Biblical Eugenics - being wrong about how to colorize your goats

The Bible describes the silly tactic as actually working. Do you not see a problem with that?

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

Jacob had NO flock and his job was taking care of Laban's flock. His payment was to be the streaked, spotted and striped goats and the dark lambs.It is pretty clear in ALL the various translations and versions exactly what is happening; Jacob is maximizing his payment by increasing the incidence of streaked, striped and spotted goats and dark lambs.But the important point is that in the story his trick with the branches works.That is factually wrong.

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.

Lets look at your signature quotes. Because context is everything."Imagination is more important than knowledge." -Albert EinsteinNow in context.

quote:

---

I believe in intuition and inspiration. At times I feel certain I am right while not knowing the reason. When the eclipse of 1919 confirmed my intuition, I was not in the least surprised. In fact I would have been astonished had it turned out otherwise. Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution. It is, strictly speaking, a real factor in scientific research.

---

Cosmic Religion : With Other Opinions and Aphorisms (1931) by Albert Einstein, p. 97"Before God we are all equally wise and equally foolish."This probably not an actual Einstein quote. There is no original source.
Talk:Albert Einstein - WikiquoteI am not sure what point you are trying to get across with these quotes and the quotes by Hawking and Sagan.

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

This is patently false.But it is off-topic here. Start up a new thread and we can discuss it at length.

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

What does anything Mr. Einstein said have to do with evolution or this topic?

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

To which you replied. That's fine. But the claim I am asking you defend is the one I quote below in which you claim that the sheep breeding story can be taken literally. Really? Any defense for this?

After reading the story several times, it appears to me that Jacob can be excused for his con, because he was actually conning a cheater.After making the deal with Jacob, Laban then stacks the deck in his own favor by removing all of the parents with any coloring on them and put them in a separate flock from the one that Jacob would watch over. Laban expected his deal with Jacob would be wage free.Jacob then found a way to produce speckled animals anyway and used his trick on only the strongest animals in the Laban's flock.

Even if that were true I don't see how that makes anything justified but I do think that is likely the point of the story. If you read the passages before the goat story you similar patterns.These were fireside stories and fables and stories about getting even were common.

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.