Bible Discrepancies

[linwood]

(1) Judas
hung himself. (Matt. 27:5) (2) He fell "headlong and burst open" (Acts 1:18) It is reasonable to conclude that Judas hung himself and at some point, probably after hanging for a period of time, the "limb" (or whatever he was hung from) broke, his body fell and burst open when it hit below.
Thus there is no contradiction between the two accounts. Each describes something that happened.

This is what I mean when I speak of twisted harmonizations Doc.

 

[prosecutor]

While it appears that my answer about the death of Judas was funny to some of you, I don't see any attempt to show how such an interpretation is unreasonable. Keep in mind that the charge that a contradiction between Matthew and Luke's account in Acts exist over Judas' death. This charge can only be valid if proven. WHERE IS THE PROOF? If some of you have a better answer than the foolish idea that the writers simply wrote what came to them by "oral-tradition", I would like to hear it.
Prosecutor

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If some of you have a better answer than the foolish idea that the writers simply wrote what came to them by "oral-tradition", I would like to hear it.

And you deem this foolishness because?

 

[Pah]

While it appears that my answer about the death of Judas was funny to some of you, I don't see any attempt to show how such an interpretation is unreasonable. Keep in mind that the charge that a contradiction between Matthew and Luke's account in Acts exist over Judas' death.

The "facts" can easily support only one cause of death but two causes are given, are they not? Is the inspiration of God so faint that the second author (according to your "harmonization") would not know the death was by hanging?

This charge can only be valid if proven. WHERE IS THE PROOF? If some of you have a better answer than the foolish idea that the writers simply wrote what came to them by "oral-tradition", I would like to hear it.
Prosecutor

I suppose your definition of foolish involves something about the opinion of scholars.

 

[prosecutor]

What scholars? Are you one "pah"?

Prosecutor

 

[Pah]

What scholars? Are you one "pah"?

Prosecutor

Oh no! I am only a layman, unblinded by faith

Now would you care to address the points?

 

[prosecutor]

I already dealt with the matter in my first response. My explanation was that what both writers said was true. In Acts Peter is doing nothing more than adding information that Matthew did not record. Peter did not say this is how Judas died. (You can read can't you?) By the way, the word translated "headlong" in the footnotes of the English Standard Version says "or swelling up." The body being swollen after death, fell below and burst. Again, you are not reading what the writers are saying. You can't say there is a contradiction. There is none. You read into Peter's statement "the manner of death" when Peter is adding what happened after Judas hug himself. "None are so blind as they that will not see."
Prosecutor

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

"None are so blind as they that will not see." Prosecutor

And what do you see in Exodus?

 

[Scott1]

Hey guys.... just FYI..... I saw a few hung (hanged, hungeded? come on Deut, help me out) bodies in Somalia.

After the bodies decompose in the sun, the bloated, rotting carcass ripped off from the head and would splash down onto the ground.... (I can still smell it.... yikes)...... I'm not saying that this is the case here.... as you well know I don't have a problem with oral traditions, but it is a feasible explaination I think.

Scott

 

[Pah]

I already dealt with the matter in my first response. My explanation was that what both writers said was true. In Acts Peter is doing nothing more than adding information that Matthew did not record. Peter did not say this is how Judas died. (You can read can't you?) By the way, the word translated "headlong" in the footnotes of the English Standard Version says "or swelling up." The body being swollen after death, fell below and burst. Again, you are not reading what the writers are saying. You can't say there is a contradiction. There is none. You read into Peter's statement "the manner of death" when Peter is adding what happened after Judas hug himself. "None are so blind as they that will not see."
Prosecutor

You speak as though these were independent writers, that here was no common "inspiration" If God thought it important to know what happened after death why did he not "tell all" in the both tellings. Now I know you would not presume to know the mind of God but since you are already in the nature of explaining what God said and what God meant perhaps you can extend yourself once again and tell us why God was incomplete?

 

[linwood]

After the bodies decompose in the sun, the bloated, rotting carcass ripped off from the head and would splash down onto the ground.... (I can still smell it.... yikes)...... I'm not saying that this is the case here.... as you well know I don't have a problem with oral traditions, but it is a feasible explaination I think.

Scott

True but I noticed you mentioned the bodies were hung before they fell.

Acts didn`t, it seemed to imply Judas died from the fall.

Kind of an odd and important point to leave out no?

 

[Scott1]

Ok..... let's try the story again....

"In Somalia I saw a dead person fall headlong to the earth and their insides blow out into a disgusting mess on the ground."

It's the truth.... it's also the most shocking..... maybe another time I may have told the story like this..... it does not prove your point of a contradiction.

I could care less either way.... I was just dissapointed.... your contradictions are usually based on more than this.... no biggie.

Scott

 

[Scuba Pete]

it seemed to imply

The defense rests.

 

[linwood]

"In Somalia I saw a dead person fall headlong to the earth and their insides blow out into a disgusting mess on the ground."

Again you mention the person was already dead when he fell.

Acts doesn`t mention this and it is a crucial point of discussion for Peter.

Here is the verse....

Acts 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.

If you were to describe a person dying by hanging and then falling would you not at the very least mention that he died before the fall?

of course you would, you just did...twice.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The defense rests.

A wise choice. It was a tired and tiresome stance.

 

[linwood]

The defense rests.

Awww Doc, thats weak man.

If one cannot draw implication from Biblical verse then one is left with..nothing.

I have explained why I draw this implication yet you haven`t explained why you draw a different one.

 

[linwood]

Ok..Lets drop it.

It`s not like I haven`t been over this about a thousand times anyway.

Lets stick to the same story but different contradiction.

I`m sticking with direct simple popular literary contradictions for now but please humor me.

Here`s the question.

Who owned Potters field (The Field of Blood) where Judas supposedly died and was buried?

Did Judas buy it with the silver coins the priests gave him or did the priests buy it with the same silver coins Judas returned to them in desperation?

Who bought Potters Field?

 

[linwood]

Wait a sec, I want to get back to Judas falling from the tree.

I can`t believe I never thought of this but the verse in Acts where peter describes Judas` fall states he "fell headlong".

When a hanging person falls they fall feet first my friends.

Ok back to Potters field if you want.

 

[Pah]

...When a hanging person falls they fall feet first my friends.

Watch for the new answer the he was hung by his feet - oh, that wouldn't work either! He was hung by his belt and his head hit first.:biglaugh:

 

[prosecutor]

Pah, if you are aware of the first four records of the New Testament (Matthew -John), you are aware that (a) each of the writers made reference to some events not discussed by the others;(b) You also would be aware that events of which two or more are writing, each does not always say exactly what the other writer or writers may have written. Because one writer may give information the other writers does not, even when discussing the same event, no way reflects on the inpsiration of the writer. We know they wrote what God wanted written. Because God does not give the information in the manner you desire does not alter the fact He gave it nor in the way which He gave it. The whole point of this discussion is to show that there is no contradiction between what Matthew wrote about Judas' death and Peter's comments in Acts 1. If you don't agree with the interpretation I gave, fine. However, don't charge those writers or speakers with a contradiction. There is none.

What about Exodus?

Prosecutor