More on Skirts

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Oh yeah... the "gothcha" clause right?

I teach and preach. What people do is between them and God. He is the judge. Apparently that concept is too hard for liberals to understand.

Sounds to me like you're weak on an abomination.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Sounds to me like you're weak on an abomination.

Sounds to me like you and others are weak on sound Biblical hermeneutics. Well, in this case, any hermeneutic.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Sounds to me like you and others are weak on sound Biblical hermeneutics. Well, in this case, any hermeneutic.

You have no scripture specifically condemning pants on a woman.

You only have cultural examples of men wearing pants and argue that since women wearing pants isn't mentioned it was never done. Although, Barnes and others indicate that pantaloons were sometimes worn by both men and women as part of their inner garments.

You never answered the question. Do you believe that women were required to be naked under their tunics?

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

You have no scripture specifically condemning pants on a woman.

You only have cultural examples of men wearing pants and argue that since women wearing pants isn't mentioned it was never done. Although, Barnes and others indicate that pantaloons were sometimes worn by both men and women as part of their inner garments.

This is a lie. Barnes never cited women as wearing pants. That is PURE eisegesis (reading into something that is not there). Barnes mentions a garment that corresponds to pantaloons was worn sometimes and cites the Levitical priesthood.

Sometimes beneath this garment, as in the case of the priests, there was another garment corresponding to pantaloons.
See the quote below:
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 coat, or tunic, was extended to the neck. and had long or short sleeves.

More wishful thinking... Of course, when there is no evidence to support the claim some may feel it necessary to fabricate it by misconstruing what a writer wrote.

Originally Posted by Aquila

You never answered the question. Do you believe that women were required to be naked under their tunics?

There are only 613 mitzvahs. God never intended for the Bible to be an exhaustive list of do's and don'ts. He provided principles. Then, He expected the people to take unspecified questions to the priests. They would then teach the people and God would hold the people accountable for what the priests declared.

(Deu 17:8 ESV) "If any case arises requiring decision between one kind of homicide and another, one kind of legal right and another, or one kind of assault and another, any case within your towns that is too difficult for you, then you shall arise and go up to the place that the LORD your God will choose.
(Deu 17:9 ESV) And you shall come to the Levitical priests and to the judge who is in office in those days, and you shall consult them, and they shall declare to you the decision.
(Deu 17:10 ESV) Then you shall do according to what they declare to you from that place that the LORD will choose. And you shall be careful to do according to all that they direct you.

Those who seek specificity on everything are the one's swallowing the camel for them everything goes unless there is specificity against it. Thus, in this way a person can justify anything not specifically mentioned in the 613 commandments. With this mindset pedophilia is justified.

Deu. 22:5 does not specify pants. It specifies what is worn. This includes pants. So simple even a caveman can understand it. Unfortunately, some here refuse to grasp this most basic and simple logic. Therefore, they argue pants are not specifically mentioned.

The Bible demonstrates that godly men wore pants but godly women did not. This is a principle that can be used to determine whether or not men or women should wear pants. If you want your life to line up with Biblical precedent then, you should follow this principle.

As to your "question". You asked if men and women were naked under their garments. I responded in the affirmative. Everyone, except possibly you, are naked under their garments.

Now, you have changed the question and implied that I did not answer you when in fact I did. With this change in question, you are now trying to build yet another straw man argument by ignoring the real question. That is, did godly women wear pants. I say no and have asked for contrary evidence ad-infinitum. So, if you believe you have evidence that supports your claim please provide your evidence. You would think after the length of this thread you would have done so by now.

Once again, please demonstrate biblically where a godly woman wore pants.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

This is a lie. Barnes never cited women as wearing pants. That is PURE eisegesis (reading into something that is not there). Barnes mentions a garment that corresponds to pantaloons was worn sometimes and cites the Levitical priesthood.

Sometimes beneath this garment, as in the case of the priests, there was another garment corresponding to pantaloons.
See the quote below:
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 coat, or tunic, was extended to the neck. and had long or short sleeves.

More wishful thinking... Of course, when there is no evidence to support the claim some may feel it necessary to fabricate it by misconstruing what a writer wrote.



There are only 613 mitzvahs. God never intended for the Bible to be an exhaustive list of do's and don'ts. He provided principles. Then, He expected the people to take unspecified questions to the priests. They would then teach the people and God would hold the people accountable for what the priests declared.

(Deu 17:8 ESV) "If any case arises requiring decision between one kind of homicide and another, one kind of legal right and another, or one kind of assault and another, any case within your towns that is too difficult for you, then you shall arise and go up to the place that the LORD your God will choose.
(Deu 17:9 ESV) And you shall come to the Levitical priests and to the judge who is in office in those days, and you shall consult them, and they shall declare to you the decision.
(Deu 17:10 ESV) Then you shall do according to what they declare to you from that place that the LORD will choose. And you shall be careful to do according to all that they direct you.

Those who seek specificity on everything are the one's swallowing the camel for them everything goes unless there is specificity against it. Thus, in this way a person can justify anything not specifically mentioned in the 613 commandments. With this mindset pedophilia is justified.

Deu. 22:5 does not specify pants. It specifies what is worn. This includes pants. So simple even a caveman can understand it. Unfortunately, some here refuse to grasp this most basic and simple logic. Therefore, they argue pants are not specifically mentioned.

The Bible demonstrates that godly men wore pants but godly women did not. This is a principle that can be used to determine whether or not men or women should wear pants. If you want your life to line up with Biblical precedent then, you should follow this principle.

As to your "question". You asked if men and women were naked under their garments. I responded in the affirmative. Everyone, except possibly you, are naked under their garments.

Now, you have changed the question and implied that I did not answer you when in fact I did. With this change in question, you are now trying to build yet another straw man argument by ignoring the real question. That is, did godly women wear pants. I say no and have asked for contrary evidence ad-infinitum. So, if you believe you have evidence that supports your claim please provide your evidence. You would think after the length of this thread you would have done so by now.

Once again, please demonstrate biblically where a godly woman wore pants.

You don't believe that women wore breeches or pantaloons under their garments in biblical times???

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pliny

This is a lie. Barnes never cited women as wearing pants. That is PURE eisegesis (reading into something that is not there). Barnes mentions a garment that corresponds to pantaloons was worn sometimes and cites the Levitical priesthood.

Sometimes beneath this garment, as in the case of the priests, there was another garment corresponding to pantaloons.
See the quote below:
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 coat, or tunic, was extended to the neck. and had long or short sleeves.

Speaking of pure eisegesis, you're committing the same offense of which you accuse Aquila.

"The Jews." There is no mention of male or female. "The Jews." You are reading into something which isn't there, when you claim Barnes is only speaking of Jewish males.

Originally Posted by Pliny

More wishful thinking... Of course, when there is no evidence to support the claim some may feel it necessary to fabricate it by misconstruing what a writer wrote.

Rich, considering Barnes wrote "The Jews" and didn't separate his commentary by whether it was male or female.

Originally Posted by Pliny

The Bible demonstrates that godly men wore pants but godly women did not.

False. There is no passage stating women only wore robes. You are reading into something which isn't there. You read about Priests wearing underwear and 3 Jewish guys wearing hose and thought it supports your personal opinion that only men wore bifurcated garments.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

Speaking of pure eisegesis, you're committing the same offense of which you accuse Aquila.

"The Jews." There is no mention of male or female. "The Jews." You are reading into something which isn't there, when you claim Barnes is only speaking of Jewish males.


Rich, considering Barnes wrote "The Jews" and didn't separate his commentary by whether it was male or female.


False. There is no passage stating women only wore robes. You are reading into something which isn't there. You read about Priests wearing underwear and 3 Jewish guys wearing hose and thought it supports your personal opinion that only men wore bifurcated garments.

Bingo. We have plenty of commentary that states that men and women wore similar attire. And Barnes speaks of the Jews occasionally wearing pantaloons with their inner garments without distinction of gender. It's plain English. What they don't realize is, both men and women wore pantaloons under their garments, especially in the colder months.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Bingo. We have plenty of commentary that states that men and women wore similar attire. And Barnes speaks of the Jews occasionally wearing pantaloons with their inner garments without distinction of gender. It's plain English. What they don't realize is, both men and women wore pantaloons under their garments, especially in the colder months.

Again...
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.

Barnes references the priests and is a clear reference to the command to the priests to wear bifurcated garments. Please demonstrate where women were priests. Oh... You cannot do that either.

As to the "commentary" you have -

You cannot even understand Barnes. I have Bible and you claim man's opinion.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by n david

Speaking of pure eisegesis, you're committing the same offense of which you accuse Aquila.

Thank you for demonstrating you have no idea what you are talking about.

Originally Posted by n david

"The Jews." There is no mention of male or female. "The Jews." You are reading into something which isn't there, when you claim Barnes is only speaking of Jewish males.

So you believe there were women priests? Barnes noted the Levites which is a clear reference to the command for the priests to wear breeches. So, the only logical conclusion is you believe there were women priests. That is called eisegesis. You and Aquila - two proverbial peas in a pod.

Originally Posted by n david

False. There is no passage stating women only wore robes. You are reading into something which isn't there. You read about Priests wearing underwear and 3 Jewish guys wearing hose and thought it supports your personal opinion that only men wore bifurcated garments.

You must believe pedophilia is okay. If not please show where it is specifically condemned.

The truth is, the Bible demonstrates that only godly men wore pants. Godly women did not. Please demonstrate, specifically, where women wore pants.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Thank you for demonstrating you have no idea what you are talking about.

So you believe there were women priests? Barnes noted the Levites which is a clear reference to the command for the priests to wear breeches. So, the only logical conclusion is you believe there were women priests. That is called eisegesis. You and Aquila - two proverbial peas in a pod.

Keep laughing, chuckles. Use that reading comprehension you posted of pages ago. Barnes was NOT speaking only of the Levites. Read it again.

"""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 to corresponding to pantaloons. The coat, or tunic, was extended to the neck, and had long or short sleeves. Over this was commonly worn an upper garment, here called "cloak" or mantle. It was made commonly nearly square of different sizes, five or six cubits long, and as many broad and wrapped around the body and thrown off when labor was performed. This was the garment which is said to have been without seam woven throughout. John xix 23 If, said Christ, an adversary wished to obtain at law one of these garments rather than contend with him, let have the other also."""

The comment about the priests was included, but the context as whole was NOT about priests only.

Originally Posted by Pliny

You must believe pedophilia is okay. If not please show where it is specifically condemned.

The truth is, the Bible demonstrates that only godly men wore pants. Godly women did not. Please demonstrate, specifically, where women wore pants.

You know what you did there, right? In your attempt to be cute and try to get that "gotcha" moment, you fell into your own dumb trap. If you cannot provide scripture where cocaine, specifically, is condemned, you must believe pedophilia is okay. If you cannot provide scripture where pot, specifically, is condemned, you must believe pedophilia is okay.

Dumb.

And for the umpteenth time, priests in underwear and 3 Jewish dudes wearing hose don't support your claim that only men wore pants.