Statement by Bro. Steve Pixler

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

I am too!

Translators have a task at preserving a document as best they can for us to read. From there, as a reader, we are making a gazillion interpretive judgements when reading the "plain and simple" text. Everyone makes judgements. I agree that to gain from Scripture you don't have to always dig deeper. But to fully understand what the scripture means to the original audience, and to hear the words of Jesus as the people who first heard them, it takes some work. I'm guilty so often of reading into to the text, and I admit I do that a lot! So this is why it's important to understand what it meant to the original audience first. That doesn't take being a Greek/Hebrew scholar. Know how to use tools, have some idea of hermeneutics, be open-minded and as objective as is possible approaching the Text, pray and let something mystical happen!

I'm a relentless admirer of Dan Segraves. I must have heard him say, "Context is everything" a million times. I would never hear him talk about a verse without extensively examining the ten before it and the ten after it.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by notofworks

I'm a relentless admirer of Dan Segraves. I must have heard him say, "Context is everything" a million times. I would never hear him talk about a verse without extensively examining the ten before it and the ten after it.

And in some cases, examining the purpose of the entire book/letter, the previous and subsequent chapters, etc...

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by Standards

No one can refute Jason's arguments? Joey B. tore him up on AMF. I'm telling you, most cons. find this forum to be a waste of time. That's why their not on here wasting their time. I guess I'm just too cons. even for the people on AMF. I look at it differently, but I do think I'm probably wasting my time as well

Lol - - not the reason at all.

[Standards]

Originally Posted by notofworks

I am not one of the "Well, let's look at the Greek Lexicon" type of dudes. I flunked Greek. If I can't figure out the bible given to me what good does it do to learn Greek? One of my favorite cartoons is this fellow who is saying, "In the KJV it says Yes, but in the Greek it says No!!" Silly. So I'm with you there, and I often say that you need to interpret the bible as much as you just need to obey it.

The HUGE mistake I see cons make is context. I believe they post a verse alone, ignore the context, and develop a core value system based on an isolated verse without considering the context. There can be no greater example of this than Deut. 22:5.

Duet. 22:5 is very clear, even within the context. God says that it's an abomination for a woman to wear the garment of a man or for a man to put on a womans garment. We're not taking this passage out of context. If something is an abomination unto God, you don't do it, period. There's no reason to debate something so clear.

BTW, I am willing to debate you on this issue, but not on this forum. If you are interested in debating, please PM me, and maybe we can go back and forth that way. I don't want the liberal white coats to gang up on me again.

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by Standards

Duet. 22:5 is very clear, even within the context. God says that it's an abomination for a woman to wear the garment of a man or for a man to put on a womans garment. We're not taking this passage out of context. If something is an abomination unto God, you don't do it, period. There's no reason to debate something so clear.

BTW, I am willing to debate you on this issue, but not on this forum. If you are interested in debating, please PM me, and maybe we can go back and forth that way. I don't want the liberal white coats to gang up on me again.

Nope - not what it means at all.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by Standards

Duet. 22:5 is very clear, even within the context. God says that it's an abomination for a woman to wear the garment of a man or for a man to put on a womans garment. We're not taking this passage out of context. If something is an abomination unto God, you don't do it, period. There's no reason to debate something so clear.

BTW, I am willing to debate you on this issue, but not on this forum. If you are interested in debating, please PM me, and maybe we can go back and forth that way. I don't want the liberal white coats to gang up on me again.

Does this really need a debate, Standards?

Before the debate even starts, understand the nature of Deuteronomy, understand the context of Deut 22, read all the supporting and surrounding verses as well, -- including everything called an "abomination" before we make a favorites playlist. Second of all, understand what he was really referring to (jumping in a woman's robe or something worse?). Then you have an extremely difficult challenge to read that back into the 21st Century to use this as a proof-text against women's pants. It's just impossible. But go ahead and debate. I'll let NOW handle that.

[Standards]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

Nope - not what it means at all.

So it doesn't mean what it says?????

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by Standards

So it doesn't mean what it says?????

Of course it does - - but, it doesn't mean a woman shouldn't wear pants.

[Standards]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Does this really need a debate, Standards?

Before the debate even starts, understand the nature of Deuteronomy, understand the context of Deut 22, read all the supporting and surrounding verses as well, -- including everything called an "abomination" before we make a favorites playlist. Second of all, understand what he was really referring to (jumping in a woman's robe or something worse?). Then you have an extremely difficult challenge to read that back into the 21st Century to use this as a proof-text against women's pants. It's just impossible. But go ahead and debate. I'll let NOW handle that.

Read this...and weep:

What does the Bible say about a saved woman wearing pants? Is it even an issue with God? Or is it merely a matter of preference or opinion to be left up to individuals to do what is right in their own eyes? Since we believe the Bible, more specifically, the King James Bible, to be the FINAL AUTHORITY (not tradition, opinions, or how one "feels" led), let’s start there.

Deuteronomy 22:5 - 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.

After reading this verse, what things pop into your mind? Earrings and necklaces on men, long hair on men, short hair on women, dresses on men, and of course, pants on women. Notice the word "abomination" is used to describe how God feels about cross-dressing. I looked it up in Webster’s Dictionary.

abom.i.na.tion -’ba:m-*-’na--sh*nn 1: something abominable 2: extreme disgust and hatred : LOATHING

That’s pretty strong language, wouldn’t you say? While most church members react in disgust to Sodomites who parade down the street in dresses, they readily accept and even defend women wearing pants. According to God’s Word, it is no more of an abomination for a man to wear a dress than it is for a woman to wear a pair of pants.

"Yeah, but that’s in the Old Testament, so it doesn’t apply to Christians today."

Ah yes, the battle cry of the liberal and the carnal church member. Let’s deal with this objection by considering some other abominations found in the Old Testament.

[Standards]

Leviticus 18:22 - Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Leviticus 20:13 - If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Would anyone care to argue that sodomy is no longer an abomination unto God? This principle is repeated in the New Testament (Romans 1:23-32 and I Corinthians 6:9.)

Proverbs 6:16-19 - These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

Do we now have liberty to sow discord among the brethren? To be prideful? To lie? To kill innocent people? Of course not! It would be absurd to think so. These principles are also repeated in the New Testament (Matthew 5:22, 15:19, Mark 7:21-22, Luke 1:51, Acts 5:3, Romans 1:25, 1:30, 12:10, I Corinthians 8:12-13, Galatians 5:21, Ephesians 4:25, Colossians 3:9, I Timothy 1:9, 3:6, 6:3-4, II Timothy 3:2, James 4:6, I Peter 3:5, 4:15, I John 2:11, 2:16, 2:21, 3:4, 3:15).

People seem to be playing "pick-n-choose" with Old Testament verses. They want the twenty-third Psalm, the hundredth Psalm, and all the OT verses that won’t affect their lifestyle, but then they try to explain away any OT verse that would have any effect on how they live.

II Timothy 3:16 - ALL SCRIPTURE is given by inspiration of God, and IS PROFITABLE for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Is not Deuteronomy 22:5 scripture? If so, then it is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness. Preachers, will you be like so many of the liberals of today and cut these verses out of your Bible as Jehoiakim did? Or will you stand like Paul and be able to say,

"And how I kept back nothing that was profitable unto you, but have shewed you, and have taught you publickly, and from house to house," - Acts 20:20

"Yeah, but I thought all guidelines for how a Christian is supposed to live were in the New Testament"

Let’s look at I Corinthians 10:1-11.

Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness.
Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.
Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.
Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand.
Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.
Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer.
Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.
Throughout this passage Paul continually uses the Old Testament to prove something. Focus on verses 6 and 11. Paul tells us that those OT writings are for us today. I suppose Paul would be called a legalist or a Pharisee by the liberals. Just because something is in the OT does not negate it from being applicable for us in the church age. Any commandment or teaching in the OT that is repeated in the NT is for us.

"Yeah, but Deuteronomy 22:5 is not repeated in the New Testament"

Wrong. In fact, the New Testament is even more specific. I Timothy 2:9 says,

" . . . that women adorn themselves in modest apparel . . ."