Biblical Eugenics - being wrong about how to colorize your goats

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.

So no resurrection, then?

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. Your point does not add up. The young were separate from Laban's. 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.Edited by Alias, : Err

Verse 40 requires that the speckled cattle belong to Laban. You cannot seem to address this. Secondly, Jacob does not need access to Laban's sheep merely to have his own sheep face in their direction. So no problem is presented here.Both verse 36 and verse 40 contain items that you simply cannot address without giving up your interpretation. Verse 36 explicitly says that Jacob is tending the rest of the sheep, which means sheep without any coloring. You have no way around that.You also cannot have Jacob take the colored sheep in verse 35 and then still have them belong to Laban in verse 40.

There are three sets of flock. Ref to my last post to paulk..

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.

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).Point 2, no ref point 1Point 3, merely opinion.Edited by Alias, : Err

In a later message you wrote: You're talking about a guy, Jacob, who wore fur on his hands to trick his father into thinking that he was his older brother so that he could steal his birthright. Read Genesis 27.The "con" he does to Laban is in retaliation to Laben cheating him on his wages (Laban also tricked Jacob into marrying his older daugheter when he really loved the younger one). Its not nearly as bad as lying to your dad for an inheritance, and Laban was a jerk first anyways, so there's really no need to save Jacob from this one.I agree with you that it isn't at all clear who took what animals from which flock and which one's were who's afterwards. But that is beside the point.Jacob performed a "breeding experiment" by having the animals look at patterned wood while they mated so that they would have patterned offspring.I think that stems from the idea that what the animals are looking at when they breed can affect what their offspring will look like.Do you have any argument against that?And this has nothing to do with bashing the Bible or helping atheists. Too often we get the attitude that the Bible is erroneous. I think this is just another example of something that it got wrong.

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 ?

That's all side noise. We can't show w/o a doubt that the story reads Jacob was conning laban. This thread is really about biblical eugenics. Can't be shown w/o a doubt. :-)

Paul I'll do that just for you when I get home to my PC. Thx for admitting 40 does not fit. It makes it much easier for me.

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.

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

It doesn't matter at all if Jacob was conning Laban. Please just stop talking about that altogether. Exactly. And the Bible says that if you put striped branches in front of mating goats than that will cause their offspring to be striped. Oh for fuck's sake. Does your argument really boil down to: Hurr, you can't prove that! lolThis isn't youtube, grow up already or gtfo.

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.