Biblical Biology, Genesis 30:37-42

[thomas t]

This is exactly what I was wondering after watching the video and then thinking of the OP in that context. There are plenty of foolish things that happen in The Bible that the video highlights... like people being tricked with ridiculously inept ploys that even a complete dolt couldn't find himself tricked by. It's basically a very, very badly written soap opera for ancient times.

I think it's a perfect story composed by God Almighty.
In my interpretation, Isaac was fooled because Jacob and Rebecca were more intelligent.
Please note that beforehand, Jacob already bought the first-born blessing that Isaac was going to share out, see Genesis 25:33.

The second ploy is stunning indeed: Jacob accidentally slept with Leah instead of Rachel when it was dark (dark! - here the video is either plain wrong or being sarcastic).
Actually, I pondered a lot about how it is possible to have sex with someone that you aren't sure who that is.
This again is a surprisingly big mistake that God did not prevent Jacob from making.

In my opinion God let this happen because he disliked the way, the moment and the circumstances in which they had sex with each other to begin with.
My interpetation: if God is against a certain endeavor, you will make mistakes - even mistakes of this size.

However, in general Jacob is a big heroe. For anyone to notice, he is even mentioned in the "gallery of heroes" as I would call Hebrews 11. So he's one of the biggest heroes of faith that ever lived!

Are there any other ploys I did not notice?

edited (spelling)

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

My interpetation: if God is against a certain endeavor, you will make mistakes - even mistakes of this size.

And God has a hand in these "mistakes" does He? This is basically what you're implying. That if God doesn't like what you're doing then you'll "mysteriously" start making mistakes. Like nudging you onto the path of sleeping with the wrong person or make you slip up, miss some details and that leads to you giving the most important thing you have left to give to the wrong person. Interesting. Sounds like He likes playing games.

 

[thomas t]

And God has a hand in these "mistakes" does He?

well yes, of course. That's at least my suggestion that this is how it works for people of faith.

That if God doesn't like what you're doing then you'll "mysteriously" start making mistakes.

well yes, in my opinion this is how it is. When I open up the Bible I find an abundance of examples like this: Let me name three prominent examples of them: Genesis 38:10, Numbers 22:31 and Jonah 1:3-12.

Sounds like He likes playing games.

No, these aren't games, I think. People learn by their mistakes and God helps them learn. Even the big heroes of faith made mistakes. This may be to our comfort.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

well yes, of course. That's at least my suggestion that this is how it works for people of faith.

well yes, in my opinion this is how it is. When I open up the Bible I find an abundance of examples like this: Let me name three prominent examples of them: Genesis 38:10, Numbers 22:31 and Jonah 1:3-12.

No, these aren't games, I think. People learn by their mistakes and God helps them learn. Even the big heroes of faith made mistakes. This may be to our comfort.

Yes, I think I will just start believing that I am not responsible for my own mistakes... it's God. What a relief. Thanks for the insight.

 

[thomas t]

Yes, I think I will just start believing that I am not responsible for my own mistakes... it's God. What a relief. Thanks for the insight.

It's my belief that if God disapproves of your plans as a believer, He won't let them succeed. But still, you're the one to be blamed for having made a bad plan to begin with. We are responsible for our plans.
This is how I see the matter.

 

[1213]

...
According to the video (minute 8:40 ff.) , Jacob "used the [...] concept of getting animals to look at white branches while they mated so that they would produce white streaked offspring."
....

The story tells that Jacob set the rods in the drinking water of the animals. It would be interesting to make a test, what would happen, if we put similar rods to drinking water of similar animals, would it affect to the outlook of the offspring.

Jacob took to himself rods of fresh poplar, almond, plane tree, peeled white streaks in them, and made the white appear which was in the rods. He set the rods which he had peeled opposite the flocks in the gutters in the watering-troughs where the flocks came to drink. They conceived when they came to drink.
Gen. 30:37-38

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

ok, but they call themselves atheist, in line 3 they call their videos "atheistic animations":
https://www.youtube.com/c/DarkMatter2525
I think it was an atheistic animation.
Speaking from my experience, atheists in the fourms occasionally quote this channel to bring their thoughts accross. They use this channel even more than they use Richard Dawkins qoutes or other outspokenly atheist sources.

I’m about to blow your mind: I am a theist who LOVES Darkmatter2525. His parodies not only criticized various religious beliefs but ties them to modern problems as well, such as using Trump to parody a corrupt king in one video.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

In my interpretation, Isaac was fooled because Jacob and Rebecca were more intelligent.

The implication is unsettling as Israel is only blessed due to fraud. Are we sure the Edomites or some other tribe didn’t write the story?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

The quality of his videos only improve. I am a fan of the Power Corrupts playlist. I’m happy to note that my faith can withstand parody. Much of the Bible parodies older texts. The authors were ancient youtubers at best and Fox News levels wrong at worst.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

It's my belief that if God disapproves of your plans as a believer, He won't let them succeed. But still, you're the one to be blamed for having made a bad plan to begin with. We are responsible for our plans.
This is how I see the matter.

Except that each of God's interferences in plans will present the person making mistakes with new opportunities to make decisions that never would have existed had God not interfered. In a way, He would most certainly be responsible for the forking of our decision trees in all sorts of ways that would only compound as time went on, and new decisions were made, and new interferences by God were carried out, and then possibly even new people born as a result of God's interference that changed some path of some person, and then that new person would some day make their own choices that God then might interfere with, and so on and on compounds God's responsibility in it all. Choice after choice... interference after interference. Just like we humans have to live with when considering our own choices... except our influence dies at a particular time... God's would not. And so His responsibility in it all just keeps growing, and growing and growing... and therefore what He can be blamed for keeps growing and growing and growing as well.

 

[Zaha Torte]

This is a very popular atheist video on youtube
It's a reflection of the Jacob story.

Biblical Baby Mamas



According to the video (minute 8:40 ff.) , Jacob "used the [...] concept of getting animals to look at white branches while they mated so that they would produce white streaked offspring."

View attachment 45783

In my opinion, this is a misrepresentation of what the author calls Biblical Biology.
In Genesis 31:9 Jacob explains - God is the author of this in a situation of unsolved conflict. Not the method.

So in my opinion, the equation is: God + a method = offspring. This equation only applies to situations in which there is no standard way of solving conflicts, such as presenting the issue to the whole community, I think.

I think, it's not the branch. In a situation in which standard ways of solving conflicts aren't availabe but God being with you... you could use no matter what method to get the offspring. This is at least my opinion on the matter.

It's similar to Naaman bathing in the Jordan seven times or Israel bringing down the walls of Jericho with marching and horn blasts.

God + a method = miracle

 

[thomas t]

The implication is unsettling as Israel is only blessed due to fraud. Are we sure the Edomites or some other tribe didn’t write the story?

no no, Esau sold his blessing beforehand: Genesis 25:33.

I still hold that God authored the Bible and it's a good book. You can't compare it to Fox News, in my view.

 

[thomas t]

As to why not many atheists follow him, many consider he does a disservice to atheist. But he does seem popular among christians who quite his work at atheists like its their bible

The only people I have EVER seen mention this " Dawkins" on a forum have been the religious ones, especially fundys.

It seems to be that as religions have prophets
the atheists must have them too.

Exactly. They seem to think that if they show that Darwin or Dawkins is wrong about something, [... ]

Still, Dawkins has 1.4 m facebook likes for his foundation and some 600k likes for himself. These aren't Christian likes, I suggest. So he remains a prominent figure within the atheist world.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Still, Dawkins has 1.4 m facebook likes for his foundation and some 600k likes for himself. These aren't Christian likes, I suggest. So he remains a prominent figure within the atheist world.

A Facebook like is not a statement of devotion.

And why couldn't a fair number, perhaps even a majority be from Christians? Dawkins is famous for his books on evolution too and not all Christians are afraid of reality.

 

[thomas t]

And why couldn't a fair number, perhaps even a majority be from Christians? Dawkins is famous for his books on evolution too and not all Christians are afraid of reality.

Christians usually do not support people trying to persuade people to become atheists (agnostics).

 

[Subduction Zone]

Christians usually do not support people trying to persuade people to become atheists (agnostics).

Dawkins spends more time on science. But if someone does bring up religious beliefs he is not afraid to discuss those. But I cannot remember him trying to persuade people to become atheists.

 

[ChristineM]

Still, Dawkins has 1.4 m facebook likes for his foundation and some 600k likes for himself. These aren't Christian likes, I suggest. So he remains a prominent figure within the atheist world.

Sheesh! How do you know at least some are not christians liking his FB posts? Not all christians are funnymentalist and as far as i know, most christian sects accept evolution, including the biggest group, Catholic

There are far more prominent atheists but fundies most certainly hate him and provide him with the pedestal they wish he had among non believers in their particular god.

And as i said, he does.not consider himself an atheist.
Richard Dawkins says he's not entirely sure God doesn't exist

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sheesh! How do you know at least some are not christians liking his FB posts? Not all christians are funnymentalist and as far as i know, most christian sects accept evolution, including the biggest group, Catholic

There are far more prominent atheists but fundies most certainly hate him and provide him with the pedestal they wish he had among non believers in their particular god.

And as i said, he does.not consider himself an atheist.
Richard Dawkins says he's not entirely sure God doesn't exist

To be fair the author of the article doesn't understand what an atheist is.

 

[ChristineM]

To be fair the author of the article doesn't understand what an atheist is.

I used that article because i thought @thomas t could relate to a religious writer

But the word's come from Dawkins himself, i did watch the original interview and was quite surprised by his words.

If he cannot be sure, that makes him agnostic or at most a borderline between agnostic and atheist

 

[Polymath257]

Still, Dawkins has 1.4 m facebook likes for his foundation and some 600k likes for himself. These aren't Christian likes, I suggest. So he remains a prominent figure within the atheist world.

Sure. And he can be wrong without atheism being wrong. He can also be wrong about theism and still be correct about evolution.