More on Skirts

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by n david

Bingo.

I'm the sole income earner for a family of five. I looked at my income last year (2016) and my actual take home amount was barely $25K. I don't have cable tv or a car loan or a bunch of extras. We don't eat out except for special occasions. We frequent the farmers market for incredible deals on fruits and veggies. We don't live in the nice area or in an apartment complex with all the amenities. We live in a 2 bd duplex in a minority neighborhood where rent is $579/mo. We've been there three years, and unfortunately we're going to have to find a larger home soon, because the twins are two years old and getting bigger and our soon-to-be eight year old is needing her own room.

I grew up in a family of six. My parents made less than $20K a year. Home was paid by the time I was born. There was no internet until dial-up AOL came later on. We never went without food or clothes. I used to hate it because my parents bought our clothes at the Salvation Army thrift store or the local Disabled American Veteran's thrift store.

People can get by for less, but most of the time they're subscribed to a bunch of extras or eat out too much or just live beyond their means.

It really is about the management. Instead of a new car people could opt for a pre-owned car which can be bought and paid for, or at least have a shorter and smaller note with less insurance expense. People can do without individual cell phones, computers, cable and even God forbid the internet (I have had to).

Mothers at home can care about nutrition at the same time saving their families tons of money on dining out. People don't have to buy steak and all the high end groceries. vegetables are not that expensive at least not where I live. Children can share rooms contrary to popular opinion and make it on one bathroom.

Many mothers are able to homeschool and in the long run it is much cheaper. You don't feel the pressure to keep up with all the school fads, extra curricular activities, lunch money, snack money, etc. ... Home schoolers may be out 400-500 per child up front cost for books, but it doesn't compare to what children are costing their parents in public school.

I could name a ton of things we have done to survive in this world. People must be willing to learn to get by with less. My family doesn't spend a month's wages in order to go to a beach or amusement park. We do take small vacations fishing, camping, swimming and sometimes just relaxing. Some people are only happy if they are spending money. I am glad that my family and I are poor and happy.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by madras

She's wearing a man's garment. My coat. It's a serious question.
If the argument is that women's pants are a man's garment because of
the cut, then does it not apply to the cut of a coat, and shirt/blouse?
It would make sense if women wore dresses all the time for the skirt
would cause a violation of Deuteronomy 22:5 due to the blouse being
cut like a man's shirt.

I'm just thinking out loud here.

Who is that in your picture?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

EB

Those type statements are the very reason I began to question the teaching of UPCI on pants for women. You make it sound like what you are saying is fact. That bifurcated apparel was never worn by women in history and was always considered masculine.

Pilney pretty much did a good job. Men wore trousers, or bifurcated attire.
Chinese women in rice patties? When did China make a covenant with God? Our Bible only has one single group holding any sort of covenant with God. Kilts, Chinese opium smokers, Congo pygmies with scarifications and a bone through their nose. Doesn't mean anything to anyone other than those groups mentioned. UPCI? I was never UPCI, I have always been Independent Conservative Apostolic. But I was taught early on to look well at my going, and research. Let's face it (listened to NPR today and they agreed) Christianity in this country is circling the drain. It is not even vanilla anymore it is just water flavor. I'll stick with the Apostolics, UPC, and all the rest of the alphabet.

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

The fact is that no one wore anything under their robes except in times of service to God as in the passages you reference above.

Meshach Shadrach and Abednego were wearing pants, Jesus in revelation has pants on under his garment. What service to God were the three Hebrew children conducting? They were being thrown in the fire.

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

Which is the reason God instructed breeches on the priest. To cover their nakedness when ministering in the tabernacle.

Jesus is on a horse, and He is noted to have inscription on his thigh. Which isn't a tattoo. It was written on His garment. Meshach Shadrach and Abednego were wearing pants, they weren't priests. They are just men.

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

Of course we can go the other way too. You are so against robes or skirts on men yet scripture speaks several times about skirts on men in the bible. What is that.

Against robes on men? Bro, when did I say that? When did I post this?

I actually pointed out that the men wore pants. They wore robes, very long robes, but they also wore pants. Skirts? When people show me that they aren't use to using 17th Century Elizabethan English? I always encourage them to try other English translations. You will find the 17th Century usage for the word "skirt" is very different from your's.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I take home roughly $2,000 a month. My rent is $790 alone. Add on utilities (electric, gas, water), a car payment, insurance, cell phone bill, and student loan payment, and I'm left with around $35 to $40 (on average) to get by on for two weeks. That means I have to make roughly $40 dollars cover gas money to get back and forth to work, child care, groceries, auto maintenance, any needs the kids might have, toiletries, etc.

Frankly, we'd sink without a second income. Because gas money alone is roughly $40 a week.

Oh, and we have only one vehicle.

People say, "Why don't you move? That rent is too expensive." Well, I could move, but I'd only save $200 bucks, and my kids would grow up in a meth infested neighborhood with gunshots going off all ours of the day and night.

So, the little lady works part time (almost full time). I pay the bills, and I cover my gas money. She pays for living expenses. Her job is within a mile and a half of our home, so she often walks or catches the bus.

The kids go to school, so during the school year they stay with a sitter for a little over two hours until one of us is home. That's only missing two hours a day with us. They do their homework during this time and play outside. So, they're basically doing what they'd be doing even if they were at home with us. So, no serious time lost.

I raised seven kids as a single income parent (wife is a homemaker). I worked construction, 10 bucks an hour, seasonal layoffs, had some down time (some lasting several months at a stretch). Got a job making 10 bucks an hour, after 8 yrs was making 16 an hour. I calculated inflation, discovered I was actually making less than when I started.

Raised seven kids, several dogs, bought a home paid it off in three and a half years, bought a suburban, paid cash, bought a van paid cash, bought second suburban when first went kaput, paid cash again, bought a nice 4x4 F250 king cab made payments of 500 per month and paid it off in a couple years. Homeschooled the kids the whole time. Did not take welfare, food stamps, or govt assistance. Lived in neighborhoods you'd be afraid to be in after dark but we never locked our doors and often just had the screen door keeping the world out. Never had a problem with any break ins.

One neighbor went to prison for shooting his wife's boyfriend in the front yard about 3 lots down from us. Once I had to go visit a neighbor with the sheriff deputy and politely inform the guy if he entered my yard again and said cross words to my son he wouldnt make it home again. In a previous neighborhood had a neighbor go to jail after they found a body bagged up in freezer bags in his refrigerator.

Once we lived in a neighborhood (long ago) where literally half the residents were parolees or released felons, about 1/3 were Aryan Brotherhood and another 1/3 were Latin King subsets, plus two pimps, lots of drunks, assorted crack heads and crank heads (meth addicts). They all knew who to go see if they needed prayer, though.

Half my kids are adults now. None ever went to jail or had any trouble with the law or courts. They know more than ALL of the public school kids they've ever interacted with from well to do cousins to local riff raff. They turned out way better than I did at their age, that's a guaranteed fact. They actually have morals and don't give two hoots about "peer pressure", they tend to lead not follow. They can handle themselves in a church sanctuary, a ghetto alley, a boxing gym, or a family picnic at the park equally well. They are generally frugal with money (more than I was for sure), have investments in real estate, can butcher wild game, build shelter in the wild with no tools, prepare fancy multi course meals or live on wild plants. One daughter is a CNA, another can perform tactical combat casualty care just short of running an IV, older son codes in C, C++, Python, and assembly, has built microbots, all of the older ones can debate a JW or Baptist into oblivion right on the doorstep, they all know how to pray like the world depends on them, and they will literally do whatever they can to help anyone out even to their own detriment.

We are living proof that it doesn't take a lot of money and a perfect environment to raise a family that knows God and can serve their generation. It just takes a bit of faith and some of what we in Texas call "want to".

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I'm still sorry he wasn't more careful with his words. Bro. Ben is often more like a shock-jock radio personality than a man of the cloth.

Lol.

Shock-jock. Perfect.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Jason B

Lol.

Shock-jock. Perfect.

Still jealous, I see?

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I raised seven kids as a single income parent (wife is a homemaker). I worked construction, 10 bucks an hour, seasonal layoffs, had some down time (some lasting several months at a stretch). Got a job making 10 bucks an hour, after 8 yrs was making 16 an hour. I calculated inflation, discovered I was actually making less than when I started.

Raised seven kids, several dogs, bought a home paid it off in three and a half years, bought a suburban, paid cash, bought a van paid cash, bought second suburban when first went kaput, paid cash again, bought a nice 4x4 F250 king cab made payments of 500 per month and paid it off in a couple years. Homeschooled the kids the whole time. Did not take welfare, food stamps, or govt assistance. Lived in neighborhoods you'd be afraid to be in after dark but we never locked our doors and often just had the screen door keeping the world out. Never had a problem with any break ins.

One neighbor went to prison for shooting his wife's boyfriend in the front yard about 3 lots down from us. Once I had to go visit a neighbor with the sheriff deputy and politely inform the guy if he entered my yard again and said cross words to my son he wouldnt make it home again. In a previous neighborhood had a neighbor go to jail after they found a body bagged up in freezer bags in his refrigerator.

Once we lived in a neighborhood (long ago) where literally half the residents were parolees or released felons, about 1/3 were Aryan Brotherhood and another 1/3 were Latin King subsets, plus two pimps, lots of drunks, assorted crack heads and crank heads (meth addicts). They all knew who to go see if they needed prayer, though.

Half my kids are adults now. None ever went to jail or had any trouble with the law or courts. They know more than ALL of the public school kids they've ever interacted with from well to do cousins to local riff raff. They turned out way better than I did at their age, that's a guaranteed fact. They actually have morals and don't give two hoots about "peer pressure", they tend to lead not follow. They can handle themselves in a church sanctuary, a ghetto alley, a boxing gym, or a family picnic at the park equally well. They are generally frugal with money (more than I was for sure), have investments in real estate, can butcher wild game, build shelter in the wild with no tools, prepare fancy multi course meals or live on wild plants. One daughter is a CNA, another can perform tactical combat casualty care just short of running an IV, older son codes in C, C++, Python, and assembly, has built microbots, all of the older ones can debate a JW or Baptist into oblivion right on the doorstep, they all know how to pray like the world depends on them, and they will literally do whatever they can to help anyone out even to their own detriment.

We are living proof that it doesn't take a lot of money and a perfect environment to raise a family that knows God and can serve their generation. It just takes a bit of faith and some of what we in Texas call "want to".

God is a great provider!!!

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

You're just going to let the dogs bark???

No, he has just informed you that it wasn't as much as big deal as you wanted it to be. You made a fool out of yourself and that's was enough for everyone.

Originally Posted by Aquila

I'm still sorry he wasn't more careful with his words.

Now, this is bizarre. You believed that you were defending a female, the poster turned out not to be a female. Tells you he doesn't need an apology, yet you still want to continue this in hopes it will bring different results?
You're nuts, you are certifiable, and you are a bad loser. Hey, what war were you in that you got PTSD?

Originally Posted by Aquila

Bro. Ben is often more like a shock-jock radio personality than a man of the cloth. It's been a fad to behave like that for quite a while in Pentecostalism. While times are slowly changing, some are still holding on.

You have the demeanor of a pouty child. When you make a fool of yourself, instead of taking it gracefully. You curl up in a fetal position, with tear filled eyes, constantly complaining about an event everyone else had walked away from.

Oh, but at least you did something for Jason Badejoe.

He may rock you to sleep while singing the blessed Trinity.

[Godsdrummer]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Meshach Shadrach and Abednego were wearing pants, Jesus in revelation has pants on under his garment. What service to God were the three Hebrew children conducting? They were being thrown in the fire.



Jesus is on a horse, and He is noted to have inscription on his thigh. Which isn't a tattoo. It was written on His garment. Meshach Shadrach and Abednego were wearing pants, they weren't priests. They are just men.

Against robes on men? Bro, when did I say that? When did I post this?

I actually pointed out that the men wore pants.

They wore robes, very long robes, but they also wore pants. Skirts? When people show me that they aren't use to using 17th Century Elizabethan English? I always encourage them to try other English translations. You will find the 17th Century usage for the word "skirt" is very different from your's.

While you want to define words properly, why don't you define the proper word for "Men" in Deut. 22:5? It is "warrior". We can go back and forth on this all we want, but the fact is those that teach that the men's apparel in this passage is speaking specifically of pants, or split legged garments, or anything that pertains to a man. Need to be consistent and teach anything that looks like a man's garment cannot be worn by a women, and vise versa.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

While you want to define words properly, why don't you define the proper word for "Men" in Deut. 22:5? It is "warrior". We can go back and forth on this all we want, but the fact is those that teach that the men's apparel in this passage is speaking specifically of pants, or split legged garments, or anything that pertains to a man. Need to be consistent and teach anything that looks like a man's garment cannot be worn by a women, and vise versa.

Since no reference was given for the "warrior" definition we are left to wonder where the reference comes from, Strong's or perhaps BDB?

It is fascinating that the Hebrew scholars that translated the Hebrew into Greek used the word ἀνδρὸς which simply means man:
http://perseus.uchicago.edu/perseus-...rue&lang=greek

This word is found throughout the LXX but here are some examples:
Gen 2:23
Lev. 20:10
Num. 30:16

So, based on this quick analysis we are left with two possible explanations for the interpretation.
If the translation is accepted as "warrior" then, it must be understood that women are called women because they were "taken from a warrior" (Gen. 2:23).

Adultery must be limited to "warriors" because Lev. 20:10 only mentions "warriors" as committing adultery and leaves the rest of "men" out of the formula.

The statutes enumerated by Moses in Numbers chapter 30 must also be restricted to "warriors" since this is the same word and therefore translation (Num. 30:16).

There are many other examples as well...

However, if the Greek word ἀνδρὸς is interpreted as man then, the above passages would mean:
A woman is called a "woman" because she was "taken out of man" (Gen. 2:23).
That adultery is not limited to warriors but all men (Lev. 20:10).
The statutes enumerated in Numbers chapter 30 apply to all men and not just "warriors".

Now BDB states that in Deu. 22:5 the definition for man is:
גּבר
geber
BDB Definition:
1) man, strong man, warrior (emphasizing strength or ability to fight)

Strong's states:
From H1396; properly a valiant man or warrior; generally a person simply: - every one, man, X mighty.


Thus, there are multiple "translations" for the word. To pick a single definition out and demand that the singular definition is ALL that it can mean is fallacious. It must mean what the author intended it to mean. Those Hebrew scholars who translated the Hebrew into Greek were experts in both languages. They chose a Greek word that simply means "man" not "warrior" as suggested.

I will accept the fact that the Hebrew word גּבר (geber) is properly translated into other languages as man.