To illustrate, in Acts 9 we have the account of Pauls conversion. We read in verse 7: And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. They heard a voice, but saw no one with Saul (Paul). However, Acts 22:9 says: "...they heard NOT the Voice....". Contradiction? No, just a difference in the way the story was retold. The MESSAGE of the story, however, remains true and accurate.
Those are the scriptures that were brought out to me as the Spirit was teaching me about not letting the bible become my idol. Which it was at one point, I used to think the bible was God before I received the Holy Spirit! But not any longer, I understand now that without the Spirit to bring revelation, life, and interpretation to the written word of God, the letters written remain only words on the page.
If you take those scriptures about the conversion of Paul exactly as they are written there is a contradiction, who was correct, Luke who wrote Acts? Or Paul who had the experience and was there?
There is definitely an inconsistancy in the written text about Paul's conversion.
__________________ Matthew 24:13-14 "But he who endures to the end shall be saved. And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come."
Yes, see? There! It is always possible to reconcile "apparent" contradictions!
Ha, I see this "works" thing endlessly debated, "do you need works to be saved," etc. Personally, I never saw a contradiction, even as a neo; "faith w/o works is dead" how simple can it be?
Those are the scriptures that were brought out to me as the Spirit was teaching me about not letting the bible become my idol. Which it was at one point, I used to think the bible was God before I received the Holy Spirit! But not any longer, I understand now that without the Spirit to bring revelation, life, and interpretation to the written word of God, the letters written remain only words on the page.
If you take those scriptures about the conversion of Paul exactly as they are written there is a contradiction, who was correct, Luke who wrote Acts? Or Paul who had the experience and was there?
There is definitely an inconsistancy in the written text about Paul's conversion.
Nice, ty both.
As you've pointed out, there may be an inconsistency for too-literal children to argue about, but does it change the message, the Word, here?
Ha, I see this "works" thing endlessly debated, "do you need works to be saved," etc. Personally, I never saw a contradiction, even as a neo; "faith w/o works is dead" how simple can it be?
There's a more explicit apparent contradiction than just that.
"Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only."
"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. "
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
As I was meditating more on the scriptures about Paul's testimony, I was thinking perhaps when Paul recounted what happened to him later on in Acts 22 he may have forgotten all the little details, and what he spoke wasn't exactly the same as he spoke before, and Luke recorded it? I have done that many times!
Also in Acts 2 when Peter is preaching on the day of Pentecost, he quotes Joel 2, and the words Peter spoke are not the exact words of the prophecy, could be a similar situation with Paul? Something to meditate on!
__________________ Matthew 24:13-14 "But he who endures to the end shall be saved. And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come."
Those are the scriptures that were brought out to me as the Spirit was teaching me about not letting the bible become my idol. Which it was at one point, I used to think the bible was God before I received the Holy Spirit! But not any longer, I understand now that without the Spirit to bring revelation, life, and interpretation to the written word of God, the letters written remain only words on the page.
If you take those scriptures about the conversion of Paul exactly as they are written there is a contradiction, who was correct, Luke who wrote Acts? Or Paul who had the experience and was there?
There is definitely an inconsistancy in the written text about Paul's conversion.
The difference between the two is found in these words.... "A" and "THE." In the former the men with Paul did, indeed, hear "a" voice, but they did not hear "the" voice of God. Different, yet the same thing, actually, only the former advises that they did not distinguish "a" voice which they heard as being that voice of "the" Lord. That's the way I see it, but as others have stated, it really doesn't change the main point, which is, Paul heard "the" voice of Jesus.
As I was meditating more on the scriptures about Paul's testimony, I was thinking perhaps when Paul recounted what happened to him later on in Acts 22 he may have forgotten all the little details, and what he spoke wasn't exactly the same as he spoke before, and Luke recorded it? I have done that many times!
Also in Acts 2 when Peter is preaching on the day of Pentecost, he quotes Joel 2, and the words Peter spoke are not the exact words of the prophecy, could be a similar situation with Paul? Something to meditate on!
The same can be said of Paul's quoting the prophecy of Habakkuk 1:5 which is found written in Acts 13:40-41. In the former it says nothing about "despisers" or "perishing," yet when Paul recited it he did. But, again, the essential message or intent remains the same.... simply another way of repeating that which someone else has stated, but not actually altering or changing its essence.
Linear Mode
