Joan of Bark

HUH???? Defend Catholicism? Where? When? I certainly treat Catholicism with the same skepticism as any other Christian sect.

But to get back to our debate, I took as the translation the NIV Bible, although what possible relevance that has to the issue of what constitutes working on the sabbath, I have no idea.

Clouseau

It's habitual to attribute translation, isn't it. It isn't very usual for atheists to quote the NIV, though.

Let's look at the same verse in other translations. We can start with the archaic KJV, the normal (natural?) choice of atheists and fundies alike. Despite its catalogue of errors, it does get some things right.

'And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation. And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him.' Num 15:33-34 KJV

We can refer also to the NASB, often regarded as the best of English 'literal' translations.

'And those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron, and to all the congregation; and they put him in custody because it had not been declared what should be done to him.' Num 15:33-34 NASB

Now we see here that there may have been no doubt about what was to happen to the man who collected wood. The man had broken a law, he was under arrest for a particular law, and that same law specified the death penalty. There may have been doubt as to the method of execution, but the precedent was for stoning only, and this does not seem to be an important enough cause for the Bible mentioning this matter.

It appears that this was the first occasion on which the Sabbath law had been infracted, and there may have been reluctance to actually put it into practice. The offence was not like murder or adultery, but one that may not have appeared to be a serious one, and certainly would not have been one at all in any other nation. But Israel was not like any other nation; Moses was consulted, God confirmed his command, and that was that.

Atheist 'explanations' are not only inaccurate, they hide the real meaning of the Bible. And this is anyway surely the most spurious excuse for saying that the Israelites did not know which foods were intended as acceptable. Whether the account is genuine or not, Jews cannot have been in doubt about such a practical, everyday matter that applied immediately it was known of.

spamandham

You two are arguing as if these stories were historical.

Clouseau

Read properly.

spamandham

Clouseau

Sauron

1. Really? Says who? You've certainly presented no evidence to that effect. Your assertions are worthless.

2. If you believe that there truly was no doubt about what the sabbath law was, or the penalty for breaking it, then why were these Israelite bystanders confused about what would happen to the man gathering sticks?

3. Moreover, you have not demonstrated that this particular event (gathering sticks in the wilderness) occurred after the commandment not to work on the sabbath. If it occurred before the law was given, then that would certainly explain the confusion of the Israelite bystanders.

4. Finally, you seem to be guilty of the same thing you are trying to accuse "atheists" of doing - picking translations to support your preferred view. But Young's Literal Translation seems to support the NIV view:

And the Amplified Bible seems to support the NIV viewpoint as well:

So it seems your attempt to assume your conclusion is on shaky ground. How predictable.

Conveniently useful speculation on your part, but again - no evidence.

I'm sorry; I must have missed the place where you demonstrated that your preferred translation was more accurate than the NIV. Feel free to point that out again.

And when you finish proving that, then maybe you can tell us how you decided that your personal view magically equates to the "real meaning of the bible".

Joan of Bark

You've missed the major point I was making, Clouseau. It is definitely not made clear in the OT as to what constitutes work. Is healing the sick and gathering food on the sabbath work? Did Jesus break a commandment?

And, as Sauron says, how do you know which are the 'accurate' translations of the verse I mentioned?

Doug Shaver

It's enough for me that they call themselves Christians. If you folks can't agree among yourselves on what it takes to be a Christian, I don't see what would give me the right to make that decision for you.

Clouseau

[QUOTE=Doug Shaver;4547974]And you are who, exactly? Mr 'Bought computer, have opinion'?