Hey, we all make mistakes. So, we can leave that one and go one to the main issue.
Focusing on the English word "rest" is just as big of a mistake as getting the wrong day, bigger.
Getting the wrong day is like a copyists error, easily spotted and corrected.
Focusing on the the word "rest" implies you don't understand the process of Biblical interpretation. For those who use English translations it begins with an assumption that the translation is a credilbe translation of the original text. But if one is going to do a word study, which is what you are doing when focusing on a key word, then one has to go back to the original languages. And that is where your critique of this passage breaks down.
Let me illustrate from the Qur'an.
Well, this appears to be pretty clear, at least on the surface -- Muslims should not have non-Muslim friends. But let's look at an English dictionary to be sure. What does the word "friend" actually mean?
Exactly what I suggested originally. Muslims should not have as a favored companion, an acquaintance, or affectionate relationships with people or esteem those who are not Muslims. Such friendships should only be with brothers and sisters in Islam.
Now, all I have done is use the same principles of interpretation that you have used for the passage in Genesis that speaks of God resting. So, I suspect you agree with my interpretation of the Qur'an-- or at least you should if you think you used a valid process in your own interpretation of the Bible.
But the wise Muslim would differ with my interpretation of the Qur'an and with good reason. You see, I based my understanding on an English translation, when I should have based it on the Arabic original. The following article shows the proper way to interpret these verses, and it begins by correctly understanding the word that is translated as "friend" in the referecned verses:
the word Awliya is often incorrectly translated as friends.
It isn't that the word "friends" is wrong, but that if one thinks of friends in the common use of the term, then one is going to have a misunderstanding as to what these verses are saying. Similarly, it isn't that the word "rest" is wrong, but that if one thinks of rest in the common use of the term, then one is going to have a misunderstanding as to what these verses are saying. Just as one needs to return to the Arabic text to truly understand the Qur'an (no amount of defining the English word "friends" helps until you get back to the actual Arabic word, "
Awliya," behind it), so one needs to return to the Hebrew text to truly understand these passages from Genesis. No amount of defining the English word "rest" is going to help us understand the passage until we actually get back to the Hebrew word, "
Shavat," behind it.
And when one does a word study on the actual Hebrew word used in the passage, one finds that it has nothing to do with taking a nap. It simply means that God ceased creating.
Thus, when one better understands what this passage is actually saying, rather than the false concepts that have been put forth for it, one sees that there is no issue with God having human weaknesses. You've been barking up the wrong tree. This makes the rest of the criticism stemming from that mis-observation moot.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On another note, I'm not sure what any of that has to do with addressing the question as to who wrote the Bible. Though it is a nice rabbit trail if you like to chase rabbits.
