FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 08-05-2008, 09:48 AM   #31
jab
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,167
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben C Smith View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helpmabob View Post
No mention of his actual death in Acts 1:18. Can't someone who has been hanged until they died and the body has deteriorated, later fall to the ground?
It is more than just the mode of death. Let me start with that and add the other pertinent issues:

1. Matthew 27.5 says that Judas hanged himself; Acts 1.18 says that he fell and burst open. Yes, it is possible for a dead body to fall and burst open; the stretch on the imagination is that Luke would mention the falling corpse without mentioning how Judas died at all. Furthermore,Apollinarius of Laodicea did not read the Acts account as a hanging: Judas did not die by hanging, but lived on, having been cut down before choking. And this the Acts of the Apostles makes clear, that falling headlong his middle burst and his bowels poured forth. His is a different harmonization altogether: Judas hanged himself, survived, and later fell and died. And Papias gives an account that resembles the Acts story, with nary a hint of a hanging. The Acts account is simply not the kind of thing one relates when one is trying to say that someone died by hanging.
2. Matthew 27.7 says that the priests bought the field; Acts 1.18 says that Judas acquired a field. Yes, it is possible to play with the words used and conclude that his acquisition of the field was indirect, with the priests buying it in his name, so to speak, after his death; again, this is not the most natural way to read it, since it looks like Acts is saying, simply, that Judas acquired the field.
3. Matthew 27.8 says that the field was named the Field of Blood after the blood money (the blood being that of the Lord) used to purchase it; Acts 1.19 says that the field was named the Field of Blood after the blood (being that of Judas) that was spilled upon it. Did the field really get the same name twice, for two different reasons?

One can harmonize each of these points, if one wishes to do so; the question is: Should one harmonize these points?

Ben.
Yes, if one believes the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, one must harmonize them. However, this cannot be definitive proof that the Bible is ierrant, since it is circular reasoning. Further the need to harmonize various passages (such as accounts of the Resurrection) and the strain that is put on actual passsages in order to creat the harmonization indicate that the Word of God is badly written when it comes to clarity, consistency and basic narrative technique. (When two narrators in a text meant to be read as a unitary piece contradict one another, or one completely leaves out details the other regarded as significant enought to include, we talk of unreliable narrators and their fallibility, not divine inspiration or control, not even the narrative control we expect from a human omniscient narrator, who fills in the gaps between characters' dialogue and account of things.)
jab is offline  
Old 08-07-2008, 06:22 AM   #32
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 431
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Shaver View Post
Oh, yeah, *we* have. But what about Luke's contemporary readers? He had no reason to assume that they were familiar with Matthew's gospel, or that they had even heard about it.
Agreed. But either one of the accounts tell us that Judas died - we can at least draw that conclusion from the Acts story by the spilling of the entrails - and died in miserable circumstances. The contemporary readers would have been able to glean that much without any reference to the account in Matthew.

Some people (Samuel, David etc.) were saved long before Judas’ death, so in those early years, a technical knowledge of the event was not essential in leading to salvation. Some people were being saved right up to the time of Judas’ death (e.g. John 8:30; John 9:38). By extension, because God cares for everyone in any age equally, we can be sure that He will have provided sufficient ‘information’ for contemporaries of Matthew to be saved. Knowing the exact details of Judas death is immaterial (*).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben C Smith View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helpmabob View Post
No mention of his actual death in Acts 1:18. Can't someone who has been hanged until they died and the body has deteriorated, later fall to the ground?
It is more than just the mode of death. Let me start with that and add the other pertinent issues:

1. Matthew 27.5 says that Judas hanged himself; Acts 1.18 says that he fell and burst open. Yes, it is possible for a dead body to fall and burst open; the stretch on the imagination is that Luke would mention the falling corpse without mentioning how Judas died at all. Furthermore,Apollinarius of Laodicea did not read the Acts account as a hanging: [I]Judas did not die by hanging, but lived on, having been cut down before choking. ..[snipped].. The Acts account is simply not the kind of thing one relates when one is trying to say that someone died by hanging.
There is something decidedly fishy about the notion of a healthy person falling on a flat field and bursting open. Something unusual has happened or it is being reported in an unusual way to draw attention to the heinous nature of the betrayal of a friend who was innocent in the eyes of both man and God.
Quote:
2. Matthew 27.7 says that the priests bought the field; Acts 1.18 says that Judas acquired a field. Yes, it is possible to play with the words used and conclude that his acquisition of the field was indirect, with the priests buying it in his name, so to speak, after his death; again, this is not the most natural way to read it, since it looks like Acts is saying, simply, that Judas acquired the field.
I don’t deny it is possible to interpret it in different ways. I don’t think that necessarily makes it a contradiction – more an ambiguity arising from a lack of information.

Quote:
3. Matthew 27.8 says that the field was named the Field of Blood after the blood money (the blood being that of the Lord) used to purchase it; Acts 1.19 says that the field was named the Field of Blood after the blood (being that of Judas) that was spilled upon it. Did the field really get the same name twice, for two different reasons?
People are different. Perhaps some people named it for the first reason and others for the second? I think that is entirely possible.
Quote:
One can harmonize each of these points, if one wishes to do so; the question is: Should one harmonize these points.
Perhaps the question is (* see above) – does it matter a lot whether we harmonise the details of Judas’ death.
Helpmabob is offline  
Old 08-16-2008, 11:25 PM   #33
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: California
Posts: 748
Default

In Joshua 11:23, we are told that Joshua successfully wiped out all the inhabitants and cities of the land of Canaan as per God's promise, then divided the spoils amongst the Israelite tribes. However, in Judges we learn that the Israelites are back to fighting the very same Canaanites we had just been told were destroyed utterly.

And, of course, in the 10 plagues story, the very same cattle and livestock keep getting wiped out, only to rise again a few verses later to suffer the same fate over and over and over again.

Whoever put this all together truly didn't know his ass from his elbow.
Roland is offline  
Old 08-17-2008, 11:57 AM   #34
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Antwerp,Belgium
Posts: 2,460
Default

In Genesis 1, God "saw it was good". The rest of the Bible contradicts this.

Greetings

Walter
HelpingHand is offline  
Old 08-17-2008, 12:28 PM   #35
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roland View Post
Whoever put this all together truly didn't know his ass from his elbow.
Perhaps people were terrified at that time to say such a thing. They maybe thought God would also send plagues to kill and destroy them.

And whoever put all thoses stories together probably knew that people at that time believed that their God could do anything, no matter how absurd.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 08-18-2008, 03:58 AM   #36
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: France
Posts: 16
Default

A few contradictions in the bible:


http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html

SAB Contradictions

http://answering-christianity.com/10...radictions.htm

101 Contradictions in the Bible.

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...adictions.html

New Testament Contradictions
Cyberia is offline  
Old 08-19-2008, 05:44 PM   #37
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: East coast of USA
Posts: 133
Default

How many contradictions are in the Bible? Goose egg.
evangelical is offline  
Old 08-19-2008, 05:55 PM   #38
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,808
Default

So when was your boy jesus born? When Herod the Great was alive or when Quirinius was Governor of Syria and taking a census?

Classic contradiction.

Of course, if he wasn't born at all then both statements are false.
Minimalist is offline  
Old 08-19-2008, 06:02 PM   #39
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Southwest USA
Posts: 879
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by evangelical View Post
How many contradictions are in the Bible? Goose egg.
Bullshit.

Next!
Reason is offline  
Old 08-19-2008, 06:04 PM   #40
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 11,525
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by evangelical View Post
How many contradictions are in the Bible? Goose egg.
LMAO! No one here is going to fall for that sort of crap.
spamandham is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:01 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.