Bible difficulties and their harmonizations

[Difflugia]

In the spirit of this post, I'd like to try something. For any contradictions or difficulties that are posted, what are the various harmonizations that other members are satisfied with?

The experiment is to try to keep the argument away from whether or not the harmonizations are reasonable, but only to whether or not the harmonization has missed something that might need to be added. I guess I can't think of hard and fast rules for the debate, but the goal is to find harmonizations that others might not have thought of for particular difficulties without turning into a debate about whether they're good enough for a skeptic. If a harmonization claims to cover all the bases, then that's it. A more complete harmonization is always welcome, however.

[JehovahsWitness]

[*]What Judas did with the money: throw it to the priests or buy a field.
BOTH. Judas purchased the field posthumously.





JW

But that is not what either of the text's said. ...

I wasn't addressing the question of what either of the text's said but rather what actually happened (which can be deduced by harmonizing what the texts say). Harmonization isn't a synonym of inconsistency.

To illustrate If a text says: Mr and Mrs Brown had one son. And another text said: Mr and Mrs Brown had one daughter, although neither text said it , one conclusion might br that they actually had two children a boy AND a girl. Granted "that is not what either of the texts said" but it can be deduced.

TO DEDUCE

To arrive at (a fact or a conclusion) by reasoning; draw as a logical conclusion.

Critical thinking skills allows one to come to a conclusion about an event if one has enough information without explicitly being told.


JW

[Difflugia]

I wasn't addressing the question of what either of the text's said but rather what actually happened (which can be deduced by harmonizing what the texts say).

It's kind of like seeing an empty cookie jar next to a child standing in cookie crumbs and saying "I didn't do it." The obvious deduction that harmonizes all of the details is that God magicked the cookies out of the jar and spilled some crumbs in the process.

Harmonization isn't a synonym of inconsistency.

No, it's a symptom of inconsistency.

To illustrate If a text says: Mr and Mrs Brown had one son. And another text said: Mr and Mrs Brown had one daughter, although neither text said it , one conclusion might br that they actually had two children a boy AND a girl. Granted "that is not what either of the texts said" but it can be deduced.

To be a more appropriate illustration, one text says that Mr. And Mrs. Brown attended their son's wedding yesterday, but another says that Mr. and Mrs. Brown were killed in an automobile accident two years ago. One conclusion might be that they went to the wedding posthumously. Granted, that's not what either text said...

Critical thinking skills allows one to come to a conclusion about an event if one has enough information without explicitly being told.

The critical thinking skills are what lead one to conclude that at least one story isn't accurate.

[Falling Light 101]

.

The Jewish Priests took the money that Judas had been given for betraying Yahashua and they purchased a field for burying the dead.

It was not lawful for to put the money into the treasury, because it is the price of blood. 

Mat 27:5  And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.  6  And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood. 

The Priests took the money that belonged to Judas and purchased a field - but the money still belonged to Judas - this was his money,

Judas immediately afterward went and committed suicide in a field that was used for the dead - the field already existed and was used for the purpose of burying the dead but it was owned by another owner. The Priests used the money to purchase the burial location and the Bible is mentioning that the money that belonged to Judas was used to buy the field.

Judas hung himself there and his body fell and spilled upon the ground and the Priests took his money and purchased ownership of the field.

[TRANSPONDER]

The contradiction of Judas' death is a perfect example of apologetics by 'weaving together'. A nice example is 'two angels or one?' "If there were two, there was one", the apologist says and the gospel simply didn't mention the other one.

The death of Judas is trickier. The two things.(hanging and bursting open) are woven together to become one event. But it's asking a lot of credibility.

In a court of law one witness says that a person was run over by a truck. Another says that he was shot by a mugger. A lawyer might try to argue that he was shot and then run over, but would any jury believe they were the same story? Also there are two contradictions: the method of death and whether Judas bought the field or the priests bought the field. It doubles the stretch of credibility that we are asked to make, here.

That's even without peripheral doubts, such as other serious contradictions by these writers as in the nativity and whether the disciples went to Galilee to see the risen Jesus or whether they stayed in Jerusalem, praising God?

The separate point of two seriously fiddled 'prophecies' of the death of Judas (we could look at that if need be) does not inspire confidence in the truthfulness of these two writers.

[1213]

...
The death of Judas is trickier. The two things.(hanging and bursting open) are woven together to become one event. But it's asking a lot of credibility.
... ...and whether Judas bought the field or the priests bought the field. It doubles the stretch of credibility that we are asked to make, here.
...

So, you think it is impossible that Judas hang himself, the rope broke, and he fell?

Also, there is no contradiction with how the field was bought, if we are accurate. Judas obtained it by his money that the priest used to buy the field for him.

By what I have seen, all “contradictions” that atheists have are based on loose interpretations and lazy reading, not to actual writing of the Bible.

[bluegreenearth]

...
The death of Judas is trickier. The two things.(hanging and bursting open) are woven together to become one event. But it's asking a lot of credibility.
... ...and whether Judas bought the field or the priests bought the field. It doubles the stretch of credibility that we are asked to make, here.
...

So, you think it is impossible that Judas hang himself, the rope broke, and he fell?

Also, there is no contradiction with how the field was bought, if we are accurate. Judas obtained it by his money that the priest used to buy the field for him.

By what I have seen, all “contradictions” that atheists have are based on loose interpretations and lazy reading, not to actual writing of the Bible.

I propose an experiment to test the plausibility of the apologetic harmonization of the two accounts. Have a group of people who are unfamiliar with the two Judas accounts watch a fictional scenario featuring the apologetic harmonization. Then, ask each person in the group to submit a written description of what they observed in the fictional scenario. Should we expect the results of the experiment to produce at least one account where Judas is only described as having hung himself and at least one account where Judas is only described as having fallen to the ground where his guts spilled out all over the place or will nearly all accounts describe a scenario that mirrors the apologetic harmonization?

[Tcg]

By what I have seen, all “contradictions” that atheists have are based on loose interpretations and lazy reading, not to actual writing of the Bible.

I'll point out yet again that atheists are not the only ones who recognize the fact that the Bible contains contradictions. This is NOT an atheist versus theist issue no matter how many times one attempts to represent it as one.


Tcg

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to 1213 in post #36]


1213 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 15, 2021 2:52 am
TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Sat Aug 14, 2021 8:44 am
...
The death of Judas is trickier. The two things.(hanging and bursting open) are woven together to become one event. But it's asking a lot of credibility.
... ...and whether Judas bought the field or the priests bought the field. It doubles the stretch of credibility that we are asked to make, here.
...
So, you think it is impossible that Judas hang himself, the rope broke, and he fell?

Also, there is no contradiction with how the field was bought, if we are accurate. Judas obtained it by his money that the priest used to buy the field for him.

By what I have seen, all “contradictions” that atheists have are based on loose interpretations and lazy reading, not to actual writing of the Bible.

We shall see. From what I have seen , Christian apologetics are based on not looking at what the Bible actually says and dismissing unwelcome evidence with various excuses, 'interpretation' and 'weaving together' being a couple of favourites.

You shift the goalposts rather. No, I don't think it impossible for a person to be hung and the rope to break (though bursting open as a result of that calls for a long drop, and some apologists have proposed Judas hanging himself over a cliff rather than a 'field' in order to get the lengthy fall), but what is harder to swallow is that Matthew only records the hanging and Acts (surely by Luke) only the bursting open. One might argue that Matthew didn't think the bursting open worth mentioning, but Acts not mentioning that Judas hung himself before the rope broke is a lot harder to swallow.

Further, the apologetic that Judas effectively bought the field because the priests used his money is really straining the reading. To have to interpret away two apparently different accounts smacks of dismissing contradictions rather than explaining them. That's without having the other examples of serious contradiction between Matthew and Luke, such as the Nativities and the resurrection appearances. The evidence of the Gospel text is that we have two writers inventing their own material, and they contradict each other.

While we're at it, why don't we look at these supposed prophecies of the demise of Judas?

Mathew 27 "And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him upon whom a price had been set by some of the sons of Israel, and they gave them for the potters' field, as the Lord directed me'. Supposedly Jeremiah 32 8 about buying the field Anathoth with 17 shekels which isn't much like buying the potters' field with thirty. Zechariah 11. 12- 13 'And they weighed out as my wages thirty shekels of silver. Then the Lord said to me "Cast it into the treasury" - the lordly price at which I was paid off by them. So I took the thirty shekels of silver and cast them into the treasury in the house of the Lord".

That's rather more like it, but not much as the context is about a shepherd falling out with his people, being paid off and breaking his staff, signifying the break between Judah and Israel. Now, that' what I call taking a prophecy out of context.

Acts is even worse.
1 20 'For it is written in the book of Psalms, "Let his habitation become desolate, and let there be no -one to live in it"; and "his office, let another take".

Psalm 69. 25 'May their camp be a desolation, let no - one dwell in their tents'

Psalm 109. 3 'May his days be few; may another seize his goods'. All in a context of raving against some enemy or enemies the Psalmist wants smitten. I need hardly labour how obviously the OT text has been mangled so that Luke can get a prophecy out of it. Indeed the demise of Judas is my touchstone test case for showing how 'fulfilled prophecy' is either fiddling the OT to fit the gospel or making up gospel - stories to fit the OT, because the death of Judas 'prophecies' do both.

I can already hear it..."I don't care what you say..I still think the Gospel accounts true and the nugget of prophecy dug out of the OT context valid'.

That doesn't matter. What matters is that the evidence of what's actually in the Bible, as distinct from what the believer believes is in it, can be shown to evidence for contradiction that undermines the credibility of the gospel -writers, and fiddlement of the OT to wangle prophecy out of it, and the Christian apologist may do no more than dismiss the evidence.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #37]



Re: Bible difficulties and their harmonizations
Post #36
Post by bluegreenearth » Sun Aug 15, 2021 6:38 pm

1213 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 15, 2021 7:52 am
TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Sat Aug 14, 2021 1:44 pm
...
The death of Judas is trickier. The two things.(hanging and bursting open) are woven together to become one event. But it's asking a lot of credibility.
... ...and whether Judas bought the field or the priests bought the field. It doubles the stretch of credibility that we are asked to make, here.
...
So, you think it is impossible that Judas hang himself, the rope broke, and he fell?

Also, there is no contradiction with how the field was bought, if we are accurate. Judas obtained it by his money that the priest used to buy the field for him.

By what I have seen, all “contradictions” that atheists have are based on loose interpretations and lazy reading, not to actual writing of the Bible.
I propose an experiment to test the plausibility of the apologetic harmonization of the two accounts. Have a group of people who are unfamiliar with the two Judas accounts watch a fictional scenario featuring the apologetic harmonization. Then, ask each person in the group to submit a written description of what they observed in the fictional scenario. Should we expect the results of the experiment to produce at least one account where Judas is only described as having hung himself and at least one account where Judas is only described as having fallen to the ground where his guts spilled out all over the place or will nearly all accounts describe a scenario that mirrors the apologetic harmonization?

That might be an interesting experiment. I would be surprised if, upon seeing a act of a man hanging himself, the rope breaking and the fellow bursting open, most if not all the watchers will describe the whole of that very striking scene.

[brunumb]

That might be an interesting experiment. I would be surprised if, upon seeing a act of a man hanging himself, the rope breaking and the fellow bursting open, most if not all the watchers will describe the whole of that very striking scene.

I would be very surprised if a body burst open after falling just a few metres. If you were hanging and the rope broke, you would fall down vertically and your legs would take the brunt of the impact. You would then slump over and there would not be enough force to cause your innards to explode out. The story is an exaggeration and an absurdity.