More on Skirts

[Aquila]

Since EB is seriously mistaken about what I believe, let me clarify.

I believe God addressed the perversion and debauchery of cross dressing (be it Canaanite practice or what we see in the local queer club) in one fell swoop by prohibiting the very appearance of the evil.

And I do see it as an abomination that needs immediate rebuke and endangers the soul.

I believe it's about something far more serious than women's pants.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Since EB is seriously mistaken about what I believe, let me clarify.

I believe God addressed the perversion and debauchery of cross dressing (be it Canaanite practice or what we see in the local queer club) in one fell swoop by prohibiting the very appearance of the evil.

And I do see it as an abomination that needs immediate rebuke and endangers the soul.

I believe it's about something far more serious than women's pants.

Aquila agreed with me.

You can't be posting a thread to death. Yet, not understand what the other guy is saying. Aquila just posted 1. Canaanite religious ceremonies. 2. Homosexual activity. Therefore the conclusion can be drawn that if the "intent" isn't religious or sexual perversion you can crossdress.

Liberal sick and warped.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Aquila agreed with me.

You can't be posting a thread to death. Yet, not understand what the other guy is saying. Aquila just posted 1. Canaanite religious ceremonies. 2. Homosexual activity. Therefore the conclusion can be drawn that if the "intent" isn't religious or sexual perversion you can crossdress.

Liberal sick and warped.

Not so.

The crossdressing is blanketly condemned to eliminate any question.

[Bill E Goat]

I know this thread is kinda old and wore out, but its the reason I joined the forum even though I have been lurking for a while. My first point is simple. These "pants" some are claiming men wore were UNDERWEAR. Now please try and explain to me that women did not wear UNDERWEAR. After all A woman has a bit different biological makeup that would make her wanna have something on under there for atleast 1 week outa the month.

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Bill E Goat

I know this thread is kinda old and wore out, but its the reason I joined the forum even though I have been lurking for a while. My first point is simple. These "pants" some are claiming men wore were UNDERWEAR. Now please try and explain to me that women did not wear UNDERWEAR. After all A woman has a bit different biological makeup that would make her wanna have something on under there for atleast 1 week outa the month.

are you Amish?

[Godsdrummer]

Originally Posted by Bill E Goat

I know this thread is kinda old and wore out, but its the reason I joined the forum even though I have been lurking for a while. My first point is simple. These "pants" some are claiming men wore were UNDERWEAR. Now please try and explain to me that women did not wear UNDERWEAR. After all A woman has a bit different biological makeup that would make her wanna have something on under there for atleast 1 week outa the month.

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Bill E Goat

I know this thread is kinda old and wore out, but its the reason I joined the forum even though I have been lurking for a while. My first point is simple. These "pants" some are claiming men wore were UNDERWEAR. Now please try and explain to me that women did not wear UNDERWEAR. After all A woman has a bit different biological makeup that would make her wanna have something on under there for atleast 1 week outa the month.

Women were unclean during their period and everything they touched was unclean so they were secluded from the community and what they wore during the seclusion is irrelevant to the discussion (Leviticus 15).

[Bill E Goat]

My second point is if these breeches, trousers, pants, whatever it is that some here are claiming were everyday attire for the Israelite men then Exodus 12:11 would say " and let the women eat with your loins gird about".

[Bill E Goat]

Now, explain the difference in Genesis 37:3 and 2 Samuel 13:18-20. Same word used to describe both garments one worn by male the other female.

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Bill E Goat

Now, explain the difference in Genesis 37:3 and 2 Samuel 13:18-20. Same word used to describe both garments one worn by male the other female.

It is difficult to comment on something that can not be defined, and has an unknown meaning

The Hebrew words behind the expression “coat of many colours” is ketonet passīm, a word with an unknown meaning. The English translations differ on how they translate ketonet passīm. This is how various versions of the Bible translate this Hebrew expression:

NRSV: “A long robe with sleeves.”
KJV: “A coat of many colours.”
NIV: “A richly ornamented robe.”
CJB: “A long-sleeved robe.”
NAB: “A long tunic.”
NJB: “A decorated tunic.”

https://claudemariottini.com/2014/07...f-many-colors/