Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

what would you separate over?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 127
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members

First of all, thank you for your kind response. I appreciate someone who can talk about it without getting un-Christlike.


In all due respect pastor, who says that a conviction is something you would die for?


Okay, this is something I won't argue about, but I heard it in a sermon from a well-respected IFB pastor and I agree with it. But no big deal there.

Furthermore, those lesser doctrines, if you call them that, are still scriptural. God does not call short hair on a woman an abomination like he does wearing a mans clothes (It is a shame to her, but not called abomination i. e. that thing which God hates.) Why does everyone ignore that? If God hates something that strongly, then we had better adjust our thinking and be very careful how we interpret it.


Again, I agree. No dispute there on this point.

I have been trying to avoid this subject, and as one has said, no one ever changes it seems, but does that mean that we should quit discussing Truth when people won't respond to it the way we think they should? If I may borrow a phrase from Numbers 24:13 the last sentence of that verse: "but what the LORD saith, that will I speak?" I can do no less.


Again, no disagreement. I concur wholeheartedly. That is why I will respond.


Okay, to keep this post from getting to long, I will continue this in the next post.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Jerry & Irishman, I will include you both in this response.

As I posted elsewhere (whether in this thread or not, I am not sure) There was a reason that God put Deut 22:5 in the Bible "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." The confusion of the sexes is the embryo of the homosexual movement, which is also an abomination unto God. Let the scripture bear out the truth.

If we isolate it to the time period it was written, then we give it its own "private interpretation", which we are cautioned NOT to do in 2 Pet. 1:20.


I agree completely that "the confusion of the sexes is the embryo of the homosexual movement, which is an abomination unto God." I preach that when necessary.

"Let the scripture bear out truth."

Okay, let's do that. First of all, where in the Bible does it ever say pants are men's clothing only? Nowhere. I will use only the KJB (which is all I use btw) and 2 concordances to define KJB words, as in the Hebrew.

Now let's look at 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."

Let's do a little word study. Use your concordances as well. Everyone, IMHO, should use one when studying God's word.

"Wear"

According to Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, #1961 in the Hebrew, wear means "to exist, be, or become, come to pass"

According to Young's Concordance, "wear" is the Hebrew word hayah, which is translated elsewhere in the KJB as, "be, become, be done, come, come to pass, fall, happen, last, pertain, quit selves, be, be accomplished, be brought to pass, be committed, be done, break, deed be done, faint"

No where is havah ever translated any word that has anything to do with clothing. To be or become something, is entirely different to wearing something. A woman is not to become a man. It speaks to who she is, not how she dresses.

Pertain

According to Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, #3627 in the Hebrew, "pertain" means "something prepared, i.e. any apparatus (as an implement, untensil, dress, vessel, or weapon) - armor, artillery, bag, carriage, +furnish, furniture, instrument, jewel, psaltery, sack, stuff, thing, tool, vessel, ware, weapon"

Now, I realize that definition uses the word dress, but look at all the ways it is translated in the KJB:

According to Young's Concordance, "pertain" is the Hebrew word keli, and is translated in the KJB as "armor (10 times); artillery (1); bag (2); carriage (3); furniture (8); instrument (39); jewel (20); pot (1); sack (1); stuff (14); thing (12); tool (1); vessel (146); wares (1); weapon (20); another (1); one (1) that which is made of (1); that which pertaineth (1)

None of these words as anything to do with clothing. Not once.

According to this, a woman shall not "wear" armor or weapons, vessels, or any of those other things which belong to a man. It would seem to say that a woman should not be in combat, or any kind of law enforcement, because it does refer to armor or weapons. Yet, it does not say clothing, especially pants. I just don't see it in these definitions.

Now look them up yourself. I am not contorting or twisting anything here. It is not talking about wearing clothing (see the definition of wear, above). It is saying that a woman who becomes a man by putting on these accessories, is an abomination to God. Nothing to do with pants. Nowhere in the KJB does it ever say pants is men's clothing! I'm sorry, but you cannot find that anywhere!

Now, let's take that passage literally, and preach that woman can't join the military or fight in combat. Let's see how that goes over! Is anyone out there preaching that? Of course not!

That same passage says, in verse 8, "When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make a battlement for thy roof, that thou bring not blood upon thine house, if any man fall from thence." Why don't we obey this verse and preach it like we do verse 5?

Or what about verse 11? "Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together." How many of us wear shirts or pants made of different fabrics? Probably everyone of us!

What about verses 20-21 that says we are to stone a damsel who lies about her virginity? Let's preach that today! No, well, you're not preaching the whole counsel of God then!

No one, can anywhere, show a verse that says pants are men's clothing. We preach this one verse out of all the others in this chapter, yea, most of the book of Deuteronomy and ignore the rest of it! Who are we to determine what is pertinent to today and what is not? That is no different than those who take a pen knife to God's word and say this is God's word and this isn't. Just like those who translated the NIV (a whole other subject we won't get into).

Now, all I've done is take 2 establishes, well-used concordances to define what Deuteronomy 22:5 is saying. I don't see anywhere pants is ever referred to.

I realize I probably won't persuade you. Only God can do that, and the same goes for me. But, I have "let the Scripture bear out truth." You, sir, is the one adding to God's word a meaning that is not there. And I do mean that kindly and with as much respect as I can. But Deuteronomy 22:5 has nothing to do with, pants, specifically.

Now, is it okay for a woman to be, become, or act like a man? No, that is an abomination unto the LORD thy God. Not the putting on of pants.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Sometime back on another message board, a fellow called himself a very conservative Baptist, but he went on to say, "If my girl friend and I wear our beachwear to church services on Sunday morning because we're headed to the beach after church service there is nothing wrong with that." Someone asked him to explain beachwear, he said, my swimming trunks and my girlfriend wearing her bikini.


Now, that would be, IMO, wrong, on every level. We ought to dress our best, as we ought to do anything, for God. I would have serious issue if any member of my church wore beachwear to church. But this has little to do with pants. Pants are not beachware.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

If we isolate it to the time period it was written, then we give it its own "private interpretation", which we are cautioned NOT to do in 2 Pet. 1:20.


Why then, don't we apply this thought to the other verses of Deuteronomy 22? Why do we wear garments of divers sorts? Why don't we stone the damsel who lied about her viriginity? Why don't we stone a couple caught in adultery (vs. 22)? Why don't we stone a rapist (vs. 25)? If we isolate these to the time period it was written, then we give it its own "private interpretation", no?

I love how this line of thought pertains only to Deuteronomy 22:5, but conveniently, not to the rest of the Mosaic law.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Observation: It's easy to say "I wouldn't separate over XYZ" as long as the disagreement is "none personal" in nature. Example: Half the church believes in "Old Earth" and half believe "Young Earth", but both sides show grace and neither side is abusively dogmatic so they all get along fine.

But... let the topic get personal ("I can't believe 'you' believe that, you're wrong!) then that's a whole new animal! We are ready to proclaim the other person(s) as a "heretic(s)" and we want to separate.

Sometimes, especially on lesser issues, the "degree" of feeling (about separation) is more about person than it is doctrine.



:amen::goodpost:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Jerry & Irishman, I will include you both in this response.



I agree completely that "the confusion of the sexes is the embryo of the homosexual movement, which is an abomination unto God." I preach that when necessary.

"Let the scripture bear out truth."

Okay, let's do that. First of all, where in the Bible does it ever say pants are men's clothing only? Nowhere. I will use only the KJB (which is all I use btw) and 2 concordances to define KJB words, as in the Hebrew.

Now let's look at 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."

Let's do a little word study. Use your concordances as well. Everyone, IMHO, should use one when studying God's word.

"Wear"

According to Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, #1961 in the Hebrew, wear means "to exist, be, or become, come to pass"

According to Young's Concordance, "wear" is the Hebrew word hayah, which is translated elsewhere in the KJB as, "be, become, be done, come, come to pass, fall, happen, last, pertain, quit selves, be, be accomplished, be brought to pass, be committed, be done, break, deed be done, faint"

No where is havah ever translated any word that has anything to do with clothing. To be or become something, is entirely different to wearing something. A woman is not to become a man. It speaks to who she is, not how she dresses.

Pertain

According to Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, #3627 in the Hebrew, "pertain" means "something prepared, i.e. any apparatus (as an implement, untensil, dress, vessel, or weapon) - armor, artillery, bag, carriage, +furnish, furniture, instrument, jewel, psaltery, sack, stuff, thing, tool, vessel, ware, weapon"

Now, I realize that definition uses the word dress, but look at all the ways it is translated in the KJB:

According to Young's Concordance, "pertain" is the Hebrew word keli, and is translated in the KJB as "armor (10 times); artillery (1); bag (2); carriage (3); furniture (8); instrument (39); jewel (20); pot (1); sack (1); stuff (14); thing (12); tool (1); vessel (146); wares (1); weapon (20); another (1); one (1) that which is made of (1); that which pertaineth (1)

None of these words as anything to do with clothing. Not once.

According to this, a woman shall not "wear" armor or weapons, vessels, or any of those other things which belong to a man. It would seem to say that a woman should not be in combat, or any kind of law enforcement, because it does refer to armor or weapons. Yet, it does not say clothing, especially pants. I just don't see it in these definitions.

Now look them up yourself. I am not contorting or twisting anything here. It is not talking about wearing clothing (see the definition of wear, above). It is saying that a woman who becomes a man by putting on these accessories, is an abomination to God. Nothing to do with pants. Nowhere in the KJB does it ever say pants is men's clothing! I'm sorry, but you cannot find that anywhere!

Now, let's take that passage literally, and preach that woman can't join the military or fight in combat. Let's see how that goes over! Is anyone out there preaching that? Of course not!

That same passage says, in verse 8, "When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make a battlement for thy roof, that thou bring not blood upon thine house, if any man fall from thence." Why don't we obey this verse and preach it like we do verse 5?

Or what about verse 11? "Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together." How many of us wear shirts or pants made of different fabrics? Probably everyone of us!

What about verses 20-21 that says we are to stone a damsel who lies about her virginity? Let's preach that today! No, well, you're not preaching the whole counsel of God then!

No one, can anywhere, show a verse that says pants are men's clothing. We preach this one verse out of all the others in this chapter, yea, most of the book of Deuteronomy and ignore the rest of it! Who are we to determine what is pertinent to today and what is not? That is no different than those who take a pen knife to God's word and say this is God's word and this isn't. Just like those who translated the NIV (a whole other subject we won't get into).

Now, all I've done is take 2 establishes, well-used concordances to define what Deuteronomy 22:5 is saying. I don't see anywhere pants is ever referred to.

I realize I probably won't persuade you. Only God can do that, and the same goes for me. But, I have "let the Scripture bear out truth." You, sir, is the one adding to God's word a meaning that is not there. And I do mean that kindly and with as much respect as I can. But Deuteronomy 22:5 has nothing to do with, pants, specifically.

Now, is it okay for a woman to be, become, or act like a man? No, that is an abomination unto the LORD thy God. Not the putting on of pants.


I will not debate the issue with you, but I disagree, I've heard it over and over, again and again, you've shown me nothing new that I have not heard from the crowd who defends women dressing in man's clothing, just the same old explaining God's truths away.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
I will not debate the issue with you, but I disagree, I've heard it over and over, again and again, you've shown me nothing new that I have not heard from the crowd who defends women dressing in man's clothing, just the same old explaining God's truths away.


Okay, that is fine, and I can respect that. I'm not wanting to necessarily debate it either, but how can you or anyone say that this verse is referring to pants? The Scriptures, and their clear meaning, do not play that out. I guess I just don't understand how someone can infer that from a verse that, literally and contextually, do not speak to that end. I can understand transvestites and the like, but not this issue of pants. :puzzled3::puzzled3::puzzled3:

Maybe someone can help me understand it. But in trying to rightly divide the word of truth, I do not see that verse referring to anything such as pants.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Quote: "Wear"

According to Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, #1961 in the Hebrew, wear means "to exist, be, or become, come to pass"

According to Young's Concordance, "wear" is the Hebrew word hayah, which is translated elsewhere in the KJB as, "be, become, be done, come, come to pass, fall, happen, last, pertain, quit selves, be, be accomplished, be brought to pass, be committed, be done, break, deed be done, faint"

No where is havah ever translated any word that has anything to do with clothing. To be or become something, is entirely different to wearing something. A woman is not to become a man. It speaks to who she is, not how she dresses. End Quote

(I do not yet know how to do multiple quotes, sorry, I am nearly computer illiterate!)




pastor Brown, Thank you for your lengthy response. I do not mean to be disrespectful of your position, but I feel that you are being a bit deceptive in much of your post, and that you probably realize it. Here's what I mean:

First let me refer to the quote above: I do not know much about Hebrew language, neither do I need to-- I have it already translated in the English! But that is another subject, as you have said; In the Websters Dictionary of American English (1828) the word "wear" has a few different meanings, but the one which pertains (that word we will get to in a moment too) to our situation is defined as weapons, but as clothes also! It specifically mentions clothing:

2. To carry appendant to the body, as clothes or weapons; as, to wear a coat or a robe; to wear a sword; to wear a crown.

The first meaning talked about the natural wear of a product mostly.

Secondly, "pertain" (same Dictionary):

Pertain
PERTA'IN, v.i. [L. pertineo, per and tenco, to hold.]

1. To belong; to be the property, right or duty of.

So, I have to disagree with Strong, who has been in question already by many scholars, and go with Webster, who is the paramount, and unquestionable authority of the English language.


Now, as concerning the rest of Deut. 22, I woul ask you the same question: Why is it that this verse gets people fired up and ready to fight and the others have no effect to that extent on them? Could it be pride? or perhaps a hint of conviction?

We have to obey the laws of our country, so the stoning part is actually (forgive me) a foolish statement; but why is no one arguing about plowing with an ox and a (jackass) together nowadays?

I would hope that the first 4 verses are still practiced today, since the property is legally "thy brothers" anyway, so there is no problem there.
As for the mixed garment, why do we not argue this point and get all bent out of shape over it, as we do v. 5? (By the way, my main point still holds, none of these others are an 'abomonation" as is v. 5-- that sort of singles it out as being extraordinarily repulsive) if your reasoning is correct, then it must be ok to violate the last verse, which is "A man shall not take his father's wife, nor discover his father's skirt."

Many of these things are concerning relationships and a difference in laws. You mentioned an embattlement to protect people who go out on the roof; if we built houses (and even decks today) of that sort, the law requires a "fence" around it to protect people from falling off. Much of this is common sense, but people constantly need to be reminded (perhaps sense isn't so common any more!!) Anyway, I feel your response is below you, and that you could do better than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Bro Brown, what i don't understand is why we don't take Deut. 22:5 for exactly what it says? It would be safer to assume that a woman should not wear long pants, than to explain it another way, and take the chance that you are wrong and committing abomination. What harm is there in seeing it the way it is written?

Let me say, this has gone a lot further than I intended. We have stolen the thread from the original poster, as usually happens in long threads, but I will be breaking it off soon, and hope that there is no harm done.

I also need to say that many accuse us (who believe in the literal meaning of text in question) as thinking those that wear pants are les spiritual. i have never made that claim, as we all have many faults, but I will say that a woman in a dress (to me) looks more spiritual, and more submissive because she is in her proper role. It is a better testimony to the world, in my not-so-humble opinion.

Thank you for the debate, I hope that someone has benefitted from it; perhaps a browser that has not yet weighed the evidence; or a new Christian that the Lord has led to this post. I really don't think there is much more I can say unless I am bursting inside to respond to your rebuttal. Praise the Lord, my brother, and keep preaching it!

Just_a_thought, I really am sorry that we have gone off in another direction, I promise that it was not my original intention, but I could not help but speak what the Lord has allowed me to speak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

First of all, thank you for your kind response. I appreciate someone who can talk about it without getting un-Christlike.



Okay, this is something I won't argue about, but I heard it in a sermon from a well-respected IFB pastor and I agree with it. But no big deal there.


A little history, many preachers picked this phrase and def up concerning conv/pref from each other who picked it up from David Gibbs and David Gibbs, Jr.

I don't know if they still say it as they used to or just leave it hanging as if it was a dictionary def now.

The used to be very clear (they may still be, but I don't know), they did not try to convey it as a Biblical or English language definition --- they said, "in"(don't remember the year)"the US Supreme Court, in a decision in"(don't remember the case)"opined that the difference between a conviction and preference was an individual's willigness to die for said alleged conviction; or in other words, the law(emphasis poster's) states that a conviction is something you are willing to die for."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I, too, apologize for pirating this thread. I didn't mean to. I am not arguing that a woman shouldn't wear men's clothes. I simply wanted to point out that according to 2 very reliable concordances, which are the authority on the Hebrew, that this verse is not specifically talking about clothes. Clothing is a good application, not a good interpretation. Just as in Revelation 3:20; the interpretation is Jesus is standing outside of many churches, not the hearts of men. Although that is a good application.

What I don't get, is, who determined that pants are only men's clothes? Should a woman not wear a t-shirt? Would not a t-shirt constitute men's clothing since men used to mostly wear them? I don't know. I am trying to take this verse literally, according to its original meaning, and its English meaning. But I disagree with the fact that pants are only men's clothing. I am not going to go any more into it.

Irishman, I am in no way being deceptive at all. That is just exactly as I see it and understand it. I do not try to make any assumptions about God's word. If it says it, I believe it. If it doesn't, I don't assume it does. If any one has a biblical answer where pants are men's clothing, please feel free to email me or pm me. I will be glad to listen to Biblical evidence, not assumptions though. Sorry again for stealing this thread; it wasn't my intention. But I, too, could not help but speak what the Lord has laid on my heart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members



A little history, many preachers picked this phrase and def up concerning conv/pref from each other who picked it up from David Gibbs and David Gibbs, Jr.

I don't know if they still say it as they used to or just leave it hanging as if it was a dictionary def now.

The used to be very clear (they may still be, but I don't know), they did not try to convey it as a Biblical or English language definition --- they said, "in"(don't remember the year)"the US Supreme Court, in a decision in"(don't remember the case)"opined that the difference between a conviction and preference was an individual's willigness to die for said alleged conviction; or in other words, the law(emphasis poster's) states that a conviction is something you are willing to die for."


Interesting information, thank you. It wasn't David Gibbs I heard it from, it was Curtis Hutson. But maybe he got it from them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Would it also not be worth studying exactly how the garments of the two sexes differed at the time the verse(s) at issue were written. From my understanding, everyone wore robes during that time period which most likely resembled the dress of modern Saudis. Personally, I really can't tell the difference between a "man's robe" and a "woman's robe." Also, there is a cultural aspect to this as well. In American, if we see a man wearing a dress we think it strange, at least. In parts of Scottland, men still wear kilts (not exactly a dress, but very similar). When Scotts see a woman wearing a kilt, they thing it strange. Also, there are many indiginous cultures that have no idea what a "dress" or "pants" are, nor would that associate a garment with one particular sex as opposed to another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

A few observations:

1. Deut 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."

I believe that for the first portion of this verse to be interpreted correctly you can not just tear apart two single Hebrew words by themselves (both of which admittedly have been translated multiple ways throughout the Old Testament) without keeping it in the context of the second section of the verse, "neither shall a man put on a woman's garment."

In order for the second section to make any sense when it uses the word "neither" when it begins the thought, the first section must be speaking of a converse thought, i.e. a woman wearing a man's garment in this case.

2. I've always thought that what is acceptable clothing or covering for a man or woman in public to some extent is based upon one's culture at that time. Does this not still apply today as it did in the time of the Lord Jesus Christ, as well as different ages throughout human history?

I mean, if the dress/robe that was worn in the time of the disciples was similar for both women and men, but of a different cut for men and women (as far as I can tell they both wore long dress/robe like garments) then the same principle would apply to garments today, I would think (women's button down blouses tend to be different than a man's button down dress shirt, etc.).

3. Because the particular observer thinks one form of garment (dress vs. pants) looks more feminine, attractive, godly or less godly does not necessarily mean that other observers see it the same way. I have rarely heard from this latest generation's unsaved man about how godly the woman in a dress looks; most of the time they've made a comment in a direction that I wouldn't even repeat (especially in mixed company) and let me just say they seem to think it is more provocative than slacks on a woman.

For this type of standard of separation from the world there is a huge breadth of thought. Each person as they are convicted in their heart by the Holy Spirit will need to be the deciding factor (as long as they are covered and modest).

Just my 1/2 cent!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...