Biblical Eugenics - being wrong about how to colorize your goats

I've mentioned it a couple of times. Because it's a place where the Bible is clearly and unambiguously wrong about science.

quote:

---

Maybe this will clear it up. The agreement in 32 between laban and Jacob was for Jacob to breed colored/spotted, etc flock using Laban's flock as wages from laban.

---

That's not what the Bible says: As can be seen, Jacob asked for all the coloured and spotted sheep that were ALREADY in the flock. As wages, not a a gift.

quote:

---

Right. I don't disagree but it rings more true that this is what is meant is that he was using them to breed vs taking laban's.

---

Well, no, that isn't what it means.

quote:

---

If laban took them in 35 it does not make sense to his character in prev chapters or next chapters. Laban would not cheat Jacob and Jacob would not con Laban.

---

Laban already tricked Jacob into marrying Leah instead of Rachel in the previous chapter. In the following chapter Jacob claims that Laban has: (31:7)

quote:

---

Plus the con/cheat interpretation does not answer v 40. You have to say he was facing them toward laban's flock that were 3 days apart.

---

Or possibly it means the new lambs, born in verse 39 and only separated from Laban's flock in the following part of verse 40.Moreover, if we have to reject a verse, surely it should be the verse that doesn't fit rather than does that do.

quote:

---

You do not need to agree as I will admit both interpretations are arguable

---

I don't view what you are doing as "interpretation".

quote:

---

I just don't accept the con/cheat interpretation, it seems less plausible in my mind.

---

In the light of verse 31:7, then the con/cheat interpretation seems right to me. Unless you view that as one of Jacob's lies.

quote:

---

Respong to 3rd point for now, on cell. In v 40 Jacob separated the young and faced the others toward Laban's. There were three sets. The young, old, and laban's.

---

Perhaps you would like to show that this is in the text, because I can't see any such division.

quote:

---

Your point does not add up. The young were separate from Laban's.

---

The lambs are striped and black and on the spot and could be seen as Laban's at that point. That seems rather better than asserting that the "con explanation" doesn't fit with chapters that see Laban conning Jacob and Jacob complaining that he's been conned !

quote:

---

And I think it's just as bad to add in meaning as it is to take out a verse. Either way you get interpretation.

---

That's a very simplistic view. We have a verse - or part of a verse - that fits poorly with the rest of the story. Surely it is better to regard that verse as suspect rather than to try to warp the rest of the story to fit with it.

quote:

---

OK. Point 1, Jacob takes the young separated them by them self (group 1). Then the others (group 2) were facing Laban's (group 3). 1 group alone, others (group 2) facing Laban's (group 3).

---

I notice that you haven't quoted the text here, which is hardly showing justification from the text.Also this is just a little misleading. Your Group 2 also belongs to Laban. Group 3 is only the "streaked and dark" animals that Laban still owns.

quote:

---

Point 2, no ref point 1

---

Point 1 doesn't address the facts that - according to the story - Laban cheated Jacob over his marriage, and that Jacob later complained of multiple other instances.

quote:

---

Point 3, merely opinion.

---

Rather more than that. Can you provide any reason to justify rewriting the story just because one verse doesn't fit very well ?

quote:

---

That's all side noise. We can't show w/o a doubt that the story reads Jacob was conning laban

---

I read Jacob as using trickery to overcome Laban's cheating in this case.But indeed the point of the thread is that the staves are supposed to cause the unmarked sheep and goats to bear speckled or black offspring - and that this is so reliable that Jacob can throw in some selective breeding as well so that he gets the best of the lambs.

quote:

---

Reliable to you and those that agree with u. Hence interpretation

---

Verses 41-42 seem pretty clear. Jacob puts the branches in when the better animals are mating and takes them away when the lesser stock are mating. The outcome is that Jacob gets the best animals and Laban the worse. And by the agreement with Laban the animals Jacob gets must be speckled or spotted or dark. The implications are obvious.

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.

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.

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.

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: 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 muchEdited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Dude, I've admitted when I am wrong each time.

---

Well, that's not true. Nor does it excuse saying things that are easily seen to be completely untrue.

quote:

---

Honestly this website so far in my experience is anti bible and that bothers me.

---

You seem to be the most anti-Bible person in this thread. Nobody else thinks this story is so stupid that it has to be twisted and distorted to hide the problem.

quote:

---

It does not read anywhere that jacob used the white striped branches to make speckled, spotted and streaked animals but it does read that jacob used them so they would MATE in front of them. SO INSTEAD of PRESUMING biblical eugenics happened in gen 30 (or that jacob was conning which has also now been shown to be not necessary) I would conclude (based on facts) that jacob had access to the animals he needed to breed the ones that were born in 39-42.

---

And there you go coming to "conclusions" that are clearly contrary to the text - and refusing to admit an error that has already been demonstrated (see Message 90 and following)The ACTUAL facts of verse 41-42 the story are:1) Jacob showed the rods to the stronger animals when they were mating2) Jacob did NOT show the rods to the weaker animals when they were mating3) The stronger animals went to Jacob, the weaker to Laban.The animals referred to in point 3) must be those born in the years Jacob was tending the animals since all the original animals remained Laban's.If the rods helped mating there would be a GENERAL improvement in the flock, but there isn't - Laban's portion grows weaker.If the rods caused the animals to give birth to "coloured" offspring, however, the stronger animals would give birth to "coloured" animals, and the weaker would (generally) not. Jacob's flock would improve while Laban's would get worse, exactly as verse 42 says.QED

quote:

---

I've admitted when I'm wrong. In cases where it has yet to be shown I'm wrong there is nothing to admit. Hence your last post. Its all your interpretation.

---

In other words you refuse to admit that you're wrong even though it has been shown.

quote:

---

The animals didn't mate until they were in front of the branches hence the interpretation that it helped them mate.

---

An assertion that in no way answers the reasoning I put forward.

quote:

---

Hey Paul guess what? I'm going to let the facts I've exposed be interpreted by those reading. I'm done with you. Say what you want. Does not matter to me. FYI: facts don't speak interpret the facts exposed.

---

In other words you can't answer my argument so you're going to run away. So much for admitting that you're wrong.And here's your reaction to NoNukes version of the same argument:
Message 141
So you say that you've never disagreed with it, and then you repeat your disagreement.However it's not an assumption that the weak animals mated, it's a conclusion as explained in my earlier post Message 135. The argument that you refuse to even acknowledge.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

You have yet to show a problem

---

The fact that you have yet to even try to refute my argument rather suggests that that isn't true - and you know it.

quote:

---

I don't disagree with nonukes post nor your quote of mine.

---

SInce the quote shows you disagreeing with NoNuke's point - after claiming that you didn't - as NoNukes has also observed that really can't be true.

quote:

---

The rods were not used in front of weak animals so it does matter whether the animals were strong or weak as to if Jacob breed them

---

I can't make sense out of that. Fix the grammar and try again.

quote:

---

Also it is an assumption if weak animals mated because it does not say they were breed. A conclusion is based on evidence. An assumption is not based on evidence.

---

And I have evidence - and an argument using that evidence And you've seen that argument - at least you responded to the post containing that argument. However, here you are claiming that that argument doesn't even exist. Want to tell me how you could know that ?

quote:

---

When it reads the weak animals went to laban the conclusion is he had weak animals prior to the breeding event that went to laban.

---

That doesn't make much sense because all the animals from the original herd - strong as well as weak - went to Laban. It also requires that all of the offspring were "coloured" which certainly is an assumption and not a very reasonable one.

quote:

---

Whether weak or strong animals were both mated or not does not alter the overall story/my thought that eugenics never happened.

---

Of course it didn't happen. It is a story, not historical fact.

quote:

---

See Paul something you don't seem to get is I don't accept just one thought. I've accepted two interpretations thus far.

---

Arguing for one interpretation over another is disagreeing with the second interpretation. The argument itself IS a disagreement.

quote:

---

The eugenics and non eugenics story are both equally plausible.

---

That's not true. The "eugenics" interpretation fits the story much better, as has been shown.