worldling

Vander writes and later complains, similarly Vanderzyden, for what ancient text, other than the Bible, would you go to the trouble of inventing an imaginary scenario to explain away two apparently contradictory accounts of the same event?

Isn't it you who is treating the bible differently from any other ancient text?

Worldling

Peter Kirby

Good point, Worldling. And, just so long as we are not giving the New Testament special treatment, shouldn't this text be added to the stew?

"Judas walked about in this world a sad example of impiety; for his body having swollen to such an extent that he could not pass where a chariot could pass easily, he was crushed by the chariot, so that his bowels gushed out." - Papias, as quoted by Oecumenius and Theophylact (in Roberts-Donaldson Ante-Nicene Fathers)

best,
Peter Kirby

Steven Carr

As Vanderzyden apparently does not have double-standards when it comes to ancient texts, and accuses others of double-standards, perhaps he can come up with a contradiction in teh Quran, which can not be resolved by his own methods of resolving contradictions.

He never will, of course.

Baidarka

Vanderzyden:

V:
“I also realize that you are implying that there seems to be some apologetic consistency between Bubba's response and mine.”
B:
I need to clarify that I started with my own response to Bubba’s, Topic: N.T. Bible contradictions-open poll posted September 17, 2002, and not by quoting Bubba I’m sorry if this was ambiguous.

I would suggest that you discontinue the use of “the straw man” as a device in your debating tool box. There are plenty of real skeptics here for you to argue with. It is quite unnecessary for you to construct your own, complete with strange motives and weak arguments. I think that the following are examples of what I’m talking about.
You are creating your own imagined silly and stupid skeptics and than knocking them down. Well they ain’t us!
V: 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.
V:
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.
V:
In the interest of discrediting the Bible, the skeptic will claim that these two accounts are contradictory. 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.

Butters

Hello to everyone,
It is fortunate that I came across this thread, because I have a question about the prophecy concerning this event. Although Matthew claims he was reffering to Jeremiah as prophecing this event, no such prophecy is to be found. (This alone is enough to dismiss the entire prophecy idea.) But Christians point to Zachariah as the author of this prophecy. Now if we ignore the fact that the stories have two entirely different meanings, and ignore the fact that the Jews (who wrote the O.T. didn't consider it a prophecy, we are only left with the few similarities. The one that concerns me is the quote "I took the wages and cast them at the potter in the house of the Lord" I have seen assertions that the word "yaster"(potter) does not appear in the Jewish scripts, it is the word "aster"(treasurer).
Is this true? Can it be shown that the word WAS treasurer? (Which only makes sense, who ever heard of a potter in the Temple?) And if it can be shown that it was indeed Treasurer, not potter, what do apologists have to say about this?
I would be gratful for any help on this.

K

Vanderzyden:

I think the problem that people have is that on their own, the two texts are conflicting.

Imagine you read two newspapers.

Newspaper 1: Last night John Smith was bludgeoned with a sledgehammer while in a rental car.

Newspaper 2: Last night John Smith died in his bed during a peaceful sleep.

I think it's pretty obvious that these two sentences are contradictory even though it's certainly possible that somebody snuck in and bludgeoned John Smith while peacefully sleeping in a rental car that he was using as his bed. The fact that some extra-textual manipulation can produce a version that jams the two together, doesn't eliminate the contradictory reporting in the first place. In fact, it would even seem to either a stories being greatly distorted or deception on the part of one or both of the reporters.

Jayhawker Soule

Hello, Butters

Perhaps the following might be a place to start ... Edited to add a reference to the <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1997/3/3consp97.html" target="_blank">Yoel Wasserman</a> commentary.

[ October 09, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]</p>

Vibr8gKiwi

The problem isn't the amount of detail, it's that the detail given is inconsistent in the two accounts.

If either account stood on its own, it would appear complete. It is only the fact that we have two differing accounts that we notice the inconsistency. It's precisely due to the details given that make the accounts inconsistent. You also notice this inconsistency (despite your denials) and are forced to conjure up a compound event not contained in either account to try to explain it away.

You are perhaps a pro at fooling yourself, but you might carefully examine the (rather simple and clear) comments from people here and notice how no one else is fooled by your sleight-of-logic.

At the rate you're ignoring people that destroy your arguments you'll soon be ignoring the entire board.

[ October 09, 2002: Message edited by: Vibr8gKiwi ]</p>

leonarde

JPosted by Vibr8gKiwi: I don't know; the vague account in Acts 1:18, which says this about the death could be taken to be:

1)a defenestration (homicidal/suicidal/accidental)

and/or

2)a disembowlment (again by unspecified agency).

It is only the Matthew account that is clear about the manner (hanging)and agent (self-inflicted) of death.

Cheers!

Jayhawker Soule

That your "most historically meticulous of the NT writers" should overlook a hanging is "hardly reasonable".

Just what does the phrase "most historically meticulous" mean to you?

[ October 09, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]</p>