Crossdressing...Just how does a woman participate?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

geḇer: A masculine noun meaning man, mighty (virile) man, warrior. It is used of man but often contains more than just a reference to gender by referring to the nature of a man, usually with overtones of spiritual strength or masculinity, based on the verb gāḇar (H1396), meaning to be mighty. The word is used to contrast men with women and children (Exo_10:11) and to denote warrior ability (Jer_41:16). The fifteen occurrences of the word in Job are significant, presenting a vast contrast between the essence of man (even a good one) and God (Job_4:17; Job_22:2). This contrast only adds more force to the passage in Zec_13:7 where God calls Himself geḇer. This passage points to the coming of Jesus-the One who as God would take on sinful human nature. He is the Man (the Shepherd of the sheep).

I could more, because of various translations, understand Deut. 22:5 speaking to the man toward his "masculinity" as opposed to being "feminine" in women's clothing. I still believe the "abomination" is referring to homosexuality. Don't see warrior here at all.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I could more, because of various translations, understand Deut. 22:5 speaking to the man toward his "masculinity" as opposed to being "feminine" in women's clothing. I still believe the "abomination" is referring to homosexuality. Don't see warrior here at all.

I see roles, the role of the man which was not merely that of a warrior but includes it

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I see roles, the role of the man which was not merely that of a warrior but includes it

I could agree with the role of the man. The definition says it references more than gender, by referring to the nature of man.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I could agree with the role of the man. The definition says it references more than gender, by referring to the nature of man.

This post appears to be discussing more than the origin of pants in society.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

This post appears to be discussing more than the origin of pants in society.

I don't understand what you are saying here. My posts in regard to the origin of pants in society had to do with the title of this thread. I wasn't putting that together with Deut 22:5.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I don't understand what you are saying here. My posts in regard to the origin of pants in society had to do with the title of this thread. I wasn't putting that together with Deut 22:5.

I don't think I've mentioned Deut. 22:5 either...I've been discussing cross dressing. So I was equally bumfuzzled as to why you made this comment:

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Thanks for taking the time, but I'm not interested in this type of conversation. I was mainly interested, because of the title of the thread, in the "origin" of pants in society.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

I don't think I've mentioned Deut. 22:5 either...I've been discussing cross dressing. So I was equally bumfuzzled as to why you made this comment:

Oh, okay. The pictures you posted weren't origins in ancient history. I'm not really interested, yet, at what is going on now. The pictures you posted were more modern times. I wanted to reach back further - 1500 AD and earlier.

For instance, some have stated that Chinese women in the rice fields always wore trousers, but that isn't true. It was the ancient Chinese soldiers who wore them first. It is a tedious picking, because you have to be inside of a subject to come across what you are looking for.

You were also mentioning the clothing on the women as being more modest. I wasn't wanting to get into that because I think each person should have the freedom to choose what they feel is modest for themselves without being rained on. It gets into a tit for tat and I'm not interested in that type of conversation.

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I see roles, the role of the man which was not merely that of a warrior but includes it

exactly and that is what the text shows IN IT's USAGE of the word TWICE not once and is contrasted with that of woman. There is a reason why the scripture has a parallel aspect and also a distinction of reference. Women shall now wear that which pertaineth/keli.... vs nor shall a man put on a womens clothing/garment. Man role is far beyond simply normal clothing but all that he is. Thus why Keli is used for man and also geber which is a strong reference to masculinity not simply a warrior. Anyone limiting it to "warrior" has major issues with how the text uses the word and makes it very illogical if used strictly as a reference to "warrior." does it include instruments of battle etc? Sure but this text is not limiting to that but all that man is. the usage of geber all throughout the OT shows it is nowhere near strict for warrior.

[Esther]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I could more, because of various translations, understand Deut. 22:5 speaking to the man toward his "masculinity" as opposed to being "feminine" in women's clothing. I still believe the "abomination" is referring to homosexuality. Don't see warrior here at all.