I think the issue is that what Jacob says in chapter 31 doesn't appear earlier in the story and seems to be at odds with it.
Right, together the story doesn't really add up.
There is another way to explain that. Jacob was lying.
And I think that's the answer. We know that Jacob is a trickster-type. We know that it would be perfectly easy for the author to use Jacob's explanation from chapter 31 instead of the story we do get. So why didn't he ? Why is the author's version of the events so different from Jacob's ?
I think that Jacob is saying that God did it to cover up his trickery and justify his claim to the animals. It's the sort of thing that he would do.
You know what: I think you're absolutely correct.
Jacob did use the wood to make the colored offspring. But when it came time to explain to Laban's daughters how he had gotten his flock, he was all: "Er, I had a dream, and uh, God made it all happen, yeah, that's how it went down".
So yeah, that makes sense. He was just covering his ass.
The other possibility is the one given by Jar regarding other Biblical stories. There are plenty of these kinds of inconsistencies in the Bible. Those mixups might well result from the stories being told over and over again by different people.
The truth of the matter is that it really does not matter much how the sheep gained their color. What matters is that the result was supernatural. Quite frankly, marc9000's belief that the breeding was natural and not supernatural makes Jacob even more of a trickster. I'm not sure why he prefers it.
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy. Richard P. Feynman
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
Remember the God character in the Jacob stories is also a trickster and a bully. The stories are about the founding of the tribe and people "Israel" and so mythos.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
The other possibility is the one given by Jar regarding other Biblical stories. There are plenty of these kinds of inconsistencies in the Bible. Those mixups might well result from the stories being told over and over again by different people.
Sure. I think we should expect some mix-ups and convolutions and things like that, although, on the other hand, if we're talking about the direct word of God then you'd think that stuff wouldn't be there.
The truth of the matter is that it really does not matter much how the sheep gained their color.
Yeah, not so much for the bigger picture, but I think the author did think that you really could affect the offspring with the environment.
What matters is that the result was supernatural.
Here's where I disagree. The story, itself, describes it as a natural process using pieces of wood.
And that's why I brought it up for the literalists, because the natural process it describes is now known to be wrong.
Quite frankly, marc9000's belief that the breeding was natural and not supernatural makes Jacob even more of a trickster.
I don't think making Jacob a trickster is a problem for him.
I'm not sure why he prefers it.
He's trying to maintain a literally inerrant Bible.
™ Version 4.0 Beta
