U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-21-2016, 04:45 PM
 
Location: Southern Oregon
15,555 posts, read 7,013,428 times
Reputation: 1604

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
I'll provide another example in which the Greek word akouó is to be understood as 'understand' rather than as 'hear,' and then leave it at that.
.......
Just want to be sure you understand my point, Mike555, I am not disputing the fact that the basic word which could be translated as "sense" speaking of the sense of hearing OR making sense of what is heard. What I am saying is that in the passage under examination there is a parallel construction between the sense of seeing and the sense of hearing and I doubt that the writer would make it physical in one and abstract in the other. I think you should consider whether we are looking at the verse tos find its meaning or to substantiate a pre-determined position.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-21-2016, 05:08 PM
 
Location: Oregon
802 posts, read 292,765 times
Reputation: 46
Default Three version in the same NT book!

First of all, it must be recognized that Luke (writing c 80 AD), not Paul (writing before his death in 64-67 AD), wrote the only accounts of the Damascus incident. Paul never claims such a thing. Luke has three versions in Acts.

Acts 9-7 The men who were traveling with him stood speechless because they heard [akouontes akouontes G191 vp Pres Act Nom Pl m HEARING] the voice but saw no one

Acts 22-9 ’ Now those who were with me saw the light but did not hear the voice [fwnhn phOnEn G5456 n_ Acc Sg f SOUND voice ouk ouk G3756 Part Neg NOT hkousan Ekousan G191 vi Aor Act 3 Pl THEY-HEAR ]of the one who was speaking to me

Acts 26-14 When we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice [hkousa Ekousa G191 vi Aor Act 1 Sg I-HEAR fwnhn phOnEn G5456 n_ Acc Sg f SOUND voice lalousan lalousan G2980 vp Pres Act Acc Sg f TALKING speaking ] saying to me in the Hebrew[c] language,

SUMMARY
Version 1 - Paul’s companion heard
Version 2 - Paul’s companions didn’t hear
Version 3 - Paul says “I heard…saying to me”

From: Online Greek Interlinear Bible

It’s always interesting when to avoid admitting a contradiction, some fundamentalists try to convince readers that these three passages really say the same thing, even claiming a special knowledge of koine Greek.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cpg35223
You're missing a very strong fourth possibility. The authors of the Gospel recounted the events decades after the fact and were subject to the caprices of memory.

RESPONSE:


Perhaps cpg35223 forgot that the gospels were supposed to be divinely inspired. Do you really believe that God forgot?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2016, 05:18 PM
 
20,304 posts, read 15,661,748 times
Reputation: 7422
Quote:
Originally Posted by nateswift View Post
Just want to be sure you understand my point, Mike555, I am not disputing the fact that the basic word which could be translated as "sense" speaking of the sense of hearing OR making sense of what is heard. What I am saying is that in the passage under examination there is a parallel construction between the sense of seeing and the sense of hearing and I doubt that the writer would make it physical in one and abstract in the other. I think you should consider whether we are looking at the verse tos find its meaning or to substantiate a pre-determined position.
The only way to determine the meaning of what Luke wrote in Acts 9:7 and 22:9 is to examine the grammar. And since, as can be seen from a verse such as 1 Corinthians 14:2 where akouó is plainly used in the sense of 'understanding' rather than 'hearing,' then unless you believe that Luke made a mistake in reporting both instances and contradicted himself, then it is more reasonable to recognize that Acts 22:9 refers to the men with Paul hearing but not understanding the voice which spoke to Paul. And as noted, that is the way in which many Bible translations have translated the verse. I think it is pretty clear that while everyone saw the light, and everyone heard the voice, only Paul understood the voice.

If you disagree, then we are in disagreement and will continue to be so.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2016, 05:48 PM
 
20,304 posts, read 15,661,748 times
Reputation: 7422
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aristotle's Child View Post
First of all, it must be recognized that Luke (writing c 80 AD), not Paul (writing before his death in 64-67 AD), wrote the only accounts of the Damascus incident. Paul never claims such a thing. Luke has three versions in Acts.

Acts 9-7 The men who were traveling with him stood speechless because they heard [akouontes akouontes G191 vp Pres Act Nom Pl m HEARING] the voice but saw no one

Acts 22-9 ’ Now those who were with me saw the light but did not hear the voice [fwnhn phOnEn G5456 n_ Acc Sg f SOUND voice ouk ouk G3756 Part Neg NOT hkousan Ekousan G191 vi Aor Act 3 Pl THEY-HEAR ]of the one who was speaking to me

Acts 26-14 When we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice [hkousa Ekousa G191 vi Aor Act 1 Sg I-HEAR fwnhn phOnEn G5456 n_ Acc Sg f SOUND voice lalousan lalousan G2980 vp Pres Act Acc Sg f TALKING speaking ] saying to me in the Hebrew[c] language,

SUMMARY
Version 1 - Paul’s companion heard
Version 2 - Paul’s companions didn’t hear
Version 3 - Paul says “I heard…saying to me”

From: Online Greek Interlinear Bible

It’s always interesting when to avoid admitting a contradiction, some fundamentalists try to convince readers that these three passages really say the same thing, even claiming a special knowledge of koine Greek.

What's interesting is that you keep dogmatically stating that Luke wrote Acts around A.D. 80 when in fact no one can be sure of the exact date, but a very good argument can be made that both Acts (and the synoptic Gospels) were written by the early 60's.

Furthermore, Luke, reporting in Acts what Paul said does not negate the reality of Paul having said what Luke reported him saying despite Paul not going into detail about it in his own writings.

As noted, many Bible translations (and therefore the translators of those Bible translations) understand Acts 22:9 to be saying that the men with Paul did not understand the voice even though they heard the voice. And yes, they do have knowledge of Koine Greek. Me? Well, I'm still at the beginning stages of learning the Greek language, but I am learning it.
Acts 22:9 My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me. [NIV]

Acts 22:9 Now those who were with me saw the light but did not understand the voice of the one who was speaking to me. [ESV]

Acts 22:9 My companions saw the light, but they could not understand the voice of the One speaking to me. [Berean Study Bible]

Acts 22:9 "And those who were with me saw the light, to be sure, but did not understand the voice of the One who was speaking to me. [NASB]

Acts 22:9 The men who were with me saw the light but didn't understand the voice of the one who was speaking to me. [ISV]

Acts 22:9 Those who were with me saw the light, but did not understand the voice of the one who was speaking to me. [NET Bible]

Acts 22:9 “And those who were with me beheld the light, to be sure, but did not understand the voice of the One who was speaking to me. [New American Standard 1977]

Acts 22:9 "Those who were with me indeed saw the light and were afraid, but they didn't understand the voice of him who spoke to me. [World English Bible]
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2016, 05:54 PM
 
Location: Pacific 🌉 °N, 🌄°W
10,085 posts, read 4,165,306 times
Reputation: 6371
Seems like most don't really understand The Origin of the Gospels.

Quote:
A small messianic cult (one of many) arose in Jerusalem and the surrounding area that worshiped a heavenly messiah named Jesus some time in the early 1st century. Someone called James was likely the leader of this movement. This was a small explicitly Jewish cult that had little significance and was not widely known. Someone called Paul became a convert to this movement and began proselytizing about it to both Jews and non-Jews (Gentiles) throughout the Mediterranean region.

Up to this point "Jesus" was universally understood by the cult's followers as a heavenly messiah, uncorrupted by the material world, not an actual human being. Some time during the First Jewish-Roman War, most likely shortly after the Siege of Jerusalem and destruction of the temple in 70 CE, some follower of Paul wrote an allegorical story that cast "Jesus" as the protagonist in a fictional narrative about the Jews, which portrayed the Jews as having brought the destruction of the war upon themselves.

This story is what we now call the Gospel of Mark. The Synoptic Gospels of Matthew and Luke were both based on an intermediate expanded version of Mark, which has since been lost. The Gospel called John descends from the Synoptic narrative in some way, with the inclusion of additional literary elements as well.
This guy has certainly done his over achieving homework.

How a Fictional Jesus Gave Rise to Christianity

Jesus Myth - The Case Against Historical Christ

Jesus Myth Part II - Follow-up, Commentary, and Expansion

The Gospel of Mark as Reaction and Allegory
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2016, 06:01 PM
 
Location: Denver, CO
8,602 posts, read 5,123,928 times
Reputation: 3917
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aristotle's Child View Post
First of all, it must be recognized that Luke (writing c 80 AD), not Paul (writing before his death in 64-67 AD), wrote the only accounts of the Damascus incident. Paul never claims such a thing. Luke has three versions in Acts.

Acts 9-7 The men who were traveling with him stood speechless because they heard [akouontes akouontes G191 vp Pres Act Nom Pl m HEARING] the voice but saw no one

Acts 22-9 ’ Now those who were with me saw the light but did not hear the voice [fwnhn phOnEn G5456 n_ Acc Sg f SOUND voice ouk ouk G3756 Part Neg NOT hkousan Ekousan G191 vi Aor Act 3 Pl THEY-HEAR ]of the one who was speaking to me

Acts 26-14 When we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice [hkousa Ekousa G191 vi Aor Act 1 Sg I-HEAR fwnhn phOnEn G5456 n_ Acc Sg f SOUND voice lalousan lalousan G2980 vp Pres Act Acc Sg f TALKING speaking ] saying to me in the Hebrew[c] language,

SUMMARY
Version 1 - Paul’s companion heard
Version 2 - Paul’s companions didn’t hear
Version 3 - Paul says “I heard…saying to me”

From: Online Greek Interlinear Bible

It’s always interesting when to avoid admitting a contradiction, some fundamentalists try to convince readers that these three passages really say the same thing, even claiming a special knowledge of koine Greek.



RESPONSE:


Perhaps cpg35223 forgot that the gospels were supposed to be divinely inspired. Do you really believe that God forgot?
What neither you nor Mike understand from far ends of the spectrum, is that "divinely" inspired, as both of you use it, doesn't now, nor has it ever in the history of the orthodox church meant "divinely dictated."
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2016, 06:21 PM
 
20,304 posts, read 15,661,748 times
Reputation: 7422
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden View Post
What neither you nor Mike understand from far ends of the spectrum, is that "divinely" inspired, as both of you use it, doesn't now, nor has it ever in the history of the orthodox church meant "divinely dictated."
First of all, you are in no position to tell me, nor do you have a clue, as to what I do or do not understand.

Second of all, I have never claimed that ''divinely inspired'' means 'divinely dictated' although some of the Bible is indeed dictated as in the case of Revelation chapters 3 and 4 for instance where John is told to write to the churches what Jesus told him to write.

But the men who wrote the Bible were carried along by the Holy Spirit as so stated in 2 Peter 1:20.

2 Peter 1:20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, 21] for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2016, 06:22 PM
 
Location: Oregon
802 posts, read 292,765 times
Reputation: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
I'll provide another example in which the Greek word akouó is to be understood as 'understand' rather than as 'hear,' and then leave it at that.

1 Cor. 14:2 For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands (ἀκούει), but in his spirit he speaks mysteries.

A person can physically hear the person who is speaking in tongues, but not understand him. When someone spoke in tongues in the early church there had to be an interpreter present so that what he was saying could be understood.

And so it was regarding the men who were with Paul. While Acts 22:9 is not referring to 'tongues,' the use of the word akouó is in the sense of 'not understanding' rather than 'not hearing,' as is the case in 1 Cor. 14:2. Both Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9 state that the men with Paul heard a voice, but in Acts 22:9 Paul makes it clear that the men with him did not understand the voice.
RESPONSE:

We're discussing Acts written by Luke, not 1 Corinthians written by Paul. And the topic is entirely different.

Understanding has nothing to do with it. Paul's companions heard or they did not hear. You are way off topic.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2016, 06:24 PM
 
Location: Oregon
802 posts, read 292,765 times
Reputation: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden View Post
What neither you nor Mike understand from far ends of the spectrum, is that "divinely" inspired, as both of you use it, doesn't now, nor has it ever in the history of the orthodox church meant "divinely dictated."
How does the orthodox church deal with "God breathed" in 2 Timothy?

So you really agree that scripture contains human errors?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2016, 06:28 PM
 
20,304 posts, read 15,661,748 times
Reputation: 7422
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aristotle's Child View Post
RESPONSE:

We're discussing Acts written by Luke, not 1 Corinthians written by Paul. And the topic is entirely different.

Understanding has nothing to do with it. Paul's companions heard or they did not hear. You are way off topic.
No, I am not off topic at all. 1 Corinthians 14:2 demonstrates that the word akouó certainly has the connotation of 'understanding' and is not confined to meaning only 'hearing.' And you are ignoring the fact that, as you have been shown, many Bible translations have translated Acts 22:9 as 'understanding' rather than 'hearing.'

Your denial of that fact doesn't make it go away.
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top