Quote:
Originally Posted by mfblume
Oh please, with the childish "hilarious". (Why cannot people talk without juvenile accusations of what is allegedly funny?)
Scholars abound who claim what I did. So it is not an opinion of me.
|
so I can post anything from xyz scholar.
Quote:
I gave you the definition in Hebrew. I ever said it was the only definition either. Are you going to say this is hilarious again?
|
no but that is how you treated the subject. You sure did not present a balanced opinion or even close.
Quote:
|
I already said twice now that some issues are not explained in the bible such as why linen and wool should not be mixed. Again, if you think I should be able to prove that is not true, then show me why wool should nto be mixed with linen using bible.
|
not goingto argue a pointeless point that does not help the whole discussion. MY point is simple. IT is speculative. If you cannot see that and agree then you have basic exegesis issues. Sure it does not negate it being true but the TEXT DOES NOT SHOW IT thus is speculative.
Quote:
|
PS, I believe the passage can simply mean men do nto wear women's clothing and women not wear men's.
|
Quote:
|
I never said that CANNOT be the point. But the fact is that PANTS ARER NOT JUST MEN'S CLOTHING, and Deut 22 never mentioned PAN TS to begin with. And THAT is the actual point in this thread. Pants versus dresses on women, right?
|
I am simply dealing with
Deut 22:5 and saying it is warrior gear or only referencing warrior.
If you would simply interpret the text like I asked you accoring to your interpretation you would quickly see my point.