Read my next reply pardaic.

(May 11, 2011 at 6:18 pm)Minimalist Wrote: The earliest extant version we possess is the Septuagint which was written in Greek in the 3d century BC.

The earliest fragments are dated to the 2nd Century BCE, and the writing down of the Septuagint is dated to the 3rd to 1st centuries (beginning with the Pentateuch) based on Josephus who explicitly says that the Pentateuch was translated by Jews "into the Greek tongue" from a text "written in characters and in a dialect of their own" during the reign of Alexander.

(May 11, 2011 at 1:20 pm)Cinjin Cain Wrote:

---

The only person interpreting what the scriptures are saying is you. I'm quoting it word for word without interpretation or redefinition. Joe Schmoe off the street and the MILLIONS like him are going to read the bible for what it says. And what it says is that god rested and later says god does not tire. I would refer you to Min's earlier post .... spin how you want to ... it's a contradiction.

EDIT: See follow up posts from Nimzo and myself for WRONG definition. (Actually, correct definition, wrong TERM)

---

See Nimzo's post for an explanation of your error. There is no doubt about the meaning of the text as you claim. There simply isn't.

(May 11, 2011 at 1:36 pm)tackattack Wrote:

---

Sure, I wasn't aware I was contrary to your understanding Fr0ds;

God rested

wiki article on Jewish Shabbat or sabbath reasons (it's well cited)

Jesus talks about every man resting in death

Olam Haba foundations which according to the Tanach and siddur are one of 3 reasons to celebrate Shabbat

---

None of those address the term in question tack... unless you're not referring to God's actions on the 7th day. The exact meaning of the text there isn't anything to do with death, for example.

(May 11, 2011 at 2:48 pm)Cinjin Cain Wrote:

(May 11, 2011 at 2:27 pm)Nimzo Wrote: An interesting interpretive principle: that what the "average Joe" understands by an English translation of an ancient text is a good indicator of the original meaning of the text.

You're putting words in my mouth. I, like any commoner throughout the centuries, reads the Bible as it is presented to them in the language handed down by Christians. I will say this one more time for you - Pay Attention - I don't need an interpretive principle. The only people who have to redefine words and interpret scripture are christians trying desperately to defend the contradictions found therein.

Spin it how you like. It's a contradiction .... and it's FAR from the only one. How do you defend the blatant contradiction of facts that Min presented in post #2 or that RefJer presented in post #3? Are you going to argue interpretation then?

You are making excuses for your deliberate misinterpretation CC. You're not interested in exact interpretation of the original meaning, but the opposite: in hailing the correctness of an interpretation of an interpretation. You'd rather rely on chinese whispers than go to the source for the real answer. If you were honest you'd want to know the most accurate answer as well... but the common misunderstanding of those in the dark is what conveniently fits, so you're sticking with that. Not a very respectable position.

(May 11, 2011 at 6:18 pm)Minimalist Wrote: The earliest extant version we possess is the Septuagint which was written in Greek in the 3d century BC.

We have no historical references to a Hebrew version by any other writers.

That's why the Dead Sea Scrolls were so important. While dating to the mid 2d century BC at the earliest they remain the earliest writings in Hebrew even though a considerable percentage of them were written in Aramaic and Greek.

Min,perhaps a dumb question: What is the earliest extant copy of the Torah in Hebrew held by the Jews of which you are aware?

(May 11, 2011 at 5:44 pm)Nimzo Wrote:

---

(May 11, 2011 at 2:48 pm)Cinjin Cain Wrote: You're putting words in my mouth. I, like any commoner throughout the centuries, reads the Bible as it is presented to them in the language handed down by Christians. I will say this one more time for you - Pay Attention - I don't need an interpretive principle. The only people who have to redefine words and interpret scripture are christians trying desperately to defend the contradictions found therein.

Spin it how you like. It's a contradiction .... and it's FAR from the only one. How do you defend the blatant contradiction of facts that Min presented in post #2 or that RefJer presented in post #3? Are you going to argue interpretation then?

---

You may well feel that you are not applying an interpretive principle, but the fact is that you are doing so. You consider any talk about what the original Hebrew or Greek words meant and implied to Hebrew and Greek hearers to be "desperate redefinition", as if the translations we use (which differ, of course) somehow provide a direct correspondence between the original languages and modern English - and that is the interpretive principle that you are implying. "Interpretation" is not a dirty word - it is a perfectly normal thing that we have to do with any form of communication - it just means understanding what is intended to be meant.

I would hardly consider the King James Version to be modern english. I also don't think interpretation is necessarily a bad (dirty) thing. I do however find it contemptible when CONSTANTLY used to justify blatant discrepancies in the Bible - whether it be this or any other. If your god is all-knowing as you claim, than one would think that he could've forseen all these "miss-interpretations" that seem to be so prevalent.

Quote:You also assume that every Christian is some how ultimately emotionally invested in defending the Bible, when the reality is that many (myself included) are entirely disinterested in the whole matter. On matters of interpretation, I just approach it like everything that requires to be interpreted - I try to understand what the authors originally were communicating through it. It is not clear to me that anyone who has presented a "contradiction" in this thread has actually tried to get to grips with the original intent of the authors.

I made no such claims that quote, "all christians are emotionally invested in defending the Bible" ... in fact, I was only referencing the christians who do. Which is a great many.
About "getting to grips with the original intent of the authors" ........ Are you saying that the millions of people who read the bible should have Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek translations with them whenever they open a Bible? I thought Christianity was for the entire world? Didn’t god see this coming? For that matter, am I going to need a Hebrew lawyer when I get to heaven?

Quote:Are you willing to argue that the author of Genesis means to imply that God rested because he was tired? If you are not, then you are not even getting started when it comes to providing a contradiction. You have solely relied on what English translations appear to you to imply - this exposes the interpretive principle which, whether you like it or not, you assume by the way that you argue your case. If you really are serious that you think there is a contradiction, and you think that it is in any way important that other people know about it, then actually provide some argumentation for your interpretation of the text.

I have provided my argument: I submit that based on its own merit and without the interpretation of ancient writings, the Bible is contradictory in many of its quoted passages. My entire argument IS the absence of interpretation therefore your provocation to provide argumentation for just that - would become my own contradiction.

(May 11, 2011 at 7:13 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote: Read my next reply padraic.

OK,I wrote my reply before I saw that. However,the Copts and Ethiopian Christian are NOT eastern rite Christians,they are in their own category.

(May 11, 2011 at 7:17 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(May 11, 2011 at 2:48 pm)Cinjin Cain Wrote: The only people who have to redefine words and interpret scripture are christians trying desperately to defend the contradictions found therein.

Spin it how you like. It's a contradiction .... and it's FAR from the only one. How do you defend the blatant contradiction of facts that Min presented in post #2 or that RefJer presented in post #3? Are you going to argue interpretation then?

You are making excuses for your deliberate misinterpretation CC. You're not interested in exact interpretation of the original meaning, but the opposite: in hailing the correctness of an interpretation of an interpretation. You'd rather rely on chinese whispers than go to the source for the real answer. If you were honest you'd want to know the most accurate answer as well... but the common misunderstanding of those in the dark is what conveniently fits, so you're sticking with that. Not a very respectable position.

You're right about a couple things in that rebuttal Frodo...
1. I am not interested in your interpretation. I am only interested in reading what it ACTUALLY says.
2. Millions of people reading the Bible are most definitely in the dark and take the book at face value - just as their preacher tells them to do. I am reading word for word - and since most people do not have the doctrinal background and historical manuscripts to decipher whatever the fuck it is those tent dwellers were trying to say - than they too are forced to take the bible at face value.

.... Now lets get back to the real point. It is you and Nimrod who have not proven to me that "rested" does not mean "rested" and "tired" does not mean "tired".

BOTH of you have been arguing whether interpretation is valid and ignoring the real OP.

@rev J
There was Catholicism, Anglicanism and protestantism. Lots of people have this misunderstanding, and it is truly easier with only 2 sides. Reality though, in a war there are almost never just 2 sides.
@Min- It's not spin it's actually quite clear. God rested on the seventh day, Isaiah was encouraging another person with the idea that God would never tire especially in his advocacy for them by telling him God never rests (as in God ever gives up). And they are both in the Bible yes. If you're a literalist then you still fail because words have both definition and connotation. Sometimes (like in rest) they also have multiple meanings and uses. If you want to say Isaiah was wrong because you're being a literalist and refusing to apply reading comprehension principles to what you read then fine by me. But why would you not apply those principles to the Bible, when I'm sure you apply them to most of what else you read.
@Fr0d0- I thought you asked me to support the statement you quoted of mine. I did. I even broke it down into each part for you.

@ CC: As no one is interested in serious and exact understanding then we must leave it there... with you satisfied without examination. I must consider you more interested in your own superficial belief instead of any accurate answer. The question was answered. The answer wasn't challenged, except by pleas to ignorance.

(May 11, 2011 at 7:54 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: @ CC: As no one is interested in serious and exact understanding then we must leave it there... with you satisfied without examination. I must consider you more interested in your own superficial belief instead of any accurate answer. The question was answered. The answer wasn't challenged, except by pleas to ignorance.

If you say so Frodo.

I can't blame you for backing out. You obviously don't have a leg to stand on. Even your own people disagree with you.