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]

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?

I don't think so. First of all, I think the books of Samuel are later than you do and the bulk of them was composed during the reign of Josiah in the seventh century BCE. The story of Saul and the necromancer is toward the end of a series of narratives whose purpose was to justify the legitimacy of David's taking of the throne after the death of Saul and Jonathan.

In short, I think these stories served the same purpose as George Washington and the cherry tree. In the case of George Washington, the purpose was to show how honest he was ("I cannot tell a lie!") The story is universally regarded as ahistorical, but it doesn't matter; the purpose is to illustrate the character of Washington, not relate history. The stories about Saul and David were arranged to show that Saul was a a bad king and David was a good one. In this particular story, we have God refusing to speak to Saul through sanctioned means ("Yahweh answered him not, neither by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets."). Saul's solution was to go to a necromancer in defiance of God's rules and speak with Samuel, who reinforces that Saul is no longer God's chosen and it's his own fault:

And Yahweh has done to you what he said through me: Yahweh has torn the kingdom from your hand and given it to your neighbor, David. Because you didn't obey the voice of Yahweh and didn't execute His fierce wrath upon Amalek, so has Yahweh done this to you today."

So, I don't think the authors meant the exact details to be historically true, but they were illustrating the truth of Saul's impious character as the reason that Yahweh rejected him.

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?

In general, yes, at least from the records we have. There's a discussion of the necromancer summoning Samuel in the Talmud that is part of a larger discussion about necromancy. The question isn't whether or not the spirit was really Samuel, but what kind of necromancy was used to allow him to appear "normally" (the dead usually appeared upside-down, apparently).

Rashi (a medieval Jewish scholar) also assumed in his commentary that it was Samuel, but apparently thought that he brought Moses with him for moral support:

I saw a godly man rising from the earth. Two angels, Moshe and Shmuel, for Shmuel feared, 'Perhaps I am being summoned for judgement,' and he therefore brought Moshe up with him, as it is stated in [Maseches] Chagiga and Ta'anis.

[Bible_Student]

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?

I don't think so. First of all, I think the books of Samuel are later than you do and the bulk of them was composed during the reign of Josiah in the seventh century BCE. ...
The stories about Saul and David were arranged ...
So, I don't think the authors meant the exact details to be historically true, but they were illustrating the truth of Saul's impious character as the reason that Yahweh rejected him. ...

You need to prove ALL that.

[Difflugia]

You need to prove ALL that.

You asked me what I think and I answered. If you want to debate one of those, pick one and we can start a new topic.

[1213]

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

[Bible_Student]

You need to prove ALL that.

You asked me what I think and I answered. If you want to debate one of those, pick one and we can start a new topic.

You said in the other thread:

I find the Bible to be much more interesting when I let it be what it is.

and

If the Bible is, in fact, inspired of the Holy Spirit and each biblical author is just as authoritative as any other, then altering the meaning of one to reconcile more comfortably with another is to tell the Holy Spirit what It should mean, rather than let It tell you. When the Holy Spirit has given you a contradiction and you insist that it isn't there, you are filtering away that which the Spirit has given you.

However, at this point, you're relying on arguments that are unrelated to the Bible's teachings and are based on external opinions instead.

[Difflugia]

You said in the other thread:

I find the Bible to be much more interesting when I let it be what it is.

and

If the Bible is, in fact, inspired of the Holy Spirit and each biblical author is just as authoritative as any other, then altering the meaning of one to reconcile more comfortably with another is to tell the Holy Spirit what It should mean, rather than let It tell you. When the Holy Spirit has given you a contradiction and you insist that it isn't there, you are filtering away that which the Spirit has given you.

Yep. I stand by both of those statements.

However, at this point, you're relying on arguments that are unrelated to the Bible's teachings and are based on external opinions instead.

Not at all. Those verses contradict each other if you treat them as inerrant in a historical sense. My argument is only that the authors meant what they wrote.

What you asked me was 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?" I took the "truly" to mean you were asking if the author was expecting to convey historically accurate details. I don't, so for the purposes of the argument, my answer to the question is "no." I do think that within the story the author is telling, though, the character Samuel spoke to the character Saul through the character of the necromancer. I expounded on what I do think is going on so that you'd understand my answer, but those details are otherwise immaterial.

To repeat, though, I do think that the author meant his words as they relate to his story. If your understanding of "inspired" and "authoritative" require the story to be historically accurate in its details, then the only viable option is that Samuel spoke to Saul through the necromancer. The wording precludes the idea that a different entity was impersonating Samuel and the narrator tells us unambiguously that Samuel rose from the grave to speak to Saul.

[John17_3]

There is no contradiction in scripture, but there is a contradiction in your what you said.
To say that one believes "all scripture is inspired of God", and that he spoke through these me, and then to say that God contradicts himself, is a contradiction.

No, you're reading too much into 2 Timothy 3:16. Scripture being inspired doesn't mean that it's inerrant, particularly in historical details.

If each author is inspired, then God presumably wants you to read what each author wrote instead of you telling the Bible what it can't be. The psalmist and eccleastical teacher ("Qoheleth") are telling us that death is the end of life and experience. The Deuteronomist, however, is telling us that Saul spoke with the late prophet Samuel.

If you believe what God says about death, then you would not believe the opposite.
It's either one or the other. It cannot be both, otherwise, you contradict yourself.

Exactly. Yet the Bible says that Samuel spoke to Saul after his death.

The contradiction is not with scripture.

I'd actually agree with you. The contradiction only exists if your exegetical method requires Protestant standards of inerrancy. If death sometimes isn't the end of consciousness or the story of Saul and the necromancer is theological fiction, then there's no contradiction. All we can know is that if the verses are inspired, then God wants you to read and understand them as they are.

God clearly states what death is, so when you read 1 Samuel 28:6-25, you should not discard what God says about death, but rather, understand the text, in line with what God says about death.

And at the same time, you mustn't discard what God has told you about Samuel. God told you in so many words that the dead man Samuel spoke to Saul.

When Saul inquired of God, God did not answer him by dreams or Urim or prophets.

• Samuels was a prophet - a dead prophet. So God did not answer Saul.

Before that verse, God hadn't answered Saul. It doesn't say that He wouldn't do so in the future, especially since the narrator later says that He did through Samuel!

Saul disguised himself, and went to a witch, and said to her. “Consult a spirit for me,” he said, “and bring up for me the one I name.”

• The woman contacted a spirit - a demon - who "brought up the one Saul wanted".

You're starting to change the story to suit yourself. According to the inspired text, the woman brought up Samuel herself ("Whom shall I bring up for you?"). She contacted one spirit: Samuel.

Saul took the woman's words, and swallowed it, hook, line, and sinker, that it was Samuel.
It was not Samuel. It was, as the Bible said, a spirit - the same spirit Saul asked the woman to consult.

The narrator, the one you told me was a prophet, told us times that it was Samuel. "And when the woman saw Samuel." Those aren't the words of the necromancer, but the words of the omniscient narrator. If those are the inspired words of a prophet, then it seems to me that God wants you to swallow them, hook, line, and sinker.

Verse 15, says, Now Samuel said to Saul, “Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?”

• Samuel, obviously is in quotations, because this is a spirit that only the woman can see. It is not Samuel. Why is the fully dressed spirit only visible to a woman that communicates with demons, and conjures up wicked spirits?

You're the one that says they're demons and the spirits are wicked, not the Bible. The NWT translators added the scare quotes, not the prophetic author.

That question is not hard to answer.

You're making it harder to answer than it should be.

A good author, and we know many of them, use this same method, of using a name of a person that is believed to be present, though impersonated.
If you are a person, who like me, did a lot of reading in novels, you would see this.
The Bible writer, here did that, centuries before we employed the method.

If you did as much reading as you say you have, you'd also know that authors write to be understood. If you have to change the story to make it fit your own ideas of what it should say, you're not getting the story that the author is telling you.

Furthermore, the literary technique that you're talking about would involve a reveal at some point. There isn't one. If the prophetic author was honest and correct, then the speaker was Samuel the entire time.

We cannot ignore the facts.

I absolutely agree with you.

A who does what you are doing, opens themselves to deception, and delusion, because that person will believe anything, even when it contradicts known facts.

So, which biblical narrator is deceiving me?

You told me that the story is inspired and you told me that it was written by a prophet. It also includes the late Samuel speaking to Saul. Why God told us that story is an interesting question, but I think we should both agree that changing God's story is the wrong answer.

1. Samuel was not resurrected.
2. When Samuel died, his spirit went out, and returned to the true God, who give it.
3. The thoughts of the dead perish, and they are not conscious.

So Samuel could not speak.
How do you figure Samuel spoke, when the conditions above, are true?

[Bible_Student]

...
To repeat, though, I do think that the author meant his words as they relate to his story. If your understanding of "inspired" and "authoritative" require the story to be historically accurate in its details, then the only viable option is that Samuel spoke to Saul through the necromancer. The wording precludes the idea that a different entity was impersonating Samuel and the narrator tells us unambiguously that Samuel rose from the grave to speak to Saul.

This is what the Bible says about the book of 1 Samuel:

1 Sam. 10:25 Samuel spoke to the people about the rightful due of kings and wrote it in a book and deposited it before Jehovah. Then Samuel sent all the people away, everyone to his house.

And:

1 Chronicles 29:29  As for the history of King David, from beginning to end, it is written among the words of Samuel the seer, Nathan the prophet, and Gad the visionary, 30 together with all his kingship, his mightiness, and the events of the times involving him and Israel and all the surrounding kingdoms.

You don't even believe that it was Samuel, Nathan and Gad the writers as the Scriptures say.

Without knowing the authors, it's impossible to truly understand the context of the material. I had hoped you would evaluate the content based on the text itself, as you stated you would.

[Difflugia]

1. Samuel was not resurrected.
2. When Samuel died, his spirit went out, and returned to the true God, who give it.
3. The thoughts of the dead perish, and they are not conscious.

So Samuel could not speak.

Then why did the biblical narrator say that he did?

How do you figure Samuel spoke, when the conditions above, are true?

For the purposes of this discussion, it doesn't matter what I "figure;" what matters is that the Bible says that he did.

[Difflugia]

This is what the Bible says about the book of 1 Samuel:

1 Sam. 10:25 Samuel spoke to the people about the rightful due of kings and wrote it in a book and deposited it before Jehovah. Then Samuel sent all the people away, everyone to his house.

And:

1 Chronicles 29:29  As for the history of King David, from beginning to end, it is written among the words of Samuel the seer, Nathan the prophet, and Gad the visionary, 30 together with all his kingship, his mightiness, and the events of the times involving him and Israel and all the surrounding kingdoms.

You don't even believe that it was Samuel, Nathan and Gad the writers as the Scriptures say.

I don't believe it, but for this discussion, that doesn't matter. Let's say that you're right about what Chronicles says and "the words of Samuel the seer, Nathan the prophet, and Gad the visionary" are the books of Samuel rather than lost works. All that means is that one of those three people wrote that Samuel briefly returned from the dead to talk to Saul.

Without knowing the authors, it's impossible to truly understand the context of the material.

I agree with you, which is why I normally have these discussions in C&A.

I had hoped you would evaluate the content based on the text itself, as you stated you would.

Not only have I engaged with "the text itself," but I've done so according to the rules of this particular subforum, where that text must be treated as authoritative. I'm not sure what you think I've done that has damaged our ability to "understand the context" or "evaluate the content" of the verses in question. In fact, it kind of sounds to me like you're looking for an excuse to avoid dealing with the text on its own terms.

The text says that the dead prophet Samuel talked to Saul via a necromancer. It says that no matter the author nor the context.