Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8751 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-26-2017 10:31 PM
118 online now:
Asgara (AdminAsgara), Coragyps, DrJones*, Meddle, Tangle, Tanypteryx (6 members, 112 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Roshankumar1234
Post Volume:
Total: 809,072 Year: 13,678/21,208 Month: 3,160/3,605 Week: 502/933 Day: 40/51 Hour: 0/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
67
8
910
...
13Next
Author Topic:   Biblical Eugenics - being wrong about how to colorize your goats
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12688
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 106 of 185 (706742)
09-17-2013 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by Alias
09-16-2013 7:07 PM


quote:

Right. Either way you get weak colored that were not used to mate present.

There's no mention of that at all. By the story, the weaker animals are permitted to breed and the only influence on the coats of the offspring is the presence or absence of the rods - there's no suggestion of anything else.

quote:

It does not jive if laban took the colored in 35.

I have no idea what your point is here. There's no problem in verses 41-42 with Laban taking the "coloured" sheep that were currently in his flock at verse 35.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Alias, posted 09-16-2013 7:07 PM Alias has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Alias, posted 09-17-2013 2:35 PM PaulK has responded

    
Alias
Member (Idle past 1031 days)
Posts: 95
From: USA
Joined: 06-21-2011


Message 107 of 185 (706776)
09-17-2013 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by PaulK
09-17-2013 1:32 AM


contradiction
Hello Paulk, I am not really wanting to further this conversation because I don't think this story happened, it is not god inspired scripture and I agree at this point in time that it is a clear issue for biblical literalists. However, I thought I would respond to you to sum up the conversation. I will draw out the contradiction in the story and leave it at that. I realize you may respond with a disagreement but that is fine we can disagree about the contradiction. It does not change much in the overall story (I've changed my mind in contrast to prev post about the overall point of this story). I have already noted that there are several views of this story and this won't change in my mind (which you admitted 30:40 does not fit well). In any case the story was most likely added by the jews to show the overall story of how amazing god is to its faithful.

Alias writes:

Right. Either way you get weak colored that were not used to mate present.

paulk writes:

There's no mention of that at all. By the story, the weaker animals are permitted to breed and the only influence on the coats of the offspring is the presence or absence of the rods - there's no suggestion of anything else.

If you read 39;

quote:
NIV 39 they mated in front of the branches. And they bore young that were streaked or speckled or spotted.

Here we see colored flocks being born/breed by jacob with the usage of the rods (Colored flock born after all of laban's colored flock were removed by laban in 35. So there is no way for jacob to breed colored flock without the rods because he does not have access to colored flock as of V 35.).

If you read 40 (FYI: I added grouping to the quote to help with understanding of my point);

quote:
NIV 40 Jacob set apart the young of the flock by themselves (group 1), but made the rest (group 2) face the streaked and dark-colored animals that belonged to Laban (group 3). Thus he made separate flocks for himself and did not put them with Laban’s animals.

Jacob separated flocks facing flocks toward laban's colored flock (here we see two groups laban's colored flocks and the flocks facing laban's flocks (yellow and green groups). It is 2 separate groups facing each other but both of these 2 groups are laban's). We also see another group of flocks being separated by themselves (jacob's new flock the orange group).

Next we will see another factor in how jacob separated them (other than the 3 groups).

quote:
NIV 41 Whenever the stronger females were in heat, Jacob would place the branches in the troughs in front of the animals so they would mate near the branches,

Here we see that jacob favored using the strong cattle when he was breeding. Group 1 (the young and strong cattle).

Next we will see the contradiction laid out. It is all relative to v 40.

quote:
NIV 42 but if the animals were weak, he would not place them there. So the weak animals went to Laban and the strong ones to Jacob.

Interpretation of facts: Here we see that jacob didn't use weak cattle to breed. Then it reads the weak animals went to laban and the strong to jacob. So (group 2) and (group 3) from v 40, (group 2) being the the group of weak flock (according to 42 since he didn't use them to mate) facing the colored flock (since they were present per v 40) and (group 3) being the colored flock of laban's (from v 40).

Conclusion of contradiction: Colored flock present during jacob's breeding event. IF laban removed the colored flock in v 35 how is this possible for these colored flock to be present during jacob's breeding event in 37-42?

Edited by Alias, : err

Edited by Alias, : err

Edited by Alias, : err

Edited by Alias, : err


Thanks
Alias :-)

FYI:

"Imagination is more important than knowledge." -Albert Einstein

"One of the saddest lessons of history is this: if we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we've been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back" - Carl Sagan -Demon Haunted World

"The whole history of science has been the gradual realization that events do not happen in an arbitrary manner, but that they reflect a certain underlying order, which may or may not be divinely inspired." -Stephen Hawking

"Before God we are all equally wise and equally foolish." -Albert Einstein


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by PaulK, posted 09-17-2013 1:32 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by PaulK, posted 09-17-2013 3:11 PM Alias has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12688
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 108 of 185 (706778)
09-17-2013 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Alias
09-17-2013 2:35 PM


Re: contradiction
quote:

NIV 41 Whenever the stronger females were in heat, Jacob would place the branches in the troughs in front of the animals so they would mate near the branches,

Here we see that jacob favored using the strong cattle when he was breeding. Group 1 (the young and strong cattle).


More correctly, we see that Jacob used the rods when the stronger animals (goats and sheep, not cattle) were breeding.

quote:

Next we will see the contradiction laid out. It is all relative to v 40.

NIV 42 but if the animals were weak, he would not place them there. So the weak animals went to Laban and the strong ones to Jacob.


This does not seem a sound contradiction. In the NASB translation it appears that these verses represent an additional detail of the account. Alternatively, the NIV translation allows that these represent different events - v37-39 describing Jacob's initial use of the rods, and v41-42 representing later practice. SInce these verses cover a period of about 7 years such an interpretation seems to be reasonable.

quote:

Interpretation of contradiction: Here we see that jacob didn't use weak cattle to breed. Then it reads the weak animals went to laban and the strong to jacob. So (group 2) and (group 3) from v 40, (group 2) being the the group of weak flock (according to 42 since he didn't use them to mate) facing the colored flock (since they were present per v 40) and (group 3) being the colored flock of laban's (from v 40).

Clearly invalid. We do NOT see Jacob refusing to allow the weaker animals to breed. In fact it is implied that they do breed, to be the source of the weaker animals that went to Laban.

Moreover, Group 2 is simply the original flock trusted to Jacob, and therefore MUST include some stronger animals at the start.

quote:

Conclusion: Colored flock present during jacob's breeding event. IF laban removed the colored flock in v 35 how is this possible for these colored flock to be present during jacob's breeding event in 37-42?

There is no mention of "coloured" animals in v37 or v38 and those mentioned in v39 are the lambs born as a result of the first use of the rods. The only mention of any others is those belonging to Laban in v40, and all we can say of their location is that they appear to be within visual range at that point in the story. They can't be part of the flock under Jacob's care or they would be his and not Laban's.

Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Alias, posted 09-17-2013 2:35 PM Alias has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by jar, posted 09-17-2013 4:00 PM PaulK has not yet responded
 Message 110 by Alias, posted 09-17-2013 5:49 PM PaulK has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 28838
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 109 of 185 (706781)
09-17-2013 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by PaulK
09-17-2013 3:11 PM


Re: contradiction
It is important to remember in all the fireside Jacob tales that conning, cheating and getting even shows up. There are examples among the wives, between Laban and Jacob, between Jacob and his father and brothers, even between Jacob and God.

In Genesis 32:22-32 God tries to wrestle with Jacob and beat him but fails. The God character finally pushes a nerve on Jacobs hip to wrench Jacobs hip but Jacob still doesn't give up and so God has to cry Uncle.

But all that is irrelevant to the topic and the topic clearly claims that making goats face branches and bark while breeding will determine whether they are striped, spotted or streaked.

That's utter nonsense but great material for a story teller, a fireside fable and written just like the old Saturday Serials. The continuing saga of Jacob meant that the story teller got fed and sheltered for the night and he'd spin out the next chapter for his meal then next night.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by PaulK, posted 09-17-2013 3:11 PM PaulK has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by NoNukes, posted 09-17-2013 7:41 PM jar has acknowledged this reply

  
Alias
Member (Idle past 1031 days)
Posts: 95
From: USA
Joined: 06-21-2011


Message 110 of 185 (706788)
09-17-2013 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by PaulK
09-17-2013 3:11 PM


Re: contradiction
Well your post is one interpretation. IT is a sound contradiction because it contradicts the story line. In 35 we see laban removing the colored animals. In 40 we see that colored animals are still present. Thus why this story is not clear. Thus why there are several interpretations. Your vantage is one of those interpretations. I see where you are coming from I am just pointing out the contradiction if one simply follows the story line. Another example of an issue in this story is that laban didn't remove the sheep mentioned in 32 by jacob. In 32 we see speckled or spotted sheep, dark colored lamb and every spotted or speckled goat. In 35 we see removed all male goats that were streaked or spotted, all speckled or spotted female goats and all dark colored lambs. No mention of sheep at all as per 32. And if you read 40 it mentions speckled or spotted flock which could be the sheep but it also mentions dark colored animals (which would have been the lambs removed in 35). This story is all broken. Verses below.

NIV 30:32 writes:

Let me go through all your flocks today and remove from them every speckled or spotted sheep, every dark-colored lamb and every spotted or speckled goat. They will be my wages.

NIV 30:35 writes:

That same day he removed all the male goats that were streaked or spotted, and all the speckled or spotted female goats (all that had white on them) and all the dark-colored lambs, and he placed them in the care of his sons.

NIV 30:40 writes:

Jacob set apart the young of the flock by themselves, but made the rest face the streaked and dark-colored animals that belonged to Laban. Thus he made separate flocks for himself and did not put them with Laban’s animals.

Edited by Alias, : Err


Thanks
Alias :-)

FYI:

"Imagination is more important than knowledge." -Albert Einstein

"One of the saddest lessons of history is this: if we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we've been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back" - Carl Sagan -Demon Haunted World

"The whole history of science has been the gradual realization that events do not happen in an arbitrary manner, but that they reflect a certain underlying order, which may or may not be divinely inspired." -Stephen Hawking

"Before God we are all equally wise and equally foolish." -Albert Einstein


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by PaulK, posted 09-17-2013 3:11 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by PaulK, posted 09-18-2013 1:52 AM Alias has responded

  
Alias
Member (Idle past 1031 days)
Posts: 95
From: USA
Joined: 06-21-2011


Message 111 of 185 (706796)
09-17-2013 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by NoNukes
09-16-2013 8:25 PM


The story reads in 41 that jacob put the branches in front of the strong animals so they would mate in front of the branches. Whenever the animals were weak he did not place them in front of the branches they just went to laban as per 42. Strong to Jacob weak to laban. Says nothing of what you posted.

Edited by Alias, : Err


Thanks
Alias :-)

FYI:

"Imagination is more important than knowledge." -Albert Einstein

"One of the saddest lessons of history is this: if we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we've been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back" - Carl Sagan -Demon Haunted World

"The whole history of science has been the gradual realization that events do not happen in an arbitrary manner, but that they reflect a certain underlying order, which may or may not be divinely inspired." -Stephen Hawking

"Before God we are all equally wise and equally foolish." -Albert Einstein


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by NoNukes, posted 09-16-2013 8:25 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by NoNukes, posted 09-17-2013 7:51 PM Alias has responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9547
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 112 of 185 (706797)
09-17-2013 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by jar
09-17-2013 4:00 PM


Re: contradiction
It is important to remember in all the fireside Jacob tales that conning, cheating and getting even shows up. There are examples among the wives, between Laban and Jacob, between Jacob and his father and brothers, even between Jacob and God.

Exactly. There is simply no point in trying to force an interpretation on this story were Jacob does not try to out wit Laban unless your plan is to rewrite the Bible ala Conservapedia. If Alias weren't hidebound on his silly task of proving Jacob to be a human angel...

If God had not promised differently to Abraham, He would surely have kicked Jacob straight to the curb somewhere short of Genesis 35.


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by jar, posted 09-17-2013 4:00 PM jar has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Alias, posted 09-17-2013 9:48 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9547
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 113 of 185 (706798)
09-17-2013 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Alias
09-17-2013 6:48 PM


Reading primer
The story reads in 41 that jacob put the branches in front of the strong animals so they would mate in front of the branches. Whenever the animals were weak he did not place them in front of the branches they just went to laban as per 42. Strong to Jacob weak to laban. Says nothing of what you posted.

That's exactly what we've been telling you since you joined this thread. And it is entirely consistent with what I said in message 96. Jacob did not put the rods in front of weak, non-colored parents because he did not want to get stuck with the resulting weak colored offspring. By withholding the rods he allowed Laban to get the offspring of weak parents which presumably would also be weak and non-colored.

At this point you are arguing for the mere sake of arguing. You said that you did not want to discuss this anymore, so I was not planning to respond to your summary. Then you post more nonsense.


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Alias, posted 09-17-2013 6:48 PM Alias has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Alias, posted 09-17-2013 9:53 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
Alias
Member (Idle past 1031 days)
Posts: 95
From: USA
Joined: 06-21-2011


Message 114 of 185 (706801)
09-17-2013 9:46 PM


The contradiction
Repost of the contradiction . Paulk made some points that made me realize that I was labeling all animals with the same labels. I was just calling them colored animals/cattle/flock/etc but in this post that will not happen and yet the contradiction still is an issue. I also tried to fix some issues for clarity. I added a green highlight to words added to a quote and red highlight to the contradiction data.

Alias writes:

Right. Either way you get weak streaked and dark-colored animals that were present in v 40.

paulk writes:

There's no mention of that at all. By the story, the weaker animals are permitted to breed and the only influence on the coats of the offspring is the presence or absence of the rods - there's no suggestion of anything else.

No actually in verse 41-42 (NIV) it also matters whether or not the animals were strong or weak if they were breed by jacob. Yes weaker animals were possibly permitted to mate but it does not describe it. All it says is that 41 jacob would put the rods in front of the stronger animals to mate when in heat but 42 when the animals were weak he did not have the rods in front of them EVER and that the weaker animals went to laban and stronger animals to jacob (it's an assumption that the weak animals mated, no information is provided as to that point. Hence why I noted that jacob did not breed weak animals.). Verses below.

fyi: breed definition

Moving on with the contradiction.

If you read 39;

quote:
NIV 39 they mated in front of the branches. And they bore young that were streaked or speckled or spotted.

Here we see streaked or speckled or spotted flocks being born/BREED (because he was actually influencing them to mate we can refer to it as jacob breeding animals) by jacob with the usage of the rods (streaked or speckled or spotted flock born after all of laban's streaked or speckled or spotted male/female goats and dark colored lamb were removed by laban in 35. So there is no way for jacob to breed spotted, streaked, speckled male/female goats or dark colored lambs without the rods because he does not have access to those specific flocks (please pay close attention to the type of flocks don't generalize that were removed) as of V 35.).

If you read 40 (FYI: I added grouping to the quote to help with understanding of my point);

quote:
NIV 40 Jacob set apart the young of the flock by themselves (group 1), but made the rest (group 2) face the streaked and dark-colored animals that belonged to Laban (group 3). Thus he made separate flocks for himself and did not put them with Laban’s animals.

Jacob separated animals facing flocks toward laban's streaked and dark-colored animals (here we see two groups laban's streaked and dark-colored animals and the flocks facing laban's streaked and dark-colored animals(yellow and green groups). It is 2 separate groups facing each other but both of these 2 groups are laban's). We also see another group of young animals that jacob breed being separated by themselves (jacob's new flock the orange group).

Next we will see another factor in how jacob separated them (other than the 3 groups).

quote:
NIV 41 Whenever the stronger females were in heat, Jacob would place the branches in the troughs in front of the animals so they would mate near the branches,

Here we see that jacob favored using the strong cattle when he was breeding. Group 1 (the young and strong animals).

Next we see the weak set aside and not used to breed.

quote:
NIV 42 but if the animals were weak, he would not place them there. So the weak animals went to Laban and the strong ones to Jacob.

Facts: Here we see that jacob didn't use weak flock to breed (no rods used so its not technically breeding) animals in v 42. There is no description of the weak animals mating either. We also know that the weak flocks that were present (not sure if more were born) were given to laban as per v 42 and the strong to jacob. WRT (group 2) and (group 3) from v 40, (group 2) being the the group of weak flock (according to 42 since he didn't use them to breed) facing the streaked and dark-colored animals (since they were present per v 40 as well) and (group 3) being the streaked and dark-colored animals of laban's (from v 40).

Conclusion/Contradiction described: Streaked and dark-colored animals were present during jacob's breeding event as per v 40. IF laban removed the "male goats that were streaked or spotted, and all the speckled or spotted female goats (all that had white on them) and all the dark-colored lambs" in v 35 how is this possible LATER IN TIME for there to be streaked and dark-colored animals present during jacob's breeding event in 37-42?

We can argue that these are separate breeding events but 40 is still linked to a single breeding event from 37-39. So we come back to the same conclusion. All we're doing is reinterpreting the story due to the contradiction. OR we can go with my other interpretation. Just because he was a con artist does not mean he was conning this time around. The only issue with that interpretation is that it makes 35-36 a bit rocky. Either we remove the contradiction or we add meaning to 35-36 that is really not present. These are both interpretations.

Anyway it does not matter because I am perfectly fine with deeming this story and all of those surrounding jacob as not god inspired scripture and that they were just added in to show how awesome god is to his faithful people.

Edited by Alias, : err

Edited by Alias, : err


Thanks
Alias :-)

FYI:

"Imagination is more important than knowledge." -Albert Einstein

"One of the saddest lessons of history is this: if we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we've been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back" - Carl Sagan -Demon Haunted World

"The whole history of science has been the gradual realization that events do not happen in an arbitrary manner, but that they reflect a certain underlying order, which may or may not be divinely inspired." -Stephen Hawking

"Before God we are all equally wise and equally foolish." -Albert Einstein


Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-18-2013 5:26 PM Alias has responded

  
Alias
Member (Idle past 1031 days)
Posts: 95
From: USA
Joined: 06-21-2011


Message 115 of 185 (706802)
09-17-2013 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by NoNukes
09-17-2013 7:41 PM


Re: contradiction
Im not trying to make jacob look angelic lol. I'm done with that all that has been understood. Jacob was a punk. Ref post 114.

Thanks
Alias :-)

FYI:

"Imagination is more important than knowledge." -Albert Einstein

"One of the saddest lessons of history is this: if we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we've been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back" - Carl Sagan -Demon Haunted World

"The whole history of science has been the gradual realization that events do not happen in an arbitrary manner, but that they reflect a certain underlying order, which may or may not be divinely inspired." -Stephen Hawking

"Before God we are all equally wise and equally foolish." -Albert Einstein


This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by NoNukes, posted 09-17-2013 7:41 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
Alias
Member (Idle past 1031 days)
Posts: 95
From: USA
Joined: 06-21-2011


Message 116 of 185 (706803)
09-17-2013 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by NoNukes
09-17-2013 7:51 PM


Re: Reading primer
No. I am responding to your post. I stand by what I post at all times unless it is refuted. Several things have been refuted and I am accepting of those points. When I debate I through pawns out there in order to attack the issue (I thought maybe this will float but I was not extremely confident). Those were just pawns as I noted to CS that it was all side noise. In cases where I did not say your point was moot/or another persons point was moot I accepted their argument. If I responded to a person and didn't answer all points that is because I took the points I didn't answer or respond to as my point being refuted. Hence the same for this post. This post you are now posting makes it seem like you didn't understand what I was saying at all in prev post. Ref to post 114.

Edited by Alias, : err


Thanks
Alias :-)

FYI:

"Imagination is more important than knowledge." -Albert Einstein

"One of the saddest lessons of history is this: if we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we've been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back" - Carl Sagan -Demon Haunted World

"The whole history of science has been the gradual realization that events do not happen in an arbitrary manner, but that they reflect a certain underlying order, which may or may not be divinely inspired." -Stephen Hawking

"Before God we are all equally wise and equally foolish." -Albert Einstein


This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by NoNukes, posted 09-17-2013 7:51 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12688
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 117 of 185 (706804)
09-18-2013 1:52 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by Alias
09-17-2013 5:49 PM


Re: contradiction
quote:

Well your post is one interpretation.

It's more than that. I offer two interpretation of the relationship between verse 37-39 and v41-42 based on different translation for one.

quote:

IT is a sound contradiction because it contradicts the story line

You're going to have to show it. Without misrepresenting the text or ruling out interpretations that you don't like.

quote:

In 35 we see laban removing the colored animals. In 40 we see that colored animals are still present. Thus why this story is not clear.

The text doesn't imply any more than that the "coloured" animals may be seen by Jacob and the flock he was looking at at that point in the story. Given that the herders move their flocks around this is certainly possible at that point in the story.

quote:

Your vantage is one of those interpretations. I see where you are coming from I am just pointing out the contradiction if one simply follows the story line.

By which you mean that the contradiction is in YOUR INTERPRETATION. That means that you need to show that your interpretation is better than alternatives with no contradiction.

Having "coloured" animals belonging to Laban in the flock Jacob was tending would not only contradict verse 35, it also goes against the agreement in verses 32-34 and the whole thrust of the story. So any interpretation that adds that is WORSE than the contradiction you claim in the first place.

quote:

Another example of an issue in this story is that laban didn't remove the sheep mentioned in 32 by jacob. In 32 we see speckled or spotted sheep, dark colored lamb and every spotted or speckled goat. In 35 we see removed all male goats that were streaked or spotted, all speckled or spotted female goats and all dark colored lambs. No mention of sheep at all as per 32. And if you read 40 it mentions speckled or spotted flock which could be the sheep but it also mentions dark colored animals (which would have been the lambs removed in 35). This story is all broken. Verses below.

The problem is more in you than the text. Taking a strict-hyper literalist reading is questionable in the first place (and more so when reading a translation which may not render nuances exactly). In fact we can note that verse 33 also fails to mention spotted or speckled sheep. It's not a big issue. Certainly not big enough for you to throw out the story and invent your own.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Alias, posted 09-17-2013 5:49 PM Alias has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Alias, posted 09-18-2013 10:38 AM PaulK has responded

    
Alias
Member (Idle past 1031 days)
Posts: 95
From: USA
Joined: 06-21-2011


Message 118 of 185 (706832)
09-18-2013 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by PaulK
09-18-2013 1:52 AM


Re: contradiction
Paulk your 2 interpretations are just 2 interpretations just like mainstream thought is just thought. They manipulate the text. You are making up your own stories. You don't KNOW your claims are true, you argue they are true and neither of your made up interpretations clean up the story any better than my interpretation even though you claim one of them is a solution. They both make all kinds of assumptions. My interpretation has no contradiction it just simply reads 35 as Jacob removing the animals which works fine with 36 and 32 per their agreement (just creates grammatical issue because 35 and 36 use he vs names which makes sense due to translating from ancient to new languages). Another thing, your interpretation creates a bigger issue for literalists than mine. I will just disagree with you happily. Ref last paragraph of 114 for my closing thoughts.

Edited by Alias, : Err

Edited by Alias, : Err

Edited by Alias, : Err

Edited by Alias, : No reason given.

Edited by Alias, : No reason given.

Edited by Alias, : No reason given.


Thanks
Alias :-)

FYI:

"Imagination is more important than knowledge." -Albert Einstein

"One of the saddest lessons of history is this: if we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we've been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back" - Carl Sagan -Demon Haunted World

"The whole history of science has been the gradual realization that events do not happen in an arbitrary manner, but that they reflect a certain underlying order, which may or may not be divinely inspired." -Stephen Hawking

"Before God we are all equally wise and equally foolish." -Albert Einstein


This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by PaulK, posted 09-18-2013 1:52 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by NoNukes, posted 09-18-2013 1:08 PM Alias has responded
 Message 120 by PaulK, posted 09-18-2013 2:08 PM Alias has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9547
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 119 of 185 (706846)
09-18-2013 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Alias
09-18-2013 10:38 AM


Re: contradiction
just creates grammatical issue because 35 and 36 use he vs names which makes sense due to translating from ancient to new languages

I acknowledge that there is an ambiguity about who does what in verse 35. I think the ambiguity is resolvable, but there is no need to address that issue here.

There is no such ambiguity in verse 36. If you think there is a translation error, you need to dig that out instead of just assuming there is one. But there is no facial ambiguity.

quote:
36 And he set three days' journey betwixt himself and Jacob: and Jacob fed the rest of Laban's flocks

There is simply no way that Jacob set three day's journey to separate himself from Jacob. You cannot replace the "he" and "himself" and get any kind of sensible thought. The text clearly refers to Laban moving. Further, it is clear, regardless of who took the sheep in verse 35, that those sheep are not included in "the rest of Laban's flocks".

Another thing, your interpretation creates a bigger issue for literalists than mine.

That claim is laughable and false. By your own admission, your interpretation requires you to denounce the entire Laban/Jacob story as false, uninspired, and not proper scripture. Fundamentalists on the other hand just chalk up the birthing of spotted cattle from non-spotted parent cattle to God's intervention. As is evidenced from the commentary I cited, fundies don't have much of a problem with Jacob's breeding experiment.


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Alias, posted 09-18-2013 10:38 AM Alias has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Alias, posted 09-18-2013 7:01 PM NoNukes has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12688
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 120 of 185 (706850)
09-18-2013 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Alias
09-18-2013 10:38 AM


Re: contradiction
quote:

Paulk your 2 interpretations are just 2 interpretations just like mainstream thought is just thought

Please skip the aggressive bluster. You would do better to apologise for trying to write off my post as "just one interpretation" when it was clearly a discussion of matters.

quote:

They manipulate the text. You are making up your own stories

And now you're lying. Both interpretations were directly derived form the text.

quote:

You don't KNOW your claims are true, you argue they are true

Actually I DO know that a good many of my claims are true.

quote:

and neither of your made up interpretations clean up the story any better than my interpretation even though you claim one of them is a solution.

And now you're lying again. Both my interpretations are consistent with the story and truer to the text than yours.

quote:

My interpretation has no contradiction it just simply reads 35 as Jacob removing the animals which works fine with 36 and 32 per their agreement (just creates grammatical issue because 35 and 36 use he vs names which makes sense due to translating from ancient to new languages).

In fact the point you are arguing about is about the relationship between verses 37-39 and verses 41-42. Verse 35 doesn't even enter into it.

And in fact you're wrong about verse 35 if you're using the NIV - your choice in earlier posts:


34 “Agreed,” said Laban. “Let it be as you have said.” 35 That same day he removed all the male goats that were streaked or spotted, and all the speckled or spotted female goats (all that had white on them) and all the dark-colored lambs, and he placed them in the care of his sons. 36 Then he put a three-day journey between himself and Jacob, while Jacob continued to tend the rest of Laban’s flocks.

Grammatically the first "he" in verse 35 should generally refer to the last person mentioned - which is Laban - and it really has to refer to the same person as the second "he" and the first "he" in verse 36. The "he" in verse 36 cannot be Jacob as has already been pointed out. (Although we should note that it is Laban who goes away, and the flocks are with Laban's sons).

Also the story makes more sense if Laban is trying to cheat Jacob. Indeed that's one of the themes of the stories about Jacob and Laban.

quote:

Another thing, your interpretation creates a bigger issue for literalists than mine.

Actually I'll agree with that. Inerrantists love to see people coming up with easily answered contradictions in the Bible, as you have. I nearly asked you not to do it BECAUSE it plays into their hands.

quote:

I will just disagree with you happily. Ref last paragraph of 114 for my closing thoughts.

All I will say is that methinks you protest too much

Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Alias, posted 09-18-2013 10:38 AM Alias has not yet responded

    
Prev1
...
67
8
910
...
13Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017