BSBKJVWEBYLTASVBBEWMBT4TDBY|HymnsMusicDonate
Menu
← Back to forum index
Sign In Register
Theology

Is a male of more value than a female?

S
savannah Jul 15, 2016

And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them, When a man shall make a singular vow, the persons shall be for the LORD, by thy estimation. And thy estimation shall be, of the male from twenty years old even to sixty years old, even thy estimation shall be fifty shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary. And if it shall be a female, then thy estimation shall be thirty shekels. And if it shall be from five years old even to twenty years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male twenty shekels, and for the female ten shekels. And if it shall be from a month old even to five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver. And if it shall be from sixty years old and above; if a male, then thy estimation shall be fifteen shekels, and for the female ten shekels. Leviticus 27:1-7

Did the translators of the original Hebrew Scriptures translate these verses wrong? Does anybody think that the male scholars were biased, therefore mistranslated?

It begins with the words, "The LORD spoke to Moses." Does anybody think the scholars added those words and it was merely Moses who spoke and said what followed?

I realize that I have asked more questions than one, so if it be too overwhelming for any just let it pass.

sermonindex Jul 16, 2016

No mistranslation. Things in the Old Testament Mosaic Law had spiritual application of principles and truth. I have an opinion, but it's a picture that's not one of "value" or worth, but place/position. Similarly to as we are the "bride" of Christ, but the "Bridegroom" of Christ is the preimmenemt value & position of authority/leadership. That's my opinion. But it's not opinion that it's not mistranslated. This is not "translator bias". The opposite is true in the new NIV "Gender Neutral" version where male and female are removed. The "bias" effects of feminism on translation.

T
TMK Jul 16, 2016

I think it is purely an estimate of relative strength or potential strength and therefore ability to labor. It's just biology not sexism.

sermonindex Jul 16, 2016

Yes, TMK, it was about biology, and the difficult hard work required during the wilderness period, which was the moving of the Tabernacle and of its service, which was futher limited to the Levites.

God already established the equal worth of male and female children in the offerings to be made after birth. And God later said that He is no respecter of persons - all are equal of worth in His sight.

Concerning the whole question of the Mosaic statutes "They were not perfect, other wise there would have been no need for amendment - for Jesus Christ to say as He did in the Sermon on the Mount, 'Ye know that it was said TO (not by) them of old....But I say unto you' (Bushnell).

"The provision of legistative enactments for the control of human conduct" (B) were for a specific time period, and were not meant for all time (though it is a pity concerning some of them which were much more fair to women than those of today) but to act as a brake at a time when the children of Israel were coming out of slavery and women were even more mistreated as they are during times of trouble and disruption to the normal order of things, like during times of war.

Paul said that 'The law is not made for a righteous man but for the lawless and disobedient' 1Tim 1:9-10

G
ginnyrose Jul 16, 2016

There is no doubt that many males back then considered themselves superior to females. This can be reflected in the prayer, "I thank thee God that thou has not made me a female!"

In the scheme of brute strength, emotion, there is no doubt the male far exceeds the female. The female is made weaker in brute strength but has superior strength in her ability to endure pain. She is made weaker, has little brute strength to protect her body so she can bear children. My father-in-law came from a large family - a dozen children, I think. Among them were 4 boys, the rest were girls. But none of them had more then four children, most only one or two. One of these aunts told me the reason for their childlessness was because they did too hard physical work when growing up thus impairing their childbearing ability.

When one reads of a dad who had no sons but only daughters and who gets the inheritance because there are no males to pass it on to, I find it gratifying when God says give it to the daughters.

God loves females. If one studies the OT law, notes the restrictions laid upon females, it is all to protect the female, the female body. Moderns have discarded these restrictions as being outdated and useless. But I maintain if one were to regard them with respect and take lessons, she would be a whole lot healthier. We are NOT men and we need to honor the purpose God has made us for. Only there will one find satisfaction.

And who cares if one is superior... life is too interesting to worry about that.

Sandra

sermonindex Jul 16, 2016

Oh joy! Now us Christian men know why we can rule over Christian women: we are of more value than them. And now we have a verse for it.

Reminds me of another "religion of peace". Such similarities.

http://thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/women-worth-less.aspx

Of course I am speaking about a perverted form of Christianity which we have no business participating in.

Men and women both have strengths the other does not have and they need and compliment one another.

Christian men and women should always emphasize the positive about one another. It is when they start looking at what each other lacks that they form a superiority attitude and then find scriptures to back them up.

There are many patriarchal societies, today. Some that come to mind are:
Pakistan
Saudi Arabia
Iran

sermonindex Jul 16, 2016

I never said they were of more value. That's inter posing meaning into what I said that I neither thought nor said. Just as "there is neither male nor female, both are equal in Christ", but it tells us later in multiple places in the epistles that "As Christ is the head of the church, so is the husband head of the wife...", "and so a wife must submit to her husband in all things....and a wife must respect her husband.." I know it says a man must love His wife as Christ did the church and lay down His lie for her" (as He leads just as Christ laid down His life and is the Head. That's not sexism, that's scripture. & please don't make ridiculous allusions to believing those things clearly laid out in scripture as equal to Islam. That's underhanded & wrong. I am not saying (nor ever was/have) that men are of more value than women, but they were in the OT. It's right there plain as day. To deny this is to deny facts/scriptures. So what was the "spiritual point"? I think it pertains to "whom much is given, much will be required" in a way & men have given the responsibility to lead (in a loving, understanding, & patient life-laying down way) & so much will be required with this responsibility. Twist that around if you want to and remind me why I should post less and share what I see in an overarching reason/principle/theme from the Law that pertains to the New Covenant. I could be wrong, but no reason to make the comments and compare it to Isam. Totally unnecessary.

sermonindex Jul 16, 2016

"Now us Christian men know why we can rule over Christian women: we are of more value than them."

Anyone who really thinks that way has no heart prepared to lead as God would have them. Anyone who makes jokes at the whole notion of male headship/leadership servant hood also is in no right Biblical position to lead IMHO.

sermonindex Jul 16, 2016

Interesting thing to me is that to quote an article on Islam saying "men are more valuable than women" when that's actually a Law God instituted clearly in the is OT Text. So, are you implicating the character of God during the OT time period as evil, wrong, & like "Allah"? This whole notion that the God of the OT is different than the God of the NT is so pervasive in people's theology. Or He was in a bad mood in the OT & is in a good one now. It affects so many other hermeneutics where the OT is totally discredited and pitched as "when God was bad" against the NT when "God became nice". There are differences in covenants no doubt, but the same God who sent Jesus to the cross for our sins instituted the Law in the OP, and There is no sin/flaw in him. So bringing up Islam (which shares that OT principle, wrong as that anti-Christ religion is) & making such comments is assigning evil to "the God of the OT who said it first".

N
narrowpath Jul 16, 2016

Yes, it is in the bible, but what is your real intention of posting this?

Jesus paid the highest price ever for something completely worthless - sinful men and women.

sermonindex Jul 16, 2016

savannah, you wrote this question:

"Is a male of more value than a female?"

And brought up a proof regarding monetary value.

Do you think that the monetary value of something is the same as the value of that thing?

sermonindex Jul 16, 2016

Excellent question Tsuzanna

S
savannah Jul 16, 2016

My answer to the question is absolutely and unequivocally, NO! NO! NO!

I hope I have made myself clear.

I found these comments from one commentator to best express my understanding of what we find here in Leviticus 27:

"Moses first treats of persons; and estimates a male at fifty shekels of the sanctuary from twenty-five years of age to sixty; since this is the best time of life in which a man's work is profitable. A woman he estimates at thirty shekels; since for the most part less profit is made by a woman than a man; and although it might occur that some women would be much more valuable than men, since sometimes women are found to be industrious, prudent, discreet, and strong to labor, whilst men are idle, dull, lazy, and weak, still a general law must needs be given, for the examination would have been too difficult if each individual was to be estimated according to their good qualities. God then does not pay exact attention to the merits of each, but is contented with the common calculation."

Thus far I've not found any person here on SI who'd answer yes to the question in the OP!

Thanks for loving the LORD with your
mind enough to have an interest in, and to pay attention to, Scriptures like these which many write off and many others take great offense at.

sermonindex Jul 16, 2016

savannah,
There were 2 questions asked.
You said that your answer is no.
I know that I could easily calculate your answer to the other one. But just for the clarity:
And forgive me for being so meticulous.
Question 1:
Is a male of more value than a female?
Question 2:
Do you think that the monetary value of something is the same as the value of that thing?

What is your answer to Question 1 and Question 2?

S
savannah Jul 16, 2016

I've already answered your first question.

Your second question needs a qualifier.

There's no monetary value to a soul.

Now for some things the answer may be yes, for many other things the answer is no. Other factors often weigh in on the things in particular.

Is that a sufficient answer or did I miss something?

sermonindex Jul 17, 2016

"Now for some things the answer may be yes, for many other things the answer is no. Other factors often weigh in on the things in particular."
So if the monetary value is not always the same as the value,
then the answer to the second question is also no.

If you knew this when you started the thread, I have to say that the questions were poorly set.

It is like that:
"Is it true that 2+2=5?
I've read in the bible that 2+3=5.
I think it is correctly translated.
Do you think it's not?"

I think this is confusing and I don't see what the point is.

S
savannah Jul 17, 2016

I'm sorry you're so confused!

I'll try to make it more simple next time.

sermonindex Jul 17, 2016

Thank you savannah for bringing up those scriptures, and having us think about the value of humans.

I think the root of feminism lies in the fact that in the world unbelievers often equate the value of a person with the value of material things the person is capable to produce.
Christians are known for their charity towards handicapped or otherwise weak people. Showing clearly that they regard value differently.

sermonindex Jul 17, 2016

One extreme of the Enemy misrepresenting scripture (which is his forte) is radical feminism and the other extreme is the patriarchy movement. The Holy Spirit through the Apostle Paul strikes the right balance.

sermonindex Jul 17, 2016

We have a similar thing today: If a person dies at the job the workers compensation pays a certain amount to the family to compensate them for their material loss. It is easy to see that that amount is not equal to the value of that person.

Edited to add:
However we should never forget that material thing sustain our life therefore are very important and that males are more capable of providing those than females.

This discussion is locked.

Archived
First
1 of 46 posts
Last