Answer: Please see answer in explanation column
Explanation:
According To Christians, In Kings James version of the Bible --Ist Corinthians 11 vs 3 it reads that
"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." Here, Paul was addressing the church.
We can then correctly fill with the appropriate following the bible answer that
1. head of man ----Christ
2. body of Christ---- Church
3. head of Christ--- God
4. glory of man --woman
5. head of woman -- Man
Also In 1 Corinthians 11:7. “For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man."
Here, Paul was explaining how worship in church should be in relation to to head coverings for women when worshiping.
Paul explained that woman is the glory of man.
Answer:
D Japan was more into nature art whereas Europe was into religious paintings
Explanation:
I hope this helps you and have a great day :D
Napoleon Bonaparte had a contradictory character. He had an unusual personality. The writer Germaine de Staël described him as being ‘neither good nor violent, neither gentle nor cruel’, which denotes that he was <em>neutral</em>, a<em> calm </em>and <em>calculated/prudent </em>person. he was considered<em> unique </em>and <em>very special </em>for the actions he took and the thinking he put into taking decisions. By the French writer Stendhal, he was seen as <em>very </em><span><em>ambitious</em> (''endowed with amazing abilities and a dangerous ambition’'). He was very <em>firm</em> when it was about facing his <span>opponents. Even more, he could get even mad when his passions had to face disputes. He was a very difficult person, but that made him more <em>powerful </em>than the others. Also, it is said that ''his diversity (<em>diverse</em>) made him <em>fascinating''</em>. He was hostile to his older brother. He had a military, legislative and <span>diplomatic talent. |He was<em> popular</em>, but his more of defects were: picky (<span>squeamish), selfish, egocentric.</span></span></span></span>
Public policy in the United States is shaped by a wide variety of forces, from polls and election results to interest groups and institutions, both formal and informal. In addition to political parties, the influence of diverse and sometimes antagonistic political forces has been widely acknowledged by policymakers and evidenced by scholars, and journalists. In recent years concerns have been growing that deep-pocketed donors now play an unprecedented role in American politics — concerns supported by 2013 research from Harvard and the University of Sydney that found that for election integrity, the U.S. ranked 26th out of 66 countries analyzed.
The question of who shapes public policies and under what conditions is a critical one, particularly in the context of declining voter turnout. From both a theoretical and practical point of view, it is important to understand if voters still have the possibility of providing meaningful input into public policies, or if the government bypasses citizens in favor of economic elites and interest groups with strong fundraising and organizational capacity.
I think you forgot to add the options but based on my research, the correct answer is "The unemployment rate increased in cities." This statement describes an effect of urbanization. Thank you for posting your question. I hope this answer helped you. Let me know if you need more help.
