I trained for the priesthood for 12 years. I saw the lies. Don't be blinded?

Question

Did those with Saul/Paul at his conversion hear a voice?

ACT 9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

ACT 22:9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to m

Answer 1

Stop abusing him you people, it does make a whole lot of difference, Paul changed the face of the true christianity, if his account of his conversion has flaws in it, why should anybody believe the rest of his stories, why are you hanging your hereafter on such lies.
And for you the questioner, the fact that you discovered the lies of christianity does not mean there is no God, God has already sent a message to tell people what the truth is, that is the Holy Quran, please study it.


http://www.SearchTruth.com

Answer 2

Have you ever heard a voice but not understood what it was saying? Ever thought that maybe this is the case here? There have been times in the past week I have heard a voice call to me but could not understand what was being said. Does that make it a contradiction of terms? The men here it says heard a voice but saw no man. The latter passage says they saw a light but could it actually mean by the "heard not the voice that spake to me" be that they did not understand the voice what it was saying? If I look for the negative in things I am sure to find them but to look for the positive things, you have to give yourself permission to see things as they could be rather than just seeing the negative aspects. Is this point really necessary for your salvation to know if the men heard something but did not understand or just heard something or did not hear anything? I don't think if it says they heard something, that it would say that if they heard nothing. You have to realize this is an interpretation of the original languages and sometimes they do say things a bit different than they did in the original language and in the tranlation the true meaning gets lost or misplaced as it were. If it is really not necessary for my salvation or yours, why put so much emphasis on it? Even I cannot explain everything that was written but I know it is correct anyway and I will understand by and by. There are far meatier matters to contend with than whether someone heard a voice and understood or did not hear it but saw only a light. Don't you think if you were there and experienced it that you would be more in awe and fear than to think, did I hear that voice and did I understand it completely or did I hear a voice but just did not understand what it said? I am sure if you get the original language and read it, you could see what the true translation should be if that is what is most important to you.

Answer 3

"Literally, that clause in 22:9 may be translated, “They did not hear the sound.” The NIV correctly translates the verse, because the verb “to hear” with the genitive case may mean “to hear a sound” and with the accusative case “to hear with understanding.” The genitive case is employed in 9:7, and the accusative is used in 22:9. So the travelers with Saul heard the sound (9:7) but did not understand what Christ said (22:9)."

Thus in Acts 9:7, “hearing the voice,” the noun “voice” is in the partitive genitive case [i.e., hearing (something) of], whereas in 22:9, “they heard not the voice,” the construction is with the accusative. This removes the idea of any contradiction. The former indicates a hearing of the sound, the latter indicates the meaning or message of the voice (this they did not hear). “The former denotes the sensational perception, the latter (the accusative case) the thing perceived” (Cremer).

Answer 4

A) If you indeed trained for 12 years, you must have been in training to be a Jesuit.

B) If so, then you must have flunked out, because the thing they do best is teach you how to THINK. And bub, you obviously can't do that worth shinola.

C) So why should anyone here give a rap about your "thoughts" or conclusions based on said "thoughts"?

D) Strikes me that if you WERE in Jesuit training you should have been far more conversant in Greek and Latin than you show yourself to be. Another reason for being booted, perhaps?

E) Never, but NEVER cross swords in this venue. There's too many of us out here who DO understand the Bible in its original languages. We'll nail you types who can't read anything except in English every single time.

F) Kudos to Brad. And thanks for saving my fingers.

Answer 5

I have known several Jesuits who studied long years and some hung in there and others felt abandoned by their community and dropped out.
Get off the cross, friend.
Scriptures vary with the translator or the interpretor and his preferences.
Don't nit pick.

I was accepted into seminary and studied for two years with hopes to be accepted as a priest, but females were not exactly "loved" by all the clergy in high places in 1974,75, 76, 77 and although my spiritual director thought my vocation was true, others had 'problems' with me...my BA degree, you name it.
Guess what?
I lived!
I didn't join another religion.
I prayed and cried and picked myself up by my 'hobbed-nail boots' and carried on.
Bitterness is a hard condiment to spread and swallow...it feeds no one. It satisfies no one.
I obviously got what God thought I needed and had another plan, which was not my dream-but
His will and I have survived and found peace in His plan for me.

In all the heartache and garbage, woundedness,
disillusionment and lies...I found the wonder of TRUTH and courage and healing.

God be with you....and with your spirit!

Lil

Answer 6

Strong's concordance says that the greek word in 22:9 for "hear" is used through the bible as:
1) to be endowed with the faculty of hearing, not deaf
2) to hear
b) to attend to, consider what is or has been said
c) to understand, perceive the sense of what is said
3) to hear something
a) to perceive by the ear what is announced in one's presence
b) to get by hearing learn
c) a thing comes to one's ears, to find out, learn
d) to give ear to a teaching or a teacher
e) to comprehend, to understand

So it's hardly correct to say that it only means to comprehend. The original contradction still stands!

Answer 7

Wow... it took you THAT long to see through the LIES and FALSEHOODS?? LOL. I only spent a couple of years in similar 'hallowed hallways' of the seminary when I decided to embark on my personal quest for the Truth.

No wonder you sound so bitter and angry. I can understand your DISAPPOINTMENT and DISILLUSIONMENT, brother... I feel the pain.

But I'm certainly glad that I stepped out of the front doors of that church since my early youth and, over time, I finally did find the answers that I sought...

Seek and you shall find.

Peace be with you!

Answer 8

Very good verses to bring up. I am impressed that you were in seminary for so long. You surely have me outmatched in religious study. I am interested in your reasons for leaving if you would be kind enough to email me. I would hope, however, that although you no longer believe the truth of the Church, that you might still offer a level of respect to those who do. I'm sure you wouldn't truly say that Thomas Aquinas or Athanasius were unintelligent people.

As you say, you saw the lies, and I respect you for your decision. As I said, I would enjoy hearing your reasons. But I would discourage you from being so abrasive in naming those who do believe in the Church as blinded. I understand it seems so to you, but there are gentler ways to put it. At the very least, if you didn't come to believe the Church taught love correctly, I would still think that you believe it is correct, personally, to love others.


These verses surely do seem to have a contradiction. You probably know one of the most often used defenses is to describe the differences in the translation from Greek - voices vs. sounds. But 12 years in seminary I'm sure you have gotten past that defense.

However, rather than going so hardcore at a translation I very much would like to continue the spirit of the argument. While when searching for contradictions one looks for every minute detail to entrap the author, there is most certainly in literature an allowance for a somewhat inadequate expression of terms.

By this I propose that indeed, Paul was trying to say that these men might have heard the voice but did not understand it. In the 9:7 referring to the audibility of his companions and in 22:9 referring to their incomprehension.

This, perhaps, (and forgive me for not having the verse) relates to what Jesus had to say to His disciples describing how many would not hear or understand what He is saying. Again, forgive me for not taking the time to look it up. If I am inaccurate in using this verse as an argument please let me know. I recall, however, that Jesus was certainly speaking of those who, in fact, did hear Him preach at one point, but did not come to believe. These people did not hear Christ that day.

Even if this isn't the exact words used in the Bible, this argument can be a literary one. I, as an author, would be perfectly poetic in saying that my wife heard my desire for romance, but she did not truly hear it.

I know that the diehard and strict logic of one setting out to prove a contradiction may claim this to be illogical, but I would not agree. Surely, it broadens a concept which you may believe is not to be taken broadly in your provided verses, but it is not illogical to say the use of words may be more poetic than hardlined exacting words.

As you might even say of me now, "Velvet hears my words, but Velvet does not hear my words."

Again, I think you have already said such a contradiction because I do see the lies that you are presenting to me, but you would still say that I am blinded.

I will not call your statement a contradiction because I understand the different depths of the two words which are the same. I see what you are saying, but I am blind.

Saul's companions heard the voice, but they were deaf.

Let me know what you think, please. You are welcome to email me through the Yahoo Answers email system from a link on my profile page.

Thank you for the question.

Answer 9

Liar.

LOL. Seminary training is typically 4 years, unless your just hopeless, and did it 3 times.

Answer 10

They obviously heard the *noise* of the voice, but not the *words* of the voice.

Amen