Eight myths about the Bible

Even the different accounts of the apostle Paul's first vision in the NT are not harmonized.

Yeah, Lds usually claim this as a way to deflect focus away from Smith's divergent accounts.

First of all: All three of Paul's accounts about how he responded ARE THE SAME -- so will you first actually acknowledge that?
He saw a light (Acts 9:7; Acts 22:6,11; 26:13 -- which his companions saw, too -- 22:9)...and since this light that flashed around him was "brighter than the sun" -- 26:13 -- I think we can safely assume everybody saw this light!)
Did he fall to the ground? (Yes, all three accounts say he does)
Did he hear a distinct voice giving a thought-conveying message? (Yes, all three accounts say so, including even Acts 9 -- 9:4...Acts 26 says it was in Aramaic)

The issue Lds tend to focus in on is his companions -- pointing to:
#1 Those w/Paul didn't see a personage in Acts 9:7, but yes, they did in Acts 22:9
#2 Different reactions mentioned -- all three accounts say Paul fell to the ground...Acts 26:14 says they all fell...Acts 9:7 said they stood there speechless (except for Paul who fell)
#3 Acts 9:7 says they heard a voice, but Acts 22:9 says no, they didn't.

Do they harmonize?

#1 See something or someone -- yes or no? (Yes -- at least something)
What did Paul's companions see? Did they see any man or personage? (No, Acts 9:7).
Did they did see a "light" (Yes they did, Acts 22:9).
Does that contradict? (No, men aren't usually the source of pure light "brighter than the sun," now are they?)

#2 Did Paul's companions also fall to the ground or remain upright? (Yes, they also fell, Acts 26:14)
Putting all the reports together, what was their reaction? [As the accounts say, they were left speechless--fixed to the spot, Acts 9:7); they were afraid (Acts 22:9); they fell to the earth (Acts 26:14)].
Does Acts 26:14 contradict Acts 9:7? (No).
Why not? As one commentator (Haley) says: "...the word rendered 'stood' also means to be fixed, to be rooted to the spot. Hense, the sense may be, not that they stood erect, but that they were rendered motionless, or fixed to the spot, by overpowering fear."
I might say "I stood perfectly still" -- and not even be standing.

#3 Did his companions hear something?

Did they hear a voice? (Yes, when you include the NIV version of Acts 22:9, all three passages say they did)

Grammar lesson:

Acts 9:7: Hearing a voice (Greek, akouontes...tes phontes...genitive case in Gr. grammar).
Acts 22:9: Paul says companions "heard not the voice" (Greek, ten...phonen ouk ekousan...accusative case in Gr. grammar).

First, what's the difference of the two Greek verbs definition-wise?
akouo -- "to hear" may indicate the ability to hear sound or to understand...Context: Greek grammar indicates that they heard but did not understand.
phonen with "not" in 22:9 indicates that they did not hear well enough to understand.
In summary, the Greek indicates harmony between the two accounts.

Greek grammar & nuances play a key role in the distinctions:
'Tis difference between you hearing a sound--even the sound of a voice (the genitive case) -- Acts 9 -- and actually understanding it! (the accusative case) -- Acts 22

Akouo's meaning ranges anything from hearing a noise, hearing a report, to understanding! How many of us, for example, have heard a "report" -- a bang -- but because of being a "lay" person w/regard to gunfire couldn't distinguish it between a gun shot or a firework? You or I may have heard a noise (a "report"), but that might be different than a co-worker giving you a perfectly understandable one-line "report." Grammar context in this case is everything...'tis not only true with the Greek word for hear, but English grammar does this exact same thing with the words "to hear"/"heard"]

Illustration:
Genitive case: "The sound of your voices heard last night by the kids kept them awake in the next room."
Accusative case: "I heard your voice last night; I relayed to others what you sounded off on."
In the first case -- the genitive -- just because the voices kept up the kids doesn't mean they understood what was being said or that they were even keenly listening in. Another example: I may be 1 1/2 football fields away from a well-trained K-9, who I tell to go "sick" somebody according to command in a triangular direction from both of us. I may say, "Bowser, sick! Bowser, sick! Bowser, do you hear me?" Now, whether Bowser runs to me or to the "target" shows both "sides" of "hear." If Bowser was close enough to hear my command, he'll attack the target. That is, Bowser understood my thought-conveying message. If I put that into a sentence, it will be in the accusative case. If Bowser only heard my voice, but not the command, he might respond by running my way, hearing my generic call. In both cases, Bowser heard me: But what he heard in the latter case would be framed in genitive grammar. This is true for these same words grammar-wise, whether we're talking English or Greek.

Q Is there another example of this being done in Scripture?
A Yes -- see John 12:28, where the crowd heard the sound of the Father talking to the Son, but what was their perception? Did they hear the thought-conveying message that the Father was giving to the Son? No! (They thought it was thunder!) Just like the Son in John 12:28, Acts 9:4, 22:7, and 26:14 all make it clear that only Paul heard the thought-conveying message.

Yeah, Lds usually claim this as a way to deflect focus away from Smith's divergent accounts.

Yep, denegrate the bible when the bible testifies against mormonism. Colofornian did a great job summarizing how Paul's vision harmonizes. Just for comparison, how well do the 12 or so versions from smith?

1. His age/year it occurs changes significantly - 1823 (age 16), to 1821 (age 15), to 1820 (age 14).
2. The reason or motive for seeking divine help — from no motive (a spirit appears with the news of gold plates), Bible reading and conviction of sins, a revival, a desire to know if God exists.
3. Who appears to him — a spirit, an angel, two angels, Jesus, many angels, the Father and the Son.
(http://www.irr.org/mit/first-vision/fvision-accounts.html)

These three points alone show that smith's first vision story lacks truthfulness due to lack of a consistent story line. Some could fault him for forgetting his age - except in his journals he links the event to other more readily dateable events.

One could fault him for being very confused on his motive for seeking divine help. If Jesus Christ except that when other accounts are put together, his 1823 account has him praying to know if there is a god - silly for someone who 3 years earlier was visited by god. but he was young and uneducated.

But to completely botch up WHO visited you to the degree that smith does is the smoking gun of the matter. If smith saw God in 1820, why did he pray in his room in 1823 to find out "if a Supreme being did exist?" This flies in the face of the standard mormon claims (the man who communed with Jehovah). Like a little boy lying about breaking the vase, smith's story morphs in an attempt to find a socially acceptable form - which means it is a lie.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.