From: pwhite@ems.cdc.com (Peter White)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Biblical Errors
Date: 17 Nov 92 14:33:43 GMT
Reply-To: pwhite@ems.cdc.com
Organization: Empros Systems International, a division of Ceridian

In article <1992Nov16.135003.20295@medtron.medtronic.com>, ds0007@medtronic.COM (Dale Skiba) writes:
|> Peter White (pwhite@ems.cdc.com) wrote:
|> : In article <1992Nov11.012018.3204@medtron.medtronic.com>, ds0007@medtronic.COM (Dale Skiba) writes:
|> : |> 
|> : |> Wait a minute, you have not answered ALL of the questions.  You seem
|> : |> to have difficulties finding all the contradicions, so I will list
|> : |> the contradictory answers I see impossible to SIMULTANEOUSLY resolve.
|> : |> 
|> : |> Q1:  Mathew 26:14-15, 27:3-8 clearly says Judas returned ALL
|> : |>      the money to the priests.
|> : Really? I thought it said that he showed up with the 30 pieces of silver.
|> : There is an implication that he wanted to return them all. However, the
|> : priests did not want to take the money back. The next statement about
|> : the money involves Judas throwing it. How much is not stated in that
|> : verse. It is only by inference that you can determine how much he threw.
|> 
|> Wait a minute.  In 27:3 it says "he felt remorse and returned the 30
|> pieces of silver" NAS  And in 27:5 "he threw the pieces of silver".
|> I think it takes wild speculation to say that he did not throw all
|> of the silver.  If you say this, I saythat Mathew was intentionally
|> written to be misleading.
I don't think it takes wild speculation, but you do. I understand your
points. I'm sorry you think mine are wild speculation. It seems to me
we've done about all we can with this one without arriving at an 
agreement.

If you're willing, I'd like to hear some of the other contradictions
or errors you've found in the Bible.
|> 
|> : |> 
|> : |>      Acts 1:18 clearly says that he bought some land with
|> : |>      (at least some) of the money.
|> : |> 
|> : |> Q2:  Mathew 27:7 clearly says the priests bought it.
|> : |> 
|> : |>      Acts 1:18 clearly says that Judas bought it.  
|> : I don't agree that it is clear that Judas himself went and made the
|> : transaction. I doubt it is a point we can resolve, but it is good
|> : to understand each others viewpoint.
|> 
|> "Now this man acquired a field with the price of his wickedness" means
|> that somehow he acquired a field with the 30 pieces of silver. Even if
|> someone bought him this field, they would have to do it with the 30
|> pieces of silver (the price) and the priests had this money.  The only
|> way to have it your way is if the priests went out and bought him this
|> field.  But, Mathew does not say anything like that, so I can not 
|> understand how you see the verses this way.  But, at least you are
|> willing to acknowledge that we may not be able to resolve this :-)
|> 
|> : |> 
|> : |> Q3:  Mathew 27:5 clearly says he hung himself.
|> : Agreed.
|> : |> 
|> : |>      Acts 1:18 says he fell and his abdomen burst open.  
|> : Agreed.
|> : |> 
|> : |> Q4:  Acts 1:19 clearly says the potters field.  That is why
|> : |>      it is named the field of blood. 
|> : |> 
|> : |>      Mathew does not give a location, but it probaly wasn't the
|> : |>      potters field, becasue it is called that because the land
|> : |>      was bought with tainted money.  (This is the weakest of the
|> : |>      contradictions, alone it really doesn't matter very much.)
|> : |> 
|> : |> Q5:  Acts 1:19 cleary says because Judas dies there. 
|> : Really? I've carefully looked at both v 18 & 19. Perhaps I missed it
|> : but I find no mention of the word death, only falling headlong and 
|> : bursting open. Granted, that if a person wasn't already dead such an
|> : excercise would likely prove fatal, but cause of death is not clearly
|> : stated in the verse. That has to be put in by inference.
|> 
|> Yes, really.  There is some inference involved, but this inference is
|> the sort that follows the "KISS" rule -- "keep it simple stupid".  We
|> use that rule all the time in life to keep us from adding extra stuff
|> that is not needed.  For example:
|> 
|> "No Officer, I wasn't speeding, you had a temporary halucination when
|> you looked at your radar device."  Or, "No Officer, I wasn't speeding,
|> a car passed me just as you looked at your radar device, and by the
|> time you looked up at me, he was out of sight"...
|> 
|> Just about anything can be "explained" by adding stuff to make things
|> more complicated, but you have to careful here because if you allow
|> yourself to add things here, you allow others to add to other places.
Again, I understand your points but don't agree. 
-- 
Peter White
disclaimer: None of what is written necessarily reflects 
     			a view of my company.
            His anger lasts only a moment, 
			but his favor lasts a lifetime. Ps 30:5
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc