Biblical Eugenics - being wrong about how to colorize your goats

Answering main point, Jacob removed the flock in 35 to breed His own. Laban asked him what can I give you in 31. Jacob replied nothing. Hence in 35 when Jacob removed them it was merely to breed (not keep. Remove does not quantify to keep) his own as per the agreement in 32 to be paid vs getting a gift. FYI: all interpretations are self serving to an extant including yours. Hence why you say the interpretation that Jacob was genetically modifying them with the branches does not matter as to the main point. This also serves atheists but I don't think I need to draw that out... Here I will happily admit it is a wee bit off of an interpretation but the other interpretation where the con/cheat took place is much more off. It does not stay in the context of CH 29-31 of who laban was and how laban felt about jacob and it does not add up in vs 40 either. FYI: I think most commentaries are even confused in this one if you read them they don't really seem confident. It is not a clear text. FYI: I'm perfectly fine with disagreeing we don't need to argue any further.Edited by Alias, : ClarityEdited by Alias, : ErrEdited by Alias, : Fyi

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. 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. 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. Which still does not answer how it reads Jacob was separating his from laban's in 40 as well. Anyway I made my point. Glad you get it. You do not need to agree as I will admit both interpretations are arguable. I just don't accept the con/cheat interpretation, it seems less plausible in my mind. FYI this post was meant for nonukes but it is just the same to paulk. I didn't realize Paul responded. Small print on smartphone. Sorry. FYI: hello paulk.Edited by Alias, : EndEdited by Alias, : Paulk m

Actually I have cleared it up, vs 40 contradicts the con cheat interpretation. How could Jacob have access to laban's colored flock to con laban in v 40, to seperate them from laban's colored flock, if laban removed his colored flock in v 35 and cheated Jacob from removing them?

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

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

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

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.

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

Well it does to the point of this thread. If it makes you feel better I'll stop. You need stop aswell.. to be fair.. :-)

Right. Either way you get weak colored that were not used to mate present. It does not jive if laban took the colored in 35.Edited by Alias, : errEdited by Alias, : Err

If we interpret the con/cheat happened then we accept biblical eugenics. If we don't then that whole idea is tossed out.

quote:

---

Ugh. Really? Of course if the event never happened then it didn't happen. Are you really this dense?

---

I was merely pointing out that it is like dominos. If the con occurred then laban took his flock (cheating jacob) and jacob (in myth) created spotted from none spotted using magic (in the story or you could just say god helped him out depending on how you look at things). Ultimately I am just not agreeing at this point on the scenario you are arguing. If you can explain 30:40 and why it is contradictory to your argument, feel free. I'm open to new thoughts. However, for now I will reserve my thoughts until something better has been shown. Ultimately it does not matter, I just disagree that eugenics was occurring via magic (or rather that that is what the story is telling). BIG DEAL. GET over it. I am perfectly fine with disagreeing. I've said my piece.Edited by Alias, : errEdited by Alias, : err

CS,

quote:

---

They just don't touch on the "eugenic" part of the story. I suppose they'd lean towards it being God's will and the carved wood not having anything to do with it, but we've never been that big on taking things super-literally.

---

I would agree to this thought (god being the reason in the story vs magic/eugenics). This is the direction I was getting ready to go before you were disrespectful. Hence my last post. I just wanted to finish off with that stance at that point in time but then I read this post and this makes sense. Glad you made this point. I still think my argument is plausible but not likely.Edited by Alias, : err

CS, You know what? I've been sitting here reading this shit over and over. Why I was arguing is that V 30:40 is contrary to the idea that laban removed the colored flocks and 30:35 is a little bit confusing due to how it is written because of 30:32. ALSO how the story leads up to 30:40 just ain't clear. However, in any case this shit didn't actually happen. It is just a story to share how god is amazing. We both know that this is not how genetics works. Thus why I doubt this story really happened. They couldn't have observed this happening. What is more probable is that this is how they thought genetics (nature to them) worked and made up this preposterous story (to show god as amazing as mentioned). Anyways... Thx for the conversation. :-)Edited by Alias, : clarityEdited by Alias, : clarity