Paul Contradicts Himself? Part 1

[786]

Acts 9:1-7

9:1And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest,
9:2 And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem.
9:3 And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:
9:4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
9:5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
9:6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.
9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

The important part in the previous verses is in bold. That is verse 9:7.

Lets look at another section of verses which talk of the same event.

Acts 22:5-9

22:5 As also the high priest doth bear me witness, and all the estate of the elders: from whom also I received letters unto the brethren, and went to Damascus, to bring them which were there bound unto Jerusalem, for to be punished.
22:6 And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and was come nigh unto Damascus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me.
22:7 And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
22:8 And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest.
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 me.

Ok. Now lets look at the contradiction. In Acts 9:7 the people who journeyed with Saul (Paul) heard the voice.

But on the contrary in Acts 22:9 the people who journeyed with Saul (Paul) did not hear the voice.

This is a crystal clear contradiction. I presented verses to show that I did not take it out of context. And also that both sections talk of the same event. And another interesting thing is that both were found in Acts.

Here is the link where I read the verses from. http://www.literature-web.net/bible/acts

 

[§outh§tar]

A common method of reconciliation has been to note that in 9:7 “hearing” (akouo) is used with the genitive case, which merely specifies that a “sound” was heard. On the other hand, akouo in 22:9 takes an accusative object, which indicates “extent,” i.e., though a sound was heard, the “meaning” was not comprehended. A.T. Robertson, the prince of grammarians, declared that this approach is “perfectly proper” (Historical Grammar of the Greek New Testament, London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1919, p. 506).

A contemporary scholar suggests that an appropriate harmony is explained best by Luke’s use of different sources to compose his document. Professor Daniel Wallace surmises that Luke preserved the precise phraseology of dual sources (cf. Lk. 1:3), and that his record reflects the fact that both akouo (hear) and phone (voice) are capable of different nuances, e.g., hear/understand and voice/sound. Thus, no contradiction may be charged legitimately, even without the “case” argument (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996, pp. 133-134)

http://www.christiancourier.com/questions/narrativesOfPaul.htm


There is actually NO discrepancy. As you can see in the following definitions:

Hear
transitive senses
1 : to perceive or apprehend by the ear
2 : to gain knowledge of by hearing

This is further evidenced by the difference between the Greek verbs used in the accounts.

 

[786]

A common method of reconciliation has been to note that in 9:7 “hearing” (akouo) is used with the genitive case, which merely specifies that a “sound” was heard. On the other hand, akouo in 22:9 takes an accusative object, which indicates “extent,” i.e., though a sound was heard, the “meaning” was not comprehended. A.T. Robertson, the prince of grammarians, declared that this approach is “perfectly proper” (Historical Grammar of the Greek New Testament, London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1919, p. 506).

A contemporary scholar suggests that an appropriate harmony is explained best by Luke’s use of different sources to compose his document. Professor Daniel Wallace surmises that Luke preserved the precise phraseology of dual sources (cf. Lk. 1:3), and that his record reflects the fact that both akouo (hear) and phone (voice) are capable of different nuances, e.g., hear/understand and voice/sound. Thus, no contradiction may be charged legitimately, even without the “case” argument (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996, pp. 133-134)

http://www.christiancourier.com/questions/narrativesOfPaul.htm


There is actually NO discrepancy. As you can see in the following definitions:

Hear
transitive senses
1 : to perceive or apprehend by the ear
2 : to gain knowledge of by hearing

This is further evidenced by the difference between the Greek verbs used in the accounts.

Well, then you should ask whoever issues the Bible to try not to make any confusions. But I still don't get this.

 

[786]

Here is another one.

Acts 26:12-18
26:12 Whereupon as I went to Damascus with authority and commission from the chief priests,
26:13 At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me.
26:14 And when we were all fallen to the earth, I 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.
26:15 And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.
26:16 But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee;
26:17 Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee,
26:18 To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

Lets look at another section of verses containing the same event.

22:6And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and was come nigh unto Damascus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me.
22:7 And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
22:8 And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest.
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 me.
22:10 And I said, What shall I do, LORD? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do.

The contradiction here is:

Did the voice spell out on the spot what Paul’s duties were to be?

Yes (Acts 26:16-18)
No. The voice commanded Paul to go into the city of Damascus and there he will be told what he must do. (Acts 22:10)

 

[§outh§tar]

Well, then you should ask whoever issues the Bible to try not to make any confusions. But I still don't get this.

Did you at all read the article and what I wrote? There is a DIFFERENCE in the verbs used in both instances. In English, because English is such a filthy, decrepit, stupid, abominable, useless language , English does not even have as many verbs as the Greek. Therefore "sacrifices" in translation have to be made. It is not the fault of the translators, but the language. That is just how the language is.

 

[§outh§tar]

For your second contradiction, read the very same article. Both "apparent contradictions" are addressed there.

 

[786]

For your second contradiction, read the very same article. Both "apparent contradictions" are addressed there.

I have reread the article, but I fail to see anything discussing this issue. It talks of this event but not the particular issue. Could you please just quote me from the article, since I didn't seem to get anything on the second contradiction

 

[§outh§tar]

@ 786

My apologies, the article does not address the issue but I will do my best here.

You must remember that the voice NEVER "spelled out on the spot" what Paul's duties were. Read Acts 26:16-18. Although, Paul did recieve SOME idea of what his ministery was to be about, even you can see that those statements are absolutely vague and do not tell him what he is supposed to do. In order to know exactly what He was supposed to do, he had to go to Damascus. If someone gave you the directions in v.16-18, you wouldn't know what to do either. You would need some more explanation, and that is what going to Damascus was going to do for him.

As you see, there really is no contradiction.

 

[786]

@ 786

My apologies, the article does not address the issue but I will do my best here.

You must remember that the voice NEVER "spelled out on the spot" what Paul's duties were. Read Acts 26:16-18. Although, Paul did recieve SOME idea of what his ministery was to be about, even you can see that those statements are absolutely vague and do not tell him what he is supposed to do. In order to know exactly what He was supposed to do, he had to go to Damascus. If someone gave you the directions in v.16-18, you wouldn't know what to do either. You would need some more explanation, and that is what going to Damascus was going to do for him.

As you see, there really is no contradiction.

I get it, but it is still confusing. Because both is written by Paul. Paul should've have written them same.

 

[dr.p]

I get it, but it is still confusing. Because both is written by Paul. Paul should've have written them same.

Actually, I believe Luke wrote both Acts and his Gospel account to Theophilus...

Anyways, about your second "contradiction," 786 (Acts 22 and 26)... in Acts 26, Paul appears to be paraphrasing the sequence of events for King Agrippa. Acts 22 includes everything that Paul mentioned, it just spaces it out in more detail.

 

[§outh§tar]

Well the Canadian Pirate beat me to the punch! Yarrrr...

 

[dr.p]

Well the Canadian Pirate beat me to the punch! Yarrrr...

Yar Just so's ya know, I'm not really Canadian, eh.

 

[Leo Volont]

Dear 786

I think that Luke actually hated Paul. Paul was well dead when the Triumphant Congregations that Paul had established began to issue orders and instructions to the Servants of the Church, such as Luke. Luke, being the only Disciple to write respectfully of the Blessed Virgin must certainly have hated Paul the Antichrist, and so when coerced to write concerning Paul was able to insert evidences for the Discerning Mind that Paul was indeed False.

I would say that the Book of Acts provides the best Proofs that Paul was the Antichrist, except that Paul manages to reveal so much of his evil nature in his 14 Letters. That so few people see it is simple testimony of how superficially non-intelligent most people are. They accept the Editorializing and the Agendas that are superimposed on the bare facts, but they can't actually picture what really took place, along with what must have been the real motives and intentions of the parties involved.

If people had any True Discernment they would see Paul in the same Light as any Modern Fraudulent Cult Leader. Paul was only the first in a long line who saw that Money could be Made in claiming to be Christ.

This brings to mind the Concept of "Speaking in the Name of Christ". These People were actually claiming to be the Voice of Christ -- assuming the IDENTITY of Christ. Is this what every Modern Self-Proclaimed Messiah and Super Guru claims for him or herself. And do we believe them? So why should we have believed Paul. We don't mind being fooled once, but resent being fooled again and again? Rather, we should hate that man worst who was Teacher to all the Frauds and Liars who would come after. And Paul was the Original and Archetype.

In my Youth I once travelled with some Evangelical Preachers. You know what they taught me in private? "Jesus for Show. Paul for Doe". The idea was to mention Jesus often because everyone is supposed to be Christian, but that all the teachings and doctrines were to come straight out of Paul because from the very beginning it seems that they were designed to be the best moneymakers. Easy Converts equals Easy Money.

 

[battig1370]

The foundation of the christian churches, started from one of, or all of, three versions of the Damascus Road Event Luke, the author of the book of ACTS is called "the father of Christian Church History." ACTS addresses those who are in need of information about the foundation of the christian church.

Christians may say, it dosen't matter which version of Saul's Conversion happened, the end result is the same.( Conversion? ) For those that believe ACTS as the Word of God, which version is the Word of God, does it matter. If these three versions were to be brought before THE JUDGE, what would HE say? --- You can be the jury. Read the three versions carefully. .

Version 1, Acts 26:13-19 ---> Saul/St.Paul testified to King Agrippa that he was not disobedient to his heavenly VISION,and Saul's Jesus an angel of light directly told Saul his purpose, on the Road to Damascus. Saul's Jesus said, "rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee;"-( Acts 26:16 ) But there is no mention of Saul being blinded for three days by this 'angel of light that claimed to be JESUS. Also Ananias is not mentioned because there was no need of him.

Version 2, Acts 22, 6-14 ---> Saul's Jesus, an angel of light blinded Saul and told him, all things would be told in Damascus. The men with Saul saw the light, but they did not hear the voice that spoke to Saul. A devout Jew named Ananias who had a good report of all the Jews which dwelt in Damascus, was choosen to tell Saul his purpose. Ananias said, " The God of our fathers has chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth, For thou shalt be be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard.-( Acts 22:14-15 ) ---." There is mention of Saul being blinded and Ananias putting his hands on Saul restored Saul's sight in the same hour. Then, Ananias told Saul, "arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the 'Lord'."-( Acts 22:16 )

Version 3, Acts 9:3-18 ---> 'Saul's Jesus' 'an angel of light' blinded Saul and told him, all things would be told in Damascus. The men with Saul stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. --- There is mentioned that Saul was blinded for three days. 'Saul's Jesus' also spoke to Anasias in a Vision, of Saul's new status and mission. Putting his hand on Saul, Ananias told Saul, "--- thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. Immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.-( Acts 9:17-18 )

Which version is true, 1, or 2, or 3? Maybe you should believe all the versions, but I'd say, that's not possible. What would THE JUDGE say?

Peace be with you, Paul