More on Skirts

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by n david

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.

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.[/QUOTE]

Sooo. where did you say you were quoting me within your quote? Missing? Get over it then...

[Esaias]

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.

On the flip side, both of these articles of clothing pertain to a man. Any woman would be in violation of the above text if she were to wear either one.

It's common sense.

Did you ever demonstrate how the Bible defines "pertains to a man" and "women's garment"? I don't recall seeing that post...

[Evang.Benincasa]

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.

Now everyone has left talking about what the verse actually was saying. As it pretains to the people it was originally intended for. Now Aquila the soppy liberal change agent provocateur is offer the readers of this thread modern outfits? Which anyone would interchange without problem. Whether they were homosexual or HETEROSEXUAL. Remember Aquila's supposed position ( I say supposed because he is a flip flopper) is that Deuteronomy 22:5 is cocerning religious rituals performed for homosexual purposes. So, with that in mind his pictures mean nothing. Because our culture is at the bottom of the cess pool. Spiritually, mentally, morally, and sadly even physically. Just reading Aquila's postings over in the political section is enough to indicate this guy will be moving on from even liberal Christianity. I hope to Jesus I'm wrong but if his posting political and religious are any sort of indication of his future. Then I suggest we all start to pray now.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Did you ever demonstrate how the Bible defines "pertains to a man" and "women's garment"? I don't recall seeing that post...

Good point my brother.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pliny

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

I trying very hard not to. Hopefully you're able to see what I was referring to.

Originally Posted by Pliny

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

I do not believe Deut 22:5 is about pants. I stated towards the beginning what I believed about Deut 22:5.

Originally Posted by n david

I've always understood Deu 22:5 to be more about, in that time, women putting on men's armor and men becoming homosexual/trans temple prostitutes. I've always disagreed with the use of that verse as a ban on women wearing pants.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by n david

I trying very hard not to. Hopefully you're able to see what I was referring to.


I do not believe Deut 22:5 is about pants. I stated towards the beginning what I believed about Deut 22:5.

Thank you.

You are wrong :-) of course.

Deu. 22:5 is absolutely about what men and women wear. As such, it includes pants.

This is how the multiple translators of translated the passage.

Have a nice day

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Sooo. where did you say you were quoting me within your quote? Missing? Get over it then...

The use of quotation marks should be a clue that I was quoting someone. My edit linking your actual quote within that post should have cleared up any doubt. Yet, even after posting your linked quote, you still claimed I wasn't quoting and insinuated I was being dishonest.

smh

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pliny

You are wrong :-) of course.

Your opinion, of course. Considering you weren't able to understand what the quotation marks were for, I'm not too worried about your opinion of Deut 22:5.

Originally Posted by Pliny

Have a nice day

Thank you! You as well.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

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.

Again am argument from silence. I could argue that they indeed wore hose under their tunics as men did during the colder months.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Nice to know YOUR OPINION trumps the Bible.

I think I will stick with God's word.

Ah, someone else who doesn't understand that pink ladies jeans aren't for them. Lol