How to explain Solomon's writings on women to one who questions inspiration

Status
Not open for further replies.

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
I found one upright man among a thousand,
but not one upright woman among them all.

If engaging in debate with someone who doubts inspiration, how does one address a verse like the above.

Or, other verses, like when Paul forgets how many people he baptizes in the NT.

Or, when Tertius pops up and says, "I Tertius, salute you" towards the end of the inspired text in Romans.

If it is that the human author is speaking and not God inspiring 100% of the words, including the opinions of Solomon set down in the text, too, then how can we be sure of what is God's opinion and what is man's?

What are the best ways to explain these objections to inspiration?
 
To add to the list:

1 Cor. 7:12

"Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: A wife is not to depart from her husband. But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife. But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her."
 
Gender equality is really a faith based belief--no one's argued for identical behaviors between the genders--so Solomon's observation could not just be true in his time(which I'm assuming it was), but also be true in all times. Think about one thing : Men are the direct image bearers of God and females are the indirect image bearers of God. This means we are more similar to God than females, and God is the source of all that is good, so we have more of God's goodness put into our personality. Remember, we were made for God, and they were made for us. Women were made because we were lonely, we were made because God was lonely.

Also, look at some of the truth's we can gather from the Bible that deal with this topic as well : we know that women are the initiators of affairs from Proverbs talk of the strange woman(i.e. the blame is put on the adulteress woman and not the man who gets 'caught in her net', portrays the woman as the predator and the man as the prey), that women will have a desire to either assume male identity or control 'the man', that certain sins are almost exclusive to women(Gossiping--Paul doesn't address men to not do this but women, I'll look for this reference and post it for you tomorrow)that Paul believed that women were the only one's falling for the false teachers in one circumstance--Why does Solomon's observation have to be wrong?

There's a certain 'strength' to morality and righteousness. Men are stronger than women in our personalities, so we will be more likely to be moral and righteous. But this is just in our natural state. in my opinion, the nature of the 'spiritual life' changes with the giving of the Spirit though. I mean, I see a different 'spiritual life' in the NT after Acts 2, what do you think Pergamum? I always like hearing your thoughts. No hurry to respond, I subscribed to this thread so I'll get email updates.
 
Andrew:

So...men are more moral and women are more evil?

I think so. God made us to be spiritual leaders, it would make sense that he gave us an extra inclination or capacity for righteousness, don't you think?

edit: All my theory isn't thought out, but why wouldn't this idea be right? That's what I want to know. Equality started with Republicans who wanted to kill the king and who were making fun of all aspects of religion. In the more modern era, it's biggest proponents were atheists like HG Wells -- If you don't have a commitment to equality, then you would look at Solomon's observation and think, "Hmmm, maybe so!" -- It wouldn't be an obvious incorrect observation, which is how I think most people look at this verse. But that's why I'm bringing up the Spirit, because it might be able to over-come the natural infirmities of women that may predispose them more to sin. I don't know--it goes deep, that's why all I wanted to point out is that if we have a knee-jerk reaction that this is wrong, it's because we're holding to 'equality', that we probably can't define or defend and neither can anyone else.
 
The other way to look at it is that the two lines of the proverb are saying essentially the same thing... that an upright person is exceedingly rare. We who're mired in a men-and-women-must-be-treated-equally mindset tend to look at that verse and notice the inequality. But perhaps the readers of the day would simply have seen it as two different ways to make a single point. And wouldn't that parallelism fit with a very common construction of Hebrew poetry?

Remember that as a proverb it isn't giving the results of a scientific study, but rather expressing a general truth. The two lines aren't meant to point out any small differences between men and women, but rather a general condition common to both.
 
#1--Men have an "extra capacity for righteousness"? #2--Women are "the initiators of affairs"? #3--Men are "more similar to God" than females? #4--Men were made because God was lonely? #5--Women are more predisposed to sin?

I don't even know where to start, but I'll just say this. #1--No. Way. #2--"Every man is drawn away by HIS OWN LUSTS and enticed." Just because there is a "strange woman" in the Bible doesn't mean women start all affairs. #3--God created MANKIND in His image. Both male and female are part of MANKIND (Gen. 1:27). #4--God did not create man because He was lonely, but because He best knows what will glorify Him. He created and is creating a people to worship Him. #5--Where in the WORLD do you get that idea?

I can barely wrap my head around how mysogynistic your beliefs are. I notice that you attend an IFB church (I used to). If you are reformed or reforming, you need to read a few books on gender while you learn what the Bible actually says. Your IFB background has obviously bred in you that women are inferior, less-godly, less-religious, more sin-loving people. It's not true, and I am appalled by your statements.

I'm sorry, I'm really trying to be nice, but that's the best I can do.
 
Think about one thing : Men are the direct image bearers of God and females are the indirect image bearers of God. This means we are more similar to God than females, and God is the source of all that is good, so we have more of God's goodness put into our personality. Remember, we were made for God, and they were made for us. Women were made because we were lonely, we were made because God was lonely.

You've got so much wrong here, I'm not sure where to start....

okay I will go with thinking God made us because He was lonely. This would imply that God lacked something and I can assure you this is not the case brother. The reason God created everything, including man, was for His glory.
 
Perg, as for your original question, isn't it obvious that this was Solomon's observation and opinion? We read it in context and we see his point that the wise are exceedingly rare.

And he has just finished saying something even more harsh and universal in Ecc 7:20: "For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not."

I don't see how the fact that Solomon makes observations argues against the doctrine of inspiration unless the argument demands that inspiration requires that every single word and sentence must contain eternal and universal principles. Obviously that is not the case for narrative passages.

Same for Paul saying he can't remember--the number isn't important to his point, and what better way to emphasize how unimportant the specific number is than to say he can't remember?

As for Tertius, isn't that just a foolish quibble? He's obviously the amanuensis and wants to say "Hi" to his friends. If anything, it adds a human note of authenticity to the epistle.

I'm thinking that if these are the primary arguments against inspiration, you are dealing with someone who doesn't understand the doctrine at all. I'd go into that first rather than mess with these sorts of arguments.
 
Perg, as for your original question, isn't it obvious that this was Solomon's observation and opinion? We read it in context and we see his point that the wise are exceedingly rare.

And he has just finished saying something even more harsh and universal in Ecc 7:20: "For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not."

I don't see how the fact that Solomon makes observations argues against the doctrine of inspiration unless the argument demands that inspiration requires that every single word and sentence must contain eternal and universal principles. Obviously that is not the case for narrative passages.

Same for Paul saying he can't remember--the number isn't important to his point, and what better way to emphasize how unimportant the specific number is than to say he can't remember?

As for Tertius, isn't that just a foolish quibble? He's obviously the amanuensis and wants to say "Hi" to his friends. If anything, it adds a human note of authenticity to the epistle.

I'm thinking that if these are the primary arguments against inspiration, you are dealing with someone who doesn't understand the doctrine at all. I'd go into that first rather than mess with these sorts of arguments.

Most objections to inspiration are foolish quibbles.

I am dealing with several liberal "free-thinkers" who call Solomon a misogynist as well (he probably was if he had hundreds of concubines and multiple wives).

But also dealing with some mslms who believe in a very literal form of inspiration of their own Holy Book that says that it basically descended from heaven and is without error in science, or even grammar. So these very hard-line believers in inspiration even believe that when the Koran exhibits poor grammar, that Arabic grammer must be corrected by the grammar of the Koran, etc.

So both of these camps would ask, "If God is at the helm of inspiration, why are seemingly misogynist opinions getting through, why can't God's inspired servant remember stuff straight, especially in an important doctrine that will be preserved for the ages, why did the NT writers write in such poor koine, and why are the human personalities of the writers so strong if the Holy Spirit is actually writing the books?"

I am trying to think of jargon-less and winsome ways to answer.

(p.s. one way to answer mslms is to point to the metaphoric or idiomatic language in the Koran itself that is less than literal, and to point out to the liberals that they, too, speak of the sun rising, a scientifically inaccurate way of speaking...)

---------- Post added at 07:31 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:29 AM ----------

Andrew:

So...men are more moral and women are more evil?

I think so. God made us to be spiritual leaders, it would make sense that he gave us an extra inclination or capacity for righteousness, don't you think?

edit: All my theory isn't thought out, but why wouldn't this idea be right? That's what I want to know. Equality started with Republicans who wanted to kill the king and who were making fun of all aspects of religion. In the more modern era, it's biggest proponents were atheists like HG Wells -- If you don't have a commitment to equality, then you would look at Solomon's observation and think, "Hmmm, maybe so!" -- It wouldn't be an obvious incorrect observation, which is how I think most people look at this verse. But that's why I'm bringing up the Spirit, because it might be able to over-come the natural infirmities of women that may predispose them more to sin. I don't know--it goes deep, that's why all I wanted to point out is that if we have a knee-jerk reaction that this is wrong, it's because we're holding to 'equality', that we probably can't define or defend and neither can anyone else.

Andrew:

Are you married? If so, can you check your interpretation with your wife and see what she thinks?

---------- Post added at 07:34 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:31 AM ----------

The other way to look at it is that the two lines of the proverb are saying essentially the same thing... that an upright person is exceedingly rare. We who're mired in a men-and-women-must-be-treated-equally mindset tend to look at that verse and notice the inequality. But perhaps the readers of the day would simply have seen it as two different ways to make a single point. And wouldn't that parallelism fit with a very common construction of Hebrew poetry?

Remember that as a proverb it isn't giving the results of a scientific study, but rather expressing a general truth. The two lines aren't meant to point out any small differences between men and women, but rather a general condition common to both.

Yes, that has been my way of explaining this as well. I have told them that the saying of Solomon would have been just as true if they had listed women first and then said that he could not find a worthy man at all.....that it is a general condemnation on all mankind, not just that women are more evil than men.

---------- Post added at 07:35 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:34 AM ----------

#1--Men have an "extra capacity for righteousness"? #2--Women are "the initiators of affairs"? #3--Men are "more similar to God" than females? #4--Men were made because God was lonely? #5--Women are more predisposed to sin?

I don't even know where to start, but I'll just say this. #1--No. Way. #2--"Every man is drawn away by HIS OWN LUSTS and enticed." Just because there is a "strange woman" in the Bible doesn't mean women start all affairs. #3--God created MANKIND in His image. Both male and female are part of MANKIND (Gen. 1:27). #4--God did not create man because He was lonely, but because He best knows what will glorify Him. He created and is creating a people to worship Him. #5--Where in the WORLD do you get that idea?

I can barely wrap my head around how mysogynistic your beliefs are. I notice that you attend an IFB church (I used to). If you are reformed or reforming, you need to read a few books on gender while you learn what the Bible actually says. Your IFB background has obviously bred in you that women are inferior, less-godly, less-religious, more sin-loving people. It's not true, and I am appalled by your statements.

I'm sorry, I'm really trying to be nice, but that's the best I can do.

Kim, shouldn't you merely be listening in silence and not trying to teach? :rolleyes:

---------- Post added at 07:36 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:35 AM ----------

[note: sarcasm alert]

---------- Post added at 07:45 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:36 AM ----------

Mohammed said, "I was shown the Hell-fire and that the majority of its dwellers are women."

This Hadith is well-attested and can be found here:

  • SaHeeH Bukhari: 29, 304, 1052, 1462, 3241, 5197, 5198, 6449, 6546 (FatH Al-Bari's numbering system)
  • SaHeeH Muslim: 80, 885, 907, 2737, 2738 (Abd Al-BaQi's numbering system)
  • Sunan Al-Tarmithi: 635, 2602, 2603, 2613 (AHmad Shakir's numbering system)
  • Sunan Al-Nasa'i: 1493, 1575 (Abi Ghuda's numbering system)
  • Sunan Ibn Majah: 4003 (Abd Al-BaQi's numbering system)
  • Musnad AHmad: 2087, 2706, 3364, 3376, 3559, 4009, 4027, 4111, 4140, 5321, 6574, 7891, 8645, 14386, 27562, 27567, 19336, 19351, 19415, 19425, 19480, 19484, 20743, 21729, 26508 (IHya' Al-Turath's numbering system)
  • Muwata' Malik: 445 (Muqata' Malik's numbering system)
  • Sunan Al-
Darimi: 1007 (Alami and Zarmali's numbering system)



Also,


The Prophet said, "I stood at the gate of Paradise and saw that the majority of the people who entered it were the poor, while the wealthy were stopped at the gate (for the accounts). But the companions of the Fire were ordered to be taken to the Fire. Then I stood at the gate of the Fire and saw that the majority of those who entered it were women."

This is another well-attested hadith, found in:

SaHeeH Bukhari: 5196, 6547 (FatH Al-Bari's numbering system)
SaHeeH Muslim: 2736 (Abd Al-BaQi's numbering system)
Musnad AHmad: 21275, 21318 (IHya' Al-Turath's numbering system)

The Arabic word used for "the majority" here is 'Aammah (or 3ammah), and it indicates beyond any shred of a doubt (in Arabic) the *vast majority*. You see, I don't think that "the majority" is a good translation. The translation for 3amah that I found was "the general public". So Mohammed was actually saying that the "general public" of the people of hell are women.

  • Number of occurrences in Bukhari (both Hadeeths): 11 times
  • Number of occurrences in Muslim (both Hadeeths): 6 times
  • Number of occurrences in Ahmad (both Hadeeths): 27 times
  • Total number of occurrences
(of both Hadeeths in ALL nine books): 53 times






The Jews also had very disparaging things to say about women. And also, we see this saying by Solomon.



It appears that the majority of great thinkers [some sarcasm here] were misogynistic and that the inferiority of women was a majority opinion in the ancient world. Why?
 
Wouldn't it also be wise to look at what Solomon means by 'upright'? If Paul were to write the proverb I'm sure he would word it -
"I found not one upright man among a thousand,
and not one upright woman among them all."
No one is upright or righteous in God's sight, really what Solomon is saying is how utterly rare righteousness is among men, and how even rarer it is among women. He could not find a single upright woman among the women he knew, and let's face it a lot of the women he knew were foreign idol worshipping whores by all accounts. The rarity of the upright is expressed. Surely David's words that "NO ONE is righteous, no not one" are even more harsh to both male and female. That Solomon was saying he knew not a single righteous woman isn't contrary to anything I've read of righteousness, and my wife would heartily agree with his sentiment.
 
Aristotle said that women are perhaps rather bad than good, and slaves altogether bad. Misogyny is typical of a world unimpacted by the Gospel (see John Angell James, Female Piety). Which means that if we are misogynists our thinking needs to be corrected; but of course, like appeals to Hitler, accusations of misogyny (or anti-semitism or racism or whatever) are often misapplied. The occasional feminist who is insulted when a gentleman holds a door open for her is more misogynistic than she knows.
 
To address one sub-point raised by another poster, 1Cor.7:12 is often (usually?) taken to refer to the fact that in the first instance ("not I, but the Lord") is a rehearsal of the Lord's earthly teachings, as recorded in the Gospels.

In the second instance, ("I, not the Lord") has nothing to do with Paul's person opinion on the subject at all, but reflects his Spirit-inspired counsel, given as an Apostle, and a further teaching on the subject that goes beyond what is already taught as from the lips of Christ.
 
I found one upright man among a thousand,
but not one upright woman among them all.

He's talking proverbially, particularly about his wives who led him into idolatry (?)

In Ecclesiastes - probably after recovery his great backsliding, in which his sanctification ground to a halt - Solomon, for the sake of argument, swings from the perspective of a cynical unbeliever to the perspective of a believer and back.

"Vanity, vanity, all is vanity" So God's word is here saying that everything is meaningless. How do you explain this?

to one who questions inspiration

Is the Lord not allowed to inspire things as he wishes making His Word fully human and yet fully divine?

How are we supposed to explain to people who doubt the divinity of Christ that He was so fully human that He bled, sweated, cried, ate, slept, bathed, went to the toilet, was not omniscient, omnipresent or omnipotent, that as a child he drank his mother's milk, learnt to speak and to read, that He worked as a carpenter, that he suffered and died, etc,etc ?

What is the God of Scripture doing working as a carpenter in Nazareth? This can't be the Son of God or even a less than divine Messiah, said many of the Jews.

They say the same thing about both Christ and Scripture today.

Looks at the marks of its/His humanity. Therefore it's/He's only human.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top