Quote:
Originally Posted by BobDylan
Are you speaking of the traditional OP interpretation and application? How was this passage interpreted and applied 2000 years ago? What if you wipe out the history of American culture, except for the way people have dressed for the last 30 years, how would it be possible to come to this traditional conclusion?
Consider, that OP's today who appeal to the pants/skirts interpretation of Deut 22:5 are doing so from a 1940's socitie's paradigm. If you were to only use the paradigm of "men's/women's" apparel for society of the last 30 years, what would be the most probable interpretation and application? Would people arbitrarily conclude pants/skirts? Or is there another tenable conclusion that they could arrive at besides "pants/skirts" and still be consistent with the "spirit" of the law of Deut 22:5? |
Again, my point that I was trying to make it is the MAN trying to look like a woman? Is the WOMAN trying to look like a man?
It is not about women wearing pants, which was not even an issue 2,000 years ago, as even men didn't wear pants. Both genders wore robes with color distinction.
But that scripture IMO is about MEN/WOMEN not dressing to look like the opposite sex.
We keep saying that scripture is to women, it is too both sexes.
Threaded Mode
