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?

[onewithhim]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #11]

I don't think it is wise to give credence to the Talmud or what medieval Jewish scholars said. Let's stick with what we find in the Bible. The Jews had a screwed up view of the truth of God's Word. It was they who were so screwed up that they killed God's Son.

[onewithhim]

That's a good question. Samuel isn't the only dead person in the Bible that returns to talk to the living, though. The stories of the Transfiguration in all three Synoptics include Moses and Elijah temporarily returning from the dead. If the dead are dead, why did the authors add that detail to the story?

Yes, that is an interesting question. In Biblical point of view, death of a body is not the end. Some end up in "Hades" and some end up to paradise (or "Abraham's bosom"). And people in there are not entirely dead (destructed). Destruction comes after the final judgment.

It happened that the beggar died, and that he was carried away by the angels to Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died, and was buried. In Hades, he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and saw Abraham far off, and Lazarus at his bosom. He cried and said, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue! For I am in anguish in this flame.' "But Abraham said, 'Son, remember that you, in your lifetime, received your good things, and Lazarus, in like manner, bad things. But now here he is comforted and you are in anguish. Besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, that those who want to pass from here to you are not able, and that none may cross over from there to us.'
Luke 16:22-26

... “Assuredly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise.”
Luke 23:40-43

Don't be afraid of those who kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul. Rather, fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna [= "hell"].
Matt. 10:28

The parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus was not literal. It was a story showing how far the religious leaders had gone from God's love and mercy, making it difficult for the widows and fatherless boys, etc. The Rich Man stood for the religious leaders, and Lazarus stood for the common people. There is nothing in it that can be taken literal. If the dead go to Hades, they are going to their grave, not a place of torture. The flames that the rich man endured were not literal but stood for the truth that Jesus spoke which made them unhinged. His teachings were torture for them.

Luke 23:40-43 needs to be examined. Where does the comma go?? There is no punctuation in Greek, so the comma could be placed anywhere. 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. He also remained on the earth for over a month before he returned to heaven.
So the comma goes AFTER the word "today." The thief would be with Jesus in Paradise much later, after Jesus came into his Kingdom. His and Jesus' souls were not still alive after they died.

[Difflugia]

How is it that I Samuel 28 is the only place in the Bible that is confusing over the person being alive after death?

First, it's not confusing. The narrator says that Saul came up from the dead and talked to Saul.

Second, it's not the only place in the Bible where someone is alive after death. The transfiguration is the most obvious one. You made an excuse for it, but that's what apologetics is, no? Let's examine that:

Moses and Elijah did not "temporarily return from the dead." It was a VISION that Peter and James and John saw there on the mount of the transfiguration. Moses and Elijah remained dead. The vision spoke of what Moses and Elijah stood for, not that they were actually there. Moses and Elijah represented the Law and the Prophets, both of which pointed toward and were fulfilled in Christ.

You're adding to the text. Mark 9:4 says, "And there Elijah with Moses were seen by them and they were talking with Jesus." The verb form there (ὤφθη, "were seen"), is the same used of Jesus' post-death appearances (Luke 24:34) and of Moses talking to fellow Israelites (Acts 7:26). You're claiming that Elijah and Moses weren't really there despite the Bible telling us they were. That's no less an apologetic dodge than the claim that Samuel wasn't really Samuel.

We also have the parable of Lazarus, in which Lazarus speaks from heaven to someone in hell. The excuse there is that that parable could refer to things that are impossible in reality (even though none of the others do). So maybe 1 Samuel 28 is a parable.

What is the only way to correspond that passage with Ecclesiastes 9?

To recognize that 1 Samuel and Ecclesiastes were written by two different authors with two different narrative intentions and that either Ecclesiastes isn't true in an absolute sense or 1 Samuel isn't true in a historical sense.

It is to realize that the spirit of Saul is not Saul but a demon that pretends to be Saul.

This not only denies inerrancy, but also denies the obvious authorial intent of 1 Samuel 28.

That is totally reasonable, considering all other passages in the Bible that show a person to be truly dead when they die.

Unless you believe that 2 Timothy 3:16 applies to 1 Samuel 28.

Hello.

Hello.

Saul went to a witch! Do you think that she was aligned with God in any way? Why wouldn't she be deceptive?

Maybe she was. Deceptive or not, the Bible itself says that she saw Samuel and Samuel talked to Saul. It doesn't just say that she said these thing, but the narrator of the story is telling us these things are true.

A witch would reasonably, according to her position as an ungodly witch, deceive anyone who came to her asking to be connected to the spirit world.

And if the narrator said that's what happened, that would make total sense. The narrator said that's not what happened, though.

The parentheses around "Samuel" are not necessarily wrong because how else would they be permitted in the narrative except by a translator's reason?

Sure. How else would the translator change the meaning of the text without changing the actual words? The two giant problems with this idea are, first, that there's no indication in the text itself that the author is using such a device and second, no other biblical author seems to do this.

Maybe they do all the time, though, and we just never thought to look. If we put quotation marks around Jesus' name in Mark 15:37 ("And 'Jesus' cried out in a loud voice and gave up the ghost," or "And Jesus cried out in a loud voice and 'gave up the ghost.'"), are we justified in being docetists? Doesn't that seem reasonable? After all, how can a god die, right?

They very well might have been intended by the original author.

Of course. When inerrancy is on the line, anything is possible and "very well might" be true!

[Bible_Student]

@Difflugia As I said in the other thread

From the point of view of a Christian who believes that the entire Bible is inspired by the same holy spirit of God, there cannot be any contradiction when it comes to disambiguating some difficult-to-understand texts. That is the premise of a Jehovah's Witness when studying the Bible.

From the perspective of someone who does not believe in the Bible's inspiration, many things that appear contradictory cannot be clarified. As Christians who trust in the Bible's divine inspiration, we acknowledge that some biblical statements are challenging to comprehend when compared with other texts. However, we believe that since all writings are true, there must be valid reasons for these seeming contradictions.

Throughout history, divine writings have often been misunderstood or only partially understood. For example, the Jews, despite reading the term "god" applied to humans numerous times in the Hebrew Scriptures, struggled to accept Jesus calling himself "Son of God." To address this, Jesus pointed them to earlier scriptures to highlight their inconsistency. He referred to these as "the scripture that cannot be nullified" a point even the Jews conceded (John 10:35). When confronting the Devil, Jesus cited scriptures that demanded recognition as authoritative. Paul later explained to the Christians in Corinth that the miraculous spiritual gifts they witnessed would cease once "that which is complete" arrived, implying a fuller understanding that would enable truth discernment without needing miracles.

Thus, there is a specific perspective to maintain regarding Scriptures. However, this viewpoint is inaccessible to non-believers. Consequently, a non-believer cannot grasp the explanations of apparent contradictions from the perspective of those who believe in the Bible's inspiration. Conversely, non-believers often take a "shameless" stance when discussing the Bible's content, attempting to use its truthfulness to highlight supposed contradictions within it, which is inherently contradictory and dishonest.

An individual who does not accept the Bible as divinely inspired lacks the believer's viewpoint needed to critique what they do not comprehend. Even among believers, there are those who may not possess the spiritual insight required to grasp certain aspects of the inspired texts (John 14:15-17), so how much more so for a non-believer! Criticism from non-believers merely strengthens their resolve, as the Scripture states:

Luke 8:18 Therefore, pay attention to how you listen, for whoever has will be given more, but whoever does not have, even what he imagines he has will be taken away from him.

[John17_3]

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

[Difflugia]

However, this viewpoint is inaccessible to non-believers. Consequently, a non-believer cannot grasp the explanations of apparent contradictions from the perspective of those who believe in the Bible's inspiration.

I suppose what's inaccessible is the dogmatic requirement to fit the Bible into a much smaller mold than can contain it. You keep insisting that your changes to the Bible are somehow a form of respect and reverence for Scripture and its inspiration, but I'm pretty sure that limiting the text to suit your own comfort is exactly what Jesus was preaching against!

Conversely, non-believers often take a "shameless" stance when discussing the Bible's content, attempting to use its truthfulness to highlight supposed contradictions within it, which is inherently contradictory and dishonest.

I'm reading 1 Samuel 28 as the author wrote it. You're claiming that my unwillingness to change the meaning of the text to support human tradition is "inherently contradictory and dishonest." As Isaiah warned you, "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil!"

You keep denying the contradiction placed there by the inspired author, but the contradiction doesn't damage the Bible; it only damages your flawed exegetical tradition that must harmonize texts to the point of ridiculous absurdity.

The Bible says that Samuel spoke to Saul from beyond the grave, but you're the one that says there can be no contradictions. Whose word do you think should bend, God's or yours?

An individual who does not accept the Bible as divinely inspired lacks the believer's viewpoint needed to critique what they do not comprehend.

And yet it's the one that claims the loudest to accept divine inspiration that is the quickest to alter that very inspired message, to fit your preconceived human dogma, no less. The Bible says that Samuel talked to Saul after his death. You're willing to change this in order to accommodate the tradition that says that the Bible is true in historical detail. If the author of 1 Samuel was inspired to write what he did, changing it seems completely opposite to what the "believer's viewpoint" must necessarily be.

Even among believers, there are those who may not possess the spiritual insight required to grasp certain aspects of the inspired texts (John 14:15-17),

As we're so plainly seeing.

so how much more so for a non-believer! Criticism from non-believers merely strengthens their resolve,

More's the pity.

as the Scripture states:

Luke 8:18 Therefore, pay attention to how you listen, for whoever has will be given more, but whoever does not have, even what he imagines he has will be taken away from him.

Are you going to take this scriptural advice, or will you change that verse, too?

[Bible_Student]

However, this viewpoint is inaccessible to non-believers. Consequently, a non-believer cannot grasp the explanations of apparent contradictions from the perspective of those who believe in the Bible's inspiration.

I suppose what's inaccessible is the dogmatic requirement to fit the Bible into a much smaller mold than can contain it. You keep insisting that your changes to the Bible are somehow a form of respect and reverence for Scripture and its inspiration, but I'm pretty sure that limiting the text to suit your own comfort is exactly what Jesus was preaching against!

Conversely, non-believers often take a "shameless" stance when discussing the Bible's content, attempting to use its truthfulness to highlight supposed contradictions within it, which is inherently contradictory and dishonest.

I'm reading 1 Samuel 28 as the author wrote it. You're claiming that my unwillingness to change the meaning of the text to support human tradition is "inherently contradictory and dishonest." As Isaiah warned you, "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil!"

You keep denying the contradiction placed there by the inspired author, but the contradiction doesn't damage the Bible; it only damages your flawed exegetical tradition that must harmonize texts to the point of ridiculous absurdity.

The Bible says that Samuel spoke to Saul from beyond the grave, but you're the one that says there can be no contradictions. Whose word do you think should bend, God's or yours?

An individual who does not accept the Bible as divinely inspired lacks the believer's viewpoint needed to critique what they do not comprehend.

And yet it's the one that claims the loudest to accept divine inspiration that is the quickest to alter that very inspired message, to fit your preconceived human dogma, no less. The Bible says that Samuel talked to Saul after his death. You're willing to change this in order to accommodate the tradition that says that the Bible is true in historical detail. If the author of 1 Samuel was inspired to write what he did, changing it seems completely opposite to what the "believer's viewpoint" must necessarily be.

Even among believers, there are those who may not possess the spiritual insight required to grasp certain aspects of the inspired texts (),

As we're so plainly seeing.

so how much more so for a non-believer! Criticism from non-believers merely strengthens their resolve,

More's the pity.

as the Scripture states:

Luke 8:18 Therefore, pay attention to how you listen, for whoever has will be given more, but whoever does not have, even what he imagines he has will be taken away from him.

Are you going to take this scriptural advice, or will you change that verse, too?

Those who don't believe can't offer any teachings about the Bible to those who do, so you can share all of that with those who don't believe. I'm confident they'll understand it as you intend.

[Difflugia]

@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.

[Bible_Student]

No reputable academic evaluates a narrative without considering its context.

Moreover, the Book of Samuel (both were one in ancient times) was authored by three prophets of Jehovah who would never engage in spiritualism. A proper interpretation of this biblical story requires more than a simplistic examination of the text.

[Difflugia]

Those who don't believe can't offer any teachings about the Bible to those who do, so you can share all of that with those who don't believe. I'm confident they'll understand it as you intend.

Your final argument is no more than than an ad hominem declaration of closed-mindedness?

I'm sure those grapes were sour, anyway.