Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Autonemesis · 10-10-2002, 02:13 PM

I avoided rising to Vanderzyden's ad hominem bait in this thread, just to see what he'd do. He abandoned replies to me, too, even though none of my responses were hostile or insulting.

I think he just gave up, finally. He got his scalps, and he rode off into the dust a hero (in his mind).

Butters · 10-10-2002, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Whenever I encounter people who insist upon a large number of biblical discrepancies, I become suspect. My suspicion arises not from their disagreement over the major themes of the Bible. Rather, my concern is this: In modern times, following close inspection by many liberal and conservatives scholars, these skeptics continue to promote the supposed existence of pervasive errors or contradictions in the Bible. This is clear indication that the detractors have not studied carefully, neither the text itself or the commentaries.

This is a blatenty false statement. Many people that recognize the contradictions and errors in the Bible are very knowlagable of the text and commentaries. Most people (at least in this country) do not set out to "discredit" the Bible, and then condem it after a shallow investagation. Most people that take the time to point these errors out have discovered them while still members of the Religion, and only after studying
the text and commentaries, do they discover the errors and contradictions. (How many non-Christians on this board alone are ex-Christians?)
Much of the best work I have read pointing out these errors and contradictions were written by ex-preachers, ministers, and theology majors.

Quote:

If the Bible contains numerous genuine errors or contradictions, then it is no longer plausible that an all-wise God is behind it. Yes, we must not be afraid of admitting this possibility. However, the so-called contradictions have not been found conclusive. In fact, the skeptic (1) often does not have strong knowledge of the Bible, (2) overlooks subtleties in the text and the references, or (3) ignores the fact that different narrative perspectives are not necessarily in conflict, but may be complementary.

1)and 2) are variations of what you stated above, and are still false.
3)Some may do this, but in most cases, different narratives can NOT be shown to be complementary.(as with the Judas narratives)

Quote:

The biblical skeptic must, in all fairness, apply the same analytical standards to the Bible as she does to other ancient texts.

I find this statement interesting, in light of the fact that below, you analize the Bible in a way that no other text would be subject to.

Quote:

The reader of the Bible must not invent her own standards of "perfection", nor require that a wise God meet all of her demands. It's simply not reasonable to insist that every detail be recorded, and that all accounts of the same events be identical (which would be cause for suspecting collusion). In fact, it is clear in all of Scripture that the reader will not be given everything; indeed, she will be given some critical information, and from that she must make our own decision.

It is not the reader that insists on perfection, but the writer. The Christion God is "perfect", The Christion God wrote the Bible, A "perfect" God could not produce an "imperfect' work. And while every detail need not be included, the pertinate ones do. To write that a man fell headlong and his guts burst, when you meant to say that a man hanged himself, rotted on the rope, then fell headlong and his guts burstis not only imperfect, it is misleading. I wonder if you relize what implacations your theory has for Bible study, if this type of detail is missing, and you are allowed to add to it, then the whole book is fair game! This is of course already the case WITHIN Christainity, people read the information, and then make their own decisions on what it means, this gives us Catholics, Protestants, etc.,etc.etc.

Quote:

So it is with the short accounts of the demise of Judas Iscariot, as found in Matthew 27 and Acts 1. In Matthew we learn in the second half of one sentence that Judas died by hanging himself:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Matthew 27:3 -- When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty silver coins to the chief priests and the elders. 4"I have sinned," he said, "for I have betrayed innocent blood."
"What is that to us?" they replied. "That's your responsibility."

5So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In Acts, we have a different perspective:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Acts 1:18 -- (With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. 19Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The first problem is that you are addressing ONE contradiction, when there are FOUR.

Judas hanged himself
Judas fell and split open
(If we were to actually treat this as any other acient text we would be obliged to include the account of his being run over.)

Judas threw the money at the preists
Judas took the money and bought the field.

Judas hanged himself, then the priests bought the field.
Judas bought the field himself, then died.

The field is called the field of blood because it was bought with blood money
The field is called the field of blood because Judas died there

Quote:

In the interest of discrediting the Bible, the skeptic will claim that these two accounts are contradictory.

Not in the intrest of discrediting the Bible, but by reading the text itself. If this was any other acient document, we would not even be having this discussion, at least one account is wrong,

Quote:

They insist that the entire biblical record is unreliable because it contains such "errors". With that, they dismiss the Bible as nothing more than a collection of "fantastic stories", written by simpletons who can't even get the facts straight. For the skeptic, then, the deconstruction is complete.

The above ad hominem has no bearing on the case, these two naratives are contradictory, how that bears on anyones beliefs is another matter.

Quote:

Let's take a moment to see if this dismissal is warranted. First, observe that, in both passages, very few words are specifically concerned with the type of death Judas underwent. In Matthew, we find three English words (NIV):

"and hanged himself".

In Acts, we have fourteen English words:

"there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out."

These words do not even comprise full sentences.

Wait,wait,wait my freind! Lets examine the text again.
Matthew: Then he went away and hanged himself
Acts:With the reward he got for his wickedness,Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong,his body burst open, and all his intestines fell out.

In Matthew I count seven words and in acts 26! And both are complete sentences!
So are you giving up on treating the Bible as any other acient document? Are you purposely trying to be misleading? Do you have any justification for chopping up these statements and then claiming that the are not complete sentences?
What happened to the Christian tradition of takeing things "in context"? Does that only apply when it is convient?

Quote:

Therefore, we immediately see that we are not reading a detailed account of his death. These are summary statements which, it would seem, are mentioned as minor (but not useless) details in a much larger context.

a ha! NOW we consider context, after we have isolated our argument from it!

We are further justified in making this assessment by observing that the text in Acts is encompassed within a parenthetical statement.

Second, and more importantly, we see that these very short accounts are not at all contradictory. One says, "he hanged himself", the other says "he fell and his body burst open". Where is the difficulty in reconciling these two perspectives? There is none. In fact, it is easy to suppose one of two scenarios:

1. After the corpse hung for a while and decomposed, the neck may have decomposed sufficiently to allow the head to separate from the body. The body would then fall free to the ground, where it would break apart (or explode).

2. While attempting to hang himself, he does not succeed. He is unable to secure the noose around his head properly, or the rope snaps, and he falls from a substantial height onto a a sharp object (tree branch, rocks). This impact rips his torso open and the contents spill out.

It is easy to "suppose" that this happened, after you remove the statements from the narative. What other ancient document can be treated with such imagination? But we have the same problem, what else can we add to the Bible? There is also another problem here, you are treating these naratives as if they were written in on Book, but this is not the case, they were seperate accounts, written at different times, so SOMEONE was led astray by not having the full account? This is the work of God?

We must take note that the book of Acts is written by "Luke", friend of Theophilus. He is the most historically meticulous of the NT writers. The author of Acts is the same as the author of the gospel of Luke. (Note that there are at least six references to Judas in Luke). In Acts 1, verses 16 and following, we see Luke is recording the words of Peter. This is the very same Peter who was a special disciple of Jesus. This is the same Peter who knew Judas Iscariot very well--they lived in very close contact for the three years immediately prior to Judas death (verse 17: "he was one of our number and shared in this ministry").

Also, we should take care to observe that Peter is indicating that everyone in Jerusalem heard about how Judas died. It was widespread knowledge. Many of the "Greek brothers", who were listening to Peter, would know if this was true or not. Is it likely that Peter could be wrong about a former close disciple and the man who had betrayed Jesus? It would seem that the probability is very low.

So, it is clear that there is no contradiction in what is mentioned concerning Judas' death.

Allow me to anticipate discussion on a few peripheral matters. In particular, I would like to examine the purchase of the field. Here are the verses immediately follwing the Matthew passage:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Matthew 27:6 -- The chief priests picked up the coins and said, "It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money." 7So they decided to use the money to buy the potter's field as a burial place for foreigners. 8That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

Unable to conclusively demonstrate a contradiction concerning the mode of Judas' death, the skeptic then turns to the purchase of the field. In Matthew, the transaction is handled by the priests who conspired with Judas. In Acts, Peter indicates that Judas bought the field. Again, there is no difficulty in reconciling the two accounts. Observe the particular language that is employed in verse 7 of Matthew 27:

"they decided to use the money".

In the prior verse, we see that the priests are true to their legalistic form, being very scrupulous in their attention to the law. They are not intent upon keeping the money, but they can't put it in the treasury. They want nothing to do with it, since it is Judas' blood money. So, they do not reclaim possession, but instead use the money to buy a field. Legally, then, it would have been Judas' field (if he lived).

Acts; Judas bought a field
Matthew: The preist bought a field

Permit me one last observation. The skeptic will also point to what is perhaps a contradiction in the naming of the field. But this is not the case at all. In both accounts, the name of the field comes about from the people of Jerusalem. In Matthew, the field "has been called" the Field of Blood by the people. In Acts, we see that Peter is indicating that the field has been "called" the Field of Blood "to this day". It is called this name by "they", that is, the people of Jerusalem. The name is fitting, since it was a cemetery bought with Judas' blood money.

Is it named because it was bought with "blood money" or because Judas spilled his guts there?

[quoteIn summary, it has been shown that there is no contradiction between the "Judas" passages in Matthew 27 and Acts 1. If the skeptic maintains that these are indeed contradictory, it has nothing to do with evidence.

This is so funny, if you stick to the evidence, instead of making up your own stories, you can only see that they are contratictions!

Ion · 10-10-2002, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by leonarde:

...
For me, it's not a matter of sheer numbers: it is a matter of the types of errors: some WOULD have an impact on theology (if they, the errors, could be established). Others, like the manner of Judas' death, don't really have any significance for the non-literalist (except insofar as they indicate a remoteness from the event described by the Evangelical author).

Cheers!

I disagree with this post:
errors, no matter their category, throw a doubt regarding the veracity of the Bible as a divine inspiration, and further down the chain, throw a doubt regarding the veracity of the Bible as a historical document.

Not combating these errors with reasoning, allows for religious incoherent interpretations to grow into dogma against people's rights, including fanatic religious violence.

leonarde · 10-10-2002, 08:15 PM

Previously posted:

Quote:

I disagree with this post: errors, no matter their category, throw a doubt regarding the veracity of the Bible as a divine inspiration,[...]

The above partial
post could have been written by the most stubborn
Biblical literalist. What does inspiration
have to do with veracity? Many inspired writers
(religious and secular) write all sorts of stuff which isn't even [b]meant[b] to be taken literally. I find the attitude to be not unlike that which (ostensibly) the non-theists here are fighting against: ie black/white either/or thinking which if it were given a formulation would look something like this:

(divine)inspiration=free from error=veracity

As I said before, this is not the position of
most theists.

Cheers!

Ion · 10-10-2002, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by leonarde:

...
I find the attitude to be not unlike that which (ostensibly) the non-theists here are fighting against: ie black/white either/or thinking which if it were given a formulation would look something like this:

(divine)inspiration=free from error=veracity

As I said before, this is not the position of
most theists.

Cheers!

1) You got it:
"divine inspiration = free from error = veracity".

2) I add:
"history = consistency in tangible proofs (archaology) and accounts = veracity".

And your:
"As I said before, this is not the position of
most theists."
doesn't matter anymore as truth after 1) and 2) but sure it does waste lives -when not being honest "...black/white..." style-.
I mean:
How did 'Judas die'? That's a black and white approach to it, nothing else.

[ October 10, 2002: Message edited by: Ion ]

[ October 10, 2002: Message edited by: Ion ]

leonarde · 10-10-2002, 10:01 PM

Partial post by Ion:

Quote:

1) You got it:
"divine inspiration = free from error = veracity".

Good. I was afraid I was misrepresenting
you.
So from my perspective a lot of the disputation in these precincts has to do with
1)group A which sees the world as Black and White.

2)group B which sees the world as White and Black.

For someone like me, there is little to choose from between the two groups: I wish them both well
but realize that I don't speak the same language
as they do....

Cheers!

leonarde · 10-10-2002, 10:08 PM

Posted by Ion:

Quote:

How did 'Judas die'? That's a black and white approach to it, nothing else.

To me that's an interesting intellectual question but one which has no
religious significance. 1)If Judas hanged himself, the basics of Christianity could be true (or false).

2)If Judas died in a fall, the basics of Christianity could be true (or false).

3)If Judas was somehow disemboweled, the basics
of Christianity could be true (or false).

4)If (however unlikely)some combination of the above happened (ie a hanging followed by a disembowelling), the basics of Christianity could
be true (or false).

Cheers!

Benjamin Franklin · 10-11-2002, 12:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by leonarde:
Previously posted: The above partial
post could have been written by the most stubborn
Biblical literalist. What does inspiration
have to do with veracity? Many inspired writers
(religious and secular) write all sorts of stuff which isn't even [b]meant[b] to be taken literally. I find the attitude to be not unlike that which (ostensibly) the non-theists here are fighting against: ie black/white either/or thinking which if it were given a formulation would look something like this:

(divine)inspiration=free from error=veracity

As I said before, this is not the position of
most theists.

Cheers!

Do you think think are errors in the Bible which cannot be explained away by a non-literal view of the bible

Can you give me an example of what would constiute a theological error.

Do you think God only inspired that the Bible writers on thelogical issues but gave them free reign to write on non theological issues and this accounts for the errors in the bible

BF

[ October 11, 2002: Message edited by: Benjamin Franklin ]

Benjamin Franklin · 10-11-2002, 12:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Radorth:


Bring em' on baby. We did about 10 "hard" ones in the last month, I thought. The score is 7 to 3 in favor of the Christians right now, if we are generous. Try to keep up. Come to think of it, only two were hard and this is one of them. Make that 7-2-1, Christians.

[ October 09, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]

Care to try and explain the contradictory resurrection accounts in Matthew and Luke i.e where did the first post resurrection meeting between the disciples and Jesus occur, Galilee or Jersualem

BF

[ October 11, 2002: Message edited by: Benjamin Franklin ]

[ October 11, 2002: Message edited by: Benjamin Franklin ]

K · 10-11-2002, 05:29 AM

leonarde:

Quote:

To me that's an interesting intellectual question but one which has no religious significance.

1)If Judas hanged himself, the basics of Christianity could be true (or false).

2)If Judas died in a fall, the basics of Christianity could be true (or false).

3)If Judas was somehow disemboweled, the basics of Christianity could be true (or false).

4)If (however unlikely)some combination of the above happened (ie a hanging followed by a disembowelling), the basics of Christianity could be true (or false).

That is true. However, when contraditions like this surface, it's evidence (not proof), that Christianity is just another one of the many god myths rife throghout the history of humanity. Human stories are notorious for inconsistencies. Would a perfect God be so careless with His only link to the world?

That being said, this thread resulted from the fact that a claim was made that there were no contradictions in the New Testament. I think you have already agreed that this is a contradiction (albeit one that you don't find particularly significant).

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-10-2002, 02:13 PM	#111
Autonemesis Contributor Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: I've left FRDB for good, due to new WI&P policy Posts: 12,048	I avoided rising to Vanderzyden's ad hominem bait in this thread, just to see what he'd do. He abandoned replies to me, too, even though none of my responses were hostile or insulting. I think he just gave up, finally. He got his scalps, and he rode off into the dust a hero (in his mind).

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.