Does the Bible contradict itself?

[Difflugia]

there cannot be any contradiction

And yet there are.

You need to prove that.

OK. At most two of the following three can be true:

• The Bible is inerrant.
• Ecclesiastes 9:25—"For the living know that they shall die, but the dead know nothing. They also have no more reward, because the memory of them is forgotten."
• 1 Samuel 28:15—"And Samuel said to Saul, 'Why have you disturbed me, to bring me up?'"

The common Witness apologetic tack is to claim that the biblical narrator is wrong and it's not really Samuel that "said" this thing to Saul. In fact, the NWT puts scare quotes around Samuel's name wherever we see it in the story:



This kind of apologetic trick is fine if we're allowed to believe that the biblical narrator is wrong, but this is TD&D, where the entire Bible must be treated as authoritative. With that in mind, here's the question for debate:

Can Ecclesiastes 9 and 1 Samuel 28 be harmonized if both must be inerrant and authoritative? Or do they contradict such that one or the other must be changed?

[Difflugia]

The writer anticipates that Jewish readers will interpret the story through the lens of their religious knowledge.

This becomes a circular argument. If the "religious knowledge" of readers is, as you assert, then they were just in the same position you're claiming we are now: their "knowledge" is that the dead can't communicate with the living, but the Bible says that Samuel talked to Saul. Even if we assume that the anticipated audience of 1 Samuel had the same ideas about life, death, and inerrancy that you do, you still haven't given us a reason for why 1 Samuel 28 is the story that is subordinate and needs to be changed or why that change nonetheless preserves inerrancy.

For someone from the modern era to grasp the story's full significance, understanding its context is essential. This is the crux of the matter that you are avoiding, which might cause discomfort when I highlight it.

I'm not "avoiding" this "crux" at all! The context is a series of stories showing David's righteousness over Saul's lack of piety and obedience. Saul's attempt to subvert God's displeasure by summoning spirits and having it spectacularly backfire fits that context far better than the idea that the necromancer was just lying to him. In fact, if the necromancer was lying to him, then this story is meaningless, particularly in context. One of the points here is that God's will cannot be subverted and when Saul tries to divine the future by summoning a spirit, he gets no less than Samuel, who reiterates God's displeasure and prophesies Saul's death. The point of Samuel is that the audience now knows for sure that the passing of the crown to David is God's will and immutable.

On the other hand, the "crux of the matter that you are avoiding" is that the biblical narrator that you have told me is a prophet and inspired, said that the speaker is Samuel. If that's true, then changing the words to mean something else is no less than denying the Word of God.

This will be my final comment here,

Mind the door.

[Difflugia]

Your arguments don't stand up.

Stand up to what? Linguistic standards for biblical Hebrew? Witness theology? Your strident, yet unsupported assertions?

The Bible also tells us that trees clap their hands. So we are expected to believe that, because the Bible says that, that it is literal?

This is the same argument that you made about Revelation: since you can pick a verse that is metaphor or allegory, any verse in the Bible means whatever you want it to. If this is anything more than an apologetic dodge, then you'll have to justify why the verses in 1 Samuel show enough literary similarity to trees clapping their hands. Otherwise, it's just a non sequitur.

There is more to understanding the Bible than believing that it is all literal.

Clearly.

One must use their powers of reason as well as comparing all Bible texts.

Powers of reason and appeals to dogma are rarely the same thing.

We know that Ecclesiastes 9:5 says that the dead know nothing. Therefore when we encounter Saul asking of a witch to "bring up" Samuel, we know that it couldn't be Samuel, taking into consideration the Bible teaching that the dead are not conscious.

And yet if the author of 1 Samuel 28 is inspired and the text is inerrant, we know that it must be Samuel, hence the contradiction.

Parentheses around Samuel are thus reasonable.

And now it's your turn to use your own powers of reason and compare Bible texts. The translators adding scare quotes here is to signal that the author means something completely different than what the actual word or phrase would normally mean. It's been repeatedly noted, however, that there's no way to indicate this in the Hebrew text. That means that we have to believe that Hebrew authors sometimes meant something completely different than what they wrote, but with absolutely no visual or literary indicator that they have done so.

First, I defy you to present some sort of rule to define how any audience, ancient or modern, would be able to tell when an author has done that. So far, the only criterion that I've been given is that the text in question conflicts with Witness theology, which is also being projected onto ancient readers.

Second, if this is accepted as a valid exegetical method, then how can anyone know what is meant by anything in the Old Testament? If any author might have written any passage ironically, but left no clue whatsoever that he has done so, how can one claim that any given story or verse even probably means what it says? I feel confident in saying that very few authors would write like that and no competent ones would.

The same with Moses and Elijah. They were SEEN in a vision, not literally. Yes, they were seen, but not in any other reality than that it was a vision.

Luke's gospel (9:30) says this about the appearance of Moses and Elijah:

And behold, there spoke with him two men, who were Moses and Elijah, who appeared in glory, and spoke of his death, which he was about to accomplish in Jerusalem.

We're in the same situation as we are with 1 Samuel: the narrator is telling us that they were Moses and Elijah. Without changing the text, they weren't a vision or a figment of the imagination. Mark and Matthew ambiguously said that they "appeared," but Luke says no such thing. Luke's narrator knows that they were Moses and Elijah and if the text is inerrant, so should we.

So far, your only evidence to the contrary is your assertion, which is based on the same theological doctrine that you're relying on to change the text of 1 Samuel 28. You've now changed the meaning of two texts to their exact opposites, but still claim that the Bible is inerrant. If your analysis is correct, how should we distinguish between a fictional vision and an appearance that is somehow real, even if spiritual? The book of Acts repeatedly uses forms of the same verb during Jesus' appearances. Which of those appearances were fictional? How can we know?

The parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus was explained in a previous post. It is all metaphor. None of it is literal.

I also explained in a previous post why your claim is a non sequitur, so your previous post buys you exactly nothing. If you have an argument to make, make it.

All of the other metaphorical, nonliteral elements of the other parables are nonetheless real things. Sheep, tares, and talents of silver are all real things. If dead men aren't conscious in the afterlife, then you'll need some sort of justification for why this parable is different than any other parable. In fact that seems like a common theme: whenever a conscious afterlife is involved, the texts in question follow completely different rules than any other similar texts anywhere else in the Bible. It's almost like you have a special reason for pleading that these inerrant texts don't mean what they say.

So, just because something is stated in the Scriptures it does not necessarily mean that it is to be taken literally. The Holy Spirit helps us to determine the meaning. (Do the mountains and hills literally cry out in joy? Do the locusts in Revelation actually have hair like women's hair and teeth like a lion, wearing crowns of gold?) (Chapter 9.) It is important to discern what is literal and what is not.

Given the context, that word "discern" is doing a lot of heavy lifting. Apparently, since there are verses somewhere in the Bible that have a metaphorical meaning, any verse anywhere can mean anything you want. If that's not what you're saying, then what's your method for discerning which verses are inerrant and which ones aren't?

All Scriptures harmonize together.

Is this a propositional statement or a declarative one? If the former, it's obviously not true. If the latter, then the doctrine of inerrancy is utterly meaningless. Pick your poison.

[Difflugia]

The Greek term ὅραμα describe a scene or image presented to a person's mind that doesn't exactly align with reality.

The subtle difference is that, at least in the New Testament, ὅραμα doesn't mean something that isn't real, but something that isn't physical. All of the other uses in the New Testament are of real things, but also immaterial things, like spirits.

Matthew's Jesus calls the appearance of the men a vision, but Luke says that they were really there. If both must be true together, then the men were really there as spirits.

The definition by LN. says "an event in which something appears vividly and credibly to the mind, although not actually present".

First, the LN gloss is hardly a nuanced definition. Second, accepting even this definition doesn't buy you what you think it does. In all of the other uses of ὅραμα, particularly where it involves someone apparently speaking, that person is real and apparently speaking in real time, even if we posit that the person isn't "actually present." Others mentioned in the New Testament as part of an ὅραμα are angels, Jesus, God, and "a certain man of Macedonia" (Acts 16:9). In each case, we're to understand that the speaker, whether present or not, is actually consciously speaking to the recipient of the ὅραμα.

The Bible contains numerous examples of such visions.

Yep. And in none of them is the speaker presented as other than genuinely speaking, whether or not the person is spiritual.

PS: I mentioned that I wouldn't engage in this topic anymore, but I feel the need to provide a necessary clarification without any intent to argue.

Feel free to keep clarifying if you're so moved.

[1213]

The parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus was not literal.

Sorry, I have no Biblical reason to think it is not meant to be taken literally.

Where does the comma go?? There is no punctuation in Greek, so the comma could be placed anywhere.

Why do you think it was put in the place where it is? I think it is exactly where it should be.

What does the rest of the Bible say about death and where Jesus was for the next few weeks? Jesus wouldn't be anywhere when he died except in his grave. Therefore he couldn't be with the thief in Paradise right after his death....

I believe when people die, they go either to Hades or to paradise, to wait the final judgment. And after the final judgment people go to eternal life, or second death.

...Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them. They were judged, each one according to his works. Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. If anyone was not found written in the book of life, he was cast into the lake of fire.
Rev. 20:12-15

[John17_3]

@Difflugia how do you know what to believe, between two contradictions, since you cannot believe both?

Why not? Even from the standpoint of the Bible being authoritative, there's no combination of Scripture that says that two authors can't have contradictory views about some things or that narrative details that are allegorically true must also be historically true.

The truth in Ecclesiastes is that life is short and shouldn't be wasted. The truth in 1 Samuel is that Saul was no longer God's chosen king and God had forsaken him for David. We know this because the very prophet that anointed Saul told us so.

It's the same as the two deaths of Judas. The truth of Matthew's Judas is that his act of betrayal led to such remorse that he was driven to a horrible suicide. The truth of Luke's Judas in Acts is that God ultimately punishes such betrayal, even as He uses the betrayal to accomplish His own ends. When you get caught up in trying to make the details fit an unbiblical idea of inerrancy, then you end up distracted by how and when ropes break or what exactly "facedown" means.

What I think is funny and particularly apropos to the way you asked your question is that it seems to me that we have a sort of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle with inerrancy. In order to preserve inerrancy, we have to choose between any particular scripture being true and knowing what it means, but we can't have both. Any two scriptures can be harmonized, but in doing so, we might have to sacrifice what one or both of those scriptures mean. If we're not worried about them harmonizing together and being true in a particularly narrow way, we're free to let each author tell us what they mean. As long as we're saddled with inerrancy, though, we can't have both.

You have some interesting ideas. No doubt, you believe them and think that you understand the Bible very well.
Since the Bible cannot be used in this case, to correct any wrong conclusions, discussing the Bible would not lead to anything that can be of any benefit to us. So, I'll have to leave you to it, and respect that. Regards.

[Difflugia]

You have some interesting ideas. No doubt, you believe them and think that you understand the Bible very well.

No doubt.

Since the Bible cannot be used in this case, to correct any wrong conclusions, discussing the Bible would not lead to anything that can be of any benefit to us.

Of course it can and that's exactly what we're doing. Since what the Bible says doesn't match your notion of inerrancy, one of those has to give. If we use the Bible to correct the wrong conclusion, then it seems that inerrancy is the wrong conclusion. If we decide instead to change the meaning of the text in order to support inerrancy, then we're flouting that very inerrancy by changing the Bible.

So, I'll have to leave you to it, and respect that. Regards.

Thanks. You too.

[William]

[Replying to Bible_Student in post #34]

While I understand your perspective on the Bible's divine inspiration, there are a few points worth considering. First, the belief that the Bible is inerrant because it is inspired by God rests on circular reasoning: the Bible claims to be inspired by God, and thus it must be true. This requires faith in the Bible itself, but not everyone shares that assumption. Without that faith, apparent contradictions in the text cannot simply be dismissed.

Moreover, if God chose to inspire humans through their subjective experiences, it’s possible that the human authors, influenced by their culture, language, and personal perspectives, may have introduced variations or contradictions into their writings. Expecting complete consistency might overlook the fact that human involvement in the writing process brings in human limitations.

Finally, it's worth noting that during the formation of the biblical canon, certain texts were excluded by early councils. This raises the question: What criteria did they use to determine whether something was inspired? Were these decisions purely divinely guided, or were they influenced by human and political factors?

Even Jesus, in his teachings, emphasized faith in God and living according to the spirit of love and mercy, rather than rigid adherence to scripture. Perhaps the focus should be more on the core values that Jesus taught, rather than expecting a human-written text to be entirely free from contradictions.

____________

While I understand the Christian claim that Jesus' use of scripture during his temptation in the desert demonstrates that even he defers to scripture, there are some important considerations to explore.

First, it’s worth noting that the temptation experience might have been influenced by physical factors like fasting, isolation, and exhaustion. In psychology, such conditions can lead to hallucinations, often reflecting what is going on within the individual. This raises the question: Could the temptations be symbolic of Jesus’ internal struggles rather than an external confrontation with the devil? For instance, the offer of bread may represent his hunger, the call to prove his divine status could reflect a desire for recognition, and the temptation to rule the world might symbolize the human craving for power.

Furthermore, the nature of these temptations prompts us to ask whether they were things Jesus, as a human, truly desired. If so, his rejection of them speaks to his decision to prioritize spiritual integrity over material needs, validation, and control. This interpretation could offer a more personal view of Jesus’ experience—one in which he wrestles with human desires and chooses a higher path.

But perhaps the most pressing question is how this story came into circulation. Jesus was alone in the desert, with no witnesses to these events. How, then, did this story become part of the Gospel narrative? Should we assume it began with Jesus telling his disciples about the experience? If so, why don’t the Gospels present it as a first-person account (e.g., "One day, Jesus sat down with his disciples and told them about his time in the desert…")? The absence of such a framing raises questions about the credibility of the story as an external, factual account.

It’s also possible that this story was manufactured or shaped specifically to give the early Church its justification for the doctrine of Biblical Authority, a central tenet that Christians call the "Word of God." By portraying Jesus as using scripture to combat temptation, the narrative reinforces the authority of the scriptures as the ultimate guide for faith and life. This would help explain why Christians place so much credence in the Bible, believing it to be divinely inspired and without error, providing a foundation for the doctrine of Biblical Authority.

Additionally, the contradictions within scripture are often apparent by simply observing Christians of various denominations arguing about differing interpretations. If the Bible were entirely clear and consistent, such widespread and fundamental disagreements would likely not occur. These arguments themselves suggest that interpreting scripture is far from straightforward and that contradictions, or at least conflicting interpretations, are very real issues even among those who believe in the Bible’s divine inspiration.

In light of these points, it seems more likely that the story reflects symbolic truths or internal struggles rather than a straightforward historical event. Additionally, its role in supporting the Church’s emphasis on scripture as the “Word of God” suggests that the narrative could have been constructed with theological intent, giving the Bible its preeminent status within Christian practice.

_______


Based on the Gospels, Jesus didn’t primarily direct people to defer to scripture as the ultimate authority in the way that many Christian traditions do today. While Jesus certainly used scripture, especially when interacting with religious leaders or responding to challenges, his teachings and actions often emphasized direct faith in God and living out God’s will more than strict adherence to written law or scriptural authority.

Here are a few points that support this view:

1. Jesus Emphasized Faith in God and the Spirit of the Law
Throughout his teachings, Jesus called people to place their faith in God directly. His emphasis was often on the spirit of the law rather than its letter. For example, in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7), he challenges rigid interpretations of the law and teaches a deeper, more spiritual understanding.

In Matthew 22:37-40, when asked what the greatest commandment is, Jesus replies: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind" and "Love your neighbor as yourself." He then adds that all the law and prophets depend on these two commandments. This shows that Jesus distilled the essence of scripture into core ethical principles rather than focusing on strict adherence to the text.

2. Critique of Legalism
Jesus frequently criticized the religious leaders of his time, especially the Pharisees, for their legalistic approach to scripture. In passages like Matthew 23:23, he accuses them of focusing on minor legalistic details while neglecting the more important aspects of the law, such as justice, mercy, and faithfulness. This suggests that Jesus was more concerned with how people live out God’s principles rather than how meticulously they follow scripture.

In John 5:39-40, Jesus says to the religious leaders, “You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.” Here, Jesus is saying that while scripture points to God, it’s ultimately a relationship with God through him that matters more than simply knowing or obeying the scriptures.

3. Jesus as the Living Word
Jesus often emphasized his own role as the embodiment of God’s will. In John 14:6, he says, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." This shows that Jesus viewed himself, rather than scripture, as the ultimate way to connect with God.
While scripture was important and useful, Jesus positioned himself as the living Word, and his teachings and example were meant to show how to live in accordance with God’s will in a more direct and personal way.

4. Guidance by the Spirit
Jesus also spoke about the coming of the Holy Spirit as a guide for his followers. In John 14:26, he says that the Holy Spirit will "teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you." This suggests that Jesus anticipated a dynamic, spirit-led understanding of faith and truth, rather than strict reliance on written texts alone.

Conclusion:

It seems that while Jesus certainly respected and used scripture, he didn’t point to it as the ultimate authority for faith or conduct. Instead, he emphasized faith in God, a direct relationship with the divine, and living out the principles of love, justice, and mercy. His focus was on the heart and spiritual intentions of individuals rather than on their adherence to the written word. In this way, Jesus often transcended scripture, using it as a tool but pointing beyond it to a deeper, more direct connection with God.

[Bible_Student]

...
It seems that while Jesus certainly respected and used scripture, he didn’t point to it as the ultimate authority for faith or conduct. Instead, he emphasized faith in God, a direct relationship with the divine, and living out the principles of love, justice, and mercy. His focus was on the heart and spiritual intentions of individuals rather than on their adherence to the written word. In this way, Jesus often transcended scripture, using it as a tool but pointing beyond it to a deeper, more direct connection with God.

Thank you for your analysis, but the inerrancy of the Bible is not the topic under discussion.

The thread's author aims to demonstrate that the Bible contains contradictions by claiming that 1 Samuel 28 depicts the deceased prophet of Jehovah as alive after death. This is based on the mention of his name as the spirit summoned by a fortune teller during a séance for the rebellious King Saul.

The main point of discussion, at least from my perspective, is whether the author of 1 Samuel 28 truly believed that the spirit talking was indeed the dead prophet of Jehovah. If so, it would contradict numerous biblical passages that describe the deceased as being in an unconscious state.

In my opinion, to determine if the writer of 1 Samuel believed the spirit conjured by the spiritualist was the deceased prophet of Jehovah, one must consider whether the writer was a Jewish follower of Jehovah, understood the laws against spiritism, and was aware of what Solomon and other recognized Jewish authors said about the true state of the dead.

It is evident that someone ignoring the context of 1 Samuel 28, or unwilling to consider it, will likely never grasp the truth of this passage (or others) in the Bible.

[William]

there cannot be any contradiction

And yet there are.

You need to prove that.

OK. At most two of the following three can be true:

• The Bible is inerrant.
• Ecclesiastes 9:25—"For the living know that they shall die, but the dead know nothing. They also have no more reward, because the memory of them is forgotten."
• 1 Samuel 28:15—"And Samuel said to Saul, 'Why have you disturbed me, to bring me up?'"

The common Witness apologetic tack is to claim that the biblical narrator is wrong and it's not really Samuel that "said" this thing to Saul. In fact, the NWT puts scare quotes around Samuel's name wherever we see it in the story:



This kind of apologetic trick is fine if we're allowed to believe that the biblical narrator is wrong, but this is TD&D, where the entire Bible must be treated as authoritative. With that in mind, here's the question for debate:

Can Ecclesiastes 9 and 1 Samuel 28 be harmonized if both must be inerrant and authoritative? Or do they contradict such that one or the other must be changed?

This is a classic case where two seemingly conflicting passages in the Bible raise questions about biblical inerrancy. The challenge is whether these two verses can be harmonized if one believes the Bible must be inerrant and authoritative. Let’s break down the key elements of the debate:

1. The Apparent Contradiction
Ecclesiastes 9:5: This verse states that "the dead know nothing," which implies that once people die, they are completely unaware and have no knowledge or interaction with the living.
1 Samuel 28:15: This verse recounts a story where the prophet Samuel, who has died, is apparently summoned by the medium at Endor and speaks to Saul, asking, "Why have you disturbed me?" This implies that Samuel, even in death, is aware and capable of communication.
At face value, these verses appear to contradict each other:

Ecclesiastes asserts that the dead know nothing, suggesting a state of unconsciousness.
1 Samuel depicts a dead person (Samuel) communicating as though still aware of his surroundings, which contradicts Ecclesiastes’ claim.

2. A Christian Response: Apologetic Interpretation
The Christian apologetic response, as you mentioned, often tries to explain this by claiming that in 1 Samuel, the figure who speaks is not truly Samuel but some kind of demonic apparition or spirit impersonating him. This allows them to preserve the idea that "the dead know nothing" (from Ecclesiastes) while explaining away the apparent consciousness of the dead Samuel in the story.

The New World Translation (NWT) of Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, reflects this view by using scare quotes around Samuel’s name, implying that it wasn’t truly Samuel speaking, but something pretending to be him.

3. The Issue with this Apologetic Response
The problem with this approach is that it contradicts the narrative itself. The text of 1 Samuel presents the event as though it is indeed Samuel speaking. The biblical narrator doesn't question the identity of Samuel; in fact, he is directly referred to as Samuel in the text. The claim that this is a demonic spirit is an external interpretation, not explicitly supported by the text itself.

Changing the meaning of the text to fit a theological or doctrinal stance creates a tension. If the Bible is truly inerrant, then changing the plain reading of the text suggests that apologetic interpretations may be imposing external beliefs onto the text rather than letting the text speak for itself.

4. The Inerrancy Dilemma: Can They Be Harmonized?
If both Ecclesiastes 9 and 1 Samuel 28 must be taken as authoritative and inerrant, harmonizing them becomes difficult. On one hand, Ecclesiastes seems to present a clear doctrine of the dead being unconscious, but 1 Samuel presents a narrative that directly contradicts that idea.

The apologetic response that Samuel was not truly Samuel doesn’t fully resolve the issue if one is committed to a literal, inerrant interpretation of both passages. It effectively suggests that the narrator of 1 Samuel was mistaken or misled, which undermines the principle of inerrancy.
5. Conclusion: Do They Contradict?

Based on a straightforward reading of the two texts, Ecclesiastes 9:5 and 1 Samuel 28:15 do indeed seem to contradict each other. If the Bible is treated as inerrant, then an apologetic approach that claims the narrator is wrong (such as the demon interpretation) raises further questions about the nature of biblical authority and accuracy.

Without altering one of the passages or resorting to an external explanation (e.g., claiming that the apparition wasn’t truly Samuel), it’s challenging to harmonize these verses. One either has to acknowledge the contradiction or accept that interpretations of inerrancy require significant theological flexibility.

In conclusion, from a purely textual standpoint, it seems difficult to reconcile both passages as being inerrant without modifying or reinterpreting the meaning of one of them.

[Bible_Student]

The true concern isn't how contemporary readers perceive the passage in 1 Samuel 28. Instead, it revolves around what the author aimed to convey from his Jewish standpoint and how his audience would have comprehended it at the time of its writing.

This necessitates a fundamental grasp of Jewish religious concepts, often referred to as "the context" of Scripture. Scripture should not be interpreted to cater to modern sensibilities but must be appreciated from the writer's perspective at the time of composition.