Names?

[Athetotheist]

"And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene."
(Matthew 2:23)

Which prophets?

[Carnivalfaces]

[Replying to RBD in post #68]

Exalt your ignorance all you like, it's a contradiction in the book of Acts in the bible. Period. Acts 9:7 says 7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. Where as Acts 22:9 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 one guy is telling a story and the other one supposedly lived the story. Two people you have no idea who they were or if they existed, other than indoctrinated religious belief in the bible, telling the same story with contradicting and conflicting details. The people with him heard a voice or they didn't here a voice but the bible contradicts itself on that point, so like most of the rest of it, it's most likely mythical delusion. Your, "if the author got it wrong" approach for defending what's in the bible doesn't absolve the bibles errancy.

[Carnivalfaces]

[Replying to RBD in post #69]

I posted what's in Genesis 1.

Obviously erroneous compared to reality. Just because you present pseudo logic doesn't mean your fairytale book isn't false.

Also, since you made it clear you have no idea how science works, you would say less ignorant things if you just ask someone you trust who isn't pushing a cult or personal agenda; just how do we know of cosmology what we came to know? Or just say nothing and let people guess of your ignorance instead of arguing from a position of it. Just trying to help.

I'll be happy to teach you the bible sometime. That might help you as well. Remember, just read it the way it is meant to be read and stop trying to twist it into some sort of preconceived notions of truth from bronzed age myth tellers.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #68]

The writing is accurate in Acts 9 and 22: What is written in the Book today, is exactly what was written by the writer.

The accurate writing in both cases, shows a conflict between the writer and a witness, that he accurately writes about. If the witness is accurate about al the details, then the writer is wrong. If the witness is wrong about all the details, then the write is correct.

If the same writer wrote the entire book of Acts, he presumably wrote it in the order we see it in today. That means he would have written chapter nine before writing chapter 22.

Acts 9:7 is written as narration----the writer is telling us directly what supposedly happened. Acts 22:9 is written as quotation----the writer is giving words as someone else supposedly gave them. If the quotation doesn't agree with the narration, then at least one of them is wrong and it is not the fault of third parties. You can't accuse the companions of lying, because scripture (2 Timothy 3:16-17) doesn't furnish you with the two or three witnesses (Deuteronomy 19:15) you need to establish guilt.

Another thing you would have to explain is why they would lie. What would they hope to gain?

Assuming that the Luke author wrote Acts, he presumably got the story from Paul. That means it would have been Paul who told him that the companions heard a voice but saw no man (9:7). Why would Luke then turn around and quote Paul as saying that his companions saw a light but did not hear the voice (22:9)? Alternatively, why would Paul himself contradict his earlier account with his later one if he dictated both of them to Luke?

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #66]

Well all your adlibbing and special pleading aside, the bible doesn't say anything like the way you try and spin it.

Your rewriting is the convoluted spin.

It says plants grew on the earth before the sun was created and that's impossible for multiple reasons concerning the facts of reality.

Your spin also corrupts the science of light.

All ideologues refuse knowledge and science.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #68]

Exalt your ignorance all you like, it's a contradiction in the book of Acts in the bible. Period. Acts 9:7 says 7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. Where as Acts 22:9 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.


Both records conflicting with one another are in the bible making it contradictory. Just cause the authors change doesn't change the fact it's contradictory and part of the erroneous, contradictory bible.

The Book of Acts has only one author. Quoting someone does not make another author of the Book.

Ideologues reject knowledge, science, and understanding.

[RBD]

I'll be happy to teach you the bible sometime.

I'm not interested in anyone's rewriting of the Bible.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #74]

It says plants grew on the earth before the sun was created and that's impossible for multiple reasons concerning the facts of reality.

Your spin also corrupts the science of light.

All ideologues refuse knowledge and science.

If it's scientific to believe that light from a source other than the sun caused the first plant life to grow on Earth, explain the generation of that light scientifically without quoting any text which simply declares that it happened.

[Carnivalfaces]

[Replying to RBD in post #68]

Exalt your ignorance all you like, it's a contradiction in the book of Acts in the bible. Period. Acts 9:7 says 7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. Where as Acts 22:9 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.


Both records conflicting with one another are in the bible making it contradictory. Just cause the authors change doesn't change the fact it's contradictory and part of the erroneous, contradictory bible.

The Book of Acts has only one author. Quoting someone does not make another author of the Book.

Ideologues reject knowledge, science, and understanding.

Yet the biblical contradiction remains and you don't know who wrote what. You believe you know via your indoctrination. And you think it makes a difference. If the bible was true we'd know if the people with him heard the voice or not. But we don't know cause the bible contradicts itself.

You're saying your religious convictions are born of ideology?

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #68]

The writing is accurate in Acts 9 and 22: What is written in the Book today, is exactly what was written by the writer.

The accurate writing in both cases, shows a conflict between the writer and a witness, that he accurately writes about. If the witness is accurate about al the details, then the writer is wrong. If the witness is wrong about all the details, then the write is correct.

If the same writer wrote the entire book of Acts, he presumably wrote it in the order we see it in today. That means he would have written chapter nine before writing chapter 22.

True.

It means that the author recording the event itself in Acts 9, knew beforehand that it did not agree with the eyewitness account, that he records in Acts 22. In fact, Luke the companion of Paul, knew it from Paul's own account long before writing Acts.

The question is why Luke, who was not there, knowingly reports something different than someone who was there?. Did Luke not believe Paul? Did either of the other companions tell Luke differently. And, if Luke is correct, and they did hear the voice, why would Paul not say so in Ch 22, when his testimony was life or death? Else, why would the companions lie, who apparently did not convert...

However, in the account agreed by other, there's another eyewitness than the travelling men: The Lord Jesus Christ. And He would know all things perfectly, including what people hear, vs what they may say they heard.

1Sa 16:7 For the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart.

Acts 9:7 is written as narration----the writer is telling us directly what supposedly happened. Acts 22:9 is written as quotation----the writer is giving words as someone else supposedly gave them.

This is convoluted. It's a book with an author quoting people about an event. Why not just say, the writer is quoting an eyewitness?

If you're trying to suggest in some way, that the author quoted the eyewitness wrong. Where else in Acts, or the NT, is the eyewitness ever quoted saying something different?

If the author were trying to avoid the appearance of a contradiction in the Book, then he would either have wrote Ch 9 to agree with Paul's, or knowingly lied and misquoted Paul's account in Ch 22. But then of course Luke would have to answer to Paul, and every other Christian hearing his own account. Therefore, it would have been far simpler to just agree with Paul, and say they did not hear a voice in Acts 9. But, that's not what happened.

And so, Luke could not have gotten it wrong by mistake, but on purpose, because he knew it would not agree with what Paul personally told him before, as well as what he would write several chapters later.

Therefore, Luke is purposely contradicting Paul's account.

If the quotation doesn't agree with the narration,

It doesn't agree. The eyewitness of Paul does not agree with the author's account, and vica versa. And the author knows it when writing the account. Paul would not know it until reading the Book of Acts for himself. As well as every other believer and unbeliever alike, that reads it.

then at least one of them is wrong

Exactly.

and it is not the fault of third parties. You can't accuse the companions of lying, because scripture (2 Timothy 3:16-17) doesn't furnish you with the two or three witnesses (Deuteronomy 19:15) you need to establish guilt.

Oh, now I see why you include the Scripture. You're demanding that the Bible somewhere tell us that they lied. But the Scripture never accuses them of lying.

The charge is contradiction of the Book. All that's needed is a plausible reading to clear it. Proving the plausibility is not redundant, since the plausibility proves itself, and clears the Book from the charge. Any charge made in court, can be dismissed by any reasonable doubt of the charge. Any charge of contradiction in a book is dismissed, when any reasonable explanation clears it.

Though, the Book's narrative only leaves open the possibility of companions lying to Paul, with his unwitting agreement, it's still reasonable doubt enough to clear the Book of written error.

And the possibility of Paul unknowing reporting a lie, is because all he could know is what they told him, not what he could see and hear for himself, what they heard.

There are two simple points that must be acknowledged in the argument: First, that the Book's author is not contradicting himself. The author only records an eyewitness account in ch 22, that he knew partly contradicted his own account in ch 9. Second, that Paul could not possibly have known what they heard in Ch 9, without them telling him.

That leaves open only two possibilities: The companions did not lie, when they told Paul, that they did not hear. Paul faithfully repeats is it as fact. And so, Luke got it wrong as the writer of Acts. The Bible makes an written error about the facts.

Or, the companions did lie to Paul, when they told him they heard nothing. Paul faithfully repeats it. Luke got it right in Acts 9, and the Bible does not write an error of fact.

Another thing you would have to explain is why they would lie. What would they hope to gain?

Once again, the question proves the possibility, and so no charge can be proven, so long as any reasonable explanation clears the Book.

This is why I also said that though there are reasonable motives for lying, it's not necessary to already clear the Bible of a factual error.

What possible motive for lying? Loyalty to the leading Jews or to new Christians, which at the time was ostracism at best, and possible death. They were zealous Jewish enemies of the Christians, chasing them down in cities outside Judea. Would any of them have returned to the Jews, to report not only a failed mission, but also acknowledge an event accurately, that would prove Jesus is the resurrected Lord in heaven, just as the Christians say?

Nothing in the record says anything about the companions converting. But the record does say they heard. Although we know that they must have told Saul otherwise, we also know he could not have known by himself. Therefore, if the new convert Paul is correct, that there was a voice, by which he was converted, then we can also know that the other companions did not convert. And so, knowing that they would have to return to their leaders to report, they certainly had plenty of motive to at least partly lie about an event. If they reported to the enemy Jews the same as Paul, then they would have been testifying of the resurrected Lord appearing in great light by voice from heaven.

In any case, the narrative allows for them lying, and contains possible motive.

Three things now must be acknowledged: The Book nor writer contradicts itself, but only records an eyewitness with a different account. Paul could not have possibly known what the companions heard, so they had to tell him. And no zealot Jewish enemy of Christians, is going to report a failed mission to their leaders, and that Saul of Tarsus was not Paul the Christian, and thenthat it was because of the great light and voice of the Lord Jesus from heaven.

Assuming that the Luke author wrote Acts, he presumably got the story from Paul. That means it would have been Paul who told him that the companions heard a voice but saw no man (9:7).

Correct.
Since he knowingly didn't write Paul's account, then who did he get it from? Not himself. Nor from the companions.

Why would Luke then turn around and quote Paul as saying that his companions saw a light but did not hear the voice (22:9)?

Better yet, why would Luke not quote Paul in Acts 9. And then turn around and quote Paul in Acts 22. Because in 9 he records the event itself, and in 22 he records Paul's record of the event. See above about the other witness in Ch 9, than Saul of Tarsus and his companions.

2 Tim 3:16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

And for the correct record of all events yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

However, once again, the literary argument alone, is the reasonable possibility of the companions lying with motive.

Alternatively, why would Paul himself contradict his earlier account with his later one if he dictated both of them to Luke?

He didn't alter his account at all. What he told Luke, and many others, was what he told his Jewish accusers and enemies in Acts 19.

Here is the only reasonable fact, other than a possible life or death motive, that could prove the companions lied: Everyone ever reading the Book of Acts, knows there is a conflict between what the writer Luke says happened, and what Paul says happened. That also includes the fact, that Paul can only be repeating what he was told about what they heard.

That includes all the Christians of the day, especially them hearing Paul's own testimony up to and including his own defense in Acts 22.

It is not possible for Luke to have gotten it wrong in Ch 9, whether on purpose or by mistake, and Christians, especially Paul himself, then accepting the Book of Acts as Scripture of the Lord Jesus Christ. Accepting Scripture means accepting the account in Ch 9 is from the Lord, who also was there, and so must be accurate.

If, the companions told the truth to Paul, that he repeated to others, then Luke was wrong. He wrote factual error in the book. Therefore, it's not possible for the Book of Acts to be included in the Scriptures of the Bible. Neither Paul, nor the other apostles, nor the Christians knowing and hearing Paul themselves, would accept Luke's 'version' of Acts as Scriptural truth. That especially includes the Council of Nicaea, where they would have plenty of time to either reject the Book itself, of resolves the problem of contradiction between Luke's account in Acts 9, and Paul's account of what he says happened.

Any unbeliever can reject the whole account with the Lord Jesus Himself appearing and speaking to the travelling men, but no one can say there is no possible way in the narrative itself, that the others could have lied to the new convert, as well as to their Jewish leaders back in Jerusalem.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #79]

The question is why Luke, who was not there, knowingly reports something different than someone who was there?. Did Luke not believe Paul? Did either of the other companions tell Luke differently. And, if Luke is correct, and they did hear the voice, why would Paul not say so in Ch 22, when his testimony was life or death? Else, why would the companions lie, who apparently did not convert...

However, in the account agreed by other, there's another eyewitness than the travelling men: The Lord Jesus Christ. And He would know all things perfectly, including what people hear, vs what they may say they heard.

We're not given any testimony attributed to Jesus as to which account was true, so that argument carries no weight.


Acts 9:7 is written as narration----the writer is telling us directly what supposedly happened. Acts 22:9 is written as quotation----the writer is giving words as someone else supposedly gave them.

This is convoluted. It's a book with an author quoting people about an event. Why not just say, the writer is quoting an eyewitness?

This isn't convoluted. It's an accurate distinction.

If the author were trying to avoid the appearance of a contradiction in the Book, then he would either have wrote Ch 9 to agree with Paul's, or knowingly lied and misquoted Paul's account in Ch 22. But then of course Luke would have to answer to Paul, and every other Christian hearing his own account. Therefore, it would have been far simpler to just agree with Paul, and say they did not hear a voice in Acts 9. But, that's not what happened.

If the author was trying to avoid the appearance of a contradiction and knew that the companions had lied, he could----and should----have established that in his record in chapter 9. As it is you have him knowingly making a false statement as if it were true, which makes him an unreliable reporter.


and it is not the fault of third parties. You can't accuse the companions of lying, because scripture (2 Timothy 3:16-17) doesn't furnish you with the two or three witnesses (Deuteronomy 19:15) you need to establish guilt.

Oh, now I see why you include the Scripture. You're demanding that the Bible somewhere tell us that they lied. But the Scripture never accuses them of lying.

Right----that's what you've been pushing.

The charge is contradiction of the Book. All that's needed is a plausible reading to clear it. Proving the plausibility is not redundant, since the plausibility proves itself, and clears the Book from the charge. Any charge made in court, can be dismissed by any reasonable doubt of the charge. Any charge of contradiction in a book is dismissed, when any reasonable explanation clears it.

Though, the Book's narrative only leaves open the possibility of companions lying to Paul, with his unwitting agreement, it's still reasonable doubt enough to clear the Book of written error.

No it isn't, because Luke still narrates the chapter 9 version as if it were accurate. If he knew that it wasn't accurate and didn't say so, then he was guilty of a lie of omission.

There are two simple points that must be acknowledged in the argument: First, that the Book's author is not contradicting himself. The author only records an eyewitness account in ch 22, that he knew partly contradicted his own account in ch 9. Second, that Paul could not possibly have known what they heard in Ch 9, without them telling him.

That leaves open only two possibilities: The companions did not lie, when they told Paul, that they did not hear. Paul faithfully repeats is it as fact. And so, Luke got it wrong as the writer of Acts. The Bible makes an written error about the facts.

Or, the companions did lie to Paul, when they told him they heard nothing. Paul faithfully repeats it. Luke got it right in Acts 9, and the Bible does not write an error of fact.

Third possibility: the episode is embellishment and the author carelessly mixed up the details of a part of it he was repeating.

What possible motive for lying? Loyalty to the leading Jews or to new Christians, which at the time was ostracism at best, and possible death. They were zealous Jewish enemies of the Christians, chasing them down in cities outside Judea. Would any of them have returned to the Jews, to report not only a failed mission, but also acknowledge an event accurately, that would prove Jesus is the resurrected Lord in heaven, just as the Christians say?

....all of which could----and should----have been established by Luke if he knew when he wrote chapter 9 that the companions had lied....but he tells his audience none of this, presenting the account as factual narrative.

Nothing in the record says anything about the companions converting.

Nothing in the record says anything about the companions lying.

If, the companions told the truth to Paul, that he repeated to others, then Luke was wrong. He wrote factual error in the book. Therefore, it's not possible for the Book of Acts to be included in the Scriptures of the Bible. Neither Paul, nor the other apostles, nor the Christians knowing and hearing Paul themselves, would accept Luke's 'version' of Acts as Scriptural truth. That especially includes the Council of Nicaea, where they would have plenty of time to either reject the Book itself, of resolves the problem of contradiction between Luke's account in Acts 9, and Paul's account of what he says happened.

Early Church councils didn't have the luxury of making consistency a top priority. They were trying to cobble a plethora of disparate Christian communities into a single body and couldn't afford to leave too many out if they wanted it to be of appreciable size. The gospels alone had come from different enclaves across several decades, and look at the inconsistencies just between the resurrection accounts....

You also have to remember the control exerted over the Bible by the post-Roman-empire Church, the text printed only in Latin [and many people still illiterate], so there wasn't great opportunity for critical analysis by the masses.