And when we were all fallen to the earth, [size=20]I[/size] heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. Act 26:14

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

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. Act 22:9

One verse says that the men fell to the earth, another verse says they stood speechless.

One verse says the men heard a voice, another says they didn't.

How do you reconcile this?

OP are you a Christian??

Jackeeh:
OP are you a Christian??

I'm not. Are you?

they had a voice, no they didnt... which iz which...

johnydon22:
they had a voice, no they didnt... which iz which...

Only one can be right. Then the other is wrong.. So either Holy Spirit lied or the Bible is man inspired

Pr0ton:


Only one can be right. Then the other is wrong.. So either Holy Spirit lied or the Bible is man inspired

exactly... lets wait and see....we are waiting for them ..

...

Come see avoidance . . . them no gree tok again

johnydon22:
Come see avoidance . . . them no gree tok again

Make we mention some Bible scholars

Malvisguy212 Ayoku777 FrancisTony Frosbel and co

bingbagbo:


OP, look for the meaning of logos and rhema...it will do you a lot of good, thank you

How does looking for the meaning of those words reconcile the contradiction?

Pr0ton:
And when we were all fallen to the earth, [size=20]I[/size] heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. Act 26:14

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

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. Act 22:9

One verse says that the men fell to the earth, another verse says they stood speechless.

One verse says the men heard a voice, another says they didn't.

How do you reconcile this?

The Greek word for "hear" (#191 akouo) is used in two Greek cases in these two
verses.
The two verse you quote are related with the same meaning. the case is the sense of "being aware but not understanding", whereas the other is in the sense of "you heard it."

malvisguy212:
The Greek word for "hear" (#191 akouo) is used in two Greek cases in these two
verses.
The two verse you quote are related with the same meaning. the case is the sense of "being aware but not understanding", whereas the other is in the sense of "you heard it."

The same greek word is used in both verses and are all translated as "hear". There is no distinction in the original greek words and they are the same. Changing their meaning would only raise an eyebrow.

Moreover, the same greek appeared many times in the NT and is being translated as "hear". There is another greek word for "understand" which is also used many times in the NT where the need arose, but not in any of the verses we are considering here. So that route you are trying to take only leads to failure, not reconcilation.

FrancisTony:

I thought you claimed to be agnostic

Pr0ton:


The same greek word is used in both verses and are all translated as "hear". There is no distinction in the original greek words and they are the same. Changing their meaning would only raise an eyebrow.

Moreover, the same greek appeared many times in the NT and is being translated as "hear". There is another greek word for "understand" which is also used many times in the NT where the need arose, but not in any of the verses we are considering here. So that route you are trying to take only leads to failure, not reconcilation.

Although the same Greek word is used in both accounts ( akouo), it has two distinct meanings: to perceive sound and to understand. Therefore, the explanation is clear: they heard something but did not understand what it was saying. Paul, on the other hand, heard and understood. There is no contradiction.

The Bible must be the invention either of good men or angels, bad men or devils, or of God. However, it was not written by good men, because good men would not tell lies by saying ‘Thus saith the Lord;’ it was not written by bad men because they would not write about doing good duty, while condemning sin, and themselves to hell; thus, it must be written by divine inspiration. I do not explained this verse for you, but for thoes who you want to deceive.thank you for your time, it is either you find peace with God or you die with this trouble soul, ARE YOU READY?

malvisguy212:
Although the same Greek word is used in both accounts ( akouo), it has two distinct meanings: to perceive sound and to understand. Therefore, the explanation is clear: they heard something but did not understand what it was saying. Paul, on the other hand, heard and understood. There is no contradiction.

Ok. Since you insist on "understand" to be the right translation, what stops it from being applicable to the other verses?

The Bible must be the invention either of good men or angels, bad men or devils, or of God. However, it was not written by good men, because good men would not tell lies by saying ‘Thus saith the Lord;’ it was not written by bad men because they would not write about doing good duty, while condemning sin, and themselves to hell; thus, it must be written by divine inspiration. I do not explained this verse for you, but for thoes who you want to deceive.thank you for your time, it is either you find peace with God or you die with this trouble soul, ARE YOU READY?

Lol. Ready for what? Do reply my objection up there ^^^

Pr0ton:


Ok. Since you insist on "understand" to be the right translation, what stops it from being applicable to the other verses?

bring the other verse.
https://www.nairaland.com/2239640/why-fear-death

malvisguy212:
bring the other verse.
https://www.nairaland.com/2239640/why-fear-death

The other verses are in the OP. You know what you'll do? You'll translate the greek word akouo which literarily means "to hear" to "understand". You'll change it to understand in the two verses and let's see if it won't lead us to the same thing - contradiction.

I can even help you to make the task less boring. Here we go:

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

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

You say?

Pr0ton:


The other verses are in the OP. You know what you'll do? You'll translate the greek word akouo which literarily means "to hear" to "understand". You'll change it to understand in the two verses and let's see if it won't lead us to the same thing - contradiction.

I can even help you to make the task less boring. Here we go:

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

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

You say?

what do you understand here;
" The two verse you quote are related
with the same meaning. the case is
the sense of "being aware but not
understanding", whereas the other is
in the sense of "you heard it."

malvisguy212:
what do you understand here;
" The two verse you quote are related
with the same meaning. the case is
the sense of "being aware but not
understanding", whereas the other is
in the sense of "you heard it."

But their effect are different, right? If yes, then the Greek words must be different too. If they aren't, then you are only typing fallacy, because I see no reason why akouo which appeared 373 times in the NT and translated as hear,hearing and heard in wherever it appeared should be taken as understand in one exceptional verse if not for the purpose of deceit. The word "understand" appeared 52 times in the NT and it is only from Act 22:9 did it have its root word as akouo. You yourself should see the deceit if you are open-minded. Akouo never means "being aware but not understanding" It is always explictly "to hear". Quit the twisting or I won't reply if you insist on distorting the true meaning of the Greek word. Everyone will justify my action. The truth is crystal clear here.

But then you've only attempted one contradiction

Pr0ton:
And when we were all fallen to the earth, [size=20]I[/size] heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. Act 26:14

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

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. Act 22:9

One verse says that the men fell to the earth, another verse says they stood speechless.

One verse says the men heard a voice, another says they didn't.

How do you reconcile this?

a) We accept they saw the light
b) Though they all fell to the earth, does that mean they couldn't have stood up again? Also, stood doesn't really mean standing up.
stood/stʊd/
past and past participle of stand.
stand/stand/
verb
1. have or maintain an upright position, supported
by one's feet.
2. (of an object, building, or settlement) be
situated in a particular place or position.
3. be in a specified state or condition.
4. withstand (an experience or test) without being
damaged.
5. be a candidate in an election.
6. act as umpire in a cricket match.
7. provide (food or drink) for (someone) at one's
own expense.
c) The solution to hearing of a voice can be found in NASB
" * Those with Saul saw the light, but did not understand the words spoken (NASB) - 22:9."

hear Translate Button
[heer]
verb (used with object), heard [hurd] ( Show IPA ), hearing.
1.
to perceive by the ear:
Didn't you hear the doorbell?
2.
to learn by the ear or by being told; be informed of:
to hear news.
d) We accept they saw no one.
Come quickly LORD!
@Jonydon22

davien:
I thought you claimed to be agnostic

I'm a believer, christian but I don't concur with everything written in the bible especially some Paul's teaching and I believe old things(testatement) have passed away.

Pr0ton:


But their effect are different, right? If yes, then the Greek words must be different too. If they aren't, then you are only typing fallacy, because I see no reason why akouo which appeared 373 times in the NT and translated as hear,hearing and heard in wherever it appeared should be taken as understand in one exceptional verse if not for the purpose of deceit. The word "understand" appeared 52 times in the NT and it is only from Act 22:9 did it have its root word as akouo. You yourself should see the deceit if you are open-minded. Akouo never means "being aware but not understanding" It is always explictly "to hear". Quit the twisting or I won't reply if you insist on distorting the true meaning of the Greek word. Everyone will justify my action. The truth is crystal clear here.

But then you've only attempted one contradiction

you are the one who do not understand the meaning here. we are talking about the word "hear" and NOT" understand" you inserted understand on each verse just to proved your points which is wrong,nobody is talking about understand here.

On one verse they HEAR the voice but do not see who is talking and the other verse they did not HEAR the voice.

" stood speechless, hearing a
voice, but seeing no man"

This does not mean they hear the voice meaning they understand.they did not understand that why they are speechless.

" and were afraid;
but they heard not the voice of him
that spake to me. "

Why are they afraid?they are aware of what is happening,if you do not hear a voice no need to be afraid.like I said earlier, this the meaning of the two verse;
"being aware but not
understanding", whereas the other is
in the sense of "you heard it."

I want you to know this also;the first verse is the actual event that happened,and the second one is Paul narrate what happened.

FrancisTony:

I'm a believer, christian but I don't concur with everything written in the bible especially some Paul's teaching and I believe old things(testatement) have passed away.

which of the Paul teaching you don't believe? If you reject some Paul teaching then you must reject peter.

As to this salvation, the prophets who
prophesied of the grace that would
come to you made careful search and
inquiry, ( 1 Peter 1:10)
Therefore, gird your minds for action,
keep sober in spirit, fix your hope
completely on the grace to be brought
to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ.
( 1 Peter 1:13)

Here peter one of Jesus disciple and an eye witnesses quote Paul teaching of grace, if Paul were teaching lies, peter would've rebuke him, even Paul say if an angel or apostle preach different gospel,let him be accused.

Matthew (another eyewitness) even
quoted Jesus, " And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it." (Matthew 16:18) if you reject Paul then you must reject peter and matthew.

I can go on and on, Luke quote Paul and peter was among the disciples of Jesus.if Paul was contradicting Jesus, Luke will accused him and even peter, infacte peter was the head of the church there is no way the head will seat and watch the least of the apostle teach different messages.

Misogynist2014:

a) We accept they saw the light

Just as it's apparent from the verse.

b) Though they all fell to the earth, does that mean they couldn't have stood up again? Also, stood doesn't really mean standing up.
stood/stʊd/
past and past participle of stand.
stand/stand/
verb
1. have or maintain an upright position, supported
by one's feet.
2. (of an object, building, or settlement) be
situated in a particular place or position.
3. be in a specified state or condition.
4. withstand (an experience or test) without being
damaged.
5. be a candidate in an election.
6. act as umpire in a cricket match.
7. provide (food or drink) for (someone) at one's
own expense.

Which is more applicable? These other translation show that the men were standing in the real sense.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
And the men who were traveling with him on the road were standing amazed because they were hearing the sound only, but The Man was not visible to them.

International Standard Version
Meanwhile, the men who were traveling with Saul were standing speechless, for they heard the voice but didn't see anyone.

New International Version
The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone.

c) The solution to hearing of a voice can be found in NASB
" * Those with Saul saw the light, but did not understand the words spoken (NASB) - 22:9."

Have in mind that other early translations have it as hear, not understand. So why the later change?

hear Translate Button
[heer]
verb (used with object), heard [hurd] ( Show IPA ), hearing.
1.
to perceive by the ear:
Didn't you hear the doorbell?
2.
to learn by the ear or by being told; be informed of:
to hear news.

The above gives no merit to your argument.

d) We accept they saw no one.
Come quickly LORD!
@Jonydon22

Just as apparent as it is in the verses.

Pr0ton:


Just as it's apparent from the verse.




Which is more applicable? These other translation show that the men were standing in the real sense.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
And the men who were traveling with him on the road were standing amazed because they were hearing the sound only, but The Man was not visible to them.

International Standard Version
Meanwhile, the men who were traveling with Saul were standing speechless, for they heard the voice but didn't see anyone.

New International Version
The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone.



Have in mind that other early translations have it as hear, not understand. So why the later change?



The above gives no merit to your argument.



Just as apparent as it is in the verses.

When something has been argued beyond doubt, any argument then sounds foolish.

Jesus calls us o’er the tumult
Of our life’s wild, restless, sea;
Day by day His sweet voice soundeth,
Saying, “Christian, follow Me!”
Jesus calls us from the worship
Of the vain world’s golden store,
From each idol that would keep us,
Saying, “Christian, love Me more!”
In our joys and in our sorrows,
Days of toil and hours of ease,
Still He calls, in cares and pleasures,
“Christian, love Me more than these!”
Jesus calls us! By Thy mercies,
Savior, may we hear Thy call,
Give our hearts to Thine obedience,
Serve and love Thee best of all.

malvisguy212:
you are the one who do not understand the meaning here. we are talking about the word "hear" and NOT" understand" you inserted understand on each verse just to proved your points which is wrong,nobody is talking about understand here.

Now I'm clear on what we are arguing about here.

On one verse they HEAR the voice but do not see who is talking and the other verse they did not HEAR the voice.

And that is not a contradiction to you? We are focusing on the word "hear" and not whether they understood what they heard or not.

" stood speechless, hearing a
voice, but seeing no man"

This does not mean they hear the voice meaning they understand. they did not understand that why they are speechless.

First, and again, since we are focusing on the word "hear" why should you say that they didn't hear the voice even when the verse says they did?

Second, what is it that they did not understand? How could they not understand something they had not heard? "They heard a voice, but they didn't understand" has more meaning than "They did not hear the voice, but didn't understand". If you are going for the former sentence, remember we are focusing on the word "hear" i.e whether they heard or not, and not whether they understood or not.

" and were afraid;
but they heard not the voice of him
that spake to me. "

Why are they afraid?they are aware of what is happening, if you do not hear a voice no need to be afraid

Are you trying to say they heard the voice even when the verse apparently says they didn't?

like I said earlier, this the meaning of the two verse;
"being aware but not
understanding",

It's rather: they heard the voice but didn't understand.

whereas the other is
in the sense of "you heard it."

and, according to they verse, they didn't hear the voice. Maybe you should reread the verses.

I want you to know this also;the first verse is the actual event that happened,and the second one is Paul narrate what happened.

Yeah.

Pr0ton:


Now I'm clear on what we are arguing about here.



And that is not a contradiction to you? We are focusing on the word "hear" and not whether they understood what they heard or not.



First, and again, since we are focusing on the word "hear" why should you say that they didn't hear the voice even when the verse says they did?

Second, what is it that they did not understand? How could they not understand something they had not heard? "They heard a voice, but they didn't understand" has more meaning than "They did not hear the voice, but didn't understand". If you are going for the former sentence, remember we are focusing on the word "hear" i.e whether they heard or not, and not whether they understood or not.



Are you trying to say they heard the voice even when the verse apparently says they didn't?



It's rather: they heard the voice but didn't understand.



and, according to they verse, they didn't hear the voice. Maybe you should reread the verses.



Yeah.

Lol. You have time sha.

Misogynist2014:

When something has been argued beyond doubt, any argument then sounds foolish.

Yhh.. Such as this one below:

Jesus calls us o’er the tumult
Of our life’s wild, restless, sea;
Day by day His sweet voice soundeth,
Saying, “Christian, follow Me!”
Jesus calls us from the worship
Of the vain world’s golden store,
From each idol that would keep us,
Saying, “Christian, love Me more!”
In our joys and in our sorrows,
Days of toil and hours of ease,
Still He calls, in cares and pleasures,
“Christian, love Me more than these!”
Jesus calls us! By Thy mercies,
Savior, may we hear Thy call,
Give our hearts to Thine obedience,
Serve and love Thee best of all.

malvisguy212:
which of the Paul teaching you don't believe? If you reject some Paul teaching then you must reject peter.

As to this salvation, the prophets who
prophesied of the grace that would
come to you made careful search and
inquiry, ( 1 Peter 1:10)
Therefore, gird your minds for action,
keep sober in spirit, fix your hope
completely on the grace to be brought
to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ.
( 1 Peter 1:13)

Here peter one of Jesus disciple and an eye witnesses quote Paul teaching of grace, if Paul were teaching lies, peter would've rebuke him, even Paul say if an angel or apostle preach different gospel,let him be accused.

So you don't know that Paul rebuked Peter in Gal. 2

Matthew (another eyewitness) even
quoted Jesus, " And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it." (Matthew 16:18) if you reject Paul then you must reject peter and matthew.

You post contains flaws. The author of Matthew was never an eye witness. They (Matthew and Paul) also don't agree on so many things. For example, Matt 5:17 says Jesus didn't come to abolish the law, while Eph 2:15 says He came to abolish the law.

I can go on and on, Luke quote Paul and peter was among the disciples of Jesus.if Paul was contradicting Jesus, Luke will accused him and even peter, infacte peter was the head of the church there is no way the head will seat and watch the least of the apostle teach different messages.

Peter sees himself as the head, Paul sees him as nothing Gal. 2:6

malvisguy212:
what do you understand here;
" The two verse you quote are related
with the same meaning. the case is
the sense of "being aware but not
understanding", whereas the other is
in the sense of "you heard it."

Chai........ See twisting. Malvisguy212. Please save yourself the trouble and tell him verses such as these can be best understood in the spirit. He needs the holy spirit to reconcile those verses. Tell him to pray to God and fast for holy spirit to reveal the knowledge within.