November 9, 2012

• Biblical Contradiction #8 (Who Heard the Voice on Damascus Road?)

  #7 – Which Came First: Animals or Adam? << Previous | MASTER LIST | Next >> #9 – One Earth: Two Fates?

  ---

  

  Originally posted September 28, 2012.

  #8 SAY WHAT? – Who Heard the Voice on Damascus Road?

  “IT’S A TRAP!”
  Welcome to the sixth Biblical Contradictions entry! …But, isn’t that an 8 in the title? N-Nevermind that. (I’d fire my editor if…ugh, wait, I am the editor.) This is my series that seeks to debunk the 45 claims proposed in the video of a creative individual that the Bible is full of contradictions. (Yes, I actually counted every one, listed on a separate “master list” on my computer for reference.) As I’ve mentioned in my previous entries, there is, no doubt, a whole bevy of difficult and confusing passages that seem (pay attention to the italic word now) to fly in the face of logic.

  The good news is that you don’t have to be a master theologian to notice that such claims are often farfetched by a simple and careful reading. More so, like we’ll see in this article, such claims almost appear to be intentionally stretching their own argument just to have an argument at all against the Biblical texts. While it’s not the purpose or intent of this series to deduce motive behind these claims, any critic who makes such a claim has to try really hard to make it stick.

  ON THE ROAD AGAIN! I JUST CAN’T WAIT TO BE ON THE ROAD AGAIN…
  I honestly wonder if ancient Jews had traveling songs…

  At 2 minutes and 13 seconds into the video – during a comical “speed round” of the stickman “game show” – the question is asked if the apostle Paul’s traveling companions had heard the Voice (aka Jesus) that spoke to Paul or not. Did they hear it, or were they as deaf as Helen Keller? A simple question, sure. Logically, scientifically, you either hear a sound or you don’t. It can’t be both ways where our ears are concerned. Or perhaps (and I’m just tossing this out there) the ear drums are vibrating, but there’s a disconnect between the ear and the brain’s ability to process the info…in which case it’s virtually the same as being deaf. Anyway…!

  The issue the director of the video has, however, is that two verses in the story told to us in the book of Acts tell a conflicting tale of the same event!

  The verses in question are Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9.

  Now, Saul – Paul’s name prior to his conversion – was one eager beaver. He was “a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia…brought up and educated…in Jerusalem under [the teacher] Gamaliel. …[He] was carefully trained in [all] Jewish laws and customs…[becoming] very zealous to honor God in everything [he] did… [Saul] persecuted the followers of the Way [aka Jesus’ teachings], hounding some to death, arresting both men and women and throwing them in prison” (Acts 22:1-4, NLT).

  Paul’s gusto could almost be commended. He honestly thought he was doing the Lord’s work! If only all Christians had such fervor. But for all his grand education in the Scriptures, he was blinded…by what is for another article. Then, one fateful day, Saul personally requested and “received letters from [the high priest and the whole council of elders] to [be delivered to the] Jewish [leaders] in Damascus, authorizing [him] to bring the Christians from there [back] to Jerusalem, in chains, to be punished” (Acts 22:5, NLT).

  This is one dedicated man.

  DETOUR…SPIRITUAL ROAD WORK AHEAD
  Ever have an apostrophe…I mean, epiphany? One so amazing that it felt like lightning had just struck your brain? (Well, that must have hurt.) That’s rather what happened to Saul next, except it wasn’t lightning…and this “epiphany” spoke back.

  At high noon, a bright light surrounded everyone and a Voice spoke to Saul, asking why he was persecuting Him. Saul had no clue what was going on and asked just who He was exactly.

  “Jesus the Nazarene,” came the reply.

  I can tell you now that that pretty much ended that all-expenses-paid trip to Syria as had been planned. Oh, Saul was still to go to Damascus, but not for the original goal. No, Saul would later go to make Christians (disciples) rather than destroy them. Jesus sent Saul to meet with a Godly man in Damascus, and so began Saul’s preparation to be one of the most influential men in Christian history.

  IN ONE EAR AND OUT THE OTHER?
  With the surrounding context laid out, then, let’s examine whether or not Saul’s companions heard Jesus speak. (In Acts 9, the events are just “now” unfolding for Saul. Later, in Acts 22, Saul – now post-conversion Paul – is recounting his encounter with Jesus on Damascus Road.)

  “Who are you, lord?” Saul asked.
  And the voice replied, “I am Jesus, the one you are persecuting! Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”
  The men with Saul stood speechless, for they heard the sound of someone’s voice but saw no one!
  (Acts 9:5-7, NLT, bold mine)

  “Who are you, lord?” [Saul] asked.
  And the voice replied, “I am Jesus the Nazarene, the one you are persecuting.”
  The people with me saw the light but didn’t understand the voice speaking to me.
  (Acts 22:8-9, NLT, bold mine)

  First of all, in neither case does it suggest that the people with Saul didn’t hear Jesus’ voice. They certainly heard something. That much is certain. I could end the article right here and now. In fact, this is the only section I’d really have to write. But I’m big on context…heh, so you “have” to read more. Mwa ha haaa!

  In chapter 9, they hear someone speaking, but all that’s explained is that they don’t see from whom the voice is coming (remember, they’re out in the middle of nowhere). In chapter 22, all that’s explained is that they didn’t understand what the voice was saying.

  These differences between the two verses don’t present any conflict, though. In fact, they work side-by-side.

  1. They did hear a voice. (Acts 9 & Acts 22)
  2. They didn’t understand the voice. (Acts 22)
  3. They saw no one to whom the voice belonged. (Acts 9)

  The only contradiction here is between the two claims: what the texts, themselves, say about the event and what the video says about the texts. The contradiction only exists if someone tries to say that both the video and the texts are true. …but no one with any sense is saying that.

  “BIG” IS THE NEW “LARGE”
  What we’re partially dealing with here may also be a matter of translations. Download the YouVersion Bible app for your iPhone or Android cell or go to YouVersion.com or BibleGateway.com…the list is mounting, and you’ll easily see (as if there was any mystery) that we have a plethora (I like that word…ple-thor-a! Pleeeh-thooorr-aaa…now you try it!) of Bible translations. In English, no less!

  At the very beginning of the video, the sub-title states, “…the actual words on the page!” Okay, let’s roll with that one for a bit. In his description to the video on YouTube, the director understands that there are the original copies of the Biblical texts and then there are the translations. Either way, he doesn’t seem to be content to excuse minor typos that don’t actually compromise the Biblical message in any way. More so, he seems highly focused on the fact that any translation will contain some level of errors (even theologians and translators understand that God never promised to protect translations, but that His Word, itself, would be preserved).

  To my mind, the director, though claiming to have examined each and every piece of Scripture he cites thoroughly, seems to have a very hard time not making a contradiction of his own. Is he addressing the context and message of the Biblical translations or the copyist/translation troubles?

  If it’s the former, chock this article up to six entries that prove his contradiction claims are debunked. For, in every one of his game show questions and the cited verses, there seems to be an implied matter of contextual contradiction. In order to address the matter of copyist errors within the copies of the original Biblical texts as well as typos, or accuracy in terms of translations, he’d have to do a full-blown series comparing every little fragment of parchment and printed paper available to him. I don’t think YouTube will allow him the storage space for that monumental task.

  To be fair, though, is this a “words on the page” issue? Let’s test a few examples. You may have notice that I’ve referenced the New Living Translation (NLT) Bible. But what about the English Standard Version (ESV) or the (New) King James Version ([N]KJV)? Or the American Standard Version (ASV), New International Version (NIV), Amplified Bible, Common English Bible, The Message, and several others I didn’t even knew existed until I downloaded the YouVersion Bible app! Again, that’s just in English.

  So let’s compare a sampling.

  American Standard Version (ASV)…

  And the men that journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing the voice, but beholding no man. (Acts 9:7)
  And they that were with me beheld indeed the light, but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me. (Acts 22:9)

  English Standard Version (ESV)…

  The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one. (Acts 9:7)
  Now 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)

  King James Version (KJV)…

  And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. (Acts 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. (Acts 22:9)

  New King James Version (NKJV)…

  And the men who journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice but seeing no one. (Acts 9:7)
  And those who were with me indeed saw the light and were afraid, but they did not hear the voice of Him who spoke to me. (Acts 22:9)

  Well now! That is interesting! Now we appear to have a conflict between translations as well as within! I’ll be honest with you; I chose these four translations at random. I did not know ahead of time what each of them would say verbatim. Right now we definitely do have an apparent conflict, for two translations say in Acts 22:9 that they simply did not understand the voice when it spoke, and three others that say they didn’t even hear the voice at all.

  Let’s remember, however, that these are translations. This isn’t to excuse the errors, for, if they are truly translation errors, then errors they are, indeed! Rather, we must allow for the understanding that when translating between any two languages, there may very well be issues of word-to-word syncing or the far more difficult matter of translating the conveyed message accurately. Sometimes, there just are no complimentary words or concepts between two languages, further adding to the difficulty. We must keep that in mind when critiquing the Bible (translations).

  So let’s go back to the best source we have. The Greek.

  BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU SAY or WHAT’S IN A WORD?
  Since Acts was written in the Greek language by the doctor, Luke, let’s pull up our handy-dandy concordance and see what which Greek word(s) Acts 22:9 was translated from.

  The word “heard” is translated from the Greek word, “akouo” (transliterated, Strong’s Concordance reference G191). Like words in English, “akouo” has a few various definitions. The one that’s used depends on the context and tense of the sentence. For instance, how you use and pronounce “read” depends entirely upon tense. “I am reading the book” is a present tense usage and gets a reed pronunciation. “I read the book” suggests a past tense usage and gets a red pronunciation. Other words have completely unrelated definitions that they can employ. “Blue” can be either a color or another way to label an emotion. “Akouo” is definitely a word more akin to “blue”.

  The Biblical outline of “akouo” usage goes like this:

  1) to be endowed with the faculty of hearing, not deaf
  2) to hear
                  a) to attend to, consider what is or has been said
                  b) to understand, perceive the sense of what is said
  3) to hear something
                  a) to perceive by the ear what is announced in one’s presence
                  b) to get by hearing learn
                  c) a thing comes to one’s ears, to find out, learn
                  d) to give ear to a teaching or a teacher
                  e) to comprehend, to understand

  It’s rather dishonest to put the words on trial without taking into account all their possible definitions and how they might play a part in the context of the message being conveyed. After all, what good are words without definitions? Alone, words are just audible nonsense. So if the words on the page are the focus, we must take into account the ideas those words represent as they work together.

  If we consider the possibility that the other men “not hearing” did not refer to their ability to pick up audible sound, but instead their ability to understand the sound as intelligible, then we are forced to conclude there is no contradiction either contextually or textually. They certainly did “perceive by the ear what [was] announced in [their] presence”, but they just could not “comprehend” or “understand” it.

  (For more on the matter regarding the debate between the words of the two verses, check out the “’Hear’ or ‘Understand’” as well as “’Voice’ or ‘Sound’” sections of this Wikipedia page.)

  AFTERTHOUGHTS…
  After having finished writing everything above, I emailed my pastor, Rick Thiessen of Allen Creek Community Church in Marysville, Washington, for some peer review on the theological integrity of my article. The following are excerpts from his reply.

  …[T]his particular bible problem is most easily solved by realizing that…[o]ur knowledge of word usage has expanded since that dead language… er, died, which is why the newer translations make more sense of it, using words like “hear” versus “understand” instead of the same words [as] in the KJV [which cause] confusion. The newer translations actually benefit from increasing knowledge of word meanings/usage (and older manuscripts).  (Another reason the “KJV only” folks are out to lunch.)

  Earlier, I only addressed Acts 22:9 and its use of “akuou” for “heard”. Acts 9:7 uses the same word. With multiple definitions – at least two primary ones in question – how are we to discern exactly what Luke meant when he wrote the two instances that changed the course of Paul’s life? As Rick said, we’re dealing with a very old language. It’s not like everyone is speaking it these days who can help us figure out which definition was intended.

  Rick pointed out something very important, too. Translations are based off of available resources and current understandings of the language, the culture, and the history, and more that is depicted in the manuscript copies. The KJV was written in the early 1600s, no less!

  The American Standard Version was officially released in 1901.
  The New King James Version was fully published 1982.
  The English Standard Version was released in 2001 and was a revision of the 1971 revision of the ASV.
  And the New Living Translation came out back in 1996 (with a second edition printed in 2004 and 2007).

  As time has gone on and new discoveries are made about Biblical times and the Biblical text, itself, what we have are refine translations to increase accuracy in how the translations are presented, preserving the integrity of the Biblical manuscripts. These are not changes to fit evolving biases that many critics cite, nor is it the “telephone game”.

  Just take this instance regarding unicorns in the KJV, for example.

  Another thought I’ve always had about this alleged contradiction is simply this:  skeptics are alleging a contradiction by the same author in the same book over two accounts of the same event.  Should our default stance be to assume that an author would blatantly put contradictory data regarding his accounts of the same event!?  Or should we assume that he was internally coherent, as most humans are, and we should look harder to see how it was sensible and coherent for him and his audience?  To assume he was so unaware of his own writing, that he didn’t even realize he was putting down two versions of an event that were so different that his readers would have to assume either one or both version were false…is stupid.  More caution please, instead of these dogmatic announcements of falsehood.

  Is it really that much of a stretch to think Luke wouldn’t even review his own work or didn’t have a firm grasp on the events he was writing about? And since we’re dealing with translation conflictions, it’s even more dishonest to accuse the Bible of contradictions without checking if there is truly a contradiction in the text the translations stem from.

  Documents that are blatantly incoherent, internally illogical, or blatantly false don’t last, because people normally prefer coherence and logic and the truth.  I’m not saying Luke shouldn’t be scrutinized for internal consistency, I’m saying that if something seems blatantly inconsistent in two accounts of the same event by the same author in the same work, he should get the benefit of the doubt before we boldly claim “contradiction”.  If people had humbly taken a more reserved stance for all the years where these Greek words were less well understood, the same people wouldn’t have egg on their face now, when it appears the accounts in Acts are easily reconciled.

  In other words, critics ought to exercise a level of grace before calling foul on a text that most (granted, that’s my personal estimate) have not even begun to study at length. And, on a personal note, I find those who have done some greater amount of study often do so through a heavy bias and make conclusions quickly, making any attempt to amend their understanding nigh impossible.

  The mere fact that some translations of the Bible include all manner of footnotes and study notes ought to suggest that even the proponents of the integrity of the Biblical texts have reservations as to the meanings of certain words and are still searching for conclusive answers. If the scholars who have dedicated their lives to accurately translating the Bible have certain doubts when a word or meaning is presently in question, so should we.

  Do you…hear [understand, audibly perceive]…me?

  • 2:54 am
  • 7 Comments