biblical contradictions answered judas i posted this several days ago for dave butler he may have missed it my usenet board has changed a little just in case he missed it here it is again dave butler writes from daveb pogo wv tek com dave butler newsgroups talk religion misc subject re new biblical contradictions fallaciously answered judas date thu apr i can basically restrict this post to showing the type of evidence mr decenso has presented and answering his two questions and a couple of his spurious insults and false claims my reply o k db by the way mr decenso you really should have looked in the index of your bauer arndt gingrich greek lexicon you would have found that the word in acts for lot is kleros not chorion as stated by mr archer and nowhere in the very large discussion of kleros in done the to theological dictionary of the new testament by bromley is the meaning burial plot discussed it discusses the forms of kleros eg kleros kleroo etc and the various meanings of kleros eg plot of land and inheritance but mentions nothing about chorion or burial plot why does this not surprise me thus it would seem to be a very good thing you dumped archer as a reference db later corrected himself from daveb pogo wv tek com dave butler newsgroups talk religion misc subject re new biblical contradictions fallaciously answered judas date fri apr i owe the group an apology it is my habit to check my articles before and after their submission for errors in my last article i stated by the way mr decenso you really should have looked in the index of your bauer arndt gingrich greek lexicon you would have found that the word in acts for lot is kleros not chorion as stated by mr archer and nowhere in the very large discussion of kleros in done the to theological dictionary of the new testament by bromley is the meaning burial plot discussed it discusses the forms of kleros eg kleros kleroo etc and the various meanings of kleros eg plot of land and inheritance but mentions nothing about chorion or burial plot why does this not surprise me thus it would seem to be a very good thing you dumped archer as a reference i was wrong i admit that i do not have a handle on greek grammar and thus confused kleros the second to last word in acts as being the plot of land discussed in actuality it is chorion which is the last word acts unfortunately my greek dictionary does not discuss chorion so i cannot report as to the nuances of the word i don t know if someone else would have caught this though i am sure that someone would be able to do so but i have an aversion to disseminating mistakes especially when someone else might use that mistake to prove a point my reply vary noble of you dave i didn t want to have to go to x number of sources to show you wrong although i am researching chorion a little db of course the only other reference mr decenso has given is bullinger and bullinger uses such ridiculous exegisis that when i accused mr decenso of actually believing bullinger he replied that i misquoted him and you maintain that you find such exegesis convincing oh dear my reply your misquotes of me are astounding dave read the beginning of this part of my response to see what i really said in my posting of this article actually mr decenso you said that there was benefit to our argument in that it caused to to rediscover bullinger s exegisis i did not realize that you would find such garbage beneficial unless you were convinced by it my reply thank you for correcting your restating of my points db and mr decenso also replied dave these are not necessarily my views they are bullinger s we will discuss the land issue in later posts i m sure i m only responding to this one you have directed re bullinger s views because it s enjoyable thus i apologize for thinking that even mr decenso could find such drek convincing he should specify which parts of bullinger he finds convincing and quit hiding behind a disingenuous mask of this is what bullinger believed not necessarily what i believe so which is it mr decenso do you find the exegisis convincing or not my reply one of my purposes in debating these alleged contradictions with you and others is to diseminate many different views of possible reconciliations raised by various bible scholars and students alike when i present my views i will clearly distinguish them from now on db of course without archer and bullinger we find that mr decenso has presented no greek exegisis at all and mr decenso has made a big thing about my not referring back to the actual greek thus we find this demand on his part for quality greek exegisis to be a hypocritical requirement my reply good point but in your declaring that these passages are contradictory you have produced only superficial reasonings and observations nor have you dug deeper i m glad you have begun in this post i will begin greek studies on these passages in more depth than i thought necessary as well db it would be appropriate to look at what mr decenso has actually used as evidence now we know what he claims for a standard as he has stated it often enough a the text itself b parallel passages c other pertinent scriptures d historical context e historical content f other pertinent historical info g cultural context h cultural content i other pertinent cultural info j grammatical construction k hebrew and greek word studies l etc but are these actual standards he has used or simply empty hyperbole let s see he has used a and since he is trying to reconcile it to other passages we see that he has also used b on the other hand he has presented no use of d historical context or e historical content or f other pertinent historical info or g cultural context or h cultural content or i other pertinent cultural info or j grammatical construction or even k hebrew and greek word studies remember archer and bullinger don t count thus we find his vaunted criteria for exegisis is just empty mouthings my reply question do you find such criteria important if so do you plan on starting to use them to the best of your ability or will you continue to present shallow observations i don t mean this in a bad way at this point in our debates i have not found it necessary to present a total exegetical analysis of these passages since we seem to keep beating around the bush and not getting into the core of the verses i do not believe it necessary to use many of the above criteria to refute your arguments re judas in acts and matthew but i will do my best from this point on to use several of the above criteria since you desire me to i hope you will also it will greatly enhance our study of these passages db the only thing he has actually used beyond the passage itself is any other passage thus mr decenso should be honest and note that most of his list is red herring and his only real criteria seems to be a the text itself b parallel passages my reply the reason is simple you are mistating the passages you claim that the passages contradict one another i do not see the passages contradicting one another they may very well be complimentary as many scholarly sources mention matthew may not be presenting judas death as you claim but we ll look at your defense of this later also the reward of iniquity in the acts passage may not be the pieces of silver in matthew s passages although you have a valiant attempt later at stating why you believe it is at this beginning stages in our debates we are laying some scriptural groundwork which will be expanded upon through deeper exegesis db of course the only reason i can see to so drastically reinterpret a passage as he has done with judas death is to make it agree with another passage so that both could be considered correct my reply one of the reasons i have given a different exegetical view of the passages is that you seem to think the majority of scholarship is wrong in concluding these passages are complimentary however i see no problem in tony rose s explanation of judas death how would you explain the inaccuracy between judas hanging himself in matthew and falling headlong he burst open this question of the manner in which judas died is one with which we are constantly confronted in our travels many people point to the apparent discrepancy in the two accounts as an obvious irreconcilable error some have gone so far as to say that the idea of an inerrant bible is destroyed by these contradictory accounts however this is not the case at all matthew relates that judas hanged himself while peter tells us he fell and was crushed by the impact the two statements are indeed different but do they necessarily contradict each other matthew does not say that judas did not fall neither does peter say that judas did not hang himself this is not a matter of one person calling something black and the other person calling it white both accounts can be true and supplementary a possible reconstruction would be this judas hanged himself on a tree on the edge of a precipice that overlooked the valley of hinnom after he hung there for some time the limb of the tree snapped or the rope gave way and judas fell down the ledge mangling his body in the process the fall could have been before or after death as either would fit this explanation this possibility is entirely natural when the terrain of the valley of hinnom is examined from the bottom of the valley you can see rocky terraces to feet in height and almost perpendicular there are still trees around the ledges and a rocky pavement at the bottom therefore it is easy to conclude that judas struck one of the jagged rocks on this way down tearing his body open it is important to remember that we are not told how long judas remained hanging from the tree or how advanced was the decomposition of his body before his fall louis gaussen relates a story of a man who was determined to kill himself this individual placed himself on the sill of a high window and pointed a pistol at his head he then pulled the trigger and leaped from the window at the same time on the other hand a person could say that this man took his life by shooting himself while another could rightly contend he committed suicide by jumping form the tall building in this case both are true as both are true in the case of matthew s and peter s accounts of the death of judas it is merely a situation of different perspectives of the same event your only reason for rejecting this is i believe your attempt to discredit inerrancy you haven t related how this is impossible or highly unlikely here s what you said in an earlier post db quoting tony rose there are still trees around the ledges and a rocky pavement at the bottom therefore it is easy to conclude that judas struck one of the jagged rocks on this way down tearing his body open it is important to remember that we are not told how long judas remained hanging from the tree or how advanced was the decomposition of his body before his fall the added text in this version is so heavy that assuming you are truly so opposed to such tactics you should find it not credible but you seem to find tony rose s eisegesis satisfactory while clearly rejecting david joslin s here you discredit tony s explanation based on what you deem too heavy for the passages but you haven t addressed why you feel that way you can say it s a vain attempt to reconcile the contradiction but that doesn t tell me it didn t happen nor have you shown why you reject that possibility questions is matthew lying or is luke lying or are they both lying or are either or both of them misinformed why do you think there is such an alleged contradiction i do not think you have ever told us what you believe in this respect db at present though mr decenso only asks two questions of me you claim acts and matthew contradict one another in representing judas death i ask you again to provide evidence that matthew stated judas died in the hanging you claim that the pieces of silver in matthew that judas threw down in the temple and the chief priests used is the reward of iniquity in acts that pictures judas in some way purchasing a field with therefore there is a contradiction prove that the pieces of silver and the reward of iniquity are one and the same actually i find question to be a rather stupid request but i will answer it because he now restricts himself to two points first i would point out that hanging is a very efficient manner for ending a life in fact it is a bit of a fluke when someone survives hanging except in fantasy cowboy movies and even then it usually referred to as an attempted hanging my reply i work at an agency that investigates child abuse and neglect today i got a call re a child that attempted suicide by hanging himself because his mother is on crack he failed in his attempt and is in a child s psych ward at a local hospital hanging attempts are not always successful to assume that because most hangings are successful this one was also is begging the question if i may quote you last night listening to the bible answer man broadcast the christian research institute s show one of the scholars on there used several of these terms that you use i am not all that familiar with them the man on the bam show teaches comparative religion and logic it was interesting db this is so prevalent that so that to say a man hung himself with no other qualifiers is synonymous with stating that he killed himself my reply qualifiers are important at times as we ll see in an ot passage i ll mention below does hanging always have this outcome did matthew who is the only source we have re judas hanging himself state that judas died as a result to say it s synonymous means it has the same meaning as a boy age hung himself but he lived this is only one of probably thousands of documented cases we can discover db now i am not alone in this thought in fact since mr decenso so respects christian scholarly including greek scholars opinion i did some research my reply thank you dave db interestingly not one of the christian references i read interpreted the hanging as being anything but a fatal suicide my reply above mine so it s ok to use christian sources to back your points what about tony s position do you value it or even consider it as a valid possibility also is it possible that the sources you read may be wrong or lying or deceived in other parts of their books if so should we do as we have done with archer toss them to the side and not value anything they say including their interpretation of the hanging of judas i am sure you would find some errors and maybe even some deception in those sources you also noted they interpreted the hanging as meaning he died although that is very possibly true do you find that in the text itself remember that s the first criteria we must examine db this included the biblical knowledge commentary by woodward and zuck my reply which i own it s a good source of commentary info but not inerrant db the interpreters on volume commentary on the bible by laydon the one volume bible commentary by j r dunelow word meanings of the testament ralph earl the abingdon bible commentary published by abingdon harpers bible commentary by william neal actually i could have presented many more as well my reply i appreciate your doing this research dave maybe we are getting somewhere in how we both should approach these alleged contradictions more in depth study db in each case these references specifically describe that the interpretation of matt as successful suicide and thus i can only conclude that the greek word apagchw ie hang oneself is translated as a successful hanging my reply above mine no you can t only conclude this although as tony says this was a highly probable outcome but matthew does not state death as being a result the greek word is apagcho matthew is it s only occurrence in the new testament 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 also there is nothing in the greek to suggest success or failure it simply means hang oneself db but mr decenso you are more than welcome to disagree and show more reputable christian scholars that insist that the hanging was not successful my reply above mine reputable you mean ones that have never erred as far as insisting that the hanging was unsuccessful that can t be done even by me as i said in an earlier post although i still agree with tony s exegesis as being the most probable explanation regarding judas death taking into account several criteria i ve recently noticed some new things in matthew mat then he threw down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed and went and hanged himself but the chief priests took the silver pieces and said it is not lawful to put them into the treasury because they are the price of blood and they consulted together and bought with them the potter s field to bury strangers in therefore that field has been called the field of blood to this day first of all notice that the text does not say that judas died as a result of hanging all it says is that he went and hanged himself luke however in acts tells us that and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out this is a pretty clear indication along with the other details given in acts peter s speech the need to pick a new apostle etc that at least after judas fall he was dead so the whole concept that matthew and luke both recount judas death is highly probable but not clear cut i also wrote my reply here we have a stickler dave that i have to say i just recently noticed let s look at the passage in matthew mat saying i have sinned by betraying innocent blood and they said what is that to us you see to it mat then he threw down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed and went and hanged himself mat but the chief priests took the silver pieces and said it is not lawful to put them into the treasury because they are the price of blood mat and they consulted together and bought with them the potter s field to bury strangers in mat therefore that field has been called the field of blood to this day notice verse then he went and hanged himself matthew does not say judas died does it should we assume he died as a result of the hanging what does acts say act now this man purchased a field with the wages of iniquity and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out act for it is written in the book of psalms let his dwelling place be desolate and let no one live in it and let another take his office here we may have a graphic explanation of judas death so my line of reasoning to dispel your contradiction myth re the two accounts of judas death is this matthew doesn t necessarily explain how judas died he does say judas hanged himself but he didn t specifically say judas died in the hanging incident however acts seems to show us his graphic demise therefore there is no contradiction between matthew and acts re judas death my reply 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 probably 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 db by the way while all agree that judas died from the hanging the books had different ways of dealing with the contradiction we are discussing one simply ignored it entirely and simply referred back to matthew s version as the correct version in both matt and acts the biblical knowledge commentary suggested the hypotheses that judas hung and then when he rotted his belly exploded which doesn t explain his headlong fall or that his branch or rope broke and he fell to his death and his gut gushed out which doesn t explain how a hanging man would fall headlong rather than feet first my reply the outcome of any fall is dependent upon many factors how high the person was suspended before the fall any obstructions such as tree branches that may have deviated the fall how steep an incline of rocky surfaces the victim fell upon thus possibly rolling or bouncing of several rocks etc in a superficial examination of the acts passage and the matthew passage we are not given a lot of info on the geographical specifics but tony in the above quoted post gave us some a possible reconstruction would be this judas hanged himself on a tree on the edge of a precipice that overlooked the valley of hinnom after he hung there for some time the limb of the tree snapped or the rope gave way and judas fell down the ledge mangling his body in the process the fall could have been before or after death as either would fit this explanation this possibility is entirely natural when the terrain of the valley of hinnom is examined from the bottom of the valley you can see rocky terraces to feet in height and almost perpendicular there are still trees around the ledges and a rocky pavement at the bottom therefore it is easy to conclude that judas struck one of the jagged rocks on this way down tearing his body open db now truthfully i do not see what is comforting about matthew confusing the source of the potter s field prophesy but on the other hand the author is correct matthew does make that confusion of course a biblical inerrantist who claim that every word of the bible is guaranteed true by god will have to thereby add one more contradiction to the death of judas ie where the prophesy of the potter s field came from my reply please when we are done with this study on his death remind me to discuss this with you db 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 my reply dave we are getting somewhere aren t we act and in those days peter stood up in the midst of the disciples altogether the number of names was about a hundred and twenty and said act men and brethren this scripture had to be fulfilled which the holy spirit spoke before by the mouth of david concerning judas who became a guide to those who arrested jesus act for he was numbered with us and obtained a part in this ministry act now this man purchased a field with the wages of iniquity and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out act and it became known to all those dwelling in jerusalem so that field is called in their own language akel dama that is field of blood act for it is written in the book of psalms let his dwelling place be desolate and let no one live in it and let another take his office 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 joh this he said not that he cared for the poor but because he was a thief and had the money box and he used to take what was put in it joh for some thought because judas had the money box that jesus had said to him buy those things we need for the feast or that he should give something to the poor so now we know what part judas played he was a treasurer per se right after peter stated that judas played a part in this ministry treasurer according to john then luke adds the parenthetical explanation of wages of iniquity money that should have been put into the ministry but was stolen by judas to purchase a field i believe this is a better exegetical explanation of what the wages of iniquity are what do you think dave db now since i have given you clear answers and even references perhaps you could unequivocally state what type of inerrantist you are instead of asking me what type i think you are as you did to mr joslin my reply i will gladly admit that i am a complete inerrantist although i do not have that big a problem with the limited inerrancy view frank if one wished to contend with him he could not answer him one time out of a thousand job
