Merged Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth - (Part 2)

[Akhenaten]

Actually they don't contradict unless you make an assumption that isn't there.

Here is what the the verse says

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

You are assuming that the voice they heard was God's, but it could have been Paul's voice. It is not specific which voice they heard.

Utter garbage.

And Acts Chapter 9 looks to be written in 3rd person, whereas Acts chapter 22 is written in 1st person. Paul's traveling companion, Luke, could of wrote 9 and Paul himself wrote some of 22 which would might account for some of the difficulty. But there is still no contradiction in the verse above with the verse in chapter 22 unless you make an assumption.

Everything you've written here is the product of your own wild-eyed and fanciful assumptions. You have no evidence whatsoever for any of this semi-literate drivel.

 

[ddt]

What's been debunked and where?

Amongst many others, your claims about the proper translation of Luke 2:2. Are you going to respond to that in this lifetime or not?

 

[Akhenaten]

Actually they don't contradict unless you make an assumption that isn't there.

Here is what the the verse says in the King James version:

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

You are assuming that the voice they heard was God's, but it could have been Paul's voice. It is not specific which voice they heard.

Acts 9:4-7

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

⁵And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

⁶And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.

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

Assumptions that aren't there DOC?

You should get probably around to reading the whole book instead of random individual verses and maybe avoid these embarrassing episodes of heresy.

 

[DOC]

Your statement that Acts says that Paul's companions heard the voice is debunked by the fact that Acts also states that they didn't hear the voice. This makes Acts undependable, so it can't be used as "proof" of what anyone heard or did not hear.

See post 1919, the King James version doesn't say "the" voice it says "a" voice. There is no contradiction unless you make the assumption the voice they heard is God's and not Paul's.

 

[Craig B]

Actually they don't contradict unless you make an assumption that isn't there.

Here is what the the verse says in the King James version:

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

You are assuming that the voice they heard was God's, but it could have been Paul's voice. It is not specific which voice they heard.

And Acts Chapter 9 looks to be written in 3rd person, whereas Acts chapter 22 is written in 1st person. Paul's traveling companion, Luke, could of wrote 9 and Paul himself wrote some of 22 which would might account for some of the difficulty. But there is still no contradiction in the verse above with the verse in chapter 22 unless you make an assumption.

Our posts crossed. This is complete nonsense. We must make the assumption that when Acts is saying they did hear the voice, it was God's voice and not Paul's that we are intended to understand by this. Why? Because they heard a voice "but saw no man". Of course they did see Paul, so what they heard cannot be understood as having come from Paul.

Your post is an example of how apologists will say anything, however ridiculous, to preserve the alleged inerrancy of the holy texts. It's laughable! Luke could of wrote the story indeed, but if he is responsible for this nonsense it just shows he wasn't the Great Historian he's cracked up to be.

 

[Akhenaten]

See post 1919, the King James version doesn't say "the" voice it says "a" voice. There is no contradiction unless you make the assumption the voice they heard is God's and not Paul's.

Acts 9:5

And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.​

Are you aware of who you're contradicting here DOC?

 

[Amazer]

Actually they don't contradict unless you make an assumption that isn't there.

Here is what the the verse says

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

You are assuming that the voice they heard was God's, but it could have been Paul's voice. It is not specific which voice they heard.

And Acts Chapter 9 looks to be written in 3rd person, whereas Acts chapter 22 is written in 1st person. Paul's traveling companion, Luke, could of wrote 9 and Paul himself wrote some of 22 which would might account for some of the difficulty. But there is still no contradiction in the verse above with the verse in chapter 22 unless you make an assumption.

Looks to be, could of, might....and still no contradictions? I bet you're just awesome with Twister

 

[DOC]

Acts 9:4-7

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

⁵And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

⁶And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.

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

Assumptions that aren't there DOC?..

Paul is talking too in the above verses you brought in. How can you be sure that a voice the men heard was not Paul's, or even a passerby. You need to assume something that isn't specifically stated.

 

[Akhenaten]

Paul is talking too in the above verses you brought in. How can you be sure that a voice the men heard was not Paul's, or even a passerby. You need to assume something that isn't specifically stated.

How much more specific could it be, DOC?


Do you really think "And the Lord said, I am Jesus" to be ambiguous?


Really???

 

[Akhenaten]

Paul is talking too in the above verses you brought in. How can you be sure that a voice the men heard was not Paul's, or even a passerby. You need to assume something that isn't specifically stated.

The fact is DOC, none of this fairytale nonsense happened, and episodes like this only serve to demonstrate that the New Testament writers didn't tell the truth.

What's hilarious is the way you're jumping through hoops to make exactly that point.

 

[Akhenaten]

Paul is talking too in the above verses you brought in. How can you be sure that a voice the men heard was not Paul's, or even a passerby.

This is just too delicious for me not to make the most of it.

A bloody passerby!!??eleventy!!

Those are allegedly God's words that you - and you alone - are ascribing to some wandering ventriloquist.

Do you have any idea what the Inquisition used to do to people who committed heresy like that?

 

[DOC]

...We must make the assumption that when Acts is saying they did hear the voice, it was God's voice and not Paul's that we are intended to understand by this. Why? Because they heard a voice "but saw no man". Of course they did see Paul, so what they heard cannot be understood as having come from Paul...

How do you know they saw Paul with a great light from heaven shining on them that made them afraid. You're making an assumption again. This great light from heaven that made them afraid could have temporarily prevented them from seeing Paul.

From Acts chapter 22

And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and was come nigh unto Damascus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me.

7 And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?

8 And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest.

9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid;

 

[Mojo]

Paul is talking too in the above verses you brought in. How can you be sure that a voice the men heard was not Paul's, or even a passerby.

Because of this:

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

Paul had allegedly been blinded. This would have meant that he couldn't see his companions, but they would still have been able to see him.

 

[Akhenaten]

How do you know they saw Paul with a great light from heaven shining on them that made them afraid. You're making an assumption again. This great light from heaven that made them afraid could have temporarily prevented them from seeing Paul.

And it could have been an alien ship zooming in hoping to pick up a few specimens.

Or maybe they were all drunk as skunks and made the whole bloody story up just for lulz.

Bottom line is: you have no idea what happened and in desperation to explain an obvious contradiction in the story you're posting pure, unmitigated gibberish.

 

[Akhenaten]

Paul had allegedly been blinded. This would have meant that he couldn't see his companions, but they would still have been able to see him.

When I was about six and my little sister was four I managed to convince her that if she covered her eyes with her hands she'd become invisible.

It seemed logical enough to her that since she couldn't see me then I couldn't see her either.

Imagine being an adult and still only having that level of reasoning available to you.

 

[zooterkin]

See post 1919, the King James version doesn't say "the" voice it says "a" voice. There is no contradiction unless you make the assumption the voice they heard is God's and not Paul's.

Wait, why are you using the KJV? Isn't the Young's Literal Translation your preference?

4 and having fallen upon the earth, he heard a voice saying to him, `Saul, Saul, why me dost thou persecute?'
5 And he said, `Who art thou, Lord?' and the Lord said, `I am Jesus whom thou dost persecute; hard for thee at the pricks to kick;'
6 trembling also, and astonished, he said, `Lord, what dost thou wish me to do?' and the Lord [said] unto him, `Arise, and enter into the city, and it shall be told thee what it behoveth thee to do.'
7 And the men who are journeying with him stood speechless, hearing indeed the voice but seeing no one,

Yes, verse 4 say "a voice", but what kind of simpleton would view it in isolation from verse 5, which clarifies whose voice it was? Even if you could somehow maintain that position, it still leaves "the Lord" speaking in verse 5.

ETA: and, furthermore, it is "the Lord's" voice that is being heard in verse 7.

 

[pakeha]

Gosh.
Let's start with Acts.
DOC has decided to use Young's Literal treanslation.
No worries, it's available on the interwebz.

Act 9:7 (Young's Literal Translation) says the men heard the voice but didn't see anyone

"And the men who are journeying with him stood speechless, hearing indeed the voice but seeing no one"

That verse although not perfectly clear implies they heard the voice talking to Paul.

Act 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. " ...

Perhaps it's just me, but I see a real contradiction there. Is it important? I think so because it deals with a pivotal moment in history, both secular and religious.

What is DOC's reply?

....The New Testament was authored by 8 or 9 writers---including Luke who has been called a great historian---who had no idea their writings would end up in something called the bible. Their writings can be considered historical evidence. You then use that historical evidence along with other factors, other evidence, and other considerations to make conclusions. That's what historians and apologists do.

Now I'm even more confused. How many authors were involved in the confection of Acts?

But it gets worse.
DOC abandons Young and uses KJV to explain the discrepancies in Acts!

...Here is what the the verse says in the King James version...
And Acts Chapter 9 is written in 3rd person, whereas Acts chapter 22 is written in 1st person. Paul's traveling companion, Luke, could of wrote 9 and Paul himself wrote some of 22 which might account for some of the difficulty. But there is still no contradiction in the verse above with the verse in chapter 22 unless you make an assumption.

What? I mean to say, what?

See post 1919, the King James version doesn't say "the" voice it says "a" voice. There is no contradiction unless you make the assumption the voice they heard is God's and not Paul's.

This is just too delicious for me not to make the most of it. ....
Those are allegedly God's words that you - and you alone - are ascribing to some wandering ventriloquist.

Do you have any idea what the Inquisition used to do to people who committed heresy like that?

By a curious coincidence, I work within sight of the place where the last Auto-da-fé^WPwas celebrated.

 

[Craig B]

Paul is talking too in the above verses you brought in. How can you be sure that a voice the men heard was not Paul's, or even a passerby. You need to assume something that isn't specifically stated.

So the witnesses to the Great Revelation that launched Christianity among the Gentiles were completly deluded. If the witnesses heard a voice but saw nobody, then for all we know it may have been a passerby - otherwise unnoticed - asking, "Is this the shortest road to Damascus?" - and not the mighty voice of the Divinity revealing Himself unto Paul. How can I be sure? I can't be sure. Maybe indeed your religion is born of such a preposterous misunderstanding!

This is more hilarious even than Luke's otherwise unknown pre-Judas Theudas! It's better than Jesus' two cleansings of the Temple! It's better than Jesus being born twice, once under Herod, and then under Quirinius!

 

[catsmate]

Mate, I'm done with this bloody book. As Aberhaten noticed, there's no evidence being offered, just bald assertion, circular reasoning, unqualified assertion and wishful thinking (amongst other fallacious reasoning). I only took the time to do it as a service to my fellow posters here.

Doherty addresses these claims in parts 21 and 22 of his rebuttal of Ehrman's book.

Read about the subject of "historical evidence".

Please don't try and lecture people about subjects you do not understand, it just further demonstrates your own ignorance.

I once had a history professor

I don't think so.

who said there are 3 things you should know about the "Holy Roman Empire". It wasn't Holy, it wasn't Roman, and it wasn't an Empire (or something like that, it was a long time ago).

A common and utterly irrelevant anecdote.

Yes, and actually the A was in Philosophy 101 which included a logic segment.

Right..........................

 

[Fast Eddie B]

As I have said, I have never seen an alleged contradiction in the New Testament that can't be explained.

Pretty sure you never will.

Some skeptics complain the gospels are too similar, then others complain their too different.

And believers may use similarities in accounts to prove their point, then use differences to prove their point.

BTW, who are "some skeptics". That's weasel word territory. No skeptics I've read "complain" about similar accounts; they explain them by pointing to evidence of a common source.