Mr. Till,
The text does not say that Jacob's superstition caused the offspring to look
the way they did. No doubt Jacob held to this superstition much like when
Rachel wanted mandrakes for fertility purposes. Nowhere does the text say
that these superstitions were true, they are simply recording the actual
history of what they believed in their culture at that time. The characters
in the Bible were misinformed occasionally simply because they were a
product of their culture. Just because the Bible teaches that these people
were utilized by God does not mean that they were all-knowing. They were
regular people who had struggles like you and I and who held to certain
superstitions just like people do still today.
TILL
Even though you double posted this message, I am going to answer it. Then
as I continue on through today's mail, if I find another double posting from
you, everything else from you that's on the board is going into my trash can
without being read.
Answering your "explanation" is simple. All we have to do is read the
entire passage: "And Jacob took for himself rods of green poplar and of the
almond and chestnut trees, peeled white strips in them, and exposed the
white which was in the rods. And the rods which he had peeled, he set
before the flocks in the gutters, in the watering troughs where the flocks
came to drink, so that they should conceive when they came to drink. SO THE
FLOCKS CONCEIVED BEFORE THE RODS, AND THE FLOCKS BROUGHT FORTH STREAKED,
SPECKLED, AND SPOTTED" (Genesis 30:37-39). This passage is clearly
indicating that there was a cause-effect relationship involved. Jacob set
the striped rods before the flocks at the watering troughts, and when they
bred in the presence of the rods, they "brought forth streaked, speckled,
and spotted" offspring.
Later on, the context of the incident states this: "And it came to pass,
whenever the stronger livestock conceived that Jacob placed the rods before
the eyes of the livestock in the gutters, THAT THEY MIGHT CONCEIVE AMONG THE
RODS" (v:41). Did Jacob's plan work? Verse 43 says, "Thus the man became
exceedingly prosperous and had large flocks...."
What did the birth of spotted and speckled offspring have to do with Jacob's
prosperity? Verses 31 through 33 records a deal that Jacob struck with
Laban. Jacob had wanted to take his wives and return to his home, but Laban
wanted him to stay and oversee his flocks. Jacob agreed to stay if Laban
would agree to give him all of the spotted, striped, and speckled offspring
that would be born in Laban's flocks. Laban agreed and then immediately
tried to pull a fast one on Jacob: "So he [Laban] removed that day the male
goats that were speckled and spotted, all the female goats that were
speckled and spotted, and every one that had some white in it, and all the
brown ones among the lambs, and gave them into the hand of his sons. Then
he put three days' journey between himself and Jacob, and Jacob fed the rest
of Laban's flocks" (vs:35-36).
Laban evidently knew from observation that speckled and spotted lambs and
kids were most likely to be born when there were speckled and spotted
breeding stock in the flock, and so he removed all of the speckled and
spotted and gave them into the care of his sons who were a three-day journey
away from the flock Jacob would tend. At that distance interbreeding would
be unlikely, and so Laban thought that he had ensured that Jacob's wages
would be minimal. Not to be outdone, however, Jacob countered with the
peeled poplar, almond, and chestnut rods, and the Bible presents his plan as
a remarkable success story that led to Jacob's becoming a wealthy man.
Furthermore, the story claims that Jacob put the rods before the "stronger
livestock" so that they would conceive among the rods, and "when the flocks
were feebled, he did not put them [the rods] in, "so the feebler were
Laban's and the stronger Jacob's" (vs:41-42). Clearly, this passage is
teaching a cause-effect relationship. The strongest of the flock gave birth
to speckled and spotted offspring, because Jacob arranged for them to
conceive in the presence of the peeled rods, but the weaker gave birth to
normal-colored offspring because Jacob would not put the rods in front of
them. Thus, Jacob received the strongest offspring from the flock, and
Laban received the weakest, unspotted offspring. Now if only random
genetics were involved in this matter, we would know that the spotted and
speckled offspring would have been evenly distributed through the flock, but
according to the story it didn't happen that way. The weak gave birth to
unspotted, unspeckled offspring, and the strong gave birth to spotted,
speckled offspring. What is the explanation for this? Well, the only
explanation the text provides is that Jacob put the rods before the
strongest and didn't put the rods before the weakest.
This story is clearly teaching the ancient belief that the environment in
which conception occurred would influence the physical characteristics of
offspring. Walt will deny this in the face of overwhelming textual evidence
and then turn around and accuse us of being intellectually dishonest because
we won't buy his "scientific evidence" for the existence of his god? Go figure.
Well, really, no figuring is necessary. Walt has been so blinded by his
religious beliefs that he sees only what he wants to see.
Farrell Till
Skepticism, Inc.
jftill@midwest.net