More on Skirts

[n david]

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.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by n david

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.

Do you believe pedophilia is a sin?

Apparently you seem to believe that the Bible must specifically state that women should not wear pants. Therefore, using YOUR logic please demonstrate that pedophilia is a sin (assuming you believe it is a sin). Please give specific scripture.

You say I have no Bible, culture or history to "back up my claim". That is patently false.
I have given scripture multiple times. YOU just ignore it.
The Bible, as history, demonstrates that only godly men wore pants.

The reason why the Bible does not show a godly woman wearing pants is simply because they didn't. Now, if you believe they did, simply demonstrate Biblically where they wore pants.

Considering the multitudes of pages and posts and the conspicuous absence of Biblical evidence that they did, it must be understood that they didn't. Therefore, your only recourse is to either acknowledge the truth or continue to ignore the truth and argue by grasping at anything to justify your un-biblical stand.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Do you believe pedophilia is a sin?

Originally Posted by Pliny

Apparently you seem to believe that the Bible must specifically state that women should not wear pants.

Actually, I don't. But you believe that absence is proof, which it isn't. The history and culture of ancient Israel shows time and again that the difference between the sexes was in color, length and style.

Originally Posted by Pliny

You say I have no Bible, culture or history to "back up my claim". That is patently false.
I have given scripture multiple times. YOU just ignore it.
The Bible, as history, demonstrates that only godly men wore pants.

You have nothing but Priests wearing underwear and 3 Jewish dudes in captivity wearing leggings. You ignore culture and history because it doesn't fit your narrative.

Originally Posted by Pliny

The reason why the Bible does not show a godly woman wearing pants is simply because they didn't.

Really? You know this as a fact? You were there with Moses and throughout the OT into Jesus' times? Gimme a break.

"""There are three clauses in this passage.

(1) A man’s item shall not be on a woman;

(2) and a man shall not wear a woman’s garment;

(3) whoever does such a thing is an abhorrence unto Adonai.

Note the lack of parallel structure in the first two clauses. We might have expected the verse to say, “(1′) A man may not wear women’s clothes; (2′) and a woman may not wear men’s clothes.” It is no violation of Biblical Hebrew style to repeat the same words in a single sentence, so it is peculiar that we do not have matching phrases. The words “man’s” and “men” come first in both clauses, and in order to allow that, the first clause is passive while the second is active. Moreover, the first clause talks of kli gever “item” or “appurtenance” while the second clause uses the word simlat “dress” or “garment.” It seems that the verse speaks of two differing but related rules.

Nonetheless, some of our sages read these two clauses as if they were the statement of two identical rules, one applying to men, one applying to women. That is, they read it as if it says, “a man or a woman shall not wear the items of the other gender.” But most sages treat the two verses as distinct in intent.

One of the most unusual interpretations is that of the early Aramaic source referred to as Pseudo-Yonatan, a translation of the Hebrew Bible that renders kli gever, “a man’s items” as tsitsit (tallit or prayer shawl) and tefillin (phylacteries or prayer amulets worn by traditionally observant Jews). Since these items are required by Halakha (Jewish law) for men but not for women, they are quintessential “men’s items” and thus are the subject of this law, suggests Pseudo-Yonatan.

A debate has been raging for the past two-thousand years over whether women may wear tallit and tefillin, and if so, which berakha (blessing) they say when putting them on. In the course of that debate the minority who forbid women from wearing tallit and tefillin do not cite this interpretation or this verse as proof of their position. Moreover, none of the mainstream halakhic (legal) interpretations of this verse follow the midrash of Pseudo-Yonatan. Thus, this interpretation, while interesting, has no legal weight.

In another attempt to identify the quintessential “men’s items,” Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob, quoted in the Talmud (edited c. 800 C.E.), says, “What is the proof that a woman may not go forth with weapons to war?” He then cites our verse, which he reads this way: “A warrior’s gear may not be put on a woman” (B. Naz. 59a). He reads kli gever as the homograph kli gibbor, meaning a “warrior’s gear.”

This same understanding is followed by Midrash Mishlei (Proverbs) which contends that the Biblical character Yael in the Book of Judges kills General Sisera with a tent pin instead of a sword in order to comply with this law. It would have been “unlady-like” for her to use a sword — worse, a violation of the law — because a sword is a man’s tool and so the righteous woman of valor finds an alternate weapon.

While this interpretation does not prevail in later halakhic discussion, it does appear, and so it must be regarded as a viable albeit minority view as to the intent of the first clause. This interpretation has even been cited in the debate over exemption for women from military conscription in modern Israel.

A common understanding of our verse in exegetical and halakhic literature is stated by Rashi, one of the most highly-regarded Talmudists and Biblical commentators of all time (c. 1040-1105 C.E.): “Kli gever, a man’s item should not be on a woman: That she should not appear as a man so she can go out among men, for this is only for the purpose of adultery.”

Likewise, Rashi says, “Simlat Isha, a man shall not wear a women’s garment: So he can go and be among the women.”

Rashi explains the moral force of this: “To`eva, abhorrence: The Torah forbids only garments that may lead to to`eva, abhorrence.” This comment appears in Rashi‘s Torah commentary, so it is not clear whether Rashi is defining the reason for the law or, alternatively, its scope.

Only a few sources spell out what is meant by “women’s clothing” and “men’s clothing.” Women normally wear colorful clothes; men wear white. Most sources leave the particulars undefined, because they realized that while gender distinction in dress is almost universal, the particulars are a matter of local fashion trends. As the Tur (c. 1300 C.E.), the predecessor code of the Shulhan Arukh, puts it: “A woman should not dress in clothes specifically for men lefi minhag hamaqom according to the local fashion” (YD 182).

The intent of the law, in this view, is to prevent men and women from associating with what would normally be a single-sex group of the other gender under false pretenses for purposes of, or in circumstances that are liable to lead to, heterosexual adultery. Rashi seems to limit the prohibition to this case. Thus men and women cross-dressing in other circumstances might not be prohibited, at least if it can be assured that the “abhorrence” will not result."""

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

Actually, I don't. But you believe that absence is proof, which it isn't. The history and culture of ancient Israel shows time and again that the difference between the sexes was in color, length and style.


You have nothing but Priests wearing underwear and 3 Jewish dudes in captivity wearing leggings. You ignore culture and history because it doesn't fit your narrative.


Really? You know this as a fact? You were there with Moses and throughout the OT into Jesus' times? Gimme a break.

"""There are three clauses in this passage.

(1) A man’s item shall not be on a woman;

(2) and a man shall not wear a woman’s garment;

(3) whoever does such a thing is an abhorrence unto Adonai.

Note the lack of parallel structure in the first two clauses. We might have expected the verse to say, “(1′) A man may not wear women’s clothes; (2′) and a woman may not wear men’s clothes.” It is no violation of Biblical Hebrew style to repeat the same words in a single sentence, so it is peculiar that we do not have matching phrases. The words “man’s” and “men” come first in both clauses, and in order to allow that, the first clause is passive while the second is active. Moreover, the first clause talks of kli gever “item” or “appurtenance” while the second clause uses the word simlat “dress” or “garment.” It seems that the verse speaks of two differing but related rules.

Nonetheless, some of our sages read these two clauses as if they were the statement of two identical rules, one applying to men, one applying to women. That is, they read it as if it says, “a man or a woman shall not wear the items of the other gender.” But most sages treat the two verses as distinct in intent.

One of the most unusual interpretations is that of the early Aramaic source referred to as Pseudo-Yonatan, a translation of the Hebrew Bible that renders kli gever, “a man’s items” as tsitsit (tallit or prayer shawl) and tefillin (phylacteries or prayer amulets worn by traditionally observant Jews). Since these items are required by Halakha (Jewish law) for men but not for women, they are quintessential “men’s items” and thus are the subject of this law, suggests Pseudo-Yonatan.

A debate has been raging for the past two-thousand years over whether women may wear tallit and tefillin, and if so, which berakha (blessing) they say when putting them on. In the course of that debate the minority who forbid women from wearing tallit and tefillin do not cite this interpretation or this verse as proof of their position. Moreover, none of the mainstream halakhic (legal) interpretations of this verse follow the midrash of Pseudo-Yonatan. Thus, this interpretation, while interesting, has no legal weight.

In another attempt to identify the quintessential “men’s items,” Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob, quoted in the Talmud (edited c. 800 C.E.), says, “What is the proof that a woman may not go forth with weapons to war?” He then cites our verse, which he reads this way: “A warrior’s gear may not be put on a woman” (B. Naz. 59a). He reads kli gever as the homograph kli gibbor, meaning a “warrior’s gear.”

This same understanding is followed by Midrash Mishlei (Proverbs) which contends that the Biblical character Yael in the Book of Judges kills General Sisera with a tent pin instead of a sword in order to comply with this law. It would have been “unlady-like” for her to use a sword — worse, a violation of the law — because a sword is a man’s tool and so the righteous woman of valor finds an alternate weapon.

While this interpretation does not prevail in later halakhic discussion, it does appear, and so it must be regarded as a viable albeit minority view as to the intent of the first clause. This interpretation has even been cited in the debate over exemption for women from military conscription in modern Israel.

A common understanding of our verse in exegetical and halakhic literature is stated by Rashi, one of the most highly-regarded Talmudists and Biblical commentators of all time (c. 1040-1105 C.E.): “Kli gever, a man’s item should not be on a woman: That she should not appear as a man so she can go out among men, for this is only for the purpose of adultery.”

Likewise, Rashi says, “Simlat Isha, a man shall not wear a women’s garment: So he can go and be among the women.”

Rashi explains the moral force of this: “To`eva, abhorrence: The Torah forbids only garments that may lead to to`eva, abhorrence.” This comment appears in Rashi‘s Torah commentary, so it is not clear whether Rashi is defining the reason for the law or, alternatively, its scope.

Only a few sources spell out what is meant by “women’s clothing” and “men’s clothing.” Women normally wear colorful clothes; men wear white. Most sources leave the particulars undefined, because they realized that while gender distinction in dress is almost universal, the particulars are a matter of local fashion trends. As the Tur (c. 1300 C.E.), the predecessor code of the Shulhan Arukh, puts it: “A woman should not dress in clothes specifically for men lefi minhag hamaqom according to the local fashion” (YD 182).

The intent of the law, in this view, is to prevent men and women from associating with what would normally be a single-sex group of the other gender under false pretenses for purposes of, or in circumstances that are liable to lead to, heterosexual adultery. Rashi seems to limit the prohibition to this case. Thus men and women cross-dressing in other circumstances might not be prohibited, at least if it can be assured that the “abhorrence” will not result."""

They don't pay such attention to detail. They have put all their focus on pants and have failed to see that this verse has nothing to do with women wearing pants.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

They don't pay such attention to detail. They have put all their focus on pants and have failed to see that this verse has nothing to do with women wearing pants.

You think the verse does not pertain to what people wear?


(Deu 22:5 ESV) "A woman shall not wear a man's garment, nor shall a man put on a woman's cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God.
(Deu 22:5 ESV) "A woman shall not wear a man's garment, nor shall a man put on a woman's cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God.
(Deu 22:5 JPS) A woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment; for whosoever doeth these things is an abomination unto the LORD thy God.

Wear: to carry or have on the body or about the person as a covering, equipment, ornament, or the like:

Oh well, I guess you know better than the scholars who translated the verse into English. How dare they indicate the verse is about what people wear.


Perhaps you do something different with "pants" in your household?
Maybe they are coasters for drinks?
Maybe they are used as ropes to tie things down?
Maybe they are used as a flag and flown on a pole?

Well, most people, in fact everyone I have ever known has used them as clothing, that is they WEAR them.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pliny

You think the verse does not pertain to what people wear?

(Deu 22:5 ESV) "A woman shall not wear a man's garment, nor shall a man put on a woman's cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God.
(Deu 22:5 ESV) "A woman shall not wear a man's garment, nor shall a man put on a woman's cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God.
(Deu 22:5 JPS) A woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment; for whosoever doeth these things is an abomination unto the LORD thy God.

Wear: to carry or have on the body or about the person as a covering, equipment, ornament, or the like:

Oh well, I guess you know better than the scholars who translated the verse into English. How dare they indicate the verse is about what people wear.

Why wasn't the Hebrew word "labash" used, instead of "hayah?" Odd that if the original verse was about "wearing" something, they didn't use the Hebrew word for it, which is "labash."

Labash - to put on, wear, clothe, be clothed
Hayah - to fall out, come to pass, become, be

Of course, this is where you don't like using the original definition and instead use Dictionary.com for your reference; because using the original Hebrew definition doesn't fit your narrative of pants.

But it does fit what I quoted previously from Jewish history and culture.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by n david

Why wasn't the Hebrew word "labash" used, instead of "hayah?" Odd that if the original verse was about "wearing" something, they didn't use the Hebrew word for it, which is "labash."

Labash - to put on, wear, clothe, be clothed
Hayah - to fall out, come to pass, become, be

Of course, this is where you don't like using the original definition and instead use Dictionary.com for your reference; because using the original Hebrew definition doesn't fit your narrative of pants.

But it does fit what I quoted previously from Jewish history and culture.

Glad to know you THINK you know more than the translators.
(Deu 22:5 ESV) "A woman shall not wear a man's garment, nor shall a man put on a woman's cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God.
(Deu 22:5 ESV) "A woman shall not wear a man's garment, nor shall a man put on a woman's cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God.
(Deu 22:5 JPS) A woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment; for whosoever doeth these things is an abomination unto the LORD thy God.

I will stick with the scholars on this one.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by n david

I asked if you believe pedophilia is a sin. Apparently, you cannot answer this simple question since you answered it with your


Then, I said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pliny View Post
Apparently you seem to believe that the Bible must specifically state that women should not wear pants.

Originally Posted by n david

Actually, I don't. But you believe that absence is proof, which it isn't. The history and culture of ancient Israel shows time and again that the difference between the sexes was in color, length and style.

Now, you say you do not need specificity. At least now there is some progress. You argue that absence is not proof. This is understandable because you have provided NO Biblical evidence for godly women wearing pants. The Bible also demonstrates that godly men wore pants and godly women did not.

Originally Posted by n david

You have nothing but Priests wearing underwear and 3 Jewish dudes in captivity wearing leggings. You ignore culture and history because it doesn't fit your narrative.

Those "leggings" were pants. Even Aquila has acknowledged this truth. How sad that you cannot accept the fact that they were wearing pants. Of course, you must ignore these Biblical facts because it doesn't fit your narrative. In case you are not aware of this other fact, these ancient Israeli's were part of history and Jewish culture. Therefore, acknowledging them IS acknowledging Jewish history and culture. You are the one ignoring the Bible, Jewish culture and history.

Originally Posted by n david

Really? You know this as a fact? You were there with Moses and throughout the OT into Jesus' times? Gimme a break.

Yes, I know that godly Jewish men wore pants and godly Jewish women did not. How do I know this? Not because I am thousands of years old but because I use the BIBLE. Apparently, you do not think the Bible is a worthy consideration; thus, you use the Talmud instead. How Pharisaical of you. You think the Talmud trumps the Bible. Good to know.

BTW, You did not adequately indicate you were copying and pasting from the Talmud. Some could charge you with plagiarism. This is because it can appear that you are quoting something without proper citation. Proper citations are important because it gives the reader an opportunity to review the quoted material in the context that it was written in.

The Talmud does NOT invalidate the Bible. The Bible invalidates the Talmud whenever they diverge. Please try again. This time, you might consider using the Bible. Oh wait. You can't because the Bible demonstrates that godly men wore pants and godly women did not.

But then again, you are stuck on the idea that the "hosen" they wore must have been water hosen. Yet the people who know better than you or I say:
Dan 3:21 (ABP) Then those men were shackled with their pantaloons,G4552.1 G1473 and tiaras, and leggings, and their garments. And they were thrown into the midst of the [2furnace 3of fire 1burning],

(Dan 3:21 ERV) So Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were tied up and thrown into the hot furnace. They were wearing their robes, pants, cloth caps, and other clothes.

Daniel 3:21 (LXX) Then those men were bound with their coats, and caps, and hose, and were cast into the midst of the burning fiery furnace

LXX+
Dan 3:21 τοτεG5119 ADV οιG3588 T-NPM ανδρεςG435 N-NPM εκεινοιG1565 D-NPM επεδηθησανV-API-3P συνG4862 PREP τοιςG3588 T-DPN σαραβαροιςN-DPN αυτωνG846 D-GPM καιG2532 CONJ τιαραιςN-DPF καιG2532 CONJ περικνημισιN-DPF καιG2532 CONJ ενδυμασινG1742 N-DPN αυτωνG846 D-GPM καιG2532 CONJ εβληθησανG906 V-API-3P ειςG1519 PREP μεσονG3319 A-ASM τηςG3588 T-GSF καμινουG2575 N-GSF τουG3588 T-GSN πυροςG4442 N-GSN τηςG3588 T-GSF καιομενηςG2545 V-PMPGS

H5622
סרבּל (Aramaic) (LXX – σαραβαροις)
sarbal
Dictionary of the Targumim, Talmud Bavli, Talmud Yerushalmi and Midrashic Literature, Marcus Jastrow, 1022a – Pers. Trousers.

Dan 3:27 And the princes, governors, and captains, and the king's counsellors, being gathered together, saw these men, upon whose bodies the fire had no power, nor was an hair of their head singed, neither were their coats (σαραβαρα LXX) changed, nor the smell of fire had passed on them.

LXX+
Dan 3:27 [3:94] καιG2532 CONJ συναγονταιG4863 V-PMI-3P οιG3588 T-NPM σατραπαιN-NPM καιG2532 CONJ οιG3588 T-NPM στρατηγοιG4755 N-NPM καιG2532 CONJ οιG3588 T-NPM τοπαρχαιN-NPM καιG2532 CONJ οιG3588 T-NPM δυνασταιG1413 N-NPM τουG3588 T-GSM βασιλεωςG935 N-GSM καιG2532 CONJ εθεωρουνG2334 V-IAI-3P τουςG3588 T-APM ανδραςG435 N-APM οτιG3754 CONJ ουκG3364 ADV εκυριευσενG2961 V-AAI-3S τοG3588 T-NSN πυρG4442 N-NSN τουG3588 T-GSN σωματοςG4983 N-GSN αυτωνG846 D-GPM καιG2532 CONJ ηG3588 T-NSF θριξG2359 N-NSF τηςG3588 T-GSF κεφαληςG2776 N-GSF αυτωνG846 D-GPM ουκG3364 ADV εφλογισθηG5394 V-API-3S καιG2532 CONJ ταG3588 T-NPN σαραβαραN-NPN αυτωνG846 D-GPM ουκG3364 ADV ηλλοιωθηV-API-3S καιG2532 CONJ οσμηG3744 N-NSF πυροςG4442 N-GSN ουκG3364 ADV ηνG1510 V-IAI-3S ενG1722 PREP αυτοιςG846 D-DPM

Ancient Greek to English Dictionary
σαραβαρα
A loose trousers worn by Scythians, Antiph.201; also = Aramaic sarbālîn, LXX, Thd.Da.3.27 (cf. 21). (Prob. Persian shalvâr or shulvâr (braccae).)

Daniel 3:27 (WEB) The satraps, the deputies, and the governors, and the king's counselors, being gathered together, saw these men, that the fire had no power on their bodies, nor was the hair of their head singed, neither were their pants changed, nor had the smell of fire passed on them.

That's okay. Whenever the facts don't agree with you just ignore them. It may help you sleep at night.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pliny

I asked if you believe pedophilia is a sin. Apparently, you cannot answer this simple question since you answered it with your

No, it's that your question is stupid and doesn't deserve an answer.

Originally Posted by Pliny

Then, I said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pliny View Post
Apparently you seem to believe that the Bible must specifically state that women should not wear pants.

Now, you say you do not need specificity. At least now there is some progress. You argue that absence is not proof. This is understandable because you have provided NO Biblical evidence for godly women wearing pants. The Bible also demonstrates that godly men wore pants and godly women did not.

No, it does not. We can do this all day. You can claim it all day, but you have no actual proof.

Originally Posted by Pliny

Yes, I know that godly Jewish men wore pants and godly Jewish women did not. How do I know this? Not because I am thousands of years old but because I use the BIBLE. Apparently, you do not think the Bible is a worthy consideration; thus, you use the Talmud instead. How Pharisaical of you. You think the Talmud trumps the Bible. Good to know.

Post my quote where I state the Talmud trumps the Bible. Contrary to your repeated claims, the Bible does not state that women only wore robes and that men wore pants.

Originally Posted by Pliny

BTW, You did not adequately indicate you were copying and pasting from the Talmud. Some could charge you with plagiarism. This is because it can appear that you are quoting something without proper citation. Proper citations are important because it gives the reader an opportunity to review the quoted material in the context that it was written in.

I forgot, you don't understand basic sentence structure or the use of quotation marks. You want to "charge" me with plagiarism, be my guest.

Originally Posted by Pliny

The Talmud does NOT invalidate the Bible. The Bible invalidates the Talmud whenever they diverge. Please try again. This time, you might consider using the Bible.

Post my quote where I stated the Talmud invalidates the Bible. You were whining about my posting a quote (using quotation marks) and threatening to "charge" me with plagiarism, yet you post a completely false accusation above.

Originally Posted by Pliny

But then again, you are stuck on the idea that the "hosen" they wore must have been water hosen.

Another false statement. You could be "charged" with lying.

Originally Posted by Pliny

That's okay. Whenever the facts don't agree with you just ignore them. It may help you sleep at night.

No, that's you switching between Strongs and Dictionary.com whichever one helps your narrative. It's you ignoring history and culture and using silence in the Bible to try and prove that "well if it's not in there, it must not have happened."

I sleep very well at night, thank you.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by n david

No, it's that your question is stupid and doesn't deserve an answer.

Which is a haughty way of saying I do not want to answer because it reveals how ignorant your position is.

Post my quote where I state the Talmud trumps the Bible. Contrary to your repeated claims, the Bible does not state that women only wore robes and that men wore pants.

Great! Then you should be able to provide the Biblical reference for godly women wearing pants. I anxiously await your evidence.

I forgot, you don't understand basic sentence structure or the use of quotation marks. You want to "charge" me with plagiarism, be my guest.
Let's see, I don't understand sentence structure. So because you use a quotation mark I am supposed to know that you are quoting from the Talmud? Please do explain how a quotation mark is intricately tied to the Talmud. Also, I said a person could charge you with plagiarism and explained why. I guess you could not comprehend that part. Perhaps when you get to the second grade they will explain how to properly cite quotes.

Post my quote where I stated the Talmud invalidates the Bible. You were whining about my posting a quote (using quotation marks) and threatening to "charge" me with plagiarism, yet you post a completely false accusation above.
Another false allegation. I never "threatened" you with plagiarism. I was simply trying to help you avoid the charge in the future if someone wanted too. Maybe this will help you:
Cite - Citing is one of the effective ways to avoid plagiarism. Follow the document formatting guidelines (i.e. APA, MLA, Chicago, etc.) used by your educational institution or the institution that issued the research request. This usually entails the addition of the author(s) and the date of the publication or similar information. Citing is really that simple. Not citing properly can constitute plagiarism.
Write check, Ways to Avoid Plagiarism, Section 2. Found at:
http://en.writecheck.com/ways-to-avoid-plagiarism/

Still can't find that verse where godly women wore pants.