Is the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment biblical or not?

Rosenritter

New member
Yeah, I read the entire chapter. You may have gone back, but you clearly didn't read what was written. I already said not all seers were prophets, but all prophets were seers, didn't I? I figured I'd made that clear.

The definition in the text says that "seer" is an old word for "prophet." I can understand an initial misunderstanding or mistake, but why are you arguing about this when it's written with absolute clarity? It's this willingness of yours to take what's in the text and turn it upside down with abandon that worries me.

(Beforetime in Israel, when a man went to enquire of God, thus he spake, Come, and let us go to the seer: for he that is now called a Prophet was beforetime called a Seer.)

Saul was not seeking a Godly Prophet. He was seeking a seer who could help him find his missing donkeys. You should have read it....it's very important to the story.

Except that's exactly what it says that they were seeing. You might make a case that it was Saul's servant who know of Samuel initially, but they certainly weren't attempting to go after a necromancer or medium.

And he said unto him, Behold now, there is in this city a man of God, and he is an honourable man;
all that he saith cometh surely to pass: now let us go thither; peradventure he can shew us our way that we should go. "

Why are some of you folks So focused on who thanks who? We basically support those who are saying something we agree with. Does that awaken your green eyed monster?

Believe me, I'm not jealous of Way 2 Go nor Angel. The point is that it's a good demonstration of the blind pack mentality here. When scripture says "the word seer means prophet" and you say in direct contradiction "a seer is not a prophet" guess whom they like and agree with? It's not scripture as the measure here. Then again, you and they are already denying statements just as clear such as "the dead know not any thing" so it's to be expected.
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
The definition in the text says that "seer" is an old word for "prophet." I can understand an initial misunderstanding or mistake, but why are you arguing about this when it's written with absolute clarity? It's this willingness of yours to take what's in the text and turn it upside down with abandon that worries me.

Oh, please don't worry. Just read the text...I already quoted a lot for you, and it was very clear that Saul and his servant were out looking for their donkeys. Saul was not seeking a Prophet of God. His servant mentioned there was man (Seer/Prophet/someone who might know) who may be able to help them find their donkeys. Someone who might be able to tell them which way to go to FIND THEIR DONKEYS. He had a good reputation for knowing things. Now, if you want to keep pretending that it was anything more than that, then I can only conclude you are out to argue instead of looking for the truth of the matter. They were looking for a SEER not a PROPHET.

6 And he said unto him, Behold now, there is in this city a man of God, and he is an honourable man; all that he saith cometh surely to pass: now let us go thither; peradventure he can shew us our way that we should go.

(Beforetime in Israel, when a man went to enquire of God, thus he spake, Come, and let us go to the seer: for he that is now called a Prophet was beforetime called a Seer.)



Except that's exactly what it says that they were seeing. You might make a case that it was Saul's servant who know of Samuel initially, but they certainly weren't attempting to go after a necromancer or medium.

And he said unto him, Behold now, there is in this city a man of God, and he is an honourable man;
all that he saith cometh surely to pass: now let us go thither; peradventure he can shew us our way that we should go. "

You're just stuck on stupid because you don't want to admit you are wrong. They had no reason to seek out a Prophet of God. They were looking for DONKEYS. :doh:



Believe me, I'm not jealous of Way 2 Go nor Angel. The point is that it's a good demonstration of the blind pack mentality here. When scripture says "the word seer means prophet" and you say in direct contradiction "a seer is not a prophet" guess whom they like and agree with? It's not scripture as the measure here. Then again, you and they are already denying statements just as clear such as "the dead know not any thing" so it's to be expected.

Alrighty then....the witch of Endor must have been a prophet too. Maybe my friends thanked my post because they were being entertained by your ignorance in this matter.
 

Rosenritter

New member
It shows clearly that man is more than just a body. The body can run out of energy and fall asleep, even though the spirit of man (inner man, thoughts, plans, etc) wants to stay awake and alert. Ecc. 9:5 and a verse right after it that should have cleared it up for you. Try reading it again.

You're invoking that straw man again Glory. We both understand that man has more than just physical components. The point of discussion is that regardless of the specific makeup of man, that this man has no life nor conscious experience in any portion or any part upon death.

You do understand that the Spirit of God doesn't war against our flesh without the cooperation of the spirit of man, don't you? Proving that man is more than just a body of flesh.

Straw man. The man has no ability to function without that combination of body and spirit. My car is more than simply metal, but that doesn't mean that the gasoline and oil will transport me anywhere if I remove it from the engine. It doesn't mean that the programs in my computer can run or live if I deprive them of their silicon tabernacle.

1 Corinthians 2:11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.​

The Spirit of God must commune with the spirit of man which is why there is a war between the flesh and the spirit. That same flesh that is weak while the spirit (of man) is willing, is in view here. What? Do you think man, alone, would put off the lusts of the flesh...hatred, envy, etc.?
2 Corinthians 7:1 Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.​

It almost seems like you are trying to introduce a different subject: you are asking if man is sinful or sin prone in nature? You imply "yes" but your previous stance was that children did not have a fallible sinful nature, thus they "went to heaven" when they died, guaranteed. Please forgive if the details are fuzzy here, but you refused to elaborate on the details.

Calling on Lon won't help you. Your lie that I'm nullifying the book of Ecclesiastes is as ignorant as saying that we shouldn't understand the Law of Moses was given to the Jews. If you can't figure out that Solomon was not endorsing "Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow you die", but was speaking of what men argue. ie. 'Might as well do such and such 'cause we'll be dead soon enough.' It's a wonderful book, but it is what it is....not what you want it to be when you need it to form some pet doctrine of YOURS.

I think you are confusing Solomon with Paul, 1 Cor 15:32, If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? let us eat and drink; for to morrow we die.

But you are telling me that the dead in Christ are indeed alive and in a type of conscious happy existence, which makes this statement by Paul utterly without sense or meaning. I haven't heard anyone advocating your position on this board (or anywhere) offer a satisfactory explanation for that.

Solomon also tells us this....there is a spirit of man (that goeth upward) while the body goes in the ground. Your selective quoting needs to look harder.
Proverbs 20:27 The spirit of man is the candle of the Lord, searching all the inward parts of the belly.

Ecclesiastes 3:21 Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?​

Straw man argument, again. Life will be restored to man when he is raised from the dead, it is not disputed that man has non-physical components. What you have failed to demonstrate is that man has conscious existence while he is dead. It seems a little strange that you will argue that some of Ecclesiastes should be ignored as "merely man's arguments" but you would attempt to take other portions and slide them into your "we shall not surely die" argument.

No, I've read the entire book many times. Solomon does come to God at the end of his life, but not before he speaks all the wisdom of man known under the sun. You think way too highly of yourself, Rossenritter. You have a pet doctrine and try to prove it with a book you don't even understand. Men come to the same conclusions Solomon does...although most lack his wisdom.

Regardless of how many times you think you've read it, you missed the conclusion. Solomon is not unaware or ignorance of the things of God in relation to death. What you work for in this life shall perish, and he emphasizes this, and he also points us to the judgment:how else will God "bring every work into judgment?" It certainly hasn't happened in this life yet. Your "man's arguments" rejection line is a contrived argument excuse because you don't like his earlier statements.

What a crock. I attack Jesus, Himself. You're a fool for saying that.

Let's see, you said that Solomon only had "man's arguments" because he said things like "better that one not be born" but yet Jesus also said similar things just as well. Did Jesus only have "man's arguments" Glory?


It wouldn't be bad, but it would be wrong. :nono:

I'd love it if God made everyone sleep and wake up happy and laying down with the lions and lambs....but I'd be a fool to ignore the teachings of the Bible....I'd be a fool to twist and distort the Scripture (as you are doing), just so you could say you were right.

I'm not asking you to ignore the teachings of the Bible. I'm asking you to ignore the teachings of those that taught you before that Bible. You've come into this with a lot of baggage, including (unquestioned) assumptions that may include:

1) Mortals are immortal, they are always conscious
2) Devils are immortal, they will always exist
3) God torments the majority of mortals in agony without end for no constructive purpose (Protestant hell)
4) God torments the majority of mortals in agony almost without end for constructive purpose (Catholic purgatory)

You are starting with this colored lens, and then try to find passages that "affirm" your belief. I've noticed how when you see the word "spirit" you overlay a meaning of "conscious spirit of man while he is dead" and are surprised when this isn't automatically accepted as fact. Those assumptions (listed above) have pagan philosophical origins, they aren't what you get if you start with the bible and let it define itself.

When God warns Adam about death in the garden of Eden, he tells him what it means. He tells Adam that Adam IS dust. He doesn't say that he will dissolve "his" dust, and has no warning whatsoever about torment in some shadowy netherworld for some unknown thousands of years. God is not ignorant of the mechanics of his creation, and it would be grossly deceptive to withhold something so vital and to pretend that it was something else.

You have said that "death is death" has no terrible moral consequence, that it would actually be a good thing. But as you are claiming the Bible must read, that does come at a terrible cost. You're preserving that cost because of the aforementioned assumptions, the "arguments of men" that "the dead are alive, we never really die."

If you want to prove me wrong, let's start stepping through starting at Genesis and move forward. If you use the definitions as the bible gives them along the way, without constantly overlaying those not-yet-established assumptions, that "soul fly" and "eternal conscious torment" disappears without ever gaining a foothold.
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
You're invoking that straw man again Glory. We both understand that man has more than just physical components. The point of discussion is that regardless of the specific makeup of man, that this man has no life nor conscious experience in any portion or any part upon death.



Straw man. The man has no ability to function without that combination of body and spirit. My car is more than simply metal, but that doesn't mean that the gasoline and oil will transport me anywhere if I remove it from the engine. It doesn't mean that the programs in my computer can run or live if I deprive them of their silicon tabernacle.



It almost seems like you are trying to introduce a different subject: you are asking if man is sinful or sin prone in nature? You imply "yes" but your previous stance was that children did not have a fallible sinful nature, thus they "went to heaven" when they died, guaranteed. Please forgive if the details are fuzzy here, but you refused to elaborate on the details.



I think you are confusing Solomon with Paul, 1 Cor 15:32, If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? let us eat and drink; for to morrow we die.

But you are telling me that the dead in Christ are indeed alive and in a type of conscious happy existence, which makes this statement by Paul utterly without sense or meaning. I haven't heard anyone advocating your position on this board (or anywhere) offer a satisfactory explanation for that.



Straw man argument, again. Life will be restored to man when he is raised from the dead, it is not disputed that man has non-physical components. What you have failed to demonstrate is that man has conscious existence while he is dead. It seems a little strange that you will argue that some of Ecclesiastes should be ignored as "merely man's arguments" but you would attempt to take other portions and slide them into your "we shall not surely die" argument.



Regardless of how many times you think you've read it, you missed the conclusion. Solomon is not unaware or ignorance of the things of God in relation to death. What you work for in this life shall perish, and he emphasizes this, and he also points us to the judgment:how else will God "bring every work into judgment?" It certainly hasn't happened in this life yet. Your "man's arguments" rejection line is a contrived argument excuse because you don't like his earlier statements.



Let's see, you said that Solomon only had "man's arguments" because he said things like "better that one not be born" but yet Jesus also said similar things just as well. Did Jesus only have "man's arguments" Glory?




I'm not asking you to ignore the teachings of the Bible. I'm asking you to ignore the teachings of those that taught you before that Bible. You've come into this with a lot of baggage, including (unquestioned) assumptions that may include:

1) Mortals are immortal, they are always conscious
2) Devils are immortal, they will always exist
3) God torments the majority of mortals in agony without end for no constructive purpose (Protestant hell)
4) God torments the majority of mortals in agony almost without end for constructive purpose (Catholic purgatory)

You are starting with this colored lens, and then try to find passages that "affirm" your belief. I've noticed how when you see the word "spirit" you overlay a meaning of "conscious spirit of man while he is dead" and are surprised when this isn't automatically accepted as fact. Those assumptions (listed above) have pagan philosophical origins, they aren't what you get if you start with the bible and let it define itself.

When God warns Adam about death in the garden of Eden, he tells him what it means. He tells Adam that Adam IS dust. He doesn't say that he will dissolve "his" dust, and has no warning whatsoever about torment in some shadowy netherworld for some unknown thousands of years. God is not ignorant of the mechanics of his creation, and it would be grossly deceptive to withhold something so vital and to pretend that it was something else.

You have said that "death is death" has no terrible moral consequence, that it would actually be a good thing. But as you are claiming the Bible must read, that does come at a terrible cost. You're preserving that cost because of the aforementioned assumptions, the "arguments of men" that "the dead are alive, we never really die."

If you want to prove me wrong, let's start stepping through starting at Genesis and move forward. If you use the definitions as the bible gives them along the way, without constantly overlaying those not-yet-established assumptions, that "soul fly" and "eternal conscious torment" disappears without ever gaining a foothold.

STRAW MAN :down:
 

Rosenritter

New member
They were looking for a SEER not a PROPHET.

1 Samuel 9:9
(Formerly in Israel, when a man went to inquire of God, he used to say, "Come, and let us go to the seer"; for he who is called a prophet now was formerly called a seer.)

You're just stuck on stupid because you don't want to admit you are wrong. They had no reason to seek out a Prophet of God. They were looking for DONKEYS. :doh:


No, I'm I am baffled that you are arguing against the defined meaning of the term. Seer means prophet, prophet means seer, or at least all prophets are seers. God himself has given us the meaning of the word, and you are arguing the opposite? WHY?
 

Rosenritter

New member
"But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power,. . . " Revelation 20:5-6 (KJV)

What do the words "second death" signify?

OMT: What does being cast into a "bottomless pit" also indicate? When would anyone stop falling except when they hit bottom?

It means death. Again. What does OMT signify?
 

Rosenritter

New member
Don't need to....it's a matter of tit for tat with you.

Yes, it's quite obvious that you are trying to play "tit for tat" and are acting like a parrot. I'll explain for you so you need not be ignorant:

A STRAW MAN is the term for the logical fallacy when one creates an argument for someone else and then attacks that instead of what they have actually claimed or attempted to preset for discussion.

For example, when it is agreed upon that man has both physical and spiritual components, and you spend days "attacking" that "man is more than physical" over objections that "that isn't in disagreement" you are engaging in a STRAW MAN argument. It's a lot easier to "win" a "straw man argument" because you set up the "straw man" so that you can knock it down without opposition.

The "straw man" is one of the basic fallacies of illogical argument. It's right up there with "circular logic" which means to assume the very thing you are attempting to prove, and to use those assumptions as its own proof. Sort of like the process you've used to claim that man is "never really dead, his spirit continues to live." You're using the word "spirit" with the definition of what you need to prove, and claiming the word "spirit" is its own proof.

Should I even mention the "personal attack" or "ad hominem" argument where one makes personal attacks instead of dealing with the subject on its merits, such as calling one's opponent a "fruitcake" or the like?
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
Yes, it's quite obvious that you are trying to play "tit for tat" and are acting like a parrot. I'll explain for you so you need not be ignorant:

I'd be ignorant if I continued trying to dialogue with a fool.

One who insists Saul was seeking a prophet of God instead of just a seer to help him find his donkeys. :chuckle:
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
[FONT=&]1 Samuel 9:9[/FONT]
[FONT=&](Formerly in Israel, when a man went to inquire of God, he used to say, "Come, and let us go to the seer"; for he who is called a prophet now was formerly called a seer.)[/FONT]



No, I'm I am baffled that you are arguing against the defined meaning of the term. Seer means prophet, prophet means seer, or at least all prophets are seers. God himself has given us the meaning of the word, and you are arguing the opposite? WHY?

This poor lost soul cannot see the forest for the trees. She highlights a phrase in parenthesis instead of reading the entire text, and accuses me of arguing the opposite. Has anyone seen me arguing the "opposite" besides Rosey? :sigh:

There is a wonderful chapter, 1 Samuel 9, that tells us how Saul was first chosen to rule over Israel. The people had demanded a king, so God chose this tall goodly looking man who was out searching for some lost donkeys....not a godly man at all. He wasn't looking for a prophet of God, he was looking for his donkeys. But, since this Rosey's pet doctrine is at stake, she/he has gone bi-polor on us. She has even gone so far as to say Saul was not seeking a "seer" at all, but a Prophet of God. She has come up with that idea because of a verse that explains how prophets were called seers. It has nothing to do with the facts of the story, but this Rosey pretends like it is the whole story.

No, Saul was looking for his donkeys, and Samuel had other plans for Saul. It's a great chapter, but Rosey is showing her hind end so she can distract from her claim that Saul was most certainly not looking for a "seer" to help him find his donkeys, but a Prophet of God.

Such simple things get turned into long rants by a deranged promoter of "soul sleep". Not a JW? Ha.
 

way 2 go

Well-known member
Alrighty then....the witch of Endor must have been a prophet too. Maybe my friends thanked my post because they were being entertained by your ignorance in this matter.
lots of ignorance of the truth

RR called Samuel a demon

1Sa 28:15 Then Samuel said to Saul, "Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?"

RR says Jesus contradicted the whole bible with luke 16:19-31

Luk 16:22 And it happened that the beggar died and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom. The rich one also died and was buried.
Luk 16:23 And in hell he lifted up his eyes, being in torments, and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
Luk 16:24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me and send Lazarus so that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am tormented in this flame.


RR just won't accept that it was the spirits of Moses and Elijah

Mat 17:4 And Peter said to Jesus, “Lord, it is good that we are here. If you wish, I will make three tents here, one for you and one for Moses and one for Elijah.”
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
lots of ignorance of the truth

RR called Samuel a demon

1Sa 28:15 Then Samuel said to Saul, "Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?"

RR says Jesus contradicted the whole bible with luke 16:19-31

Luk 16:22 And it happened that the beggar died and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom. The rich one also died and was buried.
Luk 16:23 And in hell he lifted up his eyes, being in torments, and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
Luk 16:24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me and send Lazarus so that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am tormented in this flame.


RR just won't accept that it was the spirits of Moses and Elijah

Mat 17:4 And Peter said to Jesus, “Lord, it is good that we are here. If you wish, I will make three tents here, one for you and one for Moses and one for Elijah.”

There ya go. RR is working hard to promote her pet doctrine, and it's a shame to see her adulterating the Holy Scripture while she does it.
 

KingdomRose

New member
Is the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment (ECT) biblical or not?

Which verses in the Bible support ECT and which verses in the bible support the doctrine that the wicked perish instead?

There are NO verses that support ECT, regardless of men's tampering with translation and teaching lies about it. It is plain to see that the wicked PERISH---that is, DIE---in the final countdown. All of the verses that charlatans use to support ECT are actually verses that refer to SYMBOLIC burning by fire, not literal burning. The point is that the wicked end up just like something that has been set afire---non-existent.

That DEATH is the end of wicked individuals is clear when we examine verses like the following:

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not PERISH but have everlasting life." (John 3:16, KJV)

"He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son SHALL NOT SEE LIFE; but the wrath of God abideth on him." (John 3:36, KJV)

"Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto DEATH, or of obedience unto righteousness....What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is DEATH....For THE WAGES OF SIN IS DEATH; but the gift of God is eternal life, through Christ Jesus our Lord." (Romans 6:16,21,23, KJV)


We can see that "life" is contrasted with "death." To the uninitiated in fallacious beliefs, "death" would sensibly be defined as the condition of not being alive anymore. ("The dead are conscious of NOTHING." Ecclesiastes 9:5) "Life" is experienced by people who can consciously think and act. To experience PAIN and SUFFERING, a person would have to be ALIVE. The Bible says that the wicked will be DEAD. Logically that means that they cannot feel anything or even think.

The doctrine of ECT is contradictory to the Bible and there is no defense for its erroneous teaching. The clergy would have us take the definition of "death" and turn it on its head so that somehow we can twist our thoughts to accept the idea that the dead are actually alive and suffering.

1) This goes right along with Satan's own words that we will NOT die when we die (Genesis 3:4). There is no mention by God in Genesis of Adam and Eve or anybody else continuing to LIVE and suffering in flames. He said that they would "return to the dust." Period. Men have taken the idea of death and totally twisted it to mean something that cannot be supported in the Scriptures. Anyone who believes in ECT denies God and gives Satan credit for expounding the "truth."

2) Anyone who is actually ALIVE and put in a situation where they are actually roasting in flames would not be able to stand it for very many minutes. A live person's nerve endings would be destroyed and they would feel nothing. Flesh would not stand up to eternal burning. It is ludicrous.

3) The clergy might say, well they are burning in the spirit. More spurious prattle. A spirit cannot be burned with fire. Any way you look at it, the doctrine of ECT is blasphemous toward God and perhaps the biggest lie ever spewed out by the prince of darkness.
 

Rosenritter

New member
lots of ignorance of the truth
RR called Samuel a demon

1Sa 28:15 Then Samuel said to Saul, "Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?"

Matthew Henry
also says that the apparition was a devil.

Spoiler
1Sa 28:7-14
Here, I. Saul seeks for a witch, 1Sa_28:7. When God answered him not, if he had humbled himself by repentance and persevered in seeking God, who knows but that at length he might have been entreated for him? but, since he can discern no comfort either from heaven or earth (Isa_8:21, Isa_8:22), he resolves to knock at the gates of hell, and to see if any there will befriend him and give him advice: Seek me a woman that has a familiar spirit, 1Sa_28:7. And his servants were too officious to serve him in this evil affair; they presently recommended one to him at Endor (a city not far off) who had escaped the execution of Saul's edict. To her he resolves to apply. Herein he is chargeable, 1. With contempt of the God of Israel; as if any creature could do him a kindness when God had left him and frowned upon him. 2. With contradiction to himself. He knew the heinousness of the sin of witchcraft, else he would not have cut off those that had familiar spirits; yet now he had recourse to that as an oracle which he had before condemned as an abomination. It is common for men to inveigh severely against those sins which they are in no temptation to, but afterwards to be themselves overcome by them. Had one told Saul, when he was destroying the witches, that he himself would, ere long, consult with one, he would have said, as Hazael did, What? Is thy servant a dog? But who knows what mischiefs those will run into that forsake God and are forsaken of him?

II. Hearing of one he hastens to her, but goes by night, and in disguise, only with two servants, and probably on foot, 1Sa_28:8. See how those that are led captive by Satan are forced, 1. To disparage themselves. Never did Saul look so mean as when he went sneaking to a sorry witch to know his fortune. 2. To dissemble. Evil works are works of darkness, and they hate the light, neither care for coming to it. Saul went to the witch, not in his robes, but in the habit of a common soldier, not only lest the witch herself, if she had known him, should decline to serve him, either fearing he came to trepan her or resolving to be avenged on him for his edict against those of her profession, but lest his own people should know it and abhor him for it. Such is the power of natural conscience that even those who do evil blush and are ashamed to do it.

III. He tells her his errand and promises her impunity. 1. All he desires of her is to bring up one from the dead, whom he had a mind to discourse with. It was necromancy or divination by the dead, that he hoped to serve his purpose by. This was expressly forbidden by the law (Deu_18:11), seeking for the living to the dead, Isa_8:19. Bring me up him whom I shall name, 1Sa_28:8. This supposes that it was generally taken for granted that souls exist after death, and that when men die there is not an end of them: it supposes too that great knowledge was attributed to separate souls. But to think that any good souls would come up at the beck of an evil spirit, or that God, who had denied a man the benefit of his own institutions, would suffer him to reap any real advantage by a cursed diabolical invention, was very absurd. 2. She signifies her fear of the law, and her suspicion that this stranger came to draw her into a snare (1Sa_28:9): Thou knowest what Saul has done. Providence ordered it so that Saul should be told to his face of his edict against witches, at this very time when he was consulting one, for the greater aggravation of his sin. She insists upon the peril of the law, perhaps to raise her price; for, though no mention is made of her fee, no doubt she demanded and had a large one. Observe how sensible she is of danger from the edict of Saul, and what care she is in to guard against it; but not at all apprehensive of the obligations off God's law and the terrors of his wrath. She considered what Saul had done, not what God had done, against such practices, and feared a snare laid for her life more than a snare laid for her soul. It is common for sinners to be more afraid of punishment from men than of God's righteous judgment. But, 3. Saul promises with an oath not to betray her, 1Sa_28:10. It was his duty as a king to punish her and he knew it, yet he swears no to do it; as if he could by his own oath bind himself from doing that which, by the divine command, he was bound to do. But he promised more than he could perform when he said, There shall no punishment happen to thee; for he that could not secure himself could much less secure her from divine vengeance.

IV. Samuel, who was lately dead, is the person whom Saul desired to have some talk with; and the witch, with her enchantments, gratifies his desire, and brings them together. 1. As soon as Saul had given the witch the assurance she desired (that he would not discover her) she applied to her witchcrafts, and asked very confidently, Whom shall I bring up to thee? 1Sa_28:11. Note, Hopes of impunity embolden sinners in their evil ways and harden their hearts. 2. Saul desires to speak with Samuel: Bring me up Samuel. Samuel had anointed him to the kingdom and had formerly been his faithful friend and counsellor, and therefore with him he wished to advise. While Samuel was living at Ramah, not far from Gibeah of Saul, and presided there in the school of the prophets, we never read of Saul's going to him to consult him in any of the difficulties he was in (it would have been well for him if he had); then he slighted him, and perhaps hated him, looking upon him to be in David's interest. But now that he is dead, “O for Samuel again! By all means, bring me up Samuel.” Note, Many that despise and persecute God's saints and ministers when they are living would be glad to have them again when they are gone. Send Lazarus to me, and send Lazarus to my father's house, Luk_16:24-27. The sepulchres of the righteous are garnished. 3. Here is a seeming defector chasm in the story. Saul said, Bring me up Samuel, and the very next words are, When the woman saw Samuel, (1Sa_28:12), whereas one would have expected to be told how she performed the operation, what spells and charms she used, or that some little intimation would be given of what she said or did; but the profound silence of the scripture concerning it forbids our coveting to know the depths of Satan (Rev_2:24) or to have our curiosity gratified with an account of the mysteries of iniquity. It has been said of the books of some of the popish confessors that, by their descriptions of sin, they have taught men to commit it; but the scripture conceals sinful art, that we may be simple concerning evil, Rom_16:19. 4. The witch, upon sight of the apparition, was aware that her client was Saul, her familiar spirit, it is likely, informing her of it (1Sa_28:12): “Why hast thou deceived me with a disguise; for thou art Saul, the very man that I am afraid of above any man?” Thus she gave Saul to understand the power of her art, in that she could discover him through his disguise; and yet she feared lest, hereafter, at least, he should take advantage against her for what she was now doing. Had she believed that it was really Samuel whom she saw, she would have had more reason to be afraid of him, who was a good prophet, than of Saul, who was a wicked king. But the wrath of earthly princes is feared by most more than the wrath of the King of kings. 5. Saul (who, we may suppose, was kept at a distance in the next room) bade her not to be afraid of him, but go on with the operation, and enquired what she saw? 1Sa_28:13. O, says the woman, I saw gods (that is, a spirit) ascending out of the earth; they called angels gods, because spiritual beings. Poor gods that ascend out of the earth! But she speaks the language of the heathen, who had their infernal deities and had them in veneration. If Saul had thought it necessary to his conversation with Samuel that the body of Samuel should be called out of the grave, he would have taken the witch with him to Ramah, where his sepulchre was; but the design was wholly upon his soul, which yet, if it became visible, was expected to appear in the usual resemblance of the body; and God permitted the devil, to answer the design, to put on Samuel's shape, that those who would not receive the love of the truth might be given up to strong delusions and believe a lie. That it could not be the soul of Samuel himself they might easily apprehend when it ascended out of the earth, for the spirit of a man, much more of a good man, goes upward, Ecc_3:21. But, if people will be deceived, it is just with God to say, “Let them be deceived.” That the devil, by the divine permission, should be able to personate Samuel is not strange, since he can transform himself into an angel of light! nor is it strange that he should be permitted to do it upon this occasion, that Saul might be driven to despair, by enquiring of the devil, since he would not, in a right manner, enquire of the Lord, by which he might have had comfort. Saul, being told of gods ascending, was eager to know what was the form of this deity, and in what shape he appeared, so far was he from conceiving any horror at it, his heart being wretchedly hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. Saul, it seems, was not permitted to see any manner of similitude himself, but he must take the woman's word for it, that she saw an old man covered with a mantle, or robe, the habit of a judge, which Samuel had sometimes worn, and some think it was for the sake of that, and the majesty of its aspect, that she called this apparition Elohim, a god or gods; for so magistrates are styled, Psa_82:1. 6. Saul, perceiving, by the woman's description, that it was Samuel, stooped with his face to the ground, either, as it is generally taken, in reverence to Samuel, though he saw him not, or perhaps to listen to that soft and muttering voice which he now expected to hear (for those that had familiar spirits peeped and muttered, Isa_8:19); and it should seem Saul bowed himself (probably by the witch's direction) that he might hear what was whispered and listen carefully to it; for the voice of one that has a familiar spirit is said to come out of the ground, and whisper out of the dust, Isa_29:4. He would stoop to that who would not stoop to the word of God.


... and God permitted the devil, to answer the design, to put on Samuel's shape, that those who would not receive the love of the truth might be given up to strong delusions and believe a lie. That it could not be the soul of Samuel himself they might easily apprehend when it ascended out of the earth, for the spirit of a man, much more of a good man, goes upward, Ecc_3:21. But, if people will be deceived, it is just with God to say, “Let them be deceived.” That the devil, by the divine permission, should be able to personate Samuel is not strange, since he can transform himself into an angel of light!

Yes, I would concur and call that apparition the devil. Joining myself and Matthew Henry, we also have Martin Luther, John Calvin, and King James. Maybe that's a little much for you to read all at once though.


 

glorydaz

Well-known member

Matthew Henry
also says that the apparition was a devil.

Spoiler
1Sa 28:7-14
Here, I. Saul seeks for a witch, 1Sa_28:7. When God answered him not, if he had humbled himself by repentance and persevered in seeking God, who knows but that at length he might have been entreated for him? but, since he can discern no comfort either from heaven or earth (Isa_8:21, Isa_8:22), he resolves to knock at the gates of hell, and to see if any there will befriend him and give him advice: Seek me a woman that has a familiar spirit, 1Sa_28:7. And his servants were too officious to serve him in this evil affair; they presently recommended one to him at Endor (a city not far off) who had escaped the execution of Saul's edict. To her he resolves to apply. Herein he is chargeable, 1. With contempt of the God of Israel; as if any creature could do him a kindness when God had left him and frowned upon him. 2. With contradiction to himself. He knew the heinousness of the sin of witchcraft, else he would not have cut off those that had familiar spirits; yet now he had recourse to that as an oracle which he had before condemned as an abomination. It is common for men to inveigh severely against those sins which they are in no temptation to, but afterwards to be themselves overcome by them. Had one told Saul, when he was destroying the witches, that he himself would, ere long, consult with one, he would have said, as Hazael did, What? Is thy servant a dog? But who knows what mischiefs those will run into that forsake God and are forsaken of him?

II. Hearing of one he hastens to her, but goes by night, and in disguise, only with two servants, and probably on foot, 1Sa_28:8. See how those that are led captive by Satan are forced, 1. To disparage themselves. Never did Saul look so mean as when he went sneaking to a sorry witch to know his fortune. 2. To dissemble. Evil works are works of darkness, and they hate the light, neither care for coming to it. Saul went to the witch, not in his robes, but in the habit of a common soldier, not only lest the witch herself, if she had known him, should decline to serve him, either fearing he came to trepan her or resolving to be avenged on him for his edict against those of her profession, but lest his own people should know it and abhor him for it. Such is the power of natural conscience that even those who do evil blush and are ashamed to do it.

III. He tells her his errand and promises her impunity. 1. All he desires of her is to bring up one from the dead, whom he had a mind to discourse with. It was necromancy or divination by the dead, that he hoped to serve his purpose by. This was expressly forbidden by the law (Deu_18:11), seeking for the living to the dead, Isa_8:19. Bring me up him whom I shall name, 1Sa_28:8. This supposes that it was generally taken for granted that souls exist after death, and that when men die there is not an end of them: it supposes too that great knowledge was attributed to separate souls. But to think that any good souls would come up at the beck of an evil spirit, or that God, who had denied a man the benefit of his own institutions, would suffer him to reap any real advantage by a cursed diabolical invention, was very absurd. 2. She signifies her fear of the law, and her suspicion that this stranger came to draw her into a snare (1Sa_28:9): Thou knowest what Saul has done. Providence ordered it so that Saul should be told to his face of his edict against witches, at this very time when he was consulting one, for the greater aggravation of his sin. She insists upon the peril of the law, perhaps to raise her price; for, though no mention is made of her fee, no doubt she demanded and had a large one. Observe how sensible she is of danger from the edict of Saul, and what care she is in to guard against it; but not at all apprehensive of the obligations off God's law and the terrors of his wrath. She considered what Saul had done, not what God had done, against such practices, and feared a snare laid for her life more than a snare laid for her soul. It is common for sinners to be more afraid of punishment from men than of God's righteous judgment. But, 3. Saul promises with an oath not to betray her, 1Sa_28:10. It was his duty as a king to punish her and he knew it, yet he swears no to do it; as if he could by his own oath bind himself from doing that which, by the divine command, he was bound to do. But he promised more than he could perform when he said, There shall no punishment happen to thee; for he that could not secure himself could much less secure her from divine vengeance.

IV. Samuel, who was lately dead, is the person whom Saul desired to have some talk with; and the witch, with her enchantments, gratifies his desire, and brings them together. 1. As soon as Saul had given the witch the assurance she desired (that he would not discover her) she applied to her witchcrafts, and asked very confidently, Whom shall I bring up to thee? 1Sa_28:11. Note, Hopes of impunity embolden sinners in their evil ways and harden their hearts. 2. Saul desires to speak with Samuel: Bring me up Samuel. Samuel had anointed him to the kingdom and had formerly been his faithful friend and counsellor, and therefore with him he wished to advise. While Samuel was living at Ramah, not far from Gibeah of Saul, and presided there in the school of the prophets, we never read of Saul's going to him to consult him in any of the difficulties he was in (it would have been well for him if he had); then he slighted him, and perhaps hated him, looking upon him to be in David's interest. But now that he is dead, “O for Samuel again! By all means, bring me up Samuel.” Note, Many that despise and persecute God's saints and ministers when they are living would be glad to have them again when they are gone. Send Lazarus to me, and send Lazarus to my father's house, Luk_16:24-27. The sepulchres of the righteous are garnished. 3. Here is a seeming defector chasm in the story. Saul said, Bring me up Samuel, and the very next words are, When the woman saw Samuel, (1Sa_28:12), whereas one would have expected to be told how she performed the operation, what spells and charms she used, or that some little intimation would be given of what she said or did; but the profound silence of the scripture concerning it forbids our coveting to know the depths of Satan (Rev_2:24) or to have our curiosity gratified with an account of the mysteries of iniquity. It has been said of the books of some of the popish confessors that, by their descriptions of sin, they have taught men to commit it; but the scripture conceals sinful art, that we may be simple concerning evil, Rom_16:19. 4. The witch, upon sight of the apparition, was aware that her client was Saul, her familiar spirit, it is likely, informing her of it (1Sa_28:12): “Why hast thou deceived me with a disguise; for thou art Saul, the very man that I am afraid of above any man?” Thus she gave Saul to understand the power of her art, in that she could discover him through his disguise; and yet she feared lest, hereafter, at least, he should take advantage against her for what she was now doing. Had she believed that it was really Samuel whom she saw, she would have had more reason to be afraid of him, who was a good prophet, than of Saul, who was a wicked king. But the wrath of earthly princes is feared by most more than the wrath of the King of kings. 5. Saul (who, we may suppose, was kept at a distance in the next room) bade her not to be afraid of him, but go on with the operation, and enquired what she saw? 1Sa_28:13. O, says the woman, I saw gods (that is, a spirit) ascending out of the earth; they called angels gods, because spiritual beings. Poor gods that ascend out of the earth! But she speaks the language of the heathen, who had their infernal deities and had them in veneration. If Saul had thought it necessary to his conversation with Samuel that the body of Samuel should be called out of the grave, he would have taken the witch with him to Ramah, where his sepulchre was; but the design was wholly upon his soul, which yet, if it became visible, was expected to appear in the usual resemblance of the body; and God permitted the devil, to answer the design, to put on Samuel's shape, that those who would not receive the love of the truth might be given up to strong delusions and believe a lie. That it could not be the soul of Samuel himself they might easily apprehend when it ascended out of the earth, for the spirit of a man, much more of a good man, goes upward, Ecc_3:21. But, if people will be deceived, it is just with God to say, “Let them be deceived.” That the devil, by the divine permission, should be able to personate Samuel is not strange, since he can transform himself into an angel of light! nor is it strange that he should be permitted to do it upon this occasion, that Saul might be driven to despair, by enquiring of the devil, since he would not, in a right manner, enquire of the Lord, by which he might have had comfort. Saul, being told of gods ascending, was eager to know what was the form of this deity, and in what shape he appeared, so far was he from conceiving any horror at it, his heart being wretchedly hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. Saul, it seems, was not permitted to see any manner of similitude himself, but he must take the woman's word for it, that she saw an old man covered with a mantle, or robe, the habit of a judge, which Samuel had sometimes worn, and some think it was for the sake of that, and the majesty of its aspect, that she called this apparition Elohim, a god or gods; for so magistrates are styled, Psa_82:1. 6. Saul, perceiving, by the woman's description, that it was Samuel, stooped with his face to the ground, either, as it is generally taken, in reverence to Samuel, though he saw him not, or perhaps to listen to that soft and muttering voice which he now expected to hear (for those that had familiar spirits peeped and muttered, Isa_8:19); and it should seem Saul bowed himself (probably by the witch's direction) that he might hear what was whispered and listen carefully to it; for the voice of one that has a familiar spirit is said to come out of the ground, and whisper out of the dust, Isa_29:4. He would stoop to that who would not stoop to the word of God.


... and God permitted the devil, to answer the design, to put on Samuel's shape, that those who would not receive the love of the truth might be given up to strong delusions and believe a lie. That it could not be the soul of Samuel himself they might easily apprehend when it ascended out of the earth, for the spirit of a man, much more of a good man, goes upward, Ecc_3:21. But, if people will be deceived, it is just with God to say, “Let them be deceived.” That the devil, by the divine permission, should be able to personate Samuel is not strange, since he can transform himself into an angel of light!

Yes, I would concur and call that apparition the devil. Joining myself and Matthew Henry, we also have Martin Luther, John Calvin, and King James. Maybe that's a little much for you to read all at once though.



Oh goody....let's compare commentaries. I'll submit these for your reading pleasure. I know what I see when I read this chapter. I just looked up some others (three of four) who said Samuel was brought up by God.

Here, too, is another version of Matthew Henry. Doesn't look the same to me.

Spoiler
Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary
28:7-19 When we go from the plain path of duty, every thing draws us further aside, and increases our perplexity and temptation. Saul desires the woman to bring one from the dead, with whom he wished to speak; this was expressly forbidden, De 18:11. All real or pretended witchcraft or conjuration, is a malicious or an ignorant attempt to gain knowledge or help from some creature, when it cannot be had from the Lord in the path of duty. While Samuel was living, we never read of Saul's going to advise with him in any difficulties; it had been well for him if he had. But now he is dead, Bring me up Samuel. Many who despise and persecute God's saints and ministers when living, would be glad to have them again, when they are gone. The whole shows that it was no human fraud or trick. Though the woman could not cause Samuel's being sent, yet Saul's inquiry might be the occasion of it. The woman's surprise and terror proved that it was an unusual and unexpected appearance. Saul had despised Samuel's solemn warnings in his lifetime, yet now that he hoped, as in defiance of God, to obtain some counsel and encouragement from him, might not God permit the soul of his departed prophet to appear to Saul, to confirm his former sentence, and denounce his doom? The expression, Thou and thy sons shall be with me, means no more than that they shall be in the eternal world. There appears much solemnity in God's permitting the soul of a departed prophet to come as a witness from heaven, to confirm the word he had spoken on earth.


Here are four of the most commonly suggested possibilities.

i. Some believe that this was a hallucination of the medium. But this doesn't make sense, because it doesn't explain why the medium was so frightened. It doesn't explain why Saul saw Samuel also, and why Samuel spoke to Saul, not to the medium.

ii. Some believe that this was a deception by the medium. But this also isn't an adequate explanation, for the same reasons given to the previous suggestion.

iii. Some believe that this was a demonic impersonation of Samuel. It is possible that the medium, with her occultic powers, summoned a demonic spirit that deceived both her and Saul. But this suggestion is also inadequate, because it does not speak to the issue of motive. After all, what advantage does Satan gain by "Samuel's" words to Saul?

iv. Some believe that this was a genuine (but strange) appearance of Samuel. This is the best explanation, because it is supported by the reaction of the medium, who got more than she bargained for. It is also supported by the truth of what Samuel said (and the text says that Samuel said it). Some may say that it is impossible for Samuel to reappear in some way, coming from the world beyond back to this world. But Moses and Elijah also came from the world beyond back to this world when they appeared with Jesus at the Transfiguration (Matthew 17:3).

v. Clarke makes an additional valuable point: "I believe that the woman of En-dor had no power over Samuel; and that no incantation can avail over any departed saint of God, nor indeed over any human disembodied spirit." Samuel really came, but not because the medium called for him. Samuel appeared because God had a special purpose for it.

g. What was God's purpose in sending such a strange appearance of Samuel? This appearance of Samuel accomplished two things: it re-confirmed the coming judgment upon King Saul's in a dramatic way, and it taught the medium a powerful lesson about the dangers of her occultic craft.

i. "I believe Samuel did actually appear to Saul; and that he was sent by the especial mercy of God to warn this infatuated king of his approaching death, that he might have an opportunity to make his peace with his Maker." (Clarke)

ii. When we close our ears to God, He will find unusual - and perhaps uncomfortable - ways to speak to us. "That he did appear to Saul, there can be no question, but he did not come in response to her call. He was sent of God, for the express purpose of rebuking Saul for his unholy traffic with these evil things, and to pronounce his doom." (Morgan)​

https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/guzik_david/StudyGuide_1Sa/1Sa_28.cfm
 

way 2 go

Well-known member

Matthew Henry
also says that the apparition was a devil.

... and God permitted the devil, to answer the design, to put on Samuel's shape, that those who would not receive the love of the truth might be given up to strong delusions and believe a lie. That it could not be the soul of Samuel himself they might easily apprehend when it ascended out of the earth, for the spirit of a man, much more of a good man, goes upward, Ecc_3:21. But, if people will be deceived, it is just with God to say, “Let them be deceived.” That the devil, by the divine permission, should be able to personate Samuel is not strange, since he can transform himself into an angel of light!

Yes, I would concur and call that apparition the devil. Joining myself and Matthew Henry, we also have Martin Luther, John Calvin, and King James. Maybe that's a little much for you to read all at once though.


there you go again ignoring the truth

there was no lie

1Sa 28:18 Because you did not obey the voice of the LORD and did not carry out his fierce wrath against Amalek, therefore the LORD has done this thing to you this day.
1Sa 28:19 Moreover, the LORD will give Israel also with you into the hand of the Philistines, and tomorrow you and your sons shall be with me. The LORD will give the army of Israel also into the hand of the Philistines.”

1Sa 31:6 Thus Saul died, and his three sons, and his armor-bearer, and all his men, on the same day together.
1Sa 31:7 And when the men of Israel who were on the other side of the valley and those beyond the Jordan saw that the men of Israel had fled and that Saul and his sons were dead, they abandoned their cities and fled. And the Philistines came and lived in them.

Saul was not deceived , what Samuel prophesied came to pass which is the sign of a true prophet.

Deu 18:21 And if you say in your heart, How shall we know the word which Jehovah has not spoken?
Deu 18:22 When a prophet speaks in the name of Jehovah, if the thing does not follow nor come to pass, that is the thing which Jehovah has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You shall not be afraid of him.
 

way 2 go

Well-known member
There ya go. RR is working hard to promote her pet doctrine, and it's a shame to see her adulterating the Holy Scripture while she does it.

RR holds on to her false doctrine like a fat kid loves candy.

:chuckle:

giphy.gif
 

Rosenritter

New member
Congratulations Way 2 Go. You've demonstrated inability to engage in honest discussion or analysis, so I now concur with Matthew Henry and esteem you to be among those who are deceived with a strong delusion, because you have not a love of the truth. I thought that perhaps after a year you might develop ability, but back on the block list you go.
 

way 2 go

Well-known member
Congratulations Way 2 Go. You've demonstrated inability to engage in honest discussion or analysis, so I now concur with Matthew Henry and esteem you to be among those who are deceived with a strong delusion, because you have not a love of the truth. I thought that perhaps after a year you might develop ability, but back on the block list you go.

giphy.gif
 
Top