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?

[myth-one.com]

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?'"

At the most, all three can be, and indeed are, true.

The dead Samuel knew not any thing.

But Sanuel was resurrected back to life.

After his resurrection back to life, the living Samuel then asked Saul for what purpose was he resurrected back to life.

There is no contradiction in those two verses.

[Difflugia]

The dead Samuel knew not any thing.

But Sanuel was resurrected back to life.

After his resurrection back to life, the living Samuel then asked Saul for what purpose was he resurrected back to life.

After God (presumably) resurrected Samuel, did God kill him again, or did he go on to have more adventures that weren't recorded? Did his return to life contradict Hebrews 9:27-28?

And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment,

Is Samuel still alive? Was Christ not actually the first resurrected (1 Corinthians 15:20)?

[Capbook]

The dead Samuel knew not any thing.

But Sanuel was resurrected back to life.

After his resurrection back to life, the living Samuel then asked Saul for what purpose was he resurrected back to life.

After God (presumably) resurrected Samuel, did God kill him again, or did he go on to have more adventures that weren't recorded? Did his return to life contradict Hebrews 9:27-28?

And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment,

Is Samuel still alive? Was Christ not actually the first resurrected (1 Corinthians 15:20)?

It was just a seance, a meeting at which people attempt to make contact with the dead, especially through the agency of a medium.
It was not a resurrection.

And I believe it was not actually Samuel, Saul ask first the medium of what form/appearance he is, Saul perceived/knew but did not look or see the old man's face as he (Saul) bowed his face to the ground. It is like what happen at Eden, Satan in the form/appearance of a serpent tempt Eve. Satan and demons have the power to transforms themselves even as an angel of light.
I believe there is no contradiction with the two verses.

(NRSVue) He said to her, “What is his appearance?” She said, “An old man is coming up; he is wrapped in a robe.” So Saul knew that it was Samuel, and he bowed with his face to the ground and did obeisance.

[Difflugia]

It was just a seance, a meeting at which people attempt to make contact with the dead, especially through the agency of a medium.
It was not a resurrection.

I agree with you.

And I believe it was not actually Samuel,

The text says that it was, though, and I'm pretty sure you believe that the text is inspired and inerrant.

Saul ask first the medium of what form/appearance he is, Saul perceived/knew but did not look or see the old man's face as he (Saul) bowed his face to the ground.

Yes. The inspired, inerrant text tells us that both the necromancer saw Samuel and Saul knew (יֵּ֤דַע, yedah) that it was Samuel. If 1 Samuel 28:12 and 14 are true, then the spirit of the dead Samuel spoke with Saul and the necromancer.

(NRSVue) He said to her, “What is his appearance?” She said, “An old man is coming up; he is wrapped in a robe.” So Saul knew that it was Samuel, and he bowed with his face to the ground and did obeisance.

So, if the Bible is true, then Saul knew that it was Samuel.

[Capbook]

It was just a seance, a meeting at which people attempt to make contact with the dead, especially through the agency of a medium.
It was not a resurrection.

I agree with you.

And I believe it was not actually Samuel,

The text says that it was, though, and I'm pretty sure you believe that the text is inspired and inerrant.

Saul ask first the medium of what form/appearance he is, Saul perceived/knew but did not look or see the old man's face as he (Saul) bowed his face to the ground.

Yes. The inspired, inerrant text tells us that both the necromancer saw Samuel and Saul knew (יֵּ֤דַע, yedah) that it was Samuel. If 1 Samuel 28:12 and 14 are true, then the spirit of the dead Samuel spoke with Saul and the necromancer.

(NRSVue) He said to her, “What is his appearance?” She said, “An old man is coming up; he is wrapped in a robe.” So Saul knew that it was Samuel, and he bowed with his face to the ground and did obeisance.

So, if the Bible is true, then Saul knew that it was Samuel.

Yes, the necromancer saw Samuel, but even if the looks of the old man resembles Samuel, Satan and by extension his followers, can deceive and mislead people by appearing as something they are not.

[Difflugia]

Yes, the necromancer saw Samuel, but even if the looks of the old man resembles Samuel, Satan and by extension his followers, can deceive and mislead people by appearing as something they are not.

Did Satan deceive and mislead the inspired author of the Bible, leading to a text with errors? The author and narrator of 1 Samuel 28 wrote that that the necromancer saw Samuel, that Saul knew that it was Samuel, and that Samuel spoke to Saul. Was the author decieved when he wrote those verses?

[Capbook]

Yes, the necromancer saw Samuel, but even if the looks of the old man resembles Samuel, Satan and by extension his followers, can deceive and mislead people by appearing as something they are not.

Did Satan deceive and mislead the inspired author of the Bible, leading to a text with errors? The author and narrator of 1 Samuel 28 wrote that that the necromancer saw Samuel, that Saul knew that it was Samuel, and that Samuel spoke to Saul. Was the author decieved when he wrote those verses?

The same case with Genesis 2, did the author mentioned that it was Satan that temp Eve? Eve saw and conversed with the serpent unknowing it was really Satan. Just like the medium saw and Saul knew that it was Samuel to them, but who really was the old man was? As there are fallen angels that could transform themselves to someone else, if ever there's no other power that holds like that, I'm convinced that it was really Samuel and that contradicts Ecc 9:5-6.

[Difflugia]

The same case with Genesis 2, did the author mentioned that it was Satan that temp Eve? Eve saw and conversed with the serpent unknowing it was really Satan.

The theology that the serpent was Satan is based on a series of proof-texts in which Satan is actually a dragon or serpent (Rev 12:9, 20:2), rather than just looking like one. Unless your claim is that Samuel was and always had been a demon, then the comparison is flawed.

Even so, I don't think the serpent of Genesis 2 was Satan, but was just a serpent. I don't think the apocalyptic imagery of Revelation is referring directly to Genesis 2.

Just like the medium saw and Saul knew that it was Samuel to them, but who really was the old man was?

According to the author and narrator, it was Samuel.

As there are fallen angels that could transform themselves to someone else, if ever there's no other power that holds like that, I'm convinced that it was really Samuel and that contradicts Ecc 9:5-6.

I don't think the two need to be mutually exclusive. Even if there are fallen angels that could fool a human being, the doctrine of inerrancy requires that when the Bible says that Saul and the necromancer spoke with Samuel, it was really Samuel they were talking to.

[Capbook]

The same case with Genesis 2, did the author mentioned that it was Satan that temp Eve? Eve saw and conversed with the serpent unknowing it was really Satan.

The theology that the serpent was Satan is based on a series of proof-texts in which Satan is actually a dragon or serpent (Rev 12:9, 20:2), rather than just looking like one. Unless your claim is that Samuel was and always had been a demon, then the comparison is flawed.

Even so, I don't think the serpent of Genesis 2 was Satan, but was just a serpent. I don't think the apocalyptic imagery of Revelation is referring directly to Genesis 2.

The old serpent, who is so called, because, of old, from the beginning, almost as soon as the world was, he appeared in the form of a serpent, or rather made use of it as an instrument and means, by which he seduced Eve.

Just like the medium saw and Saul knew that it was Samuel to them, but who really was the old man was?

According to the author and narrator, it was Samuel.

It was to them, but I still believe it was the fallen angel, the same belief to the "spirit of the glass."

As there are fallen angels that could transform themselves to someone else, if ever there's no other power that holds like that, I'm convinced that it was really Samuel and that contradicts Ecc 9:5-6.

I don't think the two need to be mutually exclusive. Even if there are fallen angels that could fool a human being, the doctrine of inerrancy requires that when the Bible says that Saul and the necromancer spoke with Samuel, it was really Samuel they were talking to.{/quote]

If you believe in Bible's inerrancy, assumptions would be there is no contradiction, the medium that saw the old man as Samuel, same as Eve saw and converse with the serpent unknowing it was Satan.

[Difflugia]

The old serpent, who is so called, because, of old, from the beginning, almost as soon as the world was, he appeared in the form of a serpent, or rather made use of it as an instrument and means, by which he seduced Eve.

That's a fine theological conclusion, but the Bible doesn't actually say those together. Paul says that a serpent beguiled Eve and the Revelator says that Satan is a serpent. You can combine those if you want, but that puts you in the position of claiming that the Bible says something it doesn't in order to justify that it doesn't say something that it does.

It was to them, but I still believe it was the fallen angel, the same belief to the "spirit of the glass."

The Bible says that it was Samuel, though.

If you believe in Bible's inerrancy, assumptions would be there is no contradiction, the medium that saw the old man as Samuel, same as Eve saw and converse with the serpent unknowing it was Satan.

Assuming that it's inerrant is one thing; changing it so that it says something different is another.