Question For Christians About Biblical Inerrancy

[Antlerman]

Hasn't been back huh -- must be no compelling reason to believe the Bible is inerrant, despite the 20 point type.

Oh no, he's quite active in the other thread. Actually some interesting discussion with him.

[Ouroboros]

Deva,

 

He went to the other thread "Question for Christians" to prove to us that evolution is false and creationism is true. Right now, he has to answer to why God put light in travel to deceive scientists about the age of the universe.

 

--edit--

 

Oh, sorry A-man. I was posting at the same time as you.

[Deva]

Yeah, I know he's been on the other thread, I just wonder why he never came back to this one.

[Karl-777]

Yeah, I know he's been on the other thread, I just wonder why he never came back to this one.

 

Perhaps he is realizing the enormity of the task at hand, in attempting to defend the indefensible.

 

E.G.:

 

The four different deaths of Saul, a spectacular quadruple biblical self-contradiction:

 

1 Samuel 31:4 ~ Saul "Took a sword, and fell upon it".

2 Samuel 1:2-10 ~ states that Saul, at his own request, was slain by an Amalekite.

2 Samuel 21:12 ~ Saul was killed by Philistines at Gilboa.

1 Chronicles 10:13-14 ~ Saul was actually slain by God!

 

Yes, despite numerous instances of literalized mythological bullshit like this, it’s all the “only true” “inerrant” “word”, isn’t it?

 

~K

[Antlerman]

 

 

--edit--

 

Oh, sorry A-man. I was posting at the same time as you.

Dude, your entirely welcome. I appreciate your thoughts always.

[the stranger]

Sorry to disappoint my friends, but for some reason God has given me some limitations that I just cannot get past.

 

(1) time restraint -- Maybe I need to start believing I have nine lives. (and hopefully will not be eating them on my next life)

 

(2) exscuses -- Oh, wait, that's not God, that's me.

 

Trust me, I really really want to endulge in deep in this thread, but I do want to do my part in researching the truth in regards to science. What that means is I am looking into both sides (really!) and then making a decision.

 

I am hoping to go with this thread within one to two weeks. It is a big task. I have glanced over the sites. But I am up for it, but a little time is a must for me to get started on this one. I have not forgotten, and I will be around soon.

 

I am looking forward to the fun.

 

God bless (If He really exist? So I guess that means you will all be blessed)

[bornagainathiest]

I WILL TAKE THE CHALLENGE, WITH THE HELP OF THE ONE AND ONLY TRUE GOD. Give me a while to go through your links, and I will respond article by article, statement by statement. Gods word is true! If Gods word is not true, then neither is God, thus because God is real, I will prove His word to be true, the only whole truth in this world!

 

Perhaps once he's answered Karl-777's questions, the Stranger can reconcile these verses?

 

Matthew 27:5 So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself.

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.” 7 So they decided to use the money to buy the potter’s field as a burial place for foreigners. 8 That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day. 9 Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: “They took the thirty pieces of silver, the price set on him by the people of Israel, 10 and they used them to buy the potter’s field, as the Lord commanded me.”[a]

 

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

 

So, who bought the field, the chief priests or Judas?

 

BAA.

[★ Citsonga ★]

Perhaps once he's answered Karl-777's questions, the Stranger can reconcile these verses?

 

Matthew 27:5 So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself.

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.” 7 So they decided to use the money to buy the potter’s field as a burial place for foreigners. 8 That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day. 9 Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: “They took the thirty pieces of silver, the price set on him by the people of Israel, 10 and they used them to buy the potter’s field, as the Lord commanded me.”[a]

 

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

 

So, who bought the field, the chief priests or Judas?

 

BAA.

 

And maybe he can also answer the two other contradictions in these texts:

 

Did Judas die by hanging himself or by falling headlong and bursting open?

 

Was the reason the field was called "Field of Blood" because it was a burial place for foreigners or because Judas burst open and his intestines spilled out?

[the stranger]

I am going to start on this thread next unless otherwise directed. I will start with the last two post up. Give me a little time. This is my next stop on vacation. (snicker)

[the stranger]

Sorry it took so long friends, sometimes the slow way is just the way I tend to tread.

 

Let us get a recap on the verses in question.

 

King James Version (KJV)

Acts 1:15-20

 

 

15And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)

 

16Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.

 

17For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.

 

18Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.

 

19And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.

 

20For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

 

 

 

 

 

Matthew 27:1-10

 

 

Matthew 27

 

1When the morning was come, all the chief priests and elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death:

 

2And when they had bound him, they led him away, and delivered him to Pontius Pilate the governor.

 

3Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders,

 

4Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that.

 

5And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.

 

6And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood.

 

7And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in.

 

8Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day.

 

9Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value;

 

10And gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me.

 

==================================================================================================================

 

 

Now I have posted the verses in their completeness to ensure I take nothing out of context.

 

QUESTION #1

So, who bought the field, the chief priests or Judas?

 

Now we know that Luke wrote the book of Acts, as well as Luke, and was quite close to Paul. This is important to note to understand that he was well aware of the story already and certainly had to of talked with the likes of Peter and John. It should also be noted that the recorded event in Matthew was written some 20 years before Acts, and Luke was written just a couple years before that (Acts). This is important to note to make us well aware of the fact Luke knew well of the historic event, though not from first hand knowledge. He was not there at the time, therefore all of his knowledge came from Matthew and talking with other people, and perhaps even other books.

 

18Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong

 

19And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.

 

--

 

5And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.

 

6And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood.

 

7And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in.

 

8Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day.

 

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

 

I am going to type down a bible translation that I believe states things the way it really is meant to be ubderstood, (this translation was taken from the original, and not from KJV) and than I will expound on it.

 

ACTS 1:18 (Everyday American English) And therefore he became the owner of that field through the money he was paid for that wicked thing he did.

 

The second question relates to his hanging attempt, and this part kind of goes along with it. Here was Judas spread out with his insides al over the place on the ground. This happened on Friday, Passover day, in which the holy Sabbath followed. On this day, no one could do no work, and not on the Passover, or the Sabbath, could they have touched the body of Judas, as this would have made them unclean, unable to eat the Passover meals or be clean for the Sabbath. Also, no work was allowed to be done on the Sabbath.

 

When Judas through the money down in the temple, the intent of doing such a thing would to use that money to support the temple (confirmed by the following verse), but since the money was deemed as unclean, the money could not be used as such. Thus, up on finding out about Judas, this way of using his money only made sense.

 

They could not touch the body for days, they could not use the money for the temple in which it was intended, thus Judas bought the lot he hanged himself on through the priests.

 

This same logic can be found in these:

 

Matthew 27:58-60 (King James Version)

 

58He went to Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. Then Pilate commanded the body to be delivered.

 

59And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth,

 

60And laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock: and he rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed.

 

 

Now who's tomb was this? Jesus or Joseph?

 

 

 

John 4:1-2 (King James Version)

 

John 4

When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John,

 

2(Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)

 

 

 

So why did they say Jesus was the one baptizing?

 

 

If your father passed away, but had left money for his burial, and you purchased what was needed with his money, who purchase was it?

 

Bible passages, like all other things, can only be called different (or false) if one can proof that both scriptures could not be true. In this case, certainly that burden of proof is not met.

 

 

It should also be noted that some believe Judas did purchase this property in some sort of contract agreement at some point before hand (the wage which was received was believed to be about a six month average wage) but had not full fill his contract. Thus the priest simply fulfilled that which had already been started.

 

Perhaps this is why he picked the land in which he did to hang himself.

 

 

In any event, these passages can easily be understood in context with each other with out believing they are not telling the same story.

 

 

Second question

Did Judas die by hanging himself or by falling headlong and bursting open?

 

 

Both is the correct answer. Remember that it is believed that Judas may have hung from where ever he was for some time. If so, the starting process of decaying would not have took very long in those conditions. That being the case, it would be easy to understand that over a short period of time, Judas body fell from where ever as it was already in the decaying stage, and thus split open on impact or even before hand.

 

Another possibility can be taken into account based on where he hang himself. This land was based on the down side of the valley, thus making it a good spot for hanging. If one were to hang ones self and the rope broke or the tree branch snapped, and on the way down you were impaled by such likes as a tree or stick (or allot of other possibilities) it certainly would be possible that you fell head down and were impaled in light of it causing your insides to fall out or be ripped open.

 

 

Question three

Was the reason the field was called "Field of Blood" because it was a burial place for foreigners or because Judas burst open and his intestines spilled out?

 

 

After they had purchased the land, because this land was used in regards to a burial of someone (or better put, the left over remains of some one) who caused the crucifixion of an innocent man, this land was not suited for hiding treasures or for the burial of native Israelites. Thus the same reasoning the money could have not been used for the temple. Because of this, the land after this fact became a land that foreigners were often buried in.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now there is always more than one possibility to some scripture that we have to go deep into to understand it in context, but again, as long as no proof can be found that both statements cannot be true, than it cannot be dismissed as a lie. Sometimes we must understand that the bible was not written as a history book per say, and did not go into detail about every given fact or event in that period of history. The main purpose was to show the spread of Christianity in to get the word out about Jesus.

 

 

All also need to know, if it were not for God in my life, I would know nothing of the bible at all. It is only through Him that I am interested in His word, and it is only through Him, I am able to respond with reasonable answers. To God I give all the credit. Praise His name!

 

 

 

I truly hope this helps and I will be looking forward to any questions that one might have in regards to the possible answers.

[the stranger]

Karl-777

 

 

 

The four different deaths of Saul, a spectacular quadruple biblical self-contradiction:

 

1 Samuel 31:4 ~ Saul "Took a sword, and fell upon it".

2 Samuel 1:2-10 ~ states that Saul, at his own request, was slain by an Amalekite.

2 Samuel 21:12 ~ Saul was killed by Philistines at Gilboa.

1 Chronicles 10:13-14 ~ Saul was actually slain by God!

 

 

Karl 777, I will be tackling this question next. Thank you for asking.

[the stranger]

1 Samuel 31:4 ~ Saul "Took a sword, and fell upon it".

 

1 Samuel 31:4-6 (New King James Version)

 

4 Then Saul said to his armorbearer, “Draw your sword, and thrust me through with it, lest these uncircumcised men come and thrust me through and abuse me.”

But his armorbearer would not, for he was greatly afraid. Therefore Saul took a sword and fell on it. 5 And when his armorbearer saw that Saul was dead, he also fell on his sword, and died with him. 6 So Saul, his three sons, his armorbearer, and all his men died together that same day.

 

 

TRUE

 

 

 

2 Samuel 21:12 ~ Saul was killed by Philistines at Gilboa.

 

NOT TRUE

 

2 Samuel 21:12 (New King James Version)

 

12 Then David went and took the bones of Saul, and the bones of Jonathan his son, from the men of Jabesh Gilead who had stolen them from the street of Beth Shan,[a] where the Philistines had hung them up, after the Philistines had struck down Saul in Gilboa.

 

 

 

 

Based on the following verses:

 

1 Samuel 31:2-3 (New King James Version)

 

2 Then the Philistines followed hard after Saul and his sons. And the Philistines killed Jonathan, Abinadab, and Malchishua, Saul’s sons. 3 The battle became fierce against Saul. The archers hit him, and he was severely wounded by the archers.

 

 

First, Paul became critically wounded in battle. Second, wanting to keep his dignity, and not wanting to suffer a long drawn out and painful death from enemy hands, he ended his own life. Thirdly, the day after this, the invading army stripped all the slain from their possessions, beheaded Paul, and hung him and others up on their wall, a day after they had already died.

 

1 Samuel 31:8-10 (New King James Version)

 

8 So it happened the next day, when the Philistines came to strip the slain, that they found Saul and his three sons fallen on Mount Gilboa. 9 And they cut off his head and stripped off his armor, and sent word throughout the land of the Philistines, to proclaim it in the temple of their idols and among the people. 10 Then they put his armor in the temple of the Ashtoreths, and they fastened his body to the wall of Beth Shan.[a]

 

11 Now when the inhabitants of Jabesh Gilead heard what the Philistines had done to Saul, 12 all the valiant men arose and traveled all night, and took the body of Saul and the bodies of his sons from the wall of Beth Shan; and they came to Jabesh and burned them there. 13 Then they took their bones and buried them under the tamarisk tree at Jabesh, and fasted seven days.

 

 

1 Chronicles 10:13-14 ~ Saul was actually slain by God!

 

 

TRUE

 

 

1 Chronicles 10:13-14 (New King James Version)

 

13 So Saul died for his unfaithfulness which he had committed against the LORD, because he did not keep the word of the LORD, and also because he consulted a medium for guidance. 14 But he did not inquire of the LORD; therefore He killed him, and turned the kingdom over to David the son of Jesse.

 

 

Saul knew this very thing the day before it happened:

 

 

1 Samuel 28:15-19 (New King James Version)

 

15 Now Samuel said to Saul, “Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?”

And Saul answered, “I am deeply distressed; for the Philistines make war against me, and God has departed from me and does not answer me anymore, neither by prophets nor by dreams. Therefore I have called you, that you may reveal to me what I should do.”

16 Then Samuel said: “So why do you ask me, seeing the LORD has departed from you and has become your enemy? 17 And the LORD has done for Himself[a] as He spoke by me. For the LORD has torn the kingdom out of your hand and given it to your neighbor, David. 18 Because you did not obey the voice of the LORD nor execute His fierce wrath upon Amalek, therefore the LORD has done this thing to you this day. 19 Moreover the LORD will also deliver Israel with you into the hand of the Philistines. And tomorrow you and your sons will be with me. The LORD will also deliver the army of Israel into the hand of the Philistines.”

 

 

Psalm 139:16 (Amplified Bible)

 

16Your eyes saw my unformed substance, and in Your book all the days [of my life] were written before ever they took shape, when as yet there was none of them.

 

 

James 4:15 (Amplified Bible)

 

15You ought instead to say, If the Lord is willing, we shall live and we shall do this or that [thing].

 

 

 

2 Samuel 1:2-10 ~ states that Saul, at his own request, was slain by an Amalekite.

 

 

I want to do something a little different here, as to let the readers understand this in context. 1 and 2nd Samuel was not written as two books, but as one book. It was separated for practical reasons like scroll space and for us, easier reading and understanding. So let us read it is you would be reading it with out the books and chapters and verses.

 

 

The Philistines closed in on Saul and his sons, and they killed his sons Jonathan, Abinadab, and Malchishua. The fighting was fierce around Saul, and he was badly wounded by enemy arrows.

 

Saul told the soldier who carried his weapons, "Kill me with your sword! I don't want those worthless Philistines to torture me and make fun." But the soldier was afraid to kill him.

 

Saul then took out his own sword; he stuck the blade into his stomach, and fell on it. 5When the soldier knew that Saul was dead, he killed himself in the same way.

 

Saul was dead, his three sons were dead, and the soldier who carried his weapons was dead. They and all his soldiers died on that same day. The Israelites on the other side of Jezreel Valley and the other side of the Jordan learned that Saul and his sons were dead. They saw that the Israelite army had run away. So they ran away too, and the Philistines moved into the towns the Israelites had left behind. 8The day after the battle, when the Philistines returned to the battlefield to take the weapons of the dead Israelite soldiers, they found Saul and his three sons lying dead on Mount Gilboa.The Philistines cut off Saul's head and pulled off his armor. Then they put his armor in the temple of the goddess Astarte, and they nailed his body to the city wall of Beth-Shan. They also sent messengers everywhere in Philistia to spread the good news in the temples of their idols and among their people.

 

The people who lived in Jabesh in Gilead heard what the Philistines had done to Saul's body. So one night, some brave men from Jabesh went to Beth-Shan. They took down the bodies of Saul and his sons, then brought them back to Jabesh and burned them. They buried the bones under a small tree in Jabesh, and for seven days, they went without eating to show their sorrow. Saul was dead.

 

Meanwhile, David had defeated the Amalekites and returned to Ziklag. 2Three days later, a soldier came from Saul's army. His clothes were torn, and dirt was on his head. He went to David and knelt down in front of him. 3David asked, "Where did you come from?"

 

The man answered, "From Israel's army. I barely escaped with my life."

 

"Who won the battle?" David asked.

 

The man said, "Our army turned and ran, but many were wounded and died. Even King Saul and his son Jonathan are dead."

 

David asked, "How do you know Saul and Jonathan are dead?"

 

The young man replied:

 

I was on Mount Gilboa and saw King Saul leaning on his spear. The enemy's war chariots and cavalry were closing in on him. 7When he turned around and saw me, he called me over. I went and asked what he wanted.

 

Saul asked me, "Who are you?"

 

"An Amalekite," I answered.

 

Then he said, "Kill me! I'm dying, and I'm in terrible pain." [c] 10So I killed him. I knew he was too badly wounded to live much longer. Then I took his crown and his arm-band, and I brought them to you, Your Majesty. Here they are.

 

 

 

If you did not feel like obsorbing all of that in, let me brief you. Fitting in with the story, made very clear, Amalekite was lying! The bible tells us one thing of this account, and that is the story of which this young man claimed. The only version that the bible states as fact is the one we have already read just before hand. There is no other logical way to comprehend this.

 

Why? He most likely though he would have been rewarded for such, as Saul had been after David for many many years to prevent him from becoming the king of Israel. How did he get Saul's things? Remember, it was the next day before the invading army actually stripped the bodies, and he himself claimed to be right there during this time frame. He was a young man, and so certainly had motivation and reason to want to get ahead.

 

===============================================================================================================

 

 

I hope this helps, my friends.

 

God bless

[Karl-777]

Thank you for your reply, stranger.

 

John 17:17 ~ KJV reads: “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.”

 

The stranger wrote:

”…..Amalekite was lying!.....”

 

According to the above verse, the entirety of the bible is allegedly the “word” of biblegod. Then you admit that the Amalekite LIED…..right there in the “word”, which would mean that not all of the “word” is truth, as per your own admission.

 

In light of this obvious errancy, by what criteria is the rest of this tripe judged? Is Numbers 31:17,18 the “word” of a deity? No, but it is the word of a deranged barbarian. What about the absurdities of literalizing the OT myths and fables (“Noah’s Ark”, “pharaoh”, “Abraham”, etc.)?.....not to mention the myths of “Saul”, “David”, “Solomon”, etc…

 

We anxiously await your “….article by article, statement by statement…” replies and rebuttals to the facts presented at the two websites mentioned in my post #1595 on page 80.

 

Regards,

 

~K

[the stranger]

Thank you for reminding me of the two websites. I have glanced at them, but did not know they also offered rebuttos (LOL) I will look at that.

 

On the part of the bible having a lie, that is not the way it is. There are many times that the bible shows people lying. Does this mean that the bible lies? NO! It is simply laying out the facts in history, In this account, as you could clearly see in the way I laid it out in the oringinal (but in English LOL) story form. We already knew what had happened through the historic account explained. Then, right after that, the story continues with what the bible stated clearly to be, the version of the young man. In other words, the bible just verses ealier stated clearly the actual facts. Right after this, the bible tells us what this young man claimed to say. When reading it in the oringinal form, it seems very clear. Just because the bible has stories of people lying does not mean the bible lied, but instead it means that the bible is telling history such as it was and the way it happened. Liars are for real, and to some degree, if we are to be honest with ourselves, we all fit into that catagory, even when not intended to at times.

 

 

Thank you for your response and I will re check the web site provided.

[Ouroboros]

On the part of the bible having a lie, that is not the way it is.

But there are clearly errors in the Bible, things that contradict unless you twist and turn the meaning of the verses and make up stuff to explain it, explanations that are not even in the Bible.

 

I don't know I would call it lying though, they're just mistakes that proves that the Bible was compiled by humans, like any other story or so called holy book.

[Karl-777]

Thank you for reminding me of the two websites. I have glanced at them, but did not know they also offered rebuttos (LOL) I will look at that.

 

On the part of the bible having a lie, that is not the way it is. There are many times that the bible shows people lying. Does this mean that the bible lies? NO! It is simply laying out the facts in history, In this account, as you could clearly see in the way I laid it out in the oringinal (but in English LOL) story form. We already knew what had happened through the historic account explained. Then, right after that, the story continues with what the bible stated clearly to be, the version of the young man. In other words, the bible just verses ealier stated clearly the actual facts. Right after this, the bible tells us what this young man claimed to say. When reading it in the oringinal form, it seems very clear. Just because the bible has stories of people lying does not mean the bible lied, but instead it means that the bible is telling history such as it was and the way it happened. Liars are for real, and to some degree, if we are to be honest with ourselves, we all fit into that catagory, even when not intended to at times.

 

 

Thank you for your response and I will re check the web site provided.

 

Now you are saying that the bible has multiple stories of people lying. How do we know the apostles weren’t lying? Then, as Ouroboros explained, you’ll have to twist things around in order to “prove” your point. The bible is not a historical book. It is myth. The OT was fabricated in the 6th century BCE. Demonstrate from archaeology that “Saul”, “David” and “Solomon” actually existed.

 

So now we are expected to believe that biblegod waited until a period late in the history of the human race, and then finally decided to bless us with the “only true” “word”. Of course, the alleged deity would surely have had the common sense to deliver the “word” via those same “angels” to everyone on the Planet in their own languages, if that were the case. (I.E. everyone should have had the same bible). Did this happen? Of course not. And of course, in order to circumvent this absurdity, the Xian prelates invented the dogma of christ’s “three days in hell”, where the alleged godman allegedly preached to all of those who were “lost”, etc.. In other words, the more absurd a story is, the more absurd the apologetics have to become, in order to attempt to prop it all up.

 

We are here to get you to think for yourself, perhaps for the very first time in your life. The web links I provided are from two men who did just that, and they spent a lot of time on it. As you go through them, you will realize just how hopeless your position is.

 

~K

[bornagainathiest]

Oh shuggles!

You'd think that by now I'd be used to word games and semantic tomfoolery used by Bible Inerrantists to have that book the way they want it (God's perfect word) and not the way it really is (man's imperfect words).

 

Sorry it took so long friends, sometimes the slow way is just the way I tend to tread.

 

Let us get a recap on the verses in question.

 

King James Version (KJV)

Acts 1:15-20

15And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)

16Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.

17For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.

18Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.

19And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.

20For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

 

Matthew 27:1-10

1When the morning was come, all the chief priests and elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death:

2And when they had bound him, they led him away, and delivered him to Pontius Pilate the governor.

3Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders,

4Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that.

5And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.

6And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood.

7And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in.

8Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day.

9Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value;

10And gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me.

 

==================================================================================================================

 

 

Now I have posted the verses in their completeness to ensure I take nothing out of context.

 

QUESTION #1

So, who bought the field, the chief priests or Judas?

 

Now we know that Luke wrote the book of Acts, as well as Luke, and was quite close to Paul. This is important to note to understand that he was well aware of the story already and certainly had to of talked with the likes of Peter and John. It should also be noted that the recorded event in Matthew was written some 20 years before Acts, and Luke was written just a couple years before that (Acts). This is important to note to make us well aware of the fact Luke knew well of the historic event, though not from first hand knowledge. He was not there at the time, therefore all of his knowledge came from Matthew and talking with other people, and perhaps even other books.

 

18Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong

19And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.

 

--

 

5And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.

6And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood.

7And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in.

8Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day.

 

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

 

I am going to type down a bible translation that I believe states things the way it really is meant to be ubderstood, (this translation was taken from the original, and not from KJV) and than I will expound on it.

 

ACTS 1:18 (Everyday American English) And therefore he became the owner of that field through the money he was paid for that wicked thing he did.

 

The second question relates to his hanging attempt, and this part kind of goes along with it. Here was Judas spread out with his insides al over the place on the ground. This happened on Friday, Passover day, in which the holy Sabbath followed. On this day, no one could do no work, and not on the Passover, or the Sabbath, could they have touched the body of Judas, as this would have made them unclean, unable to eat the Passover meals or be clean for the Sabbath. Also, no work was allowed to be done on the Sabbath. When Judas through the money down in the temple, the intent of doing such a thing would to use that money to support the temple (confirmed by the following verse), but since the money was deemed as unclean, the money could not be used as such. Thus, up on finding out about Judas, this way of using his money only made sense. They could not touch the body for days, they could not use the money for the temple in which it was intended, thus Judas bought the lot he hanged himself on through the priests.

 

All very nice, Stranger.

But the Bible version you've selected gives a biased and misleading slant to what the original Koine says. Please go here...

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/act1.pdf

...and take note of what the New Testament Greek actually says. I'll even write it out for you, so there can be no misunderstanding.

 

"this-one [this-man] INDEED THEN ACQUIRES freehold OUT OF-THE HIRE [wages] OF-THE UN-JUSTness [injustice] AND PRONE [to-fall-prone] BECOMING he-RUPTURES MIDst [in-the-middle] AND WAS-POURED-OUT ALL THE INTESTINES OF-him"

 

See how things become clearer, once you go back to the source?

 

So, Judas acquired the field freehold out of the blood money given to him by the chief priests, then, he fell headlong and his intestines spilled out. Now, your reply to Citsonga's question makes it plain that you think Judas hanged himself and then fell as described. Your words and the above Koine passage give us a clear indication of the sequence of events. First, Judas purchased the field, using the thirty pieces of silver, counted out to him by the chief priests. Then, he hanged himself there. Lastly, he fell from where he had swung, bursting open somehow.

 

See that?

A direct contradiction between Acts 1:18 (where Judas buys the lot) and Matthew 27:1-10 (where the chief priests buy the lot) in what should be the perfect and inerrant word of God?

 

This same logic can be found in these:

 

Matthew 27:58-60 (King James Version)

58He went to Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. Then Pilate commanded the body to be delivered.

59And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth,

60And laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock: and he rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed.

 

Now who's tomb was this? Jesus or Joseph?

 

Ok, I'll play word games, if that's what you want.

Legally, it was Joseph's, but at that time it was used to inter the body of Jesus. Joseph had full legal possession and ownership of the tomb, but it was not his body in there - it was Jesus'.

In the same way, when I first drove my Dad's car I caromed off a wall and busted up the fender and two side-panel's. "**** me!", said a passer by. "That's messed up real bad." Legally, the auto wasn't mine, but that guy didn't know that, did he? Was he right or is it just semantic chicanery to dispute the ownership? Was it my car (as the driver) or my Dad's (as the legal owner)?

 

Sorry, but usage and legal ownership are two completely different things, even if you are trying hard to blur that difference, Stranger.

 

John 4:1-2 (King James Version)

When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John,

2(Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)

 

So why did they say Jesus was the one baptizing?

 

They listened to hearsay and were mislead by the disinformation, that's all. Such things happen all the time.

 

If your father passed away, but had left money for his burial, and you purchased what was needed with his money, who purchase was it?

 

False comparison.

The NT Greek reading of Acts 1:18 makes it abundantly clear that Judas himself did the purchasing using his thirty pieces of silver, in direct and open contradiction of Matthew 27: 7, where the chief priests did the buying, using the money he'd cast into the temple. The field did not become his retroactively, via the actions of the chief priests, after he died. That is an unworkable and unscriptural interpretation.

 

Bible passages, like all other things, can only be called different (or false) if one can proof that both scriptures could not be true. In this case, certainly that burden of proof is not met.

 

Well now, aren't you the one who believes that scripture is God's perfect word to us?

Wouldn't the original language it was first written down in be proof enough that two versions of the same event are mutually exclusive and therefore both cannot be true?

 

That's how it looks to me. I don't need a certain Bible version to massage the wording and bring what's irreconcilable surreptitiously back into line. You might.

 

I say that it's proven and therefore the Bible is false.

 

Your reply please!

 

BAA.

[Dagan]

So... did we ever get an answer as to why archaeology and the Old Testament don't line up at all when it comes to the landmark events (i.e. the Exodus, pretty much anything the bible says about Assyrians, Egyptians and Babylonians); why some of the oldest stories in the bible seem to have an awful lot in common with Babylonian and Sumerian legends which were around earlier; why God could apparently write on stone tablets but Jesus never wrote anything down, leaving a hodge-podge of people disagreeing to write his biography... and getting it wrong... and why there is practically no outside verification of anything in the gospels?

[bornagainathiest]

Looking deeper into the Stranger's reply to my question, I see some disturbing things in what he writes and why he chose to go with the Everyday American English version of the Bible.

 

 

(Snip)

 

I am going to type down a bible translation that I believe states things the way it really is meant to be ubderstood, (this translation was taken from the original, and not from KJV) and than I will expound on it.

 

ACTS 1:18 (Everyday American English) And therefore he became the owner of that field through the money he was paid for that wicked thing he did.

 

(Snip)

 

Now there is always more than one possibility to some scripture that we have to go deep into to understand it in context, but again, as long as no proof can be found that both statements cannot be true, than it cannot be dismissed as a lie. Sometimes we must understand that the bible was not written as a history book per say, and did not go into detail about every given fact or event in that period of history. The main purpose was to show the spread of Christianity in to get the word out about Jesus.

 

All also need to know, if it were not for God in my life, I would know nothing of the bible at all. It is only through Him that I am interested in His word, and it is only through Him, I am able to respond with reasonable answers. To God I give all the credit. Praise His name!

 

I truly hope this helps and I will be looking forward to any questions that one might have in regards to the possible answers.

 

I am going to type down a bible translation that I believe states things the way it really is meant to be ubderstood,

 

Really? Surely he means, "...the way it needs to be understood so as not to openly contradict the Gospels."

(this translation was taken from the original, and not from KJV) and than I will expound on it.

 

No. This is not correct.

Either the Stranger is mistaken or he's lying to us.

All versions of the Bible claim to be taken from the original. The Everyday American English version is nothing special and does not give a proper translation, as I have shown.

I've just been thru twenty two different Bible versions at the Biblegateway site, checking out Acts 1:18 and none... I repeat, NONE say that Judas, "... became the owner of that field through the money he was paid for that wicked thing he did."

In fact, I invite anyone (u 2 Stranger) to go here... http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts%201:18&version=NIV

...and work your way down thru all of the different Bible versions, looking for any of them that retroactively make Judas the owner of the field after he died. Just use the blue arrows and 'Update'.

Or, you can just take my word for it. You won't find any of them that agree with the wording of the Stranger's chosen version, the Everyday American English Bible. All of them clearly state that Judas purchased/obtained/acquired/bought the land himself.

 

This raises the awkward question, 'Why?"

Well, several questions, actually.

 

Q1.

Why did the Stranger select the E.A.E. Bible over any of the others?

A1.

Because all of the others tell it like it is (Judas himself buying the field) and the EAE tells it as he wants it to be (Judas becoming the owner of the field after he died).

Smell something?

 

Q2.

Why did he claim that it's... ' a bible version that I believe states things the way it really is meant to be understood' ...when neither the original NT Greek or twenty two other Bible versions agree with it's translation of Acts 1:18?

A2.

Because neither the original Greek, nor the wording of those other Bible versions attempt to falsely harmonize Acts 1:18 with Matthew 27:7.

Yep! I smell something too.

 

Q3.

Why did he try to raise the value of the EAE above the King James Version, by saying... '(this translation was taken from the original, and not from the KJV)'?

A3.

Because the KJV says, 'Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity ; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.'

Ooops! The Stranger can't use the KJV to try and show that Judas became the owner of the field after he died, because the KJV (correctly!) says that it was Judas himself who did the purchasing - using the money he (according to the Gospels) returned to the temple.

Yes, there's definitely something rotten in the state of Inerrancy-land.

 

Then the Stranger goes on to say...

Now there is always more than one possibility to some scripture that we have to go deep into to understand it in context, but again, as long as no proof can be found that both statements cannot be true, than it cannot be dismissed as a lie.

 

Ummm...

Sorry friend, but Yes - scripture can be dismissed as a lie.

And when it comes to lies, it looks as if the only lying that's been done around here has come from your keyboard. Unless, of course, you'd be happy to own up to being plain wrong about God's (so-called) word being perfect, without flaw and inerrant?

 

Sometimes we must understand that the bible was not written as a history book per say, and did not go into detail about every given fact or event in that period of history. The main purpose was to show the spread of Christianity in to get the word out about Jesus.

 

Epic fail, brother!

If the Bible is inerrant, then ALL of it's facts and historical records MUST be 100% true. You can't have it both ways. Either it's inerrant and perfect, or it isn't. Make your mind up, please!

 

All also need to know, if it were not for God in my life, I would know nothing of the bible at all. It is only through Him that I am interested in His word, and it is only through Him, I am able to respond with reasonable answers. To God I give all the credit. Praise His name!

 

Reasonable answers? I don't think so. More like risible attempts to subvert what scripture actually says in favor of what you want it to say.

 

No! Let's not praise the name of a god who needs to be defended by playing fast and loose with the very words you claim to hold in such high honor.

 

I truly hope this helps and I will be looking forward to any questions that one might have in regards to the possible answers.

 

(In the words of Locutus of Borg, "More likely this is a deception.")

 

More likely, you truly hope that you've fooled us by your ungodly, unscriptural and unchristian 'cleverness'.

 

'One' might well have many, many more Inerrancy-busting questions for you, Stranger. But for now, please respond to my previous message, not this one. Also, please avoid using the common tactic of avoiding the difficult posting and focusing tightly on another.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

p.s.

Oh and btw, Stranger.

 

Perhaps you were thinking of taking umbrage at the tone of this message and using it as an escape clause?

Something like... "If you are going to be so negative, then what's the point in my replying?"

Or... "You are clearly a pawn of Satan and my words are wasted on you."

Or even... "God's just told me not continue this dialog any more."

 

Well, just let me remind you of this...

Posted 26 November 2010 - 12:10 AM

I WILL TAKE THE CHALLENGE, WITH THE HELP OF THE ONE AND ONLY TRUE GOD. Give me a while to go through your links, and I will respond article by article, statement by statement. Gods word is true! If Gods word is not true, then neither is God, thus because God is real, I will prove His word to be true, the only whole truth in this world!

Don't be a stranger, be a neighbor.

[★ Citsonga ★]

QUESTION #1 [so, who bought the field, the chief priests or Judas?]

 

Now we know that Luke wrote the book of Acts, as well as Luke, and was quite close to Paul.

 

No, we do not know that. The church has claimed such, but nobody knows who wrote the books.

 

18Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong

 

19And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.

 

--

 

5And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.

 

6And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood.

 

7And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in.

 

8Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day.

 

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

 

I am going to type down a bible translation that I believe states things the way it really is meant to be ubderstood, (this translation was taken from the original, and not from KJV) and than I will expound on it.

 

ACTS 1:18 (Everyday American English) And therefore he became the owner of that field through the money he was paid for that wicked thing he did.

 

So, you hand-pick a paraphrased version of the account that is clearly intended to remove the contradiction, and you think that solves the problem? Sorry, but it doesn't. Acts says that Judas bought the field, while Matthew says that the priests did.

 

When Judas through the money down in the temple, the intent of doing such a thing would to use that money to support the temple (confirmed by the following verse), but since the money was deemed as unclean, the money could not be used as such. Thus, up on finding out about Judas, this way of using his money only made sense.

 

They could not touch the body for days, they could not use the money for the temple in which it was intended, thus Judas bought the lot he hanged himself on through the priests.

 

Typical apologetics. We've all seen all this before. Basically, you start with the conclusion that the bible can't be in error, then manipulate the details to try to make the differing accounts work together. There is nothing scholarly in that at all.

 

In reality, it doesn't matter what Judas' intent was when he returned the money, the fact is that the text says he returned it and that the priests bought the field. Yet another text says that Judas himself bought the field. You can try to live in denial all you want, but these texts contradict each other.

 

This same logic can be found in these:

 

Matthew 27:58-60 (King James Version)

 

58He went to Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. Then Pilate commanded the body to be delivered.

 

59And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth,

 

60And laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock: and he rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed.

 

 

Now who's tomb was this? Jesus or Joseph?

 

So Jesus was allegedly buried in someone else's tomb. Big hairy deal. How does that have any bearing on the issue at hand?

 

John 4:1-2 (King James Version)

 

John 4

When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John,

 

2(Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)

 

 

 

So why did they say Jesus was the one baptizing?

 

First off, it says that others heard that Jesus baptized. As someone else already pointed out, it could be a matter of inaccurate information being circulated.

 

Second, it's not uncommon for something that is done under one's authority to be referred to as being done by the person. This does not compare to the purchase of the field, though, because Judas was not in authority over the priests.

 

If your father passed away, but had left money for his burial, and you purchased what was needed with his money, who purchase was it?

 

This relates to what I just said, in that you would be operating under your father's authority for his money. In addition, he specified what to do with the money. So, in a sense he bought the burial plot through you.

 

That is completely different from the Judas account, where he was not in authority over the priests and did not instruct them to use the money to buy a field for him, but rather simply returned the money to them.

 

Clearly, you're grasping at straws to make a comparison that simply doesn't work in the real world.

 

Bible passages, like all other things, can only be called different (or false) if one can proof that both scriptures could not be true. In this case, certainly that burden of proof is not met.

 

Wrong, it has been met. You just refuse to accept reality because you've predetermined that the bible cannot be in error and you jump through hoops to try to justify that predetermination.

 

It should also be noted that some believe Judas did purchase this property in some sort of contract agreement at some point before hand (the wage which was received was believed to be about a six month average wage) but had not full fill his contract. Thus the priest simply fulfilled that which had already been started.

 

Of course, people can make up any sort of thing like that to try to justify their preconceived notion that the bible is perfect. There is nothing in either text about any such thing, and the flow of events doesn't lend itself to this idea. Yet, the "faithful" will grab onto anything they can to uphold their preconceived notions. I prefer honest assessments, though.

 

Second question [Did Judas die by hanging himself or by falling headlong and bursting open?]

 

 

Both is the correct answer. Remember that it is believed that Judas may have hung from where ever he was for some time. If so, the starting process of decaying would not have took very long in those conditions. That being the case, it would be easy to understand that over a short period of time, Judas body fell from where ever as it was already in the decaying stage, and thus split open on impact or even before hand.

 

Another possibility can be taken into account based on where he hang himself. This land was based on the down side of the valley, thus making it a good spot for hanging. If one were to hang ones self and the rope broke or the tree branch snapped, and on the way down you were impaled by such likes as a tree or stick (or allot of other possibilities) it certainly would be possible that you fell head down and were impaled in light of it causing your insides to fall out or be ripped open.

 

Typical responses. We've heard all this before. Frankly, if this was the only problem in the bible, I could live with that explanation (despite its unlikelihood). The problem is that the bible is riddled with a bunch of problems, and even in these very short passages there are two other glaring contradictions.

 

Question three [Was the reason the field was called "Field of Blood" because it was a burial place for foreigners or because Judas burst open and his intestines spilled out?]

 

 

After they had purchased the land, because this land was used in regards to a burial of someone (or better put, the left over remains of some one) who caused the crucifixion of an innocent man, this land was not suited for hiding treasures or for the burial of native Israelites. Thus the same reasoning the money could have not been used for the temple. Because of this, the land after this fact became a land that foreigners were often buried in.

 

That doesn't answer the question. What was the reason the field was named "Field of Blood," because Judas burst open or because it was a burial place for foreigners?

[★ Citsonga ★]

Sometimes we must understand that the bible was not written as a history book per say, and did not go into detail about every given fact or event in that period of history. The main purpose was to show the spread of Christianity in to get the word out about Jesus.

 

Absolutely. The purpose was much more propaganda than accuracy. I can definitely agree with that.

[Guest Spinoza]

Sometimes we must understand that the bible was not written as a history book per say, and did not go into detail about every given fact or event in that period of history. The main purpose was to show the spread of Christianity in to get the word out about Jesus.

 

Absolutely. The purpose was much more propaganda than accuracy. I can definitely agree with that.

 

I would agree with that also.... finally something in common.

 

There is a good mix of history there also though.

 

 

 

 

 

[the stranger]

Sorry for the late response friends. I will start with the first responses and go back till my time runs out.

 

Now you are saying that the bible has multiple stories of people lying. How do we know the apostles weren’t lying?

 

Karl, let me expound a drop on this. First, I will show you other stories that show first the facts, then the lie.

 

Matthew 26:69-74 (New King James Version)

 

Peter Denies Jesus, and Weeps Bitterly

 

69 Now Peter sat outside in the courtyard. And a servant girl came to him, saying, “You also were with Jesus of Galilee.”

70 But he denied it before them all, saying, “I do not know what you are saying.”

71 And when he had gone out to the gateway, another girl saw him and said to those who were there, “This fellow also was with Jesus of Nazareth.”

72 But again he denied with an oath, “I do not know the Man!”

73 And a little later those who stood by came up and said to Peter, “Surely you also are one of them, for your speech betrays you.”

74 Then he began to curse and swear, saying, “I do not know the Man!”

Immediately a rooster crowed.

 

 

Now a part from the rest of the scripture found relating to this story, we could easily assume that Peter was telling us the truth. But instead we know that he is lying because we know the rest of the story.

 

 

Genesis 20 (New King James Version)

 

Genesis 20

Abraham and Abimelech

1 And Abraham journeyed from there to the South, and dwelt between Kadesh and Shur, and stayed in Gerar. 2 Now Abraham said of Sarah his wife, “She is my sister.” And Abimelech king of Gerar sent and took Sarah.

 

 

1 Samuel 21 (New King James Version)

 

1 Samuel 21

David and the Holy Bread

1 Now David came to Nob, to Ahimelech the priest. And Ahimelech was afraid when he met David, and said to him, “Why are you alone, and no one is with you?”

2 So David said to Ahimelech the priest, “The king has ordered me on some business, and said to me, ‘Do not let anyone know anything about the business on which I send you, or what I have commanded you.’ And I have directed my young men to such and such a place. 3 Now therefore, what have you on hand? Give me five loaves of bread in my hand, or whatever can be found.”

 

 

2 Kings 10:18-28 (New King James Version)

 

Worshipers of Baal Killed

 

18 Then Jehu gathered all the people together, and said to them, “Ahab served Baal a little, Jehu will serve him much. 19 Now therefore, call to me all the prophets of Baal, all his servants, and all his priests. Let no one be missing, for I have a great sacrifice for Baal. Whoever is missing shall not live.

 

 

 

 

Now I could go on and on, but let me stop it here. Just because the bible tells history, and all of the lies that happened in history with it, does not mean the bible lies. We can generally assume a lie when we have just been told the truth prier or after a passage, like in the case of the death of Saul.

 

The bible tells us who is lying and who is not, but only if we read the entire story line.

 

 

 

The bible is not a historical book. It is myth. The OT was fabricated in the 6th century BCE. Demonstrate from archaeology that “Saul”, “David” and “Solomon” actually existed.

 

So now we are expected to believe that biblegod waited until a period late in the history of the human race, and then finally decided to bless us with the “only true” “word”. Of course, the alleged deity would surely have had the common sense to deliver the “word” via those same “angels” to everyone on the Planet in their own languages, if that were the case. (I.E. everyone should have had the same bible). Did this happen? Of course not. And of course, in order to circumvent this absurdity, the Xian prelates invented the dogma of christ’s “three days in hell”, where the alleged godman allegedly preached to all of those who were “lost”, etc.. In other words, the more absurd a story is, the more absurd the apologetics have to become, in order to attempt to prop it all up.

 

We are here to get you to think for yourself, perhaps for the very first time in your life. The web links I provided are from two men who did just that, and they spent a lot of time on it. As you go through them, you will realize just how hopeless your position is.

 

 

Now my friend, that is allot of false information to dwell on in such a short time frame. Perhaps you can bring up one of these points that we could go further into detail with.

 

 

Now because of time restraints my friend, maybe you can help me out by finding and posting the rebutel off from the link in which you have provided and we can go on from there.

 

All very nice, Stranger.

But the Bible version you've selected gives a biased and misleading slant to what the original Koine says. Please go here...

http://www.scripture.../NTpdf/act1.pdf

...and take note of what the New Testament Greek actually says. I'll even write it out for you, so there can be no misunderstanding.

 

"this-one [this-man] INDEED THEN ACQUIRES freehold OUT OF-THE HIRE [wages] OF-THE UN-JUSTness [injustice] AND PRONE [to-fall-prone] BECOMING he-RUPTURES MIDst [in-the-middle] AND WAS-POURED-OUT ALL THE INTESTINES OF-him"

 

 

See how things become clearer, once you go back to the source?

 

Born again, Let me copy the same thing from a usage of a popular site.

 

Acts 1:18 Greek Study Bible (Apostolic / Interlinear)

οὗτος μὲν οὖν ἐκτήσατο χωρίον ἐκ μισθοῦ τῆς ἀδικίας καὶ πρηνὴς γενόμενος ἐλάκησεν μέσος καὶ ἐξεχύθη πάντα τὰ σπλάγχνα αὐτοῦ·

KJV with Strong's

Now __ this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity and falling headlong he burst asunder in the midst and all his bowels gushed out

Greek Transliteration Strong's Morphology English

οὗτος outos 3778 D-NSM man

μὲν men 3303 PRT Now

οὖν oun 3767 CONJ now

ἐκτήσατο ektēsato 2932 V-ADI-3S acquired

χωρίον chōrion 5564 N-ASN field

ἐκ ek 1537 PREP with

μισθοῦ misthou 3408 N-GSM price

τῆς tēs 3588 T-GSF of

ἀδικίας adikias 93 N-GSF wickedness

καὶ kai 2532 CONJ and

πρηνὴς prēnēs 4248 A-NSM headlong

γενόμενος genomenos 1096 V-2ADP-NSM having become

ἐλάκησεν elakēsen 2997 V-AAI-3S he burst open

μέσος mesos 3319 A-NSM middle

καὶ kai 2532 CONJ and

ἐξεχύθη exechuthē 1632 V-API-3S gushed out

πάντα panta 3956 A-NPN all

τὰ ta 3588 T-NPN the

σπλάγχνα splanchna 4698 N-NPN intestines

αὐτοῦ autou 846 P-GSM of him

 

http://biblos.com/acts/1-18.htm

 

 

 

Is this a fair play on words? Help me out here, because to be honest, I still cannot really understand where you are coming from.

 

Matthew 27:7 Greek Study Bible (Apostolic / Interlinear)

συμβούλιον δὲ λαβόντες ἠγόρασαν ἐξ αὐτῶν τὸν ἀγρὸν τοῦ κεραμέως εἰς ταφὴν τοῖς ξένοις.

KJV with Strong's

And they took counsel and bought with them the potter's field to bury strangers in

Greek Transliteration Strong's Morphology English

συμβούλιον sumboulion 4824 N-ASN conferred

δὲ de 1161 CONJ And

λαβόντες labontes 2983 V-2AAP-NPM having held

ἠγόρασαν ēgorasan 59 V-AAI-3P they bought

ἐξ ex 1537 PREP with

αὐτῶν autōn 846 P-GPN money

τὸν ton 3588 T-ASM

ἀγρὸν agron 68 N-ASM field

τοῦ tou 3588 T-GSM of

κεραμέως kerameōs 2763 N-GSM Potter's

εἰς eis 1519 PREP to

ταφὴν taphēn 5027 N-ASF burial

τοῖς tois 3588 T-DPM to

ξένοις xenois 3581 A-DPM strangers

 

 

Now Judas returned the money given to him, and that money was used to buy the lot. Now the only way it can be made to understand is Judas bought the land in the sense of that the money received through his betrayal was used to purchase the land, thus Judas in effect, purchased the land. With out Judas betraying Jesus, and throwing the money which he had received back in the temple, the plot would have never been bought.

 

They listened to hearsay and were mislead by the disinformation, that's all. Such things happen all the time.

 

Try to understand what you are reading instead of trying to find reason to throw it out. You know your boss does the same thing. The credit is shared of all who are part of the project. I can give you many examples if wished, but you know this is true. Most likely even if you got a notice for your lawn being to long, and you had your kid moe it, if asked by the city, you would say, "Yes, I have taken care of it" or "Yes, I have finished or completed the task" and not say "Yes, I had my kids do it and so now it is done." The important part is is that it is done and the ones responsible for it being done all share in the credit of such, and if not done, the axe will fall on the one that did not do their part.

 

If your father passed away, but had left money for his burial, and you purchased what was needed with his money, who purchase was it?

 

False comparison.

The NT Greek reading of Acts 1:18 makes it abundantly clear that Judas himself did the purchasing using his thirty pieces of silver, in direct and open contradiction of Matthew 27: 7, where the chief priests did the buying, using the money he'd cast into the temple. The field did not become his retroactively, via the actions of the chief priests, after he died. That is an unworkable and unscriptural interpretation.

 

I would disagree. If asked later who purchased the burial plot, would not both your father and you be correct?

 

Well now, aren't you the one who believes that scripture is God's perfect word to us?

Wouldn't the original language it was first written down in be proof enough that two versions of the same event are mutually exclusive and therefore both cannot be true?

 

It is just that simple, isn't it? It sounds just like it reads. No problems. Maybe we could do a little research on out own languish to find out how "easy" the whole concept of translating, or even updating, languishes can be.

 

Thank you for your thoughts.

 

I will respond to more shortly.

[the stranger]

So... did we ever get an answer as to why archaeology and the Old Testament don't line up at all when it comes to the landmark events (i.e. the Exodus, pretty much anything the bible says about Assyrians, Egyptians and Babylonians); why some of the oldest stories in the bible seem to have an awful lot in common with Babylonian and Sumerian legends which were around earlier; why God could apparently write on stone tablets but Jesus never wrote anything down, leaving a hodge-podge of people disagreeing to write his biography... and getting it wrong... and why there is practically no outside verification of anything in the gospels?

 

 

Jab, I suppose I could just post a bunch of web sites that show the truth as I believe it, but I don't think anyone would get much use out of that. Who don't you give me one thing to focus on, and then from there we can go.

 

(this translation was taken from the original, and not from KJV) and than I will expound on it.

 

No. This is not correct.

Either the Stranger is mistaken or he's lying to us.

All versions of the Bible claim to be taken from the original. The Everyday American English version is nothing special and does not give a proper translation, as I have shown.

I've just been thru twenty two different Bible versions at the Biblegateway site, checking out Acts 1:18 and none... I repeat, NONE say that Judas, "... became the owner of that field through the money he was paid for that wicked thing he did."

 

Out of all the translations I have read, the one I posted was the only as such that put it in that way. It does not make it untrue. It just makes it easier to understand. I could use the KJV, but I still understand it the same way.

 

On your first part, I was wrong and you were right! I read and was told differently, but my studies have proven beyond a shadow of doubt that at least most translations were from the original source and not that of the KJV. I correct myself and I thank you for bringing that to my intention.

 

You are some what right on some of your statements but I should add the KJV is not without it's mistakes/ and or at least understood better in a different light.

 

You bashed me pretty good. Most translations do not read that way, but I still believe it makes sense to understand them in that light.

 

Ummm...

Sorry friend, but Yes - scripture can be dismissed as a lie.

And when it comes to lies, it looks as if the only lying that's been done around here has come from your keyboard. Unless, of course, you'd be happy to own up to being plain wrong about God's (so-called) word being perfect, without flaw and inerrant?

 

You got me on one, but that is it, born again. Even Christians can make mistakes.

 

Sometimes we must understand that the bible was not written as a history book per say, and did not go into detail about every given fact or event in that period of history. The main purpose was to show the spread of Christianity in to get the word out about Jesus.

 

Epic fail, brother!

If the Bible is inerrant, then ALL of it's facts and historical records MUST be 100% true. You can't have it both ways. Either it's inerrant and perfect, or it isn't. Make your mind up, please!

 

Everything the bible says is true, but it still was not written as a text book. I did not make any counterdicting statements here.

 

Born again, I actually enjoyed your post. We should have allot of fun together, me and you. I will try my best to answer all of your questions.

 

Typical apologetics. We've all seen all this before. Basically, you start with the conclusion that the bible can't be in error, then manipulate the details to try to make the differing accounts work together. There is nothing scholarly in that at all.

 

Cits, please tell me you do not do the opposite. Now I could take your life, my life, or anybody elses life events and make it appear that they are not the same simply by having more than one person telling the same story, Every one has their own focus points, and the things that they remember best. Are you tall? Do you have red hair? Are both of these true or are both of these false? A key reason why eye witnesses make sad fact tellers. Not because they may be lying (though they may) but because we see two different sides to the same story and some call them different.

\

(1) You went to the food store in your car, than found out you had a dead battery. You got a ride to the battery shop, replaced the battery, but still the car would not start. You called a friend for a ride back home with your food.

 

(a) You brought back food from the store with your friend. True or false

( You drove your self to the store. True or false

© You went to the battery shop. True or false

 

The bible often only tells part of the story, that is, the part that the author wants to get out in making his point. It does not mean that any of the above statements are false, just not understood.

 

Perhaps not quite the same line, but I already went into that earlier.

 

So Jesus was allegedly buried in someone else's tomb. Big hairy deal. How does that have any bearing on the issue at hand?

 

I will make myself even clearer on this area shortly, friend

 

I will be back a bit later

[★ Citsonga ★]

Typical apologetics. We've all seen all this before. Basically, you start with the conclusion that the bible can't be in error, then manipulate the details to try to make the differing accounts work together. There is nothing scholarly in that at all.

 

Cits, please tell me you do not do the opposite.

 

OK, I'll tell you: I don't.

 

For your information (I think I already covered this in the other thread), I USED to approach it just the way you do. It was the insurmountable Biblical problems that convinced me otherwise when I was still trying to maintain my faith. You see, I did NOT approach the Bible from the angle of trying to disprove it (I fully believed it was true), so my conclusions that I mention to you were NOT the starting point, they were the RESULT of much study and thought.

 

You, on the other hand, are still operating with the assumptions that I used to operate with. You start with the conclusion and then manipulate the text to try to make it work with your conclusion.

 

Do you understand the difference yet?

 

[EDIT: Of course, now I operate with the understanding that the bible is not the perfect word of God, but it is not a presupposition forced onto the text before examining it. My presupposition was that it WAS the perfect word of God. My current position is not a predetermined assumption, but an honest assessment of the evidence. Now do you understand the difference between my position (a result of examining the evidence first) and your position (assuming the outcome and then trying to make the pieces fit your presupposition)?]