Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

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

Recommended Posts

  • Members

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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites


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?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...