HO, you keep going back hundreds and thousands of years ago. I know already! we are not in ancient bible times! we are not living out the same lifestyle as a village in Africa. I am not advocating that we go over there and try to make them all think, act and look just like americans no more then we would expect for all of us to start dressing like a 3rd world country.
Mark, then why do you insist on bringing up the fact that 100 years ago, women didn't wear pants in this culture and society? If we aren't going to talk about dress styles of the past, then why is this an issue?
Let's talk about 2008. Not 1908.
__________________
I've gone and done it now! I'm on Facebook!!!
Our Old Testament except for a few verses was written in Hebrew. After the Jews were taken to Babylon and then regathered after 70 years, many had picked up the language of Bablylon and Hebrew was becoming unfamiliar. In Nehemiah chapter 8 it is recorded that the people came together to hear the Bible read. Ezra the priest stood on a high platform and read from the Scriptures. Ezra is called a cohen or priest and a Torah teacher in Neh. 8:9. Earlier verses say that Ezra opened the scroll and read. As he read the Scriptures were explained and translated so the people could understand. This was probably in the fall or October of 445 B.C. The Hebrew scriptures were explained or paraphrased in the Aramaic language which they had brought from Bablylon.
Later in the synagogues where Jews gathered, when the Scriptures were read in Hebrew they would be explained or paraphrased verse by verse in a commonly understood language. These oral explanations were called Targums or Targamim which was plural for targum or Aramaic. At first these targums were not supposed to be written down but later were. There are two targums from around the first century that are still around. One is called the Jonathan Targum and one is called the Onkelos Targum.
A parallel to this would be our modern paraphases which are meant to simplify the older unfamiliar language that was used in England in the seventeenth century and is found in our King James Bible.
Just for something interesting, here is Deuteronomy 22:5 from the Johathan Targum
"Neither fringed robes nor tephillin which are the ornaments of a man shall be upon a woman; neither shall a man shave himself so as to appear like a woman; for every one who doeth so is an abomination before the Lord thy God."
From what I understand, that would be the way a first century Jew or Christian would hear that verse read in his language at the synagogue. I don't know just how that would go over in a UPC church today which discourages facial hair on men and pants on women.
__________________
Sam also known as Jim Ellis
Apostolic in doctrine
Pentecostal in experience
Charismatic in practice
Non-denominational in affiliation
Inter-denominational in fellowship
Some years ago I was the teacher of a teen age Sunday School class at our ALJC church. One day someone asked why girls or women weren't allowed to wear pants. I said that the verse usually used for this was Deuteronomy 22:5. Someone then commented about that verse being under the law and reminded me that I had taught them that we are not under the law any more. I guess someone was listening more than I thought.
__________________
Sam also known as Jim Ellis
Apostolic in doctrine
Pentecostal in experience
Charismatic in practice
Non-denominational in affiliation
Inter-denominational in fellowship
Mark, then why do you insist on bringing up the fact that 100 years ago, women didn't wear pants in this culture and society? If we aren't going to talk about dress styles of the past, then why is this an issue?
Let's talk about 2008. Not 1908.
HO, even in the 50s women didn't wear pants often unless they was horse backing riding or working in a factory where there was a safty issue. It is true that 90% ( or more)of women in our culture wear pants the majority of the time unless they are going to a wedding. Has this been a good change for us as a society?? I don't think so personally and the reason why is, I think it is just one small aspect that has worn down the moral fiber of our society. You cannot tell me that what a person puts on does not affect change in the spirit of the person.
HO, even in the 50s women didn't wear pants often unless they was horse backing riding or working in a factory where there was a safty issue. It is true that 90% ( or more)of women in our culture wear pants the majority of the time unless they are going to a wedding. Has this been a good change for us as a society?? I don't think so personally and the reason why is, I think it is just one small aspect that has worn down the moral fiber of our society. You cannot tell me that what a person puts on does not affect change in the spirit of the person.
Mark, were you alive in the 50's? I wasn't. What they did back then doesn't apply to today. It makes no more sense than talking about what they dressed like in 1850. That's what I'm trying to make you understand.
But I disagree with your last statement. It's not what we put on that changes us inside, but it's the change inside that makes us different on the outside.
Mark, do you realize that we (general 'we') blame what people dress like in regard to the negative, but do we ever suggest that someone 'got religion' because they started dressing in 'holiness' attire?
Of course not! Why? Because it has to start with the heart.
You cannot convince me that Sodom and Gomorrah were vile because of how those people dressed. The Bible makes no such claim about any evil society in regard to their dress or other influences. They didn't have TV, they didn't have Hollywood. But they did have evil hearts. So do we.
__________________
I've gone and done it now! I'm on Facebook!!!
Mark, were you alive in the 50's? I wasn't. What they did back then doesn't apply to today. It makes no more sense than talking about what they dressed like in 1850. That's what I'm trying to make you understand.
But I disagree with your last statement. It's not what we put on that changes us inside, but it's the change inside that makes us different on the outside.
Mark, do you realize that we (general 'we') blame what people dress like in regard to the negative, but do we ever suggest that someone 'got religion' because they started dressing in 'holiness' attire?
Of course not! Why? Because it has to start with the heart.
You cannot convince me that Sodom and Gomorrah were vile because of how those people dressed. The Bible makes no such claim about any evil society in regard to their dress or other influences. They didn't have TV, they didn't have Hollywood. But they did have evil hearts. So do we.
And it's out of the heart that these issues are manifested. Yes, we are dealing with Heart issues that become specific problems of our day and time. Dress is only one small topic of a broader problem.
I think that the inward man changes the outward but I believe the outward can change the inward. I gave some suits to a poor man once and when he wore got dressed up and came to church it changed his whole attitude ( for the good)
And it's out of the heart that these issues are manifested. Yes, we are dealing with Heart issues that become specific problems of our day and time. Dress is only one small topic of a broader problem.
I think that the inward man changes the outward but I believe the outward can change the inward. I gave some suits to a poor man once and when he wore got dressed up and came to church it changed his whole attitude ( for the good)
The outward won't happen without a change in the heart.
The poor man had it in his heart but not his wallet. The clothes didn't change him nor his attitude. It was already there.
__________________
I've gone and done it now! I'm on Facebook!!!
The outward won't happen without a change in the heart.
The poor man had it in his heart but not his wallet. The clothes didn't change him nor his attitude. It was already there.
NO, you're wrong on this one HO. the clothes did change his attitude and also his perception of himself. It gave him a greater desire to acheive and made him feel better about himself.
NO, you're wrong on this one HO. the clothes did change his attitude and also his perception of himself. It gave him a greater desire to acheive and made him feel better about himself.
You are speaking of something totally different. There was a desire in his heart to dress better in the first place or he wouldn't have put that suit on.
The same is true for the opposite. I won't go out wearing a halter top and Daisy Dukes THEN feel like dressing immodestly. The feeling was already in my heart long before I put the clothing on.
Self esteem, as you refer to above, is a different matter entirely.
__________________
I've gone and done it now! I'm on Facebook!!!
Hybrid Mode
