[net.religion] Testing Barrs Thesis - Inerrant Biblical Exegesis

gary@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (gary w buchholz) (07/11/85)

>From: jeand@ihlpg.UUCP (AMBAR)
>Newsgroups: net.religion.christian
>Subject: Re: "plain contradiction"
>> > Regarding the two genealogies given for the Lord, I'm supprised that
>> > it is not commonly known that they are for His forebears through His
>> > mother's and step-father's families.
>> 
>> It is amazing the lengths to which people will go to rationalize a
>> plain contradiction in scripture.  "...known that they are...?"
>> By whom?  Where is the evidence for this?  The words in scripture are 
>> clear enough:
                      (texts omitted)
>It is not a plain contradiction in scripture, as shown by the words you
>chose to omit from the Luke quote.  Here it is in full (NASB)
                     (exegesis omitted)
>Yeah, I guess "the words in scripture are clear enough", aren't they?
>					AMBAR
>                    	{the known universe}!ihnp4!ihlpg!jeand
>
>"To those who love it is given to hear
> Music too high for the human ear." 	--Bruce Cockburn
>

     ===============================================================

1 Sam 21:1f

  "Then came David to Nob to Ahimelech the priest; and Ahimelech came
   to meet David trembling... And the priest answered David 'I have no
   common bread at hand, but there is holy bread....'... So the priest
   gave him the holy bread, for there was no bread there but the holy
   bread of the Presence..."

2 Sam 15:35f  (2 Sam is basically concerned with the history of Davids
               reign.  We read this... (David speaking to Hushai the 
               Archite)

  "Are not Zadok and Abiathar the priests with you there ?  So whatever 
   you hear from the king's house, tell it to Zadok and Abiathar the 
   priests...."

Mark 2:23f

  "One sabbath he was going through the grainfields; and as they made
   their way his disciples began to pluck heads of grain.  And the 
   Pharisees said to him. 'Look, why are they doing what what is not 
   lawful on the sabbath?'

     And he [Jesus] said to them,

       'Have you never read what David did, when he was in need and was
        hungry, he and those who were with him:  how he entered the
        house of God, when ABIATHAR was high priest, and ate the bread 
        of the Presence, which is not lawful.....'

     -----------------------------------------------------------------

(excerpt from a recent posting(by me) quoting James Barrs study on
Fundamentalist exegesis)

" ... Thus we have a reciprocal relation between the Bible and the
religious tradition.  On the one hand the religious tradition is an
ultimate value for the fundamentalists.  They do not use the Bible to
question the and re-check this tradition, they just accept that this
tradition is the true interpretation of the Bible.  The fundamentalist
position about the infallibility and inerrancy of the Bible is an
attempt to prevent this tradition from being damaged through modes of
interpretation that might make the Bible mean something else."

"... What fundamentalists do pursue is a completely unprincipled- in
the strict sense unprincipled, because guided by no principle of
interpretation- approach, in which the only guiding criterion is that
the Bible should, by the sorts of truth that fundamentalists respect
and follow, be true and not in any sort of error."

"... clear that fundamentalist interpretation does not take the Bible
literally, but varies between taking it literally and taking it
non-literally.  This variation is made necessary by the real guiding
principle .. namely, that one must ensure that the Bible is
inerrant, without error.  Inerrancy is maintained only by constantly
altering the mode of interpretation, and in particular by abandoning
the literal sense as soon as it would be an embarrassment to the view
of inerrancy held."
           --------------------------------------------

I would wonder what those who claim biblical inerrancy would do with
this quite literal "contradiction" in the bible.  This particular
example is interesting for 2 reasons.  1.  It is an internal
contradiction; one need not appeal to any extra-biblical historical
material.  2. The "error" is on the part of Jesus in reference to
Hebrew Scripture - in a sense it is *his* error (if one takes the plain
sense of the text as verbatim quote.)  Secondarily, this example
subverts the "doctrine" of divine inspiration - even if the quote is
not taken as verbatim but the 'inerrant' product of inspired gospel
writers (inspired by the one "Holy Spirit" who inspired all Scripture)
still, the reference to Abiathar rather than Ahimelech is clearly in
error.  

(Ahimelech was priest when David ate the consecrated bread (this is the
inteneded allusion), Abiathar was the son of Ahimelech and later high
priest during the reign of David - not when David ate the bread)

What to do, what to do ???

>Yeah, I guess "the words in scripture are clear enough", aren't they?
>					AMBAR

  Gary

jeand@ihlpg.UUCP (AMBAR) (07/11/85)

> (Ahimelech was priest when David ate the consecrated bread (this is the
> inteneded allusion), Abiathar was the son of Ahimelech and later high
	   	       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I think this is where you make your mistake.  Look at 2 Samuel 8:17

"And Zadok the son of Ahitub and AHIMELECH THE SON OF ABIATHAR were priests,
and Seraiah was secretary."

I can easily see Ahimelech, the son of the high priest, serving as a priest.

> priest during the reign of David - not when David ate the bread)
>   Gary

-- 

					AMBAR
                    	{the known universe}!ihnp4!ihlpg!jeand

"To those who love it is given to hear
 Music too high for the human ear." 	--Bruce Cockburn