women wear skirts at all times?

I live in a windy area just like you do. And I wear only dresses. I wear them long so that the wind has no bearing on that. And I notice that certain cuts of dresses will blow more than others.

 

You put words in my mouth, I did not say it should be translated soldier, I said the meaning of the word in hebrew is warrior.

i apologize, i had no intention of putting words in your mouth.

would these be more accurate translations?

Job 3:3 Let the day perish wherein I was born and the night [in which] it was said, There is a "warrior" conceived .

Job 34:34 Let men of understanding tell me, and let a wise "warrior" hearken unto me.

Job 4:17 Shall mortal man be more just than God? shall a "warrior" be more pure than his maker ?

i think warrior is a possible translation of gever. my online strong's has:

1397. geber, gheh´-ber; from 1396; properly, a valiant man or warrior; generally, a person simply: every one, man, x mighty.

so "man" is a possible translation as well. based on my study of where the term gever appears in the old testament it seems to most often signify a male that has reached maturity, and therefore is capable of serving in the army.

in the verses above, i think something other than "warrior" is the best translation either because it avoids the ludicrous (first verse) or fits the parallel structure better (the other verses).

btw, the king james version, which i trust 100%, never translates the term as warrior, but only in the following ways:

man 64 times, mighty 2 times, man child 1 time, every one 1 time

[ March 24, 2003, 10:28 PM: Message edited by: timothy 1969 ]

 

Pastor Bob said it better than I ever could, so I won't add anything to what he has said. Thanks, Pastor Bob.

Julia

 

Well I really enjoyed your post, thank you.

 

Was talking to a friend on the phone this morning about this thread. Something she mentioned was how many women in years past were burned to death because they were in long dresses.

I was burning yard stuff a couple of days ago (or was it yesterday?...I'm getting old!), and I was thinking about this thread then, too, and watching the fire. At one point, pushing a large plywood piece more into the center of the fire, I stumbled and ended up on my tush. If I had had a dress on, I would have been badly burned.

Why isn't my husband doing this 'man's work'? He is in Australia taking care of his autistic sister for a month, reassuring her after a move from one house to another, and getting finances over there taken care of as well as arranging permanent care for his sister for the next two or three years.

Something only he can do.

But I can keep the home fires burning, if you will excuse the expression! Safely and modestly in pants most of the time when working around here.

 

Pastor Bob said it better than I ever could, so I won't add anything to what he has said. Thanks, Pastor Bob.

Julia </font>[/QUOTE]Just what I thought, ask you a direct question and get no answer. As a matter of fact he hasn't answered this.

 

It's the word of God, if you don't like it tell Him, not me.

no, it's your opinion on how this particular word should be translated in this particular verse. do you see the difference? do you think everywhere gever appears in the old testament warrior is the best translation?

I don't really care if men did not translate a word to reveal the hebrew meaning.

strong's disagrees with you, listing "man" as a possible translation.

Why if this word man means the same as everyother word man in the bible is it a different word, then it must have a differetn meaning then the other versions of man in the bible.

imo, it connotes strength, but basically means "man". just like how in english we have beefcake, bloke, bub, buster, chap, dude, fellow, gent, guy, hunk, etc. which all basically mean "man" but with different connotations.

[ March 25, 2003, 11:25 AM: Message edited by: timothy 1969 ]

 

Please do not imply I am lying either, I expect better from a mod. Anyone who has been a part of this discussion everytime it has come up will kow that what I am saying is true. And we do discuss this every 3 to 6 momths since I've been here 2 1/2 years. Fact is when Julis uses the not wearing what pretains to a man, and then backs it up with breeches(as I've seen her do many times)to say women should not wear pants, when scripture does not bear it out, then thats a misuse of scripture.

No, I'm sorry, it's been used many times like that, prpehaps before you were here, or on threads you did not take part in. Apparently Julia believes it does.

No noone has said that, but what I have been told is that I am unfaithful and backslidden and disobedient to otheres opinion of scripture.


I wouldn't bother with this topic everytime it comes up if it were for the fact seekers are being told they are disobedient to God if they wear pants,and a list of other not nice things.

As I keep having to say, that I have never said anyone was wrong for wanting to wear only dress, but that teaching the bible says it is wrong, becasue it doesn't. But I am continuelly told I am wrong for not believeing what other people say.
A little curtesy in return wouldn't be a bad thing.

 

I refuse to allow this to go any further down the path to anger that these topics have traveled before. Please make certain of my intent to keep this and the other threads concerning clothing clean. Whatever happened before has no bearing here, please don't let old problems surface. Play nice or don't play at all.

Murph

 

Sorry, off topic, but this had me laughing so hard. I needed that laugh, thanks for that, Timothy1969.

 

Could you please show me where myself or anyone else has implied that you are lying? The fact that we disagree on this issue is no justification for you to imply that I have abused my Moderator status.

It appears as though you are taking each and every post as a direct insult to you personally. Once again I say, this thread is not about Kate; this thread is about biblical principles dealing with the dress issue. Each and every member is free to take or leave any information offered in this thread.

I echo Murph's statement, I don't care what took place in threads months ago; I am concerned with this thread right now.

 

Could you please show me where myself or anyone else has implied that you are lying? The fact that we disagree on this issue is no justification for you to imply that I have abused my Moderator status.

It appears as though you are taking each and every post as a direct insult to you personally. Once again I say, this thread is not about Kate; this thread is about biblical principles dealing with the dress issue. Each and every member is free to take or leave any information offered in this thread.

I echo Murph's statement, I don't care what took place in threads months ago; I am concerned with this thread right now. </font>[/QUOTE]If you would read the quote before the statement you'd see it.
The same arguments are being made now as any other time this subject has come up, by the same people. Telling me I am in sin if I wear pants. I am disobedient if I wear pants. When someone says a christian woman is disobedient if she wears pants, thats they are talking about me, when they say christian women shoudl wear only dresses or they are sinning then they are saying me.
Since the issue of pants/dresses is a perosnal opinion I expect for someoen to do as they please and leave me to do as I see fit by the word of God. And I do nt see anywhere dresses are amnditory.

All I can do is use scripture(others are using other sources not scripture) and if people don't like scripture I can't help them out. I have used scripture to refute the whole dress argument, and all I see in return is other sources. Scripture is the bottom line. Theres no loose and flowing in the bible.
If people want to wear what biblical people wore then by all means do it, but do it right. Where what they did, robes, on men and women, just like Jesus did. Then you'll be biblical.

Oh, and my offer still stands, if you think I am wearing men's clothes when I wear pants, then I'll be more then happy to send you a pair and you wear them around and see if you and otheres who see you think they are men's clothing. A good way to back up what you say you believe. Otherwise I can't believe what you say, since you aren't doing it.

 

Since the idea that only priests wore undergarments or anything like pants surfaced in this thread, some my find my post here

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=48;t=000294#000007

relevant.

 

I think I posted those scripture, if not i can. I looked up everytime the bible mentioned breeches and it always tells the priets to wear them when making scripfice and doing their priestly duties in ministering in the tabernacle(temple later on I supose).
All I have to follow is scripture, and thats what it says. Scripture is the bottom line isn't it. Or is there more?

 

Both sides, for the most part, have presented their understanding of what the Bible says on this issue. Some have learned from the information offered in this thread; others have taken it as a personal attack. The objective was not to attack but to inform.

Some have begun to make unfounded accusations that are completely unnecessary and refer to statements that have never been made in this thread.

As a result, I feel it is time to close this thread. I feel the spirit of this thread beginning to change into something that we do not need.

Whatever you have decided the Bible teaches about this issue, remember, what you wear does not make you a better person or a better Christian than anyone else. Only the grace of God and the righteousness of the Lord Jesus Christ can make us acceptable to God.