It was the answer I gave most often, too, because the scriptures that were used to explain many of the issues just didn't make sense to me. Try explaining below-elbow sleeves to your friends at school, biblically.
Exactly! That is the exact type of thing I am talking about, it is ludicrous through the eyes of an outsider (actually, also through the eyes of a "blinders off" insider.) I can explain the spirit behind it, ie, guarding modesty, but to give a biblical explanation? Not so much. But to even question this stuff has become a form of heresy. I'm really tired of it, truthfully. If my "religion" cannot be examined, then it is wrong, IMO.
Exactly! That is the exact type of thing I am talking about, it is ludicrous through the eyes of an outsider (actually, also through the eyes of a "blinders off" insider.) I can explain the spirit behind it, ie, guarding modesty, but to give a biblical explanation? Not so much. But to even question this stuff has become a form of heresy. I'm really tired of it, truthfully. If my "religion" cannot be examined, then it is wrong, IMO.
You're exactly right! What are we so afraid of? We proclaim to have "the truth", and yet questioning is rarely allowed. I don't get it.
You're exactly right! What are we so afraid of? We proclaim to have "the truth", and yet questioning is rarely allowed. I don't get it.
I taught a Bible Study when I pastored, entitled "Examining our Beliefs", and I used this scripture as my basis:
2 Corinthians 13:5
Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?
We were going to investigate what we believed, and back it up with scripture. However, I caught so much flack from the congregation that I pulled the plug early on the series, because I had people get up, yell at me, and walk out in the middle of Bible Study!
One lady, who's children were backslidden, said "I'm not taking this workbook home, I don't want my kids to see the title! I don't want them to think we're questioning any thing!"
It wasn't long after that that I resigned, lol.
__________________ "Many people view their relationship with God like a "color by number" picture. It's easier to let someone else define the boundaries, tell them which blanks to fill in, and what color to use than it is for them to take a blank canvas and seek inspiration from the Source in order to paint their own masterpiece"
Wow. We must know some of the same people somehow, MP! (I was going to put a smiley, but that is really sad, actually...)
__________________
What we make of the Bible will never be as great a thing as what the Bible will - if we let it - make of us.~Rich Mullins
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.~Galileo Galilei
One lady, who's children were backslidden, said "I'm not taking this workbook home, I don't want my kids to see the title! I don't want them to think we're questioning any thing!"
It wasn't long after that that I resigned, lol.
I know that lady and those other folks... why'd you send them my way?
But seriously, I still never cease to be amazed at the tiny level of faith people have and how they feel their beliefs and religious practices have to be bottled up and hidden away to keep them secure.
Your story reminded me of one dear sister who used to scream and holler at me all the time whenever the subject of sports, video games and the like came up. Now, years later she's encouraging people to "live their lives" and responds cheerfully to reports of her family members who have attended a ball game and had a good time. One her grandsons owns a business now built around video gaming and she couldn't be more proud.
If it's not worth hollering about today - why all the screaming yesterday? And, what does this tell me about the stuff they're hollering about today?
Well I was going to refrain from coming on here and disputing your "gross" negligence in your interpretation of Deuteronomy 22:5. But upon my study of the life of David this morning, I ran across a scripture that reminded me of your above referenced statement. I recognized your response almost "verbatim" to Jason Young's "The Truth About Deuteronomy 22:5" which is FALSE, but heres the link: where you got YOUR INFO!
The problem you face is that :
#1) Jason Young is NOT a scholar as you state.
#2) Most reference material that you have referred to has since be "REVISED"
Layman's Term: CORRECTED
That being said, you have stated that:
(ke"li) : "It is most often translated as some sort of weapon or armor."
1) This FALSE...It is translated as a weapon ONLY (17) times. Weapon (4) and armour (10) times. That would equal = 31 times translated as such.
Using your logic of "frequency of use" that could easily be disputed with the "frequency of use" as it is translated as
stuff (14) times
thing(s) (11) times
vessell(s) (132) times
and vessel (34) times for a total of 191 times it NEVER referred to a "weapon or armour".
That's just using the "law of consistency".
The word you use "gibbor" is INCORRECT. Once again you used faulty reference material.
The word "man or man's" was translated to English by way of the Hebrew word "geber". Which means "strong or young man". It was translated to "man" (53) times
men (6) times
and "man's" (2)
the word "gibbor" does NOT even cross reference with the word Strong's 1397: "geber".
"Gibbor' " was NEVER EVEN USED IN DEUTERONOMY.
The Hebrew word "IS' " was most commonly used in Deuteronomy. Re: Strong's 376: "is' ". The reason it was NOT used by Moses in Deuteronomy 22:5 is BECAUSE it referred or "implied" to a "certain" or "one of a kind" man.
Moses "meant" his use of "man" as a general discription implying "all men or ANY man".
Heres a GOOD reference as how to interpret scripture "consistantly".
For instance, the King James Version translates 1 Samuel 17.22 like this:
"And David left his carriage in the hand of the keeper of the carriage, and ran into the army."
The word "carriage" in BOTH uses of this scripture, were translated from the SAME word we discussed, the Hebrew word "ke'li ". The word carriage here did NOT refer to a "cart or carrier" but rather to "THINGS". Same word Moses used in Deuteronomy 22:5. "that which pertaineth" aka "ke'li " -Reference: that which belonged to David- re: ( ke'li )
So.........your interpretation of Deuteronomy 22:5 is "flawed" inaccurate and FALSE.
What you have showed us is that YOU are a NOVICE in the scriptures, merely "quoting" what you've read and/or heard rather than studying the scripture yourself.
It DANGEROUS to state someones "oppinion" as FACT.
2 Timothy 2:15 reads like this:
"Study to shew thy self approved unto GOD, a workman that needth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."
Let's also look at Job 4:17:
"Shall mortal "man" be more just than GOD? shall a "man" be more pure than his maker?
Notice something strang here? The first "man"...mortal man (describing word).
Notice the use of a "modifier". Strong's 582; "nos". Then in the second "man". There we see it again. Strong's Re: 1397 "geber". The writer of Job used this word to refer to "man in general" or "any man" or "all man". No modifier.
I have NOT written this to degrade you or demean you in any manner. This was to merely correct you. The interpretation of Deuteronomy 22:5 that is accepted in the "Apostolic Doctrine" is VALID and CORRECT.
One must be familiar with the systematic approach to Bible translation to better understand. The Bible was translated as "near prefect as possible". Keep in mind that there are NOT eqivalent words in each language to convert "entire" meanings sometimes. A translator must translate and maintain the same direction and spirit of the original text as it relates to culture and subject matter....REGARDLESS of the language it is being interpreted into.
Will McLeod: This not from the source you mentioned. I'll opost it again.
I do believe that "the man" refered to in Dt. 22:5 properly interpreted was refering to a warrior /soldier , one who wore the clothing and armament of a soldier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freeatlast
DuetCh8: take a minute and read the words penned by a few ver scholarly men concerning Dt 22:5
there is no way this verse means what you propose it mean...and it IS the hallmark verse of the entire apostolic identy crowd.
It is the ONLY verse that, misinterpreted, is found in the entire old and New testament to stand upon when you command a women not wear a split legged article of clothing-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. What do the words actually say in the Hebrew language according to the scholars? The first phrase - The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man.
A. The first phrase, that which pertaineth - the phrase that which pertaineth is represented in the Hebrew by one word, the word keli, and it most generally means a manufactured article. It is most often translated as some sort of weapon or armor.
1. Scholarly references for the word keli: Strongs: 3627 kee-lee" something prepared, i.e. any apparatus (as an implement, utensil, dress, vessel or weapon): --armour [bearer], artillery, bag, carriage + furnish, furniture, instrument, jewel, that is made of one from another, that which pertaineth, pot, psaltery, sack, stuff, thing, tool, vessel, ware, weapon (emphasis Strong's) whatsoever.
2. Gesenius (Hebrew words and most references used by the author deleted) properly whatever is made, completed, or prepared...(1) any utensil, vessel. Gen 31:37; 45:20. vessels of gold, of silver, the vessels of the temple, vessels of wandering, outfit for exile. (2)clothing,* ornaments of a bride, also for yokes for oxen. (3) a vessel for sailing. (4.) an implement, a tool, musical instruments, instruments of the indignation of Jehovah (5) arms, weapons Ben. 27:3 ; Jud 18:11,16. more fully, deadly weapons Psalm 7:14. , an armour-bearer 1 Sam.14:1, 6, 7, 31:4,5,6 an armoury Isa 39:2.
3. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament: 982g vessel, utensil, The basic idea of this root is "to bring a process to completion." The root occurs in all its forms 237 times. Of these 206 are verbal....The idea of being consumed is most commonly applied to violent destruction, often by war...
4. Wigrams, The New Englishman's Hebrew/Aramaic Concordance: k'lee Translated 45 times as armour, or weapons. Most other times as instrument, jewel, furniture, vessels, etc., but never, *not even in Deut 22:5 is it translated clothing.
Conclusion: The word keli most often means a manufactured item, quite often a weapon, or armor. *It is never, except in Deuteronomy 22:5, translated “that which pertaineth,” “clothing,” or “garment.”
B. The phrase translated unto a man is also represented in the Hebrew language by a single word - gibbor.
1. Scholarly references for the word gibbor -- Strong's, 1368 gibbor, ghib-bore; from 1397 geber gheh'ber, a valiant man or warrior, powerful: by implication warrior, tyrant: --champion, chief, excel, giant, man, mighty (man, one) strong (man), valiant man.
2. Gesenius 1368 author’s references and Hebrew words omitted (1) strong, mighty, impetuous, used of a hunter, commonly of an impetuous soldier, a hero, a mighty king (Alexander the Great), a mighty hero. [The mighty God: Christ is spoken of] these are the heroes, those who were famous of old; the lion is a hero among the beasts; also used of a soldier generally, a mighty warrior, Used of God, Jehovah (is) strong and mighty, Jehovah (is) mighty in battle....(2) a chief, a military leader, the commander of soldiers and the soldier. Used generally of a chief. (3) in a bad sense, proud, a tyrant, like the Arab.
3. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament: 310 (condensed) (ga bar) prevail, be mighty, have strength, be great. Derivatives, man, mighty man. might. lady, queen. .... The Hebrew root is commonly associated with warfare and has to do with the strength and vitality of the successful warrior....(RSV often translates "warrior") The heroes or champions among the armed forces.
4. Wigrams, p. 289, 290, translated mighty men, mighty one, mighty hunter, mighty, mighty man, mighty men, strong, valiant men, mightiest, mighty of valour, strong man, giant, as a strong man, the Mighty God, the mighty. The only instance it is translated as man is in Du 22:5. Not so translated in any other place.
Conclusion: the word gibbor does not refer to every ordinary man. It refers to a distinct type of man, amighty man, most likely a military man or soldier which matches nicely with the word keli which most often means armour. By this interpretation the scripture speaks against the idolatrous practice of either enticing or frightening demons, something which would, indeed, be an abomination unto the LORD!
__________________
God has lavished his love upon me.
Thank you for your contribution to this thread, Will. Good points!
I was wondering if you have studied the word "wear" in Deut 22:5? I notice it is used only one time in the OT. It appears to have a different meaning than to just put on clothing.
Strongest Strong's says "wear" includes 1961+5921
1961 - "to exist, that is to be or become....."
Could you comment on that, if you have the time? I was of the understanding that Deut 22:5 is referring to homosexuality.
No matter how you interpret these scriptures, you are left with this fact:
Men and women both wore robes during the time Deut. was written. For over 5,000 years of recorded human history, men and women both wore robes. Now, men and women both wear pants.
Nowhere in the Bible does it demand that men and women dress drastically different. Nowhere does it demand that they must be dressed completely different from the waist down.
There were slight differences in men and women's robes, there are slight differences in men and women's pants.
Women's pants is not a man's garment. I don't know a single man who would be caught dead in a pair of women's pants.
We have taken a cultural issue that was faced during the 1920s or thereabout, and forced Deut. to address that issue. It doesn't. Men had transitioned from robes to pants several hundred years before, now women were making that transition. It caused an uproar, because it was a transition, and transitions always cause an uproar. There is historical evidence that there was the same uproar when men transitioned from robes to pants. They were seen as immodest.
Men and women have worn the same general garment, with some distinctive differences, for most of human history. If you walk into Walmart, you can tell at a glance, without reading the signs, whether you're in the men's clothing department, or the women's. There is still an easily noticeable difference between men's and women's clothing.
I've bought jeans at a garage sale before, thinking they were boys. My sons would begin to put them on, and then whip them right back off, exclaiming - "These are girls' pants! I'm not wearing these!" The cut is different, the pockets are different, the button is different. It's a woman's garment, not a man's. Women's pants don't 'pertain to' a man. They pertain to a woman. That's why my sons won't wear them.
Linear Mode
