What shall I do with this word - "Wear"?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by SarahElizabeth

A woman was pointed out to me as having a demonic spirit when I first started to church and I avoided her...Not so sure it was true, but maybe it was. I dunno. Looking back, I dunno.

Well you have to wonder why she is there and why, if she had a spirit, didn't they cast it out? If she "kept picking it back up" as they often say, why is she allowed to be there?

[Ron]

Originally Posted by Felicity

Of course you know that there is a rebuttal argument to the points made in the initial post, right? There would have to be after all.

Well for the record.








I don't wear dresses!!!

[Felicity]

Originally Posted by Ron

Well for the record.








I don't wear dresses!!!

Good thing! They wouldn't "suit" you at all.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Uh. Hayah is the Hebrew word used for I AM that I AM in our english bibles...weird that it would be translated wear. Did the woman leave and not come back? I think it is the dumbest thing for a preacher to approach standards and clothing like that when you have new people sitting there (or any other time)...Im sure they did not come to church to be called a prostitute in front of a bunch of strangers

On that verse Keil and Delitzsch say
Deu_22:5
As the property of a neighbour was to be sacred in the estimation of an Israelite, so also the divine distinction of the sexes, which was kept sacred in civil life by the clothing peculiar to each sex, was to be not less but even more sacredly observed. “There shall not be man's things upon a woman, and a man shall not put on a woman's clothes.” כּלי does not signify clothing merely, nor arms only, but includes every kind of domestic and other utensils (as in Exo_22:6; Lev_11:32; Lev_13:49). The immediate design of this prohibition was not to prevent licentiousness, or to oppose idolatrous practices (the proofs which Spencer has adduced of the existence of such usages among heathen nations are very far-fetched); but to maintain the sanctity of that distinction of the sexes which was established by the creation of man and woman, and in relation to which Israel was not to sin. Every violation or wiping out of this distinction - such even, for example, as the emancipation of a woman - was unnatural, and therefore an abomination in the sight of God.
--------------
Probably the translation should mean then "there shall not be on" or "no clothing pertaining to a man will be on" or something to that effect. So to translate this as wear is a bad translation, not that it really matters for the meaning

Actually, ehyeh asher ehyeh is rendered - "I am who I am" and derives from the Qal imperfect first person form of the verb havah, which means, "I will be".

Your Lutheran people above are just putting out what they think the passage means. It makes sense to them, but not following the actual Hebrew, IMO. Sounds a little like Matthew Henry on the subject - kinda of skewed.

Pretty solid thought for Deut 22:5 to say - "I will be". That's a little more than just putting some clothing on, IMHO.

[Ron]

Originally Posted by Felicity

Good thing! They wouldn't "suit" you at all.

I dida weara Kilt whena I wuz in the Seaforth Highlanders Army Cadets!

[Ron]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Uh. Hayah is the Hebrew word used for I AM that I AM in our english bibles...weird that it would be translated wear. Did the woman leave and not come back? I think it is the dumbest thing for a preacher to approach standards and clothing like that when you have new people sitting there (or any other time)...Im sure they did not come to church to be called a prostitute in front of a bunch of strangers

On that verse Keil and Delitzsch say
Deu_22:5
As the property of a neighbour was to be sacred in the estimation of an Israelite, so also the divine distinction of the sexes, which was kept sacred in civil life by the clothing peculiar to each sex, was to be not less but even more sacredly observed. “There shall not be man's things upon a woman, and a man shall not put on a woman's clothes.” כּלי does not signify clothing merely, nor arms only, but includes every kind of domestic and other utensils (as in Exo_22:6; Lev_11:32; Lev_13:49). The immediate design of this prohibition was not to prevent licentiousness, or to oppose idolatrous practices (the proofs which Spencer has adduced of the existence of such usages among heathen nations are very far-fetched); but to maintain the sanctity of that distinction of the sexes which was established by the creation of man and woman, and in relation to which Israel was not to sin. Every violation or wiping out of this distinction - such even, for example, as the emancipation of a woman - was unnatural, and therefore an abomination in the sight of God.
--------------
Probably the translation should mean then "there shall not be on" or "no clothing pertaining to a man will be on" or something to that effect. So to translate this as wear is a bad translation, not that it really matters for the meaning

Wives are slaves??


Maybe the Mormons have something!

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Ron

Wives are slaves??


Maybe the Mormons have something!

Yeah, something you don't - more than one wife!!!

[COOPER]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

To many things get labeled with a spirit any ways.

Black hose are of a spirit? Denims are homo spirit? Come on....

What spirit are you of if you wear shorts?

[BoredOutOfMyMind]

Originally Posted by COOPER

To many things get labeled with a spirit any ways.

Black hose are of a spirit? Denims are homo spirit? Come on....

What spirit are you of if you wear shorts?

Golf?

OR below the knee?

[COOPER]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Yeah, something you don't - more than one wife!!!