post tenebras lux

Men also go out coming when they hang (or so I'm told).


Hmm, which reminds me (no, not the ejaculation bit), what about the saint (would it be Peter) who purportedly did the whole "I'm not worthy!" act and so was crucified upside down: wouldn't that make it a lot less painful whilst breathing etc. and so why on earth would his executioners agree to that?

It does, however, make a wonderful image in a fictional account.

aa5874

I have seen the body of someone who was hanged and there was absolutely no tear, no blood or gushing of anything. Except for marks about the neck area, the body has the appearance of a person who is asleep. Ask any law enforcement official who have seen suicide victims by hanging and verify.

Once again, we see the authors of the Christian Bible writing erroneous information. The credibilty of the Christian Bible is zero.

If Jesus is truly alive, I would think that He can resolve the errors. I think is time for the followers of the Christian gods to recall the Christian Bible and ask Jesus to re-write it. God knows and can do everything. Why doesn't He?

HarryStine

Are you able to read back further to see if their is some word that might be translated both as "being hung" and "falling headlong"? That would make things much more clear.

HarryStine

Ahhhh, a conspiracy. A poorly done one, too. You'd think they would get all the other bibles. A more natural explaination would be that the translators for the other version ran into a word or phrase with an ambiguous meaning, and, probably using an improper form of Greek (this has happened), chose the wrong meaning.

EthnAlln

The preceding verse is "houtos men oun ektesato khorion ek misthou tes adikias kai prenes genomenos [then follows what I already quoted]. Crude, very literal translation: "Now, the latter [Judas] acquired a field out of the unjust money, and, becoming headfirst, ...."

The reference to hanging comes from Matthew 27: 4--5. Here's my amateur literal translation: "(Judas) Saying, "I did wrong in betraying innocent blood. But they said, "What is that to us? You see to it." And, flinging the silver into the temple, he departed, went off, and hanged himself."


So, there is a significant difference in detail: Did Judas buy the field with part of the money, then fling the rest into the Temple? Obviously two different versions of the story were current. It would be a very strange gesture to go off and buy the field in any case. What was he planning to do with it? Was his death as reported in Acts an accident? Was he trying to settle down and tend a garden and just got unlucky and fell??? But he certainly didn't die both ways. Even the "inerrant" Bible says it is appointed to man ONCE to die.

Family Man

No, no conspiracy. It isn't a matter of another translation -- it's a matter of all the other translations. Somebody got that translation wrong, and it is a reasonable assumption that the single one, that happens to resolve a rather sticky contradiction, is the problematic one.

Family Man

I've spent the last couple of hours trying to figure this one out: How does a single bad translation work out to be a conspiracy theory? Wouldn't the conspiracy be between all the other translations?

And finally, why would someone I presume is otherwise perfectly intelligent say something so completely daft?

HarryStine

Matthew also said that Judas bought a field, only not directly. "But the chief priests having taken the pieces of silver, said: It is not lawful to put them into the corbona, because it iis the price of blood. And after they had consulted together, they bought with them the potter's field, to be a burying place for strangers. For this cause that field was called Haceldama, that is, The field of blood, even to this day." Matt. 27:6-8. The stories are consistent if only in this respect.

HarryStine

There's, obviously, alot more going on then what we can see now. What I can say is that St. Jerome, living much closer to the time when all this happened, was a better judge as to what he should include in his translation. He most likely had a better understanding of what Luke was talking about. Whether he was using a special form of Greek or was relying on the traditions to tell him when he could take liberties with the translation, I don't know.

Family Man

That is a very dubious assumption. Unless you have evidence that St. Jermone had either 1) different and more accurate sources than we currently had or 2) immunity to normal human temptations to stretch the truth a bit, the obvious conclusion is that St. Jerome couldn't resist doing a little whitewash job.