PZ Myers. 2004 May 11. Creationist genetics. <http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/creationist_genetics/>. Accessed 2008 Aug 30.
Posted on M00o93H7pQ09L8X1t49cHY01Z5j4TT91fGfr on Tuesday, May 11, 2004
Creationist genetics
It's not just the US that is infested with creationists; take a look at Canadian Christianity. Like their southern brethren, they seem to be greatly concerned about homosexuals and evolution; I'm always astounded at how much conservative Christian identity is tied to the denial of civil rights and opposition to science. There are several juicy tidbits of benighted ignorance there, but I'm going to focus on one incredible claim made in an interview with a Kirk Durston, who is apparently a director of some Campus Chrusade for Christ ministry...which, apparently, means he is now a fully qualified creationist biologist. In the interview, he's asked this leading question:
As you know, evolutionists tend to use 'evolution' as a blanket term, without making the crucial distinction between 'micro-evolution' (physical changes within a single species) and 'macro-evolution' (transformation from one species into another). Because micro-evolution is scientifically provable, they can say that evolutionary theory is legitimate science -- and by using the general term 'evolution,' they imply that macro-evolution is also legitimate science. Do you think there is sufficient awareness of the fact that there is no concrete evidence for macro-evolution? Are evolutionists simply afraid to admit this to the public -- and perhaps to themselves?
Creationists do love the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution"—they pretend to acknowledge that one is good science, so their claim that the other is false looks a little more impartial. Of course macroevolution is legitimate science, backed up by evidence: the fossil record is one big catalog of macroevolutionary events, while the molecular evidence for common descent unambiguously ties together disparate lineages. Read Zimmer's At the Water's Edge (subtitled "Macroevolution and the transformation of life") for some lucidly presented examples.
Durston, of course, obligingly buys into the interviewer's phony claim, but goes a little further and says something astounding.
It is very important to make a distinction between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Micro-evolution has been known for thousands of years, with the first documented case occurring in Genesis, when Jacob [manipulated] his father-in-law's sheep and goat herd so he could get more striped and spotted livestock. Any examples of evolution we observe today fall into this category.
I quite agree that the breeding of domesticated animals is an excellent example of the transformation of populations with evolutionary consequences. Darwin himself wrote extensively about domesticated animals in his books, and considered them good supporting evidence for his ideas. But have you ever read the story of Jacob and his microevolutionary research program in genetic manipulation? It's amusing. Here it is:
31
"What should I pay you?" Laban asked. Jacob answered: "You do not have to pay me anything outright. I will again pasture and tend your flock, if you do this one thing for me:
32
11 go through your whole flock today and remove from it every dark animal among the sheep and every spotted or speckled one among the goats. Only such animals shall be my wages.
33
In the future, whenever you check on these wages of mine, let my honesty testify against me: any animal in my possession that is not a speckled or spotted goat, or a dark sheep, got there by theft!"
34
"Very well," agreed Laban. "Let it be as you say."
35
That same day Laban removed the streaked and spotted he-goats and all the speckled and spotted she-goats, all those with some white on them, as well as the fully dark-colored sheep; these he left. . . in charge of his sons.
36
Then he put a three days' journey between himself and Jacob, while Jacob continued to pasture the rest of Laban's flock.
37
Jacob, however, got some fresh shoots of poplar, almond and plane trees, and he made white stripes in them by peeling off the bark down to the white core of the shoots.
38
The rods that he had thus peeled he then set upright in the watering troughs, so that they would be in front of the animals that drank from the troughs. When the animals were in heat as they came to drink,
39
the goats mated by the rods, and so they brought forth streaked, speckled and spotted kids.
40
The sheep, on the other hand, Jacob kept apart, and he set these animals to face the streaked or fully dark-colored animals of Laban. Thus he produced special flocks of his own, which he did not put with Laban's flock.
41
Moreover, whenever the hardier animals were in heat, Jacob would set the rods in the troughs in full view of these animals, so that they mated by the rods;
42
but with the weaker animals he would not put the rods there. So the feeble animals would go to Laban, but the sturdy ones to Jacob.
43
Thus the man grew increasingly prosperous, and he came to own not only large flocks but also male and female servants and camels and asses.
This is the biblical science creationists want to put in our schools. How do you breed striped livestock? You let them look at striped sticks while they are mating, and then their offspring will be striped. Under this logic, we'll have to assume that white ceilings are a racist plot to breed more Caucasian children. And yet this creationist, in all seriousness, suggests this ridiculous story as an instance of Biblical microevolution and genetics.
I won't even get into the ethical lesson here, which seems to be that it is OK for Jacob to cheat his father-in-law, and that his reward is to own servants.
-
<i>It's not just the US that is infested with creationists; take a look at Canadian Christianity. Like their southern brethren, they seem to be greatly concerned about homosexuals and evolution; I'm always astounded at how much conservative Christian identity is tied to the denial of civil rights and opposition to science.</i>
I'm not astounded at all. The purpose of pointing at those who aren't like us or who profess contrary beliefs is to heighten the difference between Us and Them. Conservatives of all stripes who might be divided on other matters at least all share a common disdain of homosexuals as well as atheists. This gives those leaders who engage in such rhetoric support from their followers. In other words, they're playing to their base. The reason why Papal infallibility was devised in the 19th century wasn't because the Catholic Church really believed in it, but because it allowed the Church as an institution to better wall off their flock from the growing influence of modernity by using the tool of "If the Pope says it, it must be true" to protect the Church's power.
I don't think all Christians are like this, of course. But I do think liberal and even moderate Christians are eventually going to have to grasp the nettle of the supernatural assumptions that their faith incorporates and pull them out. To some this may only leave what amounts to humanism, but given that Jesus was human I think you can still have Christianity, albeit a Christianity where the fictional part is acknowledged as such but is still used as the basis for moral instruction. Sort of like Aesop's Fables, only with Jesus instead of Aesop.
Believers here, if any, feel free to flame away, er, respond...#: Posted by on 05/11 at 09:37 AM - Heh. My dad (a seventh grade public school science teacher) used to get death threats whenever he taught evolution. Or geologic history. Nowadays, if they can spout some biblical nonsense semi-relevant, he lets 'em have credit. (and you'd be surprised how many of them can quote chapter and verse) He's not allowed to flunk more than a certain percentage anyway.
-
Jacob simply outwitted Laban, that's all. His herds and Laban's herds were separated by three days of walking, but they shared the same watering hole, and that's where the breeding took place. Jacob set up the rods based on ancient superstitions to give the appearance of some kind of hocus-pocus in the breeding that was going on. It was a brilliant ruse. He tied his better, stronger female animals up near the watering hole when they were in heat, where they'd be conspicuous for Laban's males. He tied up his male animals far away. Naturally, there were far more offspring with streaks, speckles and spots than purely white, as we all know from genetics now -- and which Jacob knew then. He quietly separated those animals from Laban's flocks since they were his under the deal, and added them to his own. His flocks thus grew larger and larger and stronger and stronger, while Laban's stayed about the same size and were weaker. He didn't cheat Laban -- he just outsmarted him. Maybe you should STUDY the Bible instead of bashing it, Sir. You'd be amazed how many dumb mistakes you are making out of sheer ignorance. Hate to break the news to you, but. . . .
#: Posted by on 05/11 at 04:27 PM
-
Jane,
While that might be a reasonable explanation of the events described in that bible chapter, that is stated nowhere in the text. You can interpret the text all you like, but as it's written, this holy and inerrant text describes unspeckled goats having speckled offspring because of the coloration of some twigs near where they mated.
I'll be nice and assume your assertion that Jacob knew about genetics (did he "believe" in evolution?) is just a twist in the sentence structure.
Maybe you should READ the Bible instead of wishfully reinterpreting what it says, Madame. You'd be amazed... etc.#: Posted by on 05/11 at 04:39 PM -
"the goats mated by the rods, and so they brought forth streaked, speckled and spotted kids" seems to me to be a plain statement of causality. There is no way you can stretch this account to meet your interpretation.
And ancient superstitions they may be, but they are canonized by the Bible. Doesn't that make it a work of superstition?
I'm afraid he did cheat Laban. Taking advantage of someone's ignorance to rob him of a large part of his flock, while also making sure his remaining flock was "weaker", doesn't sound to me like the kind of thing I'd do to my father-in-law. Or anyone, for that matter. -
To Andrew: Laban was duped and now you are duped. Read it again. Maybe it would help if you moved your lips. :>) JK :>) As for how to properly read and understand the Bible, there's a cool skill you could look up in the dictionary: "hermeneutics." You ain't got it, Bro. But you could, if you'd lose the attitude and get into the spirit of the scholarship that it takes to understand the Bible properly. OK? No hard feelings: just honest advice.
To PZ: Well, why do people buy one brand of cookies and not another? Packaging? Price? Sprinkles? A "plain statement of causality" is that they liked 'em and thought they were "best" so they bought 'em. Doesn't mean those cookies are what they THINK they are. Laban liked the deal Jacob offered and thought it was "best." So he . . . bought it. :>) Jacob's maneuver with the fancy rods was just for show, to cement his success. Get it? As for "superstitions" in the Bible, it's chock full of 'em: weird pagan worship rituals, child sacrifice, incest, astrology -- all kinds of weird things are used in the Bible as examples of how dumb people can be and how NOT to be deceived. Again, I say Jacob just outsmarted Laban and didn't cheat him: he didn't rob him, he just was a better businessman. It's like this: if we both take a test, and I score higher on the curve than you do and get a better grade, did I rob you and cheat you? THINK ABOUT IT, BUCKO. God wants all of us to succeed, like Jacob. But to know how, you've got to read God's Word, and do the thinking work that it takes to understand and apply it. Thanks for the opportunity to give you guys a glimpse of what you're missing. :>)#: Posted by on 05/11 at 05:10 PM -
Unreal.
If Jacob was planning to connive to take over a bunch of Laban's flock, why put up "fancy rods"? Your interpretation simply makes no sense at all. Actually, your use of the word "hermeneutics" suggests that you think it means "invent whatever interpretation you want, then rationalize it".
If that kind of twisted justification for greed is what I'm missing, boy, am I glad to be an atheist. And somebody remind me to never trust a Christian in any kind of deal. - (Yes, I know most Christians aren't like Susan.)
-
Susan,
I'd begun typing out a response to your post that addressed the points, but it was really boring. I'm just going to skip ahead to the personal attacks and point out that your smiley is even more annoying than the normal annoying smiley (is the '>' supposed to be a nose? jesus with a small 'j'), as well as your elementary school/mom use of slang is just embarassing. You sound like Ned Flanders channeling Dennis Miller, uh, Sis/BUCKO.
Needless to say, your argument is full of shit. If I wanted to spend time interpreting the Word of God, I'd believe in him. Just don't assume your references to the bible logically lead to your hackneyed interpretations and please, please don't believe that they are science.
Oh, and no hard feelings, of course.#: Posted by on 05/11 at 05:49 PM -
ok, fine.
If you really believe in this god, why would you even need to question his ability to affect the pheotypes of a herd of goats through this sort of magical incantation. Considering you believe this guy designed the freaking things, why in the world would you need to invoke evolution to explain this?#: Posted by on 05/11 at 05:54 PM -
If white ceilings cause white births (as is biblically warranted) what would mirrored ceilings cause? Is this the explanation of heredity - each partners conceives as they see the other, and that is why children resemble both their parents? Children conceived in tawdry motels must resemble the partner on the bottom, therefore.
Hey, a scientific program worth pursuing. Can anyone lend me $100 for the next few nights?#: Posted by John Wilkins on 05/11 at 08:23 PM -
You know you're going to need at least 9 months to carry out this study.
I think mirrored ceilings might explain where buttheads come from. -
I'll continue as long as it takes, and as long as the funding holds out. I'm dedicated like that.
#: Posted by John Wilkins on 05/11 at 09:37 PM
- You are a true scientist and scholar.
-
Someone's got to be the control here. A less glamorous role I realize, but one I'm willing to fill.#: Posted by on 05/12 at 07:26 AM -
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/false.html#genetics
#: Posted by on 05/12 at 05:47 PM -
Gee, you must have been faking-sick that day and missed Sunday School, when most of us little kiddies learned this story. :>) FYI: Jacob's father-in-law and uncle, Laban, was a pagan. He had "household gods" that he consulted, among other superstitions. Jacob was well aware of the phony superstition of the pagan herdsmen of the time, that experiences or sights seen by mothers in pregnancy could decisively affect their unborn offspring ("mark the baby"). Jacob didn't buy in to that stuff, but he used the superstition of the local yokels as a "cover" for the intelligent selective breeding program that he was undertaking. He basically put the food plants in the troughs when the stronger males were around and made sure his best females were there for that boy-meets-girl thing. Meanwhile, the stupid pagans were distracted by the ruse of the striped and polka-dotted branches. It was actually very humorous on several levels. Note that groves of poplar trees were where pagans worshiped their phony baloney nature gods that got them in so much trouble with the one true God (Hosea 4:13). Sheep loved to eat the poplar tree, too, but I bet Jacob chose that kind of tree as a secret "tweak" of the pagans who'd made him work for them for next to nothing for so long. Also note that the almond symbolized the dependability of God and is probably why Jacob chose that for the troughs, again as a quiet "in your face" to his tormentors. I think the plane tree is really the chestnut tree, a common tree of the locale and I don't know any particular spiritual significance other than the moo-moo's thought it was tasty. Anyway, he kept mating his best with Laban's best, knowing that the vast majority of the offspring would be dark and spotted and thus would end up in his herd, not Laban's. Laban thought Jacob was a sucker for wanting the spotted animals. But the fur color didn't matter at all for meat and milk products. Laban should have known better than to think Jacob was stupid, for before Jacob went to work for him, Laban had very little property (Genesis 30:30), but Jacob increased his wealth a whole bunch by being smart while working for him for 14 years, suffering Laban's deceit and all kinds of pay cuts and other fandango. Laban admits that in Gen. 30:27, and admits that Jacob's success is because of the Lord's favor on Jacob. The last six years Jacob worked there, building his own flocks, he didn't actually take anything from Laban -- he just outfumbled him, business-wise, and still left him far richer than before he came. OK? Now you can have a gold star on your paper because you've learned the lesson that, I hope, will make you have a newfound or renewed appreciation of the Bible and its -- yessirree Bob -- inerrancy. If you'd like to avoid this kind of embarrassing misunderstanding of the Bible in the future, and I certainly hope you do, I'd recommend "Introduction to Biblical Interpretation" by Dr. William W. Klein, Dr. Craig L. Blomberg and Dr. Robert L. Hubbard Jr. (W Publishing Group, 1993, 518 pp). Great poolside reading this summer! Share with all your fun, fun, fun atheist friends! :>)
#: Posted by on 05/12 at 10:35 PM
-
And here I thought "mating by the rods" meant artificial insemination!
#: Posted by on 05/13 at 07:10 AM
-
What you folks have to learn is that the Bible doesn’t say what it says. It says what Susan says it says.
Verses 39-42 sure don’t leave much wiggle room.
From page 4 of Susan’s book at Amazon: “As we will see, the role of the Spirit in understanding God’s Word is indispensable. The Spirit convinces God’s people of the truth of the biblical message and convicts and enables them to live consistently with that truth.” Basically, they concede that the Bible could never stand on its own merit.
i.e. If you’re not gullible, you’re not going to “get it”.
The url posted above defends the passage differently. The result was not due to the specifics just mentioned but rather a miracle, which is “plainly” described in the verses following. Rather different than Susan’s take.
Believers agree that the Bible requires interpretation. But they disagree about that interpretation. Doesn’t give you the warm fuzzies, does it?
#: Posted by on 05/13 at 11:05 AM -
Gong, Duane. You left out the next sentence from that Bible interpretation book. The quote you gave people here is by consequence 'way out of context, and deceptive. But you KNEW that. :>)
Yes, it's true that people who don't have the Holy Spirit illuminating the meaning of the Bible because they reject Jesus Christ can't possibly understand the Bible. They block themselves from that ability. But understanding the Bible is not some kind of a magic trick. It takes WORK and EFFORT to understand the Bible correctly. As the passage you so conveniently quit quoting goes on to say next, "But the Spirit's help does not replace the need to interpret biblical passages according to the principles of language communication."
There's hope for you yet, though, Duane! Get the book and you can get off the Gong Show of atheism once and for all, and understand what God is trying to tell you, through His wonderful, inerrant holy Word. :>)
If others are thinking hermeneutics is some kind of hocus-pocus based on Duane's post, here are the subheads from the 518-pg. "Introduction to Biblical Interpretation" to give you an idea of the literary, historical and analytical scholarship entailed:
Chapter 1: The Need for Hermeneutics
Why Hermeneutics?
Hermeneutics Defined
The Art and Science of Interpretation
The Role of the Interpreter
The Meaning of the Message
Some Challenges of Bible Interpretation
Distance of Time
Cultural Distance
Geographical Distance
Distance of Language
Eternal Relevance -- The Divine Factor
The Goal of Hermeneutics
Conclusion
Chapter 2: The History of Interpretation
Jewish Interpretation
Rabbinic Judaism
Hellenistic Judaism
The Qumran Community
The Apostolic Period (ca. A.D. 30-100)
The Patristic Period (ca. A.D. 100-590)
The Apostolic Fathers (ca. A.D. 100-150)
Alexandria versus Antioch (ca. A.D. 150-400)
Church Councils (ca. A.D. 400-590)
The Middle Ages (ca. A.D. 590-1500)
The Reformation (ca. A.D. 1500-1650)
The Post-Reformation Period (ca. A.D. 1650-1800)
The Modern Period (ca. A.D. 1800-Present)
The Nineteenth Century
The Twentieth Century
Post-World War I
Post World War II
Chapter 3: The Canon and Translations
I'm getting tired of typing :>) and hope you can see that we ain't just whistlin' Dixie when it comes to the knowledge and effort required to do this properly. So I'll switch to key points from the remaining nine chapters to show the broad sweep of skills required:
Qualifications of the Interpreter
Presuppositions for Correct Interpretation
Levels of Meaning
Textual Meaning
Literary Context
Historical-Cultural Background
Word Meanings
Grammatical-Structural Relationships
Old Testament Poetry
Narratives
Law
Prophecy
Wisdom
Avoiding Mistakes in Application (DING DONG, DUANE!!! THAT ONE'S FOR YOU!!! :>) )
Here's a great subsection you really need, too, me boyo:
A Four-Step Methodology for Legitimate Application
Determine the Original Application(s)
Evaluate the Level of Specificity of the Original Applications
Identify the Cross-Cultural Principles
Find Appropriate Applications that Embody the Broader Principles
Since this is stuff that Bible students like me know, and you big palooka Bible-haters don't, then every time you propound and pontificate what you think the Bible means -- with your barn doors wide open exposing your own ignorance -- it just makes us "good guys" sigh, smile and wish you'd "zip it."
Just get the book, Duane. :>)
#: Posted by on 05/13 at 12:52 PM -
Looks to me like that point is made and conceded. “Proper” interpretation presupposes belief.
We are left with verses 32-42 plainly saying the rods affected offspring. Apparently, only a believer’s mind can wiggle out of it.
And we are left with varying interpretations from “scholars” who are absolutely persuaded their view is correct. Inerrancy ain’t much good if nobody can prove which view is correct.
#: Posted by on 05/13 at 01:40 PM -
'Nother gong, me boyo. To properly interpret any set of symbols, one doesn't need to BELIEVE the message is correct, nor to revere it as holy, does one? Such as . . . code-breakers? an astrophysics text? musical notation?
It's the same thing with the Bible or anything else that communicates abstractions. Takes mental muscle power, Duane. No magic, no mumbo-jumbo. That's why you don't love the Bible . . . yet. :>) You just ain't learned how to read it yet. You just ain't applied yo'se'f to the task. Gotta do some "reps" so you're not such a 90-pound weakling on the beach getting intellectual sand kicked in your face like this. :>)
Takes context, a knowledge of history, an understanding of etymology, familiarity with Biblical symbols, genres, storylines and archetypes, and most of all experience with the wondrous literary polyvalence of the Bible.
Look at it this way: if you found a piece of paper with this number:
398-6252
. . . you'd be hard-pressed to interpret what that number means. Is it a bank account? A password? A school identification number?
But if that piece of paper were inside someone's telephone book, in the "T" section, and it matched the phone number recorded for a certain "Duane Tiemann," and the phone book belonged to the keeper of the MONKEY CAGE at the local zoo, also listed as the address of the "Duane Tiemann" in question, then you'd be able to interpret what that number means with a high rate of accuracy: your phone number, Ape Boy.
OOOH -- OOOH -- OOOH -- AAAAH AAAAH AAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!! :>)
Face it, Duane. You guys are blaspheming God by willfully misleading people about what the Bible says. You think you're making a monkey out of Him. Ohhhhhh, Duane:
Psalm 2:4
But do you know what? God never laughs at anybody without being full of love for them, and He listens to His children who pray diligently, on their faces, claiming these nonbelievers for the Kingdom, as I do for you, even though you look like a monkey, and you act like one, too. :>)
#: Posted by on 05/13 at 03:37 PM -
Jebus. The raving fundie nutcases have discovered Pharyngula.
Seriously, Ms. Susan, your excuses for the Bible are a colossal load of BS. -
Okay Susan I thik this is a reasonable summary of what you've written so far:
"The Bible doesn't mean what it says, it means what it means. Since I have faith I can determine this meaning even though none of what I say is actually written anywhere."
Now I think the rest of us can reasonably react by saying that no-one cares what you think it means because, by the simple act of reading it, we can determine what it does mean. Since it says "the goats mated by the rods, and so they brought forth streaked, speckled and spotted kids" we can - like I said, using reason - determine that it means "the goats mated by the rods, and so they brought forth streaked, speckled and spotted kids". That's a clear statement of causality.
You seem to gain great pleasure from your understanding of the Bible. I can only imagine what joy you would gain from an actual understanding of the world, from (genuine) cosmology to evolution. The reality of our universe is so much more wonderous than any bronze-age fiction.#: Posted by Rory Parle on 05/13 at 04:52 PM -
I'm prepared to do a Bible study after testing creationist genetics, with any willing creationist subjects of the female variety...
#: Posted by John Wilkins on 05/13 at 04:59 PM
-
Whoa, John, you must really be desperate if you're hitting on <i>creationists</i> at a website half a world away from you...
Hey, do you think that's where creationists come from: people who have sex, and then do penance by reading their bibles assiduously afterwards? -
Hi, Rory: Well, I'm glad to be the one to open your eyes to the wonderful world of Bible scholarship.
If you know how these ancient people lived and worked, how the nomadic life went, how herding and breeding were done, and how intertwined God's people were with the pagan people, then this passage would be a lot easier to understand.
If you knew anything about the nature religions of the day, and how they contrasted with what Abraham's tribe was in to, you would understand the significance better, too.
If you have read and studied the entire Bible, you would see the connections between this story and many others in the Bible.
Last, but not least, if you could take off your 21st Century hat and put on a 2000 B.C. hat, you might see what a cool maneuver this was by Jacob, to hoist those pagan creeps by their own petards and using their own pagan superstitions to beat them at their own game. :>) His biologic knowledge was impeccable, you have to admit.
Bottom line: you atheists DIDN'T KNOW ENOUGH TO GET THE JOKE!!! :>)
Perhaps a quote from another scholarly book would help. This one is "Systematic Theology" by Dr. Norman Geisler (Bethany House, Minneapolis, 2002, 627 pp). The section is entitled "The Principles of Objective Hermeneutics."
The Principles of Understanding God's Special Revelation Objectively
Since God has given revelation, and since it is possible for us to understand its meaning, we need to understand what guidelines to use in the process of interpreting it. The following are the principles we must bring wtih us as we approach God's special revelation, Scripture.
Look for the Author's Meaning, Not the Reader's
The objective meaning of a text is the one given to it by the author, not the one attributed to it by the reader. Readers should ask what was meant by the author, not what it means to the reader. Once a reader discovers what the author meant by the text, he has obtained its objective meaning. Thus, asking, "What does it mean to me?" is the wrong question, and it will almost certainly lead to a subjective interpretation. Asking of the author, "What did he mean?" will almost certainly lead the reader in the right direction, that is, toward the objective meaning.
Look for the Author's Meaning (What), Not His Purpose (Why)
Another road to hermeneutical subjectivity leads to the author's purpose rather than to his meaning. Meaning is found in what the author has affirmed, not in why he affirmed it. Purpose does not determine meaning. One can know what the author said without knowing why he said it. Two examples will suffice to elucidate this point.
First, if one says, "Come over to my house tonight," there is no difficulty in understanding what is meant, even though the purpose for the invitation is not known. What is understood apart from why. The meaning is apprehended, even though the purpose is not known.
Of course, if the purpose is known, then the statement may take on a whole new significance. But meaning and significance are not the same. Meaning deals with what? and significance deals with so what? For example, if the purpose of the invitation is to inform you that you lost a loved one, as opposed to that you won ten million dollars, then the significance is quite variant. However, the meaning of the statement, "Come over to my house," is identical in either case.
Second, to offer a biblical illustration, Exodus 23:19 commanded the Israelites: "Do not cook a young goat in its mother's milk." The meaning of this sentence is very clear, and every Israelite knew exactly what they were not supposed to do. However, the purpose of this command is not clear at all. A survey of a few commentators yields a variety of different hypotheses as to the purpose of this command:
(1) It profaned the Feast of Ingathering.
(2) It would cause indigestion.
(3) It was cruel to cook a goat in the milk that nourished it.
(4) It was a form of idolatry.
(5) It violated the parent/child relationship.
In other words, nobody seems to know for sure what the purpose was. Yet everyone knows for sure what the meaning is. If purpose determined meaning, then no one would know what the meaning is. Thankfully, it doesn't. What is said is clear apart from why it was said.
Look for Meaning in the Text, Not Beyond It
The meaning is not found beyond the text (in God's mind), beneath the text (in the mystic's mind), or behind the text (in the author's unexpressed intention); it is found in the text (in the author's expressed meaning). For instance, the beauty of a sculpture is not found behind, beneath, or beyond the sculpture. Rather, it is expressed in the sculpture.
All textual meaning is in the text. The sentences (in the context of their paragraphs in the context of the whole piece of literature) are the formal cause of meaning. They are the form that gives meaning to all the parts (words, punctuation, etc.).
Applying the six causes to meaning will help explain the point. Following Aristotle, scholastic philosophers distinguished six different causes:
(1) efficient cause -- that by which something comes to be;
(2) final cause -- that for which something comes to be;
(3) formal cause -- that of which something comes to be;
(4) material cause -- that out of which something comes to be;
(5) exemplar cause -- that after which something comes to be;
(6) instrumental cause -- that through which something comes to be.
. . .
Look for Meaning in Affirmation, Not Implication
Another guideline in discovering the objective meaning of a text is to look for its affirmation, not its implication. Ask what the test affirms (or denies), not what it implies. This is not to say that implications are not possible or important, but only that the basic meaning is not found there. Meaning is in what the text affirms, not in how it can be applied.
There is only one meaning in a text, but there are many implications and applications. In terms of meaning, the sensus unum (one sense) view is correct; however, there is a sensus plenum (full sense) in terms of implication.
-------------
There are huge libraries full of books about how to do this, Rory, and I highly recommend that you get a study Bible, preferably a King James or New King James one. It will have great study notes, cross references, timelines, maps, etc. Maybe it will help you to stop ridiculing the Bible . . . and start loving it as much as I do.
Good luck to you, Sir.#: Posted by on 05/13 at 05:38 PM -
So now we have:
“Yes, it’s true that people who don’t have the Holy Spirit illuminating the meaning of the Bible because they reject Jesus Christ can’t possibly understand the Bible. “
AND:
“It’s the same thing with the Bible or anything else that communicates abstractions. Takes mental muscle power, Duane. No magic, no mumbo-jumbo. That’s why you don’t love the Bible . . . yet.”
You guys impressed? Ever wonder why believers ‘most never make it in big time science?
And, of course, still lying on the table:
We are left with verses 32-42 plainly saying the rods affected offspring. Apparently, only a believer’s mind can wiggle out of it. I see Rory has trouble with that, too. If it meant what Susan says, why would it plainly say something else?
And we are left with varying interpretations from “scholars” who are absolutely persuaded their view is correct. Inerrancy ain’t much good if nobody can prove which view is correct.
#: Posted by on 05/13 at 05:38 PM -
Paul, if I read it from half a world away, maybe cute creationist babes in Australia do too. Besides, at my age I can't afford to be choosy.
#: Posted by John Wilkins on 05/13 at 05:46 PM
-
"Look for Meaning in the Text, Not Beyond It"
I looked. Didn't look like a joke to me. Just looked dumb. You must surely have some magic Spirit to make it not look dumb.
But, I guess, if you introduce enough obfuscation, you might forget what you read plainly said.#: Posted by on 05/13 at 05:53 PM -
You wrote:
"the the fossil record is one big catalog of macroevolutionary events"
Thats called a misleading interpretation. You can't go on lying to yourself while claiming the primacy of science.
#: Posted by Robert Lindauer on 05/14 at 05:52 PM - No, that's a pretty solid interpretation. Macroevolution happens. The challenge is to explain all the processes that drive it.
-
You poor Americans have to put up with so much. In Australia the arugument never gets beyond a loony-toons press release or two.
Not that we don't have loony Christians, but they seriously have very very little political power. Interestingly, they love to bring in guest preachers (and basketballers) from the USA. Not making it in the land of opportunity.
Sort of like KISS doing a world tour while people still remember them.#: Posted by on 05/15 at 06:53 AM -
You know, I've often wondered something along these lines: If God exists and exists in the generally conceived manner (i.e., omnipotent, omniscient, etc.), why does he (I'll use "he" here for ease) not just:
a) say what he means?
and/or
b) drop by sometime?
I'm interested in answers that do not rely on "making a leap of faith," humans still "paying for original sin," etc. How hard could it be for God to be a straightforward kind of guy? The guy created the universe. I would think that, if people knew for certain that God existed and if he were a loving god as many say, people would act more like God wants and be able to love God better (because they know who, what and why they're loving).
Why would such a powerful being go through all the motions of appearing mysterious when he knows that people are only so smart (after all, he created our intelligence) and that we cannot prove that he exists based on this intelligence and the facts we have at our disposal? -
But Isabel, we can prove it. If you call out to Him to come and live in your heart, and be your Lord and Savior, and submit your will, your soul, your mind and your emotions to His reign, then He will show you Who He is. It's a relationship. It's interactive. He communicates through His Word, through providence, through people, through nature and in so many other ways. He has spoken words into my heart -- not audible ones, and there were no thunderclaps, no choir singing -- just total assurance that He is real, He knows me through and through, and He loves me just as I am. It doesn't happen in church, though you can build your knowledge of Him by going to church. It doesn't even happen by reading the Bible, though that's His chief way of teaching us Who He is and what life's all about. No, it only happens in those quiet moments, one-on-One, when the "still, small voice" of the Holy Spirit is able to commune with you.
If God wanted to just make us robots and "download" everything we need to know into us -- program us, if you will -- then what would be the fun of that, for Him? What kind of a love relationship is that? It's why He gave us such great minds, and free will -- because it's like any other love relationship, He wants us to come to know Him and love Him.
That's why the Bible is written in so many genres, including poetry and metaphor. It's like a love letter. It's not marching orders or a laundry list. It's the bridge between us and Him. He wants us to depend on Him, and you learn to live that way by studying His Word, praying and, as we say, "walking" with Him. That's why prophecy and parables are "veiled" to the nonbeliever; it's sort of like a kids' club with its secret codes. It's why unbelievers misunderstand the Bible: they honestly can't understand it, because they're blocking themselves from being part of the group.
As I read this guy's blog, I'm struck by what a smart fellow he really is, but how desperately confused he is. For instance, he wrote a very nice piece about breastfeeding on about the same day as he wrote that irreducible complexity can't possibly prove that we were specially designed. You know, I've breastfed four babies, and I know, for a FACT, that there is no way, Jose, that all the immensely complicated interweavings of the biological features that make breastfeeding possible, can't have evolved little step by little step.
Perhaps this blogger's problem is that he's a guy. He never felt those early-pregnancy explosions in your breasts that signify they're getting read to start making milk. He never felt a little one's powerful (and thank God, toothless) jaws "stripping" the milk out of the ducts. He doesn't know what it feels like to be depleted and exhausted the way breastfeeding makes you feel, and yet at the same time, the very action of being emptied is the biological trigger to give you good-feeling endorphins so that your body can regain the strength to make more milk.
This may be trite, but in many ways, I feel like I am spiritually "nursing" onto Father God day by day -- totally dependent on Him, totally in awe of His love, grace and power.
I can only wish the same beautiful, blessed assurance of His reality and the truth of the Bible, for you and the ones who read this blog.
#: Posted by on 05/15 at 10:26 AM -
Susan, that was certainly a heartfelt response, but I'm afraid it did not answer my question, and it certainly was not an objective attempt. I'm looking for an answer that makes more objective sense than the usual "if you'd only open your heart..." type of response.
If God wanted to just make us robots and “download” everything we need to know into us—program us, if you will—then what would be the fun of that, for Him? What kind of a love relationship is that? It’s why He gave us such great minds, and free will—because it’s like any other love relationship, He wants us to come to know Him and love Him.
I don't see one should attribute wanting/needing fun to God. I thought God was supposed to be perfect, neither in want nor need of anything. It seems odd to think God looks to humans for diversion. Also, God needn't program everything; he could just allow himself to be known concretely. We would still be able to use our minds and free will as we wish. Furthermore, a lot of people have suffered, are presently suffering and I'm sure will suffer in their attempt to have a relationship with God. I don't see how that could be fun for God, much less anyone else.
You know, I’ve breastfed four babies, and I know, for a FACT, that there is no way, Jose, that all the immensely complicated interweavings of the biological features that make breastfeeding possible, can’t have evolved little step by little step.
I'm afraid you do not know this for a fact based on your breastfeeding experience. I'm sure your breastfeeding experience was a wonderful bonding experience with your children, but it did not give you direct knowledge about the origin of breastfeeding, as if by osmosis. It may leave you wondering at the breastfeeding mechanism; many natural mechanismsm, occurrences, etc. are fascinating. That doesn't prove divine origin. If we could gain knowledge of things in that way, we'd know a lot more about a lot more things than we do now.
Perhaps this blogger’s problem is that he’s a guy.
I don't see how that has any relevance to an existence of God discussion beyond the very limited sphere of trying to explain breastfeeding; and even there, explaining X can be done by someone who has not experienced X, so a blogger's gender is irrelevant. Plus, we don't always know the genders of those with whom we communicate.
Basically, I am looking for the most reasonable yet objective response to my questions. At this point, we can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God, we can only make arguments for one or the other and judge for ourselves which argument is most plausible. Personally, I'm on our blog host's side on this one, however, I'm curious as to whether there exists any rational argument for belief in such a deity. It needn't be a scientific rational (in fact, the proponents are probably better off not trying to be scientific in this case); a philosophical argument may be reasonable enough. -
But Isabel, He does say what He means (in the Bible) and He DOES drop by -- each and every second of each and every day, for those of us who love Him and welcome Him. The Holy Spirit "indwells" the believer, and Jesus Christ came to Earth the first time, to do exactly what you ask.
There are so many funny things in the Bible -- of COURSE God loves fun.
He doesn't look to us for diversion, but for love.
If we knew everything concretely, our necks couldn't hold our heads up, our brains would have to be so big :>) and anyway, if God told us everything that has happened and is going to happen, our heads would explode. For example, if you knew for a fact that the Second Coming was not going to be 'til the year 3004, you'd live a far different life than the one you're living now, would you not? Now imagine that you knew for a FACT that it's going to be TOMORROW. Think how "holy" you'd get, in a big, honkin' hurry, too. What kind of a deal would that be, on God's end, to "force" us to know Him and to love Him just because of "what's in it for us?"
People who suffer trying to have a relationship with God are probably too self-centered in their approach. Try being God-centered. That means watch your input -- control your thought life -- and have a conversation with Him as you would with anybody else you'd like to befriend. If you ridicule the Bible and spend all your time on websites like this, how can you possibly have friendly feelings toward God? Instead, study the Bible, hang out with believers, attend church, read scholarly Christian books or devotionals . . . really try in a productive way. It's OK to be skeptical, but remember, He's not a magic trick, nor is He a slot machine or short-order cook that you can manipulate or demand things from. You can't "order" Him to materialize or show you that He's real. But if you sincerely ask Him to show you that, in a reverent way, whatever your style of reverence is, then believe me, He will . . . and you'll be amazed.
A lot of people get up in the middle of the night, go outside and sit in a lawn chair just looking at the stars and talking to God. I think it helps a lot to get rid of distractions, like that. Model: first praise God, then confess anything you need to confess, then ask for what you need or want to know for yourself or others, and then thank Him for all the things He's already done.
As for your request, there are four arguments for God's existence:
The cosmological argument (the law of causality; every finite thing is caused by something other than itself)
The teleological argument (all designs imply a designer; there is great design in the universe; therefore, there must be a Great Designer of the universe)
The argument from moral law (we all are without excuse for doing things that are wrong since there is a "law written upon our hearts" that we call "moral law" -- moral laws imply a Moral Law Giver; there is an objective moral law; therefore, there is a Moral Law Giver)
The ontological argument (God is by definition an absolutely perfect being; but existence is a perfection; therefore, God must exist . . . if God exists, we must conceive of Him as a Necessary Being; but by definition, a Necessary Being cannot NOT exist; therefore, if a Necessary Being can, then it must, exist)
There are many others: the axiological argument, the anthropological argument, and the argument from religious experience (the latter is what I was using with my analogy about how breastfeeding disproves evolution). The best is C.S. Lewis' "Argument From Joy." That'n can't be beat. :>)
I'd recommend the "Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics" by Norman L. Geisler (1999, 841 pp.), a trip to the theology department of a university library, browsing through a Christian bookstore or, best of all, call a minister and make an appointment to talk about this over coffee.
You are welcome to visit my blog, too: http://www.DailySusan.blogspot.com
Good luck to you.#: Posted by on 05/15 at 04:34 PM -
You know, I’ve breastfed four babies, and I know, for a FACT, that there is no way, Jose, that all the immensely complicated interweavings of the biological features that make breastfeeding possible, can’t have evolved little step by little step.
Perhaps this blogger’s problem is that he’s a guy.
You know, I've knocked up a woman three times, and if you weren't a woman maybe you'd be able to appreciate the deep spiritual power...nah, I'd be lyin'. This whole awestruck wonder at the intensity and complexity of natural processes is routine. The difference between you and me is that I don't leap to the assumption that magical superbeings are responsible; I'm much more impressed by the reality than a fantasy spawned by ignorance.
And that whole ontological/cosmological/teleological/moral law argument and apologetics mish-mash? Phbtbtbt. Been there, laughed at it. Anyone who thinks it is worth considering is certainly welcome to visit your blog, but here, I'm just going to consider it the flibbertigibbet joke-of-the-day. -
Susan, perhaps I'm not making it clear enough that, to repeat from a prior post, I am uninterested in responses along the lines of "if you'd only open your heart," etc.
But Isabel, He does say what He means (in the Bible) and He DOES drop by—each and every second of each and every day, for those of us who love Him and welcome Him. The Holy Spirit “indwells” the believer, and Jesus Christ came to Earth the first time, to do exactly what you ask.
That does not answer the question I asked re: why God doesn't just stop by so we can see him for ourselves.
If we knew everything concretely, our necks couldn’t hold our heads up, our brains would have to be so big :>) and anyway, if God told us everything that has happened and is going to happen, our heads would explode.
God could create a manageable size brain that held more information than our present brains. Also, I did not ask why God doesn't tell us everything concretely; I asked re: why God doesn't let us know of his existence concretely. He need not tell us anything about the second coming, or anything else, for that matter. One wouldn't need to know when the second coming would be, if one knew concretely that God exists. If I die tomorrow, and God, heaven and hell exist, I'll go one way or another, even though a second coming hasn't occurred.
People who suffer trying to have a relationship with God are probably too self-centered in their approach.
I was referring to people who, for example, have died for their faith.
...the anthropological argument, and the argument from religious experience (the latter is what I was using with my analogy about how breastfeeding disproves evolution).
Again, I'm afraid that is an insufficient disproof re: evolution.
I'm aware of the arguments you presented. I'm looking for an argument wherein one can rationally and intelligently evaluate both sides and, while recognizing and accepting the evolution argument, still decide to believe in some form of a deity. There are many intelligent, accomplished people who somehow come to this conclusion and I am very curious as to how they get there.
You know, I’ve knocked up a woman three times, and if you weren’t a woman maybe you’d be able to appreciate the deep spiritual power...nah, I’d be lyin’. This whole awestruck wonder at the intensity and complexity of natural processes is routine.
PZ, funny...naughty, but funny. I must disagree with you, however, regarding the routine nature of, well, nature. I think it's fascinating! I don't know anything about that critter in one of your prior posts, the one who was prserved molting, but I think that stuff is so neat. I really enjoy reading about the cool and often weird (to me) things that organisms do. Thanks for a great website.
-
Isabel, that same "Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics" I referred to before has a good explanation of why any form of evolutionary theory, including "theistic evolution," such as you mentioned, is irrational on its face.
#: Posted by on 05/15 at 08:57 PM -
First, you gotta believe. There’s just no getting around it. You have to take that leap of faith. And, of course, once that is done, you see that it is true. That one lapse surely opens the door to all of our religions.
None of them can stand without that lapse. But once that is done, all sorts of things become believable. You just have to relax your standards of what qualifies as evidence. Everything can become interaction with God if you just look at it that way. Ask Susan about messages from God on vanity license plates. With enough practice, you can believe some pretty wild stuff. They ought to have a contest. Who can truly believe the most unbelievable things.... Put it on TV alongside the weightlifters.
Susan’s “proofs”, of course, have never survived serious scrutiny.
We may never understand the base origin and mechanics of our existence, but just asserting that it is all God magic is just a cop out.
If complexity implies design and design implies a designer, then you are left with a funny feeling when you assert that the ultimate designer wasn’t complex enough to require a designer. i.e. the conclusion involves an exception to the rule that was assumed in the argument. Same deal for the first cause argument.
Absolutely perfect being by definition is just plain silly. If you can conceive it, it will exist...
We have a moral sense so moral absolutes must exist and God must be their source? Never mind that these senses vary by culture, not to mention species.
#: Posted by on 05/16 at 05:59 AM - If this “Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics” is actually arguing for creationism, then it is yet another eructation of stupid, pathological religion that ignores reality to favor distortions and lies.
-
First, you gotta believe. There’s just no getting around it. You have to take that leap of faith. And, of course, once that is done, you see that it is true. That one lapse surely opens the door to all of our religions.
See, that's just it...how do otherwise intelligent, admirable folks make that leap, folks who acknowledge that their belief lacks proof? -
Isabelle, most people make that 'leap' when they are children. Children are naturally gullible; they have to be. As a child you need to listen to and believe everything a parent says so that you accept "putting your hand in the fire will hurt" and "don't annoy the big dog". That this is abused by parents to make their children believe "magic man in the sky did it" is an unfortunate side-effect.
As for people who convert later in life, there are a few explanations. One is trauma bringing about a feeling of lonliness or helplessness which will lead people to accept religion. They often feel much more need for comfort than truth, so reason is abandoned in favour of comfort. There are surely others.
Basically it all seems to come about from a desire for some feeling of comfort, or companionship without regard for truth. When I ask people why they continue to believe I often hear in response "I don't want to live in a world without God". That makes it pretty clear doesn't it? These people don't hold truth to be the most important attribute of their beliefs. It all boils down to "I believe these things are true because I want them to be true."#: Posted by Rory Parle on 05/17 at 07:02 AM -
One of the smartest people who ever lived, author and professor C.S. Lewis, was an atheist for half his life and converted to Christianity when his own great mind finally gave him no other choice. He wrote an incredible number of incredibly powerful Christian books in the last half of his life. I'd recommend a biography of C.S. Lewis, Isabel, for a great example of high-octane intelligence making that leap of faith to a relationship with God.
Another smart person who was a longtime avowed atheist is Lee Strobel, a graduate of Yale Law School and an award-winning journalist at the Chicago Tribune. He's now a pastor and has written some great blockbuster books, including the excellent "The Case for Christ." As a lawyer and a journalist, he set out to DISPROVE Christ's existence . . . and wound up, like so many others, being transformed into a Christian.
Isabel, I wonder if this quote from our church program Sunday might enlighten you:
"There is a God we want, and there is a God who is. They are not the same God. . . . The turning point of our lives is when we stop seeking the God we want and start seeking the God who is." -- Patrick Morley
Blessings on your week.#: Posted by on 05/17 at 07:51 AM -
"C.S. Lewis was an atheist for half his life and converted to Christianity when his own great mind finally gave him no other choice."
That's not much of a leap of faith is it? You're contradicting yourself. If a great mind could be left with no choice but Christianity then why can I name a hundred great atheist minds for every one great Christian mind you come up with?
If CS Lewis was one of the smartest men who ever lived and that led him to have no option but Christianity then why didn't Albert Einstein believe in God? Surely he had a far greater understanding of the world than anyone before him, yet he felt no need to rely on a magic man to explain the world to him.#: Posted by Rory Parle on 05/17 at 09:25 AM -
Haven’t seen the Lewis books, but I can tell you the Strobel book is a loser. The “search” it describes is basically going round to a bunch of Christian professionals asking if this or that in the Bible could be true. Want to guess what they said? I can’t imagine it impressing any non-Christian.
It is instructive to compare Strobel with “Losing Faith in Faith” by Dan Barker.
#: Posted by on 05/17 at 10:42 AM -
I wouldn’t think it a very good strategy for Christian evangelists to dwell on the great minds category. By now, folks pretty much know that the great minds in science are mostly atheists.
#: Posted by on 05/17 at 10:48 AM
-
Rory, you're dead wrong about Einstein:
http://www.ctinquiry.org/publications/torrance.htm
#: Posted by on 05/17 at 01:24 PM -
http://www.skeptic.com/archives50.html
#: Posted by on 05/18 at 03:38 AM
-
Susan, in case you don't want to read the whole page linked to by Duane, here's enough to start:
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
- Einstein, 1954 letter to an atheist. (Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press, 1981.)#: Posted by Rory Parle on 05/18 at 05:28 AM -
Susan,
Still missing from all your verbose responses is an explanation of why the author of Genesis is not making a false causal claim about how goats come to have their spots (or how a particular herd of goats came to have their spots) when he or she writes:
the goats mated by the rods, and so they brought forth streaked, speckled and spotted kids.
The author is plainly claiming that the goats brought forth spotted offspring because they mated by the rods. Is is true that mating by particular rods can produce spotted offspring or did the author of Genesis say something false?
#: Posted by on 05/18 at 08:52 AM -
Well, Rory, there are a number of quotes that shed more light on Einstein's beliefs in the aforementioned "Baker's Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics," by Norman Geisler, pp. 213-215.
Sounds as though he was bitter toward God in the face of the European holocaust.
In The Private Albert Einstein by P.A. Bucky, quoted in the Geisler book, Einstein says: "In essence, my religion consists of a humble admiration for this illimitable superior spirit that reveals itself in the slight details that we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds."
Quoting the Geisler book on p. 215:
"Einstein first opposed the mounting evidence for a big bang origin, perhaps realizing its theistic implications. In order to avoid this conclusion, Einstein added a 'fudge factor' in his equations, only to be embarrassed later when his maneuver was noticed. To his credit, he eventually admitted his error and concluded that the universe was created. Thus, he wrote of his desire to know how God created this world. He said, 'I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thought; the rest are details.''' (N. Herbert, Quantum Reality: Beyond the New Physics)
That's a far cry from the conclusion you're apparently drawing from what you cited.
There's a lot more to this, in other words, than reading one quote from a private letter. Best to get a sense of Einstein's whole body of thought on this, and review it in the context of history and so forth.
You might like the article, "Faith and Reason," in the same book, pp. 239-243. Aquinas points out that we need reason before, during and after beliefs are acquired, and that even the mysteries of faith are not irrational. However, reason alone cannot bring anyone to faith. That's done only by the grace of God. Faith can at best only be supported by reason, but not totally objectively based on it. Why? Because God has given each of us free choice. God won't "win" anybody by force, by coercing faith . . . not even yours. :>)
Why not? Because He loves you, Baby . . . and He wants it to be reciprocal. :>)
Good luck to you.#: Posted by on 05/18 at 10:23 PM -
To "Girl With Curious" -- First, better get a King James Version. It's the most precise one. There's no "so" in it in the verse you quote. Here's the proper passage:
And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted. -- Genesis 30:39
It's dripping with irony, but if you don't use the tools of literary analysis -- including a knowledge of the customs and contrasting belief systems of the day -- you won't "get it."
Again, this was a smart trick by Jacob; he did not buy into the pagan superstition about the spotted branches producing spotted animal offspring, but his inlaw tormentors did. So he "hoisted 'em by their own petard" and parodied their superstition, making fools out of them -- a perfectly legitimate and humorous shell game. :>)
Here are two excellent Bible commentaries that may explain this burlesque by Jacob more clearly for you. I highly recommend 'em to help understand and appreciate the Bible:
". . . (Laban) forgot his bargaining instincts and agreed right away. We can almost hear the contempt in his voice as he said, 'Good! Let it be as you have said.' So contemptuous indeed was he of this 'sucker' of a son-in-law that he removed the mottled animals and black lambs from his present flocks. Jacob would only get those that came along in the future.
"But Jacob was ready even for this ploy. The audience by now would be smiling broadly. The crooked Laban was about to get his come-uppance. And when they heard how he got it, there would be many audible titters and not a few loud guffaws."
-- The Daily Study Bible Series: Genesis, Vol. 2, John C.L. Gibson, Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1982, p. 185.
"The results of his (Jacob's) method, however, were not unscientific. Tinkle writes that Laban 'had indeed taken the ones which were visibly spotted but the rest were heterozygous for spotting -- there were latent genes for that pattern -- and spotted kids were the logical result. Breeding tests have shown that spotting is recessive to solid color in goats. Modern genetic studies on dominance and latency have cleared this incident, which at one time seemed to link the Bible with groundless supposition" (Davis, p. 250). Jacob's success was also attributed to selective breeding (vss. 40-42) in addition to divine help (31:10-12).
-- King James Bible Commentary, Edward G. Dobson, Charles L. Feinberg, Edward E. Hindson et. al., Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1999, p. 59.
Hope this answers your question.
Blessings!#: Posted by on 05/18 at 11:23 PM -
Einstein used God as an illustration. He didn't believe - at least after his childhood - in a personal God. He stated this outright on several occasions. The quote I gave was only the beginning. Like I said if you want more check out Duane's link.
#: Posted by Rory Parle on 05/19 at 05:36 AM
-
Jacob is a complex, pivotal character in Jewish and Christian tradition. Genesis 30 and surrounding chapters have stimulated lots of scholarly articles by both Jewish and Christian theologians. This literature doesn't focus on the "genetics" question. Genesis 30 (in King James or any other version) clearly implies that Jacob (and the narrator) thought characteristics of offspring could both be inherited, and affected by the setting in which conception occurs. Saying that Jacob only pretended to accept the latter is an ad hoc attempt to save the Bible's or Jacob's assumed scientific inerrancy. Susan is correct that there is lots of humor and intrigue going on between Jacob and Laban, and she's right about the need to understand the Bible in the context in which it was written. But the goal of understanding what is of value in the text is compromised, not advanced, but suggesting that Jacob somehow already knew about modern genetics. http://nrcse.creighton.edu has more information supporting the view that the Bible (and God) can be taken seriously without insisting that the Bible is a completely inerrant science or history textbook. And here's a list of books that I think might be worth considering: http://www.scienceandreligionbooks.org/BOD
Best wishes. -
Yet another scholarly "take" on Genesis 30 that sides with moi:
http://cgca.net/ucg/brp/brp0203.pdf
These dudes were a lot smarter than many of you dudes think. :>) And the Bible is, too, absolutely inerrant when it comes to science. AND THAT'S A FACK, JACK.
Best wishes to you, too, Chuck -- methinks the Creighton U. Chuck, eh? :>)#: Posted by on 05/19 at 03:06 PM -
And the Bible is, too, absolutely inerrant when it comes to science.
Does anyone else think that Susan should be denied the benefits - immediate or indirect - of any science that's directly contradicted by the Bible? It would be an interesting experiment but for two reasons. One, it would obviously be impossible to orchestrate as the entire world is hugely dependent on the science of the last several hundred years. Two, it would certainly result in fatality.#: Posted by Rory Parle on 05/19 at 04:48 PM -
:>) OK, Rory, let's see what you've got, Big Boy. Throw me your best fastball -- one specific Bible verse which you think is scientifically in error, and why you think so.
#: Posted by on 05/19 at 05:04 PM
-
The omission of “so” does little to alter the meaning of this story. A fair reading clearly has it saying the rods had an effect. Susan belatedly notes that God helped. She might have had a better chance if she characterized the rods as some sort of incantation to facilitate a miracle. Like Moses striking a rock to part the waters. Too late now.
It’s a safe bet that the person that made up this story bought into the rods and miracles myths.
This thread is illustrative of how hermeneutics works in practice. Once you have faith, knowing the Bible can’t be false, but faced with text that sure looks false, you then scramble in the weeds for a different take on it. If it doesn’t make sense, you try to throw some extra context at it. If that doesn't work, maybe it’s a miracle. If the miracle creates other problems then it was poetic, an analogy, or metaphor. i.e. The sun SEEMED to stop, etc.
I wonder if believers’ brains are curlier than ours to facilitate such twisted thinking.
#: Posted by on 05/19 at 05:53 PM -
OK, Rory, let’s see what you’ve got, Big Boy. Throw me your best fastball—one specific Bible verse which you think is scientifically in error, and why you think so.
I wasn't aware the Bible made any scientific claims. Can you describe some?
#: Posted by on 05/19 at 07:02 PM -
Susan, I read the Bible study re. Genesis 30 at the link you posted. The author of the Bible study says nothing about your idea that Jacob, in order to outwit Laban, pretended to accept the prevailing superstitious belief (that environment experienced by parents at conception affects traits of offspring). Nor does the author of the Bible study think that Jacob had superior awareness of genetic recessiveness. On the contrary, the Bible study author emphatically argues that God miraculously caused the coloration of the goats, in response to Jacob's growth in moral character.
I didn't see the Bible study author's name listed, but I think his or her view is not one shared by most Bible scholars.
Yes, I am the Creighton Chuck.
Take care.
-
I think we need to back up here for a second. I'm not entirely sure what you guys are talking about in the first place. And it is quite possible you're all talking past each other. So, here is a question for anyone, but preferably for those who assert its existence:
What is God?#: Posted by on 05/20 at 08:22 AM -
Hi, Chuck: Well, you have to remember that the key goal of the ancient Bible writers was for their audiences to understand them. Somebody in 2004 who doesn't know the Bible, doesn't know history, etc. etc., may not "get it" with this passage, but don't blame me. :>) Of course I could be wrong, but I really don't think I am. It's as funny as the idol Dagon falling in the night and breaking (1 Samuel 5:3,4) -- but in the Bible, it doesn't say "that was funny" -- you have to "get it" on your own.
To understand the Biblie, you have to be familiar with the various forms of context -- literary context, symbolism, metaphors, relationship to the whole Bible, historical-cultural background, word meanings, grammatical relationships. Many passages have multi-layered, polyvalent nuances that I really don't think you can understand unless you're really tight with the Holy Spirit :>) and have studied pretty hard over a period of years. But the people of that day would have "gotten it" right away on this story.
It's the same thing with Elijah challenging Jezebel's 850 pagan prophets in 1 Kings 18. It's one of the most hilarious moments in the Bible, in the same spirit as Jacob mocking the pagan superstition about breeding patterns. Elijah told them to meet him on Mount Carmel to prove which side really had God on their side. Remember? They shouted out to Baal from dawn 'til dusk, cut themselves, danced around and woo-woo'ed, etc. etc. Nothing happened. Elijah made fun of them: "What? You guys getting a busy signal? Maybe your god is asleep?" etc. etc. and then when it was his turn, he set things up as God had explicitly directed, prayed, God sent fire, and in verse 39 you see the result: "And when all the people saw it, they fell on their faces: and they said, The Lord, he is the God; the Lord, he is the God."
What that story doesn't say explicitly, but if you knew the historical background, you would "get," is that the pagan prophets of the time would have all these elaborate rituals inside their temples where their idols appeared to move and shake -- (I guess that's where we get our expression "movers and shakers" :>) ) and the people would all get thrilled and trembly and give them all their dough, etc. . . . but the thing is, they had RIGGED it with ropes and levers! Kind of a "Wizard of Oz" type deal. So when Elijah challenged them to meet him on the mountain, they couldn't cheat . . . and God kicked their b____ts and exposed their deceit.
You wouldn't have grasped the irony and humor of that if you didn't know that they regularly cheated in the temple. See?
It's the same thing with Jacob's ruse of putting the trickily-cut branches in the troughs -- to make the dumb pagans think it was "magic" -- a little misdirection, like a good old-fashioned Husker football running play -- so he could get away with it. But all it was, was God and His wonderful invention of genetics, which Jacob had had PLENTY of time to observe in his many years of herdsmanship, along with his observations about the benefits of selective breeding. Yes, God did it, but Jacob benefitted from God's provision by observing reality and using it to his best advantage.
So many years out there with the sheep and the goats . . . I guess you could say that made Jacob learn how to KID!!!! :>)#: Posted by on 05/20 at 09:38 AM -
Susan,
Some quotes from Genesis 5
Thus all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died.
Thus all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years; and he died.
Thus all the days of Enosh were nine hundred and five years; and he died.
Thus all the days of Kenan were nine hundred and ten years; and he died.
Thus all the days of Ma-hal'alel were eight hundred and ninety-five years; and he died. Thus all the days of Jared were nine hundred and sixty-two years; and he died.
Thus all the days of Enoch were three hundred and sixty-five years.
Thus all the days of Methu'selah were nine hundred and sixty-nine years; and he died.
Thus all the days of Lamech were seven hundred and seventy-seven years; and he died.
Is your interpretation of these Bible verses that humans can live for nine hundred and sixty years?
Is this a scientific fact?#: Posted by on 05/20 at 10:15 AM -
Hi, Jonathan: There's an excellent synopsis in Chapter 11, "The Cumulative Case for a Creator," in the book, "The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence That Points Toward God," by Lee Strobel (Zondervan, 2004, 340 pp.).
It's all in the Bible, as the author points out on pp. 284-285:
God is Creator (Psalm 102:25)
God is unique (Deuteronomy 4:35)
God is uncaused and timeless (Psalm 90:2)
God is immaterial, meaning "spirit" (John 4:24)
God is personal (Genesis 17:1)
God gives freedom of will (Genesis 1:3)
God is intelligent and rational (Psalm 104:24)
God is enormously powerful (Nahum 1:3)
God is creative (Psalm 139:13,14)
God is caring (Psalm 33:5)
God is omnipresent (1 Kings 8:27)
God has given humankind purpose (Colossians 1:16)
God provides for life after death (Isaiah 25:8)
A note to atheists, agnostics and skeptics in Romans 1:20-22 :
"For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools."
If you want to know Who God is, Jonathan, just ask Him to show you, and read your Bible, particularly the book of John.
Good luck to you.#: Posted by on 05/20 at 11:20 AM -
To Andy:
Well, since I recently had a "whoopsie daisy," late in life baby, I guess I can identify with Noah, who became a father at age 500! :>)
It is thought that either these lengths of years reflect longlasting family dynasties, rather than ages of individual men . . . OR that they really did live that long. Those who believe the latter say the human race was more genetically pure in this early time period, so there was less disease to shorten life span; that no rain had yet fallen on earth so the firmament kept out harmful cosmic rays and shielded people from environmental factors has hasten aging while at the same time there was more oxygen because there were so few people, or that God gave people longer lives so that they would have time to fill the earth (Genesis 1:28).
Here's another illustration of the usefulness of hermeneutics -- to understand the Bible, you have to follow certain disciplines of interpretation. One of those disciplines involves the principles of genealogy, one of the key genres of the Scriptures. Here's how the reference book, "Hard Sayings of the Bible" by Walter C. Kaiser Jr. et. al. (InterVarsity Press, 1996, 808 pp.) approaches this problem. A long quote from pp. 102-103:
1. Abridgment is the general rule because the sacred writers did not want to encumber their pages with more names than necessary.
2. Omission in genealogies are fairly routine. For example, Matthew 1:8 omits three names between Joram and Ozias (Uzziah); namely, Ahaziah (2 Kings 8:25), Joash (2 Kings 12:1) and Amaziah (2 Kings 14:1). In verse 11, Matthew omits Jehoiakim (2 Kings 23:34). In fact, in Matthew 1:1 the whole of two millenia are summed up in two giant steps: "Jesus Christ, the son of David (about 1,000 B.C.), the son of Abraham (about 2,000 B.C.)."
3. The span of a biblical "generation" is more than our twenty to thirty years. In Syriac it equals eighty years. Often in the Exodus account a generation is 100 to 120 years.
4. The meanings of "begat," "son of," "father of" and even "bore a son" often have special nuances, as the context often indicates. To "beget" often means no more than "to become the ancestor of." To be "the father of" often means being a grandfather or great-grandfather. The point is that the next key person was descended from that male named "father" in the text.
The most instructive lesson of all can be gleaned from Kohath's descent into Egypt (Genesis 46:-11) some 430 years (Exodus 12:40) before the exodus. Now if Moses (one in the Kohath line) was 80 years odl at the time of the exodus (Exodus 7:7), and no gaps (such as are suggested by the above-mentioned principles) are understood (as we believe the evidence above now forces us to concede), then the "grandfather" of Moses had in Moses' lifetime 8,600 descendants. Amazing as that might seem, here is the real shocker: 2,750 of those 8,600 descendants were males between the ages of 30 and 50 (Numbers 3:19, 27-28, 34; 4:36)! It is difficult to believe that the writers of Scripture were that naive.
The form that Genesis 5 and 11 use, with few exceptions, is a stereotypic formula giving the age of the patriarch at the birth of his son, the number of years that he lived after the birth of that son, and then the total number of years that he lived until he died. It is the question of the function of these numbers that attracts our attention here.
Since Zilpah is credited with "bearing" her grandchildren (Genesis 46:18) and Bilhah is said to "bear" her grandchildren as well (Genesis 46:25), it is clear that a legitimate usage of these numbers in the genealogies might well mean that B was a distant relative of A. In this case, the age of A is the age at the birth of that (unnamed) child from whom B (eventually) descended.
The ages given for the "father" when the "son" was born must be actual years, as we shall presently see. The conflation takes place not at the point of supplying the actual years at which the father had a child; it is instead at the point where the name of the next noteworthy descendant is given instead of the immediate son. The ages given function as an indicator of the fact that the effects of the Fall into sin had not yet affected human generative powers as seriously as they have more recently. The same point, of course, is to be made with regard to human longevity. The fact that the record wishes to stress is the sad mortality of men and women as a result of the sin in the Garden of Eden. The repeated litany "and he died" echoes from the pages like the solemn toll of a funeral bell.
Attempts to make the numbers more palatable have been crushed by the internal weight of their own argumentation or from a failure to care for all the data in a single theory. One abortive attempt was to treat the names as names of tribes rather than as names of individuals. This would seem to work until we meet up with Enoch, who was taken to heaven. It hardly seems fair to imply that the whole Enoch tribe was taken to heaven, so we are left with the idea that