Book of Contradictions: A Challenge

[fr0d0]

---

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.

---

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.

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.