Is the bible full of contradictions?

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Argument from Satan? Really? Can you please show a single contradiction from this video that doesn't exist in the original Hebrew or Greek?

WOW, I'm surprised you're mad that I'm agreeing with the OP!

And you can find all of the listed contradictions in the KJV (which is actually not all that linguistically accurate, which is the exact reason why we have newer translations which attempt to get closer to the original meanings).

False. Modern translations rely on the textus Sinaticus and Textus Vaticanus manuscripts that originated in Alexandria, Egypt. The KJB originates from the Textus Receptus manuscript that originated in Antioch, Syria. Two completely different manuscripts.

Facts and Fables about the KJB

I mean, how did Judas die? Obvious, he bought a field with his ill-gotten silver in which he tripped and his guts exploded out of him. And he also felt insanely remorseful, threw the silver out and committed suicide by hanging. Both are in the KJV and the original Greek. Both have different and contradictory theological implications about a major Biblical figure. This isn't a small thing.

Judas died by hanging. When he fell either by being cut down (Jews never touched a dead body), or fell if the branch he hung himself broke isn't known exactly. But there is no contradiction. One testimony says he hung himself, the other testimony states what happened when his body hit the ground. Perry Stone did a show in Israel at the site of Judas's suicide and the trees lining the gorge above where he hung himself are over 100 feet above the bottom of the valley.

Edit: Oh, and I didn't know that 'serious' now means: "People who agree with my narrow theological view".

Straw man. The Textus Sinaticus and Textus Vaticanus differ from the Textus Receptus in over 36,000 places in the NT alone and has 64,000 less words than the KJB. Those who made the Textus Sinaticus and Textus Vaticanus were heavily influenced by the Gnostics at Alexandria, Egypt and removed/changes vast amounts of the NT they didn't agree with.

Serious students of the Bible only accept translations if they can refer back to the original Hebrew and Greek to confirm that translation as the most accurate. Serious students of the Bible make sure to have a working understanding of both language or at the very least an incredibly detailed reference for both languages. They don't accept a translation into a Germanic language for a Semitic language. Hell, a translation of the OT into my people's native tongue is far more accurate than the one found in the KJV.

That's precisely why they make Concordances and Greek Lexicons!

I'm sure you're too busy to research this and want to just rest upon your rants above, but for others interested in the history of the completely different manuscripts, their origins, and the people behind them I offer these sources to deny ignorance.

King James Controversy

The New King James Counterfeit

Westcott and Hort

Gnostic Gospels Fact VS Fiction

How We Got Our Bible: Old Testament; Chuck Missler Part1

How We Got Our Bible: New Testament; Chuck Missler Part1 (Especially for this topic I've discussed begins at part 3)

KJV Bible Vs Other Bible Versions Part 1 of 7

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
False. Modern translations rely on the textus Sinaticus and Textus Vaticanus manuscripts that originated in Alexandria, Egypt. The KJB originates from the Textus Receptus manuscript that originated in Antioch, Syria. Two completely different manuscripts.

Facts and Fables about the KJB

And it's more than debatable about which manuscript is better. And the KJV was taken from more than a single source.

I mean, how did Judas die? Obvious, he bought a field with his ill-gotten silver in which he tripped and his guts exploded out of him. And he also felt insanely remorseful, threw the silver out and committed suicide by hanging. Both are in the KJV and the original Greek. Both have different and contradictory theological implications about a major Biblical figure. This isn't a small thing.

Judas died by hanging. When he fell either by being cut down (Jews never touched a dead body), or fell if the branch he hung himself broke isn't known exactly. But there is no contradiction. One testimony says he hung himself, the other testimony states what happened when his body hit the ground. Perry Stone did a show in Israel at the site of Judas's suicide and the trees lining the gorge above where he hung himself are over 100 feet above the bottom of the valley.

Orrrr you could actually read the whole accounts. It's not just the event of death that is different, it's the entire preceding portion. I mean, the way the two versions are told are entirely different to the point where they cannot be reconciled. Hell, lemme just put that up here:

(KJV is used for both simply because it's the easiest to use right now)

Matthew:

27:1 When the morning was come, all the chief priests and elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death:
27:2 And when they had bound him, they led him away, and delivered him to Pontius Pilate the governor.
27:3 Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders,
27:4 Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that.
27:5 And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.

Sooo...Judas is distraught and remorseful, tosses the silver back into the temple, and then off himself by hanging...in a non-specific location. Could have been from anywhere, nowhere does it say he hung himself on a cliff.

Now, Acts:

1:16 Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.
1:17 For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.
1:18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.

So...Judas betrayed Jesus, bought a field with his reward, and then fell headlong and bust asunder with his guts coming out. Now, the big difference here is the prologue.

Prologue in Matthew has a distraught Judas toss away the money and then hang himself out of remorse, Acts has an unrepentant Judas buy himself a field his money and then 'falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out'.

So did he throw his money to the Temple...take some of it back, purchase a field, maintain his remorse, then commit suicide from a tree on a cliff in his property which is described as a field, commit suicide, and burst open?

There is no way to reconcile the stories. Story 1: Remorseful dude offs himself after getting rid of his blood money. Story 2: Dude is not remorseful, buys a field, and just dies.

Two. Different. Stories.

Edit: Oh, and I didn't know that 'serious' now means: "People who agree with my narrow theological view".

Straw man. The Textus Sinaticus and Textus Vaticanus differ from the Textus Receptus in over 36,000 places in the NT alone and has 64,000 less words than the KJB. Those who made the Textus Sinaticus and Textus Vaticanus were heavily influenced by the Gnostics at Alexandria, Egypt and removed/changes vast amounts of the NT they didn't agree with.

So...because they're Gnostics they're wrong? And what does the word difference between two texts in two different languages matter? You do realize that there are 788,280 words in the KJV, right? And where is your justification that the Texti Sinaticus and Vaticanus are less valid than the Receptus? You just said that they're different from the Receptus...and that there are less words in an English text than in a text of a different language....and that they are different.

Sinaiticus is a complete 4th century text and Vaticanus is also from the same time period. Why is it that we shouldn't accept these texts as changed? How is the Receptus more complete?

That's precisely why they make Concordances and Greek Lexicons!

Or you could bother to learn some stuff that Concordances and Lexicons don't bother with...like more accurate grammar lessons. A serious student would bother to actually study the language fluently enough to be able to read it without a reference. And I've done the Concordance thing (with a Rabbi for the OT, twas quite a long read) and the Lexicon thing...it's no substitute for knowing a language.

I'm sure you're too busy to research this and want to just rest upon your rants above, but for others interested in the history of the completely different manuscripts, their origins, and the people behind them I offer these sources to deny ignorance.

Well, let's take a look.

King James Controversy

Ok...so a bunch of references to books that support the KJV version alone. I'm sorry, but there isn't a reference to a single piece of academic work, merely popular apologetics books.

The New King James Counterfeit

The second source is a rant...which makes a hoopla over a symbol and then doesn't bother with actually citing anything academic...

Westcott and Hort

The following quotes from the diaries and letters of Westcott and Hort demonstrate their serious departures from orthodoxy, revealing their opposition to evangelical Protestantism and sympathies with Rome and ritualism. Many more could be given. Their views on Scripture and the Text are highlighted.

This has nothing to do with whether or not their translation is correct or not. People not sharing your bias isn't the same as people being incorrect. Some people don't share your bias, that doesn't make them wrong.

Gnostic Gospels Fact VS Fiction

Um...I didn't say anything about the Gnostic Gospels, we're talking about translations here.

How We Got Our Bible: Old Testament; Chuck Missler Part1

How We Got Our Bible: New Testament; Chuck Missler Part1 (Especially for this topic I've discussed begins at part 3)


Chuck Missler? Hmm...the Peanut Butter guy...
I unfortunately don't have time to watch the whole series...but can you maybe tell me some sources he cites?

KJV Bible Vs Other Bible Versions Part 1 of 7

Ah...another long video series. Text I can go over quite quickly...but a 7 part video series? Can you just make a summary of references to actual translations?

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

And it's more than debatable about which manuscript is better. And the KJV was taken from more than a single source.

Sure, people can, and do debate anything. However, the early church fathers rejected the MSS from Alexandria, Egypt for their Gnostic overtones and butchering of verses and phrases they didn't like. If they didn't like a part of the text, or verses they removed them.

Orrrr you could actually read the whole accounts. It's not just the event of death that is different, it's the entire preceding portion. I mean, the way the two versions are told are entirely different to the point where they cannot be reconciled. Hell, lemme just put that up here:.....

Sooo...Judas is distraught and remorseful, tosses the silver back into the temple, and then off himself by hanging...in a non-specific location. Could have been from anywhere, nowhere does it say he hung himself on a cliff.

No, it doesn't say that. But the site of his death is known, it was at Gehenna outside Jerusalem. This is a steep valley with rock formations all the way up the side. Perry Stone did a video series at the site, the top of the valley is some 100 feet above the valley floor. At the time of Christ the valley floor was a smoldering trash heap, there were no trees down amongst the fire. He hung himself and subsequently fell afterward, either was cut down or the branch he tied himself to wasn't sturdy enough.

So...Judas betrayed Jesus, bought a field with his reward, and then fell headlong and bust asunder with his guts coming out. Now, the big difference here is the prologue.

Prologue in Matthew has a distraught Judas toss away the money and then hang himself out of remorse, Acts has an unrepentant Judas buy himself a field his money and then 'falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out'.

So did he throw his money to the Temple...take some of it back, purchase a field, maintain his remorse, then commit suicide from a tree on a cliff in his property which is described as a field, commit suicide, and burst open?

There is no way to reconcile the stories. Story 1: Remorseful dude offs himself after getting rid of his blood money. Story 2: Dude is not remorseful, buys a field, and just dies.

The Chief priest never received the money from Judas, they could not take the money back. If they used Judas's money for the field it was Judas's field. Once the field was purchased it was not "owned" by the temple or the Chief Priest. They refused to take the money back. No contradiction.

Two. Different. Stories.

No, two different perspectives. Judas died. A field was purchased from the potter with the 30 pieces of silver. Since the temple refused to take the money back from Judas, who owned the 30 pieces of silver when the field was purchased? Judas did.

So...because they're Gnostics they're wrong? And what does the word difference between two texts in two different languages matter? You do realize that there are 788,280 words in the KJV, right? And where is your justification that the Texti Sinaticus and Vaticanus are less valid than the Receptus? You just said that they're different from the Receptus...and that there are less words in an English text than in a text of a different language....and that they are different.

The reason there is a great difference in the number of words from the KJB and the modern perversions, sorry, versions is not so much from the different manuscripts, it's because the Gnostics removed a great deal of the text they disagreed with. They didn't just translate the Greek, the EXPURGATED a great deal of the text.

Huuuuuge difference.

Sinaiticus is a complete 4th century text and Vaticanus is also from the same time period. Why is it that we shouldn't accept these texts as changed? How is the Receptus more complete?

One small reason. These 4th century text have verses omitted that FIRST century church fathers quote in the epistles and sermons. The detailed answer is in the videos you didn't want to watch. You may not have had the time TODAY, but heck I didn't place a timetable on you responding to my post. Other's can gleam the answers to this question if they watch the videos linked.

It's kinda hard for me to get into a decade worth of personal scholarship with you in a post, but these videos do a great job of summary.

Or you could bother to learn some stuff that Concordances and Lexicons don't bother with...like more accurate grammar lessons. A serious student would bother to actually study the language fluently enough to be able to read it without a reference. And I've done the Concordance thing (with a Rabbi for the OT, twas quite a long read) and the Lexicon thing...it's no substitute for knowing a language.

Agreed. but when you don't know the languages you have to use the tools available to you. Another reason why I like Missler a great deal, he's very knowledgeable on the Coptic and Koine Greek.

Ok...so a bunch of references to books that support the KJV version alone. I'm sorry, but there isn't a reference to a single piece of academic work, merely popular apologetics books.

Hardly "popular".

This has nothing to do with whether or not their translation is correct or not. People not sharing your bias isn't the same as people being incorrect. Some people don't share your bias, that doesn't make them wrong.

You're not understanding the problem. Their translation may be perfect, the problem is the MSS they are translating! They are corrupt, the early church fathers called them corrupt. The Gnostics at Alexandria expurgated an enormous amount of scripture they didn't like or agree with.

Um...I didn't say anything about the Gnostic Gospels, we're talking about translations here.

You're hung up on translations, which isn't the issue. It's the MSS they are translated from that is the issue. Secondly, it's good to know what other scheming and pseudo-gospels the Gnostics created. The Textus Sinaticus and Vaticanus were not their only attempts to pervert the word of God.

Chuck Missler? Hmm...the Peanut Butter guy...

Yeah, the same "Peanut Butter Guy" who calls that illustration "a silly little illustration". Skeptics are the only ones alive who think Chuck Missler was being serious. But I digress, I just hope you're not reasoning via ad hominem.

I unfortunately don't have time to watch the whole series...but can you maybe tell me some sources he cites?

Again, what left you with the impression I placed a deadline on your reply? Secondly, I truly didn't think you'd watch it anyways, I left it for others reading this discourse. Watch if you wish, or don't, matters little to me.

Ah...another long video series. Text I can go over quite quickly...but a 7 part video series? Can you just make a summary of references to actual translations?

Same reply. But, AGAIN, why are you mad that I am AGREEING with the OP that there are NUMEROUS omissions AND contradictions in the Bibles we have today? There certainly are, and it was influenced by satan for just this purpose to give credibility to the claim that there are contradictions in the word of God. It was his first lie to mankind in the garden "yea hath God really said?".

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Why dont you seek truth instead of debating somethingthing on such a large scale.

Luke 12:57
Yea, and why even of yourselves judge ye not what is right?

People spend there whole lives discrediting the word and Jesus instead of seeing for themselves.
Theomatics proove that the word in its original form was not written by man.
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Ok, let's just drop the point on Bible versions, it's something that we can talk about in another thread. I'm using the KJV anyway.

No, it doesn't say that.

I'm sorry, but it does. I just quoted the Bible.

But the site of his death is known, it was at Gehenna outside Jerusalem.

[citation needed]

This is a steep valley with rock formations all the way up the side. Perry Stone did a video series at the site, the top of the valley is some 100 feet above the valley floor. At the time of Christ the valley floor was a smoldering trash heap, there were no trees down amongst the fire. He hung himself and subsequently fell afterward, either was cut down or the branch he tied himself to wasn't sturdy enough.

Again, I'm going to quote the Bible.

From Acts:

1:16 Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.
1:17 For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.
1:18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.

He bought the field he died in. The Matthew story doesn't give him enough time to buy a field. It says field, not valley. It doesn't mention any high places, falls from high places. It just says that he fell. And who would buy a smoldering trash pit?

Whether or not we can take your claim that Judas hung himself and fell is irrelevant, because it still wouldn't match the order of events (which is my point). In Matthew Judas throws the silver back into the temple, while in Acts he buys a field with it.

On top of that, Judas hangs himself prior to Jesus being taken to Pilate. He has an incredibly short timeframe to buy the field even if he hadn't thrown out the silver.

In Matthew no place of hanging is mentioned. It doesn't even matter if he hung himself on a tree, as the act of hanging can be performed on something as low as a doorknob.

In Matthew Judas is distraught and kills himself. He feels bad. He rejects his deeds and kills himself. He even gets rid of the payment he got for turning Jesus in.
In Acts Judas has time to buy a field with the money he didn't return.

That's enough of a contradiction without mentioning how the death occurred. It's even a more significant difference because it casts a different tone on how Judas felt. In Acts he is punished for a sin he has committed and gained from, in Matthew he is distraught and kills himself.

The contradiction in there.

reply to post by BreezeLike


Noah's ark.

That there is enough to show that it was written either by humans or beings with equal knowledge to humans of the time period.

You know what I find odd? You theomatics people never seem to be able to describe your idea for yourselves. I've never seen a person who mentions theomatics actually explain what it is, they simply say that theomatics proves the Bible and then they provide a link. Doesn't that strike you as a bit of an odd way to conduct a conversation?

No.

As a poster stated us Die hearts will say out of context.

Those who do not believe the Bible will use parts of the Bible to fight against those who do and yet will never research the original meanings of the words used.

As with most non believers they think that word and their meanings are subjective like right and wrong. There are no absolutes in their world, just what feels good do it.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by BreezeLike

 

Noah's ark.

That there is enough to show that it was written either by humans or beings with equal knowledge to humans of the time period.

You know what I find odd? You theomatics people never seem to be able to describe your idea for yourselves. I've never seen a person who mentions theomatics actually explain what it is, they simply say that theomatics proves the Bible and then they provide a link. Doesn't that strike you as a bit of an odd way to conduct a conversation?

Theomatics is not an Idea it is a mathmatical code in the bible. Its a lot to write out, but I feel this is an attempt to deflect from the code itself. But as far as man wrote the bible, maybe you skipped the part where it mentioned that this phenomenon being a coincedince is at an odds of 31,608,834,590,000,000,000,000,000 to 1. Is man capable of this, not at all my friend.


Or how about the new zodiac sign. The prophecy, notice the sign is a man with a crown hollding a serpent by the neck.
www.google.com...://1001zones.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/ophiuchus1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://1001zones.com/2011/01/14/new-zodia c-sign-dates/&usg=__KKhhYy8_3cpNiuz9dwceBCZ5qjA=&h=245&w=238&sz=50&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=Y58sx46pA7TDRM:&tbnh=112&tbnw=109&ei=TLRMTbSLA8H_lgfw5Yz nDw&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dpicture%2Bof%2Bthe%2Bnew%2Bzodiac%2Bsign%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26biw%3D1345%26bih%3D543%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1&iact=r c&dur=149&oei=TLRMTbSLA8H_lgfw5YznDw&esq=1&page=1&ndsp=25&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:0&tx=48&ty=44

Luke 21:25 And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring;

Floodings all over the world. Prophecy

reply to post by BreezeLike


Provide the formula and provide the statistical analysis that shows that it is of such low probability. Trust me, I know statistics. I can actually show you how this is all mathematical wizardry.

And even if the mathematical wizardry actually meant something, would the demonstrably false parts of the Bible not be enough to create a valid objection?

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by BreezeLike

 

Provide the formula and provide the statistical analysis that shows that it is of such low probability. Trust me, I know statistics. I can actually show you how this is all mathematical wizardry.

And even if the mathematical wizardry actually meant something, would the demonstrably false parts of the Bible not be enough to create a valid objection?

I am in the act of studing it now and learning ancient hebrew and plan to learn Greek. But you plan to show how something with this probability is wizardry. This is an example some basics

www.theomatics.com...
www.theomatics.com...
www.theomatics.com...
www.theomatics.com...
www.theomatics.com...

You have a better chance of hitting the lottery multiple times than disproving theomattics.
Theomatics 31,608,834,590,000,000,000,000,000 to 1
Hitting the lottery 18,000,000,000 to 1

But theomatics is not the only code in the Torah(Bible)
More on Torah codes
www.youtube.com...

The whole book is like a matrix, codes on codes. My intention is for you to see Gods works.

How about the world awakening, realizing contempt and how we have been brainwashed for decades.
Daniel 12:2-4
And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteoudness as the stars for ever and ever. But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

I'm sorry, but it does. I just quoted the Bible.

Whoa, slow down cowboy. When I said, "No, it doesn't say that." it was a direct reply to the post you made saying: "nowhere does it say he hung himself on a cliff." But it's deduced from the location of the Temple, the city-dump Gehenna, and the location that's known about the suicide.

Why are you so uptight over this???

[citation needed]

Let me get it, have to find the Perry Stone videos I'm remembering on the subject.

He bought the field he died in.

Yes, but it's unknown whether it was directly or indirectly from the text. It's not stated by the writer. So since it's not stated in the text explicitly, why are you allowed to make an argument that's conjecture and I am not??
You should afford me the same grounds you yourself are using. Besides it a fallacy to argue this way.

The Matthew story doesn't give him enough time to buy a field.

It doesn't give a time-line, only an order of events.

It says field, not valley.

Read Madness. HERE (And of it please)

Whether or not we can take your claim that Judas hung himself and fell is irrelevant, because it still wouldn't match the order of events (which is my point). In Matthew Judas throws the silver back into the temple, while in Acts he buys a field with it.

It's two different perspectives of the same story Sir. One from a man who saw it happen (Matthew), and another (Luke) from interviews of others (plural) who remembered the event.

On top of that, Judas hangs himself prior to Jesus being taken to Pilate. He has an incredibly short time frame to buy the field even if he hadn't thrown out the silver.

You're acting like it was New York City. It was Jerusalem 2,000 years ago. If you'd look at the map, one could walk from one side of the city to the other in 2 hours.

In Matthew no place of hanging is mentioned. It doesn't even matter if he hung himself on a tree, as the act of hanging can be performed on something as low as a doorknob.

You're offering nothing more than conjecture Madness, again I'll ask why yours is allowed as an argument but mine is not??

In Matthew Judas is distraught and kills himself. He feels bad. He rejects his deeds and kills himself. He even gets rid of the payment he got for turning Jesus in. In Acts Judas has time to buy a field with the money he didn't return.

No, read the link I provided you with, it's the same account, written from two perspectives.

That's enough of a contradiction without mentioning how the death occurred. It's even a more significant difference because it casts a different tone on how Judas felt. In Acts he is punished for a sin he has committed and gained from, in Matthew he is distraught and kills himself.

You can think so Madness, but just know your rationale for rejecting the story are based on your conjectures, and the link provided has very acceptable reconciliations for the two accounts. You're really straining at a gnat, and creating a contradiction where IMHO there isn't one. There are separate details of the same suicide.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by BreezeLike

 

Provide the formula and provide the statistical analysis that shows that it is of such low probability.

Perhaps it's in the links you remember being shown, but apparently never read.

Trust me, I know statistics. I can actually show you how this is all mathematical wizardry.

Appeal to authority.

And even if the mathematical wizardry actually meant something, would the demonstrably false parts of the Bible not be enough to create a valid objection?

Can you begin demonstrating, or shall we just trust you again? For every Google search you can do on "contradictions" there is an equal rational answers for if one does a simple search for "Contradictions examined".

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by BreezeLike

 

Provide the formula and provide the statistical analysis that shows that it is of such low probability.

Perhaps it's in the links you remember being shown, but apparently never read.

If you read it, it clearly explains that In ancient Hebrew and Greek text there Alphabet, words and sentences where of numerical value. All these equal numbers, for example Jesus in Greek has a numerical value of 888. Example shows the importance of this

www.theomatics.com...

The formula is in Ancient Hebrew and Greek text.

I have this crazy theory - I'm admitting that it's not backed up by any proof, but it seems pretty possible - that the Bible was purposely compiled and edited with the obvious contradictions in place by the guys tasked with doing the detail work.

Everyone's pretty well aware of the Council of Nicea, and that this is where the Roman Government stabilized what was to be announced as the official religion of the empire. What's interesting is that it required quite a bit of editing and rewriting to make all the disparate documents chosen for the NT to make sense with the OT, since the point was to give this new religion a basis of historic/theological tradition - as opposed to simply pulling it out of their collective *sses, as was the way a lot of the Mediterranean mystery religions were appearing at the time (and disappearing just as fast as a result). The Romans had tried and failed already to unite the empire under one religipn, and this was their most aggressive effort to date.

This effort required enlisting scholars who would come at the project from a variety of points of view. They included Hebrew Torah scholars and Gnostics, who very likely were conscripted (if some research is to be embraced) under various degrees of duress, and who were likely key to establishing enhanced authenticity to the final product's look and feel. Aging it up, so to speak. This was the work that required the most advanced knowledge, and let's face it, the Romans would've had to contract that work out to people who really didn't like them, and for too many reasons to list. This would be the weakest link in the chain of product development. Especially since the management would've been nearly blind as it worked to provide oversight. Romans were a lot like Americans by then. Not particularly interested in anything that wasn't Roman or Romanesque.

When you look at the ingenious manner of staging the contradictions, and how they really only become glaringly obvious when setting one whole book (gospel to gospel) next to the other, it starts to seem as though the mistakes were crafted by people who knew that if inspected by #2 - who only inspects the Gospel of Matthew - then that book seems fine. And if inspected by #3 - who only is responsible for the Gospel of Luke - then that book seems fine as well. Even though a cursory side-by-side of the two on one inspection table will reveal fatal inconsistencies in timeline and details. Then, when you consider that this project, like all bureaucratic efforts, was likely performed by "book committees" and managed by relatively isolated project supervisors - as was the way, even then, of large bureaucratic organizations, like the Roman government, it becomes easy to see how such inconsistencies survived the editing process, and even the final run-through by the QC inspectors.

But why? Why would the scholars who'd been tasked to polish this work of art - God's Word on Earth - be so careless, or even conspire to butcher this book on purpose?

The answer seems obvious. They knew what the Romans were doing and they resisted as best they could, hoping that the future would realize that this bible was manufactured by the Roman government, and isn't the word of God. Like the American POWs in N. Korea and how they blinked morse coded messages as they read "confessions" on film, these editors were sending signals to the future readers of this book that there's no possible way for this to be the inerrant Word of God. "Look at all the mistakes and obvious contradictions." they seem to say with each clumsy - yet perfectly staged screw-up. The book is a masterpiece in distress code messaging.

The Hebrew scholars would have been personally violated by having to provide hsitorical and theological linkage between the claims made by and of Jesus and their own sacred scripture, and the Gnostics had been virtually eliminated by the literalist Christians by then. Still, the Jesus narrative, and especially Paul's own letters were heavily laced with Gnostic references. These had to be surgically edited so as to not make it obvious that they'd been screwed with, with the Gnostic stuff removed and replaced with literalist stuff. That took Gnostic scholars, since the Roman bureaucrats wouldn't have known one reference from another.

These men worked under threat of death, (their own and - knowing the Romans - also their families) and it seems as if they decided to lace the entire book with carefully worded clues to its lack of credibility. The Roman bureaucrats - like most private sector and government bureaucrats - had deadlines and delegated most of the work to underlings. The rest of it is pretty easy to see happening. The book gets done, compiled, it makes the management rounds for approval, no one really knows enough to say one way or the other so it gets signed off and moved along. Finally, it gets presented to Constantine, and he signs off on it without even reading it.

A thousand years go by before anyone who wasn't raised in the business ever actually reads it, and even then, they read it only (as most people still do) passage by passage, each book in isolation, and primarily to defend or debunk a religious claim or dogma. Even bible scholars acknowledge that the book is riddled with contradictions, but no one seems to wonder why.

To me, it seems obvious why. After all, look at who commissioned the book. The Romans. C'mon. They wouldn't have been able to do it internally, and they wouldn't have had the expertise to fully monitor the process. The good guys snuck some information through in the form of clumsy mistakes. "Don't believe this crap!" That's what they seem to be saying.

reply to post by NorEaster


Hold on, I'm soooooo tired of reading this myth on the internet it's making my head spin. The Nicean Council never discussed ANYTHING you mentioned! The Council debated the deity of Jesus Christ and made a decision about the Bishop at Alexandria, Egypt. That's it. The minutes of the Council are available for reading is you wish to do so! Dan brown has propagated a known myth.

Nicea Myths: Common Fables About The Council of Nicea and Constantine

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

I'm sorry, but it does. I just quoted the Bible.

Whoa, slow down cowboy. When I said, "No, it doesn't say that." it was a direct reply to the post you made saying: "nowhere does it say he hung himself on a cliff." But it's deduced from the location of the Temple, the city-dump Gehenna, and the location that's known about the suicide.

So you made a response to two paragraphs and I'm supposed to be able to figure out that "No, it doesn't say that" was only in reference to the opening line?

Also, it's induced, not deduced. You're using inductive reason, not deductive. Now, if you could directly derive the cliff from the premises of the Bible verses, you'd be using deductive reasoning. Of course, your conclusion is not derived directly from the premises and you'd be unable to rewrite it as a syllogism, so it's definitively inductive reasoning.

Just a quick logic lesson, just because misuse of the word 'deduce' is a pet peeve (it's why I can't read Sherlock Holmes anymore).

Why are you so uptight over this???

So uptight? You're claiming that two entirely contradictory stories are in fact the same story. Story one has a remorseful man throwing his ill gotten gains back into the Temple and hanging himself (nowhere does it say in what manner he hung himself, as hanging has been known to take place from a tree, from housing supports, or from basically any place that is slightly higher than the torso's height from the ground that can support its weight).

Even if he did hang himself from a tree, we have no idea how many trees were around back then, so we can't point to a specific area as being the most likely.

[citation needed]

Let me get it, have to find the Perry Stone videos I'm remembering on the subject.

I'll wait.

He bought the field he died in.

Yes, but it's unknown whether it was directly or indirectly from the text. It's not stated by the writer.

Indirectly or directly? I'm sorry, but him buying the field automatically contradicts the Matthew account where he gets rid of the money before he can buy the field.

So since it's not stated in the text explicitly, why are you allowed to make an argument that's conjecture and I am not??
You should afford me the same grounds you yourself are using. Besides it a fallacy to argue this way.

No, I'm not making any conjecture. In the story of Matthew he got rid of the money. He couldn't have bought the field.

The Matthew story doesn't give him enough time to buy a field.

It doesn't give a time-line, only an order of events.

...he tosses the money away. He doesn't have any money to buy the field.

It says field, not valley.

Read Madness. HERE (And of it please)

Ok...and none of that actually makes any sense and is riddled with contradictions. Of course, I'm not going to go through and get rid of the whole thing, but none of it addresses that you said valley and we're talking about a field.

I will address two points point: the word in Greek means to throttle, not to get choked up. Strong's does a great definition right here...

Secondly, there is no historical reason why the field of blood would have been bought in the name of Judas. Ritually, it would have been considered unclean and thus the money wouldn't have been used for sacred purchases, but the use of it by the priestly class to buy a field for anonymous burial wouldn't have made a difference.

And again, Acts says that Judas himself bought the field. Even if the priests had bought the field themselves, the account in Matthew clearly puts the hanging of Judas before the purchase of the field.

Seriously, should you have to do this much contorting of the situations and adding of external information to reconcile events in the true word of god?

Whether or not we can take your claim that Judas hung himself and fell is irrelevant, because it still wouldn't match the order of events (which is my point). In Matthew Judas throws the silver back into the temple, while in Acts he buys a field with it.

It's two different perspectives of the same story Sir. One from a man who saw it happen (Matthew), and another (Luke) from interviews of others (plural) who remembered the event.

So it's not perfect? You're saying that the accounts are not perfect? I'm sorry, but you're just using bad reason here. You are starting from a position of "The Bible is correct, how can we reconcile these stories?" I'm starting from the position of "The Bible is a book with stories written in it, what do these stories say?"

On top of that, Judas hangs himself prior to Jesus being taken to Pilate. He has an incredibly short time frame to buy the field even if he hadn't thrown out the silver.

You're acting like it was New York City. It was Jerusalem 2,000 years ago. If you'd look at the map, one could walk from one side of the city to the other in 2 hours.

So then your idea that you could induce the proper spot of his hanging sort of falls apart. He could have hanged himself anywhere. I'm sorry, but when you explain away one thing you just make one of your points seem flimsy.

In Matthew no place of hanging is mentioned. It doesn't even matter if he hung himself on a tree, as the act of hanging can be performed on something as low as a doorknob.

You're offering nothing more than conjecture Madness, again I'll ask why yours is allowed as an argument but mine is not??

I'm not making a conjecture. I'm making a point that you can't say where or how he hanged himself, only that he did. You're creating a straw man to make it seem we're on equal footing. I'm not making a conjecture, I'm merely saying you cannot.

He could hang hanged himself anywhere or in any manner. I actually have been trying to find a source on hanging in that region in the first century, but I've found nothing. You are making a claim without direct evidence. And seeing as he could have had two hours to find himself a hanging place, your claims are sort of silly.

In Matthew Judas is distraught and kills himself. He feels bad. He rejects his deeds and kills himself. He even gets rid of the payment he got for turning Jesus in. In Acts Judas has time to buy a field with the money he didn't return.

No, read the link I provided you with, it's the same account, written from two perspectives.

So instead of providing the arguments in the link, I had to read through the whole thing myself? I'm sorry, but I'm arguing this directly from the book. It is not an account of the same story. If this book is, as you claim, the perfect word of the all-knowing creator of all things, how is it that there are two contradictory perspectives?

That's enough of a contradiction without mentioning how the death occurred. It's even a more significant difference because it casts a different tone on how Judas felt. In Acts he is punished for a sin he has committed and gained from, in Matthew he is distraught and kills himself.

You can think so Madness, but just know your rationale for rejecting the story are based on your conjectures, and the link provided has very acceptable reconciliations for the two accounts.

I'm sorry, but I'm not making a conjecture. It is you you is using conjectures to reconcile the accounts. Without conjecture, the stories don't add up.

You're really straining at a gnat, and creating a contradiction where IMHO there isn't one. There are separate details of the same suicide.

And yet suicide is never mentioned in the second story. And again you're wrong. I'm not straining at a gnat, I'm pointing out that the only way to reconcile two stories of the same event contained within the perfect word of god is to create unprovable conjectures about other circumstances.

And that's not the only contradiction in the Bible. I mean, the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew 1:1-17 alone makes 4 omissions and is unnecessary if Jesus was the son of a deity rather than the son of Joseph...as being the son of Joseph is meaningless and there is no point in making Joseph part of the house of David.

On top of that, Matthew puts around 26 (I'm not going to bother to get the exact number on this, but if you want to correct me on it, go ahead) steps between David and Jesus on his father's side, while Luke's genealogy puts I believe 39-41 steps between David and Jesus on his mother's side...that's a hell of a big difference. It doesn't make any sense that there'd be that big of an ancestry discrepancy.

Hell, the video in the OP contains contradictions that you've yet to address.

reply to post by BreezeLike

Originally posted by BreezeLike
I am in the act of studing it now and learning ancient hebrew and plan to learn Greek. But you plan to show how something with this probability is wizardry.

Yes, I do. Now, you're claiming that you're still studying it...yet you're 100% certain that it proves the absolute validity of the Bible? I'm sorry, but if you're not informed enough to give me the basics of it without providing links...how can you be so sure of it?

This is an example some basics

www.theomatics.com...

Ok, right off the bat it claims that all cultures before Arabic numerals used letters as numerals. This automatically ignores one of (if not the) earliest numerical system, Babylonian numerals.

Now, this idea of theomatics seems to ignore that Greek numerals were intentionally denoted (as can be found in any portion of the Bible in its original Greek that provides a number), so what happens with those numbers? I can't find anything there. Secondly, there is no Greek principle that I'm aware of in which you add separate numerical 'words' together and none is provided.

Of course, none of this proves a point. So what if words in the Bible have a numerical value? What does that actually prove?

www.theomatics.com...
www.theomatics.com...
www.theomatics.com...
www.theomatics.com...

Ok..these actually don't prove anything. I mean, I don't even have to talk about the probabilities. This is just a lot of examples of cherry picking things and fitting them into a system. They are literally taking sentence fragments to fit things together.

You have a better chance of hitting the lottery multiple times than disproving theomattics.
Theomatics 31,608,834,590,000,000,000,000,000 to 1
Hitting the lottery 18,000,000,000 to 1

The odds of a deck of cards being in the order they're in? 1 in 8 x 10^67
There's a better chance of Theomatics being correct than a deck of cards being in the order they're in. Does the mean that the deck of cards is in that order because God wanted it that way?

Where is the equation where you derive the probability for this coming from?

Another problem is that this assertion relies of 'the lottery' being a single thing. Which lottery? Which numbers are you playing? The numbers you play do actually affect your chances.

You do realize the that probability of something doesn't matter when you look at it after its' happened, right? Probabilities only matter before it happens. The chance that any individual is born with the sequence of DNA they happen to have also happens to be astronomical, it doesn't matter.

But theomatics is not the only code in the Torah(Bible)
More on Torah codes
www.youtube.com...

The whole book is like a matrix, codes on codes. My intention is for you to see Gods works.

Any book of sufficient length can be used. Anything can be found with those things. That's been trumpeted and debunked so many times on ATS that I'm not even going to bother.

This is a thread about whether or not there are contradictions in the Bible, not about numerical wizardry.

Um, madness, there is no contradiction between Judas having actually hanged himself and Peter believing that Judas died in an accident. All Luke reports in Acts is what Peter said, without comment as to whether Peter's belief was correct.

Do you also claim a "contradiction" when Peter denies his relationship with Jesus three times? After all, there are so many Gospel incidents of Jesus and Peter being pals. John 21 depicts Peter misreporting a saying of Jesus, and corrects Peter's report.

There is simply no basis for claiming that the New Testament presents Peter's words as an inerrant guide to the truth of the matter. He errs, and he even lies.

But it's deduced from the location of the Temple, the city-dump Gehenna, and the location that's known about the suicide.

Also, it's induced, not deduced. You're using inductive reason, not deductive.

In English, when someone applies general principles and circumstances to infer what happened in a specific instance or event, we say that someone has deduced what happened in the specific case. NurT's usage was correct and standard.

The same word, to deduce, is also used to denote demonstrative reasoning. More recently, by parallelism, to induce has come to mean non-demonstrative reasoning. That is especially confusing, since there is a kind of demonstrative reasoning, a proof strategy, called induction.

But, hey, you're a logician, you can handle it. Think of how many different and incompatible ways independence is used in technical discourse.

Just a quick logic lesson, just because misuse of the word 'deduce' is a pet peeve (it's why I can't read Sherlock Holmes anymore).

And now that I've returned the favor, you can enjoy Sherlock Holmes once again. An elite professional writer of English chose the right word after all. Who would have thought it? You can probably use this as an example in your ESL classes, too. Students like it when the prof tells a story on himself.

Greetings,

I. personally, do not believe the Judeo/Christian Bible to be contradictory at all. Occasional Transliteral error compounded by uninspired exegesis probably comprises the bulk of calumny regarding this ancient spiritual treatise.

Something else to consider is that the entire work is dispensational or temporally gradated in relation to intellectual capacity, social sophistication and spiritual development. When viewing the many, seemingly, contradictory edicts this book offers with these, now, self-evident and disambiguating analytical foci many will come to appreciate the genius which brought it into being and understand it with the proper perspective.


Regards

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Wow! Thanks for the heads up. I just found this....

en.wikipedia.org...

That book's creation was more of a clusterf*ck than I ever imagined.

No wonder it's a complete disaster.