|WikiProject Bible||(Rated Start-class)|
|WikiProject Judaism||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
who would say the Cohen Ha Gadol would wear something like that. Wikipedia is really full of fools!
I removed the image at right because it is both inappropriate and inaccurate. Rashi's statement was that the Ephod was in "its form like the apron worn by princesses when they ride horses" (see here) not a form-fitting undergarment. MishaPan (talk) 22:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Pope Paul VI and the Ephod
- What do do you mean by "various"? . . . and what is the conspiracy in wearing a replica of the Ephod? — Ineuw talk 06:15, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Michah's Ephod was made of Silver, not gold
this line of text should be changed: "and the objects made by Gideon and by Micah, from molten gold". Micah's ephod was made from silver, not gold. (Judges 17:4) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 13:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
This is letting everyone know I edited the "Ephod" page - as a Christian, I do a daily few minutes devotional......I'm working through one of the new Chronological Bibles. It has daily month/day date sectons, and yesterday's was about David moving the Ark of the Covenant to the City of David. The verses described his clothing, not remembering exactly what an ephod was,I opened Wikipedia to find out. Reading the description, I noticed someone had printed that David had "girded" himself" with cloth around his loins - while at the same time there was a color photo showing someone wearing an ephod, which clearly was not wrapped around the hip area - in fact, it looked like it stopped short of the groin area completely.
So, after checking the referenced verses of 2 Samuel, and 1 Chronicles in MY Bible, and rereading the Chronological Bible's paragraph's, I decided to edit the page correctly.
"Girding" CAN be described in the way the ephod page had it described, but since BOTH Bibles (mine and the Chronological one) used the phrase "wearing an ephod" along with the phrase "wore a linen robe" a couple verses about that, I'm assuming he DIDN'T have anything around his groin area since Michal (Saul's daughter) claimed he was indecently exposed in front of the female servants. Since the Chronicles verse states he had a linen robe on, I'm thinking it was thin enough to see at least the shadow/shape of his apparently nude private parts underneath the robe (and the natural movement of those parts against the linen robe as he "leaped and danced" with the people as the Ark was transported). Otherwise, if he WAS "girded" about the loins with clothing or just some cloth, his private area wouldn't have been exposed or "seen" as a shadow, there wouldn't have been any groin area movement detected - and consequently there'd be no reason for Michal to critisize him for "indecently exposing" himself to the female servants.
I emailed whoever is in charge of "info-en@Wikimedia that I may occasionally edit pages......I have reliable resources in the form of books, magazines, an extremely good dictionary that gives word origins as well as periodic separate word history paragraphs, a Bible which my Senior Pastor told us is the closest translation to the original Hebrew scrolls versus other versions, plus getting scientific/archaeological updates from BIOLA's Apologetic's Lecture Series guest speakers at my church (one of our members used to attend that university, became acquainted with the various lecture speakers and invited them to speak at our church, which they occasionally have done since), as well as periodic talks by Dr. Leslie Wickman, Director of Science (and Astronomy) at Azusa Pacific University (invited by our Senior Pastor; she seems to have started regularly attending our 2nd Sunday morning services), AND I have Dr. Carl Baugh and Dr. Clifford Wilson's book "Footsteps and the Stones of Time", which is about a dig on the Paluxy River in Glen Rose, TX (which forced a previously evolutionist Dr. Baugh to become a Christian - that dig alone completely exploded the theory of evolution - and also gives 15 excellent, scientific reasons why our planet is only 6,000 some-hundred years old), and video cassette covering the dig also, along with other scientific info. On top of all this, I read my mom's Archaeology magazine; she was a Science major in high school, but heart problems prevented her goal of being either a botanist or archaeologist, so I started her subcription to the magazine to help further her hobby of that field of interest.
I just remembered to add that I obtained the DVD's "The Privileged Planet" and "Unlocking the Mysteries of Life" - which are scientists/astronomers talking about why our planet is so perfectly placed in our solar system, and so perfectly balanced in every way that not only did a Creator HAVE to behind the set-up (and for our planet to have the only clear view into outer space), but that our whole solar system also was so perfectly set up or everything would be total chaos; and a forum of scientists coming to the conclusion that in observing DNA through today's advanced, much clearer, microscopes, Creation IS the very essence of science - that evolution totally wouldn't work, re: how the Bacterium Flagellum operates in our bodies, respectively.
IDF flak jacket
an object "to be revered" in ancient Israel
Is this sourced, in the lead sentence? Is it accurate, that an ephod was an object "to be revered" in ancient Israel? (In a religious context, revere means more than deep respect, and includes reverence.) As throughout the Mosaic Law, such articles were "holy", that is, they were "separate", i.e., not to be used for common purposes. If "revere" is accurate, perhaps it should be sourced. Otherwise, perhaps it should be removed? Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host (talk) 12:46, 2 July 2017 (UTC)