Bible Contradictions?

[Allie]

Hello, everyone!

I've recharged my batteries (for those who have seen my other threads) and I'm ready for another chat.

So I've heard from many people about the Bible contradicting itself, and I was wondering if I may ask where those contradictions are? This is something I've always wondered about, always, and I would be very happy if you would tell me the contradictions you see. I may know something about the passage(as to why it seems contradicting), but I probably won't. I come to you all in the most humble of circumstances, I am still very young.

Please don't disrespect me, I won't disrespect you; I've already had to take a break from this place and I just joined. I'd love it if everyone could be kind to everyone else, no matter what comes up.

I look forward to seeing your replies.

[Goat]

How did Judas die? Also who was Joseph's father? There are two different answers in the New Testament. Look them up. If you work really hard, and many have, you can find an explanation, somewhat forced, that reconciles them. The point is, that no one reading the passages would come to this conclusion. But, if you truly want to believe strongly enough, you can find a way to force all of the Biblical contradictions together.

Those were very good. You already seem to know how these aren't contradictions, so I'll post my research for the benefit of others.

Judas seemingly died in two places. In Matthew 27:5, Judas hanged himself. In Acts 1:18, he fell, and his innards spilled on the ground.
This does seem to be a contradiction, but I researched, and found otherwise. This is not a certainty, but it proves that these verses could exist together. What if Judas was hanging, and he fell? That would make more sense to me, because usually when normal, alive humans fall, their innards don't spill out. If he had been rotting for a while, and then fell, it would make much more sense that his innards would spill, would it not?

That is what I mean by mental gymnastics. If you read the two stories separately, there is no indication of anything in the other story, except for the name of Judas, and the story about the 'Field of Blood'. The reason for the field of blood being called the field of blood doesn't even match. How the field was paid for (by the priests, or by Judas directly) is mutually exclusive. There is no indication Judas
was 'dead' before he split his guts open in the one story,and there is no indication he did anything but hang himself in the other. To try to put the two stories you have to invent all SORTS of unreasonable extra assumptions to deny that the two stories just don't match each other. However, if you read each individual story separately, and then try to impose the 'assumptions' needed to harmonize the two stories, it just plain does not make sense at all.

And here we go again, another good one. Who was Joseph's father? In Luke he has a different father than in Matthew. Now, this was a very patriarchal society, and everyone traced their lineage through their father. So in Matthew, they traced Jesus' lineage through his father. However, because it was a virgin birth, people realized that Jesus wasn't really related to Joseph. In Luke, therefore, it is Mary's lineage. Why did he say Joseph was the son of Mary's father? Well, as I said, it was normal to trace through the father, so that might have been more acceptable. Also, Luke might have meant something familiar, like Joseph was the "son-in-law". He was the son-in-law, so that would have made sense.

Except, of course, that violates the entire Jewish tradition of lineage and blood lines, nor , upon reading each of the two texts seperately, would you see any indication of that in the text itself. When someone has to invent things that do not match the laws and customs of the time period, or the text as written, then you know that is just a story line that is an excuse, and have no basis in reality.

Jewish bloodlines always is counted from biological father to son . Even if a child is adopted, it goes with their BLOOD father, not the adopted father.

So, for this explaination to be 'accurate', you have to ignore the actual text of Luke, and you have to ignore the Jewish laws and customs of the time. That doesn't seem to be a very reasonable explaination to me.

Those two attempts of removing the contradictions , while traditional among those who believe the bible is without error, are vastly inadequate





Thank you for the challenge! I love learning about the Bible in new ways.
Any more good challenges, anyone?[/quote]

[McCulloch]

Judas seemingly died in two places. In Matthew 27:5, Judas hanged himself. In Acts 1:18, he fell, and his innards spilled on the ground.
This does seem to be a contradiction, but I researched, and found otherwise. This is not a certainty, but it proves that these verses could exist together. What if Judas was hanging, and he fell? That would make more sense to me, because usually when normal, alive humans fall, their innards don't spill out. If he had been rotting for a while, and then fell, it would make much more sense that his innards would spill, would it not?

"Brethren, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit foretold by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus. For he was counted among us and received his share in this ministry."
Now this man acquired a field with the price of his wickedness, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out. And it became known to all who were living in Jerusalem; so that in their own language that field was called Hakeldama, that is, Field of Blood.

By simply reading this passage, one does not get the impression that Judas hanged himself. In fact, it is rather difficult to see how a person who died by self administered hanging could possibly fall headlong to the ground and have his intestines gush out. That is quite a bit of acrobatics for a corpse! How many days of rotting while hanging on a noose do you think it would take?
Oh, and who acquired the field? Reading this passage, it seems as if Judas bought the field himself.

Then when Judas, who had betrayed Him, saw that He had been condemned, he felt remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, saying, "I have sinned by betraying innocent blood." But they said, "What is that to us? See to that yourself!"
And he threw the pieces of silver into the temple sanctuary and departed; and he went away and hanged himself.
The chief priests took the pieces of silver and said, "It is not lawful to put them into the temple treasury, since it is the price of blood."
And they conferred together and with the money bought the Potter's Field as a burial place for strangers. For this reason that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day.

Matthew seems to disagree with Luke about the reason that it is called the field of blood. Matthew also seems to have missed pointing out the detail that that the chief priests and elders bought the very field that Judas hanged himself in. That does not prove anything, but it does raise doubts.

Who was Joseph's father? [...] Also, Luke might have meant something familiar, like Joseph was the "son-in-law". He was the son-in-law, so that would have made sense.

If Luke had meant son-in-law, why did he not say son-in-law? Check out Matthew 8:14, Matthew 10:35, Mark 1:30, Luke 4:38, Luke 12:53 and John 18:13 to see that the New Testament writers did, in fact, have words for the -in-law relationships.

[Allie]

Hello everyone, I went on vacation and now I'm back. I'm not going to reply to everyone, but I will make one general statement.

What you guys call 'fancy footwork' and 'mental gymnastics' seems to me to be only different perspectives.

For instance, if someone told you, "The twin towers fell." you'd consider that truth. If someone else said, "Planes crashed into the twin towers." you would consider that truth, too. If someone who didn't know the story heard that, they might call your explanation of "The twin towers fell after the planes crashed into them" fancy footwork or mental gymnastics, while really, that is not the case. There are different perspectives in the Bible--I think that's a strength, not a weakness.

[McCulloch]

What you guys call 'fancy footwork' and 'mental gymnastics' seems to me to be only different perspectives.

For instance, if someone told you, "The twin towers fell." you'd consider that truth. If someone else said, "Planes crashed into the twin towers." you would consider that truth, too. If someone who didn't know the story heard that, they might call your explanation of "The twin towers fell after the planes crashed into them" fancy footwork or mental gymnastics, while really, that is not the case. There are different perspectives in the Bible--I think that's a strength, not a weakness.

I hardly seems to be a different perspective:
In one, Judas hangs himself and is buried in a field purchased by the chief priests. In the other, he, himself purchases the field and dies by falling headlong into it, his intestines falling out.