Crossdressing...Just how does a woman participate?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

answer the question. I know the facts. A reason why I asked the questions as I have debated this poor argument forever. If you want to argue APPLICATION of the scripture... fine that to me is open for discussion.

To make it limited to warrior gear/warrior and goddess worship.... sorry but the text does not allow for it to be limited that way.

Ok, L. Have at it. Let's see who has a poor argument. Why is warrior used in Hebrew? To demand scripture for the worship issue is like asking you why linen should not be mingled with wool. The scriptures do not always detail background reasons for statements. Case in point: mixing wool with linen in the same chapter. What is wrong with that? Wh do you not follow that?

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Ok, L. Have at it. Let's see who has a poor argument. Why is warrior used in Hebrew? The scriptures do not always detail background reasons for statements. Case in point: mixing wool with linen in the same chapter. What is wrong with that? Wh do you not follow that?

I asked you to prove your arguement not simply pulling a Strongs' definition out and going "seeee" It is your assertion to prove. LOL Simply throwing definitions doesn't prove application and actual usage of the word and usage shows it is nowhere even 20% used as "warrior." I asked for specifics. You demand the word is warrior. I beg to differ by the scripture itself along with it's usage all throughout the OT.

Translate Deut 22:5 for me how it should read in english since "man" is incorrect.

Sure it doesn't tell us all background but the texts usage shows us it is not strictly about that. Moses pointed out many times but he nowhere he even hints at this like that escpecially when related to pagan aspects of other nations when needed. I do believe arguing against idolatry and idol worship would cover crazy acts of crossdressing to a fertility goddess. so to me the point of saying one thing and limiting it to another is rather strange at best.

NOTE: Even when used in contrast with OTHER words for "man" enos, adawm, yish in the surrounding scriptures etc.... it is not shown with distinction as "warrior."

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

I asked you to prove your arguement not simply pulling a Strongs' definition out and going "seeee" It is your assertion to prove.

I already stated some facts were not stated in scripture. And I proved that to you by asking you why wool and linen should not be worn together. You failed to answer me, dodging it, and then trying to put focus on how you asked me to show you scripture for the false worship connection to Deut 22:5. Now, if your argument is iron-clad, answer my question.

LOL Simply throwing definitions doesn't prove application and actual usage of the word and usage shows it is nowhere even 20% used as "warrior." I asked for specifics. You demand the word is warrior. I beg to differ by the scripture itself along with it's usage all throughout the OT.

Not good enough. Prove your point. GHEBER was used for a reason instead of simply MAN - ish.

Translate Deut 22:5 for me how it should read in english since "man" is incorrect. Why was not MAN used itself?

Sure it doesn't tell us all background but the texts usage shows us it is not strictly about that. Moses pointed out many times but he nowhere he even hints at this like that escpecially when pagan aspects of other nations when needed. I do believe arguing against idolatry and idol worship would cover crazy acts of crossdressing to a fertility goddess. so to me the point of saying one thing and limiting it to another is rather strange at best.

NOTE: Even when used in contrast with OTHER words for "man" enos, adawm, yish etc.... it is not shown with distinction as "warrior."

It is not simply a male. Period. Now, if you demand me to provide scripture for the worship issue, then prove I should be able to provide it by showing me scripture as to why linen should not be mixed with wool.

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I already stated some facts were not stated in scripture. And I proved that to you by asking you why wool and linen should nto be worn together. You failed to answer me, dodging it, and then trying to put focus on how you asked me to show you scripture for the false worship conduction to Deut 22:5. Now, if your argument is iron-clad, answer my question.

hilarious... as if your POINT proves the translation and meaning of Deut 22:5. seriously. I already said sometimes it doesn't but the text doesn't even hint thus IT IS SPECULATION by YOU! Thanks for proving my point!

Not good enough. Prove your point. GHEBER was used for a reason instead of simply MAN.

So you re going to throw the burden on me. LOL So "warrior" is it's only meaning Mike? I asked you to show usage of it to prove it.

It is not simply a male.

Really so it is never used simply as male?Again I ask YOU to translate the text as your argument demands!!!!!!!!


Period.

Now, if you demand me to provide scripture for the worship issue, then prove I should be able to provide it by showing me scripture as to why linen should not be mixed with wool.

run around instead of dealing with the text Mike and the actual usage. You are arguing about PLAUSIBILITY of a speculating opinion because you can throw out SEE the bible doesn't always tell us ALL of what it is referencing. Guess what... yes it it truuueee but it DOESN'T MAKE YOUR ARGUMENT for actual usage according to HOW THE WORDS ARE USED IN THE ACTUAL TEXT! You demand and apply a complete bias to a word without studying the word as a whole AND it's actual usage in the text. Again answer the Q's.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

Translate Deut 22:5 for me how it should read in english since "man" is incorrect.

What difference does it make since this was the Law of Moses, the Old Testament done away with and replaced by the NT

What difference does it make since you don't adhere to the Old Testament

What difference does it make since at this time pants were not clothing pertaining to men, what they wore were robes like women did.

How can this verse prove women should not wear pants when Pants do not pertain to a man:?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

hilarious... as if your POINT proves the translation and meaning of Deut 22:5. seriously. I already said sometimes it doesn't but the text doesn't even hint thus IT IS SPECULATION by YOU! Thanks for proving my point!

Oh please, with the childish "hilarious". (Why cannot people talk without juvenile accusations of what is allegedly funny?)

Scholars abound who claim what I did. So it is not an opinion of me.

So "warrior" is it's only meaning Mike? I asked you to show usage of it to prove it.

I gave you the definition in Hebrew. I ever said it was the only definition either. Are you going to say this is hilarious again?

[quote]

run around instead of dealing with the text Mike and the actual usage. You are arguing about PLAUSIBILITY of a speculating opinion because you can throw out SEE the bible doesn't always tell us ALL of what it is referencing. Guess what... yes it it truuueee but it DOESN'T MAKE YOU ARGUMENT for actuall usage according to HOW THE WORDS ARE USED IN THE ACTUAL TEXT! You demand and apply a complete bias to a word without studying the word as a whole AND it's actual usage in the text. Again answer the Q's.

I already said twice now that some issues are not explained in the bible such as why linen and wool should not be mixed. Again, if you think I should be able to prove that is not true, then show me why wool should nto be mixed with linen using bible.

PS, I believe the passage can simply mean men do nto wear women's clothing and women not wear men's. I never said that CANNOT be the point. But the fact is that PANTS ARER NOT JUST MEN'S CLOTHING, and Deut 22 never mentioned PAN TS to begin with. And THAT is the actual point in this thread. Pants versus dresses on women, right?

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

What difference does it make since this was the Law of Moses, the Old Testament done away with and replaced by the NT

What difference does it make since you don't adhere to the Old Testament

What difference does it make since at this time pants were not clothing pertaining to men, what they wore were robes like women did.

How can this verse prove women should not wear pants when Pants do not pertain to a man:?

Principle righteousness is never done away. All scripture is given for instruction in righteousness. The Mosaic Covenant/OT was referenced all the time in principle teaching.

distinction in clothing is no different than Paul arguing in 1 cor about order among men and women.

The Law of Moses contain both pure light and shadow. Few things are a abomination and it brings special attention to this verse.

I am arguing about practical understanding not how the distinctive is applied.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

I am arguing about practical understanding not how the distinctive is applied.

Practical understanding involves the FACT that God meant culturally acceptable distinctions are the point. Mankind CHANGED the tradition of robes to pants for men. You just refuse the present cultural change for women, which makes you inconsistent. Had you been around in the days of the changeover from robes to pants for men, your actions today prove you would have refused it.

[mfblume]

Some "hilarious" scholarly thoughts by Adam Clarke.

The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man - כלי גבר keli geber, the instruments or arms of a man. As the word גבר geber is here used, which properly signifies a strong man or man of war, it is very probable that armor is here intended; especially as we know that in the worship of Venus, to which that of Astarte or Ashtaroth among the Canaanites bore a striking resemblance, the women were accustomed to appear in armor before her. It certainly cannot mean a simple change in dress, whereby the men might pass for women, and vice versa. This would have been impossible in those countries where the dress of the sexes had but little to distinguish it, and where every man wore a long beard. It is, however, a very good general precept understood literally, and applies particularly to those countries where the dress alone distinguishes between the male and the female. The close-shaved gentleman may at any time appear like a woman in the female dress, and the woman appear as a man in the male's attire. Were this to be tolerated in society, it would produce the greatest confusion. Clodius, who dressed himself like a woman that he might mingle with the Roman ladies in the feast of the Bona Dea, was universally execrated.

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Oh please, with the childish "hilarious". (Why cannot people talk without juvenile accusations of what is allegedly funny?)

Scholars abound who claim what I did. So it is not an opinion of me.

so I can post anything from xyz scholar.

I gave you the definition in Hebrew. I ever said it was the only definition either. Are you going to say this is hilarious again?

no but that is how you treated the subject. You sure did not present a balanced opinion or even close.

I already said twice now that some issues are not explained in the bible such as why linen and wool should not be mixed. Again, if you think I should be able to prove that is not true, then show me why wool should nto be mixed with linen using bible.

not goingto argue a pointeless point that does not help the whole discussion. MY point is simple. IT is speculative. If you cannot see that and agree then you have basic exegesis issues. Sure it does not negate it being true but the TEXT DOES NOT SHOW IT thus is speculative.

PS, I believe the passage can simply mean men do nto wear women's clothing and women not wear men's.

I never said that CANNOT be the point. But the fact is that PANTS ARER NOT JUST MEN'S CLOTHING, and Deut 22 never mentioned PAN TS to begin with. And THAT is the actual point in this thread. Pants versus dresses on women, right?

I am simply dealing with Deut 22:5 and saying it is warrior gear or only referencing warrior.

If you would simply interpret the text like I asked you accoring to your interpretation you would quickly see my point.