Stats: 3,188,371 members, 7,934,342 topics. Date: Thursday, 29 August 2024 at 01:32 AM |
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / Abiathar The Priest Or Ahimelek The Priest? Another Biblical Error! (1855 Views)
God Never Rest, It's Biblical Error / History Of Copernicus: Man Who Asserted Heliocentric Fact Against Biblical Error / Looking For A Very Strong Juju Priest Or Pastor Or Alfa Or Anybody That Can See (2) (3) (4)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (Reply) (Go Down)
Re: Abiathar The Priest Or Ahimelek The Priest? Another Biblical Error! by FxMasterz: 5:21pm On May 22 |
AbuTwins:It's still in line. You created this thread to disparage the Bible and promote your unholy Quran. The unmistaken Word of God is not the letters but the message of love and salvation that the letters carry. Everyone was using the documents and information available to him. When Matthew and Luke were written, Mark was around!Can you give evidence that Mathew and Luke had a copy each? But Mark was written earlier than Matthew! So it is Matthew who would copy from Mark! Abeg drop that Matthew was among the 12. Do you thing it was the real Matthew the disciple of Jesus that wrote Matthew? Of course Mathew is the real disciple of Jesus. The style he chooses to write does not disqualify him in any way. John also wrote the same way. Even your spirit is as false as what Mark wrote! Since you don't know what the definition of the term 'false' is. Define 'false', and you'll find that Islam fits in directly by deliberately attempting to sell falsehood as truth. Mohammed saw no angel. The Quran itself is a proof he didn't see any angel. He probably saw a demon. The lies in there are too much. Mark made a mistake by calling Ahimelech Abiathar. That's human error. A pastor preaching on the pulpit could make the same error if he lacks adequate knowledge but that does not mean God won't use that pastor to bless people. God will still use him to bless people except he deliberately misleads people. That's falsehood. Deliberate misinformation. Have you heard about Mark 16:9-20 (Longer Ending of Mark) that is disputed and expunged from some translations of the Bible? You'll tire yourself out and abandon your Abutwins moniker the same way you abandoned your Antichristian moniker. So, create it. We're not concerned about the letters that kill. We're only concerned about the Spirit that gives Iife. |
Re: Abiathar The Priest Or Ahimelek The Priest? Another Biblical Error! by AbuTwins: 5:42pm On May 22 |
FxMasterz:Where did i mention Qur'an in the thread? ![]() The unmistaken Word of God is not the letters but the message of love and salvation that the letters carry.That too could be composed of several errors! Can you give evidence that Mathew and Luke had a copy each?I actually said Matthew and Luke copied Mark and added some other extra documents! Of course Mathew is the real disciple of Jesus. The style he chooses to write does not disqualify him in any way. John also wrote the same way. Since you don't know what the definition of the term 'false' is. Define 'false', and you'll find that Islam fits in directly by deliberately attempting to sell falsehood as truth. Mohammed saw no angel. The Quran itself is a proof he didn't see any angel. He probably saw a demon. The lies in there are too much.You can create your thread on that! That is beyond the scope of this thread! ![]() Mark made a mistake by calling Ahimelech Abiathar. That's human error. A pastor preaching on the pulpit could make the same error if he lacks adequate knowledge but that does not mean God won't use that pastor to bless people. God will still use him to bless people except he deliberately misleads people. That's falsehood. Deliberate misinformation.Good admission! Mark made the error not Jesus! I agree 100%! You'll tire yourself out and abandon your Abutwins moniker the same way you abandoned your Antichristian moniker. So, create it.Antichristian's material no reach textual criticism of the Bible! I do once in a while copy his materials though. We're not concerned about the letters that kill. We're only concerned about the Spirit that gives Iife.If the letters are error filled, the Spirit would be demonic! |
Re: Abiathar The Priest Or Ahimelek The Priest? Another Biblical Error! by FxMasterz: 5:59pm On May 22 |
AbuTwins:Let me open your understanding. If the rays of the Sun passes through coloured glass, the light you'll see would be in the colour of the glass isn't it? For example, to fill your room with blue light, you only need to cover the white light with blue glass. Agreed? Now, does the colour of the glass in any way change the colour of the light? No? The light is still white but your eyes see blue by your human perception. That's how the Word of God is. Humans are coloured glasses through whom the light passes. But while those with physical eyes see mistakes, those with spiritual eyes can see the white light still. The Bible was not written for Carnal men but for men of the spirit. It's the children's food. That's why you need first to be born of the spirit before you can partake of its riches. I actually said Matthew and Luke copied Mark and added some other extra documents!Yes you said it. If they copied from Mark, give me evidence that they both had at least a copy each of Mark's book. You can create your thread on that! That is beyond the scope of this thread!Not necessary. TenQ and Advocatejare have created threads about it already. I only need to go push them up. Antichristian's material no reach textual criticism of the Bible! I do once in a while copy his materials though.Keep deceiving yourself, you liar! You're the same as Antichristian. If the letters are error filled, the Spirit would be demonic! The letters are not the source of the Spirit. They're just vehicles for the message. The message, when mixed with faith produces revelation. Then, revelation releases the Spirit. |
Re: Abiathar The Priest Or Ahimelek The Priest? Another Biblical Error! by Aemmyjah(m): 6:13pm On May 22 |
Mark 2 NWT But he said to them: “Have you never read what David did when he was in need and he and the men with him were hungry? 26 How, in the account about A·biʹa·thar the chief priest, he entered into the house of God and ate the loaves of presentation, which it is not lawful for anybody to eat except the priests, and he also gave some to the men who were with him? Pidgin For the story about A·bi′a·thar wey be chief priest, una no read about how David enter the house of God and chop the bread wey them put as offering to God, something wey nobody get the right to chop except the priests, and e still give some to the men wey dey with-am?” Interlinear πως How 1525 εισήλθεν he entered 1519 εις into 3588 τον the 3624 οίκον house 3588 του 2316 θεού of God 1909 επί unto * Αβιάθαρ Abiathar 3588 του the 749 αρχιερέως chief priest, 2532 και and 3588 τους the 740 άρτους bread loaves 3588 της of the 4286 προθέσεως place setting 2068 έφαγεν he ate, 3739 ους which 3756-1832 ουκ έξεστι is not allowed 2068 φαγείν to eat, 1508 ει μη unless 3588 τοις to the 2409 ιερεύσι priests; 2532 και and 1325 έδωκε he gave 2532 και even 3588 τοις to the ones 4862 συν [2with 1473 αυτώ 3him 1510.6 ούσι 1being Commentary At Mark 2:26 most translations have Jesus saying that David went into the house of God and ate the showbread “when Abiathar was high priest.” Since Abiathar’s father, Ahimelech, was the high priest when that event took place, such translation would result in a historical error. It is noteworthy that a number of early manuscripts omit the above phrase, and it is not found in the corresponding passages at Matthew 12:4 and Luke 6:4. However, a similar Greek structure occurs at Mark 12:26 and Luke 20:37, and here many translations use the phrase “in the passage about.” (RS; AT; JB) So, it appears that Mark 2:26 properly allows for the translation given in the New World Translation, which reads: “How he entered into the house of God, in the account about Abiathar the chief priest.” Since the account of the first exploits of Abiathar begins immediately following the record of David’s entering the house of God to eat the showbread, and since Abiathar did later become Israel’s high priest in David’s reign, this translation maintains the historical accuracy of the record. The Greek word επί means upon or unto which could have an underlying meaning depending on the context (italics mine) ©jw.org Emusan and FxMasterz Janosky Maxindhouse Mightysparrow Kobojunkie Abutwins
|
Re: Abiathar The Priest Or Ahimelek The Priest? Another Biblical Error! by FxMasterz: 6:26pm On May 22 |
Aemmyjah: The word "account" does not appear in any of the Greek texts for the verse to have read "in the account of Abiathar the priest." Where did you bring that word from? |
Re: Abiathar The Priest Or Ahimelek The Priest? Another Biblical Error! by Aemmyjah(m): 6:47pm On May 22 |
FxMasterz: 😂 See as you de reason Which word in Greek do you know? Are you aware that each translated word has a synonym?
|
Re: Abiathar The Priest Or Ahimelek The Priest? Another Biblical Error! by Kobojunkie: 6:49pm On May 22 |
Aemmyjah:Your particular kind of delusion is likely beyond mediation! ![]()
|
Re: Abiathar The Priest Or Ahimelek The Priest? Another Biblical Error! by FxMasterz: 6:53pm On May 22 |
Aemmyjah: So, which word in that verse has the synonym "account" that warranted the insertion into the verse? |
Re: Abiathar The Priest Or Ahimelek The Priest? Another Biblical Error! by Aemmyjah(m): 6:54pm On May 22 |
Kobojunkie: 😂 Go and do further research on the meaning of the Greek Preposition epi When you're done, come back with junkies |
Re: Abiathar The Priest Or Ahimelek The Priest? Another Biblical Error! by Aemmyjah(m): 6:57pm On May 22 |
FxMasterz: Check the Greek manuscripts
|
Re: Abiathar The Priest Or Ahimelek The Priest? Another Biblical Error! by Kobojunkie: 7:01pm On May 22 |
Aemmyjah:The blindness is surely strong with this one! ![]()
|
Re: Abiathar The Priest Or Ahimelek The Priest? Another Biblical Error! by Aemmyjah(m): 7:01pm On May 22 |
FxMasterz: ἐπὶ (epi) Preposition Strong's 1909: On, to, against, on the basis of, at, etc
|
Re: Abiathar The Priest Or Ahimelek The Priest? Another Biblical Error! by Aemmyjah(m): 7:02pm On May 22 |
Aemmyjah: Kobojunkie Have you done the assignment I asked you to do? |
Re: Abiathar The Priest Or Ahimelek The Priest? Another Biblical Error! by FxMasterz: 7:26pm On May 22 |
Aemmyjah: But there's nothing called 'The Account of Abiathar the Priest". What we have is the account of David. There's no particular story line or sequence that was dedicated to Abiathar the priest. How does the word "In the Account of Abiathar the priest" fit in? |
Re: Abiathar The Priest Or Ahimelek The Priest? Another Biblical Error! by Aemmyjah(m): 7:47pm On May 22 |
FxMasterz: According to the NKJV, NIV, Amplified , American standard and others, is there anything like the account or passage of of the thornbush? Some use story, some use account, some use passage or record. It could be written or like a story. You can believe a story or testimony of an event on account of your daughter. Abiathar was a loyal companion of David almost his life and may have given eyewitness account of David Is there anything like account of the thornbush? |
Re: Abiathar The Priest Or Ahimelek The Priest? Another Biblical Error! by FxMasterz: 7:57pm On May 22 |
Aemmyjah: Yes, the story of the burning bush fits in well. There's such an account. A unique and entirely isolated experience shared by Moses. But there's no such thing as "The account of Abiathar the priest." When you look into the storyline of David, you'll discover that both Abiathar and Zadok were mostly mentioned together, even up till the time when Solomon removed him from the priesthood. If the passage had read 'In the account of Zadok and Abiathar the priests', then, we might still consider it more slightly but even that does not look fitting enough. We need to locate a unique storyline or flow of events where Abiathar featured most prominently to be able to have such a statement as "The account of Abiathar the priest." The burning bush story was a standalone story that rightly fits the sentence "The account of the burning bush." |
Re: Abiathar The Priest Or Ahimelek The Priest? Another Biblical Error! by AbuTwins: 8:06pm On May 22 |
FxMasterz:This is simple physics experiment in the transmission of light! ![]() The eyes just interpret the wavelength transmitted. The Bible is not the word of God! It is just letters and documents written to people or some people! You said it yourself, it was never meant to be a collated religious book! Now you are capping! Yes you said it. If they copied from Mark, give me evidence that they both had at least a copy each of Mark's book.Why accuse me of what I didn't say before! Not necessary. TenQ and Advocatejare have created threads about it already. I only need to go push them up.Okay Keep deceiving yourself, you liar! You're the same as Antichristian.Okay then! We hope Antichristian will come back and prove you as the liar! The letters are not the source of the Spirit. They're just vehicles for the message. The message, when mixed with faith produces revelation. Then, revelation releases the Spirit.The Bible contains errors! And whatever is error filled can only be demonic as God is not the author of confusion and falsehood! Faith in error! Error-filled Message! |
Re: Abiathar The Priest Or Ahimelek The Priest? Another Biblical Error! by AbuTwins: 8:12pm On May 22 |
Aemmyjah: You're still capping! Is there any old testament verse relating Abiathar with David and consecrated bread? That Mark statement is simply a blunder! |
Re: Abiathar The Priest Or Ahimelek The Priest? Another Biblical Error! by Aemmyjah(m): 8:15pm On May 22 |
FxMasterz: The Bible makes references to people, books, statements records stories that you cannot find elsewhere. According to the account of Abiathar could mean Jesus was quoting something that Abiathar must have said that happened to David. Remember that he was the only surviving eyewitness when David came to ask for bread. So he may have reported it and we have it in our Bibles today. So it's not unreasonable to allude to the account of Abiathar cos the story of that event may have originally been from him which was passed on and penned down by someone else. If you want to believe that Mark 2:26 was an error, it's your own problem To me, the Bible is accurate and truth without any error cos Jehovah, the God of truth is the Author of the Bible |
Re: Abiathar The Priest Or Ahimelek The Priest? Another Biblical Error! by Emusan(m): 8:17pm On May 22 |
You that lack basic understanding of English went to do copy and paste. Aemmyjah: But the two translations you provided are still saying the same thing. Even though, the English rendition seems to be clever by half. Since Abiathar’s father, Ahimelech, was the high priest when that event took place, such translation would result in a historical error. If my memory serves me correctly, the OP is about why Abiathar even features in the narration when his father was the High Priest. So I don't see how this address that and by going with NWT this phrase "How, in the account about A·biʹa·thar the chief priest"... is totally disconnected from the rest of the text. On what account about Abiathar? Why is the name feature at all? Since the account of the first exploits of Abiathar begins immediately following the record of David’s entering the house of God to eat the showbread, and since Abiathar did later become Israel’s high priest in David’s reign, this translation maintains the historical accuracy of the record. Which historical accuracy and how does this address OP point? |
Re: Abiathar The Priest Or Ahimelek The Priest? Another Biblical Error! by Aemmyjah(m): 8:18pm On May 22 |
AbuTwins: Abiathar is the only surviving eyewitness of that account cos Saul killed everyone in the priest city. Abiathar was serving as a priest too cos he brought the ephod to David... |
Re: Abiathar The Priest Or Ahimelek The Priest? Another Biblical Error! by Aemmyjah(m): 8:20pm On May 22 |
Emusan: So cowardly to challenge the OP but he delights to tackle me out of envy OP was pointing a seeming contradiction which a coward like you cannot say anything even when your friend say Mark committed an error. |
Re: Abiathar The Priest Or Ahimelek The Priest? Another Biblical Error! by Aemmyjah(m): 8:21pm On May 22 |
AbuTwins: The book of abrogation is the error Does not even know common science where the reproductive fluid comes from |
Re: Abiathar The Priest Or Ahimelek The Priest? Another Biblical Error! by Emusan(m): 8:31pm On May 22 |
Aemmyjah: You invited me to this thread OP didn't and I've told you that I already once told the OP to search for 101 Contradictions in the Bible. Remember both you and OP are just doing copy and paste. Reason why you can't identify those silent point I raised. Lastly, someone already addressed the OP which I consider plus on the subject matter, if OP didn't satisfy with that, do you think your mumbo jumbo will do? OP was pointing a seeming contradiction which a coward like you cannot say anything even when your friend say Mark committed an error. He is not the first and he won't be the last. I'm very sure, he is copying from one of the 101 contradictions already raised in the past. Since you have addressed the OP now with your copy and paste, let's see how he will agree with you. |
Re: Abiathar The Priest Or Ahimelek The Priest? Another Biblical Error! by Aemmyjah(m): 8:32pm On May 22 |
Emusan: Referring him to 101 contradictions is an intelligent way to educate the OP and defend your Bible shey? |
Re: Abiathar The Priest Or Ahimelek The Priest? Another Biblical Error! by AbuTwins: 8:38pm On May 22 |
Aemmyjah: Which kind Jehovah witness diversion be this na? |
Re: Abiathar The Priest Or Ahimelek The Priest? Another Biblical Error! by Emusan(m): 8:39pm On May 22 |
Aemmyjah: This was the OP point: Jesus was portrayed to have made a mistake mentioning Abiathar the Priest instead of Ahimelek the Priest who happens to be the father of the former! You can see the point is centred on why ABIATHAR NAME and not his father? So, have you addressed that? In other to elevate NWT above other, you turn to translation of others and praise NWT for correct translation. It's evident that the first person who responded to the OP did a great Job than your copy and paste. |
Re: Abiathar The Priest Or Ahimelek The Priest? Another Biblical Error! by AbuTwins: 8:39pm On May 22 |
Aemmyjah: So where is Jesus quoting from? |
Re: Abiathar The Priest Or Ahimelek The Priest? Another Biblical Error! by Aemmyjah(m): 8:40pm On May 22 |
AbuTwins: Should I list contradictions of the Quran too Quran that does not know common science |
Re: Abiathar The Priest Or Ahimelek The Priest? Another Biblical Error! by Emusan(m): 8:42pm On May 22 |
Aemmyjah: No! Your lectures refer you to Google. If he had yielded to my advice you won't see him creating multiple thread any contradiction in the Bible. Or you think this is the only thread created about contradiction in the Bible by him? |
Re: Abiathar The Priest Or Ahimelek The Priest? Another Biblical Error! by Aemmyjah(m): 8:42pm On May 22 |
Emusan: Join your friends that say Mark committed an error ![]() |
Re: Abiathar The Priest Or Ahimelek The Priest? Another Biblical Error! by Emusan(m): 8:43pm On May 22 |
Aemmyjah: And this is the way to go, I thought your reply will make him agree with you. |
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (Reply)
The Real Truth Behind Christianity And Islam / Christmas Carol Lyrics.2014 / Where Was Daniel When Shadrach, Meshach And Abednego were Thrown Into Fire?
(Go Up)
Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 101 |