Many Muslims deceitfully attack the Apostle Paul with misleading and untrue accusations. They make such claims such as accusing him of being a self-proclaimer instead of proclaiming Jesus (Yeshua) Christ. In doing so they overlook and/or are ignorant that Jesus (Yeshua) Christ was the one who personally selected the Apostle Paul as he saw much good in him even though at the time of his selection he was actually persecuting Christ genuine (true) footstep followers. Now let's look at the Biblical account of his personal selection by the resurrected Jesus (Yeshua) Christ at Acts 9:1-22, "And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest, 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. 3 And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven: 4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? 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. 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. 7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. 8 And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus. 9 And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink. 10 And there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and to him said the Lord in a vision, Ananias. And he said, Behold, I am here, Lord. 11 And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the street which is called Straight, and enquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul, of Tarsus: for, behold, he prayeth, 12 And hath seen in a vision a man named Ananias coming in, and putting his hand on him, that he might receive his sight. 13 Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem: 14 And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name.
15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel: 16 For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake. 17 And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. 18 And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized. 19 And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus. 20 And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God. 21 But all that heard him were amazed, and said; Is not this he that destroyed them which called on this name in Jerusalem, and came hither for that intent, that he might bring them bound unto the chief priests? 22 But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ." (Authorized King James Bible; AV).
Of course, immediately after is dramatic conversion by none other than Jesus (Yeshua), himself, many of the disciples and apostles still doubted his conversion as testified to at Acts 9:26-27, "And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple. 27 But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus." (AV). Therefore, there can be no doubt that he was personally selected by Jesus (Yeshua) to be a proclaimer of the good news or gospel with respect to Jesus (Yeshua) and the true God (YHWH) of Abraham, Isaac, and Ishmael, creator of all there is, Kingdom.
Now let's view some of the deceitful and misleading things some Muslims say about the Apostle Paul.
MISLEADING AND DECEITFUL THINGS SAID ABOUT THE APOSTLE PAUL BY SOME MUSLIMS:
Let's look at some of the misleading and deceitful things some Muslims are saying wrongly about the Apostle Paul in their own words.
COMMENT 1, which we shall examine.
<<" Galatians 1:6 ''I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a DIFFERENT GOSPEL...'' You said there was no other gospel, who is the deceiver now?. As i said before that there was another gospel and when Paul heard and saw it he got very angry. Im still of the opinion that the other gospel was the real gospel of Christ and Pauls gospel was not so inspiring because the Galatians started to reject Pauls gospel and accepted the DIFFERENT GOSPEL." [source - A Sunni Muslim]>>.
First, Let's look at Galatians 1:6 in context and see how wrong this Sunni Muslim is, Galatians 1:1-9, "Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;) 2 And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia: 3 Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ, 4 Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father: 5 To whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. 6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: 7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." (AV), clearly the Apostle Paul was speaking of false gospels at Galatians 1:6 that some were starting to listen to instead of the gospel of Christ, i.e., some were perverting the gospel of Christ per Galatians 1:7.
Now let's get a better understanding of the above Bible scriptures by looking at a dictionary definition of 'gospel' is several dictionaries:
[1] The American Heritage(r) Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000. Defines gospel as follows:
NOUN:
1. often Gospel The proclamation of the redemption preached by Jesus and the Apostles, which is the central content of Christian revelation. 2a. Gospel Bible One of the first four New Testament books, describing the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus and recording his teaching. b. A similar narrative. 3. often Gospel A lection from any of the first four New Testament books included as part of a religious service. 4. A teaching or doctrine of a religious teacher. 5. Music Gospel music. 6. Something, such as an idea or principle, accepted as unquestionably true: My parents' rules were gospel.
ADJECTIVE:
1. Of or in accordance with the Gospel; evangelical. 2. Of or relating to gospel music.
ETYMOLOGY:
Middle English, from Old English gdspel (ultimately translation of Greek euangelion) : gd, good; see good + spel, news.
[2] Easton Bible Dictionary, a religious dictionary, gives two definitions for gospel.
Gospel - a word of Anglo-Saxon origin, and meaning "God's spell", i.e., word of God, or rather, according to others, "good spell", i.e., good news. It is the rendering of the Greek evangelion, i.e., "good message." It denotes (1) "the welcome intelligence of salvation to man as preached by our Lord and his followers. (2.) It was afterwards transitively applied to each of the four histories of our Lord's life, published by those who are therefore called 'Evangelists', writers of the history of the gospel (the evangelion). (3.) The term is often used to express collectively the gospel doctrines; and 'preaching the gospel' is often used to include not only the proclaiming of the good tidings, but the teaching men how to avail themselves of the offer of salvation, the declaring of all the truths, precepts, promises, and threatenings of Christianity." It is termed "the gospel of the grace of God" (Acts 20:24), "the gospel of the kingdom" (Matt. 4:23), "the gospel of Christ" (Rom. 1:16), "the gospel of peace (Eph. 6:15), "the glorious gospel," "the everlasting gospel," "the gospel of salvation" (Eph. 1:13).
Gospels - The central fact of Christian preaching was the intelligence that the Saviour had come into the world (Matt. 4:23; Rom. 10:15); and the first Christian preachers who called their account of the person and mission of Christ by the term evangelion_ (= good message) were called _evangelistai (= evangelists) (Eph. 4:11; Acts 21:8).
There are four historical accounts of the person and work of Christ: "the first by Matthew, announcing the Redeemer as the promised King of the kingdom of God; the second by Mark, declaring him 'a prophet, mighty in deed and word'; the third by Luke, of whom it might be said that he represents Christ in the special character of the Saviour of sinners (Luke 7:36; 15:18); the fourth by John, who represents Christ as the Son of God, in whom deity and humanity become one. The ancient Church gave to Matthew the symbol of the lion, to Mark that of a man, to Luke that of the ox, and to John that of the eagle: these were the four faces of the cherubim" (Ezek. 1:10).
Date. The Gospels were all composed during the latter part of the first century, and there is distinct historical evidence to show that they were used and accepted as authentic before the end of the second century.
Mutual relation. "If the extent of all the coincidences be represented by 100, their proportionate distribution will be: Matthew, Mark, and Luke, 53; Matthew and Luke, 21; Matthew and Mark, 20; Mark and Luke, 6. Looking only at the general result, it may be said that of the contents of the synoptic Gospels [i.e., the first three Gospels] about two-fifths are common to the three, and that the parts peculiar to one or other of them are little more than one-third of the whole."
Origin. Did the evangelists copy from one another? The opinion is well founded that the Gospels were published by the apostles orally before they were committed to writing, and that each had an independent origin
[3] World English Bible Glossary, gives the following definition for gospel,
Gospel means "good news" or "glad tidings," specifically the Good News of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection for our salvation, healing, and provision; and the hope of eternal life that Jesus made available to us by God's grace.
So as we can see, 'gospel,' has the meaning of "good news" or "glad tidings;" therefore, the Apostle Paul was clearly simply warning all to only accept the 'good news' that originated with Jesus (Yeshua) Christ as shown by Galatians 1:7-9, and definitely NOT a proclaimer of gospel as the Sunni Muslim was deceitfully implying. Let's consider the dictionary definition of 'proclaimer.'
PROCLA'IMER, n. One who publishes by authority; one that announces or makes publicly known.[source - Webster's 1828 Dictionary]
COMMENT 2, which we shall examine.
<<" And yes Paul did get very angry when he found out people where dumping his gospel for a different gospel which many x christians call the ''Genuine Gospel of Christ'''[source - A Sunni Muslim]>>.
First, as we previously saw looking at Galatians 1:6 in context, Paul was warning all to only accept the genuine "good News" or gospel that emanated from Jesus (Yeshua) Christ, and NOT some other gospel that emanated from a source controlled by Satan the Devil per 2 Corinthians 4:4, "In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them." (AV). Galatians 1:7-9, "Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." (AV) where he makes very clear that he is not proclaiming another gospel other than the gospel or 'good news' that emanated from Jesus (Yeshua) Christ, but CLEARLY warning others NOT to accept any other gospel except that which originated with Christ. But as usual, there are deceitful individuals who will take a scripture, in this case Galatians 1:6 out of context and misleadingly try to make it seem that it is saying just the opposite from what its original writer/speaker intended.
That is why the Apostle Paul wrote the following about the Bereans, Acts 17:10-11, "And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so." (AV). Basically the Apostle Paul was congratulating the Bereans on their diligence in carefully searching the scriptures daily to see that what he told them was the truth in keeping with John 8:32, "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (AV).
COMMENT 3, which we shall examine.
<<" You are not dealing with the facts that Paul told Timothy to hold onto the translation which includes the extra books of the Catholics and Paul said they are all inspired. Please show us solid evidence that Paul told Timothy to hold onto the original Old Testament, im looking forward to your evidence
I see that you are trying to protect your faith by being deceitful as Paul the self acclaimed deceiver has instructed you to do so. I appeal to the christians that are not deceitful to research for them selves of the scripture Timothy knew from childhood, which is a translation. Iris, I can understand you cannot accept that Paul was wrong to say what he said to Timothy. You will not find ''mans words'' in the Glorious Quran, Ameen."[ Source - a Sunni Muslim]>>.
Just another deceitful and misleading item by this Sunni Muslim. Notice, he calls Paul a self acclaimed deceiver and tries to call the Apocrypha books inspired canon which they are not. Let's first consider what the Apocrypha is.
[1] Easton Bible Dictionary, a religious dictionary, gives the following definition for Apocrypha.
Apocrypha - hidden, spurious, the name given to certain ancient books which found a place in the LXX. and Latin Vulgate versions of the Old Testament, and were appended to all the great translations made from them in the sixteenth century, but which have no claim to be regarded as in any sense parts of the inspired Word.
(1.) They are not once quoted by the New Testament writers, who frequently quote from the LXX. Our Lord and his apostles confirmed by their authority the ordinary Jewish canon, which was the same in all respects as we now have it.
(2.) These books were written not in Hebrew but in Greek, and during the "period of silence," from the time of Malachi, after which oracles and direct revelations from God ceased till the Christian era.
(3.) The contents of the books themselves show that they were no part of Scripture. The Old Testament Apocrypha consists of fourteen books, the chief of which are the Books of the Maccabees (q.v.), the Books of Esdras, the Book of Wisdom, the Book of Baruch, the Book of Esther, Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, Judith, etc.
The New Testament Apocrypha consists of a very extensive literature, which bears distinct evidences of its non-apostolic origin, and is utterly unworthy of regard.
[2] Smith's Bible Dictionary, a religious dictionary, gives the following definition for Apocrypha.
<<" Old Testament Apocrypha ._The collection of books to which this term is popularly applied includes the following (the order given is that in which they stand in the English version); I. 1 Esdras; II. 2 Esdras; III. Tobit; IV. Judith; V. The rest of the chapters of the book of Esther, which are found neither in the Hebrew nor in the Chaldee; VI. The Wisdom of Solomon; VII. The Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach, or Ecclesiasticus; VII. Baruch; IX. The Song of the Three Holy Children, X. The History of Susanna; XI. The History of the destruction of Bel and the Dragon; XII. The Prayer of Manasses king of Judah; XIII. 1 Maccabee; XIV. 2 Maccabees. The primary meaning of apocrypha , "hidden, secret," seems, toward the close of the second century to have been associated with the signification "spurious," and ultimately to have settled down into the latter. The separate books of this collection are treated of in distinct articles.">>
[3] Irivng Hexham's Concise Dictionary of Religion, a religious dictionary, gives the following definition for Apocrypha.
<<" APOCRYPHA: in Greek this means "hidden things" and is a term applied to both JEWISH and CHRISTIAN writings which were excluded from the official CANON of SCRIPTURE".>>.
As can be seen from all of these definitions, the Apocrypha are spurious writings NOT by the claimed writers, NOT in harmony with the inspired scriptures, etc.
In fact with respect to the Septuagint, LXX, there were different versions, some contained some of the Apocrypha and others did not, but all contained all of the inspired books of the Bible. One encyclopedia said this,
<<" Septuagint: A page from Codex vaticanus, the basis of Sir Lancelot Brenton's English translation.
The Septuagint (or simply "LXX") is the name commonly given in the West to the ancient, Koine Greek version of the Old Testament translated in stages between the 3rd to 1st century BC in Alexandria. It is the oldest of several ancient translations of the Hebrew Bible into Greek. The name means "seventy" and derives from a tradition that seventy-two Jewish scholars (LXX being the nearest round number) translated the Pentateuch (or Torah) from Hebrew into Greek for one of the Ptolemaic kings. As the work of translation went on gradually, and new books were added to the collection, the compass of the Greek Bible came to be somewhat indefinite. The Pentateuch always maintained its pre-eminence as the basis of the canon; but the prophetic collection changed its aspect by having various hagiographa incorporated into it. Some of the newer works, those called anagignoskomena in Greek, are not included in the Hebrew canon. Among these books are Maccabees and the Wisdom of Ben Sira. Also, the LXX version of some works, like Daniel and Esther, are longer than the Hebrew.[1] Several of the later books apparently were composed in Greek." [source - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia] >>.
Of the Apocrypha books, the encyclopedia said several of these books were apparently composed in Greek; whereas, all of the inspired books of the Old Testament were composed in ancient Hebrew. This being a feature that immediately identifies them as spurious.
Paul NEVER said any of the Apocrypha were inspired as this Sunni Muslim deceitfully says. In fact, as we previously say in Galatians 1:1-9, the Apostle Paul warned against perverted gospels, i.e., spurious ones such as the books of the Apocrypha. However, this Sunni Muslim deceiver is trying to twist the meaning of 2 Timothy 3:16, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" (AV). He is trying to falsely imply that the Apocrypha is part of what the Apostle Paul was referring to which of course is very unreasonable and illogical to the extreme and especially so if 2 Timothy 3:16 is looked at in context, 2 timothy 3:12-17, "Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. 13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. 14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." (AV). He, the Sunni Muslim, is one of those covered by 2 Timothy 3:13.
Now in other comments by this same Sunni Muslim he has inferred that Timothy had and learned from a copy of the LXX containing the Apocrypha as he only knew Koine Greek which is of course untrue. His father was a Greek, but his mother was a Jew who spoke Hebrew. His mother, not his father, was the one who taught him, and this fact was recognized by the Apostle Paul at 2 Timothy 1:1-5, "Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, according to the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus, 2 To Timothy, my dearly beloved son: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord. 3 I thank God, whom I serve from my forefathers with pure conscience, that without ceasing I have remembrance of thee in my prayers night and day; 4 Greatly desiring to see thee, being mindful of thy tears, that I may be filled with joy; 5 When I call to remembrance the unfeigned faith that is in thee, which dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois, and thy mother Eunice; and I am persuaded that in thee also." (AV).
Undoubtedly his mother Eunice would have regularly taken him to the Synagogue where he would have listened to Rabbis reading the sacred inspired scripture per the canon of Ezra or Jerusalem canon so the inspired scripture the Apostle Paul was referring to in 2 Timothy 3:16 would have been only the inspired scripture and NOT the spurious Apocrypha.
In addition, scripture in those days was NOT written/printed in books as it is today, but was hand written on scrolls which made copies very expensive. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that young Timothy had a personal copy of of the scriptures, let alone a copy of the LXX containing spurious Apocrypha.
Timothy undoubtedly knew exactly which writings the Apostle Paul was speaking of . For example, I often use the Catholic New American Bible (NAB) which contains some Apocrypha books, but I well know which books are the Holy Scriptures as did Timothy, and which are spurious Apocrypha. In other words, this Sunni Muslim is implying that Timothy was both stupid and gullible, a fact NOT in anyway supported by scripture as quite the contrary is supported by scripture.
CONCLUSION;
Members of Islam get irrationally insane over silly cartoons, a speech in a university where the Pope quoted from something a Byzantine Emperor said which they mistook as the Pope trying to insult them - which he was not trying to do, and other minor and silly nonsense. However, they feel it is okay to tell untruths and deceitful things about the Apostle Paul - what a double standard they have as shown in this article.
Some Make A Big Deal Out of A Mistake in a Translational Construct:
December 7 2006, 4:58 AM
Some Make A Big Deal Out of A Mistake in a Translational Construct:
INTRODUCTION:
There are men being led by the Devil per 2 Corinthians 4:4, "In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them." (Authorized King James Bible; AV) who make a big deal out of seemingly contradictions in a Bible translation such as the Authorized King James Bible such as the following,
Acts 9:7, "And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man." (Authorized King James Bible; AV)
And,
Acts 22:7, "And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?" (Authorized King James Bible; AV)
Who do not bother to consider that translators are faced with a very difficult task of trying to capture what the original writer was saying in his own language. Some do a better job than others in capturing in another language what the thoughts of the original writer, writing in his own language, was really saying. This task is even more difficult when the original language Koine Greek is no longer a spoken language and one is translating and/or trying to translate into another language of an entirely different language group such as English. Yet these false prophets and false accusers try and mislead and deceive as warned against at Matthew 24:24, "For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect." (AV).
Let's look at an actual example of this deceitful practice.
ACTUAL EXAMPLE OF A DECEITFUL CHARGE OF CONTRADICTION:
Here is an actual example of this deceptive and deceitful practice of charging falsely contradiction; whereas, in reality it is nothing but a trivial faulty translational construct which many occur in the Authorized King James Bible for two distinct reasons, as follows:
[1] The original translators did NOT have access to many ancient manuscripts for cross comparison and the knowledge of ancient Koine Greek was way below what it is today.
[2] The actual translators strived to do a good job but were handicapped due to their insufficient knowledge of the ancient language so could NOT always accurate capture the thoughts of the original writer writing in his own language.
Now with that in mind, let's look at the misleader's actual post:
<<"Let me deal with the first part of your article[*1] about paul seeing jesus on path to damascus you said, Acts 9:7 ''And the men which journeyed with (paul) stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.'' I find this very difficult to believe infact i have a verse which contradicts the mentioned above. Acts 22:9 ''And they that were with me (paul) saw indeed the light and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.'' But then again what can you expect from a uninspired man. The next part i would like to deal with is the Galatians, you said, that there was no other gospel, let me show you that there was another gospel. GALATIANS 1:6 ''...I AM SO ASTONISHED THAT YOU ARE SO QUICKLY DESERTING THE ONE WHO CALLED YOU BY THE GRACE OF CHRIST AND ARE TURNING TO A DIFFERENT GOSPEL...''. I know many former christians which believe the ''DIFFERENT GOSPEL'' was the genuine gospel of christ. The ''DIFFERENT GOSPEL'' carried alot of weight because people started turning away from the one Paul preached.">>.
[*1 = Muslims Deceitfully Attack the Apostle Paul by Iris the Preacher, 2006, and can be now viewed at, http://religioustruths.proboards59.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=recognize&thread=1163880097]
Note, he also takes an unwarranted attack on the Apostle Paul, a man personally selected by the resurrected Jesus (Yeshua) Christ to carry on his work of proclaiming the gospel of Jesus (Yeshua) as clearly shown in the Ninth Chapter and Twenty Second Chapter of the Book of Acts, how far can one go with false accusations?
Now let's look at the translational construct situation.
TRANSLATIONAL CONSTRUCTS - THE REALITY:
This transnational construct trivial difference in the Authorized King James Bible between Acts 9:7 and 22:9 is well known, let's look at some data on it:
<<"... the most well-known alleged contradiction came up - that of Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9. In October of 1986, I received a letter from Mr. Barker. He sent me a four page document entitled "Did Paul's Men Hear A Voice?" In it he gave a great deal of information on the usage of the genitive and accusative cases relevant to the word akouo (to hear) and its direct objects, primarily phone (sound, voice) since these are the important terms in discussing Acts 9:7/22:9. Though not dealing with all of the issues involved (in my opinion), Mr. Barker did a fine job in stating his belief that the two passages are contradictory. To close our presentation of "Letters to an Anti-Theist," we will examine this "contradiction."
It is quite easy to see the supposed contradiction at this point. The King James Version reads:
9:7 - "And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.
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."
Clearly the question is - did the men hear the voice or not? [b] To answer that question, we must, obviously, deal with the text as written by Luke in its original languages.[/b] This is an excellent example of a situation where the original words must be allowed to be heard in the argument, for we could be charging Luke with a simple mistake that he did not make. Also, we need to notice that modern versions translate the passage differently. For example, the New International Version reads as follows:
9:7 - "The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone.
22:9 - "My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me."
Note that in the NIV the contradiction no longer exists; in the first passage the men hear a sound; in the second they do not understand the voice of the one speaking to Saul. Mr. Barker and other critics would assert that the NIV has translated in accordance with interpretation and convenience rather than according to language and usage. But is this so? Lets examine these passages and see.
First, before going into the text itself, we must address the issue of "what is a contradiction?" The law of contradiction, stated briefly, would be that you cannot have A and non-A simultaneously. You cannot have a chair in a room and outside the room at the same time. That would be a contradiction. But, is this what we have in this case in Acts?
The answer can only be no, we do not have a contradiction here. First, let's transliterate the passages so that their differences can be seen:
9:7 - akouontes men tes phones
22:9 - ten de phonen ouk ekousan phones legouses moi
It would be good to list the differences between the passages:
1. In 9:7 akouo is found as a nominative plural participle; in 22:9 it is a plural aorist verb.
2. In 9:7 phone is a singular genitive noun; in 22:9 it is a singular accusative noun.
3. In 9:7 akouo precedes its object; in 22:9 it follows its object.
4. In 9:7 the phrase is not modified; in 22:9 it is modified by "of the one speaking to me."
5. In 9:7 Luke is narrating an event in Greek; in 22:9 Paul is speaking to a crowd in Hebrew (or Aramaic).
Clearly the critic is placed in an impossible position of forcing the argument here, for the differences between the two passages are quite significant. Hence, the argument must proceed on the grounds of contradictory meanings only, for the grammar of the two passages will not support a clear "A vs. non-A" proposition.
We then must answer the question, are the differences between these passages significant enough to warrant the NIV's translation? Do we have a solid basis upon which to assert that what Paul meant was that the men heard a sound but did not understand what the voice was saving? I believe we do, and I am not alone on this. Following are some of the comments made by some eminent Greek scholars about these passages:
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). In John 5:25, 28, the genitive case is used, indicating a "sensational perception" that the Lord's voice is sounding; in 3:8, of hearing the wind, the accusative is used, stressing "the thing perceived." (Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words by W.E. Vine, pages 204-205).
Instead of this being a flat contradiction of what Luke says in 9:7 it is natural to take it as being likewise (as with the "light" and "no one') a distinction between the "sound' (original sense of phone as in John 3:8) and the separate words spoken. It so happens that akouo is used either with the accusative (extent of the hearing) or the genitive (the specifying). It is possible that such a distinction here coincides with the two senses of phone. They heard the sound (9:7), but did not understand the words (22:9). However, this distinction in case with akouo, though possible and even probable here, is by no means a necessary one for in John 3:8 where phonen undoubtedly means "sound" the accusative occurs as Luke uses ekousa phonen about Saul in Acts 9:4. Besides in Acts 22:7 Paul uses ekousa phones about himself, but ekousa phonen about himself in 26:14, interchangeably. (Word Pictures in the New Testament by Dr. A.T. Robertson, volume III, pages 117- 118).
The fact that the maintenance of an old and well-known distinction between the acc. and the gen. with akouo saves the author of Acts 9:7 and 22:9 from a patent self-contradiction, should by itself be enough to make us recognize it for Luke, and for other writers until it is proved wrong. (A Grammar of New Testament Creek by James Hope Moulton, vol I., page 66. Robertson quotes this approvingly in A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in Light of Historical Research on pages 448-449).
The partitive gen. occurs in NT with verbs of perception, especially with a personal object. For akouo, the class(ical) rule is that the person whose words are heard is in the gen. ...but the thing (or person) about which one hears is in the accus., and akouo c. accus. may mean to understand...We have to ask whether the class, distinction between gen. and accus. has significance for exegesis in NT. There may be something in the difference between the gen. in Ac. 9:7 (the men with Paul heard the sound ) and the accus. in Ac 22:9 (they did not understand the voice). (A Grammar of New Testament Greek vol. III by Nigel Turner, pg. 233).
Basically, these writers are referring to the possibility that the difference in the case of the term akouo would in this instance (9:7, 22:9) point to a difference in meaning. However, as Mr. Barker points out in his letter to me, and as Dr. A. T. Robertson said above many years earlier, this distinction cannot be written in stone. Why then do we feel that we are correct in asserting this difference as the the "answer" to this supposed contradiction? Context. Though none of the above authors went deeply into the subject, an examination of the context of the passages in question here make it very clear that Luke meant a difference to be understood in what he was writing.
The key element in this investigation is pointed out by R. J. Knowling (Expositor's Greek Testament vol. 2 ed. by W. Robertson Nicoll pages 231 -233) and by John Aberly (New Testament Commentary edited by H. C. Alleman page 414). In Acts 22:9 Paul is speaking to a crowd in Jerusalem. According to Acts 21:40 Paul addressed the crowd in Hebrew (NIV says Aramaic - exactly which dialect it was is not very relevant). He mentions to his Hebrew listeners that when Jesus called him, he called him in their own language - Hebrew. How do we know this? In both Acts 9:4 and in Acts 22:7 Saul is not spelled in its normal form, but is spelled in its Hebrew (or Aramaic) form Saoul. What does this tell us? It tells us that the "voice" spoke in Hebrew. Therefore, Acts 22:9 would he referring to the fact that the men who accompanied Paul did not understand what was said for they could not understand Hebrew! The text supports this very strongly, for Paul modifies his saying "they did not hear (understand) the voice" by adding the vital phrase, "of the one speaking to me (to lalountos moi)." The emphasis is on the speaking of the voice, which would indicate comprehension and understanding. Now, given the above scholar's quotations, and the context of the passages, can anyone seriously deny that there is a perfectly plausible explanation for this supposed contradiction? I think not." [source - The Hall of Shame by by James White of Alpha & Omega Ministeries]>>.
So we can see that this false accuser of the Apostle Paul is only blowing hot air as there is no real contradiction, but simply a trivial error in the translational construct.
CONCLUSION:
This supposed contradiction was not a contradiction in reality, but a simple and trivial failure by the translator to fully capture the thoughts of the original writer writing in his own language, a simple error in a translational construct.
Interestingly, all supposed contradictions are of the same and/or similar nature; the inability of the translator to fully capture the thoughts of the original writer, writing in his own language, or failure to comprehend some ancient culture thing or item such as "pim" whose meaning was not known until a very recent archaeological study, for details, see, THE BIBLE'S HISTORICITY AND CORRECTNESS TESTIFIED TO BY A "PIM", by Iris-the-Preacher, 2005, now can be read at, http://religioustruths.proboards59.com/index.cgi?board=history&action=display&thread=1163273452