|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 01/08/2004 : 20:14:52 [Permalink]
|
ivanisavich wrote:quote:
So, case stated: There are no contradictions between John 5:31 and John 8:14. I am awaiting your reply.
Given further thought to the matter:
John 5: "I know I can't witness for myself, so here's my buddy John..."
John 8: "I know I can't witness for myself, so here's my Dad..."
Is that what the surrounding context is saying?quote:
Well, seeing as it says he was hanging, and it also says that he fell, I do not see how a connection between first hanging and then falling cannot be established. Science? Please explain how science can disprove that a person cannot fall after hanging. There is a good chance (because Judas was not a professional executor) that either his rope could have broken or the structure he hung himself from (probably a branch on a tree) could have broken under his weight as well.
But, the resolution of this apparent contradiction is not obviously written in other verses of the Bible, is it? "He hanged, then fell" is a form of reading between the lines. Anyone claiming that he fell from a very high place, tore himself open on the way down, and then "burst asunder in the midst" of his newly-bought field is engaging in strange and Biblically-unsupported geography.
Actually, Acts 1:18 makes it pretty clear that Judas bought the field, and then died in it, whereas Matthew 27:5-7 makes it clear that first Judas died (where, it doesn't say), and then some field was purchased with Judas' filthy money.
Also,quote:
I still see no reason to consider this a contradiction. It is simply 2 different explanations and descriptions of the same scene.
Two different descriptions of the same events, yes. They happen to relate the two events (Judas' death, and the purchase of a field), in opposite chronological orders, not to mention the other discrepancies between the two accounts. Where are the Bible verses which reconcile the two? Without them, all you have is "it could have been like this" suppositions, and not "the Bible says thus-and-such" explanations.
In other words, compared to the explanation you offered for John 5:31 and John 8:14, the possible ways to mesh Matthew and Acts regarding Judas' death appear to require reading much into the Bible which isn't actually in there. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 01/09/2004 : 07:47:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ivanisavich
quote:
Nice dodge of the additional problem of who paid for the field.
No dodge intended, just overlooked  ...I was only concentrating on Judas death when I replied, and it seems that I failed to notice the problem of who bought the field as well.
But, the site I quoted also deals reasonably with that as well. Because the money thrown back at the priests was "blood money", they would not have taken ownership of it and it would have still been Judas' money. So, when they purchased the field, it would have been Judas' field that Judas' bought.
I've actually come across the same situation recently. After my grandfather passed away my mother became in charge of the estate. Yet, even though she was in full control of the money in the estate (and my grandfather, being dead, obviously wasn't), before it was divided out according to his will, any expenses paid for using the money were considered payed for by my grandfather. In other words, my grandfather was "purchasing" and "paying" for things even after he was dead. The issue is simply a matter of legalities. And, although this analogy isn't quite the same as the accounts in Acts and Matthew, the same idea could be applied.
Then why doesn't the text of the Bible say this? It doesn't.
quote:
quote:
The explaination given to make the contradiction go away is not supported by the Bible nor science.
Well, seeing as it says he was hanging, and it also says that he fell, I do not see how a connection between first hanging and then falling cannot be established. Science? Please explain how science can disprove that a person cannot fall after hanging. There is a good chance (because Judas was not a professional executor) that either his rope could have broken or the structure he hung himself from (probably a branch on a tree) could have broken under his weight as well.
Any branch or noose sufficient to take the initial shock of hanging would not break after a few days. Had either one of these been weak enough not to take such a load, it likely would have broken on initial shock.
quote:
quote:
Hanging bodies do not just fall after three days.
It didn't have to be three days...it could have been 10 minutes after his death. But from a more realistic point of view, with the amount of stress on the make-shift noose he would have had to make, it probably would have been a day or two before it would have torn under his weight.
quote:
Nor do they fall headlong.
Well, the definition for headlong does not necessarily mean head-first. To quote Webster's New World Dictionary (emphasis added by myself):
headlong 1. with the head first
2. with wild speed or force; reckless or recklessly
So, presuming he hung himself from a rather high place (which he probably did to ensure that he wouldn't first hit the ground which would render his attempt at suicide failed), the fall could have been quite a speedy one. And, assuming he hung from a tree, depending on what he hit on the way down, he could have been torn open and therefore could have "burst" (as one might describe the situation afterward).
There aren't many high places in a field. Nor do adequately stout branches for hanging exist near the tops of trees. For the body to fall with great force or speed, it would have to accellerate to such a speed. Not likely given the likely height of the body from the ground.
quote:
I still see no reason to consider this a contradiction. It is simply 2 different explanations and descriptions of the same scene.
All I am saying is that you shouldn't assume that it was a hollywood-style, 1 foot off the ground, clean and easy hanging. He was full of grief and just wanted to end his life, so it was probably very amateurish and sloppy.
I didn't. However, amateurish and sloppy often lends itself to expediency. Why would Judas got to an elaborate effort to climb high into a tree to hang himself when a stout branch likely much lower in the tree were available? Why would he seek out a tree which would allow him this luxury since the higher branches have the additional problem of lower branches to catch his fall.
quote:
quote:
Since the Bible was heavily edited over the years, it is not statistically amazing that the books fit together well.
Yes it is.
Editing tends to make a collection of works more congruent, not less. Care to expound on your contention?
quote:
quote:
Nor are the books on the same subject. When the books do overlap, quite a few contradictions are evident.
For one, that contradicts your above statement, and for two, that's what we're discussing.
No, it doesn't. The subject matter and events being described are very different in most cases. There are some areas of overlap and, due to different authorship, those overlapping areas oftentimes contradict one another. Editing would make the majority of non-overlapping areas to appear more congruent. How many descriptions of the destruction of the Amalkites(sp) are there?
quote:
quote:
In a limited analysis of the page you link to...
I could have made my analysis longer, but |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
ivanisavich
Skeptic Friend
67 Posts |
Posted - 01/09/2004 : 10:18:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Given further thought to the matter:
John 5: "I know I can't witness for myself, so here's my buddy John..."
John 8: "I know I can't witness for myself, so here's my Dad..."
Is that what the surrounding context is saying?
If I understand you correctly, then yes...but also:
John 5: "I know I can't witness for myself, so here's my buddy John..."
John 8: "I know I can't witness for myself, so here's my Dad as well as plenty of credibility from things I've done in the past..."
quote:
But, the resolution of this apparent contradiction is not obviously written in other verses of the Bible, is it? "He hanged, then fell" is a form of reading between the lines. Anyone claiming that he fell from a very high place, tore himself open on the way down, and then "burst asunder in the midst" of his newly-bought field is engaging in strange and Biblically-unsupported geography.
I agree. Because there are only two accounts with very little detail, one must draw some of his/her own conclusions, logical conclusions mind you. For example, it does not say that he fell from a high place, but I find it unreasonable to assume he "burst" after falling from a low place. It would take quite a fall for a person to be torn open (but again, we are assuming that he practically exploded, when only a relatively small incision would have been necessary for his bowels to spill).
I agree that the "geography" is biblically unsupported, but it is also not biblically refuted. What we are given is two very vague descriptions of an action, and a result (not necessarily related, and not necessarily different). I agree with you that it may be going too far to paint an entire scene with the little information we are given, but I also think that we would be going too far in considering what little information we have on his death, contradictory.
quote:
Actually, Acts 1:18 makes it pretty clear that Judas bought the field, and then died in it, whereas Matthew 27:5-7 makes it clear that first Judas died (where, it doesn't say), and then some field was purchased with Judas' filthy money.
Well, Matthew's version definitely shows a chronological order of events (Judas bought the field, then died), but the version in Acts does not necessarily, as it says:
"(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.Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)" Acts 1:18-19
If it had said, "Judas bought a field and then he fell headlong" then there would be no argument, but in the form that his statements are in, there is still the possibility that Peter is just stating 2 things that happened, not necessarily in that order. And there is no reason to believe that they happened in that order if we look simply at Acts 1:18.
quote:
Two different descriptions of the same events, yes. They happen to relate the two events (Judas' death, and the purchase of a field), in opposite chronological orders,
See above.
quote:
not to mention the other discrepancies between the two accounts.
There are no discrepancies if you look at the 2 accounts as describing the same event. Once descibes how he died (hanging), but not the events that happened between his death and burial, and another describs what happened to his body (burst etc), but not how he died. If we put the two accounts together they simply form 2 pieces of a puzzle, and there is a likely chance that they fit.
quote:
Where are the Bible verses which reconcile the two? Without them, all you have is "it could have been like this" suppositions, and not "the Bible says thus-and-such" explanations.
Because Judas death is recorded with such vagueness, and in only two places in the Bible, this is one of the places where you can only suppose the answer--no matter which side of the argument you are on. After all this talk I must agree that my theory of what happened to Judas does have some holes, but so does your theory that the two verses contradict.
quote:
In other words, compared to the explanation you offered for John 5:31 and John 8:14, the possible ways to mesh Matthew and Acts regarding Judas' death appear to require reading much into the Bible which isn't actually in there.
Well, I agree that it requires reading into things that aren't actually there, but if you look at both accounts there isn't much there to begin with.
We have one that says he hung himself (how did he do it exactly? what did he use? etc etc), which leaves us with many questions.
And we have another account that says he fell headlong and burst (how!? why? etc etc), so trying to prove anything about his death (other than the fact that he did die) is rather difficult given nothing but the texts themselves.
quote:
Then why doesn't the text of the Bible say this? It doesn't.
It does. Because there was no way that they would accept Judas' money, they would not have purchased the field under their names (since then the money would have been considered under their ownership--which is something they did not want to have happen).
quote:
Any branch or noose sufficient to take the initial shock of hanging would not break after a few days. Had either one of these been weak enough not to take such a load, it likely would have broken on initial shock.
Not necessarily. The branch may have been able to handle the initial stress, but prolonged stress could still have broken it.
quote:
There aren't many high places in a field. Nor do adequately stout branches for hanging exist near the tops of trees. For the body to fall with great force or speed, it would have to accellerate to such a speed. Not likely given the likely height of the body from the ground.
|
| Edited by - ivanisavich on 01/09/2004 10:22:19 |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 01/09/2004 : 12:28:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ivanisavich
quote:
Then why doesn't the text of the Bible say this? It doesn't.
It does. Because there was no way that they would accept Judas' money, they would not have purchased the field under their names (since then the money would have been considered under their ownership--which is something they did not want to have happen).
Again, where? Please cite chapter and verse. Conjecture on your part is not evidence given the wording of the passages.
quote:
quote:
Any branch or noose sufficient to take the initial shock of hanging would not break after a few days. Had either one of these been weak enough not to take such a load, it likely would have broken on initial shock.
Not necessarily. The branch may have been able to handle the initial stress, but prolonged stress could still have broken it.
quote:
There aren't many high places in a field. Nor do adequately stout branches for hanging exist near the tops of trees. For the body to fall with great force or speed, it would have to accellerate to such a speed. Not likely given the likely height of the body from the ground.
Well, seeing as how we are given no description of the "field", we cannot make any assumptions. The most we can do is suppose.
quote:
However, amateurish and sloppy often lends itself to expediency. Why would Judas got to an elaborate effort to climb high into a tree to hang himself when a stout branch likely much lower in the tree were available? Why would he seek out a tree which would allow him this luxury since the higher branches have the additional problem of lower branches to catch his fall.
We do not know because of the vague descriptions given of the event. I did not say that he did climb to the top of a tall tree or whatever, I simply said that he may have and could have. And seeing as the Bible says he burst after falling headlong, it is not reasonable to conclude that he fell from a low height.
Most notably, in the Civil War, there were several cases of where soldiers running through fields which had sharp rocks/boulders hidden by tall grass punctured their abdomens when falling. This caused them to "spill their bowels". Your assumption of how events occurred is predicated on the text not being contradictory when a syntactic analysis indicates that the text is contradictory.
quote:
quote:
Editing tends to make a collection of works more congruent, not less. Care to expound on your contention?
Any "edits" made were probably insignificant in the big picture (we can discuss that too, but in another thread). To make the Bible as coherent as it is, the "editor" would have had to literally re-write every page to make it as unified as it is (assuming it begin in disunity as you seem to do). This is an unreasonable assumption to make based on what little or no evidence there is for the argument.
Entire sections of the Bible were added and removed during the 1309 editing session. Multiple re-writes of sections had occurred since the reign of King Saul (aka Paul). When the Bible was usurped by the Roman government in the 300's CE, it was heavily edited to suit the purposes of Rome. Your analysis of the coherency of the entire document reads much like a history in spots and parables in others.
quote:
quote:
No, it doesn't. The subject matter and events being described are very different in most cases. There are some areas of overlap and, due to different authorship, those overlapping areas oftentimes contradict one another. Editing would make the majority of non-overlapping areas to appear more congruent. How many descriptions of the destruction of the Amalkites(sp) are there?
You claim that the Bible is contradictory due to lack of editing, yet you claim that the Bible is non-contradictory due to editing. Unless I misunderstand you, please state what you think before we discuss this further.
I claim that the Bible is contradictory in sections of different authorship where they are describing the same event. It cannot be contradictory in sections which describe different events. Editing added events and changed the timing of others when compared to governmental documents of the time that has survived.
quote:
quote:
The bad seed produces bad fruit.
And oftentimes (plenty of instances of it on this site) atheists do the same to Bible-believers. Does that ruin their credibility? Atheists seem to think not.
Is this the Darwin was a racist arguement? In this case, the seed used was the works of a fringe Bible theorist and extremely complex sets of proposed circumstances to explain events. If an atheist made such assumptions on this board, the same bad seed arguement applies. And that's from this theists experience on this board.
quote:
quote:
It does give a background of the mental processes of this author to the other posters here who are familiar with AIG's work. It brings the credibility of the author into question.
Actually, outside of the one theory given by the author (which, as stated above, I do not believe), the ideas presented were not his own. He was simply re-capping them an |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
ivanisavich
Skeptic Friend
67 Posts |
Posted - 01/09/2004 : 21:19:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
It does. Because there was no way that they would accept Judas' money, they would not have purchased the field under their names (since then the money would have been considered under their ownership--which is something they did not want to have happen).
quote:
Again, where? Please cite chapter and verse. Conjecture on your part is not evidence given the wording of the passages.
Matthew 27:6
"And the chief of priests took the silver pieces, and said, "It is not lawful for to put them in the treasury, because it is the price of blood"
Obviously, they did not want to claim ownership of the money because it was "blood money". And, to purchase something with it under their names would be to claim owndership of the money used in the transaction. The only way to get around this would be to have someone else claim ownership of it, and then to purchase the field themselves, or to keep the ownership with Judas, and purchase the field under his name, which therefore does not contradict the Acts version--it only agrees with it.
quote:
Most notably, in the Civil War, there were several cases of where soldiers running through fields which had sharp rocks/boulders hidden by tall grass punctured their abdomens when falling. This caused them to "spill their bowels". Your assumption of how events occurred is predicated on the text not being contradictory when a syntactic analysis indicates that the text is contradictory.
As I said above, because of the lacking number of testimonials to Judas' death, there is no more evidence to prove that Judas ran through his field, tripped and died, than there is to prove that his fall came from a broken branch or rope. Both situations are possible, even if unlikely. The only casting vote either of them has towards being legitimate, is the version of Judas' death recorded in Matthew (ie, Matthew's version should reflect whichever supposed version is true). And, if we use the Bible's rule of a story needing at least one other witness to be considered true, a hanging is more likely than a tripping due to Matthew's "witness", and his calling it a "hanging".
quote:
Entire sections of the Bible were added and removed during the 1309 editing session. Multiple re-writes of sections had occurred since the reign of King Saul (aka Paul). When the Bible was usurped by the Roman government in the 300's CE, it was heavily edited to suit the purposes of Rome. Your analysis of the coherency of the entire document reads much like a history in spots and parables in others.
Well, I must admit that the "editing" of the Bible is something I have looked into only minimally. I will have to do further research before I can make a case for my belief (which is that the Bible is relatively true to its original text).
Although, I do know that since we have found the dead sea scrolls (which were dated somewhere between 150 B.C. and 68 A.D.), we have been able to "double-check" much of the Old Testament for supposed "copying errors" and found only minor differences. This still leaves more than a thousand years between when the oldest book from the OT was written, and when the dead sea scrolls were written, but seeing as how there weren't many copying errors between 150BC-68AD and and 500-1000AD (the time when the Tiberian Masoretes copied the texts repeatedly), there is probably not a lot of evidence to suggest that there were major copying changes earlier.
For the NT, we have many more manuscripts available, written in much shorter timeframes spanning from the actual historical occurance, making it more reliable than the OT. In fact, there are several large parts of the New Testament (including many of Paul's writings) that date between the first and second century (which is very close to when the originals were written)--making for less possible errors...especially those that could have been due to changes made in the 12th century+. Again, this is a different thread though.
quote:
I claim that the Bible is contradictory in sections of different authorship where they are describing the same event. It cannot be contradictory in sections which describe different events. Editing added events and changed the timing of others when compared to governmental documents of the time that has survived.
Ok. I understand now . Thanks for expanding (at first I just wasn't sure where you were drawing the line between the two...but now I see what you mean).
quote:
Is this the Darwin was a racist arguement? In this case, the seed used was the works of a fringe Bible theorist and extremely complex sets of proposed circumstances to explain events. If an atheist made such assumptions on this board, the same bad seed arguement applies. And that's from this theists experience on this board.
No. And I do not think that that argument (Darwin was a racist) has any credibility either. I was simply stating that name-calling occurs on this site too--except from the opposite parties.
quote:
It was a presentation of personal opinion as well as based on the work of an admittedly fringe theologian. Hardly a solid basis.
His expansion on the original argument (which he admittadly takes no credit for) is personal opinion, but the actual argument was not his--and is therefore not affected by his reputation. Heck, I could have provided any other website that posted the same argument and it would have made no difference as to whom the website was put together by. What does make a difference in this case, is whether or not the argument accounts for a possible and logical situation...and that is what we're talking about here--not the credentials of Jo-Shmo who is simply good at organizing and discussing other people's ideas.
Overall, as in Shakespeare's Hamlet, Claudius' failure as a person has no effect on his successful reign as King. (Oh! How many times we discussed that in English class...but I digress  ).
Btw...thanks for all your replies Val and Dave, I am enjoying this discussion. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 01/12/2004 : 08:02:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ivanisavich
quote:
It does. Because there was no way that they would accept Judas' money, they would not have purchased the field under their names (since then the money would have been considered under their ownership--which is something they did not want to have happen).
quote:
Again, where? Please cite chapter and verse. Conjecture on your part is not evidence given the wording of the passages.
Matthew 27:6
"And the chief of priests took the silver pieces, and said, "It is not lawful for to put them in the treasury, because it is the price of blood"
Obviously, they did not want to claim ownership of the money because it was "blood money". And, to purchase something with it under their names would be to claim owndership of the money used in the transaction. The only way to get around this would be to have someone else claim ownership of it, and then to purchase the field themselves, or to keep the ownership with Judas, and purchase the field under his name, which therefore does not contradict the Acts version--it only agrees with it.
Herein lies the basic problem, whether the preists bought the field in Judas's name or not.
Matthew has the preists purchasing the property. Whether the money was deposited in their treasury or not, the text is clear that the preists are the ones purchasing the property. It is completely silent on whose name they purchased it. If it were to be different than their own, why does it not say so. The source for the piece is a fringe theologian and is therefore, questionable at best. Acts clearly indicates that Judas himself purchased the land.
quote:
quote:
Most notably, in the Civil War, there were several cases of where soldiers running through fields which had sharp rocks/boulders hidden by tall grass punctured their abdomens when falling. This caused them to "spill their bowels". Your assumption of how events occurred is predicated on the text not being contradictory when a syntactic analysis indicates that the text is contradictory.
As I said above, because of the lacking number of testimonials to Judas' death, there is no more evidence to prove that Judas ran through his field, tripped and died, than there is to prove that his fall came from a broken branch or rope. Both situations are possible, even if unlikely. The only casting vote either of them has towards being legitimate, is the version of Judas' death recorded in Matthew (ie, Matthew's version should reflect whichever supposed version is true). And, if we use the Bible's rule of a story needing at least one other witness to be considered true, a hanging is more likely than a tripping due to Matthew's "witness", and his calling it a "hanging".
Again, this assumes that there is no contradiction instead of relying on syntatical analysis.
quote:
quote:
Entire sections of the Bible were added and removed during the 1309 editing session. Multiple re-writes of sections had occurred since the reign of King Saul (aka Paul). When the Bible was usurped by the Roman government in the 300's CE, it was heavily edited to suit the purposes of Rome. Your analysis of the coherency of the entire document reads much like a history in spots and parables in others.
Well, I must admit that the "editing" of the Bible is something I have looked into only minimally. I will have to do further research before I can make a case for my belief (which is that the Bible is relatively true to its original text).
Although, I do know that since we have found the dead sea scrolls (which were dated somewhere between 150 B.C. and 68 A.D.), we have been able to "double-check" much of the Old Testament for supposed "copying errors" and found only minor differences. This still leaves more than a thousand years between when the oldest book from the OT was written, and when the dead sea scrolls were written, but seeing as how there weren't many copying errors between 150BC-68AD and and 500-1000AD (the time when the Tiberian Masoretes copied the texts repeatedly), there is probably not a lot of evidence to suggest that there were major copying changes earlier.
For the NT, we have many more manuscripts available, written in much shorter timeframes spanning from the actual historical occurance, making it more reliable than the OT. In fact, there are several large parts of the New Testament (including many of Paul's writings) that date between the first and second century (which is very close to when the originals were written)--making for less possible errors...especially those that could have been due to changes made in the 12th century+. Again, this is a different thread though.
Literacy of 1000 BCE was not widespread amongst the peasantry. Only the elite tended to be literate. The Bible was likely an oral tradition until 500 BCE. 500 years of oral tradition changes with each telling of the storuies as well as translational differences. Additionally, the Dead Sea scrolls are fragments of only a few books. (Leviticus, Hosea, Psalms, and Enoch)
quote:
quote:
I claim that the Bible is contradictory in sections of different authorship where they are describing the same event. It cannot be contradictory in sections which describe different events. Editing added events and changed the timing of others when compared to governmental documents of the time that has survived.
Ok. I understand now . Thanks for expanding (at first I just wasn't sure where you were drawing the line between the two...but now I see what you mean).
quote:
Is this the Darwin was a racist arguement? In this case, the seed used was the works of a fringe Bible theorist and extremely complex sets of proposed circumstances to explain events. If an atheist made such assumptions on this board, the same bad seed arguement applies. And that's from this theists experience on this board.
No. And I do not think that that argument |
| Edited by - Valiant Dancer on 01/12/2004 08:04:01 |
|
|
|
ivanisavich
Skeptic Friend
67 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2004 : 07:13:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Herein lies the basic problem, whether the preists bought the field in Judas's name or not.
Matthew has the preists purchasing the property. Whether the money was deposited in their treasury or not, the text is clear that the preists are the ones purchasing the property. It is completely silent on whose name they purchased it. If it were to be different than their own, why does it not say so. The source for the piece is a fringe theologian and is therefore, questionable at best. Acts clearly indicates that Judas himself purchased the land.
Again, I stick to my original argument. It is not unlikely that Luke would have written that Judas bought the field with his money of wickedness to illustrate how Judas paid the price for his "sins". Remember, the accounts were written by two different people--two people who wouldn't have had the same intent.
As "Bumbulis, Smith, and White" over at http://www.rationalchristianity.net/contra7.html sum up quite nicely:
quote:
Perhaps here, the following maxim holds - "He who does a thing by another, does it himself." That is, yes it was the chief priests who actually bought the field, but Judas had furnished the occasion for its purchase. Thus, the verse in Acts could be employing a figure of speech where we attribute to the man himself any act which he has directly or indirectly procured to be done. After all, we attribute the "Clinton health care plan" to Bill Clinton, when in reality, it is a plan devised by others associated with Bill Clinton.
quote:
Again, this assumes that there is no contradiction instead of relying on syntatical analysis.
Well, syntactical analysis disregards the author's intent. And in this case, that is important.
quote:
Literacy of 1000 BCE was not widespread amongst the peasantry. Only the elite tended to be literate. The Bible was likely an oral tradition until 500 BCE. 500 years of oral tradition changes with each telling of the stories as well as translational differences. Additionally, the Dead Sea scrolls are fragments of only a few books. (Leviticus, Hosea, Psalms, and Enoch)
Point taken (I agree that there is a large time span between the time when the original text was written and the time that our oldest manuscripts were written), although it would be interesting to know which parts were changed and which were not, and to which degree.
quote:
And oftentimes, the namecallers are admonished by other posters. I have opposed namecalling in every instance I have seen.
Point taken, although my original statement was not posed at you.
quote:
Again, the source for the commentary is a fringe theologian.
As seen above, I have found another reference because of discrepancies over the first. And even though the arguments posted by the first are held by the second as well, the second's arguments did not necessarily originate from the first, as the first takes no credit for them. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2004 : 08:57:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ivanisavich
quote:
Herein lies the basic problem, whether the preists bought the field in Judas's name or not.
Matthew has the preists purchasing the property. Whether the money was deposited in their treasury or not, the text is clear that the preists are the ones purchasing the property. It is completely silent on whose name they purchased it. If it were to be different than their own, why does it not say so. The source for the piece is a fringe theologian and is therefore, questionable at best. Acts clearly indicates that Judas himself purchased the land.
Again, I stick to my original argument. It is not unlikely that Luke would have written that Judas bought the field with his money of wickedness to illustrate how Judas paid the price for his "sins". Remember, the accounts were written by two different people--two people who wouldn't have had the same intent.
As "Bumbulis, Smith, and White" over at http://www.rationalchristianity.net/contra7.html sum up quite nicely:
Actually, they don't. The list as a source one Frank DeCenso (a soc.religion.christian newsgroup contributer). Mr. DeCenso has compiled one book of quotes of early church fathers and had an "advertizing banners for business" company. (All of this through researching the source of the opinion put forth)
Arguementum ad vecundium. Source is not an expert.
quote:
quote:
Perhaps here, the following maxim holds - "He who does a thing by another, does it himself." That is, yes it was the chief priests who actually bought the field, but Judas had furnished the occasion for its purchase. Thus, the verse in Acts could be employing a figure of speech where we attribute to the man himself any act which he has directly or indirectly procured to be done. After all, we attribute the "Clinton health care plan" to Bill Clinton, when in reality, it is a plan devised by others associated with Bill Clinton.
quote:
Again, this assumes that there is no contradiction instead of relying on syntatical analysis.
Well, syntactical analysis disregards the author's intent. And in this case, that is important.
One gets intent by the context in which the quote appears. All I see from you is supposition of what the author MIGHT have meant. Something which is unsupported by the text.
quote:
quote:
Literacy of 1000 BCE was not widespread amongst the peasantry. Only the elite tended to be literate. The Bible was likely an oral tradition until 500 BCE. 500 years of oral tradition changes with each telling of the stories as well as translational differences. Additionally, the Dead Sea scrolls are fragments of only a few books. (Leviticus, Hosea, Psalms, and Enoch)
Point taken (I agree that there is a large time span between the time when the original text was written and the time that our oldest manuscripts were written), although it would be interesting to know which parts were changed and which were not, and to which degree.
quote:
And oftentimes, the namecallers are admonished by other posters. I have opposed namecalling in every instance I have seen.
Point taken, although my original statement was not posed at you.
quote:
Again, the source for the commentary is a fringe theologian.
As seen above, I have found another reference because of discrepancies over the first. And even though the arguments posted by the first are held by the second as well, the second's arguments did not necessarily originate from the first, as the first takes no credit for them.
And you have listed a non-expert. It does nothing for your arguemnt. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
| Edited by - Valiant Dancer on 01/13/2004 09:00:56 |
|
|
|
ivanisavich
Skeptic Friend
67 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2004 : 10:36:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Actually, they don't. The list as a source one Frank DeCenso (a soc.religion.christian newsgroup contributer). Mr. DeCenso has compiled one book of quotes of early church fathers and had an "advertizing banners for business" company. (All of this through researching the source of the opinion put forth)
Once again, no...the argument about how Judas died was written by Frank, but the one about who bought the field (the argument I quoted) was written by Michael J. Bumbulis.
By the way, since you wrote:
quote:
And you have listed a non-expert. It does nothing for your arguemnt.
Well, seeing as how on this site: http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/bible.htm, Michael explains that he wrote the argument I quoted, this has nothing to do with Frank.
I will also have you know that Michael J. Bumbulis has an M.S. degree in Zoology from Ohio State University and a Ph.D in Genetics from Case Western Reserve University. He has written several articles and essays on Biblical reliability as well as others on issues concerning science and the Bible. Obviously, he is an educated man, and his opinions can be considered reliable.
quote:
Argumentum ad verecundiam (corrected spelling)
Not so. Nowhere did I state that I chose him as a source because he was famous and many people admire him, in order to win your approval.
If anything, he is an authority in refuting Biblical contradictions, as well as attacks on biblical teaching (as his many writings give him credit). He also has writings on misconceptions that Christians and non-Christians attribute to the Bible.
To add to his credibility, he demonstrates excellent knowledge of the Bible as well as excellent knowledge of the Hebrew language.
I fail to see how you can deny his credibility.
quote:
One gets intent by the context in which the quote appears. All I see from you is supposition of what the author MIGHT have meant. Something which is unsupported by the text.
You have to remember, the Acts were not written for the people of the 21st century, they were written for the people of Luke's time. Because of its impact on the community, Judas' suicide would have been well-known and the resulting actions of the priests would have been just as well-known. Therefore, when Luke states that Judas purchased the field, it is not unreasonable to assume that the people would have understood that he meant "Judas had the field purchased for him so as to "pay" for his sins"--and therefore the obvious intent would have been just that. Although it seems that we need to "read-into" the tiny bit of information we are given to determine the actual meaning, the people of the day would not have had to, because it would have been common knowledge.
And, it is supported in the text. If there was only one version of the story then no, it wouldn't be. But, we have Matthew's story which describes how the priests were against taking Judas' money for themselves (or the church). With that being said, it is not unreasonable to assume--and it is in fact logical to assume that the field was bought in Judas' name. Otherwise, the priests would have gone back on their own words (ie, them saying they wouldn't use the money for themselves)--and to assume that they did that would be unsupported by the text.
quote:
And you have listed a non-expert. It does nothing for your arguemnt.
False claim. Read above. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2004 : 12:40:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ivanisavich
quote:
Actually, they don't. The list as a source one Frank DeCenso (a soc.religion.christian newsgroup contributer). Mr. DeCenso has compiled one book of quotes of early church fathers and had an "advertizing banners for business" company. (All of this through researching the source of the opinion put forth)
Once again, no...the argument about how Judas died was written by Frank, but the one about who bought the field (the argument I quoted) was written by Michael J. Bumbulis.
By the way, since you wrote:
quote:
And you have listed a non-expert. It does nothing for your arguemnt.
Well, seeing as how on this site: http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/bible.htm, Michael explains that he wrote the argument I quoted, this has nothing to do with Frank.
I will also have you know that Michael J. Bumbulis has an M.S. degree in Zoology from Ohio State University and a Ph.D in Genetics from Case Western Reserve University. He has written several articles and essays on Biblical reliability as well as others on issues concerning science and the Bible. Obviously, he is an educated man, and his opinions can be considered reliable.
The link you provide doesn't show what you say. In fact, the page no longer exists. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, one can draw a comparison between Noam Chomski and Michael Bumbulis. (According to the article, he reconciles these as an opinion and uses as a quote the work by DeCenso.) Chomski has a doctorate in linguistics but he speaks about subjects far removed from linguistics. Bumbulis, while an expert on genetics and zoology, is not an expert on the Bible. His opinion is noted, but not particularly compelling. Being educated does not make one an expert on all things.
In addition, we were discussing two subjects. Death of Judas and who bought the field. Bumbalis says that his is a possible explaination for the ownership issue. Since he is not an expert, this is not a valid source.
quote:
quote:
Argumentum ad verecundiam (corrected spelling)
Not so. Nowhere did I state that I chose him as a source because he was famous and many people admire him, in order to win your approval.
If anything, he is an authority in refuting Biblical contradictions, as well as attacks on biblical teaching (as his many writings give him credit). He also has writings on misconceptions that Christians and non-Christians attribute to the Bible.
To add to his credibility, he demonstrates excellent knowledge of the Bible as well as excellent knowledge of the Hebrew language.
I fail to see how you can deny his credibility.
You have Appeal to Popularity and Appeal to Authority confused.
Appeal to Authority (argumentum ad verecundiam)
While sometimes it may be appropriate to cite an authority to support a point, often it is not. In particular, an appeal to authority is inappropriate if:
1) the person is not qualified to have an expert opinion on the subject,
2) experts in the field disagree on this issue.
3) the authority was making a joke, drunk, or otherwise not being serious
You do not say how you come to the conclusion that he has a "demonstrates excellent knowledge of the Bible as well as excellent knowledge of the Hebrew language". Given his field of study, he is not qualified as an expert in Hebrew nor the Bible.
quote:
quote:
One gets intent by the context in which the quote appears. All I see from you is supposition of what the author MIGHT have meant. Something which is unsupported by the text.
You have to remember, the Acts were not written for the people of the 21st century, they were written for the people of Luke's time. Because of its impact on the community, Judas' suicide would have been well-known and the resulting actions of the priests would have been just as well-known. Therefore, when Luke states that Judas purchased the field, it is not unreasonable to assume that the people would have understood that he meant "Judas had the field purchased for him so as to "pay" for his sins"--and therefore the obvious intent would have been just that. Although it seems that we need to "read-into" the tiny bit of information we are given to determine the actual meaning, the people of the day would not have had to, because it would have been common knowledge.
And, it is supported in the text. If there was only one version of the story then no, it wouldn't be. But, we have Matthew's story which describes how the priests were against taking Judas' money for themselves (or the church). With that being said, it is not unreasonable to assume--and it is in fact logical to assume that the field was bought in Judas' name. Otherwise, the priests would have gone back on their own words (ie, them saying they wouldn't use the money for themselves)--and to assume that they did that would be unsupported by the text.
I note that this arguement is still unsupported by text nor is your explaination reasonable. If you can come up with credible sources instead of fringe theologians and opinions of non-expert individuals, I will be more than happy to look at it. All you continue to do is rely on the opinions of non-experts.
quote:
quote:
And you have listed a non-expert. It does nothing for your arguemnt.
False claim. Read above.
Zoology and Genetics have no bearing on Hebrew nor the Bible. Had you quoted Bumbulis concerning the subject of genetics, his opinion would have weight. On the Bible, it does not. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2004 : 15:42:03 [Permalink]
|
Hello guys,
I'm inclined to say that this particular supposed contradiction is too vague and untalked about to be admitted as evidence for contradiction. Now, here's a real contradiction for you:
Mark 11:14, 15 "And Jesus answered and said unto it(a fig tree), No man eat fruit of thee hereafter forever. And his disciples heard it. And they come to Jerusalem: and Jesus went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple," ... etc.
Matthew 21:12, 19 "And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple," ... "And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on the henceforward forever. And presently the fig tree withered away."
Now, here is the most evident contradiction that I've ever seen, and I haven't seen good evidence for any other contradiction. I haven't looked very hard, but maybe I'll find some more on this thread. Here's my point: this little glitch is the only contradiction that I've seen yet. Most other contradictions that I've heard of were debatable and inconclusive, and when a solid contradiction is found, it isn't an important part. We have to remember that the texts that we get the Bible from are not the originals. By faith, I believe that when the authors were listening to the Word of Yahweh and writing it down they wrote it perfectly. And after that it was meticulously copied, and then minor errors crept in. But if that's the most serious contradiction that can be found, I think it speaks for the Bible. Now, if many more contradictions are found, and if they're of a more serious nature, such as several doctrinal contradictions, then the reliability of the Bible can be brought into question. But if it is only a few minute differences between events, I'm not impressed.
Later,
Hippy |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2004 : 22:31:19 [Permalink]
|
Well, Hippy, given what you've written, I see a need to clear something up. This has nothing to do with what you or ivanisavich have said, but is an impression many others here may carry with them into this thread.
And it is this: many of the people who say, "the Bible does not contradict itself," mean it in the most literal sense. They're not just talking about the broad points of doctrine (although some contradictory stuff seems to exist), but about the words themselves.
In other words, it may not matter to you that (to make up an example) Joe says the Sun is red in one book, while in another gospel another author has him say the Sun is yellow. It's not doctrinal, so really, who cares? But there are many out there who do care, and maintain, despite all evidence, that the Bible contains not a single word in error, disregarding the fact that it's been translated and edited umpty-ump times. They firmly believe that the King James Bible they hold in their hands is the very Word of God, and can't possibly claim two vastly different things regarding the same event.
Much of the above is why I suggested the limits I did, in my OP for this thread. It's easy to "resolve" apparent contradictions if one is allowed the hand-waving of "oh, it's a translation error on somebody's part." Or if one can cite obscure Jewish customs which few will be able to verify, and aren't written into the Bible itself. Or any of a number of other "outs."
ivanisavich, however, appears to be more deeply committed than you on the non-contradictoryness (new word!) of the words themselves.
And I'll continue here from points previous. It appears, ivanisavich, that the crux of one of the two matters of Judas' death revolves around whether or not the syntactic structure in Acts portrays one event followed by another (my plain-reading view), or if it can signify that two events happened, but not relate their chronology. I will grant that Acts could be read as "Judas died, and then the field was purchased" if and only if you can provide other instances in which the same structure was used - specifically from the KJV: "event A; event B" in the same verse - to indicate clearly that event B happened prior to event A. (I must say, this might make the KJV unique in its use of a semicolon to mean "but before that happened.")
Until then, the Bible says to me that Judas died both before and after a field was purchased, a clear contradiction.
It also says that he both hung himself and burst in a field, and none of the hypotheses about how he could have done both are written in the Bible itself (otherwise, you would have mentioned them already). It is the assumptions which are required (that he hung himself from a tall tree with rotten branches over sharp rocks in the potter's field, or what-have-you) which are all non-Biblical, which make the Bible itself less than "rock solid" in its consistency. A consistent non-fiction book would have resolved the issue within its own pages, and not required such powers of imagination of its readers.
Another seeming mess: Who came to Jesus' tomb? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2004 : 05:03:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
[ A consistent non-fiction book would have resolved the issue within its own pages, and not required such powers of imagination of its readers.
True. A perfect (or even a decent) revelation would not require apologetics. |
|
|
|
ivanisavich
Skeptic Friend
67 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2004 : 06:44:23 [Permalink]
|
Valiant dancer:
Your continual failure to address a logical (as opposed to scientific) argument that does not require an expert to vouch for it is taking this thread way off topic. The only issue that we should be discussing is whether or not it would be possible and/or probable for the situation I've described to take place. If so, then there is not necessarily any contradiction, due to reasonable doubt. Because of the vagueness of both testimonials of the event, we can only draw suppositional conclusions, and therefore can never determine whether there is any contradiction or not--just supposed there was/wasn't one.
Btw...just to correct my previous post....the html code of this site accidentally added a comma to the end of the url, so that is why it didn't work. Simply reclick the link, and delete the comma and the page will come up.
quote:
I note that this arguement is still unsupported by text nor is your explaination reasonable.
Well then you have failed to fully read all of my statements that conclude it is. As I feel I have discussed my explanations enough in the above posts, I will not recant them again.
quote:
You do not say how you come to the conclusion that he has a "demonstrates excellent knowledge of the Bible as well as excellent knowledge of the Hebrew language". Given his field of study, he is not qualified as an expert in Hebrew nor the Bible.
Simply because he does not have a degree in biblical theology does not render his opinion obsolete. He presents his arguments with rationality, and throughout them you can find him referring to specific words from the Hebrew language, and their direct translation as well as most probable interpretation. You should be using your good judgement (as opposed to his resume--not matter what kind of education he has) to determine whether or not he is a credible source for the argument because it is a logic debate--not a scientific debate.
quote:
Hello guys,
Hey Hippy, I was wondering when you'd drop by !
quote:
ivanisavich, however, appears to be more deeply committed than you on the non-contradictoryness (new word!) of the words themselves.
Well, you originally started this thread because I "dropped the gauntlet" on biblical contradictions--which is true. I posted in the other thread saying that the Bible is very non-contradictory when it comes to stating its beliefs--I never said that I believed it was word-for-word non-contradictory in that thread (that was an assumption). Although, I have still continued in this thread, because I am interested in seeing just how reliable it is word-for-word.
I'll be posting more in response to what you've all said shortly, but I've got to run at the moment! |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2004 : 08:12:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ivanisavich
Valiant dancer:
Your continual failure to address a logical (as opposed to scientific) argument that does not require an expert to vouch for it is taking this thread way off topic. The only issue that we should be discussing is whether or not it would be possible and/or probable for the situation I've described to take place. If so, then there is not necessarily any contradiction, due to reasonable doubt. Because of the vagueness of both testimonials of the event, we can only draw suppositional conclusions, and therefore can never determine whether there is any contradiction or not--just supposed there was/wasn't one.
Anything is possible. It is possible that flying monkeys will burst forth from my butt. I do not find your scenario probable. With a completely improbable premise, I have to rely on the syntax of the passages. There is no reasonable doubt when one must construct an improbable set of events to explain it.
quote:
Btw...just to correct my previous post....the html code of this site accidentally added a comma to the end of the url, so that is why it didn't work. Simply reclick the link, and delete the comma and the page will come up.
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/bible.htm#79
The text of this answer indicates that Bumbulis did not come up with this on his own. It indicates that he is relying on DeCenso's work for this opinion.
quote:
quote:
I note that this arguement is still unsupported by text nor is your explaination reasonable.
Well then you have failed to fully read all of my statements that conclude it is. As I feel I have discussed my explanations enough in the above posts, I will not recant them again.
Ah, the old "If you don't agree with me, then you must not have read the material" defense. AKA Style over Substance logical fallacy. Your explainations were clear. They just weren't probable.
quote:
quote:
You do not say how you come to the conclusion that he has a "demonstrates excellent knowledge of the Bible as well as excellent knowledge of the Hebrew language". Given his field of study, he is not qualified as an expert in Hebrew nor the Bible.
Simply because he does not have a degree in biblical theology does not render his opinion obsolete. He presents his arguments with rationality, and throughout them you can find him referring to specific words from the Hebrew language, and their direct translation as well as most probable interpretation. You should be using your good judgement (as opposed to his resume--not matter what kind of education he has) to determine whether or not he is a credible source for the argument because it is a logic debate--not a scientific debate.
Again, style over substance. The way that the opinion is presented does not affect it's truth value. The expert opinion being questioned was on Hebrew, not Biblical theology.
My good judgement tells me that people speaking on a subject do not necessarily have the background to make an informed statement. In this case, you are appealing to the opinion of someone else who lacks the background to make an informed statement. Credibility is a large part of logical discourse. Also, had you actually read his discourse on the death of Judas, you would have found out that Frank DeCenso was doing the translation, not Bumbulis. Again, you cite non-expert opinion as supportive of your opinion. Bumbulis has no standing to be deemed an expert in Hebrew or Greek. Neither does DeCenso. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
| Edited by - Valiant Dancer on 01/14/2004 08:15:01 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
