The Witch of Endor . . .

[Lightbearer]

While I hear what you are saying, the text is explicit that it was Samuel who spoke to Saul.

In that sense, the text does, in fact, "clearly say it was Samuel's spirit."

Are you leaving that out of your exegesis?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I challenge your idea that the text is explicit that it was Samuel who spoke to Saul. It does not clearly say it was Samuel's spirit, the text says:

(1 Samuel 28:11-20) "Then said the woman, Whom shall I bring up unto thee? And he said, Bring me up Samuel. And when the woman saw Samuel, she cried with a loud voice: and the woman spake to Saul, saying, Why hast thou deceived me? for thou art Saul. And the king said unto her, Be not afraid: for what sawest thou? And the woman said unto Saul, I saw gods ascending out of the earth. 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. And Samuel said to Saul, Why hast thou disquieted me, to bring me up? And Saul answered, I am sore distressed; for the Philistines make war against me, and God is departed from me, and answereth me no more, neither by prophets, nor by dreams: therefore I have called thee, that thou mayest make known unto me what I shall do. Then said Samuel, Wherefore then dost thou ask of me, seeing the Lord is departed from thee, and is become thine enemy? And the Lord hath done to him, as he spake by me: for the Lord hath rent the kingdom out of thine hand, and given it to thy neighbour, even to David: Because thou obeyedst not the voice of the Lord, nor executedst his fierce wrath upon Amalek, therefore hath the Lord done this thing unto thee this day. Moreover the Lord will also deliver Israel with thee into the hand of the Philistines: and to morrow shalt thou and thy sons be with me: the Lord also shall deliver the host of Israel into the hand of the Philistines. Then Saul fell straightway all along on the earth, and was sore afraid, because of the words of Samuel: and there was no strength in him; for he had eaten no bread all the day, nor all the night."

Clearly something does not fit here. First it says the woman sees Samuel, yet she exclaims that Saul is deceiving her. He asks the witch what she sees. She does not say it is Samuel, but she sees "gods ascending out of the earth" this is an odd expression, why did she not say plainly it was Samuel? Then Saul asks "what form is he of"? Again she does not say the ghost of the prophet Samuel, she says "an old man cometh up and he is covered with a mantle. Then Saul "perceived that it was Samuel" or assumed it was Samuel. It does not state that he knew it was Samuel or saw Samuel, only that he "perceived" it. Why be so vague if it clearly is Samuel? Later verses give the dialogue as if it is Samuel, but that may just be convention in writing, not that it actually was indeed the spirit of Samuel dragged out of the spirit world by someone who the Lord has cursed and dictated the death penalty for their actions. You of all people should understand that we believe the Bible insofar as it is translated correctly. But that really is not what this is all about, it is about disrespect to modern day apostles and prophet for which you have some grudge against, they have offended your sensibilities and you must do your best to discredit their every opinion and try to shed doubt on official LDS scriptures and the interpretations officially endorsed by the Church.

As for your comments about JFS and BRM I think your statement:

Shut up, standard works! I'm busy making you say what I want you to say!

could be equally applied to you.

[Cold Steel]

I do not think that this is an accurate translation of what actually happened. If you take the plain meaning of many of the scriptures without allowing for the possibility of inaccurate translations, where something has been left out, added, or just plain translated incorrectly, you come up with contradictions. Take for instance in Exodus 33;11 it tells us that Moses spoke with God "face to face as a man speaketh unto his friend". Yet later in that same chapter, when Moses asked to see God's glory, he was told "Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live." (Exodus 33:20) Obviously something is amiss here.

Not necessarily amiss. We have two things going on which can be, and has been, reconciled. The Lord, in his anger, cannot be seen when he chooses not to. Sometimes it's circumstantial and other times it's paradoxical.

There are many other examples. "For God is a spirit". And one of my favorites, Amos 3:6:...shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it?

God being a Spirit has been dealt with by various scholars and hermeneuticists. The Holy Ghost is a spirit, and the Father, too, is spirit. A more troubling aspect of the scriptures is that Jesus is not very often associated with God in the epistles. As for Amos 6, "evil" can be seen as an "affliction," which is often seen by the Jews as coming from God for transgression.

When we ponder the passage about Saul and the Witch of Endor, we must keep in mind the nature of revelation. Paul, in Hebrews 1:1 says that God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, says nothing about God speaking unto anyone by witches. The Old and New Testaments are replete with the condemnation of witchcraft. So why should we accept that in this one instance, the practice of witchcraft is not only condoned, but implicitly authorized?

Well, God may have spoken by prophets, but this scripture isn't conclusive in exempting spirits. In Genesis we have Moses dying, but we know he didn't die. Someone who finished the book wrote it in as an assumption. Moses goes up a mountain and doesn't come down. What's the most rational reason? God taking him into heaven or dying? In the case of Saul, the witch saw Samuel and the witnesses saw the witch call on Samuel. The only reason we know it isn't Samuel is that modern prophets have told us it wasn't. When I was a Protestant, I had no trouble thinking it was Samuel. The witch clearly saw the event as paranormal, even for her! So why couldn't it have been Samuel? Well, because we're told it violates the principles of Heaven. It's not that we LDS go to great lengths to see it this way; it's just that's what we've been told.

[mfbukowski]

Can someone tell me who was the "fly-on-the-wall" who recorded these events? Saul and all his henchmen were killed soon after,so who was it?

The same person who saw Jonah wash up on the beach and heard God talking to Satan about Job and witnessed the talking donkey.

How many people believe in the inerrancy of Bible?

This is one of those times when gold plates and angels does not sound so preposterous and the historicity of the BOM looks like a done deal.

Moroni 10:4-5 looks pretty good to me right now.

[Glenn101]

Not necessarily amiss. We have two things going on which can be, and has been, reconciled. The Lord, in his anger, cannot be seen when he chooses not to. Sometimes it's circumstantial and other times it's paradoxical.

God being a Spirit has been dealt with by various scholars and hermeneuticists. The Holy Ghost is a spirit, and the Father, too, is spirit. A more troubling aspect of the scriptures is that Jesus is not very often associated with God in the epistles. As for Amos 6, "evil" can be seen as an "affliction," which is often seen by the Jews as coming from God for transgression.

Well, God may have spoken by prophets, but this scripture isn't conclusive in exempting spirits. In Genesis we have Moses dying, but we know he didn't die. Someone who finished the book wrote it in as an assumption. Moses goes up a mountain and doesn't come down. What's the most rational reason? God taking him into heaven or dying? In the case of Saul, the witch saw Samuel and the witnesses saw the witch call on Samuel. The only reason we know it isn't Samuel is that modern prophets have told us it wasn't. When I was a Protestant, I had no trouble thinking it was Samuel. The witch clearly saw the event as paranormal, even for her! So why couldn't it have been Samuel? Well, because we're told it violates the principles of Heaven. It's not that we LDS go to great lengths to see it this way; it's just that's what we've been told.

Cold Steel, I can agree with most of what you say. I was just responding to the the "plain language" reading that the Op feels we should take in reference to the Witch of Endor by proposing some other plain language scriptures. Most, if not all of them have been dealt with, from an LDS perspective at sundry times and in various places, arguing that such verses should not be taken at the plain reading level.

Glenn

[consiglieri]

Most, if not all of them have been dealt with, from an LDS perspective at sundry times and in various places, arguing that such verses should not be taken at the plain reading level.

Wow.

When the Brethren speak, the thinking really has been done.

Thanks for the update.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Glenn101]

Wow.

When the Brethren speak, the thinking really has been done.

Thanks for the update.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Would you please expound upon "the thinking has been done" please. I referenced none of the "Brethren", meaning the members of the Twelve, First Presidency, etc. in my posts. Most of the things I mentioned as having been dealt with, I have seen discussed in various posts and threads here on this forum.

Edited to add:

During much of my life in the church, I was troubled by the plain language of some of the scriptures. That was before the LDS publication of the King James Bible had been indexed and the JST appendix added. One such area was where the Bible states that God hardened Pharaoh's heart at least twice after Pharaoh had promised to let Israel leave. I was troubled because that seemed as if God had interfered in the Pharaoh's free agency. The JST changes that to Pharaoh hardening his own heart each and every time. This makes much more sense from the LDS perspective in the least.

I still have problem with Paul's seeming acceptance of this in Romans chapter 9.

Another problem I have with plain readings of the text is the story of Lot. He is judged to be a righteous by Paul, but he was willing, in the KJV to send his daughters out to be raped and sodomized by the denizens of Sodom. The JST paints a different story, one more in keeping with a righteous man.

Glenn

[consiglieri]

Another problem I have with plain readings of the text is the story of Lot. He is judged to be a righteous by Paul, but he was willing, in the KJV to send his daughters out to be raped and sodomized by the denizens of Sodom. The JST paints a different story, one more in keeping with a righteous man nineteenth century American ideals.

I think I just did a CST.

(Con Siglieri Translation)

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Glenn101]

View PostGlenn101, on 30 June 2010 - 08:08 AM, said:

Another problem I have with plain readings of the text is the story of Lot. He is judged to be a righteous by Paul, but he was willing, in the KJV to send his daughters out to be raped and sodomized by the denizens of Sodom. The JST paints a different story, one more in keeping with a righteous man nineteenth century American ideals.

I think I just did a CST.

(Con Siglieri Translation)

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Your CST does not stand up to close scrutiny. The nineteenth century man could be a murderer of American "Indians" or blacks and still be considered righteous by nineteenth century ideals. I believe that the changes Joseph was making to the Bible bear the earmarks of inspiration rather than a nineteenth century religious imprint. There were no other religious leaders before, during, or after his time that have felt the need to change any of the things that Joseph changed or anything like unto it.

Glenn