One of my favorite Bible discrepancies is the way Matthew and Luke (Acts) describe Judas’ death. I’m going to present these two accounts with some summaries for the reader’s benefit. I will then sit back, watch Ob and/or McMazzu “take the bait” and see what kind of “harmonizations” they can concoct to convince us that these two accounts do not disagree with each other and that the Bible is “100% accurate”.




What do we have here?

1.) Judas was paid 30 pieces of silver for betraying Jesus.
2.) Judas threw the money he was paid for that betrayal back into the Temple (Judas appears to be remorseful).
3.) Judas hanged himself.
4.) The Jewish priests took the money Judas left and bought a potter’s field in which to bury foreigners.

Let’s look at the Book of Acts now:



What do we have here?

1.) Judas was paid an unknown amount of money for betraying Jesus.
2.) Judas used this money to buy a field (Judas does not appear to be remorseful).
3.) Judas died in that field by falling “headlong” and having his “middle” burst open and his bowels gush out.
4 .) The field was then called the “Field of Blood”.

Have fun!


(Braced for the inevitable: Judas hung himself on a tree with a dead branch that hung out over the field and it broke, and Judas fell, and his bloated body hit some rocks below the cliff and that's how he broke open! So, don't think I haven't heard that one before!)

.

I may have thrown a wrench into any potential replies because I noted I have already heard the "he hung himself and fell onto some rocks" harmonization. Maybe they're scared to use it because they know I'll tear it to shreds.

Don't flatter yourself too much. Tearing the bible to shreds doesn't tear Christianity to shreds. Ultimately, the book is written by man, and man is not perfect.

Oh god...you're still bringing up bible difficulty for the sake of argument? I though you got a Bible Difficulty Encyclopedia? .......

^ they dont listen Cuong, they STILL insist on being wrong, over and over again...Its a repeating process they cant get over. "taking the baitt"? How lame! Please Skeptic im sure you can do better than that. But then again, You're a beginner debater after all. Come back when you are truly ready to debate with me.

Of course ripping the Bible to shreds wouldn't stop Christianity. People will always find "reasons to believe" inspite of the evidence stacked against them. But that's not what McMazzu maintains, Brian. He says the ol' Good Book is "100% Accurate." I'm just showing him that it isn't. If you don't hold that position, that's fine. Then this will have little interest for you.



Couldn't answer the charge either, eh Cuong? No surprise. And, yes, I have Archer's "Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties." So what? Are you suggesting Archer has a solution to this discrepancy? If he does, and you endorse it, why don't you present it and try to defend it?



Another non-answer from the great and powerful Oz! 2 Can't come up with a solution, eh, McMazzu? That's ok. I didn't think you'd be able to. So instead of answering the OP, you just bluster and blather and close your post without so much as trying to address the discrepancies in the New Testament's two conflicting accounts of Judas' death. That's fine. This just lets everyone reading KNOW that there isn't a solution (at least not a viable one) and that you are incapable of defending your assertion that the Bible is "100% accurate". Looks like I'm gonna have to give you an "F", McMazzu and flunk you out of Christian apologetics school! 2

How did Judas die, by hanging or falling down?
Matthew 27:3-8 and Acts 1:16-19


By hanging (Matthew 27:3-8) - "Then when Judas, who had betrayed Him, saw that He had been condemned, he felt remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, 4saying, "I have sinned by betraying innocent blood." But they said, "What is that to us? See to that yourself!" 5And he threw the pieces of silver into the sanctuary and departed; and he went away and hanged himself. 6And the chief priests took the pieces of silver and said, "It is not lawful to put them into the temple treasury, since it is the price of blood." 7And they counseled together and with the money bought the Potter’s Field as a burial place for strangers. 8For this reason that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day."
By falling (Acts 1:16-19) - "Brethren, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit foretold by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus. 17"For he was counted among us, and received his portion in this ministry." 18(Now this man acquired a field with the price of his wickedness; and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out. 19And it became known to all who were living in Jerusalem; so that in their own language that field was called Hakeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)"
There is no contradiction here at all because both are true. A contradiction occurs when one statement excludes the possibility of another. In fact, what happened here is that Judas went and hung himself and then his body later fell down and split open. In other words, the rope or branch of the tree probably broke due to the weight and his body fell down and his bowels spilled out.
Also, notice that Matt. 27:3-8 tells us specifically how Judas died, by hanging. Acts 1:16-19 merely tells us that he fell headlong and his bowels gushed out. Acts does not tell us that this is the means of his death where Matthew does.

(Copy from http://www.carm.org/diff/Matt27_3.htm)

Is the field called the 'field of blood' because the priest bought it with blood money (Matthew 27:8), or because of Judas's bloody death (Acts 1:19)?

(Category: misunderstood the wording)

Once again, looking at the same two passages as the last two apparent contradictions Shabbir asks why the field where Judas was buried called the Field of Blood? Matthew 27:8 says that it is because it was bought with blood-money, while, according to Shabbir Acts 1:19 says that it was because of the bloody death of Judas.

However both passages agree that it was due to it being bought by blood-money. Acts 1:18-19 starts by saying, "With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field". So it begins with the assumption that the field was bought by the blood-money, and then the author intending to cause revulsion for what had happened describes Judas bloody end on that piece of real estate.

(Copy from http://debate.org.uk/topics/apolog/contrads.htm)

Did Judas buy a field (Acts 1:18) with his blood-money for betraying Jesus, or did he throw it into the temple (Matthew 27:5)?

(Category: misunderstood the author's intent)

This apparent contradiction asks, 'What did Judas do with the blood money he received for betraying Jesus?' In Acts 1:18 it is claimed that Judas bought a field. In Matthew 27:5 it was thrown into the Temple from where the priests used it to buy a field. However, upon closer scrutiny it appears one passage is just a summary of the other.

Matthew 27:1-10 describes in detail the events that happened in regard to Judas betrayal of Jesus, and their significance in terms of the fulfillment of the Scriptures. In particular he quotes from the prophet Zechariah 11:12-13 which many think are clarifications of the prophecies found in Jeremiah 19:1-13 and 32:6-9.

In the Acts 1:18-19 passage however, Luke is making a short resume of something that people already knew, as a point of clarification to the speech of Peter, among the believers (the same situation as we found in question number 57 earlier). This is illustrated by the fact that in verse 19 he says, "Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this". Also it is more than probable that the Gospel record was already being circulated amongst the believers at the time of Luke's writing. Luke, therefore, was not required to go into detail about the facts of Judas' death.

(Copy from http://debate.org.uk/topics/apolog/contrads.htm)


1.) Judas was paid an unknown amount of money for betraying Jesus. ??

Where did it say this in your quote?

Either way I'm out of here. Have fun.

If you give me an "F" then I must put a stamp on your head "Profoundly Retarded" in Debating School...lol

None of you guys debate right anyways... this is just a religious flame war on this board...

The balance of objectivity in religion debates is definitely one of the hardest to maintain. It's like wrestling on a wire.

It all goes down to faith, however cliche that sounds. i know skepticguy (as his name suggests) is adamant in presenting the inconsistencies in the biblical accounts of what supposedly is of the same event but ultimately, what's written by man is subject to human error.

bloody hell, I think i've said that a dozen times in this forum!

And yes, you can condemn someone for their 'foolishness' or blind faith in proclaiming that the bible is '100% accurate', but there are people who are infinately dedicated to the doctrinal attributes of their faith and variation is consequential when one interprets it a certain way.

Thus, by descontructing and distintegrating a substantially pivotol aspect of the christian story, you must take into effect the significant notion of the forms of communication back in those days. Each gospel in the new testament was written by a multitude of different writers and each gospel was written in a spanse of a questionable time period and amalgamated together, only after completion. Before hand, the means of communication from one generation to another and by one society to the next was undoubtedly by word of mouth - a rather vindictive method in regards to accuracy.

In conclusion, why are all these topics becoming tediously generic!!???

Gonna pull an “Ob” and reply to Cuong’s post in red to avoid the forum’s “quote limitation.” (Thanks for the idea, Ob, at least you’re good for something! I’ll leave Cuong’s original post as it appeared.

How did Judas die, by hanging or falling down?
Matthew 27:3-8 and Acts 1:16-19


By hanging (Matthew 27:3-8) - "Then when Judas, who had betrayed Him, saw that He had been condemned, he felt remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, 4saying, "I have sinned by betraying innocent blood." But they said, "What is that to us? See to that yourself!" 5And he threw the pieces of silver into the sanctuary and departed; and he went away and hanged himself. 6And the chief priests took the pieces of silver and said, "It is not lawful to put them into the temple treasury, since it is the price of blood." 7And they counseled together and with the money bought the Potter’s Field as a burial place for strangers. 8For this reason that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day."
By falling (Acts 1:16-19) - "Brethren, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit foretold by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus. 17"For he was counted among us, and received his portion in this ministry." 18(Now this man acquired a field with the price of his wickedness; and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out. 19And it became known to all who were living in Jerusalem; so that in their own language that field was called Hakeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)"
There is no contradiction here at all because both are true. A contradiction occurs when one statement excludes the possibility of another. In fact, what happened here is that Judas went and hung himself and then his body later fell down and split open. In other words, the rope or branch of the tree probably broke due to the weight and his body fell down and his bowels spilled out.
Also, notice that Matt. 27:3-8 tells us specifically how Judas died, by hanging. Acts 1:16-19 merely tells us that he fell headlong and his bowels gushed out. Acts does not tell us that this is the means of his death where Matthew does.

(Copy from http://www.carm.org/diff/Matt27_3.htm)

I realize you copied and pasted this from a website and that it does not directly address my post but, nonetheless, it is the only thing I have to work with. First of all, the response says the two accounts do not contradict one another. My post specifically (and purposefully) points out that there is a discrepancy (which means by definition “Divergence or disagreement, as between facts or claims; difference”) between the two accounts, not a contradiction. The author above is correct in pointing out that the discrepant accounts do not contradict each other, strictly speaking.

However, that does not mean his “answer” is at all correct. This author, like so many other apologists, makes the mistake of assuming biblical inerrancy while trying to prove it. A textbook case of circular reasoning if ever I’ve seen one. You see, the author assumes that the Bible must be inerrant (without error) therefore the two accounts of Judas’s death must be correct. He then proceeds to add into the biblical text information that is not given by the gospel authors. It is a case of “If there was a Last Supper then there was a Second-To-Last Supper” (see the great Monty Python sketch “If There Were Twelve There Were Twenty” http://arago4.tn.utwente.nl/stonedead/movi...helangelo.html). There is nothing in the text to suggest that Judas hung himself and later fell to split open other than the desires of the reader to make a harmonization. It is very clear from Matthew that Judas simply went out and “hanged himself.” We are not told how he did this. If the author of the CARM article can speculate that Judas hanged himself in such a way that he then fell in a field and split open (to harmonize Matthew and Luke) then I can speculate with equal authority that Judas actually hanged himself from a roof beam (quite common in the ancient Near East) and was found by family (showing the discrepancy between Matthew and Luke). Both of us are reading into the text something that is not there. We must ONLY go by what the text gives us. And what the text gives us is a discrepancy between the ways in which Judas dies. Matthew says he hanged himself and Luke (Acts) says he fell in a field and spilt open. Judas dies two ways –from hanging and from falling—according to the New Testament. It’s that simple.

Is the field called the 'field of blood' because the priest bought it with blood money (Matthew 27:8), or because of Judas's bloody death (Acts 1:19)?

(Category: misunderstood the wording)

Once again, looking at the same two passages as the last two apparent contradictions Shabbir asks why the field where Judas was buried called the Field of Blood? Matthew 27:8 says that it is because it was bought with blood-money, while, according to Shabbir Acts 1:19 says that it was because of the bloody death of Judas.

However both passages agree that it was due to it being bought by blood-money. Acts 1:18-19 starts by saying, "With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field". So it begins with the assumption that the field was bought by the blood-money, and then the author intending to cause revulsion for what had happened describes Judas bloody end on that piece of real estate.

(Copy from http://debate.org.uk/topics/apolog/contrads.htm)

Hard to respond to something that was cut-and-pasted not in direct reply to my own post, but…hey, beggers can’t be choosers! Since this is not one of the discrepancies I noted, I see no reason to respond.

Did Judas buy a field (Acts 1:18) with his blood-money for betraying Jesus, or did he throw it into the temple (Matthew 27:5)?

(Category: misunderstood the author's intent)

That’s really funny. As if this new author of the CARM article has any better insight into how the original authors intended their stories than someone else of an opposite opinion!

This apparent contradiction asks, 'What did Judas do with the blood money he received for betraying Jesus?' In Acts 1:18 it is claimed that Judas bought a field. In Matthew 27:5 it was thrown into the Temple from where the priests used it to buy a field. However, upon closer scrutiny it appears one passage is just a summary of the other.

Matthew 27:1-10 describes in detail the events that happened in regard to Judas betrayal of Jesus, and their significance in terms of the fulfillment of the Scriptures. In particular he quotes from the prophet Zechariah 11:12-13 which many think are clarifications of the prophecies found in Jeremiah 19:1-13 and 32:6-9.

Odd. Here, the author thinks that Matthew “describes in detail the events that happened in regard to Judas’ betrayal of Jesus,” but for some reason he didn’t “detail the events of Judas’ death” by mentioning the rope breaking and the body falling to split open. Clear case of wanting to have his cake and eat it too. See how these guys grab at whatever straw they can when it suits them but fail to have any consistency between their supposed “solutions”?

In the Acts 1:18-19 passage however, Luke is making a short resume of something that people already knew, as a point of clarification to the speech of Peter, among the believers (the same situation as we found in question number 57 earlier). This is illustrated by the fact that in verse 19 he says, "Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this". Also it is more than probable that the Gospel record was already being circulated amongst the believers at the time of Luke's writing. Luke, therefore, was not required to go into detail about the facts of Judas' death.

(Copy from http://debate.org.uk/topics/apolog/contrads.htm)

But this “solution” doesn’t explain in the least why Matthew has Judas throw the money back into the temple, with the priests using the cash to buy the potter’s field contrasted with Acts’ story of Judas himself purchasing the field. You’ll notice here how the author does not reproduce the relevant texts for his audience. Because, if he did, it would ruin his argument. Here, I will show them again:

the chief priests, taking the pieces of silver, said, "It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, since they are blood money." After conferring together, they used them to buy the potter's field (Matthew)

Now this man acquired a field with the reward of his wickedness(Acts)

Sorry, but this cut-and-paste didn’t cut it. Ha ha ha! Get the pun?? Ha ha ha!

1.) Judas was paid an unknown amount of money for betraying Jesus. ??

Where did it say this in your quote?

Find me, in Acts, where it states how much money Judas was paid.

Either way I'm out of here. Have fun.

Another “drive-by”. Why can’t people stick around to defend their assertions? Why do they just “post and run”?

That is said, of course, with the exception of McMazzu and Ob who indeed "stick around" but do so out of stubborness and not out of the strength of their arguments.




I assume, by that comment, you are including me. Tell me, how am I not debating correctly? Care to give some pointers?



And I think I’ve said in this forum a dozen times that I am responding to those who feel the Bible is “100% accurate” and who have challenged non-believers to show error in the Holy script. I am not at all interested in limp-wrists who feel the Bible is indeed error-prone due to human frailties but is nonetheless the “Word of God” whose core message is intact. We can debate that line of thinking if you wish, but it holds little interest for me. I find it an absurd position to hold. (Not saying you are holding it, but not sure why you chimed in).

Yeah, I wanted to comment on this interesting thought also.

Please come on down and show us how it is done, I imagine it is pretty easy sitting on the fence and generalising when some of us are dealing with the McMazzus of this world in attempted debate.

If you think there is any religious flaming, then you are obviously not paying attention.

Indeed, if he wants to see "flaming," have him visit the "Exodus" thread. He can see Ob call me "ignorant" while I point out that he's a "numbskull"!

Jaimu, you ought to dance over there as well. I made an "edit" to my last post that SHOULD put the final nail in Ob's coffin.

A debater doesn't need to resort to personal remarks, comments, or insults when providing information and support from his side of the debate.

From what I've seen, they just post up their information, and wait until someone disagrees and starts arguing recklessly to the point where they need to insult each other.

I rather believe the person who is more mature in a side, than someone who just needs to use unwanted ways to gain himself more credibility.

judas was a pretty cool guy. he just didn't understand what jesus wanted to do, and he got a bit impatient. judas had good intentions, but i mean, in the end, he DID pretty much kill jesus indirectly. =/

btw, judas died by hanging. lol. i don't think it said int he passage that he died *after* he fell. it just said that he fell.

btw, i always thought that judas GAVE BACK the money, and the government said it was blood money, so instead they used it to buy a plot of land used as a cemetery.

(yes i listen during mass )

Give and take. If someone debates respectfully, I return in kind. If someone starts to act arrogant, I return in kind. If someone gets insultive, I return in kind.

You act differently? Well who would've guessed that two different people would respond to the same circumstances in two different ways?

You see, this is what kills me: A thread is started in which a topic is brought up for discussion. The feathers start flying and then someone chimes in with something COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to the topic at hand. They just want attention for a moment: they want everyone to see how even tempered they are, how accepting of other views, how "mature." But they don't add one iota to the actual discussion. They just make some subjective comment about a conversation they are not involved in and move along. Worthless. Self-righteous. Arrogant.



Well, I wonder what happens to people when they fall "headlong" in a field and have their middles split open, spilling their intestines out onto the dirt. Do they then get up and hang themselves?

As far as the money goes, that's part of the problem in the discrepancy. In Matthew it says that Judas did give back the money and the chief priests purchased the potter's field (cemetary for the poor). However, in Acts it states that Judas himself purchased the field with the money and that he died in it.

Well your last paragraph was a bit stupid to be fair. You believe whoever seems more mature? Maybe you should believe the person whose information is more reliable or argument more sound. I don't see maturity as being that useless to an actual argument.

But yeah, my point would be in relation to that that any debating that you have seen has had some people who are actually quite good at it and their opponents of a similar level. Unfortunately what happens sometimes here is that people will ignore someone else's valid objections and just carry on posting and then resort to insults and statements about how they are "Amazing at debating" or whatever.

Unfortunately you can only be as good as your opponent. I'm not going to call you arrogant or anything because I can see your point although not agreeing with the "religious flame war" you described earlier.

If you are a good debater, please come in, we need some more here. (Funnily across the board over two days I've read two people complaining about the content in here and both are people who haven't contributed, at least recently to the discussions.) It's not really fair that we're being deprived of these "brilliant" minds.

Ok enough, I take on your point, agree with it a certain extent but find it hard when you generalise everyone as being in a "religious flaming war". Please quote so the people can defend themselves. But then again, I suppose that is better than calling us all retards.

That's the point, right there. Very well said. When reading posts (mine or anyone else's) it's wise to not get hung up on the poster but the substance of the post. I admit that sometimes I lose sight of this and get caught up in the poster themselves and forget to simply concentrate on the substance (or lack thereof) of their post. For example:

Hey, you ignorant scum! I don't know why I keep posting here to you! You idiot! Didn't you see where I already said Jesus died for your sins! It says it right there in the Bible! And even Josephus said Jesus died on the cross! Come on you 'tard! Pay attention! Geez! 2


The "substance" was: "Jesus died for your sins! It says it right there in the Bible! And even Josephus said Jesus died on the cross!" And this should be the only focus if one wants to simply debate the facts. But, I'll admit, sometimes it's a lot of fun to roll around in the mud!

^..............Very Touching! lol.

Intelligence and information is nothing without the wisdom and maturity to use it.

Besides, my purpose here was to try and make you all respect each other more fairly... not respect me in anyway... you can diss me all you want, but I don't care, I just want all of you to play nicely.

Agreed.


So, can anyone other than Cuong cut-and-paste a better answer to the conundrum?

don't u find it possible that he hanged himself before he was disemboweled (that word is so nasty haha )

and well, we can never tell who is right, i tihnk both of them got the overall picture. except the book of the Acts of the Apostles focuses a lot more on how judas got his, so to speak. (lmao.. so to speak, i never use that. i sounds so smart today ^___^) i mean, the bible has been translated over so many times that i guess some guy wrote it wrong. it's not like the potter's fieldd was an important part of the bible. no doubt there are errors in the bible, but you can't consider my argument 'that the overall picture is right' to be wrong (i'm not sure who said that, maybe it was in another thread) b/c that is how it is in reality. sure it'd be suspicious if God Himself wrote the bible and gave it to us, but it was passed on by wordof mouth. i mean just today, a kid in my school got injured, and i was told he was injured by a paper cutting machine in the art wing, while my brother says he fell of a chair in the cafeteria. nonetheless, we all got the point that he had to be hopitalized of course, the people of jesus and judas' time didn't blow things out of proportion to spread the gossip faster like in high school, so the stories are more true.

So mean. Cuong is an intelligent person, although he lacks the rigor in his arguments.


So back on topic; How did Judas die? Well, seeing as though this topic isn't really about how Judas died, but of the discrepancies in the bible, I'd have to say that these grounds alone shouldn't affect the validity of the christian scriptures or have any relevance if one were to undermind Christianity.

And because this thread is also to counter McMazzu's stance that the Bible is 100% accurate, how about we re-phrase it to make less of rocky road? The Bible was never meant to be interpreted literally and although christian fundamentalists will maintain that it's the 100% truth, comparatively, we could say the bible holds truth of the Christian story and that these truths are 100% accurate. The step-by-step variety to which Judas had died, is NOT a particular TRUTH that holds relevance to the Fundamental truths of the Bible.

Symbolism is too, a major instrument in the Bible. Have you heard the story of how the camel walked through the 'eye of the needle'? I can't be arsed to explain but yes, symbolism was an effective way to communicate amongst the uneducated lay people of the time and so inevitably, one could say the literary biblical design has brought about inconsistencies in the course of time. Not that the bible itself is detrimental in accuracy; but that the age in which we live creates a barricade to which hinders insight into fully grasping the truths incorporated within the stories.

You're right here.

You ever read the fourth gospel? It's all just symbolism, gave me a royal headache.

But actually, if you undermine the bible...and the best arguments for Christianity are (Premise supports conclusion inductive) then the conclusion: Christianity is the true religion is harmed greatly. It doesn't become invalid or false of course not, but it does weaken the claim made by the conclusion.

I'm not saying you'd find it here, but if you debated with a very competent religious follower and scholar, they could probably turn all of your objections into "It's symbolic, not meant to be taken literally" situations with different meanings.

Never going to happen right? But if someone did manage to undermine the bible's accuracy without someone getting out of the criticism as such, then Christianity would be weakened by this criticism.

The edition of the bible that which you acquired that from is inaccurate...and translated horribly. Judas threw the silver coins back at the pharisees in rage and went off to hang himself.

The Pharisees took the silver and bought a plot of land of which to bury not just judas, but to turn it into a burial grounds. It is called the field of blood because it was bought with the money that was paid in order to have Christ killed.

I've confirmed this with Prof. Ishikawa, a historian (a non-Christian) who read the entire bible in Hebrew.

*** EDIT ***

A camel did not walk through the eye of a needle. It's part of a passage...it's easier for a camel to go through an eye of a needle for such and such kind of people to enter the kingdom of heaven...I forgot how it went.

More and more, science and archaeological digs prove the accuracy of the events of the bible...no one ever said religion and science can't get along. As Einstein put it, religion without science is blind. Thus...many stupid Christians...are blind.

The world believing that the Earth was flat...and it was the center of the universe...was the Roman Catholic's fault, yes. But...they read the bible wrong. They told themselves...logically, if humans were God's best creations, then the Earth would have to be the center, right? No.

If you look at the bible...different parts support different parts...if you want the exact verses, PM me and I'll give em to you...but I don't think it's worth my time and effort to type up everything for a bunch of people who'll end up flaming my posts without a reason.

-Moses told us the order of which came first: water, land, water animals, land animals, birds, then humans came last.
-There is always night and day any time throughout the world.
-The Earth is a Sphere
-The Earth is not the center of the universe.
-Before the Earth came to be, it had no shape or form (~cough~ gas ~cough~). There was a theory that said before planets came to be...they were disc-shaped gas forms, but this theory was proven wrong a while back.
-The world is obversable and measureable.

So...thousands of years before Galileo, some random Jew wrote down that the Earth originally had no shape or form...the Earth was round...and the order of which things came first. Lucky guess? Hmmm...makes you think, no?

The bible is NOT meant to be a scientific book...just a historical account and a book of morals, and even so, it doesn't give us a clear time table. But, when it IS put up to the test against science, time, and accuracy...it holds up pretty well.

We all know a lot of Christians are morons. Let them be morons. But, trying to make yourself look smarter than morons only makes you even more moronic. I will leave you with this proverb....

Proverbs 17:27-28
"Even a fool, when he keeps silent, is considered wise;
When he closes his lips, he is considered prudent."

The man speaks the truth, this is what I was taught in my old religious studies class and what my old priest told me also.

Can't be bothered to get into the whole accuracy of the bible thing again, just backing up HighonMako on this point only really.

Yes, that's right. It's impossible for the camel to walk through the eye of an actual needle, but subsequently this was a metaphor in which was put in laymens' terms back during the biblical times.

Look at the possibilities. The eye of the needle was a gate way which travellers who rode by camel must enter in order to go into the city of say, jerusalem. It was called the eye of the needle. But this gateway was very small and did not allow the camel and the rider, equip with his large canvasses to squeeze through so easily. In order to go through such a tight space, the rider must get off his camel and unpack all of his equipment, which is a tedious and tiring task, then walk the camel through before pulling the rest of his belongings inside the gate.

This is how the bible teaches the lay people of god. So taking in the symbolism and metaphor, they will easily be able to grasp that entering heaven takes effort, hardship, strong will (especially after a long journey) and may not always be easy.

That's what i was trying to get at since my lecturer was talking about it in my first year.

Certainly, both of them got the “overall picture:” Judas died! But they describe the method of Judas’ death differently. In Matthew, Judas dies by hanging and the money he threw back into the Temple was used by the priests to purchase the potter’s field. In Acts, Judas dies AFTER he purchases the Field of Blood with the money and falls down in it, splitting his middle open. That’s a textbook definition of “discrepancy.”

It doesn’t matter that this story isn’t very important to you. It is terribly important to anyone who maintains the “100% accuracy” of the Bible (ala McMazzu) and/or who says that the Bible does not contain any errors and challenges people to prove otherwise (ala Cuong). It is terribly important to anyone who thinks that an omniscient, omnipotent being inspired the writing of all the Bible. Can an omniscient, omnipotent being make these kinds of mistakes?

You claim that the “overall message” is intact but how can you be sure? If the Bible is erroneous in areas that can be checked (historical facts) how can you be so confident that it is not erroneous in areas that cannot be checked (spiritual assertions)?



So you say, “The Bible was never meant to be interpreted literally” but how do you know? I realize it is more comfortable for liberal Christians to make such an assertions when faced with the reality of Bible errors, but this assertion is no more supported than the one which claims 100% accuracy for the Bible in its literal sense.

Such idioms as fitting a “camel through the eye of a needle” are easily found throughout the Bible and, in context, create little or no difficulty. The word translated “camel” in the NT may instead have been the word for “rope.” Therefore, the image may have been “fitting a rope through the eye of a needle” which indeed would have been quite difficult but merely the use of hyperbole. We can see this when Jesus says to take the “beam” out of your own eye before trying to remove the “speak” from your neighbors. However, the dual images of Judas’ death do NOT fall into this sort of interpretation. If it does, the onus is upon you to demonstrate that the stories of Judas’ death were meant as “symbolic” or hyperbole. To merely assert this is not proof enough.




Perhaps you could get Prof. Ishikawa to provide a translation of the two texts so that we may see his exegesis? I’m not sure where in the text it even implies that the Pharisees purchased the field in order to bury Judas. That would imply that they knew he was going to kill himself. I would be most anxious to see Prof. Ishikawa’s take.




Since you’ve made this assertion, I’m sure you’d be willing to back it up. Perhaps you would care to join me over at the Exodus thread and prove that “science and archaeological digs” are proving the “accuracy of the events of the Bible.” I’d be anxious to see your results. Somehow, I doubt however, that I will be seeing any activity from you there.




Nonsense. The Bible itself describes a flat earth at the center of the universe. Care to start another thread for this discussion?




Problem is: The Christian fools DON’T know when to keep their mouths shut and often, when they open them, they dupe a lot of people into being fools as they are. I feel called upon to counter this. You don’t agree? Fine. No one asked you to.

I'm not a liberal christian and to say I was christian would be in vain to those who truly follow the faith. The only assertion I've made was that the bible was not meant to be taken literally in all aspects. This 'assertion' is what i've learnt from philosophy/religious lecturers during my first year at uni. It is also an 'assertion' made by religious scholars such as ninian smart in the 'dimensions of religion'. I don't claim to be some bigass pro on this subject and I think i've worded my argument (or lack thereof), quite frankly to delve into the opposition's argument. I was merely presenting a notion of a fact that seems to have been missed. And that's the issue of symbolism, which is why i wrote that fuduzzle in my LAST post.

I never said that the bible was free from errors, neither did i support claims that it is 100% truth. although I did imply that the WAY in which judas died was NOT a FUNDAMENTAL truth of the christian tradition. I was presenting an argument based on the fundamental TRUTHS represented in symbolism, which may have been a digression off the topic, but like I said, I thought the notion of context may have been ignored.

*Laughs* Well technically the onus is not upon 'jooce or any other Christian to show that the bible is meant to be symbolic or using hyperbole. To undermine the inaccuracy argument all they would have to do is make it a plausible possibility.

A bit of an off-topic ramble is going on revolving around symbolism and hyperbole which isn't what the thread was about.

I'm just clipping anyone's wings in case some bible defender gets trapped trying to justify and prove something that they don't have to.

I'm not saying the case that I state in my first paragraph can be done in the Judas' death example but needless to say, it can be done in the camel example....so don't get too excited.

hahahha, the camel example about how the 'eye of the needle' is a gateway to jerusalem, is a popular menial example used by religious lecturers.. may be a bible faux pas but i was giving an example, not FACT, lol. which is why i stated , "think of the possibilities".

If you are responding to hard-core christians who leave little to no room for subjectivity from a non-christian's point of view, do you think by giving one half-arsed example to which shows proof of error is any way to deter their line of thinking? They are speaking from their faith (which by obvious standards surpasses logic and rational thinking) so it's a waste of time to counter for every nitty bitty challenge they have proposed. If you remember back, there have been a good dozen of topics similar to this which have failed to result to any enlightenment of one way or another. All it did was to expand a larger drift to conflicting beliefs.

The reason I 'chimed' in, as you put so eloquently was because in your initial post you asked someone to account for these inconsistencies, which i merely responded to with a general statement of commonsense (however generalized or overused or limp-wristed it is, still is quite viable). I try to be objective, but it always seems to come across as a subjective statement one way or another, even in the christian threads, and then I get accused or implied as a pro-christian or an anti-christian, neither of which i'm not.

Well sure. No one’s arguing that there isn’t symbolism in the Bible and no one really needed to bring that issue up unless they wish to assert that the two stories (or, at a minimum, one of the two stories) of Judas’ death(s) was somehow symbolic. And if this was not your intention, and given the title of this thread, your actions beg the question of why you chimed in at all.



What “context” is there for the two accounts of Judas’ death you thought may have been being ignored? You state that you thought this context was being ignored and your post deals largely with the notion of “symbolism” in the Bible. Therefore, it is quite appropriate for someone to assume that you may believe the “context” of the two stories of Judas’ death(s) may be symbolic. If your intent was not to offer your opinion on the discrepancy between the two stories, I have to wonder what your true motivation was in deciding to post in this thread.



You haven’t been keeping up. I’ve been presenting a number of “half-arsed examples” to demonstrate errors in the Bible. The subject of Judas’ death(s) is the just the latest in a series.



For all you know, this was the result. What of any fence-sitters that may be lurking in the threads? How do you know the outcome of these debates for them? You don’t, of course. You realize (as do I) that these discussions rarely “convert” the true believers on either side. Christians rarely abandon their faith and atheists rarely confess sins before God. However, I have seen more than a few fundamentalist Christians who had maintained the Bible “100% without error” change their minds after I demonstrated the falsity of this position. The didn’t abandon their faith, but they abandoned their literalist position and that’s a start. I really couldn’t care less what you opinion is of these discussions but thank you for offering it nonetheless.



How did you “account for” the inconsistencies in the two stories of Judas’ death(s) “with a general statement of commonsense”? If such was offered, I seem to have missed it. Would you please restate?



Actually, the onus indeed is upon anyone making such a statement in defense of the Bible as the Word of God. If this is their defense, the mere “say-so” is not enough. Making a plausible possibility is not nearly enough to undermine the inaccuracy argument. To merely posit a plausible possibility to alleviate a biblical errancy problem does not make that errancy problem go away. As long as there is only a possible solution to a biblical error, the equally probable chance that a real biblical problem remains. Such a “plausible possibility” solution may have comforted and solved the problem for them, but it has not objectively removed the error from the biblical texts.

Well technically it is a solution for them and that is enough. You offer a positive argument against the bible in the form of the inaccuracy argument. Being a positive argument your goal is obviously to pose a problem for the religious believer...because you're obviously not trying to convince an Atheist for the bible holds no weight to them whatsoever.

My point wasn't in regard to the Judas question exactly but rather presuming that someone was able to offer a satisfactory explanation or at least a plausible possibility that encompasses why this "error" is there. The "success" for the inaccuracy argument is where it gets a Christian to the position where they have to accept the inaccuracy AS an inaccuracy. If there is a plausible alternative, then they have not done this.

Of course all of this was jumping way ahead and not really in relation to the Judas problem. But what 'jooce has been arguing about (The hyperbole and symbolism) is not required for them to accept as an inaccuracy. Whether you could argue that the Judas situation is symbolic or hyperbole in my opinion is highly doubtful.

Of course it is; for them. But this "solution" does not, of course, put the issue to bed as a matter of course. As long as the "possible solution" does not eliminate the error, the error remains.

For example, some people have argued that the Bible errs when it states in 2 Sam.8:4 that "...David took from him a thousand chariots and seven hundred horsemen" while 1 Chr.18:4 states that "...David took from him a thousand chariots and seven thousand horsemen" to the same event. This can be solved by simply appealing to scribal errors which not only provides a possible solution, but actually solves the error. Of course, such a solution nonetheless begs the question of absolute divine inerrancy in the Bible but that, for the sake of my example, is beside the point.

However, when someone posits a "possible" solution to the Judas' death(s) issue by creating a "harmonization" which introduces into the text subject matter not suggested, this does not so easily solve the problem. Of course, the solution is "possible" (and satisfactory for some) but it does not remove the error.

Of course it doesn't remove the error but once that matter is inserted, it no longer becomes an error but rather something that just required further elaboration. 2 I know it sounds absolutely ridiculous but from a logical point of view it would work. How strong this would leave the inductive argument is anyone's guess (but I would suggest "no very"), but the idea or error or inaccuracy would be avoided.

Once again needing to point out that this has minimum connection to the Judas example and the one you gave again as these are contradictions within the text where the contradiction is contained in another passage and both cannot be accepted. I was speaking of a hypothetical situation where one could offer such an explanation.

If the possible solution accomodates the error and is still a valid solution then the error ceases to be an "error". The religious believer is content. Where you could get the solution from in the two cases you're discussing, I'd be damned if I know...just telling you what would happen if someone managed it

And please let's not get into the realms of scribal error. Because if the bible is false in anyway, then we might as well go and lay in the ground and wait for the decomposing to start.

does it matter how Judas died? I mean at least it's consistent on both books that he died rather than one saying he died and the other he ascended to heaven after living for the longest.

this little part in the bible is just so small to argue about, there are more other bigger accounts that are not exactly told the same way between the different New Testament writers ie Jesus's bio.

To argue about the exact way Judas died, would have to include why the other more significant parts that does not harmonize sequentially.

That is exactly why I was careful with my word choice. There is not a contradiction between the two tales (one said he died, the other says he lived), but a discrepancy. There's a difference.



Tis true. This is just an example that can be clearly seen without much elaboration and is VERY difficult to reconcile.

^to the last one, meaning if you're arguing about Judas' death consistency between the two books, you might as well just argue about the general inconsistency/different plots in the story, rather than focus on a small insignificant part of the big mess.

2 Well, while that may be true, it is sometimes more effective to focus a discussion on one particular aspect at a time. I mean, surely we could discuss what Jesus' last words were on the cross, too!

I guess you're right. Making the whole subject as one case, would be even longer and messier.

But all I'm saying is arguing about one small insignificant part of the problem is really leading up or should lead up to the argument of different plots of Jesus biographic story line.

One discrepancy is just the start...and in itself maybe not that big a challenge to the bible as a whole.

But when you take this one, add another to it, add another etc. Then that's when it becomes a problem.

Exactly!

And what's usually interesting is how the excuses for the discrepancies/contradictions begin to build. It's the weight of these "solutions" that eventually cause the "The Bible is 100% Accurate" argument to collapse upon itself.

Forgive me as I pull a 'Skeptic'.

'Skeptic'; coined circa applied to describe one's pedantic use of the quote function.

- but I couldn't help it.



A thorough debate begs to introduce more avenues to the topic. I'm quite aware that it was a digression off the topic, which was why i stated so (for any lack of clarity, due to my skim reading, etc). Forgive me.



How can the issue of context not be applied to this particular discrepancy? the mere fact that it was written by different scribes and at different time intervals seems self explanatory. Again, the issue of symbolism was a digression and also a MERE suggestion; something to consider when dealing with biblical scriptures. I wasn't asserting anything, i did not claim it as fact. Introduced it to the discussion as a literary device, which seemed fit in relation to context.





Oh, really? well good for you.



Are you implying that your intention was to 'demonstrate the falsity of their position' and hence, cause them to 'abandon their literalist position'? Oh, but the tone of your topic posts suggests otherwise. I question whether your intention was to convert the masses or whether to perform a smug show on the asses of McMazzu and/or Cuong. But whatever, but opinions aren't relevant so i'll go to the corner and die.



Okay, so I chose my words wrongly. I didn't account, but i gave a logical, commonsensical probability to why there are discrepancies in the bible like the one you have presented.

I'm not gonna read all of those load of crap. I only read the first post. Do you guys really think ppl would read what you just wrote there ??

Oh 'jooce, I think I wuv you... 2



A little bit of a), a little bit of b). Still it's probably the most fun he can have with his pants on. Plus it's always funny to see the reactions of the "good guys" when Skep does this.


Wow, that has to be the post with the least substance I've written here so far....Oh well! Not my fault if you guys are being funny

^Its IMPOSSIBLE to disprove the Bible's 100% Accuration, to do so...you would have to disprove God, Then to say that God is a liar, when in fact the Bible clearly states that God cannot lie.

Mazzu you have to understand people don't believe what you believe.