More on Skirts

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

I thought we were discussing Deuteronomy 22 :5.

Looks like we are skirting the issue.

We should redress the issue at hand.

LOL... Are you suggesting we should re-tailor the thread so it does not continue to unravel at the seams?

[Godsdrummer]

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.

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Good show, bravo!

Believe what you want, but the fact that a different Hebrew word is used in that passage of Deut. 22:5 still needs to be addressed. Just because the translators translated the word as "man" does not take away from the fact that the original writer had a reason for using the word "geber".

Bottom line in MPO, Deut. 22:5 is not in reference to pants period.

[Scott Pitta]

Context determines meaning.

Since there is no reference to warfare at all in De. chapter 22, verse 5 cannot be interpreted to mean armor or combat clothing.

[Sister Alvear]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

Context determines meaning.

Since there is no reference to warfare at all in De. chapter 22, verse 5 cannot be interpreted to mean armor or combat clothing.

What do you believe it means?

[good samaritan]

Would you say this applies to Dt. 22:5

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Jason Badejo, if you are the model on how we ought to live? Then you are doing a very poor job. While attempting to show your rightness, you are doing the same as you accuse others. You have proved many times that you are mixed up. In theology, and now in YOUR arrogance. Yes, arrogance. You just hate the Apostolic movement so much you can't deal with it. And, yes, God is your witness and you hate me and anything I post opposite of your views and ideology. You defend Aquila calling our neighborhoods, ghettos? Beautiful Fort Lauderdale to you, but ghetto to Aquila? Didn't pick that up? Or that my wife leads a boring house wife's life? You defend that? Jason you defend that not because it's right or wrong. But because you can't stand what we represent.

As Madras said, projecting. Not that its a surprise or anything.

1)I'm not the model on how we should live. Never claimed to be, wouldn't want to be. If anything I'm a living case study of Romans 7:14-25. Christ is the example.

2)While showing my rightness, I accuse others? How so? Because I called you out for being out of line? You just want everyone to take your abusive verbal smackdown and say nothing. Get a little push back and you cry bloody murder.

3) You say I'm mixed up on theology, but only because I disagree with you. I affirm justification by faith, that God is one, that salvation is exclusively through Christ. There's no confusion. There is an admittance that I don't know everything there is to know about theology, soteriology, the person of God, the incarnation, prophecy, and who is and isnt in heaven and hell. That you believe you have all knowledge on every topic and know so assuredly who is going to heaven and hell, and where the dead already are, just shows your arrogance. Its made worse when you consider that your own view is a newfangled 20th century American view of salvation by a tiny marginalized sect representative of less than 1% of all Christians, that it totally contradicts the scripture that affirms, amongst other things, and that not all will speak in tongues. Beyond that, you embrace the ultra heretical view of full preterism, all while calling me "mixed up"

And no I don't hate the "apostolic" movement. But keep telling yourself that.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

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.



Believe what you want, but the fact that a different Hebrew word is used in that passage of Deut. 22:5 still needs to be addressed. Just because the translators translated the word as "man" does not take away from the fact that the original writer had a reason for using the word "geber".

Bottom line in MPO, Deut. 22:5 is not in reference to pants period.

Thank you for the humility in accepting the fact that the Hebrew geber is properly translated into other languages as "man".

Deu. 22:5 does not say "pants". It is not that specific. If it was, it would be argued that this is the only thing it is discussing. It is a general statement that demands discernment - women and men are distinct and should dress with that distinction in mind. 2 things are certain concerning bifurcated garments in the Bible.
1) Godly men are known to have worn bifurcated garments.
2) Godly women NEVER wore bifurcated garments.

Another argument could be made that men were commanded by God Himself to wear bifurcated garments. This may be specific to "ministry" but it is still a command given only to men. Bifurcated garments are, based on Biblical precedent, associated with men. Thus, Deu. 22:5 certainly encompasses pants.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

The Bible teaches us to deny ourselves and take up our cross. The world says be anything you want to be and do anything you want to do (aka: follow your dreams). The world also confuses gain for godliness. I have no vendetta against women that work, but it is God's will that people should pursue in life and not simply just personal ambitions.

I believe that a woman should seek God's will. If God has given her the desire to be a nurse, a business woman, a politician, a public servant, a doctor, a teacher, or anything else, I believe she should pursue it with the support of her family. Likewise, the husband, and the children when they are considering their lifetime professions.

I don't believe that God's will is cookie-cutter. He calls some to be house non-working house wives and others to be working house wives. Think of how many times a female nurse or teacher has blessed your children by serving them in sickness or to teach them. Those women are quite often women of faith (many are Apostolic) and they provide an invaluable service to the community. There isn't any reason to look down on working women... on the flip side, there is no reason to look down on non-working women.

But there is a reason to look down upon those who would deny anyone the liberty to follow their God given calling and use their God given talents.

[n david]

Originally Posted by madras

Lots of projecting. You are an ungodly man.

Aquila hasn't been a saint in this. He's called believing people can be set free from generational curses "willful and determined ignorance." He's mocked believers for being "knuckle dragging cavemen." He's mocked conservatives as hillbillies, etc. He's made condescending comments towards those who choose to live frugal and those who choose to follow the biblical example of the wife being at home.

Not saying it's right to lob insults back and forth, but don't pretend he's an innocent victim in this.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

I thought we were discussing Deuteronomy 22 :5.

Looks like we are skirting the issue.

We should redress the issue at hand.

This is going exactly the way every thread on standards goes. Won't be long before this thread, like most before it, will be locked.