sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
More ad hominem? And still not too tired to dance?:dan:angellous_evangellous said:
-
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!
How the Bible was proven fallible, by some goats
- Thread starter Halcyon
- Start date
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
I will not respond to any more of your posts.sandy whitelinger said:
Smoke
Done here.
It can be said; in fact, no other conclusion is possible.sandy whitelinger said:
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. But when the cattle were feeble, he put them not in: so the feebler were Laban's, and the stronger Jacob's.
Here the author clearly claims that Jacob's method had the intended results.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
But those cattle were deformed because of the rods... dammit!Halcyon said:You know what disturbs me most about this?
That Jacob bred flocks of sheep and goats in front of the branches, yet they gave birth to... cattle!
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
Huh, now are you talking about feeble and stronger cattle? What happened to ringstraight and spotted.MidnightBlue said:
Now about the idea of God being involved which by dancing partner Angel kept wanting to insert (which he now won't discuss anymore because he's too busy hoarding his pearls). Let's just suppose for a moment that having cattle conceive (whether they be ringstraight spotted or even pink, just to make my dancing partner feel better) because they were put in front of rods is utter rubbish, which scientifically speaking is really so much hogwash.
Now we are left with a few assumptions because of this. One it didn't happen and this is all just hogwash after all. If that is the case then this whole discussion as to whether or not rods made cattle conceive pink is hogwash and we should all eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die.
Or, another idea could be that the rods were placed in front of the animals in question (be they goats cattle or muskrats) and they did conceive, AND the little spurs came out a little funny looking. It could have just been a coincidence. Ok, so why put it in the Bible?
Or:
Ok here goes, gee just maybe God had something to do with it (even though He wasn't given literal credit). Perhaps that was why it was included in the text.
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
Now if my buddy Angellous were still in a talkative mood I might ask him to explain this, when Nahum washed himself in the Jordan River according to Elisha's instruction.
II Kings 5:14 KJV, "Then went he down, and dipped himself seven times in Jordan, according to the saying of the man of God: and his flesh came again like unto the flesh of a little child, and he was clean."
Clearly now according to his usage of the English language by which my esteemed instructor wore himself out pounding into my head, Nahum was cleansed of leprosy because he washed himself seven times in the Jordan. Was the river the cause of his cure? Or did God do it?
II Kings 5:14 KJV, "Then went he down, and dipped himself seven times in Jordan, according to the saying of the man of God: and his flesh came again like unto the flesh of a little child, and he was clean."
Clearly now according to his usage of the English language by which my esteemed instructor wore himself out pounding into my head, Nahum was cleansed of leprosy because he washed himself seven times in the Jordan. Was the river the cause of his cure? Or did God do it?
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Thanks for the post, Linwood. I was beginning to think that no one was reading this thread. It is starting to go off topic now. One can only talk about the OP for so long...linwood said:
www.angelpig.net
Smoke
Done here.
You aren't paying attention. Jacob put the rods in front of the stronger goats, and not in front of the feebler ones, so the offspring of the stronger ones were spotted (and therefore belonged to him) while the offspring of the feebler ones were not (and therefore belonged to Laban).sandy whitelinger said:
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
I was paying attention but maybe I should have spoke more plainly. Why the change from spotted and speckled and what not to strong and feeble? It there a connection to the literl meaning of the text that this poor accused unclean being has missed?MidnightBlue said:
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
The long winded and sometime bellicose discussion of fore was centered on whether it could be deemed literal or implied that the placing of the rods before the livestock caused the mottled nature of the offspring. It was literally stated that Jacob placed the said wood before the said creatures in order that they might concieve.MidnightBlue said:
"And Jacob took him rods of green poplar, and of the hazel and chesnut tree; and pilled white strakes in them, and made the white appear which was in the rods. And he set the rods which he had pilled before the flocks in the gutters in the watering troughs when the flocks came to drink, that they should conceive when they came to drink." Gen. 37-38 KJV
It clearly states, by merriam-webster's definition of literal, that the rods were placed before the cattle in order to have them concieve. And they concieved.
That is what is literally stated. Any other result is implied from the rest of the text but is not literal since nothing in the text states directly that the rods caused anything but conception. At least not in the KJV.
Now are you trying to say that the animals came out different because the were strong and not feeble?
Smoke
Done here.
Of course not. According to the text, the mottled animals were to belong to Jacob and the others to Laban. So Jacob placed the rods before the stronger animals, so their offspring would be mottled -- and therefore would belong to him. He did not place them before the feebler animals, so their offspring would not be mottled -- and therefore would belong to Laban. And according to the text, it worked: Jacob ended up with the stronger stock.sandy whitelinger said:
Peacemaker
New Member
Hair colour can be genetic. Perhaps reflections of light pigmented the goats. Thats the only theory I can think of off the top of my head.Halcyon said:
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Peacemaker,
Did you intend tis sentence
Did you intend tis sentence
to be logically related to this sentencePeacemaker said:
Just curious
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
Thanks for the help. Now I won't violate Proverbs 26:4. Looking out for the good of everyone, that's our Angel.angellous_evangellous said:
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
This is the email response from Answers in Genesis. It's another example of one who reads it literally, understanding English implications and basic logic....
--------
Hello Nathan,
Thanks for writing. You have suggested a great question, and one that we have dealt with in times past. I think the brief article at the following site will help with this: http://www.scripturessay.com/q302c.html Thanks again for writing. If we can be of further use to you, please let us know.
Sincerely,
Kyle Butt
From: Nathan Barnes [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 3:08 PM
To: Mail
Subject: Genesis 30.38
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 3:08 PM
To: Mail
Subject: Genesis 30.38
I see that Apologetics Press is interested in using the Bible as a science book. How should we interpret Genesis 30:38, where a literal reading yields that animals conceived spotted offspring by looking at spotted rods? Has science confirmed that this is possible?
Thanks,
Nathan
---
KJV
37And Jacob took him rods of green poplar, and of the hazel and chesnut tree; and pilled white strakes in them, and made the white appear which was in the rods.
38And he set the rods which he had pilled before the flocks in the gutters in the watering troughs when the flocks came to drink, that they should conceive when they came to drink. 39And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted. 40And 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 Laban's cattle. 41And 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. 42But when the cattle were feeble, he put them not in: so the feebler were Laban's, and the stronger Jacob's.
proudly bald since 1997
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
From the link above
Q. Genesis chapter 30, versus 32 thorugh 43 describes how Jacob received his payment from Laban. Would you please explain these verses (the purpose of the fresh-cut branches) and how it led to Jacob becoming properous? These versus seem not to make sense from what we know about genetics.
The passage reads:
Genesis 30:32-43 (NASB95 edition)
32 let me pass through your entire flock today, removing from there every speckled and spotted sheep and every black one among the lambs and the spotted and speckled among the goats; and such shall be my wages.
33 "So my honesty will answer for me later, when you come concerning my wages. Every one that is not speckled and spotted among the goats and black among the lambs, if found with me, will be considered stolen."
34 Laban said, "Good, let it be according to your word."
35 So he removed on that day the striped and spotted male goats and all the speckled and spotted female goats, every one with white in it, and all the black ones among the sheep, and gave them into the care of his sons.
36 And he put a distance of three days' journey between himself and Jacob, and Jacob fed the rest of Laban's flocks.
37 ¶ Then Jacob took fresh rods of poplar and almond and plane trees, and peeled white stripes in them, exposing the white which was in the rods.
38 He set the rods which he had peeled in front of the flocks in the gutters, even in the watering troughs, where the flocks came to drink; and they mated when they came to drink.
39 So the flocks mated by the rods, and the flocks brought forth striped, speckled, and spotted.
40 Jacob separated the lambs, and made the flocks face toward the striped and all the black in the flock of Laban; and he put his own herds apart, and did not put them with Laban's flock.
41 Moreover, whenever the stronger of the flock were mating, Jacob would place the rods in the sight of the flock in the gutters, so that they might mate by the rods;
42 but when the flock was feeble, he did not put them in; so the feebler were Laban's and the stronger Jacob's.
43 So the man became exceedingly prosperous, and had large flocks and female and male servants and camels and donkeys.
Dr. John T. Willis in the "Living Word Commentary" writes:
"After jacob completes his seven years of service for Rachel, he asks Laban for permission to return to his home in Beer-sheba (vss. 25-26; cf. 26:33). Laban urges him to stay, declaring that he had learned by divination that God had blessed him because of Jacob and offering to give him any wage he might ask (vss. 27-30). Jacob agrees to stay if Laban will give him every speckled and spotted sheep, every black lamb, and every speckled and spotted goat. Since these types are rare, Laban gladly accepts Jabob's terms, and then promptly removes all the older speckled and spotted sheep and goats and the black lambs and sends them a three day's journey away under the care of his sons so that Jacob could not get what he had agreed to give him. But Jacob has the strong members of Laban's flock breed before fresh rods of poplar, almond, and plane with peeled white streaks in them and practices selective breeding (vs. 40). The flocks produce large numbers of speckled and spotted sheep and goats and black lambs, so that Jacob's flocks increased and Laban's decrease. Over a period of seven years (cf. 31:38, 41), Jacob becomes very rich (vss. 31-43).
It should be noted that Laban (by divination, vs. 27) and Jacob (by magical power of suggestion, vss. 37-39) used pagan superstition to accomplish their purposes. However, by reporting such practices, the biblical writer is not expressing his own belief in their validity, commending their use, or encouraging his readers to adopt them."
My own view, after careful consideration of the context is this: Jacob indeed involves himself in the practice of local superstitions. The reason for his prosperity, however, was a result of the blessing of God, and not related to any of his breeding techniques or superstitious activities.
The Bible often records the activities of men without endorsing their actions.
Clyde M. Woods says:
"There seems to be no valid scientific evidence that the procedure Jacob followed would ordinarily work, although ancient peoples had confidence in such devices.LATER, Jacob learned that his success was due, not to his ingenious and somewhat questionable devices, but rather to God's providential care which prevented Laban from defrauding him (see Genesis 31:7.9.12).
Q. Genesis chapter 30, versus 32 thorugh 43 describes how Jacob received his payment from Laban. Would you please explain these verses (the purpose of the fresh-cut branches) and how it led to Jacob becoming properous? These versus seem not to make sense from what we know about genetics.
The passage reads:
Genesis 30:32-43 (NASB95 edition)
32 let me pass through your entire flock today, removing from there every speckled and spotted sheep and every black one among the lambs and the spotted and speckled among the goats; and such shall be my wages.
33 "So my honesty will answer for me later, when you come concerning my wages. Every one that is not speckled and spotted among the goats and black among the lambs, if found with me, will be considered stolen."
34 Laban said, "Good, let it be according to your word."
35 So he removed on that day the striped and spotted male goats and all the speckled and spotted female goats, every one with white in it, and all the black ones among the sheep, and gave them into the care of his sons.
36 And he put a distance of three days' journey between himself and Jacob, and Jacob fed the rest of Laban's flocks.
37 ¶ Then Jacob took fresh rods of poplar and almond and plane trees, and peeled white stripes in them, exposing the white which was in the rods.
38 He set the rods which he had peeled in front of the flocks in the gutters, even in the watering troughs, where the flocks came to drink; and they mated when they came to drink.
39 So the flocks mated by the rods, and the flocks brought forth striped, speckled, and spotted.
40 Jacob separated the lambs, and made the flocks face toward the striped and all the black in the flock of Laban; and he put his own herds apart, and did not put them with Laban's flock.
41 Moreover, whenever the stronger of the flock were mating, Jacob would place the rods in the sight of the flock in the gutters, so that they might mate by the rods;
42 but when the flock was feeble, he did not put them in; so the feebler were Laban's and the stronger Jacob's.
43 So the man became exceedingly prosperous, and had large flocks and female and male servants and camels and donkeys.
Dr. John T. Willis in the "Living Word Commentary" writes:
"After jacob completes his seven years of service for Rachel, he asks Laban for permission to return to his home in Beer-sheba (vss. 25-26; cf. 26:33). Laban urges him to stay, declaring that he had learned by divination that God had blessed him because of Jacob and offering to give him any wage he might ask (vss. 27-30). Jacob agrees to stay if Laban will give him every speckled and spotted sheep, every black lamb, and every speckled and spotted goat. Since these types are rare, Laban gladly accepts Jabob's terms, and then promptly removes all the older speckled and spotted sheep and goats and the black lambs and sends them a three day's journey away under the care of his sons so that Jacob could not get what he had agreed to give him. But Jacob has the strong members of Laban's flock breed before fresh rods of poplar, almond, and plane with peeled white streaks in them and practices selective breeding (vs. 40). The flocks produce large numbers of speckled and spotted sheep and goats and black lambs, so that Jacob's flocks increased and Laban's decrease. Over a period of seven years (cf. 31:38, 41), Jacob becomes very rich (vss. 31-43).
It should be noted that Laban (by divination, vs. 27) and Jacob (by magical power of suggestion, vss. 37-39) used pagan superstition to accomplish their purposes. However, by reporting such practices, the biblical writer is not expressing his own belief in their validity, commending their use, or encouraging his readers to adopt them."
My own view, after careful consideration of the context is this: Jacob indeed involves himself in the practice of local superstitions. The reason for his prosperity, however, was a result of the blessing of God, and not related to any of his breeding techniques or superstitious activities.
The Bible often records the activities of men without endorsing their actions.
Clyde M. Woods says:
"There seems to be no valid scientific evidence that the procedure Jacob followed would ordinarily work, although ancient peoples had confidence in such devices.LATER, Jacob learned that his success was due, not to his ingenious and somewhat questionable devices, but rather to God's providential care which prevented Laban from defrauding him (see Genesis 31:7.9.12).
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
angellous_evangellous said:
I didn't find one thing in there that said that the rods litterally caused the odd offspring. nice try though.
What i did find interesting in the link was this statement:
"My own view, after careful consideration of the context is this: Jacob indeed involves himself in the practice of local superstitions. The reason for his prosperity, however, was a result of the blessing of God, and not related to any of his breeding techniques or superstitious activities. "