(Part 2/3) Here is Proof that the 'New Testament' is NOT inerrant as many 'believers' claim?

Question

Did you know that according to the gospel of Matthew 27:5, Judas hanged himself after he betrayed Jesus? Yet, in Acts 1:16-20 Peter gives an entirely different account of how Judas died. Peter says that Judas took the money that he received in his betrayal of Jesus and went and bought a field with it. Yet while he was walking in his own field his stomach burst open out of the blue and his guts spilled out and thus he died as a result.

Thus folks - stop believing that the NT is inerrant. Remember, it is not what is written about Jesus that is inerrant, it is the man himself, Okay

Again, Jesus is not God in the flesh, this is a deliberate ill-translation by those that drank the kool aid of the catholic church from the Nicene council of 325 CE. Judaism NEVER claimed that the promised moshiach is 'GOD,' this is why most Jews do not accept Yehoshua as their moshiach, because of these kind of ignorant people that think they are "witnessing" for HaShem, WRONG!!!!

heshallgovern.com

To answer someone's question, this can be found in any version you so choose!!

Answer 1

You people amaze me!!! You should be ashamed for not accepting the truth of what the two passages LITERALLY say. The one's that are adding to the text is "The_Cricket" and "Haverchat." "HaShem's servant," however, is really speaking the truth here. Wow!!

Here is what the Greek says:

1:18 ουτος μεν ουν εκτησατο χωριον εκ μισθου της αδικιας και πρηνης (prenes) γενομενος ελακησεν μεσος και εξεχυθη παντα τα σπλαγχνα αυτου

There are NO parenthesis in the Greek Text, as SOME English versions wrongfully do.

You people are really grasping for air, I mean REALLY! Coming up with every excuses in the world to make the NT inerrant in your own minds. Do what you desire in your own minds, but what is there is there!!! For this is what it says:

Peter said, "Men, brethren, it behooved this Writing that it be fulfilled that beforehand the Holy Spirit spake through the mouth of David, concerning Judas, who became guide to those who took Jesus, because he was numbered among us, and did receive the share in this ministration, this one, indeed, then, purchased a field out of the reward of unrighteousness, and falling headlong (πρηνης = prenes), burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed forth, and it became known to all those dwelling in Jerusalem, insomuch that that place is called, in their proper dialect, Aceldama, that is, field of blood"

Thus, "HaShem's servant" told the utter truth. In fact, if you look at the Greek word for "headlong" or "πρηνης (prenes)," this word means "to go head first," or "forward leaning" NOT to hang one's self.

As far as her different pronunciation of christ or messiah, it is clear you do not know my culture to well. It's a far different perspective for someone when they are merely looking in or peering into the faith and religion of Jesus- that is Judaism vs. knowing and living it from within!!! I am NOT being rude here, I am stating a FACT. Deal with it.

The messiah is pronounced as this:
me-shi-ach = "meshiach" מְשִׁיחַ
This is found in many places, such as:
1 Sam 2:35
Lam 4:20
2 Sam 19:21
and many other places

"meshiach (מְשִׁיחַ)" means "someone / something that has been touched with oil."

A twist of the constantants is "Mo-sha-ach (only found in Psalm 68:20, it means 'salvation / delieverance' = מוֹשָׁעוֹת = mo-sha-ot. The "-ot" is simply a grammar rule, the actual word is "מושעה " mo-sha-ah.

Thus, you can say "mo-shi-ach"

We Jewish folks say "moshiach" all the time. Look at these following Jewish links for proof:

http://www.moshiach.com/topics/basics/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Messiah
http://www.jewfaq.org/moshiach.htm
http://home.aol.com/lazera/moshiach.htm
http://www.rabbiriddle.org/rebbetzin-riddle/03-16.htm

All of these websites are creditable websites, not cuckoo websites.

For more info, the word "oil" is said like this "מְשַׁח = me-shach." This word is only found twice in the Tanakh, Ezra 6:9 & 7:22.

Thus, "moshiach" means these two things:
1. one who is rubbed or touched with oil for a particular purpose
2. deliver

Thus, Haverchat you are not bearing true testimony and you are desperately trying to justify the obvious error here.


To touch on what "pwwatson8888" said - let me say this:
You must remember that Jesus left the world 40 days after his resurrection (thus giving him 40 days to do so before Peter mentioned what he did) AND that the verse does NOT mention any exact time when Judas bought the field!!! Likewise, you must remember, if the people, the society and culture are torah-observant, regardless if Judas was, they would not be allowed to conduct business on the first day, nor on the seventh day of the feast of unleavened bread (Chag Matzah), and especially not on a regular shabath (sabbath) day.

But, an awesome point you make "pwwatson8888," for how in the world can Judas buy a field with the betrayal money if he tossed the money back? The proving again that the NT is not inerrant. Thanks to HaShem, through you, I just put more arrows in my quiver.

Peter, however, does admit that Judas did - in fact - buy the field with the betrayal money, because he said, "out of the reward," in "purchased a field out of the reward of unrighteousness." For thirty shekels for silver in todays pricee is 30x$11 per shekel [guess- for a shekel is slightly less than an ounce at $12.53 per ounce. Making that $330 in our day. That's a lot of money back then. For some that's a great 40 hour work week, making $8.25 per hour, considering in the 30's people would only make a few dollars a day, how much less at that time?!!

Go to Her website, its right on!!!! Its www.heshallgovern.com

Take a look at this page on her website:
http://heshallgovern.homestead.com/last-supper.html
to see an awesome discrimpancy - there we see that Jesus did not even eat the passover as the "last supper."

Mare-ga'al ben Yaakov

Answer 2

Comparing Matt. 27: 3–10 and Acts 1: 16–20, how could Judas hang himself in a field that the chief priests would not be able to purchase until the Sabbath was over? Isn’t this proof of the historical unreliability of the Bible?

The answer to the first question is that Judas couldn’t! It is clear from the words used by Matthew that on returning the 30 pieces of silver to the chief priests in the temple Judas went and hanged himself without delay: “And having cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, he left the place, and went away and hanged himself” (Matt. 27: 5). That day (14th Nissan) was the preparation for the first day of the feast of unleavened bread (see Lev. 23: 5–8) which was a Sabbath (see Matt. 27: 62 and John 19: 31). The 30 pieces of silver could not have been used to but the place where Judas hanged himself since the chief priests had not as yet bought the potter’s field and Jewish scruples would prevent their doing so until the Sabbath was over. Even if Judas had waited until the Sabbath was past and the chief priests had bought their field (a purchase that would be unknown to Judas), it would have been a remarkable coincidence if Judas had chosen that very field in which to hang himself! The difficulty arises from the similarity of expression between the “blood field” of Matt. 27: 8 and the Aceldama (“field of blood”) of Acts 1: 19 and the assumption that they are one and the same. This mistaken assumption is further aided by the thought that the phrase “with [the] reward of iniquity” (Acts 1: 18) refers to the payment Judas got for betraying the Lord.

Let us look with care at what is said in the two Scriptures. What the chief priests purchased was just a field and the word used in the Greek is is the normal word for “field” (Matt. 27: 7), but when we look at Acts the word translated there as “field” (Acts 1: 18) is a totally different word in the Greek. There the word which while it can also be translated as “field”, carries the sense of “estate”, “landed property” or “place”. Again, the chief priests purchased their field and the word used for “bought” (Matt. 27: 7) is the normal word which means to buy in the open market place—and, as I have already said, they could not do this until the Sabbath was over. Yet again, it is not even said that Judas purchased his place. The word used is “got” (Acts 1: 18) which in the Greek simply means “to acquire possession”. So how did Judas acquire this place if he did not use the 30 pieces of silver? We are told in John 12: 6 that Judas “had the bag”—that is he was the treasurer for the Lord and His disciples. This verse also tells us that he was a thief, indicating that he had already spent that which was not his. (probably not in the public market place, where such a matter might become common knowledge, but privately hence the use of the word  rather than .) This is what I would understand the phrase “with [the] reward of iniquity” (Acts 1: 18) to mean. The phrase is a Hebrew idiom equivalent to our English “ill–gotten gains”—what Peter refers to as “[the] reward of unrighteousness” in 2 Pet. 2: 15. Judas acquired his field (or estate), not with the betrayal money of the Lord, but with the proceeds of his thieving.

So what about the almost identical names for the two places? The field purchased by the chief priests was originally known as the “field of the potter” but afterwards became known as the “blood field” which in the Greek is s s. Why did it become known as the blood field? Simply because it was “[the] price of blood” (Matt. 27: 7)—not because Judas shed his blood there. The chief priests secured their field by paying for a man’s murder—it was the price of blood. Now the place that Judas acquired through his thieving is described by Luke in Acts 1: 19 as the “field of blood” which is a transliteration of the Aramaic . However, while this field was thus given a very similar name to the “field” in Matt. 27, it was for a very different reason. The priest’s field acquired its name because it was bought through a man’s murder but Judas’ field was called “field of blood” because Judas shed his blood there. The words of Scripture are “(This [man] then indeed got a field with [the] reward of iniquity, and, having fallen down headlong, burst in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. And it was known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that that field was called in their own dialect Aceldama; that is, field of blood”.) (Acts 1: 19, 20).



the Greek fonts are not printable - check the URL

God is good.

Answer 3

properly i'm no longer shocked. those are tiny little inconsistencies, the type you're able to assume in an trouble-free account of actual historic activities. historic documents would properly be greater and much less precise. we can debate to whether its "wildly innacurrate", "by ability of and massive sound", "usually precise" etc etc. We may even rank historic documents, 'A' is greater good than 'B' yet much less good than 'C'. in this style there are a probably countless kind of values we can place on the texts accuracy. With 'inerrant', even nevertheless, there are in basic terms 2 values: 'errant' and 'inerrant'. If there are ANY errors, no count number how trivial, insignificant or in any different case the source is 'errant'. jointly as we can debate a documents accuracy with errancy there choose be no argument. Take the final words of Christ as reported by ability of the Gospels. they are distinctive. Now we can argue approximately whether or no longer they are heavily distinctive, and for this reason how lots reliance we can place on the Gospels. even nevertheless, we won't be able to rationally argue approximately whether or no longer they are distinctive. there is in basic terms one inerrant "final words" and for this reason all yet between the Gospels must be errant. So, a minimum of three Gospels containing an errors are interior the Bible. So the Bible includes a minimum of three errors. So the Bible isn't inerrant. Its no longer a question of 'faith', its a question of excellent judgment.

Answer 4

Hi Hashem, you are one mixed up little lady. As a previous respondent asked "What version are you reading?"
If you take another look at Acts 1:18,19 you will note that it is in (). Peter didn't say this, Luke the author of Acts has added it to help Theophanus understand what had gone on.
He didn't say he was walking in his own field at all! Luke said, "He purchased a field..."
Luke said, "...and falling headlong..." This is a reference to Judas hanging himself, not tripping over in his field!
Try staying with the text and not puting your own interpretation on it and you'll do much better.
As for the other nonsense you wrote about "moshiac" (I believe you mean Messiah or Meshiah in the Hebrew, the reason the Jews didn't accept Jesus (Yeshuah [Joshua]) as the Messiah or Annointed One is because He didn't fulfill their expectations and rid them of the Romans.
I doubt that this has helped you as I sense that you aren't really interested in the truth as you have already formed your own opinion which is a pity because Jeremiah 17:9 says, "The heart (mind) is deceitful above all things, and desparately wicked..."
May God Bless you.
H'chat.

Answer 5

What, it isn't possible that he hung himself, and his body swelled with decomposition, and the rope or branch he hung himself on broke, causing him to fall, which caused his body to break open?

It doesn't say in Acts that he died from falling.

Answer 6

What version are you reading?