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?

[Bible_Student]

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.

I don't mean to criticize you personally. I'm just being practical: given that your viewpoint differs greatly from someone who has faith in God and the Bible's inspiration, it's unreasonable to expect us to view matters similarly. Anticipating anything other than contrasts is impractical, so I'm puzzled by why you persist in urging Christians to interpret the narrative your way.

[Difflugia]

No reputable academic evaluates a narrative without considering its context.

That's certainly true.

Moreover, the Book of Samuel (both were one in ancient times) was authored by three prophets of Jehovah who would never engage in spiritualism.

Sure. There's no indication that any of the authors, whoever they were, engaged in or encouraged spiritualism. In fact, that's part of the inherent irony in the meaning of the text. God had forsaken Saul because Saul had flouted His commands, but insteading of repenting, Saul tried to divine God's will by violating yet another command. Saul pretty clearly wasn't expecting a visit from Samuel himself and was rightly terrified when Samuel not only confirmed God's utmost displeasure, but told Saul of the impending death of him and his sons. We can reasonably infer that if we attempt such necromancy, we can expect no better than the same fate. That's far from the authors "engaging in spiritualism."

A proper interpretation of this biblical story requires more than a simplistic examination of the text.

That's exactly right. Obscuring the message of the text in order to paper over a simplistic view of inerrancy and contradiction is most unworthy of the Witnesses staunch tradition of devotional Bible study.

[Bible_Student]

This is the context of that story:

The book of Samuel is traditionally attributed to Samuel, with contributions from the Nathan and Gad, though it's believed a later compiler added some details. Samuel, Nathan and Gad were prophets of Jehovah.

While many modern critics view the Bible as an intriguing book or more, it is fundamentally the story of Jehovah God's relationship with humanity through various stages. The book of Samuel is set against the emergence of the kingdoms in Israel, detailing how the early kings received Jehovah's guidance through the prophets.

Dt. 18:9 “When you have entered into the land that Jehovah your God is giving you, you must not learn to imitate the detestable practices of those nations. 10 There should not be found in you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, anyone who employs divination, anyone practicing magic, anyone who looks for omens, a sorcerer, 11 anyone binding others with a spell, anyone who consults a spirit medium or a fortune-teller, or anyone who inquires of the dead. 12 For whoever does these things is detestable to Jehovah, and on account of these detestable practices Jehovah your God is driving them away from before you. 13 You should prove yourself blameless before Jehovah your God.”

Kings, prophets, and priests served as Jehovah's representatives to Israel. The Law of Moses outlined Jehovah's expectations since leading them out of Egypt, providing not just decrees but also truths to distinguish Israel from other nations.

  Lev. 20:26 You must be holy to me, because I, Jehovah, am holy, and I am setting you apart from the peoples to become mine.
27 “‘Any man or woman who acts as a spirit medium or is a fortune-teller should be put to death without fail. The people should stone them to death. Their own blood is upon them.’”

Consider this: When the prophet Nathan (or Gad) composed the account of 1 Samuel 28, do you think they claimed that the dead prophet Samuel truly spoke through the spirit medium?

And: Do you think that when later Israelites and Jews read 1 Sam. 28, they think that what is speaking through the medium is actually the dead prophet of Jehovah?

Besides that, it's not only about Eccl. 9:5, since it is all about the Jews and the Scriptures the fact that the dead do not give praise to God.

It's no wonder that a Jew or a confused believer might be swayed by someone who doesn't even have faith in God (even if they are a spiritualist—there are all sorts in this world) and thinks that Samuel, the deceased prophet of Jehovah, can be summoned by a spiritualist...

The most part of the world is misguided, which is why Jesus dispatched his disciples to aid people in grasping the truth.

[Difflugia]

I don't mean to criticize you personally. I'm just being practical: given that your viewpoint differs greatly from someone who has faith in God and the Bible's inspiration,

See, this right here is part of what I'm actually arguing against. You insist (and probably believe) that my viewpoint is incompatible with "faith in God and the Bible's inspiration." What my viewpoint is actually incompatible with is a particularly dogmatic approach to the Bible that has little to do with either faith or inspiration.

If you truly believe that the Bible's inspired, then let its authors tell you what they mean rather than imposing a set of sectarian rules on what it must mean before you even get there.

it's unreasonable to expect us to view matters similarly. Anticipating anything other than contrasts is impractical,

Why? This seems a particularly odd stance for a Witness, whose exegetical views are based on a distrust of orthodoxy in the first place. I'd think you'd want to base your approach to Scripture on Scripture itself, rather than exchanging one orthodoxy for another.

so I'm puzzled by why you persist in urging Christians to interpret the narrative your way.

This is a debate site. I find the Bible fascinating and spend a great deal of time and energy to understanding it. This gives me a chance to talk about it.

The reason I urge you, as you put it, to see things my way is that, in my view, you're removing a lot of what's interesting and valuable about the Bible by shaping it to fit a narrow kind of theology. I became an atheist long before I began to see a lot of what's there and it's unfortunate in some ways that that wasn't enough to restore belief, but at the same time, I also think that faith is still compatible with seeing the Bible for what it is.

I think the Bible's interesting and worthy of study. I don't like seeing it treated shabbily, especially at the hands of institutional dogma.

[Bible_Student]

Your recent posts seem more like personal attacks rather than providing a solid argument on why someone who avoided spiritualist practices in life could be summoned by a medium, or why a person who understands that the dead are not alive should interpret "Samuel" in the story as the deceased prophet of Jehovah.

If all you have are personal attacks, it's likely because you're frustrated. Despite your persistent efforts, you haven't been able to prove that your straightforward interpretation of the story indicates any biblical contradiction regarding the state of the dead.

Frankly, it's immature to be confrontational with forum members simply because they don't share your viewpoint. They might have different perspectives. I'm choosing to step back from this topic, as I suspect you'll continue with personal attacks and provoke conflicts unrelated to the discussion.

Wishing you a pleasant weekend.

[Difflugia]

the fact that the dead do not give praise to God.

1 Samuel 28:16-19 seems to say otherwise.

It's no wonder that a Jew or a confused believer might be swayed by someone who doesn't even have faith in God (even if they are a spiritualist—there are all sorts in this world) and thinks that Samuel, the deceased prophet of Jehovah, can be summoned by a spiritualist...

Would a Jew or confused believer by swayed to think that Balaam's donkey talked or that Methusalah lived over nine hundred years? What other things does the Bible say that shouldn't be believed?

[Difflugia]

Your recent posts seem more like personal attacks rather than providing a solid argument on why someone who avoided spiritualist practices in life could be summoned by a medium, or why a person who understands that the dead are not alive should interpret "Samuel" in the story as the deceased prophet of Jehovah.

Are you sure you're not projecting a bit? From nearly the beginning, you've tried to shift the discussion away from my actual arguments by simply dismissing them, then trying to claim that I'm unable to understand the text because I don't share your dogmatic approach. You then attacked my argument as being "tactics" and then tried emotional appeals. You've tried to engage with everything except my actual argument, which is that the text that you've told me is inerrant says that Saul spoke to Samuel from beyond the grave.

If all you have are personal attacks, it's likely because you're frustrated.

That's probaby true.

Despite your persistent efforts, you haven't been able to prove that your straightforward interpretation of the story indicates any biblical contradiction regarding the state of the dead.

Unless the Bible's inerrant. Then 1 Samuel contradicts Ecclesiastes.

Frankly, it's immature to be confrontational with forum members simply because they don't share your viewpoint.

I'll keep that in mind.

They might have different perspectives. I'm choosing to step back from this topic, as I suspect you'll continue with personal attacks and provoke conflicts unrelated to the discussion.

I understand.

Wishing you a pleasant weekend.

Thanks. You, too.

[Bible_Student]

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

This will be my final comment here, and I likely won't engage in the forum for some time, as there seems to be very limited activity here.

Thank you for your attention.

[onewithhim]

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.

Your arguments don't stand up. 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? ("For with rejoicing you people will go forth, and with peace you will be brought in. The mountains and the hills will become cheerful before you with a joyful outcry, and the very trees of the field will all clap their hands." (Isaiah 55:12)

There is more to understanding the Bible than believing that it is all literal. One must use their powers of reason as well as comparing all Bible texts. 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. Parentheses around Samuel are thus reasonable.

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. The parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus was explained in a previous post. It is all metaphor. None of it is literal. Jesus was not teaching hell-fire but the slacking of the Pharisees in their treatment of the common people. How would one drop of water really soothe a burning tongue? What did Christ say to the rich man when the Pharisee asked Abraham to speak to his brothers? He said that if they were to see someone rise from the dead they still would not believe. Entirely a commentary on the wickedness of the religious leaders.

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. All Scriptures harmonize together.

[Bible_Student]

In Matthew 17:9, a parallel account, Jesus instructs the apostles accompanying him not to disclose the vision they witnessed to anyone. The Greek term ὅραμα describe a scene or image presented to a person's mind that doesn't exactly align with reality. The definition by LN. says "an event in which something appears vividly and credibly to the mind, although not actually present".

The Bible contains numerous examples of such visions.

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.