# Relevance of the Bible. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 19, 2003, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/relevance-of-the-bible/162566 "2003-03-19T15:50:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![NaSultainne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/8797f3/32.png) [@NaSultainne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NaSultainne)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2003, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/relevance-of-the-bible/162566/41 "2003-03-26T20:53:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by buttonjockey308 \* > I don’t recall asking from what language the Bible was translated, that much I know, what I question is how we can know for certain that what was translated is indeed what is in the Bible today. What you’re asking is a question with a relatively simple answer; the real question is, does a reasonable explanation suffice? Consider that the dating of the books of the NT is generally acknowledged to be within 45 years of the crucifixion. Bear in mind that what we have, applying a reasonable standard, are copies, or possibly summaries of earlier letters exchanged over the years that were presumably lost. Based on the letters themselves, it is clear that the writings were continuations of previous communications, both personal and written. These letters were addressed to groups of people, exchanged and likely copied, and circulated among the very witnesses, or at least those with concurrent memory, of many of the events discussed. That great care has been taken over time to maintain the integrity of the copies isn’t in doubt here. That we have secular reference to many of the people and events and quotation of much of the NT itself in other writings also weighs in its favor. > [@](#): > > IF God exists? You’re not certain? I never said that I disbelieve the existance of a higher power, I did however question the relevance of said deity(s) ad campaign. I used the qualifier for your benefit, not mine. Let me state it thusly: eternity is a **very long time**. (No pun intended. Really.) It behooves all of us to be sure, and I mean _absolutely_ sure that the answers we all seek, we soberly _persist_ in seeking to the point of conviction. I _cannot_ emphasize this enough and I say this with the utmost seriousness. > [@](#): > > And by the way, ONE bad apple? Please…flip through your cable channels after 10 pm, there’s more than ONE “bad apple”. Those channels are bubbling over with hucksters, charlatans, frauds, liars and phonies, all workin’ it in the name of the Big Three, not to mention a shite-load of profit! Whoa. Tarring with a broad brush, aren’t you? Sure, there are undoubtedly those who use the faith of others to deceive. The moneylenders in the Temple are still with us today. Ask yourself honestly, does this exploitation emanate from the faith itself, or is it an anathema? > [@](#): > > So let me get this straight, you would have me search for the truth, in a text developed, written, and printed by men, in order to avoid the pitfalls associated with the “all-too-human failings” of men? That’s just daft. Hmm. Daft. Lovely word, thanks. 😛 Okay, bear with me and let’s start with some simple reasoning. Does God exist\*? If yes, Would God communicate with man? If yes, Would God do so through direct contact? If yes, Would we have evidence of such(personal witness, written records)? If yes, What is the nature of that evidence? \*Let’s just stick with the concept of an omniscient, omnipotent God/Creator, for the purposes of this discussion. We now submit the Bible; it declares itself to be the inspired word of God. Let’s continue the assumptions by agreeing that it is as described. What does it tell us about God? In it we learn of the foundation of the world and God’s relationship with His creation (man) unfolding over the course of several thousand years. We read of God’s promises to provide for His people, man’s less than perfect obedience and faithfulness, indeed his all too frequent defiance and disobedience. It is a roadmap with a starting point and a destination. The end is written from beginning. (Someone pointed out that the Bible is written more as a series of lesson plans of man’s growing knowledge of his relationship and standing with God; God didn’t merely distribute pre-printed handouts to man at the start. I like that idea; it amuses me.) From the very inception of man’s breach of the relationship, we see that God sets in motion the method of redemption. Not immediately, of course. Man has chosen his own path to knowledge and self-determination, and it becomes all too clear God has given him far too much rope with which to hang himself. Be that as it may, the end will at some point finally arrive. Now. God Himself offers the payment for restitution. Man’s responsibility? To recognize his inability to repair the relationship, and to **accept the offer on God’s terms**. (Has man changed over the course of several thousand years, and is he ready to admit defeat? M’nope. It’s the exception rather than the rule, isn’t it?) Oh yeah, the terms? Man submits to God’s will, and in doing so, freely loves God and his fellow man in all he does. While this idea might strike you as unrealistic, I mean, how can God command man to love Him, read the following: 1 Chronicles 28:9 …If you seek him, he will be found by you; Ecclesiastes 3:11 He has also set eternity in the hearts of men. I think it is clear that God has created man with an empty spot in his soul that can be filled only by God. Even the most vehemently antogonistic dopers, and there are more than a few, cannot seem to dismiss it as easily as they try. So, the question I have for you, and for any one who have yet to make this decision is, is the cost to you so high that it isn’t worth making? > [@](#): > > How is questioning ANYTHING advocating censorship?? > When you pose questions, you lay the issue open, you do not isolate it. If anything, a LACK of questioning is the harbinger of a new age of ignorance… You said: “…but it is indeed quite harmful, especially when placed in the wrong hands”. _This_ is the comment I responded to. I read this as the subtle intimation that the Bible should be “controlled” in some manner. Perhaps I lumped your comment in with several other people lately making such noises, and if so, please ignore my previous statement. ---
**Author:** ![NaSultainne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/8797f3/32.png) [@NaSultainne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NaSultainne)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2003, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/relevance-of-the-bible/162566/42 "2003-03-26T21:17:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > Arcaheology also show such inconvenient facts as that the city of Jericho was destroyed by an earthquake centuries before the Hebrews ever got there. Joshua discovered a ruin. The dating of the city’s destruction is entirely consistent with Joshua’s writings. The walls did collapse outwardly as noted. If supposition is made as to the cause, it doesn’t bother me. With God, timing is everything. For your edification: [http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn11/archaeol.html](http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn11/archaeol.html) ---
**Author:** ![NaSultainne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/8797f3/32.png) [@NaSultainne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NaSultainne)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2003, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/relevance-of-the-bible/162566/43 "2003-03-26T21:40:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by UnwrittenNocturne \* > I really did not wish to enter this but the comment on Luke on found interesting. Is Luke then the correct gospel as opposed to the others: > > For example on the grandparentage of Jesus Matthew says that Josephs father was Jacob (Matthew 1:16), whereas Luke says that the father of Joseph was Heli (Luke 3:23). > > **Both cannot be true** (I know there are others but cannot find them at work on my lunch hour). _bolding mine_ Sure they can. If Matthew lists the genealogy from Joseph, the legal though not actual father of Jesus, and Luke uses the genealogy from Mary, both lines provide proof for the claim of right to the throne of David. (As I’m so willing to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, I’m sure that had only Joseph’s line been listed in scripture, no one would ever have questioned Jesus’ right to claim the kingship, would they?) Temple records weren’t destroyed until 70 A.D. I find this line of argument curious. Do you really mean to say that an intentional error (or lie) was written during the time when witnesses, family and friends, and most specifically antagonists to the early church were available to support or deny lineage so declared? Your reasonig is awfully far-fetched. While I don’t have proof of this explanation, your adamant declaration that both cannot be true is clearly wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2003, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/relevance-of-the-bible/162566/44 "2003-03-26T21:43:43Z")
**NaSultainne** , How did Judas die? ---
**Author:** ![NaSultainne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/8797f3/32.png) [@NaSultainne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NaSultainne)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2003, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/relevance-of-the-bible/162566/45 "2003-03-26T21:59:18Z")
Just to clarify my previous post: Joseph would have had two lines of ancestry, one legal and one direct. Both as noted in Matthew and Luke lead directly to the David. Remember, there is a curse on the line of Jeconiah in Jeremiah 22:24-30 such that his descendants would never prosper on the throne of Israel. Had Jesus been the actual son of Joseph, this curse would be in effect. ---
**Author:** ![NaSultainne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/8797f3/32.png) [@NaSultainne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NaSultainne)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2003, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/relevance-of-the-bible/162566/46 "2003-03-26T22:22:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > **NaSultainne** , How did Judas die? **Diogenes the Cynic** , you are like a fish on the hook, struggling to the bitter end. Okay, Judas. We are told in Matthew 27:1-8 that Judas, remorseful over his betrayal, attempts to return his blood money to the chief priests. They refuse it, he throws it into the temple, and they use it to purchase the potter’s field as a burial place. He then hangs himself. Then in Acts 1:18: With the reward he got for his wickedness, **Judas bought a field** ; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. Two things here; first, I read a certain almost contempt in Luke’s statement “bought a field”, as Judas certainly didn’t intend to do so. That he hanged himself in the very field his lucre bought is delicious irony. Second, Judas as a suicide, would it not make sense that his body, left hanging for some time, would ultimately fall to the ground and burst open? Or are you perhaps more familiar with everyday occurences of individuals falling to the ground spilling their guts? I find in Luke the doctor’s rather graphic choice of words further hints of contempt, even anger. Now, go ahead and tell me that my interpretation is in error. That’s fine. Just don’t give me any nonsense that both cannot be true. The onus is on you to prove it so. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2003, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/relevance-of-the-bible/162566/47 "2003-03-26T22:58:21Z")
**NaSultaiine** , The problem with your geneology theory is that Luke’s geneology starts with [Joseph](http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=&passage=luke+3%3A23-37&x=15&y=6), not Mary. > [@](#): > > _Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, > 24the son of Heli, the son of Matthat, > the son of Levi, the son of Melki, > the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph…_ Etc, etc, etc. He gives a geneology which clearly goes through Joseph and makes no mention of Mary. Furthermore _nobody_ listed maternal geneologies at that time, and there is absolutely no reason to assume that Luke was making an exception, especially when he, himself, makes absolutely no indication that such is his intent. Wht evidence do you have to support the assertion that Luke is giving a geneology of Mary? I see on preview that you’re giving an even more tortured answer to the Judas question, let’s correct some of your assertions. First let’s actually read the relevant passages rather than your own misleading summary: > [@](#): > > Matthew 27:3-8 > _3When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty silver coins to the chief priests and the elders. 4"I have sinned," he said, “for I have betrayed innocent blood.” > “What is that to us?” they replied. “That’s your responsibility.” > 5So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself. > 6The chief priests picked up the coins and said, “It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money.” 7So they decided to use the money to buy the potter’s field as a burial place for foreigners. 8That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day._ > [@](#): > > Acts 1:18 > _(With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out._ In the first passage, Judas runs out and hangs himself _before_ the high priests buy the potter’s field. It does not say that Judas hung himself _in_ the potter’s field. To recap: Judas throws the money at the priests and runs away. Then he hangs himself, then the priests buy a potter’s field which has no stated connection to where Judas hung himself. In the passage from Acts, Judas buys a field _himself_ (no mention of priests) and then he blows up real good (no mention of hanging) You are using a technique called “eisogesis,” which is the art of putting words into the Bible in order to synthesize an “interpretation” which fits a preconceived conclusion. You _want_ the Judas stories to jibe, so you insert some things into the text to help you along. For instance, _you_ say that Judas hung himself in the potter’s field, Matthew doesn’t say that. Your attempt to reconcile the contradiction of who bought the potter’s field by claiming to detect some tone of “contempt” in Luke’s tone is beyond specious. Acts doesn’t say Judas hung himself, it says his guts blew up. You can hypothesize that he blew up _after_ he hung himself, if that makes you feel better, but again, _the Bible doesn’t say that._ If these accounts are read objectively, without any _a priori_ belief that the Bible is inerrant, there is absolutely no reason to make that assumption. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2003, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/relevance-of-the-bible/162566/48 "2003-03-27T01:08:30Z")
I indulged in a little eisigesis of my own on this subject over on [this Pizza Parlor thread](http://thebruces.stormbirds.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14485&perpage=15&highlight=Jechoniah&pagenumber=1). My defense is that IMHO Matthew is focused on showing Jesus as **heir of David** and hence Messiah, and that the Bible is quite clear on using “son of” to mean “heir of” rather than literally “person physically begotten by.” > [@](#): > > Actually, I’ve never had any problem with the dual genealogies, and it’s not by taking one as Joseph’s and the other as Mary’s that I read them. And the point here is one I find strongly worth looking at. > > First, Jesus was Joseph’s son. That’s not denying the Virgin Birth – whether or not you accept it, Jesus was given to Joseph and Mary to raise as their son in the same way that any baby is given to its parents to raise as their child. The Matthew story specifically has God calling Joseph, through “the angel of the Lord” (we assume Gabriel here too, but without textual support), to take Mary as his wife and raise Jesus as his child. > > Apropos this, I have a wisdom-from-a-child anecdote for you. My boy Michael’s wife Tami was pregnant by a suave-but-creepy guy, Casey, when she met him. Michael fell in love with her and counts her son Kyle as his own son in all that matters, although they’ve never kept from the boy that his blood father is Casey. > > One day, I was over visiting them, and Tami, Kyle, and I were sitting at the table talking, while Michael was doing some sort of necessary work about eight feet away. The subject of what Casey was doing came up, and, since Tami and I both share a concern that he straighten his life out, we got into that. Realizing Kyle was sitting there listening to us, I said something along the lines of “And Casey – that’s your Daddy, Kyle…” > > Kyle turned to me with a “grownups-can-be-soooo-stupid” expression and said, “No, he’s my father. That’s…” pointing with an expression of pride at Michael “…my **Daddy**!” > > Message heard and understood. Michael was Kyle’s father in every way that mattered – that Casey contributed half his genetic component nine months before his birth was totally immaterial. > > And Joseph is Jesus’s father. I refer you to Kyle’s definition, which I consider head and shoulders above any scholarly exegesis on parthenogenetic conceptions or the typological significance of Isaiah 7:14. > > ========== > > Now, what to do about the Matthew/Luke genealogy thing. > > Matthew is, quite clearly, showing the heirship of the kings of Judah, to demonstrate that Jesus is the heir of David. > > But heirships don’t always follow father-son lineages. To be sure, Prince Charles is Elizabeth II’s son. But Elizabeth I’s heir was James VI of Scotland (who became James I of England), who was her aunt Margaret’s grandson by her daughter Mary Queen of Scots. > > And the key point to me here is Zerubbabel. Both lineages show “Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel” in their sequence, after the Exile. > > First, most of the book of Haggai is devoted to the restoration of the promise to David in the person and lineage of Zerubbabel. IMHO, this supersedes any curse on Jehoiachin (AKA Jechoniah, Coniah, etc.). Second, we have three separate lineages for Zerubbabel. Luke shows him as son of Shealtiel, son of Neri; Matthew shows him as son of Shealtiel, son of Jechoniah; and I Chronicles 3:17-19 shows him as son of Pedaiah, son of Shealtiel, son of Jechoniah (who is in turn shown as one of two sons of Jehoaikim, the other being Zedekiah). Here’s the kicker – clearly he was descended from Shealtiel, who was Jehoaichin’s heir. But was he son or grandson? And who was Shealtiel’s father? > > IMHO, the blood lineage is given in Luke. Matthew and I Chronicles are intersted in the heirship. Therefore Zedekiah, who was Jehoaikim’s younger brother and the puppet king of Judah after the first invasion, is shown as his son, “brother” to his nephew Jechoniah, because he was Jehoaikim’s heir after Jehoaichin (=Jechoniah) was dethroned. > > I suspect strongly that Jehoaichin had no blood children. It would be the height of wisdom for a conquering king, taking him away in exile, not to permit him to raise up an heir around whom rebels could gather. And except for him, safely in captivity, they eliminated the royal house – after the puppet regime under Zedekiah kicked the traces, anyway. > > So Jehoiachin’s heir was the surviving heir of line of the House of David – on a cadet branch descended from Nathan – and his name was Shealtiel. He died during the Exile, apparently predeceased by his son Pedaiah. But Pedaiah’s son, who was therefore Shealtiel’s heir, survived to the Return of the Remnant, and his name was Zerubbabel. His heir was Abiud, and thus down the Matthean lineage of heirship. He also had another son through whom the Lucan father-to-son genealogy is derived. (Probably that son was Johanan, who shows in Luke’s lineage as his grandson, Rhesa in the Luke line evidently being a title meaning approximately “Prince” given to Zerubbabel and misconstrued as his son’s proper name.) ---
**Author:** ![NaSultainne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/8797f3/32.png) [@NaSultainne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NaSultainne)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2003, 8:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/relevance-of-the-bible/162566/49 "2003-03-27T08:06:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > **NaSultaiine** > Wht evidence do you have to support the assertion that Luke is giving a geneology of Mary? I look for reasonable explanation. If you cannot agree that reasonable explanation is an adequate level of proof, then please, let’s dispense with this, as it is clearly a charade on your part. If you’re going to argue that every differing description of events is an insurmountable contradiction, your inability to reason is quite poor. There are, as I see it, two theories that carry some measure of legitimacy for explaining the differing lists in Matthew and Luke. 1. legal lineage v. direct lineage 2. heirs to the throne v. direct lineage As the writers of these books could hardly have known in advance that the temple would be utterly destroyed and all records lost, it seems an unreasonable stretch to presume they falsified lists which could be denounced by the very religious leaders most vehemently opposed to this foundling faith. > [@](#): > > I see on preview that you’re giving an even more tortured answer to the Judas question, let’s correct some of your assertions. > First let’s actually read the relevant passages rather than your own misleading summary: Matthew 27:3-8 When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty silver coins to the chief priests and the elders. “I have sinned,” he said, “for I have betrayed innocent blood.” “What is that to us?” they replied. “That’s your responsibility.” So Judas threw the money into the temple - _He threw it into the temple. He didn’t **give** it back to them. They didn’t **receive** it from him._ -and left. Then he went away and hanged himself. _He left. Doesn’t say he ran away. Says he went away. Does this imply immediate action or does it allow room for some minutes, even hours to pass before he hanged himself._ The chief priests picked up the coins and said, “It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money.” So they decided to buy the potter’s field as a burial place for foreigners. That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day. _Keep this passage in mind. They bought the field using **Judas’ money** _. Now, on to Acts 1:18-19: With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; _This is so clearly irony. His money bought this field. It clearly wasn’t the chief priests’ money, was it?_ there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. _ **there** indicates the location of his body is in this field. To emphasize that his body burst open AND all his intestines spilled out is more than simple narrative. It’s crude, graphic and needlessly so. Not Luke’s style at all._ > [@](#): > > You are using a technique called “eisogesis,” which is the art of putting words into the Bible in order to synthesize an “interpretation” which fits a preconceived conclusion. Wrong. I use the same standard of comprehension and interpretation I would use in reading any narrative. If it makes sense in a literal fashion, fine. “The cat slept on the windowsill”. If it’s a metaphorical or word picture, also fine. “The sunset glowed like a glorious trail of golden-tinged fire”. I look for the most consistent explanation. If time is specified, either directly of indirectly, also fine. “He left at noon” or “He left at night”. > [@](#): > > You _want_ the Judas stories to jibe, so you insert some things into the text to help you along. For instance, _you_ say that Judas hung himself in the potter’s field, Matthew doesn’t say that. Acts does specify the location of his body. > [@](#): > > Your attempt to reconcile the contradiction of who bought the potter’s field by claiming to detect some tone of “contempt” in Luke’s tone is beyond specious. No, it’s a reasonable standard of interpretation. Yours, on the other hand, apparently is not. > [@](#): > > Acts doesn’t say Judas hung himself, it says his guts blew up. You can hypothesize that he blew up _after_ he hung himself, if that makes you feel better, but again, \*the Bible doesn’t say that. True. It also doesn’t account for every second of every minute of every day of every week of every month of every year of every decade of every century of every millenium. There must be some common ground on which we understand the story without this hyper detail. Or do you prefer not to read, because no author could possibly write to the degree and detail you demand. > [@](#): > > If these accounts are read objectively, without any _a priori_ belief that the Bible is inerrant, there is absolutely no reason to make that assumption. Ahh, so that’s it. And might I say that if these accounts are read with _a priori_ refusal to accept common terminology and narrative, there is absolutely no reason to continue this debate. You are simply unwilling to make a good faith effort to consider and understand the text, demanding a hyper-detailed script. In this regard, you will never be satisfied, and your objections are insurmountable. ---
**Author:** ![Shaolinrabbit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e0b2c6/32.png) [@Shaolinrabbit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shaolinrabbit)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2003, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/relevance-of-the-bible/162566/50 "2003-03-27T13:59:04Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by GOM \* > \*\*Why? Did I offend you somehow? > > I don’t recall meeting you yet… > > 😕 \*\* No, **GOM** , not at all. We have kind of met in a few threads, but I don’t ascribe to the Bible as a solid document, or the absolute word of God, if that makes sense. I am, however, a Christian so we tend to agree on some things. So, while we don’t agree on everything, in this case I believe you are right. “I hate to say it” because it’s a limited statement, not because I’m not glad you’re right. I just don’t think you’re right about _everything_. 😉 Hope that clears up the confusion. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2003, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/relevance-of-the-bible/162566/51 "2003-03-27T14:39:02Z")
**NaSultainne** : No, it’s you who are being unreasonable. The two versions, as written, appear to contradict each other. You can interpret them so that they’re the same, but this requires reading in data not present in the original text. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2003, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/relevance-of-the-bible/162566/52 "2003-03-27T15:09:50Z")
> [@](#): > > **NaSultainne** said: > I look for reasonable explanation. If you cannot agree that reasonable explanation is an adequate level of proof, then please, let’s dispense with this, as it is clearly a charade on your part. If you’re going to argue that every differing description of events is an insurmountable contradiction, your inability to reason is quite poor. There’s nothing reasonable about your interpretation. The geneology goes through Joseph. It’s not a geneology of Mary. This is not a question of interpretation. It’s a plain reading of the text. Luke did not intend his gospel to be read with Matthew, he intended it to stand on its own. He felt no desire to make it Jibe with Matthew. > [@](#): > > As the writers of these books could hardly have known in advance that the temple would be utterly destroyed and all records lost, it seems an unreasonable stretch to presume they falsified lists which could be denounced by the very religious leaders most vehemently opposed to this foundling faith. Both Matthew and Luke were written _after_ the destruction of the temple. (Matthew about 80 CE, Luke about 90 CE). Which would explain a lack of access to geneologies, but a peasant like Jesus would probably not have had a written geneology anyway. > [@](#): > > He threw it into the temple. He didn’t give it back to them. They didn’t receive it from him. A distinction without a difference. > [@](#): > > He left. Doesn’t say he ran away. Says he went away. Does this imply immediate action or does it allow room for some minutes, even hours to pass before he hanged himself. He “went away and hanged himself.” It implies an immediate action. There is absolutely no reason to read it as otherwise unless you’re trying to avoid a contradiction with Acts…and it stll doesn’t say he hung himself in the potter’s field. > [@](#): > > Keep this passage in mind. They bought the field using Judas’ money. _After_ Judas had already hung himself in an unspecified location. > [@](#): > > This is so clearly irony. His money bought this field. It clearly wasn’t the chief priests’ money, was it? There’s nothing ironic about it. It’s a completely different story. If Acts is read on its own, with no knowledge of Matthew (and Luke had no knowledge of Matthew), there is no reason whatever to try to read this as ironic. > [@](#): > > there indicates the location of his body is in this field. To emphasize that his body burst open AND all his intestines spilled out is more than simple narrative. It’s crude, graphic and needlessly so. Not Luke’s style at all. In point of fact, Luke is quoting Peter in this passage, so he’s using the voice of a character, which would be expected to differ from Luke’s own narrative style. I will say again, there is no indication in Matthew that Judas hung himself in a field. There is no indication in Acts that Judas hung himself at all. If one has no knowledge of Matthew, then one would have no way to deduce that Judas committed suicide. Acts, read _per se_ seems to imply a pure act of God. [quote] Wrong. I use the same standard of comprehension and interpretation I would use in reading any narrative. If it makes sense in a literal fashion, fine. “The cat slept on the windowsill”. If it’s a metaphorical or word picture, also fine. “The sunset glowed like a glorious trail of golden-tinged fire”. I look for the most consistent explanation. If time is specified, either directly of indirectly, also fine. “He left at noon” or “He left at night”. [quote] You’re attempting to reconcile two conflicting accounts of the same event by inserting hypothetical details into the text. Neither of these books was intended by their authors to be read in conjunction with the other. They each expected the reader to take their respective accounts as complete unto themselves. You’re reading these accounts like they’re two different chapters in the same book. They are two different books. There is no need to reconcile them from a literary perspective. They are each internally consistent, there is no literary or historical requirement to try to make them jibe with each _other_. Their authors didbn’t care about that. > [@](#): > > Acts does specify the location of his body. So what does that have to do with Matthew. You can’t use one book to try to inform the other. They are completely independant works. > [@](#): > > * * * > > ## _Your attempt to reconcile the contradiction of who bought the potter’s field by claiming to detect some tone of “contempt” in Luke’s tone is beyond specious._ > > No, it’s a reasonable standard of interpretation. Yours, on the other hand, apparently is not. You haven’t offered any reason to read Luke’s narrative as “ironic” or 'contemptuous" other than that it doesn’t jibe with Matthew. Once again, you can’t use Matthew to try to inform Acts. They have nothing do with each other. Neither author had any knowledge of the other. > [@](#): > > ## _-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Acts doesn’t say Judas hung himself, it says his guts blew up. You can hypothesize that he blew up after he hung himself, if that makes you feel better, but again, the Bible doesn’t say that._ > > True. It also doesn’t account for every second of every minute of every day of every week of every month of every year of every decade of every century of every millenium. There must be some common ground on which we understand the story without this hyper detail. Or do you prefer not to read, because no author could possibly write to the degree and detail you demand. That doesn’t mean we can just insert whatever details we want into the text. Acts doesn’t say that Judas hung himself, and there is no reason to hypothesize otherwise unless you want it to jibe with Matthew. You can’t use Matthew to inform Acts. They’re two diffent books. Neither has any reference to the other. > [@](#): > > Ahh, so that’s it. And might I say that if these accounts are read with a priori refusal to accept common terminology and narrative, there is absolutely no reason to continue this debate. You are simply unwilling to make a good faith effort to consider and understand the text, demanding a hyper-detailed script. In this regard, you will never be satisfied, and your objections are insurmountable. What “common terminology and narrative” have I refused to accept? I read each book at face value and they contradict each othe. It doesn’t bother me that they contradict each other, so I feel no need to invent a scenario or an “ironic tone” in Acts to reconcile them. Why do you think that the NT must be inerrant? How did you arrive at this conclusion? Why _can’t_ there be contradictions? They were written by people, after all. ---
**Author:** ![GOM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/5f9b8f/32.png) [@GOM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GOM)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2003, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/relevance-of-the-bible/162566/53 "2003-03-27T16:57:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Copaesthetic \* > \*\*I just don’t think you’re right about _everything_. > > 😉 Hope that clears up the confusion. \*\* hahaha Yes, thank you! For a guy with only three remaining brain cells to be right about everything would be extremely unlikely. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![NaSultainne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/8797f3/32.png) [@NaSultainne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NaSultainne)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2003, 7:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/relevance-of-the-bible/162566/54 "2003-03-28T07:16:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by TVAA \* > **NaSultainne** : No, it’s you who are being unreasonable. > The two versions, as written, appear to contradict each other. You can interpret them so that they’re the same, but this requires reading in data not present in the original text. [inigo montoya]I do not think it means what you think it means.[/inigo montoya] A contradiction is two opposing statements, a logical incongruity. I’ve heard this charge leveled far too often, and it’s frequently simple human cussedness that keeps some people from ever abandoning the argument. The problem you seem to have is this: you refuse to grant any action or events supplemental to that described in the scripture. This is a completely unreasonable stance. Any two statements surrounding a given event are going to be _selective_ in nature rather than _comprehensive_. A narrative attempting to give the significant events in summary will always have gaps. Or do you really think Matthew should have written in every nuanced thought and step involved? You know better. ---
**Author:** ![NaSultainne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/8797f3/32.png) [@NaSultainne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NaSultainne)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2003, 8:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/relevance-of-the-bible/162566/55 "2003-03-28T08:40:53Z")
**Diogenes** , I had started another in a series of long explanations when my fingers became cramped. So, I says to myself, just say what you got to say and leave it at that. Have you ever considered that you’ve expended so much time analyzing something that you’ve lost sight of the big picture? As long as you take the word of men as to the nature of truth, you’ll be searching forever. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > Why do you think that the NT must be inerrant? How did you arrive at this conclusion? Why _can’t_ there be contradictions? They were written by people, after all. I left only this bit of your post, because this is the true nugget of value. Why, indeed, would anyone consider the OT or NT to be inerrant? I cannot address with conviction every seeming discrepancy in the bible. I’m not a lifelong scholar; that there are, 2,000 years after being written, still today men and women who devote their lives to such study should speak to its value. What I can tell you is this: two things convince me of its authenticity, its divine inspiration. One is my own walk with God, which you obviously cannot comprehend or evaluate. I truly wish I could impart this awareness to others. When you hear a Christian in fever pitch proselytizing, it’s not for lack of a date on Saturday night. It’s an experience of God that is devoutly desired to be shared. **Polycarp** and **Libertarian** would say much the same, if I might be so presumptuous. The other is my personal analysis of bible consistency, coherency, scope and comprehension. Yes, there are discrepancies in the bible, legitimate ones. And no, they aren’t the ones you or anyone on SDMB has raised, AFAIKT. This simply reminds me that God had a reason for putting such information in, and it’s up to us to search it out. Now, as to your last point, the bible being a product of man. Here I must differ with some of my fellow Christians. If the bible, in multiple verses, claims to be divinely inspired, I can hardly believe such inspiration amounted to God calling Moses over, for example, and saying “Hey, Moses, go write a book about the beginning of the world. I spent six days doing it, and all was complete by the seventh. I think you can fill in the rest, right? Great.” Not. It’s always tempting to take the path of least resistance and accept the judgment of critics. I can’t do that. If God couldn’t make sure His story was properly told, on what basis do I then pick and choose what to believe? God then becomes what _I_ make _Him_. Anyway, I’m really starting to feel this in my hands, especially because I can’t seem to stop the editing process. Let me finish with this: I am logical to a fault. My kids tease me about it. I search for reason, rationale, logic, consistency and coherency. I search for patterns and sense in everything. I seek diligently. God is logical. ---
**Author:** ![Shaolinrabbit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e0b2c6/32.png) [@Shaolinrabbit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shaolinrabbit)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2003, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/relevance-of-the-bible/162566/56 "2003-03-28T13:31:37Z")
It doesn’t really matter where Judas hung himself if the Bible was written by men. The fallible writers will always make mistakes. Paul died around 60 AD, some thirty years after Christ was crucified, so you can begin by taking the letters of Paul, who knew those around Jesus and was familiar to the apostles. Then you have the Gospel of Mark, which as I understand it was written from oral traditions(Around 72 AD). The gospels of Matthew and Luke were produced independently of one another but it is supposed that they used at least two of the same sources, one of which was probably the Gospel of Mark. The Gospel of John uses a third source. Given the span of some sixty years after the passage of Christ, it’s hard to assume that all of these gospels produced similar works by chance. Of course their sources are somewhat differentiated, but how many sources were there over the course of 60 years? Some of these sources are said to have come from the Apostles themselves( **Polycarp** can probably expand on that since he hasn’t told me _his_ sources yet.) In addition to this it’s hardly prudent to assume that the Apostles themselves had died immediately following the death of Christ, many of them may have lived fairly long lives. Two generations might have passed between the death of Christ and the last Gospels, but it’s hardly a telephone game. Sources were regularly produced and recopied, and an effort was made to collect several sources to produce each Gospel. It’s hard to say whether the religious nature of the Apostles and their followers may have produced inaccuracies, but harder to say why these inaccuracies might agree with one another. It’s even harder to say why some might have risked their lives to pass on such a story, unless they believed it was true. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2003, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/relevance-of-the-bible/162566/57 "2003-03-28T14:07:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by NaSultainne \* > \*\*The problem you seem to have is this: you refuse to grant any action or events supplemental to that described in the scripture. This is a completely unreasonable stance. Any two statements surrounding a given event are going to be _selective_ in nature rather than _comprehensive_. A narrative attempting to give the significant events in summary will always have gaps. Or do you really think Matthew should have written in every nuanced thought and step involved? You know better. \*\* Both accounts state that Judas died. However, one says that Judas used the money he received to purchase land, while the other says that he returned the money back to the priests, who purchased the field. One says that Judas exploded at his property (a fate similar to that of Arinas) while the other says he hanged himself. It’s not that these accounts are similar, missing or differing in minor details; **they describe different events**. If you pointed out that no one writing the Gospels would have had “inside knowledge” of what happened, and that their accounts would have come from hearsay and third-hand sources, it would be quite reasonable to grant that their details might differ, but the general point was the same: something involving the purchase of land and Judas’ dying there is claimed to have occurred. But no, you deny that the accounts are inconsistent in the first place. Your claims to the contrary, you are not making a logical argument. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2003, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/relevance-of-the-bible/162566/58 "2003-03-28T15:20:29Z")
> [@](#): > > **NaSultainne** said: > Have you ever considered that you’ve expended so much time analyzing something that you’ve lost sight of the big picture? As long as you take the word of men as to the nature of truth, you’ll be searching forever. I think the Bible _is_ the word of men. That’s why I can’t accept it as inerrant truth. > [@](#): > > I left only this bit of your post, because this is the true nugget of value. Why, indeed, would anyone consider the OT or NT to be inerrant? > > I cannot address with conviction every seeming discrepancy in the bible. I’m not a lifelong scholar; that there are, 2,000 years after being written, still today men and women who devote their lives to such study should speak to its value. > > What I can tell you is this: two things convince me of its authenticity, its divine inspiration. One is my own walk with God, which you obviously cannot comprehend or evaluate. I truly wish I could impart this awareness to others. When you hear a Christian in fever pitch proselytizing, it’s not for lack of a date on Saturday night. It’s an experience of God that is devoutly desired to be shared. Polycarp and Libertarian would say much the same, if I might be so presumptuous. The other is my personal analysis of bible consistency, coherency, scope and comprehension. Yes, there are discrepancies in the bible, legitimate ones. And no, they aren’t the ones you or anyone on SDMB has raised, AFAIKT. This simply reminds me that God had a reason for putting such information in, and it’s up to us to search it out. You’re first reason for accepting inerrancy is an argument from authority, the old “I feel God in my heart” rationale, which is fine, in itself and which is a real phenomoenon that I do not challenge. The problem with this is that this feeling is by no means exclusive to Christians. The same joy and conviction is also present in Muslims who are convinced of the divine perfection of the Koran. It is present in Hindus who know, without question, that the Vedas are the word of God. It is present in Jews who know the true meaning of the Torah, and who know that the Christians have erred in their worship of a great teacher named Yeshu. This feeling of bliss and _certainty_ is present in every religion. How can you then be sure that _your_ experience, your certainty in the truth of your beliefs, have any more veracity than that of a South American shaman? Do you believe that the experience of a Christian is genuine but that of Muslim is false. _How_ do you know? The second part of your argument is unconvincing in light of the rest of our discussion. You “analyze” the text in a manner which makes it “consistent” to you , not becuase the text really warrants such a reading but because you wish it to be so. You don’t believe the Bible is divine because it is consistent, you believe it is consistent beecause it is divine. > [@](#): > > Now, as to your last point, the bible being a product of man. Here I must differ with some of my fellow Christians. If the bible, in multiple verses, claims to be divinely inspired, I can hardly believe such inspiration amounted to God calling Moses over, for example, and saying “Hey, Moses, go write a book about the beginning of the world. I spent six days doing it, and all was complete by the seventh. I think you can fill in the rest, right? Great.” Not. It’s always tempting to take the path of least resistance and accept the judgment of critics. I can’t do that. If God couldn’t make sure His story was properly told, on what basis do I then pick and choose what to believe? God then becomes what I make Him. I don’t really have to point out the fallacy of a circular argument, do I? You’re saying that the Bible is inspired because the Bible says so. You should know better than to assert that as an argument, especially if you are “logical to a fault” as you claim. ---
**Author:** ![Mars\_Horizon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mars_horizon/32/2804_2.png) [@Mars\_Horizon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mars_Horizon)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2003, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/relevance-of-the-bible/162566/59 "2003-03-28T15:28:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by NaSultainne \* > \*\ ***As long as you take the word of men as to the nature of truth, you’ll be searching forever.** Men like Billy Graham, Jerry Falwell, Billy Sunday, Dwight Moody, Augustine, Clement, Origen, and Paul of Tarsus? I couldn’t agree more. 🙂 As for me, I’ll take what can be clearly observed and tested empirically as truth, thanks. I’ll leave you to take the Bible as a standard of truth, and I’ll wish you well on your way. Where I’ll draw the line though is when you or believers like you insist on requiring me to be or think like you, or when you tell me that I am evil for not believing what you believe. But hey - you leave me alone, and I will honor you with the same respect. MH ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2003, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/relevance-of-the-bible/162566/60 "2003-03-28T15:39:49Z")
**Copasthetic** , the only real similarity and consistency between gospels is the shared collections of sayings and parables (as well as some cannibalization of Mark by Luke). Circumstantially, it seems that the earliest gospels were probably “sayings” gospels like Q and Thomas, which contained no narratives or miracles but which may have had some authentic apostollic origin. The source of the miracle stories is unknown, but it’s interesting that the very earliest gospels (including Mark) saw no need to mention either the virgin birth or the resurrection. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/relevance-of-the-bible/162566.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/relevance-of-the-bible/162566.md?page=4)