 |
| Cover via Amazon |
Truthbomb Apologetics: 84 Confirmed Facts in the Last 16 Chapters of the Book of Acts
Showing posts with label Acts of the Apostles. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Acts of the Apostles. Show all posts
Monday, January 16, 2012
Truthbomb Apologetics: 84 Confirmed Facts in the Last 16 Chapters of the Book of Acts
Truthbomb Apologetics: 84 Confirmed Facts in the Last 16 Chapters of the Book of Acts
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Gospels and Acts as History by Timothy McGrew - Apologetics 315
Gospels and Acts as History by Timothy McGrew - Apologetics 315
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Did Paul's Companions Share His Experience on the Road to Damascus?
Here is another biblical issue.
Acts 9:7- "They stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one".
Acts 22:9 (regarding the same story) "they saw the light but did not hear the voice".
Both descriptions contradict each other. According to one the men with Saul saw no one but heard the voice. According to the other they did hear the voice.
Shane further tries to shore up his contention by providing the further argument:
Here's a piece of information.
The NIV version and the NAS version try to remove the contradiction in Acts 22:9 by translating the phrase as "did not understand the voice". But the Greek word "akouo" is translated 373 times in the NT as "hear", "hears", or "heard" and only in Acts 22:9 is it translated as "understood".
I nfact, the word "understood" is occurs 52 times in the NT, but only in Acts 22:9 is it translated from the Greek word "akouo".
I appreciate Shane carefully checking out the text. I think he has put his finger on the point of the contention: In the context of Acts 22:9 does "akouo" mean "understand" or "hear" in the same way as "hear" in Acts 9:7. "Akouo" is in both Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9. Does this mean that "hear" means the audible experience of sound waves bouncing off the ear drum and sending information to be interpreted by the brain? Or does it mean to harken or responding to what is heard? Again context matters.
If you follow both accounts they are parallel and follow the same flow. We are told what Jesus tells Paul before we are told what his companions reaction was.In addition in the context of the Greek text the difficulty is that in greek Akouo at times mean to hear and in other instances to understand. So which is it? Which one makes more sense. We have a single author in Acts. Why would he give an account in Chapter 9 conflicting with what he says Paul says in the 22nd chapter. Luke is not a moron or an idiot...he is careful in everything he writes and much of it can be corroborated with other evidence and none can rebut it. Therefore, I certainly think that understand is a correct translation of Act 9:22. We use "hear" even in English to mean "understand". How often do I feel like telling Shane, "You are not hearing me!" Would anyone think that I'm saying that he does not know I'm communicating with him in my writing? No they would understand I am saying that he does not understand.
One might wonder if I'm just blowing smoke by suggesting that the King James Version has missed the thought being expressed in these verses? Um....no.
In fact, the man known affectionately among theologians as the “dean of Greek scholars,” A.T. Robertson, wrote in regard to the difference in cases:
In 22:9 Paul says that the men “beheld the light” (to men phos etheasanto), but evidently did not discern the person. Paul also says there, “but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me” (ten de phonen ouk ekousan tou lalountos moi). 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 (the 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 a sound (9:7), but did not understand the words (22:9) [1930, pp. 117-118, parenthetical items in orig.].
Consider also the words of Greek expert Ray Summers:
Some verbs take their object in a case other than the accusative. There is a variety of usage at this point. Akouo may take its object in the genitive or the accusative. Usually akouo with the genitive means “to hear without understanding.” This probably explains the difficulty involved in Acts 9:7 and 22:9. The incident is the experience of Paul in seeing the light and hearing the voice on the road to Damascus. Acts 9:7 states that Paul’s companions heard the voice (akouo with the genitive); Acts 22:9 says they did not hear the voice (akouo with the accusative). Thus both constructions say the same thing; the companions of Paul did not understand what the voice said to Paul; to them it was unintelligible sound (1950, p. 51).
Numerous other Greek scholars have expressed the same viewpoint (see, for example: Arndt and Gingrich, 1957, pp. 31-33; Blackwelder, 1958, p. 139; Kittel, 1993, p. 216; Thayer; 1979, pp. 22-23; Vincent, 1975, p. 571; and Vine, 1985, p. 296). The word “hear” in Acts 22:9 can be used to indicate that it was a sound—not a voice—that the men heard on the road to Damascus. Source: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/533
What I'm saying is that there is no contradiction between Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9. Again you have to wrestle the text out of context and then read the problem into the text.
Some more links that will help to Akouo the text.
All passages that contain "akouo" in Acts.
The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon - Akouo
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_uFPDTFnCfad9TkAnzwS7rFQB2XYR1XzbEaZk2n8eP3lYGbdtjIXL81oFYLQT94FUltn3qTjkXeqSpSpfQ8iYGrzu7lz8AEHF_QO5mJve5G6MC4aU7aOHsLGn4u8zd0JQ425WnoYia3ZFi2q9RmoW8F=s0-d)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)