Jacob's Branches and Genetics: Bible Error (page 2)

rem

Joseph,

The contradiction is that the verses in question are completely impossible scientifically. Genes don't work this way. The story sounds like an ancient, ignorant goat herder trying to control heredity without any working knowledge of how such traits are inherited. It does not sound like a story from god, who would know exactly how traits are inherited.

Taking the story as it stands, it breaks the laws of genetics and therefore is either an inaccurate account, or is just a fictional fable about a supposed miracle. From reading the account, Jacob didn't seem to think of it as a miracle... he viewed the method as just common sense of the time. Since the Bible is promoting this "common sense", which we know contradicts known scientific facts, it is wrong.

You can prove to yourself that this account contradicts the facts by running the experiment yourself. The exercise is left to the reader.

rem

RWC

Joesph A., Where in the Genesis account does it say that it is intended to be a genetics lesson on the mating habits of Goats and Sheep? The purpose of the account is Jacob's way, with God's help to keep Laban from continuing to cheat him from his wages. It is not God saying in order to have speckeled sheep you must use striped branches. The lesson that is trying to be taught by God is not one of science but that he has shown favor to Jacob as his chosen people. Don't try to create a problem by reading more into the account than what is there.

God Bless

JosephAlward

JOSEPH MALIK wrote:

"Even if the events were simply a test of faith and the results were a miraculous product of that faith so what? This is not a problem is it?"

JOSEPH ALWARD responds:

I think it IS a problem, Joseph, because nowhere in the Jacob's branches passage is there the slightest indication that what had happened was extraordinary; there's no clue given to the reader that they should understand that what had happened was a miracle. There's no reference to the intervention by Yahweh, or the Holy Spirit, or any other supernatural agent, so readers are left to assume that what had happened was NATURAL , so if they trusted the Bible writer they would conclude that the color of offspring is influenced by what their parents were looking at when they mated. This is obviously ridiculous; no one on this forum believes that if their parents had mated under the tree on Christmas Eve they would have been born striped red and white, like the candy cane.

If the Bible writer had known that this was not possible, he would have gone out of his way to make sure that the readers knew that a miracle had occurred; the fact that he didn't do this is strong evidence that he actually believed such as thing was possible, and expected us to believe it, too. This means that the Bible is in error. If it can be in error in this place, it can be in error anywhere.

Joseph F. Alward
"A Skeptical View of Christianity and the Bible"
http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

Edited by - JosephAlward on 15 October 2002 18:33:16

JosephMalik

Joseph Alward,

As I said it makes no difference. These were not instructions for others to follow. It is not necessary therefore to include every detail. You have no valid argument.

But you did say this: so readers are left to assume that what had happened was NATURAL, so if they trusted the Bible writer they would conclude that the color of offspring is influenced by what their parents were looking at when they mated.

I would not come to this conclusion because the text says no such thing. What it does say is that the animals were positioned in such a was as to intervene with the sap or rods by putting them close to their faces and eyes of course so that they would contact them on their own. Jacob would not force them as this would violate his promise but he did make it an easy task for them to do it on their own. Look at the text again:

:4 0 And Jacob did separate the lambs, and set the faces of the flocks toward the ringstraked, and all the brown in the flock of Laban; and he put his own flocks by themselves, and put them not unto Labans cattle. 41 And it came to pass, whensoever the stronger cattle did conceive, that Jacob laid the rods before the eyes of the cattle in the gutters, that they might conceive among the rods.

That is all it said. Where does it say that their view caused such changes? You added the incorrect interpretation yourself. The rods were placed strategically in front of their FACES or EYES but not forced upon them. And they conceived among the rods. It is the proximity to the rods not what they saw with their eyes that affected them. Why not create an argument that whatever you face effects offspring? The verses do say face also do they not?

Joseph

Edited by - JosephMalik on 15 October 2002 18:33:47

JosephAlward

JOSEPH MALIK wrote, "It is the proximity to the rods not what they saw that affected them."

JOSEPH ALWARD responds:

So you believe that the writer of this story wanted readers to believe that mating while rubbing up against striped branches caused striped offspring, and that this was a natural occurrence? Any geneticist will tell you that this is a preposterous notion.

Edited by - JosephAlward on 15 October 2002 18:39:20

JosephMalik

JosephAlward,

You know that is not what I meant. But now everyone can see how you distort information. Thanks.

Joseph

ballistic

What Joseph Malik forgets is that the only college education we need is from the bible and Awake magazine. We learn all about Science such as the earth being round and this is just another example of that. We have to take the bible at it's word instead of twisting it. It is obviously true that whatever you look at during conception affects the characteristics of one's offspring. If Malik feels so strongly about this I guess he has to blame his looks on something else.

rem

lol@ballistic

Joseph, I'm truly not understanding what you are getting at. I thought J Alward (I forgot there are two Joseph's on this thread!) summarized your thoughts well. If that is not what you meant, then please correct us.

rem

A Paduan

It's a story Joseph A. - a story - you know . Even if based on real characters, it's a story - and it has meanings and teachings in it.

It appears that you want this story to be an undisputable historical fact, or else be "wrong" and can't fit. What is that about?

paduan

Edited by - a paduan on 15 October 2002 21:14:58

JosephMalik

Rem,

I already did, just scroll up a few posts. It is near the top. Have fun.

Joseph

Jacob's Branches and Genetics: Bible Error

Share this