Sorry Archlute, I disagree with you, and what modern books might say on this issue, they are coming from a immodest culture to say the least...
I will stick the saints of the ages on this...
I have a quote from John Calvin on the issue. John Bunyan, the puritans also have something on this passage..
Also 1800 years of church history of woman wearing dresses down to their ankles and heads covered testifies to this also....
Michael
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archlute  Not to dis' on you too hard, brother, but I already gave you the proper picture.
Strong's is not an accurate lexicon for studying the languages. In fact, it's not a lexicon at all, it's a concordance! I gave my definitions in the earlier post from the Hebrew Aramaic Lexicon of the OT, which is considered the standard today, along with the Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, put out by Sheffield academic press. "showq" clearly emphasizes the calf (except in sacrificial settings), and "shobel" doesn't have anything to do with the leg at all - it has to do with a flowing skirt or train!
As well, the revealing of the leg is not the nakedness of which Isaiah spoke. It is a euphemism referring to a revealing of the genitalia, and therefore has no reference to the leg in the previous passage whatsoever (but I said that all before). |