So many of these convoluted hoops that apologists have to jump thru only happen because they put more faith in the book than the deity. If they just admitted that the Bible was a book and not somehow magical or divine and just focused on being good, Christ like people.. like helping the poor, welcoming the foreigners, getting mad at bankers.. they'd actually make the world a better place. But they can't.. they need their "authority" in book form to use it as a cudgel.
I haven’t studied the Reformation yet but I think Sola Scriptura makes a lot of sense on the surface. Certainly an ingenious move at the time. The major issue here is the idea that the Bible can’t contradict itself…that’s not inherent in the idea that Christian teaching must be derived from the Bible (which as I interpret it - probably not as it was intended - can mean almost anything). Mixed with that is the literal idea of infallibility which leads to ‘plain’ readings, ie if the Bible says something, it’s literally true. In short I think it’s not saying the Bible is authoritative, it’s viewing it as a dead text as opposed to part of an unfolding story. [of course, thinking ahead a little more, these kinds of things are inevitable with a doctrine like Sola Scriptura precisely because interpretation is so open-ended. So maybe ingenious, but extremely short-sighted)
Also, to back up what you’re saying and maybe contradict myself, when your primary principle is ‘the Bible is authoritative’, biblical fundamentalism is a given, in fact it’s definitional. So yeah, practically speaking I agree it’d be best if Christians started with Christ - whatever that might mean - and made everything subservient to that. That’s much more in line with Christian tradition as well, not that that’s a good thing to these types.
@@Jd-808 As I have learned as a Lutheran, Martin Luther established that the Bible is authoritative. It didn't mean it was inerrant, I think it was not a thing back then. It meant that any Christian doctrine must be supported by the Bible. That was a reaction to Catholic dogmas.
Apologetic playbook: Gaslight then claim it's debunked. When the spaceship didn't show up as the cult predicted, they came up with an explanation. That didn't explain anything other than give believers a reason to keep paying, praying and obeying.
That's one of the reasons it's so hilarious when people like Turek pull out the "why didn't they just show Jesus' body" excuse. Do you actually think evidence is going to convince these people? The Jews could've literally held a parade in the center of Rome where they showed the corpse of Christ to thousands of people, and we all know that the most die hard believers would've just scoffed and waved it away with the Iron Age equivalent of "it's all CGI, man!"
@@kennethogorman5436they just assigned appropriate coding endings to an infamous character. Saying they contradict is like saying Harry Potter and the Lord of the Rings contradict. It’s only if you imagine they are writing history that there is a problem.
Who is the more faithful reader of the gospels, the one who lets each gospel author speak for him or herself, or the one who substitutes his own 'harmony of the gospels' in place of them all?
If I was a drinker still, I would make a drinking game out of your last few videos. I would have to take a drink of gin for every time you said the phrase, “gin up.” lol. keep up the good work. I love everything that you do!
It also completely ignores that each gospel was written for a certain community and, for a while, that was the only gospel that community had; it wasn't compiled into the Bible until later, so you're telling me that each author decided to only tell half the story to their community, assured that later it would come together to be the whole one for people they were not explicitly writing for.
I always thought it showed a childish level of both imagination and knowledge of biology that a dude basically exploded into guts because he fell out of a tree.
Could've if it was a rotted corpse. Bloating builds pressure in the stomach and intestinal tract, so it could look like an explosion of some kind. It would have to be from a pretty high distance up for it to look like an explosion though.
When we hear someone saying there's no contradictions it's as bad as a flat earther denying the facts of reality or someone saying that the Bible does not endorsed slavery
When I hear apologists trying to "debunk" the contradictions regarding the death of Judas, I can't help but imagine some kind of dark comedy silent movie starring Buster Keaton, but directed by David Lynch.
I like the way Ehrman puts it when addressing apologetic arguments. Holding to apologetic views, which assert univocality and harmonization, frequently requires one to create an alternate version of events, one that actually exists nowhere in the Bible. In other words, the gospels, for instance, often present 4 different versions of what happened. To harmonize them requires the creation of a 5th version which itself doesn't appear in any of them. Such is true with the typical story of the birth of Jesus which is often told in Christmas pageants. Apologists likely would never be a fan of "adding to Scripture," but they don't realize this is exactly what is required for one to align these contradictory versions of events.
It's also not how dead bodies work. If Judas hung himself then the blood would settle in in the legs and become fixed there (fixation of lividity), this occurs long before the growth of bacteria that could cause the body to swell and potentially explode if it fell to the ground. There would be no blood. I think whoever came up with that story had a hazy notion of of post mortem changes and used it to construct a pourquoi story for the name of the field that fits their preferred narrative.
Just like everything else, as soon as they get pushback on it, they just default to "god made it happen". Which means god punished Judas for following his plan.
Agreed - however, those who make these claims don’t say he was dead when the branch snapped, just that it snapped. So if you imagine someone climbing a tree, affixing the rope to a branch, putting the noose around his neck, then jumping from the tree and the branch snapping with force (or maybe the rope wasn’t knotted properly), then it works. The problem is, it’s inserting narrative into the text that the author did not provide. We can make it plausible, but we shouldn’t have to contort and spin new narrative. Those who do so are doing it because of this need to make it inerrant. When we do that, we no longer approach the text inductively. We insert a presupposition that influences how we view everything.
6:25 You say this so well and clear. Theists prioritizing univocality are, as Bart D. Ehrman say, "they are writing their own Gospel. A Gospel that is different from all others. A Gospel that is in conflict with every other Gospel, as it disagrees with both Mark, Matthew, Luke, John and all non-canonical Gospels". Just like every other Gospel writher they are going along the lines of saying "The life, death and resurrection of Jesus happened the way I tell you now. I tell you this because every other Gospel author, didn't know as much as I do. I'm way better informed than they were - hear My Gospel". They don't care about what the authors of the Biblical texts want to tell them, and they don't listen. They are concerned by their own doctrine and dogma - they are all that matter to those individuals. It's so difficult for them to learn to listen to the text. So hard for them to understand what the text and author actually say, and what we can lead from that. They keep trying to shoehorn every author into some weird, tiny and odd shaped box that is the focus of their "belief" (belief; in this case a word that describe some weird delusion). Thanks for the videos - they are excellent.
The moment you decide it is perfectly acceptable to add or subtract details from any part of the Bible or creatively reinterpret any part of the Bible in any way you see fit, you end up with a Bible that can literally mean almost anything ... and a Bible that can mean almost anything ... ultimately means NOTHING. I think this fact escapes most Christian apologists.
I not even convinced that Judas had anything at all to do with the potters field naming. Potters fields are where potters go to collect the clay used in making their pottery goods. As I understand it, the clay that was collected from the “Field of Blood” was a rich red-hence the name.
What I love is that these people that are telling you and reconciling these differences between the books pretty much know that people aren't smart enough when it comes to the Bible. However Dan straightens things out for us and makes sure that no one of these creators pulls the wool over our eyes. Thanks Dan!!!
What rope? What tree? I've read many versions of the Bible many times, and none of them mention a rope or a tree. There are many ways to hang oneself with neither rope nor tree. This person isn't "defending Scripture" - he's writing it. He's not explaining the story - he's crafting a new one. Funny how the people who claim to love and obey the Bible so much have to make so much new Bible.
That's the irony of all of this, when these people try to defend some sort of "sola scriptura," Bible only inerrancy, by mashing together all the stories any way they can they end up creating a new story that isn't what any of the authors wrote
You should try going through some of the harmonization attempts of the 2 accounts of Jesus' infant life in Matthew and Luke. I've seen some of these harmonization attempts and oh boy are they doozies.
Growing up fundamentalist Baptist, I remember always being told about Judas hanging himself and then somehow falling from where he was hanging and bursting open. Nothing was ever said about the two different reasons for it being called the field of blood. That's exactly what the apologist here is saying.
@@NWPaul72 it's afternoon here in the UK. An Irish coffee ☕🥃 would be more appropriate for breakfasts with a Bloody Mary and a Screw Driver. Thus getting two portions of your daily requirement of fruit and vegetables. 😉Also, coffee is good for your liver. 😁
It must have been a really really really high tree that Judas fell from so his guts burst open when he fell. Also it's a little known fact that Judas was very very fat so the crappy bit of rope and thin branch of the tree he used couldn't hold his very heavy weight. They also had a big debate at the time deciding on which name of the field to choose which was either going to be 'The field of blood' or 'The field of yucky spilt guts'.
My late friend Farrell Till (a former Church of Christ minister) and publisher of The Skeptical Review, was a genius at dismantling these eisegetical "how it could have been" arguments from Christian apologists defending (I should say *attempting* to defend) biblical inerrancy. He used say "what proves too much proves nothing at all." Meaning that if you must remove yourself farther and farther from the *actual text* with far-reaching "how it could have been" scenarios, then at some point the sheer weight of absurdity discredits not only your premise, but your own credibility in the eyes of any reasonable, disinterested, observer. Till would demand written debates in which the defending apologist was required to respond "point-by-point," rather than the usual salad bar approach used by apologists to pick and choose what they want and ignore (or flagrantly "reinterpret") the inconvenient parts that undermine their argument. Such tactics work fine for the uncritical audience of believers who are eager to validate their own beliefs, but do not work when facing the informed. Dan's approach reminds me very much of Till (only better due not only the level of scholarship, but to the short, tight 'mic-drop' segments) in how he not only dissects the apologist's claims point-by-point (from the perspective of a biblical scholar), but also details WHY they have to resort to such schemes to achieve (at all cost) their preformed conclusions.
Contradictions "If Yahweh is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33) and the Bible is the inerrant word of Yahweh (2 Peter 1:19-21, 2 Timothy 3:16, Pope Paul VI: Dei Verbum ch 3 para 2, Pope Pius XII: Divino afflante Spiritu para 46, Augustine Letter 82 to Jerome, Aquinas: Summa Theologica) and if oral tradition was so high-fidelity in ancient times, why are there so many contradictions? Which version of the Bible is inerrant? Is there life after death (John 5:25), or not (Job 7:9)? Did Jesus descend from David through Joseph (Matthew 1:1), or was he born of a virgin mother (Matthew 1:18)? Was Joseph's father Jacom (Matthew 1:2) or Heli (Luke 3:23)? Can you see Yahweh's face (Genesis 32:30), or not (Exodus 33:20)? Are Jesus and Yahweh one and the same (John 10:30-38), or does Yahweh, but not Jesus, know when the world will end (Matthew 24:36)? Was Abiathar (Mark 2:26) or Ahimelech (1 Samuel 21) the high priest when David and his men ate the showbread from the tabernacle in Nob? Did Mary and Joseph flee to Egypt (Matthew 2:1-23), or return to Nazareth (Luke 2:1-40)? Did Jesus die the day before the Passover (John 19:31) or the day after the Passover (Mark 14:12)? Was Mary Magdalene informed of the resurrection by an angel (Matthew 28:5) or by Jesus (John 20:14)? Did Satan incite David to conduct a census (1 Chronicles 21:1), or did Yahweh (2 Samuel 24:1)? Was Jehoiachin eighteen (2 Kings 24:8) or eight (2 Chronicles 36:9) when he became king? Was Ahaziah twenty-two (2 Kings 8:26) or forty-two (2 Chronicles 22:2) when he began to reign? Did Jesus clear the temple at the beginning (John 2:13-22) or the end (Mark 15:11-19) of his ministry? Did Paul's companions hear the voice (Acts 9:7) during Paul's conversion experience or not (Acts 22:9)? Can witnesses be convinced by a risen Lazarus (John 11:38-44), or not (Luke 16:19-31)? Did Gyrus's daughter die before (Matthew 9:18) or after (Mark 5:23) Gyrus asked Jesus for help? Was the paralytic man in a house with a roof of mud and branches (Mark 2:4), or tile (Luke 5:19)? Did Judas hang himself (Matthew 27:5), or did his intestines explode (Acts 1:18)? Did Judas give the money back (Matthew 27:3), or did he buy a field (Acts 1:18)? Is it forbidden to drink blood (Leviticus 17:14), or mandated (John 6:53)? On the day he died was Jesus in Paradise (Luke 23:43) or Hell (Matthew 12:40)? Was Jesus in Hell for 3 nights (Matthew 12:40), or 2 nights (Matthew 27:45-50, Matthew 28:1)? Was the stone rolled away before (John 20:1) or after (Matthew 28:1-2) the women arrived at the tomb? Did the sun rise before (Mark 16:2) or after (John 20:1) the women arrived at the tomb? Did Nicodemus provide the spices (John 19:39), or did the women (Mark 16:1, Luke 23:56)? Did Jesus appear to eleven disciples (1 Corinthians 15:5 Latin Vulgate), or twelve disciples (1 Corinthians 15:5 English NRSV)? Was Jesus taken up to Heaven on the day he met the disciples (Luke 24:51), or did he spend 40 days with the disciples, and then go to Heaven (Acts 1:3-10)? Did Jesus tell the disciples to bring a staff (Mark 6:8), or not bring a staff (Luke 9:3)? Did Jesus come for the Gentiles too (Romans 15:16), or just the Jews (Matthew 10:5-6, Matthew 15:24-26)? Do you get into Heaven based on your deeds (Matthew 16:27, James 2:17), or your blind faith (Ephesians 2:8, Galatians 2:16)? Is everyone who calls on the lord saved (Acts 2:21) or not (Matthew 7:21)? Do you consider the contradictions in holy books of other religions to be good arguments against their claims of divine authority? For example, in Surah 1:1 of the Qur'an, Allah is called most merciful. In Surah 24:2 Allah says to not let pity keep you from whipping people. Do you find this contradiction a good argument against the divine inerrancy of the Qur'an? If the original manuscripts of the Bible were accurate but errors crept into copies, why did Yahweh let that happen?" www.stopindoctrination.org/#contradictions Divine Inspiration & Biblical Inerrancy: The Failed Hypothesis The Bible Skeptic ua-cam.com/video/Gpw-TSd36l8/v-deo.html Biblical contradictions & how to make them go away Dan McClellan ua-cam.com/video/S-vCFtKxc9I/v-deo.html The Problem of the Bible: Inaccuracies, contradictions, fallacies, scientific issues and more. Daniel Henson www.news24.com/News24/The-Problem-of-the-Bible-Inaccuracies-contradictions-fallacies-scientific-issues-and-more-20120517 Misquoting Jesus in the Bible - Professor Bart D. Ehrman - Contradictions Bart Ehrman ua-cam.com/video/pfheSAcCsrE/v-deo.html Quiz Show (Bible Contradictions) NonStampCollector ua-cam.com/video/RB3g6mXLEKk/v-deo.html Sharing permitted. Click the first link for more.
{If the original manuscripts of the Bible were accurate but errors crept into copies, why did Yahweh let this happen?} The majority of these errors are apparent errors only, not actual errors. Even so, not only did God allow errors, apparent or real, to creep into the Bible, he allowed many to be embedded in the original manuscripts from the get go. It's not accidental, it's deliberate. To understand why, you have to understand what the Bible presents as God's entire plan of salvation for mankind. To understand, what the Bible claims is the why & the how of the way God is dealing with this planet, is critical to answer the many legitimate questions people have, such as yours. People base their understanding and therefore their questions, on what they get from the mainstream churches, because this is all they know. This includes atheists and believers alike. But what the churches claim & what the Bible claims are light years apart.
@@glenwillson5073 people do this thing and you don't do this thing? These other people would say the same about themselves. What method can an outsider use to determine which of all these people, if any, including you, is the correct one? Does using the word "mainstream" in your dismissal of these other people give you authority? Does saying "mainstream" give authority to others who say "mainstream" and interpret scripture differently from how you do it? Members of the Q-Anon cult like to say "mainstream". Does saying "mainstream" give authority to members of the Q-Anon cult?
@@dancancro5524 My use of the word "mainstream" has one and one meaning only. Mainstream just refers to those churches that hold to the most widely held & most popular beliefs amongst the vast majority of people. A million people could be right & one person wrong or one person could be right & a million people wrong. {What method can an outsider use to determine which of all these people, if any, including you, is the correct one?} There is only one possible way. Compare what anybody claims is in the Bible with what is in the Bible.
@@glenwillson5073 or they could ALL be wrong. I'm done. This is too simple a point to waste any more time explaining it to someone who insists on pretending they don't get it.
Great job Dan,i kinda give up on Christians at this point, i stop debating people with religion last year.but i would ask you what is the best excuse you have heard for the story of Noah and god kills everyone but keeps satan alive?why?
Apologetics is the absence of reason and logic. If you abandon logic and reason, there are no contradictions, and your faith is safe. I feel sorry for this young man because one can admit to the contradiction and still believe in god or a god or gods.
The interesting thing is that the differences in the story lead to the conclusion that there were a couple of stories about Judas going around. That’s evidence that the Judas story is based on real events.
I keep asking the ame question; of what use is a religion that must be supported with lies? This smug young apologist must know the marked difference in the two stories but he deliberately chooses to lie because his faith will not allow him to be honest.. Shameful.
What I still find to be most abhorrent about Judas’ story, is that Judas suffers eternally despite being absolutely necessary to the fulfillment of god’s plan. Which means that god not only violated Judas’ free will by making sure he betrayed Jesus, then he punished Judas for doing exactly what he had to do.
Judas should be a hero of the New Testament. Somebody had to take the fall and betray Jesus. If he had not betrayed Jesus you Christians would not be forgiven. Judas should be a legend among Christians
@CharlesPayet How did god make Judas betray Jesus ? Judas acted according to his own will - that Jesus knew what he was up to did not constrain him in any way. God was able to use Judas's greed to fulfil his purpose, but that doesn't make Judas the good guy.
@tezerii if god’s plan necessitated Jesus being betrayed, then Judas did not have a choice. It boggles my mind, that anyone can think Judas had any choice in the matter. If he didn’t betray Jesus, the crucifixion wouldn’t happen and god’s plan wouldn’t happen. Therefore, Judas HAD to betray Jesus, meaning he had no free will in the matter. It’s not hard to understand, unless you’re already committed to the dogma.
@@CharlesPayet Mind boggled ! And you talk about dogma !! First, Judas was not the only option. Second, betrayal wasn't the only option. Third, if god's in charge, it's gonna happen whatever. Fourth, there's two zeds in my name.
@@CharlesPayet Mind boggled ! And you talk about dogma !! First, Judas was not the only option. Second, betrayal wasn't the only option. Third, if (and I am saying if) god's in charge, it's gonna happen whatever. Fourth, there's two zeds in my name.
In reading Josephus' history of The Jewish War, I came on the story of Herod, on his deathbed, having to qwell a minor insurection. Herod had caused the image of an eagle to be affixed to a gate in Jerusalem. This was alleged to be a violation of Jewish law. Would this law have been the Commandment that forbids making of "graven images" or "Idols" as the NRSV has it? Or was it a special law concerning temple grounds? If it was the Commandment, it was much more zealously kept in antiquity. And if it was the Commandment, what has been the subsequent history of it in Jewish and Christian tradition?
Hie Dan, kindly clarify the authenticity of the Zeroastrian philosophy because it seems like it was a common philosophy during the time of Jesus, it is said that even the wise men followed the Zeroastrian teachings that predicted the Birth of Christ! According to the apocrypha gospels, it seemed like desciples such as John and Judas believed much of this philosophy. Pliz clarify on the history and the authenticity of the Zeroastrian philosophy. Thanks
You know all the contradictions are very interesting, but I think that guy should be more worried about the theological contradiction between Matt 19:16 + and Gal 3. Quite fundamental that one.
Dan's point at the end is spot on perfect! Apologists like the guy he's responding to completely miss the point of these stories. Which is NOT to be journalism, but to illustrate a truth. And then atheists dutifully follow right behind them, just as blind as their sightless guides. "Truth" is not just mere facts.
Is it possible for you and me to have 2 conflicting truths? If yes, then what’s the value of truth? If no, then what do you use the determine truths without using facts?
@@autonomouscollective2599 Tom had 10 apples. He gave three apples to Jane, two apples to Mary and two apples to Jim. Now Tom has three apples left. Do you think this is a true story? Do you think there really is a Tom a Jane a Mary or a Jim? Or that any apples really changed hands? No, of course not. Does that mean the story is a lie? No, of course not.
I never understood the emphasis on contradictions in the bible. Whether it be from atheists or Christian apologists. I mean I told a joke at work literally yesterday. Later the group of co-workers I was with periodically would tell different co-workers about the joke I made. And both accounts were very different. And both were also different from the account I remember telling the joke. Basically I am saying details are omitted, or made up, can contradict each other, and even the motive or intent can sometimes be different. But regardless the actual punch line of the joke was told indeed correctly.
I think when we’re dealing with a collection of books that some claim are literally perfect, demonstrating that they are indeed quite imperfect is a useful thing to do.
@@Mikeypem That is a great point. I never understood with the need to claim a book is perfect. I mean I am a Christian, church weekly, pray daily. But would never claim that a book that has been politicized, translated, taken apart, put together, then voted on by a group of dudes in robes - is perfect in any way lol
Believing Contradictions is called cognitive dissonance and 2 mutually exclisive claims cannot be true at the same time. Claims like Jesus was a man and Jesus is God. It is impossible to be something you are and something you aren't. This is basic logic. @Asian-Hawaiian-Orian
_Ktaomai_ is one of those words that are general enough to work in a variety of specific contexts with different meanings. There are a lot of those in every language. It is a fault in reading not to understand that. It is also nitpicky to make a big deal of it. The greater fault, I think, is the assumption that every report or interpretation of the event must agree, or that every report is inerrant. It is that baseline conviction that forces us apologists to do exegetical gymnastics to reconcile them. That fact is Luke did not experience this event firsthand. He received it after it had filtered through the interpretive mill of many tellings and retellings over chai in the local bazar. In that situation personal explanation or interpretation should be expected. That's the way it works where I live. Matthew has an agenda to connect Old Testament events with New Testament events as a kind of type and antitype prophecy. BTW Papias has a third description. To force or "gin up" a harmonization is to make mountains out of molehills. And it is unnecessary. But it does make for good fodder for a UA-cam video.
Different versions of the same historical novel with different thematic emphasis The kind of thing that would make a good writing class assignment ( my version ; Judas took the thirty-pieces and bought a nice little plot of land, that included an orchard but while working in the orchard he fell out of a tree , maybe onto something , and call it karma )
Dan I have 1 question are you saying that the father is not real and Jesus is not real I'm not a trinitarian or oneness but you are a critical scholar and what's going on? The Bible has been changed yes, I agree with that but what's up?
He's saying that the Bible is a mishmash of stories that multiple people created, and we really shouldn't make up our own fiction to make the Bible different, since that doesn't respect the original text. How often do you go and alter other people's literary work anyway? You don't normally do that unless you're writing fan fiction.
Matthew 13.38 The field is the world. The Son of man is the word of God. Zechariah 11.13 And the Lord said unto me Cast it unto the potter a goodly price that I was praised at of them And I took the thirsty pieces of silver and cast them to the potter in the house of the Lord. Isaiah 64.8 But now O Lord thou art my Father we are the clay and thou our potter and we are all the work of thy hand.
If you say that critical details are left out of some accounts and other critical details are left out of others, how do we know that let more critical details weren’t left out of all the surviving accounts? If the authors were soo careless or misinformed as to miss out bits that you have to fill in from elsewhere how can you claim that the texts are telling the whole story? And if there is the real possibility they aren’t telling the whole story how can you take their stories, even in combination, as true?
That’s a tough one. It need not have happened over a short period of time. Judas would have gotten the field , not by purchase but by his earning the field of his burial. Both explanations can be true as that would have been two popular opinions on why the field is named such.
I disagree.. there’s a difference between saying “not every single word is true” and “no words are true” vs “all words are true”… insisting that every single verse is true causes people to hyper-fixate on legalistic interpretations of obscure statements that probably have nothing to do with the intended message. He’s saying that by freeing yourself of the necessity to interpret every word as true, you can stop looking at everything through this legalistic lens and instead interpret the overarching message and themes of the New Testament, which is much, much, much more likely the hope that the authors had when writing it about how it would be interpreted. By pointing out contradictions, he’s removing a constraint of interpretation, not adding one. Insisting that every word is true adds a constraint that prevents people from reading everything with clear eyes
The Wisdom of Solomon is in the Douay-Rheims Bible: Wisdom 7:24 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition 24 For wisdom is more active than all active things: and reacheth everywhere by reason of her purity
@@johnburn8031 oh I know - it’s in both Roman Catholic & Eastern Orthodox bibles. Just highlighting how uprooted from Christian tradition these ‘fundamentalists’ actually are.
Here's the verses he quoted; Wisdom 4:17-19 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition 17 For they shall see the end of the wise man, and shall not understand what God hath designed for him, and why the Lord hath set him in safety. 18 They shall see him, and shall despise him: but the Lord shall laugh them to scorn. 19 And they shall fall after this without honour, and be a reproach among the dead for ever: for he shall burst them puffed up and speechless, and shall shake them from the foundations, and they shall be utterly laid waste: they shall be in sorrow, and their memory shall perish.
Apologists and their deceitful attempts at trying to explain the contradictions and inconsistencies with the Bible are the religious equivalent of Fanon and headcanon
Different groups of people called it the field of blood for different reasons. Boom. Problem solved. You can’t beat the mental gymnastics of inerrancy apologists. If Papias was scripture, Jesus would have hung himself, fell, got run over by a wagon and burst open. If a fourth scriptural author said he was shot with a flaming arrow that fire would obviously be what caused the rope to break and Judas to fall. Everything you say is correct but it doesn’t matter. Preaching to the choir.
Dan McClellan is clearly confused [again!]. First, he states that κτάομαι means "to acquire, gain, get, obtain, possess". Second, Acts 1:18 says: "Now this man acquired a field with the reward of his wickedness, and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out" - So Judas gained a field, then hung himself, then fell which caused his body to burst open and die [or was already dead when he fell] then field became known as "Field of Blood" Where's the contradiction?
The contradiction? The fact that Mathew has Judas going to hang himself, with the priests buying the field, while Acts has Judas buying the field and dying there. What you present is made up and nowhere to be found in scripture.
These two do not contradict themselves. Judas hanged himself and his bowels gushed out. When they took him down from the hanging tree they threw him headlong into the field where his bowels gushed out. There is no contradiction.
@@Mikeypem Certain details might be remembered differently, but the core events are still true, hence 4 Gospels that do not contradict each other nor disagree with each other.
Your entire explanation supports why it is not a contradiction. Jeez Different authors have different agendas. That's why the Bible was written to support faith not inerrancy.
Both Dan and critic are reading into the text things it does not actually say. The text of Matthew does not say, Judas waited until the priests had purchased the field before he hung himself. And Matthew does not say, Judas hung himself in the field that the priests bought. And neither does Acts. The sequence of events is; Judas returned the money. He then went and hung himself. The priests bought the field as a burial place for strangers (Matthew 27:3-7) Matthew does not say the field was bought in Judas's name or for Judas. But it does say, the field was known as the field of blood because it was purchased with Judas's blood money. (Matthew 27:4,6,8) The text of Acts does not say, Judas hung himself in the same field Matthew says the priests bought. Where he actually hung himself is not stated in Acts or Matthew. And Acts does not say, the field is called the field of blood because Judas hung himself there. The real intent & purpose of Acts 1:17 & 18 is to show what Judas had and lost. Judas had a part in the ministry of Jesus (v17) In contrast to what he had, Judas's only reward, the only result, for his iniquity, was his death and the purchase of a field (v18). The point being made & emphasised in Acts is, a field that was purchased with the money Judas received for his betrayal, is Judas's only reward for his iniquity, dead or alive. Acts then simply states that this field, that was purchased, is the one known as the field of blood (v18). Where exactly is the contradiction?
The contradiction is "Who acquired the field?" Matthew says the priests bought it, and Acts says that Judas acquired it. Acts doesn't say Judas hung himself. It says he fell headlong and burst open. Those are two different deaths as well. But Matthew says it's called the field of blood because of the sketchy funding, while Acts says it's called the field of blood because of the literal blood spilled on it. The explanations are irreconcilable.
@@VulcanLogic Correction, yes you are right Acts does not say Judas hung himself. (I omitted to address this point adequately) It is just an assumption, that Acts 1:18 is stating/describing the cause of death or that Judas was even alive when this event took place. What is the proof that Acts is a description as to cause of death? What is the logic that says, being hung and falling & bursting asunder are mutually exclusive events? Acts does not say, the field is called the field of blood because that's where Judas fell & burst asunder. Acts does not even say, this field is where Judas died & neither does Matthew. To say it is does is just an assumption. Acts only says, a field that was purchased with the reward of iniquity, is know as the field of blood, that's all it actually says. It's also just an assumption, that someone has to be alive in order to appropriately describe them as purchasing &/or acquiring something. Judas does not have to be alive, in order to be described as purchaseing the field. Judas is described as having purchased/acquired a field because it was his reward money that was used to purchase a field. This is the case whether Judas is alive or dead. The whole point of Acts 1:17-20 is to address how Judas lost his position as a minister of Jesus, and his position, which was his, will now be taken by another, and all that Judas has to show for anything is a field of dirt. Judas being alive or dead makes no difference to this assessment of and results of his actions. It's an unwarranted assertion that Judas has to personally hand over the cash, in order for him to be appropriately described as having purchased the field, for the purpose of the points Acts is addressing.
@@glenwillson5073 "Acts does not say, the field is called the field of blood because that's where Judas fell & burst asunder." Yeah, actually, it does. Explicitly, in Acts 1:18-19. "but...but...it might be a different field". No, dude. It's just not, or it wouldn't have the same name.
@@VulcanLogic "Acts does not say, the field is called the field of blood because that's where Judas fell & burst asunder." {Yeah, actually, it does. Explicitly ....} Acts 1:18 makes two statements concerning Judas. A- He purchased a field. "Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity;" B- He fell headlong. "and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out." Where does the wording say this fall actually happened in the field he purchased? This is just an assumption, you are reading this into the text. A third statement in v19 only says the field was known as the field of blood. "And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood." Where does the wording actually say the name, the field of blood, came about as the result of Judas's fall? This is an assumption based upon the first assumption that v18 says Judas fell in the field he purchased. The only field that is specifically identified in acts v18, and that is the field defined as the field Judas purchased. This is the field that v19 confirms is known as the field of blood. There is no statement defining this field as the place of Judas's death. Can you answer this?; It is just an assumption, that Acts 1:18 is stating/describing the cause of death. And it is just an assumption Judas was even alive when this fall took place. What is the proof that Acts is a description as to cause of death? What is the logic that says, being hung and falling & bursting asunder are mutually exclusive events?
@@glenwillson5073 And now you're just making things up, inserting facts not in evidence (some other field not introduced in evidence and not being discussed RIGHT HERE) while ignoring the plain reading of the text. If the Matthew version did not exist, you would simply do the plain reading of the text. Congratulations. In fact, when I think of God as the omniscient creator of all the universe, to have him be this bad at inspiring a clear and concise message that He needs you to tap dance around a story like this and come up with gobsmackingly stupid explanations is quite frankly, an insultingly unintelligent vision of your creator. You could just acknowledge that these are two different stories that are not univocal. Instead you're writing ad hoc explanations for his inability to relay a clear message, requiring 12 paragraphs to cover two sentences. Bravo. Short version: "You see, what God meant to say was..." That's what you're doing.
I'll stick with, you just simply don't understand the narrative because you are approaching the narratives as history, or historical recordings. They are not. I'm trying to give you what has not occurred to your mind, the four gospels are telling the same event thru the eyes of four different aspects of the same singular person. In other words, Luke is the narrative thru the eyes of our own innocence. The story is not a literal incident that occurred long ago, the narrative is describing how these four boundaries of our human existence perceives differently the same events . The Luke gospel is not the same as marks rendering of the narrative because the mind and gut responds differently from each other, and therefore for any given instance, the operations of the body and mind have different calculations. It is to say that anything that a human goes thru in time is perceived four different ways. One person, same event, four perceptions. There are four gospels because, the above is as the below, the within is as the without, or..God separated the light from darkness, and divided the waters above from the waters below. The separation of light and darkness is explaining how animal became consciousness when it realized its own shadow, light separated from darkness. This is the mark of self realization, similar to how animals cannot understand themselves in mirrors, the same idea. But humans can, the difference is realization of self apart from other, or nature.
@@VulcanLogicWhen people say things like this I get irritated at your lack of knowledge about actual nature. Since you have absolutely no reference to nature, the best you can do is conjure up a fairytale out of the bible, or you treat it as if it's a historical document and think it "really" happened. If You studied actual life on planet earth you would understand that the bible is talking about it. But you would rather be a comedian and say stupid things like your martian comment. It makes me think you have the mental capacity of a three year old. In your mind you're funny, in my mind you're sad, uneducated and truly a sucker for whatever "authority" tells you to think. But hey, if they are all jumping off a bridge , you better get in line, cause the majority know nothing but think their opinions are facts. But you have no facts at all.
@@rainbowkrampus Fits right in with a belief in a god. They are both fiction. But hey, if you wanna go full out caveman style, be scared of your own shadow, run from fire, and worship gods, what's the harm in adding martians? Sit tight buddy, drink the cool aid and wait for Jesus to return..lol. The rest of us will be living with the truth of reality as described in the Bible., which has absolutely nothing to do with your fairytale.
So many of these convoluted hoops that apologists have to jump thru only happen because they put more faith in the book than the deity. If they just admitted that the Bible was a book and not somehow magical or divine and just focused on being good, Christ like people.. like helping the poor, welcoming the foreigners, getting mad at bankers.. they'd actually make the world a better place. But they can't.. they need their "authority" in book form to use it as a cudgel.
I haven’t studied the Reformation yet but I think Sola Scriptura makes a lot of sense on the surface. Certainly an ingenious move at the time. The major issue here is the idea that the Bible can’t contradict itself…that’s not inherent in the idea that Christian teaching must be derived from the Bible (which as I interpret it - probably not as it was intended - can mean almost anything). Mixed with that is the literal idea of infallibility which leads to ‘plain’ readings, ie if the Bible says something, it’s literally true.
In short I think it’s not saying the Bible is authoritative, it’s viewing it as a dead text as opposed to part of an unfolding story.
[of course, thinking ahead a little more, these kinds of things are inevitable with a doctrine like Sola Scriptura precisely because interpretation is so open-ended. So maybe ingenious, but extremely short-sighted)
You have to be able to justify why We are better than Them, right? How good could you be if everyone were Us and there were no Them?
Also, to back up what you’re saying and maybe contradict myself, when your primary principle is ‘the Bible is authoritative’, biblical fundamentalism is a given, in fact it’s definitional. So yeah, practically speaking I agree it’d be best if Christians started with Christ - whatever that might mean - and made everything subservient to that. That’s much more in line with Christian tradition as well, not that that’s a good thing to these types.
@@Jd-808 As I have learned as a Lutheran, Martin Luther established that the Bible is authoritative. It didn't mean it was inerrant, I think it was not a thing back then. It meant that any Christian doctrine must be supported by the Bible. That was a reaction to Catholic dogmas.
Look buddy, if I have to live up to eons-old, contradictory standards, so does everyone else!
Three most convoluted deaths in history: 1.- Judas, 2.- Uncle Ben, 3.- Thomas and Martha Wayne.
Four. You can't count Thomas and Martha as the same death. ;-)
Less we forget that Epstein was in Trump's custody when he died.
Uncle Ben is dead? So who is making all the rice
@@fordprefect5304 Aunt May
@@fordprefect5304 Aunt Jemaimah
Apologetic playbook: Gaslight then claim it's debunked. When the spaceship didn't show up as the cult predicted, they came up with an explanation. That didn't explain anything other than give believers a reason to keep paying, praying and obeying.
That's one of the reasons it's so hilarious when people like Turek pull out the "why didn't they just show Jesus' body" excuse.
Do you actually think evidence is going to convince these people? The Jews could've literally held a parade in the center of Rome where they showed the corpse of Christ to thousands of people, and we all know that the most die hard believers would've just scoffed and waved it away with the Iron Age equivalent of "it's all CGI, man!"
Thanks again for making Scripture more clear. Two stories just means there were two stories.
What it means is that both stories cannot be right
@@kennethogorman5436 You didn't watch all the way to the end, did you? "Factually correct" isn't what the stories are about.
@@byrondickens
The gospels contradict each other it’s not simple unless you are a quack fundamentalist the gospels definitely contradict one another
@@kennethogorman5436they just assigned appropriate coding endings to an infamous character. Saying they contradict is like saying Harry Potter and the Lord of the Rings contradict. It’s only if you imagine they are writing history that there is a problem.
Once again the scholarly analysis makes the Bible a far richer and more interesting text. 😊
Who is the more faithful reader of the gospels, the one who lets each gospel author speak for him or herself, or the one who substitutes his own 'harmony of the gospels' in place of them all?
That's the funny thing, that these folks who want to defend the "literal inerrancy of the Gospels" end up producing their own gospel
The Gospels>hahahaha
If I was a drinker still, I would make a drinking game out of your last few videos. I would have to take a drink of gin for every time you said the phrase, “gin up.” lol. keep up the good work. I love everything that you do!
It also completely ignores that each gospel was written for a certain community and, for a while, that was the only gospel that community had; it wasn't compiled into the Bible until later, so you're telling me that each author decided to only tell half the story to their community, assured that later it would come together to be the whole one for people they were not explicitly writing for.
I always thought it showed a childish level of both imagination and knowledge of biology that a dude basically exploded into guts because he fell out of a tree.
Not if he were a watermelon.
@@BenM61I don't think I ever saw that episode of VeggieTales.
Could've if it was a rotted corpse. Bloating builds pressure in the stomach and intestinal tract, so it could look like an explosion of some kind. It would have to be from a pretty high distance up for it to look like an explosion though.
Please. Fellas. Can a man finish his cereal in peace?
Look up the story in Best in Show about the jumper.
Brillant ⭐️
The story of Juda’s death has never made more sense than today
When we hear someone saying there's no contradictions it's as bad as a flat earther denying the facts of reality or someone saying that the Bible does not endorsed slavery
Unfortunately, happens on the daily
When I hear apologists trying to "debunk" the contradictions regarding the death of Judas, I can't help but imagine some kind of dark comedy silent movie starring Buster Keaton, but directed by David Lynch.
I like the way Ehrman puts it when addressing apologetic arguments. Holding to apologetic views, which assert univocality and harmonization, frequently requires one to create an alternate version of events, one that actually exists nowhere in the Bible. In other words, the gospels, for instance, often present 4 different versions of what happened. To harmonize them requires the creation of a 5th version which itself doesn't appear in any of them. Such is true with the typical story of the birth of Jesus which is often told in Christmas pageants. Apologists likely would never be a fan of "adding to Scripture," but they don't realize this is exactly what is required for one to align these contradictory versions of events.
Great use of the word as1n1ne (1=i as UA-cam doesn’t like me using that word even though it is mentioned in the video). Another good explanation Dan
Does asi9 work?
@@icollectstories5702 lol that's perfect
I think so too. What counts is the underlying message, which is distorted if you invent scenarios to reconcile inconsistent details.
It's also not how dead bodies work. If Judas hung himself then the blood would settle in in the legs and become fixed there (fixation of lividity), this occurs long before the growth of bacteria that could cause the body to swell and potentially explode if it fell to the ground. There would be no blood. I think whoever came up with that story had a hazy notion of of post mortem changes and used it to construct a pourquoi story for the name of the field that fits their preferred narrative.
Just like everything else, as soon as they get pushback on it, they just default to "god made it happen". Which means god punished Judas for following his plan.
Agreed - however, those who make these claims don’t say he was dead when the branch snapped, just that it snapped. So if you imagine someone climbing a tree, affixing the rope to a branch, putting the noose around his neck, then jumping from the tree and the branch snapping with force (or maybe the rope wasn’t knotted properly), then it works.
The problem is, it’s inserting narrative into the text that the author did not provide. We can make it plausible, but we shouldn’t have to contort and spin new narrative. Those who do so are doing it because of this need to make it inerrant. When we do that, we no longer approach the text inductively. We insert a presupposition that influences how we view everything.
Oh i never knew that. Just commented on another guys post that it could look like an explosion if pressure built in the gut.
Damn.
Oh my God, just imagining to sit beside such people in or belonging to the same congregation with such people is so repelling to me!
6:25 You say this so well and clear.
Theists prioritizing univocality are, as Bart D. Ehrman say, "they are writing their own Gospel. A Gospel that is different from all others. A Gospel that is in conflict with every other Gospel, as it disagrees with both Mark, Matthew, Luke, John and all non-canonical Gospels".
Just like every other Gospel writher they are going along the lines of saying "The life, death and resurrection of Jesus happened the way I tell you now.
I tell you this because every other Gospel author, didn't know as much as I do. I'm way better informed than they were - hear My Gospel".
They don't care about what the authors of the Biblical texts want to tell them, and they don't listen. They are concerned by their own doctrine and dogma - they are all that matter to those individuals.
It's so difficult for them to learn to listen to the text. So hard for them to understand what the text and author actually say, and what we can lead from that. They keep trying to shoehorn every author into some weird, tiny and odd shaped box that is the focus of their "belief" (belief; in this case a word that describe some weird delusion).
Thanks for the videos - they are excellent.
This happens to be my favorite contradiction. The only way to harmonize it is by adding so many words to the text, but they just can’t admit that.
The moment you decide it is perfectly acceptable to add or subtract details from any part of the Bible or creatively reinterpret any part of the Bible in any way you see fit, you end up with a Bible that can literally mean almost anything ... and a Bible that can mean almost anything ... ultimately means NOTHING. I think this fact escapes most Christian apologists.
It seems lying for jesus is necessary to retain believers. Not to mention that it appears to be renumerative
I not even convinced that Judas had anything at all to do with the potters field naming. Potters fields are where potters go to collect the clay used in making their pottery goods. As I understand it, the clay that was collected from the “Field of Blood” was a rich red-hence the name.
Thanks!
What I love is that these people that are telling you and reconciling these differences between the books pretty much know that people aren't smart enough when it comes to the Bible. However Dan straightens things out for us and makes sure that no one of these creators pulls the wool over our eyes. Thanks Dan!!!
What rope? What tree? I've read many versions of the Bible many times, and none of them mention a rope or a tree. There are many ways to hang oneself with neither rope nor tree.
This person isn't "defending Scripture" - he's writing it. He's not explaining the story - he's crafting a new one.
Funny how the people who claim to love and obey the Bible so much have to make so much new Bible.
That's the irony of all of this, when these people try to defend some sort of "sola scriptura," Bible only inerrancy, by mashing together all the stories any way they can they end up creating a new story that isn't what any of the authors wrote
You should try going through some of the harmonization attempts of the 2 accounts of Jesus' infant life in Matthew and Luke. I've seen some of these harmonization attempts and oh boy are they doozies.
They only line up when you draw a sharpie line around them and say they do!!
Growing up fundamentalist Baptist, I remember always being told about Judas hanging himself and then somehow falling from where he was hanging and bursting open. Nothing was ever said about the two different reasons for it being called the field of blood. That's exactly what the apologist here is saying.
Ah! Gin! I'm enjoying a G&T right now 🍸
Breakfast of champions!
@@NWPaul72 it's afternoon here in the UK. An Irish coffee ☕🥃 would be more appropriate for breakfasts with a Bloody Mary and a Screw Driver.
Thus getting two portions of your daily requirement of fruit and vegetables. 😉Also, coffee is good for your liver. 😁
I was just wishing I'd bought shares in Gordon's.
It must have been a really really really high tree that Judas fell from so his guts burst open when he fell. Also it's a little known fact that Judas was very very fat so the crappy bit of rope and thin branch of the tree he used couldn't hold his very heavy weight. They also had a big debate at the time deciding on which name of the field to choose which was either going to be 'The field of blood' or 'The field of yucky spilt guts'.
All apologists choose dishonesty in order to defend their absurdities. They become used car salespersons. Sad and disgusting.
I mean, InspiringPhilosophy is pretty good -- though he's the only good one I can think of.
@@HangrySaturn nah he a liberal
what about when it says that the census was incited by Satan in 1 Chr 21:1 and it also says that is was incited by YHWH in 2 Sam 24:1
My late friend Farrell Till (a former Church of Christ minister) and publisher of The Skeptical Review, was a genius at dismantling these eisegetical "how it could have been" arguments from Christian apologists defending (I should say *attempting* to defend) biblical inerrancy. He used say "what proves too much proves nothing at all." Meaning that if you must remove yourself farther and farther from the *actual text* with far-reaching "how it could have been" scenarios, then at some point the sheer weight of absurdity discredits not only your premise, but your own credibility in the eyes of any reasonable, disinterested, observer. Till would demand written debates in which the defending apologist was required to respond "point-by-point," rather than the usual salad bar approach used by apologists to pick and choose what they want and ignore (or flagrantly "reinterpret") the inconvenient parts that undermine their argument. Such tactics work fine for the uncritical audience of believers who are eager to validate their own beliefs, but do not work when facing the informed. Dan's approach reminds me very much of Till (only better due not only the level of scholarship, but to the short, tight 'mic-drop' segments) in how he not only dissects the apologist's claims point-by-point (from the perspective of a biblical scholar), but also details WHY they have to resort to such schemes to achieve (at all cost) their preformed conclusions.
Contradictions
"If Yahweh is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33) and the Bible is the inerrant word of Yahweh (2 Peter 1:19-21, 2 Timothy 3:16, Pope Paul VI: Dei Verbum ch 3 para 2, Pope Pius XII: Divino afflante Spiritu para 46, Augustine Letter 82 to Jerome, Aquinas: Summa Theologica) and if oral tradition was so high-fidelity in ancient times, why are there so many contradictions?
Which version of the Bible is inerrant?
Is there life after death (John 5:25), or not (Job 7:9)?
Did Jesus descend from David through Joseph (Matthew 1:1), or was he born of a virgin mother (Matthew 1:18)?
Was Joseph's father Jacom (Matthew 1:2) or Heli (Luke 3:23)?
Can you see Yahweh's face (Genesis 32:30), or not (Exodus 33:20)?
Are Jesus and Yahweh one and the same (John 10:30-38), or does Yahweh, but not Jesus, know when the world will end (Matthew 24:36)?
Was Abiathar (Mark 2:26) or Ahimelech (1 Samuel 21) the high priest when David and his men ate the showbread from the tabernacle in Nob?
Did Mary and Joseph flee to Egypt (Matthew 2:1-23), or return to Nazareth (Luke 2:1-40)?
Did Jesus die the day before the Passover (John 19:31) or the day after the Passover (Mark 14:12)?
Was Mary Magdalene informed of the resurrection by an angel (Matthew 28:5) or by Jesus (John 20:14)?
Did Satan incite David to conduct a census (1 Chronicles 21:1), or did Yahweh (2 Samuel 24:1)?
Was Jehoiachin eighteen (2 Kings 24:8) or eight (2 Chronicles 36:9) when he became king?
Was Ahaziah twenty-two (2 Kings 8:26) or forty-two (2 Chronicles 22:2) when he began to reign?
Did Jesus clear the temple at the beginning (John 2:13-22) or the end (Mark 15:11-19) of his ministry?
Did Paul's companions hear the voice (Acts 9:7) during Paul's conversion experience or not (Acts 22:9)?
Can witnesses be convinced by a risen Lazarus (John 11:38-44), or not (Luke 16:19-31)?
Did Gyrus's daughter die before (Matthew 9:18) or after (Mark 5:23) Gyrus asked Jesus for help?
Was the paralytic man in a house with a roof of mud and branches (Mark 2:4), or tile (Luke 5:19)?
Did Judas hang himself (Matthew 27:5), or did his intestines explode (Acts 1:18)?
Did Judas give the money back (Matthew 27:3), or did he buy a field (Acts 1:18)?
Is it forbidden to drink blood (Leviticus 17:14), or mandated (John 6:53)?
On the day he died was Jesus in Paradise (Luke 23:43) or Hell (Matthew 12:40)?
Was Jesus in Hell for 3 nights (Matthew 12:40), or 2 nights (Matthew 27:45-50, Matthew 28:1)?
Was the stone rolled away before (John 20:1) or after (Matthew 28:1-2) the women arrived at the tomb?
Did the sun rise before (Mark 16:2) or after (John 20:1) the women arrived at the tomb?
Did Nicodemus provide the spices (John 19:39), or did the women (Mark 16:1, Luke 23:56)?
Did Jesus appear to eleven disciples (1 Corinthians 15:5 Latin Vulgate), or twelve disciples (1 Corinthians 15:5 English NRSV)?
Was Jesus taken up to Heaven on the day he met the disciples (Luke 24:51), or did he spend 40 days with the disciples, and then go to Heaven (Acts 1:3-10)?
Did Jesus tell the disciples to bring a staff (Mark 6:8), or not bring a staff (Luke 9:3)?
Did Jesus come for the Gentiles too (Romans 15:16), or just the Jews (Matthew 10:5-6, Matthew 15:24-26)?
Do you get into Heaven based on your deeds (Matthew 16:27, James 2:17), or your blind faith (Ephesians 2:8, Galatians 2:16)?
Is everyone who calls on the lord saved (Acts 2:21) or not (Matthew 7:21)?
Do you consider the contradictions in holy books of other religions to be good arguments against their claims of divine authority? For example, in Surah 1:1 of the Qur'an, Allah is called most merciful. In Surah 24:2 Allah says to not let pity keep you from whipping people. Do you find this contradiction a good argument against the divine inerrancy of the Qur'an?
If the original manuscripts of the Bible were accurate but errors crept into copies, why did Yahweh let that happen?"
www.stopindoctrination.org/#contradictions
Divine Inspiration & Biblical Inerrancy: The Failed Hypothesis
The Bible Skeptic
ua-cam.com/video/Gpw-TSd36l8/v-deo.html
Biblical contradictions & how to make them go away
Dan McClellan
ua-cam.com/video/S-vCFtKxc9I/v-deo.html
The Problem of the Bible: Inaccuracies, contradictions, fallacies, scientific issues and more.
Daniel Henson
www.news24.com/News24/The-Problem-of-the-Bible-Inaccuracies-contradictions-fallacies-scientific-issues-and-more-20120517
Misquoting Jesus in the Bible - Professor Bart D. Ehrman - Contradictions
Bart Ehrman
ua-cam.com/video/pfheSAcCsrE/v-deo.html
Quiz Show (Bible Contradictions)
NonStampCollector
ua-cam.com/video/RB3g6mXLEKk/v-deo.html
Sharing permitted. Click the first link for more.
{If the original manuscripts of the Bible were accurate but errors crept into copies, why did Yahweh let this happen?}
The majority of these errors are apparent errors only, not actual errors.
Even so, not only did God allow errors, apparent or real, to creep into the Bible, he allowed many to be embedded in the original manuscripts from the get go.
It's not accidental, it's deliberate.
To understand why, you have to understand what the Bible presents as God's entire plan of salvation for mankind.
To understand, what the Bible claims is the why & the how of the way God is dealing with this planet, is critical to answer the many legitimate questions people have, such as yours.
People base their understanding and therefore their questions, on what they get from the mainstream churches, because this is all they know. This includes atheists and believers alike.
But what the churches claim & what the Bible claims are light years apart.
@@glenwillson5073 people do this thing and you don't do this thing? These other people would say the same about themselves. What method can an outsider use to determine which of all these people, if any, including you, is the correct one? Does using the word "mainstream" in your dismissal of these other people give you authority? Does saying "mainstream" give authority to others who say "mainstream" and interpret scripture differently from how you do it? Members of the Q-Anon cult like to say "mainstream". Does saying "mainstream" give authority to members of the Q-Anon cult?
@@dancancro5524
My use of the word "mainstream" has one and one meaning only.
Mainstream just refers to those churches that hold to the most widely held & most popular beliefs amongst the vast majority of people.
A million people could be right & one person wrong or one person could be right & a million people wrong.
{What method can an outsider use to determine which of all these people, if any, including you, is the correct one?}
There is only one possible way.
Compare what anybody claims is in the Bible with what is in the Bible.
@@glenwillson5073 or they could ALL be wrong. I'm done. This is too simple a point to waste any more time explaining it to someone who insists on pretending they don't get it.
*field of guts*
It should be called according to Acts of 1:16-20.
“Field of Blood” is a stretch even in Matthew’s version.
Great job Dan,i kinda give up on Christians at this point, i stop debating people with religion last year.but i would ask you what is the best excuse you have heard for the story of Noah and god kills everyone but keeps satan alive?why?
Apologetics is the absence of reason and logic. If you abandon logic and reason, there are no contradictions, and your faith is safe. I feel sorry for this young man because one can admit to the contradiction and still believe in god or a god or gods.
No, no. No Mr Debunked home right now.
For all the reasons you specify, I always thought, “Why is the Field of Blood so called?” a more concrete contradiction than, “How did Judas die?”
Do you have a t-shirt sponsor?
Whenever I hear biblical scholars pronounce Greek, I keep forgetting that I'm learning Ancient Greek with a Classical Latin accent. 😅
The interesting thing is that the differences in the story lead to the conclusion that there were a couple of stories about Judas going around. That’s evidence that the Judas story is based on real events.
Dang! Dan went in on this one!
I keep asking the ame question; of what use is a religion that must be supported with lies?
This smug young apologist must know the marked difference in the two stories but he deliberately chooses to lie because his faith will not allow him to be honest.. Shameful.
Doesn't Acts portray Herod Antipas dying by bursting out too?
Meat is "hung".
Men are "hanged".
One of my biggest pet peeves regarding grammar.
@@jackcimino8822 I'm only saying it 'cos "this creator" annoyed me.
What I still find to be most abhorrent about Judas’ story, is that Judas suffers eternally despite being absolutely necessary to the fulfillment of god’s plan. Which means that god not only violated Judas’ free will by making sure he betrayed Jesus, then he punished Judas for doing exactly what he had to do.
Judas should be a hero of the New Testament. Somebody had to take the fall and betray Jesus. If he had not betrayed Jesus you Christians would not be forgiven.
Judas should be a legend among Christians
@CharlesPayet How did god make Judas betray Jesus ? Judas acted according to his own will - that Jesus knew what he was up to did not constrain him in any way. God was able to use Judas's greed to fulfil his purpose, but that doesn't make Judas the good guy.
@tezerii if god’s plan necessitated Jesus being betrayed, then Judas did not have a choice. It boggles my mind, that anyone can think Judas had any choice in the matter. If he didn’t betray Jesus, the crucifixion wouldn’t happen and god’s plan wouldn’t happen. Therefore, Judas HAD to betray Jesus, meaning he had no free will in the matter. It’s not hard to understand, unless you’re already committed to the dogma.
@@CharlesPayet Mind boggled ! And you talk about dogma !! First, Judas was not the only option. Second, betrayal wasn't the only option. Third, if god's in charge, it's gonna happen whatever. Fourth, there's two zeds in my name.
@@CharlesPayet Mind boggled ! And you talk about dogma !! First, Judas was not the only option. Second, betrayal wasn't the only option. Third, if (and I am saying if) god's in charge, it's gonna happen whatever. Fourth, there's two zeds in my name.
In reading Josephus' history of The Jewish War, I came on the story of Herod, on his
deathbed, having to qwell a minor insurection. Herod had caused the image of
an eagle to be affixed to a gate in Jerusalem. This was alleged to be a violation
of Jewish law. Would this law have been the Commandment that forbids making of
"graven images" or "Idols" as the NRSV has it? Or was it a special law concerning
temple grounds? If it was the Commandment, it was much more zealously kept
in antiquity. And if it was the Commandment, what has been the subsequent
history of it in Jewish and Christian tradition?
Hie Dan, kindly clarify the authenticity of the Zeroastrian philosophy because it seems like it was a common philosophy during the time of Jesus, it is said that even the wise men followed the Zeroastrian teachings that predicted the Birth of Christ! According to the apocrypha gospels, it seemed like desciples such as John and Judas believed much of this philosophy. Pliz clarify on the history and the authenticity of the Zeroastrian philosophy. Thanks
You know all the contradictions are very interesting, but I think that guy should be more worried about the theological contradiction between Matt 19:16 + and Gal 3. Quite fundamental that one.
The entire bible was never "bunked" in the first place.
But good info.
Dan's point at the end is spot on perfect! Apologists like the guy he's responding to completely miss the point of these stories. Which is NOT to be journalism, but to illustrate a truth. And then atheists dutifully follow right behind them, just as blind as their sightless guides.
"Truth" is not just mere facts.
Is it possible for you and me to have 2 conflicting truths? If yes, then what’s the value of truth? If no, then what do you use the determine truths without using facts?
@@autonomouscollective2599 Tom had 10 apples. He gave three apples to Jane, two apples to Mary and two apples to Jim. Now Tom has three apples left.
Do you think this is a true story? Do you think there really is a Tom a Jane a Mary or a Jim? Or that any apples really changed hands? No, of course not. Does that mean the story is a lie? No, of course not.
Your last statement is erroneous truth is definitely fact,I think what you may have wanted to say,is that detail is important
And post mortem wounds don't bleed
Not supporting the botched hanging theory, mind you, but the theory doesn’t claim the branch broke (or rope broke) post mortem.
Im looking forward to a response from this creator 😅
Made up stories having contradictions? I wonder how that happened?
Can you address the SEC, LDS fine
I never understood the emphasis on contradictions in the bible. Whether it be from atheists or Christian apologists. I mean I told a joke at work literally yesterday. Later the group of co-workers I was with periodically would tell different co-workers about the joke I made. And both accounts were very different. And both were also different from the account I remember telling the joke. Basically I am saying details are omitted, or made up, can contradict each other, and even the motive or intent can sometimes be different. But regardless the actual punch line of the joke was told indeed correctly.
I think when we’re dealing with a collection of books that some claim are literally perfect, demonstrating that they are indeed quite imperfect is a useful thing to do.
@@Mikeypem
That is a great point. I never understood with the need to claim a book is perfect. I mean I am a Christian, church weekly, pray daily. But would never claim that a book that has been politicized, translated, taken apart, put together, then voted on by a group of dudes in robes - is perfect in any way lol
Believing Contradictions is called cognitive dissonance and 2 mutually exclisive claims cannot be true at the same time. Claims like Jesus was a man and Jesus is God. It is impossible to be something you are and something you aren't. This is basic logic. @Asian-Hawaiian-Orian
_Ktaomai_ is one of those words that are general enough to work in a variety of specific contexts with different meanings. There are a lot of those in every language. It is a fault in reading not to understand that. It is also nitpicky to make a big deal of it.
The greater fault, I think, is the assumption that every report or interpretation of the event must agree, or that every report is inerrant. It is that baseline conviction that forces us apologists to do exegetical gymnastics to reconcile them.
That fact is Luke did not experience this event firsthand. He received it after it had filtered through the interpretive mill of many tellings and retellings over chai in the local bazar. In that situation personal explanation or interpretation should be expected. That's the way it works where I live.
Matthew has an agenda to connect Old Testament events with New Testament events as a kind of type and antitype prophecy.
BTW Papias has a third description.
To force or "gin up" a harmonization is to make mountains out of molehills. And it is unnecessary. But it does make for good fodder for a UA-cam video.
You sir are a bad ass. Thank you for these videos.
Christian Oral Torah strikes again.
Different versions of the same historical novel with different thematic emphasis
The kind of thing that would make a good writing class assignment
( my version ; Judas took the thirty-pieces and bought a nice little plot of land, that included an orchard
but while working in the orchard he fell out of a tree , maybe onto something , and call it karma )
Dan I have 1 question are you saying that the father is not real and Jesus is not real I'm not a trinitarian or oneness but you are a critical scholar and what's going on? The Bible has been changed yes, I agree with that but what's up?
He's saying that the Bible is a mishmash of stories that multiple people created, and we really shouldn't make up our own fiction to make the Bible different, since that doesn't respect the original text. How often do you go and alter other people's literary work anyway? You don't normally do that unless you're writing fan fiction.
Yeah I understand, just wondering if should keep reading the Bible LoL?
Nevermind
2:21
I'd love to see you this critical of the book of Mormon
Matthew 13.38 The field is the world. The Son of man is the word of God. Zechariah 11.13 And the Lord said unto me Cast it unto the potter a goodly price that I was praised at of them And I took the thirsty pieces of silver and cast them to the potter in the house of the Lord. Isaiah 64.8 But now O Lord thou art my Father we are the clay and thou our potter and we are all the work of thy hand.
This apologia is not new. I heard exactly the same explanation decades ago.
W
If you say that critical details are left out of some accounts and other critical details are left out of others, how do we know that let more critical details weren’t left out of all the surviving accounts? If the authors were soo careless or misinformed as to miss out bits that you have to fill in from elsewhere how can you claim that the texts are telling the whole story? And if there is the real possibility they aren’t telling the whole story how can you take their stories, even in combination, as true?
I'm not so surprised about this creator's lack of Koine Greek - but "hung himself" implies a certain lack of acceptable English!
That’s a tough one. It need not have happened over a short period of time. Judas would have gotten the field , not by purchase but by his earning the field of his burial. Both explanations can be true as that would have been two popular opinions on why the field is named such.
I agree with what you are saying but your closing argument is literally what you do in all these videos
I disagree.. there’s a difference between saying “not every single word is true” and “no words are true” vs “all words are true”… insisting that every single verse is true causes people to hyper-fixate on legalistic interpretations of obscure statements that probably have nothing to do with the intended message. He’s saying that by freeing yourself of the necessity to interpret every word as true, you can stop looking at everything through this legalistic lens and instead interpret the overarching message and themes of the New Testament, which is much, much, much more likely the hope that the authors had when writing it about how it would be interpreted. By pointing out contradictions, he’s removing a constraint of interpretation, not adding one. Insisting that every word is true adds a constraint that prevents people from reading everything with clear eyes
The Wisdom of Solomon??? But that’s not in the Bible!! 😱
The Wisdom of Solomon is in the Douay-Rheims Bible:
Wisdom 7:24
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition
24 For wisdom is more active than all active things: and reacheth everywhere by reason of her purity
@@johnburn8031 oh I know - it’s in both Roman Catholic & Eastern Orthodox bibles. Just highlighting how uprooted from Christian tradition these ‘fundamentalists’ actually are.
Here's the verses he quoted;
Wisdom 4:17-19
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition
17 For they shall see the end of the wise man, and shall not understand what God hath designed for him, and why the Lord hath set him in safety.
18 They shall see him, and shall despise him: but the Lord shall laugh them to scorn.
19 And they shall fall after this without honour, and be a reproach among the dead for ever: for he shall burst them puffed up and speechless, and shall shake them from the foundations, and they shall be utterly laid waste: they shall be in sorrow, and their memory shall perish.
Oh, my bad. I just noticed the 😱 at the end of your comment 🤦🏻♂️
Apologists and their deceitful attempts at trying to explain the contradictions and inconsistencies with the Bible are the religious equivalent of Fanon and headcanon
You left out Genesis 1 & 2
I had to be the 667th like to this video because can't have 666 likes 😀
dude we can read we see contradictions, so what’s the big deal? maybe there was an error 2000 yo wtf
Mark is the only true Gospel. Matthew and Luke copied from Mark embellishing the entire event
Making a completely irrelevant distinction of “buy” or “gain” is splitting hairs
Different groups of people called it the field of blood for different reasons. Boom. Problem solved. You can’t beat the mental gymnastics of inerrancy apologists. If Papias was scripture, Jesus would have hung himself, fell, got run over by a wagon and burst open. If a fourth scriptural author said he was shot with a flaming arrow that fire would obviously be what caused the rope to break and Judas to fall. Everything you say is correct but it doesn’t matter. Preaching to the choir.
The chief priests didn’t considered themselves or Judas to be “criminals”
Dan McClellan is clearly confused [again!]. First, he states that κτάομαι means "to acquire, gain, get, obtain, possess". Second, Acts 1:18 says: "Now this man acquired a field with the reward of his wickedness, and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out" - So Judas gained a field, then hung himself, then fell which caused his body to burst open and die [or was already dead when he fell] then field became known as "Field of Blood"
Where's the contradiction?
The contradiction? The fact that Mathew has Judas going to hang himself, with the priests buying the field, while Acts has Judas buying the field and dying there. What you present is made up and nowhere to be found in scripture.
These two do not contradict themselves. Judas hanged himself and his bowels gushed out. When they took him down from the hanging tree they threw him headlong into the field where his bowels gushed out. There is no contradiction.
Who bought it was not the most important part, it is the agreement that the field was where Judas died and it was called the Field of Blood
So you’re admitting the gospel accounts contradict each other
@@MikeypemOf course there are people who twist my words
@@MikeypemPeople remember certain things in different ways and from different perspectives
@@Mikeypem Certain details might be remembered differently, but the core events are still true, hence 4 Gospels that do not contradict each other nor disagree with each other.
@@Mikeypem The gospel writers do not fight or argue with each other
0:24 * hanged himself
Your entire explanation supports why it is not a contradiction.
Jeez
Different authors have different agendas. That's why the Bible was written to support faith not inerrancy.
And where does his explanation support that idea?
Both Dan and critic are reading into the text things it does not actually say.
The text of Matthew does not say, Judas waited until the priests had purchased the field before he hung himself. And Matthew does not say, Judas hung himself in the field that the priests bought.
And neither does Acts.
The sequence of events is;
Judas returned the money.
He then went and hung himself.
The priests bought the field as a burial place for strangers (Matthew 27:3-7)
Matthew does not say the field was bought in Judas's name or for Judas.
But it does say, the field was known as the field of blood because it was purchased with Judas's blood money. (Matthew 27:4,6,8)
The text of Acts does not say, Judas hung himself in the same field Matthew says the priests bought.
Where he actually hung himself is not stated in Acts or Matthew.
And Acts does not say, the field is called the field of blood because Judas hung himself there.
The real intent & purpose of Acts 1:17 & 18 is to show what Judas had and lost.
Judas had a part in the ministry of Jesus (v17)
In contrast to what he had, Judas's only reward, the only result, for his iniquity, was his death and the purchase of a field (v18).
The point being made & emphasised in Acts is, a field that was purchased with the money Judas received for his betrayal, is Judas's only reward for his iniquity, dead or alive.
Acts then simply states that this field, that was purchased, is the one known as the field of blood (v18).
Where exactly is the contradiction?
The contradiction is "Who acquired the field?" Matthew says the priests bought it, and Acts says that Judas acquired it. Acts doesn't say Judas hung himself. It says he fell headlong and burst open. Those are two different deaths as well. But Matthew says it's called the field of blood because of the sketchy funding, while Acts says it's called the field of blood because of the literal blood spilled on it. The explanations are irreconcilable.
@@VulcanLogic
Correction, yes you are right Acts does not say Judas hung himself. (I omitted to address this point adequately)
It is just an assumption, that Acts 1:18 is stating/describing the cause of death or that Judas was even alive when this event took place.
What is the proof that Acts is a description as to cause of death?
What is the logic that says, being hung and falling & bursting asunder are mutually exclusive events?
Acts does not say, the field is called the field of blood because that's where Judas fell & burst asunder.
Acts does not even say, this field is where Judas died & neither does Matthew.
To say it is does is just an assumption.
Acts only says, a field that was purchased with the reward of iniquity, is know as the field of blood, that's all it actually says.
It's also just an assumption, that someone has to be alive in order to appropriately describe them as purchasing &/or acquiring something.
Judas does not have to be alive, in order to be described as purchaseing the field.
Judas is described as having purchased/acquired a field because it was his reward money that was used to purchase a field.
This is the case whether Judas is alive or dead.
The whole point of Acts 1:17-20 is to address how Judas lost his position as a minister of Jesus, and his position, which was his, will now be taken by another, and all that Judas has to show for anything is a field of dirt.
Judas being alive or dead makes no difference to this assessment of and results of his actions.
It's an unwarranted assertion that Judas has to personally hand over the cash, in order for him to be appropriately described as having purchased the field, for the purpose of the points Acts is addressing.
@@glenwillson5073 "Acts does not say, the field is called the field of blood because that's where Judas fell & burst asunder."
Yeah, actually, it does. Explicitly, in Acts 1:18-19.
"but...but...it might be a different field". No, dude. It's just not, or it wouldn't have the same name.
@@VulcanLogic
"Acts does not say, the field is called the field of blood because that's where Judas fell & burst asunder."
{Yeah, actually, it does. Explicitly ....}
Acts 1:18 makes two statements concerning Judas.
A- He purchased a field.
"Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity;"
B- He fell headlong.
"and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out."
Where does the wording say this fall actually happened in the field he purchased?
This is just an assumption, you are reading this into the text.
A third statement in v19 only says the field was known as the field of blood.
"And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood."
Where does the wording actually say the name, the field of blood, came about as the result of Judas's fall?
This is an assumption based upon the first assumption that v18 says Judas fell in the field he purchased.
The only field that is specifically identified in acts v18, and that is the field defined as the field Judas purchased. This is the field that v19 confirms is known as the field of blood.
There is no statement defining this field as the place of Judas's death.
Can you answer this?;
It is just an assumption, that Acts 1:18 is stating/describing the cause of death.
And it is just an assumption Judas was even alive when this fall took place.
What is the proof that Acts is a description as to cause of death?
What is the logic that says, being hung and falling & bursting asunder are mutually exclusive events?
@@glenwillson5073 And now you're just making things up, inserting facts not in evidence (some other field not introduced in evidence and not being discussed RIGHT HERE) while ignoring the plain reading of the text. If the Matthew version did not exist, you would simply do the plain reading of the text. Congratulations.
In fact, when I think of God as the omniscient creator of all the universe, to have him be this bad at inspiring a clear and concise message that He needs you to tap dance around a story like this and come up with gobsmackingly stupid explanations is quite frankly, an insultingly unintelligent vision of your creator. You could just acknowledge that these are two different stories that are not univocal. Instead you're writing ad hoc explanations for his inability to relay a clear message, requiring 12 paragraphs to cover two sentences. Bravo.
Short version: "You see, what God meant to say was..." That's what you're doing.
I'll stick with, you just simply don't understand the narrative because you are approaching the narratives as history, or historical recordings. They are not. I'm trying to give you what has not occurred to your mind, the four gospels are telling the same event thru the eyes of four different aspects of the same singular person. In other words, Luke is the narrative thru the eyes of our own innocence. The story is not a literal incident that occurred long ago, the narrative is describing how these four boundaries of our human existence perceives differently the same events . The Luke gospel is not the same as marks rendering of the narrative because the mind and gut responds differently from each other, and therefore for any given instance, the operations of the body and mind have different calculations. It is to say that anything that a human goes thru in time is perceived four different ways. One person, same event, four perceptions. There are four gospels because, the above is as the below, the within is as the without, or..God separated the light from darkness, and divided the waters above from the waters below. The separation of light and darkness is explaining how animal became consciousness when it realized its own shadow, light separated from darkness. This is the mark of self realization, similar to how animals cannot understand themselves in mirrors, the same idea. But humans can, the difference is realization of self apart from other, or nature.
Ok, but where do the evil Martians figure into this?
The Bible is LITERALLY TRUE. Except where it isn't.
@@VulcanLogicWhen people say things like this I get irritated at your lack of knowledge about actual nature. Since you have absolutely no reference to nature, the best you can do is conjure up a fairytale out of the bible, or you treat it as if it's a historical document and think it "really" happened. If You studied actual life on planet earth you would understand that the bible is talking about it. But you would rather be a comedian and say stupid things like your martian comment. It makes me think you have the mental capacity of a three year old. In your mind you're funny, in my mind you're sad, uneducated and truly a sucker for whatever "authority" tells you to think. But hey, if they are all jumping off a bridge , you better get in line, cause the majority know nothing but think their opinions are facts. But you have no facts at all.
@@rainbowkrampus Fits right in with a belief in a god. They are both fiction. But hey, if you wanna go full out caveman style, be scared of your own shadow, run from fire, and worship gods, what's the harm in adding martians? Sit tight buddy, drink the cool aid and wait for Jesus to return..lol. The rest of us will be living with the truth of reality as described in the Bible., which has absolutely nothing to do with your fairytale.