Crossdressing...Just how does a woman participate? - Page 29

Pressing-On · #**281** 08-30-2011, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

lol and read the text and apply it's meaning. It is not limited to just warrior and armour. geber is not strict at all in it's usage.

That is how it appears to me. The definition also says, "generally a person simply - everyone". No translation that I have read reflects any notion of that scripture referencing a warrior. It seems as though it would be taking liberties to do that.

Praxeas · #**282** 08-30-2011, 04:36 PM

geḇer: A masculine noun meaning man, mighty (virile) man, warrior. It is used of man but often contains more than just a reference to gender by referring to the nature of a man, usually with overtones of spiritual strength or masculinity, based on the verb gāḇar (H1396), meaning to be mighty. The word is used to contrast men with women and children (Exo_10:11) and to denote warrior ability (Jer_41:16). The fifteen occurrences of the word in Job are significant, presenting a vast contrast between the essence of man (even a good one) and God (Job_4:17; Job_22:2). This contrast only adds more force to the passage in Zec_13:7 where God calls Himself geḇer. This passage points to the coming of Jesus-the One who as God would take on sinful human nature. He is the Man (the Shepherd of the sheep).

Pressing-On · #**283** 08-30-2011, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Praxeas

geḇer: A masculine noun meaning man, mighty (virile) man, warrior. It is used of man but often contains more than just a reference to gender by referring to the nature of a man, usually with overtones of spiritual strength or masculinity, based on the verb gāḇar (H1396), meaning to be mighty. The word is used to contrast men with women and children (Exo_10:11) and to denote warrior ability (Jer_41:16). The fifteen occurrences of the word in Job are significant, presenting a vast contrast between the essence of man (even a good one) and God (Job_4:17; Job_22:2). This contrast only adds more force to the passage in Zec_13:7 where God calls Himself geḇer. This passage points to the coming of Jesus-the One who as God would take on sinful human nature. He is the Man (the Shepherd of the sheep).

I could more, because of various translations, understand Deut. 22:5 speaking to the man toward his "masculinity" as opposed to being "feminine" in women's clothing. I still believe the "abomination" is referring to homosexuality. Don't see warrior here at all.

Praxeas · #**284** 08-30-2011, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I could more, because of various translations, understand Deut. 22:5 speaking to the man toward his "masculinity" as opposed to being "feminine" in women's clothing. I still believe the "abomination" is referring to homosexuality. Don't see warrior here at all.

I see roles, the role of the man which was not merely that of a warrior but includes it

BrotherEastman · #**285** 08-30-2011, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

lol and read the text and apply it's meaning. It is not limited to just warrior and armour. geber is not strict at all in it's usage.

So, because it isn't strict in its usage we can assume women shall not wear pants?

Pressing-On · #**286** 08-30-2011, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I see roles, the role of the man which was not merely that of a warrior but includes it

I could agree with the role of the man. The definition says it references more than gender, by referring to the nature of man.

MissBrattified · #**287** 08-30-2011, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I could agree with the role of the man. The definition says it references more than gender, by referring to the nature of man.

This post appears to be discussing more than the origin of pants in society.

Pressing-On · #**288** 08-30-2011, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

This post appears to be discussing more than the origin of pants in society.

I don't understand what you are saying here. My posts in regard to the origin of pants in society had to do with the title of this thread. I wasn't putting that together with Deut 22:5.

Amanah · #**289** 08-30-2011, 05:39 PM

The women not wearing pants standard is a health hazzard. We live in a society that has become sedentary. Most of our work is done on computers. We sit in front on computers at work and at home. We sit on our butts at church. We sit a lot.

We have an obesity epidemic. 60% of US women are obese.
http://www.womenshealth.gov/publicat...ght-loss.cfm#a

Years ago when I joined a UPChurch, I gave up my 5 mile a day run, and my active lifestyle to comply with a dress standard that made it very uncomfortable for me to exercise. I gained weight. Our bodies were created to move and work, not sit all day.

When I abandoned the dress standard, I began to run, lift weights, and swim. I feel so much better physically. I am a healthy weight. I could never go back to the bondage of being confined to dresses all the time. It's like chinese women having their feet bound.

MissBrattified · #**290** 08-30-2011, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I don't understand what you are saying here. My posts in regard to the origin of pants in society had to do with the title of this thread. I wasn't putting that together with Deut 22:5.

I don't think I've mentioned Deut. 22:5 either...I've been discussing cross dressing. So I was equally bumfuzzled as to why you made this comment:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Thanks for taking the time, but I'm not interested in this type of conversation. I was mainly interested, because of the title of the thread, in the "origin" of pants in society.