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?

[John17_3]

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.

Are you aware the Hebrew text did not contain quotation marks, punctuation marks, and so forth?
Could the text read ""Samuel" said..."?
If you do not think so, can you explain why?

Since seeming contradictions are not necessarily contradiction, but can exist in the mind of the reader, as has been shown on many occasions, why insist on a contradiction, rather that accept a reasonable explanation, which is actually scripture, and in line with scripture.

If there is no reasonable explanation for how a dead man can speak, which is in agreement with scripture, then I would say that clearly demonstrates that the scriptures have spoken, but the person saying their is a contradiction, is doing so, based on their subjective opinion.

Would that not be a fair conclusion?

[Difflugia]

Are you aware the Hebrew text did not contain quotation marks, punctuation marks, and so forth?

Until the Middle Ages, yes.

Could the text read ""Samuel" said..."?

You mean is it possible? Sure. Anything is possible, especially in apologetics. I don't think it's plausible, though.

If you do not think so, can you explain why?

The short answer is because authors typically write in order to be understood. If the author means something ironic, like that Samuel here isn't really Samuel, there needs to be some sort of literary nod to the reader that this is happening. In modern English, we can do this with scare quotes. As you said yourself, though, biblical Hebrew had no such indicator. If we accept here that the author intended the text to mean literally the opposite of what's written, then any text can mean anything. The corollary is that if a competent author expected us to understand that it wasn't Samuel, he wouldn't have identified the speaker as Samuel every single time.

Since seeming contradictions are not necessarily contradiction, but can exist in the mind of the reader, as has been shown on many occasions,

For varying definitions of "shown," anyway.

why insist on a contradiction, rather that accept a reasonable explanation, which is actually scripture, and in line with scripture.

If there were a reasonable explanation, I wouldn't insist on a contradiction. On the other hand, the explanation here is that the text means literally the opposite of what it says, which isn't reasonable.

If there is no reasonable explanation for how a dead man can speak, which is in agreement with scripture, then I would say that clearly demonstrates that the scriptures have spoken, but the person saying their is a contradiction,

If there is no reasonable explanation for how a dead man can speak, yet the scriptures say a dead man spoke, that sounds like a contradiction, pretty much by definition.

is doing so, based on their subjective opinion.

You're now claiming that it's "subjective opinion" to claim that the text means exactly what the author wrote. I understand the apologetic argument you're making, but the attempt to dismiss the most straightforward and objective form of exegesis as both subjective and mere opinion seems disingenuous at best.

Would that not be a fair conclusion?

For varying definitions of "fair," perhaps.

[Bible_Student]

This is your thesis:

At most two of the following three can be true:

• The Bible is inerrant.
• —"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."
• —"And Samuel said to Saul, 'Why have you disturbed me, to bring me up?'"

Up to now, I haven't been able to pinpoint from which angle this holds true.

As you are well aware, from my perspective, the name "Samuel" is viewed as a "character" within a narrative involving a spiritualist consultation. Thus, I don't see any contradiction from my standpoint.

From your viewpoint, the tale appears to be a later concocted story aimed at discrediting Saul while bolstering David, which also eliminates any contradiction.

You've employed various tactics and delved into numerous irrelevant topics to imply a contradiction exists. However, this approach complicates your stance instead of clarifying it. I suggest identifying a common point we agree on, so your thesis gains some credibility from my perspective, not just yours.

[Difflugia]

As you are well aware, from my perspective, the name "Samuel" is viewed as a "character" within a narrative involving a spiritualist consultation. Thus, I don't see any contradiction from my standpoint.

Whether or not you think I'm "well aware" of this, it seems at least in part like a new claim. Are the historical details of 1 Samuel 28 accurate?

From your viewpoint, the tale appears to be a later concocted story aimed at discrediting Saul while bolstering David, which also eliminates any contradiction.

I don't think it eliminates contradiction as such, but it makes contradiction irrelevant. The contradiction still exists, which you have denied.

You've employed various tactics and delved into numerous irrelevant topics to imply a contradiction exists.

If you say so, but I'm pretty sure my only "irrelevant topics" were answers to questions about what the author thought "truly" happened.

However, this approach complicates your stance instead of clarifying it.

If you say so.

I suggest identifying a common point we agree on, so your thesis gains some credibility from my perspective, not just yours.

My thesis is that the text is contradictory unless one changes what the text means. If the phrase, "Samuel said," in 1 Samuel 28:15 means "Samuel said," then it contradicts Ecclesiastes 9:25. If the person talking isn't actually Samuel, as Witness apologists claim, then the text isn't inerrant. If the text is inerrant, then the dead prophet Samuel is talking.

[Bible_Student]

Although I don't think the character called "Samuel" in that story is the deceased prophet of Jehovah, the incident did occur: an unseen spirit communicated through a medium.

I find it puzzling that an event you don't believe actually occurred can be used as a valid argument to prove a point. How can you expect to be taken seriously in this kind of argument when asserting something as significant as an alleged "contradiction" in a book revered by both Jews and Christians as divinely inspired?

[Difflugia]

Although I don't think the character called "Samuel" in that story is the deceased prophet of Jehovah, the incident did occur: an unseen spirit communicated through a medium.

When the narrator called the character "Samuel," what did he mean? If he didn't mean that the character was actually Samuel, should we apply the same exegetical method to other biblical stories, like maybe in Matthew 26:47 until the end, it wasn't actually Jesus that was captured and crucified, but "Jesus." Or we could harmonize the contradiction between Matthew 27:3-10 and Acts 1:18 by saying that only one of them is about Judas, but the other is about "Judas."

I find it puzzling that an event you don't believe actually occurred can be used as a valid argument to prove a point.

I think that says more about you than it does about me.

How can you expect to be taken seriously in this kind of argument when asserting something as significant as an alleged "contradiction" in a book revered by both Jews and Christians as divinely inspired?

How does someone's reverence for it affect whether or not there's a contradiction? As far as I can tell, the only factors right now are my evidence and your denial.

[Bible_Student]

Although I don't think the character called "Samuel" in that story is the deceased prophet of Jehovah, the incident did occur: an unseen spirit communicated through a medium.

When the narrator called the character "Samuel," what did he mean? ...

This indicates that those in attendance of that meeting thought the unseen spirit communicating through the medium was truly Samuel, as it was masquerading as him.

Anyone familiar with Jewish law understands that if the prophet of Jehovah, Samuel, were alive after his death (despite how absurd this sounds), he would never be swayed by a spirit medium or communicate through her.

As mentioned earlier, each biblical scripture has its own context. It is important to grasp the context of the story in question to interpret it realistically and understand what it definitely does not imply. Can you do that?

These questions may help:
Who was present? What did they witness? When did this happen?
Who recounted the story? Who documented it? When was it written?
What does the event mean spiritually, according to Jehovah's teachings?

[onewithhim]

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?

How is it that I Samuel 28 is the only place in the Bible that is confusing over the person being alive after death? There is no other place in the Scriptures. Therefore we have to look at I Samuel with reason. What is the only way to correspond that passage with Ecclesiastes 9? It is to realize that the spirit of Saul is not Saul but a demon that pretends to be Saul. That is totally reasonable, considering all other passages in the Bible that show a person to be truly dead when they die.

[onewithhim]

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".

Hello. Saul went to a witch! Do you think that she was aligned with God in any way? Why wouldn't she be deceptive? Witches do not accept Jehovah as God and they all believe in things that contradict the Bible. A witch would reasonably, according to her position as an ungodly witch, deceive anyone who came to her asking to be connected to the spirit world. The parentheses around "Samuel" are not necessarily wrong because how else would they be permitted in the narrative except by a translator's reason? There are no capital letters and no punctuation in Hebrew. It the punctuation marks were intended, all we have to go on is what the rest of the Bible says about death. They very well might have been intended by the original author.

[onewithhim]

The dead know nothing is true, I think. If Samuel spoke to Saul, how can he be called dead?

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?

Also, by what I see, Ecclesiastes is a scripture that tells what the writer, apparently Solomon had experienced, and the story evolves to the end. I don't think one should make too far fetching conclusions from the middle of the journey.

That is an excellent perspective.

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.