تم تعطيل الجافا سكربت. للحصول على تجربة أفضل، الرجاء تمكين الجافا سكربت في المتصفح الخاص بك قبل المتابعة.

الرد على الموضوع

الرسالة: [QUOTE="apostle.paul, post: 3070738, member: 85886"] [COLOR=Black][FONT=Arial Black][SIZE=5][COLOR=Blue][FONT=Book Antiqua][B]لن اتعرض للجزء النصى فى هذا الموضوع والسبب بسيط ان الجزء النقدى محسوم للقراءة المسلمة وهى [/B][/FONT][/COLOR][FONT=Book Antiqua][B]2: 26 كيف دخل بيت الله [U][COLOR=Blue]في ايام ابياثار رئيس الكهنة[/COLOR][/U] و اكل خبز التقدمة الذي لا يحل اكله الا للكهنة و اعطى الذين كانوا معه ايضا [/B][/FONT] [B][COLOR=Blue]هذا الجزء الملون بالازرق فى النسخ للنص المسلم [/COLOR][/B][LEFT][B][FONT=Century Gothic]πῶς εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸν οἶκον τοῦ θεοῦ [U][COLOR=Blue]ἐπὶ Ἀβιαθὰρ τοῦ ἀρχιερέως[/COLOR][/U] καὶ τοὺς ἄρτους τῆς προθέσεως ἔφαγεν οὓς οὐκ ἔξεστιν φαγεῖν εἰ μὴ τοῖς ἱερεῦσιν καὶ ἔδωκεν καὶ τοῖς σὺν αὐτῷ οὖσιν [/FONT][/B][/LEFT] [B]فى نسخة نستل الاند [/B][LEFT][B][FONT=Gentium]πῶς εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸν οἶκον τοῦ θεοῦ [/FONT][FONT=LibronixApparatusFont]❏[/FONT][U][COLOR=Blue][FONT=Gentium]ἐπὶ Ἀβιαθὰρ ἀρχιερέως[/FONT][FONT=LibronixApparatusFont]✓[/FONT][/COLOR][/U][FONT=Gentium]καὶ τοὺς ἄρτους τῆς προθέσεως ἔφαγεν, οὓς οὐκ ἔξεστιν φαγεῖν εἰ μὴ [/FONT][FONT=LibronixApparatusFont]✕[/FONT][FONT=Gentium]τοὺς ἱερεῖς[/FONT][FONT=LibronixApparatusFont]✖[/FONT][/B][FONT=Gentium][B], καὶ ἔδωκεν καὶ τοῖς σὺν αὐτῷ οὖσιν[/B];[/FONT][/LEFT] [LEFT] [SIZE=2][COLOR=Blue]Nestle, E., Nestle, E., Aland, K., Aland, B., & Universität Münster. Institut für Neutestamentliche Textforschung. (1993, c1979). [I]Novum Testamentum Graece[/I]. At head of title: Nestle-Aland. (27. Aufl., rev.) (95). Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstiftung[/COLOR][/SIZE]. [/LEFT] [B]ونفس القراءة فى نسخة UBS[/B] [LEFT][FONT=Book Antiqua][B][FONT=Gentium]πῶς εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸν οἶκον τοῦ θεοῦ [COLOR=Blue][U]ἐπὶ Ἀβιαθὰρ ἀρχιερέως [/U][/COLOR]καὶ τοὺς ἄρτους τῆς προθέσεως ἔφαγεν, οὓς οὐκ ἔξεστιν φαγεῖν εἰ μὴ τοὺς ἱερεῖς, καὶ ἔδωκεν καὶ τοῖς σὺν αὐτῷ οὖσιν;[/FONT][I][URL="http://www.arabchurch.com/forums/#_ftn1"]p[/URL][/I] [/B][/FONT] [FONT=Book Antiqua][B], [/B][/FONT]. [/LEFT] [COLOR=Blue][B]فلا يوجد صدام بين النص المسلم والنقدى فى هذة الجزئية الا فى اضافة اداة التعريف [/B][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=Black][FONT=Arial Black][SIZE=5][B][FONT=Century Gothic][COLOR=Blue]τοῦ للنص [FONT=Arial Black]المسلم[/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/B][/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=Black][FONT=Arial Black][SIZE=5][COLOR=Blue] [/COLOR][B][COLOR=Blue]النصين متفقين على نفس القراءة وهى قراءة الاثبات لذا تركيزى سيكون بالاكثر على الجزء النقدى التاريخى وهو يتلخص فى قول سيدنا وربنا والهنا يسوع المسيح على توبيخ اليهود للحفاظ على قدسية السبت باسلوب عقيم دون النظر للانسان وقدم مثل على ذلك هو كيف ان داود دخل بيعة الله واكل خبز التقدمة الذى لا يحل اكله الا للكهنة المشكلة كلها تتخلص فى جملة [U]فى ايام ابياثار رئيس الكهنة [/U]لان ابياثار مكنش فعليا هو رئيس الكهنة فى ذاك الوقت لكنه ابوه اخيمالك حسب ماورد فى صموئيل الاول [/COLOR][/B][B] [FONT=Century Gothic]21: 1 فجاء داود الى نوب الى اخيمالك الكاهن فاضطرب اخيمالك عند لقاء داود و قال له لماذا انت وحدك و ليس معك احد [/FONT][/B] [B][FONT=Century Gothic] 21: 2 فقال داود لاخيمالك الكاهن ان الملك امرني بشيء و قال لي لا يعلم احد شيئا من الامر الذي ارسلتك فيه و امرتك به و اما الغلمان فقد عينت لهم الموضع الفلاني و الفلاني [/FONT][/B] [B][FONT=Century Gothic] 21: 3 و الان فماذا يوجد تحت يدك اعط خمس خبزات في يدي او الموجود [/FONT][/B] [B][FONT=Century Gothic] 21: 4 فاجاب الكاهن داود و قال لا يوجد خبز محلل تحت يدي و لكن يوجد خبز مقدس اذا كان الغلمان قد حفظوا انفسهم لا سيما من النساء [/FONT][/B] [B][FONT=Century Gothic] 21: 5 فاجاب داود الكاهن و قال له ان النساء قد منعت عنا منذ امس و ما قبله عند خروجي و امتعة الغلمان مقدسة و هو على نوع محلل و اليوم ايضا يتقدس بالانية [/FONT][/B] [B][FONT=Century Gothic] 21: 6 فاعطاه الكاهن المقدس لانه لم يكن هناك خبز الا خبز الوجوه المرفوع من امام الرب لكي يوضع خبز سخن في يوم اخذه [/FONT][/B] [B] [COLOR=Blue]فهل اخطا ربنا يسوع او القديس مرقس فى ذكر ان ذلك كان ايام ابياثار ؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟[/COLOR][/B] [B]والاجابة البسيطة قبل سرد اقوال العلماء ان لا ذاك اخطا ولا تلك القضية ان الحادثة فعلا حصلت فى ايام اخيمالك وكان رئيسا للكهنة وكان ابياثار مجرد كاهن ولكنه صار رئيس كهنة فيما بعد فقال المسيح الحادثة منسوبة لابياثار الاكثر شهرة ونسب اليه اعلى وظيفة حصل عليها وليس فى زمن الحادثة كمثال ان نقول ان البابا كيرلس السادس كان راهب متوحد فى طاحونة هواء فى المقطم فى حين ان فعليا المتوحد كان اسمه الراهب مينا البراموسى لكنه صار فيما بعد بطريركا للكرازة المرقسية باسم البابا كيرلس فاثناء السرد تم ذكر اعلى رتبة حصل عليها كبطريرك بالرغم من ان الحادثة لم تتم وهو حاصل على هذة الرتبة فعليا وكان مجرد راهب [COLOR=Blue]بعض اقوال العلماء [/COLOR][/B] [B][FONT=Book Antiqua] [/FONT][/B][LEFT] [B][FONT=Book Antiqua]In the account of this in 1 Saml. 21:1, sqq., Abimelech was high-priest, and Abiathar, his son, does not become high-priest until the reign of David. See ch. 22:21. To be sure, other passages in the O.T. make the same confusion of names, making Abimelech, the son of Abiathar, high-priest in David’s time. But this does not explain our difficulty; it only shows that there is the same difficulty in the O.T. account. [U][COLOR=Blue]Nor does it relieve it to suppose that this means simply that the event took place during the lifetime of Abiathar, not during the high-priesthood[/COLOR][/U].[U][COLOR=Blue] For the transaction took place between David and the high-priest; and the object of introducing the name would be to show in whose high-priesthood it took place, not simply in whose lifetime. The impropriety would be the same as if one were to speak of something that took place between the Bishop of Durham and some other person in the time of Bishop Westcott, when, as a matter of fact, Lightfoot was bishop, and it was only during the lifetime of Bishop Westcott. And the phrase itself means strictly, [/COLOR][/U][U][COLOR=Blue][I]during the high-priesthood of Abiathar.[/I][/COLOR][/U][U][COLOR=Blue] If such disagreement were uncommon, it would be worth while to try somewhat anxiously to remove this difficulty; but, as a matter of fact, discrepancies of this unimportant kind are not at all uncommon in the Scrip tures[/COLOR][/U].[/FONT][/B] [SIZE=3][COLOR=Blue][B][FONT=Book Antiqua]Gould, E. P. (1922). [I]A critical and exegetical commentary on the Gospel according to St. Mark[/I] (49). New York: C. Scribner's sons[/FONT][/B][/COLOR][/SIZE]. [/LEFT] [COLOR=DarkRed][B]نقطة اخرى ان كلمة فى ايام لا تعنى انه كان فى عهد رئاسة كهنوت بياثار لكنها تعنى ايضا انها خلال حياة شخص او عمر شخص[/B][/COLOR] [LEFT][B][FONT=Century Gothic]The incident Jesus referred to is in 1 Samuel 21:1–6. Mark was the only evangelist to mention that Abiathar was the high priest then. This seemingly contradicts the Old Testament since Ahimelech, the father or Abiathar, was the high priest then according to the writer of 1 Samuel. [U][COLOR=Blue]The best solution to this problem seems to be that Jesus referred to Abiathar because he was the better known priest during David’s reign. The phrase “in the time of” or “in the days of” probably means “during the lifetime of” rather than “during the high priesthood of.”[/COLOR][/U][U][COLOR=Blue][URL="http://www.arabchurch.com/forums/#_ftn1"]81[/URL][/COLOR][/U][/FONT][/B] [B][FONT=Century Gothic][URL="http://www.arabchurch.com/forums/#_ftnref1"]81 [/URL]81. James Morison, [I]A Practical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Mark[/I], pp. 60–63, gave 10 possible solutions to this problem.[/FONT][/B] [SIZE=3][COLOR=SlateGray][B][FONT=Century Gothic]Tom Constable. (2003; 2003). [I]Tom Constable's Expository Notes on the Bible[/I] (Mk 2:25). Galaxie Software[/FONT][/B][/COLOR][/SIZE]. [/LEFT] [B]وفى تعليقات ويسلى يؤكد نفس الكلام[/B] [LEFT][B][FONT=Century Gothic]In the days of Abiathar the high priest-Abimelech, the father of Abiathar, was high priest then; Abiathar himself not till some time after. This phrase therefore only means, In the time of Abiathar, who was afterward the high priest. 1 Samuel 21:6.[/FONT][/B] [SIZE=3][COLOR=SlateGray][B][FONT=Century Gothic]Wesley, J. (1999). [I]Wesley's Notes: Mark[/I] (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; Wesley's Notes (Mk 2:26). Albany, OR: Ages Software[/FONT][/B].[/COLOR][/SIZE] [/LEFT] [B]ويؤكد هذا المرجع ايضا ان ابياثار كان هو المكلف بالنيابة عن ابوه ليقوم ببعض اعماله فى زمن شيخوخة ابيه[/B] [LEFT][B][FONT=Comic Sans MS][I]Abiathar.[/I] Abiathar was the son of Ahimelech, who was titular high priest at the time this incident occurred (see 1 Sam. 21:1, 6). [U][COLOR=Blue]The words of Jesus seem to suggest that Abiathar was deputy to his aging father and so actually performing at least some of the functions of the high priestly office even during the latter’s lifetime, and under his supervision. When Ahimelech was slain Abiathar fled to David, carrying with him the sacred ephod, symbol of the high priestly office (see [/COLOR][/U][U][COLOR=Blue]1 Sam. 22:20). An analogous situation prevailed in Christ’s day, when Caiaphas was high priest, but Annas was recognized by all as being a kind of high priest emeritu[/COLOR][/U][/FONT][/B] [LIST] [*][B][FONT=Book Antiqua][SIZE=3][COLOR=SlateGray]Nichol, F. D. (1978; 2002). [I]The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, Volume 5[/I] (588). Review and Herald Publishing Association[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/B]. [/LIST] [/LEFT] [COLOR=Blue][B]ويؤكد ايضا هذا المرجع نفس ما اقوله ان فى زمن ابياثار لا يعنى فى زمن رئاسة كهنوته[/B][/COLOR] [LEFT][B][FONT=Book Antiqua] [U][COLOR=Blue]It is possible that the Greek phrase here translated [/COLOR][/U][U][COLOR=Blue]in the days of Abiathar the high priest[/COLOR][/U][U][COLOR=Blue] may mean simply “in the time of Abiathar the [later] high priest” and not that Abiathar was high priest at the time of the incident[/COLOR][/U].[/FONT][/B] [SIZE=3][COLOR=SlateGray][B][FONT=Book Antiqua]Hurtado, L. W. (1989). [I]New International Biblical Commentary: Mark[/I] (54). Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers[/FONT][/B][/COLOR][/SIZE]. [/LEFT] [COLOR=Blue][B]ويؤكد على كلامى ايضا هذا المرجع[/B][/COLOR] [COLOR=Blue][B]وهو مرجع مهم جدا[/B][/COLOR] [LEFT] [B][FONT=Book Antiqua]According to [/FONT][/B][B][FONT=Book Antiqua]1 Sm 21:1–6, Ahimelech was high priest when David ate the bread of the presence. Abiathar, Ahimelech’s son, became David’s high priest shortly after as a result of the episode (see 2 Sm 8:17; 1 Ch 24:6). [U][COLOR=Purple]There is no error in [/COLOR][/U][U][COLOR=Purple]Mk 2:26[/COLOR][/U][U][COLOR=Purple], however, because the Greek idiom used can merely mean “in the passage about Abiathar.” If that’s the case, Mark’s reference would be to the multi-chapter segment of 1 Sm that would have been a unit within a Jewish lectionary[/COLOR][/U].[/FONT][/B] [B][FONT=Book Antiqua][SIZE=3][COLOR=SlateGray]Cabal, T., Brand, C. O., Clendenen, E. R., Copan, P., Moreland, J., & Powell, D. (2007).[/COLOR][/SIZE] [SIZE=3][COLOR=SlateGray][I]The Apologetics Study Bible: Real Questions, Straight Answers, Stronger Faith[/I] (1471). Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/B]. [/LEFT] [B]ويؤكد ذلك تفسير بليفرز[/B] [LEFT][LEFT] [FONT=Book Antiqua][B]There is no contradiction between the author of 1 Samuel, who identifies Abimelech as the priest, and Mark’s reference to the priest Abiathar (v. [/B][/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua][B]26). [U][COLOR=Blue]Abiathar, as the son of Abimelech, was evidently involved in the incident also. Because of the close association of David with Abiathar, it was natural for both Jesus and Mark to mention his involvement. Both Abiathar and Abimelech would have been in service as priests at the time of the incident[/COLOR][/U].[/B][/FONT][/LEFT] [SIZE=3][COLOR=Purple][FONT=Book Antiqua][B][I]Believer's Study Bible[/I]. 1997, c1995. C1991 Criswell Center for Biblical Studies. (electronic ed.) (Mk 2:26). Nashville: Thomas Nelson[/B][/FONT].[/COLOR][/SIZE] [/LEFT] [COLOR=Blue][B]واخيرا هذا المرجه يلخص ما قولناه [/B][/COLOR] [LEFT][LEFT][B][FONT=Century Gothic][SIZE=5]There are two “problems” with this illustration. The most direct one is Jesus’ identification of this as during the time of Abiathar’s high priesthood. In 1 Sam. 21, it is clear that the high priest involved was Ahimelech. Bible critics are quick to point this out as a historical error on the part of Jesus (or Mark). [U][COLOR=Blue]But [/COLOR][/U][U][COLOR=Blue]the “contradiction” is not quite as direct as the translation sounds: the phrase “in the days of” is not literal; the original simply says “upon Abiathar, high priest” and may mean “in connection with Abiathar.” Mark never elsewhere uses this construction (Greek [I][FONT=Charis SIL]epi[/FONT][/I][/COLOR][/U][U][COLOR=Blue], upon, with the genitive case) as an indicator of time. Jesus’ words appear, simply, to locate the incident in connection with Abiathar’s high priesthood, and Abiathar, the son of Ahimelech, became priest shortly after this incident. Indeed, it was this incident that led to Ahimelech’s death and the installation of Abiathar in the office. He was much more well known than his father and high priest during most of David’s fame as King of Israel. Therefore, it seems very likely that Jesus’ words imply something like: “in the incident which brought Abiathar into the high priesthood[/COLOR][/U].”[/SIZE][/FONT][/B] [B][FONT=Century Gothic][SIZE=5]For that matter, it is possible that Abiathar was already assisting his elderly father as his designated successor. Some interpreters (like Alexander 53, 54) point out some apparent inconsistency in the O.T. itself about “Abiathar” and “Ahimelech” (compare 1 Sam. 22:20; 2 Sam. 8:17; 1 Chr. 18:16; 24:6) and theorize that each could be called by either name. Some interpreters, comparing Mk. 12:26, view the phrase as merely indicating the section of the O.T. where the incident was to be found: thus, as Cole (73) expresses this possibility, “in the passage dealing with” Abiathar. For other theories, see Hiebert 81, 82. Alexander (54) manifests an appropriate attitude when he observes that there is no doubt an explanation even if we do not know what it is.[/SIZE][/FONT][/B][/LEFT] [SIZE=3][COLOR=Blue][B][FONT=Century Gothic]Picirilli, R. E. (2003). [I]The Gospel of Mark[/I] (First Edition). The Randall House Bible Commentary (82). Nashville, TN: Randall House Publications [/FONT][/B][/COLOR][/SIZE][RIGHT][B]فى مراجع كتير اكدت نفس الكلام لكن العبرة فى تقديم الحل الامثل لاى تناقض ليس بالكثرة لكنه بالفكرة وتايد الفكرة باقوال العلماء وهى فكرة قوية ومتماسكة ولا يمكن نقدها انتهى........... [/B] [/RIGHT] [/LEFT] [/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR] [/QUOTE]

التحقق