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]

Remember. Saul did not see Samuel.
The sorcerer was the one claiming she was seeing Samuel.

The narrator is the one that was claiming that it was Samuel.

The necromancer didn't claim to see Samuel. The narrator said that when the necromancer saw Samuel, she knew that her customer was Saul. Saul asked the necromancer to describe who she saw. She did, but she didn't name him. The narrator then told us that Saul knew that it was Samuel.

She is in contact with the wicked spirits, and they did not have to manifest, to her. They could simply communicate. She claimed to see a god, but did she?

According to the narrator, it wasn't a god, but Samuel. Apparently the narrator can tell the difference.

It it true though, that the spirit could indeed manifest as Samuel, just as they would manifest, as one of our dead loved ones, or a pet cat.

In which case, the biblical narrator would have written that it wasn't really our dead loved one or a pet cat, but an evil spirit. In 1 Samuel 28, though, the Bible itself tells us it was Samuel.

I wonder what @Difflugia will say to this.

That we should be reading the text as it is, whether we're believers or skeptics.

[John17_3]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #101]

In which case, the biblical narrator would have written that it wasn't really our dead loved one or a pet cat, but an evil spirit. In 1 Samuel 28, though, the Bible itself tells us it was Samuel.

Why do you assume this?

[Difflugia]

In which case, the biblical narrator would have written that it wasn't really our dead loved one or a pet cat, but an evil spirit. In 1 Samuel 28, though, the Bible itself tells us it was Samuel.

Why do you assume this?

Because in this subforum we assume that the Bible is without error.

[John17_3]

In which case, the biblical narrator would have written that it wasn't really our dead loved one or a pet cat, but an evil spirit. In 1 Samuel 28, though, the Bible itself tells us it was Samuel.

Why do you assume this?

Because in this subforum we assume that the Bible is without error.

No. What I am asking, is why you assume the biblical narrator would have written what you think the narrator would have written.
You are assuming to do otherwise would be an error, but that is another assumption.
You are using an assumption to answer, or give a reason for an assumption, and that would just be a series of assumptions, for which you cannot give a valid reason.

[Difflugia]

No. What I am asking, is why you assume the biblical narrator would have written what you think the narrator would have written.
You are assuming to do otherwise would be an error, but that is another assumption.
You are using an assumption to answer, or give a reason for an assumption, and that would just be a series of assumptions, for which you cannot give a valid reason.

This is just the same epistemology argument that apologists eventually turn to as their final resort: since all of our knowledge must rest on assumption somewhere, we can't actually know anything. If we can't know anything, then even the most implausible claims might actually be true.

I assume that authors write to be understood. When the author of 1 Samuel wrote that Samuel spoke to Saul, she meant us to understand that Samuel spoke to Saul. If she meant to communicate that Satan or anyone else spoke to Saul, then that's what she would have written. If you don't assume the same thing, then you're not even using language the same way I am. If your approach to language and epistemology is as free of boundaries as you claim, how are you even able to have a lucid conversation with me?

[John17_3]

No. What I am asking, is why you assume the biblical narrator would have written what you think the narrator would have written.
You are assuming to do otherwise would be an error, but that is another assumption.
You are using an assumption to answer, or give a reason for an assumption, and that would just be a series of assumptions, for which you cannot give a valid reason.

This is just the same epistemology argument that apologists eventually turn to as their final resort: since all of our knowledge must rest on assumption somewhere, we can't actually know anything. If we can't know anything, then even the most implausible claims might actually be true.

I assume that authors write to be understood. When the author of 1 Samuel wrote that Samuel spoke to Saul, she meant us to understand that Samuel spoke to Saul. If she meant to communicate that Satan or anyone else spoke to Saul, then that's what she would have written. If you don't assume the same thing, then you're not even using language the same way I am. If your approach to language and epistemology is as free of boundaries as you claim, how are you even able to have a lucid conversation with me?

Thank you.
Since many book in the Bible, as well as what both God, and Jesus stated, were not written and stated "to be understood", do you accept that to make that assumption would be wrong?
What did Jesus mean by what he said at Matthew 13:10-16?

[Difflugia]

Since many book in the Bible, as well as what both God, and Jesus stated, were not written and stated "to be understood",

I reject this premise. I defy you to find something in the Bible that was written with the intention of being misunderstood by the reader. If nothing else, how would you go about demonstrating that?

What did Jesus mean by what he said at Matthew 13:10-16?

That the disciples, and by extension the readers of Matthew's story, are able to understand the parables because they are given the full context that, presumably, the other hearers ("they") weren't given. This is exactly the literary nod to the reader that allows us to understand. It's even a bit more meta than that, considering that the parables aren't exactly difficult to figure out. The disciples are portrayed as being a bit thick and slow on the uptake, so Jesus has to explain to them what's going on. That's a literary device to give Matthew the opportunity to make sure that the reader correctly understands the parable. Again, that is the epitome of writing that is intended to be understood.

[Capbook]

Yes it is true that it is Samuel in form.

That's not what the text says. It doesn't say that it looks like Samuel or that any of the characters mistook another entity for Samuel, but that it is, in fact, Samuel speaking.

Your answer is trying to change the question. If I ask you if a particular house is yours and you tell me, "yes, I've been in that house," that's not actually an answer to the question. In this case, either the narrator is correct and Samuel was speaking or the narrator was wrong and the Bible isn't inerrant.

Same as true with the narrator of Genesis 3:1, that says "the serpent" that deceived Eve is true serpent in form but it is Satan the old serpent that deceiveth the whole world. (Rev 12:9)

It's not the same at all. There are a number of ways to reasonably read Revelation 12:9, but none of them can apply to the spirit of Samuel. Satan might be metaphorically a serpent, Satan might in some way be an actual serpent, or, by apologist rules, "the old serpent" in Revelation might not even be referring to the serpent in Genesis. The key difference is that the serpent in Genesis isn't named as someone else. If the tempter in the Garden were, say, George the Serpent, then one could no longer claim that it was actually Satan.

This argument is to reconcile the conflicting issue of Eccl 9:25 and 1 Sam 28:15. To see the other side and provide Scriptural harmony.

So, I've asked before and received various answers, but the question for me is how much bending of the text is acceptable to provide this Scriptural harmony? In the linked thread, Goose argued that literal, symbolic contradiction is the limit:

Trying to argue against an explicit logical contradiction (such as A and ~A) I would consider as "out of bounds."

It seems to me that that is the literal boundary we're up against with how Witnesses change 1 Samuel 28: in terms of symbolic logic, you're trying to argue that Samuel is ¬Samuel.

Did Saul not ask "What form is he of"?

1Sa 28:14 And he said unto her, What form is he of? And she said, An old man cometh up; and he is covered with a mantle. And Saul perceived that it was Samuel, and he stooped with his face to the ground, and bowed himself

[John17_3]

Since many book in the Bible, as well as what both God, and Jesus stated, were not written and stated "to be understood",

I reject this premise. I defy you to find something in the Bible that was written with the intention of being misunderstood by the reader. If nothing else, how would you go about demonstrating that?

What did Jesus mean by what he said at Matthew 13:10-16?

That the disciples, and by extension the readers of Matthew's story, are able to understand the parables because they are given the full context that, presumably, the other hearers ("they") weren't given. This is exactly the literary nod to the reader that allows us to understand. It's even a bit more meta than that, considering that the parables aren't exactly difficult to figure out. The disciples are portrayed as being a bit thick and slow on the uptake, so Jesus has to explain to them what's going on. That's a literary device to give Matthew the opportunity to make sure that the reader correctly understands the parable. Again, that is the epitome of writing that is intended to be understood.

Sorry. I meant to say, meant to be understood at the time, or by particular people.

[lifelongseeker]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #1]

Our OT was produced by Masorete Jews 1000 years after Christ called them sons of Satan.

Our NT is pseudepigraphical (forgery) manuscripts written 300 years after Christ. Ordered into cannon by...for...
____________
Masoretes -"𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑇𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛". Masoretic Text - "𝑡𝑒𝑥𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑇𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛" (Jewish Tanakh, from 1008BC) is our Old Testament.
Jeremiah 8:8 

Many ancient manuscripts have been found. Mystic, Gnostic, another messiah...