re new biblical contradictions still not answered judas mr decenso in spite of requiring scholarly opinion on the hanging of judas rejects that the scholarly opinion of the those scholars and then rephrases those scholars opinion on the subject we do know from matthew that he did hang himself and acts probably records his death although it s possible and plausible that he fell from the hanging and hit some rocks thereby bursting open i can no longer assume that to be the case therefore no contradiction matthew did not say judas died as a result of the hanging did he most scholars believe he iprobably did but i quoted all that to show that i highly regard the scholars explanations but in looking at the texts initially we can t assume judas died it is however highly probable and also there is nothing in the greek to suggest success or failure it simply means hang oneself actually if you do further research as to the greek word apacgw you will find that it does denote success those scholars did indeed have an excellent reason to assume that the suicide was successful as i pointed out i recently checked several lexicons greek english lexicon of the new testament louw and nida robinson s greek and english lexicon of the new testament greek english lexicon of the new testament grimm word study concordance tynsdale a greek english lexicon of the new testament and other early christian writings bauer arndt gingrich the new analytical greek lexicon perschbacher a couple simply stated hanged oneself and a couple were more explicit and stated that apacgw means specifically kill yourself by hanging a couple also noted that the meaning of one the root words for apacgw is strangle throttle or choke which pretty much invalidates the guy who suggested to david joslin that judas was hung upside down one of the best references though robinson s greek and english lexicon of the new testament not only stated the translation it gave both the root words the literal translation related greek words which use the same roots and also other presented specific examples of the word in greek literature to give further context the word apagchw has two root words gchw is the to strangle root and the root word apo means literally away this root words is included in words which denote a transition it can mean a transition in place eg the greek word apagello means to send a message apo can also denote a change in state and specifically the change from life to death robinson specifically makes comparison to the word apokteiuo which means to kill in literal meaning the word apacgw means to throttle strangle to put out of the way and implicitly denotes a change in life state ie away from life to death so while the word apacgw does mean to hang it specifically denotes a death as well thus robinson is quite specific when he state that it means to hang oneself to end one s life by hanging he then notes the the use of apacgw in homers odessy to denote context he presents that example of apacgw as being used to explicitly mean suicide by hanging now since there is a perfectly good word for strangling without the added denotation of death and as you insist that the bible was written by god and every word is precicely correct you are stuck with the complete meaning of apacgw ie since the word apacgw was used then death is denoted as the result by the way i note that mr decenso also presents an example of apacgw in the septuagint the greek translation of the ot used at the time of jesus it s only used in samuel now when ahithophel saw that his advice was not followed he saddled a donkey and arose and went home to his house to his city then he put his household in order and hanged himself and died and he was buried in his father s tomb notice that not only is it stated that ahithophel hanged himself gr sept apagcho but it explicitly adds and died here we have no doubt of the result in matthew we are not explicitly told judas died note mr decenso as you say the septuagint was a translation from hebrew to greek and you have not shown the original meaning of the hebrew ie the the hebrew say and died and thus whether it was simply echoed in the greek it should also be pointed out that regardless of the added and died the correct translation would still be apacgw as the man did indeed die from strangulation redundant but correct further we have evidence that the septuagint was repeatedly rewritten and reedited which included versions which contradicted each other and such editing was not even necessarily executed by greeks thus i am not sure that you can use the septuagint as it now stands as a paragon of ancient greek so what you really need to prove your point mr decenso is an example in ancient greek of someone committing apacgw and surviving otherwise i would see you as simply making worthless assertions without corresponding evidence now i would note mr decenso that everytime i go out of my way to research it one of your apparently contrived exegisis i pretty much find it false thus i think that if you are going to add to the text something over and above what the source clearly says then you had better have an explicit greek or historical source to justify it by the way as to mr rose s statement about trees around the potter s field there are still trees around the ledges and a rocky pavement at the bottom unless mr rose can show that these trees are two thousand years old or that there are year old stumps there or has a thousand year old description of the area which mentions such trees then it is inappropriate for him to assert that the present placement of trees prove the location of the trees two thousand years ago after all things change now as to your other argument ie that the money judas used is not the same as the silvers as to your second question mr decenso you ask how we could be sure that the money with which judas purchased the land was indeed for the betrayal rather than some other source i would point out that in acts where it specifically mention the reward of iniquity acts it also specifically mentions what act of iniquity they were talking about ie acts concerning judas who was guide to those who arrested jesus now i would point out that when the bible describes an act of iniquity and then immediately discusses the reward of iniquity it would be rather inane to suggest that it was an action of iniquity other than the one discussed notice that in verse the word iniquity is not used rather it states that judas became a guide to those who arrested jesus but the writer did not stop there vs for he was numbered with us and obtained a part in this ministry what part did judas play in their ministry true peter or the author of acts does not specifically call judas betrayal an iniquity but for that matter neither does john specifically call judas actions an iniquity either further john did not say that judas took the money box but rather said some thought that because judas had the money box jesus was telling him buy what we need for the feast or that he should give something to the poor so after receiving the morsel he immediately went out and it was night note that it is said that judas left it does not say that he took the money box thus when i see your explanation it still seems to me you would choose the a an unproven iniquity mentioned by another author in a different book written at a different time over the iniquity explicitly mentioned by the author of acts i find this forced and contrived of course this particular argument becomes moot since we have have seen evidence that apacgw means suicide you see since judas hanging was successful he could not have spent the money mentioned in john because matthew and mark explicitly say the betrayal was on the high holy day ie passover and thus he could not have spent the money before killing himself the next day thus the money which bought the field of blood would have to have been the pieces of silver of course he got the pieces of silver that night as well and thus couldn t have spent that either oh dear i believe that the house of cards is comming down maybe we should at this point discuss now whether jesus was crucified on friday or saturday as that is now part of the argument about judas by the way as to where the prophesy of the potter s field came from ie the mention of it in matthew you say please when we are done with this study on his death remind me to discuss this with you i am reminding you now to discuss it now it s all part of the same verse we are discussing and i wish you would quit procrastinating and sidestepping these issues later dave butler a wise man proportions his belief to the evidence david hume philosopher an inquiry concerning human understanding ps i would note again that you are not stating that that bible is not possibly inerrant you are stating that it is inerrant since you have been by your own admission presenting merely possible reconciliations i of course don t rate them that highly then the best you can do is say that the bible is possibly inerrant not that it is inerrant
