I quickly grabbed one of my wife’s articles to wear watching this video. A nice cloak. Now I’ve upset the social hierarchy of domination and the land is contaminated. So that’s sad. On the plus side I look fabulous!
Hearing this reminds me of one of my favorite parts of Aqhat: Aqhat the Hero replied, "[...]And I have something else to tell you: Bows are for warriors- do women even hunt?" Anat laughed aloud, but in her heart she plotted.
I beleive many past cultures have used items and articles to reinforce social hierarchies and domination. In old Irish families, colours and fabrics denoted social standing, never to be violated without punishment. But we don't do that anymore. It's time for other cultures and religions to grow up too.
Does anyone here have recommendations for accurate translations of the Bible? I have Robert Alter’s translation of the five books of Moses, but it’s a thousand pages long for just the first five books of the Bible. I just want a portable Bible that I can read without commentary, (yes, I understand it’s hard to read translated Hebrew and Greek without context.) An even greater recommendation would be something I could get on my phone too. Thanks! :)
If it takes that much effort to explain a prohibition it probably means very few people (elites) recognized the prohibition. It kind of reminds me of Monte Python.
An item of a man is underwear that has no elastic left and a hole in the crotch so big that one of his testes hangs out, and / or a coffee mug that is used everyday but hasn't been washed in six months
While I have a keen interest in studying ancient religions, primarily to deconstruct childhood indoctrination, I find myself perplexed by how learned scholars of these texts can take them seriously enough to adhere to seemingly arbitrary edicts. Despite their in-depth studies, it's surprising that these scholars haven't collectively recognized the underlying mythological nature of these ancient belief systems.
It’s worth remembering a great, great many of them went into the field _because_ they were hardcore believers. They also tend to be sophisticated thinkers, able to generate sophisticated rationales to retain their religious beliefs when their work brings up obstacles. Having said that, I believe most Christians wouldn’t remain Christians if they knew what these scholars know, so I understand how this is perplexing.
It's so difficult trying to engage with people who think the Bible is the inerrant word of God without offending them by pointing out that so much of the OT is about social doctrine and not God. I don't even go near the idea that God is just being used as a justification for things that humans, and only humans, care about.
Now, this is not a view I am morally supporting, but the interpretation of Robert A. J. Gagnon is associate professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary and author of The Bible and Homosexual Practice, is much closer to the mark than Dan's apologist take here. "the so-called qedeshim: literally, “cult figures” or self-named “sacred ones,” connected with idolatrous cult shrines (Deut 23:17-18). These men thought themselves possessed by an androgynous deity. As self-perceived women in male bodies they attempted to erase their masculine identity with feminine dress, manners, occupations, and sometimes even castration. Comparable Mesopotamian figures were known as the assinu, kurgarru, and kulu’u. A later manifestation were the Greco-Roman figures known as the galli, connected with the Great Mother Cybele. In Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History (Judges thru 2 Kings) they were condemned for having committed an “abomination” (1 Kings 14:24; 15:1222:46; 2 Kings 23:7). The biblical writers rejected any presumption that these birth-males were females."
Far from the consensus of Biblical scholars, you often fall back to Dan. Deuteronomy 22.5 was directly related to cross dressing and a form of prohibition against the qedeshim (male cult prostitutes). See Deuteronomy 22:5 and its Impact on Gender and Sexual Variation in the Christian Church (2015) by Susan Gilchrist
@@servonyc yes, what he explained was that the agency is on the man and the article and does not put agency on the woman. But he didn’t address putting it on the woman being okay or not, did he? It still sounds like, do not dress a woman in man’s clothing. Whether the woman does it or not seems immaterial to me, if someone wanted to use this passage against cross dressing.
@@servonycokay I just rewatched it to see if I had misheard it so bad as to be worth such a condescending response, but no, my question still stands. "... It is only what the entities that occupy the pinnacle of the hierarchy do that's important which is why the prohibition is only on the items and the men associated with the male sex." Okay, great. They didn't care if women put male clothes on themselves or not. Doesn't this still mean, "putting items associated with the male sex on your women is prohibited"? And then he mentioned that it is prohibited for men to wear female articles, which, whether limited to specifics or not, sounds like it’s a prohibition against cross dressing.
Two Jewish commandments are derived from Deuteronomy 22:5: men must not wear women's clothing and women must not wear men's clothing. As regards domination, Hashem is not a man. He controls the entire universe with infinite power.
@@boboak9168 Yes sir. Gehinom and Gan Eden are the spiritual Purgatory and the highest spiritual Paradise, respectively, and both of them have numerous levels. These are where a departed soul may receive its due punishment and cleansing from unrepented sins, or its due spiritual reward, after being judged by God. At a time in the future, Gehinom will end and the souls in Gan Eden will return to physical bodies in the World to Come.
Devarim Deuteronomy is Torah the Jewish bible why not ask the orthodox Rabbis ? Why so many people gentiles simply re interpret our scripture. The Old testament is very different than Orthodox Hebrew Tanakh scripture. There are hundreds of variant versions of the Christian bibles used match the original koine Greek new testament or Hebrew Scripture sources. There is only One orthodox Hebrew Tanakh in history all match word for word from Yemen to Russia verify those facts. תודה רבה שלום
@@toniacollinske2518 No, but rabbis have passed down the tradition of the meaning. Even here, there are different interpretations. This is generally of the form : "Don't wear clothing meant for the other gender" or "Don't wear clothing of the other gender in order to fool people into thinking you are of that gender" As for @Motorhead1 's statement. No, not all of the copies match word for word, specifically that from Yemen. The differences are insignificant, but they do exist.
@@toniacollinske2518 no But to go off on misinterpreting and not asking the original people of the Torah is kinda disrespectful and kinda arrogant... What if I told Hindus and Muslims what their scripture " really means" and they are wrong because my English mistranslation misinterpretation says differently and yet know nothing about their theology... תודה רבה שלום 👍
I agree with you, and Dan has shown how contemporary Christianity is based on badly translated Jewish sacred text. But the issue is whether ancient texts should be used to dictate modern morality and ethics. As Dan has pointed out, Hebrews had no problem with chattel slavery, even though they were allegedly enslaved by the Egyptians - though the archeological evidence shows no proof of a large group of people wandering the desert for 4 decades, or even the existence of a historical Moses. It's an inconvenient truth that the Hebrew texts were replete with contradictions, inconsistencies, and historical inaccuracies. The fact that they may have been copied verbatim doesn't change those truths. Nor does the fact that they have been believed by millions of people throughout history. BTW, the same is true for Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc. Writers of moral texts are the product of their time and that time's knowledge, beliefs and influences. To think that they were given insight into a time upwards of thousands of years into the future not only is impossible, but not borne out by their writings.
@@Noneya5555 Jews believe that there are two torahs, given simultaneously to Moses - the written, as well as the oral law. So, the information from the historical rabbis is the tradition passed down of that extra-biblical text. From their point of view, it is incomplete to look at only one. For the most part, they explain away the inconsistencies (historical inaccuracies are more of a difficulty) And while slavery was allowed, slavery of fellow Jews (Israelites) was severely restricted.
Your interpretation is just that ("Your own")......................Yes, you may claim such interpretation "IS THE CORRECT ONE". But then again, each and everybody else will claim "their own interpretation" is the correct one. ------------------------ And.....there-in lies the problem with "literal translations" of the Bible.
@@toniacollinske2518: Sorry.........I guess it may be due to the disappointment of living all my life with the "deception" that the Bible was "the word of God" and never had time to really dig into the sources and origins. Now that I'm retired and have time to learn more, it's "deja vu" similar to Santa Claus' existence.
Love when grammar tells the story. This is why knowing these original languages of these texts is so important.
I quickly grabbed one of my wife’s articles to wear watching this video. A nice cloak.
Now I’ve upset the social hierarchy of domination and the land is contaminated. So that’s sad. On the plus side I look fabulous!
This is brilliant! Lol!
I have just three words for you:
fab
u
lous 👍
As long as you've got a parapet around your roof (Duet 22:8), I'm willing to let this one slide.
I don’t think you should be joking about what could be an abomination to God. Not wise.
@@debihester7284I second this
Hearing this reminds me of one of my favorite parts of Aqhat:
Aqhat the Hero replied, "[...]And I have something else to tell you: Bows are for warriors- do women even hunt?"
Anat laughed aloud, but in her heart she plotted.
I loved that part too!
"Everybody in this place is wearing a uniform and don't kid yourselves." - Frank Zappa
I beleive many past cultures have used items and articles to reinforce social hierarchies and domination. In old Irish families, colours and fabrics denoted social standing, never to be violated without punishment. But we don't do that anymore. It's time for other cultures and religions to grow up too.
No we must go by what the Bible says
You don’t. If you did you’d sell ALL you have and give to the poor.
A surprisingly coherent explanation of a what sounds just like some awkward wording.
I wonder if they were considering money as "an item of a man." 🤔
Speculation on my part. We do have items that are supposed to be on Jewish men, namely tefellin. Could this be what is referred to?
Does anyone here have recommendations for accurate translations of the Bible? I have Robert Alter’s translation of the five books of Moses, but it’s a thousand pages long for just the first five books of the Bible. I just want a portable Bible that I can read without commentary, (yes, I understand it’s hard to read translated Hebrew and Greek without context.)
An even greater recommendation would be something I could get on my phone too. Thanks! :)
The Chabad online translation.
Isn't "article" and "item" translation choices that would have the original language presenting different meaning?
So someone help me clairify. If I let my sister wear my hoodie, are we committing a sin? (According to the ancient text that is clearly out dated)
If it takes that much effort to explain a prohibition it probably means very few people (elites) recognized the prohibition. It kind of reminds me of Monte Python.
I love your T- Shirt
This was probably played on by the author of Genesis 37-50.
Could this also be about menstruation/purity?
I'm at 1:48 and Dan has not explained yet, but I think the item of a man could be farming tools, weapons, perhaps even rock slings
An item of a man is underwear that has no elastic left and a hole in the crotch so big that one of his testes hangs out, and / or a coffee mug that is used everyday but hasn't been washed in six months
Aaaaahhh...so clear now. God was warning against the dangers of items of men jumping out of the forest and the suddenly being upon women. 😅
Exactly 😂
I don’t get it can you explain?
While I have a keen interest in studying ancient religions, primarily to deconstruct childhood indoctrination, I find myself perplexed by how learned scholars of these texts can take them seriously enough to adhere to seemingly arbitrary edicts. Despite their in-depth studies, it's surprising that these scholars haven't collectively recognized the underlying mythological nature of these ancient belief systems.
It’s worth remembering a great, great many of them went into the field _because_ they were hardcore believers. They also tend to be sophisticated thinkers, able to generate sophisticated rationales to retain their religious beliefs when their work brings up obstacles.
Having said that, I believe most Christians wouldn’t remain Christians if they knew what these scholars know, so I understand how this is perplexing.
The Torah is serious because the Sinai argument cannot be refuted.
Any real scholar understands this situation well. It's part of what actual scholars, like Dan, spend their time studying.
It's so difficult trying to engage with people who think the Bible is the inerrant word of God without offending them by pointing out that so much of the OT is about social doctrine and not God. I don't even go near the idea that God is just being used as a justification for things that humans, and only humans, care about.
@@hrvatskinoahid1048What is your motivation for hanging out here?
Now, this is not a view I am morally supporting, but the interpretation of Robert A. J. Gagnon is associate professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary and author of The Bible and Homosexual Practice, is much closer to the mark than Dan's apologist take here.
"the so-called qedeshim: literally, “cult figures” or self-named “sacred ones,” connected with idolatrous cult shrines (Deut 23:17-18). These men thought themselves possessed by an androgynous deity. As self-perceived women in male bodies they attempted to erase their masculine identity with feminine dress, manners, occupations, and sometimes even castration. Comparable Mesopotamian figures were known as the assinu, kurgarru, and kulu’u. A later manifestation were the Greco-Roman figures known as the galli, connected with the Great Mother Cybele. In Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History (Judges thru 2 Kings) they were condemned for having committed an “abomination” (1 Kings 14:24; 15:12 22:46; 2 Kings 23:7). The biblical writers rejected any presumption that these birth-males were females."
Far from the consensus of Biblical scholars, you often fall back to Dan. Deuteronomy 22.5 was directly related to cross dressing and a form of prohibition against the qedeshim (male cult prostitutes). See Deuteronomy 22:5 and its Impact on Gender and Sexual Variation in the Christian Church (2015) by Susan Gilchrist
Doesn't this just mean then, "a man shall not dress a woman as a man"? And also that it's prohibiting cross dressing by men?
He literally JUST explained what it means. Did you even watch?!
@@servonyc yes, what he explained was that the agency is on the man and the article and does not put agency on the woman. But he didn’t address putting it on the woman being okay or not, did he? It still sounds like, do not dress a woman in man’s clothing. Whether the woman does it or not seems immaterial to me, if someone wanted to use this passage against cross dressing.
If it is, it's a good thing we don't have to live like that anymore. I'd miss shrimp
@@servonycokay I just rewatched it to see if I had misheard it so bad as to be worth such a condescending response, but no, my question still stands.
"... It is only what the entities that occupy the pinnacle of the hierarchy do that's important which is why the prohibition is only on the items and the men associated with the male sex."
Okay, great. They didn't care if women put male clothes on themselves or not. Doesn't this still mean, "putting items associated with the male sex on your women is prohibited"?
And then he mentioned that it is prohibited for men to wear female articles, which, whether limited to specifics or not, sounds like it’s a prohibition against cross dressing.
@@servonyc ...did you? His question is _absolutely_ valid.
Yadda yadda yadda, it's against crossdressers. EZ. And good, because it is ridiculous.
Huh, wish I'd known about this before my girlfriend wore my team jacket. Oh well, not the only abomination we did.
No you cannot wear pants, Ive heard a testimony where a woman got rejected from heaven because of pants and other adornments and stuff.
So if a woman is cold I can say she cannot have my coat as it’s prohibited by the bible.
Two Jewish commandments are derived from Deuteronomy 22:5: men must not wear women's clothing and women must not wear men's clothing. As regards domination, Hashem is not a man. He controls the entire universe with infinite power.
If he has infinite power I _don’t_ like what he’s done with the place.
@@boboak9168 Free will is granted to all people. If you don't like the place, consider your own actions.
@@hrvatskinoahid1048 do you believe in an afterlife?
@@boboak9168 Yes sir. Gehinom and Gan Eden are the spiritual Purgatory and the highest spiritual Paradise, respectively, and both of them have numerous levels. These are where a departed soul may receive its due punishment and cleansing from unrepented sins, or its due spiritual reward, after being judged by God. At a time in the future, Gehinom will end and the souls in Gan Eden will return to physical bodies in the World to Come.
@@hrvatskinoahid1048 is there free will in the world to come?
Oooook. So, men shouldn't wear womens clothing? Got it.
2024 Olympics ceremony - 0
Last Supper/Bible - 1
I'm still a little confused I'm a Christian man but I'm into crossdressing and I wanna make sure I'm not doing anything sinful
Devarim Deuteronomy is Torah the Jewish bible why not ask the orthodox Rabbis ?
Why so many people gentiles simply re interpret our scripture.
The Old testament is very different than Orthodox Hebrew Tanakh scripture.
There are hundreds of variant versions of the Christian bibles used match the original koine Greek new testament or Hebrew Scripture sources.
There is only One orthodox Hebrew Tanakh in history all match word for word from Yemen to Russia verify those facts.
תודה רבה שלום
Only Rabbis are allowed to study, learn relevant languages and discuss?
@@toniacollinske2518 No, but rabbis have passed down the tradition of the meaning. Even here, there are different interpretations. This is generally of the form : "Don't wear clothing meant for the other gender" or "Don't wear clothing of the other gender in order to fool people into thinking you are of that gender"
As for @Motorhead1 's statement. No, not all of the copies match word for word, specifically that from Yemen. The differences are insignificant, but they do exist.
@@toniacollinske2518 no
But to go off on misinterpreting and not asking the original people of the Torah is kinda disrespectful and kinda arrogant...
What if I told Hindus and Muslims what their scripture " really means" and they are wrong because my English mistranslation misinterpretation says differently and yet know nothing about their theology...
תודה רבה שלום 👍
I agree with you, and Dan has shown how contemporary Christianity is based on badly translated Jewish sacred text. But the issue is whether ancient texts should be used to dictate modern morality and ethics.
As Dan has pointed out, Hebrews had no problem with chattel slavery, even though they were allegedly enslaved by the Egyptians - though the archeological evidence shows no proof of a large group of people wandering the desert for 4 decades, or even the existence of a historical Moses.
It's an inconvenient truth that the Hebrew texts were replete with contradictions, inconsistencies, and historical inaccuracies. The fact that they may have been copied verbatim doesn't change those truths. Nor does the fact that they have been believed by millions of people throughout history.
BTW, the same is true for Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc. Writers of moral texts are the product of their time and that time's knowledge, beliefs and influences. To think that they were given insight into a time upwards of thousands of years into the future not only is impossible, but not borne out by their writings.
@@Noneya5555 Jews believe that there are two torahs, given simultaneously to Moses - the written, as well as the oral law. So, the information from the historical rabbis is the tradition passed down of that extra-biblical text. From their point of view, it is incomplete to look at only one. For the most part, they explain away the inconsistencies (historical inaccuracies are more of a difficulty)
And while slavery was allowed, slavery of fellow Jews (Israelites) was severely restricted.
Your interpretation is just that ("Your own")......................Yes, you may claim such interpretation "IS THE CORRECT ONE".
But then again, each and everybody else will claim "their own interpretation" is the correct one.
------------------------
And.....there-in lies the problem with "literal translations" of the Bible.
You write like your triggered
@@toniacollinske2518: Sorry.........I guess it may be due to the disappointment of living all my life with the "deception" that the Bible was "the word of God" and never had time to really dig into the sources and origins. Now that I'm retired and have time to learn more, it's "deja vu" similar to Santa Claus' existence.
@@toniacollinske2518 Msaybe they're not triggered, just tired of someone's constant bs about their BELIEF being the only real objective TRUTH. 🤣
Caps lock on random words crying laughing emoji
The mental gymnastics you perform on the text to support your politics is easily as impressive as what the church does with it
Cool evidence-free "nuh-uh", bro...
@@johnmcgimpsey1825 correct. His claim was free of any evidence. Not that you'd be able to understand the hebrew if he actually had presented it🙄
What politics? The only people the purity laws of the Pentateuch pertain to are Jews of that time period.
How are ancient texts political? Perhaps you are the gymnast. Why worry about traditional laws of behaviour outdated by later revelations?
@@toniacollinske2518 I didn't say the texts are political. Difficulty reading ?
This just shows how pointless reading the bible is.