Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is no contradiction. Judas may not have purchased the field himself, but it was the money that Judas received for betraying Jesus that purchased the field. And that is all that is meant when it says that Judas bought the Potter's field. The chief priests could not use the money because it was blood money, and so bought the field in Judas' name.
But if you wish to see a contradiction there, then you will see one despite the fact that there is none.
There is no fact in scripture that backs up that story that I am aware of, you seem to present speculation as truth.
Where does scripture point out the priests bought it in Judas name?
The problem here is that the explanation is a stretch of the truth. The fact is Judas showed that he no longer wanted any part of the money by throwing it on the ground. The priests show their ownership of the money by refusing to do something unlawful with it.
What people should realize is that these kinds of things still don't make the bible untrustworthy because the message the bible is all about has nothing to do with it being a history book.
Hi everyone The bible is inspired by God and has no contradictions. If you find one you think is a contradiction it is because you are not understanding it right. God does hide his word and reveals it to people as he chooses. The smartest people in the world will not understand the messages of the bible unless God opens their understanding and shows it to them. The bible may be translated in different versions and have little differences and we have to seek our God's word and ask him to reveal it to us.
God is perfect and his word is perfect and that is why neither change because you do not change perfection.
The bible is not the word of God, Jesus is the word of God, the bible is God inspired and is one way God interacts with us. There are parts of the bible that I do not fully understand but I know that it will be revealed to me in God's time for me.
The bible is also a faith based item we accept on faith or we reject it
The Apostles spoke in 'epistles' 'letters' as 'scripture' of
when The Prophets inwhom it was written spoke
"Thus Sayeth The Lord" as being 'inspiried'.
Hi everyone The bible is inspired by God and has no contradictions. If you find one you think is a contradiction it is because you are not understanding it right.
Fallacy, all that does is attempt to excuse you from having to have proof that something is not one.
The potters field has been shown to only be resolved through speculation. You can call that understanding if you like, but it don't make it true.
The problem is that people haven't realized that it's inerrancy is within what a person can gain spiritually from it. No amount of texual proof will change that.
There is no contradiction to you, because you've twisted it until you've believed what it says. Buying it in Judas' name is totally man's thinking, not what the bible says.
At least you'll admit there are variations and errors. I appreciate that. No one can read the bible and say there are none. Yes, you can find ways out of (what others see as) contradictions, but you can't say there are no errors without being downright blind. Thank you for that.
The errors that I mentioned are things such as misspellings of words in the manuscript copies. Or where a number had been altered due to scribal error.
These in no way affect any point of doctrine. And there are no errors whatsoever in the original autographs.
The writers of the autographs accurately wrote using their own vocabulary, and their own literary style, what had been revealed to them by the Holy Spirit. The original autographs are inerrant.
Now, when manuscript copies were made as time went by, variations occurred. Differences in spelling or in word order - Jesus Christ instead of Christ Jesus for example. Or a letter by have been ommited - Jsus instead of Jesus. I don't know if that particular error occurred, but it's an illustration. In some manuscripts entire words or even sentences were ommited. There were inclusions such as the Johannine Comma. None of this changes any point of doctrine. The johannine Comma simply states what the Bible already teaches - that God is triune.
God has seen to it that no errors which crept into the manuscript copies, and that no variation in the copies have affected any point of doctrine.
To clarify; any particular manuscript that was wildly different and may have said something that obviously was contradictory could be compared with the other manuscripts and disregarded. What I am saying is that it is because there are so many manuscripts available, that through a comparison of them, it can be determined what the original autographs said. Not necessarily down to how a particular word was spelled, or to word order, or to whether the original autograph included in Mark 1:1 the phrase 'the Son of God.' The phrase is in some manuscripts but not in others. It is irrelevent. Jesus is the Son of God whether or not the phrase was a part of Mark 1:1 in the original autograph. But the message, and the doctrines contained in the original autographs have been preserved and our modern day Bible is reliable. But that doesn't deny that there are some bad translations.
The variations and errors in the copies have not caused any point of doctrine to be lost.
Regarding who bought the Potters field. Try to understand what I'm attempting to get across to you.
In John 19:1 Pilate is said to have scourged Jesus. 'Then Pilate therefore took Jesus, and scourged Him.' Now did Pilate personally scourge Jesus? Did Pilate take the whip in his own hand and personally whip Jesus with it? It sure sounds like he did. But no. He gave the order and and someone else did the scourging. Yet Pilate is the one who is said to have scourged Jesus.
In Matthew 27:59-60 Joseph of Arimathea is said to have taken the body of Jesus and to have wrapped it in a clean linen cloth and and to have laid the body in his own new tomb which he had hewn out in the rock, and to have rolled a large stone against the entrance of the tomb.
Now, did Joseph personally take the body, or did someone else actually do the physical task of moving the body? Did Joseph personally take a chisel or whatever was used, in his own hand and carve out a tomb from solid rock? Well it sure sounds as if he did. 'which he had hewn out in the rock.' I think you can safely say that there were a number of men involved in doing the work of chiseling out the rock to make a tomb and that none of them was Joseph. It was done for him. And yet, it is Joseph who is said to have done it.
It is the same with who bought the Potter's field. Judas provided the means by which the Potter's field was bought by returning the silver which the chief priests could no longer use. It could not be put in the treasury because it was blood money. Therefore they used the blood money to buy the field and Judas provided the means by which the field was bought. And so Judas is said to have bought the Potter's field.
Can you see this? Well whether you can or not, this is all the time I'm going to spend on this.
Last edited by Michael Way; 02-07-2012 at 08:56 AM..
The errors that I mentioned are things such as misspellings of words in the manuscript copies. Or where a number had been altered due to scribal error.
These in no way affect any point of doctrine. And there are no errors whatsoever in the original autographs.
The writers of the autographs accurately wrote using their own vocabulary, and their own literary style, what had been revealed to them by the Holy Spirit. The original autographs are inerrant.
Now, when manuscript copies were made as time went by, variations occurred. Differences in spelling or in word order - Jesus Christ instead of Christ Jesus for example. Or a letter by have been ommited - Jsus instead of Jesus. I don't know if that particular error occurred, but it's an illustration. In some manuscripts entire words or even sentences were ommited. There were inclusions such as the Johannine Comma. None of this changes any point of doctrine. The johannine Comma simply states what the Bible already teaches - that God is triune.
God has seen to it that no errors which crept into the manuscript copies, and that no variation in the copies have affected any point of doctrine.
To clarify; any particular manuscript that was wildly different and may have said something that obviously was contradictory could be compared with the other manuscripts and disregarded. What I am saying is that it is because there are so many manuscripts available, that through a comparison of them, it can be determined what the original autographs said. Not necessarily down to how a particular word was spelled, or to word order, or to whether the original autograph included in Mark 1:1 the phrase 'the Son of God.' The phrase is in some manuscripts but not in others. It is irrelevent. Jesus is the Son of God whether or not the phrase was a part of Mark 1:1 in the original autograph. But the message, and the doctrines contained in the original autographs have been preserved and our modern day Bible is reliable. But that doesn't deny that there are some bad translations.
The variations and errors in the copies have not caused any point of doctrine to be lost.
I would tend to agree there are no errors in the originals.
As to what we have today, though, is where you and I differ. If the above that I highlighted in green has occurred, this is where I, and others, start thinking...ok, then what else has been added? What else was omitted? What else is a variation from the original? What other errors did scribes make?
Just because it doesn't affect any point of doctrine, according to you, it does affect the validity of the bible. That's all I'm saying. If all of these have occurred, and continue to occur as more translations are being made, how much do we know is not affected? That's where my doubt comes in. How do I know which part of His Word is still what was orginal, and what part is an addition, or was omitted, or changed, or was a scribal error, or whatever?
Quote:
Regarding who bought the Potters field. Try to understand what I'm attempting to get across to you.
Quote:
In John 19:1 Pilate is said to have scourged Jesus. 'Then Pilate therefore took Jesus, and scourged Him.' Now did Pilate personally scourge Jesus? Did Pilate take the whip in his own hand and personally whip Jesus with it? It sure sounds like he did. But no. He gave the order and and someone else did the scourging. Yet Pilate is the one who is said to have scourged Jesus.
Now this helps prove your point of what you're saying. How do you reconcile the 'contradiction' of why the field is called the field of blood?
Quote:
In Matthew 27:59-60 Joseph of Arimathea is said to have taken the body of Jesus and to have wrapped it in a clean linen cloth and and to have laid the body in his own new tomb which he had hewn out in the rock, and to have rolled a large stone against the entrance of the tomb.
Now, did Joseph personally take the body, or did someone else actually do the physical task of moving the body? Did Joseph personally take a chisel or whatever was used, in his own hand and carve out a tomb from solid rock? Well it sure sounds as if he did. 'which he had hewn out in the rock.' I think you can safely say that there were a number of men involved in doing the work of chiseling out the rock to make a tomb and that none of them was Joseph. It was done for him. And yet, it is Joseph who is said to have done it.
You should have stopped with the above scenario. This one doesn't help your situation. It can easily be believed that Joseph did help carve out the rock. I can't easily say Joseph didn't help.
Quote:
It is the same with who bought the Potter's field. Judas provided the means by which the Potter's field was bought by returning the silver which the chief priests could no longer use. It could not be put in the treasury because it was blood money. Therefore they used the blood money to buy the field and Judas provided the means by which the field was bought. And so Judas is said to have bought the Potter's field.
Can you see this? Well whether you can or not, this is all the time I'm going to spend on this.
1Cor.15 - Paul gave an exact account of those who saw Jesus
after He rose the 3rd day according to the scriptures:
1. THAT, He was seen by Cephas
2. THEN, by the 12 Apostles
3. AFTER THAT, He was seen by over 500 brethern
4. AFTER THAT, He was seen by James
5. THEN, by all the Apostles
6. THEN LAST OF ALL, He was seen by me (Paul)
Not only didn't Paul even list Mary who saw Jesus FIRST.
But Paul didn't list Mary AT ALL. - John 20
I guess God forgot to Inspire Paul to Write THE TRUTH.
My guess is that nothing that is said to you will make any difference to you. I have shown you quite clearly how your two examples of apparent contradictions are merely a lack of understanding on your part. You don't want to accept that. Believe what you wish. When a person has turned from the truth it is next to impossible to bring them back to a recognition of the truth.
You gave pure speculation on the first, which is the only thing that can make it work without being contradictory.
Exodus chapter 32, you tried to say that God will forgive people when they ask for mercy and turn from their ways. You went cherry picking through the old testament to try to gather verses to support that as a viable explanation for Exodus 32. The problem is, nowhere in Exodus 32 does it say ANYTHING about anyone changing, instead, it makes it VERY CLEAR that the people did not change at all. They continued worshiping an idol, and Moses broke the tablets of the 10 commandments when he saw them still in their sin. Moses went up the NEXT DAY to ask God to forgive them, but God would not and chose to punish them.
Actually, the final verse of Exodus 32, verse 35 provides yet another example of the unreliable translations. Some translations claim God smote the people, other translations claim he sent a plague. Plagued is not the same as smote, although I am sure inerrantists would say that the plague was that they were smote, which makes even less sense than admitting they can't get the action verb correct in the translating process.
As for the variations in the manuscripts, and the copyist errors in those copies, they do nothing to change any point of doctrine, nor have they resulted in the loss of any doctrine. What we have in our Bible today (not withstanding the obviously bad translations) accurately presents what was in the original autographs.
So here you are saying that God was able to give a 100% accurate and correct bible to the original authors, but God was not able to get all that past the translators without error.
This is where it comes to with the question of inerrancy:
If we KNOW that there are copyist errors, the best case argument for inerrantists is that the originals were 100% correct, but the rest of the bibles have errors and we should all trust that those who failed to translate some things correct got all the important stuff right.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How can people believe the actual bible was given to us by God?
