1. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    148423
    20 Dec '14 11:12
    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."
  2. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52614
    20 Dec '14 23:32
    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.
  3. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12694
    21 Dec '14 03:172 edits
    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.
  4. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    148423
    21 Dec '14 04:33
    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!
  5. Joined
    15 Oct '06
    Moves
    10115
    21 Dec '14 06:363 edits
    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.
  6. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12694
    21 Dec '14 10:461 edit
    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!
  7. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    148423
    21 Dec '14 11:12
    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.”
  8. Standard memberCalJust
    It is what it is
    Pretoria
    Joined
    20 Apr '04
    Moves
    34138
    21 Dec '14 13:082 edits
    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.
  9. Joined
    15 Oct '06
    Moves
    10115
    21 Dec '14 14:121 edit
    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.
  10. Joined
    15 Oct '06
    Moves
    10115
    21 Dec '14 14:14
    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.
  11. Joined
    15 Oct '06
    Moves
    10115
    21 Dec '14 14:261 edit
    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?
  12. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    148423
    21 Dec '14 14:26
    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.
  13. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    148423
    21 Dec '14 14:28
    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.
  14. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    148423
    21 Dec '14 14:30
    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.
  15. Standard memberCalJust
    It is what it is
    Pretoria
    Joined
    20 Apr '04
    Moves
    34138
    21 Dec '14 17:001 edit
    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.
Back to Top