Paul tells the story that on the way to Damascus with a detachment of men, there suddenly shined about him a light from heaven and Jesus spoke to him (Acts 9:3) and although his men heard a voice, they did not see anyone, and it was only Paul that heard Jesus speak words to him.
Later Paul changed his story, denying that his men heard anything at all, but instead, they only saw a great light shining around him (Acts 22:9). Perhaps he was afraid his men might have been questioned. Compare Acts 9:7 with Acts 22:9.
Did Paul's friends hear the voice, or did they not? Is this another lie or a politician spin? Acts 9:7 (KJV) "And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man." Acts 22:9 (KJV) "And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me."
2006-06-05 21:09:51 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Paul's companions "heard the sound" (9:7) but "did not understand the voice" (22:9) NIV
2006-06-05 21:25:36 · answer #1 · answered by rocketscientist 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Now this is a legitimate question. As answered in the Scofield note for Acts 9:7
================================================
9:7 voice. Compare 22:9; 26:14. A contradiction has been imagined. The three statements should be taken together. The men heard the "voice" as a sound (Greek phone) but did not hear the actual words "Saul, Saul," etc.
================================================
2006-06-05 21:26:08 · answer #2 · answered by jzyehoshua1 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
First of all, you are using the KJV, which is one of the worst translations into English we have. Secondly, you have to understand that any English Bible is a TRANSLATION, and therefore, rather than assuming too much, you might actually have to go back to the Greek. At first glance, it might appear that you are correct, that there is a contradiction here. The two words for "voice" are derivatives from the same word, as are the two words for "hear." However, the forms of the word for hear are very different (one is a present participle, the other aorist activie indicitive). What does this all mean? Well, the form of the word tells us the meaning. One is saying that they heard the voice, one tells us that they did not understand the voice. There is no contradiction, and neither Paul nor Luke (the author of the book of Acts) were confused.
2006-06-05 21:47:41 · answer #3 · answered by Serving Jesus 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Paul never changed his story, rather others did it for him. Many of his letters are corrupted, and he didn't even write most of them. Now Paul experienced the resurrected Jesus as "light". Others experienced him as literal "flesh & bone". Now since Paul was a gnostic (we know this since he was an very spiritual man and he made heavy use of gnostic terminology ie. Pleroma, Archons, Aeons, etc, all in the original and removed from translations), we also know that he could not have experienced a literal bodily resurrection as is claimed in the synoptic gospels. This is why he saw "light" and not "flesh", which is "another gospel" and "fables". An alternative possibility is that he was suffering from some mental illness, after all, he mentioned being stoned. Personally I accept the former explanation, and I think only he saw "light", and no one else saw or heard anything.
2006-06-05 21:38:01 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
He grew to become like them-in know-how-looking someone-friendly floor to construct on. no longer by using lies yet on truths. An know-how of their rules (as with the Jews) they had someone-friendly God-they the two understood Moses ect. He worked up for that-no longer belittling their faith yet exhibiting how the prophesy worked as much as Christ. same with Greeks and Romans-he asked them relating to the Gods(idols have been all around) they worshiped to commence a communication. No the place did he distort the certainty (you extra that). you choose some precise expertise of the bible the finished no longer aspects than debate-your being silly now-and those that understand the bible see it properly.
2016-09-28 03:35:22 · answer #5 · answered by erlebach 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ok, ok. So you don't believe in God. Instead of reading the bible to find what you think are contradictions and political spin, read it for the message God has for you. God already has you reading the bible, so you might as well to see what he is trying to tell you.
2006-06-05 21:24:24 · answer #6 · answered by Huevos Rancheros 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
DC Comics could've done a better job editing the Bible than Constantine and his gang did.
2006-06-05 21:25:02 · answer #7 · answered by RigorMortis 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Another case of where the Bible is flawed, proving you can't base your beliefs on books that people wrote hundreds of years after the events...
2006-06-05 21:15:46 · answer #8 · answered by mattorodinku 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You need to read all-not just parts. I think you have an agenda but your information is staggered and a bit deceiving.
2006-06-05 21:33:53 · answer #9 · answered by *** The Earth has Hadenough*** 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
And I bet you don't have sense enough to feel embarrassed!
2006-06-05 22:53:34 · answer #10 · answered by euhmerist 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋