Quote:
Originally Posted by Pliny
Once again on Barnes:
Coat - The Jews wore two principal garments, an interior and an exterior. The interior, here called the “coat,” or the tunic, was made commonly of linen, and encircled the whole body, extending down to the knees. Sometimes beneath this garment, as in the case of the priests, there was another garment corresponding to pantaloons.
The phrase "the Jews" may or may not include women. Context determines meaning. In the case of pants - godly women never wore pants therefore by context, if this is all that was looked at, this phrase would mean Jewish men to the exclusion of women. Why? Because once again, godly women did not wear pants. Then, Barnes adds to this the concept of priests which is a direct command to Jewish men.
|
You can claim godly women never wore pants all day, but you have nothing to back it on. No scripture. No culture. No history. Nothing. The distinction was style, color and length.
Good to see you finally get that "The Jews" could mean women, though you still don't seem to understand the concept of basic English sentence structure and use of comparisons or examples.
"Sometimes beneath this garment,
as in the case of the priests, there was another garment corresponding to pantaloons."
The priests are simply used as a comparison. They are not the subject of the sentence.
And with that lesson, I'll leave you all for the evening.
I've spent too much time arguing personal preferences and basic English sentence structure.
Threaded Mode
