Do the police hate women?

If not, why do they arrest them for pumping gas at a service station with those thieves then leaving without paying for the gas?

Probably because cops have to obey the law which forbids petty thievery - no matter which of the two genders in involved in stealing the gas?

Do the police hate the hands and/or fingers of women in general?

Did "Americans" vote for Kenyan-not-Hawaiian-born Obama in the last election (as the Star-Tribune and similar deceptive media claim) . . . or instead "only SOME Minnesotans" vote for liar-in-chief bypass-Congress-by-dictatorial-Executive-Orders Barack HUSSEIN Obama [ a.k.a. foreign-exchange-student and Indonesian-citizen Barry Soetoro ]?

So, do cops hate ALL female arms and hands and fingers? If not, why do they arrest the overall bodies of women thieves who use only their arms and hands and fingers to pump gas at a service station then leave without paying for the gas? After all, those arms and hands and fingers do not always steal gas continuously, and such might simply be an unintended accidental oopsie mistake, and done only once in a while, which thieving female hands and fingers are frequently washed for hygiene, even using soap?

Jeremiah 2:22 "Though you wash yourself with lye and use much soap, the stain of your [ immodest and immoral ] guilt [ plus non-treatable chlamydia and genital warts and syph and gonnie and AIDS ] is still before me," says the Lord GOD.

Do police hate women who wear brown blouses instead of green ones, because they deem the wearing of green to be illegal?

Or do the police hate women who wear polyester slacks instead of cotton ones, because they consider the wearing of cotton to be unlawful?

Do police hate only caucasian women but love only quota-for-reparations negroid gals while ignoring kamakaze asians ones because of difference in skin color and/or presence of slanted eyefolds?

Is there anything "immoral" or "indecent" about women wearing brown blouses instead of green ones, or wearing cotton ones instead of polyester ones? Is the Bible relatively "colorblind" pertaining to differences in skin color of humans?

Female-human arms per se come in different skin colors, as previously mentioned. Does that make them evil, and born-with-them body parts to be ashamed of?

Similar-but-different female-human arms of all 4-billion individuals of the inferior gender throughout the world are often partially clothed (and sometimes completely clothed) in cotton instead of polyester or silk or nylon or rayon, and are sometimes green or brown but usually never rainbow multi-colored. Do those differences make one or the other or several of them obscene? Should we distinguish with discretion? Should there be sacred and righteous discrimination? Segregation? Public-health-protective quarantine because of such?

What if the [ supposed ] illegal or unlawful infraction has nothing whatsoever to do with the color of long or shortened sleeves of a blouse or gown or dress, and has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the woven material of such short-sleeved or even sleevesless garments is composed of either cotton or polyester or silk?

What if girls and women were arrested and ticketed and fined for mindlessly or deliberately, arrogantly and belligerently displaying or flaunting parts of their NAKED arms with shortened sleeves, or (worse yet?) all of their NUDE arms with sleevesless garments of whatever fabric material or color?

Does anyone really presume that a typical and healthy non-airconditioned non-shaded girl or woman would die of heatstroke unless she bared parts or all of her arms with short-sleeved or sleevesless attire?

Do teen-and-collegiate-aged woman softball players enjoyably displaying their cute men-imitating femininity in decent and convenient back-of-head ponytails with long-sleeved baseball shirts and full-length baseball slacks and socks with baseball shoes - vigorously playing a fast-paced and vigorous game of girl's softball - die of heatstroke when seen on cable TV? If not, why not? WHY?

Is there a necessity to over-tan or even sunburn the skin of partially-exposed or totally-exposed female-human arms for the purported and alleged sake of morlock-like/lemmings-plunging-into-the-sea-similar conformity to lewdly-demonic seasonal fashions and styles of abusive sex-objects-for-monetary-greed publishers and producers and studios?

CAN female-human blouses and shirts which absorb very-minute amounts of sweat on completely-covered arms be regularly and easily washed with other sweat-laden laundry (e.g. bras, panties, socks, slacks, etc.) when eventually needed, and clean clothes instead put on and worn?

IS the abstract concept of "modesty" and "decency" at ALL and in ANY CONCEIVABLE way involved in whether or girl or woman covers her arms completely when in general mixed-gender public view, or instead goes around with parts of her naked arms uncovered with short sleeves or even all of her nude arms uncovered with sleeveslessness (no matter what the outside and non-airconditioned temperature is during warm weather in America or Canada of Mexico or Antarctica or in Iran and other countries where Middle-East sharia-like islamic-fundamentalist hijab or burka costumes are customary) in GENERAL-PUBLIC view?

WERE the arms of their great-great-great-great-great-great grandmothers of the Old West and back to the Puritans and pilgrim pioneers covered by LONG sleeved garments? How about the Amish? How about Catholic nuns? If so, WHY? And do not give me the non-acceptable excuse of an alleged oversupply of flies, gnats, or mosquitos!

Generally, the King James and New King James and various other "translations" (questionably associated with the name: "Holy Bible") are rather accurate according to the original Hebrew and Greek words considered inerrant and valid of the Old and the New Testaments of that Bible.

However, for some strange cause, there is a serious discrepancy concerning vital English wording of KJV-type Bibles (and many other modern renditions such as the NIV and TLB) . . . in STARK contrast to the Revised Standard Version and ESV and NASV and Douay-Rheims version of Second Samuel 13 verse 18 -- directly related to and involved with the covering of the female bare arms of a certain women named who was wearing not a "multi-colored robe" but rather something quite different which is defined by scholarly lexicons as a robe or gown or dress which "reached to the wrists and ankles", regarding which type of garment was stated to be the traditional, expected, and commonly-accepted attire of virgin daughters of the king (who thus set the dress code standard for civilian-peasant commoners throughout the kingdom).

Consider the following translational differences and thus incompatible discrepancies of Second Samuel 13 verse 18 revealed by Bible software provided by Larry Pierce:

18 (RSV) Now she was wearing a long robe with sleeves; for thus were the virgin daughters of the king clad of old. So his servant put her out, and bolted the door after her.
18 (Douay) And she was clothed with a long robe: for the king’s daughters that were virgins, used such kind of garments. Then his servant thrust her out: and shut the door after her.
18 (KJ21) And she had a garment of divers colors upon her, for with such robes were the king’s daughters who were virgins appareled. Then his servant brought her out, and bolted the door after her.
18 (NKJV) Now she had on a robe of many colors, for the king’s virgin daughters wore such apparel. And his servant put her out and bolted the door behind her.
18 (YLT) and upon her is a long coat, for such upper robes do daughters of the king who are virgins put on, and his servant taketh her out without, and hath bolted the door after her.

Here's another sample of the same Old-Testament verse provided by e-sword:

II SAMUEL 13:18 = (Douay-Rheims) And she was clothed with a long robe: for the king's daughters that were virgins, used such kind of garments. Then his servant thrust her out: and shut the door after her.

(NASV) And she was wearing a long-sleeved robe . . .

(JB2000 TLB) And had a garment of different colours upon her, for with such robes were the king’s daughters were virgins apparelled. Then his servant brought her out and bolted the door after her.

(English Standard Version) Now she was wearing a long robe with sleeves, for thus were the virgin daughters of the king dressed. So his servant put her out and bolted the door after her.

(French TLB) Elle avait une tunique de plusieurs couleurs; car c'était le vêtement que portaient les filles du roi, aussi longtemps qu'elles étaient vierges. Le serviteur d'Amnon la mit dehors, et ferma la porte après elle.

(German) Und sie hatte einen bunten Rock an; denn solche Röcke trugen des Königs Töchter, welche Jungfrauen waren. Und da sie sein Diener hinausgetrieben und die Tür hinter ihr zugeschlossen hatte

(Italien) - Or ella portava una tunica con le maniche, poiché le figliuole del re portavano simili vesti finché erano vergini. - Il servo di Amnon dunque la mise fuori, e le chiuse la porta dietro.

(Jerusalem Publication Society TLB) Now she had a garment of many colours upon her; for with such robes were the king's daughters that were virgins apparelled.- -And his servant brought her out, and bolted the door after her.

(KJV) And she had a garment of divers colours upon her: for with such robes were the king's daughters that were virgins apparelled. Then his servant brought her out, and bolted the door after her.

(KJV+) And she had a garment [ Strong's Lexicon # H3801 ] of divers colours [ Strong's Lexicon # H6446 ] upon [ Strong's Lexicon # H5921 ] her: for [ Strong's Lexicon # H3588 ] with such [ Strong's Lexicon # H3651 ] robes [ Strong's Lexicon # H4598 ] were the king's [ Strong's Lexicon # H4428 ] daughters [ Strong's Lexicon # H1323 ] that were virgins [ Strong's Lexicon # H1330 ] apparelled. [ Strong's Lexicon # H3847 ] Then his servant [ Strong's Lexicon # H8334 ] brought [ Strong's Lexicon # H3318 ] her out, [ Strong's Lexicon # H2351 ] and bolted [ Strong's Lexicon # H5274 ] the door [ Strong's Lexicon # H1817 ] after H310 ] her.

(Jay Green Literal) And a long tunic was on her, for so the virgin daughters of the king usually dressed. And his attendant brought her robes outside, and bolted the door after her.

(Norwegian) Hun hadde en sid kjortel på sig; for sådanne kåper brukte kongens døtre så lenge de var jomfruer. Hans tjener førte henne da ut på gaten og stengte døren efter henne.

(Spanish Reina Valera TLB) Y tenía ella sobre sí una ropa de colores, traje que las hijas vírgenes de los reyes vestían. Echóla pues fuera su criado, y cerró la puerta tras ella.

Clearly, some of the foreign-language renditions above follow the woefully-questionable KJV-type blurb of "a garment of diverse (or many) colors" -- whereas others obviously state an entirely different concept having absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with "colors" involving instead length of aspects of the robe or dress and even sleeves involved.

It cannot be both for THE singular given Hebrew word found in The Text, because that discrepancy is of the irreconcilable "apples and oranges" type!

For example, the word "pliers" in English always and only means a tool used as a clamp . . . and never means an elephant truck or tree rings or a roll of toilet tissue or a doorknob or an earlobe or a poppy seed or a leaf or an acorn or urine or gasoline or photosynthesis or radioactivity or gravity or whatever else of a zillion possible other things one could include using the descriptive word: "pliers."

Thus, THE exact and only Hebrew word EITHER conveys the idea of a "long-sleeved long" robe or dress or gown . . . OR INSTEAD the idea of a "multi-colored" robe or dress or gown . . . but NOT BOTH!

In fact, re-consider Strong's Concordance word numbers in the KJV+ passage shown above:

(KJV+) And she had a garment [ Strong's Lexicon # H3801 ] of divers colours [ Strong's Lexicon # H6446 ] upon [ Strong's Lexicon # H5921 ] her: for [ Strong's Lexicon # H3588 ] with such [ Strong's Lexicon # H3651 ] robes [ Strong's Lexicon # H4598 ] were the king's [ Strong's Lexicon # H4428 ] daughters [ Strong's Lexicon # H1323 ] that were virgins [ Strong's Lexicon # H1330 ] apparelled. [ Strong's Lexicon # H3847 ] Then his servant [ Strong's Lexicon # H8334 ] brought [ Strong's Lexicon # H3318 ] her out, [ Strong's Lexicon # H2351 ] and bolted [ Strong's Lexicon # H5274 ] the door [ Strong's Lexicon # H1817 ] after H310 ] her.

Carefully and thoughtfully (with no predetermined bias nor prejudice nor closed-mindedness), notice that Strong's Lexicon word-number identification for "divers colours" (i.e. # H6446), when actually looked up in Strong's Lexicon (AND, incidentally, when also researched in the scholarly Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon, Thayer's Lexicon, the Gesenius Hebrew Lexicon, etc.), states the primary meaning of the numbered Hebrew word H6446 as: "a garment reaching to the wrists and the ankles:"

פּס
pas

From H6461; properly the palm (of the hand) or sole (of the foot), (compare H6447); by implication (plural) a long-and-sleeved tunic (perhaps simply a wide one; from the original sense of the root, that is, of many breadths)

KJV Usage: (divers) colours.


Brown-Driver-Briggs' Hebrew Definition
פּס

1. flat (of the hand or foot), palm, sole
a. of the tunic reaching to palms and soles


NOTHING about "color" of any type or variety!

Why the KJV-type bibles so horribly and devastatingly screwed up the meaning of the Hebrew word into their weird reference to color is not known, but suffice it to say that "color" is totally inappropriate as a meaning for that particular Hebrew word, and the correct concept originally intended to be conveyed is instead: "a full-length gown with long sleeves."

IS the sometimes-deceitfully-non-admitted intention of arms-exposing bastards and bitches to show off tattoos, in obvious rebellious and worldly violation against:

Leviticus 19:28 You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh on account of the dead or tattoo any marks upon you: I am the LORD.

Psalm 98:1 A Psalm. Oh sing to the LORD a new song, for He has done marvelous things! His right hand and His holy arm have gotten him victory.
Isaiah 52:10 The LORD has bared His holy arm before the eyes of all the nations; and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God.
John 12:38 it was that the word spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled: "Lord, who has believed our report, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?"

Now, lest we both become myopic as to what this all refers to in the context, it should be quite obvious and clear to you the reader (as it is to this webpage author) that it is not the will of the LORD for decent and proper godly women to arrogantly or belligerently, ignorantly or deliberately, mindlessly or carelessly or indifferently flaunt or expose any parts of their naked arms for whatever concocted and inane doctrine-of-demons excuse . . . whether for athletics, tanning, sports, seasonal warmth, satanic modern fashions and styles, the advice and insistence and disdain of sexual perverts and pervertesses around them - whatever!

First Timothy 2:8 (very-rough paraphrase) I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling;
First Timothy 2:9 also that women should be adorned modestly just before and all the time when in general mixed-gender public view, in decent apparel -- NOT with loose long hair inferred within the RSV and NASV "unbind the hair of her head/loosen her hair" translation but not KJV nor NIV "head" mistranslation of Numbers 5:18, and RSV's/NASV's Song of Solomon 7:5 referring to "captivating flowing locks" along with the non-RSV KJV reference of First Corinthians 11:14-16 clearly indicating that the churches of God have no such custom of considering a woman's glorious loose long hair adequate as a prayer covering or veil . . .
nor female humans baring their crotch-vicinity secret parts alluded to in RSV's (not NASV's) Isaiah 3:17 . . .

nor shamefully exposing their bare buttocks or any parts thereof as inferred in Isaiah 20:4 . . .

nor flaunting the sight of their bare breasts or any parts thereof, in accord with KJV's and NASV's (not RSV's) Proverbs 5:19 . . .

nor uncovering their bare legs or any parts thereof, as described in Isaiah 47:1-4 in correct translations of that passage . . .

nor going barefoot for admitted or non-admitted sexually-immoral purposes as plainly indicated by KJV's and RSV's and NASV's wording of Jeremiah 2:25.

First Corinthians 12:23 ...and those parts of the body which we think less honorable we invest with the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts (such as mopheaded loose long hair longer than mouth level or slanting at a sexy angle across the forehead, and/or parts or all of naked female-human arms, and/or parts or all of nude female-human legs, and/or parts or all of soxless bare female-human feet and/or bared female-human backs and/or female-human bellies, described in the obvious private-marital-context of Song of Solomon chapter 7) are treated with greater modesty,
First Corinthians 12:24 which more presentable female-human parts, such as face and hands, do not require -- concordant with detailed Scriptural-proofs available for intense scrutiny and study in http://lainwith.tripod.com and http://smotevart.tripod.com and more cyberlocations in the Web....

If we all lived in a fundamentalist country like Iran, and law-enforcement officers were interested in more than simply ticketing offenders for traffic violations and petty stealing at gasoline service stations, but instead were vigilantly and fervently patrolling to apprehend girls and women exposing any parts of their naked arms in general mixed-gender public view, everyone would be a lot friendlier, polite, happier, contented, and satisfied (especially men no longer sexually harassed and besieged by non-asked-for pointless-and-downright-insane baring of naked female-human arms by selfish and thoughtless attention-craving twits and floozies maliciously competing against each other for at-random male allegiance they sadistically have no ultimate desire to acquire nor make use of nor satisfy).

Men could actually look appreciatively at women, and treat them like genuine ladies as respectful and interested gentlemen -- instead of turning away from sudden-surprise-attack lasciviously-licentious female-human arms-exposers in non-solicited irritation, hostile consternation and dangerous safety-hazards-imposed blind confusion . . . avoiding such obnoxious deviants as antisocial vile-vermin troublemakers, deserving to be terroristically attacked back then discarded in spiteful vengeance and retaliatory non-relenting hatred.