More on Skirts

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

We do not see any mention of women wearing pants. So, your argument is based on silence. I don't read of any verse describing a woman passing gas, should we argue that they didn't? LOL

An ignorant argument.

There is a reason why "we do not see any mention of women wearing pants". Because they didn't! Thus, even if I provided a historical statement that said godly women never wore pants, you would still complain because you refuse to accept the answer. No amount of evidence will suffice. Instead you hide behind contrived logical fallacies hoping no one will notice.

It is understood that godly women did not wear pants. Prove otherwise - the real argument from silence. Your trying to prove something without any evidence.

As to your other ludicrous statement, science would give us the answer.

[n david]

I'm not a fan of using the argument of silence in the bible. Absence of evidence is not evidence. There are some things which the Bible simply does not mention and using the argument of silence is fallacy.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Here are some interesting questions and answers to ponder...

Do we see a commandment wherein God commands all men to wear pants? No.

Do we see a commandment wherein God commands all women to wear skirts? No.

I ask this because... for something to strictly pertain to a man or to a woman... wouldn't it have to be stated strictly as such?

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.

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.

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

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

You do the math.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

An ignorant argument.

There is a reason why "we do not see any mention of women wearing pants". Because they didn't!

You can't find a Scriptural example of men wearing pants, outside of the three Hebrew captives wherein men wore Babylonian hosen.

Thus, even if I provided a historical statement that said godly women never wore pants, you would still complain because you refuse to accept the answer. No amount of evidence will suffice. Instead you hide behind contrived logical fallacies hoping no one will notice.

Blah, blah, blah. Guess what, I'm currently looking into if women wore breeches or any bifurcated garments under their tunics in the Winter months or to protect from the elements in ancient times. While we might not see a reference to women wearing breeches in Scripture, we might find that women wearing breeches (or even hosen) under their tunics was a common practice when the weather was bad. I'm looking into it. I'll get back with you if I find anything significant.

It is understood that godly women did not wear pants. Prove otherwise - the real argument from silence. Your trying to prove something without any evidence.

You sound like you're stomping your feet and demanding, demanding, demanding.

Bro, it's an argument from silence. That means... we truly don't know. That's the HONEST answer. To find out, we have to study the culture and what archeologists have discovered thus far.

As to your other ludicrous statement, science would give us the answer.

Bingo. Science, science such as archeology, might shed some light on the issue. Don't get your breeches all up in a bunch. LOL

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

I'm not a fan of using the argument of silence in the bible. Absence of evidence is not evidence. There are some things which the Bible simply does not mention and using the argument of silence is fallacy.

Amen.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

It is written,

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

- First, this commandment was given strictly to the Levites. Please demonstrate where this is restricted to the Levites. This is a figment of your imagination.
- Second, this commandment was strictly given in relation to their priestly garments, which were to be warn when administering at the altar in the tabernacle. Please demonstrate where they were restricted from wearing them any other time. This is a figment of your imagination.
- Thirdly, these breeches were to cover the Levites from the loins down to their thighs, meaning they rested at the knee. Thus, they were shorts, not pants. This is true. However, the Hebrew young men wore pants.

Then there is Albert Barnes notes on Matthew 5:40.
(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.

Concerning the coat:
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.

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.

Still can't find a reference to a godly woman wearing pants...

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by n david

I'm not a fan of using the argument of silence in the bible. Absence of evidence is not evidence. There are some things which the Bible simply does not mention and using the argument of silence is fallacy.

Yes, the fallacy of arguing from silence that it is okay for women to wear pants.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Yes, the fallacy of arguing from silence that it is okay for women to wear pants.

Or the fallacy of arguing from silence that it's wrong for women to wear pants.

Absence of evidence is not evidence.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

You can't find a Scriptural example of men wearing pants, outside of the three Hebrew captives wherein men wore Babylonian hosen.

First, there is no need. Once a principle is established it doe not need to be re-established every time just to satisfy a critic.

Secondly, Albert Barnes notes on Matthew 5:40:
(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.
Concerning the coat, he writes:

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.

Thus, according to him, pants were sometimes worn in Judea during the time of Christ.

STILL WAITING FOR YOU TO PROVIDE ONE PASSAGE DEMONSTRATING A GODLY WOMAN WORE PANTS

Blah, blah, blah. Guess what, I'm currently looking into if women wore breeches or any bifurcated garments under their tunics in the Winter months or to protect from the elements in ancient times. While we might not see a reference to women wearing breeches in Scripture, we might find that women wearing breeches (or even hosen) under their tunics was a common practice when the weather was bad. I'm looking into it. I'll get back with you if I find anything significant.

Great! You acknowledge the Bible does not have a single reference of a godly woman wearing pants. So now, in your argument from silence, you will try to find historical evidence of a woman wearing pants. Please feel free to look at Persian women. They did. However, when you find whatever you find, please ensure that they were godly women. Otherwise it doe not provide your argument with any help.

You sound like you're stomping your feet and demanding, demanding, demanding.

Demanding? LOL! I have provided positive evidence. All I am "demanding" is that you be held to the same standard. Since you know you cannot reach that standard you whine. Your argument is a prime example of an "argument from silence". You have NO Biblical evidence and ignore the Biblical evidence provided.

Bro, it's an argument from silence. That means... we truly don't know. That's the HONEST answer. To find out, we have to study the culture and what archeologists have discovered thus far.

We truly do KNOW godly men wore pants. We also know that there is NO Biblical evidence to suggest that godly women ever wore pants. That is the HONEST answer. You just refuse to acknowledge the facts.

Bingo. Science, science such as archeology, might shed some light on the issue. Don't get your breeches all up in a bunch. LOL

Still waiting for you to provide positive Biblical evidence that godly women wore pants.
The "silence" is deafening - the real argument from silence.
Buena suerte

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by n david

Or the fallacy of arguing from silence that it's wrong for women to wear pants.

Absence of evidence is not evidence.

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".