I’ve only recently begun to be aware of discrepancies in scripture, especially when it comes to certain things Jesus and Paul say in the NT.

But I also believe that all discrepancies or apparent contradictions are in the bible for specific reasons. Unlike some of your posters I can never buy into the theory that Jesus EVER made an error (or ever will) because He IS THE WORD. If the word He speaks is wrong then He is not Who He says He is and we’re all in trouble. Also how are we to believe in a perfect God who commits errors of speech, how can He then be perfect? That’s why I disagree with any possibility of point #2 of posting #7 above being fact.

Also, point #3 of posting #7 is highly suspect since although Mark may have penned the word He wrote, just like Isiaiah before him and Jeremiah, David’s Psalms, Solomon’s Proverbs, etc. Mark’s writings are presented to the world as THE WORD OF GOD/HOLY BIBLE -penned by men, yes, but inspired by the Holy Spirit. Is this not so?

Jesus said in Mt 5:18 that “Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” Therefore I believe He is more than aware of every single little nuance or variation in every line of every verse of every version of every translation in every language and dialect of His holy word. Just as He can number the hairs on your head right now (even after you’ve brushed 13 of them out this morning) and I believe do this with every living man, woman and child on this earth if He wants, He is more than able to protect His word so that it says exactly what He wants it to say and accomplish that for which it was written to do.

In my mind I have to think as He thinks. Many of us commit the error of trying to twist His way of thinking (and writing) to the way we like to think, but that’s just not profitable for us. And I believe the more (intellectually) educated we are the more the tendency to fall into this mode of thinking is.

I am fully persuaded that scripture is given to man with one primary purpose – to KNOW GOD PERSONALLY and BE TRANSFORMED from Adam to Christ. This is the greatest honor we are allowed to give to our loving God because in the process of being transformed there is the death of self, adoption of His nature (or perfect fruit) which is what glorifies Him more than any praise service or dissertation of His word, the end result being the kingdom of heaven on earth. All else is secondary.

One day I think I was talking out my thoughts and I heard myself saying that discrepancies, or apparent contradictions in scripture are like burning bushes – they cause us to “turn aside and and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt.” -Ex 3:33 It’s amazing how He will sometimes teach us right from our very own mouths or as we put pen to paper, but the more I thought about this the more it made sense.

The burning bush that moses saw in the desert was a contradiction – it burned with flames but was not consumed. And what was the effect of this? It caused Moses to “turn aside and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt.” Then God spoke to Him.

So when I see an apparent contradiction (notice I use the word “apparent”) in scripture I get excited because I believe the LORD has planted it there for a purpose – that of causing one of His own little ones to “turn aside and see this great sight, why there is an apparent contradiction in His word.” Of course we all know what followed, Moses heard the voice of the LORD and received instructions that altered the rest of the course of his life. And so it is with us as we investigate these “burning bushes” it is highly probable the LORD will speak to some of us and change our thinking with new revelation that will alter the future course of our lives and bring us closer to Him.

If this is so then this web site could be a fountain of tremendous revelation and life changing truth as we share what the LORD reveals to us.

1. He was the only priest that survived Saul’s massacre.

2. He had the ephod.

None of this, of course, proves that Abiathar was high priest during the bread incident. (Of course, it doesn’t disprove that either.) Perhaps then, the defense slips back to the claim that Jesus identifies him as High Priest, but is only saying that the bread incident occurred in the time of Abiathar.

Isn’t it possible that David entered the temple when Abiathar was HIGH priest, but that the priest that served him was not the high priest, but another priest, Ahimilech, who was also the father of the high priest?

You might expect the older priest to have the higher rank. But it is not always so. Caiaphas was high priest when Jesus was crucified, but his father-in-law Annas was also alive at the time. Annas had himself been high priest in the past but continued to be priest after he stepped down from the high priesthood.

It is conceivable that Ahimilech was also once the high priest, but had stepped down (though that is not necessary at all). In any event the event took place while Ahimilech was a priest and his son, Abiathar, was high priest.

Obviously, there may be supporting passages regarding what terms in office Ahimilech and Abiathar held that undercut this harmonization. But nothing in these two passages is contradictory in the least.

Here is an analogy.

I might use the phrase “during Reagan’s time”. Because of his role as President, that would usually be taken to mean “during Reagan’s Presidency”. And there is nothing wrong with that. Suppose that I say “During Reagan’s time, Iran took American citizens hostage.” I’m _technically_ correct…Reagan was alive when the hostages were taken. But in most cases, we would really have expected me to say “During Carter’s time…”.

However, there are some cases where I could use the phrase “during Reagan’s time” and it would not mean “during Reagan’s presidency” and everyone would know that. Were I to say “During Reagan’s time the Soviet Union collapsed”, no one would feel the need to correct me. This is so, even though the Soviet Union collapsed during Bush 41′s presidency.

Why?

Reagan is seen as the most central figure in that collapse. Indeed, Reagan is so tightly connected to the Soviet Union’s collapse that were I to say “During Bush’s time, the Soviet Union collapsed”, some people might feel the need to correct me by saying something like “Well, during Bush’s _presidency_ it collapsed”.

Abiathar, not Ahimilech, is seen as David’s major priestly ally. It makes sense for Jesus to say that the bread incident occurred during his time. For all we know, it might have sounded strange to Jesus’ first century hearers for him to say anything else.

1. Jesus deliberately said Abiathar even knowing Ahimelech was the priest.
2. Jesus mistakenly said Abiathar.
3. Mark wrongly recorded Jesus as saying Abiathar.

As I’ve indicated, I feel 1 is unlikely. I wouldn’t really want to choose between the otiher two, though I would personally lean towards 3.

My question is whether 1 Samuel shows that Jesus was wrong when he said “epi Abiathar”; I’m asking which priest was involved.

It sounds like your question is whether 1 Samuel shows that Mark is wrong when he says that Jesus said “epi Abiathar”; you’re asking which priest Jesus said was involved.

I’ll have a think about which is the better question to ask; I can see a case for each.

Imagine that you know the Old Testament by heart, but you know nothing of the New Testament. If I told you that Jesus mentioned the bread incident, and that while doing so he also mentioned a high priest, you would surely expect (with about 99% confidence) that it would be Ahimelech.

(That is, assuming he really is infallible in his own right.)