Originally Posted by Thunderstick
Originally Posted by DBT
Originally Posted by Thunderstick
[quote=DBT][quote=Thunderstick][quote=Jahrs]Language translation?



Question: "Why does Acts 9:7 say that those traveling with Paul heard a voice, but Acts 22:9 says that they heard no voice?"

Answer: As Paul relates his conversion experience to an audience in Jerusalem, he says, “They that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me” (Acts 22:9, KJV).

However, Luke, in relating the same event, says, “The men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man” (Acts 9:7, KJV).

So, which is it? Paul says “they heard not the voice,” and Luke says they were “hearing a voice.”

First of all, the word for “voice” in these verses is the Greek word phone, which means “a sound, a tone, a speech, a voice, or a natural sound.” With such a wide-ranging definition, the context must determine the most accurate meaning of the word. Most commonly, phone is applied to a voice from God, a human, or an angel. However, phone can also refer to sounds in general. It is translated “sound” in John 3:8, “The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound. . . .” Paul uses the word to refer to the “sound” of a trumpet in 1 Corinthians 14:8.

The flexibility of phone is quite evident in Revelation 1:15, “His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice [phone] was like the sound [phone] of rushing waters.” Here, the identical Greek word is translated two different ways.

These examples illustrate how confusion can arise in the comparison of Acts 9 with Acts 22. Paul heard a voice as Jesus communicated directly with him. The men with Paul heard the voice speaking to Paul but, to them, it was just an unintelligible sound. Did they hear the voice? Yes, in the sense that they heard something. But, since they could not understand what the voice said, it was nothing more than a sound—in other words, they couldn’t really “hear” Jesus.

The ESV clears up the seeming contradiction nicely: “Those who were with me saw the light but did not understand the voice of the one who was speaking to me” (Acts 22:9). And, “They heard the sound but did not see anyone” (Acts 9:7). Not understanding the voice—but hearing the sound—is a good description of what happened.



Correct and we use this type of terminology all the time today. We say we heard something when we hear a noise, but when we hear a noise and cannot discern the speech we say we cannot hear the person. Again its the application of context and common sense.




Does epilepsy change a person's world view and make them intelligently articulate what they once detested? I think you are trying too hard and are not making a credible argument. You accept the account in part but not in whole. Why do you even believe that he had an experience at all? Or maybe it was just Damascus road rage because his skeptic employers weren't paying him enough. But then he went and worked for even less 😎


Your bias toward the incredible, the existence of fantastical, invisible magical beings, angels and demons, does not make you a fair judge of credibility in these matters. There are countless supernatural claims, Hinduism, Islam, ancient religions with their pantheons gods and demons, with each and every believer convinced of their own 'truth while dismissing the sceptic with the comment of 'credibility'