Return to Question

I came across a web page belonging to a christian person/org.

  The subject that caught me was the view on Deut 22:5 expressed in the page.

The gist of the opinion is that the page says that

גּבר

should not be translated as "man" but as "warrior" and

כלי

should be implements(weapons, armour), rather than clothing.

  It seems the page advocates for the following translation

לא יהיה
Not to be

כלי גבר
implements of warrior

על-אשּׁה
on woman

ו לֹא לבשׁ
and not to wear

גּבר
a warrior

שׂמלת אשּה
a woman's clothing.

The page explains that the verse does not forbid a woman to put on men's clothing but rather forbids a woman from taking up the arms of a warrior, that a woman is forbidden from becoming a soldier.

Is this translation viable? If so, what would be meant by "a warrior should not wear a woman's clothing".

Please comment.

I came across a Christian web page. The subject that caught me was the view on Deut. 22:5 expressed in the page.

A woman shall not wear man’s clothing, nor shall a man put on a woman’s clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God (Deuteronomy 22:5, NASB).

The gist of the opinion is that the page says that גּבר should not be translated as "man" but as "warrior" and כלי should be implements  (weapons, armour) rather than clothing. It seems the page advocates for the following translation:

לא יהיה
Not to be

כלי גבר
implements of warrior

על-אשּׁה
on woman

ו לֹא לבשׁ
and not to wear

גּבר
a warrior

שׂמלת אשּה
a woman's clothing.

The page explains that the verse does not forbid a woman to put on men's clothing but rather forbids a woman from taking up the arms of a warrior—thus a woman is forbidden from becoming a soldier.

Is this translation viable? If so, what would be meant by "a warrior should not wear a woman's clothing"?

I came across a web page belonging to a christian person/org.

The page (carrying on a trait I find frequent among christian fundamentalist web sites) critiques other fundamentalist christian traditions as "false teachings".

The subject that caught me was the view on Deut 22:5 expressed in the page.

The gist of the opinion is that the page says that

גּבר

should not be translated as "man" but as "warrior" and

כלי

should be implements(weapons, armour), rather than clothing.

So that I get that page would have wanted the following translation

לא יהיה
Not to be

כלי גבר
implements of warrior

על-אשּׁה
on woman

ו לֹא לבשׁ
and not to wear

גּבר
a warrior

שׂמלת אשּה
a woman's clothing.

The page explains that the verse does not forbid a woman to put on men's clothing but rather forbids a woman from taking up the arms of a warrior, that a woman is forbidden from becoming a soldier.

I did not read what it would mean that "a warrior should not wear a woman's clothing". If you were he/she (the author of the page), would he/she have meant that a warrior should not be a sissy?

Please comment.

I came across a web page belonging to a christian person/org.

The subject that caught me was the view on Deut 22:5 expressed in the page.

The gist of the opinion is that the page says that

גּבר

should not be translated as "man" but as "warrior" and

כלי

should be implements(weapons, armour), rather than clothing.

It seems the page advocates for the following translation

לא יהיה
Not to be

כלי גבר
implements of warrior

על-אשּׁה
on woman

ו לֹא לבשׁ
and not to wear

גּבר
a warrior

שׂמלת אשּה
a woman's clothing.

The page explains that the verse does not forbid a woman to put on men's clothing but rather forbids a woman from taking up the arms of a warrior, that a woman is forbidden from becoming a soldier.

Is this translation viable? If so, what would be meant by "a warrior should not wear a woman's clothing".

Please comment.