What about shorts?

Ransom you said

"You are mistaken. Yes, the loin is the small of the back; however, loins refers to the pubic region - the reproductive organs. (Yes, that little change in spelling is a significant difference in anatomy.) Hence, "fruit of my loins."

You better check your Hebrew. The passage in Ex.28:42 uses the Hebrew word "mothen" and it means waist or small of the back not reproductive organs.

In Gen. 46:26 the Hebrew word is "yawrake" and it does refer to reproductive organs.

You still have not shown scriptural proof, so far you have just given "your interpretation."

 

Gen 3:7 "And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons ."

Adam and Eve realized they were naked so they made fig leaves to cover themselves. They made aprons. It is the Greek word chagowr which means "a belt for the waist."

Later, when God came to the Garden, Adam and Eve hid themselves. They still had the fig leaf aprons on. Their reproductive organs were covered but they still considered themselves "naked."
Gen 3:10 "And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked ; and I hid myself."

God then had to take care of their nakedness so he made them coats to wear.
Gen 3:21 "Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them ."

Why do you have to "clothe" someone? Because they are "unclothed" or "naked." God made them "coats" k@thoneth "to cover with a garment or a robe."

It is interesting that the same areas are covered on both the man and the woman. God's idea of "clothed" is covering the area of the body between the neck and the knee.

Isa 47:2 "Take the millstones, and grind meal: uncover thy locks, make bare the leg, uncover the thigh , pass over the rivers.
3 Thy nakedness shall be uncovered, yea, thy shame shall be seen : I will take vengeance, and I will not meet thee as a man."

These verses are describing uncovering parts of the body that would bring shame and degradation. "Thy locks" is referring to the veil covering the face. Very improper for a virgin daughter to uncover her face. Making bare the leg and uncovering the thigh is also equated with nakedness and shame.

Bible Student to Ransom:

I agree. There is no scriptural support for linking "nakedness" with merely exposing "private parts."

 

I might be the only Baptist minister who wears waterwings in the baptistry. I am a non-swimmer.....prolly wish that baptists sprinkled....

Coming from England, I grew up wearing short trousers. We even went to chapel services wearing short trousers, knee high socks, shirt, tie, waist-coat and jacket. Senior years brought on the long trousers. I wear short trousers as much as possible.....despite my knobby knees.

We often speak of the so-called Victorian days and dressing properly. Indeed, they only went about wearing tight trousers leaving little to the imagination and the ladies with their bosoms busting out all over. Come to think of it, it is much the same on the streets to-day.

Then, in Ontario, Canada, it is quite legal for a woman or man to go topless in the streets, but I think nude beaches are illegal. What a chimera is man. What a contradiction. (Pascal)

Cheers, and bottoms up! Ooops! Can't believe I said that.

Jim

 

I think it would be wise for everyone to get out of the United states for a while and get a grip.

I wear shorts. I am very modest. I know that I need to be careful. But I do love Jesus and still wear shorts.

 

Shorts to the knees are probably fine for men considering that was the average length of a robe/toga, but then we get back to the woman and they would have to be mighty baggy, which most women wear skin tight shorts from mid thigh and shorter. Katastoleswere to the ankle. It is easier to forbid something entirely than to be constantly called upon when something has crossed the line. Slits about the knee were forbidden at my college so one little gal tacked her slit at the knee thus having a slit and a hole and the manual said nothing about holes. Scribes and lawyers always look for loopholes and so do rebellious and carnal hearts. I have gals from India in our church and they have a good compromise. They wear slacks (I assume something like slacks) and then wear a dress like thing over that to cover the cracks and crevices. They look very very elegant and the clothing is cheerful and decorated.

 

And to think, a woman once asked me if it was ok if she came to church on Sunday (meaning the next day) without a hat?

Cheers,

Jim

 

Bible Student said:

You better check your Hebrew. The passage in Ex.28:42 uses the Hebrew word "mothen" and it means waist or small of the back not reproductive organs.

As a matter of fact I did check my Hebrew.

Not exactly helpful when the Hebrew word translated "loins" is simply defined as "loins." (I also notice it says nothing about the small of the back.) Evidently Strong believed the definition of the term ought to be self-evident. So I consulted the dictionary:

Seems pretty self-evident to me.

 

Actually, I have been in other countires and the ladies usually were far more modest than some of our gals unless they were prostitutes. But,if they were naked should I get a grip and endorse that here? [ Sensitive material deleted ] In Japanese culture, if folks go to a conference, the accomodations may be like military barracks and have 24 beds for 12 couples and they have no qulams about changing clothes in front of each other. Maybe we should do that as well. In some African cultures a well dressed married woman wears only a straw fan that does not completely cover her fanny while single gals are just naked. In one Pacific culture, visiting folks are greeted by being groped. Should we replace our handshake with this? What other cultures do or do not do have nothing to do with the Scripture.

[ Sensitive material deleted ] IF God was only concerned about privates then let the men and women go topless. Harassment and rape may increase, but we are under grace and the lads are presenting a biblical argument for toplessness. [ Inappropriate humor deleted ]

The further we get away from Eden the worse we become and since our culture has a fetish about almost every part of the body, we would do well to modestly cover most of it, especially a woman since a man is turned on by sight. The more you show the more the imagination wants to see the rest of you. You can argue all you want, but reality is that this is a sex crazed country (world) and ladies need to show less not more of themselves. Your body is your treasure and you need to hide it not flaunt it. That treasure is to be seen by you, God, your husband and sometimes Doctors, but you cheapen it when you display it to everyone.

You can argue for almost anything you want to do, but what is the profitable thing to do? If toplessness is legal Scripturally, is it profitable? Hardly. Is it better to err on the side of being overly modest or get as close to nakedness as possible? In the old days, we tried to stay as far away from sin as possible and now we want to push the envelope. Maybe that is why we are getting licked by the world and the devil.

Whenever people backslide or just jump into sin they start getting naked. Is it not odd, that in the desert regions, they were several layers of clothing and we want to strip as soon as Spring hits and push it into Fall? I have seen gals in shorts and halter tops when they have goose bumps all over them, but they don't want to give up showing their body until the last minute.

Mom is still right. "If you ain't selling it or giving it away, take down the sign."

[ October 07, 2002, 03:40 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Bob 63 ]

 

Just to make a quick point, felluz, please refrain from using descript language about the female anatomy. Unless there are kids in the fundy forum, we all know about or at least have some idea about the other sex's body. The females here do not have to blush over such comments and the guys do not need to have another sexual idea come to their head.

Be discreet in references to the body parts of the sexes.

Like any more of this stuff, I am out.

 

Maverick, since alot of this is going to be argument from reasoning (since the Scripture commands modesty but is not totally descriptive), I disagree with your reasoning.

In some cultures and societies throughout time, women would reveal different parts if not all of themselves and it was considered okay. That is obviously wrong. The answer then is to wear long black (or dark gray) robes and hope to not smother women? Perhaps that is extreme. They should where dresses only for every event and like it (of course it must have long sleeves and not be above the ankle).

The excuse about men lusting over what they see isn't really valid. If someone wants to lust, they will regardless of clothing. If a guy lusts on a woman who has loose-fitting jeans on, then the guy will lust on someone regardless.

The command is to be modest in what you wear. If a woman wears jeans, she needs to wear them in a modest manner. My wife has jeans and I have no problem about it. She does not try to draw attention to her.

As far as shorts go, I think it is the same as anything else. Alot of young girls 9-13 wear shorts that look like swimsuits. That kind of thing is intentionally drawing attention to them in certain places. If a woman cannot wear shorts in a modest manner, she shouldn't wear shorts.

 

First of all, I have been censored for spit and Bubba and I think you lads went overboard here as well. You are the moderators, you're right to do so, but PTW it is not an open forum. An open forum would have allowed my comments. Nothing I said could not be found in the local library under history or culture and might even be covered in some missionary manuals. This is exactly the kind of thing the Liberals jump on us about and there is some validity to their arguments. There was nothing erotic or sensitive, the things described were considered normal and moral public activities and spoke to the point I was trying to make. They became erotic or sensitive to you because of your perceptions. I hope you don't read the Song of Solomon or you might get upset. I hope you have given your kids a Bible with that Book removed. [self-edited something I REALLY wanted to say]

The humor fit the situation and expressed the end result of the suggestion of some of the respondents.

As to the ladies, when I mentioned your responses to my wife, she was surprised at you, not perplexed with me. Men, if you knew what even Christian women discuss you would not be so quick to be that gallant. They are mature in an responsible adult way, maybe men are not that way. God made the parts and if I had used street language or truly described some sort of sexual behavior I could understand your point.

Everyone knows a bank has money and someone might want to steal it, but if you put two million dollars in the front window that was not bulletproof or alarmed the amount of people wanting to steal it may rise and the incidents of theft will also increase. The fault still lies, as much or more than the folks who stole it, in the bank president who failed to secure the funds.

If a lady covers her treasure and someone still desires it, he at least sees that there are walls up and that it is guarded and she values it. If she reveals it leaving little to the imagine she cheapens her treasure and may cause a lad that would not have such thoughts around a woman properly dressed to engage in such thoughts because she revealed more than she should have. She is as guilty as the man who had the thoughts because she played the temptress whether she knew or cared.

I may go back to the Liberal boards and fight them. More fun and less censorship. At least I will not engage in any more discussions about attire. Your minds are made up so why should I waste my time?

 

Mav don't be upset, my brethren have I feel wisely pointed out that your post was sufficient without the descriptive language you used. You are an intelligent person so keep posting just leave out some of the flash and sizzle, it really isn't necessary.
Peace brother,
Murph