but only removes an obstacle, doesn't prove the view. (3) 'A body part on one side, so body part on the other' is circular reasoning. (4) Hair as genitalia requiring Jewish covering -- but Greeks who held this medical view didn't treat hair as genitalia; Jews didn't hold this medical view; coverings didn't fully cover hair. (5) 'Because of the angels' depends on the lustful angels view, which Mike already rejected. (6) Appeal to tradition is actually self-refuting: the traditional translation of 'covering' already works perfectly.