Question For Christians About Biblical Inerrancy

[the stranger]

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?

 

 

I won't dispute you on this, my friend. You are right in the way I see things here. I am hopeful through much study all things can come together as one true story.

 

 

 

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

 

My point on this is it is called here Joseph's tomb, however, generally referred to as Jesus tomb by most Christians. It is just my way of showing that things can be a credited with more than just one name.

 

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.

 

So let us do a replay of the same story, different names.

 

I wanted more from you than what I was seeing, and I believed that by turning you in, you would make yourself king. By turning you in, I received six months wages.

 

That same night (making it almost impossible to purchase land in that time frame) I witness that instead of you making yourself king that you are being put to death, the opposite of which I was expecting. Feeling over whelmed with grief at this point, I take the money back and say, I no longer want this money, use it for the temple instead.

But they cannot use it for the temple as they consider it blood money.

 

This same day they find out I had killed myself on a hillside. There I am all scattered around with my insides hanging out. There they are with my money and having no way of using it. So what makes sense? they purchase the plot, and it becomes a resting place among myself and many foreigners in the future.

 

Now who really made this purchase of land? If you said they did you would be right in the aspect that they bought the land with my money for myself. But what if I said I purchased it? Would I be wrong? Who's money was used and where did it come from? Would they have ever purchased this land if not for me and my money, and in fact, the whole purpose of the land purchase was to rid themselves of this blood money. My money paid for that, and it was my purchase. A purchase for me using my money. The only thing that they did was give my money to some one else for me.

 

Would not both they and me be be rightfully named as the purchaser?

 

How about if you gave your friend some money to purchase a ladder at the store. Someone may ask, "who purchased that ladder, and may I use it?" Your friend may have purchased it, but did he? Was not it really your purchase? Could not both statements be true?

 

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.

 

Well, there is one thing that we can agree up on. I also do not see the flow of things leading up to this. I have read so many possibilities but only stuck with what I thought to be the truth before my study. I am not saying I got it all down, but I agree with the fact we should do our best to keep things in the flow of scripture.

 

In saying that, however. I again would like to add that the far majority of the time, just part of the story is laid out. Pitcher yourself WRITING (not typing) events that had happened decades ago, and try to determine what parts you would feel were worthy of writing versing the parts where you just deemed not worth the time in this occasion. I would urge you to try this for just the passing day. What would you write down. What if some one else were to read it a year later? Would they grasp really grasp everything that happened to you in that day, let alone your family, your neighbors, your country and Government? But yet this is the type of thing we must contend with.

 

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.

 

What if every one of them could be understood as being the truth? What if they just seem different based on our own understanding from a book surpassing thousands of years, many many authors, and much time to compress a book out of the many different writings. Ask yourself this. If not inspired by God, could any other event like this unfold with so many similarities? We focus so much on the precieved differences, but given the bibles history, the similarities are amazing.

 

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?

 

Most likely because of the way or the reason of the field purchase, based on the spilling of innocent blood. (blood money) because of Jesus.

[Karl-777]

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.

 

 

We already knew that Peter was a liar.

 

I am not going to "bring up one of these points". Your original response on page 80 reads:

 

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!

 

So go here: http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/

 

and here: http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/index2.html

 

...and refute everything presented at the above two websites, as per your original statement "article by article, statement by statement". Quoting "scripture" proves nothing, and neither does cross-referencing OT myths to NT pseudepigraphy.

 

~K

[Guest Spinoza]

Jesus Christ did not exist.

 

His name wasn't jesus. It was Yeshu ha-notsri .... (may his name be forever blotted out)

 

Truth can only bring beauty & joy if you seek it through a humble heart, for he who is humble embodies the heart of truth.

[Guest Spinoza]

Jesus Christ did not exist.

 

His name wasn't jesus. It was Yeshu ha-notsri .... (may his name be forever blotted out)

 

Truth can only bring beauty & joy if you seek it through a humble heart, for he who is humble embodies the heart of truth.

 

Yeshu (ישו in Hebrew) is a name that appears in a few anecdotes in the Tosefta and the Talmud.^[1] The pagan writer Celsus knew of one of the accounts independently and equated it with the story of Jesus. In the Middle Ages, disputations were staged by the Christian church and allegations were made that the passages were insulting references to Jesus. In response, Jewish authorities such as Nahmanides and Jehiel ben Joseph asserted that the references to Yeshu in the Talmud were entirely unrelated to Jesus. Several modern scholars understand the passages to be references to Jesus ^[2] , while others are skeptical^[3]. Yeshu is also the name used in Toledot Yeshu narratives as the name of the central Hashmonean era character who is partly based on Jesus. In Modern Hebrew, Yeshu means Jesus.

 

.... the abbreviation (יש"ו) for the Hebrew expression ימח שמו וזכרו (yimmach shemo vezikhro) meaning "May his name and memory be blotted out"

 

However Yeshu is a translation from the Hindu Issa and Isha which were also a translation from the Verb "To Be" Esse ....

 

 

Yeshu was a Yogi Master of Kabbalah.

[bornagainathiest]

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

 

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.

 

Where I'm coming from, huh? Ok then Stranger, I'll spell it out.

 

1. You assert that the Bible is inerrant and without flaw.

2. So if a flaw can be found, it's inerrancy will have been proven to be false.

3. You will also have been proven mistaken in believing that it was inerrant.

4. I contend that the content and meaning of Acts 1:18 and Matthew 27:7 are mutually exclusive - they cannot both be true, using the following criteria of what the word, 'true' means in this context.

5. Both passages are (according to you) accurate historical reportage of real historical events.

6. Therefore, the standard rules of history and logic apply equally to both.

7. Therefore, just as the Titanic sank in the Atlantic ocean and not both the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, all historical events must obey the principles of logic and cause-and-effect.

8. Therefore, using these principles, we must conclude that a singular event cannot happen twice.

9. We must also conclude that different people cannot perform the same action - it can only happen once.

10.(Picking up from 4...) Therefore, since the Bible conclusively and accurately reports that two different groups of people, Judas himself in Acts 1:18 and the chief priests in Matthew 27:7, performed the same action (buying the field) logic forces us to conclude that both passages cannot be true (using the above criteria).

11. Either one of them is true and one of them is false or both are false.

12. If even one of them is false, then the Bible cannot be inerrant and without flaw.

 

That clear?

 

Now please compare the emboldened parts of your message. The one above says, "Now _ this man purchased a field."

That was Judas. The one below says, "They bought with money field." This was the chief priests.

Do you see where I'm coming from now?

 

The original Koine says that two different groups performed the same action - which is illogical and impossible.

All twenty two Bible versions availible at Biblegateway say the same thing. So do your quotes, lifted from Biblos.

Scripture itself and almost all Bible translations are contrary to your position - that Judas retroactively inherited the field, becoming the true owner of it, after he was dead.

 

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 boughtἐξ ex 1537 PREP withαὐτῶν autōn 846 P-GPN moneyτὸν ton 3588 T-ASM

ἀγρὸν agron 68 N-ASM fieldτοῦ 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

 

I don't have time to say any more right now, Stranger, but I will pick up from this point sometime tomorrow. Please maintain a holding pattern until then.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[★ Citsonga ★]

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

 

My point on this is it is called here Joseph's tomb, however, generally referred to as Jesus tomb by most Christians. It is just my way of showing that things can be a credited with more than just one name.

 

It's not uncommon for Christians to make incorrect statements (the inaccurate application of "Lucifer" as a name for Satan quickly comes to mind).

 

That being said, I don't see a problem with making a reference to a tomb that someone was placed in as being "[insert name]'s tomb," even if it was technically owned by someone else. The statement is reflecting where the body was laid, not who the legal owner was. That's quite different from saying that Judas bought a field that he, in fact, did not buy nor authorize the purchase of. The way the purchase was describes as having taken place by the priests is not a circumstance in which it would be reasonable to say that Judas himself purchased the field.

 

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.

 

So let us do a replay of the same story, different names.

 

I wanted more from you than what I was seeing, and I believed that by turning you in, you would make yourself king. By turning you in, I received six months wages.

 

That same night (making it almost impossible to purchase land in that time frame) I witness that instead of you making yourself king that you are being put to death, the opposite of which I was expecting. Feeling over whelmed with grief at this point, I take the money back and say, I no longer want this money, use it for the temple instead.

But they cannot use it for the temple as they consider it blood money.

 

This same day they find out I had killed myself on a hillside. There I am all scattered around with my insides hanging out. There they are with my money and having no way of using it. So what makes sense? they purchase the plot, and it becomes a resting place among myself and many foreigners in the future.

 

Now who really made this purchase of land? If you said they did you would be right in the aspect that they bought the land with my money for myself. But what if I said I purchased it? Would I be wrong?

 

You'd be dead, so you wouldn't be saying it.

 

In all seriousness, though, given those circumstances, it would be wrong to report it as though you bought the land. You did no such thing. You returned the money. You did not hand it back on the contingency that they buy the land for you, you simply returned the money. You did not want it, so it was no longer yours.

 

In addition, Matthew's version of the story does not have the priests purchasing the field for Judas, it has them purchasing the field as a burial place for foreigners. You're so bent on trying to make these differing accounts agree with each other that you're changing details in the process.

 

Who's money was used and where did it come from? Would they have ever purchased this land if not for me and my money, and in fact, the whole purpose of the land purchase was to rid themselves of this blood money. My money paid for that, and it was my purchase. A purchase for me using my money. The only thing that they did was give my money to some one else for me.

 

For effect, let me point out again that Matthew's version of the story does not have the priests purchasing the field for Judas, it has them purchasing the field as a burial place for foreigners. You're so bent on trying to make these differing accounts agree with each other that you're changing details in the process! Give it up, Stranger. Just admit that you've been wrong, and Matthew and Acts contradict each other.

 

Would not both they and me be be rightfully named as the purchaser?

 

No, only they would be rightfully named as the purchaser. You returned the money, and they bought a field. THEY bought a field. THEY bought a field.

 

How about if you gave your friend some money to purchase a ladder at the store. Someone may ask, "who purchased that ladder, and may I use it?" Your friend may have purchased it, but did he? Was not it really your purchase? Could not both statements be true?

 

That's a completely different scenario, Stranger! If you give someone some money with the expressed purpose of the individual using it to make a purchase for you, then of course it would be fine to say that you made the purchase, even though someone else was involved in the transaction.

 

The picture presented in Matthew bears no resemblance to that scenario, Stranger. Judas did not give the priests some money with the expressed purpose of them using it to make a purchase for him. He simply returned money that he no longer wanted, and THEY decided to purchase a field with the money that no longer belonged to Judas.

 

Do you still not see how you're grasping at straws here? Just admit it, Stranger, you were wrong, the Bible does contradict itself. You've bought a lie by believing the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, but don't feel bad about it, because many of us also used to buy into that same lie.

 

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.

 

Well, there is one thing that we can agree up on. I also do not see the flow of things leading up to this. I have read so many possibilities but only stuck with what I thought to be the truth before my study. I am not saying I got it all down, but I agree with the fact we should do our best to keep things in the flow of scripture.

 

It's good that you agree about looking at the flow of events. If you keep that approach and do some more reading and studying, then eventually you'll also be an ex-christian.

 

Now, look at Matthew's flow of events in this particular story, and then the flow of events in Luke/Acts (supposedly two parts to one account).

 

According to Matthew, Judas returned the money, Judas hanged himself, the priests used the "blood money" to buy the field as a burial place for foreigners, and that was the reason it was called Field of Blood.

 

In Luke/Acts there is no mention of Judas returning the money, and Acts says that Judas himself bought the field with that money, that he fell head first and burst open, and that was the reason it was called Field of Blood.

 

If you look at each account's flow of events and realize that there are these discrepancies in just a matter of a few short verses, do you seriously not see that you're actually looking at two different stories?

 

In saying that, however. I again would like to add that the far majority of the time, just part of the story is laid out. Pitcher yourself WRITING (not typing) events that had happened decades ago, and try to determine what parts you would feel were worthy of writing versing the parts where you just deemed not worth the time in this occasion. I would urge you to try this for just the passing day. What would you write down. What if some one else were to read it a year later? Would they grasp really grasp everything that happened to you in that day, let alone your family, your neighbors, your country and Government? But yet this is the type of thing we must contend with.

 

It would be impossible to include every detail. As such, I do not have a problem with not including every detail. What I do have a problem with, though, are conflicting details, which is what we have here.

[★ Citsonga ★]

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.

 

What if every one of them could be understood as being the truth?

 

They can't. Period. There are problems in the Bible that no stretch of the imagination can remedy.

 

Besides, how many times can you rationalize and make excuses for the Bible before you have to admit that it's not what Christians claim it is?

 

What if they just seem different based on our own understanding from a book surpassing thousands of years, many many authors, and much time to compress a book out of the many different writings.

 

Well, then, I guess your omniscient God wasn't very good at inspiring the authors, huh?

 

Ask yourself this. If not inspired by God, could any other event like this unfold with so many similarities?

 

If it was inspired by God, could it be so bogged down with problems? If it was inspired by God, would you have to rationalize and make excuses for it?

 

We focus so much on the precieved differences, but given the bibles history, the similarities are amazing.

 

They are not just perceived differences, they are real differences. The faithful refuse to see them because they operate from the preconceived notion that there can't be discrepancies in the Bible, and then resort to unnatural and downright ridiculous reinterpretations in a desperate attempt to resolve the discrepancies. Why not just admit that the doctrine of "biblical inerrancy" is simply wrong?

 

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?

 

Most likely because of the way or the reason of the field purchase, based on the spilling of innocent blood. (blood money) because of Jesus.

 

So, Acts is wrong when it says that the reason is because of Judas bursting open and his guts spilling out?

[★ Citsonga ★]

 

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

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

(c ) 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.

 

Those statements don't contradict each other, so this is not a valid example.

 

Once again, omitted details are not the problem, contradictions between included details are the problem.

[bornagainathiest]

Back again!

 

Resuming where I left off..

 

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.

 

You inerrantist agenda is HIGHLY VISIBLE , Stranger!

 

Citsonga is exactly right about your approach and I agree 100% with what he says...

'You start with the conclusion and then manipulate the text to try to make it work with your conclusion.'

Nobody who has any respect for the Bible begins within a conclusion and forces it's words to match that conclusion. So, your words, 'Now the only way it can be made to understand...' give you away.

If you believe that you are justified in MAKING something Biblical understood in a certain way, why pay any attention to the original Hebrew and Greek words? Why not MAKE the Bible say exactly what you want, rather than what it actually says? Why not change the meaning of it's words, by MAKING them mean something else?

 

Ooops!!! That's what you're already doing, isn't it?

 

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. If I'm inclined to 'throw it out', as you put it, I'm doing so for sound reasons of logic, as described in my previous post.

 

You know your boss does the same thing. No, I'm self-employed. Your example does not apply to me..

 

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.

 

Please do not tell me what I do or don't know to be true!

You are making an unfounded and unprovable assumption about me. We have never met. I do not know you and you do not know me. Therefore, please take retract your above statement in your next message.

 

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?

 

No.

False comparison... again.

If my father passed away and left money for his burial, and I purchased what was needed with his money, I'd describe it thus...

 

I would only purchase what was needed if I was the Executor of my father's will or if I was instructed to do so by the person he appointed as his Executor. In both cases, I would be acting upon the clearly understood written or spoken instructions of either my father or his appointed executor. I would not buy what was needed under any other circumstances. So, even if my father carried out exactly the same actions as Judas, this would still not constitute any kind of instruction on his part. He accepted the money and then returned it. The matter is closed. I have no further part to play ( like buying a field or anything else) because I have no verifiable instructions to act upon. If my father communicated nothing to me in words or in writing, then I'd be wrong to try and second-guess him. In the absence of further information (such as the paucity of information given to us about Judas by the Bible) that's all I could do - guess about these things. That's all.

 

You might believe that you can tell what other people are thinking (see, "We have never met", above!) but I certainly know that I cannot.

You might believe that you can tell what Judas was thinking, over two thousand years ago, from a few short lines of scripture, but I certainly know that I cannot.

You might believe that you can tell what Judas meant when he cast the coins into the temple, but I certainly know that I cannot share in your belief.

You might believe that you can tell that Judas meant this to be an instruction for the chief priests to purchase a field with the money. I certainly know that I cannot share your belief.

 

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.

 

No Stranger. I won't bite.

 

Instead, I'll say is this. You use the words, 'simple' and 'easy' and the phrase, 'no problems' to gently mock my take on the NT Greek. Fine. But let's compare your approach and mine, ok?

 

Your interpretation is that what the Koine actually says and what it really means are two very different things. You say that certain words and phrases should not be read to give their usual meaning, but must take on a new and different ones that completely change the outcome of the actions and intentions of Biblical characters. You disagree with the work and conclusions of leading Bible scholars and experts who have compiled twenty two versions of the Bible, because none of it meets your criteria of harmonizing Acts 1:18 with Matthew 27:7 - a necessity for Bible Inerrantists. You draw firm conclusions about the thoughts and intentions of Judas, where none are expressly given. You do the same for the chief priests. You claim that these so-called 'confirmed' intentions and actions constitute (on Judas' part) an unspoken and unwritten instruction to the chief priests to use the thirty pieces of silver in a very specific and detailed way - the purchase of field. You also claim that your convoluted and counter-intuitive explanation of 'inherited ownership' is the right and correct one, when other, simpler options fit the recorded facts better.

 

By doing all of these things, you dismiss centuries of Biblical, linguistic, cultural, archeological and historical research by thousands of dedicated, highly-professional scholars who would never claim to explicitly and specifically know the thoughts and intentions of anyone mentioned in the Bible. They might speculate about who said what, who thought what and what they might have meant. But that is all. Speculation is not proof. It remains speculation.

 

You are also claiming to possess a highly sophisticated and deep understanding of the subtle nuances of an ancient, dead language - a language that originated outside of Israel, but which was then used to describe the complex and subtle details of Jewish religious thought. You admit that the whole concept of translating and updating languages isn't "easy", yet you confidently claim that you have the correct understanding of how a non-Jewish language was used to record and explain the difficult and involved concepts and traditions held to by the Jewish priesthood at that time. Then, you also claim to correctly understand the all of the linguistic necessities required to properly translate Koine into modern English, giving true value and weight to the words, so that they should be understood in just the way that suits your purpose - to keep the Bible perfect and inerrant.

 

So, what am I doing?

Simple. I am pointing to the original text and stating what the transliterated words say. Nothing more. Yes, I could be wrong, but if I am, the onus is then on you to do two things. First, prove your own, extemely difficult case. Then, to show me exactly how I am wrong to take the translated Koine at face value and draw the conclusion that the Bible contradicts itself.

 

Good luck with the first!

 

 

BAA.

[the stranger]

First, thank you again for the replies. Before I get into answering the above post, I want to make one more attempt using the exact words used to help all understand this "problem".

 

Matthew 27:5-8

 

 

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.

 

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

 

Now this is an actual historic account pertaining to the actual events that had happened. Just like in the last set of scriptures, we are first given the actual account of the events that have happened. There is no other story. This is the only actual historic account of this story.

 

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

 

Acts 1:18-19

 

 

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.

 

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

 

As we were talking about earlier, we were looking into the flow of scripture.

 

13And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James.

 

14These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.

 

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

 

Who were there and what were they doing?

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

Now here is Peter, speaking to all who ALREADY KNEW the historic account of Judas. This was not a history course. He is now talking about what was needed to be fulfilled in scripture. All here already knew first hand what had happened. In fact, Matthew himself was there. He was the one who already told us the historic account.

 

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.

 

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

 

So was Paul talking literally or metaphorically to the audience at hand? Some, such as yourselves, say this is a contradiction, but was it really?

 

Do we use the same tone today?

 

Joey bought himself a one way ticket to the jail cell.

 

Joey was a drug runner. Joey got caught.

 

The cops took all of Joey's money. The cops took Joey to a jail cell.

 

Did Joey buy himself a jail cell?

 

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

 

So the first account, an actual historic event. The second, the general idea of what happened in this historic event.

 

Let me expound.

 

Do you think others reading this book would have not corrected Luke if they did not understand it in the same light?

 

Do you think Luke was out of the loop in knowing the actuall events, seeing Matthew was written decades earlier?

 

Both accounts are true, but one is to be taken factually, and the other metaphorically. Same event, different ways of relaying this truth!

 

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

 

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.

 

Now read this one more time and tell me that it makes sense in the same understanding as Matthew? Judas bought a field. Why? And why was it never recorded anywhere else? And in what time frame? In that same night (or morning) in the short while that Judas found out Jesus was being condemned to death. That was quick! Then he hangs himself in the same field? OK. It just does not fit with the flow of scripture or the setting in which the story is placed.

 

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

 

Also keep in mind Luke claims that this was well known among those who dwell in Jerusalem.

 

There is just no other way to reasonably understand this.

 

Both verses are true, but to be understood in a different light.

 

While it is true that legally Judas did not purchase land, in another matter of speaking, that statement is still true. It does not have to read in a "legal" way to be understod and taken as the truth.

 

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

 

I drive my sisters van to work. It is not my van, but said to be my van, though everybody knows it is not. Why? The way of understanding the statement.

 

Well, let me try to get to some of the posts in which the above would not answer.

 

 

PS. I should add for the "born again" that nothing is taken out of context or out of the original meanings within the Greek languish for this to be true.

 

So, Acts is wrong when it says that the reason is because of Judas bursting open and his guts spilling out?

 

No, not at all. All knew all of the facts, concerning the blood money that was used, and therefore the name.

 

You'd be dead, so you wouldn't be saying it.

 

Your only half right. I would still be alive, but not in this body. You are right though, I would not be saying it. LOL

 

Thank you all for your replies. If I have missed a post in which I have not addressed above, please let me know. Cits, you made some good points. Born again, your a tough one! You got kids? LOL

 

Spins, I will address your post next.

 

Now every one is entitled to their own belief, but can anyone show me why this version could not be true based on the above points?

 

If I have missed something that has not been addressed, please let me know.

 

It is true that I come with already believing the bible as true. What can I say? Through out the next while, if I find to much compelling facts to contest with, I may subject myself to new understanding. In saying that, I do believe that though very few, there has been some mistakes made through out the years in copies. The only 100% correct is the originals.

 

God bless (even you, born again)

[★ Citsonga ★]

I really should be in bed, but I'll squeeze in a reply.

 

Stranger, I really think it would behoove you to do a parallel study of the four Gospels, especially the three Synoptics (Matthew, Mark and Luke). Keep in mind that Mark was supposedly the first Gospel written, and study all of them together using one of those parallel/chronology charts. That should help you see the big picture here, in which case you'd have a better grasp of my point about these being differing accounts.

 

First, what's interesting about the Synoptic Gospels is that it is obvious that both Matthew and Luke copied from Mark. Bible scholars freely admit this, because you really can't miss it if you do such a parallel study. Where Matthew and/or Luke record stories that are also in Mark, they are often nearly word-for-word exactly the same. Some grammatical errors get corrected and a few other little details change, but the similarities are very blatant and clearly copied.

 

Second, what's even more interesting is when Matthew and Luke both tell a story that is not also in Mark. You see, when they didn't have Mark to copy from, they often tell very, very different versions of the stories, often blatantly contradicting each other. From that, we can reasonably deduce that, while there are similarities due to copying, the fact is that when Matthew and Luke didn't have Mark to rely on for their information, they repeatedly couldn't get their stories straight.

 

Another interesting thing is that Mark, the first Gospel written, is also the shortest. John, the final Gospel written (of the four in the Bible), seems to be the most developed theologically. This is completely consistent with the way stories and religion grow over time.

 

If you ever do such a study, then when you get to the point where you can see the big picture, you'll realize how futile it is to even try to make the different accounts agree with each other. They simply are not always telling the same story.

 

As we were talking about earlier, we were looking into the flow of scripture.

 

Exactly, the flow is very important. If Acts really is a continuation of Luke, and we know (as I outlined above) that Matthew and Luke contradict each other over and over again (usually where they didn't have Mark to copy from), then there's no real reason to assume that Acts has to line up with Matthew.

 

Now here is Peter, speaking to all who ALREADY KNEW the historic account of Judas.

 

First, there is no evidence that these stories have any historical merit to them at all.

 

Second, as I outlined above, the author of Luke clearly didn't have Matthew as a source. As such, if Acts was authored by the same person as Luke, then there is no reason to suspect that the author had heard of the story the way it was written by the author of Matthew.

 

In fact, Matthew himself was there. He was the one who already told us the historic account.

 

First, nobody knows who wrote the Gospel that has been labeled Matthew. The Gospel has no claimed author at all, and it's only church tradition that has placed Matthew as the alleged author. As such, even if this scene were true, it doesn't matter in the least that Matthew is said to have been there, because the very attachment of the name Matthew to one of the Gospels is quite dubious.

 

Second, I just looked up Acts 1 in the first 10 versions on Bible Gateway, and with the exception of The Message (which is a paraphrase rather than a translation), every single one of them that uses quotation marks for Peter's message places verse 18-19 as a parenthetical statement, not as part of what Peter said. It would seem to me, then, that there's a pretty good consensus among translators that the author of Acts did not mean that Peter made that statement to the crowd. As such, this alone renders as moot your whole point about Matthew supposedly being there to hear Peter say that.

 

So was Paul talking literally or metaphorically to the audience at hand?

 

You mean Peter, and according to what I just pointed out, evidently he didn't even make the statement at all.

 

Some, such as yourselves, say this is a contradiction, but was it really?

 

Do we use the same tone today?

 

Joey bought himself a one way ticket to the jail cell.

 

Joey was a drug runner. Joey got caught.

 

The cops took all of Joey's money. The cops took Joey to a jail cell.

 

Did Joey buy himself a jail cell?

 

We understand the metaphor there. That's fine and dandy. Acts 1:18-19 doesn't sound like metaphor, though. In fact, if you didn't have the unfortunate necessity to try to reconcile it with the alternate story in Matthew, then you would never in a million years consider the possibility that it wasn't actually Judas who bought the field.

 

So the first account, an actual historic event. The second, the general idea of what happened in this historic event.

 

The first account, one story. The second, another story. Neither are likely historical fact, but anyway....

 

Do you think others reading this book would have not corrected Luke if they did not understand it in the same light?

 

Well, we do know that there have been changes made to the Biblical text, so for all we know it may have been even more contradictory to begin with. But, regardless of that possibility, there were a LOT of Christian writings circulating before the New Testament was canonized, and a lot of Christian societies had different collections of texts. Eventually the Council of Nicea cherry-picked what to canonize, of course.

 

At any rate, what you need to keep in mind is that back in those days most people were illiterate, and they basically just followed what they were told. And, of those who were literate, they didn't have all the cross-reference tools we have today. But, of course, some discrepancies were surely known about, but even then people probably resorted to rationalizing things, just like apologists do today.

 

Do you think Luke was out of the loop in knowing the actuall events, seeing Matthew was written decades earlier?

 

Well, if the author of Luke would have had a copy of Matthew, then he probably would have copied from it like he did from Mark, and thus most of the discrepancies between Matthew and Luke wouldn't be there. Thus, it seems unlikely to me that the author of Luke had a copy of Matthew.

 

Both accounts are true, but one is to be taken factually, and the other metaphorically. Same event, different ways of relaying this truth!

 

In reality, you desperately need for both accounts to be true, so you reinterpret one metaphorically in order to maintain your preconceived belief in biblical inerrancy.

 

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.

 

Now read this one more time and tell me that it makes sense in the same understanding as Matthew?

 

It doesn't.

[★ Citsonga ★]

Judas bought a field. Why? And why was it never recorded anywhere else? And in what time frame? In that same night (or morning) in the short while that Judas found out Jesus was being condemned to death. That was quick! Then he hangs himself in the same field? OK. It just does not fit with the flow of scripture or the setting in which the story is placed.

 

First, Acts doesn't say it was the same night (or that he hanged himself, but that's been mentioned before). Matthew implies that Judas hanged himself the same night that Jesus was arrested, and you're reading that into the Acts account, but we've already noted that they are conflicting stories with a handful of discrepancies.

 

Second, the first thing to keep in mind when dealing with "the flow" of a text is to look at individual accounts individually. The "flow" of Matthew is one thing, and the "flow" of Acts is another. They are not the same book, not written by the same author (we can agree on this), and therefore each one will have its own "flow."

 

Also keep in mind Luke claims that this was well known among those who dwell in Jerusalem.

 

And just what does the author of Acts (whom you presume to be Luke, based on nothing more than church tradition) say was well known in Jerusalem? That Judas " purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out." It says nothing about those in Jerusalem knowing that the priests bought the field and that Judas hanged himself; those details are from another account that is not mentioned here at all.

 

There is just no other way to reasonably understand this.

 

In other words, you can find no other way to rationalize it.

 

So, Acts is wrong when it says that the reason is because of Judas bursting open and his guts spilling out?

 

No, not at all. All knew all of the facts, concerning the blood money that was used, and therefore the name.

 

So why do Matthew and Acts give conflicting reasons for the name? You're simply trying to combine the two into one, but you're ignoring that these accounts are presenting quite different pictures of what happened. Beyond that, as I mentioned previously, the books of Matthew and Luke as a whole are often in disagreement with each other, usually when they didn't mutually copy from Mark.

 

Now every one is entitled to their own belief, but can anyone show me why this version could not be true based on the above points?

 

If I have missed something that has not been addressed, please let me know.

 

I hope that all that I've just addressed that you'd missed will be of benefit for you.

 

It is true that I come with already believing the bible as true. What can I say?

 

I understand fully. I used to approach the Bible in the exact same way that I see you approaching it. I was fully convinced that it was true, and I was committed to providing resolutions. That's why virtually nothing you've brought up has been new to me; I've seen it all before, and I've even used some of it back before I could see the big picture.

 

Through out the next while, if I find to much compelling facts to contest with, I may subject myself to new understanding.

 

That indicates that, though you have a preconceived perception of the Bible, you ultimately want truth, and that is a very noble position. That very thing played a huge role in my deconversion, as I saw what I had believed all my life just crumble before me.

 

In saying that, I do believe that though very few, there has been some mistakes made through out the years in copies. The only 100% correct is the originals.

 

So, God could put his word out right the first time, but couldn't see to it that it continued to be right? Do you not realize how silly that is? The fact is that if there are errors in the Bible, then the Bible is not inerrant. It wouldn't matter if those errors weren't in the first drafts drawn up millennia ago, because those drafts are not the Bible that we have today. We have none of the originals, we just have copies of copies of copies, etc. Surely an omniscient God would have known that that would not be exactly the best way to preserve his word, would he not?

 

God bless

 

Reason bless

 

Now I've got to get to bed, since the alarm will be going off in about 3.5 hours!

[the stranger]

Cits, I do not have time for much of a reply right now, but I just want to let you know, your knowledge of the bible impresses me. Though on some of these biblical facts we disagree, allot of what you said can not be debated.

 

I have looked into the four gospels side by side, and infact, have a book that puts them this way in every segment. It is quite interesting. I will have to re check a couple things out, as it has been a while sense I have researched that area.

 

Thanks for the insight. I will get back to you later.

[StevoMuso]

This is a fascinating thread. I would like to add a small contribution if I may. Faith gives a kind of "knowledge" based on what feels good and seems right purely from the "I-know-it-must-be-true" perspective. Most of us here at ExC, who were Christians in the past, have increased our actual knowledge of the Bible by doing proper research. Most ex-Christians have extensive knowledge of the Bible from the "I-know-it-from-study" perspective, which is one of the reasons we have moved away from this unreasonable and easily exposed fabrication that has fooled so many good people.

[★ Citsonga ★]

Cits, I do not have time for much of a reply right now, but I just want to let you know, your knowledge of the bible impresses me. Though on some of these biblical facts we disagree, allot of what you said can not be debated.

 

Thanks. Trust me, there are others around here who know a lot more than I do, but I've also spent a lot of time "in the word" (surprisingly, I even had a degreed, ordained minister tell me once when I was in my early twenties that I knew more about the Bible than he did).

 

I just hope that you find what I'm saying helpful.

 

I have looked into the four gospels side by side, and infact, have a book that puts them this way in every segment. It is quite interesting. I will have to re check a couple things out, as it has been a while sense I have researched that area.

 

Yeah, I had done that a few times myself before I started really scratching my head. It can take a while to see through the lens of indoctrination. My first doubts arose when I was doing another parallel study of the Gospels when I was 29.

 

After recognizing that there really are contradictions, I looked into the claims of fulfilled prophecy (after all, isn't that supposed to be the biggest proof that the Bible is true?), only to find that the NT repeatedly takes the OT out of context in order to fabricate prophetic fulfillments. That completely shattered my faith.

 

By the way, speaking of fabricated prophetic fulfillments, did you ever get around to reading all of that post in the other thread where I detailed a bunch of them?

 

Thanks for the insight. I will get back to you later.

 

Thanks for your time. Christmas is quickly approaching, so feel free to take it easy.

 

Considering Christmas, though, I would suggest that you read the nativity stories in Matthew and Luke and really think about them. Take note that, other than Jesus being born to Mary (and Joseph) in Bethlehem, the two nativities bear no resemblance to each other at all. Then try to figure out where Matthew's claim of the flight to Egypt can fit into Luke's account (hint: it can't).

 

Take care, and Happy Holidays!

[bornagainathiest]

First, thank you again for the replies. Before I get into answering the above post, I want to make one more attempt using the exact words used to help all understand this "problem".

 

My dear Stranger,

 

This "problem" , as you call it, only exists because you have chosen to believe that the Bible is the inerrant, flawless and perfect word of God.

 

There are billions of devout and highly motivated Christians who believe in Jesus Christ just as much as you do. They do not require the Bible to be perfect. Their faith is just as strong as yours, even though they acknowledge that the Bible has contradictions, flaws and errors. They see the Bible in different terms to you - in terms of pointing the way to know and understand God. They use the Bible as a helpful guide, not as an infallible source of absolute truth. They acknowledge that it was written by men about God, not written by God thru men.

 

Are they saved and destined for heaven, without treating the Bible as perfect?

Are they blessed by God, even though they treat the Bible as imperfect?

Are their lives more 'sinful' than yours because they don't hold to the doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy?

Are you a better Christian than them, because you believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God?

 

Please do answer these questions. Your replies are of interest to me. Thank you.

 

Now, imho, the need for truth is not a bad thing, in of itself. But, take care!

An honest man who earnestly seeks the truth in the right place may well be rewarded. Notice that I said, 'the truth'? I did not say, 'the perfect truth'.

An honest man looking for the perfect truth may well not be rewarded. Not because of any fault or error on his part, nor thru the mistakes of others, but simply because the perfect truth may not exist at all. In fact, perfection itself may exist only as an unreachable ideal in the minds of men. If this is the case, then our honest man could be in danger.

 

He may go on looking for the perfect truth and never be able to find it, because it does not exist. Then he is in danger of wasting his life chasing after something that exists only in his mind. Recognition that his search for perfection is futile, may well save him from that fate.

He may say that he has found the perfect truth in this book or that one, but if there is no such thing as 'THE PERFECT TRUTH', then he is deluding himself or allowing others to delude him. Once again, recognition of his situation may well rescue him from that fate.

Or he may have found something that he believes could be the perfect truth, but for it to really be absolutely P-E-R-F-E-C-T, it requires him to believe it and understand it in a very specific way. A way which others cannot accept. A way which others find impossible to agree with. A way which requires our honest man to modify scripture and to change the meaning of it's words so that the Bible's contradictions are made to disappear. Made to. MADE TO. That sound familiar, Stranger?

Our honest man's desperate need for perfection (no matter what it takes) has now put him in danger - in danger of becoming a dishonest man. If he can recognize what he is doing and why he is doing it, he may well be able to save himself from that fate.

 

Here endeth the lesson!

 

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

 

There is just no other way to reasonably understand this. ...because you must try to reconcile two mutually exclusive accounts of the same event. Drop the need for perfection and the "problem" vanishes. Simple, really.

 

Both verses are true, but to be understood in a different light.

While it is true that legally Judas did not purchase land, in another matter of speaking, that statement is still true. It does not have to read in a "legal" way to be understod and taken as the truth.

 

Here you have just written yourself a licence to understand whatever you want in the way you want. You've also subverted the meaning of the words 'true' and 'truth', changing them to mean something new. Something that suits your agenda. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised by this maneuver. If your need for perfection drives you to alter the meaning of God's own word, why should you treat the English language (not languish!) with any more respect. The more you do this Stranger, the more you show by your fruits, that you will stop at nothing to get the perfection fix you need to satisfy your craving. How sad!

 

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

 

I drive my sisters van to work. It is not my van, but said to be my van, though everybody knows it is not. Why? The way of understanding the statement.

 

Ditto the above. So why not just say that the van belongs to Napoleon Bonaparte?

He left no written or spoken instruction that the van would retroactively become his, but if you're happy to **** around with the meaning of words to MAKE the Bible perfect, why not say that your sister's van actually belongs to him, not to her or to you?

Well, let me try to get to some of the posts in which the above would not answer.

 

PS. I should add for the "born again" that nothing is taken out of context or out of the original meanings within the Greek languish for this to be true.

 

There's that word again! True.

What do you mean by the word, 'true' this time? The same as you meant yesterday or does it have a new, better meaning now? How should we look at it tomorrow? In a different way again? Should we call whatever MAKES the Bible perfect, 'the truth', no matter how it changes?

 

As a matter of interest Stranger, do you see the irony here?

I'm the Atheist and you're the Christian. You should be the one holding to one and only one, unchanging definition of the word, 'truth', not me.

Since there is (according to standard Christian doctrine) one true God, one true Messiah, one true Savior, one true means salvation and one true church, why is it that I'm the one defending the concept of there being just one truth that applies equally to all of us?

Isn't that your job?

 

Why are you, the Christian apologist, promoting the idea that the meaning (and therefore the truth) of the Bible must be changed to MAKE it perfect?

 

Could it be that if you did take the written words of scripture as they are plainly written, then the Bible would become flawed and imperfect - an outcome that you cannot accept?

If that is the case, now would be a good time to recognize what you are actually doing.

 

Stranger, by altering things you are destroying the truth, not discovering it.

 

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

 

If I have missed something that has not been addressed, please let me know.

 

Ok then. Remember this?

 

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.

Please do not tell me what I do or don't know to be true!

You are making an unfounded and unprovable assumption about me. We have never met. I do not know you and you do not know me. Therefore, please take retract your above statement in your next message.

I asked you politely to take this back.

 

Please do so in your next message!

 

It is true that I come with already believing the bible as true.

 

Is the first word, 'true' in the above sentence, to be understood in the same way as the second time it's used?

See, Stranger? Once you begin to change the meaning of words to suit yourself, sensible and reasonable communication becomes impossible.

How do I know what you mean by the word, 'true' if you keep on changing it to mean different things at different times and in different contexts? Proper communication only happens if everyone in the dialog agrees on the meaning of the words they are using.

If a word or a phrase or a Bible passage needs to be understood in a different way, then it's up to you to make a good case for it to be so.

 

If your case is that you, '...already come with believing the Bible is true', then I'm sorry - I do not agree. The written words do not agree with you either. Nor do I agree with you MAKING them true, by altering their meaning.

What can I say? Through out the next while, if I find to much compelling facts to contest with, I may subject myself to new understanding. In saying that, I do believe that though very few, there has been some mistakes made through out the years in copies.

 

The only 100% correct is the originals.

 

Yes. I agree. But look at what the original words actually say, not what you have to MAKE them say.

God bless (even you, born again)

 

Thanks. (I think?)

 

BAA.

[the stranger]

My dear Stranger,

 

This "problem" , as you call it, only exists because you have chosen to believe that the Bible is the inerrant, flawless and perfect word of God.

 

There are billions of devout and highly motivated Christians who believe in Jesus Christ just as much as you do. They do not require the Bible to be perfect. Their faith is just as strong as yours, even though they acknowledge that the Bible has contradictions, flaws and errors. They see the Bible in different terms to you - in terms of pointing the way to know and understand God. They use the Bible as a helpful guide, not as an infallible source of absolute truth. They acknowledge that it was written by men about God, not written by God thru men.

 

Are they saved and destined for heaven, without treating the Bible as perfect?

Are they blessed by God, even though they treat the Bible as imperfect?

Are their lives more 'sinful' than yours because they don't hold to the doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy?

Are you a better Christian than them, because you believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God?

 

First, my friend born again, I am not the judge. I can only judge my relationship with Christ, and I have no room to judge others, except if they consider themselves brothers but are way in the wrong, and in those cases we are to address the issue with them in love.

 

My problem with believing that the bible has flaws is that the bible states that it does not. And if the bible was written by man and not by God through man, than the bible lies again.

 

Therefore for me, I have to make a choice. Do I believe the bible speaks the truth, or do I believe the bible only has some truth in it. If the later than is it different from every other book? Everybody is entitled to their own belief, but for me, it is a core of my belief.

 

(1) If Jesus Christ is their Savior, then that is all that is needed.

(2) Any one growing in the Lord will be blessed by God.

(3) Is one sin above or below another sin? Will even one sin be allowed into heaven? I put myself lowest, and if at the end, God deems me a place higher, so be it.

(4)There is no such things as "better Christians". We are all growing. The question is, how is our relationship with our Father in heaven?

 

In saying all of that, the bible is our instruction book to all of the above. If it does have flaws, I hope it is when it has little effect on my decision of the time. LOL

 

Now, imho, the need for truth is not a bad thing, in of itself. But, take care!

An honest man who earnestly seeks the truth in the right place may well be rewarded. Notice that I said, 'the truth'? I did not say, 'the perfect truth'.

An honest man looking for the perfect truth may well not be rewarded. Not because of any fault or error on his part, nor thru the mistakes of others, but simply because the perfect truth may not exist at all. In fact, perfection itself may exist only as an unreachable ideal in the minds of men. If this is the case, then our honest man could be in danger.

 

Yes, I understand. I have heard it often before. So then what is truth? And who's truth is it? Is there one truth for all, or does every one have their own truth? For the father who justifies raping his child, if it is justified in his own mind, is it a truth to be lived by? Has he found the truth? Point being is with out absolute truth, we are all left to our own opinion. Would you agree that if one follows the NT commandments, they will (or should not) have any fear of the law?

 

. A way which requires our honest man to modify scripture and to change the meaning of it's words so that the Bible's contradictions are made to disappear. Made to. MADE TO. That sound familiar, Stranger?

 

Maybe one should hold of on that comment until this scripture is done being discussed. Even if you do not agree with me, does it not make at least a case for a real possibility? Besides, who are you to say I am twisting things up if there is no perfect truth? Is not my truth just as good as yours?

 

There's that word again! True.

What do you mean by the word, 'true' this time? The same as you meant yesterday or does it have a new, better meaning now? How should we look at it tomorrow? In a different way again? Should we call whatever MAKES the Bible perfect, 'the truth', no matter how it changes?

 

Now here you are implying that I have changed my story. I have done no such thing, born again. What I have done is put the same truth in a different wording context to make it more understandable. If my story has changed, please do show.

 

Could it be that if you did take the written words of scripture as they are plainly written, then the Bible would become flawed and imperfect - an outcome that you cannot accept?

If that is the case, now would be a good time to recognize what you are actually doing.

 

Could you ever really sit down and read the KJV for an hour or two and truly understand what you were reading? I know that I could not. How about the Hebrew or Greek? Just one word can mean up to 20+ possible translations or answers. One more time, is it really that simple? If so, why does every translation differ from the next, even among the earliest to the newest of the same translations?

 

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.

 

Please do not tell me what I do or don't know to be true!

You are making an unfounded and unprovable assumption about me. We have never met. I do not know you and you do not know me. Therefore, please take retract your above statement in your next message.

 

I asked you politely to take this back.

 

Please do so in your next message!

 

Do you want me to take back the part where I claim you have common sense? Would you be offended if I told you that you know 2+2=4? That statement was not meant as an insult. But if you want me to take away from you the assumption that common sense does prevail, then I will. I apologize. If needed, I will give plenty of explanations in this area.

 

God bless (even you, born again)

 

 

Thanks. (I think?)

 

I only wish the best for you, born again! I like ya, like it or not.

 

I will get to the rest of the replies shortly.

[oddbird1963]

My problem with believing that the bible has flaws is that the bible states that it does not.

 

Surely you see the horrible fallacy in your thinking here!

 

I can't believe you actually wrote that!

 

Most Christians try to disguise their circular reasoning.

 

You just shot any credibility you might have had all to hell!

[the stranger]

Thanks. Trust me, there are others around here who know a lot more than I do, but I've also spent a lot of time "in the word" (surprisingly, I even had a degreed, ordained minister tell me once when I was in my early twenties that I knew more about the Bible than he did).

 

I just hope that you find what I'm saying helpful.

 

Cits, any time I can learn more than I did through some one else, such as someone with your smarts, I appreciate it.

 

Yeah, I had done that a few times myself before I started really scratching my head. It can take a while to see through the lens of indoctrination. My first doubts arose when I was doing another parallel study of the Gospels when I was 29.

 

After recognizing that there really are contradictions, I looked into the claims of fulfilled prophecy (after all, isn't that supposed to be the biggest proof that the Bible is true?), only to find that the NT repeatedly takes the OT out of context in order to fabricate prophetic fulfillments. That completely shattered my faith.

 

By the way, speaking of fabricated prophetic fulfillments, did you ever get around to reading all of that post in the other thread where I detailed a bunch of them?

 

I have not forgotten those my friend. I am slowly working on looking deeper into those. I have so far found that there are many life stories that have been repeated for prophecy, such as Abraham and his son relating to God and His Son. I have learned that there are many different types of prophecies. I have also reread what Jesus says about these things, and how after He arose from the grace He explained all of the prophecies concerning Himself covering the entire bible to the men walking down the road. This shows that to be a prophecy we may not be able to realize it of and at the time. In saying that, Even just taking the prophecies that are clear as can be concerning Jesus, from what I read, no other man in history could ever stand a chance to even come close to fulfilling 1/8 of them.

 

Well, my friend, this is the first time I looked into these matters with much thought behind it, and so it will be a real learning process for me. It will be fun to hear all your knowledge on this subject when I complete my study and post it. Then from there we can go on (and I can learn some more LOL).

 

Thanks for your time. Christmas is quickly approaching, so feel free to take it easy.

 

Considering Christmas, though, I would suggest that you read the nativity stories in Matthew and Luke and really think about them. Take note that, other than Jesus being born to Mary (and Joseph) in Bethlehem, the two nativities bear no resemblance to each other at all. Then try to figure out where Matthew's claim of the flight to Egypt can fit into Luke's account (hint: it can't).

 

Take care, and Happy Holidays!

 

Thank you, and Merry Christmas to you too. It certainly will make a good study for the holiday. Thanks for sharing.

 

Because I don't know how long it will take to respond to the first reply, I will end here for now.

 

I have really been enjoying your insight on this, Cits, and I appreciate you taking your time as well.

 

God bless

[the stranger]

Keep in mind that Mark was supposedly the first Gospel written,

 

First, what's interesting about the Synoptic Gospels is that it is obvious that both Matthew and Luke copied from Mark. Bible scholars freely admit this, because you really can't miss it if you do such a parallel study. Where Matthew and/or Luke record stories that are also in Mark, they are often nearly word-for-word exactly the same. Some grammatical errors get corrected and a few other little details change, but the similarities are very blatant and clearly copied.

 

Both above statements are true. Here is a break down on percentages of differences as they relate to each other:

 

Unique material -- Matthew 42%; Mark 7%; Luke 59% and John at 92%

 

It is believed that both Matthew and Luke had a copy of Mark and I agree, it is hard not to believe that aspect.

 

Second, what's even more interesting is when Matthew and Luke both tell a story that is not also in Mark. You see, when they didn't have Mark to copy from, they often tell very, very different versions of the stories, often blatantly contradicting each other. From that, we can reasonably deduce that, while there are similarities due to copying, the fact is that when Matthew and Luke didn't have Mark to rely on for their information, they repeatedly couldn't get their stories straight.

 

Now I will leave it up to you as to whether you do this task or not, but I would like to know which stories that you are referring to.

 

Another interesting thing is that Mark, the first Gospel written, is also the shortest. John, the final Gospel written (of the four in the Bible), seems to be the most developed theologically. This is completely consistent with the way stories and religion grow over time.

 

True in part, but though each one had some alike material each one also had a separate purpose that they were trying to relay.

 

Matthew Messiah-King

Mark Servant-Redeemer

Luke Perfect man

John Son of God

 

 

Exactly, the flow is very important. If Acts really is a continuation of Luke, and we know (as I outlined above) that Matthew and Luke contradict each other over and over again (usually where they didn't have Mark to copy from), then there's no real reason to assume that Acts has to line up with Matthew.

 

I guess to finist the scripture being discussed, we must get to the bottom of the above quote. Let us start (when you get a chance) by going into some of these "differences".

 

View Postthe stranger, on 20 December 2010 - 08:48 PM, said:

Now here is Peter, speaking to all who ALREADY KNEW the historic account of Judas.

 

 

First, there is no evidence that these stories have any historical merit to them at all.

 

Second, as I outlined above, the author of Luke clearly didn't have Matthew as a source. As such, if Acts was authored by the same person as Luke, then there is no reason to suspect that the author had heard of the story the way it was written by the author of Matthew.

 

I guess the historical merit with these books and the bible could be a whole different conversation. As I said before however, there is no book that can compare, and it is interesting that Jesus is mentioned more in secular sources than Julius Caesar. But maybe more on that later.

 

As for Luke not having Matthew is a source, can we be sure of this:

 

times written (believed to be)

 

Matthew AD 58-68

Mark AD 55-65

Luke AD 60-68

John AD 80-90

 

Now maybe what you say is true, but is it not equally possible that Luke did have Matthew? No one can be sure. Certainly, however, as already stated, it is believed that (and written in his book) he wanted to have the most complete written story that there was. If so, again being friends with Paul, would he have not had the chances to get to know the other disciples?

[the stranger]

First, nobody knows who wrote the Gospel that has been labeled Matthew. The Gospel has no claimed author at all, and it's only church tradition that has placed Matthew as the alleged author. As such, even if this scene were true, it doesn't matter in the least that Matthew is said to have been there, because the very attachment of the name Matthew to one of the Gospels is quite dubious.

 

Does any one know for sure? No! But, they do not make these assumptions from nothing, and you know that much my friend, and so much more.

 

Second, I just looked up Acts 1 in the first 10 versions on Bible Gateway, and with the exception of The Message (which is a paraphrase rather than a translation), every single one of them that uses quotation marks for Peter's message places verse 18-19 as a parenthetical statement, not as part of what Peter said. It would seem to me, then, that there's a pretty good consensus among translators that the author of Acts did not mean that Peter made that statement to the crowd. As such, this alone renders as moot your whole point about Matthew supposedly being there to hear Peter say that.

 

My belief, among others, as just like we all know that the originals are not like the later copies, the added portions were made to help us understand what was already understood and known years before. In other words, based on years gone by, the coppiest felt compelled to add to the text to help us always keep things in the understanding and the knowledge of which things were already known and understood.

 

We understand the metaphor there. That's fine and dandy. Acts 1:18-19 doesn't sound like metaphor, though. In fact, if you didn't have the unfortunate necessity to try to reconcile it with the alternate story in Matthew, then you would never in a million years consider the possibility that it wasn't actually Judas who bought the field.

 

True in part. But what if we understood this and read this while placing ourselves at the scene. Could it be possible then that we would come to that conclusion as it was being spoke? There are many things in the bible that we truly cannot understand with out doing some research and looking into the history and make up of the passage. I am sure that the same can be said in many old books. Even in the old traditional bok of "Of mice and me" we can see this.

 

Do you think others reading this book would have not corrected Luke if they did not understand it in the same light?

 

 

Well, we do know that there have been changes made to the Biblical text, so for all we know it may have been even more contradictory to begin with. But, regardless of that possibility, there were a LOT of Christian writings circulating before the New Testament was canonized, and a lot of Christian societies had different collections of texts. Eventually the Council of Nicea cherry-picked what to canonize, of course.

 

At any rate, what you need to keep in mind is that back in those days most people were illiterate, and they basically just followed what they were told. And, of those who were literate, they didn't have all the cross-reference tools we have today. But, of course, some discrepancies were surely known about, but even then people probably resorted to rationalizing things, just like apologists do today.

 

Now I do not dispute these facts, but you know that most cities had "meeting places" where many would come, hang out, just to catch the latest news. The scriptures do say that this was well known (this story) to the people of Jerusalem. In other words, able to read or not, having text available or not, does not change the fact (if one beleives the bible) that this story was well known, right?

 

Well, if the author of Luke would have had a copy of Matthew, then he probably would have copied from it like he did from Mark, and thus most of the discrepancies between Matthew and Luke wouldn't be there. Thus, it seems unlikely to me that the author of Luke had a copy of Matthew.

 

This will be fun to get into later on.

 

My computer acts like it wants to freeze, so I will contiue a little later.

[Guest I Love Dog]

This is a fascinating thread. I would like to add a small contribution if I may. Faith gives a kind of "knowledge" based on what feels good and seems right purely from the "I-know-it-must-be-true" perspective. Most of us here at ExC, who were Christians in the past, have increased our actual knowledge of the Bible by doing proper research. Most ex-Christians have extensive knowledge of the Bible from the "I-know-it-from-study" perspective, which is one of the reasons we have moved away from this unreasonable and easily exposed fabrication that has fooled so many good people.

 

 

Agreed. Stevo!

 

I never read the bible when I was growing up within Christianity. I stopped believing when I was 12 and had never picked up a bible until 12 months ago when I decided to research the origins of the Christian god. Reading the bible from an atheist's perspective is an entirely different exercise to that of a Christian's study of it. I find most of what I read in the bible a good laugh!

[bdp]

 

 

Now this is an actual historic account

 

...no, it isn't.

[the stranger]

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.

 

Now read this one more time and tell me that it makes sense in the same understanding as Matthew?

 

 

It doesn't.

 

Exactly -- to be understood differently.

 

First, Acts doesn't say it was the same night (or that he hanged himself, but that's been mentioned before). Matthew implies that Judas hanged himself the same night that Jesus was arrested, and you're reading that into the Acts account, but we've already noted that they are conflicting stories with a handful of discrepancies.

 

So we can not use the assumption that though Acts states all knew the story, that they really did?

 

Second, the first thing to keep in mind when dealing with "the flow" of a text is to look at individual accounts individually. The "flow" of Matthew is one thing, and the "flow" of Acts is another. They are not the same book, not written by the same author (we can agree on this), and therefore each one will have its own "flow."

 

Agreed, but each book just tells part of the story. That is, the part or the point that they want to bring across. In the case of Acts, the point was to show historically the spread of the church. We have to get as many pieces of the story, or puzzle. that we can to increase our understanding for the scriptures, including resources outside of the bible at times.

 

And just what does the author of Acts (whom you presume to be Luke, based on nothing more than church tradition) say was well known in Jerusalem? That Judas " purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out." It says nothing about those in Jerusalem knowing that the priests bought the field and that Judas hanged himself; those details are from another account that is not mentioned here at all.

 

The next verse, my friend, Acts 1:19

 

So why do Matthew and Acts give conflicting reasons for the name? You're simply trying to combine the two into one, but you're ignoring that these accounts are presenting quite different pictures of what happened. Beyond that, as I mentioned previously, the books of Matthew and Luke as a whole are often in disagreement with each other, usually when they didn't mutually copy from Mark.

 

Matthew 27:6-8 tells just what I pointed out, just like Acts 1:18-19. They knew the story of the blood money.

 

I understand fully. I used to approach the Bible in the exact same way that I see you approaching it. I was fully convinced that it was true, and I was committed to providing resolutions. That's why virtually nothing you've brought up has been new to me; I've seen it all before, and I've even used some of it back before I could see the big picture.

 

And this is why I most likely am enjoying this so much. You can already see the way I will put things down. You already know most of the points that I will make. Whether or not I ever agree with you or not, it does bring much more thought provoking on my side. I really enjoy getting my mind going. Thank you again for spending your time talking to me.

 

Through out the next while, if I find to much compelling facts to contest with, I may subject myself to new understanding.

 

 

That indicates that, though you have a preconceived perception of the Bible, you ultimately want truth, and that is a very noble position. That very thing played a huge role in my deconversion, as I saw what I had believed all my life just crumble before me.

 

Truth, who can live with out it?

 

So, God could put his word out right the first time, but couldn't see to it that it continued to be right? Do you not realize how silly that is? The fact is that if there are errors in the Bible, then the Bible is not inerrant. It wouldn't matter if those errors weren't in the first drafts drawn up millennia ago, because those drafts are not the Bible that we have today. We have none of the originals, we just have copies of copies of copies, etc. Surely an omniscient God would have known that that would not be exactly the best way to preserve his word, would he not?

 

Maybe He just wanted to give us something to talk about.

 

God bless

 

 

Reason bless

 

Cute, but I have yet to grasp it my friend.

 

Trust me, I know about little sleep because of this darn computer. Last time I did the same thing, I got three hours, thus you got 30 more minutes than me, you sleepy head. LOL

 

I hope your day and Holiday -- Christmas -- thing goes good, Cits. (and never go to the scale during the holidays)

[the stranger]

 

View PostStevoMuso, on 21 December 2010 - 01:56 AM, said:

This is a fascinating thread. I would like to add a small contribution if I may. Faith gives a kind of "knowledge" based on what feels good and seems right purely from the "I-know-it-must-be-true" perspective. Most of us here at ExC, who were Christians in the past, have increased our actual knowledge of the Bible by doing proper research. Most ex-Christians have extensive knowledge of the Bible from the "I-know-it-from-study" perspective, which is one of the reasons we have moved away from this unreasonable and easily exposed fabrication that has fooled so many good people.

 

 

 

Agreed. Stevo!

 

I never read the bible when I was growing up within Christianity. I stopped believing when I was 12 and had never picked up a bible until 12 months ago when I decided to research the origins of the Christian god. Reading the bible from an atheist's perspective is an entirely different exercise to that of a Christian's study of it. I find most of what I read in the bible a good laugh!

 

Thanks for responding. Yes, it certainly makes a difference on ones prospective when reading and researching, as I am sure it also reflects the different sources that we use. I guess that would be one reason it is so easy to come to different conclusions friend.

 

(forgive me, I liken myself to Spongebob, thus every one is my friend.)