Joan of Bark

Let me repost, and ask you to read the whole thing, since it is only 6 sentences long (I've highlighted the part you missed).

Are you implying that God IS being clear in this statement? Then why do the Israelites not know what to do with him? The reason, obviously, is that God didn't bother to define what constitutes "work". Is gathering firewood "work"? This issue crops up again in the NT, when Jesus heals the sick and allows his disciples to gather food on the sabbath. Is that not also "working"?

Clouseau

You can repost ad infinitum. Your premise is based on a translation, which, it now seems, may well have been deliberately chosen because it supports an indefensible thesis. If that is the state of atheist scholarship, it's better to hide it from public gaze.

Clouseau

Where is the evidence? I don't suppose that too many here have even read these books, or even know what they are. They come here with one mind only, and that is to oppose the gospel, by whatever means at their disposal. Atheists are usually very quick indeed to defend the idiocies and political unacceptability of Catholicism when these come under scrutiny from Christians, whose cause has suffered from Catholicism. Humbug.

First prove that such people are Christians and not on the same side as atheists.

Sauron

If you have reason to believe the translation is not faithful to the original, then post the evidence.

What?
Chosen to support one particular thesis, indefensible or otherwise? Really?
Says who? You?

Full citations, please. Your personal musings while sitting on the toilet are far from evidence.

If it were that easily dismissed, you'd have something more substantial than the garden-variety handwaving you've been doing.

Chris Weimer

You charge us with some outrageous claims - any evidence to back up your statement? And if you're interested in evidence that atheists also attack the book of mormon or the quran - just search the forums. You aren't that special.

They claim to follow God and Jesus. Prove that you are a Christian. In fact, while you're at it, prove you're not an atheist and that your mom isn't my whore.

Sauron

No one is required to prove anything to you, until you support your list of magic assertions. He who asserts first, has first burden of proof.

Clouseau

Why have you not asked why the source of the translation has not been given, as asked for?

Sauron

I made no such request.

If you (or anyone else) made the request and the information hasn't been provided, then your "analysis" asserting that this translation was chosen to support a particular view is specious. Without knowing the source of the translation, there is no way you could conclude the motivations for using it.

Are you through stalling yet? Again: if you suspect the translation as given has issues of fidelity, then post your evidence. If you're merely trying to poison the well, I've seen much more clever attempts to do so.

Clouseau

Are you the only person of real importance here? So sorry, I did not realise.

All bow to 'logic'. :notworthy:

Sauron

Excuse me?

You asked me in particular, why I had not objected to the (alleged) failure to disclose the source of the translation.
I answered your question.

Now, if the format of your question resulted in an answer which made you look stupid, that's hardly my fault. Next time, make sure that your question doesn't backfire on you.

Translation: while trying to avoid admitting your mistake in assuming the motive, you have admitted your mistake anyhow. And you did all this, while still failing to show any flaws in the translation chosen. In spite of your assertion that the translation was chosen because it supported a twisted reading.

How proud you must be.