skirtcafe.org

I grew up with this verse being used to try and stop women wearing trousers in church... That battles was well and truly lost, so to then turn round and use this verse against MIS while accepting trousered women is just so crazy wrong.

My comment on the matter is precisely this, and it's posted as an individual contributor, not as an official voice:

1) Deuteronomy is obsolete doctrine as it's part of the Old Testament,
2) It applies only to that subset of Christians who adhere to the Old Testament,
3) It DOES NOT apply to non-Christians, so stop parroting it; it's pointless,
4) The King James version of the Bible contains botched translations, and
5) Society has moved on, so "get with the program" unless you like living in the year 5.

There it is in a nutshell. Give. It. Up. Your target audience is vastly smaller than you may think.

CR, thank you for this post. Can you make it a sticky so it never goes away? Some of us are tired of Dueteronmy being rehashed several times per year as if it has any credibility.

Jamie

Just my two cents worth... I am a Bible believing, born again (I honestly believe so) Christian, and I wear skirts and dresses almost all the time... and I am around other Christians almost all the time.... very rarely (almost never actually) have I had that verse brought up. The one person who did bring it up to me believed that Allah and Jehovah are the same God....go figure....

Hmm. Why not? Not sure who Jehovah is (although he seems to have a lot of witnesses - was he in a car crash?) but blending various hypothetical individuals into one is no more daft than saying that the Tempranillo (Spanish) grape is the same as Aragones (Portuguese). Different name, same end result.

Mugs-n-such wrote: ↑Mon Apr 21, 2025 8:49 am Just my two cents worth... I am a Bible believing, born again (I honestly believe so) Christian, and I wear skirts and dresses almost all the time... and I am around other Christians almost all the time.... very rarely (almost never actually) have I had that verse brought up. The one person who did bring it up to me believed that Allah and Jehovah are the same God....go figure....

NOBODY has ever brought up thar verse to me. With well over half the women wearing trousers and the priest and other ministers in my church wearing robes, getting after a man (myself) for wearing a dress is a bit ridiculous.

John

Oh please, spare us!
Lock this down and throw the key into the deepest pits of Mount Doom.
To the ones who are treated with respect by those whom they share their faith, congratulations, you're fortunate.
The God fearing Christians that have made my life a misery couldn't quote that verse either.
However, they actually "KNOW" that what I do is a sin, abominable in the the sight of God, Jesus and all the saints too.
I have no wish to rationalise this or discuss it further and certainly not to hear how misguided these people were and still are.
Forgiveness is not an option either.
Steve.

Steve, there are those of us here who take our faith and the Bible seriously. If this verse worries anyone who comes here, I would like to take their concern seriously and address it.

If one is a Torah-following Jewish person, then the details of interpretation need to be examined. Anyone who makes your life miserable over this, if they don't follow the 613 laws in the Torah, is a hypocrite or ignorant on the subject. Lightly dismiss the criticism as one would an internet troll.

Jim wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 10:12 am If one is a Torah-following Jewish person, then the details of interpretation need to be examined. Anyone who makes your life miserable over this, if they don't follow the 613 laws in the Torah, is a hypocrite or ignorant on the subject. Lightly dismiss the criticism as one would an internet troll.

One of my clients is a very high Jewish family with the black hats, side curls(Payos), etc. The head of the family, in discussion about my style, he said that interesting people like me, gave space in the world for people like him to be different in public. I thought that was a very interesting take on me.

Never having heard this bit before, I have been googling different versions and this one popped up:

What is the Hebrew translation of Deuteronomy 22 5?

Going back to the Hebrew, the literal translation of Deuteronomy 22:5 is:

“Never cause or force a warriors weapon to be used by a woman or weak person; neither dress warriors armor on a woman or weak person for to Yahweh, God of Host, disgusting is such that do so.”


Not quite the same as KJV.

Susie wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 4:58 pmNot quite the same as KJV.

Profoundly different, in fact. Changes the entire meaning.

Skirt18220 wrote: ↑Sun Apr 21, 2024 6:28 pm when that was written men wearing pants would have been rare or nonexistent. in my opinion it does not apply to men in skirts in anyway.

In the context of antiquity, I believe that both men and women wore skirted rigs. The implication being that the rules applied to different skirted rigs that were designated as mens wear or womens wear.

crfriend wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 5:37 pm

Susie wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 4:58 pmNot quite the same as KJV.

Profoundly different, in fact. Changes the entire meaning.

That is entirely different. I'll need to dig into this more. I had previously read it might have implicit or explicit references to armor or stuffs of war in the original, but that translation is even more drastically different. It entirely focuses on what women are wearing. Unfortunately​, I can't read Hebrew...

Could you please pass along a reference? Anything you have to get me started would be helpful.

And... Just like that, I found a discussion of this very "translation." Hate to break it to you all, but the consensus here is that what was quoted above is just plain wrong.

https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/ ... t-accurate

I will let their breakdown of the Hebrew speak for itself, since I don't understand any Hebrew. But chances are this new version is grasping at straws trying to make the Bible say something, anything other than what it does.

I'm afraid the academic musings over this or that translation change absolutely nothing, zilch and diddly squat!
What we have is a book written by humans for humans, an awfully long time ago.
That is unless, a living person believes that the authors were relaying the word of a "God".
Well, that choice is yours and so are the troubles that go with it.
Mine is simple, I will find out when I get there, meantime, which dress will it be today, I wonder?
Sadly, we are not getting any closure on this, I know when I am beaten, have fun with it.
Steve.