Kontradikcije u Bibliji

<< < (2/14) > >>

Lindemann:
 "Utvrdio si zemlju na temeljima njenim, da se ne pomesti na vek veka.
Psalmi 104-5"

"Strepi pred Njim, sva zemljo; zato je zemlja tvrda i neće se pomestiti."
Dnevnik 16-30

Po Bibliji, Zemlja je fiksirana na jednom mestu i ne pomera se.

...............Po Bibliji,u ovim stihovima koristi se reč ‫שה‬

ָׁ‫ ָּב‬što bukvalno znači
ZEMLJA u engleskom THE GROUND..ne misleći se na ZEMLJU KAO
PLANETU ODNOSNO EARTH...nego na zemlju,THE GROUND zemljišno
kopno...ovo u SVAKOM hebrejskom manuskriptu i tekstu imaš.....ovo
apsolutno nigde ne govori o ZEMLJI PLANETI odnosno rečenici erets ‫ָ֫א ֶרץ‬
...kada se govori u ovom stihu o ZEMLJI KAO PLANETI odnosno PLANET
EARTH...EARTH..a ne GROUND...govori se o ROTACIJI ZEMLJE ,ALI zemlje
planete u sledećim stihovima...

The Rotation Of The Earth:

was revealed in Job 38:12, where God asks of Job:

Hast thou commanded the morning since thy days; and caused the
dayspring to know his place; that it might take hold of the ends of the
earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? It is turned as clay to
the seal; and they stand as a garment.

“God asks Job if he has ever dictated the time of the morning or the
location of the sunrise (dayspring). As soon as the sun is risen, its light
will take hold of the ends of the earth in the sense that it touches all of
the landscape, and the wicked are shaken out of it (the earth) in the
sense that thieves, drunkards, adulterers, and others who practice their
sins in darkness are forced to desist from these activities as they retreat
from the light. Also, the beauties of the earth are revealed by the light,
and its coloration is made to appear as that of a beautiful garment.
Finally, the text asserts that God's command of the morning derives from
His control of the earth, which is turned as clay to the seal. Hence, the
suggestion is that God regulates the morning by rotating the earth as a
potter rotates the clay. Yet ancient wisdom would have asserted that God
regulated the morning by control of the Sun, and indeed, this is the
perception of any uninformed mind”.

.....zapamti,ne govori se u stihovima O ZEMLJI PLANETI nego o

ZENLJIŠTU o kopnu...da je utvrdjeno i da se neće pomeriti....odnosno
kopno neće ,,napustiti,, planetu zemlju,jednostavno kopno je
čvrsto,utvrdjeno na temeljima Zemljinim..temeljima planete zemlje.......

"On kad zapreti suncu, ne izlazi; On zapečaćava zvezde;"

Zvezde i sunce se vrte oko zemlje. Zapretio je Suncu da se ne krece.

"Zapecacava" zvezde, zaustavlja ih. Da je mislio na zemlju, naredio bi
zemlji da se ne pomera, medjutim jasno nam je kao i iz prethodnog
argumenta da je zemlja "utvrdjena na temeljima njenim i ne pomera se"
Jov 9-7
...............Hmmmmm...pogledaj kako je prevedena sa hebrejskog ova
čitava glava Jov 9. dali su ovo ,,naučne izjave,,, odnosno izjave Boga,ili je
ovo pesma,poema Jova koju on posvećuje Bogu?Usput,primeti kako se
koristi izraz riseth not...em je u prošlom vremenu,em govori o pojmu
,,izlaska i zalaska,, sunca,koji danas i naučnici koriste...zar ne?Izvučeš
čistu poemu koju je jov napisao Bogu,i izraz zalazak,ili izlazak sunca,i
očekuješ ne studirajući samu Bibliju makar na hebrejskom da se ovde
radi direktno o naučnoj izjavi i to još od strane Boga..... :хмммммм Da te
pitam nešto,evo danas u 2011...kako kažemo kada sunce ono..ujutro?I
kada sunce ono pre nego što počne noć da pada?Kako zovemo te pojave?

1     Then Job answered and said,

2     I know it is so of a truth:

but how should man be just with God?

3     If he will contend with him,

he cannot answer him one of a thousand.

4    He is wise in heart, and mighty in strength:

who hath hardened himself against him, and hath prospered?

5     which removeth the mountains, and they know not;

which overturneth them in his anger;

6     which shaketh the earth out of her place,

and the pillars thereof tremble;

7     which commandeth the sun, and it riseth not;

and sealeth up the stars;

8     which alone spreadeth out the heavens,

and treadeth upon the waves of the sea;

9     which maketh Arctu'rus, Ori'on, and Plei'ades, Job. 38.31 · Amos 5.8

and the chambers of the south;

10     which doeth great things past finding out;

yea, and wonders without number.

11     Lo, he goeth by me, and I see him not:
he passeth on also, but I perceive him not.
12     Behold, he taketh away, who can hinder him?

Who will say unto him, What doest thou?

13    If God will not withdraw his anger,

the proud helpers do stoop under him.

14     How much less shall I answer him,

and choose out my words to reason with him?

15     whom, though I were righteous, yet would I not answer,

but I would make supplication to my judge.

16     If I had called, and he had answered me;

yet would I not believe that he had hearkened unto my voice.

17     For he breaketh me with a tempest,

and multiplieth my wounds without cause.

18     He will not suffer me to take my breath,

but filleth me with bitterness.

19     If I speak of strength, lo, he is strong:

and if of judgment, who shall set me a time to plead?

20     If I justify myself, mine own mouth shall condemn me:

if I say, I am perfect, it shall also prove me perverse.

21    Though I were perfect, yet would I not know my soul:

I would despise my life.

22     This is one thing, therefore I said it,

He destroyeth the perfect and the wicked.

23     If the scourge slay suddenly,

he will laugh at the trial of the innocent.

24     The earth is given into the hand of the wicked:

he covereth the faces of the judges thereof;

if not, where, and who is he?
25     Now my days are swifter than a post:
they flee away, they see no good.
26     They are passed away as the swift ships:

as the eagle that hasteth to the prey.

27     If I say, I will forget my complaint,

I will leave off my heaviness, and comfort myself;

28     I am afraid of all my sorrows,

I know that thou wilt not hold me innocent.

29    If I be wicked,

why then labor I in vain?

30     If I wash myself with snow water,

and make my hands never so clean;

31     yet shalt thou plunge me in the ditch,

and mine own clothes shall abhor me.

32     For he is not a man, as I am, that I should answer him,

and we should come together in judgment.

33     Neither is there any daysman betwixt us,

that might lay his hand upon us both.

34     Let him take his rod away from me,

and let not his fear terrify me:

35    then would I speak, and not fear him;

but it is not so with me.

Isaija je uz pomoc Boga zaustavio Sunce i pomerio ga za deset stepeni

unazad.
Kraljevima 20-11
Ocigledno je da se mislillo na Sunce jer bi posledice naglog zaustavljanja
Zemlje bile katastrofalne.

2 kraljevima 20.11 And Hezekiah answered, It is a light thing for the

shadow to go down ten degrees: no, but let the shadow return backward
ten degrees
t is a light thing - It seemed to Hezekiah comparatively easy that the
shadow, which had already begun to lengthen, should merely make a
sudden jump in the same direction; but, wholly contrary to all experience
that it should change its direction, advancing up the steps again when it
had once begun to descend them.
And Hezekiah answered, it is a light thing for the shadow to go down ten
degrees,.... That is, it was comparatively so, otherwise to go down ten
degrees at once would be extraordinary and miraculous; but that was
more agreeable to the nature and course of it to go forward, and so the
miracle would be less apparent:

nay, but let the shadow return backward ten degrees; which was directly
contrary to its natural order and course, whereby the miracle would
appear more clear and manifest: these degrees are by some said (x) to
be half hours, and not full ones, since it is observed the sun shines not
twenty full hours on any dial, unless under the pole; the sun is supposed
to have been now at the fifth full hour; the sun was brought back five
whole hours, then came forward five, then came forward two degrees, or
one hour, to the sixth hour; which made sixteen; then it was six hours to
sunset; so that day was prolonged twenty two hours: the Chinese (y)
relate, that, in the time of Kingcungus, the planet Mars, for sake of the
king, went back three degrees.

Bog zaustavlja kretanje Sunca:

"Tada progovori Isus Gospodu onaj dan kad Gospod predade Amorejca
sinovima Izrailjevim, i reče pred sinovima Izrailjevim: Stani sunce nad
Gavaonom, i meseče nad dolinom elonskom."
Isus Navin 10-12-13

Sunce se krece oko Zemlje, ni na jednom mestu se ne govori o kretanju

Zemlje i cak se izricito naglasava da je zemlja fiksirana a da se ostala
nebeska tela krecu oko nje.

....................Ovo je već odavno objašnjena verzija...ali da se opet vratimo i

na nju....
Isus Navin 10.12-13

The Event

The story of Joshua 10 can be summarized as follows: When the five

Amorite kings made an alliance to fight against the Gibeonites, the men
of Gibeon asked Joshua to help them against their common enemy. In
response to this request, Joshua and the whole army of Israel went from
Gilgal to fight against the Amorites.

According to the biblical text, Joshua and the army marched all night
from Gilgal and took the army of the Amorites by total surprise. In
addition, God threw the enemy army into total confusion by casting
against them huge stones out of the sky and many died. The text says
that more people died from the hailstones than the people of Israel killed
with the sword.

It was at the height of the battle that Joshua cried out: “Sun, stand still
at Gibeon, and Moon, in the valley of Aijalon." And the sun stood still, and
the moon stopped, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies”
(Joshua 10:12-13).

In Hebrew, the word translated “stand still” literally means “be silent.” In
this context, Joshua was commanding the sun “to be silent,” that is, to
keep from shining. Since the sun was rising in the east, his command to
the sun was that it refrains from shining.

When Joshua came to fight against the Amorites, he came at night and
caught them by surprise. Joshua was aided by the darkness caused by a
huge storm that produced hail so big that it killed many people. In fact,
the biblical text says that more people died from the hailstones than the
people of Israel killed with the sword.

Since the hailstorm did not affect the army of Israel, Joshua needed the
storm to last so that the hail could continue decimating the army of the
Amorites. Consequently, Joshua’s prayer was for more darkness (the
continuation of the storm) and not for more light. The reason Joshua’s
army did not kill many soldiers was because the storm prevailed most of
that day.

The view that Joshua prayed for more darkness is in agreement with the
biblical text because the sun stood still (was silent, did not shine) for a
whole day. This view also allows for a better understanding of the text
without forcing upon it an interpretation that would require the reversal
of the laws of physics.

Lindemann:
Zemlja je ravna, disk a ne sfera.

"Thou has set all the borders of the earth"

"Ti si utvrdio sve granice zemaljske, leto i zimu Ti si uredio."
Sfera nema granice, ali disk ima.
Psalmi 74:17

..............aaaa ?:O Grigorije..čitaj ceo psalm 74 i vidi o čemu se radi....

17  Thou hast set all the borders of the earth:

thou hast made summer and winter.
Thou hast set all the borders of the earth - Thou hast established all the
boundaries of the world; that is, the boundaries of the earth itself; or the
natural bonndaries of nations and people, made by seas, mountains,
rivers, and deserts. The language in regard to the first of these - the
earth itself - would be derived from the prevalent mode of speaking, as if
the earth were a plane, and had limits - a common mode of expression in
the Scriptures, as it is in all ancient writings, and in the common
language of men, even of philosophers. In regard to the latter idea, the
language would imply that God had fixed, by his own power and will, all
the natural boundaries of nations, or that his dominion is over all the
earth. There are natural boundaries, or arrangements in nature, which
tend to break up the one great family of man into separate nations, and
which seem to have been designed for that. Compare Acts 17:26. Over all
these God presides, and he has his own great plans to accomplish by the
arrangement.

Thou hast made summer and winter - literally, as in the margin, "Summer
and winter, thou hast made them." That is, he has so made the earth that
these various seasons will occur. The fact that there are different seasons
of the year, or that the year is divided into seasons, is to be traced to the
agency of God. He has so made the world that these changes will take
place. Nothing is the result of chance; all things in the arrangements of
nature are by his design.
Thou hast set all the borders of the earth - Thou alone art the Author of
all its grand geographical divisions.

Thou hast made summer and winter - Thou hast appointed that
peculiarity in the poise and rotation of the earth, by which the seasons
are produced.
74:17 Set - Thou hast fixed the bounds of the habitable world in general,
and of all the countries and people upon the earth. And as this clause
shews God's power over all places, so the next displays his dominion
over all times and seasons.

i ova se verzija veže za verzije:

Acts 17:26 From one man he made every nation of men, that they should
inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and
the exact places where they should live.
Deuteronomy 32:8 When the Most High gave the nations their
inheritance, when he divided all mankind, he set up boundaries for the
peoples according to the number of the sons of Israel.
Jeremiah 33:25 This is what the LORD says: 'If I have not established my
covenant with day and night and the fixed laws of heaven and earth,
Genesis 8:22 "As long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold
and heat, summer and winter, day and night will never cease."

"Tada se satre i gvožđe i zemlja i bronza i srebro i zlato, i posta kao pleva
na gumnu u leto, te odnese vetar, i ne nađe mu se mesto; a kamen, koji
udari lik, posta gora velika i ispuni svu zemlju."
Danilo 2:35
Planina moze da se pruza preko cele zemlje jedino akoje ravna, poput
ploce ili diska.

"Drvo beše veliko i jako, i visina mu dosezaše do neba, i viđaše se do

kraja sve zemlje."
Danilo 4-11

Koliko god drvo bilo visoko ono moze biti vidjeno sa svih krajeva zemlje
jedino ukoliko bi zemlja bila ravna.
...................Za ovo je tek dug odgovor,jer ovo je samo poglavlje knjige
proroka danila u kojoj prorok danilo GOVORI O VIZIJI odnosno o
PROROČANSTVU i naravno da se u svakom proročanstvu,ovo svako može
i zaključiti,koriste ovakve metafore i izrazi......naravno i ovo ću adresirati
ako treba,ali mislim da nema potrebe samim tim što je ovde reč o
viziji,odnosno o proročanstvu,a ne postoji niti jedno proročanstvo bar ne
u Bibliji gde se koristi literalistički opis....

"Tada reče Gospod Bog zmiji: Kad si to učinila, da si prokleta mimo svako
živinče i mimo sve zveri poljske; na trbuhu da se vučeš i prah da jedeš do
svog veka."
Isa. 65:25, Mih. 7:17

Zmija ne jede prasinu, i nikad nije ni imala noge. Jasno je da je ova prica
obicna alegorija.

................Sama reč zmija je alegorija na satanu...koji se i zove

zmija,serpent..evil dragon..itd....inače ovo je ili alegorija,ili se može
interpretirati na 2 načina..odnosno postoje dva dela odgovora za ovo u
vezi zmije...

‘But Satan was only using the FORM of a snake for his purposes. Why
curse an entire species of animal for something Satan did?’ It needs to
be noted from the outset that Satan certainly did use a real, literal,
physical snake as his instrument for tempting Eve. Satan is the master as
posing himself as something else and not tempting someone with his full
identity exposed.
In terms of why God would ‘curse’ the snake for what Satan did, let me
offer the following considerations:
a. The snake would be a forever symbolic reminder of the Fall.
Everytime man would see a serpent he would be reminded that it was the
instrument by which he fell into sin. Man was to have dominion and rule
over the animal kingdom and yet it was through an animal that he was
led astray! That tells man something about the seriousness of the
original Fall and also about how culpable he really is.
b. The snake would be a symbolic reminder of Satan’s future destruction.
The snake imagery is picked up in Genesis 3:15 when the snake is told:
‘he [the woman’s seed] will crush your head and you will strike his heel.’
The snake was cursed to crawl on the ground and therefore susceptible
to man’s heel crushing its head (this vulnerability is a direct result of
Satan’s sin). This is a foreshadowing of what will really happen to Satan
someday. The seed (Jesus Christ) of the woman will crush the head of
Satan and His heel will be struck (the crucifixion) in the process.
In addition, the curse upon the physical snake was reflective of the actual
curse upon Satan himself: crawling low on the belly was a mark of deep
degradation (Lev 11:42) and eating dust was also a sign of despair
(Micah 7:17). All these factors combine to form very vivid symbolism of
what awaits Satan in the end.
c. Animals were culpable when used as instruments of sin.
Interestingly, elsewhere in the OT when an animal is an instrument in sins
against nature he is to be slain along with the man (Lev 20:15,16). Is
that because there is real blame and guilt on the part of the animal? No,
but because the instrument is often broken/punished along with the
actual perpetrator. Chrysostom summed this idea up well:
‘Just as a loving father when punishing the murderer of his son, might
snap in two the sword or dagger with which the murder had been
committed.’
d. God is the potter and can use some clay for common purposes and
other clay for noble purposes (Romans 9).
God has the right to curse an animal in a specific way due to the sin of
another; He did that very thing in regard to Adam’s sin. When Adam
sinned and threw all of creation into chaos, God cursed the ground so
that it produced thorns. Was the ground to blame? Was it actually guilty?
No, but it was rightly punished due to the sin of another and is a
symbolic reminder to us of that very sin.
Question 2
The second question posed in the letter was: ‘And did this mean that
snakes didn’t “crawl on their bellies” before God cursed them?’
The simple answer is: yes. It is clear from this passage that a physical
change took place in the serpent as a result of Satan’s actions.
Now, it is very difficult (and perhaps impossible) for us to reconstruct
what the snake looked like originally with the amount of information
Genesis gives us. It would simply be speculation. However, it need not be
an intellectual difficulty to imagine physical changes in creation as a
result of sin. In fact, real physical change took place in the woman’s body
so that she produced pain in child birth (3:16); physical change took
place in the land so that it was more difficult to cultivate (3:17-18), and
physical change took place in plants so that they produced thorns (3:18).
It must be remembered that imagining a world not cursed by sin is a very
difficult thing. Can you imagine a world with no death, thorns, pain,
disease, difficulty, struggle for survival? The world before the Fall was
radically different. So, there is no difficulty in imagining the serpent as
changing to crawl on its belly even though we are not totally sure what
he was like before.
The hope is that someday this curse will be reversed; in the new heavens
and the new earth there will be no more pain, disease, sickness or
thorns. The wolf will lay down with the lamb and the lion will eat straw
like an ox (Isaiah 11). And a little child will lead them.

Bog pravi zavet i obecava zivotinjama da ih nikada vise nece ubijati kao
za vreme potopa, time sto ce od tog trenutka svaki put posle kise da se
javi duga.

" I reče Bog: Evo znak zaveta koji postavljam između sebe i vas i svake
žive tvari, koja je s vama do veka: Metnuo sam dugu svoju u oblake, da
bude znak zaveta između mene i zemlje.
Postanak 9-13

Ali mi danas znamo da je duga prirodni proces u kom se svetlost prelama

kao u prizmi i razdvaja na sve talasne duzine. Nije postojao vremenski
period u prirodi kada duge nije bilo. Ona je oduvek postojala. Ali ljudi iz
proslosti koji su pisali Bibliju to nisu mogli znati.

....................Hmmmm...DUGA...odnosno rainbow je SIMBOL u Bibliji...ona

SIMBOLIZIRA u Bibliji više stvari...evo o duzi i Bibliji:

From my childhood days as a lad in Australia to my travels today as a

speaker with Answers in Genesis, I’ve seen scores—probably hundreds—
of these amazing multicolored arches. Whether seen from the back seat
of the family station wagon as it bounced down a dirt road in rural
Queensland, or the window seat of a jetliner flying over a storm below,
these beautiful bows remind me of my parents’ teaching of what the Bible
says about God’s purpose in giving us the rainbow.

Twisted Truth
Rainbows have come to be identified as symbolic of three basic concepts:

Promises—The Bible in Genesis 9 records God’s promise to Noah that He

would never again destroy all flesh with a global flood.

Creation—Folklore and regional legends position the rainbow a bit

differently. For example, Australian Aborigine and American Indian
legends link it to creation events, and the Chinese have a legend
concerning the rainbow and the creation of their first emperor Fohi.

Bridges—The rainbow has also been used to represent a bridge from

earth (from humans) to a brighter, happier place. For instance, Judy
Garland’s “Somewhere Over the Rainbow” represents connecting to a
happier place. The New Age religious movement also uses the rainbow as
a bridge.

The rainbow has been used as a sign of a new era and a symbol of peace,
love, and freedom. Sadly, the colors of the rainbow are even used on a
flag for the gay and lesbian movement.

Lindemann:

Zašto je sporno to što u Bibliji postoje kontradikcije? U stvari, to da u

Bibliji postoje kontradikcije uopšte i *nije* sporno - U Bibliji postoje
kontradikcije i to je poznata stvar. Problem je u nečem drugom:

.................Ne,problem je što u Bibliji nema..NEMA

KONTRADIKCIJA...ukoliko želiš zaista da izučavaš i filozofiju,nauku,i
teologiju,i koristeći logiku i zdrav razum...možeš vrlo lako doći do tog
zaključka...da postoje greške postoje....odnosno oko 0.5 posto čitavog
Biblijskog teksta adrži kopijske greške,odnosno ,,copyist errors,, u
manuskriptima koji su prevedeni i kopirani sa aramejskog,hebrejskog i
grčkog na druge jezike,a tih grešaka su svesni svi,i apologeti i obrazovani
hrišćani,a te greške,kao što sam ti već dao svetske top autoritete Starog i
Novog zaveta kao npr daniel b. wallace i sam wiliam lane craig....ove
,,greške,, i nisu greške u smislu da oštećuju bilo kakvu doktrinu u
Bibliji....ne...ove greške su sve tipa u jednoj verziji piše ubijeno je 800
vojnika,u drugoj 8000...odnosno greške u nekim minornim dogadjajima,u
kojima su greškom dodati koji broj,ili oduzetimkao i ,,greške u prevodu,,
pa umesto onoga firmament..u stvari stoji ATMOSPHERE u originalnim
manuskriptima...znači ovo su minimalne greške kopista čiji je ukupan
procenat oko 0.05 posto celog Biblijskog teksta od 25 000 originalnih
manuskripata Novog Zaveta,i 14 000 plus manuskripata na aramejskom i
hebrejskom.....znači i ovo malo grešaka što postoji,one su u stvari u
kopijama,i potpuno su benigne greškice u jednoj reči,ili broju.....a sam
Biblijski tekst i doktrinu ne dotiču,niti na Bibliju utiču ni malo...tim što se
uvek možeš vratiti originalnom tekstu da proveriš šta se u originalnim
manuskriptima nalazi,i kako je,i jeli tačno prevedeno.......ovde sam već o
tome postavljao,i video klipove i tekstove...čekiraj daniel b. wallace o
ovome klipove koje sam postavio sjajni su.........

Ako se Biblija čita kao skup metafora, kao zbirka mudrosti i generalnih
uputa za život, problema nema. ja se mogu slagati ili ne slagati sa
određenim načinom tumačenja ove ili one smernice, ali uopšte uzev,
većih problema i nema.

.................Ali problem je što je Biblija skup poezije,literalnog

teksta,istorije i izjava o prirodi,o kosmosu,o zemlji,o biologiji,o prirodi
uopšte,o moralu,o čovekovom padu,poreklu,sudbini...i o sudu .....ukoliko
sve ovo izučiš,videćeš da je Biblija sve..samo ne to što ti misliš,ili bi želela
da jeste...ona direktno opisuje tvoje i moje stanje,i zašto se ovo što se
dešava ...dešava...

Ali! Ako se sa druge strane Biblija čita *bukvalno* onda nastaje niz
problema:
1) Ako se Biblija čita bukvalno, ispravi me ako grešim, čita se tako zato
što se smatra da je ona nepogrešiva reč božja. Ali ako je Biblija
nepogrešiva reč božja, otkud onda u njoj kontradikcije? Ako ih ima, onda
Biblija *nije* nepogrešiva reč božja.

..................Ovo sve zavisi od dela Biblije koji se čita...ukoliko t ZAISTA

UZMEŠ da čitaš Bibliju,ali lepo uzmi pa STUDIRAJ BIBLIJU...jer ona se ne
čita..nego studira...lepo pitaj bilo kog rabina zašto oni imaju za SVAKI
DEO i svaki podeok naznake i interpretacije ....odnosno uputsktva..i za
PETOKNJIŽJE,odnosno Toru,i Neviim,i Ketuvim i za knijige vakog proroka
pojedinačno,4 velika i 12 ,,malih,, proroka....kako su rasporedjene..i
deutrokanonske...i psaltir,i mudrosti solomonove,i pesma nad
pesmama..itd itd...svaki deo ima posebnu naznake i označje gde je
METAFORIČKI ODNOSNO POETSKI deo,i gde je LITERALMNI deo,gde je
ISTORIJSKI DEO,odnosno istorijski izveštaji,gde su proročanstva o
budućnosti,odnosno Božja obećanja za budućnost..itd..itd...zato i jevreji,a
i ostali univerziteti imaju fakultet posvećen posebno izučavanju Biblije..jer
nije Biblija kao što ti misliš...aaa..pročitamo malo ovo,malo ono pa kako
mi se dune ja interpretiram ovo...za Bibliju i njeno čitane potreban ti je
FAKULTET...da upišeš i studiraš,makar 4 godine specijalizacije,ja sam
imao tek 3 godine kako sam postao deista,pa se polako ,,transformisao,,
(evoluirao :P xD) u teistu...znači bukvalno moraš sa stručnjacima da
studiraš Bibliju godinama i da vidiš...da..niti jedna jedina verzija niti u
jednom delu NIJE kontradiktorna sa bilo kojom naučnom disciplinom,ili
samokontradiktorna...ali ljudi su lenji,pa onda bez ikakvog znanja samo
pokupe Bibliju,pročitaju nešto malo,i tako kao ti npr se zezaju i smeju
se..i govore..a vidi puna je kontradikcija,a vidi ovde kaže da se zemlja
kreće oko meseca,mesec oko sunca,sunce oko zemlje itd...zato uvek
govorim,kada uzmeš da STUDIRAŠ ..i stekneš Biblijsko znanje..odnosno
znanje o Bibliji.....o Biblijskim tekstovima...e onda možemo da
razgovaramo o svim tim ,,kontradikcijama,, i izmedju nauke,i ostalih
polja....;)

1a) Mogućnost broj jedan: Biblija je u originalu bila nepogrešiva reč

božja, ali se vremenom i prepisivanjem "iskvarila". Problem sa ovim je
onda to što ono što se danas čita kao navodno nepogrešivo štivo to
uopšte nije, a pošto nije, i ne može se čitati i tumačiti bukvalno.

...................Original,odnosno originalni manuskripti ne sadrže niti jednu

grešku,odnosno manje od 0.05 posto,odnosno još manje od kopija koje
sadrže ukupno 0.5 posto grešaka čitavog teksta sadrže originalni
manuskripti..kojih da naznačim za stari ima 14 000 i više,a za novi 25
000...UBEDLJIVO najviše..više od svih antičkih istorijskih dokumenata
zajedno...;):.druga je homerova ilijada sa oko 600 do 800 manuskripata
najviše...ali zapamti,ove ,,greške,, su kao što sam već rekao,greškice u
jednoj reči,odnosno umesto MOĆAN šiše SNAŽAN itd..opet..daniel b.
wallace ti najbolje ovo objašnjava na klipovima koje sam postavio o
reliabilnosti Svetih Spisa.....inače..zapamti...Biblija nije PISANA OD
STRANE BOGA...nego je Inspirisana Svetim Duhom,a pisali su je obični
ljudi odnosno proroci,sluge,kraljevi itd u rasponu od 1500 godina sa 3
kontinenta,evropa,azija i afrika...i uglavnom skoro niko od njih nije živeo u
isto doba....znači Biblija je INSPIRISANA a ne NAPISANA od
Boga...čovekova je dućnost,kao i u normalnom životu da održi pola
dogovora..i čovek ima odgovornost,kao što piše u Bibliji...znači na nama
je ipak pola odgovornosti,odnosno da prezerviramo sve spise,i da vodimo
računa da nema grešaka koje bi Božju poruku iskrivile ili oskrnavile na
bilo koji način....zato ova opcija 1 je skoro 99.9 zarez pet(ako je to
moguće) tačna.....ali i zih manje od 0.05 posto grešaka koje postoje u
ukupnom Biblijskom tekstu,u stilu rečenice,ili broja...one se ipak,em su
uočene,em se nalaze u delovima gde se opisuju neki dogadjaji od malog
značaja,odnosno ne utiču na poruku unutar Biblije i Judeo Hrišćansku
doktrinu............

1b) Mogućnost broj dva: Biblija nikada nije ni bila nepogrešiva reč božja
već je samo skup raznih spisa i razmišljanja raznih manje ili više
nadahnutih ljudi, plus kasniji dodaci i greške. U kom slučaju se opet ne
može čitati kao nepogrešivo štivo jer to očigledno nije.

...................ovo je prekrižena opcija...studiraj i videćeš zašto je ovo

prekrižena opcija.....
2) Ako se iz Biblije vade navodni "dokazi" za razne stvari, poput kreacije,
potopa, Adama i Eve kao predaka celog ljudskog roda i tako dalje i tome
slično... to se čini zato što se onome što piše u Bibliji veruje. A veruje se
jer je u pitanju nepogrešiva reč božja. A ako ima kontradikcija,onda po
definiciji ne može biti "nepogrešivo" ništa, pa sad reč ljudska ili božja,
svejedno je.

..................Činjenica je da Biblija NEMA kontradikcija...samo ukoliko

studiraš Biblijski teskt videćeš.....svaki deo ima svoj kontekst i naznake
gde je poetika,gde je literalni opis,istorijski izveštaj itd itd..da ne
objašnjavam opet,pitaj bilo kog rabina zašto svi jevreji PRVO ŠTO U
SVOJIM ZAJEDNICAMA OSNUJU..nije sinagoge,niti jevrejske ,,slobodne,,
kuće ili šta već..nego HEBREJSKE STUDIJE..i Biblija je obavezna u svakoj
studiji.....a samu Bibliju treba da izučavaš od 4 do 7 pa i više godina....sve
osim toga vodi te upravo u stanja kao tvoje,ili grigorijevo i drugih koji
imaju miskoncepcije i veoma slabo znanje,u stvari gotovo nikakvo znanje
o Bibliji,o Biblijskim spisima,tekstu,Biblijskoj lingvistici itd.....
2a) Mogućnost broj jedan: Navodni dokazi i tvrdnje se vade na osnovu
nekog principa pomoću koga možemo diferencirati koje su priče alegorije
i metafore a koje nisu. Problem: Jasno definisan sistem na osnovu koga
bismo i ti i ja i bilo ko mogli da otvorimo Bibliju i odmah jasno vidimo šta
je metafora a šta ne ne postoji. Nikada nije definisan takav metod.

...........Hej..e upravo to...e ljubim te sad..sad se razumemo.... :ружа

bravo...upravo o ovome ti govorim,ti si to na srpskom sjajno
sklepala..upravo to ima...ali da preskočim sve univerzitete na kojima ovo
imaš,imaš s obzirom da si u beogradu jeli?Ako jesi,tamo ti je Rabin Isak
Asijel...eto pa se raspitaj on zna o ovim studijama kojih ima i u beogradu
čini mi se..baš posebno ove studije,o Bibliji koje sam ja pomenuo,a koje si
ti ovde fantastično opisala..o Bibliji,kako i o čemu...raspitaj se
tamo...inače...upravo ovo što ti tražiš ovde,ovakvih studija posebno za
svaku disciplinu u Bibliji,pogotovo lingvistiku,odnosno gde je poetika,gde
je ,,literalan tekst,, gde su istorijski izveštaji itd imaš kolko hoćeš u ovim
zapadnim zemljama ovde,isto koliko i u izraelu,u tel avivu itd....ne znam
ima li takvih fakulteta gde imaš i Biblijske studije i u beogradu....ali
raspitaj se o tome preko ovoga rabina,isaka asijela....
Činjenica je da neki biblijski navodi imaju neku ukorenjenost u istoriji, ali
je takođe činjenica da mnogi nemaju (a nije da iih nisu proveravali) a
činjenica je i da je jedan veliki broj navoda potpuno neproverljiv kao
takav. A od pošto su neproverljivi, njihova navodna "istinitost" se može
implicirati jedino iz toga što su u pitanju navodi iz Biblije. Ali pošto u
Bibliji postoje kontradikcije, shodno tome Biblija se ne može uzimati kao
validan i apsolutno tačan izvornik argumenata i činjenica. 

...................svaka do sada tvrdnja,svaka tvrdnja u domenu istorije i

arhaeologije u Bibliji je potvrdjena...i sve što se više nalazi,više se
potvrdjuje Biblijski tekst...ja bih baš voleo da čujem koje su to tvrdnje u
Bibliji koje su dokazane kao netačne?
Drugim rečima, ako postoje kontradikcije,onda je apsolutna tačnost
teksta dovedena u pitanje. A ako je tačnost pod znakom pitanja, onda se
navodi iz tog teksta ne mogu navoditi kao suve istine jerje, jel'te, tačnost
celog teksta već pod znakom pitanja.

Ovo ti je, ukratko, zašto smatram da su biblijske kontradikcije jedno bitno

pitanje, kako za nas sve ovde na forumu tako i generalno.

.............ovo je sve čista logika,samo su tvrdnje da Biblija ima

kontradikcije neosnovane..i netačne,ovo odgovorno tvrdim,a kada vidiš
da si onu opciju broj jedan pogodila,i ako uzmeš da studiraš Biblijski
tekst videćeš i zašto ti ovo tvrdim......

grigorije:
 http://www.islambosna.ba/forum/dijalog-sa-nemuslimanima/101-
kontradikcija-u-bibliji/?wap2

Lindemann:
Hmmm..Grigorije,naime...ove ,,kontradikcije,, koje su pazi (muslimani)
:хахаха ukrali od ateista odnosno zapadnjačkih skeptika(a da ne
pominjem zaista kontradikcije u gluposti u kuranu,koji i sam AKO JE I
TAČAN po muslimanima...lol....onda i sam otpada amko torah i ,,injil,,
odnosno novi zavet imaju kontradikcija)...mislim zaista samo bi GLUPI
ljudi koji veruju u kuran...pokušavali da toru i jevandjelje dokažu kao
,,pogrešno,, i kontradiktorno....(mada muslimani su većinski nepismeni,pa
i nisu izgleda ni litali hadise i kuran lol) ali da malo o ovim Biblijskim
problemima postavimo ovde....Evo ti..originalno se ovo u stvari zvalo 143
Contradictions in the Bible..odnosno 143 kontradikcije iz
Biblije...naime...posle debate i pažljivog peer reviewa...evo kako su lepo
ove sve kontradikcije,njih 143 odjednom...nestale..samo treba malo
truda,studiranja i naravno znanja...;):..evo..eksperti odgovaraju na ove
,,kontradikcije,,..;)

I will list each claim of contradiction as found in the original list, and then
offer the reply. The replies are referenced to the contributor. MaryAnna's
replies are followed by "--MAW", and Russ Smith's replies are followed by
"--RS". If no initials follow a reply, they are mine (Michael's). In addition,
Phil Porvaznik will be --PP, and Apolonio Latar will be --AL.
What follows is a reply to a list of 143 purported Bible contradictions,
along with a suggestion for more contradictions not found in this list. You
will find below the index to the contradictions but first I want to discuss
some possible objections as to how the contradictions are being
resolved.

I feel the considerations in this document are important not only because
they attempt to refute claims that the Bible is contradictory (a cause I
have not been convinced is of utmost importance), but also because they
are intrinsically an interpretation of the teachings of the Bible. In fact,
many central components of Christianity are discussed with thought and
insight. Although there are trivial contradictions (67 and 68 for example)
many of the contradictions explore, say, Biblical teachings about the
nature or attributes of God, practical guidelines for Christian living,
among other things.

In short, the attempts at resolutions of these contradictions cloak an

effort to "mine" truth from the Bible, an effort to interpret Biblical verses
correctly. My hope is that this article will not only help you to make
conclusions about the Bible's inerrancy, but also encourage you to
discover what you consider to be valid and invalid Biblical
interpretations.

However, before we launch into the actual reply, there are several points
worth mentioning.

First, it would be prudent to speak of the burden of proof. It's a general

rule in philosophy that she who proposes must explain and defend. If
someone says that "X exists," the burden is on her to provide a case for
the existence of X. The burden is not on the one who denies that X exists.
For how can one prove a negative?

In this case, it is the critic who proposes. He claims that the Bible is "full
of contradictions," and often proposes a lengthy list such as the one we
are about to respond to below. Now, as Christians, we cannot prove that
something is NOT a contradiction (i.e., one cannot prove that X
[contradictions] do not exist). Instead, all that is required of us is to
come up with plausible or reasonable, even possible explanations so that
what is purported to be a contradiction is not necessarily a contradiction.
Whether or not our explanation is the "true one" is not all that relevant in
such contexts.

This is important. What is really relevant is whether our explanations

show that the point of contention is not necessarily a contradiction. If we
succeed, then the critic's assertion that "X and Y are contradictory" is no
longer an obvious truth, instead it becomes merely a belief that someone
holds.

At this point the critic might cry "foul" and note that it is the Christian
who proposes. She is the one who claims the Bible is inerrant, thus she
should demonstrate this. But how? How does one demonstrate a
document is without error? At this point, the Christian need only learn
from the methodology of modern atheism. Many atheists do not argue
that God does not exist, because they realize that one cannot
demonstrate the nonexistence of something. Instead, they take a more
agnostic position, and argue there is no proof for God's existence, thus
they don't possess God-belief. In the same way, the believer in inerrancy
cannot demonstrate the nonexistence of contradictions in the Bible.

After all, the Bible contains 31,173 verses (even more when the OT
deuterocanonicals are included). If we were to compare only couplets,
where any one verse is juxtaposed against any other, one could write
971,750,000 couplets. Thus, by considering only couplets, there are
almost one billion potential Bible contradictions! Surely, it is not
reasonable to demand that a believer in inerrancy plod through one
billion potential contradictions to prove negatives in every case. Instead,
the believer in inerrancy can argue there is no proof for the existence of
contradictions in the Bible, thus they don't believe in Biblical errancy
(thus they believe in inerrancy -- being without error).

For papal encyclicals on the official Catholic teaching of Biblical

inerrancy and approach to interpretation see

Leo XIII (Nov 18, 1893) Providentissimus Deus (The Most Provident God)
Benedict XV (Sept 15, 1920) Spiritus Paraclitus (The Paraclete Spirit)

Pius XII (Sept 30, 1943) Divino Afflante Spiritu (Under the Inspiration of
the Divine Spirit) --PP

At this point, the critic's list comes in. It proposes to demonstrate that
the Bible is full of contradictions, and the list of 143 purported
contradictions was one such demonstration. And at this point, our
response comes in.

I have noticed several things about the list we are about to respond to
and the nature of the purported contradictions.

The List

Such lists are quite common and have been around for decades. I have
also encountered them on various BBSs throughout the years. My first
impression is to scan such lists, noticing claims which are obviously
bogus, and others which are quite challenging. Because the lists are so
long I tend to rationalize that any list which would include obviously
bogus "contradictions" is suspect and that the more challenging ones
could probably be resolved with some effort.

The list has a psychological power in that it intimidates simply because of

it's length and multitude of claims. Your average reader simply does not
have the time to respond to 143 claims of contradictions! Thus, such lists
often go largely unanswered, leaving the critic to believe that no one can
answer it. I think a critic would do better in making a much shorter list
(10 or 20) which contains what he considers to be the best examples of
Bible contradictions.

The Contradictions

I have noticed that the supposed 143 contradictions can in essence be

classified according to the erroneous assumptions or methodologies that
they employ.

A popular mistake is to take things out of context. It is easy to "create

contradictions" when there are none by violating the context of the
passage(s) in question.

More significant, though less mentioned, is violating the context of belief.

Christian understanding is a synthesis of many beliefs, and Biblical
teachings are often interpreted through this background belief which has
been synthesized. Such a synthesis may include other facts, not directly
related to the contradiction in question, but nevertheless, relevant. When
the critic proposes a contradiction, he ought to do so within the context
of this background belief. By failing to do this, he merely imposes alien
concepts into the text as if they belong. This error is common when the
critic tries to cite contradictions related to doctrine or beliefs about the
nature of God. For example, orthodox Christians believe in the Trinity.
One could argue about this concept elsewhere, but trying to impose
contradictions by ignoring Trinitarian belief violates the context provided
by the Christian's background belief.

Or consider a mundane example. Say that Joe is recorded as saying that

Sam is not his son. But elsewhere, he is recorded as saying that Sam is
his son. An obvious contradiction, right? But what if one's background
belief about Joe and Sam includes the belief that Sam is Joe's adopted
son? By ignoring the context this belief provides, one perceives
contradictions where there are none.

The critic sometimes assumes that the Biblical accounts are exhaustive
in all details and intended to be precise. This is rarely the case. As such,
the critic builds on a faulty assumption and perceives contradictions
where none exist.

Also related to the context problem: Let's say that the only records of Joe
speaking about Sam are the two cases where he affirms and denies that
Sam is his son. Certainly Joe said many other things in his life, but they
were not recorded -- including the fact that he adopted a boy and named
him Sam.

Another real-life case concerns a newspaper report which lists the time
of birth of twin babies. The first was born at 1:40 AM, and second was
born at 1:10 AM. If this account did not have the added detail that the
birth occurred the during the night in which Daylight Savings ended, it
would appear to be a real contradiction/error. You have to know the
whole story, or at least have a plausible explanation.

Since the accounts in the Bible are rarely intended as exhaustive and
precise descriptions, it would be prudent to see if differing accounts
complement, rather than contradict one another.
The critic seems to assume that the Bible is written in one genre: a literal
and descriptive account. While the Bible does indeed contain literal and
descriptive accounts (which, of course, are not exhaustive in details), it
also contains many other styles of composition: the Proverbs list "rules
of thumb," the Psalms communicate through poetry, many
teachings/prophecies are in the form of hyperbole and metaphor,
parables contain deeper messages, etc. Since the Bible is actually many
books of different genres by several different authors, the critic's
assumption leads her astray if it is used to create contradictions.

Another point is related to the one above, namely, the alleged

contradictions are often a function of a particular interpretation. This is
clear when one reads how the author of the list presents the biblical
teachings in contrast to the actual verses he/she cites. Thus, the
"contradiction" exists only if the correct interpretation is applied by the
author, and this is often not the case (or at least, it is often not clear if
this is the case).

For example, in many situations, the critic uses particular incidents or

rules of thumb and interprets these as absolute principles. Sometimes
the critic equivocates. He/she uses the same sense of a word in two sets
of verses, when sometimes it is the case that the word has two meanings.
For example, peace could mean lack of war or it can mean an internal
sense of tranquility.

The critic sometimes reads contradictions into the accounts. This is often
a function of all of the points listed above, but it could be due to plain
ignorance. In other cases, it is due to the fact that aspects of Hebrew
idiom are not always captured in English translations.

The critic assumes that the believer in Biblical inerrancy also believes
that copyists could make no mistake. I have found not many believers in
inerrancy to hold to this position. It is their belief that the original
documents were without error, and were copied as faithfully as humanly
possible. Thus, copyist errors are of little concern (and are unlikely to
result in significant changes).

Finally, the critic engages in black and white either/or thinking when a
both/and approach seems to be called for. This can be tricky, so let me
set up my case by using one of the supposed contradictions cited:

"Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him
yourself." [Pr 26:4]

"Answer of fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes."
[Pr 26:5]

The first thing to note is that these seemingly contradictory teachings

are right next to each other. Could the writer of Proverbs be so stupid as
to not notice this? I hardly think so. In fact, I think it is very illuminating
that these teachings are closely tied. They highlight the fact that Biblical
admonitions need not fall under the "either/or" criteria, but can be more
properly understood in terms of "both/and." In fact, I have often found
these two teachings from Proverbs quite useful.

In debating various non-Christians, I often encounter foolish responses

and name-calling. I can either choose not to respond or ignore the
foolishness and get to the point of contention. At such times, I follow
Proverbs 26:4. In other instances, I mirror the foolishness of my
antagonist in the hopes that he/she can perceive the folly of their
approach when I employ it. At such times, I follow Proverbs 26:5. The key
is knowing when to use which approach, and in such instances, I try to
allow the Spirit to guide me.

I encourage the reader to keep these points in mind as we go through

the purported contradictions. I have also taken the luxury of periodically
referring to and drawing from the following book:

Haley, John W. Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible (Baker Book House,

reprinted 1977, originally 1874).

This book was in turn replying to the 144 "biblical contradictions" found
in the following book (and many of these same ones are answered below)
:

Burr, William Henry. Self-Contradictions of the Bible (Forgotten Books

2007, or Prometheus Books 1997, originally 1860).

So these contradictions have been around a while. Keep in mind that we

are not biblical scholars, and our replies are not intended as the "final
word" in these matters. Instead, they are offered as possible, even
plausible, ways to resolve the apparent contradictions. If they succeed at
doing merely this, the contradictions have not been established and the
critic has not adequately shouldered his/her burden. Enjoy.
Navigacija

[0] Indeks poruka

[#] Sledeća strana

[*] Prethodna strana