Bible Contraction #2 God needs to rest or not? (Isaiah 40:28 vs Exodus 31:17)

[Wootah]

#2 God needs to rest or not? (Isaiah 40:28 vs Exodus 31:17)

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... rsion=NRSV

Have you not known? Have you not heard?
The Lord is the everlasting God,
the Creator of the ends of the earth.
He does not faint or grow weary;
his understanding is unsearchable.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... rsion=NRSV

It is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed."

Does God need to rest or not?

[Wootah]

God is relatable and relating to us. A lot of the time, at least in this instance of Exodus talking about God resting after creation, God is showing us that rest is good. Humans need instruction. By resting for a day we learn from the example. It doesn't mean God was tired and needed to rest.

Also, there could be two views of God here. One is that when he creates he does use some power and it takes time to refresh, another is that his power is absolute all the time. If we go with view one then I don't see why we have to believe he grew faint and weary, maybe it is impossible because his efforts in creation never get him to that state of faint and weary.

But, personally, I think Isaiah is describing God's nature and Exodus is God demonstrating to us that it is OK to rest. The Sabbath is a symbol of the great rest we find in God and I can personally attest that I have found more rest knowing God than I ever had before.

When God rests, or loses a wrestling match with Jacob or anything else that is less than we think God should be, like dying on a cross - I think the profit is in looking into why He did that for us?

I can't see why anyone would still think this is a contradiction?

Any others just PM me?

[nobspeople]

#2 God needs to rest or not? (Isaiah 40:28 vs Exodus 31:17)

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... rsion=NRSV

Have you not known? Have you not heard?
The Lord is the everlasting God,
the Creator of the ends of the earth.
He does not faint or grow weary;
his understanding is unsearchable.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... rsion=NRSV

It is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed."

Does God need to rest or not?

I was told the term 'rest', when used as if god was tired and needed a 'rest' wasn't the correct term. Odd that over decades and centuries of edits, editors found that to be the best word to use, but there's always a caveat claimed when there is a contradiction, or something that puts god in a 'less than righteous' light.
So let's assume, here, the word 'rest' is correct.
So this would mean god needed to rest, thus, not being all powerful (unless, of course, we want to change the definition of 'all powerful' which I wouldn't be surprised if that was to happen).
So, an all powerful god wouldn't need rest. A 'less than all powerful' god would. Rather or not one wants to attribute the modern christian god as anything less than 'all powerful' depends, like most everything 'christian', on whom is asked and when.
A god that never changes sure seems to have its definition changed over the years and cultures, but we don't want to talk about that.
To me, the modern christian god is bunk pure and simple.

[benchwarmer]

God is relatable and relating to us. A lot of the time, at least in this instance of Exodus talking about God resting after creation, God is showing us that rest is good. Humans need instruction. By resting for a day we learn from the example. It doesn't mean God was tired and needed to rest.

Perhaps you are missing the key words at the end: "and was refreshed". It wasn't that God took a break, it was the 'refreshment' after doing so.

Also, there could be two views of God here. One is that when he creates he does use some power and it takes time to refresh, another is that his power is absolute all the time. If we go with view one then I don't see why we have to believe he grew faint and weary, maybe it is impossible because his efforts in creation never get him to that state of faint and weary.

Well if we just redefine words enough then anything is possible. At the end of the day, we don't have the authors (or God) to cross examine here to find out what was really meant. On plain reading, we appear to have a contradiction. If we play with it long enough, maybe that disappears. If nothing else, it just proves we can get whatever meaning we like out of the Bible. That in itself should be another red flag.

[Difflugia]

I was told the term 'rest', when used as if god was tired and needed a 'rest' wasn't the correct term. Odd that over decades and centuries of edits, editors found that to be the best word to use, but there's always a caveat claimed when there is a contradiction, or something that puts god in a 'less than righteous' light.

It's certainly not always true, but it's justified in this case as a leftover from the Victorian English of the King James Bible. The Hebrew word means "stopped" and was used in the KJV in the same sense as a rest in musical notation. Most English Bibles continue in the tradition of King James translation, especially in passages that are well-known, like this one. Since "rest" can still have the same meaning (i.e. a thing that isn't moving is "at rest"), translators are reluctant to change it.

It's worth noting that it has the same root as Sabbath if you're looking for theological connections, but it doesn't have the same connotation as the modern use of "rest" in the sense of refreshing oneself. In a modern sense, it would be more like being "done for the day" at the end of a workday or "done for the week" on Friday afternoon.

[nobspeople]

I was told the term 'rest', when used as if god was tired and needed a 'rest' wasn't the correct term. Odd that over decades and centuries of edits, editors found that to be the best word to use, but there's always a caveat claimed when there is a contradiction, or something that puts god in a 'less than righteous' light.

It's certainly not always true, but it's justified in this case as a leftover from the Victorian English of the King James Bible. The Hebrew word means "stopped" and was used in the KJV in the same sense as a rest in musical notation. Most English Bibles continue in the tradition of King James translation, especially in passages that are well-known, like this one. Since "rest" can still have the same meaning (i.e. a thing that isn't moving is "at rest"), translators are reluctant to change it.

It's worth noting that it has the same root as Sabbath if you're looking for theological connections, but it doesn't have the same connotation as the modern use of "rest" in the sense of refreshing oneself. In a modern sense, it would be more like being "done for the day" at the end of a workday or "done for the week" on Friday afternoon.

Instead of rest, they could have said 'stopped'. Problem solved.
It's frightening, or should be at least, that editors of the bible seem to use 'less than accurate' words when describing this god. I'd expect, after centuries of 'trial and error', these people would be doing everything they could to make their translation as accurate and 'fool proof' as possible.
Likewise, seminaries.
I'd also expect god to intervene on aspects such as these, that would put doubt in the minds of potential converts (assuming god exists and is interested in providing a more 'fool proof' methodology in the fastidious studies of its word).
Maybe they all have better things to do? Or don't care (maybe they're union?).
Or maybe the layperson is expected to know all these idiosyncrasies peppered throughout 'the word'?
Tome, of god can't be bothered enough to make the bible more clear, I can't be bothered enough to concern myself with it. I'm sure god doesn't care - my loss and all that.

[Difflugia]

It's frightening, or should be at least, that editors of the bible seem to use 'less than accurate' words when describing this god. I'd expect, after centuries of 'trial and error', these people would be doing everything they could to make their translation as accurate and 'fool proof' as possible.

Likewise, seminaries.

This is a big deal to me. It's the idea that some (or most) people can't accept the truth of the Bible, so it must be hidden from them to prevent confusion.

I'd personally like to think that a god would offer salvation to those that are genuinely confused or mistaken, but would eternally damn those that would let them continue being mistaken. It seems to me that the gravest offense one could commit against God would be in understanding what He says, but being dishonest about it, even by omission. In the broader sense of the thread about contradictions, that's why the whole harmonization thing gets me in the first place. If you believe that the Bible is the literal communication of God, but have to resolve challenges in that communication by pretending the challenges don't exist, then you are telling God that His challenges aren't worthy of your consideration or even your honesty.

[nobspeople]

It's frightening, or should be at least, that editors of the bible seem to use 'less than accurate' words when describing this god. I'd expect, after centuries of 'trial and error', these people would be doing everything they could to make their translation as accurate and 'fool proof' as possible.

Likewise, seminaries.

This is a big deal to me. It's the idea that some (or most) people can't accept the truth of the Bible, so it must be hidden from them to prevent confusion.

I'd personally like to think that a god would offer salvation to those that are genuinely confused or mistaken, but would eternally damn those that would let them continue being mistaken. It seems to me that the gravest offense one could commit against God would be in understanding what He says, but being dishonest about it, even by omission. In the broader sense of the thread about contradictions, that's why the whole harmonization thing gets me in the first place. If you believe that the Bible is the literal communication of God, but have to resolve challenges in that communication by pretending the challenges don't exist, then you are telling God that His challenges aren't worthy of your consideration or even your honesty.

It should be a big deal to anyone and everyone!
If people have to try to justify a god (god or God or whatever term one wishes to apply here) or belief therein, then is it really worthy of your attention? I mean, seriously.

If the only way humanity can 'grasp' this god is to justify stories about it in it's 'official' book, change word definitions, excuse actions, it's not God, it's a farce. A trickster that these people bought into hook, line and sinker. No true loving being would do such a thing.
If it had a bridge to sell in a desert, and one buys it...well, there's a saying about what you 'can't fix'. That would apply here.

[Wootah]

[Replying to benchwarmer in post #23]

I'm not seeing anything that hasn't been explained.

To be honest I come home from work, get changed, refresh myself and get on with the evening. Refreshing doesn't really have to mean any deep state of tiredness.

Thinking further on this, assuming God can magically refresh himself then the act of getting tired was freely chosen and again leans into my point that he does things in a way for us. Creation could have happened in an instant, instead, God took 7 days. The way God does things is for us to learn from.

Ideally, the reason we are on this forum is for the two sides to sanely agree on rational points. Your third contradiction is the one - I am sure of it!

[brunumb]

Creation could have happened in an instant, instead, God took 7 days.

How do you know this to be a fact?

[Wootah]

Creation could have happened in an instant, instead, God took 7 days.

How do you know this to be a fact?

We are debating contradictions in a book.