The article A Quick Glance at the Foolishness in the Bible at Free Thinking Atheist (does that imply I'm not "free thinking" because I'm not an atheist, or just that not all atheists are "free thinking"? -Edit: I was being factitious here. Of course the author of the article intends neither-) discusses to the following passage from Genesis:

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. Then he placed the peeled branches in all the watering troughs, so that they would be directly in front of the flocks when they came to drink. When the flocks were in heat and came to drink, they mated in front of the branches. And they bore young that were streaked or speckled or spotted. (Gen 30:37-39, NIV)

GoatOf course, we know that putting branches in front of mating animals won't naturally affect how their offspring look. But is the author of the "foolishness" article above correct when he says "We now know this is physically, biologically, and genetically impossible. Placing striped branches near mating animals isn’t going to do anything to them, yet the Bible is saying their offspring came out striped, and dotted." I'd say yes. But his conclusion that the credibility of the Bible is hurt by this passage is incorrect. Here's why:

First, note what the passage does not say. It does not say that placing the branches in the water caused the animals to become streaked. Jacob may have believed that at the time; but as always, we have to study verses in context. Just shortly before this event, we see that Jacob was being cheated by Laban. Laban purposefully removed all speckled, spotted, etc animals to prevent Jacob from getting them, since it was their agreement that Jacob could take all of the "speckled or spotted sheep, every dark-colored lamb and every spotted or speckled goat" as Jacob's wages for tending the flocks. In Gen 31:10-13, God reveals Laban's deception to Jacob, and notes that "I [God] have seen all that Laban doeth unto thee". Jacob interprets the event this way: "God has not allowed him to harm me", and "God has taken away your father's livestock and has given them to me" (Gen 31:8,9). Jacob doesn't say "I foiled Laban's plan by using the branches", he credits God for acting to prevent Laban's trickery. This shows that in this case God intervened to produce the appropriate results, not because of Jacob's actions with the branches but perhaps despite them, to prevent Jacob from being unfairly cheated.

The author of the "foolishness" article also comments that "it looks like it [Gen 30:37-39] has already been edited and obscured so the actual message of the passage is vague and meaningless: King James Version – Genesis 30:37-39. Hell, the trees don’t even match up in each passage." I should note here that the King James Version is not the easiest translation for modern people to use, especially those who have no training in biblical exegesis, and that the King James translation was done hundreds of years before the NIV translation that the author uses in his own article. So if anything, modern translations have "edited" the text to be more accurate to the original text. However, even the claim that the message has been "obscured" in the KJV passage is totally untrue; compare the KJV for yourself to the NIV above:

And Jacob took him rods of green poplar, and of the hazel and chesnut tree; and pilled white strakes in them, and made the white appear which was in the rods. And he set the rods which he had pilled before the flocks in the gutters in the watering troughs when the flocks came to drink, that they should conceive when they came to drink. And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted. (Gen 30:37-39, KJV)

As you can see, the meaning of the passage hasn't been "edited" or "obscured", even in the King James Version. As I noted in my article Bible "contradictions": A Real Example, "if I was reading Shakespeare and found what I thought was a contradiction, I wouldn’t think “Hmmm I guess I proved that this Shakespeare guy didn’t know what he was doing.” I’d probably assume that my naive interpretation was wrong; I’d need to do some more reading and thinking about the supposed problem, or consult an expert." The same applies to biblical interpretation. I encourage everyone to learn about biblical exegesis in order to better understand the Bible.

» 2 Comments
Permanent Link to 'Bible "contradictions": Jacob's Branches'