Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

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

Deuteronomy 22:5


Recommended Posts

  • Members

Posted by OFIB:

We're not talking about that here! In case you forgot the topic, here it is!
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.


It is impossible to to honestly discuss any bibical subject without it!!!!!!! II Tim 2:15 is a major bibical principle we are commanded to apply when studing bibical doctrine.


Who can argue with scripture? Apparently, lots of people who are abomination unto the LORD! The way I understand it, taking the scripture as it is, not only is what the person doing, abomination, but the person who does this, is abomination unto the LORD! Said person (whether a man waring a woman's garment, or v/v,) needs to repent, confess and forsake such wickedness and live holy unto the LORD! They can do so, if they'll just take the King James Bible as it is and not try to find a way around it, to live their wicked ways! Don't think I've heard much about that part, in these pages!


First of all; we should not argue the scriptures. If one cannot converse with another with a loving and respectful attitude, they should be silence.

Secondly; some like to place emphasis on the word 'Abomination' and 'what was valid back then, is just as valid today'.
Abomination:As previously noted, this places emphasis on the sin. No doubt there are some sins more grievous than other sins; however, sin is sin.. When God tells us not to do something, and we do it; then we have sinned.

Valid then/Valid today: If this is true, then some of us would be dead since God told them to stone to death a unrepenting rebellish son. If a lady in the church commits adultery,are we to stone her to death. If your brother(in flesh) dies we are to take his wife to be our wife.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 200
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members



:amen: And the real question to ask is: WHY argue with Scripture? :bible:


That's the truth, both the scripture and the question!
As I've said before, there are two things people can do, when confronted with scripture. They can, either say I'm wrong and the word of God's right, or be in direct disOBedience and rebellion against the word of God and for that matter, God Himself!
AMEN, Brother John!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Posted by OFIB:

We're not talking about that here! In case you forgot the topic, here it is!
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.


It is impossible to to honestly discuss any bibical subject without it!!!!!!! II Tim 2:15 is a major bibical principle we are commanded to apply when studing bibical doctrine.


Who can argue with scripture? Apparently, lots of people who are abomination unto the LORD! The way I understand it, taking the scripture as it is, not only is what the person doing, abomination, but the person who does this, is abomination unto the LORD! Said person (whether a man waring a woman's garment, or v/v,) needs to repent, confess and forsake such wickedness and live holy unto the LORD! They can do so, if they'll just take the King James Bible as it is and not try to find a way around it, to live their wicked ways! Don't think I've heard much about that part, in these pages!


First of all; we should not argue the scriptures. If one cannot converse with another with a loving and respectful attitude, they should be silence.

Secondly; some like to place emphasis on the word 'Abomination' and 'what was valid back then, is just as valid today'.
Abomination:As previously noted, this places emphasis on the sin. No doubt there are some sins more grievous than other sins; however, sin is sin.. When God tells us not to do something, and we do it; then we have sinned.

Valid then/Valid today: If this is true, then some of us would be dead since God told them to stone to death a unrepenting rebellish son. If a lady in the church commits adultery,are we to stone her to death. If your brother(in flesh) dies we are to take his wife to be our wife.


Ah, I see you're going waaaaay over to the other side of the street, to try and prove your point! There are different degrees of sin! Yes all sin grieves the heart of God, but there are certain things that He hates, or are abomination unto the LORD!
Oh and BTW, IMHO, if you'd slow down your typing speed, you'd make less mistakes and what you say would look better.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

What was a sin in the Old Testament Days is a sin in the New Testament Days.

About stoning someone who commits adultery, no, the New Testament is clear, grace came in, how we deal with sin is different, we offer grace to that person, yet if they be a member of the church we attend there be certain steps that should be taken, example, 1 Corinthians 5 and the church member committing fornication, yet not only fornication, Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

Yes, it clearly seems what is a sin them is a sin now, yet the harsh punishment was laid aside, yet it is still suppose to be dealt with, for a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? Of course few churches deal with such things properly, many doing as they did at Corinth, ignoring it, even glorying in it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

What was a sin in the Old Testament Days is a sin in the New Testament Days.

About stoning someone who commits adultery, no, the New Testament is clear, grace came in, how we deal with sin is different, we offer grace to that person, yet if they be a member of the church we attend there be certain steps that should be taken, example, 1 Corinthians 5 and the church member committing fornication, yet not only fornication, Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

Yes, it clearly seems what is a sin them is a sin now, yet the harsh punishment was laid aside, yet it is still suppose to be dealt with, for a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? Of course few churches deal with such things properly, many doing as they did at Corinth, ignoring it, even glorying in it.


"New Testament is clear, grace came in, how we deal with sin is different, we offer grace to that person,"

True. We know that by rightly dividing the word of truth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members



Ah, I see you're going waaaaay over to the other side of the street, to try and prove your point! There are different degrees of sin! Yes all sin grieves the heart of God, but there are certain things that He hates, or are abomination unto the LORD!
Oh and BTW, IMHO, if you'd slow down your typing speed, you'd make less mistakes and what you say would look better.


I'll try to do better. It may be time to place you IMHOs on the shelf.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

Actually, the word abomination in Deut. 22:5 emphasizes the sinner. The passage does not say it's an abomination to dress in what pertains to the opposite sex. It says that those who DO are abomination. in fact, if you check it out, other abominations are the sin - even homosexuality. But in this case, it's the PERSON who is abomination. That should show there is a difference and God does consider it a serious matter.

As to Deut. 22:5 not being valid today - actually, it is. Very much so. There isn't just the principle of modesty in scripture. There is also the principle of gender distinction. And that principle is clearly carried over into the NT by addressing hair in 1 Corinthians. There are others as well. And Deut. 22:5 is so about so much more than just dressing in drag. It was intrinsically intertwined with worship. God is not a God of confusion, and dressing in that which pertains to the opposite sex is a confusion of the genders - whether we think we're confused about what we see or not. And in America, whether we like it or not, pants pertain to men, skirts and dresses pertain to women. Always have. Won't always, though, because the genders are blending.

As to the skirts/culottes and some pants being "more modest" - that is true. In fact, I've seen women in skirts and culottes who are not modest at all. Tight skirts, sitting like men in culottes, etc. But you know what? That's not a reason for me to dress in pants...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I said everything I really could about this back in post #165, but I wanted to point something out that is off topic but I think is kinda funny.

This conversation has gotten pretty heated at times, which is fine with me so long as it doesn't get personal. I just think it's funny that prOBably the meekest, mildest, quietest lady on Online Baptist, Miss Linda, was the one who started all of this! Look what you did Miss Linda!! You about caused a church split!!!

:th_laugh1::th_laugh1::th_laugh1::th_laugh1:

Edited by Rick Schworer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

I said everything I really could about this back in post #165, but I wanted to point something out that is off topic but I think is kinda funny.

This conversation has gotten pretty heated at times, which is fine with me so long as it doesn't get personal. I just think it's funny that prOBably the meekest, mildest, quietest lady on Online Baptist, Miss Linda, was the one who started all of this! Look what you did Miss Linda!! You about caused a church split!!!

:th_laugh1::th_laugh1::th_laugh1::th_laugh1:

I was thinking along those same lines!! :icon_mrgreen: And I agree - heated isn't the prOBlem...it's when things turn personal and people start attacking that discussions get out of hand.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

If a person cannot come on here and have a discussion, knowing well there is going to be disagreements, are they really being Christ like.

In the heat of the moment, if we don't stop and count to 10, its quite easy to get rude making a remark that ought not be made, I have, yet I try hard not to by taking a time out leaving the board for a few minutes sometimes even the day.

Yet for the most part, I feel most of us have been doing a bit better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Actually, the word abomination in Deut. 22:5 emphasizes the sinner. The passage does not say it's an abomination to dress in what pertains to the opposite sex. It says that those who DO are abomination. in fact, if you check it out, other abominations are the sin - even homosexuality. But in this case, it's the PERSON who is abomination. That should show there is a difference and God does consider it a serious matter.

As to Deut. 22:5 not being valid today - actually, it is. Very much so. There isn't just the principle of modesty in scripture. There is also the principle of gender distinction. And that principle is clearly carried over into the NT by addressing hair in 1 Corinthians. There are others as well. And Deut. 22:5 is so about so much more than just dressing in drag. It was intrinsically intertwined with worship. God is not a God of confusion, and dressing in that which pertains to the opposite sex is a confusion of the genders - whether we think we're confused about what we see or not. And in America, whether we like it or not, pants pertain to men, skirts and dresses pertain to women. Always have. Won't always, though, because the genders are blending.

As to the skirts/culottes and some pants being "more modest" - that is true. In fact, I've seen women in skirts and culottes who are not modest at all. Tight skirts, sitting like men in culottes, etc. But you know what? That's not a reason for me to dress in pants...


Good post.

Pants and pant suits for women have their roots in mens clothing. Women started out wearing the men's versions but then companies realized the potential for monetary gain by makine pants and pant suits designed for women so they could dress in the men's style while looking "sexy" at the same time.

While I've seen many skirts and dresses made to be immodest, I've not yet seen pants on a woman that were modest. I've known some women who thought their pants were modest but it was OBvious from the reactions of several of the men they worked around that the men didn't see their pants as modest.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I said everything I really could about this back in post #165, but I wanted to point something out that is off topic but I think is kinda funny.

This conversation has gotten pretty heated at times, which is fine with me so long as it doesn't get personal. I just think it's funny that prOBably the meekest, mildest, quietest lady on Online Baptist, Miss Linda, was the one who started all of this! Look what you did Miss Linda!! You about caused a church split!!!


Well, here I am, Miss Trouble Maker herself, peeking in with embarrassment. :peek: I am surprised I have not been banned for creating this uproar. Goodness gracious, I thought this thread was finished several days ago, in fact I posted a message thanking everyone for their input (thinking that would be a clear hint that we could all go on to talk about something else somewhere else). Well, much to my horror, the thread revived and turned into a bit of a tiff. It was rather like watching a train wreck and I feel so bad about it!!! I haven't posted any messages because I was embarrassed at what I had done in even opening the conversation (although I tried several times to post a reply to nucreature's questions about culottes, camouflage and t-shirts but I couldn't get the reply function to work. I'm not even sure this message is going to post. Since HappyChristian's reply made all the points I was going to make, I didn't keep trying). I am truly sorry, to all of you, for this mess I have created.

I realize that there are many different viewpoints on this subject and I have learned a great deal from the conversation here. I have prayerfully considered each viewpoint, and the arguments for and against taking a literal translation of Deut. 22:5. I really, truly don't wish to seem disrespectful or argumentative in any way, but I think I should state for the record that my conviction about not wearing pants (or any garment that could be associated with male clothing) remains. I realize others do not agree, and I also agree that there is more to being a godly woman than the raiment she wears. Jesus said, "The life is more than meat, and the body is more than raiment" (Luke 12:23). I would never, ever presume to judge a woman's godliness only by whether she was wearing trousers (so, dear Superman, I hope you will not think I am judging your wife or thinking anything uncharitable about your wife so I hope you will refrain from reaching through my monitor and pummelling me into squishy bits ;) ).

I don't know what more to say. I am truly sorry I caused an uproar. I don't like to create controversy, truly I don't. I think I am going to go sit quietly in the back pew again.

If any comments on this thread have caused hard feelings, from my heart I apologize. It was never my intention when I started this conversation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think that most who expressed their opinion were just expressing their opinion, plus giving their take on the subject. No matter which side they were on, I don't believe they were trying to force their opinion on anyone nor trying to be rude, although we all may have hoped that those one the opposite side might see something that would change their opinion.

Hope everyone has a wonderful Lord's Day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think that most who expressed their opinion were just expressing their opinion, plus giving their take on the subject. No matter which side they were on, I don't believe they were trying to force their opinion on anyone nor trying to be rude, although we all may have hoped that those one the opposite side might see something that would change their opinion.

Hope everyone has a wonderful Lord's Day.


As our friend OFIB would say: AMEN :D
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...