More on Skirts

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

Deuteronomy 22:5

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;

The word is used to refer to other men in the Bible. Used to refer to Job, when he was born. Was he wearing armor when he was an infant? Job a manchild is born Job 3:3, and then speaking of a man's own righteousness Job 4:17. It actually means healthy and virile. Strong. Nothing absolutely NOTHING about weapons, tool boxes, or hardhats. We don't teach from what might be, or could be. We teach what is plain. Don't wear women's clothing.

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

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.

Seriously?

I must of missed that.

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

It certainly cannot mean a simple change in dress, whereby the men might pass for women, and vice versa.

Deuteronomy 22:5 a man cannot disguise himself as a woman, and a woman cannot disguise herself as a man.

Nope.

Doesn't say that.

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

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,

They were pasting on beards?

Deuteronomy 22:5

A woman shall not paste on a man's beard, and a man shall not grow his hair long because it would be a shame unto him.

Nope, doesn't say that.

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

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.

Adam Clarke commentary. You know how I know?

He spells Claudius, Clodius. In my studies on Nero, I found out something. Politicians throughout history, had their fair share of fake news. We have been handed down to us through the centuries. Whether or Claudius dressed like a female, we don't know. Whether it's important to this topic, honestly it's not. We are talking of an issue for the people who followed God. They were not to gender blend.

[Aquila]

Here's a little history on the T-shirt:

The dubbed "T-shirt" surfaced in the United States when they were issued by the U.S. Navy sometime around the Spanish American War. They featured crew-necks and short sleeves and were meant to be worn as underwear beneath the uniform. Soon it was adopted by the Army as part of the standard issue ensemble given to recruits. It got its iconic name from its shape resembling the letter "T". Dockworkers, farmers, miners, and construction type workers also adopted the T-shirt preferring the lightweight fabric in hotter weather conditions.

The inexpensive cotton and easy to clean garment became the shirt of choice by mothers for their sons as outerwear for chores and play. By the 1920's "T-shirt" became an official American-English word in the Merriam-Webster's Dictionary.

T-shirts were designed for men and worn by men until WWII, when women began wearing both pants and T-shirts as part of their factory uniforms while working the assembly lines on the home front.

Is it an abomination for a woman to wear a T-shirt?

If not, why?

[Godsdrummer]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

The word is used to refer to other men in the Bible. Used to refer to Job, when he was born. Was he wearing armor when he was an infant? Job a manchild is born Job 3:3, and then speaking of a man's own righteousness Job 4:17. It actually means healthy and virile. Strong. Nothing absolutely NOTHING about weapons, tool boxes, or hardhats. We don't teach from what might be, or could be.

We teach what is plain. Don't wear women's clothing.

Then you don't take into consideration the use of a different word for man in this case. Nor do you take into consideration, the "that which pertains" to a man. IT IS NOT ABOUT PANTS OR DRESSES, if it is than anything that is split legged would be an abomination for a woman, including panties, hose, nylons and pajamas.

The fact is Duet 22:5 does not say "men shall not wear dresses, and women shall not wear pants". After all "we don't teach what might be, or could be".

[Esaias]

So the bottom line is, y'all don't actually know WHAT the verse means, nor how it could be obeyed - or disobeyed - today, so it's just yet another text of that old dusty Bible that doesn't really have any relevance to today.

Funny how the gang that feels the need to "be relevant to people today" have, step by step over the years, destroyed any relevance they might have had.

[JoeBandy]

Originally Posted by Esaias

So the bottom line is, y'all don't actually know WHAT the verse means, nor how it could be obeyed - or disobeyed - today, so it's just yet another text of that old dusty Bible that doesn't really have any relevance to today.

Funny how the gang that feels the need to "be relevant to people today" have, step by step over the years, destroyed any relevance they might have had.

When is the last time you obeyed verse 6 and 7 or preached hell fire from verse 11??

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by JoeBandy

When is the last time you obeyed verse 6 and 7 or preached hell fire from verse 11??

I've never taken a bird and her eggs or babies together for food.

I don't wear linsey-woolsey.

Neither passages say anything about hellfire.

Do you pride yourself on not obeying certain commands of God?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Esaias

So the bottom line is, y'all don't actually know WHAT the verse means, nor how it could be obeyed - or disobeyed - today, so it's just yet another text of that old dusty Bible that doesn't really have any relevance to today.

Funny how the gang that feels the need to "be relevant to people today" have, step by step over the years, destroyed any relevance they might have had.

These are just my thoughts on the verse, I'm not saying that I'm an authority or anything. But it appears that the Canaanites and pagan cults around Israel would wear the opposite gender's attire during their revelries and ritual debaucheries. These festivities were filled with drinking, perversion, and sexual indulgences that included acts that were homosexual/lesbian in nature.

It appears that God gave a general command that would condemn any and all gender-bending, cross-dressing, behaviors and/or practices, rather they be part of idol worship or not.

In today's world this behavior/practice isn't associated necessarily with what is understood as classical idolatry. However, in nearly every city in the Western world there is a subculture filled with drinking, dancing, carousing, perversion, pornography, homosexuality, and gender bending "drag shows". I believe that this command speaks to these modern practices of perversion as well as the ancient paganism of the Canaanites.

Deuteronomy 22:5 King James Version (KJV)
5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God.

I don't believe that the text has anything to do with forbidding women's pants, or women's t-shirts, etc. It mentions "abomination". It's about a gender bending abominable practice centered around cross-dressing. It is an "abomination".

[JoeBandy]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I've never taken a bird and her eggs or babies together for food.

I don't wear linsey-woolsey.

Neither passages say anything about hellfire.

Do you pride yourself on not obeying certain commands of God?

Maybe you need to read those verses more carefully.

[Aquila]

Verses 6 & 7 of Deuteronomy 22 were mentioned. I'd like to share my understanding of the text:

Deuteronomy 22:6-7 English Standard Version (ESV)
6 “If you come across a bird's nest in any tree or on the ground, with young ones or eggs and the mother sitting on the young or on the eggs, you shall not take the mother with the young. 7 You shall let the mother go, but the young you may take for yourself, that it may go well with you, and that you may live long.

This is about the preservation and conservation of the species and the natural order. The mother bird (who is clearly able to reproduce) is to be allowed to go free, the young in the nest are perfectly fine to take and eat or to take and raise to eat. It is cruel, inhumane, and excessive to take both the mother and her young to feed upon. This principle, I believe, should be observed in all our doings regarding the natural order. We should always consider the preservation and conservation of animal life seeing that it is God's creation. To extinguish a species throws the local habitat out of balance. Elimination of a given species of bird could allow for the over abundance of a given insect that will destroy crops, forests, and other resources we so desperately need. What befalls the earth will befall man. Therefore preservation of the natural order and its balance as intended by the Creator will ultimately benefit man. If we take the preservation and conservation of nature seriously, we will prolong our days as a race in this world.

Oh, the matchless wisdom of nature's God!

That's my take on it.

[Scott Pitta]

I think the overall idea is why follow only one verse out of chapter 22 and not all of them ?

Since the law of Moses is fulfilled, why follow any of it ?