ANSWERS: 7
  • It means that man should not take the "role" of woman in sex and vice versa.
  • Clothing has developed as time went on. The account of out first parents in the Garden of Eden, tells us there was no concern for attiring. Once they partook of the fruit that opened their eyes to understand the difference between good and evil, the devil brought to their attention the matter of their nakedness and they should cover themselves. When they were next visited by God and they were ashamed and covered their bareness with foliage, Adam and Eve confessed their activities of disobedience and had to leave the garden and live in areas where the elements of the earth were more harsh and clothing became necessary for protection. There was little concern as to what a person wore, until the time civilization became large enough that people started making a fuss as to how they liked to wear certain items and not others. Then clothing and other distinguishing differences began identifing households and then communities. As to when the difference between men's and women's clothing became part of the scenario can only be speculated. I would imagine the first time a guy or gal wanted to bring attention to their identity, they wore something exclusive that became unique to them. Whether it was certain jewelry, an emblem of honor or accomplishment, a type or style of materials used to make their clothing, and/or etc., people wanted to portray their individuality. As generations came and went, society decided it was important to classify and standardize what people could wear and take away a person's right to choose their own attire. The dividing factor became ones equipment in the progenitive process. Little thought was given to the different personalities that had attributes that crossed this divide. In initiating this social standard, these differences were swept under the rug, so to speak, and ignored or ridiculed as deviate behavior. Now we have groups of people that have come to know the inaccuracy of these standards and are trying to live more correctly the perceived truth where individuals have the right to choose for themselves what they will become according to who they are. If this means women wearing pants and men wearing high heels, then it is their decision to make. When the scriptures don't ring true for what people are experiencing in real life, I wonder if they have been understood or translated correctly. Too many people hang on what the bible says in some things, but hate their neighbor for not living up to their understanding of the written passages. I just can't believe God promotes the doctrines of hate, instead of love, compassion, mercy, and charity. It's God's place to chastize or discipline. It's our place to forgive and be of service to all God's children, for they could be our redemption or our condemnation.
  • Thanks, Grandma Roses. Deuteronomy 22:5 says,"The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth to a man...." jefflovstrom, I suspect it was much more literal, and that it was a prohibition against cross-dressing (transvestitism); God was fanatic against sexual deviants, including interracial marriages. However, several scholars have suggested that it may refer to a common Pagan practice. Most Pagan women wore a small wooden or metal replica around their necks of a male phallos and testicles. It was an amulet, supposed to help them get pregnant. I've seen similar amulets worn in the 20th century by Greek, Italian, and East European women, for the same reason. . I'm doubtful about that interpretation, though, since the second half of the quoted verse says, "...neither shall a man put on a woman's garment...." I'd have to go with cross-dressing as the abomination. . It's difficult for us to know what the gender-specific styles of dress were 3,000 years ago. I was very young at the time and my memory is not what it used to be. But I'd bet a day's pay that you could have told a woman from a man by looking at their clothing.
  • I looked in the Macarthur Study Bible and here's a quick summary. It's pretty much anything that associates or pertains to feminine clothing, a man shall not wear, and vice versa. Other times in the Bible where the word abomination was used is in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. Both times it's about homosexuality. So it's probably referencing to homosexuality here, too.
  • Matching thongs and bras
  • My guess? = I betcha it has something to do with headdresses, signifying all sorts of social identifications, standings, etc. ;-)
  • "Christians" for some reason do not know they are no longer under such laws in fact they never were. Many of the OT laws pertained to the Hebrews (Jews) only. However non-Christians are still under those laws. Jesus Christ upon his resurrection abolished the "Old Law" (Rom. 10:4) and are under the Law of Love (Matt. 22:36-40)

Copyright 2018, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy