Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

Recommended Posts


Song of Solomon 7:1
How beautiful are thy feet with shoes, O prince's daughter! the joints of thy thighs are like jewels, the work of the hands of a cunning workman.

I agree, most feet look better with shoes! :wink

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Song of Solomon 7:1
How beautiful are thy feet with shoes, O prince's daughter! the joints of thy thighs are like jewels, the work of the hands of a cunning workman.
Good find! So now we know that prince's daughters wore shoes.

Now, was the author actually saying the prince's daughter wore shoes? or was he allegorizing?
Did she have a navel shaped like a round goblet? did her belly look like wheat and lilies? her breasts like roes? her nose as a tower?

I submit to you that it is all allegorizing, and not literal. Edited by Standing Firm In Christ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It used to mean something when someone would ask "who wears the pants in your house?" Today just about everybody in every house is wearing pants.

Interesting that even though it has no literal meaning anymore, pretty much everyone knows the symbolic meaning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I do believe the "no shoes" thing does tie in (at least in the Old Testament days and up until the end of the first century AD).

We do have a verse that seems to imply women went barefoot when they were wandering in the wilderness, and we have verses that speak of men wearing shoes. But we have no verses of women wearing shoes.

I am convinced that women did not wear shoes in those days (maybe that is where we get the term "barefoot and pregnant" from?) and if a woman put shoes on, she was doing so to complete a 'dress like a man' attire.


Your comment will not hold a drop of water. Its close to being silly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So when I put on my kilt, a garment made for me (a man), do people think it is wrong because it, according to some people's standards in America, is a skirt (a woman's garment)? Seriously, is God concerned with pants and skirts, (mankinds terms) or rather with men not wearing women's clothing (regardless of the culture...i.e. for a man to wear a womans clothing would be wrong, even if it were a skirt in place of my kilt) and women not wearing man's clothing (again, regardless of the culture...i.e. for a woman to wear my kilt would be wrong, since it is a garment that pertains to a man)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know there are certain types of pants that men wouldn't wear (or if they did they would look rather feminine...) for example, darkwash jeans with a wide leg and a broad hem. Is that not distinction enough?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Suzy, Said people looked down on her wearing skirts. Well the people of the world look down on all Christians that truly holds to God's Word, & His ways. When they do so that ought to make us feel we are finally doing something right. We are to be a peculiar people, & that means to be different from the lost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So when I put on my kilt, a garment made for me (a man), do people think it is wrong because it, according to some people's standards in America, is a skirt (a woman's garment)? Seriously, is God concerned with pants and skirts, (mankinds terms) or rather with men not wearing women's clothing (regardless of the culture...i.e. for a man to wear a womans clothing would be wrong, even if it were a skirt in place of my kilt) and women not wearing man's clothing (again, regardless of the culture...i.e. for a woman to wear my kilt would be wrong, since it is a garment that pertains to a man)?
Those who live under the Law might be aghast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Suzy, Said people looked down on her wearing skirts. Well the people of the world look down on all Christians that truly holds to God's Word, & His ways. When they do so that ought to make us feel we are finally doing something right. We are to be a peculiar people, & that means to be different from the lost.
If you are talking 'peculiar' as in 1 Peter 2:9, that word does not mean "different". It means purchased.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Good find! So now we know that prince's daughters wore shoes.

Now, was the author actually saying the prince's daughter wore shoes? or was he allegorizing?
Did she have a navel shaped like a round goblet? did her belly look like wheat and lilies? her breasts like roes? her nose as a tower?

I submit to you that it is all allegorizing, and not literal.


A few questions...
Which part is allegory?
The part that princesses wore shoes or that princesses had feet?

But the biggest concern to all of us should be; Is the sentence ending (.) also allegory?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So when I put on my kilt, a garment made for me (a man), do people think it is wrong because it, according to some people's standards in America, is a skirt (a woman's garment)? Seriously, is God concerned with pants and skirts, (mankinds terms) or rather with men not wearing women's clothing (regardless of the culture...i.e. for a man to wear a womans clothing would be wrong, even if it were a skirt in place of my kilt) and women not wearing man's clothing (again, regardless of the culture...i.e. for a woman to wear my kilt would be wrong, since it is a garment that pertains to a man)?


God is concerned with every aspect of His children's lives, & we have all we need within the pages of the Bible to obey Him, that is if one is not looking for loopholes, in order to be like & do as the world does.

This little book might help everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Years ago I know of two women living together, one dressed only in dresses, skirts, & such, the other one only dressed in men's clothing.Even these two homosexuals knew how both men & women were to dress. She always looked 100% feminine, & the other she always looked 100% masculine. no one had a doubt who was being the woman, nor the man. Anyone that did not know them would & happen to see them walking by would have thought it was truly a man & a woman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trell might ask himself if God is subject to culture, or if His Word applies to all ages and all generations regardless of mans "culture". Some of these argument are down right silly; Scottish men do not have to wear kilts, they choose to; women wearing pants is a choice also, and as Jerry said, many are looking for a "loophole" to justify their whims and traditions.

As for "Standing firm" I will not even bother to address it, it sounds as if he is stuck in the dispensational thing that rips out most of the O.T. because it was written to the Jew. Reminds me of the penknife incident where Jehudi cut out the parts of the scroll he did not like.

Jer 36:20 And they went in to the king into the court, but they laid up the roll in the chamber of Elishama the scribe, and told all the words in the ears of the king.
Jer 36:21 So the king sent Jehudi to fetch the roll: and he took it out of Elishama the scribe's chamber. And Jehudi read it in the ears of the king, and in the ears of all the princes which stood beside the king.
Jer 36:22 Now the king sat in the winterhouse in the ninth month: and there was a fire on the hearth burning before him.
Jer 36:23 And it came to pass, that when Jehudi had read three or four leaves, he cut it with the penknife, and cast it into the fire that was on the hearth, until all the roll was consumed in the fire that was on the hearth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A kilt is men's wear. What we, in our culture, call women's clothing, is not necessarily women's clothing in other cultures. In the first century, and before, what we call dresses today are similar to what men and women both wore. In our terms, usually a skirt belongs to a woman, a kilt to a man, a shirt to a man, a blouse to a woman, slacks to a woman, trousers to a man.

In Old Testament times, those who desired a close personal relationship had to come to the Israelites, Israel was to be a light to the nations, and not numbered among them. The 'clothing law' was spoken, written, and for Israel, not for the nations. Anyone who came to Israel to convert was to conform to this law.

Now in the New Testament, we are to go to the all the world, where cultures vary tremendously. We are the bearers of the light of God. The standard now is modesty, not a specific clothing law. Believers are to walk by the spirit, and so fulfill the law. Ours is a law of love.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A kilt is not always men's wear, Trell. Women have kilts, too, and they are distinct from the male kilts (and they are actually ceremonial, not daily wear). And, yes, I do think men look silly in them. *shrugs* Just sayin... :icon_smile: And, yes, God is concerned about women not wearing men's apparel and vice versa. That's what Deut. 22:5 is all about. The principle of gender distinction crosses "law" lines. And yes, believer's are to walk by the Spirit...but they are to obey the Book. There are principles that too many people (as Kita said) want to proclaim as their liberty not to follow. And yet, we are told by God not to use our liberty as an occasion to the flesh. Too many Christians proclaim liberty when want they really want is license.

Standing - you can't argue away the fact that God preserved the shoes of ALL of Israel while they were in the wilderness. AND - Moses was, by command of God, speaking to all of Israel when he gave the passover commands. It was the man's duty to get the lamb, but instruction was given to the entire household. Again, your "argument" is silly, and the logical end of your comparison is that women should eat their children. While they are barefoot. :realitycheck:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trell might ask himself if God is subject to culture, or if His Word applies to all ages and all generations regardless of mans "culture". Some of these argument are down right silly; Scottish men do not have to wear kilts, they choose to; women wearing pants is a choice also, and as Jerry said, many are looking for a "loophole" to justify their whims and traditions.

As for "Standing firm" I will not even bother to address it, it sounds as if he is stuck in the dispensational thing that rips out most of the O.T. because it was written to the Jew. Reminds me of the penknife incident where Jehudi cut out the parts of the scroll he did not like.

Jer 36:20 And they went in to the king into the court, but they laid up the roll in the chamber of Elishama the scribe, and told all the words in the ears of the king.
Jer 36:21 So the king sent Jehudi to fetch the roll: and he took it out of Elishama the scribe's chamber. And Jehudi read it in the ears of the king, and in the ears of all the princes which stood beside the king.
Jer 36:22 Now the king sat in the winterhouse in the ninth month: and there was a fire on the hearth burning before him.
Jer 36:23 And it came to pass, that when Jehudi had read three or four leaves, he cut it with the penknife, and cast it into the fire that was on the hearth, until all the roll was consumed in the fire that was on the hearth.
You might ask yourself why men wore skirts in the Bible, but when a man wears a kilt (which is a type of skirt) he is looked down upon?

Remember, God didn't put pants on Adam, nor did He put a dress on Eve. Edited by Standing Firm In Christ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Deuteronomy 22:5 (KJV) 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.

This is part of the Old Testament Law.

If one is going to put themselves under one law found within the Mosaic Law, then one needs to obey the other 612 laws found within the Mosaic Law. If you are guilty of one, you are guilty of all.

But be forewarned, Paul said "For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them." Galatians 3:10 (KJV)

According to Paul, those women who use Deuteronomy 22:5 as their reason for not wearing pants are under a curse.

The OT Law also says not to committ adultery, covet, lie, steal, hate, murder, commit fornication, incest, etc etc. Jesus didn't do away with the Law, he fulfilled it. So now, the Christian, by loving God and his neighbor as himself WILLINGLY obeys the commandments of the law....out of love....not constraint. Therefore, a Christian woman who loves and respects her fellowman and lives for Jesus instead of SELF will WANT to do the decent thing and act and dress like a LADY instead of conforming to the world and being a stumbling block. Edited by heartstrings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You might ask yourself why men wore skirts in the Bible, but when a man wears a kilt (which is a type of skirt) he is looked down upon?

Remember, God didn't put pants on Adam, nor did He put a dress on Eve.

It says God made them coats of skins. I'm inclined to believe He made a masculine coat for Adam and feminine one for Eve....Maybe Adam had a rough smelly bear coat and Eve had a nice Mink. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It says God made them coats of skins. I'm inclined to believe He made a masculine coat for Adam and feminine one for Eve....Maybe Adam had a rough smelly bear coat and Eve had a nice Mink. :)
There is no indication of what those 'coats of skins' looked like. We don't know exactly what kind of 'skins' were used. I personally believe it was lamb. But we are not told the styles of those 'coats'.

We should not belittle the Scottish for their wearing of kilts. For all we know, those 'coats of skins' may have resembled kilts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was looking at a book which showed traditional dress for alot of pre-modern people including Mongolians, Arabs, Eskimos etc. In every case, though the clothing styles were very different from our own, the MENS clothing was DISTINCT from the womens.

My sister had a DNA test done on me, for geneological research purposes, which revealed that most of my Y DNA came from Scotland. But this Scottish descendent lives in the USA where our dress has traditionally been dresses for the ladies and pants for the men. Aye, Ye kin daunder aroun in ye wee bittie skirts if'n ye want to lads, But i'll be wearin' me breeks if it's all the same to ye. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just read an interesting article on the origin of pants. The article cites many references. According to the article, pants have been around since before Christ, and that when they first were invented, both men and women wore them.

The article identifies pants as a pagan or barbarian attire.

Edited by Standing Firm In Christ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 43 Guests (See full list)

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...