Abiathar (Till)
Farrell Till jftill@midwest.net
Tue, 29 Sep 1998 23:10:41 -0700 (00907153841, 2.2.32.19980930061041.0088c38c@midwest.net)
At 10:05 PM 9/29/98 -0400, Simon Ewins wrote:
>:TILL
>:Inerrantists will argue that the incident involving David and Ahimelech did
>:occur "in the days of Abiathar the high priest" in that Abiathar lived at
>:the time but just wasn't high priest yet.
>
>Simon
>First, "Abiathar the priest" was not true because by the time Abiathar
>became a priest the story had already transpired, had it not? Abiathar's
>daddy was the priest and Abiathar was not.
>
>If Jesus had said "In the days of Abiathar" then the inerrantist's argument
>might hold (as tortured as it may be) but Jesus said "In the days of
>Abiathar the priest". Before Abiathar became a priest he was not 'Abiathar
>the priest' he was just 'Abiathar' the 'son of Ahimelech'.
>
>If we read into 1 Samuel 22 we find that Doeg the Edomite killed all the
>priests (Ahimelech included) but Abiathar was not killed. If 'the priests'
>were killed but Abiathar was not then Abiathar did not become a priest until
>after Doeg the Edomite did his thing. So when Jesus refers to 'Abiathar the
>priest' he was wrong because Abiathar was not yet a priest when the
>referenced story occurred
>
>The first reference to 'Abiathar the priest' doesn't occur until 1 Samuel 23
>and Ahimelech doesn't get direct reference after Doeg the Edomite kills the
>priests (all subsequent references are to so-and-so the son of Ahimelech,
>etcetera).
>
>
>No good? ;)
>
>
>Also, does not the phrasing "Have ye never read what David did, when he had
>need, and was an hungered, he, and they that were with him?" nail it down to
>a specific time and event?
>
>At that specific time and event 1 Samuel specifically states that David was
>talking to Ahimelech. In Mark Jesus is specifically referring to an event
>that can be pegged to Ahimelech. There is no other instance of that event
>that refers to anyone other than
>
>Or have they weaseled out of that aspect as well?
>
TILL
I agree entirely. In my posting, I was simply explaining what I know that
inerrantists will say, so anyone who plans to present this as an example of
a biblical discrepancy should be prepared to rebut their quibble. I think
that you have effectively done that. However, you shouldn't expect them to
be convinced, because it just isn't in their nature to abandon a quibble
just because it has been ably refuted.
Farrell Till
Skepticism, Inc.
jftill@midwest.net