1. 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!

Featured The Bible And Science: Prenatal Influence

Discussion in 'Science and Religion' started by Earthling, Mar 15, 2019.

  1. Earthling

    Earthling David Henson

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2005
    Messages:
    3,793
    Ratings:
    +756
    Religion:
    Bible Believer
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. ImmortalFlame

    ImmortalFlame Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2010
    Messages:
    8,402
    Ratings:
    +3,988
    These threads are beginning to sound more and more like an axe being ground.
     
    • Like Like x 5
    • Funny Funny x 1
  3. Earthling

    Earthling David Henson

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2005
    Messages:
    3,793
    Ratings:
    +756
    Religion:
    Bible Believer
    NO!!! Shocked. Shocked I am!

    Wait 'till you get a load of the next one . . .
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. ImmortalFlame

    ImmortalFlame Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2010
    Messages:
    8,402
    Ratings:
    +3,988
    I'm actually weirdly excited!
     
  5. exchemist

    exchemist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    Messages:
    3,499
    Ratings:
    +2,453
    Religion:
    RC (culturally at least)
    I wonder if there is a prize for the most obscure Aunt Sally to erect and then knock down.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Funny Funny x 2
  6. Ellen Brown

    Ellen Brown Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2018
    Messages:
    3,992
    Ratings:
    +1,922
    I wish you'd just reveal your agenda...
     
    • Like Like x 2
  7. ManSinha

    ManSinha Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2019
    Messages:
    822
    Ratings:
    +501
    Religion:
    Sikh
    Not always - sometimes the originals are incompatible and the attempt at procreation winds up with a dud
     
    • Like Like x 2
  8. whirlingmerc

    whirlingmerc Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2016
    Messages:
    3,772
    Ratings:
    +675
    Religion:
    Christian
    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
     
  9. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2018
    Messages:
    1,880
    Ratings:
    +1,513
    I see you've been banned from another forum for this sort of spam. Does it make you proud?
     
    • Informative Informative x 3
  10. Earthling

    Earthling David Henson

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2005
    Messages:
    3,793
    Ratings:
    +756
    Religion:
    Bible Believer
    Sure. Romans 9:10-13
     
  11. Earthling

    Earthling David Henson

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2005
    Messages:
    3,793
    Ratings:
    +756
    Religion:
    Bible Believer
    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.
     
    #11 Earthling, Mar 20, 2019
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2019
    • Useful Useful x 1
  12. Earthling

    Earthling David Henson

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2005
    Messages:
    3,793
    Ratings:
    +756
    Religion:
    Bible Believer
    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.
     
  13. Earthling

    Earthling David Henson

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2005
    Messages:
    3,793
    Ratings:
    +756
    Religion:
    Bible Believer
    Fair enough, I suppose . . . would you accept the amendment of "generally" in application to the statement?
     
  14. ManSinha

    ManSinha Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2019
    Messages:
    822
    Ratings:
    +501
    Religion:
    Sikh
    :) Since generally can go from 1 to 2 standard deviations - I suppose I could
     
  15. Earthling

    Earthling David Henson

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2005
    Messages:
    3,793
    Ratings:
    +756
    Religion:
    Bible Believer
    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?
     
  16. ManSinha

    ManSinha Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2019
    Messages:
    822
    Ratings:
    +501
    Religion:
    Sikh
    I am agreeing with you
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. Earthling

    Earthling David Henson

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2005
    Messages:
    3,793
    Ratings:
    +756
    Religion:
    Bible Believer
    I know, and I with you. I was just pointing out some semantics of which I might have clarified in order to make myself more clear. You made a good point that caused me to reflect upon it further is all. :cool:
     
  18. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2018
    Messages:
    1,880
    Ratings:
    +1,513
    No.
    Your argument is defeated.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  19. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2018
    Messages:
    1,880
    Ratings:
    +1,513
    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.
    I really didn't see much of a point TO argue against, but there were a few doozies in there...
    Of some things. Not about getting banned on forums for making phony arguments then getting mad when people call me on them.
    I doubt it is the sorts of posts that gets you banned. More likely your follow up antics.
    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.
    Sure do.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. ChristineM

    ChristineM "Be strong" I whispered to my coffee.
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2017
    Messages:
    14,024
    Ratings:
    +9,688
    Religion:
    None

    You appear to have a real hatred for atheists. FYI, we are just as human as you
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Like Like x 1
Loading...