Share
A- A A+
Free Email News
Creation magazine print - 1 yr new subn


US $25.00
View Item
The Creation Answers Book
by Various

US $14.00
View Item

Feedback archive Feedback 2004, 2008

‘Female inferiority’ raises questions

Galaxy

This is my first visit to your website, and I am extremely disappointed with the very first article I found under your “Featured Q&A” section, regarding “Female Inferiority” [as taught by Darwin and his cronies].

The article is a horrible mish-mash of non-Christian, non-Bibilical and non-scientific nonsense. The attacks on Darwin are petty and trivial. Don’t we have enough material to use against Darwin without lifting personal comments from his diary?

The psuedo-exegesis of Galatians has been disproven many times. [...] perhaps you could start with Genesis where God tells Eve, “Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” After that you might want to look at dozens of passages in the New Testament where St. Paul and St. Peter teach the necessity for women to occupy a subordinate position.

None of their teachings are based on evolution, of course. And the inferior position of women is not based on evolution, but on the design created by God. St. Paul himself based his teaching on the inferior status of women on Genesis when he said, “It was not Adam who was deceived first, but the woman.”

I have enjoyed reading several issues of Creation and TJ [now Journal of Creation] that were passed along to me by a friend, and I was hoping to find further information here on your website. Imagine then my disappointment when the very first article I read confronts me with information that is anti-Biblical, anti-Christian, and non-scientific.

Please confine your efforts to truly scientific research which defends the inerrant Word of God found in His Scripture.

J.G.
USA


This is my first visit to your website, and I am extremely disappointed with the very first article I found under your “Featured Q&A” section, regarding “Female Inferiority” [as taught by Darwin and his cronies].

Hmm, this is a very interesting revelation of your own personal psychology, but it is also an admission that you have failed to follow the web feedback rule of checking the site thoroughly before writing.

The article is a horrible mish-mash of non-Christian, non-Bibilical and non-scientific nonsense.

This sentence is basically content-free elephant hurling.

The attacks on Darwin are petty and trivial. Don’t we have enough material to use against Darwin without lifting personal comments from his diary?

How much better to understand the man than his own personal comments? How are they “attacks”, much less “petty and trivial”, when as you admit they are based on his own words?

The psuedo[sic]-exegesis of Galatians has been disproven many times.

Well, why not demonstrate even one of these alleged disproofs rather than merely asserting it?

[...] perhaps you could start with Genesis where God tells Eve, “Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” After that you might want to look at dozens of passages in the New Testament where St. Paul and St. Peter teach the necessity for women to occupy a subordinate position.

You don’t seem to appreciate that subordination is a totally different concept from inferiority, as the early Darwinians taught about women. Subordination is a matter of roles, while inferiority is a matter of nature.

Subordination is a totally different concept from inferiority … the best refutation against the fallacy of confusing inferiority and subordination is Luke 2:51. Here, Jesus “continued in subjection” to His mother and foster father—a clear case of a superior submitting to those infinitely inferior to Him by nature.

The Bible contains a number of commands for certain people to submit to those equal by nature. From this, the Western democracies have a concept that all people are equal under the law, but this doesn’t mean that some people don’t have authority over others. For example, people in a country are under the authority of (must submit to) the president or prime minister, but we are all regarded as equal by nature.

In the Bible, employees are to submit to employers, children to parents and wives to husbands [NB: not all women to all men] (Ephesians 5:22–6:9). The party in authority has obligations too: the husband must love his wife as his own body, and enough to give his life for her; parents must not exasperate their children; employers must not threaten their employees, and must treat them “in the same way” as they wish to be treated. This supports the foundational equality by nature of all people, since both male and female are made in God’s image (Genesis 1:26–27), and Galatians 3:28 shows that all people come to salvation in the same way—by grace through faith in Christ.

The clear distinction between equality of nature and submission in roles is in the Godhead. Jesus, God the Son, was equal to God the Father by nature (Phil. 2:6, John 10:30) but “took on the form of a servant” (Phil. 2:7), and submitted to the Father’s will (Luke 22:42).  In fact, the best refutation against the fallacy of confusing inferiority and subordination is Luke 2:51. Here, Jesus “continued in subjection” to His mother and foster father—a clear case of a superior submitting to those infinitely inferior to Him by nature.

None of their teachings are based on evolution, of course. And the inferior position of women is not based on evolution, but on the design created by God.

And once more you have confused inferiority and subordinate roles (and these only in the church and marriage).

St. Paul himself based his teaching on the inferior status of women on Genesis when he said, “It was not Adam who was deceived first, but the woman.”

Which is certainly proof that the Apostle Paul treated Genesis as real history, even down to the order of events.

I have enjoyed reading several issues of Creation and TJ [now Journal of Creation] that were passed along to me by a friend,

That’s nice to know.

… and I was hoping to find further information here on your website. Imagine then my disappointment when the very first article I read confronts me with information that is anti-Biblical, anti-Christian, and non-scientific.

Yet you have not presented the slightest proof to justify any of these accusations.

Please confine your efforts to truly scientific research which defends the inerrant Word of God found in His Scripture.

J.G.
USA

We endeavour to uphold the authority of the entire Bible in our ministry. But do I detect, in your phrasing (“the inerrant Word of God found in His Scripture”) the error that the Bible only contains the word of God? This is a common fallacy amongst those who would say that the Bible is allowed to be in error (that is, we can disregard it) in matters other than “theology”—when it speaks of science and history, for example. The whole of Scripture is the inerrant Word of God.

Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D.
CMI–Australia

Related articles

Published: 19 November 2004; edited and republished 6 September 2008 (GMT+10)

The article you just read is free, but the staff time working on it … isn’t. Consider a small gift to keep this site going. Support this site

Copied to clipboard
2201
Product added to cart.
Click store to checkout.
In your shopping cart

Remove All Products in Cart
Go to store and Checkout
Go to store
Total price does not include shipping costs. Prices subject to change in accordance with your country’s store.