More on Skirts

[Aquila]

I want a Scripture specifically condemning pants on women. Just one.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I want a Scripture specifically condemning pants on women. Just one.

I already have.

But I want one scripture just one against lesbianism in the Old Testament, just one.

[Aquila]

Here's some interesting commentary:

To expand on this Biblical verse slightly, since it obviously had a large influence on culture...

The translation you've posted is actually the more accurate ones.

Older versions translated it as either "clothes" or "garments"

The KJV is translated as:

The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God.

This comes from the mistranslation of the Hebrew words keliy (weapon, armor or instrument) and geber (man, strong man, or warrior).

So while it was correctly interpreted by theologians such as Adam Clarke in his exegesis The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ:

“As the word...geber is here used, which properly signifies a strong man or man of war, it is very probable that armour is here intended; especially as we know that in the worship of Venus, to which that of Astarte or Ashtaroth among the Canaanites bore a striking resemblance, the women were accustomed to appear in armour before her.”

And by John Gill) in his Exposition of the Old Testament:

.and the word [keliy] also signifies armour, as Onkelos renders it; and so here forbids women putting on a military habit and going with men to war, as was usual with the eastern women; and so Maimonides illustrates it, by putting a mitre or an helmet on her head, and clothing herself with a coat of mail; and in like manner Josephus explains it, 'take heed, especially in war, that a woman do not make use of the habit of a man, or a man that of a woman...'”

The "mistranslation" and misinterpretation due to the popularity of the KJV has still today lead many people to believe the verse is referring to the everyday dress of men and women.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Here's some interesting commentary:

To expand on this Biblical verse slightly, since it obviously had a large influence on culture...

The translation you've posted is actually the more accurate ones.

Older versions translated it as either "clothes" or "garments"

The KJV is translated as:

The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God.

This comes from the mistranslation of the Hebrew words keliy (weapon, armor or instrument) and geber (man, strong man, or warrior).

So while it was correctly interpreted by theologians such as Adam Clarke in his exegesis The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ:

“As the word...geber is here used, which properly signifies a strong man or man of war, it is very probable that armour is here intended; especially as we know that in the worship of Venus, to which that of Astarte or Ashtaroth among the Canaanites bore a striking resemblance, the women were accustomed to appear in armour before her.”

And by John Gill) in his Exposition of the Old Testament:

.and the word [keliy] also signifies armour, as Onkelos renders it; and so here forbids women putting on a military habit and going with men to war, as was usual with the eastern women; and so Maimonides illustrates it, by putting a mitre or an helmet on her head, and clothing herself with a coat of mail; and in like manner Josephus explains it, 'take heed, especially in war, that a woman do not make use of the habit of a man, or a man that of a woman...'”

The "mistranslation" and misinterpretation due to the popularity of the KJV has still today lead many people to believe the verse is referring to the everyday dress of men and women.

So you believe women carrying concealed handguns or joining the military are abominations to God?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Here's some interesting commentary:

To expand on this Biblical verse slightly, since it obviously had a large influence on culture...

The translation you've posted is actually the more accurate ones.

Older versions translated it as either "clothes" or "garments"

The KJV is translated as:

The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God.

This comes from the mistranslation of the Hebrew words keliy (weapon, armor or instrument) and geber (man, strong man, or warrior).

So while it was correctly interpreted by theologians such as Adam Clarke in his exegesis The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ:

“As the word...geber is here used, which properly signifies a strong man or man of war, it is very probable that armour is here intended; especially as we know that in the worship of Venus, to which that of Astarte or Ashtaroth among the Canaanites bore a striking resemblance, the women were accustomed to appear in armour before her.”

And by John Gill) in his Exposition of the Old Testament:

.and the word [keliy] also signifies armour, as Onkelos renders it; and so here forbids women putting on a military habit and going with men to war, as was usual with the eastern women; and so Maimonides illustrates it, by putting a mitre or an helmet on her head, and clothing herself with a coat of mail; and in like manner Josephus explains it, 'take heed, especially in war, that a woman do not make use of the habit of a man, or a man that of a woman...'”

The "mistranslation" and misinterpretation due to the popularity of the KJV has still today lead many people to believe the verse is referring to the everyday dress of men and women.

Bro, I already dealt with this. I pointed out why the use of geber.

So we are going on probably? That means it is likely to be what they think? It is like guessing? Let's see, Gill is using a Rabbi? Would you like me to use some Rabbis of the Talmud? Would you accept what they have to say? I personally wouldn't but if you want to use Rambam I could bring up others who will agree with me. Deuteronomy 22:5 is using words to describe masculinity. Geber actually means strong man. You know, one who has a 30 inch neck size?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

So you believe women carrying concealed handguns or joining the military are abominations to God?

Aquila so you are done now? No more dealing with what has already been posted? So, you are now rummaging, searching Google, grasping, hoping that some stupid what if will help you win? At this point you are just looking to win a gold star, you lose. Deal with it. Be a geber.

[Aquila]

An excellent reference:

PANTS ON WOMEN
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...7YPB1jPCXX916Q

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Aquila

An excellent reference:

PANTS ON WOMEN
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...7YPB1jPCXX916Q

Thank you for this reference, You are doing a good job properly interpreting what Deut 22:5 really referred to.

Congratulations.

[Aquila]

It should also be noted that the breeches of the high priest were like boxers. These were essentially underwear designed to cover the nakedness of the priest as he walked the stairs of the altar.

The Canaanites practiced a Celtic form of cross dressing, wherein priests dressed as women and priestesses dressed as warriors. Since trousers were not worn by male or female Israelites, this had nothing to do with trousers, but rather the pagan customs of the Canaanites. There were also perverse fertility practices incorporated into Canaanite rituals, so this was the spiritualization of the cross dressing perversion along side homosexual practice.

The trousers worn by the three Hebrews were typical Babylonian dress, not Hebrew attire. Trousers were never common dress among the Hebrew men or women.

Culturally speaking, trousers were not popular Roman attire. They were considered the attire of barbarians, namely the Persians and Babylonians. However, they did become the attire of Calvary soldiers, but remained unpopular among common men. As the use of the horse increased, so too did the wearing of trousers. However, this was primarily among men. Cultural prohibitions among Catholics came to bear and trousers were condemned on women, as they were still associated with horseback riding and the cavalry. Joan of Ark was heavily criticized by the church for wearing trousers and body armor. Trousers were common on both genders in Scandinavian and Celtic cultures. Lending to the prevailing opinion that they were barbaric. Germanic peoples had a trousers that was worn by women under their dress during the harsh European winters. Soon trousers gave way to hosiery on men. The hosiery became popular garments on both men and women as undergarments. Men wore them under breeches that gathered just below the knee, women wore them under their their dress, which continues to this day. Hosiery on men gave way to pants, seeing that they provided practical protection for the legs while working factories and farming. During the WWI many women went to work in factories and wore men's work uniforms for safety reasons. After the war, many women continued working and eventually women's pants and uniforms were designed. In Britain, after the war women of noble blood began wearing riding trousers. Female pilots also began wearing trousers. Pants on both men and women became more socially socially acceptable. Hosiery continued to be worn under dresses as layers were removed. Today, there are trousers designed for both men and women. Dresses are often considered more formal attire.

It should be noted, during the Neolithic Period, long before any of this history, trousers were worn by both men and women in the Northern regions of both Europe and America.

[Aquila]

The point is that trousers and hosiery were worn by both men and women throughout history. Only Europe and the Middle East had an aversion to trousers or hosiery being worn by women as an outer garment. But they were worn by women under their dress in colder regions or seasons. What truly differed most were outer garments. A woman can maintain modesty today by wearing a longer shirt or blouse if her trousers are too form fitting.

https://www.google.com/search?q=wome...hQmJNP-3fyzMM: