Women in pants

As you probably know, "pants" in this country don't refer to underwear. It is interesting, though, the different meanings of words from one country to another.

A soldier in a foreign land one time was in a bar when he saw a woman with her foot in a cast. He asked her, "How is your foot?" The man with her slugged him. It turned out that the word" foot" (or something sounding like it) referred to a very personal part of a woman's anatomy there. :laugh:

 

The King James says "aprons". Aprons today generally cover the front.

 

The Hebrew expression called "aprons" means something that girds all around...Hence, it is more like a skirt, a mini skirt at that.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Adam in a mini-skirt. The modern skirts/dresses on women only concept sure does give a Ru-Paulesqueness to Biblical times and fashions.

It's so sad some overly vocalized preachers, with no mental self control and no concept of interpretation or history, managed to fool a whole group of people into believing that if women pull on pants, they're being disrespectful, disobedient, sinful, and guilty of some men's inability control their disgusting thoughts (which those type of men will have even if women walked around wearing big square cardboard boxes, they just get to blame the woman if they don't wear cardboard boxes...isn't that handy?!)

And ya know what? Any person who comes on here preaching women must, by Biblical law, not wear jeans, needs to insist men wear aprons only because THAT is what they wore in the beginning. Break out the loin cloths and aprons, men! Then post your photos. K? After all, you'll be the model of how men should dress.

 

Genesis 3:21
Vnto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coates of skinnes, and clothed them.

 

Coates, huheth? That leaveth a gapeth in fronteth.

 

That's worse than a hospital gown.

 

Lol

LOL to all the posts, LOL@

I just looked at this Scripture......De 22:5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth <03627> 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.

The word pertaineth is interesting.....

03627 ylk k@liy kel-ee’

from 03615; n m; {See TWOT on 982 @@ "982g"}

AV-vessel 166, instrument 39, weapon 21, jewel 21, armourbearer + 05375 18, stuff 14, thing 11, armour 10, furniture 7, carriage 3, bag 2, misc 13; 325

1) article, vessel, implement, utensil
1a) article, object (general)
1b) utensil, implement, apparatus, vessel
1b1) implement (of hunting or war)
1b2) implement (of music)
1b3) implement, tool (of labour)
1b4) equipment, yoke (of oxen)
1b5) utensils, furniture
1c) vessel, receptacle (general)
1d) vessels (boats) of paper-reed

What do you guys think of the Scripture using this word in particular? It seems to be, for the woman, not just clothing...but something more than clothing.....implements, vessels, armour?

I'm thinking this is more a prohibition regarding roles...what do you guys think?

your sis in Christ,
Beth

 

Does that mean that the Bible speaks against women attending business meetings in the typical baptist church?

 

This may be a bit off subject, but when I was little, my family attended a Church of God church that frowned on women wearing jewelry. I'm not sure why they would.

As for women wearing pants, I don't have a problem with that. Pants are more modest than a lot of other things they could be wearing.

Here in Mobile County, a woman got a job working as a corrections officer. She insisted on wearing a skirt becuase she said it was part of her religious belief. However, the rules for Mobile County Metro Jail state that all employees have to wear a uniform (which doesn't make exceptions for skirts). She tried suing unsuccessfully, after she got fired.

 

Uhm, Gina. If I did that, the internet would melt from the horror!

 

The original "clothing" was bare skin. :laugh: :laugh: At one church we had a woman who was rather tall. She wore rather short skirts, and her excuse was that she couldn't find anything to fit her because of being so tall.

 

Actually my flesh likes the bonding the cloth of women's pants makes on the curves of her body. It has never done anything for my flesh to see this bonding on another man's body in any fashion!

Oh, well, so much for exposing the flesh!:tongue3:

I guess bondage has a way of doing things.:smilewinkgrin:

 

Good grief! The female figure is not sinful. Perhaps those who can't handle it revealed in a modest fashion should stay at home or move into a monestary.

 

no comment! Not worth it.

 

That's interesting....

Anne, I had never thought of that 'till I looked up the word...have to study that more!

 

Wow, this was a good post. I am not sure I have ever seen a thread answered so well.
But then, this is a softball issue though

 

Good night, Mrs, Calabash, wherever you are...............:applause:

Cheers,

Jimmy