• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Bible And Science: Prenatal Influence

Earthling

David Henson
The Bible, unlike what the typical uninformed baseless speculation of the atheist Bible critic suggests, doesn't promote the idea of prenatal influence or as it is sometimes called, maternal impressions.
Lets look at Genesis 30:37-43.

Jacob wanted to leave his father in law Laban's service but Laban wanted him to stay and accept wages. Jacob introduces the notion of him to continue feeding and tending the stock if Laban will only set apart the speckled and spotted animals and pay him any black or spotted and speckled sheep thereafter born. Laban agreed to this.

Laban set apart those goats and put them in charge of his sons, three days distance from Jacob. The rest was left to Jacob to tend to. Here is what happened next.

Jacob took fresh boughs of poplar, almond, and plane and peeled white streaks in them exposing the white of the boughs. He laid the peeled sticks in front of the flocks, in the runnels of the watering troughs where the flocks drank and they bred when they came to drink. As they did so in front of the sticks - Jacob assumed they brought forth young that were striped, speckled and spotted. Jacob kept these separate. He also laid sticks in the runnels only when the stronger animals came to breed, leaving the weaker animals to breed without the sticks.

He may have done this due to the unscientific principal of prenatal influence. There is, in fact, no nerve connection between the mother and unborn young which would support the maternal impressions theory that Jacob incorporated but the question is, did the Bible support such an unscientific theory?

The answer is no. Why?

The law of Lycurgus decreed that Spartan women should look upon the statues of Castor and Pollux so that their offspring would be imparted with strength and beauty. Hippocrates taught that strong emotions experienced by the pregnant woman could give rise to deformities in the child and Aristotle believed that many women brought forth children with harelip after seeing a hare and other deformities were due to "the imagination of the mother, who has cast her eyes and mind upon some ill-shaped creature. Egypt's sacred bull of Memphis with one or two eagle shaped figures on its back and a crescent on its forehead had to be killed when it was 25 years old but before doing so the priests had to supply a similarly marked successor. They surrounded their cows by appropriately shaped and colored objects.

There is no question of the ancient belief in prenatal influence, but as mentioned earlier, the real question is does the Bible agree?

Remember that just because Jacob thought there was something to it doesn't mean that the Bible concurs. In fact, there is the answer to the question. The Bible doesn't.

In the next chapter Jacob tells his wives, Laban's daughters Leah and Rachel, why he prospered. He doesn't give the credit to his prenatal influence scheme, but rather to God. "In this way God has taken the stock from your father and given it to me. When the stock was breeding, I raised my eyes in a dream and saw that the he-goats that leaped on the she-goats were striped, speckled, and mottled. The angel of God said to me in the dream, 'Jacob!' 'Yes,' said I. And he said, 'Raise your eyes, look! all the he-goats that leap on the she-goats are striped, speckled, and mottled.'" - Genesis 31:9-12

It is obvious that the hybrids were uniformly colored themselves but carried in their germ cells the hereditary factors for spotting and speckling. Laws of heredity as discovered by Gregor Mendel in the 19th century.

Both Jacob and Laban acknowledged Jehovah rather than prenatal influence as the deciding factor, so the Bible doesn't support the notion of prenatal influence and the Bible critics - the atheists - have it wrong again. (Genesis 30:27-30 / Genesis 31:5, Genesis 31:7, Genesis 31:9, Genesis 31:16)

Isn't it a biological truth that hybrids are stronger than uncrossed breeds? Like Jacob mentioned. So his would have been stronger while Laban's weaker?

Jacob set out thinking that prenatal influence was the way to go but realized in the end that Jehovah God was in charge, rather than silly superstition.
 

Ellen Brown

Well-Known Member
The Bible, unlike what the typical uninformed baseless speculation of the atheist Bible critic suggests, doesn't promote the idea of prenatal influence or as it is sometimes called, maternal impressions.
Lets look at Genesis 30:37-43.

Jacob wanted to leave his father in law Laban's service but Laban wanted him to stay and accept wages. Jacob introduces the notion of him to continue feeding and tending the stock if Laban will only set apart the speckled and spotted animals and pay him any black or spotted and speckled sheep thereafter born. Laban agreed to this.

Laban set apart those goats and put them in charge of his sons, three days distance from Jacob. The rest was left to Jacob to tend to. Here is what happened next.

Jacob took fresh boughs of poplar, almond, and plane and peeled white streaks in them exposing the white of the boughs. He laid the peeled sticks in front of the flocks, in the runnels of the watering troughs where the flocks drank and they bred when they came to drink. As they did so in front of the sticks - Jacob assumed they brought forth young that were striped, speckled and spotted. Jacob kept these separate. He also laid sticks in the runnels only when the stronger animals came to breed, leaving the weaker animals to breed without the sticks.

He may have done this due to the unscientific principal of prenatal influence. There is, in fact, no nerve connection between the mother and unborn young which would support the maternal impressions theory that Jacob incorporated but the question is, did the Bible support such an unscientific theory?

The answer is no. Why?

The law of Lycurgus decreed that Spartan women should look upon the statues of Castor and Pollux so that their offspring would be imparted with strength and beauty. Hippocrates taught that strong emotions experienced by the pregnant woman could give rise to deformities in the child and Aristotle believed that many women brought forth children with harelip after seeing a hare and other deformities were due to "the imagination of the mother, who has cast her eyes and mind upon some ill-shaped creature. Egypt's sacred bull of Memphis with one or two eagle shaped figures on its back and a crescent on its forehead had to be killed when it was 25 years old but before doing so the priests had to supply a similarly marked successor. They surrounded their cows by appropriately shaped and colored objects.

There is no question of the ancient belief in prenatal influence, but as mentioned earlier, the real question is does the Bible agree?

Remember that just because Jacob thought there was something to it doesn't mean that the Bible concurs. In fact, there is the answer to the question. The Bible doesn't.

In the next chapter Jacob tells his wives, Laban's daughters Leah and Rachel, why he prospered. He doesn't give the credit to his prenatal influence scheme, but rather to God. "In this way God has taken the stock from your father and given it to me. When the stock was breeding, I raised my eyes in a dream and saw that the he-goats that leaped on the she-goats were striped, speckled, and mottled. The angel of God said to me in the dream, 'Jacob!' 'Yes,' said I. And he said, 'Raise your eyes, look! all the he-goats that leap on the she-goats are striped, speckled, and mottled.'" - Genesis 31:9-12

It is obvious that the hybrids were uniformly colored themselves but carried in their germ cells the hereditary factors for spotting and speckling. Laws of heredity as discovered by Gregor Mendel in the 19th century.

Both Jacob and Laban acknowledged Jehovah rather than prenatal influence as the deciding factor, so the Bible doesn't support the notion of prenatal influence and the Bible critics - the atheists - have it wrong again. (Genesis 30:27-30 / Genesis 31:5, Genesis 31:7, Genesis 31:9, Genesis 31:16)

Isn't it a biological truth that hybrids are stronger than uncrossed breeds? Like Jacob mentioned. So his would have been stronger while Laban's weaker?

Jacob set out thinking that prenatal influence was the way to go but realized in the end that Jehovah God was in charge, rather than silly superstition.

I wish you'd just reveal your agenda...
 

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
The Bible, unlike what the typical uninformed baseless speculation of the atheist Bible critic suggests, doesn't promote the idea of prenatal influence or as it is sometimes called, maternal impressions.
Lets look at Genesis 30:37-43.

Jacob wanted to leave his father in law Laban's service but Laban wanted him to stay and accept wages. Jacob introduces the notion of him to continue feeding and tending the stock if Laban will only set apart the speckled and spotted animals and pay him any black or spotted and speckled sheep thereafter born. Laban agreed to this.

Laban set apart those goats and put them in charge of his sons, three days distance from Jacob. The rest was left to Jacob to tend to. Here is what happened next.

Jacob took fresh boughs of poplar, almond, and plane and peeled white streaks in them exposing the white of the boughs. He laid the peeled sticks in front of the flocks, in the runnels of the watering troughs where the flocks drank and they bred when they came to drink. As they did so in front of the sticks - Jacob assumed they brought forth young that were striped, speckled and spotted. Jacob kept these separate. He also laid sticks in the runnels only when the stronger animals came to breed, leaving the weaker animals to breed without the sticks.

He may have done this due to the unscientific principal of prenatal influence. There is, in fact, no nerve connection between the mother and unborn young which would support the maternal impressions theory that Jacob incorporated but the question is, did the Bible support such an unscientific theory?

The answer is no. Why?

The law of Lycurgus decreed that Spartan women should look upon the statues of Castor and Pollux so that their offspring would be imparted with strength and beauty. Hippocrates taught that strong emotions experienced by the pregnant woman could give rise to deformities in the child and Aristotle believed that many women brought forth children with harelip after seeing a hare and other deformities were due to "the imagination of the mother, who has cast her eyes and mind upon some ill-shaped creature. Egypt's sacred bull of Memphis with one or two eagle shaped figures on its back and a crescent on its forehead had to be killed when it was 25 years old but before doing so the priests had to supply a similarly marked successor. They surrounded their cows by appropriately shaped and colored objects.

There is no question of the ancient belief in prenatal influence, but as mentioned earlier, the real question is does the Bible agree?

Remember that just because Jacob thought there was something to it doesn't mean that the Bible concurs. In fact, there is the answer to the question. The Bible doesn't.

In the next chapter Jacob tells his wives, Laban's daughters Leah and Rachel, why he prospered. He doesn't give the credit to his prenatal influence scheme, but rather to God. "In this way God has taken the stock from your father and given it to me. When the stock was breeding, I raised my eyes in a dream and saw that the he-goats that leaped on the she-goats were striped, speckled, and mottled. The angel of God said to me in the dream, 'Jacob!' 'Yes,' said I. And he said, 'Raise your eyes, look! all the he-goats that leap on the she-goats are striped, speckled, and mottled.'" - Genesis 31:9-12

It is obvious that the hybrids were uniformly colored themselves but carried in their germ cells the hereditary factors for spotting and speckling. Laws of heredity as discovered by Gregor Mendel in the 19th century.

Both Jacob and Laban acknowledged Jehovah rather than prenatal influence as the deciding factor, so the Bible doesn't support the notion of prenatal influence and the Bible critics - the atheists - have it wrong again. (Genesis 30:27-30 / Genesis 31:5, Genesis 31:7, Genesis 31:9, Genesis 31:16)

Isn't it a biological truth that hybrids are stronger than uncrossed breeds? Like Jacob mentioned. So his would have been stronger while Laban's weaker?

Jacob set out thinking that prenatal influence was the way to go but realized in the end that Jehovah God was in charge, rather than silly superstition.

I think it's overshadowed by the promise that 'the older would server the younger' and 'Jacob I loved by Essau I hated' before either did anything good or bad in the womb
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
The Bible, unlike what the typical uninformed baseless speculation of the atheist Bible critic suggests, doesn't promote the idea of prenatal influence or as it is sometimes called, maternal impressions.

I see you've been banned from another forum for this sort of spam. Does it make you proud?
 

Earthling

David Henson
I see you've been banned from another forum for this sort of spam. Does it make you proud?

Ah, spam . . . the weak argument for no argument. Like "troll," and a half dozen quasi intellectual jargon - buzz phrases.

Look, if you can't argue the point then don't waste my time.

[Edited To Add] And no, I'm not proud of anything. Pride comes before a fall and my knees are scarred enough without the risk. But are you proud? Most of the forums I've been banned from for producing those sort of posts are atheists? What's the matter there, not equipped to deal with a differing opinion? Can't defend your position against the modest theist?

Okay. Modest is overstating it, but you get the picture.
 
Last edited:

Earthling

David Henson
I wish you'd just reveal your agenda...

My agenda?! What does it necessarily have to do with an agenda? Either it's accurate or it isn't. If my agenda is to promote ambisexual walnuts or biggots 'n hom'sexuals it says what it says. It's either accurate or it isn't.
 

Earthling

David Henson
:) Since generally can go from 1 to 2 standard deviations - I suppose I could

Well, it seems to me like what you are saying is "occasionally" is that correct? To which I would respond, generally. I say generally this happens and you say, true, but occasionally that happens.

What about, from my perspective, the application of "most often" or let's see . . . what would I say . . . at least "more often then not." What say you?
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
Ah, spam . . . the weak argument for no argument. Like "troll," and a half dozen quasi intellectual jargon - buzz phrases.
I did not attempt to make ANY argument, I merely found your OP to be a bit too... polished.. for an internet discussion forum so I googled it. And found that you'd been banned elsewhere after starting threads like this.
Look, if you can't argue the point then don't waste my time.
I really didn't see much of a point TO argue against, but there were a few doozies in there...
[Edited To Add] And no, I'm not proud of anything. Pride comes before a fall and my knees are scarred enough without the risk. But are you proud?
Of some things. Not about getting banned on forums for making phony arguments then getting mad when people call me on them.
Most of the forums I've been banned from for producing those sort of posts are atheists?
I doubt it is the sorts of posts that gets you banned. More likely your follow up antics.
What's the matter there, not equipped to deal with a differing opinion? Can't defend your position against the modest theist?
More likely the admin gets annoyed having to deal with the usual theist antics of bogus arguments, followed by goal post shifting, followed by claims of martyrdom, followed by 'threats' of damnation, etc.
Such antics, or variations thereof, get tiresome.
Okay. Modest is overstating it, but you get the picture.
Sure do.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Ah, spam . . . the weak argument for no argument. Like "troll," and a half dozen quasi intellectual jargon - buzz phrases.

Look, if you can't argue the point then don't waste my time.

[Edited To Add] And no, I'm not proud of anything. Pride comes before a fall and my knees are scarred enough without the risk. But are you proud? Most of the forums I've been banned from for producing those sort of posts are atheists? What's the matter there, not equipped to deal with a differing opinion? Can't defend your position against the modest theist?

Okay. Modest is overstating it, but you get the picture.


You appear to have a real hatred for atheists. FYI, we are just as human as you
 
Top