Re: DKB Shares His Vision: Apostolic Identity,
 

@Pressing-On: Thats a GOOD question. When this occurs in scripture we must look at the relationship of the two reference words. Keep in mind that the Hebrew does not translate to English "precisely" Bare in mind that we are talking about two different languages with MANY words that are NOT equivalent. Some words CAN NOT be translated ...PERIOD. So in such a case we must revert to the "spirit" or "direction" of the scripture.

Example. I heard a young man say to another young man one day. "gnarly Dude". The other one replied, "I'm stoked".

Now lets think about this. These are "western world phrases and words". Slang or figurative. Usually found in coastal areas among surfers or in the suburbs of middle America with skateboarder and the like.

If a Hebrew asked me to translate the word "gnarly" or "stoked"......Well I couldn't. There is NO equivalent. I would have to "CHANGE" the word entirely. Then translate it to a similar word in Hebrew.

Now Websters states that "gnarly" is: difficult or hairy. Well thats not what he's saying. What he meant was "cool, awesome, appealing or good." We know what was meant BUT not the Hebrew man. LOL

Same with "stoked".

Do you see how quick we get lost in the 'word phrase' game? It takes time to build or capture INTENT and MEANING.

In short: to answer your question, wear meant re: (logical) according to; upon; the occurring of events. These are the "common word" (ground) commonality for drawing a conclusion to the meaning of the word WEAR. Which was interpreted to English almost PERFECTLY.

Lastly; THE BIBLE WAS INTERPRETED ALMOST PERFECTLY INTO ENGLISH. ORDAINED OF GOD HIMSELF. NO NEED TO FRET. WHAT YOU HAVE IS WHAT YOU GET!

People get into trouble when they try to "REVERSE" translate the BIBLE. ITS NOT POSSIBLE. Many words were added and deleted to arrive at the most precise meaning and intent of the writer.

GOD is NO fool. He knew that everyone would not be a Bible Scholar. Thats why we read, for the most part, the Bible literally. Not in every verse, but across the board. GOD does NOT desire for us to be confused. Who's that author? Thats right......the devil.

GOD BLESS IN JESUS NAME

Will

Re: DKB Shares His Vision: Apostolic Identity,
 

(I have to confess that in conjunction with all of the 'drop your pants at the dry cleaners' posts, this made me giggle :D)

Re: DKB Shares His Vision: Apostolic Identity,
 

That was pretty funny. Will frustrates me, though. I was thinking I was pretty smart until I saw that he has 12 years of education. Makes me jealous. He's just too smart for me.:heeheehee

Re: DKB Shares His Vision: Apostolic Identity,
 

"Gnarly dude."

I can't remember anyone saying that since 1994.

Re: DKB Shares His Vision: Apostolic Identity,
 

Will McL: Lets's assume for a moment you are right and all these other scholars are wrong and Geber or gibbor does not in amy way allude to a strong man / warrior / bearer of armament.

Let's assume as say that "man" in Dt 22 is refering to just every ordinary man.

Do you then come to the conclusion that Dt 22:5 should be read and used to give instruction to a 21st century american woman that she must NOT ever wear a garment that has split legs such as womens slacks?

Do you then contend if a woman wears such split legged articles of clothing that she has commited an abomination and is more than likely going to lost?

I appreciate your years of study. I am a NOVICE in the hebrew language, as you so deptly pointed out.

I am in the 99% minority that has to look to other hebrew scholars to help me in seeing the intended meaning of some verse of scripture.

I am glad you stopped by the forum today. I am intersted in an answer. Does a women wearing slacks according to Dt22:5 condemn her?

Re: DKB Shares His Vision: Apostolic Identity,
 

Thanks for taking the time to respond. We can get a little heated and passionate around here, as you see. I count myself in that number as I've participated in heated exchanges myself. So, I'm thankful that you are sticking with it and giving us your thoughts.

I do understand this, but I have seen something else and you could possibly respond to that as well. I have seen conversations, articles, etc., posted with lengthy text of both Hebrew and Greek - I am not referring to your earlier post here, just a general observation - after it was all said and done, I look in the Strong's or on E-sword and in a nutshell the definition, while shortened, bears out the same as the lengthy study.

I did have someone tell me not to focus too much on the word "wear" in that passage as it can't be proved to mean anything other than what it says, so I will keep that in mind. I just don't recall running into a definition such as that, which does a 180, on the normative definition and find no merit. So, I'll have to think about this.

What arrested my attention, in that passage, is when it tells a man not to put on a woman's garment. I think that in society we find women wearing some things that belong to a man. But we find it out of the norm if a man would don a woman's articles of clothing.

It is true in Bible days that clothing was similar, but there was still a distinction. One place I read said, the robes were longer for women, the woman's robe always provided sleeves, the woman's robe was looser so as to be modest. So, I get that, we must have distinction and modesty in our culture.

Anyway, back to the man wearing the woman's garment - I thought that I would find out if I could identify what was going on here. The action verb to me was "wear". Something they were doing was wrong. So, I looked it up and found that out of 10 times the word is used in the OT, the word "wear" in Deut 22:5 was a totally different meaning, on the surface. When it was defined as "to exist as, be or become", it seemed logical to conclude that the passage was speaking of homosexuality being that it is not - still - normal for a man to wear a woman's clothing.

When I was a new convert I was very offended that the word "peculiar" was equated to me! LOL! When I looked that up, I found that it did not mean all that Webster's Dictionary was telling me. Hence, my lesson as a new convert - go to the Greek and Hebrew and not Webster to understand the Bible.


I agree that God knew that not everyone would be a Bible scholar. I believe we know enough about salvation and living a decent and good Christian life to make heaven, without knowing the depths of every root word.

To study to show ourselves approved of God takes that even further for someone that hungers and thirsts. We can get tangled up here if we are not doing that in a sincere and prayerful manner.

I'm still searching through my Strongest Strong's to find that error. If I didn't mark it, I'm going to kick myself! LOL! I have one of the author's address written in front with no reference to the error. Arghhhh!

Re: DKB Shares His Vision: Apostolic Identity,
 

I see we have another AFF member posting under a pseudo name. Timmy is that you? No, Timmy would just post under his own name. :toofunny

Re: DKB Shares His Vision: Apostolic Identity,
 

Nope. But "Troublemaker" is my middle name! :toofunny

Re: DKB Shares His Vision: Apostolic Identity,
 

See how you came to mind first? :toofunny Actually, I've never considered you a troublemaker. You do have some thought provoking questions, that's for sure! We cannot deny that fact. :thumbsup LOL!

Re: DKB Shares His Vision: Apostolic Identity,
 

:friend

Re: DKB Shares His Vision: Apostolic Identity,
 

:friend :thumbsup

Re: DKB Shares His Vision: Apostolic Identity,
 

Couldn't the injunction just be about "cross dressing" or someone trying to pass oneself off as the opposite sex or acting like the opposite sex?

Re: DKB Shares His Vision: Apostolic Identity,
 

:hug3

:bouquet

:hug4



Better quit now, or: :vomit

:ursofunny

Re: DKB Shares His Vision: Apostolic Identity,
 

:toofunny :toofunny

Re: DKB Shares His Vision: Apostolic Identity,
 

:foottap

Re: DKB Shares His Vision: Apostolic Identity,
 

I think we need to ask ourselves why this warning needed to be given. Why were these people wearing the garments of the other sex? Surely they weren't just headed out the door, grabbed their wife's garment instead of their own, and God felt that he needed to warn them against that. I would imagine they were deliberately wearing the garment of the other sex, for a purpose. Very likely not a godly purpose. And this is what God found to be an abomination.

Re: DKB Shares His Vision: Apostolic Identity,
 

WUT?!!! :toofunny

Re: DKB Shares His Vision: Apostolic Identity,
 

What about a mix of both? Meaning some would cross dress in hopes of conducting homosexual behaviour?

Re: DKB Shares His Vision: Apostolic Identity,
 

Notice something about that little guy? (He's not wearing pants! :lol)

Re: DKB Shares His Vision: Apostolic Identity,
 

I have read it that neighboring pagan cultures to Isreal would, before going into balttle, the warriors would lay aside their warrior clothes and armements and done the clothing of their women. The women would put on the apparel of their soldier husbands and together they would dance around the fire to appease the favor of their gods for his blessing as they went into the battle the following day.

This WOULD explain the abomination part of that, fo r this would be idoltry.

Israel was warned not to take up this practice of the pagan neighbors

Re: DKB Shares His Vision: Apostolic Identity,
 

Possibly homosexual, or possibly to sneak in somewhere they shouldn't be.

Re: DKB Shares His Vision: Apostolic Identity,
 

That would seem to be a possible explanation.

Re: DKB Shares His Vision: Apostolic Identity,
 

Had a funny dream last night. I was at the hospital and had to use the restroom. They have a "unisex" restroom there, in real life. It's for one person at a time: one toilet and a sink, and ya lock the door. Simple. In my dream, though, there were a bunch of sinks and stalls. I thought, mmmkay, that's odd. But at least there's a little bit of privacy. I entered a stall, and wouldn't you know it? There were glass walls between the potties! :toofunny

Re: DKB Shares His Vision: Apostolic Identity,
 

I’m going to use this scripture on FB today….I’m on a bit of a campaign. lol Questioning, no one wants to question.

I would have never imagined how much damage can come from the look or identity and just how much people put their faith in it. My oldest daughter has been “floundering” for a while on her own. I’ve just backed off realizing that she would come around in time. I had no clue just how much her experience with God was wrapped up in her outward appearance. She told me last night that I had pulled her safety and security. She stood crying and said she found she was broken inside she didn’t know how to have a relationship outside the appearance, it was hard. She expressed how hard it was to accept she didn’t have to work for her salvation…so struggling with grace by faith. She said part of her just wants to be told what to do, when to do it, how to do it, but she knows that she can’t do that anymore, it will never work. I’ve been working on damage control… whew, got my work cut out for me.

Apostolic Identity is doing nothing but providing a false front for so many people. The standards are idols as they have taken the place of God in their lives. You pull that away, and there isn’t enough of a relationship to survive and it is sad…sad. I realize that it isn’t that way with everyone, but with so many it is.

Re: DKB Shares His Vision: Apostolic Identity,
 

Holy Smokes..ForeverBlessed....still got a tear in my eye..just a sec.

So very many are affected by this syndrome.

Praying for you guys now.

Re: DKB Shares His Vision: Apostolic Identity,
 

no, because his wife told him to drop them at the dry cleaners.

Re: DKB Shares His Vision: Apostolic Identity,
 

:toofunny

Re: DKB Shares His Vision: Apostolic Identity,
 

This is what I do respect and honor, Lisa, when you said that you backed off and gave her room. We cannot make someone be who they cannot be. We must allow the Lord to do the work. We must allow the Lord to lead.

Re: DKB Shares His Vision: Apostolic Identity,
 

You know Freeatlast, I guess the concept of applying the scripture across diverse cultures has eluded you. We apply scripture according to the "spirit" of the scripture in some cases. Through out ALL the existence of the world, believe it or not, things have always be for either a MAN or a WOMEN. Women garments and Men garments. Mens bathrooms and Womens bathrooms. That which pertaineth! It's a CORRECT translation and a literal one at that.

Re: DKB Shares His Vision: Apostolic Identity,
 

Something from Bible study last night...

"sometimes we mistakenly keep taking on more, convinced we must be doing the godly thing. But in reality, we may be acting more like Pharisees than disciples, choosing to look good on the outside, while dying on the inside. Ironically that's when those around us lose out, because of our lack of obedience.
Read Mat 23:27-28. Since it's not necessarily wrong "to look beautiful on the outside," where did the Pharisees cross the line into disobedience?
How do you sometimes slip into this same sin?"


This study wasn't about standards, it was about moderation in general and time management specifically. But the question hit home. We identify with something, put up some appearance, but it's only an appearance. When we live for God, we may do some things and not do others out of our love for God, but we should not be given a list of rules, "Do this, wear that, don't go there and thou shalt be saved." When that happens, and it happens quite easily, we are in trouble.

Stereotypes can be a very dangerous thing, and stereotypes are often based on appearances, with no other basis. Because of the way someone looks we think they are lazy, organized, fun, etc. and react accordingly. But looks can be deceiving...

Re: DKB Shares His Vision: Apostolic Identity,
 

MOMary that is good stuff!

Re: DKB Shares His Vision: Apostolic Identity,
 

FB- I know this was hard for you and your daughter, but it great that she is discovering this so early in her life. She is at the beginning of her life and has time to build a relationship with God. I did not slow down and discover this until much later in my walk with God.

Re: DKB Shares His Vision: Apostolic Identity,
 

"She stood crying and said she found she was broken inside she didn’t know how to have a relationship outside the appearance, it was hard".

So sad.

Re: DKB Shares His Vision: Apostolic Identity,
 

Totally agree, an alternate identity for sure!! :nod

Re: DKB Shares His Vision: Apostolic Identity,
 

Yeah. I didn't respond, because I have no idea what to say. Except I feel for her. And will pray.

Re: DKB Shares His Vision: Apostolic Identity,
 

You people are too suspicious. Can't you just leave a guy alone and let him make fun of Aristotle and his education? Plus, I love my avatar!! It's the best on AFF!! Actually, Dr. McLeod inspired me to take another look at my Strong's Exhaustive Concordance. I haven't looked at that thing in years!

Re: DKB Shares His Vision: Apostolic Identity,
 

We're suspicious people, yes we are,
We're suspicious people, yes we are,
Been baptized in Jesus name...
Now watching as you change your name,
We're suspicious people, yes we are....

:heeheehee

No, really, TM, I don't know if I should be suspicious or not... but the Lord laid this song on my heart... oh, oops, those aren't the real words? :winkgrin


Timmy... are you sure that's not you? j/k :heeheehee

Re: DKB Shares His Vision: Apostolic Identity,
 

My question to you then is, at what point do we say that pants are not just men's apparel.

Because I think that EVERYONE can agree that culture changes apparel drastically over the course of time. Men have only worn pants (as we view them today) for the last 300 years or so. So at what point in time does our concept of men and womens apparel shift to accommodate those changes, and who decides it?

Because if we go off of what the "standard" is today, the men of 300-400 years ago would have been considered, for lack of a better word, "girly." But in their society, they were definitely not! If we abide by what you are saying here, those men would have been outside of the will of God, even though pants did not even exist then.

These are the things that bother me in the extreme, because even if you think that this scripture is something that applies to our time, and it applies to our physical apparel, at some point you have to "man up" and admit that this issue has to viewed through the norms of the society that we live in. And I think that you cannot (as bad as you might want to) say that dresses are the norm for women of this society. Or, at the very least, within a very few years, that will absolutely not be true.

I have no problem with a pastor or spiritual leader saying that he would like the people in his assembly to follow this practice for modesty issues, but when it becomes a heaven or hell issue, I draw the line. Too obscure of a scripture, with too many varied opinions and interpretations by too many educated people. You cannot say that one scripture of debatable intention and meaning has the power to overcome grace, erase a persons walk with God, and send them to Hell. Well, at least I can't say it, and I don't believe it.

Re: DKB Shares His Vision: Apostolic Identity,
 

:toofunny

I've been hanging around enough to know I have cause to be suspicious! LOL!

Re: DKB Shares His Vision: Apostolic Identity,
 

:ursofunny