The problem is, you don’t simply call them “priests”, while maintaining their proper role as described in the NT. You also give them the duties and privileges of a priestly class, even explicitly comparing them to the OT temple priests, which is contrary to the NT.
On the other hand, there is a group of people in the church that is described as a priesthood similar to the OT priests, and it is not the presbyters:
“But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:” 1 Peter 2:9
The word for priesthood used there is “hieratuma”, from the same Greek root “heiros” used to denote sacred priesthoods like the OT temple priests. It is applied in the NT to all members of the church, not to one special group, as the modern Catholic church does.
The actual problem is trying to discern the proper role of presbyter solely from the Bible. The New Testament is not an organizing manual for the church. The local churches were organized prior to its writing. The epistles in particular were written to address specific issues in the local churches. There were not intended to be a comprehensive instruction on the order of worship. Indeed, it is clear that the common worship of the community was very important to the early church. That there is not a detailed instruction in the Bible of how to carry this out shows the error of sola scripture.
Your reference to the "royal priesthood" in 1 Peter, as well as similar language in Revelation, shows that there is an ongoing priesthood (here I use the term for that of hiereus, not presbuteros) and thus an ongoing sacrifice. The relationship between the common priesthood of the baptized and that of the ordained ministers is not indicated in the Bible. Reference to the writings of the early Church Fathers shows what the early Christians actually believed rather than trying to postulate back the ideas of the 16th century Protestant reformers.