More on Skirts

[Scott Pitta]

I suggest Deut. 22:5 be interpreted in the context of the passage. It is one of many rules than constituted the law of Moses.

Hermeneutically, context determines meaning.

Make sense ?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

I suggest Deut. 22:5 be interpreted in the context of the passage. It is one of many rules than constituted the law of Moses.

Hermeneutically, context determines meaning.

Make sense ?

Okay, so hermenuet the text.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Question for Bible teachers and students (Aquila, that means you aren't being addressed here):

It is true that Deut 22:5 does not specifically identify pants, dresses, robes, hose, turbans, or any other specific items of clothing. So what is the hermeneutic for doctrine here?

What I mean is, we have a command that is nonspecific. To get to specific applications, we need either a necessary inference, or we are left with approved examples.

Can it be shown by necessary inference from Deut 22:5 that pants are only men's attire? I'm not sure that can be done.

So then, what about approved examples? What is the hermeneutic here? "That which has no approved example is forbidden"? I think that would be too broad (no pun intended), for then it could be argued "there are no approved examples of using the internet" or some other silly thing. So it must be narrower than that. If it is "approved example renders the exampled behavior beyond reproach", then all that could be said is it is permissible for men to wear breeches. But the negative corollary (women are not permitted) would not thereby be necessarily true.

So, what is the doctrinal hermeneutic being used here?

For the readers:

A necessary inference is something that necessarily must be true in a given case. "A conclusion that is dictated by a fact or premise. If the underlying fact or premise is true, then the necessary inference is an unavoidable conclusion that must be drawn." ( https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/necessary_inference ) For example, if we are commanded to sing to one another in a corporate sense, it is a necessary inference that some kind of melody, tune, harmony, etc must be used, because singing cannot by definition be done without some kind of melody, tempo, rhythm, harmony, etc.

An approved example is an example in Scripture of a specific act or behaviour, practice, or belief that is not condemned in Scripture (in the particular text, or elsewhere) or (better) that is specifically given approval in Scripture by God's representatives. For example, Peter and company went in to the house of an uncircumcised Gentile, and this was approved by God in multiple ways. Therefore, Christians are permitted to enter gentile homes to preach the Gospel to them, and if said gentiles become Christians, there is no need to circumcise them, nor is their gentile status a bar to fellowship. Another example: Paul and Silas were in jail for preaching, therefore going to jail for preaching Christ is perfectly acceptable and not to be reproached. Another example: Paul and Silas sang and prayed in the prison in the hearing of the other prisoners, therefore under certain conditions it is acceptable for Christians to pray knowing they will be heard by non Christians.

A command, of course, is an express command by God (through Christ, His apostles, prophets, etc) where God says "do this" or "do not do that".

When a command is non-specific, we must determine how to apply it. If a situation pertains that is not directly or specifically addressed in Scripture by a divine command, we must determine what command WOULD be given if one HAD been given. This means we must look to necessary inferences and approved examples in the text to determine if the particular case before us can be decided using principles found in Scripture. For example, there is no specific command in Scripture forbidding the use of marijuana. However, there are commands against intoxication (drunkenness), excess, riotous behaviour, revelling, and so forth. The approved examples in Scripture of Christ, the prophets, and the apostles indicate personal temperance and self control, self-sacrfice, denial of personal desires, and avoidance of "entertainments" are all godly and approved. Furthermore, there are commands, as well as necessary inferences drawn from those commands, of not practicing heathen customs, avoiding even the appearance of evil, avoiding reproach, and so forth. Therefore, by necessary inference and approved example, we can say Christians are not to use marijuana as an intoxicant. (Using cannabinols for medical purposes which have nothing whatsoever to do with getting high, which do not produce an intoxicating effect, etc would not fall under this proscription. Likewise, using cannabinols for extreme emergencies such as in treatment of glaucoma and nausea for chemotherapy victims would possibly not fall under the proscription either, as exampled by the Hebrew midwives and David's men eating the shewbread which show that in some cases where preservation of health and life may require bending the "letter of the law" in order to accomplish a greater good. However, we should always remember that while there are exceptions to the rules, the exceptions prove the rule, and are not an excuse for abandoning the rule.)

So then, as applied to Deuteronomy 22:5, and the issue of women's pants, how do commands, necessary inferences, and approved examples inform us of God's judgment on this matter?

[Esaias]

Did I kill yet another thread?

lol

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Scott?

Deuteronomy 22:5 is an abomination unto God. Deuteronomy 22:11 isn't an abomination unto God. From verses 1-4 we are being told about how to conduct yourself with your neighbor, nothing about mixing. No mention about an abomination until we get to Deuteronomy 22:5 . In Deuteronomy 22:6 speaks about the attitude towards an innocent animal. Just like the honoring of mother and father will prolong your days, the same goes with treatment towards animals nesting. That is all about attitude, nothing about mixing, nothing about an abomination. Deuteronomy 22:8 "When you build a new house, you must build a railing around the edge of its flat roof. That way you will not be considered guilty of murder if someone falls from the roof. That is speaking of builders liability, nothing about mixing, no mention of it being an abomination unto God. Deuteronomy 22:9 is agricultural advisement, no mention of an abomination unto God. Deuteronomy 22:10 is advisement concerning livestock, no abomination unto God. Just more agricultural advisory warnings. Deuteronomy 22:11 has more to do with hygiene in hot climates, apparel which causes perspiration. Deuteronomy 22:12 instructs the Israelite to fashion their cloak with a religious memorial. Again, no abomination nothing about mixing. Deuteronomy 22:13-30 deals with legal issues with marriage, divorce, incest, and virgins. No abominations unto God, and nothing about mixing.

Deuteronomy 22:5 is about crossdressing.

Pants were worn by priests, by men, by soldiers. No women wearing pants. So pants were found in the Hebrew Men's dept in the Levitical Macy's.

for Scott Pitta.


Also Scott, which verse has been abrogated?

Leviticus 18:22

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is ABOMINATION.

Leviticus 20:13

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an ABOMINATION: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Deuteronomy 22:5

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.

Proverbs 6:16-19

These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an ABOMINATION unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

Proverbs 11:20

They that are of a froward heart are ABOMINATION to the LORD: but such as are upright in their way are his delight.

Proverbs 12:22

Lying lips are ABOMINATION to the LORD: but they that deal truly are his delight.

Proverbs 15:26

The thoughts of the wicked are an ABOMINATION to the LORD: but the words of the pure are pleasant words.


Proverbs 15:8

The sacrifice of the wicked is an ABOMINATION to the LORD: but the prayer of the upright is his delight.

Proverbs 16:5

Every one that is proud in heart is an ABOMINATION to the LORD: though hand join in hand, he shall not be unpunished.

Proverbs 17:15

He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are ABOMINATION to the LORD.

Proverbs 20:10

Divers weights, and divers measures, both of them are alike ABOMINATION to the LORD.

Proverbs 28:9

He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer shall be ABOMINATION.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Pliny

It is impossible to have an intellectual conversation with a mental midget... Now go beat "your proverbial chest" to someone else who does not care about the Bible.

Let's talk about "exaggeration":

Your "evidence"
You know a guy, who knows a guy, who knows a guy etc.


Then there is the "special note:


talk about "exaggeration". this is called hyperbole.



My so-called exaggeration has been the presentation of facts. For example:


Apparently quoting an ancient historian and using the Bible is an exaggeration that imposes a 21st century opinion onto the scripture.


For this to be true Herodotus would have to be considered a prophet. LOL Talk about exaggeration!

Then there is this:


You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. In Roman and Grecian society women did not drink wine except on special occasions. I have also heard the argument about the alcohol making the water potable yet I have never seen anyone document it. Instead it appears to be an old-wives tale. Also, "wine" was never drank "full strength". It was always diluted with three parts water (average). Additionally, the wine of the first century is nothing close to the "wine" of today. People in that part of the world use the same water table that was there way back when - people today do not use alcohol to make the water potable today. Why would they have to then?

Much more could be said...

If you want to have an intellectual discussion start by using intelligence. Don't throw out accusations without backing up the assertion.

Start by providing evidence that godly women wore pants.
Please feel free to use the Bible instead of Native American Culture or Islamic culture.

Tonights winners are Pliny and Esaias

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Awesome! Please give us all the verses you use now to prove women shouldn't wear pants

Sister Alvear, could you please take a moment to show how you teach that men should wear long pants and women should not wear long pants but dresses?

Thank you

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

"I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean."

"Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin."

Some things are clearly marked as sin in the Bible. Other things are sin only to them who are convicted against them.

So very true. We see this in relation to meats and days observed.

[Sister Alvear]

Dishonesty (Proverbs 12:22).
Arrogant pride (Proverbs 16:5).
Ignoring God’s law (Proverbs 28:9).
Devising evil and sowing discord (Proverbs 6:16-19).
Eating what the Bible calls “unclean” animals (Leviticus 11:8; Leviticus 11:11; Leviticus 11:13; Leviticus 11:23).
The act of homosexuality (Leviticus 18:22).

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Daniel 3:21 King James Version (KJV)
21 Then these men were bound in their coats, their hosen, and their hats, and their other garments, and were cast into the midst of the burning fiery furnace.

The "hosen" in this verse is the paṭṭîysh, which was the male version of the kuttoneth. It is traditionally the under tunic worn by both men and women in ancient times, namely Israel. It wasn't bifurcated. In fact, it translates, "as if hammered out wide". It is also translated, using the English words "garment, coat, tunic". It looked like this: (see attached image)