1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Women in the Millitary?

Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by MEE, Jun 4, 2003.

  1. Headcoveredlady

    Headcoveredlady New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,388
    Likes Received:
    0
    Mee,
    This is a good topic. This morning I read Duet 22 in context and I saw nothing that spoke of the military, especially near verse five. I have also heard some say that it does refer to military garments. But that would not make sense because why would it say, that it is an abomination for men to wear women's clothing. If it were battle clothes than it would mean that it is an abomination for a man to not have on his battle clothing.

    In Romans ch 1. we see it is still abominable for men to be effeminate. I do not think God changes His mind frequently about what is and is not abominable. That is why many will refer to Duet 22:5 for this clothing issue.

    After reading through most of the commentary that Clint posted it too seems to speak of a distinction in dress. And if we study fashion history, (you can do this online), you will find that there has always been a distinction in the way men and women dressed.

    If you look at those in the Middle East today, the men and women wear long robes, but you can always tell who is a man and who is a woman. I have been there and it there was no mistake in the gender. I am not suggesting we all get into robes. I am suggesting that they have maintained this form of dress for a long time and it might give a picture into the past.
     
  2. Mike McK

    Mike McK New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2001
    Messages:
    6,630
    Likes Received:
    0
    No.

    [qb]
    Thank you, but this is something I know about.

    Good for you. As I said, there's a big diference between learning to fire a rifle and being combat ready.

    It's really not worth arguing with you about.

    Women don't belong in combat. Period.
     
  3. Yelsew

    Yelsew Guest

    That is not what I said Katie!
     
  4. Yelsew

    Yelsew Guest

    My answer to the paraghraph I quoted, I think men should be trained up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, then they wouldn't have these issues to deal with. That is what God's Word says, how they are to be trained. Too many men are not training their boys to be men. It is not assigned to the military to train boys up but fathers. </font>[/QUOTE]It is not the father's role as much as the mother's role to train up a child, because the father is away from the home more working to provide for the family, while the mother "nurtures" the family. That is apparent in every species of mammals. By the time the Father gets the child for training purposes, if that is the practice, the basic lessons of life are most often instilled in the child. That is why it is right for females to learn the ramifications of "hunting" so to speak, it does not make them any less woman.
     
  5. Headcoveredlady

    Headcoveredlady New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,388
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yelsew,
    First of all humans are not animals. And I do not take my guidance from what mammals do, but the Word of God.

    The Word of God says: Ephesians 6:4, "And, ye, fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord."

    Malachi 4:6, "And he shall turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse."

    I do agree though that mothers also have a charge to teach their children in Psalm 78:1-8, Duet 6:1-9 and Proverbs 22:6.
     
  6. stubbornkelly

    stubbornkelly New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    Messages:
    3,472
    Likes Received:
    0
    Humans are very much animals, mammals even!

    While I don't follow Yelsew's logic that because men should be involved in the raising of their children, it is right that women should hunt and whatnot (it's not that I think we shouldn't, just that I don't follow the logic presented), I do agree that much of the basic "stuff" is instilled early, and neither parent should shirk their responsibility at that early time.
     
  7. Headcoveredlady

    Headcoveredlady New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,388
    Likes Received:
    0
    Stubborn Kelly,
    I understand that biologically there are many similarities, but Scripture teaches that humans are to have dominion over animals, not that we are animals.
     
  8. donnA

    donnA Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2000
    Messages:
    23,354
    Likes Received:
    0
    That is not what I said Katie! </font>[/QUOTE]yes, you did...........
     
  9. donnA

    donnA Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2000
    Messages:
    23,354
    Likes Received:
    0
    My answer to the paraghraph I quoted, I think men should be trained up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, then they wouldn't have these issues to deal with. That is what God's Word says, how they are to be trained. Too many men are not training their boys to be men. It is not assigned to the military to train boys up but fathers. </font>[/QUOTE]It is not the father's role as much as the mother's role to train up a child, because the father is away from the home more working to provide for the family, while the mother "nurtures" the family. That is apparent in every species of mammals. By the time the Father gets the child for training purposes, if that is the practice, the basic lessons of life are most often instilled in the child. That is why it is right for females to learn the ramifications of "hunting" so to speak, it does not make them any less woman. </font>[/QUOTE]Maybe you'd like to show some scripture where women are told to learn to hunt so they can better raise their children.
     
  10. donnA

    donnA Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2000
    Messages:
    23,354
    Likes Received:
    0
    Secular science who do not believe in the God of creation says humans are nothing more then another animal. But says otherwise, if humans were only another animal we wouldn't have been created on a different day then animals. So I'll take the word of God on creation, not science who know nothing about that God, and do not respect His creations.
     
  11. Yelsew

    Yelsew Guest

    My answer to the paraghraph I quoted, I think men should be trained up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, then they wouldn't have these issues to deal with. That is what God's Word says, how they are to be trained. Too many men are not training their boys to be men. It is not assigned to the military to train boys up but fathers. </font>[/QUOTE]It is not the father's role as much as the mother's role to train up a child, because the father is away from the home more working to provide for the family, while the mother "nurtures" the family. That is apparent in every species of mammals. By the time the Father gets the child for training purposes, if that is the practice, the basic lessons of life are most often instilled in the child. That is why it is right for females to learn the ramifications of "hunting" so to speak, it does not make them any less woman. </font>[/QUOTE]Maybe you'd like to show some scripture where women are told to learn to hunt so they can better raise their children. </font>[/QUOTE]Try "Bring up a child in the way he should go and he will not depart from it". The role of the male is "provider" so how is the child of a father who is "away" much of the time, going to learn his "way" if not properly brought up. Perhaps your idea is the reason there are so many effeminate men in society today, the mother's have stopped teaching the basics, because they themselves do not know or understand them.

    But again that is not what I said, even though it is applicable that women be able to "hunt". After all, who will take care of them if their husband does not return before the provisions run out? Oh, I forgot about state welfare!
     
  12. Clint Kritzer

    Clint Kritzer Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2001
    Messages:
    8,877
    Likes Received:
    4
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Hi MEE -

    I back checked the references you cited and the interpretation seems plausible. Of course, I am not an ancient Hebrew scholar so I rely on the works of people in the know for my education.

    I would offer two criticisms of the theory as it stands:

    1)
    At this point, I am curious as to whether the Hebrew words are being taken from the Texus Receptus (the Byzantine text upon which the KJV is based), the Septaguint, some other early manuscript, or a traditional rendering of Hebrew as one would find in a modern Jewish Torah. If all of those texts would agree, there is little room for debate over the lack of symmetry in the verse.

    2) I am always cautious in approaching an interpretation that is "novel" and unlike traditional acceptance. Reading Hebrew, understanding Hebrew and actually interpreting Hebrew are all three different things. I believe one of the strongest arguments made in what you presented was:
    As for the initial intent of the thread as to whether this passage relates to women being in the military, your evidence also points to the fact that this law is probably included because of the heathenistic practices in the worship of false gods. The phrase at the end of the verse, "for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God," lends credence to the assumption that Deuteronomy 22:5 is not referring to the act of war but to idolatry.
    Here is a link to the other usages of the word tow`ebah as it used in Deuteronomy. You will see that with the possible exception of 24:4 and 25:16 it is used in describing heathen acts.

    http://bible1.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/freqdisp.cgi?book=de&number=08441&count=16&version=kjv

    Again, the theory you present is quite plausible and worthy of further study and consideration. Thanks for bringing it to our attention! [​IMG]
     
  13. MEE

    MEE <img src=/me3.jpg>

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2001
    Messages:
    1,271
    Likes Received:
    0
    Clint, thank you for your time and effort, in discussing the subject. [​IMG]

    MEE [​IMG]
     
Loading...