Book of Contradictions: A Challenge

[fr0d0]

God did rest, and we remember that rest through the sabbath. We will all rest one day when we die, and all will rest finally after judgement in hell or heaven.

Please show me the exegesis to back up that statement. I can back up mine.

---

---

So lets get this clear. You're argument is that we should all just ignore the definitions of the words rested and tired and that of course will make it obvious that there is no contradiction here.

---

Your exegesis is based on the english translation CC, and not the actual meaning of the text in context. As such it's pretty worthless. Maybe that's why you feel the need to back it up with several ad hominems.

[Cinjin]

Your exegesis is based on the english translation CC, and not the actual meaning of the text in context. As such it's pretty worthless. Maybe that's why you feel the need to back it up with several ad hominems.

Exegesis: an interpretation, especially of Scripture, that expresses the interpreter's own ideas, bias, or the like, rather than the meaning of the text

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)

[tackattack]

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

[Cinjin]

@ Cinjin Cane you seem to like poking at Frodo, prove him wrong if you can. I gave you an example and so did tackattack and you have ignored both.WHY?

I'm "poking at Frodo" because his challenge was to me. (See the OP)

GC - I will certainly give your post a rebuttal when I see something that deserves one. So far, the drivel that pours out of your fingertips onto the screen is not worthy of a response from me. You and Statler like to play by your own special rules of debate and you conclusions are never founded in legitimate rationale. Frodo's not much better, but I did agree to accept his challenge.

[Nimzo]

Exegesis: an interpretation, especially of Scripture, that expresses the interpreter's own ideas, bias, or the like, rather than the meaning of the text

I think you'll find that's the definition of eisegesis. Quite ironic really.

[Cinjin]

Exegesis: an interpretation, especially of Scripture, that expresses the interpreter's own ideas, bias, or the like, rather than the meaning of the text

I think you'll find that's the definition of eisegesis. Quite ironic really.

Damnit damnit damnit ... I gotta preview my post first. Eisegesis was what I meant to write not exegesis.

Damnit! I hate it when I give the other team a point.

[Nimzo]

Joe Schmoe off the street and the MILLIONS like him are going to read the bible for what it says.

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.

[Minimalist]

But, of course, that idea comes right from Luther himself....the horse's .....mouth, so to speak.


http://www.ehow.com/info_8293090_three-m...ntury.html

Universal Priesthood of Believers

Along with his belief in the sola fide and the sola scriptura, Luther also believed in the right of believers to have a more personal relationship with God by reading the Bible in their respective languages, without the mediation or interpretation of Latin-speaking priests. Each man was to be his own teacher when it came to the Bible and priests and the Catholic Church's sacraments were not necessary for believers to do this.

Probably explains why there are 33,000+ xtian sects stinking up the landscape with their bullshit.

[Nimzo]

But, of course, that idea comes right from Luther himself....the horse's .....mouth, so to speak.

Universal Priesthood of Believers

Along with his belief in the sola fide and the sola scriptura, Luther also believed in the right of believers to have a more personal relationship with God by reading the Bible in their respective languages, without the mediation or interpretation of Latin-speaking priests. Each man was to be his own teacher when it came to the Bible and priests and the Catholic Church's sacraments were not necessary for believers to do this.

What Luther (as if his view is somehow normative) says about the personal importance of access to translations for Christian believers has to do with my post I have no idea.

[Cinjin]

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?