More on Skirts

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Deu. 22:5 is hardly silent on the issue.

So, I guess you cannot help Aquila in his quest to find evidence of godly women wearing pants. The silence has been from you, Aquila and others that defend godly women wearing pants.

The real argument from silence has been those who have NO evidence (silence) of godly women wearing pants.

I agree, their "Absence of evidence is not evidence".

Deu 22:5 isn't about pants.

You can't agree with the quote and yet be unable to show any evidence yourself. You're trying to have it both ways.

Where, in Paul's epistles, does he mention that Godly women should not wear pants. Paul discusses in detail what a Godly women should wear or not wear, so why didn't he address pants?

"In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works."

You want to claim a Godly woman should only wear skirts and dresses. Paul only says "modest apparel" and that "which becometh women professing godliness."

You try to make it about the type of clothes, Paul doesn't. Paul looks beyond the shallowness of type of clothes and says "wear modest apparel which shows you are a woman professing godliness."

My wife and daughters wear dresses and skirts and they also wear pants. Modesty is the issue, not the type of clothes.

I've seen far too many apostolic Pentecostal women who wore skirts or dresses which were very immodest to believe this is about a type of clothing.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

What we do know is that God commanded men to wear clothes that pertain to men and women are to wear clothes that pertain to women.
Then, we see godly men wearing pants but godly women did not.

Are you saying that we should dress exactly as they did in biblical times? Or are you saying that we should dress appropriately in relation to what our culture identifies as pertaining to male or female?

Deu. 22:5 does not need to specify "pants". The question is whether or not pants are cloths then, whether or not they are applicable to Deu. 22:5. Since Deu. 22:5 is inclusive of all clothes then pants are certainly covered under the passage.

So, you're saying that Deuteronomy isn't specifically saying pants (or any other articles of clothing) but rather is speaking of a principle.

We have positive evidence that godly men wore them and absolutely NONE for godly women.

You have the example of the Levites being commanded to wear shorts under their robes, and Babylonian hosen being worn by three Hebrew captives who were serving in the court of the king of Babylon. That's hardly "positive evidence" that God commanded that only men wear hosen or breeches. As I said. I'm currently looking into if women in ancient Israel wore any form of hosen or breeches under their tunics in the Winter months. We know that the Jews disbursed through Central Asia wore a Persian style of breeches under their garments. I'm trying to nail it down into at least the first century or prior. I'll let you know if I find anything.

It is your choice as to what you want to wear. However, I would caution against women wearing them because God's command is a strong command - it is an abomination. I would want positive proof of God's acceptance before doing something that is abominable to Him out of love and respect for Him.

No one has yet to answer this question for me. You're being pretty bold and straight up here, maybe you'll be willing to answer it.

Would it be an abomination for a man to wear a pair of ladies Jordache jeans with pretty pink sequins up the leg and pretty pink hearts stitched into the back pockets? If so, why? If not, why?

The logic of demanding specificity on everything opens the door to anything not specified. Fr example, based on this logic using peyote, crystal meth, heroin or any other number of drugs can be justified, After all, they are not specifically mentioned in the Bible.

The abuse of a drug doesn't make it a sin. For example, I was a medic in the Army. It wasn't a sin to administer morphine to the wounded. However, it is a sin to use morphine for any purpose that isn't medicinal. This is where intent determines sin... not the "thing" being talked about.

The Bible is not a list of do's and don'ts. However, the OT has 613 mitzvahs (commandments). Some are positive, that is there are things that should be done and some are negative, that is some things should not be done. These and other passages provide a baseline for determining principles upon which a godly life should be built. For example, the Psalms says:

(Psa 101:3 KJV) I will set no wicked thing before mine eyes:

This is a principle that in conjunction with other passages such as, Php. 4:8 that begin to paint a word picture of the care we should take in allowing things before our eyes. Philippians gives us a positive example of what should be approved.

(Php 4:8 KJV) Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.

Thus, Deu. 22:5 provides us with a guiding principle to help us discern right from wrong.

I agree, Deuteronomy can be a guiding principle. And that leads me back to my yet unanswered question:

Would it be an abomination for a man to wear a pair of ladies Jordache jeans with pretty pink sequins up the leg and pretty pink hearts stitched into the back pockets? If so, why? If not, why?

There is positive evidence of godly men wearing pants.
There is absolutely NO evidence of godly women wearing them.

You do the math.

Sure...

2 captives wearing Babylonian hosen.
1 Priest wearing shorts under his robe.

Three men verified to have worn bifurcated garments.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Please demonstrate where this is restricted to the Levites. This is a figment of your imagination.

Well... let's see... context:

Exodus 28 English Standard Version (ESV)

The Priests' Garments

28 “Then bring near to you Aaron your brother, and his sons with him, from among the people of Israel, to serve me as priests—Aaron and Aaron's sons, Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar. 2 And you shall make holy garments for Aaron your brother, for glory and for beauty. 3 You shall speak to all the skillful, whom I have filled with a spirit of skill, that they make Aaron's garments to consecrate him for my priesthood. 4 These are the garments that they shall make: a breastpiece, an ephod, a robe, a coat of checker work, a turban, and a sash. They shall make holy garments for Aaron your brother and his sons to serve me as priests. 5 They shall receive gold, blue and purple and scarlet yarns, and fine twined linen.

6 “And they shall make the ephod of gold, of blue and purple and scarlet yarns, and of fine twined linen, skillfully worked. 7 It shall have two shoulder pieces attached to its two edges, so that it may be joined together. 8 And the skillfully woven band on it shall be made like it and be of one piece with it, of gold, blue and purple and scarlet yarns, and fine twined linen. 9 You shall take two onyx stones, and engrave on them the names of the sons of Israel, 10 six of their names on the one stone, and the names of the remaining six on the other stone, in the order of their birth. 11 As a jeweler engraves signets, so shall you engrave the two stones with the names of the sons of Israel. You shall enclose them in settings of gold filigree. 12 And you shall set the two stones on the shoulder pieces of the ephod, as stones of remembrance for the sons of Israel. And Aaron shall bear their names before the Lord on his two shoulders for remembrance. 13 You shall make settings of gold filigree, 14 and two chains of pure gold, twisted like cords; and you shall attach the corded chains to the settings.

15 “You shall make a breastpiece of judgment, in skilled work. In the style of the ephod you shall make it—of gold, blue and purple and scarlet yarns, and fine twined linen shall you make it. 16 It shall be square and doubled, a span[a] its length and a span its breadth. 17 You shall set in it four rows of stones. A row of sardius,[b] topaz, and carbuncle shall be the first row; 18 and the second row an emerald, a sapphire, and a diamond; 19 and the third row a jacinth, an agate, and an amethyst; 20 and the fourth row a beryl, an onyx, and a jasper. They shall be set in gold filigree. 21 There shall be twelve stones with their names according to the names of the sons of Israel. They shall be like signets, each engraved with its name, for the twelve tribes. 22 You shall make for the breastpiece twisted chains like cords, of pure gold. 23 And you shall make for the breastpiece two rings of gold, and put the two rings on the two edges of the breastpiece. 24 And you shall put the two cords of gold in the two rings at the edges of the breastpiece. 25 The two ends of the two cords you shall attach to the two settings of filigree, and so attach it in front to the shoulder pieces of the ephod. 26 You shall make two rings of gold, and put them at the two ends of the breastpiece, on its inside edge next to the ephod. 27 And you shall make two rings of gold, and attach them in front to the lower part of the two shoulder pieces of the ephod, at its seam above the skillfully woven band of the ephod. 28 And they shall bind the breastpiece by its rings to the rings of the ephod with a lace of blue, so that it may lie on the skillfully woven band of the ephod, so that the breastpiece shall not come loose from the ephod. 29 So Aaron shall bear the names of the sons of Israel in the breastpiece of judgment on his heart, when he goes into the Holy Place, to bring them to regular remembrance before the Lord. 30 And in the breastpiece of judgment you shall put the Urim and the Thummim, and they shall be on Aaron's heart, when he goes in before the Lord. Thus Aaron shall bear the judgment of the people of Israel on his heart before the Lord regularly.

31 “You shall make the robe of the ephod all of blue. 32 It shall have an opening for the head in the middle of it, with a woven binding around the opening, like the opening in a garment,[c] so that it may not tear. 33 On its hem you shall make pomegranates of blue and purple and scarlet yarns, around its hem, with bells of gold between them, 34 a golden bell and a pomegranate, a golden bell and a pomegranate, around the hem of the robe. 35 And it shall be on Aaron when he ministers, and its sound shall be heard when he goes into the Holy Place before the Lord, and when he comes out, so that he does not die.

36 “You shall make a plate of pure gold and engrave on it, like the engraving of a signet, ‘Holy to the Lord.’ 37 And you shall fasten it on the turban by a cord of blue. It shall be on the front of the turban. 38 It shall be on Aaron's forehead, and Aaron shall bear any guilt from the holy things that the people of Israel consecrate as their holy gifts. It shall regularly be on his forehead, that they may be accepted before the Lord.

39 “You shall weave the coat in checker work of fine linen, and you shall make a turban of fine linen, and you shall make a sash embroidered with needlework.

40 “For Aaron's sons you shall make coats and sashes and caps. You shall make them for glory and beauty. 41 And you shall put them on Aaron your brother, and on his sons with him, and shall anoint them and ordain them and consecrate them, that they may serve me as priests. 42 You shall make for them linen undergarments to cover their naked flesh. They shall reach from the hips to the thighs; 43 and they shall be on Aaron and on his sons when they go into the tent of meeting or when they come near the altar to minister in the Holy Place, lest they bear guilt and die. This shall be a statute forever for him and for his offspring after him.

The entire passage is about the priest's garments, not common Israelite attire. Please remember, we aren't to call the holy things common.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Please demonstrate where they were restricted from wearing them any other time. This is a figment of your imagination.

Again, this is an argument from silence.

There is no commandment commanding males in general to wear breeches or not to wear breeches. Therefore, I'd assume that if the Levitical garments became all the rave among the ancient Hebrew men, they would only be optional attire.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by n david

Deu 22:5 isn't about pants.

You can't agree with the quote and yet be unable to show any evidence yourself. You're trying to have it both ways.

Where, in Paul's epistles, does he mention that Godly women should not wear pants. Paul discusses in detail what a Godly women should wear or not wear, so why didn't he address pants?

"In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works."

You want to claim a Godly woman should only wear skirts and dresses. Paul only says "modest apparel" and that "which becometh women professing godliness."

You try to make it about the type of clothes, Paul doesn't. Paul looks beyond the shallowness of type of clothes and says "wear modest apparel which shows you are a woman professing godliness."

My wife and daughters wear dresses and skirts and they also wear pants. Modesty is the issue, not the type of clothes.

I've seen far too many apostolic Pentecostal women who wore skirts or dresses which were very immodest to believe this is about a type of clothing.

1. Didn't Paul say for women to be dressed in a modest "katastole", which is a specific type of garment corresponding to a dress?

2. An argument from silence has merit when the issue is "what does a source say?" If the source says nothing about ABC, then it can be successfully argued "The source does not support ABC." A genuinely fallacious argument from silence is where a source does not say ABC, and yet it is argued that ABC is indeed true, is it not?

[Esaias]

Additionally, the argument is that Deut 22:5 prohibits women from wearing things that "pertain to a man", pants are described in the Bible as only being worn by men, thus pants are Biblically something that "pertains to a man".

It is a very simple and straightforward argument. In fact, it is a simple syllogism:

No women can wear men's clothing.
Pants are men's clothing.
Therefore, women cannot wear pants.

No A is B.
C is B.
Therefore, no A is C.

A is "women can wear".
B is "men's clothing".
C is "pants".
Therefore, "no women can wear pants."

In order to refute the argument, it would have to be shown that either one or both of the premises are wrong, or that the conclusion does not follow from the premises if the premises are in fact true.

So far, A cannot be refuted, because it is a plain statement from Scripture.
B has not been refuted because only men in the bible wore pants and no women in the Bible are seen to be wearing pants.
The conclusion cannot be refuted because it follows necessarily from the two premises.

For example:

No cats are dogs.
Chihuahuas are dogs.
Therefore, no cats are chihuahuas.

Given the two premises, it is impossible for the conclusion to be otherwise. If no cats are dogs, and if chihuahuas are dogs, then it necessarily follows that no cat is a chihuahua. EVERY syllogism with this form: No A is B, C is B, therefore no A is C, must necessarily be correct and valid.

Corrections to the syllogistic diagramming appreciated.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by n david

Deu 22:5 isn't about pants.

Okay. for this statement OT be true you must believe the word "wear" does not involve pants. I don't know about you but I wear my pants. What do you do with yours? Tablecloth? You see how silly this logic is? Pants are worn and Deu. 22:5 is about what men and women wear. Sorry you cannot see the obvious.

You can't agree with the quote and yet be unable to show any evidence yourself. You're trying to have it both ways.

I have given evidence. You and those like you are the ones who refuse to provide any scriptural evidence. In fact you and others like you ignore it. Now can you yet provide any thing to support your hypothesis? I suppose you will continue to argue from silence because all I hear are crickets...

Where, in Paul's epistles, does he mention that Godly women should not wear pants. Paul discusses in detail what a Godly women should wear or not wear, so why didn't he address pants?

Now you are leaping to Paul's epistles? Let me get this right, you want me, a person two thousand years removed from Paul to tell you his motivation for what he did not say? Really? This is as ridiculous as defending godly women wearing pants with absolutely NO Biblical support.

Could it possibly be that the women he addressed were not wearing pants and so he did not need to address it specifically? Just a thought. Now you may argue that you know Paul's motivation but you would be lying if you did because unless you have a time machine somewhere I am certain you have NEVER met the man and could not possibly know his motivation.


"In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works."

You want to claim a Godly woman should only wear skirts and dresses. Paul only says "modest apparel" and that "which becometh women professing godliness."

Right... Keep telling yourself that Deu. 22:5 does not matter. It may help you sleep at night.

You try to make it about the type of clothes, Paul doesn't. Paul looks beyond the shallowness of type of clothes and says "wear modest apparel which shows you are a woman professing godliness."

Ummm... No. God made it about clothes when it was said:
(Deu 22:5 KJV) 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.
Apparently you do not understand the word "wear". Here is a definition:
"to carry or have on the body or about the person as a covering, equipment, ornament, or the like:"

My wife and daughters wear dresses and skirts and they also wear pants. Modesty is the issue, not the type of clothes.

That is your opinion based on an argument from silence.

I've seen far too many apostolic Pentecostal women who wore skirts or dresses which were very immodest to believe this is about a type of clothing.

Right, the word "wear" has nothing to do with clothing except when you are explaining the clothes your family WEARs. Good grief.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Now you are leaping to Paul's epistles? Let me get this right, you want me, a person two thousand years removed from Paul to tell you his motivation for what he did not say? Really?

Let me get this right: you want me, a person 3200 years removed from Moses, to believe Deuteronomy 22:5 is just about pants? Really?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

This is true. However, the Hebrew young men wore pants.

On that, we agree. And it wasn't a sin to wear the hosen.

However, my point was, standard Israelite dress was the tunic with a belt, and then a longer tunic serving as an outer garment, only sometimes did they wear any form of breeches or pantaloons under these garments. Therefore, there is high probability that these men received their pants in Babylon.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Okay. for this statement OT be true you must believe the word "wear" does not involve pants.

Speaking of Deu 22:5 and the word "wear": "hayah: to fall out, come to pass, become, be"