More on Skirts

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Bill E Goat

I know this thread is kinda old and wore out, but its the reason I joined the forum even though I have been lurking for a while. My first point is simple. These "pants" some are claiming men wore were UNDERWEAR. Now please try and explain to me that women did not wear UNDERWEAR. After all A woman has a bit different biological makeup that would make her wanna have something on under there for atleast 1 week outa the month.

Women were unclean during their period and everything they touched was unclean so they were secluded from the community and what they wore during the seclusion is irrelevant to the discussion (Leviticus 15).

[Bill E Goat]

Now, explain the difference in Genesis 37:3 and 2 Samuel 13:18-20. Same word used to describe both garments one worn by male the other female.

[Bill E Goat]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Women were unclean during their period and everything they touched was unclean so she was secluded from the community and what she wore during her seclusion is irrelevant to the discussion (Leviticus 15).

I disagree with the relevance. I will not get too gross here but you know as a woman there are many issues with a womans body that to believe there was no bifucerated garment under her outer garment makes no common sense.

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Bill E Goat

Now, explain the difference in Genesis 37:3 and 2 Samuel 13:18-20. Same word used to describe both garments one worn by male the other female.

It is difficult to comment on something that can not be defined, and has an unknown meaning

The Hebrew words behind the expression “coat of many colours” is ketonet passīm, a word with an unknown meaning. The English translations differ on how they translate ketonet passīm. This is how various versions of the Bible translate this Hebrew expression:

NRSV: “A long robe with sleeves.”
KJV: “A coat of many colours.”
NIV: “A richly ornamented robe.”
CJB: “A long-sleeved robe.”
NAB: “A long tunic.”
NJB: “A decorated tunic.”

https://claudemariottini.com/2014/07...f-many-colors/

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Bill E Goat

I disagree with the relevance. I will not get too gross here but you know as a woman there are many issues with a womans body that to believe there was no bifucerated garment under her outer garment makes no common sense.

speculation.

[Bill E Goat]

My opinion on Deut 22:5 and the abomination unto God thing. If you take this one scripture out and use it without the context it was written in and look at it simplistically then we get the argument what is female and male attire. Now IMO in context it has more to do than just a garment. Why would a simple garment cause the writer to use such a strong word as abomination? I think it has more do to with a man or woman wanting to reverse rolls. If the writer means roll reversal sexually, domestically or religiously or all three we don't know. But if you take Genesis 1:27 and the desire for any type of roll reversal we understand why it would be an abomination unto God. Just my 2 cents on the subject.

[Bill E Goat]

Originally Posted by Amanah

It is difficult to comment on something that can not be defined, and has an unknown meaning

The Hebrew words behind the expression “coat of many colours” is ketonet passīm, a word with an unknown meaning. The English translations differ on how they translate ketonet passīm. This is how various versions of the Bible translate this Hebrew expression:

NRSV: “A long robe with sleeves.”
KJV: “A coat of many colours.”
NIV: “A richly ornamented robe.”
CJB: “A long-sleeved robe.”
NAB: “A long tunic.”
NJB: “A decorated tunic.”

https://claudemariottini.com/2014/07...f-many-colors/

So in your opinion define these as male or female. As a male I wanna know which one of these I cant wear.

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Bill E Goat

My opinion on Deut 22:5 and the abomination unto God thing. If you take this one scripture out and use it without the context it was written in and look at it simplistically then we get the argument what is female and male attire. Now IMO in context it has more to do than just a garment. Why would a simple garment cause the writer to use such a strong word as abomination? I think it has more do to with a man or woman wanting to reverse rolls. If the writer means roll reversal sexually, domestically or religiously or all three we don't know. But if you take Genesis 1:27 and the desire for any type of roll reversal we understand why it would be an abomination unto God. Just my 2 cents on the subject.

Role reversal and cross dressing. The issue is that there is a principle behind the commandment and that is what we need to get to the root of.

I think the closest we can come to a similar scripture in the New Testament would be:

1 Timothy 2:9-10 likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works.

Then we would have to determine what is respectable apparel in light of 2000 years of western civilization women's apparel.

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Role reversal and cross dressing. The issue is that there is a principle behind the commandment and that is what we need to get to the root of.

I think the closest we can come to a similar scripture in the New Testament would be:

1 Timothy 2:9-10 likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works.

Then we would have to determine what is respectable apparel in light of 2000 years of western civilization women's apparel.

on top of this we would have to take into consideration how our elders/pastors in the Apostolic holiness ranks teach and preach on the subject, and be in submission to leadership as would be pleasing to God, and also with a mind to not being a stumbling block to other believers.

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Amanah

on top of this we would have to take into consideration how our elders/pastors in the Apostolic holiness ranks teach and preach on the subject, and be in submission to leadership as would be pleasing to God, and also with a mind to not being a stumbling block to other believers.

and if you are not a One God, Jesus name, Holiness Apostolic, feel free to dress how you want.