Deuteronomy 22:5

[GrowingPains]

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

oh of course..... it was all the same thing.... Where do you come up with this logic? The scripture is clear and I have argued the points before and it is what it is. How to apply it is another issue we can argue but distinction of clothing is clear in the text no matter how you want to cut it.

There is likewise still distinction in the category of denim jeans, between men's and women's.

[GrowingPains]

Originally Posted by Pragmatist

I don't remember who, but I think someone researched and in that time as part of idol worship men and women would cross dress and commit adultery and that was the abomination (the idol worship and adultery), not the type of clothing.

Scholars (surprise, surprise) have no agreement on this -- but we have enough information to understand some basics from the Text.

[POWERUP]

Yawn, Yawn.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

yawn...

Also the geber argument is poor and I have detroyed that pathetic argument before. Structure and thought process does not allow it.

What a man thinks in his own mind about what he destroyed may not truly have been destroyed at all by him.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

yawn...

Also the geber argument is poor and I have detroyed that pathetic argument before. Structure and thought process does not allow it.

What is the "geber argument?"

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by mfblume

What a man thinks in his own mind about what he destroyed may not truly have been destroyed at all by him.

that is correct....

[KWSS1976]

Whats a geber argument luke?

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

What is the "geber argument?"

that the context of Deut 22:5 is talking about weapons "keliy" of war and the reference to man = warrior "geber" etc... THe context though shows otherwise and the second part makes no sense at all if the first part is warrior. It also shows KWS point above that clothes in part are the issue but not the only issues. It doesn't lighten the point it makes it more full in the lives of God's servants not less effective. Which you would expect but most want to minimize it's use which effectively makes way for do what you want as usual with no rational thought for today just a lot of gray area so everyone is "ok"! Just to put is mildly and short!

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by Pragmatist

I don't remember who, but I think someone researched and in that time as part of idol worship men and women would cross dress and commit adultery and that was the abomination (the idol worship and adultery), not the type of clothing.

show me the reference that points to this? Not guess work but the context in the passage that says so.

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by GrowingPains

There is likewise still distinction in the category of denim jeans, between men's and women's.

modesty from a historical stand point of form fitting on women and what it reveals says otherwise. JMHO Would never have been acceptable what I see on women today... How will God judge it? Not sure, but I don't want to find out on me or my family.