Abiathar and friends...
Farrell Till jftill@midwest.net
Tue, 29 Sep 1998 23:10:44 -0700 (00907153844, 2.2.32.19980930061044.0088ebec@midwest.net)
At 02:16 AM 9/30/98 +0000, Joseph Crea wrote:
>>FISK
>>Wrong. He went to Nob (1 Sam. 21:1), and Ahimelech gave him bread that the
>>priests had earlier removed from the holy table (1 Sam. 21:6). Furthermore,
>>the text does not state that David actually ate the bread.
>>
>>
>>
>> [Mark 2:26]
>>"...which is lawful only for priests to eat."
>>
>>Wrong. There is no such law.
>>
>
>
>CREA
> That doesn't appear to be the import of Leviticus 24:9, which reads:
>
>
> [24:9] "And it [the showbread] shall be Aaron's and his sons'; and they
>shall eat it in the holy place: for it is most holy unto him of the
>offerings of the LORD made by fire by a perpetual statute."
>
>
TILL
Yes, many inerrantists will argue from what they call a "law of exclusion"
that what is specified in a command is what God expects and that everything
else is excluded. For example, when God told Noah to build an ark of
"gopher wood," he didn't have to say, "Don't use hickory, don't use oak,
don't use maple, etc., etc., etc." In stating that gopher wood was to be
used, all other woods were excluded. Hence, in Leviticus 24:9, the
stipulation that Aaron and his sons were to eat the show bread would have,
according to this argument, excluded everyone else. Therefore, the
commandment provided only for priests to eat it.
Farrell Till
Skepticism, Inc.
jftill@midwest.net