[Diligent]

Originally Posted by evstevemd

I society we have Both
Men and women wear
pant! It doesn't take
you to have PhD to
Know there is cross
dressing there!!
What about that??
(Don't intend to change topic; Just challenge!!)

That's a non sequitur. Men and women both wear socks, shoes, wristwatches, etc.

I Accept the Challenge Diligent,
but another question;
What differentiate today on
what pertains to man or woman

Stay blessed all
Ev. Steve

Ok guys I need some opinions. I have found in scripture where God said not to eat the unclean animals. If someone did, the Bible says his soul will be cut off from the rest of the people. Obviously, according to the following passage God did not leave it up to the people to make the decision if they wanted to eat it or not.

Lev 20:25 Ye shall therefore put difference between clean beasts and unclean, and between unclean fowls and clean: and ye shall not make your souls abominable by beast, or by fowl, or by any manner of living thing that creepeth on the ground, which I have separated from you as unclean.

So my point is, God did not say that it was an abomination to your body. What I mean is, I don't think God is saying that it's unhealthy for you, or else he wouldn't have said the word "soul". There soul according to God would be affected if they ate of the abominable beast.

I'm sorry but I have to say that at the time it was an abomination unto the Lord to eat of those animals. If He said that the eating of those animals was an abomination, whether to your body or not, it was still an abomination. His viewpoint on this abomination is no longer continuing.

[Biblestudent]

I'm quite interested with the "history of pants". Can anybody send me some information on this? It's important to know history to deal with certain issues.

But for the moment, I had been an "anti-pants-on-women" and I had been reading books written by "anti-pants" good Christians. I am quite convinced with the principles of distinction and modesty.

My ONLY frustration was, I can never find "pants" in the Bible. Upon close study, "breeches" rather seem to be a priestly undergarment. The most important thing to notice is that where Deut. 22:5 was mentioned, the male's garment was a SKIRT.
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.
Deuteronomy 22:30 A man shall not take his father's wife, nor discover his father's skirt.

Originally Posted by lei-kjvonly

Lev 20:25 Ye shall therefore put difference between clean beasts and unclean, and between unclean fowls and clean: and ye shall not make your souls abominable by beast, or by fowl, or by any manner of living thing that creepeth on the ground, which I have separated from you as unclean.

So my point is, God did not say that it was an abomination to your body. What I mean is, I don't think God is saying that it's unhealthy for you, or else he wouldn't have said the word "soul". There soul according to God would be affected if they ate of the abominable beast.

I'm sorry but I have to say that at the time it was an abomination unto the Lord to eat of those animals. If He said that the eating of those animals was an abomination, whether to your body or not, it was still an abomination. His viewpoint on this abomination is no longer continuing.

The Bible nowhere states it was an abomination to God - in fact, Leviticus 11 indicates it was an abomination to the Israelites themselves. We may not completely understand why, but let's not stray from what it actually says. You certainly cannot believe God accepts cross-dressing now.

Find one passage where God stated something was an abomination to Him - and then show where He changed His mind. If He did that anywhere else, then I am wrong in my conclusions and will change them - when shown from the Bible.

Does God now approve of divorce (in the context of Deuteronomy 24:4) and prostituting our daughters - or are these things still abominable? I don't need an NT passage to tell me they are still abominable in His sight.

What about incest and bestiality? Still abominable.

What about pride, rebellion (frowardness in heart), and being a false witness. Still abominable.

What about idolatry and the occult? Still abominable.

Is justifying the wicked and condemning the just still abominable?

Proverbs 21:27 The sacrifice of the wicked is abomination: how much more, when he bringeth it with a wicked mind?

Still abominable.

Proverbs 28:9 He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer shall be abomination.

Still abominable.

There are others - consider these verses:

Revelation 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

Revelation 21:27 And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.

These verses describe types of sins that we are to put away/repent of when we come to the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation. How do we know what is abominable - unless the Bible clearly tells us. Considering that the word "abomination" is only used a few times in the NT, that means we must also look to the OT to see what offends God and what is an abomination to Him - and that ALSO means those things are still an abomination to Him.

Originally Posted by Biblestudent

My ONLY frustration was, I can never find "pants" in the Bible. Upon close study, "breeches" rather seem to be a priestly undergarment. The most important thing to notice is that where Deut. 22:5 was mentioned, the male's garment was a SKIRT.
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.
Deuteronomy 22:30 A man shall not take his father's wife, nor discover his father's skirt.

1) It is merely opinion or conjecture that breeches mean underwear - based on the description in the Bible and in Strong's, I fully believe these are referring to pants. Webster's 1828 Dictionary - which was written 200 years ago (therefore a lot closer in time to the KJV) indicates that breeches are pants.

2) Look up the definition of the word skirt as used in the Bible, including here. It means the end of a garment - it is not referring to a skirt, like women wear today. The OT talks about the skirt of Saul's robe, and the skirt of someone's coat - that certainly indicates it is using the word as an adjective, not as an article of apparel.

In other words, the passage above is indicating not to expose or be immoral with your father's wife. Webster's 1828 Dictionary says this on "skirt": To spread the skirt over, in Scripture, to take under one's care and protection.

The "skirt" is referring to his wife - someone who is directly under his care and protection - and is not saying he wore a skirt:

Deuteronomy 27:20 Cursed be he that lieth with his father's wife; because he uncovereth his father's skirt. And all the people shall say, Amen.

[Biblestudent]

Here are more of my personal thoughts on the matter:

I believe the OT was written for our learning, for our admonition, and for our ensamples/examples. The difference between "abomination to God" and "abomination to you" (Israel) is very important.

While I believe Deut. 22:5 basically is against man wearing the woman's garment, or the woman wearing the man's garment, I don't have to go there to teach the NT Christian. Even if I go there, there are no "pants" in Deut 22:5 and that "skirt" pertaineth to the man at that time (Deut. 22:30).

Violating the rule in Deut 22:5 was an "abomination to the Lord thy God", and in the light of Romans 1, the principle (example) is still true. On the issue of dress, I point my church members to 1 Timothy 2 rather than to Deut 22:5. I observed that there is more to dress in 1 Timothy 2 than Deuteronomy 22.

1 Timothy 2:8 I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.
9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

The following words are all related to women clothing, and more, Christian behavior:
1. "holy" (v.8)..."in like manner also" - holy clothing, not unholy clothing with unholy slogans, unholy advetisements, unholy patterns, or unholy cuts (clothing should promote holiness, not unholy or unwholesome thoughts)
2. "modest apparel" (v.9) - I remember looking at one webster's pocket dictionary i had, and "modest" means "shy and humble".
"shy" - that means not "bold" clothing (just like those "bold" stars, who were "bold" enough to show more and more skin and wear less and less clothing)
"humble" - Overdressing or underdressing to "show off" is never right for a Christian woman; pride of life (1 John 2:16), as well as lust of the flesh and lust of the eyes, is the reason behind these fashion shows, beauty contests, and "modeling".
3. "shamefacedness" (v.9) - it goes with "modest", and I believe that women clothe themselves with a "sense of shame"
4. "sobriety" (v.9) - as some young people say, "She's wild" - that's not sobriety; a person may be fully clothed, but looks "wild"; there are "wild" clothing around; Christians should dress "sober".
5. "not...costly" (v.9) - well, that is also what is meant by "modest"; that goes with 1 Tim. 6, "Godliness with contentment"; I don't think it's immodest, even if you're fully clothed, but it's a "costly array".
6. "that which becometh women" (v.10) - I don't have to go to Deut 22:5 to teach that women should wear "that which becometh women", not that which "pertaineth to a man". Some points in the OT law are changed in the NT (ex. Sabbath, pork eating, etc.); some points are retained such as here. So we get our authority on this matter from the NT (especially from Paul, THE apostle of the Gentiles) rather than selected portions of the OT. The OT, however, supplies us with a lot of "ensamples" that amplifies our "learning" for our "admonition".
7. "professing godliness" - clothing should profess godliness and not worldliness or "worldly lusts" (Tit. 2:12); it's unfortunate that some women wear "modest" clothing but profess "pride" rather than "godliness". Some dress may be long enough, but looks like professing that which is not "soberly, righteously, and godly".
8. "with good works" - this is the MOST important clothing. What's inside, goes out. Wearing modest clothing means nothing without "good works" clothing.
9. "silence" (v.11) - this should reflect in clothing, and this is again "modest"
10. "subjection" (v.11) - I believe that most women who follow certain standards of dress have exercised this, while those who disregard all principles of modesty lacks this. Rebellion is the root of problems with clothing on women. Women who "learn subjection" have no problems what is allowed or forbidden of them to wear.
(On this point, I lack the historical facts on women clothing. If anyone can provide me some information, I would appreciate.)

Sometimes, I make statements like this: "Clothing is for the sight of men (people); the heart is for the sight of God." Some argue that God looks on the "heart" and not on "outward appearance"; while others argue that external dress is important to the Lord ("dressing for the Lord"). My answer is, in the sight of God, all things are "naked". I think bodily clothing was made to cover man's shame from the sight of human beings; spiritual clothing (Christ's righteousness) clothes us from spiritual nakedness in the sight of God. Outward dress is a testimony to man; HEART MOTIVES are a testimony to God. So what a person wears outside reflects what's inside; being a blessing and a good example to people is the external reflection of the internal motive to honor God. The rule of thumb on what to wear is adapted from 1 Sam. 16:7: God looks on the HEART, but man looks at the OUTWARD APPEARANCE.

Finally, I believe it's best to ground the church on BIBLICAL PRINCIPLES over man-made rules or standards. The general guidelines above guides me in setting rules and standards for my church; but I find it best to teach them the principle behind every "man-made" rule that I make. If I require a certain dress code for women in church, they find no problem with it. I just see to it that the "weightier matters of the law" prevail over "traditions of men" or my personal convictions. The most important thing is that my church members understand why we chose to follow a certain standard.

[Biblestudent]

Originally Posted by jerry

1) It is merely opinion or conjecture that breeches mean underwear - based on the description in the Bible and in Strong's, I fully believe these are referring to pants. Webster's 1828 Dictionary - which was written 200 years ago (therefore a lot closer in time to the KJV) indicates that breeches are pants.

2) Look up the definition of the word skirt as used in the Bible, including here. It means the end of a garment - it is not referring to a skirt, like women wear today. The OT talks about the skirt of Saul's robe, and the skirt of someone's coat - that certainly indicates it is using the word as an adjective, not as an article of apparel.

In other words, the passage above is indicating not to expose or be immoral with your father's wife. Webster's 1828 Dictionary says this on "skirt": To spread the skirt over, in Scripture, to take under one's care and protection.

The "skirt" is referring to his wife - someone who is directly under his care and protection - and is not saying he wore a skirt:

Deuteronomy 27:20 Cursed be he that lieth with his father's wife; because he uncovereth his father's skirt. And all the people shall say, Amen.

To others, this is also merely an opinion. We can run all the references on "skirt" in the Bible and see what the Bible says. It's important that we observe the difference between what the Bible means and what the Bible exactly says. Here are some problems we have to deal with:
1. The Bible says no "pants" and says "skirts".
2. If "skirt" in the OT does not mean the "skirt" of 1828, then "breeches" in the OT is not the "breeches" of 1828.

Context - in the OT, the references to skirt are not to a garment, but to the edge of a garment - even Webster's gives that as one of his definitions - and the context of the OT shows that no man was wearing a skirt (as we see today). If I skirt around a lake (ie. go around the edge of it), am I wearing a skirt? Of course not. If I refer to the edge (skirt) of my jacket, am I wearing a skirt? No. If I say, don't uncover the skirt (edge) of my bed, does that mean I am sleeping in a skirt? No. I showed a parallel passage that shows the skirt in Deuteronomy 22 is referring to his wife, not himself - not uncovering her nakedness (whereas if he was literally wearing a skirt, it would be his nakedness the passage would be concerned with).

[Biblestudent]

That's a good point. "Skirts of his garment" - end of the garment. Thanks for that! (Sincerely)

But still, "skirt" is worn by BOTH male and female. There are men's "skirt" and women's "skirt" in the Bible.
Male
Psalms 133:2 It is like the precious ointment upon the head, that ran down upon the beard, even Aaron's beard: that went down to the skirts of his garments;
Female
Lamentations 1:9 Her filthiness is in her skirts; she remembereth not her last end; therefore she came down wonderfully: she had no comforter. O LORD, behold my affliction: for the enemy hath magnified himself.

The following questions come to mind:
1. If "skirt" means end of the garment, do these passages mean men's "end of the garment" and women's "end of the garment"?
2. Since "father's skirt" (in Deut) refers to "wife" and he wore no skirt, does it mean then that since "her skirts" in Lam. 1:9 refers to a nation (and a country wears no "skirt"), therefore, no woman wears any skirt?