It is NOT a sin for any woman to wear a pair of pants. What a crazy belief.

[Top]

I can't believe this thread still lives.....it's a dumb thread...and a 'moot point' to most of the 'church world'.  ;D

Yeah so dumb that you post on it.  ::
"31 Days of wearing jeans:  Day 1"

This isn't the first dumb thread Ive posted on.
In fact, it's not the first dumb Top thread I've posted on...and probably not the last.

Therefore, thou art the dumbest of them all.


Carry on.

Not as long as you're here.

No, you are.  :

 

[T-Bone]

One of those pictures make me wish I had a sharp stick to poke my eye out with...can you guess which one? ;D

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

I can't believe this thread still lives.....it's a dumb thread...and a 'moot point' to most of the 'church world'.  ;D

Well it was Top, not some IFBxer like Frag who brought it up on here. It was obviously foremost in his mind for some reason though he never explained why.

For the same reason 'Alayman' posted the Sodomy thread.....just from the other side of the philosophical fence.
Some of which 'makes the forum turn'.....

 

[Top]

Long live my thread!

;D

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Long live my thread!

;D

Long live my DUMB thread!

edited for accuracy  ;D

 

[Ransom]

Just me posted:

"Apparel" today is a very general term that means "any article of clothing." But did you know that in 1611 the word "apparel" meant "loose, long flowing garment?" Look it up in an old Oxford English Dictionary that has the archaic meanings of words. Furthermore, the Greek word is katastole which is an EXACTING WORD, and it is the ONLY place in the Bible where it is used. There are lots of words for clothing, attire, etc., but this word comes from a verb form which means "to lower." It denoted a loose-fitting outer garment, which was LONG. Paul used this word specifically to tell women that they are to wear long DRESSES. Pants, miniskirts, tight dresses, etc. can not fit the definition of this exacting word. Consult your Vine’s Dictionary for verification of this word definition.

"Brother Potter" ought to familiarize himself with the root fallacy.  You can't decide a word's meaning strictly by studying its etymology.  For example, when you call someone or something "nice," are you saying they are foolish? That's what the word meant when it was coined in the 13th century - it came from a Latin word, nescius, which means "ignorant." Of course not - the word generally means "pleasant," which has nothing to do with ignorance.

Does Potter know for sure whether Paul was specifically restricting women to long, flowing garments (or vice versa)?  Perhaps Paul was using an ordinary word for clothing. In the Greco-Roman world, everyone wore robes - they were considered civilized attire, as opposed to the trousers worn by the barbarians.  Customary women's dress was, in fact, called a stola, and it's exactly what you'd expect Greco-Roman women to wear if you've ever seen any sword-and-sandal epics:

Of course, the toga, men's apparel, could also fairly be described as a "loose, long flowing garment."  But a respectable lady wouldn't have worn one - whores wore togas.

The key word is actually kosmios - translated "modest," and meaning "decorous" or "well-ordered." Paul is contrasting this with women who wore costly jewelry or elaborate and expensive hairstyles. For him, modesty is not covering up. Every woman in that culture wore floor-length stola. Rather, he is instructing them to have a humble attitude, and to let their attire reflect that: dress well, but not too ostentatiously.

Good ol' context.

I see "Bro Potter" also drags out the old "proof by bathroom door" argument, as well. What a dingbat!  At least he didn't pull out that verse that supposedly says an uncovered thigh is the definition of naked (but which actually says nothing of the kind).  One of these days I'm going to start making a list of those frequently misappropriated verses, and then exegete them properly.

 

[jeri fletcher]

Here is an interesting position.  (I copied and pasted their main point below between the dotted lines)

http://www.pricelesswoman.com/Other_Pages/What_About_Women_Wearing_Pants.html

Priceless Woman Ministries

What About Women Wearing Pants?
by Brother Potter

For I have not shunned to declare unto you ALL the counsel of God. -Acts 20:27-

And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, AND WEAR OUR OWN APPAREL: -Isaiah 4:1a-

..............................................

"Yeah, but Deuteronomy 22:5 is not repeated in the New Testament"

Wrong. In fact, the New Testament is even more specific. I Timothy 2:9 says,

" . . . that women adorn themselves in modest apparel . . ."

"Apparel" today is a very general term that means "any article of clothing." But did you know that in 1611 the word "apparel" meant "loose, long flowing garment?" Look it up in an old Oxford English Dictionary that has the archaic meanings of words. Furthermore, the Greek word is katastole which is an EXACTING WORD, and it is the ONLY place in the Bible where it is used. There are lots of words for clothing, attire, etc., but this word comes from a verb form which means "to lower." It denoted a loose-fitting outer garment, which was LONG. Paul used this word specifically to tell women that they are to wear long DRESSES. Pants, miniskirts, tight dresses, etc. can not fit the definition of this exacting word. Consult your Vine

 

[Ransom]

Hm, yeah, I missed that:

"Apparel" today is a very general term that means "any article of clothing." But did you know that in 1611 the word "apparel" meant "loose, long flowing garment?"

Wrongo.  It derives from a French verb, appareiller, which means "to make ready." Apparel entered English in the 13th century, in verb form, meaning "to equip"; its meaning shifted to "to clothe" in the next century, and the noun form presumably came sometime later.

"Brother Potter" or DeVries, if that is indeed his real name, is confusing the English word with the Greek word it translates, katastole, which indeed does literally mean a loose, long-flowing garment, as you pointed out.  But apparel never meant that. If he meant to say, "'Apparel' today is a very general term that means 'any article of clothing,' but in the Bible it translates a Greek word that meant 'loose, long flowing garment,'" then he would have been correct.

But he's still up the creek because he's committing the root fallacy. Katastole is obviously derived from stola, the general term for the robes worn by all women in 1st-century Greece.  Of course it is long and flowing down. That's what robes do.

Look it up in an old Oxford English Dictionary that has the archaic meanings of words.

*snort* Take your own advice, boobala.

There are lots of words for clothing, attire, etc., but this word comes from a verb form which means "to lower."

Wrong again.

katastello, katastole

1. This verb means "to put in its right place, "to arrange," "to restore order," "to pacify," while the noun means "propriety," "ordered conduct," "action with a view to such conduct," and the "clothing" (as a visible expression of decorum).

2. In the NT the verb occurs only in Acts 19:35-36, where the clerk calms the excited mob at Ephesus. The authority expressed by katastello differs from that expressed by the use of kateseisen when Paul as a witness to Christ brings the crowd to order at Jerusalem in Acts 21:27ff. The noun occurs in the advice to women believers in 1 Tim. 2:9, where Timothy is told to exhort them to adopt either a seemly demeanor or seemly apparel.  The context of worship perhaps supports the former rendering, but the use of stole for "garment" in the Apologists favors the latter.

It denoted a loose-fitting outer garment, which was LONG. Paul used this word specifically to tell women that they are to wear long DRESSES.

And what was a toga?  Greco-Roman men didn't wear pants, either.

Amazingly, the same kind of people who make these kinds of arguments will then make fun of the Pope or other Catholic priests by calling their vestments a "dress."  This is the sort of tomfoolery you're stuck with when you ignore history.

Consult your Vine’s Dictionary for verification of this word definition.

Yeah, wouldn't want to consult some proper reference helps and get proven wrong.

 

[Ransom]

Some exegesis of 1 Tim. 2:9 (and more to come):

The word translated dress (katastole) probably refers to demeanour as well as attire. The emphasis falls on the modesty accompanying the dress. Only orderly or decent conduct accords with the spirit of Christian worship. This reflects aright attitude of mind, for Paul was shrewd enough to know that a woman's dress is a mirror of her mind. He seems to be ruling out any outward ostentation as not being in keeping with a prayerful and devout approach.

The words with decency and propriety are added as an explanation of acceptable dress. Again it is a question of dignity and seriousness of purpose, as opposed to levity and frivolity. Paul leaves no doubt as to what he means by adding a list of prohibitions relating to outward adornments. . . .

Paul is not of course speaking against a reasonable style of hairdressing, but against that which would be inappropriate in Christian women. A similar principle applies to the use of costly jewellery or clothing. Any form of ostentation would tend to detract from te main purpose of worship.

 

[Ransom]

From the New American Commentary series:

Although Paul discussed dress, his true emphasis was not merely that women should dress modestly but that genuine ornamentation is not external at all and consists of an attitude of commitment to good works. To dress "modestly" demands that the women dress tastefully and not provocatively. The term "dress" (katastole describes the outward deportment of the women as expressed in the clothes they wear. To practice "decency and propriety" demands that the women not flaunt their wealth or their beauty.  The former word shows reserve in matters of sex, and the latter word indicates a mastery of the appetites, particularly in matters of sex. The two terms refer to inner virtues. . . .

Acceptable standards of modesty will vary with place and generation, but Paul wanted the women to cultivate the fear of God rather than vanity.

I thought this commentary was interesting in that the authors acknowledge that Paul is encouraging the women not to dress in a sexually provocative way.  Yet the argument against pants (as given by "Brother Potter") is that pants obscure the difference between the sexes, since they're men's wear.

That's something I've noticed about the anti-pants-on-women ranters: they will argue either that pants are overly sexual (since they hug a woman's figure), or they're sexually ambiguous (since they are men's clothing).  I don't think they even notice that one argument contradicts the other. Monkeys flinging poo, hoping that some of it sticks.

 

[Ransom]

Here's an explanation from a familiar and respected expositor:

Part of [preparation for worship] involves the outside, he wearing of proper clothing. Proper translates kosmio, which . . . derives from the noun kosmos. Kosmos is often translated "world," but it really means "order," or "system." It is the antonym of "chaos." Katastole (clothing encompasses not only the clothing itself, but also the look - the whole demeanor. Women are to come to the corporate worship ready to face the Lord. They must not come in slovenly disarray or personal display because of an unbecoming wardrobe or demeanor. There is a place for lovely clothes that reflect the humble grace of a woman, as evidenced in Proverbs 31:22, "Her clothing is fine linen and purple." Proper adornment on the outside reflects a properly adorned heart.

 

[Bro Blue]

I can't help but wonder sometimes about the motives that governs the way a woman dresses. Right or wrong, we do tend to draw conclusions about someone based on their outward appearance. Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, is a duck kind of thing. Surely a woman knows what kind of statement her apparel makes when she picks it out. Certain attire brings attention to areas that should not be emphasized. And in a society that is almost completely ruled by sexuality, hiding behind ignorance doesn't seem too plausible. A lot of women cry foul at exploitation, but continue to dress in a way that encourages it.

 

[Ransom]

Certain attire brings attention to areas that should not be emphasized.

But since pants are men's wear, I'd have to be gay to appreciate them.

Bottom line: Commentators have interpreted katastole as referring either to dress or demeanour.  There's only this single use in the Bible, but extrabiblically, some writers use the word one way, and some the other. If you want to know the meaning of words, don't merely look at their etymology - you have to understand how it was used, as well.

Note also that when a commentator does take katastole to refer to apparel rather than deportment (e.g. MacArthur), he doesn't waste any time trying to explain what constitutes modest clothing. Mandating a particular uniform code seems to be a fundy peculiarity.  But it misses the forest for the trees, and frankly doesn't add any value to a right understanding of 1 Tim. 2:9.

I'll shut up now.

 

[Bro Blue]

If a woman wears an item of clothing that she knows is going to draw the attention of a man in the wrong way, what is the motivating factor then? Women know what men are attracted to. And if they are ignorant about it, highly doubtful in this day in age, where is the older women that is supposed to enlighten them on what makes the world go round?

 

[Ransom]

If a woman wears an item of clothing that she knows is going to draw the attention of a man in the wrong way, what is the motivating factor then?

It takes two to tango: one to tempt, and the other to be tempted.

But it's facile to lay the blame on a particular cut of clothing, as if the mere fact of seeing a woman dressed in a certain way mechanistically turns men into slaves to their own libido. It's stupid when imams say it, and it's stupid when Christians say it. And if it were true, then adultery was invented  when women stopped tying up their hair and wearing floor-length skirts with about fifty petticoats.

 

[Bro Blue]

As was mentioned earlier, it is an internal issue. I'm not blaming the clothes themselves, they are just a tool. It's the choice. Kind of like the statement....guns don't kill people, people kill people.

 

[Ironman]

Man judges outward appearances, God judges the heart. 

 

[The Real Bob]

Man judges outward appearances, God judges the heart.

And THUS......the EXACT reason Frag believes he has the right to judge people.   

 

[Ironman]

Man judges outward appearances, God judges the heart.

And THUS......the EXACT reason Frag believes he has the right to judge people.   

I was just judged on another thread by two forum junkies. 

 

[Winston]

Man judges outward appearances, God judges the heart.

And THUS......the EXACT reason Frag believes he has the right to judge people.   

I was just judged on another thread by two forum junkies.

Judged? No.  Just calling it like it is.