More on Skirts

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by n david

Is snorting cocaine okay? Is it sin? Please give me specific Biblical passages to support your position. If you cannot, you must believe pedophilia is okay.

I am not the one demanding specificity. It is from your camp. Thank you though! You have aptly demonstrated your camps fallacious "logic".

[n david]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Incorrect. You have reading comprehension difficulties and an affinity for straw man arguments and misrepresentation.

Originally Posted by n david

Esaias, either sin is sin, or it's not. Sin isn't sin based on the timeframe one has received the new birth experience.

Does it take time to learn God's will. Absolutely. But a sinner knows what sin is, so why would it take time for a Christian to learn what sin is or isn't?

No one can have unrepentant sin in their life and be saved. Regardless of if they are newborn or mature.

I don't believe people are perfect, but must repent of sin.

Maybe this will help jog your memory. You claimed I had a "problem" based on my posts about sin. "Wow. Not sure what to say."

I posted basic Bible 101.

• Sin is sin.
• There are no degrees to sin based on the timeframe of the believer.
• People know what sin is/isn't.
• No one can have unrepentant sin in their life and be saved.
• People are not perfect, but must repent of sin.

And you disagree with this? You claim I have a "problem" because of this? If you can't agree with this, I'm not the one with a problem.

smh

Originally Posted by Esaias

If all sinners know what sin is, and no Christian needs to learn what sin is or what is a sin, then all Christians are perfect in obedience to all known and unknown commands.

Knowing what sin is doesn't mean a person is perfect.

Next.

Originally Posted by Esaias

So you agreed, that all Christians have no need to learn obedience, that means they are "perfect in obedience", and are so from the moment they become Christians.

Post my quote where I allegedly typed any of this.

Knowing what sin is doesn't mean a person is perfect.

Next.

Originally Posted by Esaias

Stick a fork in it, this thread is done.

This thread was done 128 pages ago. Deuteronomy 22:5 isn't about pants. Period.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pliny

The truth is there are timeless principles in God's word. The principle found in Deu. 22:5 is that men and women are to remain distinct in their clothing (what they wear).

Yes, they were to be distinct! However, the distinction was in color, style and length. Priests wore bifurcated underwear and the 3 Jewish dudes in captivity wore hose.

Originally Posted by Pliny

Since pants are worn then they must be understood Biblically.

As has been demonstrated ad-infinitum - godly men wore pants and godly women did not. This principle holds true today.

As has been demonstrated ad-infinitum - you have no scriptural or cultural/historical basis for your claim.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by n david

Barnes clearly inserted "as in the case of the priests" as a side note. Any second grader could figure that out.


Sure, after your specific passage that says snorting cocaine is sin.

Pliny be like:

I have said multiple times that the Bible has timeless principles to live by. That it is not an exhaustive list of do's and don'ts. It provides principles. It is YOUR camp that has demanded "specificity". I have simply used that logic to demonstrate the absurdity of the claim.

So. please demonstrate with specificity the sin of pedophilia. After all, if your camp's logic works then, it should work in this case as well. If it doesn't then, you should abandon the logic. BUT I know you will not. You guys have fought too long and hard to accept the incoherence of the logic.

Once again on 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.

The phrase "the Jews" may or may not include women. Context determines meaning. In the case of pants - godly women never wore pants therefore by context, if this is all that was looked at, this phrase would mean Jewish men to the exclusion of women. Why? Because once again, godly women did not wear pants. Then, Barnes adds to this the concept of priests which is a direct command to Jewish men.

Good luck with the first grade because the way things are going, you will never graduate from the second grade.

Now, perhaps you can demonstrate where the godly women wore pants. If so, then you might have a case. Until then, it is just wishful thinking from a First-Grader daydreaming about graduation...

It was a funny gif though.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by n david

Yes, they were to be distinct! However, the distinction was in color, style and length. Priests wore bifurcated underwear and the 3 Jewish dudes in captivity wore hose.

As has been demonstrated ad-infinitum - you have no scriptural or cultural/historical basis for your claim.

Only in the figment of your imagination. Even Aquila agrees the three Jewish young men wore pants. You must believe you are a majority of one.

FTR: They 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).)



You must think they were wearing what? Water hose?

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Once again on 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.

The phrase "the Jews" may or may not include women. Context determines meaning. In the case of pants - godly women never wore pants therefore by context, if this is all that was looked at, this phrase would mean Jewish men to the exclusion of women. Why? Because once again, godly women did not wear pants. Then, Barnes adds to this the concept of priests which is a direct command to Jewish men.

You can claim godly women never wore pants all day, but you have nothing to back it on. No scripture. No culture. No history. Nothing. The distinction was style, color and length.

Good to see you finally get that "The Jews" could mean women, though you still don't seem to understand the concept of basic English sentence structure and use of comparisons or examples.

"Sometimes beneath this garment, as in the case of the priests, there was another garment corresponding to pantaloons."

The priests are simply used as a comparison. They are not the subject of the sentence.

And with that lesson, I'll leave you all for the evening.

I've spent too much time arguing personal preferences and basic English sentence structure.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by n david

Barnes clearly inserted "as in the case of the priests" as a side note. Any second grader could figure that out.


Sure, after your specific passage that says snorting cocaine is sin.

Snorting cocaine isn't a sin?

How about when you mix it with King Kong?

Did you use to just drop blotter right into your eye?

Is Barnes infallible?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Only in the figment of your imagination. Even Aquila agrees the three Jewish young men wore pants. You must believe you are a majority of one.

FTR: They 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).)



You must think they were wearing what? Water hose?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

In other words you are defeated and all your base are belong to us.

Thanks for playing, we have some lovely parting gifts for you.

This is like the time I went round and round with Ndavid trying to defend Brother Stoneking's story on the wives of Osama Ben Laden. How Osama Ben Laden's wives had some joker talk them out of a cave to be baptized in Jesus name. Now these women are missionaries in the UPCI. Probably preaching to ISIS.

Ndavid you know I love you.

[Aquila]

Since Deuteronomy 22:5 doesn't mention pants, why are we taking a snapshot of what was popular culture atin their day, and forcing it on pants, but not all clothing across the board?