More on Skirts

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Sorry, I have taken to ignoring most of your posts. I'll go back and review.

Wow! You could of fooled me.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

You believe a woman wearing pants is an abomination. If a woman continues to wear pants, after receiving teaching and counsel, would you disfellowship and shun her? After all, you see it as an abomination.

Since we don't see it that way, it's not an abomination to us. So a degree of patience and leniency is employed.

How far does your tolerance for an "abomination" go?

This is interesting.

Well, well, well, Mr Aquila.

Please show me how you police the below.

Leviticus 18:22

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is ABOMINATION.

Leviticus 20:13

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an ABOMINATION: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Deuteronomy 22:5

The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are
ABOMINATION unto the LORD thy God.

Proverbs 6:16-19

These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an ABOMINATION unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

Proverbs 11:20

They that are of a froward heart are ABOMINATION to the LORD: but such as are upright in their way are his delight.

Proverbs 12:22

Lying lips are ABOMINATION to the LORD: but they that deal truly are his delight.

Proverbs 15:26

The thoughts of the wicked are an ABOMINATION to the LORD: but the words of the pure are pleasant words.


Proverbs 15:8

The sacrifice of the wicked is an ABOMINATION to the LORD: but the prayer of the upright is his delight.

Proverbs 16:5

Every one that is proud in heart is an ABOMINATION to the LORD: though hand join in hand, he shall not be unpunished.

Proverbs 17:15

He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are ABOMINATION to the LORD.

Proverbs 20:10

Divers weights, and divers measures, both of them are alike ABOMINATION to the LORD.

Proverbs 28:9

He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer shall be ABOMINATION.


Aquila when was the last time you SHUNNED someone for looking PRIDEFUL?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

You didn't deal with any of the Greek, or Latin, I compared with the Aramaic, but I can see you don't even understand the KJV English of 1611 A.D.? Still, there is no such thing as man dresses, and female pants. What is really interesting when I post the Greek word for female attire it is missed totally? I just pray you don't get arrested when you are looking at women at the mall.

I'll try not to. Lol.

I've studied it from several different angles. I do see your point, but you're referencing what was ancient Israel's contemporary culture at the time. Pants as we know them didn't exist. Also, their practice doesn't reflect the boundaries of Deuteronomy 22:5. It can only reflect their values at the time. Nothing more, nothing less. I agree with Sis. Alvear, nothing substantial enough to be dogmatic.

skirt (v.) Look up skirt at Dictionary.com
c. 1600 A.D., "to border, form the edge of," from skirt (n.). Meaning "to pass along the edge" is from 1620s. Related: Skirted; skirting.

These guys can't provide anything short of nonsense?

I'll revisit this tomorrow, I need to verify something and I don't have my resources.

Where do you guys find these gifs?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Like I said, this thread died a long time ago.

But, did you happen to go to this website?

I think you'll like it?

http://www.atlasobscura.com/places/museum-snoring

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I'll try not to. Lol.

It sounded like that's what you do? Buttocks? Seriously? Whatever.

I'm posting with a guy who declared to a "Christian" public forum he sleeps naked. Why we needed to know that information is beyond me.

Originally Posted by Aquila

I've studied it from several different angles.

Really? No, you Googled it at break neck speed. Anyone, and I do mean anyone. Can read this thread from Dan to Beersheba and realize that you argument was ever evolving. Google, you and Google mania. You haven't a clue about religion or politics.

Originally Posted by Aquila

I do see your point, but you're referencing what was ancient Israel's contemporary culture at the time.

The book WAS written to an ancient culture!!!! Therefore the principles are to be applied to how they understood it. Not you and your Googled pictures of 17th century aristocrats in their footwear. You are like the guy who believed that the pre civil war south EVERY SOUTHERNER owed a slave. Sadly, you are one dimensional.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Pants as we know them didn't exist.

Do you close your eyes, and click your heels together as you say that?

http://cogdogblog.com/wp-content/upl...2/12/shoes.gif

Originally Posted by Aquila

Also, their practice doesn't reflect the boundaries of Deuteronomy 22:5. It can only reflect their values at the time. Nothing more, nothing less. I agree with Sis. Alvear, nothing substantial enough to be dogmatic.

Hence therefore God doesn't see a crossdresser as an abomination anymore. According to you, if their intent isn't for religious reasons, or sexual perversion? God sees lying as an abomination, but to use your logic, if the intent was just, therefore the lying is no longer an abomination?

Originally Posted by Aquila

I'll revisit this tomorrow, I need to verify something and I don't have my resources.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Where do you guys find these gifs?

Where do you find your pictures of early 1800s Yemenite Bedouin women?

[Pliny]

Post 1 of 2

Ndavid and Aquila condemn me for not being a jerk and condemning people before God has a chance to work in their lives. They have said things like:

Originally Posted by n david

Are they newborn Christian women or mature Christian women? Remember, Pliny believes there are two sets of standards for newborn and mature Christians. Newborn's get that greasy grace where sin isn't really a sin for them; mature Christian's don't.

You decide. Is there such a thing as newborn Christians and mature Christians? I believe so. Do people “grow” in the grace and admonition of God? Peter believed so.
(2Pe 3:18 ESV) But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.
Time and time again I have provided scripture. But they would rather make personal attacks 9like the one below) rather than deal with the Bible.

Originally Posted by Aquila

You're a joke. You fought so hard to help us understand why you believe pants on a woman are an ABOMINATION... and then you treat this ABOMINATION like it's merely a bad habit that needs to be improved upon??? What a joke.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Maybe many of these guys aren't so strict on abominations because they have a few of their own abominations in their closets???

Originally Posted by Aquila

You're an idiot.

So very Christ like…
Jesus gave Pastors and teacher for helping saints to grow.
(Eph 4:11 ESV) And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers,
(Eph 4:12 ESV) to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ,
Apparently, NDavid and Aquila would be happier if a pastor did not try to help people. Instead they would rather the pastor be a jerk. Perhaps, Aquila has never changed. He said of himself:

Originally Posted by Aquila

I'm divorced and remarried. I learned the hard way when it comes to a woman. I remember demanding she changed clothes because they weren't too my standard, I marched her back into the house and made her change. One day she was crying before church because she didn't believe in head coverings. I demanded she wear it. She wanted to go to a family reunion, I told her that we weren't going because they weren't saved. That was the last chance she had to see her dad before he died.
I was a real jerk.

This is what he demands of a pastor? Truly sad.
Then, he complains about his former pastor that did what he mocks me for:

Originally Posted by Aquila

We had started a men's group to address men's issues and to build biblical manhood. Sons were welcome. The pastor seemed all for it. We had scheduled one meeting a week and one outing (camping, fishing, hiking, and the like) every quarter. The pastor shut it down within 6 months because he felt a "spirit of rebellion" in the leadership. He didn't like anything he wasn't in charge of personally.

One of the fallacies posted by the opposite camp is illustrated below:

Originally Posted by Aquila

It should also be noted that without a specific condemnation on a specific article of clothing, the fact that said clothing isn't mentioned in relation to women stands to be cultural in nature and not a biblical mandate.
It can also simply be that a specific article of clothing was indeed also worn by women, but is only unmentioned. For example, we might not find a reference to godly women wearing bifurcated undergarments. This doesn't mean that godly women never wore bifurcated undergarments.

Thus, they want a “specific” condemnation in order to believe it is wrong. Until then, they will justify their position. Due to this, I have asked for specific condemnations about other things like pedophilia. As seen below:

Originally Posted by Pliny

I don't believe you [NDavid] or Aquila has answered the question:
Is pedophilia okay? Is it sin? Please give me specific Biblical passages to support your position. Since this is your logic for ignoring Deu. 22:5 and what men and women wear.

They have ignored this question because they know their logic is demonstrably wrong.
The Bible does not need to specify something is wrong every time. God has provided timeless principles to live by. This is the focus of Deu. 22:5. It does not specifically mention pants. It specifically mentions what people wear.
It has been demonstrated multiple times that godly men wore pants and godly women did not. This is a principle to live by. Because they cannot demonstrate that godly women wore Pants, they have sought many other ways to ignore this fact. One of these ways is by trying to argue that men wore “skirts”, see below.

Originally Posted by Aquila

I have verses of Scripture where men wore skirts. They were men's attire![INDENT]Deuteronomy 22:30 A man shall not take his father's wife, nor discover his father's skirt.
According to your logic, women shouldn't wear skirts either!

There were other scriptures listed as below. I have used this one because it demonstrates the fallacy of the argument and it would take too much time to deal with each passage. So I chose to use the first one on the list.
I asked Aquila if he understood what “skirt” means:

Originally Posted by Pliny

Besides, what do you think a "skirt" is in these passages?

[Pliny]

Post 2 of 2

I do not recall this being answered. I did.

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.

Again, they have never demonstrated that godly women wore pants. They have tried several fallacious arguments like “skirts” were men’s clothing. Yet, they apparently do not even understand what they are suggesting. Since the “skirt” means the corner of a garment as in Deu. 22:30 they must believe women’s garments do not have corners. Also, the earth must wear a “skirt” based on this logic.
Yet, the most troubling thing of all is that anyone can justify pedophilia using their logic. It is up to the reader to decide what to believe. I am done with this thread.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Post 2 of 2

I do not recall this being answered. I did.

Again, they have never demonstrated that godly women wore pants. They have tried several fallacious arguments like “skirts” were men’s clothing. Yet, they apparently do not even understand what they are suggesting. Since the “skirt” means the corner of a garment as in Deu. 22:30 they must believe women’s garments do not have corners. Also, the earth must wear a “skirt” based on this logic.
Yet, the most troubling thing of all is that anyone can justify pedophilia using their logic. It is up to the reader to decide what to believe. I am done with this thread.

You did a great job.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Pliny

FTR: They [the Hebrew young men] wore σαραβαροις which is properly translated as pants.

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).)

Godly men wore pants.
Godly women did not.

Pedophilia is wrong even though it is not specifically mentioned in the Bible.

[Aquila]

Guys, you're watering down the seriousness of an abomination. Do you tolerate a gay couple in a sexual relationship until you deem they are spiritually mature?

Do you tolerate a pedophile until they are what you deem to be spiritually mature?

Do you tolerate a Polyamorous couple living in orgiastic copulation until you think they are spiritually mature?

Where I come from, an abomination isn't something you tolerate until someone grows out of it. You lovingly warn them of how God detests the thing they are doing. They are in imminent danger of provoking God. The only proper response from one who desires to be saved must be repentance. If you tolerate an abomination, if you soft peddle the issue, you partake in that abomination.

You guys insist on a woman wearing pants being an abomination, but apparently that doesn't mean much to you. You handle the issue as though it is simply a modesty issue.

Like I said before, their are clubs and an entire subculture of abominable perversion and debauchery in like kind to that practice seen among the Canaanites. That is what Deuteronomy 22:5 is addressing.

But hey, if you insist on applying the verse to pants, it really doesn't matter, because ultimately you'll only address a woman wearing pants as we do, as a modesty issue that one will indeed mature into.

We both land in the same place.