More on Skirts

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Pay attention Pliny, let me help you...

If you wear a pretty pink pair of ladies jeans, and prance around in your favorite dance club, you're in violation of Deuteronomy 22:5 because you are wearing that which pertains to a woman. PERIOD. END OF SUBJECT.

Now, let me hear you argue as to why you should be able to wear petty pink ladies pants because they pertain to you.

It's common sense.

Pay attention Aquila, let me help you.
God states in Deu. 22:5 that a woman should not wear that which pertains to a man and vice versa.

It has been demonstrated ad-infinitum that godly men wore pants. Godly women did not.

Try understanding God by using the Bible.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by n david

Oh, pardon me, I should have used the Dictionary.com definition, as you did, instead of looking up the Hebrew definition of the word. I didn't realize the translators used Dictionary.com and the English definition of the word.

I never claimed to be any type of scholar, nor have I claimed to know more than the translators.
That's good because from what I have seen, you're not and don't know more than the translators. They translated the word into English as "wear" as in wearing clothes, pants etc.

I find it incredibly rich that you would mock my posting the Hebrew definition, when you used Dictionary.com to post the English definition to the word.
It is not mocking. The use of dictionary,com was to help you since you started with definitions. The translators used the English word "wear" and that has a meaning in the English language that the translators understood.

So you use Dictionary.com, but mock me for looking up the Hebrew meaning of the word?

smh

I'm done. I have no desire to argue about this, and I am not going to start ad hominem attacks, which you're trying to draw me in to.

Not trying to draw you into anything. just responding to your posts. Posts where you say you are not going to argue then, turn around and start arguing. But hey, happy lurking...

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by n david

Please show where I accused you, specifically, of doing such.

I stand corrected here. I was thinking you had quoted me specifically. You did not. My mistake and my apology to you. Thank you for bringing this to my attention.

[Pliny]

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.

Originally Posted by n david

""Deu. 22:5 is about what men and women wear. Sorry you cannot see the obvious.""

Originally Posted by n david

That's a neat trick. Incredibly dishonest, but neat trick. I was quoting you in that post.

Nope. You were not quoting. Who is dishonest?

You should really learn and start breaking posts into separate quotes, instead of inserting your comments inside the original quote, making it a pain to quote your posts.

Sorry you don't like my posting style. Why does it matter if you don't want to "argue"?

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

It is written:

Deuteronomy 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.

Both of these articles of clothing pertain to a woman. Any man would be in violation of the above text if he were to wear either one.

It's common sense.

Nice to know YOUR OPINION trumps the Bible.

I think I will stick with God's word.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pliny

That's good because from what I have seen, you're not and don't know more than the translators. They translated the word into English as "wear" as in wearing clothes, pants etc.

But you are and do, of course.

Originally Posted by Pliny

It is not mocking. The use of dictionary,com was to help you since you started with definitions. The translators used the English word "wear" and that has a meaning in the English language that the translators understood.

It certainly had the appearance of mocking, but if you say so...

Just for clarification, I posted the root meaning of the Hebrew word, which, IMO, is key to understanding the text. Now, I understand the root meaning of the word is not to your satisfaction and doesn't fit your narrative, but it is what it is and to ignore it, or pretend it's not important, is not very honest.

Originally Posted by Pliny

Not trying to draw you into anything. just responding to your posts. Posts where you say you are not going to argue then, turn around and start arguing. But hey, happy lurking...

It's true I don't want to argue about this, but I will continue to reply to posts directed to me.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Please demonstrate where I said Deu. 22:5 is only about pants.
You cannot enough get the question right.

Originally Posted by n david

""Deu. 22:5 is about what men and women wear. Sorry you cannot see the obvious.""

You asked a question, I didn't want to deal with your lack of ability to break comments into quotes, so I simply used quotation marks - two of them - to mark what you stated.

[QUOTE=Pliny;1484295] Deu. 22:5 is about what men and women wear. Sorry you cannot see the obvious.[/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Nope. You were not quoting. Who is dishonest?

Pliny, you mentioned reading comprehension earlier, please use it. I literally have quotes - two of them - before and after what you posted. And then, after you claimed I said it, I literally posted the link which shows YOUR post which I quoted.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Sooo... according to you, pants are not worn?

And you imply I cannot see the obvious?

Originally Posted by n david

That's a neat trick. Incredibly dishonest, but neat trick. I was quoting you in that post.

Let me break it down so you can understand it. I wasn't referring to the first quote. Obviously I said "Deu 22:5 isn't about pants."

What I did NOT say, and what I was objecting to, was you pretending that I posted "Deu. 22:5 is about what men and women wear. Sorry you cannot see the obvious," which I did not. That is, clearly, what you posted, not I.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by n david

But you are and do, of course.


It certainly had the appearance of mocking, but if you say so...

Just for clarification, I posted the root meaning of the Hebrew word, which, IMO, is key to understanding the text. Now, I understand the root meaning of the word is not to your satisfaction and doesn't fit your narrative, but it is what it is and to ignore it, or pretend it's not important, is not very honest.


It's true I don't want to argue about this, but I will continue to reply to posts directed to me.

So you believe the translators did know the meaning of the word? Really!?!?

Let's test you theory shall we?

(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.

(Deu 22:5 JPS) A woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment; for whosoever doeth these things is an abomination unto the LORD thy God.

(Deu 22:5 ESV) "A woman shall not wear a man's garment, nor shall a man put on a woman's cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God.

(Deu 22:5 Brenton) The apparel of a man shall not be on a woman, neither shall a man put on a woman's dress; for every one that does these things is an abomination to the Lord thy God.


All of these translators say the same thing - a woman should not wear men's clothing. Now what exactly do you think it means. I will once again make it easy for you. Fill in the BLANK.

(Deu 22:5 KJV) The woman shall not BLANK 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.

Thank you

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by n david

Let me break it down so you can understand it. I wasn't referring to the first quote. Obviously I said "Deu 22:5 isn't about pants."

What I did NOT say, and what I was objecting to, was you pretending that I posted "Deu. 22:5 is about what men and women wear. Sorry you cannot see the obvious," which I did not. That is, clearly, what you posted, not I.

Now don't start ad-hominem attacks...

To be clear, do you believe Deu. 22:5 is about what men and women wear?