Quote:
Originally Posted by LUKE2447
hilarious... as if your POINT proves the translation and meaning of Deut 22:5. seriously. I already said sometimes it doesn't but the text doesn't even hint thus IT IS SPECULATION by YOU! Thanks for proving my point! |
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.
Quote:
|
So "warrior" is it's only meaning Mike? I asked you to show usage of it to prove it.
|
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?
[quote]
Quote:
|
run around instead of dealing with the text Mike and the actual usage. You are arguing about PLAUSIBILITY of a speculating opinion because you can throw out SEE the bible doesn't always tell us ALL of what it is referencing. Guess what... yes it it truuueee but it DOESN'T MAKE YOU ARGUMENT for actuall usage according to HOW THE WORDS ARE USED IN THE ACTUAL TEXT! You demand and apply a complete bias to a word without studying the word as a whole AND it's actual usage in the text. Again answer the Q's.
|
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.
PS, I believe the passage can simply mean men do nto wear women's clothing and women not wear men's. 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?
Threaded Mode
