More on Skirts

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Where did Barnes get their information?

I took some time to try to find out. I had some difficulty. Maybe it is because I've misunderstood the reference.

If I'm not mistaken, it appears that Albert Barnes got his information from, "Christ and Culture", by H. Richard Niebuhr (chapter 1, page 153), where Neibuhr references, Reisebescreib(?). Which I can't find any information on.

In the reference, Barnes also notes that the specific outer garment (robe) warn by Job was also occasionally worn by women and by men of noble birth or rank.

So, we would have a reference to both pantaloons and a type of robe shared by both men and women.

[Godsdrummer]

Originally Posted by Aquila

The Bible itself describes the breeches of the Levites,

Exodus 28:42
And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach:

They covered the crotch and thighs. They were like linen boxers, an undergarment. I don't read of bifurcated undergarments for women in Scripture, should we forbid women's underwear?

PS
Barnes commentary states that both men and women wore pantaloons with their inner garments at times.

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Where did Barnes get their information?

Why don't you answer the question? Instead of countering with another question?

I too have a question for you, about pants. Why is it ok for the man to show his figure in pants but not the women? You keep arguing that women did not wear pants only men, yet that argument too is only from silence, but you won't admit it. You have not proven in scripture unequivocally that men wore pants.

The only thing you have proven is that only the priest wore underwear when ministering in the tabernacle. and that the three Hebrew children "may" have worn hosiery under their robes. In any case they were an undergarment in both cases, not intended to be worn outside or alone. They were worn under their robes.

Yet today men don't think twice about slipping into a form fitting pair of pants, yet, don't let a women do the same it is an abomination. If that is not the biggest double standard of all time I don't know what is.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

Why don't you answer the question? Instead of countering with another question?

I too have a question for you, about pants. Why is it ok for the man to show his figure in pants but not the women? You keep arguing that women did not wear pants only men, yet that argument too is only from silence, but you won't admit it. You have not proven in scripture unequivocally that men wore pants.

The only thing you have proven is that only the priest wore underwear when ministering in the tabernacle. and that the three Hebrew children "may" have worn hosiery under their robes. In any case they were an undergarment in both cases, not intended to be worn outside or alone. They were worn under their robes.

Yet today men don't think twice about slipping into a form fitting pair of pants, yet, don't let a women do the same it is an abomination. If that is not the biggest double standard of all time I don't know what is.

In many Islamic societies in the Middle East, pants on men is considered just as immodest as pants on a woman.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by jediwill83

I know is Jamaica, women are encouraged to wear pants because of the number of rapes and sexual assaults.

It was a pretty credible source...someone actually from there I spoke to about it.

Originally Posted by n david

I doubt cons are concerned about this. Doesn't matter. Women better wear a dress/skirt or they'll be condemned and cast into hell.

Originally Posted by Pliny

Thank you for pretending to know what I think...

You owe conservatives an apology. Don't worry. I will not hold my breath waiting for it.

Originally Posted by Pliny

This is a ridiculous argument. As though no woman has ever been raped wearing pants. To assume and charge me with not caring about women being raped is disgusting. I will not hold a dialogue with such ignorant remarks.

Not surprising. Some loose an argument and then make wild eyed accusations that conservatives don't care if a woman gets raped. Since they cannot refute the argument they must resort to slanderous hatred.

The Bible STILL reveals that godly men wore pants and godly women did not.

For example,
(Dan 3:21 KJV) Then these men were bound in their coats, their hosen, and their hats, and their other garments, and were cast into the midst of the burning fiery furnace.

Quickly, here are two translations that render this passage as:
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.

Then, there is the LXX. These ancient Hebrew and Greek scholars translated the Hebrew into Greek as:

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.

Jastrow is one of the foremost celebrated scholars and this dictionary renders the word in question as pants.


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.

Daniel 3:27 (WEB) The satraps, the deputies, and the governors, and the king's counselors, being gathered together, saw these men, that the fire had no power on their bodies, nor was the hair of their head singed, neither were their pants changed, nor had the smell of fire 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).)
http://lsj.translatum.gr/wiki/%CF%83...B1%CF%81%CE%B1

Thus, there are 2 Biblical passages that affirm that the Hebrew young men wore pants. There are absolutely NO Biblical passages that demonstrate godly women wore pants.

Multiple translators affirm they were wearing pants and the dozens of Hebrew and Greek scholars that translated the Hebrew into Greek used the word denoting loose trousers. Certainly these scholars knew more about the passage than anyone today, especially those on this forum.

Zephaniah 1:8 adds to Deu. 22:5 by stating:
(Zep 1:8 KJV) And it shall come to pass in the day of the LORD'S sacrifice, that I will punish the princes, and the king's children, and all such as are clothed with strange apparel.

God says He will punish all that are clothed with strange apparel. So what is "strange apparel"?
Apparel that did not belong to their sex. In other words, women were wearing men's clothing and men were wearing women's clothing. A clear reference to Deu. 22:5.

Barnes is interesting as well. Concerning Matthew 5:40 he states:
(Mat 5:40 KJV) And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.

The word "coat" is the Greek word chitōn G 5509. This is an inner garment but does not specifically refer to pants. However, Barnes includes the idea of pants because of the Levitical priesthood.

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.

It can be argued whether the garments worn by the priests were pants or not but here Barnes argues that they correspond to pants.

No matter how you look at it, pants were worn by godly men not godly women. Due to this, the detractors have made outrageous and monstrous attacks against me and other conservatives. They owe an apology for this but as can be seen - no apology has been, and likely never will be, offered. Why is this? Is it because they hate the conservative stand more than they care about truth and justice? Is it "just" to argue that conservatives do not care about women? I am disgusted by such a cowardly charge.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Not surprising. Some loose an argument and then make wild eyed accusations that conservatives don't care if a woman gets raped. Since they cannot refute the argument they must resort to slanderous hatred.

The Bible STILL reveals that godly men wore pants and godly women did not.

For example,
(Dan 3:21 KJV) Then these men were bound in their coats, their hosen, and their hats, and their other garments, and were cast into the midst of the burning fiery furnace.

Quickly, here are two translations that render this passage as:
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.

Then, there is the LXX. These ancient Hebrew and Greek scholars translated the Hebrew into Greek as:

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.

Jastrow is one of the foremost celebrated scholars and this dictionary renders the word in question as pants.


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.

Daniel 3:27 (WEB) The satraps, the deputies, and the governors, and the king's counselors, being gathered together, saw these men, that the fire had no power on their bodies, nor was the hair of their head singed, neither were their pants changed, nor had the smell of fire 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).)
http://lsj.translatum.gr/wiki/%CF%83...B1%CF%81%CE%B1

Thus, there are 2 Biblical passages that affirm that the Hebrew young men wore pants. There are absolutely NO Biblical passages that demonstrate godly women wore pants.

Multiple translators affirm they were wearing pants and the dozens of Hebrew and Greek scholars that translated the Hebrew into Greek used the word denoting loose trousers. Certainly these scholars knew more about the passage than anyone today, especially those on this forum.

Zephaniah 1:8 adds to Deu. 22:5 by stating:
(Zep 1:8 KJV) And it shall come to pass in the day of the LORD'S sacrifice, that I will punish the princes, and the king's children, and all such as are clothed with strange apparel.

God says He will punish all that are clothed with strange apparel. So what is "strange apparel"?
Apparel that did not belong to their sex. In other words, women were wearing men's clothing and men were wearing women's clothing. A clear reference to Deu. 22:5.

Barnes is interesting as well. Concerning Matthew 5:40 he states:
(Mat 5:40 KJV) And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.

The word "coat" is the Greek word chitōn G 5509. This is an inner garment but does not specifically refer to pants. However, Barnes includes the idea of pants because of the Levitical priesthood.

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.

It can be argued whether the garments worn by the priests were pants or not but here Barnes argues that they correspond to pants.

No matter how you look at it, pants were worn by godly men not godly women. Due to this, the detractors have made outrageous and monstrous attacks against me and other conservatives. They owe an apology for this but as can be seen - no apology has been, and likely never will be, offered. Why is this? Is it because they hate the conservative stand more than they care about truth and justice? Is it "just" to argue that conservatives do not care about women? I am disgusted by such a cowardly charge.

Are you trying to defend conservatism or the truth?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

The Bible STILL reveals that godly men wore pants and godly women did not.

For example,
(Dan 3:21 KJV) Then these men were bound in their coats, their hosen, and their hats, and their other garments, and were cast into the midst of the burning fiery furnace.

Quickly, here are two translations that render this passage as:
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.

Then, there is the LXX. These ancient Hebrew and Greek scholars translated the Hebrew into Greek as:

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.

Jastrow is one of the foremost celebrated scholars and this dictionary renders the word in question as pants.


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.

Daniel 3:27 (WEB) The satraps, the deputies, and the governors, and the king's counselors, being gathered together, saw these men, that the fire had no power on their bodies, nor was the hair of their head singed, neither were their pants changed, nor had the smell of fire 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

This affirms that Godly men wore trousers. Here we agree. However, silence doesn't prove that women never wore trousers or pantaloons.

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).)
http://lsj.translatum.gr/wiki/%CF%83...B1%CF%81%CE%B1

It is important to note that the Scythian women wore trousers.

Thus, there are 2 Biblical passages that affirm that the Hebrew young men wore pants. There are absolutely NO Biblical passages that demonstrate godly women wore pants.

Silence isn't a certainty. Silence doesn't prove that women never wore trousers or pantaloons.

Multiple translators affirm they were wearing pants and the dozens of Hebrew and Greek scholars that translated the Hebrew into Greek used the word denoting loose trousers. Certainly these scholars knew more about the passage than anyone today, especially those on this forum.

Agreed. However, silence doesn't prove that women never wore trousers or pantaloons.

Zephaniah 1:8 adds to Deu. 22:5 by stating:
(Zep 1:8 KJV) And it shall come to pass in the day of the LORD'S sacrifice, that I will punish the princes, and the king's children, and all such as are clothed with strange apparel.

God says He will punish all that are clothed with strange apparel. So what is "strange apparel"?
Apparel that did not belong to their sex. In other words, women were wearing men's clothing and men were wearing women's clothing. A clear reference to Deu. 22:5.

Like T-shirts?

Barnes is interesting as well. Concerning Matthew 5:40 he states:
(Mat 5:40 KJV) And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.

The word "coat" is the Greek word chitōn G 5509. This is an inner garment but does not specifically refer to pants. However, Barnes includes the idea of pants because of the Levitical priesthood.

Barnes
Coat - The Jews (MALE AND FEMALE) 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.

Both males and females wore the pantaloons under their inner garments.

It can be argued whether the garments worn by the priests were pants or not but here Barnes argues that they correspond to pants.

Barnes doesn't indicate that the priests wore pants, he was saying that these pantaloons in question were worn under the inner garment, as in the case of the priests and their breeches. Scripture itself describes the breeches of the priests:

Exodus 28:42
And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach:

They were shorts.

No matter how you look at it, pants were worn by godly men not godly women.

Silence isn't an argument. You have to find a text specifically condemning pants on a woman. Now, that would be an argument.

Due to this, the detractors have made outrageous and monstrous attacks against me and other conservatives. They owe an apology for this but as can be seen - no apology has been, and likely never will be, offered. Why is this? Is it because they hate the conservative stand more than they care about truth and justice? Is it "just" to argue that conservatives do not care about women? I am disgusted by such a cowardly charge.

Yes, the idea that conservatives don't care if women are raped wasn't called for. Both sides should move on from that emotional distraction and continue the discussion.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pliny

No matter how you look at it, pants were worn by godly men not godly women. Due to this, the detractors have made outrageous and monstrous attacks against me and other conservatives. They owe an apology for this but as can be seen - no apology has been, and likely never will be, offered. Why is this? Is it because they hate the conservative stand more than they care about truth and justice? Is it "just" to argue that conservatives do not care about women? I am disgusted by such a cowardly charge.

I'm disgusted, too. Especially when an apology WAS made.

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...postcount=1112

Originally Posted by n david

I should not have said: "I doubt cons are concerned about this." It's wrong of me to insinuate cons are callous and unconcerned about rape and sexual assault. I certainly don't believe cons are unconcerned or callous about that, so I apologize for that part of my post. It was wrong and I shouldn't have posted that.

You must have missed that post.

Conservative stand? Truth? Justice???

What you talkin' 'bout, Willis?

[Aquila]

Barnes makes another interesting note with regards to Job 1:20...

And rent his mantle - The word here rendered “mantle” מעיל me‛ı̂yl means an upper or outer garment. The dress of Orientals consists principally of an under garment or tunic - not materially differing from the “shirt” with us - except that the sleeves are wider, and under this large and loose pantaloons. Niebuhr, Reisebescreib. 1. 157. Over these garments they often throw a full and flowing mantle or robe. This is made without sleeves; it reaches down to the ankles; and when they walk or exercise it is bound around the middle with a girdle or sash. When they labor it is usually laid aside. The robe here referred ire was worn sometimes by women, 2 Samuel 13:18; by men of birth and rank, and by kings, 1 Samuel 15:27; 1 Samuel 18:4; 1 Samuel 24:5, 1 Samuel 24:11; by priests, 1 Samuel 28:14, and especially by the high priest under the ephod, Exodus 28:31. See Braun de vest Sacerd. ii. 5. Schroeder de vest. muller.

Men and women often wore the same essential articles of clothing. Other commentators indicate that the only difference was with regards to size and style.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Not surprising. Some loose an argument and then make wild eyed accusations that conservatives don't care if a woman gets raped. Since they cannot refute the argument they must resort to slanderous hatred.

Feel better yet?

How does one LOOSE an argument? Anyway, no I did not LOSE any argument. You have no legs to stand on regarding your claims on Deuteronomy 22:5. And "slanderous hatred?" I never slandered you or anyone else, nor do I "hate" you or anyone else.

Hey, did you see the apology I posted on Friday? I want to make sure you saw it, since you claimed none was made or will be made, then rambled on about truth and justice. Here it is again, just in case:

Originally Posted by n david

I should not have said: "I doubt cons are concerned about this." It's wrong of me to insinuate cons are callous and unconcerned about rape and sexual assault. I certainly don't believe cons are unconcerned or callous about that, so I apologize for that part of my post. It was wrong and I shouldn't have posted that.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Men and women often wore the same attire. Other commentators indicate that the only difference was with regards to size and style.

Correct, length of robe, style and color were what differed in Jewish apparel. Women's robes were longer, more ornate and typically were in various colors.