How did Paul know it was Jesus?

The passage is clear from the rest of scripture. The word 'akouō is used as "to hear" and occasionally "to understand" but the context must mean 'to hear' because it is followed by phōnē voice, and then it is Jesus who says it is He. We also see that Paul claims he was not taught by men but by Jesus and the scriptures show they all affirm that
I don't know what you're trying to argue here.
 
I’m afraid there is. The word translated ‘hear’ in the one verse and ‘understand’ in the other are, as I say, identical. This much, at least, is indisputable.
According to the Interlinear Bible with the greek and english, in Acts 22 it uses a different word, the word for voice than Acts 9 where it uses the word for sound. There is also different words before and after, so that the highly experienced NAS scholars come to the conclusion that it is referring to the understanding of the sound or voice. Which points to the NAS being most likely the correct understanding and translation.
 
According to the Interlinear Bible with the greek and english, in Acts 22 it uses a different word, the word for voice than Acts 9 where it uses the word for sound. There is also different words before and after, so that the highly experienced NAS scholars come to the conclusion that it is referring to the understanding of the sound or voice. Which points to the NAS being most likely the correct understanding and translation.
The verbs, whose translation we are discussing, are identical. The NASB likely translates to avoid making the author contradict himself on a relatively important matter, rather than due to what comes "before and after". Perhaps that's the right decision, but I doubt it, and I suspect the KJV is preferable here. If you've some argument to the contrary, you're welcome to share it.
 
The verbs, whose translation we are discussing, are identical. The NASB likely translates to avoid making the author contradict himself on a relatively important matter, rather than due to what comes "before and after". Perhaps that's the right decision, but I doubt it, and I suspect the KJV is preferable here. If you've some argument to the contrary, you're welcome to share it.
According to Biblical scholar Dr. Daniel B. Wallace: "The Greek text which stands behind the King James Bible is demonstrably inferior in certain places. The man who edited the text was a Roman Catholic priest and humanist named Erasmus.1 He was under pressure to get it to the press as soon as possible since (a) no edition of the Greek New Testament had yet been published, and (b) he had heard that Cardinal Ximenes and his associates were just about to publish an edition of the Greek New Testament and he was in a race to beat them. Consequently, his edition has been called the most poorly edited volume in all of literature! It is filled with hundreds of typographical errors which even Erasmus would acknowledge."
 
According to Biblical scholar Dr. Daniel B. Wallace: "The Greek text which stands behind the King James Bible is demonstrably inferior in certain places. The man who edited the text was a Roman Catholic priest and humanist named Erasmus.1 He was under pressure to get it to the press as soon as possible since (a) no edition of the Greek New Testament had yet been published, and (b) he had heard that Cardinal Ximenes and his associates were just about to publish an edition of the Greek New Testament and he was in a race to beat them. Consequently, his edition has been called the most poorly edited volume in all of literature! It is filled with hundreds of typographical errors which even Erasmus would acknowledge."
The Greek text is identical in this case. This is a translational issue, not a textual one.
 
I don’t know what you’re asking me for. If you’re asking for evidence that the texts are identical, they’re publicly available, so consult them at your leisure.
It appears from the evidence seen in the Interlinear Bible and from what scholars say about words in their context that the words surrounding the word in question cause the change in translation.
 
It appears from the evidence seen in the Interlinear Bible and from what scholars say about words in their context that the words surrounding the word in question cause the change in translation.
Does it? Please explain how.
 
I can't but the scholars that worked on the NAS were experts in it and therefore I trust their work and correct translation of that text rather than the antiquated translation of the KJV. The NAS is considered one of the most accurate translations in the world.
I take your point but a translation cannot be correct with regard to the original language. Any translation is by definition an interpretation. You can consult a literal translation of the Greek but even then some words may have nuances or shades of meaning in Greek that cannot be exactly expressed in another language because the vocabulary is not there.
 
I take your point but a translation cannot be correct with regard to the original language.
Sure it can, just as a translation can be incorrect. Still, there may be more than one correct translation.
Any translation is by definition an interpretation. You can consult a literal translation of the Greek but even then some words may have nuances or shades of meaning in Greek that cannot be exactly expressed in another language because the vocabulary is not there.
That's true.
 
Does it? Please explain how.
Because even in english the meanings of words are influenced by the words that surround them. For example, if words are removed from your response, the statement either becomes meaningless or very different. Taking out it and please changes it to, "Does explain how"
 
According to the Interlinear Bible with the greek and english, in Acts 22 it uses a different word, the word for voice than Acts 9 where it uses the word for sound. There is also different words before and after, so that the highly experienced NAS scholars come to the conclusion that it is referring to the understanding of the sound or voice. Which points to the NAS being most likely the correct understanding and translation.
I see you're over here dabbling in the Greek of the New Testament with the same disastrous results as your forays into the Hebrew of Genesis 2. I presume y'all are discussing the conflict between Act 9:7 and 22:9 --- do Paul's companions hear the voice that speaks to him or not? Here are the pertinent clauses in Greek:

ακουοντες μεν της φωνης (Acts 9)
την δε φωνην ουκ ηκουσαν (Acts 22)

You first make the erroneous claim that the word for 'sound' is used in the first account, but the word for 'voice' is used in the second account... um, no, they are the same word in Greek: φωνη (phone) and could mean either depending on the context --- in the first passage the word is in the genitive case whereas in the second passage it is in the accusative case. You follow that up with a vague claim about "different words before and after" --- I suppose that's partially true, though one must cast the net wider than the clause itself to demonstrate this in the first passage since it ends with φωνη, but also partially false. Of critical importance is the same verb (as Lucian has already pointed out to you) in both: ακουω (akouo). You refer to "highly experienced ... scholars" who reach the conclusion that one of these verbs refers to understanding (rather than simply hearing) the sound/voice, presumably the one in chapter 22 though you left this unstated. Are you suggesting that the versions that do not translate it so are the work of incompetent or less-experienced translators?

Let's take a look at the evidence shall we... on the one hand and in addition to the NASB, we have the same two suspects who mistranslated the Gen 2:19 passage (NIV, ESV) in order to eliminate a contradiction --- seems like a pattern emerging there. On the other hand we have the following versions:

but [they] did not hear the voice of the one who was speaking to me. (NRSV)
but [they] did not hear the voice that spoke to me. (NEB)
but they heard not the voice of him who spake to me. (KJV)
but they did not hear the voice of Him who spoke to me. (NKJV)
but [they] did not hear the voice of the one who spoke to me. (NAB)
but [they] did not hear the voice which spoke to me. (NJB)

Again you're facing down a majority that disagrees with you. That said, you do have the NASB on your side and they at least got the Gen 2:19 passage right so I'm certainly willing to listen to any actual argument you might have in defense of your view. Thus far what you've offered is extremely vague and easily dismissed...

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 
Because even in english the meanings of words are influenced by the words that surround them. For example, if words are removed from your response, the statement either becomes meaningless or very different. Taking out it and please changes it to, "Does explain how"
Uh huh.

I'm asking you how these observations are relevant in this case: what is it about the 'surrounding words' that justifies a certain translation in one case and a different one in the other? As En Hakkore has helpfully explained to you, not only are the verbs the same, but the nouns they take also.

As someone who once upon a time tried to eliminate the (ostensible?) contradiction here , I know there are some strategies for doing so. But you don't seem to quite to have their scent.
 
Last edited:
I take your point but a translation cannot be correct with regard to the original language.
It may not be perfectly correct, but it can be basically correct.
Any translation is by definition an interpretation. You can consult a literal translation of the Greek but even then some words may have nuances or shades of meaning in Greek that cannot be exactly expressed in another language because the vocabulary is not there.
But yes, I agree that there are some nuances and shades of meaning that can be lost in translation. That is why the best Christian ministers go to seminary and learn greek and hebrew.
 
I see you're over here dabbling in the Greek of the New Testament with the same disastrous results as your forays into the Hebrew of Genesis 2. I presume y'all are discussing the conflict between Act 9:7 and 22:9 --- do Paul's companions hear the voice that speaks to him or not? Here are the pertinent clauses in Greek:

ακουοντες μεν της φωνης (Acts 9)
την δε φωνην ουκ ηκουσαν (Acts 22)

You first make the erroneous claim that the word for 'sound' is used in the first account, but the word for 'voice' is used in the second account... um, no, they are the same word in Greek: φωνη (phone) and could mean either depending on the context --- in the first passage the word is in the genitive case whereas in the second passage it is in the accusative case.
I am just stating how the Interlinear Greek-English Bible translated those words. It is a well respected source for understanding biblical Greek. How do you know the NAS, NIV, the ESV, the NLT, the NET, and the HNV did not take into account the context to translate it "did not understand the voice?
You follow that up with a vague claim about "different words before and after" --- I suppose that's partially true, though one must cast the net wider than the clause itself to demonstrate this in the first passage since it ends with φωνη, but also partially false. Of critical importance is the same verb (as Lucian has already pointed out to you) in both: ακουω (akouo). You refer to "highly experienced ... scholars" who reach the conclusion that one of these verbs refers to understanding (rather than simply hearing) the sound/voice, presumably the one in chapter 22 though you left this unstated. Are you suggesting that the versions that do not translate it so are the work of incompetent or less-experienced translators?
Possibly, most scholars agree that the NAS is the best most accurate translation and they translate it as understanding.
Let's take a look at the evidence shall we... on the one hand and in addition to the NASB, we have the same two suspects who mistranslated the Gen 2:19 passage (NIV, ESV) in order to eliminate a contradiction --- seems like a pattern emerging there. On the other hand we have the following versions:

but [they] did not hear the voice of the one who was speaking to me. (NRSV)
but [they] did not hear the voice that spoke to me. (NEB)
but they heard not the voice of him who spake to me. (KJV)
but they did not hear the voice of Him who spoke to me. (NKJV)
but [they] did not hear the voice of the one who spoke to me. (NAB)
but [they] did not hear the voice which spoke to me. (NJB)

Again you're facing down a majority that disagrees with you. That said, you do have the NASB on your side and they at least got the Gen 2:19 passage right so I'm certainly willing to listen to any actual argument you might have in defense of your view. Thus far what you've offered is extremely vague and easily dismissed...

Kind regards,
Jonathan
Besides the NIV ESV and NAS, there are also the other translations I mention above. So no it is not the majority view.
 
Uh huh.

I'm asking you how these observations are relevant in this case: what is it about the 'surrounding words' that justifies a certain translation in one case and a different one in the other? As En Hakkore has helpfully explained to you, not only are the verbs the same, but the nouns they take also.
I do not know greek so I dont know exactly how the surrounding words influence the translation but I do know that that is true of english so if it is true of english it most likely is true of greek. And the scholars of all those translations that do use the "did not understand' translation, DO know greek very well and how words are influenced by the surrounding word context.
As someone who once upon a time tried to eliminate the (ostensible?) contradiction here , I know there are some strategies for doing so. But you don't seem to quite to have their scent.
See above my response to En Hakkore above.
 
I am just stating how the Interlinear Greek-English Bible translated those words. It is a well respected source for understanding biblical Greek.
You need to understand (pun intended?) the purpose and limits of an interlinear... it helps someone new to study of the biblical texts in their original languages to get their bearings and begin word studies --- it is not a substitute for learning the language(s), but a crutch while one is doing so. The in-line English is not a translation and if it is accompanied by one in the margins, it is that of whatever the publisher has chosen. For example, the interlinear at Scripture4All is accompanied by the KJV (Acts 22:9 is on pg. 2 of the PDF linked here) whereas the interlinear at Bible Hub has none at all (Acts 22:9 is linked here). If I were at the same rudimentary level as you, I could use either of these sources to challenge whatever claim you're making because there is nothing about "understand" in these interlinear texts. The NIV interlinear published by the evangelical company Zondervan, on the other hand, has "but the voice they heard not" underneath the Greek text and "but they did not understand the voice" in the marginal translation. If whatever interlinear you're referring to has something similar to this or "understand" in both places, it is irrelevant --- an interlinear is of no value in adjudicating the issue under consideration... your access to one does not mean you have an "understanding {of} biblical Greek", nor will you ever have one outside of actually learning the language.

How do you know the NAS, NIV, the ESV, the NLT, the NET, and the HNV did not take into account the context to translate it "did not understand the voice?
Because I actually know biblical Greek... there is nothing in the immediate context that demands "understand" is the idea being conveyed by the verb ακουω --- the basic idea of "hearing" is its default and a form of this English verb is how the majority of translations render it (more on that below). The minority of translations that opt for "understanding" do so on the basis of a long-range contextual argument at the literary rather than grammatical or syntactical level... that is, to harmonize the clause with the assertion found at Acts 9:7.

Possibly, most scholars agree that the NAS is the best most accurate translation and they translate it as understanding.
Firstly, where was your endorsement of this "best most accurate translation" when we were discussing Gen 2:19? Secondly, the NASB aims for formal equivalence, which is one approach to translating a text from one language into another, but it can sometimes come across stilted... dynamic equivalence is an alternative approach, but can sometimes be too flexible so as to lose sense or worse --- striking a balance between these approaches with emphasis on the former is probably best and thus the standard within the scholarly community when an English translation is called for is actually the NRSV. It is the text used, for example, in Oxford's annotated Bible and as the starting point for NETS to make easier comparisons between the Greek and Hebrew/Aramaic versions of the so-called "Old Testament".

Besides the NIV ESV and NAS, there are also the other translations I mention above. So no it is not the majority view.
Yes, "hear" rather than "understand" is the majority rendering... for example, of the 62 versions of the verse at Bible Gateway (see here), 38 (61.3%) read "hear" while only 21 (33.9%) read "understand" with 3 (4.8%) glossing the first with the second in some fashion or vice versa: "hear... [so that they could understand it]" (AMPC); "understand [or hear; the word can mean either 'hear' or 'understand,' but 9:7 suggests the latter]" (EXB); "real hearing (understanding)" (OJB) --- of these 'amplifications' or 'expansions', the second is quite telling as to the source and I have bold and underlined the pertinent part, which affirms what I've noted above is going on here in translations of "understand" in 22:9.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 
Back
Top