Yet Another Biblical Contradiction

[Dos Equis]

Well, I think it has much more to do with people saying how "infallible" the book is and using the book as the end all be all of what they believe in their lives.

I think these types of conversations are interesting and thought provoking, plus, maybe we learn something in the process.

I understand.  On the other hand, comparing a verse or two about Judas and whether he physically purchased a field or whether his 30 pieces of silver purchased a field is much ado about absolutely nothing. 

I used to engage in these types of debates.  I try and avoid them.  No one changes their mind.  I don't find them particularly interesting.  If the discussion was about something that affects peoples lives, I could see having a discussion.  But this?  Hardly thought provoking IMO. 

[tu_holmes]

I understand.  On the other hand, comparing a verse or two about Judas and whether he physically purchased a field or whether his 30 pieces of silver purchased a field is much ado about absolutely nothing. 

I used to engage in these types of debates.  I try and avoid them.  No one changes their mind.  I don't find them particularly interesting.  If the discussion was about something that affects peoples lives, I could see having a discussion.  But this?  Hardly thought provoking IMO. 

I do agree that no one ever changes their minds... That's what "faith" is right?

[Dos Equis]

I do agree that no one ever changes their minds... That's what "faith" is right?

Yes, lots of faith involved in religion.

Speaking of faith, I'll be posting some excerpts and comments on a book I'm reading (Billions of Missing Links) about problems with the theory of evolution.  Lots of faith involved there too.   

[columbusdude82]

Beach Bum, about the "usefulness" of such debates, there is a point behind them.

As for your very last statement about "faith" being involved in evolution, no, you are wrong

[columbusdude82]

Beach Bum, a quick Google search reveals that this book "Billions of Missing Links" is by the Discovery Institute, the leading Creationist propaganda front. These people can't get their pseudo-science published in any real scientific journals, so they publish it in these books hoping to mislead people...

If you really are genuinely interested in learning biology, there are many books out there that don't have an agenda in mind and will give you the truth!

[Butterbean]

Stella, you say the priests bought the field. That contradicts Acts! (See the first post.)

Which is it? Did the priests buy the field or did Judas?

MCWAY explained it, but maybe this will help you further (from lookinguntojesus.com)

Luke indicates that Judas purchased it, while Matthew reveals that the chief priests bought the field. This is not a contradiction, but a difference of perspective. Indeed, the chief priests conducted the transaction for the field, however, it was not with their money. Nor would they have claimed the money. In verse 6, the abominable nature of this money is spoken of. They would not permit it to be included in the treasury, and certainly did not take possession of it for themselves. It had to be disposed of in some fashion. Thus, they purchased the field with it. Was it their field? No, for it was not their money that purchased the field (nor did they want the money or the field). The field was purchased by means of Judas, thus it was his field.
There is no contradiction.

Now consider the part in italics. You cannot seriously believe that. He invents out of thin air the possibility of the branch snapping, and out of thinner air the possibility that, if the branch snaps, the impact of falling would make his bowels explode!!!

What was Judas's cause of death?
1. "He Hanged himself"
2. "he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out."

You can't die twice, so it has to be one or the other.

 



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

Acts 1:18 "With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines


Is either scenario specifically stated as his cause of death?  I don't see that as the case.

The death by hanging scenario and the body falling after and spilling it's guts is a possibility.
Ineptness in a hanging attempt and the Judas falling on something that made his guts spill out resulting in death seems to be a possibility too.

You wouldn't think that Acts 1:18 means he stubbed his toe on a rock while walking and fell so hard his guts spilled out?  It seems he would have been in some scenario such as hanging from some type of height.

Seriously, do you have an open mind to these possibilities or are your alleged contradictions just an attempt to "pwn" someone?

[columbusdude82]

No, I do have an open mind, I really do.

It's just the mechanics of how hanging leads to your guts bursting out seem a bit improbable to me

I think what happens here is a different WAY of reading the texts. I read one text, read another, then compare. What you, loco, and McWay seem to do (in this thread and others) is the "Bulldozer approach," i.e., you "flatten" the texts all onto each other as if they were just one text, and try and fill in the gaps and connect the dots.

Thus, you ASSUME that there is no contradiction, and start from there. I start with the text and ask: "why do they say different things?"

[Butterbean]

No, I do have an open mind, I really do.

GReat!

No, I do have an open mind, I really do.

It's just the mechanics of how hanging leads to your guts bursting out seem a bit improbable to me

I didn't find it improbable because the texts don't negate each other.

Thus, you ASSUME that there is no contradiction, and start from there. I start with the text and ask: "why do they say different things?"

Fair enough.  I think you've presented some interesting alleged contradictions at times that initially I also may ask:  "Why do they say diff. things?" and it causes me to research and study.  I appreciate that.  I don't want to believe in things that are untrue or believe in the wrong God.  But I've never been convinced that is the case.  I believe wholeheartedly that the God of the Bible is real and true and being prompted to research and study more about HIm and His word has been a blessing and confirmation to me.  Thank you

I think what happens here is a different WAY of reading the texts. I read one text, read another, then compare. What you, loco, and McWay seem to do (in this thread and others) is the "Bulldozer approach," i.e., you "flatten" the texts all onto each other as if they were just one text, and try and fill in the gaps and connect the dots.

I think you're right about a diff. WAY of reading the texts.  We are reading from believer's perspectives and you from a perspective of unbelief.  The fact that you are reading at all leads me to believe if you truly do have an open mind w/this stuff you are seeking God and he who seeks will find

[columbusdude82]

lol! You had me on your side until that condescending last sentence!

I have read a good deal of fiction and mythology. When I read the Odyssey and Iliad, did that mean I have an open mind with regards to Zeus and Perseus? When I read Pride and Prejudice, did that mean I have an open mind about Mr Darcy and Miss Elizabeth Bennet? Should I label myself a Darcy-agnostic? It's fiction! Dickens, Old Testament, New Testament, Homer, etc.

I read the Bible from the perspective of "unbelief" as you say, just as I read all other mythology from a perspective of "unbelief."

For me, "belief" comes from reason and evidence, not faith.

[Butterbean]

lol! You had me on your side until that condescending last sentence!

  I did not mean it to be condescending at all!!  I'm sorry if it came off that way

I have read a good deal of fiction and mythology. When I read the Odyssey and Iliad, did that mean I have an open mind with regards to Zeus and Perseus? When I read Pride and Prejudice, did that mean I have an open mind about Mr Darcy and Miss Elizabeth Bennet? Should I label myself a Darcy-agnostic? It's fiction! Dickens, Old Testament, New Testament, Homer, etc.

But I don't think any of the above (save the OT and NT) are claiming to be the way to heaven?

[columbusdude82]

  I did not mean it to be condescending at all!!  I'm sorry if it came off that way

But I don't think any of the above (save the OT and NT) are claiming to be the way to heaven?

A word of warning: don't get on Zeus' bad side. When He gets a bee in His bonnet about something, He is ruthless!!!

[Dos Equis]

Beach Bum, about the "usefulness" of such debates, there is a point behind them.

As for your very last statement about "faith" being involved in evolution, no, you are wrong

I think I know what your point is. 

I'm right.   

[Dos Equis]

Beach Bum, a quick Google search reveals that this book "Billions of Missing Links" is by the Discovery Institute, the leading Creationist propaganda front. These people can't get their pseudo-science published in any real scientific journals, so they publish it in these books hoping to mislead people...

If you really are genuinely interested in learning biology, there are many books out there that don't have an agenda in mind and will give you the truth!

[chuckle]  The book "Billions of Missing Links" is by Geoffrey Simmons, M.D., a practicing physician.  Do you often blatantly misstate facts?  If you intended to say the book is written by someone affiliated with the Discovery Institute, you should have simply said so. 

I have been taught the theory of evolution many times in geology (arguably the most boring class I've ever taken), biology, history, etc. classes. 

I'm only on page 58 and it will take me a while to get through the book, but so far the subtitle is correct:  "A Rational Look at the Mysteries Evolution Can't Explain." 

And I find it comical that you are discrediting a book you haven't read.  Didn't you once criticize people for doing just that?  Sounds a little paranoid.  Wouldn't want anyone to upset the apple cart, now would we? 

[columbusdude82]

Beach Bum, Geoffrey Simmons is a fellow of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=214&isFellow=true

And here is their link to the book release party:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=259&program=CSC&isEvent=true

What facts did I blatantly misstate?

I accept your apology.

[Dos Equis]

Beach Bum, Geoffrey Simmons is a fellow of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=214&isFellow=true

And here is their link to the book release party:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=259&program=CSC&isEvent=true

What facts did I blatantly misstate?

I accept your apology.

You made the following comment:

Beach Bum, a quick Google search reveals that this book "Billions of Missing Links" is by the Discovery Institute . . . .

That is a blantant misstatement.  The Discovery Institute is not the author of the book.  Did you even look at the link you provided?  The author is Dr. Geoffrey Simmons.  I have the book right in front of me.  lol. . . . .   Here is a link to the book:  http://www.amazon.com/Billions-Missing-Links-Mysteries-Evolution/dp/0736917462/ref=sr_1_1/102-7844925-4361751?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194285231&sr=8-1

[columbusdude82]

Yeah, oh my, what a blatant misstatement ;

It is a piece of creationist propaganda intended to debauch science and misinform the public. You might as well be reading books about "Flat Earth Geology" by the "Flat Earth Society"...

[Dos Equis]

Yeah, oh my, what a blatant misstatement ;

It is a piece of creationist propaganda intended to debauch science and misinform the public. You might as well be reading books about "Flat Earth Geology" by the "Flat Earth Society"...

You disappoint me dude. 

[OzmO]

MCWAY explained it, but maybe this will help you further (from lookinguntojesus.com)

Luke indicates that Judas purchased it, while Matthew reveals that the chief priests bought the field. This is not a contradiction, but a difference of perspective. Indeed, the chief priests conducted the transaction for the field, however, it was not with their money. Nor would they have claimed the money. In verse 6, the abominable nature of this money is spoken of. They would not permit it to be included in the treasury, and certainly did not take possession of it for themselves. It had to be disposed of in some fashion. Thus, they purchased the field with it. Was it their field? No, for it was not their money that purchased the field (nor did they want the money or the field). The field was purchased by means of Judas, thus it was his field.
There is no contradiction.

Acts 1:18 "With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out."

Judas did not buy the field.   the Priests did.

Judas did not decide to buy the field.  The Priest did.   

Therefore the priests bought the field not Judas.

I see what you are getting at, but it's a incorrect statement or a contradiction.   The field was bought with Judas's money but not with his decision.   So to say Judas bought the field is incorrect.   It's not a matter of perspective it's a matter of meaning.   

If i, for example donated money for the specific purpose to buy a field then it might be said i bought the field even thought someone used my money to buy it, my money was given for that purpose.  If i gave money to a chairty and they bought a bike, i did not buy that bike, the charity did.

However, Judas threw the money at the temple and then killed him self.   he did not buy the field.

[loco]

Beach Bum, Geoffrey Simmons is a fellow of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute:

So what?  Must we disregard and ignore everything a brilliant scientist says only because he/she is a fellow of the Discovery Institute?  Yeah, that's really smart.  Let's do that, and we could potentially miss some great scientific advancements.

Jonathan Wells, author of "Icons of Evolution", is also a fellow of the Discovery Institute.  He has a PhD in Molecular and Cell Biology and has published articles in peer-reviewed journals:

Inertial force as a possible factor in mitosis.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=3902112

Confocal microscopy analysis of living Xenopus eggs and the mechanism of cortical rotation.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=8620855

Microtubule-mediated transport of organelles and localization of -catenin to the future dorsal side of Xenopus eggs
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/94/4/1224

[columbusdude82]

Jonathan Wells? Isn't he the moonie who admitted the only reason he got his PhD was because he wanted to debauch science?

[Butterbean]

I see what you are getting at, but it's a incorrect statement or a contradiction.   The field was bought with Judas's money but not with his decision.   So to say Judas bought the field is incorrect.   It's not a matter of perspective it's a matter of meaning.   

If i, for example donated money for the specific purpose to buy a field then it might be said i bought the field even thought someone used my money to buy it, my money was given for that purpose.  If i gave money to a chairty and they bought a bike, i did not buy that bike, the charity did.

I see what you are trying to say here too OzmO, but I feel that it supports what I am saying!

Here's how I see my side in what you are saying:

Let's say Fred gives to several charities.  One of them is to support the translation and distribution of bibles into native languages and lands.  This charity does exactly what Fred intends to support and so Fred is "paying" in a sense for the translators to translate, the printers to print and the distributors to distribute. 

Another charity Fred used to support has a ministry to assist ex-convicts in assimilating back into society, giving them a support systems, etc. hoping for a low recidivism rate among them.  Fred gave them some money too.  Let's say the pastor of this charity and his wife took part of Fred's money and and used it to pay for a motorcycle!  Totally NOT what Fred was wanting, but in my mind Fred, in fact, bought (paid for) the motorcycle! 

[loco]

Jonathan Wells? Isn't he the moonie who admitted the only reason he got his PhD was because he wanted to debauch science?

I don't know.  Did he really admit to that?  If he really did, so what?  Did he or did he not get his PhD?  Can he not still contribute to science?  Yes, he can.

[OzmO]

I see what you are trying to say here too OzmO, but I feel that it supports what I am saying!

Here's how I see my side in what you are saying:

Let's say Fred gives to several charities.  One of them is to support the translation and distribution of bibles into native languages and lands.  This charity does exactly what Fred intends to support and so Fred is "paying" in a sense for the translators to translate, the printers to print and the distributors to distribute. 

Another charity Fred used to support has a ministry to assist ex-convicts in assimilating back into society, giving them a support systems, etc. hoping for a low recidivism rate among them.  Fred gave them some money too.  Let's say the pastor of this charity and his wife took part of Fred's money and and used it to pay for a motorcycle!  Totally NOT what Fred was wanting, but in my mind Fred, in fact, bought (paid for) the motorcycle! 

At the very least, if you look at the way you do, the wording is still incorrect and leads the reader to believe otherwise if they are in fact reading it objectively.

Assuming this is the word of God, words from 1 source, he says:

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

He didn't designate how the money is to be spent.

Even if he didn't and his money was used the "correct way to say it" would be:

Acts 1:18 "The money Judas gave was used to a buy a field; Where he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out."

But that's not how it's written.

It's even written as if, by looking at the sequence of events:

1.  Bought the field with the money
2.  Fell head long
3.  Body burst head long

And what you and McWay are suggesting is that the field was purchased by the Priests in the temple after he died.

No of it jives.   It's a plain contradiction even if you take into account the implied meaning of who bought the field.

Acts 1:18 "With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out."

Besides that,  this is supposed to be the "word of God"  and the only one that seems to be directly true is the 10 commandments.  And in those he's very direct.   But all this is very indirect and open to too much interpretation.  Not a very Godly thing to do, if in fact you want your followers to understand exactly what you are saying.

[columbusdude82]

OzmO, the infected mind is such that no amount of reason will seep through. In fact, the believer takes pride in the fact that reason and logic cannot permeate their foggy faith.

For Stella and McWay, yes, Judas threw the money in the temple, yes, Judas bought the field with the money, yes, Judas hanged himself, and yes, Judas fell headlong and his body burst open and his intestines spilled out.

There is no contradiction because this is what the Bible says and the Bible doesn't contradict itself.

[beatmaster]

lolllllllll........ exactly

ramen to that brother