Kontradikcije u Bibliji

<< < (13/14) > >>

Lindemann:
Ne uvek, ali konkretno u ovom slucaju, da.

Na osnovu elementarne logike da, kad jedan kaze da je dosao kapetan a

drugi kaze da su dosli jevrejske staresine(ili sta god da su bili) neko od
njih dvojice nije u pravu i ima pogresne informacije.

..............Ok, ne samo da bulazniš sada, nego mi ne daješ ni

informacije?Daj postavljaj te verzije da mogu videti šta to tebe muči, i gde
si to našao?Verzije?

Nema nikakvog dopunjavanja kad su u pitanju dve tvrdnje koje se

medjusobno iskljucuju.
.................Opet ti kažem, moraš mi dati verzije da bih video o čemu
govoriš, a koliko si pametan, sigurno govoriš o dve verzije koje
objašnjavaju dogadjaje iz posebne perspektive .....ali ovako listo da znaš,
po Hrista su došle i starešine, i vojnici, odnosno i optužitelji, i oni koji su
došli da uhapse Hrista, e sada, ne znam na koje verzije misliš, jer mi ih ne
daješ, ali ako u jednoj piše kapetani, a u drugoj starešine, možeš uzeti u
obzir da jedan opisuje dolazak starešina PO HRISTA da Ga pogube,
odnosno da Ga optuže, dok drugi izveštava da su došli kapetani, odnosno
rimska vojska je ta koja je došla po Hrista da Ga UHAPSI ....opet, mamo
opis jednog te istog dogadjaja iz dve NEZAVISNE, dve drukčije pespektive
....ja i ti smo išli u rat protiv nemačke, i ja i ti ćemo pisati o ratu, ali
svakako iz svoje perspektive, i opisivaćemo iste dogadjaje ali iz
individualne perspektive, i ja stavljam akcenat na vojnike, ti na sveštenike
...ISTORIJA i ISTORIČARI i istorijske knjige ovo koriste....2 svetski rat...u
jednom izveštaju imaš da su stradali u koncentracionim logorima romi,
jevreji, sloveni, rumuni koje je pogubio hitler...a u drugom izveštaju da su
u koncentracvionom logoru stradali mnogi, koje su pogubili nemački
oficiri ...niti jedno nije kontradiktorno, niti isključuje jedno drugo, ovaj
izveštava o specifičnim dogadjanjima IZ SVOJE PERSPEKTIVE i opisuje
stradanje specifičnih naroda, detaljnije, i na kraju okrivljuje HITLERA koji
je uhapsio, i spalio u logorima ove ljude (znaš na šta se misli) dok ovaj
drugi izveštava o stradanjaua manogih ljudi u logorima koje su pogubili
nemački vojnici oficiri ...kako možeš reći da su ova dva izveštaja
,,kontradiktorni,,?Koristi logiku, i videćeš da nisu kontradiktorni, nego su
sasvim logički predstavljeni, istorijsk izveštaji, dobijeni iz dva nezavisna
izvora, dve perspektive, što uvećava njihov kredibilitet i relijabilnost
....jedan izvor izveštava hitler je taj koji je zarobio ljude u logoru i
uzrokovao smrt, a drugi da su nemački naci oficiri i vojnici ti koji su
zarobili ljude u logoru i ubili ih..u svakom slučaju tačna je i jedna i druga
verzija, samo jedan govori iz jedne perspektive, drugi iz druge...jer,
svakako je da je hitler bio taj koji je uzrokovao smrt ljudi u logoru, i koji je
odgovoran za pomenute akcije, ali na drugoj strani i oni nemački oficiri i
vojnici su ti koji dele odgovorsnost za sejanje smrti u logorima, razlika je
samo u tome na koga ćeš ti staviti akcenat i odgovornost ...na hitlera, koji
je sve organizovao, ili na vojnike i oficire koji su sprovodili u delu ..a to je
sve zavisi od individue ...isti slučaj sa kapetanima i starešinama...jedan je
stavio akcenat na starešine, jer starešine su ti koji su organizovali
Hristovo hapšenje, optužili Ga i poveli rimljane da ga uhvate, i jedan
govori da su starešine sa judom iskariotskim došle po Hrista da Ga
optuže, i da pokažu kapetanima koji je Hristos medju njima, dok sa druge
strane apostol stavlja akcenat na vojnike, odnosno kapetane koji su došli
po Hrista da Ga uhapse, odnosno da sprovedu u delu ono što su
starešine već organizovale ....i ovo je sve stvar individue ....

Dam ti slikovitiji primer, jer ti treba, s obzirom da tvoja ,,logika,, i površno

razmišljanje zahteva posebno crtanje, skice i makete za značenje svega
što piše u Bibliji ...

Uzmimo primer uhapšen je srpski general ratko mladić...ceo svet je za to

saznao...e sada, jedni izveštavaju uhvatili su ratka mladića stanovnici sela
..... a drugi izveštaj, inostrani izveštaj, mladića je uhvatila FBI npr. ...e
sada....koje od ovo dvoje je tačno?Oba izveštaja su tačna, samo što jedan
govori iz jednog aspekta, drugi iz drugog...svakako je da će srbin koji
izveštava reći da su uhvatili ratka mladića stanovnici tog i tog sela, dok će
neko drugi, npr. ovi iz inostranstva izveštavati da je ratka uhvatila
(uhapsila ) FBI ...i i jedan i drugi izveštaj su tačni...svaki iz svog
aspekta...uhvatili su ga seljaci sa lokalnog sela ...tačno ....uhvatila ga FBI
tačno ....s tim što ovi stavljaju akcenat na onoga koji ga je uhvatio (izdao)
dok drugi stavljaju akcenat na onoga koji ga je uhapsio ....

Zato, i jedni i drugi su došli po Hrista, starešine da Ga optuže i okažu

rimljanima koga da uhapse, a rimljani su došli o Njega da Ga hapse ...jer,
niti su rimljani imali razloga da Ga uhapse, niti su znali koga da uhapse,
niti su starešine imale prava da Ga uhapse, već su sam čin hapšenja
mogli samo rimski kapetani da sprovedu ....i tako su moj brate, i jedni i
dtugi došli po Njega, zavisno samo iz kog aspekta se govori, i na koga se
akcenat stavlja ...
Zato sto je najobicnije naklapanje bez ikakvih osnova i jos jedan
besmislen pokusaj da izbegnete da priznate da biblijski tekstovi sadrze
odredjene kontradikcije.
I ja maltene nista ne objasnjavam. Samo citam ono sto pise u
jevandjeljima i koristim elementarnu logiku.

 :)
...................Ahahahaaha...i opet mi ništa nisi dao....lol...smešno jel
da???Sada si samo izrekao još veću količinu nebuloza, stoga sada mi daj
još više objašnjenja, jer si mnogo tvrdiš...ali malo ...ma kakvi malo...ništa
ne potkrepljuješ ...tužno ... :'(
A što se tiče tvog korišćenja ,,elementarne,, logike ..haha..kako je tek
koristiš kada nisi u elementu ... :смех :)
Šalu na stranu, ako se to zove logika, onda za glupost treba da se nadje
nov termin ....

Znas zasto je ova rasprava besmislena Grigorije? Zato sto, sta god ja
napisao, ti ces naci neko objasnjenje, ali samo nikada neces priznati da
nisi u pravu. Ti polazis od toga da Biblija ne moze sadrzati kontradikcije
zato sto tako verujes i na tome baziras sve ostale zakljucke. Tako, ti ces
reci da nije rec o kontradikciji vec o dopunjavanju, iako nemas ni trunku
dokaza da je pisac jevandjelja mislio ista slicno.
.................Kao što sam već rekao, optužujete druge za ono što vi činite, i
ti sada propovedaš nešto što sam radiš, zaključio si i čvrsto odlučio da je
Biblija mit, i da ima kontradikcije, i nema druge..ne razmatraš čak ni
mogućnost da možda nisi u pravu ...sa druge strane, već ti je rečeno,
Biblija IMA grešaka, nije savršena knjiga, već je dat svetski priznat
rezultat da unutar Biblije 99% teksta je relijabilno, relevantno i
autentično, a otprilike 0.5 odsto Biblijskog teksta sadrži greške....(ovih
ostalih 0.5 procenata su još u toku ,,dekodiranja,, ) ali kontradikcije nisu
jedne od njih ....ponavljam, KONTRADIKCIJE NISU JEDNE OD GREŠAKA U
BIBLIJI ....i zašto bih ja to rekao, kada toga NEMA, evo debatuju non stop
o tome, stavljam ti klipove VRHUNSKIH TOP AKADEMICA i profesora koji
se ceo život bave ovim, i koji debatuju na ovu temu, ša što ne gledaš
čoveče Božji?Pa glavni Biblijski akademik našega vremena, eto ti i na
wikipediji pogledaj, TOP VODEĆI AKADEMIK N.T Wright, i čak šta više
liberalni i nehrišćanski akademici su mu dali taj nadimak, skraćenicu od
Nikolas Tomas WRIGHT, kao sinonim za N.T Wright, odnosno New
Testament WRIGHT ...tj. kao sinomim zai implikacija za PRAVILNO
TUMAČENJE NOVOG ZAVETA ....i Danijel Walas, i njegov istraživački tim,
JEDINI AUTORITET I ISTRAŽIVAČ I VODJA ISTRAŽIVAČKOG SVETSKOG
TIMA za Biblijske tekstove, autentičnost i relijabilnosti istih ..sve vodeći
stručnjaci govore o ovim stvarima, i ti ovo ignorišeš....

Činjenice su činjenice, i istina je ISTINA ...ne može se sakriti, Biblija ima

grešaka, da ima, nije savršena, od 0.5 pa do mogućih maksimalnih 1
procenata teksta ima grešaka ali niti jedna od njih nije kontradikcija, što
je i POTVRDJENO...već kopijske greške, koje su se provukle posle pisanja
kodeksa vatikanusa i prekopiranja sa LATINSKIH spisa, i čak šta više ove
greške ni MALO, niti malo ne utiču na Božju reč, i Božju poruku i doktrinu
u Svetom Pismu ....Biblija nije savršena knjiga, i to je činjenica, a osim
toga to je i očekivano, čovek ju je pisao, a čovek je nesavršeno, palo biće
...jedini je Bog savršen, Bog je nadahnuo Svetim Duhom Božje ljude dao
im Reč, i na njima je odgovornost da je čuvaju kroz generacije, i naravno
oni su itekako u najboljem mogućem novou sačuvali celu Bibliju, i celu
poruku i doktrinu Božju koju je dao čoveku ....ali, KONTRADIKCIJA u njoj
nema, da ih ima, bilo bi potvrdjeno, i svi bi to priznali, ali ih nema
....takvih grešaka, kontradiktornih izjava nema ....ali problem je u tome
što ti želiš da ih ima, jer tražiš šablone tamo gde ih nema, tražiš dlaku u
jajetu....jer si već zaključio da je Biblija pogrešna, i da ima kontradikcija, i
sada ih ti tražiš, koristeći svoju ,,elementarnu logiku,, ....i laičku
,,interpretaciju,, ....

Sve isto sto sam rekao gore vazi i ovde.

Tacno je da se ta rec moze prevesti i kao "razumeti" ali se isto tako moze
prevesti i kao "cuti", sto i jeste tako u vecini prevoda. Ali naravno, posto
tebi ne odgorava, ti si u potpunosti iskljucio mogucnost da je rec o
kontradikciji, tj. da je pisac mislio onako kako stoji u vecini prevoda.

    Амин!

..................Pa čoveče, obrazuj se malo...obe su reči istog značenja, e sada

ili je čuti i čuti....ili je raumeti i razumeti ...ali ne, upravo ti hoćeš da bude
čuti i razumeti, ili razumeti i čuti ...hmmmm, a zašto pitam se, da nije
možda jer TEBI I TVOM ZAKLJUČKU ovo odgovara, to je već tvoja
stvar......ali, uglavnom svi će ti akademici, i poznavaoci koinskog grčkog
reći da se radi o ,,razumeti,, ...reči ,,razumeti,, ..uostalom sam ti kontekst
ako nisi čitao verzije jasno naznačava da su svi oni čuli i da su se okretali
oko sebe, ali nisu čoveka videli, i nisu razumeli šta govori, jedini je pavle
RAZUMETI šta Hrist govoriti, te je stoga i pavle jedini umesto da gleda
unaokolo, razgovarao sa Njim i uvideo da je grdno pogrešio što je
progonio i ubijao Njegove sledbenike ...ja sam otvoren i za grešku, ali ako
je akademici potvrde, što nije uradjeno ....sa druge strane, ti si donep
zaključak da mora, pa mora grešaka i kontradikcija biti, sve na osnovu
tvoje ,,elementarne logike,, i laičke stručnosti ...i ti ćeš izgleda radije
odlučiti da je ovo bila greška, ne nudeći dokaz, i ignorišući već dostupne
dokaze ...ai Bože moj, to je tvoj izbor ....Amin ...
Emanuilo:
Имате овдје одговоре на неке библијске "контрадикције". Сајт је
секташки, али ваљда не смета?
http://siont.net/biblija/clanci/jv/

grigorije:
 http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/bible.htm

 http://www.ovrlnd.com/Apologetics/101contradictions.html

grigorije:
 Dealing with claims of Bible ‘contradiction’

©istockphoto.com
Published: 2 June 2012 (GMT+10)

Skeptics come up with Bible contradiction claims all the time—from the
superficially plausible to the supremely preposterous. How do we deal
with them? CMI’s Lita Cosner and Jonathan Sarfati give us some
principles to help us realize that the skeptics do not deserve the benefit
of the doubt. The third response explains what the Bible means by “God
is light”.

Isaac P. from Australia writes in response to article Errors in aac P. from

Australia writes in response to article Errors in the Bible?:

      I was having a discussion on Facebook with an atheist friend and he

brought up a link with claimed Biblical contradictions in it. I searched
Biblical contradictions on here but I was having some difficulty finding
refutations for these contradictions. Please can you direct me to the right
article/s or provide me with a refutation of the link. This is the link:
[Weblink removed as per feedback rules—Ed.] Thank you and God Bless,
Isaac P.

CMI’s Lita Cosner responds:

Dear Isaac,

As we said in the link, we don’t get into specifically refuting every single
supposed ‘contradiction’ atheists can think of, because that would be
very time-consuming, and there are other resources that cover these
things. I presume you’ve searched creation.com for the Creation and
Flood issues; they’re all covered on our site and you should be able to
find them easily on our Q&A pages.

Some general principles that should help you with most of these
supposed contradictions:

    If someone says there is a contradiction within a small section of one

book of Scripture, it’s probably a matter of misinterpretation, because
people have been reading these books for thousands of years, and
haven’t had a problem with it.
    Choosing to give different details isn’t a contradiction, assuming the
details don’t make the stories mutually exclusive.
    A word can have different meanings in different contexts. Take his
‘righteous’ contradiction, where Romans 3:10 supposedly contradicts all
the places where people are called righteous. While everyone sins and is
not ‘righteous’ absolutely, people can be called righteous to the extent
that they believe God and live accordingly—which is why the various
people in that list were called righteous.
    Sometimes the contradiction only appears because of a less than clear
translation. For instance, in Matthew 28:2, a better translation is “an
earthquake had occurred”—i.e., before the women got there. So there is
no contradiction. In both accounts, the stone is rolled away by the time
the women get there.

    So many of these contradictions are a matter of poor reading

comprehension on the part of the compiler, compounded by the bad
decision to use an older translation.
    So many of these contradictions are a matter of poor reading
comprehension on the part of the compiler, compounded by the bad
decision to use an older translation. For instance, the supposed
contradiction in Genesis 37: “Midianites” and “Ishmaelites” are obviously
being used in a synonymous fashion to refer to the people that Joseph is
sold to, and his brothers are the ones doing the selling to them. The
Midianites/Ishmaelites took him to Egypt and sold him to Potiphar.

If there is a specific contradiction that you are having particular

problems with and you cannot find a solution on your own, I would be
happy to help you further.

Sincerely,

Lita Cosner

Timothy F. from Singapore writes in response to article Understanding

the Hebrew Bible: season and pi :

    Dear CMI/Jonathan Sarfati,

    I refer to my earlier comment that I sent a few minutes ago. What I

meant to say was that “one of the CONVERGENTS OF the continued
fraction EXPANSION for Pi can be calculated by using both the 1 Kings
7:23 and the 2 Chronicles 4:2 verses”, not “one of the continued
fractions for Pi can be calculated by using both the 1 Kings 7:23 and the
2 Chronicles 4:2 verses”. Sorry for the error and please note this
correction. Thanks very much.

CMI’s Dr Jonathan Sarfati responds:

Dear Mr F.

Thank you for your comments.

Mr Grigg, the author of the linked article, was perfectly aware of this
rabbinic argument (gematria) when he wrote the article. For some
background, Mr Grigg was responding to an argument in the anti-
creationist book by the atheist Ian Plimer. He gave alleged pi=3 as ‘proof’
that the Bible is wrong, and also summarised the same mathematical
analysis of the 18th century Rabbi Elijah of Vilna or the Gaon of Vilna.
The Gaon even introduced a correction factor to overcome the small
discrepancy. Now Plimer is notoriously unreliable (see Plimer Files), and
here he claimed that Vilna is in Poland when it’s in Lithuania, and seemed
to be unaware that pi is an irrational number, so I don’t take his word for
things. But at least this shows that the rabbinic calculation is not news to
us.

But Mr Grigg rightly preferred to seek an explanation in the actual God-

inspired words of the Bible rather than uninspired mathematical
speculations about the letters (yes, the letters are inspired according to
Mt. 5:18, but this doesn’t entail that every mathematical analysis is
inspired). And the plain text says 30 and 10, and this is what must be
explained. I think Mr Grigg did an excellent job of presenting a number of
plausible solutions, demonstrating that the atheopath’s case is
completely without merit.

Another useful article is Hidden messages in Scripture?

Regards

Jonathan Sarfati

      I was having a discussion on Facebook with an atheist friend and he

brought up a link with claimed Biblical contradictions in it. I searched
Biblical contradictions on here but I was having some difficulty finding
refutations for these contradictions. Please can you direct me to the right
article/s or provide me with a refutation of the link. This is the link:
[Weblink removed as per feedback rules—Ed.] Thank you and God Bless,
Isaac P.

CMI’s Lita Cosner responds:

Dear Isaac,

As we said in the link, we don’t get into specifically refuting every single
supposed ‘contradiction’ atheists can think of, because that would be
very time-consuming, and there are other resources that cover these
things. I presume you’ve searched creation.com for the Creation and
Flood issues; they’re all covered on our site and you should be able to
find them easily on our Q&A pages.

Some general principles that should help you with most of these
supposed contradictions:

    If someone says there is a contradiction within a small section of one

book of Scripture, it’s probably a matter of misinterpretation, because
people have been reading these books for thousands of years, and
haven’t had a problem with it.
    Choosing to give different details isn’t a contradiction, assuming the
details don’t make the stories mutually exclusive.
    A word can have different meanings in different contexts. Take his
‘righteous’ contradiction, where Romans 3:10 supposedly contradicts all
the places where people are called righteous. While everyone sins and is
not ‘righteous’ absolutely, people can be called righteous to the extent
that they believe God and live accordingly—which is why the various
people in that list were called righteous.
    Sometimes the contradiction only appears because of a less than clear
translation. For instance, in Matthew 28:2, a better translation is “an
earthquake had occurred”—i.e., before the women got there. So there is
no contradiction. In both accounts, the stone is rolled away by the time
the women get there.

    So many of these contradictions are a matter of poor reading

comprehension on the part of the compiler, compounded by the bad
decision to use an older translation.
    So many of these contradictions are a matter of poor reading
comprehension on the part of the compiler, compounded by the bad
decision to use an older translation. For instance, the supposed
contradiction in Genesis 37: “Midianites” and “Ishmaelites” are obviously
being used in a synonymous fashion to refer to the people that Joseph is
sold to, and his brothers are the ones doing the selling to them. The
Midianites/Ishmaelites took him to Egypt and sold him to Potiphar.

If there is a specific contradiction that you are having particular

problems with and you cannot find a solution on your own, I would be
happy to help you further.

Sincerely,

Lita Cosner

Timothy F. from Singapore writes in response to article Understanding

the Hebrew Bible: season and pi :

    Dear CMI/Jonathan Sarfati,

    I refer to my earlier comment that I sent a few minutes ago. What I

meant to say was that “one of the CONVERGENTS OF the continued
fraction EXPANSION for Pi can be calculated by using both the 1 Kings
7:23 and the 2 Chronicles 4:2 verses”, not “one of the continued
fractions for Pi can be calculated by using both the 1 Kings 7:23 and the
2 Chronicles 4:2 verses”. Sorry for the error and please note this
correction. Thanks very much.

CMI’s Dr Jonathan Sarfati responds:

Dear Mr F.

Thank you for your comments.

Mr Grigg, the author of the linked article, was perfectly aware of this
rabbinic argument (gematria) when he wrote the article. For some
background, Mr Grigg was responding to an argument in the anti-
creationist book by the atheist Ian Plimer. He gave alleged pi=3 as ‘proof’
that the Bible is wrong, and also summarised the same mathematical
analysis of the 18th century Rabbi Elijah of Vilna or the Gaon of Vilna.
The Gaon even introduced a correction factor to overcome the small
discrepancy. Now Plimer is notoriously unreliable (see Plimer Files), and
here he claimed that Vilna is in Poland when it’s in Lithuania, and seemed
to be unaware that pi is an irrational number, so I don’t take his word for
things. But at least this shows that the rabbinic calculation is not news to
us.

But Mr Grigg rightly preferred to seek an explanation in the actual God-

inspired words of the Bible rather than uninspired mathematical
speculations about the letters (yes, the letters are inspired according to
Mt. 5:18, but this doesn’t entail that every mathematical analysis is
inspired). And the plain text says 30 and 10, and this is what must be
explained. I think Mr Grigg did an excellent job of presenting a number of
plausible solutions, demonstrating that the atheopath’s case is
completely without merit.

Another useful article is Hidden messages in Scripture?

Regards

Jonathan Sarfati

 What does “God is light” mean? 

 Chandrasekaran M. from Australia writes:

    With regard to your article, ‘Light, life and the glory of God’,
http://creation.com/light-life-and-the-glory-of-god, the statement that
caught my attention in the article is “The examples given above of light
without the sun in the Bible show that we can confidently say that God
Himself provided the source of the Day 1 light.”

    Now, Gen 1:11 says “Then God said, ‘Let the earth sprout vegetation’”,
and Gen 1:12 says “The earth brought forth vegetation”. By implication,
there was no vegetation on earth before God said “Let the earth sprout
vegetation”.

    I do not see any indication in Genesis to treat Gen 1:3 differently. That
is in Gen 1:3 God said, “Let there be light”. By implication there was no
light before God said, “Let there be light”.

    Now, if God Himself was the source of the light, by implication, God
added to Himself what He did not have before He said, “Let there be
light”. If this were to be true, by implication, God is not simple in the
sense that He is now composite: made up of components. This is
contrary to some of CMI articles.

    So I am bit puzzled about the meaning of the statement that caught

my attention in the article. Could you clarify the statement, please?

‘God is light’ is a profound metaphor involving many aspects of light.

Dr Jonathan Sarfati responds:

Dear Chandrasekaran M.

Thank you for your comments.

This meaning of “light” in Genesis 1:3 is clearly part of the creation not
the Creator, since God said “let there be light”. So the statement “God is
light” is not referring to this sort of light, or electromagnetic energy.

The Creator and Creation are distinct as you know (cf. Romans 1:25).
Rather, “God is light” is a profound metaphor involving many aspects of
light. Literal light drives out literal darkness, and the light that is God
drives out spiritual darkness, because in Him there is no darkness (evil)
at all. Literal light shows the literal way, and God as light provides the
revelation for the correct way to think and live, so we can “walk in the
light”. Light is also a symbol for salvation, and Isaiah 43:11 reveals that
there is no saviour but the Lord God. Here is one commentary on the
passage http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/IVP-
NT/1John/Character-God

 http://creation.com/bible-contradiction-claims

grigorije:
 Debunking Bible Contradictions
Subscribe to me on YouTube
Books Is the Bible a book full of contradictions?

 Bible contradictions often rank as one of the top reasons for rejecting
the Christian faith. After all, how could an all-knowing and all-powerful
God have flaws and inconsistences in His written Word? This article will
debunk the so-called contradictions. This list is not exhaustive at the
moment, and the author will add more examples as he becomes aware of
them (if you have one not-mentioned here, contact us about it).

Scripture verses will be in orange, with the response in black. All verses
are from the King James Version – with updated language (such as
replacing ‘thy’ with ‘your’) – unless stated otherwise.
Who Killed Saul?

1 Samuel 31:4-5 Then said Saul unto his armour bearer, Draw your
sword, and thrust me through therewith; lest these uncircumcised come
and thrust me through, and abuse me. But his armour bearer would not;
for he was sore afraid. Therefore Saul took a sword, and fell upon it. And
when his armour bearer saw that Saul was dead, he fell likewise upon his
sword, and died with him.

2 Samuel 1:5-10 And David said unto the young man that told him, How
know you that Saul and Jonathan his son be dead? And the young man
that told him said, As I happened by chance upon mount Gilboa, behold,
Saul leaned upon his spear; and, lo, the chariots and horsemen followed
hard after him. And when he looked behind him, he saw me, and called
unto me. And I answered, Here am I. And he [Saul] said unto me, Who
are you? And I answered him, I am an Amalekite. He said unto me again,
Stand, I pray you, upon me, and slay me: for anguish has come upon me,
because my life is yet whole in me. So I stood upon him, and slew him,
because I was sure that he could not live after that he was fallen: and I
took the crown that was upon his head, and the bracelet that was on his
arm, and have brought them here unto my lord.

The account in 1 Samuel simply says that Saul took his sword and fell
upon it – it does not say that Saul actually died from his suicide attempt.
The story told by the Amalekite is therefore not contradictory: Saul
attempted to kill himself but did not die from his wound. The Amalekite
saw Saul still alive and killed him. Then when Saul’s amour bearer saw
that Saul was dead, he committed suicide.

Even if this were contradictory, that would not mean the Bible is at fault.
It simply records the Amalekite’s conversation with David where he says
that he killed him. The Bible may not necessarily agree with this account.
Two Creation Accounts?

Bible sceptics often point to the fact that the creation account in Genesis
1 is different from that in Genesis 2. For example, in Genesis 1:12 trees
were created before man, and in Genesis 2:9, trees were created after
man. But the answer to this is quite simple: Genesis 1 describes the
overall creation of everything and Genesis 2 describes only the creation
of the Garden of Eden. Presumably, man was to observe the Garden of
Eden being made so he would know Who made it.
Value of Pi

1 Kings 7:23 And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to
the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a
line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.

2 Chronicles 4:2 Also he made a molten sea of ten cubits from brim to
brim, round in compass, and five cubits the height thereof; and a line of
thirty cubits did compass it round about.

If the metal sea was ten cubits in diameter, then it could not have been
30 cubits in circumference – it would have to be 31.4 cubits. So is this a
blatant error, giving the value of pi as 3.0? No; there are a few answers to
this.

Answer 1: The Bible may have rounded the diameter and circumference
to the nearest whole number. If the diameter was somewhere between
9.5 and 10.5, and the circumference was somewhere between 29.5 and
30.5, those numbers would have been rounded to 10 and 30. This is
definitely acceptable. So the value of pi as given in the Bible could be
anywhere from 2.81 to 3.21 depending what the measurements were
before rounding.
Sea dimensions Dimensions of the sea – notice how the brim widens.

 Answer 2: In 1 Kings 7:26, it tells us that the brim of the sea was like a
lily with the brim curving away from the centre of the sea: “And it was an
hand breadth thick, and the brim thereof was wrought like the brim of a
cup, with flowers of lilies: it contained two thousand baths.” So it is
possible that the diameter is a measure of brim-to-brim (as Kings says)
and the circumference is a measure around the sea below the wider brim.

It is actually quite silly to say the Bible gets the value of pi wrong. Pi is an
irrational number meaning it is infinite in length (it is non-terminating
and non-repeating). According to the critic’s logic, a value like 3.14
would be wrong because it is not even more accurate like 3.14159.
How many Horses did King Solomon Have?

1 Kings 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his
chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.

2 Chronicles 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and
chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the
chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.

1 Kings tells us how many horses Solomon had (forty thousand) but it
does not say how many chariots there were. 2 Chronicles explains that
Solomon had four thousand horses and chariots. So there were forty
thousand stalls for the horses alone, and there were four thousand other
stalls for horses and chariots. The obvious conclusion is that there were
10 horses per chariot.
Was God Pleased with His Creation?

Genesis 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it
was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Genesis 6:5-6 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the
earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only
evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the
earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

Claiming this is a contradiction is like saying ‘You liked pizza 20 years

ago but you don’t now. Contradiction!’ God was pleased with His perfect
creation in Genesis 1, but was not pleased when man began to sin badly
in Genesis 6.
Adam didn’t die from eating the Forbidden Fruit

Genesis 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall
not eat of it: for in the day that you eat thereof you shall surely die.

Genesis 5:5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and
thirty years: and he died.

Why didn’t Adam die as soon as he ate from the tree? Simple: God was
not talking in the physical sense but in the spiritual sense. His soul was
separated from God by sin.
How many men did David Kill?

2 Samuel 10:18 And the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew the
men of seven hundred chariots of the Syrians, and forty thousand
horsemen, and stroke Shobach the captain of their host, who died there.

1 Chronicles 19:18 But the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew of
the Syrians seven thousand men which fought in chariots, and forty
thousand footmen, and killed Shophach the captain of the host.

2 Samuel tells us that David slew an unknown number of men who fought
in seven hundred chariots. 1 Chronicles tells us that David slew seven
thousand men which fought in an unknown number of chariots. Clearly,
there were ten men in each chariot.
Did God Create man and Woman at the same Time?

Genesis 1:26-27 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our
likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over
the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over
every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth. So God created man in
his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female
created he them.

Genesis 2:7, 21-22 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the
ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became
a living soul. ... And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon
Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh
instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man,
made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

Genesis 1 is an overview of what happened while Genesis 2 explains it in

more detail. And Genesis 1 does not say that man and woman were
created at the same time – only that they were created.
Are there any Righteous People?

Genesis 7:1 And the LORD said unto Noah, Come you and all your house
into the ark; for you have I seen righteous before me in this generation.

Job 2:3 And the LORD said unto Satan, Have you considered my servant
Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright
man, one that fears God, and turns away from evil? ...

Romans 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

How can Noah and Job be righteous when no-one is righteous? Romans
is contrasting man’s ‘righteousness’ with God’s perfect righteousness,
and, of course, we don’t fare well at all. Genesis and Job are contrasting
the righteousness of Noah and Job with other men.
How old was Abram when Terah Died?

Genesis 11:26 And Terah lived seventy years, and brings forth Abram,
Nahor, and Haran [a person].

Genesis 11:32 And the days of Terah were two hundred and five years:
and Terah died in Haran [a place].

Genesis 12:4 So Abram departed, as the LORD had spoken unto him; and
Lot went with him: and Abram was seventy and five years old when he
departed out of Haran.

Acts 7:4 Then came he [Abram] out of the land of the Chaldaeans, and
dwelt in Charran [Haran]: and from thence, when his father was dead, he
removed him into this land, wherein all of you now dwell.

Genesis 12 and Acts 7 tell us that Abram was 75 when he left Haran, and
that his father (Terah) was dead at the time. Yet because Abram was
born when Terah was 70 (Genesis 11:26), Abram would have been 135
when Terah died. So on one hand, Abram was 75 and his father was
dead, and on the other hand, Abram was 135 when his father died.

Is this a contradiction? Not at all. Notice how Genesis 11:26 says Terah
lived 70 years and brings forth Abram, Nahor, and Haran. So Abram may
have been the last child Terah had among the three, and the reference to
Terah’s age is simply when he stated having children – not when he
actually had Abram.
Were there many Languages before the Tower of Babel?

Genesis 10:5, 20, 31 By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in
their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their
nations. ... These are the sons of Ham, after their families, after their
tongues, in their countries, and in their nations. ... These are the sons of
Shem, after their families, after their tongues, in their lands, after their
nations.

Genesis 11:1 And the whole earth was of one language, and of one
speech.

The genealogies mentioned in Genesis 10 span many centuries when

there were different languages. The phrase “every one after his tongue”
does not necessarily apply to all people mentioned in the genealogies –
only ‘every one’ who lived in the ‘Isles of the Gentiles’ or ‘every one’ who
had a different tongue (language).
How many Animals aboard the Ark?

Genesis 7:2 Of every clean beast you shall take to you by sevens, the
male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male
and his female.

Genesis 7:8-9 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of
fowls, and of every thing that creeps upon the earth, There went in two
and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had
commanded Noah.

On the one hand, Genesis 7:2 says that there shall be seven of every
clean beast, and on the other hand, Genesis 7:8-9 is telling us that both
the unclean and clean went in ‘two and two’. But there is no contradiction
here. There are seven clean animals overall, but they just entered the Ark
two abreast.
Sons of Shemaiah

The popular science magazine, New Scientist, declared that the Bible’s
mathematics is ‘poor’ because it counts Shemaiah’s five sons, Huttush,
Igal, Bariah, Neriah, and Shaphat, as six (1 Chronicles 3:22). It is clear
the author never even read the verse. The whole verse reads: “And the
sons of Shechaniah; Shemaiah: and the sons of Shemaiah; Hattush, and
Igeal, and Bariah, and Neariah, and Shaphat, six.” Clearly, the number six
is counting the descendants of Shechaniah which included Shemaiah. 

 http://evolutiondismantled.com/contradictions

Navigacija

[0] Indeks poruka

[#] Sledeća strana

[*] Prethodna strana