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?
Excellent question Tsuzanna
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.
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?
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?
"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.
I'm sorry you're so confused! I'll try to make it more simple next time.
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.
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.
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.