More on Skirts

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

8 years in the ARMY
Aint
Ready
for the
Marines
Yet

LOL


J/K

Thank you for your service.

If you or someone you love was a Marine, I mean no offense. I appreciate all my brothers in arms. I'm just sharing this because I thought it was funny when I heard it. I heard that Marine means:

Muscles
Are
Required
Intelligence
Not
Essential

Oh, and the one for the Navy...

Never
Again
Volunteer
Yourself

Oh, and here's another for the U.S. Army... lol

Uncle
Sam

Aint
Released
Me
Yet

All in good fun. lol

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Beyond the three Hebrews in captivity there isn't any biblical "evidence" that anyone else wore pants, be they male or female. That's just factual data.

Now, you can take the three Hebrews and demand that their wearing pants somehow means that EVERY MALE wore pants and that NO FEMALES did... or you can agree with me. We don't know. For all either of us know, both males and females were wearing hosen under their tunics in the winter months, making their style of dress and use of bifurcated garments rather equal. Either way, we'd both be making a leap of logic and arguing from silence.

I'm not saying this to bash you. I'm just trying to be analytical.

Wrong again.

Matthew 5:40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.
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."

It is a fact that we know three godly Hebrew young men wore pants and according to Barnes, a garment corresponding to pants were sometimes worn.

Also, you are misrepresenting what I have maintained throughout this discussion. Please demonstrate where I have ever said EVERY MALE wore pants. I have not. You are lying. I have also never said NO FEMALES wore pants. That is also a lie. Females did historically wear pants such as in Persia. What I have said and maintained throughout is that godly men did wear pants and godly women did not. I have also demonstrated where godly men wore pants - you agreed - and I have been waiting and waiting and waiting for you to provide evidence of a godly woman wearing pants.

You can justify yourself anyway you like, that is your prerogative. However, do not misrepresent what I have maintained throughout the discussion.

You are not being "analytical" when you reject the evidence. The evidence presents information that demonstrates that godly men wore pants and there is absolutely NO evidence to suggest that godly women did.

Dress it up anyway you want, maybe it will help you sleep at night.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

If you or someone you love was a Marine, I mean no offense. I appreciate all my brothers in arms. I'm just sharing this because I thought it was funny when I heard it. I heard that Marine means:

Muscles
Are
Required
Intelligence
Not
Essential

Oh, and the one for the Navy...

Never
Again
Volunteer
Yourself

Oh, and here's another for the U.S. Army... lol

Uncle
Sam

Aint
Released
Me
Yet

All in good fun. lol

Good one's

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Wrong again.

Matthew 5:40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.
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."

It is a fact that we know three godly Hebrew young men wore pants and according to Barnes, a garment corresponding to pants were sometimes worn.

Hold on, with me. Slow down.

You'll discover that scholars are rather agreed that the style of dress, and corresponding articles of clothing (between both male and female) among the Israelites were very similar. Their only difference was size, length, color, and embroidery. Every Israelite, both male and female, wore two principle garments, an interior and an exterior. The interior was indeed a tunic. And yes, linen was the most common material of this inner garment. It did encircle the whole body and it extended down to the knees. And yes, "SOMETIMES", beneath this garment there was another garment corresponding to pantaloons. These were typically only worn in the colder months. And... these pantaloons were worn by both male and females. In fact, these pantaloons are the predecessors of the hosiery that was worn by both men and women until around the 19th century. It was during the industrial revolution that hosiery was largely abandoned by males and actual trousers became the social norm. Women continue to wear hosiery under their garments to this very day.

So, if the text you cited above is used as a proof text to affirm that pants (pantaloons) were worn by men...it also affirms that pants (pantaloons) were worn by women. Because during the colder seasons, both men and women wore these pantaloons under their interior garments.

Also, you are misrepresenting what I have maintained throughout this discussion. Please demonstrate where I have ever said EVERY MALE wore pants. I have not. You are lying. I have also never said NO FEMALES wore pants. That is also a lie. Females did historically wear pants such as in Persia. What I have said and maintained throughout is that godly men did wear pants and godly women did not. I have also demonstrated where godly men wore pants - you agreed - and I have been waiting and waiting and waiting for you to provide evidence of a godly woman wearing pants.

Please read my previous comment.

You can justify yourself anyway you like, that is your prerogative. However, do not misrepresent what I have maintained throughout the discussion.

My intentions are not to misrepresent what you're saying.

You are not being "analytical" when you reject the evidence. The evidence presents information that demonstrates that godly men wore pants and there is absolutely NO evidence to suggest that godly women did.

I'm not rejecting evidence.

I accept that the Levites wore breeches (shorts).

I accept that the three captive Hebrews wore hosen.

I am even accepting that it wasn't uncommon for Israelites to wear pantaloons under their inner garments (I've always agreed to this). However, since both males and females wore these pantaloons, are you sure you want to use this as evidence of the wearing of pants? I've mentioned this several times already, but I think nobody really caught it. I was trying to be intellectually honest by acknowledging that the pantaloons worn do not qualify as pants because they were under garments. However, if you want to make them evidence of pants, I'm all for it. Because it would serve as evidence that women wore pants too.

Dress it up anyway you want, maybe it will help you sleep at night.

Loose sleep over the evolution of pants? lol I don't see it as a major issue. You guys do.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Pliny,

Here's what concerns me about the logic of the argument you are using, maybe you can help clarify.

Let's ask about "skirts".

Do we see any biblical example of a woman wearing a skirt?

What do we find?

We find these references:

“A man shall not take his father’s wife, nor discover his father’s skirt.” Deuteronomy 22:30 (KJV)

You do know the context of this verse right? It is saying you cannot marry your stepmother.

“And it came to pass afterward, that David’s heart smote him, because he had cut off Saul’s skirt.” 1 Samuel 24:5 (KJV)

"Thus saith the Lord of hosts; In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you: for we have heard that God is with you." Zachariah 8:23 (KJV)

Ah, see... if I were to use the method of argumentation that you're employing regarding pants, I could argue that we only have examples of men wearing skirts. Therefore, in the Bible we see that only men wore skirts, and so they pertain to a man.

Really? This is your "argument" now? Unbelievable! This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen. YOU agree godly men wore pants but you CHOOSE to ignore the passages that show this - by this "logic". You must be off your meds!

Can you give me an example of a godly woman wearing a skirt???

Do you see the similarity between this and the argumentation that you're using in the debate? You're arguing from silence. That's really not a strong argument. If we were being graded by debate moderators you'd not gain much ground with them with this approach.

You do know what this word means right? Apparently not, so here it goes.

"skirt" H3671
kânâph
BDB Definition:
1) wing, extremity, edge, winged, border, corner, shirt
1a) wing
1b) extremity
1b1) skirt, corner (of garment)
Part of Speech: noun feminine
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: from H3670
Same Word by TWOT Number: 1003a


You are suggesting that godly women's garments did not have a "corner". Thus, I guess in your world they were what? Naked?

FTR God clothed Adam and Eve (Genesis 3:21). They were not "naked" as you seem to presume to justify your rejection of God's Word.

Now consider this:
(Zec 5:9 KJV) Then lifted I up mine eyes, and looked, and, behold, there came out two women, and the wind was in their wings (H3671); for they had wings (H3671) like the wings of a stork: and they lifted up the ephah between the earth and the heaven.

These women had your proverbial "skirts".

Then, based on your "logic", the earth has a "skirt" because the same word is used to describe the uttermost part of the earth.

(Isa 24:16 KJV) From the uttermost part (H3671) of the earth have we heard songs, even glory to the righteous...

This would be confirmed by Job:
(Job 37:3 KJV) He directeth it under the whole heaven, and his lightning unto the ends (H3671) of the earth.

I could go on all day demonstrating the madness of your suggestion that godly women's cloths did not have a "corner".

I would say the mind is never so resourceful as when it is trying to justify itself but appears like desperation not resourcefulness.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

You do know what this word means right? Apparently not, so here it goes.

"skirt" H3671
kânâph
BDB Definition:
1) wing, extremity, edge, winged, border, corner, shirt
1a) wing
1b) extremity
1b1) skirt, corner (of garment)
Part of Speech: noun feminine
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: from H3670
Same Word by TWOT Number: 1003a


You are suggesting that godly women's garments did not have a "corner". Thus, I guess in your world they were what? Naked?

FTR God clothed Adam and Eve (Genesis 3:21). They were not "naked" as you seem to presume to justify your rejection of God's Word.

Now consider this:
(Zec 5:9 KJV) Then lifted I up mine eyes, and looked, and, behold, there came out two women, and the wind was in their wings (H3671); for they had wings (H3671) like the wings of a stork: and they lifted up the ephah between the earth and the heaven.

These women had your proverbial "skirts".

Then, based on your "logic", the earth has a "skirt" because the same word is used to describe the uttermost part of the earth.

(Isa 24:16 KJV) From the uttermost part (H3671) of the earth have we heard songs, even glory to the righteous...

This would be confirmed by Job:
(Job 37:3 KJV) He directeth it under the whole heaven, and his lightning unto the ends (H3671) of the earth.

I could go on all day demonstrating the madness of your suggestion that godly women's cloths did not have a "corner".

I would say the mind is never so resourceful as when it is trying to justify itself but appears like desperation not resourcefulness.

I do not advocate the interpretation I gave. I was only applying your logic to the subject and showing how one could argue that skirts are only for men based on the fact that the Bible only notes men as wearing skirts.

If you find this approach loony, I've made my point. lol

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Hold on, with me. Slow down.

You'll discover that scholars are rather agreed that the style of dress, and corresponding articles of clothing, between male and female among the Israelites were very similar. Their only difference was size, length, color, and embroidery. Every Israelite, both male and female, wore two principle garments, an interior and an exterior. The interior was indeed a tunic. And yes, linen was the most common material of this inner garment. It did encircle the whole body and it extended down to the knees. And yes, "SOMETIMES", beneath this garment there was another garment corresponding to pantaloons. These were typically only worn in the colder months. And... these pantaloons were worn by both male and females.

GREAT! You should have NO problem demonstrating a godly woman wearing pants. STILL WAITING.

In fact, these pantaloons are the predecessors hosiery that was worn by both men and women until around the 19th century. It was during the industrial revolution that hosiery was largely abandoned by males and actual trousers became the social norm. Women continue to wear hosiery under their garments to this very day.

So, if the text you cited above is used as a proof text to affirm that pants (pantaloons) were worn by men...it also affirms that they were worn by women. Because during the colder seasons, both men and women wore these pantaloons under their interior garments.

No. That is your assumption based on silence. We KNOW godly men wore pants. We are STILL WAITING for YOU to demonstrate godly women wore pants.

Please read my last comment.

My intentions are not to misrepresent what you're saying.

Really? The why do so?

I'm not rejecting evidence.
Indeed you have and do.

I accept that the Levites wore breeches (shorts).

I accept that the three captive Hebrews wore hosen.

I am now even accepting that it wasn't uncommon for Israelites to wear pantaloons under their inner garments. However, since both males and females wore these pantaloons, are you sure you want to use this as evidence of the wearing of pants? I've mentioned this several times already, but I think nobody really caught it. I was trying to be intellectually honest by acknowledging that the pantaloons worn do not qualify as pants because they were under garments. However, if you want to make them evidence of pants, I'm all for it. Because it would serve as evidence that women wore pants too.

STILL WAITING for you to demonstrate just ONE godly woman wearing pants.

Loose sleep over the evolution of pants? lol I don't see it as a major issue. You guys do.

God's Word is not an issue for you? Makes sense due to your lack of Biblical evidence demonstrating that godly women wore pants.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

God's Word is not an issue for you? Makes sense due to your lack of Biblical evidence demonstrating that godly women wore pants.

Now you're being irrational. What you're telling me is that since men wore pantaloons as an undergarment, it is evidence that men wore pants. However, if I point out that women wore these pantaloons also, you refuse to see it as evidence that women wore pants too? LOL That's not a balanced interpretation.

And as I've asked before, why was this allowable under Deuteronomy 22:5 if they interpreted it as you do???

If pantaloons worn by men under their interior garments is proof that men wore pants... then why aren't the pantaloons warn by women under their interior garments proof that women wore pants too?

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I do not advocate the interpretation I gave. I was only applying your logic to the subject and showing how one could argue that skirts are only for men based on the fact that the Bible only notes men as wearing skirts.

If you find this approach loony, I've made my point. lol

You do not advocate the interpretation you gave bit did so anyhow. Thus, you purposely contrived a convoluted response to try to justify yourself.

You did not apply my logic. You applied your own and have tried to project it on me. You used a word definition without looking at what it really means. You seem to have leaped at the idea that the word "skirt" used in the passages you provided meant the same thing as it does today. This seems to be the only way you could have twisted it to mean what you now say you reject. The fact is the word "skirt" is translated from the Hebrew and means the corner or the ends. Thus, women's clothing logically MUST have a "skirt" or they would not be wearing any clothes.

No it is NOT my logic but YOUR OWN twisted convoluted attempt to justify your rejection of the Bible and what it states. Godly men wore pants. Godly women did not.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

You do not advocate the interpretation you gave bit did so anyhow. Thus, you purposely contrived a convoluted response to try to justify yourself.

You did not apply my logic. You applied your own and have tried to project it on me. You used a word definition without looking at what it really means. You seem to have leaped at the idea that the word "skirt" used in the passages you provided meant the same thing as it does today. This seems to be the only way you could have twisted it to mean what you now say you reject. The fact is the word "skirt" is translated from the Hebrew and means the corner or the ends. Thus, women's clothing logically MUST have a "skirt" or they would not be wearing any clothes.

No it is NOT my logic but YOUR OWN twisted convoluted attempt to justify your rejection of the Bible and what it states. Godly men wore pants. Godly women did not.

Ummm, I'm sure our readers can see my point clearly. lol

Maybe they can explain it to you to show that I'm not as crazy as you might think I am. lol