Will McL: Lets's assume for a moment you are right and all these other scholars are wrong and Geber or gibbor does not in amy way allude to a strong man / warrior / bearer of armament.
Let's assume as say that "man" in Dt 22 is refering to just every ordinary man.
Do you then come to the conclusion that Dt 22:5 should be read and used to give instruction to a 21st century american woman that she must NOT ever wear a garment that has split legs such as womens slacks?
Do you then contend if a woman wears such split legged articles of clothing that she has commited an abomination and is more than likely going to lost?
I appreciate your years of study. I am a NOVICE in the hebrew language, as you so deptly pointed out.
I am in the 99% minority that has to look to other hebrew scholars to help me in seeing the intended meaning of some verse of scripture.
I am glad you stopped by the forum today. I am intersted in an answer. Does a women wearing slacks according to Dt22:5 condemn her?
Couldn't the injunction just be about "cross dressing" or someone trying to pass oneself off as the opposite sex or acting like the opposite sex?
__________________
Sam also known as Jim Ellis
Apostolic in doctrine
Pentecostal in experience
Charismatic in practice
Non-denominational in affiliation
Inter-denominational in fellowship
Couldn't the injunction just be about "cross dressing" or someone trying to pass oneself off as the opposite sex or acting like the opposite sex?
I think we need to ask ourselves why this warning needed to be given. Why were these people wearing the garments of the other sex? Surely they weren't just headed out the door, grabbed their wife's garment instead of their own, and God felt that he needed to warn them against that. I would imagine they were deliberately wearing the garment of the other sex, for a purpose. Very likely not a godly purpose. And this is what God found to be an abomination.
Couldn't the injunction just be about "cross dressing" or someone trying to pass oneself off as the opposite sex or acting like the opposite sex?
Quote:
Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*
I think we need to ask ourselves why this warning needed to be given. Why were these people wearing the garments of the other sex? Surely they weren't just headed out the door, grabbed their wife's garment instead of their own, and God felt that he needed to warn them against that. I would imagine they were deliberately wearing the garment of the other sex, for a purpose. Very likely not a godly purpose. And this is what God found to be an abomination.
What about a mix of both? Meaning some would cross dress in hopes of conducting homosexual behaviour?
I think we need to ask ourselves why this warning needed to be given. Why were these people wearing the garments of the other sex? Surely they weren't just headed out the door, grabbed their wife's garment instead of their own, and God felt that he needed to warn them against that. I would imagine they were deliberately wearing the garment of the other sex, for a purpose. Very likely not a godly purpose. And this is what God found to be an abomination.
I have read it that neighboring pagan cultures to Isreal would, before going into balttle, the warriors would lay aside their warrior clothes and armements and done the clothing of their women. The women would put on the apparel of their soldier husbands and together they would dance around the fire to appease the favor of their gods for his blessing as they went into the battle the following day.
This WOULD explain the abomination part of that, fo r this would be idoltry.
Israel was warned not to take up this practice of the pagan neighbors
__________________
God has lavished his love upon me.
)
Linear Mode
