by Yerusalyim 8 Replies latest watchtower bible
Joseph et al,
What's the deal with Jesus in Mark 2:26 Saying Abiathar was High Priest yet in 1 Samuel 21:1 It's Ahimelech who gives Jesus the bread. Was Jesus wrong, or is 1 Samuel wrong?
YERUSALYIM
"Vanity! It's my favorite sin!"
[Al Pacino as Satan, in "DEVIL'S ADVOCATE"]
Based on the principle that the oldest manuscript is the closest to the source,
you would have to go with Samuel right and Jesus wrong.
This is one of approximately 2,500 errors and contradictions contained in the
Bible. It is also one of the 2,500 reasons that have convinced me that the Bible
is primarily a book of Hebrew mythology.
Yeru,
Lots of errors in that text. Here's something I wrote some time ago:
How much did Jesus know about the Bible? Not having a handy edition around, he had to rely on his memory. And how well did Jesus recall an account from the text? Let's see one example:
Mark 2:25, 26 "But he said to them: "Have you never once readThe answer would, as we shall see, be "no, I have never read that."
what David did when he fell in need and got hungry, he and the men with him?This is wrong. David was alone, as the story in 1 Samuel chapter 21 reveals. Ahimelech was suspicious about this fact, asking "Why is it you are by yourself, and no one is with you?" (v1) David actually lied to the priest, claiming to be on a secret mission for the king, when he in reality was a fugitive on the run. David claimed he would meet the other men later: "And I have made an appointment with the young men for such and such a place." (v2)
How he entered into the house of GodJesus remembers wrong again. David went to Nob (1 Sam. 21:1), and Ahimelech gave him bread that the priests had earlier removed from the holy table, as verse 6 goes to great pains explaining. What David received, was "the showbread that had been removed from before Jehovah so as to place fresh bread there on the day of its being taken away". Furthermore, the text does not state that David actually ate the bread, although we can probably assume he did.
in the account about Abiathar the chief priest,Wrong again. It was in the days of Ahimelech the priest (1 Sam. 21:1). Abiathar enters the story in 1 Sam 22:20, as a son of Ahimelech that escapes from the place where Doeg kills Ahimelech and the other priests. 2 Sam 8:17, on the other hand, tells us that Ahimelech was the son of Abiathar. We can understand that Jesus was a bit confused.
and ate the loaves of presentation, which it is not lawful for anybody to eat except the priests, and he gave some also to the men who were with him?""As we saw above, there was no men with him.
The WTS and other xtians often makes much of the fact that the New Testament frequently refers to and quotes from Old Testament texts. The fact is, NT writers frequently misquotes, misapplies and are plain wrong about their references. Many NT writers were not very well versed in the Holy Scriptures, and this applies especially to the synoptical gospels, which helps explain blunders as the ones we can see above.
- Jan
--
"Doctor how can you diagnose someone with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder and then act like I had some choice about barging in here right now?" -- As Good As It Gets
So did David only eat the Bread once? People go to communion every week.
Nevertheless, Ahimelech was priest but was he high priest? Why couldn't Abiathar have already been chosen by the Lord to be the high priest? He displayed his allegiance to David - also, I thought that some young men must have been with David somewhere about the place, or Ahimelech wouldn't have inquired about them.
Bang
Samuel is correct When he said the high priest was Ahimelech.Jesus however was also correct.If you look close at the wordingJesus said "in the days of Abiathar"{v.26}.This Need not be taken to imply that Abiathar was high priest at the tTIME david ate the bread.After eating the bread and meeting Ahimelech ,King Saul had Ahiemelech killed{1sam.22:17-19}.Abiathar went to david after escapping{v.20}and took the place of high priest later.So even though Abiathar was made high priest after David ate the bread the phrasing used is still correct because Abiathar was alive when david did this and became high priest soon there after
So it was during the TIME of Abiathar but not durring hid office tenure.
That makes sene.
Cyllon,
Did you read the text of Mark? it says "in the account of", not in the time of. Moreover, you ignore all the other errors.
- Jan
--
"Doctor how can you diagnose someone with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder and then act like I had some choice about barging in here right now?" -- As Good As It Gets
JanH,
The New International Version states, "In the days of Abithar the High Priest", not in the account of. This would mean that Cyllon's explanation makes sense.
Also, Samuel makes it clear that David was given consecrated bread just as Jesus pointed out. Jesus does not say David received bread from the table.
Where does it say that David ate all of the bread himself? Just because he may have shown up at the temple alone, does not mean he would stay alone or that he did not have others meeting him just as he said. Where do you determine that he lied to the priest about having others meeting him?
Without reading into Samuel things that are not there, Jesus' account is a correct shorthand version of the event.
Actually i did not ignore them.I simply addressed the original post.
And the literal translation of the verse is:
How He entered the house of God on Abiathar the high priest,and the loaves of the presentation ate,which not is lawful to eat..etc.
The KJV says in the days of.And the NIV is as stated.
NASB says in the time of.
The NASB is the closest.{see W.F. Arndt and F.W. Gingrich, 'A greek-English Lexicon of the New testament".}
It wood be akin to saying,"Now When king David was a shephered boy".
Even though he was not a king at the time,he was a shepherd boy.
As to Ahimelech saying David was alone.At that moment he was because the others were directed to another place.However,not v.3.David not only ask for something to eat for himself,but obviously intends to feed at least some of the others later.He asked for 5 loaves or whatever can be found.Unless David had a huge belly.He is not going to eat 5 loaves and what ever can be found by himself.
I have used the same phrasing as "those with Him" in a general sense myself.I beleive our generals have with bin ladin and some of his followers as to there where abouts.They do not necessarily mean within site of the man.Could be a few miles away but with him in mission,general area and at times within site.The term is not as precise as you are making it out to be I think.
As for Davids lie.Yes He did.The Bible simply records the deed here.It is not indorsed in any way and lying is condemed elsewhere.Shame on David.How is that a Biblical error?its davids error.
I will see about the rest later.Real busy at the moment.
have a good evening.
