The Bible Is Not God's Word

Thank you for your contribution.How did Judas die?Traditional Answer1) I explained that Paul uses the term "the twelve" as a technical term to refer to the original apostles regardless of how many were physically present. It was a title for that group. We know that Thomas was not present during one of these appearings, yet the group is still refered to as "the twelve"2) No where did I mention a high place or cliff. I'm not sure where Kohai got this from but I have no reason to respond to it since it was never a part of the original argument.3) This is a simple resolution, the Pharasiees could not take the money back because it was blood money (Matthew records this) so they bought a field with his funds. Since this field was purchased with Judas' money (remember, it was not the Priest/Temple's money, because they could not take it) it was Judas' field. When he died in the field, he defiled the field so it made a perfect location to make a cemetary, which is exactly what Matthew says it became.4) See Number 3)5) I mentioned no rocks, cliffs, or any great height. Finally, the Greek says he "became headlong" which indicates the final state, not the process. If Judas fell and ended up horizontal on the ground, he would have "become headlong."Frankly, unless my opponent can prove that my harmonization is impossible, then this point falls to the wayside.Idiomatic AnswerMy opponent is actually encouraging me to commit the logical fallacy of an Appeal to Authority. It honestly does not matter if there are Greek Scholars or Biblical Scholars who believe this answer, it is a plausible answer. You say that idioms are obvious, but they are only obvious in the language in which we were raised. If you were to go to someone who does not speak english as a primary language and tell them that it is raining cats and dogs, they would look at you as though you were crazy. Textual CorruptionMy opponent asserts that "God did not protect his word as he promised he would." However, this begs the question since neither my opponent nor myself have shown any evidence that says that he made that promise. Nor does he give any argument that this represents the type of error that would challenge the fact that it is indeed God's word. According to his opening syllogism, only if he can prove a contradiction is the Bible invalid, he has not done so. Was Jesus Born of a Virgin?My opponent has committed what is known as the "Fallacy of Reverse Etymology." This fallacy happens when we see a word, trace the word to our modern version, and read the understanding of our word into the ancient word. The well known New Testament Scholar DA Carson, in his book Exegetical Fallacies, he explains and uses the greek word "dunamis" from which we get our word "dynamite."[A] Rather than reading the meaning of the word "dunamis" into our word "dynamite" and recognizing that dunamis means power and that is why we use it to represent dynamite, we read dynamite and read "explosive power" into the word "dunamis." However, the greek word "dunamis" has nothing to do with explosive power. This functions the same way. We get the word "sperm" from the Greek word "spermatos" not the other way around. According to Thayar's lexicon (previously quoted) this word has a range of meaning, including semen, but is not limited to sperm or physical descendance.Does God Tempt People?Both the Hebrew [B] and Greek [C] words that are translated as "tempt" can also have the connotation of "trial" or "test." Simply put, James is refering to the more traditional understanding of "tempt" meaning "enticing to sin," while the author of Genesis is using the word (which is not the same word mind you) in the connotation of "test" and sought to verify and validate Abraham's obedience.Did Paul's men hear a voice?I'm a little disappointed in Kohai for this one. The doctrine of infallibility does not extend to the persons who wrote scripture, rather they extend only to the scriptures themslves.Acts 9:17 is the narrative account of what happened. It records the actual events.Acts 22:9 only records Paul's account, which in itself is not inspired. Simply put, Paul can be wrong. The Bible does not say that this is the way the event happened... only that this is how Paul recounted that it happened. The Bible is fully accurate in recording how Paul told the story, but is not necessarily endorsing that this was actually how it happened. If anything, this lends credibility to the historical reliability of the Bible. Why would one author record contradictory accounts? Do you really suppose that the Author of acts was so stupid that he really did not understand that he contradicted himself?Thank you[A] http://www.thewordsofeternallife.com...;[B] http://www.blueletterbible.org...[C] http://www.blueletterbible.org...;