{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
8/24/2015 3:32:35 AM
17
So let's talk about Judas.
Mathew 27:3-8 says he returned the silver then went to hang himself. The chief priests took the silver and bought the potter's field to bury strangers in. That field is now called The Field of Blood.
Acts 1:16-19 says that judas bought the field, fell and had his intestines fall out from his midsection and thats why it's called Field of Blood.
Which is correct?
English
-
The Jews bought the field in Judas' name, on his behalf. It was with the money that had been given to him for his betrayal of Christ and was the same money he threw back at them. The Jews could not use the money since it was blood money and they bought the field in his name. This is why it says that Judas acquired the field. This idea is found in the Bible. For example, In John 19:1 it says, "Then Pilate therefore took Jesus, and scourged Him." But we know that it was not actually Pilate who did the scourging. Rather it was he who handed Jesus' over to the Roman soldiers to be scourged. They carried out his orders.
-
So, did judas then go to the field and hang himself or was his death accidental/punishment for his betrayal as Acts implies?
-
He hung himself then the rope broke and he fell and burst open. Acts was written by Luke who was a physician, so he was a little more detailed.
-
It seems that the bible is open to a lot of interpretation. That makes sense though. But any book with over 40 authors written over a 1500 year period is bound to make mistakes.
-
It's pretty straight forward. And you've yet to show any mistakes.
-
My previous post about the famine did. I'll try to bump it to bring it back.
-
No it didn't. I explained it to you and even gave you the contextual verses. I told you you'd do this. You want there to be contradictions so bad that you ignore context and logic.
-
I understand your context. You said there was almost 4 years of famine prior. I understand that. But, for two different passages one says God told him 7 years (which he apparently meant total) and the other said God told him 3 years (which he apparently meant 3 more). The discrepancy is, which one is right? Which did God say? I know they apparently mean the same thing but he could only have said the number 3 or 7.
-
It was David who said it and it was written by two different authors with two different perspectives. God inspired man to write the scriptures he didn't dictate it word for word. One says David offered 7 total years the other says David offered 3 years on top of the 4 they already had. They both provide the same truth only worded differently. Your objection would only have merit if the bible claimed to be hand written by God.
-
My claim is that people say the bible is 100% factually accurate but if different authors have different versions of events, then that can't be truth. The ideas, inspiration and morality can be the same, but I'm looking for facts. The bible was spoken long before it was written down. It's akin to the worlds longest game of telephone. Things are bound to change by the end even if the initial meaning is the same.
-
Both are factually accurate. They both say seven years, they just word it differently.
-
They both mean seven years, they both don't say it. And one is implying that you mean a total of seven and not seven more. If I gave you $5 then I tell you I'm going to give you $5, you will have $10. If I gave you $5 then I tell you I'm going to give you $10, you are going to be expecting a total of $15.
-
That not how it happened. In one instance a third party observer knew you gave me 5 earlier, but only mentioned the last 5 you gave me because it was relevant to the situation. Another observer felt it necessary to mention both 5s together for a total of 10. It's a very simple concept.
-
Even so, that third party viewer would then hear me say I'd give you either $5 or $10, regardless of which one I meant.
-
They did and they each worded it how they saw fit, but both stated the same truth. God's inspiration didn't override the writers personalities or literary styles or even their emphasis. But it made sure they wrote the truth.
-
I guess that's my issue with the bible than. That man can take away from single events, different views leaves the whole thing up to interpretation. But that's already known since there are many subdivisions of Christianity.
-
There isn't different views. They have the same conclusion they are just worded differently. There is no interpretation needed, only context.
