Is this evidence that the Bible contains false statements?

[Czhorat]

Judas death isn't really an issue either. It is entirely plausible that he hung himself and his guts spilled out when he was cut loose (or the rope snapped). Especially given the impression that the "guts spilling out" gory death was a supernatural phenomenon. Given the Jewish customs regarding dead bodies on the Sabbath, it would be impossible to say which part actually killed Judas. (His death occurred on the night before the Sabbath, so his body laid out for an entire day before burial. This scientifically supports the conclusion, as a decaying body will swell with internal gases and could then "explode" and "spill out guts" - this happens frequently with beached whales, for instance, as well as humans where no embalming is undertaken after death.)

Matthew does not deny that Judas fell and had his entrails gush out, and Luke does not deny that Judas hanged himself. In short, Matthew records the method in which Judas attempted his death. Luke reports the end result in Acts.

As for whether he bought the field or the Pharisees did after he returned the blood money, under Jewish law, Judas still was the "owner" of the blood money until someone accepted it (the Pharisees did not, and Judas threw the money on the floor of the temple in anger, according to the Scripture). Thus, he paid for the field, even if the Pharisees did the actual transaction, so the verse in Acts could merely be a summary of the more accurate and detail oriented verses in Matthew, with added emphasis on the gory details to make a slightly different point.

It never fails to amaze me the amount of handwaving one is willing to do to take clearly contradictoray statements and make them somehow seem to kind of fit, while ignoring the much more plausible explanation that the book contains internal contradictions. Do you have a hand-wave for the number of animals in Noah's ark, or the order of creation in Genesis? How many hoops do you need to jump through before you get tired of jumping through hoops?

(and you are jumping through hoops. Nobody would read Matthew's account of Judah's guts spilling out and assume he hanged himself first. nobody would read the two stories about the blood money the way you want to read them unless they were trying to fix internal inconsistancies).

[Utisz]

The point isn't that the error is important it is that the error is present. Scarlet and tyrian purple are not the same colour and the robe is described in absolute terms that are contradictory. Technically the words used refers to the dye of the garments which means one gospel must be incorrect in a very nonsubjective manner.

[DSenette]

Judas death isn't really an issue either. It is entirely plausible that he hung himself and his guts spilled out when he was cut loose (or the rope snapped). Especially given the impression that the "guts spilling out" gory death was a supernatural phenomenon. Given the Jewish customs regarding dead bodies on the Sabbath, it would be impossible to say which part actually killed Judas. (His death occurred on the night before the Sabbath, so his body laid out for an entire day before burial. This scientifically supports the conclusion, as a decaying body will swell with internal gases and could then "explode" and "spill out guts" - this happens frequently with beached whales, for instance, as well as humans where no embalming is undertaken after death.)

Matthew does not deny that Judas fell and had his entrails gush out, and Luke does not deny that Judas hanged himself. In short, Matthew records the method in which Judas attempted his death. Luke reports the end result in Acts.

As for whether he bought the field or the Pharisees did after he returned the blood money, under Jewish law, Judas still was the "owner" of the blood money until someone accepted it (the Pharisees did not, and Judas threw the money on the floor of the temple in anger, according to the Scripture). Thus, he paid for the field, even if the Pharisees did the actual transaction, so the verse in Acts could merely be a summary of the more accurate and detail oriented verses in Matthew, with added emphasis on the gory details to make a slightly different point.

your assessment of how bodies decompose is off. a body (even in the heat of the desert) won't gassify that much in an evening.

[Xeio]

basically, I don't see how you can disprove that a higher power exists, and then I accept that faith at that point is probably a good thing

Is that a pascal's wager-esque thing? Because we can't disprove russel's teapot either.

[Jhackulon]

You make good points. Remember though, that the bible is an interpretaion of the word of god by many people (excluding the many changes made in the middle ages) and thus one account can differ.

Though you should probably ignore me as I'm an Agnostic (I cant know wether a deity exists or not, and nor can you).

BTW, you know that in one edition, the printers forgot to add the 'not' in 'thou shalt not commit adultery'!

[a_toddler]

Though you should probably ignore me as I'm an Agnostic (I cant know wether a deity exists or not, and nor can you).

I've always wondered how agnostics know that a deity is unknowable.

[collegestudent22]

Judas death isn't really an issue either. It is entirely plausible that he hung himself and his guts spilled out when he was cut loose (or the rope snapped). Especially given the impression that the "guts spilling out" gory death was a supernatural phenomenon. Given the Jewish customs regarding dead bodies on the Sabbath, it would be impossible to say which part actually killed Judas. (His death occurred on the night before the Sabbath, so his body laid out for an entire day before burial. This scientifically supports the conclusion, as a decaying body will swell with internal gases and could then "explode" and "spill out guts" - this happens frequently with beached whales, for instance, as well as humans where no embalming is undertaken after death.)

Matthew does not deny that Judas fell and had his entrails gush out, and Luke does not deny that Judas hanged himself. In short, Matthew records the method in which Judas attempted his death. Luke reports the end result in Acts.

As for whether he bought the field or the Pharisees did after he returned the blood money, under Jewish law, Judas still was the "owner" of the blood money until someone accepted it (the Pharisees did not, and Judas threw the money on the floor of the temple in anger, according to the Scripture). Thus, he paid for the field, even if the Pharisees did the actual transaction, so the verse in Acts could merely be a summary of the more accurate and detail oriented verses in Matthew, with added emphasis on the gory details to make a slightly different point.

your assessment of how bodies decompose is off. a body (even in the heat of the desert) won't gassify that much in an evening.

Unless this gassification was sped up supernaturally, which is implied by the Scripture. But, then again, if we assume that anything that isn't strictly natural doesn't exist, then you are automatically assuming the Bible is wrong - it's a circular argument.

The point isn't that the error is important it is that the error is present. Scarlet and tyrian purple are not the same colour and the robe is described in absolute terms that are contradictory.

So are orange and yellow, and yet I see certain things as orange while others see it as yellow. Color perception and description are not absolutes, no matter the "terms", and it is therefore not an error.

Technically the words used refers to the dye of the garments which means one gospel must be incorrect in a very nonsubjective manner.

"Technically", they do no such thing. It is impossible for someone to know what dye was used without having done it themselves or commissioned it, as they are making that determination on the basis of purely the color they perceive.

[DSenette]

Judas death isn't really an issue either. It is entirely plausible that he hung himself and his guts spilled out when he was cut loose (or the rope snapped). Especially given the impression that the "guts spilling out" gory death was a supernatural phenomenon. Given the Jewish customs regarding dead bodies on the Sabbath, it would be impossible to say which part actually killed Judas. (His death occurred on the night before the Sabbath, so his body laid out for an entire day before burial. This scientifically supports the conclusion, as a decaying body will swell with internal gases and could then "explode" and "spill out guts" - this happens frequently with beached whales, for instance, as well as humans where no embalming is undertaken after death.)

Matthew does not deny that Judas fell and had his entrails gush out, and Luke does not deny that Judas hanged himself. In short, Matthew records the method in which Judas attempted his death. Luke reports the end result in Acts.

As for whether he bought the field or the Pharisees did after he returned the blood money, under Jewish law, Judas still was the "owner" of the blood money until someone accepted it (the Pharisees did not, and Judas threw the money on the floor of the temple in anger, according to the Scripture). Thus, he paid for the field, even if the Pharisees did the actual transaction, so the verse in Acts could merely be a summary of the more accurate and detail oriented verses in Matthew, with added emphasis on the gory details to make a slightly different point.

your assessment of how bodies decompose is off. a body (even in the heat of the desert) won't gassify that much in an evening.

Unless this gassification was sped up supernaturally, which is implied by the Scripture. But, then again, if we assume that anything that isn't strictly natural doesn't exist, then you are automatically assuming the Bible is wrong - it's a circular argument.

or, you know, the easier answer....that it didn't happen. why would one account omit something that's PRETTY FUCKING important? if god blew the guy up with his mind like Paul Atreides did to Feyd Harkonnen in Dune, don't you think you'd want to convey that in every story? especially if these are first hand accounts (again, nothing in the bible is even remotely first hand).

you keep going on about how two accounts of the same event can be different....they can, but when they vary SO widely as omitting someone's guts bursting from their body, then one of the accounts must be called into question.

if you and me witness a robbery and i say the guy had a black hat on, and you say the guy had a navy blue hat on, no one is going to question the difference in accounts, that shit makes sense.

if we witness a robbery and i say the guy was a sarlacc, and you say he was of middle eastern descent, well then one of us is going to get questioned a little harder than the other.

The point isn't that the error is important it is that the error is present. Scarlet and tyrian purple are not the same colour and the robe is described in absolute terms that are contradictory.

So are orange and yellow, and yet I see certain things as orange while others see it as yellow. Color perception and description are not absolutes, no matter the "terms", and it is therefore not an error.

Technically the words used refers to the dye of the garments which means one gospel must be incorrect in a very nonsubjective manner.

"Technically", they do no such thing. It is impossible for someone to know what dye was used without having done it themselves or commissioned it, as they are making that determination on the basis of purely the color they perceive.

in a time where if you wanted a shirt that was a different color than the one your neighbor wore you had to dye it yourself, YES most people DID in fact know the difference between dying processes

[KestrelLowing]

basically, I don't see how you can disprove that a higher power exists, and then I accept that faith at that point is probably a good thing

Is that a pascal's wager-esque thing? Because we can't disprove russel's teapot either.

Yeah, basically although I'd never actually heard of Pascal's Wager before. Obviously I've also started with the Christian God as a starting point because of my background, but I don't know anymore. I guess the best thing I can say is that I'm agnostic currently.

[Utisz]

Technically the words used refers to the dye of the garments which means one gospel must be incorrect in a very nonsubjective manner.

"Technically", they do no such thing. It is impossible for someone to know what dye was used without having done it themselves or commissioned it, as they are making that determination on the basis of purely the color they perceive.

I am standing next to my friend holding a packet of red gummy bears, I look at the colour and say "they've coloured with amaranth" and my friend say "no allura red AC" one (or both) of us must be incorrect. If you make a non-subjective call based on subjective information you can be unambiguously wrong.

[collegestudent22]

your assessment of how bodies decompose is off. a body (even in the heat of the desert) won't gassify that much in an evening.

Unless this gassification was sped up supernaturally, which is implied by the Scripture. But, then again, if we assume that anything that isn't strictly natural doesn't exist, then you are automatically assuming the Bible is wrong - it's a circular argument.

or, you know, the easier answer....that it didn't happen. why would one account omit something that's PRETTY FUCKING important? if god blew the guy up with his mind like Paul Atreides did to Feyd Harkonnen in Dune, don't you think you'd want to convey that in every story?

Not necessarily. One might want to focus on the supernatural implication of his guts spilling out, while the other wanted to focus on the mere fact that he tried to return the money and then committed suicide due to his guilt.

if we witness a robbery and i say the guy was a sarlacc, and you say he was of middle eastern descent, well then one of us is going to get questioned a little harder than the other.

Except the two described happenings aren't mutually exclusive.

The point isn't that the error is important it is that the error is present. Scarlet and tyrian purple are not the same colour and the robe is described in absolute terms that are contradictory.

So are orange and yellow, and yet I see certain things as orange while others see it as yellow. Color perception and description are not absolutes, no matter the "terms", and it is therefore not an error.

Technically the words used refers to the dye of the garments which means one gospel must be incorrect in a very nonsubjective manner.

"Technically", they do no such thing. It is impossible for someone to know what dye was used without having done it themselves or commissioned it, as they are making that determination on the basis of purely the color they perceive.

in a time where if you wanted a shirt that was a different color than the one your neighbor wore you had to dye it yourself, YES most people DID in fact know the difference between dying processes

That is a historical distortion. The Roman Empire had tailors that dyed clothing, just as more recent nations in Europe. Most people did not have access to tailors, maybe, but they also did not have access to "official" dying processes - they dyed their clothing with fruit juices and other things they could get their hands on. And this is a specious argument anyway - just because the term for the dye that produced the color was the same word used for the color in reference to clothing, doesn't mean that they were referring specifically to the dye used.

[Utisz]

Spoiler:

So your honestly telling me that these two pigments are so similar they can be used interchangeable?
Perhaps we should all start going around claiming that grass is in fact blue.

[KestrelLowing]

So your honestly telling me that these two pigments are so similar they can be used interchangeable?
Perhaps we should all start going around claiming that grass is in fact blue.

Google image search, this comes up in the scarlet (no, it's not representative of the majority, but someone called it scarlet)

Spoiler:

This came up in purple:

Spoiler:

Yes, they're different, but not as much as you might expect. Color is a spectrum. Where you decide to cut that spectrum off varies quite a bit, person to person.

[podbaydoor]

Why the hell are we arguing about this? I'm more concerned when churches ban women from applying to deacon positions because of what's written in Timothy, and other churches allow women to apply for deacon positions because they've figured out a loophole in Timothy, and they're both right. And they both feel equally righteous and teach their followers the same.

[Utisz]

So your honestly telling me that these two pigments are so similar they can be used interchangeable?
Perhaps we should all start going around claiming that grass is in fact blue.

Google image search, this comes up in the scarlet (no, it's not representative of the majority, but someone called it scarlet)

Spoiler:

This came up in purple:

Spoiler:

Yes, they're different, but not as much as you might expect. Color is a spectrum. Where you decide to cut that spectrum off varies quite a bit, person to person.

This is quite funny because the dress isn't scarlet coloured, it's 'tulip'. There is a list of available colour under the image which is why it got pulled out by the search. The colours I linked in were not chosen arbitrarily they accurately reflect the Greek used to describe them. I understand that people perceive colour subjectively but they actually have rather specific definitions as you just demonstrated by pulling out two 'tulips' inadventaently. People can mistake burgundy for maroon for example but they not going to mix up the colour of the sky with that of grass short of some form of colorblindness (which I doubt god suffers from). Scarlet and Tyrian purple are clearly distinct colours, from this it follows that one of the gospels (at least) is in error.

[Greyarcher]

An alleged self-report doesn't properly establish someone's character. Compare to, say, a background check for an important government job. Except God has no reliable references or accomplishments because we can't confirm that he's done anything, does anything, or exists at all.

this reminds me of the whole "if the bible says God exists then what do you use to prove that the bible is your ultimate truth" conversation from another time. As such, I won't comment on it here :s

Haha, fair enough; it's a procedural question that should probably get its own focused thread.

I'd say it's probably a much worse blow, though, for the Bible to have unfalsifiable statements rather than false statements.

[DSenette]

your assessment of how bodies decompose is off. a body (even in the heat of the desert) won't gassify that much in an evening.

Unless this gassification was sped up supernaturally, which is implied by the Scripture. But, then again, if we assume that anything that isn't strictly natural doesn't exist, then you are automatically assuming the Bible is wrong - it's a circular argument.

or, you know, the easier answer....that it didn't happen. why would one account omit something that's PRETTY FUCKING important? if god blew the guy up with his mind like Paul Atreides did to Feyd Harkonnen in Dune, don't you think you'd want to convey that in every story?

Not necessarily. One might want to focus on the supernatural implication of his guts spilling out, while the other wanted to focus on the mere fact that he tried to return the money and then committed suicide due to his guilt.

this isn't about focus, this is about what is supposedly a historical account of an event. if the dude hung himself AND his guts shot forth from his body, BOTH items should mention both things. this isn't the same as one guy omitting an unimportant detail like whether or not judas had sandals on at the time. ESPECIALLY if you're claiming the gut explosion was supernaturally caused and that judas committing suicide was an important thing.

if we witness a robbery and i say the guy was a sarlacc, and you say he was of middle eastern descent, well then one of us is going to get questioned a little harder than the other.

Except the two described happenings aren't mutually exclusive.

huh, i was unaware that sarlaccs were of middle eastern descent....

The point isn't that the error is important it is that the error is present. Scarlet and tyrian purple are not the same colour and the robe is described in absolute terms that are contradictory.

So are orange and yellow, and yet I see certain things as orange while others see it as yellow. Color perception and description are not absolutes, no matter the "terms", and it is therefore not an error.

Technically the words used refers to the dye of the garments which means one gospel must be incorrect in a very nonsubjective manner.

"Technically", they do no such thing. It is impossible for someone to know what dye was used without having done it themselves or commissioned it, as they are making that determination on the basis of purely the color they perceive.

in a time where if you wanted a shirt that was a different color than the one your neighbor wore you had to dye it yourself, YES most people DID in fact know the difference between dying processes

That is a historical distortion. The Roman Empire had tailors that dyed clothing, just as more recent nations in Europe. Most people did not have access to tailors, maybe, but they also did not have access to "official" dying processes - they dyed their clothing with fruit juices and other things they could get their hands on. And this is a specious argument anyway - just because the term for the dye that produced the color was the same word used for the color in reference to clothing, doesn't mean that they were referring specifically to the dye used.

the same goes in reverse, just because the two words are the same doesn't mean that they didn't mean the dye or the process.


screw colors and hangings

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/accounts.html which creation account is correct?

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/blind.html what causes blindness?

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/blood.html does sacrifice remove sin or not?

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/christ.html how about an account of jesus's words from gospels (you know, the ones "written" by important people)

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contr ... death.html more gospel shenanigans

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contr ... ixion.html and another

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/eve.html just 2 chapters apart

i can keep going with these

[Роберт]

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/eve.html just 2 chapters apart

i can keep going with these

If you limited it to ones that actually seem like contradictions, it would make more sense. A lot of these are pretty laughable that someone considers them a contradiction.

Example: "I made pies and cakes today."

"Today, I made some pies, then when I took them out of the oven, I made cakes."
Oh noez! A contradiction! Did I make the pies and cakes simultaneously, or did I make the pies first?

[DSenette]

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/eve.html just 2 chapters apart

i can keep going with these

If you limited it to ones that actually seem like contradictions, it would make more sense. A lot of these are pretty laughable that someone considers them a contradiction.

Example: "I made pies and cakes today."

"Today, I made some pies, then when I took them out of the oven, I made cakes."
Oh noez! A contradiction! Did I make the pies and cakes simultaneously, or did I make the pies first?

except that the book is supposed to be the word of god proving that he's god. we're talking about whether any contradiction says anything about the bible's veracity.

[Czhorat]

If you limited it to ones that actually seem like contradictions, it would make more sense. A lot of these are pretty laughable that someone considers them a contradiction.

Example: "I made pies and cakes today."

"Today, I made some pies, then when I took them out of the oven, I made cakes."
Oh noez! A contradiction! Did I make the pies and cakes simultaneously, or did I make the pies first?

Yes, but if you said "I made a pie, then a cake" and later "I made cake, then pie" you're contradticting yourself.

I can't believe we arguing this point though; nobody with half a brain takes Genesis literally as a creation story. Heck, trees would have to be older than stars.

Have any of the biblical apologists here read about the "documentary hypothesis"? There's a great deal of evidence that the Bible was written over the course of many, many years (centuries, even) by different authors with different goals. These disparate accounts were then mashed together. Things like the number of animals on Noah's ark, whether or not God walks around like a person, etc. were leftover contradictions that didn't get properly cleaned up.


Just to nudge, I'll ask: how many animals DID Noah have on that boat?

[Роберт]

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/eve.html just 2 chapters apart

i can keep going with these

If you limited it to ones that actually seem like contradictions, it would make more sense. A lot of these are pretty laughable that someone considers them a contradiction.

Example: "I made pies and cakes today."

"Today, I made some pies, then when I took them out of the oven, I made cakes."
Oh noez! A contradiction! Did I make the pies and cakes simultaneously, or did I make the pies first?

except that the book is supposed to be the word of god proving that he's god. we're talking about whether any contradiction says anything about the bible's veracity.

Sure. But there is absolutely no contradiction there. If I say "I made pies and cakes" it doesn't mean I'm claiming I made them simultaneously.

It's ridiculous to claim that's a contradiction. Including non-contradictions like that just dilutes your argument. It's easy to look at them and go "that's silly" and move on.

A list that only includes the problematic passages would be much more powerful.

[DSenette]

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/eve.html just 2 chapters apart

i can keep going with these

If you limited it to ones that actually seem like contradictions, it would make more sense. A lot of these are pretty laughable that someone considers them a contradiction.

Example: "I made pies and cakes today."

"Today, I made some pies, then when I took them out of the oven, I made cakes."
Oh noez! A contradiction! Did I make the pies and cakes simultaneously, or did I make the pies first?

except that the book is supposed to be the word of god proving that he's god. we're talking about whether any contradiction says anything about the bible's veracity.

Sure. But there is absolutely no contradiction there. If I say "I made pies and cakes" it doesn't mean I'm claiming I made them simultaneously.

It's ridiculous to claim that's a contradiction. Including non-contradictions like that just dilutes your argument. It's easy to look at them and go "that's silly" and move on.

A list that only includes the problematic passages would be much more powerful.

am i missing something? which ones out of my list are you taking issue with?

is it just that one? if so, sure whatever. does that really remove the fact that there are contradictions in the bible?

[Роберт]

is it just that one? if so, sure whatever. does that really remove the fact that there are contradictions in the bible?

I glanced through the list and most of what I saw looked silly. This was just one specific example.

The death of Judas and scarlet vs. purple thing seemed much more pertinent.

The infallibility of the Bible thing is dumb anyway, because no current English translation is going to have perfectly preserved the meaning. We have different reference texts that we translate from that have minor disagreements. Even if you think the original text was 100% directed by God, it's silly to think that any version you understand hasn't degraded somewhat from the original.