Thighs and nakedness

Discussion in 'The Law of God' started by SRoper, May 24, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. KMK

    KMK Administrator Staff Member

    Not my arms, I'm afraid. My farmer's tan is like 'babe repelant'. :D

    (I am not disagreeing, just joking)

    Have I missed something? Who wrote this book you refer to?
  2. LadyFlynt

    LadyFlynt Puritan Board Doctor

    Actually, Adam, I looked all over and could not find a description that excluded the leg. And you are wrong for calling me "ignorant". I may not be a seminary graduate, but I do know how to research issues. I have perhaps spent more time studying this issue through wording, cultural, and historical perspectives than most. A person disagreeing or disagreeing with a text that YOU consider superior, does not make one ignorant. If it were, then I could turn and call you ignorant as well as I do not believe you have adequately given the subject matter the time or thought that it should receive. Instead, it sounds from your superior attitude of "well, this is more modern, so it must be right", that you simply go with the status quo.

    If you want to be an educational elitist, please know that there are women that have been to seminary, have been taught by men that have attended seminary, and men that have attended seminary that ALL disagree with you.

    Basically, you are dismissing everyone because they haven't persued your degree. You do not know what courses I or my husband have pursued. You also don't know my pastor. He has been a pastor for quite some time. If he were to come on here and disagree with you, would you accept it only because he has extra letters behind his name? Does one HAVE to have a degree in order to be able to know what scripture says? (NO!) Has the rest of Christianity been in the dark until elitists, like yourself, have recently come onto the scene? (Emphatically NOT)

    And as for your dismisal of the sisters on this board...we HAVE gone, asked, and studied with our husbands and our pastors. There is a reason we believe as we do. We don't just flippantly say, "well, this book says that definition is off". No, we have researched and studied and prayed...and studied some more.

    I have to say, if you are a seminary student, then you have much to learn before putting your degree to use. I know many pastors and elders on this board with humbler spirits and greater hearts of understanding than you currently have shown. Throwing your seminary credits out as a dismissal of others that have studied, whether formally or informally, is both disrespectful and prideful. Lack of seminary education or manhood does not equate unintelligence. Many heretics have been to or were created in the same seminaries where sound men of God have trained.
  3. Augusta

    Augusta Puritan Board Doctor

    Adam, are you greater than Luther, greater than Calvin, greater than John Owen?? You think you don't have blind spots just as these titans of theology had?? You may need another 5 years of learning so you can make an argument instead of just claiming your superior intellect as proof of something. :chained:

    Adam is only as right as he is right.
  4. bookslover

    bookslover Puritan Board Doctor

    So, when it's 90+ degrees with 100%+ humidity in August in New Jersey, you still wear long-sleeve shirts? Oy.
  5. Archlute

    Archlute Puritan Board Senior

    1. Please list those resources that you have studied. I am using Holladay, HALOT, BDB, and the Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. These are considered the standard in biblical studies. Vine's and Strong's are not.

    2. When I say that you are ignorant of the issue, I mean to say that you do not have the basic knowledge to conduct exegetical research on the level of which we are speaking. If you have not consulted with the lexicons that I have mentioned, or other syntactical/grammatical tools such as Jouon-Muraoka and Waltke-O'Connor, nor have you read the best of the modern commentaries on Isaiah (both of which are written by conservative evangelical scholars), then, yes, you are by definition ignorant of the subject.

    3. A person disagreeing with me is not disagreeing with me alone, but with the whole of the best in academic and evangelical/reformed scholarship. I have not set the standard, but I am attempting to make you aware of it.

    4. Then please encourage them to speak their mind on this board, and to lay out their reasons - including their education, resources, and exegetical methods, because, yes, these things are important.

    5. Does he disagree with this exegesis?

    6. It is not being elitist to affirm that the church continues to grow in her understanding of the Scriptures. It is part of "always reforming".

    7. Then lay out their exegetical reasons, because as of this point you have not convinced me that you have studied the passage in anyway other than relying on Strong's concordance.

    8. Discussing one's seminary studies as a backing to one's exegetical research is neither disrespectful, nor prideful. Is it disrespectful and prideful of a lawyer to say that you are ignorant of certain aspects of law, when he has completed a quality law degree, and you have not? Is it disrespectful or prideful to say that most on this board would be ignorant of how to break down, clean, re-fit, and re-zero an M4 assault rifle, compared to others who may have received training and practice that you do not have? No, it would not. It would be a fact. It is not a matter of pride, or anything else, it is a matter of recognizing that certain levels of study and training give support to a man's endeavors, where others who have not completed these things should not speak.
    Last edited: May 26, 2007
  6. Archlute

    Archlute Puritan Board Senior

    1. I try not to label men on a scale of "greatness", but to evaluate their statements by their faithfulness to the statements of Scripture. There are many a Christian who will be considered as great or greater than they or I (as much as I do admire them), due to their quite faithfulness in the calling that Christ has given them.

    2. I did not claim intellect, I actually made an argument. It is an argument that has not been accepted, however, by those who refuse to acknowledge the scholarly resources behind it. I cannot remedy that denial.
    Last edited: May 26, 2007
  7. LadyFlynt

    LadyFlynt Puritan Board Doctor

    Adam, you presume too much when you assume to know my level of education. Also, one doesn't have to list their degrees in order to make a valid arguement. And it's news to me that you are the figurehead of all religious academia. Poor Calvin and Luther and every preacher of the past to not have one such as yourself or the books you read to correct them on their errors.

    Since you believe the studies are changing all the time...then perhaps in a hundred years they will discover that YOU were wrong and those before you were right after all.

    I disagree that we know better than those before us, simply because we come after them. Many of those before us had access to texts and translational works that we lack today.
  8. calgal

    calgal Puritan Board Graduate

    Should people dress appropriately for the climate they live in? Absolutely. Is my authority as a married woman my husband or folks who are considerably more legalistic than we are? Should we all be Hasidic women and shave our heads and wear a scarf or a wig because our menfolk lack self control? Something to consider: clothing back in the time of the bible was indicative of social standing, family influence and wealth: you were what you wore. Same goes for Calvin's day. Since we do have indoor potties, electricity and automobiles for us to use, would it not make sense for us to apply basic standards of modesty in a modern fashion? The overly modest clothing in most non-Amish/Mennonite dominated areas calls attention to the wearer of said clothing and is a sort of reverse pride: Look how modest I am: think the Duggar family on TLC. It is another way to be separate totally from the world. And we are called to be IN the world, not OF the world are we not? On the other hand, once can dress "modern but modest." And that may include wearing shorts or pants or dresses and skirts or dresses and skirts only. I also would like to say that men are not babies and that a grown man should be able to control himself in public and in private and avoid giving into temptation. :2cents:
  9. MrMerlin777

    MrMerlin777 Puritan Board Post-Graduate

    Wow, reading through this thread has been kinda painfull for me.

    The heat pouring off of it is burning my eyes..... but not a whole lot of light here to see.....


  10. LadyFlynt

    LadyFlynt Puritan Board Doctor

    Gail, it is quite possible to be modern and modest. Also, the Duggars do wear modern clothing...some from goodwill and some homemade. Some of the patterns are available at your local craft store under dresses, jumpers, and skirts. A denim skirt and a cotton top or blouse is is not "stand out".
  11. satz

    satz Puritan Board Senior

    Hey everyone… keep it civil ok?

    Don’t take my disagreement personally… this is a discussion board, and I want to…discuss.

    I am really puzzled about why some of you guys keep saying that the reformers/puritans agree with you on this verse. I did some (probably less than you guys) study on this verse when I first discovered it, but I have not found any puritan/reformed commentator who makes the direct link that these verses are saying showing thigh/leg = nakedness. I am not denying they probably would not have approved women showing their legs. Gill and Henry, from what I can recall both say the ‘nakedness’ of verse 3 refers to complete nakedness, not the partial exposure of verse 2.

    I know less of the original languages than any of you here (ie, none), so I just have to stick with what we have in our English bibles. Just from the grammar, it seems to me, the direct connection that ‘uncover thy locks, make bare the leg, uncover the thigh, pass over the rivers’ has is with the preceding phrase ‘Take the millstones, and grind meal:…’ Which supports the interpretation that the primary implications of those verses are descriptions of slavery.

    As I said before, I think if you want to say that v2-3 is equating showing thigh/leg with nakedness, you need to be consistent and take all four phrases in the second half of Is. 47:2-3 - “uncover thy locks, make bare the leg, uncover the thigh, pass over the rivers.” – and not just pick the two we like. Sure, it may seem a little silly to say there is nakedness in getting down into a river, but why not say there is shame (v3) involved? And what about ‘uncover the locks?’ I have said it before and I will say it again, I have nothing but respect for those who chose to cover for modesty’s sake. However, I have yet to see anyone take the plunge and declare that a woman who goes out in public with her hair uncovered is exposing her nakedness.

    And even for those who do want to go that far, how do they explain Rebekah only covering when she met Issac, despite a prolonged time together with Abraham’s male servant (Gen 24:65)?

    I really do not see that Is 47:2-3 sets forth a ‘dress code’ for modesty in the way that is presented. There are many sins where the bible does not draw black and white lines for us: What exactly is Gluttony? Covetousness? Worldliness? These are all serious sins that all Christians would want to avoid, but that does not mean we have the right to draw lines that the bible doesn’t. By draw lines I mean make proclaimations that are binding on all Christians everywhere. Obviously each husband or parent is going to make the call for those under his or her authority.

    Regarding modesty in general… let me phrase this carefully… I do not think the bible sets out a ‘be conservative as you can’ idea of modesty (I’ am not talking about anyone here, just making some general comments). The bible speaks of asking men to gird up their loins or bare their arms to work. Peter was ‘naked’ with the other disciples. While obviously modesty must be stricter in mixed company, the primary focus of that passage seems to me to be respect for the Lord that Peter was going to meet. While these comments pertain to men, and while women do have to be more careful, I do not see the justification for saying we ought to go the other way and have an ankles to wrists standard for them (Do I have to say again that I’am not singling out anyone here? I’ll say it anyway… :) ). When we look at the bible as a whole, we see that even those things warned against in the New Testament teaching on modesty (gold, pearls, costly array) did have a legitimate, moderate use for godly women.

    As I said before, each family and to a slightly lesser extent each church will have to draw its own rules. Saying that is not ‘moral relativism’ anymore than saying each individual will have to decide before Christ if how many servings at the buffet table he can take without committing the sin of gluttony. When I say ‘draw its own rules’ I don’t mean ‘anything goes’. But we have to recognize that there is a degree of freedom in this. If someone objects to your choice, than unless the objection is manifestly unreasonable (ie full muslim garb or whatever) we should follow 1 Cor 10:28 that says ‘ but if any man say unto you…’ if someone lets you know he or she has a problem, generally they should be accommodated out of love. However, Paul did not require us to abstain all the time just out of the hypothetical possibility that someone somewhere could be offended.
  12. reformedman

    reformedman Puritan Board Freshman

    It is a book that was translated from english to spanish and I don't think the english is published anymore. The spanish one is by aquila publications. It refers to the original language very thoroughly and covers all references to the topic including the increasing liberalism that would be seen in the future as we now see. Women go around with knee high skirts which the bible warned about, but without the thorough study in the original language people may not see the evidence of it. In the original language, it is easier to see that the bible fortold these problems.

    I borrowed the book when I read it, so I don't have access to it anymore, otherwise I would quote a little bit from it, sorry. Good book though.

    One thing that was nice to see, and although was interpretive(and the author admitted to it), was that God provided a 'covering' for his people(adam and eve). He goes into that a bit even though it was aside the point, but like I said, he covers a lot of areas including the clothes quality and the sacrifice of the animal that was killed to cover his people. I also found the section on the quotes from the 1950'2 and 60's magazines interesting and the 90's magazines shocking, its unbelievable that (i paraphrase), the editors say, "this is the minimum bikini clothe legally available for a bikini, so you can be the most liberated person on the beach without fear of breaking the law.
    People actually used reverse psychology to try to make you believe that the least amount of clothing is what you want and what you need!

    It's hard to explain with my bad english and bad memory, but it was an effective book for what I needed and am convinced by it. I hope you can find it for your own edification brother.
  13. bookslover

    bookslover Puritan Board Doctor

    You have an indoor pottie? I'm jealous! I still have to take that long walk into the backyard...:lol:
  14. Coram Deo

    Coram Deo Puritan Board Junior


    I am unsure where to begin.....

    I finally make it outside today to enjoy the Chestertown Tea Party (Similiar to the Boston Tea but for Maryland) Nice bit of History and actors were great but the heat hit 95% today and high humid so I am feeling it bad tonight...

    So I come home and check out this thread and it seems like World War 3 has broken out.. lol

    Archlute, I am unsure if any more response is warranted at this point. We will have to agree to disagree.. I stand behind the Strongs as well has many of my Theologian friends that do have M.Div behind their name. Although M.Div does not mean anything but a piece of paper. I will also continue to stand with the saints of the ages on this topic.. Call this ignorant if you will but the words of the Lord will endure forever and I am not phased by your name-calling. As it stand, I agree totally with what LadyFlynt have said today and am thankful for her posts.

    You need to learn civility if you ever want to qualify to be a minister of the word. Your pride, self-conceit, and arrogance have really shined through your posts and find you most uncivil.

    As for Calvin and other reformers, who I do not believe had everything right (Note I am a Baptist), I do believe that Calvin and the Reformers knew more today then most ministers of the Word and also had more access to information and material we could only hope to have in our hands. Today's Theologians do not have a monopoly on it all. As far as new material, I do not accept. I would believe that God has not kepted us in the dark for 2000 years only for some modern 21 century so called theologian to find some new material or new manuscript or other document to enlighten us. This also goes for newer discovered manuscripts that most modern translations of the bible are made from. (No, I am not king james only, but do hold to a preserved manuscript doctrine). Same goes for Textual Criticism/ Newly Discovered take on Biblical Word. God preserves his word perfectly.

    As for the rest of the posts in the thread, let me mull over them for the weekend and I might respond, I just need to take some pain meds and hit the sack for now....

  15. Coram Deo

    Coram Deo Puritan Board Junior

    Are you talking about "Christian Modesty and the Public undressing of America" by Jeff Pollard which is in my hands at this very moment?

    It is published by Mt. Zion Publications.....

    Great Book!!

  16. Coram Deo

    Coram Deo Puritan Board Junior


    I have not forgotten your question.. Been gone all day... I will get back to you...

  17. Augusta

    Augusta Puritan Board Doctor

    I don't know why people want to make this so hard. It is easily seen without any lexicons or other extraneous textbooks etc. Just plain English grammar.

    -The above says what to uncover: locks, legs, and thighs.

    -It says that by uncovering these you show nakedness.

    -This is described as shameful.

    *Nakedness=shameful=uncovered locks, legs, & thighs*

    ***All of the above is true whether it is happening to slaves to degrade them and humble them or not. In fact it is the means of bringing about that humbling and degradation.

    It was stated also earlier in the thread that no one can judge another for this type of thing. It is not something that can be made LAW and forced on people. The Spirit convicts and sanctifies. We are just discussing the fact that it is born out in scripture that showing that part of the body for men or women was shameful and considered uncovering nakedness.

    I think we can all agree that this generation as well as other recent generations since the sexual revolution of the 60's is showing too much skin and there is much less modesty than in the 6 millennia past not counting savage animistic peoples and outright pagan cultures. (Funny we resemble the savage animistic and pagan cultures more than all the Christian cultures past.)
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page