Skirts, Pants, and Deuteronomy 22:5

[Barleymower]

Despite a religous upbringing, i do not consider myself a believer.
Zeitgeist or Spirit of the Times has an interesting perspective on the origins of the bible and the life of Jesus

https://youtu.be/FN0pd_8yTLU?feature=shared

Of all the nonsense floating around the web it is well thought out analysis of Cristianity and other faiths. Must see.

[mr seamstress]

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 don't believe what is publish isn't accurate translation. Consider the fact that God, Jehovah made man and woman same garment, not different. And the translation that is offered deals with physical clothing only. Then there is this is offered as part of answer is that people should wear clothes that is intended for their sex. Question is who get claim they know this answer. This person here seems to incinerate there were differences between man and woman robes during biblical times.
How can this person offer answer implicates man shouldn't wear dresses or skirts, because it isn't intended for them to wear such clothing because it is crossdressing. Does this person mean that Jehovah said men couldn't wear dresses and skirts. I couldn't find a scripter implicates man cannot wear dresses and skirts. This person suppling the answer seems indicate there is such a scripter.
If the manufacturer indicate the garment is unisex how can a person be seen as crossdressing? Who has the right to indicate which garment can be wore by which sex? The way the person answer the question here imply that male cannot cross-dress as long sales agent, manufacture. designer and others indicate they can wear their clothing. The person in suppling the answer open an Pandora Box stating one must wear clothing that is indicate for them.

This person imply that other version of the Bible didn't use the warrior the man, meaning their translation has to be correct. the problem here is you can 12 people on jury find a person guilty of a crime and all 12 can be wrong. Further the person here said he isn't an expert in this translation he supplied.

[crfriend]

Ladies and Gentlemen, we're wasting our breath, ink, and electrons on this. It's a matter of faith which means that it is outside the realm of reason, and thus cannot be cogently debated. I'm getting set to lock the thread unless we can move beyond the gridlock.

So few words written in another language many, many centuries ago that are used by ideologues and reactionaries to make others miserable. Not a willing scenario.