Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | Deuteronomy 22:5 ¶ "A woman shall not wear man's clothing, nor shall a man put on a woman's clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God. |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | Deuteronomy 22:5 ¶ "A woman shall not wear a man's clothing, nor shall a man put on a woman's clothing; for whoever does these things is utterly repulsive to the LORD your God. |
Subject: Woman in pants |
Bible Note: Kcabm14, I hardly know where to begin, though I'm certain where to end. First let me point out the root of your error in this specific instance. You first are reading into the scripture. Deuteronomy 22:5 says specifically this, "A woman shall not wear man's clothing, nor shall a man put on a woman's clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God." Now, that is exactly what it says. Where in that do you see pants mentioned? Nowhere. Nor does it go on to clarify what those clothing articles might be. It leaves it completely blank. All we know with certainty is that a woman's clothing is off limits for a man, and a man's clothing is off limits for a woman. Nowhere does it identify any single article as specific to either a man or woman such as pants. So where shall we determine that from? It is specific to the culture to where the gospel travels. In this case the norm for society (within reason) determines what clothing is gender specific. You are bringing the presuposition that pants are male only. This presuposition is wrong even though it may have been true a century ago. Why does a Christian not have an obligation to cling to the standards of a century ago? Because it is purely incidental to morality. Nudity and lust are not incidental, but things such as pants, the color pink, are incidental. To go from this to the accusation that the church should let society establish its morality is absolutely rediculous and to suggest that I am making that suggestion from this arguement shows a shameful lack in reluctance to judge another man's servant. I'm not angry in the least at your suggesting this, my sterness in writing this is that I see in you this passage: "remain on at Ephesus so that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines, nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith. But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. For some men, straying from these things, have turned aside to fruitless discussion, wanting to be teachers of the Law, even though they do not understand either what they are saying or the matters about which they make confident assertions." 1 Tim 1:3-7 I hold no animosity towards you, I have no anger or frustration towards you, but you really need to turn from such speculative, unedifying issues. In Love, Beja |