rostau

Quoting from the KJV.

Acts 9:7, describing Saul's conversion on the way to Damascus, says:

"And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man."

Much later, Paul is accounting for himself in front of the multitude in Jerusalem, and tells the same story, on there (Acts 22:9) he says:

"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."

So which is it? His companions saw nothing and heard the voice, or they saw something and heard nothing?

Helpmabob

Astounding. How did you discover this? Is this proof that there is no God?

yalla

Welcome back rostau
The contradictions increase.
At 9.7 and 22.9 JC tells Paul to go to the city/Damascus where "..you will be told what to do" and "...go into Damascus and you will be told all that it is appointed for you to do". Ananias, in Damascus, tells Paul his mission.

But at 26.12 ff after seeing the light and hearing the voice JC tells him all that on the spot and takes about 13 lines to do so. No mention of Ananias.

The author of Acts really needed a continuity editor.

GakuseiDon

They heard a voice (maybe Paul's?), but not the voice of the man speaking to Paul. How about that?

hatsoff

Yes, it's a contradiction. No, it doesn't disprove Christianity. Why not? Because there are other reasonable, albeit unlikely, explanations. The most common is this:

The context of Acts 9 means only that they heard the sound of the voice. The context in Acts 22 suggests that regardless of whether or not they heard it, they did not *understand* the voice. The NIV translation reflects this harmonization.

Johnny Skeptic

Maybe a loving, wise, and rational God would not inspire writings that would be written in such a fashion as to invite dissent rather than to encourge dissent. If God exists, he could easily have eliminated the need for thousands of years of needless controversies just like the one about Paul's experience. He should have inspired writings that were much more clear than the hundreds of poorly written controversial accounts that Christians and skeptics debate. You would never write in such a fashion if you were all-knowing, that is, if you were also loving, wise, and rational. How about that?

fta

No one has yet mentioned the other apparent discrepancy in Acts' three separate accounts of Paul's conversion, so I'll bite:

Acts 9:7 - "And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice but seeing no man."

Acts 26:14 - "And when we were all fallen to the earth I heard a voice".

OK, falling or standing, which is it?

GakuseiDon

Umm... You see, in ancient times "standing still" and "falling to the earth" were considered synonymous... No? Would you believe: only the original autographs are inerrant, and this is a copyist error? How about: Paul had TWO conversion experiences? (OK, you got me!)

hatsoff

Oh my gosh....

Two simple explanations:
1) The men with Saul/Paul fell to the ground, then may have stood up when they had recovered, and stood watching Paul talk to a voice they couldn't understand and a light they couldn't recognize.
2) The Greek word histémi, which was translated as "stood," may mean only "stayed stationary."

You can never absolutely prove Bible contradictions. It has been tried for thousands of years without success.

gregor

There are plenty of contradictions. There is only a lack of success for those who refuse to accept the evidence and better-reasoned arguments.