In “A Comment from History,” I shared an old comment thread that shed light on more recent discussions. I didn’t discuss the bulk of the content, because an inductive argument cannot meaningfully be used in place of—or to overturn—a deductive argument.
Lately, it has been pointed out that I often abandon an argument if the form of the argument is invalid or weak. Jack, the owner of the Sigma Frame blog, became frustrated by my rational insistence that I should not engage with bad arguments, even if the topics themselves are interesting.
While I am perfectly justified in ignoring poor arguments, it can be instructive to analyze why such arguments should be ignored, why I am correct to refuse further engagement on a useful topic. To do that, I will find the flaws in the argument that was presented, showing exactly why I ignored the argument in the original thread.
After this review, I’m going to go back to pointing out the terrible arguments that people make and subsequently ignoring the supposed valuable “substance” of whatever topics they are discussing, because doing so with people who can’t make rational arguments is downright silly. It’s best for the discussion to die out if the people doing the discussion are incapable of properly discussing it.
Here is the entry in the concordance for the masculine singular word. Of the total uses 162 explicitly refer—in the singular—to a group or a plurality.[1] Three uses are exceptional.[2] Three uses refer to a single individual.[3] The remaining 384 uses are all translated in some form of “man”—whether in the singular or plural sense—which is the meaning under debate.[4]
Beyond being able to be used as a singular or plural, there really isn’t much difference in the usage of this word. The vast majority are more-or-less translated in the same way: man, men, human(s), person(s).
The Brown-Driver-Brigg Lexicon only gives four definitions:
- a man = human being
- collective man, mankind
- proper name, masculine Adam, first man
- proper name, of a location city in Jordan valley
We can ignore the last one, which is a solitary reference to Joshua 3:16. As for the third one, whether that is a separate usage from the first definition is the very matter under debate.
According to BDB, there is only one place outside of the unique—and easily explained—usage in Genesis 2-5 where adam means a man or group of men as explicitly opposed to a woman or group of women. That place is Ecclesiastes 7:28. That’s it entirely. A single use in a single verse out of over 500 uses in the Old Testament.
Outside of these isolated instances—Genesis 2-5 and Ecclesiastes 7:28—every other one of the references to adam in the Old Testament is plainly not exclusionary of women, that is, even when the subject is a male or group of males—that is, the context—the word itself does not imply maleness, as David Cline noted here.
In short, there isn’t anything particularly tricky about the word adam. If anything, it is relatively unusual in Hebrew in that it has relatively little variation in usage compared to most Hebrew words.
This is a critical point and we must emphasize this. Here is the English definition from Merriam-Webster:
By “multiple” meanings, there are two. Just two in English. But, critically, there is no corresponding Hebrew word for the second English definition. When the Hebrew adam is translated into English mankind it always refers to the first definition. Just that definition. There are no multiple meanings. Sharkly’s claim obfuscates the unusual clarity here.
As for the definition of man, there is nothing in the additional English senses (1c,1d,1f,2b,3,4,5,6,7) that applies to the Hebrew usage. Indeed, the remaining definitions (1a,1b,2a) more-or-less match the solitary Hebrew usage. In any case, we can’t interpret the Hebrew in light of whatever the English means anyway!
As we noted in the deductive argument given in “A Comment from History,” Genesis states conclusively that women were made in the image of God. The only good reason to conclude otherwise is if you lack the ability to reason towards this conclusion. Having presented a deductive proof, I was not, in fact, required to acknowledge what Sharkly demanded. For five years, my argument has remained untouched and not refuted. I have no rational justification for changing my mind.
This is a good example of why I typically ignore these types of arguments. I had just presented a deductive proof and rather than address that proof, this response completely ignores and discards it in order to make an unsubstantiated inductive counterclaim. It is completely non-constructive and unhelpful.
Sharkly is preaching, he is not debating.
The aphorism “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” is also helpful here. Even if Genesis had been ambiguous on the issue, it would still nevertheless not support the claim that women were not made in the image of God. The Argument from Silence is a very weak—and most likely fallacious—but Sharkly employs it here.
Obviously this is false. None of the arguments I’ve raised involve inductive reasoning or fallacious appeals. Simply turn this claim around onto its claimant, and you’ll see both.
I rarely give formal proofs of my claims because doing so is usually too complicated or cumbersome. However, the construction of the deductive proof showing that women are made in the image of God is quite simple, one of the simplest deductive proofs I’ve made. Far from being “carelessly vague,” the argument is simple and straightforward.
So non-vague is Genesis that almost no one alive believes what Sharkly believes. I’m not aware of a single Christian sect—major or minor—that believes that Genesis is vague on this point. There are few points of Christian doctrine that are so universal accepted as that, across both time and space. Not even the essence of the gospel itself has such universal acceptance. The only doctrinal debate on the issue that I’m aware of is whether or not men and women lost the image of God in the Fall and had it restored in the image of Jesus, or whether humanity retained it after the Fall.
Does Sharkly think that it is vague…
…because that is what he wants to believe?
Here is the verse in question:
The most obvious retort is that by being a woman in the image of man, who is in the image of God, that she too must also be in the image of God. Women might be a reflection of a reflection, but are nonetheless still a reflection of the original source. The John Gill commentary summarizes one such view:
Any conclusion that the image of God is not found in women is mere speculation. Even John Gill’s claim that the image of God is mediated in the woman by the man is itself speculation, as Paul doesn’t even say that. All Paul actually says is that man is in the image of God and that the wife is the glory of the husband. One cannot conclude, deductively, any more than this.
Speaking of speculation, there is no mention of an eighth day of creation in Genesis. In fact, the term “eighth day” refers to the resurrection of Jesus. It was first described in the Epistle of Barnabas, written around the turn of the 1st century.
Genesis is actually quite explicit that men and women—adam—were created on the same “day.”
— Genesis 5:2
Once again, Sharkly prefers a speculative inductive argument over the deductive conclusion implied by this verse.
Beware the anecdotal fallacy, when logical induction masquerades as deductive—conclusive—proof. For this reason, I snipped out this lengthy anecdote, but you can read the original here.
Sharkly is reasoning by analogy, a form of inductive inference. The problem with this type of inference is that it relies on the strength of the analogy, not on the argument itself. In essence, Sharkly had to beg-the-question (i.e. circular reasoning) in order to conclude that God intended to say implicitly what he didn’t say explicitly. There is nothing in this verse to suggest that God was defining anything like what Sharkly believes, let alone that this was a “product description.” It’s an absurd analogy.
I also object to the idea that God must be constrained to Sharkly’s legalism, especially in light of God’s revelation in the New Testament of how much he rejects legalism.
This is meaningless. The debate centers on whether or not adam is a collective noun that necessarily excludes women. If adam includes women, then being told doubly that adam was created in God’s image means that women are made in the image of God.
Note that we don’t have to prove that it includes women, only show that it doesn’t exclude them. As we’ve shown above, it is easy to establish that it does not necessarily exclude women, and so his conclusion—which relies on the stronger of the two claims—cannot logically follow from the evidence presented.
Sharkly assumes the very thing he is setting out to prove by citing this verse—plainly a circular conclusion. The circularity is a problem, as it turns Sharkly’s argument into mere assertions that are no better than saying:
A lot of words could have been saved by just saying that and skipping the “argument.”
The term “specifically” (i.e. “explicitly”) is not logically justified, especially because it is poetic. This is a fallacious Argument from Silence, and so must be rejected outright.
This is not true, and is again circular: assuming the conclusion of the issue under debate, namely by assuming that adam necessarily excludes women.
I discussed all the examples of the Bible talking about the image of God in “Sharkly on Women, Part 2.” The New Testament clearly associates the image of God with all Christians, both men and women. No New Testament writer ever excludes women from the image of God. Moreover, if we infer that only men are being addressed, then we would be forced to conclude that women cannot become fully Christian, for they could not bear the image of Christ.
On the contrary, it is virtuous to resist making speculative leaps that go beyond the actually stated words.
More than half of the patristic writers that I examined—seven out of nine, a clear majority—do not agree with Sharkly. Not only did I find more evidence than he did, but I wasn’t even looking for most of it: I just stumbled on it as part of other research I was doing. I have little doubt that this number would grow more lopsided if I expanded my search. Since he wrote his comment in 2019, Sharkly has remained critically under-informed on this topic (see here and here).
It’s a contention. Merely that and no more.
The term ‘equal’ here is loaded and ill-defined. Sharkly must explain what is meant by equality before he can make claims about women being held down by anyone.
This very badly begs-the-question.
This also begs-the-question.
This also begs-the-question. This is getting tedious for me. Sharkly spends most of his comment making assertions about what he believes to be true, without showing anything. So I’ll respond in kind by merely asserting that God does not do any of these things of which he is alleged. Sharkly is simply wrong.
This isn’t very helpful is it? That’s why I don’t normally respond to these kinds of things, but just ignore them. Unsubstantiated assertions are irrational and never helpful. In the absence of a proper logical argument, there is no reason for engagement.
Remember what I wrote in Part 1 of Sharkly on Women?
From 2019 until 2023, I had explicitly refused to discuss this topic. It was only after reading his post from September, 2023, that I thought I should wade the water, just a bit. I’m sure everyone probably wishes that I had not, but rather continued to refuse to engage in the madness.
And if you reject the fallacious reasoning, the whole edifice collapses. As it should.
Do you get the sense that Bnonn’s explanation here is tricky and needs a clever mind to explicate it? In fact, his explanation is trivial:
No clever mind is required to understand this.
Of course marriage—which is made up of both man and women—involves bearing the image of Christ. This is unsurprising because Paul stated elsewhere that we all—including husbands and wives—bear Christ’s image. Does Sharkly think that the church as the bride of Christ only includes men? Paul says that the church—which includes both men and women—is in the image of Christ, not only the married men. Paul never once says that women are the image of the church. Sharkly is rather blatantly putting words into the mouth of Paul. Sharkly betrays his ignorance of ritual cleanliness and its significance. I’m not going to bother educating him if he can’t be bothered to inform himself, except for one key point: Only Jewish men and women could be unclean. Both the semen and menstrual blood of Gentiles was not unclean, but if it came from the Jews it was. If you can’t see why that refutes Sharkly’s view, I don’t know what to tell you. You can read more about the Jewish practice by reading “Paul Was Not A Christian” by Pamela Eisenbaum. Sharkly’s explanation is factually incorrect, and so leads to the wrong conclusion. I explained the error in “It’s a Military Term.” Sharkly begs-the-question. He assumes the thing under debate and then attempts to shame you for it not agreeing with him in the first place. This is an logically invalid argument, so we toss it aside and move on. Begging the question. That came out of nowhere. Sharkly’s ‘argument’ lacks focus, as he throws in irrelevant assertions and conclusions. Sharkly implies that all men are inherently superior to all women. This is obviously false from a simple analysis of our scientific and sociological reality. The fact is that certain women are, in fact, superior to certain men in a wide variety of individual skills and abilities. For example, 90th percentile women are stronger than 10th percentile men, despite being “the weaker vessel.” When we look at nature, we see overlapping bimodal distributions, not binary ineferiority/superiority. This is, incidentally, why the legalistic manosphere can’t define femininity and masculinity. Sharkly is engaging in special pleading to get you to deny the evidence of your eyes and believe him instead. We do not fall for this. Sharkly offers you idolatry. His viewpoint is here, quite explicitly, idolatrous violation of the first commandment. He condemns himself by his own words. No further arguments are required. Sharkly’s comment truly offers nothing of value in his comment. He makes no meaningful arguments and his assertions hold no value. Though the general topic may be interesting and valuable, his presentation is not. Now can you see why it is better for me to refuse to engage with people once they present an invalid argument—and refuse to correct their errors—rather than for me to continue to engage with them on “worthwhile topics?”
Footnotes
[1] any man (2), anyone (4), anyone’s (1), being* (1), common sort* (1), human (19),
people (1), person (5), person* (1), persons (3), population (1), someone (1), mankind (9), men (104), men of low degree* (1), men’s (3), men* (4), mortal (1)
[2] infantry (1), low degree* (1), low* (1)
[3] one (3)
[4] man (363), man’s (20), man* (1)
i’ll tell everyone what the real meaning of Sharkly’s gibberish nonsense is really about at the bottom of this comment:
”After this review, I’m going to go back to pointing out the terrible arguments that people make and subsequently ignoring the supposed valuable “substance” of whatever topics they are discussing, because doing so with people who can’t make rational arguments is downright silly. It’s best for the discussion to die out if the people doing the discussion are incapable of properly discussing it.
Sharkly
Yes, the word “adam” is tricky since it has more than one usage.
Here is the entry in the concordance for the masculine singular word. Of the total uses 162 explicitly refer—in the singular—to a group or a plurality.[1] Three uses are exceptional.[2] Three uses refer to a single individual.[3] The remaining 384 uses are all translated in some form of “man”—whether in the singular or plural sense—which is the meaning under debate.[4]
Beyond being able to be used as a singular or plural, there really isn’t much difference in the usage of this word. The vast majority are more-or-less translated in the same way: man, men, human(s), person(s).
The Brown-Driver-Brigg Lexicon only gives four definitions:
a man = human being
collective man, mankind
proper name, masculine Adam, first man
proper name, of a location city in Jordan valley
We can ignore the last one, which is a solitary reference to Joshua 3:16. As for the third one, whether that is a separate usage from the first definition is the very matter under debate.
According to BDB, there is only one place outside of the unique—and easily explained—usage in Genesis 2-5 where adam means a man or group of men as explicitly opposed to a woman or group of women. That place is Ecclesiastes 7:28. That’s it entirely. A single use in a single verse out of over 500 uses in the Old Testament.
Outside of these isolated instances—Genesis 2-5 and Ecclesiastes 7:28—every other one of the references to adam in the Old Testament is plainly not exclusionary of women, that is, even when the subject is a male or group of males—that is, the context—the word itself does not imply maleness, as David Cline noted here.
In short, there isn’t anything particularly tricky about the word adam. If anything, it is relatively unusual in Hebrew in that it has relatively little variation in usage compared to most Hebrew words.
Sharkly
Just like the English words “man” and “mankind” have multiple meanings. Some folks forget that “mankind” is also the opposite of womankind.
This is a critical point and we must emphasize this. Here is the English definition from Merriam-Webster:
By “multiple” meanings, there are two. Just two in English. But, critically, there is no corresponding Hebrew word for the second English definition. When the Hebrew adam is translated into English mankind it always refers to the first definition. Just that definition. There are no multiple meanings. Sharkly’s claim obfuscates the unusual clarity here.
As for the definition of man, there is nothing in the additional English senses (1c,1d,1f,2b,3,4,5,6,7) that applies to the Hebrew usage. Indeed, the remaining definitions (1a,1b,2a) more-or-less match the solitary Hebrew usage. In any case, we can’t interpret the Hebrew in light of whatever the English means anyway!
Sharkly
Which is why the other side of the argument should at least acknowledge that Genesis never makes it clear that women are in the image of God.
As we noted in the deductive argument given in “A Comment from History,” Genesis states conclusively that women were made in the image of God. The only good reason to conclude otherwise is if you lack the ability to reason towards this conclusion. Having presented a deductive proof, I was not, in fact, required to acknowledge what Sharkly demanded. For five years, my argument has remained untouched and not refuted. I have no rational justification for changing my mind.”
Sharkly has said numerous times his ”family”(meaning his sisters and mother mainly ) didn’t treat him right” so after his wife made him not look like a ”respectable” traditional Republican family MAN ” like his idol ElRushbo by divorcing him he wanted revenge on ALL women, so WE all in the sphere get to ”enjoy” his much needed padded cell and straight jacket ramblings, gibberish nonsense that he types that he calls God’s holy order of Patriarchy and ”red pill” because no one that he knows has the gutz or is ”Bold & Biblical ”enough to call Bellvue on him to get him the help he needs.
Professor,
…his much needed padded cell and straight jacket ramblings, gibberish nonsense that he types that he calls God’s holy order of Patriarchy and ”red pill” because no one that he knows has the gutz or is ”Bold & Biblical ”enough to call Bellvue on him to get him the help he needs.
I too have associated his views with madness (which I meant figuratively). But if we are to speak plainly without metaphor, Sharkly fails the qualifications to be a teacher:
“Therefore, an overseer must be above reproach; the husband of one wife … one who is leading his own household well, having his children in subjection with all dignity. Indeed, if someone does not know how to lead his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?”
He does not possess the minimum qualifications to be teaching anyone doctrine with authority, let alone with the righteous indignation that he professes. It’s fine if he wants to do research on these topics and write articles and comments sharing his opinions, but he is forbidden to present it as if it comes from God.
The divorced man is to be treated the same way a new convert is treated:
…not a new believer, so that he does not become conceited and fall into the condemnation of the Devil.
This, right here, is why divorced men should not be teachers.
This is one of the main reasons for the illegitimacy of the large chunks of the Christian manosphere. Despite the Manosphere’s reverence of proper authority, it violates the plain dictates of proper scriptural authority by raising divorced men into roles of teaching authority and oversight.
As I said of Sharkly’s weak patriarchy, why should I take seriously the Christian manosphere’s teachings on patriarchal authority when it does not take seriously its own teachings on proper authority?
For all its obsession with submission (as being under authority), the divorced Christian men of the ‘sphere continue to refuse to submit to non-divorced Christian men. Why is that?
For all its obsession with 1 Timothy 2, why do the divorced Christian men fail to learn in quietness and full submission, not being permitted to teach or to assume authority over another Christian man; but to remain quiet?
Very eager to tell others what to do…
Peace,
DR
They will just use the example of Paul, or countless others from the old and new testament “well, God uses the sinner to prove Gods grace / love / mercy and that can be a testament / witness / proof of how God can indeed redeem and use that person to further the kingdom”
And I would agree in theory. Maybe I still do?
My cavet is, most of these men claim they have no sin. Did not commit any sin in their situation. They “asked” God for forgiveness, and its all better now.
It also depends on “who” it is. According to them. A woman? If you kissed a boy at age 13….obviously she is damaged for life and will only want to monkey-branch / use a man to climb in social status and she has no place, she can come to church and hear the word, but should be reminded for the rest-of-her-life that she is indeed damaged / a carousel rider / curse of Eve type who only wants to upsur! Now, they will throw in “we cannot judge what God will do” but we, The Real Men speak for Jesus and God on these matters and wil throw in some verse, hairsplit what it really meant in 1st Century Greek or whatever
Also, an addict. Addicts cannot be trusted on anything in the church. They are reminded daily of how terrible they are need to be in a church approved program like “Celebrate Recoverey” and not allowed to grow. If the reovering addict just happens to be a “very attractive / handsome man” well, he will be forgiven for his past. Seen it a billion times
Any man like their heroes like Roosh, out comes the “we cannot judge and let God decide” statements.
Lastmod,
It’s very interesting to consider the interplay between…
“I’m redeemed, my past is behind me and troubles me no more”
…versus the…
“I’ve sinned and though I’m forgiven, the consequences of my actions remain.”
In general the Bible does not hold past sins against a person who is redeemed. And I believe that remains the case even for those in leadership in the church.
The standards for leadership in the church stand separate from the repentance and redemption from sin. There are very clear standards that elders, deacons, ministers, preachers, teachers bishops, etc. must have a blameless home-life. Although a man is not sinning if he has an unruly wife, it nonetheless disqualifies him from leadership. It’s not a matter of sin and forgiveness, but one of merit.
To be a leader in the church, you have to be qualified. Like any job or job interview, you need to prove your merit. Being divorced, having a bad marriage, having out-of-control children, or being a new believer is a disqualification from leadership in the church. It means you do not possess the merit to take on the position.
So why can’t a divorced man take a leadership position? The obvious conclusion is that he is still married in God’s eyes. No Christian is even able to divorce, let alone allowed to. And so as long as he remains estranged from his wife, he is actively failing to manage his household well. The only way to “repent”, as it were, is to remarry his ex-wife.
This is why men like Scott should never have tried to teach. They may have valuable experiences to share, but they should only teach Christian teachings under the leadership of another man who meets the qualification, otherwise they should remain silent and learn in subjection, just as with the woman addressed in 1 Timothy 2 who also tried to teach and exercise authority over a man.
For a divorced man to take a position of leadership, he must remarry his ex-wife. Failing that, he may not lead. Remarriage to another woman will permanently disqualify him.
For a man in a bad marriage to take a leadership position, his marriage must improve. Failing that, he may not lead.
For a man with out-of-control children, he must resolve their behavior. Failing that, he may not lead.
For a new believer, he must first be trained in the faith. Failing that, he may not lead.
These have nothing to do with grace or forgiveness.
These are, of course, not the only standards for church leadership. Other attributes include being clearheaded, sensible, respectable, hospitable, skilled at teaching, not an excessive drinker, not violent, reasonable, not quarrelsome, not greedy, dignified, not dishonorable, not slanderers, and faithful.
The personal attacks—slander—that we see in the Christian manosphere would disqualify almost everyone who wasn’t already disqualified for having bad marriages.
Peace,
DR
For a man with out-of-control children, he must resolve their behavior. Failing that, he may not lead.
Funny, in my church that I once belonged to….the children of the pastors were some of the most “bad” kids in the congregation. Also many in “leadership” (mens group, being a deacon or church elder) their kids were hardly saints and models of “good kids” for the rest of us to follow
These men sometimes blamed their wives for not raising them right and I could easily see many men in the ‘sphere taking this stance as well. Were they removed from leadership? Nope! “Gods working on my sons / my daughter and we cannot judge”
As for being redeemed? Sure. Okay. Redeemed.
Their are consequences to sin, and per usual….men decide which sins have consequences and which do not hence why I refuse to belong to a church and probably will never set foot in one again. The men who decide this are the same men who have wrecked marriage, wrecked sex, wrecked dating, wrecked the courts, with their stiffling intellect, machismo and fortunate looks and status
”My cavet is, most of these men claim they have no sin. Did not commit any sin in their situation. They “asked” God for forgiveness, and its all better now.”
I say most of them are committing a very grave sin of the 70s to right about 1998(guess where I’m calling from nonsense) era of ”REAL MANHOODtm” i.e. being a supposed ”MAN” who uses a phone-back then these same ”guys” would say using a phone is ”girly” now they use their ”girly”-phone to even go on the net as I was told too many that visit Spawnys are girly supposed ”MEN”-BUT i like any REAL MANtm use a laptop/desktop as MEN were created to use on day 1 of creation!!😉
” The men who decide this are the same men who have wrecked marriage, wrecked sex, wrecked dating, wrecked the courts, with their stiffling intellect, machismo and fortunate looks and status”
You forgot to add girly fools and ”loudmouth ”leader”chumps” to that list MOD😉
Pingback: Habitually Being Wrong