rancher824

My Dad surrendered to preach in the 50s. He says in our area from that time for many years the small country churches he would preach in, he would be the only one wearing a suit. The farmers that were the leaders in the church would wear their best overalls. That’s the reason I used the overalls for the first missionary in my example. A lot of Godly men in overalls. Lol.

I have been battling with this subject for about the last 8 years. It was at that time that a pastor I had at that time asked me to read some verses on stage with him. Now I always loved to dress up. Suit, Tie, Collar clips,, dress up as much as possible. That was me. He said "I know I don't have to tell you this, but I require any one speaking to wear a suit." Now that statement was not going to change how I dressed. I loved to dress up. Now why am I starting with this? Because it lays the ground work that it was not a change in my life that bothered me, but a extra biblical requirement if I was to serve God. Now I will try to explain what I am trying to get to. But first a example of what I see as a problem, not a real story. A pastor has been communicating with 2 young missionaries. Brother Jones, and Brother Smith. He has never met either of these men. In his correspondence with Brother Jones, every question is answered exactly the way the pastor would want to hear. Bible verses to back up every answer. He can feel a great zeal for God as well as a great knowledge of the scriptures. He is super impressed and asks him to come speak to the church. Now with Brother Smith, he answers the questions good, but no where near as good. He does not give the verses to back himself up. He does not feel the same zeal, but again, with the good answers, he goes ahead and schedules him to come speak to the church at the same conference. The 2 men arrive at the same time, Brother Smith in a 3 piece suit, Brother Jones though has on the best pair of overalls he owns, but not a suit and tie. Now what is the pastor going to do? Is he going to allow the one he felt such a zeal for God from to speak, or is he going to tell him to set down and attend services, while Brother Smith speaks? Now look at James 2. You are showing respect to Brother Smith because of his fine suit, but refusing Brother Jones because his clothes do not meet your expectations. And James says this is a sin. Now you could argue that in James 2 neither were speaking, but can you show me any place that there is a clothing requirement to speak in the church of God? Do you realize that if Elisha or John the Baptist came to speak, you would refuse them, but would be glad to accept the Pharisee with his broad phylacteries, and there enlarged boarders of their garments (Matt 23:5). My point in that is the places I find in scripture that is not speaking of the high priest or the priest, those who want for the fancy clothing are not those who should be respected, but rather those who were in the modest, work clothes. Now on the priest, yes they did dress different. The high priest wore a very fancy outfit. Christ is our high priest, therefore we do not need to try to dress up in that way. As to the other priests, if I made me a outfit to match theirs, I would be laughed out of church and told to follow Det 22:5, as it had a skirt. But we base our requirement on a business suit. An article of clothing that was to make sure the important business men were not confused with the lower working class men. Now I will conclude that it makes me sad. I have seen my son growing up ask to do things other boys his age were doing in the church be told he could ask later when he was wearing a coat and tie. I have seen ladies step back from serving God because they were more comfortable in slacks, but told they would have to have a dress, even though the pastors wife wore slacks outside of church. I have came to the point that I HATE dressing up. I feel I am putting on an idol. You see, if I told my son to go get gas because the lawn mower had ran out, and as he was heading to go get it someone stopped him.They told him the clothes he had on, that I had not said anything against, were not appropriate and that he had to go change first, would they not be stepping in between me and what I had told my son to do? and if he obeyed them first, and then went and got the gas, who was my son putting first? My order, or their order? Did he not put their command as more important than mine? We should not put things in front of God's command to serve him. We should not tell men that they cannot serve God if they do not put on what WE say has to be there. When we do we make idols in front of God.

I once heard a man preach on Jonah. When he got to Jonah 1:3 KJV “But Jonah rose up to flee unto Tarshish from the presence of the Lord , and went down to Joppa; and he found a ship going to Tarshish: so he paid the fare thereof, and went down into it, to go with them unto Tarshish from the presence of the Lord” he went into how any time the Bible says “went down to” it was speaking of sin. His whole sermon was based on this statement. After church I made sure there wasn’t anyone around and I asked him if I had understood that anywhere the phrase “went down to” was used it was referring to sin. He confirmed that I had understood correctly. I then showed him John 2:12 KJV “After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples: and they continued there not many days.” This verse is of course speaking of Jesus, so there could not be and sin involved. My point in mentioning this is that we need to be careful not to build a belief, or sermon on a single word or even phrase. We need to study the context and see if there is anything there.

There is one in Spokane, called faith Baptist that we really like. It is about an hour from Ava, so a bit of a drive. But they might get in contact with them and find somewhere that they suggest.

I also understand what you are saying, and in no way want to come across to be saying you are wrong in the way you study. I for instance use 2 particular commentaries for getting ideas from when I have a passage confusing me. Now, I know they are not inspired, but the thoughts of learned men. They do give me ideas to think on, and passages to go to to compare. I also, obviously use the 1828 Websters, and rarely the Strong's. I don't personally care a lot for it, but to each his own I will use the word let mentioned earlier. I already gave the Websters definition, here is the Strong's "G2722 κατέχω katechō kat-ekh'-o From G2596 and G2192; to hold down (fast), in various applications (literally or figuratively): - have, hold (fast), keep (in memory), let, X make toward, possess, retain, seize on, stay, take, withhold. Total KJV occurrences: 19 G737 ἄρτι arti ar'-tee Adverb from a derivative of G142 (compare G740) through the idea of suspension; just now: Sometimes you- this day (hour), hence [-forth], here [-after], hither [-to], (even) now, (this) present. Total KJV occurrences: 36" copied using Esword Now to me, the Webster's makes more sense, but that might just be me. And I see nothing wrong with either definition. They both fit the word. So whichever makes the easiest understanding for the one studying is the one they should use. Again, I totally understand that, and do not want to be coming across as condemning anyone for their personal way of studying. But, now as to your statement that few even know about the 1828 Webster's, what makes it where so many more know Greek, Hebrew, or even Strong's? I realize we all know the "originals" were not written in english, but Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. But how many of us understand those languages? That being a very small number brings us to Strong's. What makes it where so many know about Strong's, but not 1828 Webster's? Is it not that if more preachers were saying "if you look at this word in the 1828 Webster's it's meaning is" we would have a majority knowing that my KJV was properly translated even though my English has changed? But, I still contend, that the preaching, and discussing that "in the Greek this means" sheds a shadow over the perfection of the KJV. As to the not knowing about the 1828, I asked my dad if Grandad had a Strong's, as I was only 20 when Grandad passed away I could have forgotten many things because of youth. He replied "no, He didn't even have a 1828 Websters." He went on to tell me that Grandad's dictionary was a (then) modern high school type dictionary. Yet he got the truthes of God's word from a combination of study, context, and it.

I agree we need to study. And that the scriptures are set up to be compared to themselves (context). But I do not know how many pastors I have seen that when asked a question, never say “well the word x means” but rather “well the Greek word translated x actually means”. That is not comparing. That is saying you have to go back to the Greek to get the true meaning, and yes I have heard some go so far to actually say just that. You cannot get the actual meaning without the Greek. If that is not correcting, I do not know what is. And using the Greek one or twice a year, maybe. But I have seen some that use it a large percentage of their sermons. 1828 Webster defines let “ 5. To retard; to hinder; to impede; to interpose obstructions. 2 Thessalonians 2:3. [This sense is now obsolete, or nearly so.]”

I understand what you are saying. On that thought though, the KJV was “brought up to date” (mainly spellings) in 1769. I would think if words had changed a lot at that point, they would have brought them up as well. So seeing that we actually use a 1769 version and we only have to look 60 years (yes I know a lot can change in 60 years) to find a English dictionary that not only explains the meaning of the words in English, but also gives scripture references to go with them. To me, I’m satisfied that I can get the full meaning that way. But, as I said, I do not mean to say anything against you for how you study. It is more of a thing of telling people it is the only way to find the “true meaning” that I take issue with.

I have looked for a topic to post this under, and the way this one started seems like a good place. I want to preface what I have to say with a bit of my family history. I was born mid 70's into the family of a America Baptist Association pastor. He had been to seminary (my grandad on mom's side called the cemetery, the place they send young preachers to die) a few years before he met my mother, and had taken the pastorate a few months before I was born. By the early 80's he had become what I would consider a leader among the local level, serving as the secretary and printing the minutes of the meetings. He was well known on a state level, though not as well respected. Nationally he was not really known at all. But by the late 80's things quickly changed. You see, though the association has no authority over the local church, they do have a doctrinal statement that all the churches in the association are supposed to agree they believe. If they don't, they are supposed to either leave or be asked to leave. One of these doctrinal statements was about believing the Bible to be God's perfect inspired word. But there were several of the leading pastors that decided that there needed to be a phrase added, "as originally written." Now on the surface this phrase might not sound so bad, as it is true the way the scripture was when it was written down by holy men of old was by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. So why would this be a problem? Because it lends to the question, is the KJV the perfect complete infallible word of God for the English speaking people? It was taught to my dad in seminary that there are certain things in the word of God that cannot be understood without the knowledge of Greek and Hebrew. And he saw this as their reason to put that clause in. Because they felt the KJV had deficiencies that needed the original language at best, the original text in the original handwriting at worst to correct it. That the KJV was not a perfect inspired Bible. He decided to run a test. I mentioned what my grandad called seminary, well he was a man with a 2nd grade education. He did not know how to read when he and my granny married. But shortly thereafter he was saved and granny taught him to read so he could study his bible. And study he did! So dad took these things that "you had to have Greek and Hebrew" to him without telling him he was an experiment. And every one of them he either answered with scripture then and there, or said he needed time and later came back with scripture to match. Every one of them. So dad went to the association every year for a few years trying his best to get them to remove the phrase, but alas, they would not. So in the early 90's dad lead the church he was pasturing to leave the association. From that point on we were, though we did not fellowship with any that said they were nor did we call ourselves, essentially IFB. We always held to the baptist distinctives. Then 17 years ago I met my wife. She was in a church that called itself IFB. We married a year later and served in my dad's church until about 10 yrs ago, when we joined our first church that called itself IFB. Now with all that stated, in these 17 years since I have been around IFB churches and pastors, I am seeing the same trend, though using a different way of spreading. I don't know how many pastors I have seen and heard that are constantly in their sermons stating that "in the Greek this word means!" I do not know if it is mainly from how they are taught in Bible collage and never really think it through, if it is arrogance that "my education makes it where I can understand things you cannot", or what the deep rooted reason for this is. But here is what I see as the fallacy of it. If my KJV is the perfect (without error) complete (lacking nothing) inspired (God breathed) word of God for the English speaking people, it needs not to be corrected by the Greek and Hebrew. If it cannot be understood without the Greek and Hebrew, it is not complete. It is not Perfect. And it is but a crutch for the English speaking people to try to stand until someone who knows the truth can correct them. For you cannot have complete and perfect that needs correcting. "But we are not correcting." Yes, yes you are. Anytime you say that the KJV says, but the meaning in the Greek is, you are correcting. Now I want to make it perfectly clear, I am not a "Ruckmanite"! I do not hold to his re inspiration bologna. If you know the Greek and read from the proper TR texts, you will get the same word of God as I do through my KJV. And if you enjoy studying in Greek, more power to you, you are still studying the word of God. But I wish everyone would quite saying I believe the KJV, but casting doubt upon it. If I had began my christian walk, building it from these pastors I have heard the last few years, I would NOT be KJVO. I have heard to many say, without saying it out right, "the KJV is not as good as the Greek, therefore it is not complete and perfect."

I’m not sure where you have gotten the idea I am disagreeing with your explanation of the phrase. The word pertain in the 1828 Webster means “1. To belong; to be the property, right or duty of.” which goes right along with your armor idea. I have no argument with that at all. That is the reason I listed armor in my list earlier. I still stand by that God is not sickened by the armor but the heart. For example, if a mother were at home without her husband and saw an enemy coming against her home, would God be more sickened by her picking up her husbands armor and sword and at least try to protect her children, or her standing by and watching them slaughtered because she could not put on that which pertains to a man? I stand by the belief it is the heart wanting to look like the opposite sex, not the actual thing being put on. Now with that said, I will not be responding to this thought anymore. I am a strong believer in my KJV Bible. I will discuss it with anyone at any time. But when I feel it is no longer looked at as the perfect word of God I leave the discussion. I do not know Hebrew or Greek. Yes, I have access to a Strongs and it is a good way of finding passages. But I have heard many pastors say that the Greek or Hebrew says and my first thought is that they, whether they think they believe it or not, have just put the KJV on the same level as the NIV. For if I need the Greek or Hebrew to understand the scriptures, I do not hold a perfect word of God in my hands, but one that could use correcting.

I agree we always need to look at what the verse meant and what the context is. In this case I don’t see much in the surrounding verses to give us much in the way of context. So we don’t get much there. Then the verse itself. Perhaps my mentioning Sodom goes a little to far as to say that is the reason for the verse. But we do know that kind of perversion was going on in that time frame. I also know that some say it was because of some worshipping false gods were dressing as the opposite for the activity they were taking part in. And yes, I can see the possibility of this being in it. But either of these still gives the same base reason for the verse. Not to dress in such a way to appear as the opposite sex. It is not what the clothes look like (dress, pants, armor, etc. I’m not meaning immodest) that is important to God as the heart that is putting them on. And the man who is trying to look like a woman or the woman trying to look like a man has a heart issue. And that heart issue is what sickens God. If it was a condemnation that meant God wanting certain things to differentiate, it would be in scripture. Such as if there were a verse that said a man’s robe should be 2 to 3 inches below his knee, but a women’s should come to 1/2 inch from the floor, we would know what God saw as men’s and women’s attire. But it’s not there. Therefore He did not want us demeaning one another over it in the way we do (if your wife doesn’t wear dresses all the time, you are out of God’s will and cannot preach/teach in the church). If our society today still looked at it that a women should be in a dress, then the verse could be used because we would not want to be wearing what society said was sinful. So 150 years ago I could accept this. Funny though during that time a boy under around 4 was most likely going to be wearing a dress. In our culture there is no way I would have put a dress on my son at that age. But if there is no room for culture to change, then which one is right? A 3 year old boy in a dress or pants?

I agree 100% they did not wear unisex robes. There is not a question in my mind that there was a definite difference. Now I would not guarantee that you or I could tell the difference, but it was there. Even in the movies you are mentioning, are you positive they are all unisex? I’m not saying they are not, as we all know Hollywood does not care about honesty nor decency. But with the cultural differences are you sure we would notice the difference? For instance, when you look at shirts, some are very similar at a glance. But if you look a man’s buttons from one side and a woman’s from the opposite. Small difference, but enough for someone who knows to tell quickly. now I am going to get to where I think the real meat of the passage lies. I have seen those who stand that any manly man would wear pants, therefore “don’t you dare say my Lord wore anything but pants!” I don’t believe the Bible nor history supports this. I have seen the society and “even the McDonald’s bathroom doors know what we should wear!” But if you look around, yes our society says a Godly man won’t wear a dress, they do not see pants as a masculine only thing. Now I realize they are accepting certain men wearing dresses, but that comes later in my opinion. I have heard the modesty is the reason for women to wear dresses. But with the probability (I realize we can’t go back in time to check, but history and the fact the Bible doesn’t mention pants(besides the breeches that went under the priest’s robe) but does robes I feel certain) that in the time of Christ they all, male and female, all wore some sort of flowing covering that did not accent those parts of the body, why shouldn’t we do the same. I know some will say “ but men look at things different”. But I do not believe this to be true. From the time of my teens I have seen girls go crazy about looking at boys in ways that totally go against this theory. Maybe, at one time this was different and girls didn’t have the fight against lust we men do, but a lot of them today do. So if it is modesty, and to keep the opposite sex from looking, shouldn’t we all be wearing something different? Now I’m not saying unisex. But men wearing something like a kilt? Then I’ve heard the “well it makes the ladies stand out and be noticed as Christian’s.” Now this one, to me, is a direct argument against the “culture says” reason. As in if culture said that women should be in a dress all the time, then a lady in a dress would not stand out at all. Also, this one crosses over into the modesty thinking. If again Christ wore a robe, and will give me a robe to wear in eternity, why should I not stand out , as a Christian, by wearing a masculine robe? Now what would define masculine and feminine, I don’t know. But it could be done. But! I don’t believe this is what we need to see in that verse. When I go to church on Sunday, will I wear a button up shirt or pearl snaps? The definite answer is pearl snap. Is that because God is only happy with pearl snaps? No. That is because I am only happy with them. God expects me to come dressed in a spirit of humbleness to him. I dress up in what I feel makes me look my best to show Him respect. He doesn’t care what the clothing is, but that my heart is right. The verse in question does not specify what a woman nor a man is to wear. Just that it is not to be what belongs to the opposite. Now why? We know God had already destroyed Sodom, pulling Lot out by the hand. We know (Ecc 1:9) that there is no new thing under the sun. The sins we see today have been haunting this earth since the beginning. It is not the dress. It is not the shirt. It is not the armor as was mentioned earlier in this thread. It is the reason for putting on the thing that belongs to the opposite. It is the telling a holy infallible God “you messed up when you made me, so I am going to act the way I should have been made!” I do not believe the Arab I spoke of earlier would have sinned by covering himself in the women’s robe long enough to get to a man’s robe in that he was not doing it so that he would be thought as a woman, but simply to cover his nakedness. It’s the heart more than the clothes. If there is sin in the heart, it will come out to be seen.

As I mentioned in the last post, the Arab man was offended that someone offered him a women’s robe. There are/were differences. Things can be very similar while having very certain differences. And they may be a difference that someone from another culture would not see. In the instance with Arab I mentioned, the one telling about it said he could not tell the difference. It was stated by one poster a few pages back (don’t remember her name) that she worked making pants and that there were different cuts depending if it was women’s or men’s. It is obvious the high priest wore a robe. In Revelation it says the saints are seen in white robes. How is it hard to believe robes were the normal wear. We cannot say pants are what we should wear, so they wore pants, so we know we should wear pants. That is circular. It is a common belief that Jews wore robes or Tunics which are very much the same. With that being the common belief, how can we say I don’t want it to be because it disagrees with what I think, so you should accept it. As for it being a hill to die on, it is a very important part of the discussion. If the men wore robes, then we have to ask when it became wrong for men to wear them. What and when culture can change the rules. How many need to accept the change before it is acceptable. How long it has to have changed before being acceptable.

In 2 Samuel 6 we find David leaping and dancing before the Lord. He comes home to a very unhappy wife, Michal. She tells him he was shamelessly uncovering himself before the maidens as one of the vain fellows. Now if most men were wearing pants or breeches, how was he uncovering himself? in judges 3:16 Ehud strapped a 1 cubit knife under his clothes on his thigh. Now if he was wearing pants and a shirt this would either be impossible to get to, or obvious to all around him. But if he had a robe with a skirt, it would work out nicely. you read the description of the garments of Aaron where the linen breeches are mentioned, and you also find a robe. The robe would have hang down to around his knees. So with him climbing the steps, he needed something under the robe for modesty. The breeches were in fact under garments. Now Bro Jerry, if you truly believe these could be undergarments that over time became pants ( I think that’s what you were saying) and that they pertain to men as pants do today, does this also mean you do not believe in women wearing undergarments that would in any way resemble these? I don’t mean this as a vulgar question, but that is the logical conclusion. Also, can you give me historical writings that agree that they did not all wear robes? I know I have heard stories of a Arab man getting something spilt on his robe and someone offering him a clean robe, but he was offended that they offered him a women’s robe. I had a man once tell me that even Wikipedia said that Jews wore pants. I went to the article he provided and a little ways down it said that (and this is not word for word as I don’t want to take the time to look it up) for the last 100 years the Jews have dressed much like the western world, but before that they dressed much like the Bedouin Arabs. Trying to put our culture onto the Jews of old is arrogant. And as has been pointed out, our culture has changed a lot in recent years.

Correct. Paul was out of due time. He was an exception for a special job. He is the only exception mentioned. And him being an exception puts it in a place of apostolic succession makes no sense. Because then it would be the rule, not an exception.

I’ll add to this 1 Corinthians 15:8-9 KJV [8] And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. [9] For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. paul was an apostle, but he was one despite being born out of due time. He did not fulfill the requirements, but God made an exception. He did see Christ with his own eyes on the road to Damascus. But today, they are not seeing him with their own eyes and it is way out of due time.