More on Skirts

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Aquila

What is immodest about this woman?

http://modeststyle.kopiblog.com/wp-c...dest-style.jpg

she is very cute, I would just change the pants for a skirt . . .

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Amanah

she is very cute, I would just change the pants for a skirt . . .

I understand that you would. However, what is distinctly immodest about her? I'm just picking your brain a little.

[Pliny]

It is interesting to see folks say something along the lines of: follow the Spirit... As though the "Spirit" would contradict the word. The "Spirit" will never contradict the Word because they are both expressions of the same God. Thus God will never contradict Himself. To ignore the Word is to fall into error. The true worshipers will worship in Spirit and in truth.

It is true the Deu. is not speaking specifically about pants. If the Bible spoke specifically about everything there would be multitudes of "commandments" instead of the 613 "Mitzvah's". God gave the ministry to discern between right and wrong (Lev. 10:10; Deu. 17:9; Eph. 4:10-12).

God has provided timeless principles to live by, not an encyclopedia list of do's and don'ts. Had it of been, the Bible would have been obsolete decades ago. Instead, the timeless principles help to point those who "seek first His kingdom and righteousness" in the direction of God's holiness not man made feelings. Those feelings are often characterized by the argument that you should "follow the Spirit". This "phrase" provides legitimacy to carnality and seeks to remove the soul from the anchor of God's word.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

It is interesting to see folks say something along the lines of: follow the Spirit... As though the "Spirit" would contradict the word. The "Spirit" will never contradict the Word because they are both expressions of the same God. Thus God will never contradict Himself. To ignore the Word is to fall into error. The true worshipers will worship in Spirit and in truth.

It is true the Deu. is not speaking specifically about pants. If the Bible spoke specifically about everything there would be multitudes of "commandments" instead of the 613 "mitzvahs". God gave the ministry to discern between right and wrong (Lev. 10:10; Deu. 17:9; Eph. 4:10-12).

God has provided timeless principles to live by, not an encyclopedia list of do's and don'ts. Had it of been, the Bible would have been obsolete decades ago. Instead, the timeless principles help to point those who "seek first His kingdom and righteousness" in the direction of God's holiness not man made feelings. Those feelings are often characterized by the argument that you should "follow the Spirit". This "phrase" provides legitimacy to carnality and seeks to remove the soul from the anchor of God's word.

You're right, the Spirit will never contradict God's Word. However, it often contradicts our human interpretations of God's Word. For example, in the early 1900's the Holy Spirit challenged the historic doctrines of the triune baptismal formula and the trinity. This didn't contradict God's Word, but it definitely challenged man's historic understanding of it.

Remember, while the Bible is infallible, our interpretations of it are not. That is why Jesus said,

John 16:13
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth:

I'd go as far as to say that not only does Deuteronomy 22:5 not mention pants, but not one of the 613 "mitzvahs" (as you put them) mention pants either. If it was indeed that important, you know, there is language for specifying pants. But the language isn't there. Deuteronomy 22:5 is about the cross dressing perversion... not a specific style and cut of clothing.

Transvestism in Ancient Israel
https://claudemariottini.com/2009/01...ncient-israel/

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I'd go as far as to say that not only does Deuteronomy 22:5 not mention pants, but not one of the 613 "mitzvahs" (as you put them) mention pants either. If it was indeed that important, you know, there is language for specifying pants. But the language isn't there. Deuteronomy 22:5 is about the cross dressing perversion... not a specific style and cut of clothing.

Transvestism in Ancient Israel
https://claudemariottini.com/2009/01...ncient-israel/

The logic postulated here suggests that since "pants" are not "specifically" mentioned then, pants must not be intended. therefore, women can wear pants.

The problem with this polemic is that it demands an unreasonable standard. For example, if the Bible MUST be specific for something to be wrong then, pedophilia is okay under this standard.

The truth is there are timeless principles in God's word. The principle found in Deu. 22:5 is that men and women are to remain distinct in their clothing (what they wear). Since pants are worn then they must be understood Biblically.

As has been demonstrated ad-infinitum - godly men wore pants and godly women did not. This principle holds true today.

To argue that it is okay to wear pants because Deu. did not specify that article of clothing opens the door for pedophilia and anything else not specifically mentioned in the Bible. In short, this "logic" does violence to the very nature of scripture. God never intended the Bible to be an exhaustive list of do's and don'ts. He provided the principle and we must use those principles to discern right from wrong. Since the Bible never records a godly woman wearing pants then, it is certain that there is a reason why it is not there...

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pliny

The truth is there are timeless principles in God's word. The principle found in Deu. 22:5 is that men and women are to remain distinct in their clothing (what they wear).

Yes, they were to be distinct! However, the distinction was in color, style and length. Priests wore bifurcated underwear and the 3 Jewish dudes in captivity wore hose.

Originally Posted by Pliny

Since pants are worn then they must be understood Biblically.

As has been demonstrated ad-infinitum - godly men wore pants and godly women did not. This principle holds true today.

As has been demonstrated ad-infinitum - you have no scriptural or cultural/historical basis for your claim.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by n david

Yes, they were to be distinct! However, the distinction was in color, style and length. Priests wore bifurcated underwear and the 3 Jewish dudes in captivity wore hose.

As has been demonstrated ad-infinitum - you have no scriptural or cultural/historical basis for your claim.

Only in the figment of your imagination. Even Aquila agrees the three Jewish young men wore pants. You must believe you are a majority of one.

FTR: They wore σαραβαροις which is properly translated as pants.

Dan 3:21 (ABP) Then those men were shackled with their pantaloons,G4552.1 G1473 and tiaras, and leggings, and their garments. And they were thrown into the midst of the [2furnace 3of fire 1burning],

(Dan 3:21 ERV) So Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were tied up and thrown into the hot furnace. They were wearing their robes, pants, cloth caps, and other clothes.


Daniel 3:21 (LXX) Then those men were bound with their coats, and caps, and hose, and were cast into the midst of the burning fiery furnace

LXX+
Dan 3:21 τοτεG5119 ADV οιG3588 T-NPM ανδρεςG435 N-NPM εκεινοιG1565 D-NPM επεδηθησανV-API-3P συνG4862 PREP τοιςG3588 T-DPN σαραβαροιςN-DPN αυτωνG846 D-GPM καιG2532 CONJ τιαραιςN-DPF καιG2532 CONJ περικνημισιN-DPF καιG2532 CONJ ενδυμασινG1742 N-DPN αυτωνG846 D-GPM καιG2532 CONJ εβληθησανG906 V-API-3P ειςG1519 PREP μεσονG3319 A-ASM τηςG3588 T-GSF καμινουG2575 N-GSF τουG3588 T-GSN πυροςG4442 N-GSN τηςG3588 T-GSF καιομενηςG2545 V-PMPGS

H5622
סרבּל (Aramaic) (LXX – σαραβαροις)
sarbal
Dictionary of the Targumim, Talmud Bavli, Talmud Yerushalmi and Midrashic Literature, Marcus Jastrow, 1022a – Pers. Trousers.

Dan 3:27 And the princes, governors, and captains, and the king's counsellors, being gathered together, saw these men, upon whose bodies the fire had no power, nor was an hair of their head singed, neither were their coats (σαραβαρα LXX) changed, nor the smell of fire had passed on them.

LXX+
Dan 3:27 [3:94] καιG2532 CONJ συναγονταιG4863 V-PMI-3P οιG3588 T-NPM σατραπαιN-NPM καιG2532 CONJ οιG3588 T-NPM στρατηγοιG4755 N-NPM καιG2532 CONJ οιG3588 T-NPM τοπαρχαιN-NPM καιG2532 CONJ οιG3588 T-NPM δυνασταιG1413 N-NPM τουG3588 T-GSM βασιλεωςG935 N-GSM καιG2532 CONJ εθεωρουνG2334 V-IAI-3P τουςG3588 T-APM ανδραςG435 N-APM οτιG3754 CONJ ουκG3364 ADV εκυριευσενG2961 V-AAI-3S τοG3588 T-NSN πυρG4442 N-NSN τουG3588 T-GSN σωματοςG4983 N-GSN αυτωνG846 D-GPM καιG2532 CONJ ηG3588 T-NSF θριξG2359 N-NSF τηςG3588 T-GSF κεφαληςG2776 N-GSF αυτωνG846 D-GPM ουκG3364 ADV εφλογισθηG5394 V-API-3S καιG2532 CONJ ταG3588 T-NPN σαραβαραN-NPN αυτωνG846 D-GPM ουκG3364 ADV ηλλοιωθηV-API-3S καιG2532 CONJ οσμηG3744 N-NSF πυροςG4442 N-GSN ουκG3364 ADV ηνG1510 V-IAI-3S ενG1722 PREP αυτοιςG846 D-DPM

Ancient Greek to English Dictionary
σαραβαρα
A loose trousers worn by Scythians, Antiph.201; also = Aramaic sarbālîn, LXX, Thd.Da.3.27 (cf. 21). (Prob. Persian shalvâr or shulvâr (braccae).)



You must think they were wearing what? Water hose?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Pliny

It is interesting to see folks say something along the lines of: follow the Spirit... As though the "Spirit" would contradict the word. The "Spirit" will never contradict the Word because they are both expressions of the same God. Thus God will never contradict Himself. To ignore the Word is to fall into error. The true worshipers will worship in Spirit and in truth.

It is true the Deu. is not speaking specifically about pants. If the Bible spoke specifically about everything there would be multitudes of "commandments" instead of the 613 "Mitzvah's". God gave the ministry to discern between right and wrong (Lev. 10:10; Deu. 17:9; Eph. 4:10-12).

God has provided timeless principles to live by, not an encyclopedia list of do's and don'ts. Had it of been, the Bible would have been obsolete decades ago. Instead, the timeless principles help to point those who "seek first His kingdom and righteousness" in the direction of God's holiness not man made feelings. Those feelings are often characterized by the argument that you should "follow the Spirit". This "phrase" provides legitimacy to carnality and seeks to remove the soul from the anchor of God's word.

[Pliny]

The mind is never so resourceful as when it is justifying itself...

For those who believe "pants" on women are okay because there is not a specific commandment against it - do you think smoking is okay as well? After all, there is no specific prohibition against it?...

As for me and my house - we will seek the "No-Smoking" section of eternity. :-)

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

The mind is never so resourceful as when it is justifying itself...

For those who believe "pants" on women are okay because there is not a specific commandment against it - do you think smoking is okay as well? After all, there is no specific prohibition against it?...

As for me and my house - we will seek the "No-Smoking" section of eternity. :-)

I knew a fourth generation Apostolic Pentecostal. This young man's great-grandfather was an Apostolic Pentecostal back when the movement was just taking off. He was a farmer. He faithful attended church, read his Bible, raised his children in the fear and admonition of the Lord, and... smoked a pipe. My friend's grandfather (second generation Apostolic) smoked a pipe also, but taught his children against it because it was proven that smoking tobacco was bad for one's health. My friend's father (third generation Apostolic) never smoked. And of course, my friend doesn't smoke.

If you do a little research on the Apostolic movement predating 1930's, you'll discover that there was a wide range of opinions about smoking and it wasn't unheard of for Apostolics to smoke.

And their salvation was never questioned.

After it research and science began to prove the dangers of smoking (despite the propaganda and misinformation campaign headed by the tobacco companies) Christian churches began encouraging that people not smoke. As science began to prove the damage smoking causes, many churches chose to label smoking a "sin" ranked up with drinking, carousing, and other unhealthy lifestyles.

Now, does this mean that smoking is a "sin"? I do know that it is one of the most unhealthy habits to have. But just because something is "unhealthy" it doesn't mean it is a "sin". Else being overweight would be "sin". Most Americans eat meals that are too large, this too would be a "sin". Eating foods that are not considered good for you (such as a Big Mac) would be "sin". Drinking soda-pop would be "sin". Drinking various coffees would be "sin"... or having any of these things in excess would be "sin".

I would argue that smoking, being of an unhealthy weight, eating too much, eating unhealthy foods, drinking soda-pop, coffee, etc. can all be considered unhealthy practices. I'd encourage spiritual self-discipline concerning these things and emphasize the blessings of good health. But to just throw the word "sin" around is serious. Sin can land one in Hell. I'm not sure that any of these things will do that.

Special note, it was an almost universal practice throughout the Middle East in Christ's day to chew khat after large meals. It was chewed during after dinner fellowship and helped to clean teeth. The only problem is that khat contains a monoamine alkaloid called cathinone, an amphetamine-like stimulant. While it was very common throughout the Middle East for thousands of years... today it is considered a controlled substance.