Biblical Eugenics - being wrong about how to colorize your goats

There could be streaked and dark-colored animals that were not goats, like sheep. He only removed the colored goats, and the black lambs.Verse 40 speaks of colored animals. You're assuming they're goats.So there, contradiction solved. You're doing it wrong. Our standards are higher than that. Please do catch up.Don't just respond quickly off the cuff on your phone. Read, study, understand, think, read some more, think some more, then post.Don't take the shotgun approach of just throwing all kinds of shit out there and seeing what sticks, and even worse, then ignoring the rebuttals to what doesn't. Ya know, like "Laban had no sons".

If we go by that thought, that perhaps there were other streaked, spotted, colored animals like sheep present there is no reason to think a con happened because in 37-43 it does not mention what animals jacob breed. It's just streaked, speckled, spotted strong animals. What we see now is simply miss-treatment of jacob by laban.

It doesn't have to; Laban only allowed him to have colored sheep and goats and black lambs.Laban removed all the colored goats and the black lambs, and there's no mention of him removing the colored sheep.Then Jacob made more colored animals with the colored wood, and had them face the colored animals that were still Labans, which would be the sheep.

quote:

---

Then Jacob made more colored animals with the colored wood, and had them face the colored animals that were still Labans, which would be the sheep.

---

Well we don't know that the rods were used by jacob to breed a new kind. Jacob could have been using them to encourage mating vs breeding a new kind. Its reasonable to say jacob breed streaked, speckled, or spotted strong sheep (the speckled and spotted sheep were not removed by laban from earlier as you noted and he had access to streaked and dark colored animals in 40 since a group of animals were being faced toward them. Some of those streaked animals could have been sheep so he could have used those and this idea is based on the text). The text does not mention otherwise (just streaked speckled spotted young strong animals born from 39.). and we don't want to add info if we can avoid it. This interpretation is yet another 1 and seems very sound. Edited by Alias, : ErrEdited by Alias, : ErrEdited by Alias, : errEdited by Alias, : add

quote:

---

I acknowledge that there is an ambiguity about who does what in verse 35. I think the ambiguity is resolvable, but there is no need to address that issue here.

​

There is no such ambiguity in verse 36. If you think there is a translation error, you need to dig that out instead of just assuming there is one. But there is no facial ambiguity.

---

I agree with you.

quote:

---

There is simply no way that Jacob set three day's journey to separate himself from Jacob. You cannot replace the "he" and "himself" and get any kind of sensible thought. The text clearly refers to Laban moving. Further, it is clear, regardless of who took the sheep in verse 35, that those sheep are not included in "the rest of Laban's flocks".

---

I agree with you.

quote:

---

That claim is laughable and false. By your own admission, your interpretation requires you to denounce the entire Laban/Jacob story as false, uninspired, and not proper scripture. Fundamentalists on the other hand just chalk up the birthing of spotted cattle from non-spotted parent cattle to God's intervention. As is evidenced from the commentary I cited, fundies don't have much of a problem with Jacob's breeding experiment.

---

Ref post 121-124 and follow those. CS has presented a better interpretation of the contradiction I kept mentioning, and we are elaborating on that now. I've pointed out some good info as well with respect to his point that I am not sure he realized when he made his post. IT does seem very sound overall. It seems like a good literal reading of the story, it does not hurt literalists in the end, it has no contradictions, no con and laban is an ass in the end (perhaps I was wrong again when I said it was not god inspired lets just keep following a long this line of thought in those posts and see where it takes us).. Edited by Alias, : errEdited by Alias, : err

But its a very straight-forward conclusion and you haven't provided an argument otherwise.In Bible-speak, when it says: "X, and (then) Y" we conclude that Y was because of X. For example:

quote:

---

Gen. 1

​

3 And God said, Let there be light, and there was light.

---

God said Let there be light and that caused the light to be.Would you really argue that the light came to be, independently, and solely by coincidence after God said to let it be?Now:

quote:

---

Gen. 30

​

39 they mated in front of the branches. And they bore young that were streaked or speckled or spotted.

---

The mated in front of the branches and that caused them to bear young that were like the branches.Why would you argue that they bore young like the branches, independently, and solely by coincidence after mating in front of them?

---

Also, another thing we like to do here is notate what additions we've made to our posts. Often people will use "ABE", which means "added by edit". The post I'm seeing now is nothing like the post that got emailed to me (which was what you originally inputted). And we all can see that you've edited it many time.ABE:This line, which is all I've added, is an example of explaining what your edit is.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : See ABE for an example.

The branches are not sparkled spotted or streaked they re white. It does not make sense by that logic. Also if you read 42 it reads 2 different ways. 1 way it is as you say that the branches were placed in front so they mate sparkled spotted or streaked (even though the branches are white so that's confusing but I get it.).Another way to read 42 is that the branches were put in front of the animals so they would mate in front of them as if to influence them to mate (same with 39). Then you get the sparkled spotted streaked animals (sheep) since that's their species and kind.

lol. Remember: read, think, research, read some more, think some more, then post:

quote:

---

37 Jacob, however, took fresh-cut branches from poplar, almond and plane trees and made white stripes on them by peeling the bark and exposing the white inner wood of the branches.

---

CS, please don't talk to me like I'm an idiot. I have a bachelor's degree in applied science. I have also studied the bible since I was about 10 which is roughly 22 years. Typically I try to be humble for the sake of respect. I see your point but it's 1 thought. FYI: main stream thoughts are always changed. I'm offering you another good argument using all the same facts. One thing you should learn is everything is a argument. Stripes are not spots or speckles. Also stripes are different than streaks. another thing I think is important is to remember, we're reading manuscripts (copies of copies of copies probably very removed from the originals) not autographs plus translations so I highly doubt we're reading a spitting image if the original context.Edited by Alias, : ErEdited by Alias, : errEdited by Alias, : errEdited by Alias, : errEdited by Alias, : errEdited by Alias, : err

Let's assume that those posts resolve the issue. Given that they were made after your post which drew my response, and even after my response, they don't rebut my comments about your position prior to your being persuaded by Catholic Scientist.Further, one of your reasons for disagreeing with the mainstream interpretation is wanting to establish that Jacob was not a con artist. I think your efforts would be better addressed at explaining Jacob's tricking his brother out of his birthright or at Jacob's whining like a puppy when he faces his brother after leaving Laban. Esau appears to be 10 times the man Jacob was.It appears to me that your sole issue is to rebut the idea that the Bible says that striped rods cause plain cattle to produce colored cattle. You seem to think that CS nitpicking (in my opinion) over the possibility that not all of the colored animals were removed fixes thing.Well actually that nitpicking is unhelpful. The reason is that even if some colored sheep did not get removed, we know that colored goats are not sired or born by sheep of any color. Yet all goats with any white on them had been removed from Laban's herd. So you still need an explanation of where speckled goats came from. If the answer is facing colored sheep, that answer is just as silly as proximity to striped rods.Frankly, I think the best assumption to attack is the assumption that white animals cannot have speckled offspring. If coloring were recessive, you could expect a fraction of the births to white sheep to be colored. Of course I don't actually know who goat/sheep genetics works...Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

So what should we think when you say things that are proven clearly wrong based on 10 seconds of reading the Bible. Things like 'Laban had no sons' or when you admit to confusion about the branches being white.Generally speaking though, citing your BS degree in a discussion about the meaning of about 10 verses in the Bible isn't a winning argument. And I've noticed that you aren't above ridiculing your opponent. When you are wrong, just take your lumps.

Dude, I've admitted when I am wrong each time. I have no problem admitting when I am wrong (even though that is merely limited to thought, so I could be right but within current logic at the time I was wrong). I've only ridiculed when the other started ridiculing FIRST. GET that RIGHT. Honestly this website so far in my experience is anti bible and that bothers me. I prefer OPEN thought vs mainstream thought. Mainstream thought originates from open thought. This thread is about biblical eugenics which is NOTHING MORE than a ARGUMENT (don't care if most of christendom accepts that interpretation or does not accept it). The moment I read that topic I thought to my self lets shatter this issue (just like CS noted glad he realized that is what I was doing even though he positioned it like it is a bad thing I disagree. I was purposely using the people in this thread to do their own research against their own claims. I don't care about typical processes I do things my way always. Eff main stream thought. If you are going to make a CLAIM and you want to have a conversation about it I am going to MAKE you do the research and post your thoughts exposing why YOU could be WRONG. You will see this is my tac in this thread. Don't care how you feel about it. Apparently the poster does not care about how others feel either hence his topic name...) to EXPOSE each and every part of this issue. I am not here for a member rating LOL. As much as Theodoric would like to hit that minus sign over there near my name it means nothing to me, I do find it hilarious though that he is doing that because I know he is doing it because I've done it to him (only because I didn't like his post and it only happened a couple times. He is hitting it like he has some sort of vengeance and he is trying to communicate it as well. Hilarious that he values the member rating at this website. HILARIOUS. Please do me a favor and all of you HIT the minus sign over by my name so I can have the lowest rating. Paapaa Pleeeaassee!!! Anyway, by throwing EVERYTHING at the issue (knowing I could be wrong) it has exposed (thank you for doing most of the research :-P) that we can read the text in a different way utilizing the very same facts (granted some are less plausible at this time WE don't have the autographs). AND it appears the poplar branches were white striped not speckled, spotted, or streaked. It does not make perfect sense for the white striped branches to have been used to breed speckled, spotted or streaked animals. Jacob had access to streaked and dark colored animals in v40 after laban removed the animals in 35. He also had access to speckled or spotted sheep from 32-35. 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. It also works with the flow of ch 31 and ch 29. Feel free to believe what you WANT though. AS I've said numerous times I'm perfectly fine disagreeing. Don't care if paulk finds that to be "protesting" it is actually just me keeping my own opinion utilizing free thought. Stop following mainstream thought and open your mind to free thought. Which is the only thing I've really been practicing in this thread not any of the other things you claim. If I agreed to something in a prev post that post is altered by this post because that was earlier in time. FYI: I will not be responding to post 130 you should find those answers here.Edited by Alias, : errEdited by Alias, : errEdited by Alias, : errEdited by Alias, : errEdited by Alias, : colorEdited by Alias, : errEdited by Alias, : errEdited by Alias, : errEdited by Alias, : errEdited by Alias, : errEdited by Alias, : errEdited by Alias, : err

It actually says that he put the rods in front of mating cattle so they would mate in front of rods. If it did not say that, then this argument would be over. You read the purpose into statements that are best interpreted differently.

quote:

---

41 And it came to pass, whensoever the stronger cattle did conceive, that Jacob laid the rods before the eyes of the cattle in the gutters, that they might conceive among the rods

---

The passage said that when the stronger cattle did concerive that Jacob laid the rods before the cattle. The result was that the cattle conceived among the rods.The passage does not say that the impetus to conceive came from the rods as you claim it does.I'll admit that verse 42 does not close off your interpretation, because it does not talk about the weak cattle conceiving. But you should not need to be told that cattle were making babies or that other animals need no help to make babies. But perhaps solid colored animals do need some help making streaked babies. I think the record will show that you ridiculed me before I changed my tone with you.As for not responding to my message 130, I cannot blame you for that. Because it blows you up pretty well.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

quote:

---

KJV 41 And it came to pass, whensoever the stronger cattle did conceive, that Jacob laid the rods before the eyes of the cattle in the gutters, that they might conceive among the rods

---

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,

---

Now were talking translation issues which I've mentioned. It uses the word heat in the NIV instead of conceive from the KJV...Check ref it can be used both ways which means we have ultimately two ways to read ch 30... In one hand the bible supports the idea of eugenics the other hand it does not.FYI: All "in heat" means is that they were fertile (the oocyte was properly positioned to be fertilized by the sperm) it does not mean they were horny... SO it was the perfect time to help them MATE.About ridicule, go back and look. Post 33. You started it just like paul and CS.FYI: I answered all your questions in 132 (Again you trash talk.) You didn't blow any thing up.My trash talk resp = "you just made a bunch of assertions that show you to not be reading my posts that well".And if we follow the posts from 33 this type of thing escalated. Now it is escalating again. Learn to be respectful. IF you read my last sentence in 132 this is what I said about your post 130... Edited by Alias, : errEdited by Alias, : errEdited by Alias, : errEdited by Alias, : errEdited by Alias, : errEdited by Alias, : errEdited by Alias, : errEdited by Alias, : errEdited by Alias, : errEdited by Alias, : errEdited by Alias, : errEdited by Alias, : urlEdited by Alias, : err

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