On Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9 [Archive]

View Full Version : On Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9

EowynSanzo

October 8th 2005, 09:28 AM

Hi there!
I'm a Christian and had a discussion with a nonbeliever who attacked a lot of things of the Christian faith, and among them, the infallibility of the Bible.

I understand that there can be translation faults, that comparing the Bible of my first language with others (since I don't know any Greek or Hebrew) would do good. But on this one example my sparing partner gave me, it does not seem likely that it lies in the translation.

Acts 9:7 (NIV) "The men travelling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone."

Acts 22:9 (NIV) "My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me."

In some other translations the contradiction between the two statements of Paul is even more apparent.

I asked a graduate theology student about it, and he told me that some people are more sensitive in their hearings and some in their visual perception. I think that's really asking too much. It would be as if Paul travelled with a group of people consisting of blind and deaf men.

The two different things described couldn't possibly be true at the same time. One has to be false. Fortunately we have two accounts so we can say, something's not right. But what if among Paul's teachings there's a mistake unchecked, being the only account of it?

Thanks for answering. Looking forward to it! :thumb:

National Intelligence Director Phoenix

October 10th 2005, 01:18 AM

Hi! thanks for your question! Before we get to the part about inerrancy, let's get to what they all agree on first off.

PAUL WAS CONVERTED MIRACULOUSLY!

Everyone seems to agree on that. The first thing to really look for is coherence on the primary issue. Now let's consider three options.

#1-There is a difference in the languages. One would indicate hearing a sound and one would indicate hearing with understanding. Many a commentator has taken this view and I think it is valid.

#2-Paul didn't have the right information from his companions and he was just telling what he thought and Luke recorded that. Does this mean that the Bible is errant? No. It means Luke is an accurate recorder. WHile I'd accept this, I think many skeptics would not though.

#3-We can believe that Luke is not a fool and would know the account well as a companion of Paul, so he could have made some changes intentionally to draw more attention to the account.

There's also a great link at tektonics.org on this. I'd recommend some good commentaries on this issue.

Hope this helps!

EowynSanzo

October 10th 2005, 04:55 PM

Thanks for the answer! I guess it's possible that Paul didn't get the right information from his companion. When your companion suddenly falls down to the ground, talks with a voice without a body, and then gets blind, I suppose people don't get the chance to make a thorough analysis of the matter. But there's still something I don't get, though.

#3-We can believe that Luke is not a fool and would know the account well as a companion of Paul, so he could have made some changes intentionally to draw more attention to the account.

I can't imagine any kind of change allowed, no matter for whatever reason.

There's also a great link at tektonics.org on this. I'd recommend some good commentaries on this issue.

I'll go check tektonics.org. I hope the link is easy to find, if not I'm coming back to you. Thanks for now!

Lady Gooner

October 11th 2005, 06:16 AM

Acts 9:7 (NIV) "The men travelling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone."

Acts 22:9 (NIV) "My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me."

In some other translations the contradiction between the two statements of Paul is even more apparent.

In these passages Scripture makes a clear distinction between seeing a light and seeing someone: and hearing a voice and understanding it. Although comparable they are distinct. If one does not acknowledge that distinction, one forces the Bible to contradict itself and doctrinal confusion results. Which is why you're in this predicament in the first place. So Which portion is correct? Aren't they both correct when blended properly.

At this point lets just concentrate on the basics before we get in a tangle Scripture cannot contradict Scripture. Nothing in the Bible is redundant, so there must be a reason for the distinctions.

Ever since people have wondered about where their thoughts came from, they have tried to understand the human senses and the workings of the brain. However small remember there is a distinct difference between seeing and looking; and hearing and listening, but no need for a neurology tutorial, I think if you distinguish between them it will help in your understanding. :yes:

Do you acknowledge there is a difference between hearing and listening?

Hearing is simply the act of perceiving sound by the ear. Listening, however, is something you consciously choose to do. Listening requires concentration so that your brain processes meaning from words and sentences. The brain not only receives and interprets sound, it actively processes or thinks about the sound.

The same with the visual

Looking: Light passes through the lens of the eye, and the vitreous humour, hits the retina, which stimulates rods (B/W) & cones (color) to send images are sent along the optic nerve . . .

Seeing: The brain actually processes the information, based upon prior knowledge, and assigns meaning to the images received.

so applying that information to the two passages the companions could hear the sound of the voice but did not understand it, that is attribute meaning to what was said. They saw (looked at) a light but did not see the Lord.

Pauls conversion experience was unique and dynamic and the two accounts tho seeming to contradict each other don't,

Scripture cannot contradict Scripture. My interpretation presents no problem between the two accounts in Acts. These two portions of the Bible blend harmoniously.

thanks

National Intelligence Director Phoenix

October 12th 2005, 12:02 AM

In these passages Scripture makes a clear distinction between seeing a light and seeing someone: and hearing a voice and understanding it. Although comparable they are distinct. If one does not acknowledge that distinction, one forces the Bible to contradict itself and doctrinal confusion results. Which is why you're in this predicament in the first place. So Which portion is correct? Aren't they both correct when blended properly.

At this point lets just concentrate on the basics before we get in a tangle Scripture cannot contradict Scripture. Nothing in the Bible is redundant, so there must be a reason for the distinctions.

Ever since people have wondered about where their thoughts came from, they have tried to understand the human senses and the workings of the brain. However small remember there is a distinct difference between seeing and looking; and hearing and listening, but no need for a neurology tutorial, I think if you distinguish between them it will help in your understanding. :yes:

Do you acknowledge there is a difference between hearing and listening?

Hearing is simply the act of perceiving sound by the ear. Listening, however, is something you consciously choose to do. Listening requires concentration so that your brain processes meaning from words and sentences. The brain not only receives and interprets sound, it actively processes or thinks about the sound.

The same with the visual

Looking: Light passes through the lens of the eye, and the vitreous humour, hits the retina, which stimulates rods (B/W) & cones (color) to send images are sent along the optic nerve . . .

Seeing: The brain actually processes the information, based upon prior knowledge, and assigns meaning to the images received.

so applying that information to the two passages the companions could hear the sound of the voice but did not understand it, that is attribute meaning to what was said. They saw (looked at) a light but did not see the Lord.

Pauls conversion experience was unique and dynamic and the two accounts tho seeming to contradict each other don't,

Scripture cannot contradict Scripture. My interpretation presents no problem between the two accounts in Acts. These two portions of the Bible blend harmoniously.

thanks

This is the one I personally prefer myself, but I think it's helpful to present all options.

EowynSanzo

October 12th 2005, 08:47 PM

In these passages Scripture makes a clear distinction between seeing a light and seeing someone: and hearing a voice and understanding it. Although comparable they are distinct. If one does not acknowledge that distinction, one forces the Bible to contradict itself and doctrinal confusion results. Which is why you're in this predicament in the first place. So Which portion is correct? Aren't they both correct when blended properly.

At this point lets just concentrate on the basics before we get in a tangle Scripture cannot contradict Scripture. Nothing in the Bible is redundant, so there must be a reason for the distinctions.

Ever since people have wondered about where their thoughts came from, they have tried to understand the human senses and the workings of the brain. However small remember there is a distinct difference between seeing and looking; and hearing and listening, but no need for a neurology tutorial, I think if you distinguish between them it will help in your understanding. :yes:

Do you acknowledge there is a difference between hearing and listening?

Hearing is simply the act of perceiving sound by the ear. Listening, however, is something you consciously choose to do. Listening requires concentration so that your brain processes meaning from words and sentences. The brain not only receives and interprets sound, it actively processes or thinks about the sound.

The same with the visual

Looking: Light passes through the lens of the eye, and the vitreous humour, hits the retina, which stimulates rods (B/W) & cones (color) to send images are sent along the optic nerve . . .

Seeing: The brain actually processes the information, based upon prior knowledge, and assigns meaning to the images received.

so applying that information to the two passages the companions could hear the sound of the voice but did not understand it, that is attribute meaning to what was said. They saw (looked at) a light but did not see the Lord.

Pauls conversion experience was unique and dynamic and the two accounts tho seeming to contradict each other don't,

Scripture cannot contradict Scripture. My interpretation presents no problem between the two accounts in Acts. These two portions of the Bible blend harmoniously.

thanks

Lady G and Apologia Nick,

Thank you for answering, but I'm afraid I'm not sure if it's the answer to the last question I posted. I was asking about the third possibility that Luke made some changes: what kind of change it was and whether something's like that is allowed.

Is the distinction between 'looking and seeing' and 'hearing and listening' was also there in the original language (Greek, I presume)? I mean, were these verses really using the exact words that were equal to the English translations?

The person I discussed this with said she'd checked the original language and that there's no such distinction. I wouldn't know, though, so I better ask...

Once again thanks.

Lady Gooner

October 16th 2005, 05:10 PM

I was asking about the third possibility that Luke made some changes: what kind of change it was and whether something's like that is allowed.

Is the distinction between 'looking and seeing' and 'hearing and listening' was also there in the original language (Greek, I presume)? I mean, were these verses really using the exact words that were equal to the English translations?

oi de andrev oi sunodeuontev autw eisthkeisan eneoi, akouontev men thv fwnhv mhdena de qewrountev.

oi de sun emoi ontev to men fwv eqeasanto thn de fwnhn ouk hkousan tou lalountov moi.

Well "it's all greek to me!" :ahem:

Scripture cannot contradict Scripture. Nothing in the Bible is redundant, so there must be a reason for the distinctions.Translation is basically a rendering from one language into another; All languages have an underlying structure. Every language's structure is different. We extract meaning from a sentence based on the rules of the language.

The question for you is : if there is no difference between "seeing and looking" and "hearing and listening" can I (personally) reconcile the so called contradiction. The discrepancy arises from the ambiguous use of the verb hear. And whilst there may not be a different word for listen/hear in greek the ambiguity is still there.

It is not uncommon in the Bible for the voice of God being heard but not "heard" John 12:28,29 "The people who stood by and heard it, said that it thundered." They heard the sound, the noise; they did not distinguish the words addressed to him. See also Daniel 10:7, and 1 Kings 19:11-13.

Paul's companions did not hear the words, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest, but they saw and heard enough to convince them that the whole encounter was supernatural;

Look also at the fact that in one account they are on the floor and in the other they are standing, ("stood speechless") What can we surmise from that ~ they moved? Is it the begining and the end of the same encounter? Or is it just we dont understand idioms.

Did the comrades hear two voices or just one, afterall there were two people speaking Paul and Jesus, It was Christ's purpose not to speak to Saul's companions, but to speak to Saul;

Remembering that at this time Jesus had died, risen and been glorified. So how then was He seen.

Ananias account says
The God of our fathers hath chosen thee that thou shouldest know his will, and SEE that JUST ONE, and shouldest HEAR the voice of his mouth;

Paul in , 1 Corinthians 9:1, put the subject out of dispute: Am I not an apostle? I not free? HAVE I NOT SEEN JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD? To which may be added, 1 Corinthians 15:8, And last of all, HE WAS SEEN OF ME ALSO, as of one born out of due time.

The two passages in Acts are harmonious. That is they are an interweaving of facts as told to Luke by Paul into a single narrative. If you twist and turn and squiggle and squirm enough sure you can find contradictions, But why not try reconciling them instead. Afterall What possible reason would Luke have to change the accounts?

EowynSanzo

October 18th 2005, 04:14 AM

If you twist and turn and squiggle and squirm enough sure you can find contradictions, But why not try reconciling them instead. Afterall What possible reason would Luke have to change the accounts? [/FONT]

Thank you for the answer. I'm pretty sure you've explained pretty much about the hearing and understanding, but I'm sorry to say that you misunderstood me. If you'd be so kind to read the first answer from Apologia Nick carefully, there's option number three for the explanations, and there it said that Luke changed the account in order to draw more attention.

Everyone seems to agree on that. The first thing to really look for is coherence on the primary issue. Now let's consider three options.

#3-We can believe that Luke is not a fool and would know the account well as a companion of Paul, so he could have made some changes intentionally to draw more attention to the account.

And then I asked, why he would do that.

I can't imagine any kind of change allowed, no matter for whatever reason.

I was asking about the third possibility that Luke made some changes: what kind of change it was and whether something's like that is allowed.

So please don't think I'm forcing that Luke "must have changed the account and that's it!!! The Bible's contradicting itself!!!" I'm asking why he would do that, and it's okay if you have a different opinion and don't even think it's possible, but misunderstanding my question altogether is something pretty far away from that point. It might raise doubts on your attempt of explaining the Bible.

Thank you again for the explanation. May I be bold enough to surmise your way of seeing the infallibility of the Bible? It appears somewhat like this: The Bible may use idioms, phrases, words that at the first glance appear to be improperly placed to human's eyes, but what the author means remains correct.

Once again, thank you for the time and effort.

:cheers:

National Intelligence Director Phoenix

October 22nd 2005, 01:57 PM

The account changing is not an idea I would go with right off. However, it is an idea that is out there. You can find a look in "The Resurrection of the Son of God" by NT Wright on pages 388-392. I would recommend reading this book anyhow for more than just looking at that question. Don't expect it to be brief though. There's over 700 pages of reading material.

Still, I personally prefer reason #1

EowynSanzo

November 10th 2005, 05:58 PM