The problem I've personally seen is that a clothesline is so preached about that modesty...well, there isn't room for that kind of preaching.
So I see immodestly dressed women in skirts and dresses, but they are given a pass because they are following the clothesline.
And understand that when men first wore pants, they were considered immodest, and in some areas, unmanly, because they were considered women's attire.
you got it ho, that is exactly right, preach the word and let the spirit do the work, god can do more in 5 minutes to change a man or a woman than we can in a lifetime, go girl, dt
you got it ho, that is exactly right, preach the word and let the spirit do the work, god can do more in 5 minutes to change a man or a woman than we can in a lifetime, go girl, dt
You saw what I saw at family camp last week, didn't you???
__________________
I've gone and done it now! I'm on Facebook!!!
Hayah is used many times in scriptures though NOT refering to God
And actually what I said was wrong. Hayah is what Yahweh is derived from, all three words are related but Hayah means "will be"
Gen 16:12 And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.
You can't isolate one word from it's context.
Not enough time to go over this, but here is the TWOT
0491 - haya
Hebrew Word: haya
Strong's Cross Reference: 1933, 1961,
Definition: to be, become, exist, happen.
This verb appears 3,540 times in Biblical Hebrew, and all of these are in the Qal stem except for twenty-one uses of the Niphal. The verb is related to another Hebrew word meaning "to become," hawa (only five times: Gen_27:29; Isa_16:4; Ecc_2:22; Ecc_11:3; Neh_6:6), and the same verb in Biblical Aramaic, hawa (71 times). In Akkadian its phonetic equivalent, ewu, means "to turn oneself into, to become like." To express being or existence Akkadian uses not ewu but bashu (much like Ugaritic and Phoenician kun).
This seems like the most logical explanation and still supports my original post. Back to square one.
Quote:
Very seldom in the OT is haya used to denote either simple existence or the identification of a thing or person. This can be illustrated by a quick glance at almost any page of the KJV on which one will find numerous examples of words such as "is, are, was, were," in italics, indicating that these are additions by the translators for the sake of smoothness, but not in the Hebrew itself. In such cases the Hebrew employs what is known grammatically as a nominal sentence, which we may define most simply as a sentence lacking verb or a copula, for example: I (am) the Lord your God; the Lord (is) a sun and shield; the land (is) good; and in the NT, blessed (are) the poor. This almost total lack of haya as a copula or existential particle has led some to use this phenomenon as confirming evidence that "static" thought was alien to the Hebrews, the latter thinking only in "dynamic" categories (see Boman in the bibliography below).
No italics until you come to "are" abomination. So this can't be relating to the first portion of the passage.
Quote:
An alternative way in Hebrew to express existence besides the nominal sentence is by the particles yesh (positive) and 'ayin (negative), really another type of nominal sentence "perhaps 'there are' fifty righteous in the city"; " 'there is' no God." Both of these words are more substantival in nature than they are verbal, and in function they resemble the French il y a and the German es gibt.
Whatevah.
Quote:
There are instances, however, where haya is used with a predicate adjective: (a) in the description of a past situation which no longer exists, "The earth was (hayeta) formless and void" (Gen_1:2); (b) in historical narration, "The serpent was (haya) more subtil than any beast of the field" (Gen_3:1); (c) in the expression of a gnomic truth, "It is not good that man should be (heyot) alone" (Gen_2:18). Notice the juxtaposition of the verbal sentence, with haya and a nominal sentence without it: "You shall be (tihyu) holy for I (am) holy (qadosh'ani, Lev_19:2). Boman would account for the absence of a copula in the latter part of this phrase by stating that the predicate (holy) is inherent in the subject (God) and hence the copula is unnecessary. He would also add that the first "be" really means "become." To jump from this observation, however, to the conclusion that the basic meaning of "to be" in the Bible is "to become" seems to be unwarranted.
Wear here is not used with a predicate adjective.
Quote:
Of special import is the use of the verb haya in covenant formulae: I will be your God and you will be my people (Jer_7:23; Jer_11:4; Jer_24:7; Jer_31:33; etc.), and in the context of God's promises of blessings and judgments: and I will make of you a great nation... and you shall be a blessing (Gen_12:2). A frequent, although perhaps misleading, translation of haya is, as we have noted above, "to come." This can be seen in connection with God's spirit "coming" upon an individual (Jdg_11:29; 1Sa_19:20), and in those places where God's word "came" to someone (Gen_15:1; 1Sa_15:10; 2Sa_7:4; Jer_36:1).
No covenant formula.
Quote:
A final and brief word may be said about the meaning and interpretation of Jehovah/yahweh. It seems beyond doubt that the name contains the verb haya "to be" (but also see article YHWH). The question is whether or not it is the verb "to be" in the Qal, "He is," or the Hiphil, "He causes to be," a view championed by W. F. Albright. The strongest objection to this latter interpretation is that it necessitates a correction in the reading of the key text in Exo_3:14; "I am that I am." Most likely the name should be translated something like "I am he who is," or "I am he who exists" as reflected by the Lxx's ego eimi ho ov. The echo of this is found surely in the NT, Rev_1:8. More than anything perhaps, the "is-ness" of God is expressive both of his presence and his existence. Neither concept can be said to be more important than the other.
Not an interpretation of Jehovah/Yahweh in this passage.
you got it ho, that is exactly right, preach the word and let the spirit do the work, god can do more in 5 minutes to change a man or a woman than we can in a lifetime, go girl, dt
Had to do a double take there...
__________________ Let it be understood that Apostolic Friends Forum is an Apostolic Forum.
Apostolic is defined on AFF as:
There is One God. This one God reveals Himself distinctly as Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
The Son is God himself in a human form or "God manifested in the flesh" (1Tim 3:16)
Every sinner must repent of their sins.
That Jesus name baptism is the only biblical mode of water baptism.
That the Holy Ghost is for today and is received by faith with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues.
The saint will go on to strive to live a holy life, pleasing to God.
This seems like the most logical explanation and still supports my original post. Back to square one.
No italics until you come to "are" abomination. So this can't be relating to the first portion of the passage.
The TWOT wasn't referring to this verse but to how it is usually used.
Whatevah.
Wear here is not used with a predicate adjective.
No covenant formula.
Not an interpretation of Jehovah/Yahweh in this passage.
Now I have a headache. I'm going to bed.
You know neither I nor the TWOT said this was all about that one verse. It's about the word instead and how it is used.
Did you see how K&D translate it?
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.
__________________ Let it be understood that Apostolic Friends Forum is an Apostolic Forum.
Apostolic is defined on AFF as:
There is One God. This one God reveals Himself distinctly as Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
The Son is God himself in a human form or "God manifested in the flesh" (1Tim 3:16)
Every sinner must repent of their sins.
That Jesus name baptism is the only biblical mode of water baptism.
That the Holy Ghost is for today and is received by faith with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues.
The saint will go on to strive to live a holy life, pleasing to God.
The TWOT wasn't referring to this verse but to how it is usually used.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PO
Whatevah.
Wear here is not used with a predicate adjective.
No covenant formula.
Not an interpretation of Jehovah/Yahweh in this passage.
Now I have a headache. I'm going to bed.
You know neither I nor the TWOT said this was all about that one verse. It's about the word instead and how it is used.
Did you see how K&D translate it?
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.[/QUOTE]
Prax you broke it down and it doesn't pan out and your Lutheran boys interpretation could be just as skewed as Matthew Henry on the issue of woman.
This is the only part that seemed to relate:
Quote:
This verb appears 3,540 times in Biblical Hebrew, and all of these are in the Qal stem except for twenty-one uses of the Niphal. The verb is related to another Hebrew word meaning "to become," hawa (only five times: Gen_27:29; Isa_16:4; Ecc_2:22; Ecc_11:3; Neh_6:6), and the same verb in Biblical Aramaic, hawa (71 times). In Akkadian its phonetic equivalent, ewu, means "to turn oneself into, to become like." To express being or existence Akkadian uses not ewu but bashu (much like Ugaritic and Phoenician kun).
I don't know. I'll have to continue to study on it.
And BTW, in the K&D as in the scriptures it says: . “There shall not be man's things upon a woman, and a man shall not put on a woman's clothes.”
I mean, think about that. Why would a man be wearing the woman's clothing. Why would he do that. The passage implies more than just donning a frock. He's gay to do that. He's practicing pagan sexual rites to do that. Something is rotten in Denmark!
Prax you broke it down and it doesn't pan out and your Lutheran boys interpretation could be just as skewed as Matthew Henry on the issue of woman.
I don't know. I'll have to continue to study on it.
Wait a second, do you realize how asinine that sounds? You keep using this term Lutheran boys as if it's a slur. Are K&D Lutheran? Does that really matter as to their scholarship and education? Are the authors of the TWOT Lutheran? Does that really matter as to THEIR interpretation? What non-Lutheran Translation do you use that supports what you are saying? Are you a Hebrew scholar? Can you read Hebrew and know Hebrew grammar?
And then to end it all you say you don't know you need to continue study on it?!?! How can you in one breath make an absolute assertion and then in the other admit you really just don't know?
__________________ Let it be understood that Apostolic Friends Forum is an Apostolic Forum.
Apostolic is defined on AFF as:
There is One God. This one God reveals Himself distinctly as Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
The Son is God himself in a human form or "God manifested in the flesh" (1Tim 3:16)
Every sinner must repent of their sins.
That Jesus name baptism is the only biblical mode of water baptism.
That the Holy Ghost is for today and is received by faith with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues.
The saint will go on to strive to live a holy life, pleasing to God.
Wait a second, do you realize how asinine that sounds? You keep using this term Lutheran boys as if it's a slur. Are K&D Lutheran? Does that really matter as to their scholarship and education? Are the authors of the TWOT Lutheran? Does that really matter as to THEIR interpretation? What non-Lutheran Translation do you use that supports what you are saying? Are you a Hebrew scholar? Can you read Hebrew and know Hebrew grammar?
And then to end it all you say you don't know you need to continue study on it?!?! How can you in one breath make an absolute assertion and then in the other admit you really just don't know?
I said, "I don't know" as in "I don't know if I can agree with what you are saying", which really means, "I don't agree, but I'll just be the nice girl that I am."
Still studying means I'm being polite and pretending that I didn't shut down on your post. Ain't I nice, until you - pressed me?
I'll ignore the part where you called me an *** and pass that off as youthful ignorance.
Quote:
Did you see how K&D translate it?
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.
My problem with the K&D is this:
The immediate design of this prohibition was not to prevent licentiousness, or to oppose idolatrous practices
and
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.
Now, Prax, in all practicality and for the sake of just plain old common sense - WHY does the scripture even address a man even attempting to put on a woman's clothing?
In their time period it was part of the pagan rituals of sacrifice to don the clothes of the opposite sex and have licentious sexual activities.
Now, if that was not even happening, WHY would the Word even speak of a man donning a woman's clothing - just for fun or what?
The distinction of sexes - my goodness - that is just ridiculous for me to comprehend. If the Word is worried about a man wearing a woman's clothing then - hello - something is rotten in Denmark - just logically.
It isn't speaking of gender distinction. It is speaking of existing and living the part of the opposite sex - the abomination.
P.O. ... the Truth .... will always be the Truth ... no matter who parades around as the purveyors of ALL TRUTH ... fact is that preacher needs a lesson in moderating his words ... apparently the Holy Ghost has not sanctified his tongue.
Linear Mode
