Biblical Eugenics - being wrong about how to colorize your goats

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.. :-)

What does? If it was a con?No, that has nothing to do with the point that the Bible wrongly tells us that what an animal sees while it is mating can affect the color of its offspring.

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.

It's probably been discussed within the Catholic faith before. Have you ever asked a priest your question?

The point to the story was that Jacob did not make very many weak colored cattle. Any weak colored sheep that got made would still belong to Jacob.The story works out perfectly well if Jacob is able to get white cattle of his own choosing to produce dark cattle. And verse 41 says that Jacob can do exactly that.

I'd be interested in hearing your take on the story. I don't recall ever attending a church service in which the pastor used this story as his text.

Ugh. Really? Of course if the event never happened then it didn't happen. Are you really this dense?This is Bible study... there's a few implicit assumptions that we work on. Things like: that the events actually happened, and that the Bible describes them adequately.Some people like to also assume that the Bible is inerrant. This is a challenge to that position because what the Bible describes is clearly inaccurate.If you want to continue with your youtube style of responding: "Hurr, not if it never even happened! lol", then I'm just gonna stop talking to you.

I haven't asked a priest about it, I'd bet that the answers would vary between them. And in my 12 years of Catholic education, I don't recall ever hearing about this. Here's what I found in the Catholic Encyclopedia:

quote:

---

Jacob's relations with Laban's household form an interesting episode, the details of which are perfectly true to Eastern life and need not be set forth here. Besides blessing him with eleven children, God granted to Jacob a great material prosperity, so that Laban was naturally desirous of detaining him. But Jacob, long wearied with Laban's frequent trickery, and also bidden by God to return, departed secretly, and, although overtaken and threatened by his angry father-in-law, he managed to appease him and to pursue his own way towards Chanaan source

---

and

quote:

---

Having received the wife whom he sought, Jacob resolved to return to his own home, but Laban, wishing to retain the profitable services of his nephew, once more prevailed upon Jacob to remain with him (xxx, 25-28). The terms stipulated by Jacob this time appeared most advantageous to Laban, but he and his sons soon discovered that Jacob had outwitted them in this last agreement, which procured for Jacob a large increase of flocks (xxx, 29-43). Laban and his sons then began to despise Jacob, who, noticing their change of attitude towards him, and dissatisfied with the treatment accorded him by his uncle, who had changed his wages ten times, secretly departed together with his wives and possessions (xxxi, 1-20). source

---

As is typical with my experience, the dirty details are glossed over in favor of the bigger picture.But they do seem to confirm my suspicion: that Laban was being unfair so Jacob outwitted (i.e. conned) him back.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.

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

I have no idea what you mean that it is like dominoes. You're missing the point. The Bible doesn't say it was magic. It provides the explanation that the spotted animals were born because Jacob had them look at spotted wood while they were mating.Here's the jist of it: Laban tells Jacob that he can have the spotted animals from his flock as payment. Then, Laban removes all of the spotted animals and gives them to his sons. So then that means that Jacob wouldn't really get anything as payment at all (Laban had been cheating him repeatedly already).So, then Jacob outsmarts Laban and produces spotted animals from the white ones by having them look at spotted wood planks while they were mating. Why not? Is is still because you can't accept that god's servant tricked somebody? Or have you changed your mind on that? First off: Laban removed the spotted animals from his flock and gave them to his sons so that Jacob would get no animals from Laban's flock because there weren't any spotted ones left in it. Jacob takes some of the white animals from Laban's flock and has them breed spotted animals with his breeding trick with the spotted wood.In verse 40: He then has the white ones face the rest of Laban's flock so that they remain a part Laban's flock, but keeps the newly spotted ones separate as his own animals. Therefore, they were then technically spotted animals that came from Laban's flock that rightfully belonged to Jacob as a part of his wage, but they were separated from Laban's flock so as to form the new flock of Jacob. We'll see. No shit! That's what I just said earlier and you replied that it did. Regardless, this is about the eugenics process. The Bible doesn't say it occurred via magic either. It is based on the idea that whatever the animal is looking at while it is mating can affect what the offspring will look like.That is the point that I can't get through to you. That is the point you have yet to address.Damn, this is like pulling teeth.

God being the reason in the story would be the magic explanation.The patterns on the wood causing the animals to have patterned offspring is the naturalistic explanation.A literal reading of it offers the naturalistic, and non-magical, explanation.That's why this is a question to literalists and inerrantists. Because we now know that the colored wood would have no affect on the offspring.According to the story, the explanation for the colored offspring is just plain wrong.

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

I agree. But that opens up more possibilities than you have listed. Yes, this could be just a story. Or perhaps God actually intervened for Jacob when he used the rods and that detail did not get recorded. In either event, no rules of genetics need be broken.There are actually quite a few stories in the Bible where God required the favored to perform actions and to use props despite the fact that God could have just used magic directly. Other examples would include the Elisha with the widow and the jars of oil in 2 Kings 4 and the fish with the coin in its mouth in Matthew 17:27.