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