Two different fields.

quote:

---

The field mentioned in Matthew is not the same field mentioned in Acts and the Thirty pieces of silver is not "the reward of iniquity".

---

Oh?

quote:

---

In the Aramaic and in the greek two different words are used to describe two different fields.

---

and the greek was the original was it not? One of them came first and if one contradicts the other its still a contradiction.besides the name was just a word with a meaning. Something to do with "field of blood" or something to that affect. It received its name after Judas died.

quote:

---

The word used in Aramaic in Matthew is "srwg" and the word used in the greek is "agros" (field).
But the word used in acts is "lgx" in Aramaic and "chorion" in the greek, indicating a property.

---

You are just playing semantic games -- trying to guess what they ment by field and property.Lets think about this;If you bought a field wasn't it property of the previous owner? I am both buying a field and property.

quote:

---

How could Judas have used the thirty pieces of silver to purchase the field.

---

Why not?

quote:

---

The answer is he could not have. Judas was the treasurer, but also a thief. The "reward of his iniquity" that he used to purchase the property was money that he stole.
See ." John 12:6b - "he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein."

---

First off you don't know what he could or could not have done with the money.Secondly the verse states "reward for his wickedness". Clearly this denotes the the money he received for the betrayal.

quote:

---

Riiiiight!...So are you saying that stealing is not wickedness.

---

Lol and you are saying his REWARD was for stealing. You are totally off base here.

quote:

---

Again...John 12:6b - "he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein." ;-)

---

Lol.

quote:

---

P.S. We can look at some 'real' problems with the texts if you like sometime. These ones just aren't there when we look at the original texts.

---

LOL You never even addressed what i said about the lands. you are playing a semantic game. There are no problems in the real text according to you - you will just simply make something up inorder to try and flim flam your way ought of tight stops. Your arguments lack sound reasoning.-btw you couldn't show how the original text supported your argument at all.

quote:

---

Originally posted by judge:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brian Johnston:
P.S. We can look at some 'real' problems with the texts if you like sometime. These ones just aren't there when we look at the original texts.

​

Hi Judge,

​

Could you let me know what original texts you are looking at?

​

Best wishes.
Brian.

---

​

Well my persoanl opinion (which may well be wrong) is that the only "original" we have is the NT eastern peshitta.
As I said I may be wrong about this and most western biblical schollars would disagree.

​

It would have been better to say if we look at texts from which the english has been translated.

​

All the best

---

This is definately the first time i have ever heard some one claim that Matthew was originally written in Aramaic.I have heard some rumors of text found in Aramaic but I didn't hear anyone claim they were "originals." I have only heard they are very old. Simply because they may be older than various books we have discovered isn't evidence that they are "more original". Even If they were "more original" they still aren't the originals.Are you basing your argument souly off the age of the text or are you assuming that the aramaic texts are "more original" because you need the aramaic to play your word games? Honestly, no offense intended but that is exactly what you are doing here. You haven't presented any solid evidence for any of your assertions.You challenged John on the issue of having to provide evidence. I find that ridiculous. YOU are the one with an irregular positive claim. Scholars (not just western as you want to believe) have come to the conclusion greek was the language for the original texts. Assuming their theory is based off some evidence (which i am sure is a safe assumption to make) how can you state a dissenting opinion and ask people not be baffled by your claims? You haven't provided any evidence that make your arguments look credible.Why do you think the immediate inability of some one to disprove your theory makes it more credible (especially in the light of the fact you haven't presented any evidence)?If you are wrong about this how will it affect your apologetics concerning Judas and Jesus' lineage?Your last response is really getting to me:

quote:

---

P.S. We can look at some 'real' problems with the texts if you like sometime. These ones just aren't there when we look at the original texts.

---

What original texts? You have already admitted to assuming the aramaic texts were "original". You haven't provided any evidence for this yet. With that being said how can or can't you establish there are real problems in the original texts?[This message has been edited by iconoclast2440, 01-22-2003]