Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquila
This affirms that Godly men wore trousers. Here we agree. However, silence doesn't prove that women never wore trousers or pantaloons.
Still waiting for you to demonstrate this and especially demonstrate where a godly woman wore pants.
Your "argument" is the only argument from silence. The Bible does not have to specify that women never wore pants. It is assumed unless you can prove otherwise - so once again please demonstrate where a godly woman wore pants.
It is important to note that the Scythian women wore trousers.
Scythian women and Persian women may or may not have worn pants. That is not the issue. The issue is whether or not godly women wore pants. Now, if you want to determine right and wrong from heathen nations, that is you prerogative. Mine is to use the Bible while I diligently search for God's holiness and righteousness in my life by seeking His kingdom first. Not my own.
Silence isn't a certainty. Silence doesn't prove that women never wore trousers or pantaloons.
The only silence is your conspicuous lack of evidence. Please demonstrate where a godly woman wore pants. Apparently that has been too difficult a task because they never did.
Both males and females wore the pantaloons under their inner garments.
Once again, please demonstrate where a godly woman wore pants. The reason why you cannot demonstrate this is because they didn't.
Barnes doesn't indicate that the priests wore pants, he was saying that these pantaloons in question were worn under the inner garment, as in the case of the priests and their breeches. Scripture itself describes the breeches of the priests:
Exodus 28:42
And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach: They were shorts.
This may be true but Barnes states they correspond to pantaloons. Sorry you missed that.
Silence isn't an argument. You have to find a text specifically condemning pants on a woman. Now, that would be an argument.
You are correct. Your silence (conspicuous lack of evidence) is not an argument at all. Your silence (lack of evidence) demonstrates your fallacy. A condemnation is not required anymore than a condemnation of using illicit drugs (for recreational purposes - medicine would be a exception) is required to understand that this is wrong. I do not need the Bible to spell out the recreational use of heroine is wrong. I do not need the Bible to spell out the recreational use of peyote is wrong etc. According to this logic, there would only be 613 things that could or could not be done. Anything not specifically mentioned would be okay. How foolish indeed!
Yes, the idea that conservatives don't care if women are raped wasn't called for. Both sides should move on from that emotional distraction and continue the discussion. |
No further discussion can be given until new evidence is presented. Such as, providing evidence where godly women wore pants. Until then, I would caution every woman who wants a Biblical standard to live by to consider seriously whether or not they want to wear "strange clothing". God says He will punish those who do:
(
Zep 1:8 KJV) And it shall come to pass in the day of the LORD'S sacrifice, that I will punish the princes, and the king's children, and all such as are clothed with strange apparel.
Threaded Mode
