More on Skirts

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Daniel 3:21 and 3:27 are fascinating.
(Dan 3:21 KJV) Then these men were bound in their coats, their hosen, and their hats, and their other garments, and were cast into the midst of the burning fiery furnace.

According to JFB, Babylonian clothing consisted of long "pantaloons", observe:

JFB
Daniel 3:21
coats ... hosen ... hats — Herodotus [1.195] says that the Babylonian costume consisted of three parts: (1) wide, long pantaloons; (2) a woollen shirt; (3) an outer mantle with a girdle round it. So these are specified [Gesenius], “their pantaloons, inner tunics (hosen, or stockings, are not commonly worn in the East), and outer mantles.” Their being cast in so hurriedly, with all their garments on, enhanced the miracle in that not even the smell of fire passed on their clothes, though of delicate, inflammable material.

JFB insists these men were wearing pants.

Albert Barnes cites Gesenius in describing the "coats" as pants, observe:
[Barnes] The word rendered “coats,” is in the margin rendered “mantles.” The Chaldee word (סרבלין sarbâlı̂yn) means, according to Gesenius, the long and wide pantaloons which are worn by the Orientals, from סרבל sarbēl, to cover.

Thus, two commentators agree that they were wearing pants. Some translators even chose to use pants in their translations.

The translators of the ABP and ERV chose to use pants or pantaloons in their translations.
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.


Then, there are the scholars that translated the Hebrew into Greek in the LXX.
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).)


There can be no doubt that a multiplicity of scholars agree, the three Hebrew boys thrown into the fiery furnace were indeed wearing pants.

Now, once again, I ask for someone to demonstrate where a single godly woman wore pants.
The silence has been deafening...

Like I told you Aquila, there are other dictionaries and lexicons which go into more detail on these words. Yet, you are not here as teacher, scholar, or student. You are here to push your postmodern "Jesus is my butterfly" Churchanity.

[Pliny]

i have asked multiple times for someone to demonstrate that godly women wore pants. This question has NEVER been responded to. Therefore, the conspicuous lack of response can only mean that NO godly woman in the Bible wore pants. If you disagree please provide positive proof that this statement is incorrect.

No more obfuscations.
No more anecdotal "evidence" from a "I heard" perspective about a friend whose father knew his father who had a grandfather who etc.
No more relying on Native American Indian culture.
No more relying on Islam.

Use the Bible...

Answer the question, did godly women wear pants? A simple yes or no will suffice. However, if the answer is "yes" then prove it.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Like I told you Aquila, there are other dictionaries and lexicons which go into more detail on these words. Yet, you are not here as teacher, scholar, or student. You are here to push your postmodern "Jesus is my butterfly" Churchanity.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Sooo... No one else ever wore them? Where in the text is anyone else forbidden from wearing them?

Fair question. I don't believe no one else was to ever wear breeches. Perhaps I should have said that my point is that the text is about the priest's attire.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Like I told you Aquila, there are other dictionaries and lexicons which go into more detail on these words. Yet, you are not here as teacher, scholar, or student. You are here to push your postmodern "Jesus is my butterfly" Churchanity.

No, actually, I'm learning quite a bit. I'm glad I pushed it.

However, so far we've established that the priests wore pants and that three Hebrews in Daniel wore pants. However, that doesn't prove that women never wore them or a similar article of clothing.

Also:

If both texts in Leviticus and Daniel can be so specific so as to specify pants, why doesn't Deuteronomy 22:5? One could argue that it means any attire designated for a man. However, there are many articles of clothing that are regularly worn by women throughout the UPCI and other "holiness" churches that were originally designed for and worn by men. Why don't you condemn these things?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

No, actually, I'm learning quite a bit. I'm glad I pushed it.

However, so far we've established that the priests wore pants and that three Hebrews in Daniel wore pants. However, that doesn't prove that women never wore them or a similar article of clothing.

Where is the verses which call for women to wear pants, or one verse wich has women wearing pants. CHristendom from start to stop had women wearing gowns, dresses, and skirts. Men wore hosen, trousers, and pants. Oddly enough the etymology of pants comes from the Greek origin which means "entirely lion like." Because the pants represented manhood, manliness. Christendom's understanding was men wore the pants and the women didn't. The phrase "We know who wears the pants in Aquila's home" comes from 1931, so if pants were interchangeably normal occurrence back then, the phrase would have no meaning. Yet, even still to this day they use the term to indicate that your wife runs you.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Also:

If both texts in Leviticus and Daniel can be so specific so as to specify pants, why doesn't Deuteronomy 22:5? One could argue that it means any attire designated for a man.

Why? Work on that and explain why?

Originally Posted by Aquila

However, there are many articles of clothing that are regularly worn by women throughout the UPCI and other "holiness" churches that were originally designed for and worn by men. Why don't you condemn these things?

I was never in the UPCI so why are we now talking about Hazelwood Missouri? Also who are you now accusing of condemning anyone? Do you go to the First Church of NPR?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Where is the verses which call for women to wear pants, or one verse wich has women wearing pants. CHristendom from start to stop had women wearing gowns, dresses, and skirts. Men wore hosen, trousers, and pants. Oddly enough the etymology of pants comes from the Greek origin which means "entirely lion like." Because the pants represented manhood, manliness. Christendom's understanding was men wore the pants and the women didn't. The phrase "We know who wears the pants in Aquila's home" comes from 1931, so if pants were interchangeably normal occurrence back then, the phrase would have no meaning. Yet, even still to this day they use the term to indicate that your wife runs you.

So, I take it that you can't provide Scripture specifically condemning pants on women, even though you adequately demonstrated that the writers had adequate language to speak specifically about trousers if they desired to.

Why? Work on that and explain why?

It is addressing a sexual perversion that defies gender identity, the very design of the Creator, just like homosexuality. Plain and simple. It isn't about style. It's about sexual perversion. A perversion that was a common part of Canaanite culture.

I was never in the UPCI so why are we now talking about Hazelwood Missouri? Also who are you now accusing of condemning anyone? Do you go to the First Church of NPR?

You must be hard of reading. I mentioned the UPCI AND other holiness organizations.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

So, I take it that you can't provide Scripture specifically condemning pants on women, even though you adequately demonstrated that the writers had adequate language to speak specifically about trousers if they desired to.

Deuteronomy 22:5 is the theme of this discussion. I pointed to trousers being worn by men alone. Which would logically make trousers not female attire. Women shouldn't crossdress, and neither should you.

Originally Posted by Aquila

It is addressing a sexual perversion that defies gender identity, the very design of the Creator, just like homosexuality.

So women wearing pants is a perversion. OK. I think you are getting it.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Plain and simple. It isn't about style. It's about sexual perversion. A perversion that was a common part of Canaanite culture.

Attire (plural attires)
(clothing) One's dress; what one wears; one's clothes.
The noun attire is just a formal way to say "outfit." And if you’re going outside in the middle of a blizzard, your attire should include more than a t-shirt, sweat paints and slippers. So, yes it covers the style, a certain style. Women are to appear as women and men are to appear as men. So Canaanites commonly dressed as women? Where does it say that? They dressed as women in Egypt which the Hebrews came out from. But the Bible doesn't say that either. Roman Goddess Cybele had transvestite Galli priests.
Crossdressing was a part of many non Christian and non Israelite communities. OK so no pants on women. Cool, you are learning.

Originally Posted by Aquila

You must be hard of reading. I mentioned the UPCI AND other holiness organizations.

Not hard of reading. It is just reading through your posts tedious at times. I'm sorry, I missed where you threw other holiness organizations under the bus.

You are a horrible sore loser.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Deuteronomy 22:5 is the theme of this discussion. I pointed to trousers being worn by men alone. Which would logically make trousers not female attire. Women shouldn't crossdress, and neither should you.

Actually, you only showed two examples, by writers separated by many generations, wherein pants are mentioned on men. You provided no Scripture wherein pants are specifically condemned on women, or illustrating that women did not have an equivalent article of clothing. What you did prove is that the writers had adequate ability to specify such a prohibition linguistically, yet we don't see it.

All you proved is that the high priest wore trousers as did the three Hebrews.

So women wearing pants is a perversion. OK. I think you are getting it.

No. Only if they are cross dressing and pretending to be men. Imagine women dressed like lumberjacks, spitting and chewing tobacco, trying to seduce other women.

Not just a woman in trousers. Eskimo women must be hated by God according to you.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Actually, you only showed two examples, by writers separated by many generations, wherein pants are mentioned on men. You provided no Scripture wherein pants are specifically condemned on women, or illustrating that women did not have an equivalent article of clothing. What you did prove is that the writers had adequate ability to specify such a prohibition linguistically, yet we don't see it.

All you proved is that the high priest wore trousers as did the three Hebrews.

Priest, three Hebrews, and Revelation 19:16, military cavalry wore trousers.
Separated by many generations? Good job you are getting there. You are showing that they continued the practice of men wearing pants for many generations. In so much that the Christian world continued the practice throughout its generations. Awesome! Yes, the writers and interpreters adequately proved linguistically that men wore pants and women are not ever recorded wearing pants. You are almost there Aquila, now here is the part where you start to take it all in.

Oh, and I proved that women in the Bible didn't have breeches, or trousers.

Originally Posted by Aquila

No. Only if they are cross dressing and pretending to be men.

Where does it say that in Deuteronomy 22:5? There are other scriptures dealing with sexual perversion located elsewhere. Deuteronomy 22:5 doesn't mention anything about sexual perversion. Bit of a double standard with you, you balk over no specifics concerning types of clothes, but yet when it's your turn. You start making up all kinds things.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Imagine women dressed like lumberjacks, spitting and chewing tobacco, trying to seduce other women.

You almost made it home Hoss. Now you are just burning down.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Not just a woman in trousers. Eskimo women must be hated by God according to you.

Eskimo women? Eskimo men use to lend their wives to strangers?

Really? Eskimos in the Bible? What tribe of Israel were the Eskimos?

And it came to pass, after the year was expired, at the time when kings go forth to battle, that David sent Nanook of the North, and his servants with him, and all Alaska; and they destroyed the children of Scotland because of their kilts. But David tarried still in Alaska. And it came to pass in an eveningtide, that David arose from out of his igloo, and walked upon the slippery roof: and from the roof he saw a eskimo woman trying on her sealskin pants; and the woman was very beautiful to look upon. And David sent and enquired after the woman. And one said, Is not this Denilgi the daughter of Chugiak, the wife of the Mighty Quinn, the Eskimo?