1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

ACTS 9 THEY HEARD NOT

Discussion in 'Bible Study Forum' started by Doug, Nov 9, 2018.

  1. Doug

    Doug Member

    Messages:
    55
    Likes Received:
    34
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    9:3 And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:

    9:4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? Acts 9:3-4



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

    In the above account of the Apostle Paul's conversion near Damascus the men traveling with Paul heard a voice.


    22:9 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

    In the verse above it reads the men traveling with Paul heard NOT the voice. This apparent contradiction may well be resolved in the next verse to be examined.

    26:14 And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. Acts 26:14

    In the above verse it may be significant that Paul heard the voice in the Hebrew language. It may be that the men traveling did hear the voice, but that they heard not may mean that they did not understand what was said. It could be they didn't understand the Hebrew language.
     
    Mayflower and Dave L like this.
  2. Dave L

    Dave L Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,031
    Likes Received:
    611
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    NET Bible notes on the matter agree with your findings. Thanks for sharing.

    tn Grk “did not hear” (but see Acts 9:7). BDAG 38 s.v. ἀκούω 7 has “W. acc. τὸν νόμον understand the law Gal 4:21; perh. Ac 22:9; 26:14 … belong here.” If the word has this sense here, then a metonymy is present, since the lack of effect is put for a failure to appreciate what was heard.

    Biblical Studies Press. (2005). The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible. Biblical Studies Press.
     
  3. CoreIssue

    CoreIssue Active Member

    Messages:
    931
    Likes Received:
    202
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    The answer is simple the King James Version is wrong. And the NET bible is a paraphrase of the King James Version.


    Acts 22:9 New International Version (NIV)
    9 My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me.

    Acts 22:9 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
    9 And those who were with me saw the light, to be sure, but did not a]">[a]understand the voice of the One who was speaking to me.
     
  4. Jay Ross

    Jay Ross Active Member

    Messages:
    864
    Likes Received:
    188
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    Australia
    My wife often tells me that I do not "hear" what she speaks to me. I think what she means is that although I may be listening to what she is say, I do not understand what she is talking about.
     
    bbyrd009 and Dave L like this.
  5. Frank Lee

    Frank Lee Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,194
    Likes Received:
    2,189
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    They heard not because God was not speaking to them. Nothing to do with languages. The scripture doesn't say they heard but didn't understand. They HEARD NOT.

    When God speaks to me everyone else in the room doesn't know it. If God had wanted the others to hear they would have heard. But he did not.

    Isaiah 30:21 KJVS
    And thine ears shall hear a word behind thee, saying, This is the way, walk ye in it, when ye turn to the right hand, and when ye turn to the left.

    Whose ears? Mine. Or yours as the case may be. God can address many or just one. What God spoke was intended to be a private conversation between God and Saul, soon to be Paul.

    Not everyone hearkens to the voice of God.
    John 8:43 KJVS
    Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.
     
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2018
    amadeus likes this.
  6. Enoch111

    Enoch111 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,327
    Likes Received:
    1,654
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    Canada
    No. The King James Bible is NOT WRONG. The modern versions have not only omitted an important clause but THEY HAVE MISTRANSLATED THE VERSE also. Now please note:

    TEXTUS RECEPTUS
    οἱ δὲ σὺν ἐμοὶ ὄντες τὸ μὲν φῶς ἐθεάσαντο, καὶ ἔμφοβοι ἐγένοντο· [OMITTED] τὴν δὲ φωνὴν οὐκ ἤκουσαν [MISTRANSLATED] τοῦ λαλοῦντός μοι.

    δὲ φωνὴν οὐκ ἤκουσαν = Literally "however voice not did they hear"


    King James Bible
    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.

    CRITICAL TEXT (NESTLE)
    οἱ δὲ σὺν ἐμοὶ ὄντες τὸ μὲν φῶς ἐθεάσαντο, τὴν δὲ φωνὴν οὐκ ἤκουσαν τοῦ λαλοῦντός μοι.

    New International Version
    My companions [PARAPHRASED] saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me.

    New American Standard Bible
    "And those who were with me saw the light, to be sure, but did not understand the voice of the One who
    [ADDED] was speaking to me.

    Christians should clearly understand that ALL modern versions since 1881 have been corrupted. This is an excellent example of what that means.

    A translation of Scripture is supposed to faithfully present what is in the text. Not paraphrase or interpret. The omission of "and they were afraid is critical". It was a fearful thing to be confront by Christ. Thus "And he fell to the earth..." (Acts 9:4), "And he trembling and astonished said, Lord..." (Acts 9:6), and "And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless..."(Acts 9:7).

    The modern versions have BLATANTLY introduced thousands of omissions into the Bible, and also mistranslated when it suited them. And the NIV is simply an unreliable PARAPHRASE.
     
  7. bbyrd009

    bbyrd009 Groper

    Messages:
    18,755
    Likes Received:
    5,566
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States Minor Outlying Islands
    fwiw the phrase,
    is kind of like a hint imo, as that voice obv speaks in tongues anyway, right, that voice spoke in their language too iow, they were even Hebrews too right, not that that would even matter to the voice. But no way would Saul be hanging out with non-Hebrews at that point anyway right
     
  8. Jay Ross

    Jay Ross Active Member

    Messages:
    864
    Likes Received:
    188
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    Australia
    Perhaps, is this what is meant: -

    Matt 13:17: - 17 for assuredly, I say to you that many prophets and righteous men desired to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear.
     
    "ByGrace" likes this.
  9. "ByGrace"

    "ByGrace" Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,756
    Likes Received:
    9,383
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    Canada
    Or like my husband...selective hearing...he just tunes me out , presuming that anything I say will be boring.
    I've tested it with..."would you like pie and ice cream?"
    No reaction. If I come in with my dessert he will say..."where mine?" :D

    I believe God is speaking to us much more than we hear Him.
    We get too busy with our 'very important stuff'....and just leave Him standing waiting... :(
     
    amadeus likes this.
  10. CoreIssue

    CoreIssue Active Member

    Messages:
    931
    Likes Received:
    202
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    Obviously you have not done manuscripts study. That the King James version added words and verses. Or that the TEXTUS RECEPTUS didn't exist until 1500s. War is a catholic foundation.
     
  11. farouk

    farouk Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,427
    Likes Received:
    584
    One farmer asked another: "Can you lend me $50?"

    The other replied: "Sorry, this is my deaf ear; try the other ear."

    The first farmer asked in the other ear: "Can you lend me $100?"

    The other farmer replied: "Sorry, you'll need to go back to the $50 ear..."
     
  12. farouk

    farouk Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,427
    Likes Received:
    584
    I do think the Textus Receptus is reliable. The Byzantine Majority is fairly similar.
     
  13. CoreIssue

    CoreIssue Active Member

    Messages:
    931
    Likes Received:
    202
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    Fairly similar?

    Such as Easter instead of Passover is acceptable?

    Or that that was instead of became?

    Westcott & Hort vs. Textus Receptus: Which is Superior?
    The edition most closely followed by them was Beza's edition of 1598, but they departed from this edition for the reading in some other published Greek text at least 170 times, and in at least 60 places, the KJV translators abandoned all then-existing printed editions of the Greek New Testament, choosing instead to follow precisely the reading in the Latin Vulgate version.

    Furthermore, a careful distinction must be made between the textus receptus (even in its broadest collective sense) on the one hand, and the majority text (also known as the Byzantine or Syrian text) on the other. Though the terms textus receptus and majority text are frequently used as though they were synonymous, they by no means mean the same thing.

    What is perhaps the strongest argument in favor of the Westcott-Hort text vis-a-vis the textus receptus, is the fact that it has firm support from the oldest extant Greek manuscripts, plus the earliest of the versions or translations, as well as the early Christian writers of the 2nd through 4th centuries.

    Even the smallest error can mislead someone. Just as archaic English is also misleading with the changes in word meaning and usage over the centuries.

    So why use it?
     
  14. farouk

    farouk Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,427
    Likes Received:
    584
    Oh I agree about the use of the word 'Easter'.

    But as regards the Westcott and Hort text, its sources don't agree in many places even among themselves. Hort was even on record as having called the TR 'vile'; he seems to have had an agenda.
     
  15. Enoch111

    Enoch111 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,327
    Likes Received:
    1,654
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    Canada
    Just because I showed you your error now its "you have not done manuscript studies". I would say that I know more about the subject than most Christians, since I have studied the matter in depth. Why did you not have the grace to admit that based upon the evidence presented, you were totally wrong?
    If you are referring to the words in italics which are there to help clarify where necessary, they are clearly shown as distinct from the actual text. That's why the italics. Other than that, the translation has faithfully rendered the Hebrew and Greek, and has stood the test of time -- over 400 years of continuous use, with the majority of commentaries and study tools based upon the KJV.
    Now this remark shows that you have NO CLUE about manuscripts and Bible versions. The Textus Receptus (the Received Text or TR) is the traditional text of the Greek New Testament supported by the majority of Greek manuscripts. Hence it is also called THE MAJORITY TEXT.

    The enemies of the TR -- Westcott & Hort -- were compelled to admit that the TR was indeed the Greek Text which dominated from the first century to the 19th century. It was first printed in 1516, but that makes no difference. It continued to be refined and it was the 1550 text of Stephanus which became the Textus Receptus. So to suggest that it did not exist until the 1500s shows a lack of knowledge of the subject.
     
  16. CoreIssue

    CoreIssue Active Member

    Messages:
    931
    Likes Received:
    202
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    Variations between manuscripts is unfortunately but not uncommon.

    But, that is different from Catholics having deliberately introduced error.

    The textus receptius is farther away from the original manuscripts than all the other manuscripts.

    It is not an original manuscript it is a compilation of parts to some more manuscripts and old bibles. It never claims to be an original translation.

    I don't understand why you are defending catholic sources that injected catholic doctrine and added words an sentence is.

    There is no excuse for Easter in the text.

    And as for being anti textus receptius, I don't know any top sound Christian linguist who supports it.
     
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2018
  17. Vexatious

    Vexatious Active Member

    Messages:
    207
    Likes Received:
    98
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    Paul knew Hebrew. Most of the Jews in Jesus' day didn't speak Hebrew. (This is not an invitation for ignorant/dishonest Zionists to chant "Did too.")
     
Loading...