[LWC]

and if ANY DONT LINE UP WITH BIBLE THEY ARE FALSE.......

The beauty and the headache with concordances, they do not always agree. Youngs Exhaustive says they did the work of preachers and Strongs said they did not. What a confusing thing, lol.

[cuppett777]

Where does it say that modestly and discreetly is a dress or a skirt.

What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's." (First Corinthians 6:19-20)





I want to speak on the subject of "The Bible's Dress Code." There are a lot of preachers who preach on the subject of God's dress code, that goes something like this: "Well, bless God, this is the way you ought to dress. And this is the way you ought to dress, because I just told you this is the way you ought to dress. I just told you this is the way you ought to dress, because this is what my pastor taught me when I was a young Christian boy, how a lady or a man ought to dress. So you just do what I say, because I'm the preacher." And people either do it, or they rebel against it. But I believe there are a lot of people who, although they are not interested in the preacher's opinion, who if they could actually be shown from the Bible what is right and what is wrong, they would do right. There are a lot of people in our churches who have been taught the truth but they do not live the truth, because even though they have been taught the truth, they haven't been taught the truth from the Bible. They have been taught the truth from opinion. They have been taught the truth from tradition, but they have not been taught the truth from the Bible.

[cuppett777]

Many people will say, "Well, God looks on the heart. God doesn't care what you look like on the outside. God just looks on the heart." That is true. God does look on the heart, but man cannot see the heart. Man can only see the outer. Not only that, the outer appearance is usually a pretty good indicator of what is in a person's heart. Although it is possible to look right on the outside and be wrong on the inside, it is well nigh impossible to look right on the outside and be right on the inside. What is on the outside comes from the inside. That is why Jesus said, "out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh" (Matthew 12:34). Granted, a man could say the right things, and have a wrong heart, but a man who had a right heart would never say the wrong things. So the outer appearance is the only indicator that man has that someone is right with God, right in their heart. So God does care how we look. Not only does God care how we look, there are rules in the Bible for both men and women that should govern our appearance. Now, whenever you start to talking about these rules, the women are always the first ones to complain, because there are more rules for the women than there are for the men. And I often wonder why the Bible has all these rules for the women and very few rules for the men, and the reason why is because men and women are made differently. I know that is not a "politically correct" thing to say, but it is none the less true. God made man and women differently.



Men are stimulated by sight. This is why Jesus told the men of His day, "whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart" (Matthew 5:28). Men are stimulated by sight. Men are always attracted to a lady, physically, before they are connected to her emotionally. In fact, they don't even want to pursue the possibility of an emotional relationship, if the physical attraction isn't there.



Women on the other hand are stimulated by touch. It could be a physical touch or an emotional touch. So all a man has to do is look at a woman, and she is stimulated. A woman has to be talked to, and she has to be touched. And as I said, that touch can be emotional. A man could talk to a woman in such a way that she is touched emotionally. Or it could be a physical touch. He could begin to pet her or stroke her in some way and that would begin to stimulate her. That is why pornography is sold mainly to men. There is some pornography that is sold to women, but statisticians tell us that the majority of the pornographic magazines that are published for women are actually purchased by a man, because women aren't really stimulated by sight. That is why you can go to the mall and see some of the ugliest guys with some of the most attractive women, because they know how to touch. They know how to touch emotionally and how to touch physically, so the woman is satisfied, whereas the man has to see something. He is stimulated by sight. Therefore, God has given certain commands to women regarding their appearance, so they will not stimulate men. And God has given different commands to men, such as in First Corinthians 7:1, which says, "It is good for a man not to touch a woman. And then verse two, Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband." So while a woman is commanded to dress a certain way so the man is not stimulated, the man is commanded to act a certain way, to behave a certain way, so the woman is not stimulated. That is why the commands are different. That is why the man is commanded, "Defraud ye not." That is why they are commanded not to touch. The additional rules for appearance are for the lady's own protection. They are designed to protect her from the lusts of man. But let's start with the rules for men. There are basically only two rules in the Bible for man's appearance, at least that I have found in my studies of the Scriptures. There may be more, but I've only found two. In Deuteronomy 22:5, it says, "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." The first command of God, concerning the way a man should appear is that a man should not wear a woman's clothing. I don't know too many men who violate that one. There may be a few, but I have never seen it in a church. And the Bible does not say that a man who puts on a woman's garment has just sinned, but that he has committed an abomination. Lying is a sin. Stealing is a sin. Adultery is a sin. Bestiality is an abomination. Homosexuality is an abomination. So if a man puts on a woman's garment, he has not just committed a sin. He has committed an abomination. He has done something that in the mind of God, is equal to having sex with an animal. The second rule for men regarding appearance is found in First Corinthians 11:14, where the Bible says, "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him" The question is always asked, "How long is long?" Long is the opposite of short. Let me ask you, sir. Is your hair short? And if you don't know, then it is long, and if it is long, it is not natural for you to have long hair. So what do you need to do? You need to go to a barber shop.LONG MEANS UNCUT

[cuppett777]

Well, what is short? How do I know if my hair is short?" It is the opposite of long. If it is not short it is long. "Well, it isn't as long as some girls' hair I see." It doesn't matter. It is long. "It is not as long as Boy George's." If it is long, then go to a barber shop. Get a hair cut. And if you doubt, then cut it off right now, and there will not be a doubt. When in doubt, do that which is right. The problem is solved.



Now rules for women. Again, Deuteronomy 22:5, "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man." Again, if a woman dresses like a man and a lot of women do, God says they have committed an abomination. It amazes me, but I do not know any Christian women who would think of committing an act of bestiality or homosexuality, but yet they would commit the abomination of cross dressing. The Bible says this is an abomination.



The second rule given to women is in First Timothy 2:9, which states, "In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel." The third and fourth rule are also in First Timothy 2:9. It says they should not only adorn themselves in modest apparel, but, "with shamefacedness and…" then the fourth command, "sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array." Sobriety is a word that basically means with moderation.



So let's take those rules and apply them. I want to bring it down to where you live and why you should do certain things. So knowing these four rules that God has given to a woman's appearance: Rule number one, it should not pertain to a man. Rule number two, it should be modest. Rule three, they should dress with shamefacedness. And rule number four, it should be with sobriety or moderation. Let us apply the rules to the different garments women should wear and determine which garments agree with the Biblical dress code and which do not.



Rule number one. Why does the pastor insist that a woman not wear pants? There are several reasons. Reason number one is because they violate the first rule. It is man's apparel. Deuteronomy 22:5 says it is an abomination, just like bestiality or homosexuality, for a woman to wear a man's garment. And pants are a man's garment.

[cuppett777]

"Well, preacher, I don't believe that." Well, you can believe what you want, but the fact is simply this, in the Bible days, women did not wear crotched garments. Pants have a crotch. Men in the Bible days wore crotch garments. Not only that, women in any society did not wear pants until close to the middle of this century. Pants are called britches in the Bible, and britches were worn exclusively by men for the first 5,950 years of human existence (which means up until about fifty years ago). Even the garments worn by men and women in Bible days were different. The woman wore a long flowing robe, and men wore a shorter and tighter robe. Underneath the woman's robe would be nothing. Underneath the man's robe would be a pair of short pants that would go down to the knees. Whenever a man would have to do some type of labor, such as to team up an ox, pull a trailer or dig a hole, he would pull up his skirt and tuck it in his pants that were under his skirt, and that was called in the Bible "girding up your loins."



"Well, back in the Bible days all the women and men wore robes." Yes, but they were different robes. Under the man's robe was a pair of pants. The pair of pants was not under the lady's robes. The pants, or britches, were worn only by the men. You will never read in the Bible where britches were worn by women, but will read where they were worn by men.



Another reason we know that pants are a man's apparel and not woman's is common sense. Do you realize that you can get off an airplane in any country in the world, and if they do not speak English and you do not know their language, you will know which bathroom you were supposed to go to. Go in an airport terminal, go to the bathroom and you will see a picture on the bathroom door. It doesn't matter if you are in Russia, France, Portugal, the United States or Mexico, there will be a sign on the door it will have a picture on it. It will either have a picture of someone in slacks or someone in a skirt. Now, if you are a lady, which of those two doors will you walk through? And if you are a man, which of those two doors will you walk through? I doubt that even the rankest feminist would walk into the bathroom that would have the picture of a person in pants. Common sense tells us that pants are a man's apparel. It amazes me that a woman would be appalled of just the thought of a man wearing a dress, but yet, men and women think nothing of a woman wearing pants. There was a fashion designer a few years back who decided he was going to come out with a line of dresses for men. The idea wasn't very popular, so he gets himself an appearance on the Phil Donahue show. Phil brought all these male models out, wearing the dresses designed just for men, they paraded them around the stage on the show, and all the women thought this was vulgar. And, when Phil went into the audience with a microphone, many of the women made statements that they though it was preposterous that a man would want to wear a dress. "Don't these men know any better? Don't they have any self-respect? Don't they have any concept of manhood, that they would parade around in a dress?" And Phil Donahue said something that showed that he had more spiritual discernment than most Baptists do. He said, "Well, they said the same thing fifty years ago, when women started wearing pants."



So the first reason why a preacher says a woman should not wear pants is because they are a man's garment, and the Bible says it is an abomination for a woman to wear a man's garment. The second reason, pants are not, I repeat, not modest. "Well preacher, that is your opinion." Yes, but, I can prove it from the Bible. In First Timothy 2:9, we read that women should adorn themselves in "modest apparel." In the Greek, the word for modest is the word katastolh (katastole), and it means a long flowing garment. Remember I said that in the Bible days, men wore a short tight skirt and women wore a long and flowing robe. That was a katastole. The Bible in First Timothy 2:9 tells women to adorn themselves in a long flowing garment, not a short, tight garment. That is what modest is, long and flowing. Pants do not flow. I have never yet seen a pair of pants that flow. Therefore, even if "long," they do not qualify as a long flowing garment. And since they are not a long flowing garment, they are not a katastole. Katastole is translated modest. Therefore, if a modest garment is a long flowing garment, and pants do not flow, pants are not modest.

[cuppett777]

Also, women are commanded to dress with shamefacedness. That simply means they are not to draw attention to themselves. And pants draw attention to the woman's figure. So if you wear a pair of pants, or even a tight skirt, it shows the figure and it is not shamefacedness, or modest, because it doesn't flow. It shows the figure and it stimulates men. And of course, you should not want to dress in such a way that it stimulates the lusts of a man. Remember in First Corinthians chapter thirteen that it says, "Charity doth not behave itself unseemly." You shouldn't seek to do things that would cause someone to fall. Jesus said that if a man looks on a woman with lust in his heart, he has already committed adultery with her. Do you realize that if you dress in such a way that it shows your form and figure, and some man lusts after you, you have just let him commit adultery with you? "Well, he didn't have to look." Yes, and he could have also driven blindfolded into a tree somewhere. Get real. Granted, a man should know how to keep control of his mind, but women ought not to be tempting him either. So only a full and flowing skirt qualifies as a katastole, a long flowing garment. So only a dress or skirt could be considered modest, because modesty is a katastole, long and flowing. And since pants do not flow, and only a dress or skirt does, only a dress or skirt can be considered modest. And since a long flowing garment, a skirt or dress, is the only way a woman can dress without showing off her figure, then only a skirt or dress would be shamefacedness.



Now let's apply this to the second type of clothing a woman should wear. Why does a preacher preach against shorts and mini-skirts? Well, once again that word modest or katastole, long flowing garment. Neither shorts or mini-skirts are long and shorts do not flow, therefore shorts or mini-skirts would not be modest, because they do not meet the length requirement. A katastole is a long and flowing garment. The second reason why shorts and mini-skirts would be inappropriate for a woman is because the Bible specifically says that when a woman's thighs show, she is naked. Isaiah 47:2-3 says, "Take the millstones, and grind meal: uncover thy locks, make bare the leg, uncover the thigh, pass over the rivers. Thy nakedness shall be uncovered, yea, thy shame shall be seen: I will take vengeance, and I will not meet thee as a man." Here was a women who wanted to cross a river. God wanted to disgrace the woman, (If you read the text in Isaiah chapter forty-seven, you will see why.) so He commanded her to walk across the river, then, to lift up her skirt so her thigh would show. And God said that when her thigh was exposed, she would be naked and her shame would be revealed. We read that she was told to uncover the locks, to make bare the leg, uncover the thigh and "thy nakedness shall be uncovered."



The thigh goes from your hips to somewhere in the knee. So if a woman dresses in such a way where that part of her body is exposed, the Bible says she is naked. Mini-skirts expose that part of the body. Thus, if a woman wears a mini-skirt, she is naked. And shorts, they expose that part of the body, and the Bible says in Isaiah chapter forty-seven, if she shows that part of the body, she would be naked. Well then, if you wear a pair of shorts, you would be naked, according to God. Therefore shorts and the mini-skirt would be immodest, because they are not long, and because they expose nakedness. And as I said, the thigh goes down into the knee. So the only way to guarantee that the thigh is not exposed is to wear a skirt or dress that goes below the knee. That is why a preacher demands that a woman wear skirts and dresses below the knee.



And this should make it obvious that bathing suits are not modest, that they expose nakedness. You could buy a mini-skirt that only uncovers three or four inches of nakedness. A swimsuit will expose a full eighteen inches of nakedness. We think that if we get on a swimsuit, our genitals are covered and we are clothed. God says no, you don't just cover your genitals. You cover the thigh. Plus the swimsuit shows off the form and the figure, and is not shamefacedness. It doesn't flow. It is not long. It is not modest.

[cuppett777]

We read that when Adam and Eve realized they had sinned they sewed fig leaves together. What did they do? They covered their genitals. What did God do? He said, "No, that is not good enough. You need to cover more than your sexual area. You need to cover your nakedness." So what did He do? He slew an animal and clothed them in skins, so their nakedness would be covered.



Let's go to some other questions. What about floor length skirts? It flows. It is modest.However, the word used for modest is katastole, which is long and flowing, and a word that would be used in the Greek for a floor length gown would be poderis. Since the word for modest is katastole, and not poderis, the garment has to be long but not necessarily floor length, since nakedness ended at the knee. Long would be somewhere in between the knee and the floor, but it doesn't necessarily have to go to the floor. So if you want to wear a floor length skirt or dress, that is fine. There is nothing wrong with it, but it is not absolutely necessary. Just because your skirt goes to the floor and the other ladies' skirts only go halfway down their calf, that doesn't make you more spiritual than she is.



What about tight skirts? I see a lot of women with tight skirts. I went to a Bible college where we had rules. Women had to wear dresses and skirts. They weren't allowed to wear slacks. But let me tell you, a lot of those girls wore some pretty tight dresses and skirts. You could see every curve on their body. Was that modest? No, because it didn't flow. If it flowed, it wouldn't show the figure. Was it shamefaced? No, because shamefacedness is to be dressed in such a way as not to draw attention to the figure. So a modest garment is a flowing garment. A tight garment or dress is not modest, regardless of how much flesh it covers. Granted, it may go down below the knees and you are not naked, but you are still not modest. You are still not shamefaced. So a woman needs to wear a dress or a skirt that is not just below the knees, but a dress or skirt that is full or flowing. It is modest only if it goes below the knee and it is not tight or reveals the form of the figure

[cuppett777]

wouldnt let me put it all in one...

[LWC]

^WOW! I will need some time with that one. I will respond later.

[Wildcatk23]

^WOW! I will need some time with that one. I will respond later.

http://www.exampleofgrace.net/the-bible-dress-code.php

Thats it. Much easier to read what he posted there. Word for word.

[cuppett777]

^WOW! I will need some time with that one. I will respond later.

brother i am not on here to fuss,just using what my KJV says, and what history itself has been,also in Malachi 4:5-6 REV 10:7,says that there would be a messenger in the last days that would turn the heart of the children back to bible pentecostal fathers(not demonation pentecostal)and the mysteries of GOD would be revealed, and there many,that people will disagree with,but its the WORD,and in the bible,the whole bible is a REVELATION OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST, Matthew 13:35 that which is spoken by the prophet,saying,I will open MY MOUTH in parables:I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.and Amos 3:7 surely the LORD GOD will do nothing,but he REVEALETH HIS SECRET(mysteries) unto HIS servants the PROPHETS(Not prophetess,though they do have visions and dreams,there not HIS mouth piece for the earth like PROPHETS)i believe we done had OURS and the world(especially the US)Matthew 13:57-and they were offended in HIM.but JESUS said unto them,a PROPHET is NOT without honour,save in his own country, and in his own house...........................any way i dont want to go on and on,but the LORD sent US one and through the LORD opened those mysteries, and people can say what they want its all backed up with the bible,and not one time wrong,just peoples own understaning is wrong, the bible is not of private inturpation,again its a REVEALTION,unless GOD reveals it a person will never get it,its only to the BRIDE(HIS WIFE) NOT THE CHURCH,THERES DIFFRENCE THERE AS WELL..........

[cuppett777]

http://www.exampleofgrace.net/the-bible-dress-code.php

Thats it. Much easier to read what he posted there. Word for word.

it wouldnt let me put it all together,and i didnt put everything that it said ,because the stuff about makeup was not true.....makeup come from the heatherns and only one woman jezabeel wore paint(make up) and GOD fed her to the dogs,not one daughter of GOD wore that in the bible...

[OrangenowBlue]

brother i am not on here to fuss,just using what my KJV says, and what history itself has been,also in Malachi 4:5-6 REV 10:7,says that there would be a messenger in the last days that would turn the heart of the children back to bible pentecostal fathers(not demonation pentecostal)and the mysteries of GOD would be revealed, and there many,that people will disagree with,but its the WORD,and in the bible,the whole bible is a REVELATION OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST, Matthew 13:35 that which is spoken by the prophet,saying,I will open MY MOUTH in parables:I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.and Amos 3:7 surely the LORD GOD will do nothing,but he REVEALETH HIS SECRET(mysteries) unto HIS servants the PROPHETS(Not prophetess,though they do have visions and dreams,there not HIS mouth piece for the earth like PROPHETS)i believe we done had OURS and the world(especially the US)Matthew 13:57-and they were offended in HIM.but JESUS said unto them,a PROPHET is NOT without honour,save in his own country, and in his own house...........................any way i dont want to go on and on,but the LORD sent US one and through the LORD opened those mysteries, and people can say what they want its all backed up with the bible,and not one time wrong,just peoples own understaning is wrong, the bible is not of private inturpation,again its a REVEALTION,unless GOD reveals it a person will never get it,its only to the BRIDE(HIS WIFE) NOT THE CHURCH,THERES DIFFRENCE THERE AS WELL..........

Pentecostal! This is all starting to come together now.

[OrangenowBlue]

it wouldnt let me put it all together,and i didnt put everything that it said ,because the stuff about makeup was not true.....makeup come from the heatherns and only one woman jezabeel wore paint(make up) and GOD fed her to the dogs,not one daughter of GOD wore that in the bible...

I thought we were all God's children. Good or Bad.

[cuppett777]

Pentecostal! This is all starting to come together now.

yes sir but not demonational Pentecostal,not only that but i got all that from the bible so its not me and my own ideas..

[cuppett777]

I thought we were all God's children. Good or Bad.

we all come from GOD,but we all wont be saved..

[johnnyt]

cuppett,

from what you posted do you believe that means women should not wear underwear? i am not agreeing or disagreeing with you but i was curious on to your thoughts.

[Pink_Panther]

yes. If God has called them, why not?