ovde - vera znanje mir

spirits in the pre-birth or "premortal" life, he was chosen to be a leader in the kingdom of God
before he was born into this world (Abr. 1 - 5) and that he is now exalted and sits upon a throne in
eternity (D&C 132:29, 37)." [17]
In philosophy
Abraham, as a man communicating with God or the divine, has inspired some fairly extensive
discussion in some philosophers, such as Søren Kierkegaard and Jean-Paul Sartre. Kierkegaard
goes into Abraham's plight in considerable detail in his work Fear and Trembling. Sartre
understands the story not in terms of Christian obedience or a "teleological suspension of the
ethical", but in terms of mankind's utter behavioral and moral freedom. God asks Abraham to
sacrifice his only son. Sartre doubts that Abraham can know that the voice he hears is really the
voice of his God and not of someone else, or the product of a mental condition. Thus, Sartre
concludes, even if there are signs in the world, humans are totally free to decide how to interpret
them.
Textual criticism
Writers have regarded the life of Abraham in various ways. He has been viewed as a chieftain of
the Amorites, as the head of a great Semitic migration from Mesopotamia; or, since Ur and Haran
were seats of Moon-worship, he has been identified with a moon-god. From the character of the
literary evidence and the locale of the stories it has been held that Abraham was originally
associated with Hebron. The double name Abram/Abraham has even suggested that two
personages have been combined in the Biblical narrative; although this does not explain the
change from Sarai to Sarah.
The interesting discovery of the name Abi-ramu on Babylonian contracts of about 2000 BC does
not prove the Abraham of the Old Testament to be an historical person, even as the fact that there
were Amorites in Babylonia at the same period does not make it certain that the 'patriarch' was one
of their number. A fairly lucid treatment of the subject is given by Michael Astour in The Anchor
Bible Dictionary (s.v. "Amraphel", "Arioch" and "Chedorlaomer"), who explains the story of
Genesis 14 as a product of anti-Babylonian propaganda during the Babylonian captivity of the
Jews:
"After Böhl's widely accepted, but wrong, identification of m Tu-ud-hul-a with one of the Hittite
kings named Tudhaliyas, Tadmor found the correct solution by equating him with the Assyrian
king Sennacherib (see Tidal). Astour (1966) identified the remaining two kings of the
Chedorlaomer texts with Tukulti-Ninurta I of Assyria (see Arioch) and with the Chaldean
Merodach-baladan (see Amraphel). The common denominator between these four rulers is that
each of them, independently, occupied Babylon, oppressed it to a greater or lesser degree, and
took away its sacred divine images, including the statue of its chief god Marduk; furthermore, all
of them came to a tragic end.
3. Relationship to Genesis 14. All attempts to reconstruct the link between the Chedorlaomer
texts and Genesis 14 remain speculative. However, the available evidence seems consistent with
the following hypothesis: A Jew in Babylon, versed in Akkadian language and cuneiform script,
found in an early version of the Chedorlaomer texts certain things consistent with his anti-
Babylonian feelings." (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, s.v. "Chedorlaomer")
Another scholar, criticizing Kitchen's maximalist viewpoint, considers a relationship between the
tablet and Gen. speculative, also identifies but identifies Tudhula as a veiled reference to
Sennacherib of Assyria, and Chedorlaomer, i.e. Kudur-Nahhunte, as "a recollection of a 12th
century BC king of Elam who briefly ruled Babylon." ("Finding Historical Memories in the
Patriarchal Narratives" by Ronald Hindel, BAR, Jul/Aug 1995)
The Anchor Bible Dictionary suggests that the biblical account was in all probability derived from
a text very closely related to the Chedorlaomer Tablets, and this in a publication which can be said