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]

We JWs have not changed the meaning of the scriptures.

The scriptures say that the dead man Samuel spoke with Saul. JWs have changed that to mean that a demon spoke with Saul.

Why do you think that Jehovah said to not seek anything from a witch/medium? Because the person would be contacting demons.

Since God's Word tells us that Saul was contacting Samuel and not a demon, then there must be a different reason.

So it would be a no-brainer that Saul would be getting in touch with a demon, and not Samuel.

The text contradicts your personal "no-brainer."

Why would you think that the witch would be honest with Saul?

Whether the witch is honest with Saul or not, we should think that the biblical narrator is being honest with us.

She was rubbing elbows with the demons and probably having a laugh about fooling Saul.

Maybe. The Bible doesn't say that, though. What the Bible says is that Samuel rose and spoke to Saul and the necromancer.

The whole story smacks of delusion and lies, taking into consideration other texts in the Bible.

Perhaps, but this is TD&D where the Bible is considered to be authoritative instead of "delusion and lies" as you assert.

[William]

[Replying to onewithhim in post #78]

That’s an important consideration. If Jesus wanted followers to live by his teachings, it stands to reason that he would have been clear about his expectations rather than using language that could easily be misinterpreted. Saying things like "be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect" or "only God is good" can lead to a range of interpretations, which is exactly what we’ve seen over centuries of Christian history.

This lack of clarity can create ambiguity that allows for excuses or misuse of power, as people or institutions twist these teachings to justify their own actions. Christianity’s rise to power—often accompanied by atrocities and the abuse of political and religious authority—shows how dangerous misinterpretation can be when expectations aren’t clearly defined.

The idea that Jesus meant something less than literal perfection sounds more like an excuse to resolve a contradiction, rather than a feasible explanation. If the message wasn’t meant to be taken literally, then why use such absolute terms that are bound to create confusion and potential for abuse?

Clarity in such vital teachings is crucial, especially when those teachings can influence power structures and societal behavior on such a large scale.

[William]

[Replying to onewithhim in post #79]

Thank you for your reply and for outlining what you believe re the importance of the Bible and religious intermediaries in understanding GOD’s will. However, I think there are several key points from our discussion that still need to be addressed more directly. Let’s break these down:

1. The Text Itself (1 Samuel 28)
In your response, the issue of 1 Samuel 28—where the figure identified as Samuel speaks to Saul—seems to have been overlooked. The narrative does not suggest that the witch was fooling Saul or that a demon was impersonating Samuel. If the writer believed it was a deception, this would have likely been indicated given the gravity of the event.

If the Bible is to be viewed as inerrant, then we need to acknowledge that Samuel was truly summoned in the text. Theological explanations that rely on demon impersonation, while commonly cited, do not come from the narrative itself but from external interpretation. This is a crucial point because it brings into question how we are reading scripture—are we reading what is plainly written, or are we filtering it through theological lenses that attempt to harmonize inconsistencies?

2. Inerrant Reading
If the Bible is inerrant, and we accept the plain reading of the text in 1 Samuel 28, we must conclude that Samuel was speaking. The claim that Saul was in contact with a demon or being deceived by the witch is not supported by the text itself. By adding these external explanations, we move away from the idea that the Bible is self-explanatory and perfectly clear, which is important if we’re claiming it is the ultimate guide to truth.

This raises the question: If we must rely on human interpretation to reconcile contradictions or inconsistencies, how does that affect the belief that the Bible is infallible or inerrant? And more importantly, how does that affect our relationship with GOD if we’re dependent on intermediaries to interpret scripture correctly?

3. Necromancy vs. Divine Judgment
You mentioned that Saul violated a law by consulting a medium, but this brings up the question about the nature of that law. As I pointed out earlier, the law in Deuteronomy 18:10-12 forbids necromancy, yet the narrative in 1 Samuel shows Samuel delivering a prophecy that comes true. This brings into question whether this law was truly divinely ordained or devised as a means of control by religious authority over how people access and understand GOD.

This connects to a broader issue: Is it possible that the laws and religious structures in place are human-made, designed to maintain control over how individuals interact with the divine? The fact that Saul’s consultation of the medium resulted in an accurate prophecy seems to complicate the idea that necromancy, in this case, was purely an evil act. If GOD allows Samuel to speak, (or Samuel has the authority of free will to do so) how does that reconcile with the law forbidding communication with the dead?

4. Religious Authority as a Medium
You argued that intermediaries are essential because we cannot all have complete knowledge of the Bible. While I understand that religious authority and scriptural interpretation play a role in guiding believers, this raises the question of dependency. If individuals rely entirely on religious intermediaries (whether priests, pastors, or religious institutions) to interpret the Bible for them, what happens when those intermediaries fail or present flawed interpretations?

Historically, we’ve seen how religious institutions have used their interpretive authority to consolidate power, sometimes leading to abuses. This leaves individuals in a difficult position: Should they continue trusting those intermediaries, or is there a way to cultivate a direct relationship with GOD, as Jesus often emphasized?

5. Jesus and the Scriptures
You mentioned that Jesus referred to scripture as truth, particularly in John 17:17 when he said, "Your word is truth." However, we must remember that Jesus often pointed to a direct relationship with GOD, one that didn’t always require strict adherence to the law or the written texts. Jesus’ teachings were centered on faith, compassion, and mercy, and he often rebuked the religious authorities of his time for their rigid interpretations of the law (Matthew 23:23).

This suggests that knowing GOD and living by faith does not necessarily require scriptural mediation. While the Bible can serve as a helpful guide, it seems that Jesus himself is the ultimate mediator between humans and GOD (John 14:6). This challenges the idea that the Bible must be the primary tool for connecting with GOD.

6. The Dilemma of Intermediaries
If trust in religious intermediaries or even scripture itself breaks down, does that mean a person’s connection to GOD is severed? The suggestion that intermediaries are necessary creates a dependency on human interpretation, which, as history has shown, can be flawed or corrupted.

Jesus’ teachings suggest that faith and love are the key components of a relationship with GOD. So, can a person still have a direct connection with GOD through Jesus’ teachings even if they do not have complete knowledge of the Bible? This brings us back to the question I raised earlier: Can one have a relationship with GOD without relying on the Bible?

7. Cognitive Bias Against Other Religions
By insisting that the Bible is the only means to understand GOD, this can lead to a cognitive bias against other religions, such as Islam, Hinduism, or Buddhism, which have their own sacred texts and spiritual practices. If we assume that GOD can only be accessed through the Bible, this risks devaluing or dismissing the faith traditions of millions of people around the world who cultivate meaningful spiritual relationships outside of Christianity.

Is it possible that GOD is more universal and that different spiritual paths could lead to divine truth, even if they don’t rely on the Bible as the final authority?

8. Contradictions in Jesus' Teachings
Lastly, let’s address the contradictions between Jesus' teachings. You mentioned that intermediaries are necessary to help people understand scripture, but even with guidance, how do we reconcile Jesus’ statement that “no one is good but GOD alone” (Mark 10:18) with his call to “be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matthew 5:48)?

If these are contradictory teachings, how can we claim that the Bible is a perfect and inerrant guide to divine truth? If Jesus’ own words present a tension between human goodness and divine perfection, it highlights the difficulty of relying solely on the Bible as an inerrant text.

Conclusion: While I understand your position that the Bible and intermediaries are essential, I also understand and argue that these points show that direct access to GOD through Jesus do not necessarily require strict adherence to the Bible or reliance on religious intermediaries. There are key theological contradictions and interpretive challenges that suggest the Bible, while valuable re religious institution, may not be/is unlikely to be the way to cultivate a relationship with GOD.

_________________________________________________
The Problem of Intermediaries.

One important question that needs to be addressed is: What happens when religious intermediaries—those who interpret the Bible for us—fail or present flawed interpretations?

History has shown many instances where religious institutions or figures have misused their interpretive authority, sometimes leading to abuses of power, misrepresentation of doctrine, or even atrocities. If we rely solely on these intermediaries to understand GOD’s will, what are we to do when their interpretations are flawed or contradictory?

1. The Problem of Flawed Intermediaries
When religious intermediaries misinterpret scripture, it can have profound effects on how people practice their faith and understand GOD’s will. If an entire belief system is built on a flawed interpretation of the Bible, individuals may unknowingly follow teachings that deviate from Jesus' message of love, faith, and compassion.

Examples of historical abuses—such as the Crusades, Inquisitions, or the use of scripture to justify slavery—highlight how dangerous misinterpretation can be. This leads to the central problem: How can individuals test whether an intermediary’s interpretation is true or whether it aligns with GOD's will?

2. Testing Against Truth Without Solely Using the Bible
Relying exclusively on the Bible to test interpretations can lead to circular reasoning—we test the Bible’s interpretation against the Bible itself, which doesn’t allow for much external verification. If we want to ensure that religious teachings align with divine truth, we may need to use devices outside of the Bible to test whether interpretations are reliable.

Some possible ways to do this include:

Conscience and Moral Intuition: Jesus emphasized love, mercy, and justice as core principles (Matthew 22:37-40). One way to test the truth of a religious teaching is by examining whether it aligns with these principles. If an interpretation of scripture promotes violence, exclusion, or hatred, it may not be consistent with Jesus' teachings, even if it claims to be based on the Bible.

Universal Values: Many of the core values Jesus taught—such as compassion, empathy, and humility—are also found in other spiritual traditions and moral systems. If a particular interpretation contradicts these universal principles, it may be worth questioning whether it reflects GOD’s will or whether it is a flawed interpretation.

Personal Relationship with GOD: As mentioned earlier, Jesus often pointed people to a direct relationship with GOD. Through prayer, meditation, and spiritual reflection, individuals can cultivate their own understanding of GOD's will, independent of the limitations of human intermediaries. This personal connection can serve as a way to test whether certain teachings truly resonate with the spirit of Jesus’ message.


Historical Context and Critical Thinking: It's also essential to recognize that some interpretations of scripture may be tied to cultural or historical contexts that no longer apply. By examining the historical background of certain teachings, we can better understand how and why certain interpretations arose and whether they still hold true today.

3. Flawed Interpretation as a Barrier to Faith
When intermediaries fail, it can leave believers feeling disconnected from GOD. If someone has been taught to trust a particular interpretation only to find that it is flawed, it can cause spiritual disillusionment. This underscores the importance of developing a direct, personal connection to GOD, which can help individuals navigate their faith even when human intermediaries fall short.

Conclusion: While aspects of the Bible can be a valuable guide, testing truth requires more than relying on intermediaries or circular reasoning within scripture. By turning to moral intuition, universal values, and cultivating a personal relationship with GOD, individuals can navigate their faith even when religious intermediaries present flawed script and misleading interpretations.

________________________________
The Word of GOD.

Another critical point to consider is that when Jesus spoke of the Word of GOD, the Bible as we know it did not exist. The New Testament was written after Jesus’ life, and the eventual canonization of the Bible occurred centuries later, shaped by human decision-making within religious institutions. This raises a crucial question: Why should we be expected to believe that the eventual canon—or even the Hebrew Scriptures—are the definitive Word of GOD?

1. Jesus and the Word of GOD
When Jesus referred to the Word of GOD (e.g., in John 17:17), he was speaking primarily about GOD’s truth—the divine principles that guide human life, not necessarily a specific set of texts. Jesus emphasized faith in GOD, direct connection through prayer, and living out principles like love, mercy, and justice. The Hebrew Scriptures (the Old Testament) were significant to Jewish tradition, but Jesus often challenged the literal interpretations of these texts, focusing instead on the spirit of the law (Matthew 5:17-48).

2. The Bible’s Formation
The New Testament and the Bible’s canon were compiled long after Jesus’ death by early Christian councils who debated which script to include/exclude. The formation of the Bible was a human process, influenced by politics, doctrinal disagreements, and institutional needs. Given that this canon was shaped by men, why should we assume that the resulting Bible is the definitive Word of GOD?

If the Word of GOD is supposed to be a living truth—as Jesus often emphasized—it seems problematic to restrict it to a canon that was developed and selected by human decision. This leads to the concern that following the Bible requires being led by men and their interpretations, rather than by GOD directly.

3. Being Led by Men Rather Than by GOD
The idea that we need the Bible (and its interpretations by religious authorities) to have a relationship with GOD introduces a dependency on human intermediaries. This is in contrast to Jesus’ teachings, where he invited people to develop a direct connection with GOD through faith and living out GOD’s will.

Jesus criticized religious leaders of his time for their rigid interpretations of scripture and for placing heavy burdens on the people (Matthew 23:1-4). He encouraged people to rely on their faith in GOD rather than on the legalistic interpretations of the religious elite.

If we are now expected to rely on the Bible as the only definitive source of GOD’s truth, it raises the concern that we are once again being led by men—not just the men who compiled and canonized the Bible, but also those who interpret it for us today.

4. Why Should We Believe the Bible Is the Word of GOD?
The Bible contains valuable teachings, but its formation was shaped by human influence. This leads to an important question: Why should we believe that the Bible—whether the Old Testament or the New Testament—is the true Word of GOD, when Jesus himself focused on a direct relationship with GOD, outside of rigid texts or intermediaries?

If GOD’s truth transcends human texts, as Jesus suggested/implied, then perhaps our connection to GOD doesn’t have to be mediated by a specific canon of scriptures. Jesus pointed to the living Word—a direct connection with the divine—through principles of faith, love, and compassion.

The fact that the Bible requires interpretation by human intermediaries introduces the possibility of misinterpretation, misinformation and bias, as history has shown. Jesus’ message, on the other hand, was focused on spiritual growth and personal relationship with GOD, suggesting that this connection can be cultivated without relying on a specific canon of texts.

Conclusion:
If the Bible didn’t exist when Jesus referred to the Word of GOD, and it was later canonized by men, why should we accept it as the final and authoritative Word of GOD? If we’re being asked to rely on a human-made canon, it seems that we’re once again being led by men, rather than by GOD directly. Jesus’ teachings emphasized a personal, direct relationship with GOD, which may not require strict adherence to a text formed long after his time.

[John17_3]

[Replying to John17_3 in post #75]

If we take into consideration that the Bible verses being referenced were not originally speaking about the Bible as a written text, but rather about the living word of God—which, as has been argued earlier, refers to Jesus himself or a more direct, spiritual connection with God—this would significantly change your measuring tape analogy.

Here’s how the measuring analogy changes when viewed through this lens:

1. The Living Word as the Standard
If Jesus or the living word is the true source of divine truth, then the measuring tape in the analogy isn’t the Bible as a book, but rather Jesus or a direct connection to God through faith.
The analogy would no longer suggest that the Bible is the sole, objective standard for measuring truth. Instead, it would imply that the relationship with God through Jesus is the true measure by which people determine spiritual truth, meaning the written scriptures are secondary or contextual tools for understanding.

2. Trust in the Living Word, Not Just the Bible
If the living word (Jesus) is the true foundation of truth, then the measuring tape analogy shifts from being about a static tool (the Bible) to something more dynamic and relational—the trust in God’s guidance through Jesus.
This means that spiritual truth is not confined to the text of the Bible alone but is also derived from a living, ongoing relationship with God. The Bible can be helpful, but the ultimate truth comes from God through Jesus, not the written word.

3. A Dynamic Measuring Tool
Rather than the Bible being like a rigid, unchanging measuring tape, the source of truth (Jesus, the living word) is alive and active, constantly interacting with individuals. The measuring tape analogy becomes one where the standard isn’t a physical or rigid tool but a living, breathing connection with God that might adapt or apply differently depending on personal or spiritual circumstances.

Therefore, questioning the reliability of the Bible as a written text wouldn’t mean that the individual is cut off from knowing God’s truth. Instead, it opens up the possibility of accessing truth through Jesus directly, making the living word the true standard rather than the written text alone.

4. Faith and the Spirit as the True Guide
This would also mean that faith and the Holy Spirit become the primary means by which people discern truth. The written Bible could still be used for guidance, but it is the spiritual connection to God that ultimately “measures” truth, rather than relying solely on the Bible’s authority.
The analogy changes from needing a “perfect measuring tape” (the Bible) to recognizing that faith in the living word (Jesus) is the most important aspect of understanding divine truth.

Conclusion:
If we shift the focus from the Bible to the living word (Jesus) as the true measure of truth, the analogy of the measuring tape no longer makes sense as an argument for the infallibility of the Bible. The true “measuring tape” would then be our relationship with Jesus and the living presence of God, and even if the Bible had perceived flaws or contradictions, the spiritual connection remains intact and serves as the ultimate guide for truth.

I'm not sure if you are trying to say the word Jesus spoke to his apostles was himself, but the scriptures do show that there is a difference between the Word, and the word that Jesus used to cleanse his followers. John 15:3; John 17:17

This is why his followers are commanded to preach the word - 2 Timothy 4:2, which they did.
This word is not Jesus.

[William]

[Replying to John17_3 in post #84]

It seems there’s a misunderstanding in the distinction being made between the Word (as in Jesus, the Living Word) and the word Jesus used to cleanse his followers, such as in John 15:3 and John 17:17. The Living Word and the words spoken by Jesus serve different functions, but they are intricately connected, especially when considering the analogy of the measuring tape in relation to truth and divine guidance.

Your point brings up an important issue with Cultural Christianity’s tendency to refer to the Bible as The Word of GOD, even to the point of worship-like veneration of the text itself. This has led many to rely on the Bible as an intermediary between themselves and GOD, effectively placing the written text as the ultimate source of divine truth. However, the Bible itself suggests a different understanding of what The Word truly is.

Let’s explore this critique further:

The Bible Refers to Jesus as The Word, Not Itself.
One of the central issues with Cultural Christianity’s approach is the way it conflates the Bible with The Word of GOD. In John 1:1, it is explicitly stated that “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Here, The Word clearly refers to Jesus, not the Bible as a written text. By equating The Word with the Bible, Cultural Christianity has created a reliance on a static, written medium, while the scripture itself points to Jesus as the true Word of GOD, alive and active, guiding people through a direct relationship.

The Problem of Over-Reliance on a Medium.
This veneration of the Bible places it as a fixed medium between individuals and GOD, creating a barrier to the direct relationship with GOD that Jesus himself preached. Instead of fostering a living, dynamic connection with GOD through Jesus and the Holy Spirit, many in Cultural Christianity have become overly dependent on the Bible as the final authority. This undermines the Bible’s own message, which emphasizes the importance of Jesus as the Living Word, the direct link to GOD.

Scripture Teaches a Relationship with the Living Word, Not the Bible.
The Bible itself points away from relying solely on a written text and directs believers toward a living relationship with Jesus. In John 15:3, Jesus tells his followers, “You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you.” Similarly, in John 17:17, Jesus prays, “Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth.” These verses emphasize that the cleansing and sanctification come from Jesus’ teachings and from the living connection with GOD, not from the written word alone.

Preaching the Word as the Message of Jesus, Not Just the Book Where the Message is Sourced.
In 2 Timothy 4:2, when followers are commanded to preach the word, this refers to spreading the message of Jesus—the transformative Gospel—rather than simply promoting the book from which the message is sourced. Preaching the word is about sharing the living truth that Jesus represents, not simply focusing on the text of the Bible itself. While the Bible serves as a valuable tool for conveying these teachings, it is ultimately the message of Jesus—his life, teachings, and role as the Living Word—that believers are called to preach.

The danger lies in reducing the act of preaching to the words on the page, when the deeper truth is in the living, dynamic relationship with GOD through Jesus. This relationship transcends the text and emphasizes that the true source of divine truth is the living word—Jesus himself—and not the book that contains the message.

The Word as a Living, Dynamic Connection.
By equating the Bible with The Word, Cultural Christianity risks missing the true essence of the Gospel—the living, breathing connection with GOD through Jesus. The Word is not a static book but a dynamic, ongoing relationship with the divine. The Holy Spirit and faith are the means by which we experience and discern spiritual truth. As such, the Bible is a helpful guide, but the true source of truth is found in the living relationship with GOD through Jesus, not in the text itself.

Conclusion: Re-Focusing on the True Word of GOD.
In conclusion, my critique of Cultural Christianity’s over-reliance on the Bible as The Word of GOD is well-founded. The Bible itself points to Jesus as the Living Word, emphasizing a direct, personal relationship with GOD through faith and the Holy Spirit. While the Bible is an important guide, it was never meant to be an ultimate medium between people and GOD. Instead, the true Word of GOD is found in the living, dynamic connection with Jesus, and subsequent results worked into the objective reality subjectively experienced and that is where believers should focus their attention, rather than solely on the written text.

This word is not Jesus.

Then it is not admissible as evidence of following Jesus.

[John17_3]

I'm not claiming that the text is defective. The text is what it is. I'm claiming that one of your traditional dogmas about the text is what's defective and the text itself is what demonstrates that.

Are you able to prove those claims? Please do so if you can.

[Difflugia]

Are you able to prove those claims? Please do so if you can.

I think we've hit the point where this comment applies.

If you have a supportable claim, make it and support it.

[Capbook]

I'm not claiming that the text is defective. The text is what it is. I'm claiming that one of your traditional dogmas about the text is what's defective and the text itself is what demonstrates that.

Are you able to prove those claims? Please do so if you can.

Yes, the text is not defective specially Ecc 9:25. And the one who claim to be Samuel that communicate with Saul might not really be the prophet Samuel, as there's one that has the power to transform himself. Though he is referred as darkness can transform himself to an angel of light. As Saul's decision to consult a medium reflects the depths of his despair and folly. At this point in his life, God had withdrawn His guidance from Saul due to the king's persistent disobedience.
If there's no one has the power to transform himself outside God, we might think that those verses are contradicting.

2Co 11:14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

Act 26:18 To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

[Difflugia]

And the one who claim to be Samuel that communicate with Saul might not really be the prophet Samuel, as there's one that has the power to transform himself.

So, the Bible is wrong when it says that it is? That's the question.

[Capbook]

And the one who claim to be Samuel that communicate with Saul might not really be the prophet Samuel, as there's one that has the power to transform himself.

So, the Bible is wrong when it says that it is? That's the question.

The Bible is not wrong, Ecclesiastes stand, and 1 Samuel can be explained.
As I say if no one can transform itself outside God, then the verses would be contradicting. But there is one.