Biblical Eugenics - being wrong about how to colorize your goats

Hello CS, Jacob is breeding animals and keeping the strong.

No Jacob is not. It's just either to help them mate or help them be born stronger. Worse case scenario we're talking about Jacob not knowing it will not help. It does not state god told him to do it. This does not hurt literalist's at all.

Hello jar, I have read this passage several times and also read different versions. It seems that in verse 35 (context of v 32-33) jacob removed the sparkled, spotted and streaked flock from laban's stock. Then in verse 37-39 jacob used the flock "he removed from laban's flock and gave to his sons" to breed (hence his request in v 32-33) and they bore sparkled, spotted and streaked flock in 39. We can also see that Jacob had access to the streaked, sparkled and spotted flock in 30:40

quote:

---

'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.'

---

In verse 41 jacob kept the strong animals and used them to breed for himself more strong animals. The idea I'm seeing is the branches were used to help breed (hence why they were in front of the flock as they mated) and it also seems he used the branches to breed stronger animals since that's what he kept.I think the issue is that this story is not clear in verse 35-36. I feel it does change the entire context of the story depending on how you interpret those verses. Verse 32 makes it more clear that jacob is the one referred to in 35 (hence the request that he removes the flock) (laban has no sons and 35 reads he gave them to his sons). Some may interpret 35 as laban removing the flock due to 34 because 34 is laban and in 35 it uses "he" for the third word (a pronoun in english perhaps not in the original writings) (ref to jacob though which it also seems like it could refer to laban) making it seem like jacob started with non sparkled, streaked, or spotted flock in 38. In 36 laban left leaving 3 days between him and jacob, and then ALSO (on top of jacob removing the flock and giving the flock to his sons in 35) jacob tended the other flock of labans in 36. Ultimately if you read 35 as jacob is removing the flock noted in the verse and reusing them to breed near the branches (his wages) it does not read as though he thought the branches were making them spotted, streaked or sparkled. It does also seem as though the breeding of new flock was to breed his wages. AGAIN as mentioned earlier if you read 30:40 it does make it more clear that jacob removed the flock in 35 because he has access to them in 30:40.Edited by Alias, : ClarityEdited by Alias, : err fixEdited by Alias, : clarityEdited by Alias, : clarityEdited by Alias, : clarityEdited by Alias, : clarityEdited by Alias, : clarityEdited by Alias, : clarityEdited by Alias, : clarityEdited by Alias, : clarity

No. I am not a bible literalist. I don't think the bible is inerrant. I feel it is corrupt but you have to sift through it to find important god inspired scriptures. God inspired does not mean god wrote it, it just means "maybe" a prophet wrote it. I am a skeptic but also a theist (agnostic theist).Edited by Alias, : quote

Ref to post 17.

Haha. Poor you. You can't come up with a good argument. Evolution is an imaginative thought. The same facts that support it support intelligent design. If you want to talk about it let's open up that conversation. FYI: evolution is not contrary to creationism (pantheism).ALSO Let's add context to your quote. Here is another one from Einstein. RefEdited by Alias, : ClarityEdited by Alias, : ClarityEdited by Alias, : ClarityEdited by Alias, : Quote

If its off topic then "you people" need to stop asserting. Go ahead start a new topic. Patently false, lol hahaha!

I was responding to you. You started that conversation. Ask yourself.

Well what theological reason is there to defend it? I don't see how Jacob not understanding that "using the branches" will not help the "flock mate or breed stronger flock" harms the bible from a literalist vantage. It does show the lack of scientific understanding for a ancient individual but isn't that expected? So literally we learn ancients didn't understand genetics. How does this harm the overall vantage of the bible being interpreted literally as the word of god? It has no reflection on god at all since this was not an instruction from god. There certainly is nothing going on that the atheists are claiming in this thread either (it is expected for atheists to interpret this story as per their claims in this thread though). There is no con happening (again expected for atheists to read it this way). There is no eugenics happening (expected for atheists to read it this way). I don't know that atheists manipulate this story to be dishonest or just because of their natural vantage of things overall, so they don't realize that they are merely interpreting it that way. In any case, I am not a christian nor a literalist and my interpretation of this is simply "Jacob getting paid by Laban". Verse 30:30 - 30:34. Refer to my other posts for my other points against other claims in this thread. Then if you follow this story into chapter 31 we find laban meeting up with jacob after jacob leaves. Laban has nothing to say about the flock/payment (except that everything is his which is not true because it was payment AND he must pay for the work of Jacob as is mentioned over and over) however he was technically upset about his gods being taken and his children/grandchildren being taken without a goodbye (which his own daughter stole the gods). Technically labans children/grand children are also Jacobs since they are his wives/children and they don't HAVE to say goodbye..... I mean all this noise in this thread is silly.

Ref to post 17 this is my response to you. Jacob removes the flock not laban. There is no con and there is no cheater. FYI: I did make some changes to it just a few minutes ago so you may want to reread it before responding, if you still disagree.Edited by Alias, : clarityEdited by Alias, : clarity

Ref to post 17, I made some changes to it for clarity.Edited by Alias, : clarityEdited by Alias, : clarity

No 34 states that it be according to jacob's word which was in 32.

quote:

---

I will pass through all thy flock to day, removing from thence all the speckled and spotted cattle, and all the brown cattle among the sheep, and the spotted and speckled among the goats: and of such shall be my hire.
  —KJV

---

The rest of your point is moot.Then we have 30:40 which shows jacob still had them.

quote:

---

And Jacob did separate the lambs, and set the faces of the flocks toward the ringstraked, and all the brown in the flock of Laban; and he put his own flocks by themselves, and put them not unto Laban's cattle.
  —KJV

---

Edited by Alias, : errEdited by Alias, : clarityEdited by Alias, : clarityEdited by Alias, : Err

The gods were stolen and jacob left. Laban thought jacob stole the gods which is why laban was upset. And OK laban has sons. Does not change anything as per 30:40. Point still stands in post 17 with exception to my comments on labans sons.Edited by Alias, : errEdited by Alias, : errEdited by Alias, : Clarity

No 35 is referring to jacob due to their agreement in 32. Ref to post 17 for my point on 36. In verse 40, if Laban removed the sparkled, spotted and streaked flock in 35 to cheat jacob, why does jacob have access to the sparkled, spotted and streaked flock of laban's?Edited by Alias, : QuestionEdited by Alias, : Question about Vera 40Edited by Alias, : Question about verse 40!

Logic. In short, Jesus didn't walk on water. The red sea was not parted in the exodus. Stuff that is clear myth is myth. Revelation in other cases like genesis 1-2. Order of creation is not important if it were they would of wrote them in the same order. We can probably see actual order of creation in the fossil record.Edited by Alias, : Clarity