Biblical Eugenics - being wrong about how to colorize your goats

Yes, that would seem to cover it. Except that most of the answers to post 130 were not in your other response. I note that some of the missed points were in your last post. You still haven't address some of the issues I raised.

Thanks for giving me your posting schedule, but I really don't need it.

Because in fact, you did disagree. The last message I saw from you still insists that the weak cattle might not have even mated. You then proceed to argue that it does not matter. Actually it does matter immensely, because weak colored goats belong to Jacob, and weak white goats go to Laban. You claim that you agree with this.Verse 42 says that the result was that Laban's flock grew weak. This means that there must be a production of white, weak, goats and streaky, speckled sheep for Laban to have. This fact closes the loop on the argument.By contrast, your preferred mechanism leaves no method for Laban's flock to go bad.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

The alternate conclusion is based on evidence despite your claim to the contrary.Would it be proper to say that Laban's own animals "went" to Laban? No, because he already owned them. Your reading is a forced an unnatural interpretation, that is absolutely necessary for you. And of course that necessity means that your own interpretation is forced. And given that your purpose for being here at all is reaching that conclusion, we know how to weight your conclusion.And you do know that weak cattle were born cause that's what cattle do. And you still are attributing some magical affect to rods that was withheld from weak cattle. That needs explaining.But if the cattle in question were offspring as is strongly implied by the pair of verses 41-42, then the statements makes perfect sense. No need to stretch them beyond recognition. That's evidence.So both interpretations are possible, but yours is forced in the way I describe above. You conclude otherwise, but I ignore your conclusion as self-serving if not just plain silly. And in any event, it isn't what any literalist could or does use. And that is the topic of this thread.I'm done with this line of inquiry. It is sufficient for me that you acknowledge the interpretation that forms the basis or this thread. That's progress.

Tone downEdited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

An expansion on that story.Esau was the first born, and by tradition was due the birthright. That always seemed a bit arbitrary to me, but certainly having the oldest son get none of it as Jacob manages is no more fair. In his birth Jacob is described as clutching Esau's heel which was a Jewish metaphor for conning and theiving. Jacob's name means 'heel'.Jacob catches his brother at a weak moment in extreme hunger and gets him to turn over his birth right for some food. He does not bother to tell papa Isaac about the deal. I think the implication is that Dad would not have appreciated it, and would have forced Jacob to undo the deal. But never mind the implication.When Dad is on his dying bed, he sends his favored son Esau out for some food, and promises to give Esau his blessing when he returns. In Esau's absense, Jacob and Mom plot to fool Isaac into thinking Jacob is his twin brother, and Jacob executes the plot.Esau comes home, finds out what happens and is furious. Dad realizes his mistake but cannot undo it.After all of that stuff, why even entertain twisting the Jacob/Laban story for the purpose of making Jacob out not a conman. He certainly was.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I'd sure like to see you provide some support for that meaning coming from 'that' sentence. Whether or not the scientific laws could have been different, that sentence sure does not seem to say anything like that. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I have to admit that I just cannot follow this line of argument. According to marc9000, the Jacob sheep genetics story was written back during the time when sympathetic genetics actually worked. If that is the case, why in the world would the story contain any reference to modern genetics?If, in fact, no part of the Bible was written during the time of modern genetics, and that seems to be marc9000s position, how would any description of modern genetics appear in the Bible?Quite frankly, I find marc9000's explanation a bit dubious. But I don't think the 'God is a deceiver' line of argument works here.

How would science have discovered that CS? Sympathetic genetics is magic and thus it need not leave any impression on a sheep's DNA. And we cannot look at those old sheep now to determine that their phenotypes didn't match the colors that their DNA says they should have had. There is simply no evidence whatsoever that God did not magic up some sheep millenia ago.So how would that particular bit of Biblical magic be detectable now? And why would God have done that? Well simply to help Jacob out of a jam.Once magic has been invoked all bets are off, and what marc9000 has done is invoked magic. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I don't see any support whatsoever for this interpretation.Perhaps it is time to move on to another Bible story?

I see it!

The other possibility is the one given by Jar regarding other Biblical stories. There are plenty of these kinds of inconsistencies in the Bible. Those mixups might well result from the stories being told over and over again by different people.The truth of the matter is that it really does not matter much how the sheep gained their color. What matters is that the result was supernatural. Quite frankly, marc9000's belief that the breeding was natural and not supernatural makes Jacob even more of a trickster. I'm not sure why he prefers it.