Did he or didn't he?

[Athetotheist]

And when Saul enquired of the Lord, the Lord answered him not, neither by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets. Then said Saul unto his servants, Seek me a woman that hath a familiar spirit, that I may go to her, and enquire of her.
(1 Samuel 28:6-7)

So Saul died for his transgression which he committed against the Lord, even against the word of the Lord, which he kept not, and also for asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, to enquire of it; and enquired not of the Lord
(1Chronicles 10:13-14)

How exactly are these to be reconciled?

[RBD]

Samuel says that Saul enquired. The chronicler says that he did not.

Correct. The record says that Saul enquired, and the record says that he did not.

The record also says that God so loves the world, and the record says not to love the world.

For anyone who only cares for the recorded words, and not the recorded context, there's two recorded contradictions. I'm sure there are more.

The record says that Saul enquired of the LORD, and was not answered, because the record also says that an evil person's prayer is not heard by the LORD, nor will He be enquired of them.

Eze 20:3
Son of man, speak unto the elders of Israel, and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Are ye come to enquire of me? As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I will not be enquired of by you.

A grammatical with contextual contradiction is simple: The record saying David enquired of the LORD, and the LORD answered. And the record saying David enquired not of the LORD, which the record never says of righteous David, but does with evil Saul.

Any Book's integrity is proven by objective grammatical with contextual consistency. This standard is upheld by any serious and honest reader of a book of doctrine, as well as court testimony.

The dishonest attorney always seeks to trip up the witness with their words alone, to turn them against the honest witness.

Mar 12:13
And they send unto him certain of the Pharisees and of the Herodians, to catch him in his words.


That's why cross-examination must set the record straight by the context of words, not just the words without context.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #16]

Earlier I posted several exerpts from posts of yours. Here's another from post #270 in this exchange's original thread
viewtopic.php?t=42191

with my bolding again:

"I appreciate the compliment, but the challenge is strictly about any grammatical contradiction in the Bible, where any words are in error, or contradict one another. That would prove Bible errancy"

Correct again. In all previous cases, you sought by personal interpretation to force a grammatical contradiction, that was not there. And so the context of the stand was with you never showing a grammatical contradiction.

Grammatical contradiction must be with context, to prove a Book's inconsistency.

If you objectively care for context of a Book, you also could have seen for yourself the contextual answer from the Book itself.

Even as Saul's enquiry was not answered due to context of the heart, so this superficial accusation is not confirmed due to context of the Book.

So it is throughout the Book, including with repentance:

Jerem 3:10
And yet for all this her treacherous sister Judah hath not turned unto me with her whole heart, but feignedly, saith the LORD.

Did Judah repent? Yes and no. Yes they did with lips, no they did not with heart...So it is with superficial accusations against words without context.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #16]

Earlier I posted several exerpts from posts of yours. Here's another from post #270 in this exchange's original thread
viewtopic.php?t=42191

with my bolding again:

"I appreciate the compliment, but the challenge is strictly about any grammatical contradiction in the Bible, where any words are in error, or contradict one another. That would prove Bible errancy"

Correct again. In all previous cases, you sought by personal interpretation to force a grammatical contradiction, that was not there. And so the context of the stand was with you never showing a grammatical contradiction.

Grammatical contradiction must be with context, to prove a Book's inconsistency.

If you objectively care for context of a Book, you also could have seen for yourself the contextual answer from the Book itself.

Even as Saul's enquiry was not answered due to context of the heart, so this superficial accusation is not confirmed due to context of the Book.

So it is throughout the Book, including with repentance:

Jerem 3:10
And yet for all this her treacherous sister Judah hath not turned unto me with her whole heart, but feignedly, saith the LORD.

Did Judah repent? Yes and no. Yes they did with lips, no they did not with heart...So it is with superficial accusations against words without context.

[RBD]

Conclusion:

By context of Bible teaching, the words that do not match between Saul enquiring, and Saul not enquiring, is not a Bible contradiction, but rather a confirming record of Bible doctrine: Enquiring, prayer, repentance, honoring with lips alone, is not enquiring, prayer, repentance, honoring with heart.

He did, and he didn't...

If the Bible recorded Saul enquired of the Lord, but was not answered, and then records Saul enquired of the Lord, and the LORD killed him. Then there would be a contradiction of Bible teaching, as well as the LORDs promise to them that seek Him:

2Ch 7:14
If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

[Athetotheist]

Conclusion:

By context of Bible teaching, the words that do not match between Saul enquiring, and Saul not enquiring, is not a Bible contradiction, but rather a confirming record of Bible doctrine: Enquiring, prayer, repentance, honoring with lips alone, is not enquiring, prayer, repentance, honoring with heart.

He did, and he didn't...

If the Bible recorded Saul enquired of the Lord, but was not answered, and then records Saul enquired of the Lord, and the LORD killed him. Then there would be a contradiction of Bible teaching, as well as the LORDs promise to them that seek Him:

2Ch 7:14
If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

I seem to have missed these last few posts, but it hardly matters since I already addressed the issues. In Samuel, Saul enquires by several recognized methods and gets no answer; there's nothing about him not asking sincerely. If insincerity is the problem with Saul, the text should say so where it refers to him just as it does where people are being insincere. Since it doesn't, we're not being told that he was being insincere.

Then the Chronicler tells us straight-up that Saul didn't do what he did do, and that he was put to death for not doing it and for doing what he might not have done if he had gotten an answer.

[RBD]

there's nothing about him not asking sincerely.

Not to someone that doesn't care about contextual teaching of the Book, but only about noncontextual gotcha words.

Jhn 3:16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

1Jo 2:15
Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

According to your superficial gotcha, the Bible is contradicting itself by God loving the world, and then telling His people not to love the world.

If insincerity is the problem with Saul, the text should say so where it refers to him just as it does where people are being insincere.

The text does show insincerity by doctrine of God seeing and judging the hearts, not just the lips and words.

But that's only for people studying a Book in order to learn the teaching, not just to find fault with the words.

Mar 12:13
And they send unto him certain of the Pharisees and of the Herodians, to catch him in his words.

Luk 11:54
Laying wait for him, and seeking to catch something out of his mouth, that they might accuse him.

Psa 35:8
Let destruction come upon him at unawares; and let his net that he hath hid catch himself: into that very destruction let him fall.

You're only purpose and job is to find Bible self-contradictions. Not just playing fault with words from one part of the Book to another without context. Unless you have something of substance to offer, then this surface game is over. Adios.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #26]

If insincerity is the problem with Saul, the text should say so where it refers to him just as it does where people are being insincere.

The text does show insincerity by doctrine of God seeing and judging the hearts, not just the lips and words.

But that's only for people studying a Book in order to learn the teaching, not just to find fault with the words.

Mar 12:13
And they send unto him certain of the Pharisees and of the Herodians, to catch him in his words.

Luk 11:54
Laying wait for him, and seeking to catch something out of his mouth, that they might accuse him.

Psa 35:8
Let destruction come upon him at unawares; and let his net that he hath hid catch himself: into that very destruction let him fall.

Tossing verses in willy-nilly doesn't provide context.

You're only purpose and job is to find Bible self-contradictions.

Ad Hominem.

Not just playing fault with words from one part of the Book to another without context.

It seems to me that trying to connect words from one part to another without context is what you're doing.

[OneJack]

And when Saul enquired of the Lord, the Lord answered him not, neither by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets. Then said Saul unto his servants, Seek me a woman that hath a familiar spirit, that I may go to her, and enquire of her.
(1 Samuel 28:6-7)

So Saul died for his transgression which he committed against the Lord, even against the word of the Lord, which he kept not, and also for asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, to enquire of it; and enquired not of the Lord
(1Chronicles 10:13-14)

How exactly are these to be reconciled?

Saul put his last hope in the woman with a familiar spirit, instead of the Lord alone.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to OneJack in post #28]

Saul put his last hope in the woman with a familiar spirit, instead of the Lord alone.

Saul puts his hope in Jehovah first and gets nothing. He goes to the Wise Woman out of desperation.

[OneJack]

[Replying to OneJack in post #28]

Saul put his last hope in the woman with a familiar spirit, instead of the Lord alone.

Saul puts his hope in Jehovah first and gets nothing. He goes to the Wise Woman out of desperation.

He got nothing when he departed from the Lord, and worse, he put his last hope in that woman with a familiar spirit.