Sonhouse Leviticus 27?

You plan on answering me on this topic where you said the Bible claims
women and men are only worth so much money?


"Are you sure you are complaining about Leviticus 27? This is about vows
not about what a person is worth, you have another scripture in mind?
Even in the scripture you are talking about if you are to poor to pay, you
pay what you can afford.

Leviticus 27 New International Version (NIV)

Redeeming What Is the Lord’s

27 The Lord said to Moses, 2 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If anyone makes a special vow to dedicate a person to the Lord by giving the equivalent value, 3 set the value of a male between the ages of twenty and sixty at fifty shekels of silver, according to the sanctuary shekel; 4 for a female, set her value at thirty shekels; 5 for a person between the ages of five and twenty, set the value of a male at twenty shekels and of a female at ten shekels; 6 for a person between one month and five years, set the value of a male at five shekels of silver and that of a female at three shekels of silver; 7 for a person sixty years old or more, set the value of a male at fifteen shekels and of a female at ten shekels. 8 If anyone making the vow is too poor to pay the specified amount, the person being dedicated is to be presented to the priest, who will set the value according to what the one making the vow can afford."

Originally posted by KellyJay
You plan on answering me on this topic where you said the Bible claims
women and men are only worth so much money?


"Are you sure you are complaining about Leviticus 27? This is about vows
not about what a person is worth, you have another scripture in mind?
Even in the scripture you are talking about if you are to poor to pay, you
pay what you c ...[text shortened]... nted to the priest, who will set the value according to what the one making the vow can afford."

Don't you think its just a bit more than coincidental that 2000, 3000 years later, women get paid almost exactly the same as the bible? I don't think many people bothered to look at verse 8. Women get paid 70% of men as we speak. I think it is the result of thousands of years of those bible verses being used as justification for putting women on a lower plane.

In synagogues right now, women are not allowed into some parts of the place, having their own place while the real work goes on by men. And of course slowly there are some women Rabbi's now but that didn't come about from the actions of a god, it came about because we are starting to realize that women have gotten the short end of the stick for the past 5000 years.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Don't you think its just a bit more than coincidental that 2000, 3000 years later, women get paid almost exactly the same as the bible? I don't think many people bothered to look at verse 8. Women get paid 70% of men as we speak. I think it is the result of thousands of years of those bible verses being used as justification for putting women on a lower pla ...[text shortened]... e starting to realize that women have gotten the short end of the stick for the past 5000 years.

But thirty shekels to fifty shekels is 60% not 70% and this has nothing to do with salaries for men and women in the old testament. It is about making dedication vows, which no one had to do. Notice the word "if" there.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Don't you think its just a bit more than coincidental that 2000, 3000 years later, women get paid almost exactly the same as the bible? I don't think many people bothered to look at verse 8. Women get paid 70% of men as we speak. I think it is the result of thousands of years of those bible verses being used as justification for putting women on a lower pla ...[text shortened]... e starting to realize that women have gotten the short end of the stick for the past 5000 years.

Changing the subject?
We were talking about what Leviticus 27 had in it, and now you want to turn
toward how much today's modern women make in wages. Are you
suggesting it all stems from Leviticus 27?

Women except a few are not in the work place as much as men, since they
do tend to take brakes to have babies. Some leave when they would be
making more money just to raise their babies.

I want to know if you are now going to acknowledge that the Leviticus 27
is not saying how much you can buy a man or woman for so it is not
addressing their worth, instead it was meant for vows!

Originally posted by KellyJay
You plan on answering me on this topic where you said the Bible claims
women and men are only worth so much money?


"Are you sure you are complaining about Leviticus 27? This is about vows
not about what a person is worth, you have another scripture in mind?
Even in the scripture you are talking about if you are to poor to pay, you
pay what you c ...[text shortened]... nted to the priest, who will set the value according to what the one making the vow can afford."

Leviticus 27 is dealing with how to value what is vowed as offerings to God. In Leviticus 27:1-8, God gives guidance as to how to value the offering of people.

Clearly according to the guidance God gives Moses, males are to be valued more than females of comparable age. From what I gather, it is this that sonhouse is raising issue.

The valuation of males and females from 20 to 60 is in bold below: 50 shekels for males and only 30 for females.

Leviticus 27
New American Standard Bible

Rules concerning Valuations

1Again, the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 2“Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, ‘When a man makes a difficult vow, he shall be valued according to your valuation of persons belonging to the LORD. 3‘If your valuation is of the male from twenty years even to sixty years old, then your valuation shall be fifty shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary. 4‘Or if it is a female, then your valuation shall be thirty shekels.5‘If it be from five years even to twenty years old then your valuation for the male shall be twenty shekels and for the female ten shekels. 6‘But if they are from a month even up to five years old, then your valuation shall be five shekels of silver for the male, and for the female your valuation shall be three shekels of silver. 7‘If they are from sixty years old and upward, if it is a male, then your valuation shall be fifteen shekels, and for the female ten shekels. 8‘But if he is poorer than your valuation, then he shall be placed before the priest and the priest shall value him; according to the means of the one who vowed, the priest shall value him.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Leviticus 27 is dealing with how to value what is vowed as offerings to God. In Leviticus 27:1-8, God gives guidance as to how to value the offering of people.

Clearly according to the guidance God gives Moses, males are to be valued more than females of comparable age. From what I gather, it is this that sonhouse is raising issue.

The valuation of ...[text shortened]... priest shall value him; according to the means of the one who vowed, the priest shall value him.

If the LORD said it, then it must be so.

HalleluYah !!! Praise the LORD! Holy! Holy! Holy!

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Leviticus 27 is dealing with how to value what is vowed as offerings to God. In Leviticus 27:1-8, God gives guidance as to how to value the offering of people.

Clearly according to the guidance God gives Moses, males are to be valued more than females of comparable age. From what I gather, it is this that sonhouse is raising issue.

The valuation of ...[text shortened]... priest shall value him; according to the means of the one who vowed, the priest shall value him.

No, males are not clearly valued more.

Putting a set price protects everyone who would by thinking if I gave more
it would mean more. Males made more so they paid more, but even there
if you could not pay it according to scripture the priest set the price on
what you could pay. The vows are the vows and people tend to want to
make a big deal out of what they do, God is not impressed with our wealth
or anything else we think we have.

Look at what Jesus said when saw what the old woman gave, did he not say
she gave more than the rest even though money wise she gave only a very
small amount while the others gave large sums of money?

Mark 12:
41 Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. 42 But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a few cents.

43 Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. 44 They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on.”

KJ and ToO clearly want to stress the point of Lev 27 being about VOWS. yet this does not alter the simple fact that there WERE different values put on something, based solely on the fact whether the person concerned was male or female. Protest as much as you will, sonhouse is totally correct to say that this reflected the values that society ( in particular a patriarchal society) put on the sexes, and that it was based on their sacred scriptures.

In the NT, it could be argued that Jesus and Paul tried to correct the imbalances, with statements like "there is neither Jew nor Greek, male or female" (implying that we are all equal before God), but the attempt was clearly unsuccessful, as again sonhouse stated.

RJH, however, has a problem. If it is true, as he claims, (which it isn't) that "God said it" , then he needs to explan why this discrimination is generally condemned today, except in some fundamentalist Arab cultures. *He also needs to come straight out whether he, RJH, today claims that women are 60%, or 75%, or whatever, as much worth as males.

*Edit: And, if you want to labour the point, in some other primitive native cultures.

Originally posted by KellyJay
No, males are not clearly valued more.

Putting a set price protects everyone who would by thinking if I gave more
it would mean more. Males made more so they paid more, but even there
if you could not pay it according to scripture the priest set the price on
what you could pay. The vows are the vows and people tend to want to
make a big deal out of w ...[text shortened]... ave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on.”

C'mon KJ. According to the OT, it is clearly God Himself who did the valuation. And there, God clearly instructed Moses to give a higher value to males than females.

Just because Jesus gave instructions that may indicate something different doesn't change the above.

Also, just because priests were given the leeway to lower the price for the poor also doesn't change the above.

Originally posted by RJHinds
If the LORD said it, then it must be so.

HalleluYah !!! Praise the LORD! Holy! Holy! Holy!

I take it that you now understand the point being made by sonhouse.

Originally posted by CalJust
KJ and ToO clearly want to stress the point of Lev 27 being about VOWS. yet this does not alter the simple fact that there WERE different values put on something, based solely on the fact whether the person concerned was male or female. Protest as much as you will, sonhouse is totally correct to say that this reflected the values that society ( in particular ...[text shortened]... es.[/i]

*Edit: And, if you want to labour the point, in some other primitive native cultures.

KJ and ToO clearly want to stress the point of Lev 27 being about VOWS.

Actually I did not. Perhaps you meant RJ?

Protest as much as you will, sonhouse is totally correct to say that this reflected the values that society ( in particular a patriarchal society) put on the sexes, and that it was based on their sacred scriptures.


Did you mean "affected" rather than "reflected" here? Because it was clearly God who made the valuation and not "society".

If it is true, as he claims, (which it isn't) that "God said it" , then he needs to explan why this discrimination is generally condemned today, except in some fundamentalist Arab cultures.

What about "Christian" cultures such as the US?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
C'mon KJ. According to the OT, it is clearly God Himself who did the valuation. And there, God clearly instructed Moses to gave a higher value to males than females.

Just because Jesus gave instructions that may indicate something different doesn't change the above.

Also, just because priests were given the leeway to lower the price for the poor also doesn't change the above.

The value was not on the people that was on what it was going to take for
the vows, read the text. Even that value was to be lessen by what they
could pay if need be.

Originally posted by CalJust
KJ and ToO clearly want to stress the point of Lev 27 being about VOWS. yet this does not alter the simple fact that there WERE different values put on something, based solely on the fact whether the person concerned was male or female. Protest as much as you will, sonhouse is totally correct to say that this reflected the values that society ( in particular ...[text shortened]... es.[/i]

*Edit: And, if you want to labour the point, in some other primitive native cultures.

I'm not protesting anything, the subject matter was not the worth of the
people but what God wanted for the vows. Not saying they didn't have
different values only that it was not talking about what the people were
worth.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
C'mon KJ. According to the OT, it is clearly God Himself who did the valuation. And there, God clearly instructed Moses to gave a higher value to males than females.

Just because Jesus gave instructions that may indicate something different doesn't change the above.

Also, just because priests were given the leeway to lower the price for the poor also doesn't change the above.

It doesn't change that they were talking about if they wanted to come and
make a vow, it did NOT say this is what a man is worth or this is what a
woman is worth. You would be reading into the text things that are not
there but promoting that train of thought, which is adding to scripture a
thing God does not approve of.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Did you mean "affected" rather than "reflected" here? Because it was clearly God who made the valuation and not "society".

What about "Christian" cultures such as the US?

(Edit Pushed the wrong button by mistake)

To point one, it was society that made the valuation, based on the sacred scriptures they used. Whether or not it was indeed "God that made the valuation" is a matter of subjective belief.

To point two, yes, sadly, in the US (especially the Bible Belt) women are still subject to men, based largely on Paul's teaching about women (e.g. being silent in the church, and being obedient in all things to their husbands.) But that is another subject.