Dress as opposite sex.

Discussion in '2008 Archive' started by The Scribe, Apr 8, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. The Scribe

    The Scribe
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    952
    Likes Received:
    0
    Article

    Deuteronomy 22:5 (KJV)
    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.
     
  2. standingfirminChrist

    standingfirminChrist
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2005
    Messages:
    9,454
    Likes Received:
    0
    Deuteronomy 22:5 is not speaking of everyday clothes... it is pertaining to men dressing like women to escape going to war or women dressing in battle armor to go to war.

    Back in the day Moses wrote the book of Deuteronomy (at least the greater portion of it), they all wore robes.

    Am I defending men wearing women's clothes? Certainly not! I believe Paul addressed this issue in 1 Corinthians 6:9 when he wrote that the effeminate would not inherit the kingdom of God. Titus or Timothy also addressed it when he wrote that the women were to dress modestly.


    But it is wrong to use Deuteronomy 22:5 as the proof text that men and women should not wear clothes made for the opposite sex. Moses was not addressing that in any way other than speaking of war time.
     
  3. The Scribe

    The Scribe
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    952
    Likes Received:
    0
    I can't see where it says just in war time.

    All I see is....for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

    1 Corinthians 6:9 (KJV)
    Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

    Crossdressers and so on will be cast into the lake of fire. :saint:
     
  4. standingfirminChrist

    standingfirminChrist
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2005
    Messages:
    9,454
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Hebrew for 'that which pertaineth to a man' is translated as such:

    Strong's Hebrew Dictionary
    3627. [email protected]
    Search for H3627 in KJVSL
    ylk [email protected] kel-ee'
    from 3615; something prepared, i.e. any apparatus (as an implement, utensil, dress, vessel or weapon):--armour ((-bearer)), artillery, bag, carriage, + furnish, furniture, instrument, jewel, that is made of, X one from another, that which pertaineth, pot, + psaltery, sack, stuff, thing, tool, vessel, ware, weapon, + whatsoever.

    See Hebrew 3615

    It is clear it is speaking of battle armor in the Deuteronomy passage.
     
  5. tinytim

    tinytim
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    The bottom line is noone is to deceive people....

    If Scribe is right, then people will be deceived, which is the same as being lied to...

    If SFIC is right, (Thanks SFIC.. the KJV word, pertaineth, is one I never gave much attention to....) Deceit is still the bottom line... They were deceiving others to either get out of going to war, or deceiving others to get to go to war...

    Don't deceive one another.... Love one another.
     
  6. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    It was a costume day at a public school folks...and voluntary at that. Nothing to see here. Move along.
     
  7. The Scribe

    The Scribe
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    952
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's wrong to dress like that.

    So, you wouldn't be opposed to a non-mandatory nudist day? :rolleyes:
     
  8. SaggyWoman

    SaggyWoman
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2000
    Messages:
    17,933
    Likes Received:
    8
    I only read the title of this, and I am tired already.

    Who wants to read the thread??????
     
  9. rbell

    rbell
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Careful though....I've heard this sermon as a proof-text against "pants on women".....
     
  10. The Scribe

    The Scribe
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    952
    Likes Received:
    0
    Women look better in dresses. ;)
     
  11. standingfirminChrist

    standingfirminChrist
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2005
    Messages:
    9,454
    Likes Received:
    0
    Women do look better in dresses... in most cases. Some dresses make women look sleazy.

    There are pants designed specifically for women that are just as modest as a dress.
     
  12. The Scribe

    The Scribe
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    952
    Likes Received:
    0
    Are they called culottes? ;)
     
  13. standingfirminChrist

    standingfirminChrist
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2005
    Messages:
    9,454
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, they are called slacks.

    Women's slacks... loose fitting.
     
  14. Alcott

    Alcott
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    7,455
    Likes Received:
    93
    Norman Bates.
     
  15. rbell

    rbell
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    To put it mathematically, though, your aesthetic judgement does not equal God's unilateral decree.
     
  16. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sez you.

    Logical fallacy number 632. Got nothin' to do with the subject.
     
  17. SaggyWoman

    SaggyWoman
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2000
    Messages:
    17,933
    Likes Received:
    8
    hehehehehehehe.
     
  18. Rubato 1

    Rubato 1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2006
    Messages:
    1,167
    Likes Received:
    0
    I must admit: I've never heard that before. Sounds like a stretch to me. Why doesn't the Bible say what the Bible says, again?
     
  19. standingfirminChrist

    standingfirminChrist
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2005
    Messages:
    9,454
    Likes Received:
    0
    Rubato,

    Do a study on that passage. 'that which pertaineth to a man' is clearly speaking of battle armor and not every day clothing.

    Deuteronomy 22:5 does not address people wearing the clothes of the opposite sex except in the case of war.

    The best argument against wearing clothes of the opposite sex is in the New Testament.
     
  20. Rubato 1

    Rubato 1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2006
    Messages:
    1,167
    Likes Received:
    0
    I will. Thank you for pointing that out. I have wondered what 'pertaineth to a man means. I'll look at that...
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...