Having found this place due to a sermon by Matthew Stucky. (And someday, I should post a thread about all that I have learned from Stucky and Anderson..much I disagree with), I find it very informative.
My question....Anderson keeps saying that men wore pants in the Bible. I have done research about Bible times, and i don't remember seeing this "fact."
Can someone tell me if I should believe this pastor who harasses border guards and police?
Did you miss that part where Job was told to roll up his britches leg an give an answer like a man?
One more time ... everyone please read aloud together!
- You're = the contraction for you are. Used in a sentence - You're not very bright are you.
- Your = shows possession. Used in a sentence - Your misuse of the contraction you're is grossly offensive.
Actually, I have listened to Anderson for pure entertainment purposes. It also enlightens me as to how some people CAN twist the Bible for their purposes.
So....the idea that men wore pants is false?
If guns kill people, then my keyboard is solely responsible for any post I make.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.
Read more: http://www.voicecrying.com/?page_id=209
The closest thing they have and you WILL hear it ...is that the priests wore "breeches" under their garments.
"Criticizing you...is like booing at the Special Olympics" -Triumph TICD
This post is not be taken in anyway as a flirtation from members of any gender at any time on any forum during any thread. Any resemblances of flirtations through any means to include but limited to: avatar, font, hyperlinks, photographs, videos, emotioncons, spelling or punctuation, remarks, or through any aforementioned medium be it spoken, written, or implied, however convincing, are completely coincidental.
(Deu 22:5 KJV) The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.
Clearly, this has to do with cross dressing ... it is the attitude and not the action. It is a shame that many pastors do not have training in Judaica nor the customs of Biblical times.
BTW: Cross dressing has nothing to do with Calvary.
The one great fallacy of fundamentalism is that we actually believe that while we are confessing the sins of others that the Lord will not look as intently on our own.
As I have gotten older, I have tended to become less dogmatic over certain issues: "(1 Cor 2:2 KJV) For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified."
I would not be such a strong believer in God if not for the enemy.
Look me up on Facebook
A soldier preparing for combat would pull up his robe (bend over and grab back hem the pull it betwen the legs foward). Then he would "cinch" his up with his girdle (thick belt) and his legs from mid-thigh down would be free and unencumbered. That and (as has been mentioned) the flax long undershorts of the priests who would be up on the altar and didn't want to be immodest have people look up their robes from below) would be the closest thing to "pants" or "slacks".
What we think of as modern "pants" originated as WOMEN'S WEAR in the 7th Century. It was for modest lounging around in harems (think there are still "harem pants" marketed today??) in the Middle East and Africa.
Now that will blow the tiny brains of the "not wear women's clothing" loony-tuners
And even as late as the era of translating the AV (1611) THIS is what men looked like - padded buttress, short skirts or (if divided) "breeches" and long stockings. NOTHING like modern "pants" - or at least nothing I'd wear to Walmart without risking some advances from Brokeback Mountaineers.