Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquila
You provided no evidence that Deuteronomy 22:5 was about pants. You guys simply referenced two instances where pants like attire is worn by men, and one of you posted a reference showing both genders wore pantaloons under their garments at times. I don't believe they wore bathrobes, in fact, I've gone to great lengths to describe both the common inner and outer garments. I've also pointed out that commentators agree that for the most part, men and women wore similar attire, the differences being primarily length, embroidering, and color.
I'm still waiting to see proof that Deuteronomy 22:5 specifically condemns pants on a woman. |
Your great lengths as you say, was to provide artists renditions of what they thought the ancient Israelite dressed. Which were pictures of Yemenite Bedouins and Arabs. You also provided what the Temple Mount Faithful believe the priest attire to look like. Also a pair of Medieval era undershorts from Rabbinical Judaism. You offered a few dictionary quotes which thank God that the Lexiographers were more honest then you. Because they pointed out that they were undecided to the exact meaning of the Aramaic Chaldean. Therefore I enlisted three different versions of the text in ancient language of the time.
Also used a portion of Revelation which had gone untouched. Yet you never tackled my original thoughts on this subject. Our discussion at this point is only about you ego. Sadly. Aquila right, everyone wrong, Aquila proves to himself that ultra cons are incorrect and all will be right with Aquila's world.
Some of you people use this place as therapy. Instead of its original purpose.
Like I posted this thread died the death of a thousand cuts. Anyone wants to peruse its context? There is more than enough material. At this point I would be repeating myself.
My suggestion to you is take your own spiritual advise and turn a chapter.