SSIPON:
In Mark 2, where Jesus is confronted by the Pharisees because his disciples had been walking through a grain field, eating the grain on the Sabbath. Jesus wants to show the Pharisees that “Sabbath was made for humans, not humans for the Sabbath” and so reminds them of what the great King David had done when he and his men were hungry, how they went into the Temple “when Abiathar was the high priest” and ate the show bread, which was only for the priests to eat.

One of the well-known problems of the passage is that when one looks at the Old Testament passage that Jesus is citing (1 Sam. 21:1–6), it turns out that David did this not when Abiathar was the high priest, but, in fact, when Abiathar’s father Ahimelech was. In other words, this is one of those passages that have been pointed to in order to show that the Bible is not inerrant at all but contains mistakes.

SEEMS YOU ARE DIRECTLY TALKING TO SATAN WORSHIPPERS LIKE ANTISLAM KOBOJUNKIE AND MAXINDHOUSE

OBALOLA55:
SEEMS YOU ARE DIRECTLY TALKING TO SATAN WORSHIPPERS LIKE ANTISLAM KOBOJUNKIE AND MAXINDHOUSE

Aren't you a Satan worshipper yourself?

SSIPON:


Aren't you a Satan worshipper yourself?

NOPE I WORSHIP THE LIVING GOD ALONE

SSIPON:
In Mark 2, where Jesus is confronted by the Pharisees because his disciples had been walking through a grain field, eating the grain on the Sabbath. Jesus wants to show the Pharisees that “Sabbath was made for humans, not humans for the Sabbath” and so reminds them of what the great King David had done when he and his men were hungry, how they went into the Temple “when Abiathar was the high priest” and ate the show bread, which was only for the priests to eat.

One of the well-known problems of the passage is that when one looks at the Old Testament passage that Jesus is citing (1 Sam. 21:1–6), it turns out that David did this not when Abiathar was the high priest, but, in fact, when Abiathar’s father Ahimelech was. In other words, this is one of those passages that have been pointed to in order to show that the Bible is not inerrant at all but contains mistakes.

There is a problem, if closely examined with that which you listed as an error. Ahimelech was not listed as the High priest but simply as a priest in the town of nob. According to God's Law, there could be only one High priest in all of the land, but ofcourse numerous priests, all of them from among the tribe of Levi.

The particular name of the high priest at that time is not indicated.

Kobojunkie:
There is a problem with that particular assumption. You see, Ahimelech was not listed as the High priest but simply as a priest in the town of nob. According to God's Law, there could be only one High priest in all of the land, but ofcourse numerous priests, all of them from among the tribe of Levi.

Some people have developed a long and complicated argument to the effect that even though Mark indicates this happened “when Abiathar was the high priest,” it doesn’t really mean that Abiathar was the high priest, but that the event took place in the part of the scriptural text that has Abiathar as one of the main characters. Their argument was based on the meaning of the Greek words involved and was a bit convoluted.

However, the fact is that they had to do some pretty fancy exegetical footwork to get around the problem, and that their solution was in fact a bit of a stretch. I think we can conclude that maybe Mark did make a mistake. But the problem with that conclusion is that a lot of Christians believe that there are zero mistakes in the Bible and admitting that Mark (or whoever wrote the book of Mark) made a mistake will counter the claim that the Bible is inerrant.

Kobojunkie:


The particular name of the high priest at that time is not indicated.

1 Samuel 21:1-6

New International Version


21 David went to Nob,to Ahimelek the priest. Ahimelek trembledwhen he met him, and asked, “Why are you alone? Why is no one with you?”



Oga Kobo, are you well at all?

SSIPON:


1 Samuel 21:1-6

New International Version


21 David went to Nob,to Ahimelek the priest. Ahimelek trembledwhen he met him, and asked, “Why are you alone? Why is no one with you?”
Oga Kobo, are you well at all?

And the other listed Abiathar the High Priest, right?

Go back through my comment again to help you better understand this one if necessary .

SSIPON:
Some people have developed a long and complicated argument to the effect that even though Mark indicates this happened “when Abiathar was the high priest,” it doesn’t really mean that Abiathar was the high priest, but that the event took place in the part of the scriptural text that has Abiathar as one of the main characters. Their argument was based on the meaning of the Greek words involved and was a bit convoluted.

However, the fact is that they had to do some pretty fancy exegetical footwork to get around the problem, and that their solution was in fact a bit of a stretch. I think we can conclude that maybe Mark did make a mistake. But the problem with that conclusion is that a lot of Christians believe that there are zero mistakes in the Bible and admitting that Mark (or whoever wrote the book of Mark) made a mistake will counter the claim that the Bible is inerrant.

I am not much interested in what others have said, but my personal evaluation of what I have read. The story in Mark lists Abiathar as the High Priest at the time of the incident told of by Jesus Christ whereas the one story in 1 Samue 21 instead only lists the name of a priest named Ahimelek

..

Kobojunkie:
I am not much interested in what others have said, but my personal evaluation of what I have read. The story in Mark lists Abiathar as the High Priest at the time of the incident told of by Jesus Christ whereas the one story in 1 Samue 21 instead only lists the name of a priest named Ahimelek

Ahimelech was the 12th high priest,and officiated at Nob, where he was visited by David (to whom and his companions he gave 5 loaves of the showbread when he fled from Saul (1 Samuel 21:1-9). He was summoned into Saul’s presence, and accused, on the information of Doeg the Edomite, of disloyalty because of his kindness to David; whereupon the king commanded that he, with the other priests who stood beside him (86 in all), should be put to death. This sentence was executed in the most cruel manner by Doeg (1 Samuel 22:9-23).

Oga you no dey read your Bible

SSIPON:

Ahimelech, the son of Ahitub and father of Abiathar (1 Samuel 22:20–23), but described as the son of Abiathar in 2 Samuel 8:17 and in four places in 1 Chronicles. He descended from Aaron's son Ithamar and He is the High Priest of Israel Eli.

I am sorry, what?

Kobojunkie:
I am sorry, what?

Here is a more coherent version

Ahimelech was the [b]12th high priest[/b]and officiated at Nob, where he was visited by David (to whom and his companions he gave 5 loaves of the showbread when he fled from Saul (1 Samuel 21:1-9). He was summoned into Saul’s presence, and accused, on the information of Doeg the Edomite, of disloyalty because of his kindness to David; whereupon the king commanded that he, with the other priests who stood beside him (86 in all), should be put to death. This sentence was executed in the most cruel manner by Doeg (1 Samuel 22:9-23).

Oga you no dey read your Bible

SSIPON:
Ahimelech was the 12th high priest,and officiated at Nob, where he was visited by David (to whom and his companions he gave 5 loaves of the showbread when he fled from Saul (1 Samuel 21:1-9). He was summoned into Saul’s presence, and accused, on the information of Doeg the Edomite, of disloyalty because of his kindness to David; whereupon the king commanded that he, with the other priests who stood beside him (86 in all), should be put to death. This sentence was executed in the most cruel manner by Doeg (1 Samuel 22:9-23).

Oga you no dey read your Bible

Where is it stated in scripture that this particular Ahimelech was the High priest abeg?

As I already explained, I am not much interested in what others have said of these stories as I like to do my own digging to connect the dots for my own self. Haven't done much on this particular story since so far, what I have from scripture seems not to connect the two mentioned in the way cited in the error claim.

Kobojunkie:
Where is it stated in scripture that this particular Ahimelech was the High priest abeg?

As I already explained, I am not much interested in what others have said of these stories as I like to do my own digging to connect the dots for my own self. Haven't done much on this particular story since so far, what I have from scripture seems not to connect the two mentioned in the way cited in the error claim.

The High Priests, like all Levitical priests, belonged to the Aaronic line. The Bible mentions the majority of high priests before the Babylonian captivity, but does not give a complete list of office holders. Lists would be based on various historical sources. In several periods of gentile rule, high priests were appointed and removed by kings. Still, most high priests came from the Aaronic line. One exception is Menelaus, who may not have been from the Tribe of Levi at all, but from the Tribe of Benjamin.

Here are the High Priests of Isreal:


Aaron
Eleazar, son of Aaron (Numbers 20:2
Phinehas, son of Eleazar
Abishua, son of Phinehas
Bukki, son of Abishua
Uzzi, son of Bukki
Although Phinehas and his descendants are not directly attested as high priests, this portion of the genealogy given in 1 Chronicles 6:3–15 is assumed by other sources (including Josephusand Seder 'Olam Zutta), to give the succession of the office from father to son. At some time, the office was transferred from descendants of Eleazar to those of his brother Itamar. The first known and most notable high priest of Itamar's line was Eli, a contemporary of Samuel.

Eli, descendant of Ithamar, son of Aaron
Ahitub, son of Phinehas and grandson of Eli
Ahijah, son of Ahitub
Ahimelech, son of Ahijah (or brother of Ahijah and son of Ahitub)
Abiathar, son of Ahimelech


My source is Wikipedia. Oga Kobojunkie

SSIPON:

The High Priests, like all Levitical priests, belonged to the Aaronic line. The Bible mentions the majority of high priests before the Babylonian captivity, but does not give a complete list of office holders. Lists would be based on various historical sources. In several periods of gentile rule, high priests were appointed and removed by kings. Still, most high priests came from the Aaronic line. One exception is Menelaus, who may not have been from the Tribe of Levi at all, but from the Tribe of Benjamin.

Here are the High Priests of Isreal:

Aaron
Eleazar, son of Aaron (Numbers 20:2
Phinehas, son of Eleazar
Abishua, son of Phinehas
Bukki, son of Abishua
Uzzi, son of Bukki
Although Phinehas and his descendants are not directly attested as high priests, this portion of the genealogy given in 1 Chronicles 6:3–15 is assumed by other sources (including Josephusand Seder 'Olam Zutta), to give the succession of the office from father to son. At some time, the office was transferred from descendants of Eleazar to those of his brother Itamar. The first known and most notable high priest of Itamar's line was Eli, a contemporary of Samuel.

Eli, descendant of Ithamar, son of Aaron
Ahitub, son of Phinehas and grandson of Eli
Ahijah, son of Ahitub
Ahimelech, son of Ahijah (or brother of Ahijah and son of Ahitub)
Abiathar, son of Ahimelech
My source is Wikipedia. Oga Kobojunkie

Again, Where is it stated in scripture that this particular Ahimelech was the High priest abeg?

As I already explained, I am not much interested in what others have said of these stories as I like to do my own digging to connect the dots for my own self. Haven't done much on this particular story since so far, what I have from scripture seems not to connect the two mentioned in the way cited in the error claim.

Kobojunkie:
Again, Where is it stated in scripture that this particular Ahimelech was the High priest abeg?

As I already explained, I am not much interested in what others have said of these stories as I like to do my own digging to connect the dots for my own self. Haven't done much on this particular story since so far, what I have from scripture seems not to connect the two mentioned in the way cited in the error claim.

The high priests belonged to the Jewish priestly families that trace their paternal line back to Aaron—the first high priest of Israel in the Hebrew Bible and elder brother of Moses—through Zadok, a leading priest at the time of the reigns of David and Solomon over the United Kingdom of Israel.

In Mark 2.26, Jesus is reported as saying: πῶς εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸν οἶκον τοῦ θεοῦ ἐπὶ ᾿Αβιαθὰρ ἀρχιερέως καὶ τοὺς ἄρτους τῆς προθέσεως ἔφαγεν, οὓς οὐκ ἔξεστιν φαγεῖν εἰ μὴ τοὺς ἱερεῖς, καὶ ἔδωκεν καὶ τοῖς σὺν αὐτῷ οὖσιν…

Or, in English, “Haven’t you ever read what David did when he was in need and he and his companions were hungry? How he entered into the house of God when Abiathar was high priest and ate the sacred bread that is not lawful for anyone but priests to eat, and also gave it to his companions?” (Mark 2:25-26).

The fundamental problem with the phrase “when Abiathar was high priest” is that this incident in David’s life is recorded in but one passage in the OT, 1 Sam 21.1-7. But there, Ahimelech is mentioned as the priest; Abiathar, his son, would later become high priest, but he is not introduced into the narrative for another chapter (22.20).

Now as I mentioned earlier, the title of the high priest is usually passed down from lineage to lineage. The succession was to be through one of the high priest's sons, and was to remain in his own family (Leviticus 6:15).

So it doesn't matter if the Bible mentioned it or not. What we do know is that the title of "high priest" was passed down from father to son. And since We know that Abiathar (the son of Ahimelech) was a high priest, we can also draw the conclusion that his father Ahimelech was a high priest also.

Kobojunkie:
Again, Where is it stated in scripture that this particular Ahimelech was the High priest abeg?

As I already explained, I am not much interested in what others have said of these stories as I like to do my own digging to connect the dots for my own self. Haven't done much on this particular story since so far, what I have from scripture seems not to connect the two mentioned in the way cited in the error claim.

The high priests belonged to the Jewish priestly families that trace their paternal line back to Aaron—the first high priest of Israel in the Hebrew Bible and elder brother of Moses—through Zadok, a leading priest at the time of the reigns of David and Solomon over the United Kingdom of Israel.

In Mark 2.26, Jesus is reported as saying: πῶς εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸν οἶκον τοῦ θεοῦ ἐπὶ ᾿Αβιαθὰρ ἀρχιερέως καὶ τοὺς ἄρτους τῆς προθέσεως ἔφαγεν, οὓς οὐκ ἔξεστιν φαγεῖν εἰ μὴ τοὺς ἱερεῖς, καὶ ἔδωκεν καὶ τοῖς σὺν αὐτῷ οὖσιν…

Or, in English, “Haven’t you ever read what David did when he was in need and he and his companions were hungry? How he entered into the house of God when Abiathar was high priest and ate the sacred bread that is not lawful for anyone but priests to eat, and also gave it to his companions?” (Mark 2:25-26).

The fundamental problem with the phrase “when Abiathar was high priest” is that this incident in David’s life is recorded in but one passage in the OT, 1 Sam 21.1-7. But there, Ahimelech is mentioned as the priest; Abiathar, his son, would later become high priest, but he is not introduced into the narrative for another chapter (22.20).

Now as I mentioned earlier, the title of the high priest is usually passed down from lineage to lineage. The succession was to be through one of the high priest's sons, and was to remain in his own family (Leviticus 6:15).

So it doesn't matter if the Bible mentioned it or not. What we do know is that the title of "high priest" was passed down from father to son. And since We know that Abiathar (the son of Ahimelech) was a high priest, we can also draw the conclusion that his father Ahimelech was a high priest also.


Oga Kobojunkie are you there?

SSIPON:

The high priests belonged to the Jewish priestly families that trace their paternal line back to Aaron—the first high priest of Israel in the Hebrew Bible and elder brother of Moses—through Zadok, a leading priest at the time of the reigns of David and Solomon over the United Kingdom of Israel.

In Mark 2.26, Jesus is reported as saying: πῶς εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸν οἶκον τοῦ θεοῦ ἐπὶ ᾿Αβιαθὰρ ἀρχιερέως καὶ τοὺς ἄρτους τῆς προθέσεως ἔφαγεν, οὓς οὐκ ἔξεστιν φαγεῖν εἰ μὴ τοὺς ἱερεῖς, καὶ ἔδωκεν καὶ τοῖς σὺν αὐτῷ οὖσιν…

Or, in English, “Haven’t you ever read what David did when he was in need and he and his companions were hungry? How he entered into the house of God when Abiathar was high priest and ate the sacred bread that is not lawful for anyone but priests to eat, and also gave it to his companions?” (Mark 2:25-26).

The fundamental problem with the phrase “when Abiathar was high priest” is that this incident in David’s life is recorded in but one passage in the OT, 1 Sam 21.1-7. But there, Ahimelech is mentioned as the priest; Abiathar, his son, would later become high priest, but he is not introduced into the narrative for another chapter (22.20).

Now as I mentioned earlier, the title of the high priest is usually passed down from lineage to lineage. The succession was to be through one of the high priest's sons, and was to remain in his own family (Leviticus 6:15).

So it doesn't matter if the Bible mentioned it or not. What we do know is that the title of "high priest" was passed down from father to son. And since We know that Abiathar (the son of Ahimelech) was a high priest, we can also draw the conclusion that his father Ahimelech was a high priest also.


Oga Kobojunkie are you there?

All this is really unnecessary since I am not the least bit interested in rehashing that which I already know of this issue.

Again, Where is it stated in scripture that this particular Ahimelech was the High priest abeg?

As I already explained, I am not much interested in what others have said of these stories as I like to do my own digging to connect the dots for my own self. Haven't done much on this particular story since so far, what I have from scripture seems not to connect the two mentioned in the way cited in the error claim.

The bible as we have it today has many errors. These error were not made by the Apostles and Prophets but by those who these records fell into their hands and who made the translations.

Kobojunkie:
All this is really unnecessary since I am not the least bit interested in rehashing that which I already know of this issue.

Again, Where is it stated in scripture that this particular Ahimelech was the High priest abeg?

As I already explained, I am not much interested in what others have said of these stories as I like to do my own digging to connect the dots for my own self. Haven't done much on this particular story since so far, what I have from scripture seems not to connect the two mentioned in the way cited in the error claim.

Lmao, go and sit down. I just provided you arguments why Ahimelech was definitely a high priest and you don't even argue with it. You are insistent that the argument that Ahimelech was a high priest must come from the Bible. Okay then, following your logic, then the trinity is not really a thing since the concept was not mentioned in the Bible.

SSIPON:
Lmao, go and sit down. I just provided you arguments why Ahimelech was definitely a high priest and you don't even argue with it. You are insistent that the argument that Ahimelech was a high priest must come from the Bible. Okay then, following your logic, then the trinity is not really a thing since the concept was not mentioned in the Bible.

Oh, I understand what you did but what you failed to do, even so many posts later, is provide the most important of details which is scriptural evidence for the claim that Ahimelech was in fact the High priest at the time mentioned. This, the same thing I mentioned was of importance from my first comment to you.

Going around and around in circles does not show that at all.

Kobojunkie:
Oh, I understand what you did but what you failed to do, even so many posts later, is provide the most important of details which is scriptural evidence for the claim that Ahimelech was in fact the High priest at the time mentioned. This, the same thing I mentioned was of importance from my first comment to you.

Going around and around in circles does not show that at all.

Provide me with the scriptural evidence for the trinity

SSIPON:

Provide me with the scriptural evidence for the trinity

I don't subscribe to the trinity doctrine nor is the word trinity in scripture, so I can't help you there.

SSIPON:
[font=Georgia]
One of the well-known problems of the passage is that when one looks at the Old Testament passage that Jesus is citing (1 Sam. 21:1–6), it turns out that David did this not when Abiathar was the high priest, but, in fact, when Abiathar’s father Ahimelech was. In other words, this is one of those passages that have been pointed to in order to show that the Bible is not inerrant at all but contains mistakes..

See error finder making an error!

Is the son of Okonkwo not Okonkwo, or is the son of Abiola not Abiola?

Kobojunkie:
I am not much interested in what others have said, but my personal evaluation of what I have read. The story in Mark lists Abiathar as the High Priest at the time of the incident told of by Jesus Christ whereas the one story in 1 Samue 21 instead only lists the name of a priest named Ahimelek

Is there "Low Priest"?

SSIPON:


1 Samuel 21:1-6

New International Version


21 David went to Nob,to Ahimelek the priest. Ahimelek trembledwhen he met him, and asked, “Why are you alone? Why is no one with you?”



Oga Kobo, are you well at all?

You just proved his point. "when Ahimelek was priest" is not exactly "when Ahimelek was high priest".

SSIPON:


Ahimelech was the 12th high priest,and officiated at Nob, where he was visited by David (to whom and his companions he gave 5 loaves of the showbread when he fled from Saul (1 Samuel 21:1-9). He was summoned into Saul’s presence, and accused, on the information of Doeg the Edomite, of disloyalty because of his kindness to David; whereupon the king commanded that he, with the other priests who stood beside him (86 in all), should be put to death. This sentence was executed in the most cruel manner by Doeg (1 Samuel 22:9-23).

Oga you no dey read your Bible

You still have not pointed to where the scriptures called Ahimelek the high priest at that time. Except you're saying the high priest is the only priest at a given time.

Dtruthspeaker:


Is there "Low Priest"?

Which means all priests are high priests, right? Which means there's no high court just for the fact that there's no low court? Still trying to get your logic.

HedwigesMaduro:
Which means there's no high court just for the fact that there's no low court? Still trying to get your logic.

This High court and supreme Court thing is a deceit, a fraud and Unlawful. It is just a means of cementing man's rule, unjust enrichment, waste of communal goods and ensuring people live under The Curse of God in Jeremiah 17:5

THE COURT CAN (MUST) DO NO WRONG, IS THE LAW.

THEREFORE, THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE, IS SUPPOSED TO GET IT PERFECTLY RIGHT.

IF AND WHEN THERE IS ANY AREA AS TO THE DOUBT OF THE RIGHTNESS OF A MATTER, THE PROPER PROCEDURE IS TO SEEK OPINIONS FROM OTHER JUDGES.

OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE APPLY THE LAW IN DEUTERONOMY 25:1

THE RIGHT AND GOOD MUST BE RAISED UP AND THE EVIL/WRONG MUST BE QUASHED.

HedwigesMaduro:

Which means all priests are high priests, right?

Yep! Based on The Law of Aaron and his sons. Exodus 28:1-4.

No high or low priest there. just "Ministers in the Priest's Office"!

OBALOLA55:
SEEMS YOU ARE DIRECTLY TALKING TO SATAN WORSHIPPERS LIKE ANTISLAM KOBOJUNKIE AND MAXINDHOUSE

Mere accusations shows you're not intelligent enough Sir!

Worshipers of Satan has attributes of their God, so do you know the attributes of Satan in order to prove that someone is a worshiper of Satan?

OBALOLA55:
NOPE I WORSHIP THE LIVING GOD ALONE

What are the attributes of the living God so you can prove that you're truly worshiping the TRUE GOD?