The Bible is not about semantics.
[Stourme corrects]
No, but your argument is.
It is precise in every way this includes prophecy.
Ohhh... Well.. let's take a look at that statement.
Acts 9: 7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.
Acts 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.
Acts 26: 13 - 14 At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me.
Three different and contradictory accounts of the same event... in your Bible... That doesn't look all that precise to me.
It could not be God's word otherwise.
If you're true to your word you'll have to abandon the Bible as God's word, huh? By your own words you condem the Bible... or is it just... semantics?
The account of the birth of Christ in the Book of Mormon was given by people who had never been to Jerusalem and had never heard of Bethlaham. But they knew of Jerusalem from the records that were passed down to them. Understand the audiance of who they are speaking. It's in the land of Jerusalem..Over there where we originally came from.
Makes perfect sense...
Perfect !!! You fell right into my trap. You sure don't like the Bible do you? You think it is not accurate and so that helps you buy into Joseph Smith's heresy. You take verses out of context in the Bible to support what you think is a more accurate account by the peepstone charlatan Joseph Smith.
All I have to do is look at Joseph Smith's life to determine that Joseph Smith is no Moses and certainly by far no Jesus.
And I could go on and on about the doctrine of the Mormon Church, and its other leaders like Brigham Young (for example his blood atonement heresy) etc. Which are in direct conflict with Biblical principles.
But hey you think the Book of Mormon (Joseph Smith) is more accurate than the Bible.
Admit that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. And that he had to be or Jesus is not the Messiah.
Now let me get back to my history book about Joseph Smith's banking fraud while leading the LDS Church in Kirtland Ohio...
He offered the follow Bible passages, which he then mischaracterized ... I've seen Delph do this same deceit/trick, so this is going to be easy this second time dealing with it:
Acts 9: 7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.
Acts 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.
Acts 26: 13 - 14 At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me.
14 And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue,
First, note the nasty 'in your Bible' approach of the Mormon, seeking to make the Bible a not credible source so his cultish fictions can be given 'credulity'. Then notice whom is relating the event and to whom. Lastly, there is no reason to believe that Jesus speaking directly to Saul would be understood by those to whom Jesus was not speaking.
In the first passage, Luke is relating the story. In the second passage, it is Paul relating the story from his perspective, speaking to fellow Christians/Jews. In the third passage, Paul is relating his experience to a non-Christian, and his relating the story does not contradict what he told the fellow Christians in the second passage.
It is interesting that Mormons, when cornered, do not answer questions which expose the polytheism of their religion (notice the apologist ignores the eternal progression questions, too much exposure of their heresies there), but go to extraordinary lengths to try, try mind you, to discredit the Bible!
Mormonism is a cult started by a sexual predator who played his version of divination using a peepstone to con farmers over imagined buried treasure, and who claimed to have translated an Egypotian papri, but his 'translation' has been proven completely fraudulent.
This same conman, Joseph Smith, supposedly translated the King James Bible, back into King James English; with no texts from the Greek or Hebrew to consult, adding and changing thousands of words; at the end of the Book of Genesis fabricated eight hundred plus words to manufacture a prophecy of his coming in these latter days! He even added to the Book of the Revelation, in complete contradiction to the warniung therein. He didn't live much longer after that demonic ploy, BTW.
Yet Mormons even today try to make the Abraham fiction, from the Egyptian dealing with the dead papri, credible.
It is sad that these poor souls are so deeply blinded in this cult that they sacrifice their credibility to defend the heresies and false doctrines (like eternal progression where man becomes god and God The Father Almighty was once a mere mortal), and stoop so low as to attack the Bible if it seems they can score some point that their fictional novel from Smith might address differently.
Ohhh... Well.. let's take a look at that statement. Acts 9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. Acts 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. Acts 26:13 - 14 At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me. 14 And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Three different and contradictory accounts of the same event... in your Bible... That doesn't look all that precise to me. [Stourme]
Could it be because you haven't taken the time to study how precise these verses are, Stourme?
I mean, could it possibly be, Stourme, that you're more interesting in slamming the Bible as a Mormon instead of studying it carefully?
Could it be, Stourme, that you're more interested in judging the Biblical writers and preservers of the Bible through the generations than actually honoring them?
Stourme concludes these contradict because
(a) Paul's companions saw no man (Acts 9:7), apparently standing speechless;
(b) Paul's companions heard no specific voice (Acts 22:9);
(c) Paul's companions hit the deck, and Paul says he saw the light & heard a voice (Acts 26:13-14)
So what are the alleged "contradictions?"
First of all, none of the alleged "contradictions" involve the apostle Paul's reactions. They are consistently recorded:
All three of Paul's accounts about how he responded ARE THE SAME -- so will Stourme first actually acknowledge that?
* Did he fall to the ground? (Yes, all three accounts say he does)
* 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 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)
So, the alleged contradictions center around Paul's traveling companions:
(1) Did they stand speechless as a reaction (Acts 9:7); or hit the deck? (Acts 26:14)
(2) What did they see? A man or personage or none at all? (Acts 9:7) A light (Acts 22:9; 26:13)?
(3) What did they hear? Did they hear? (Acts 9:7) Or not hear? (Acts 22:9)
Surely if we study these, we can find out whether they hit the deck or not, what they saw or didn't see, and what they heard?
Q 1 To re-emphasize Paul's reaction, did he hit the deck?
A 1 Yes, all three Acts accounts say he did...including Acts 9:4 and 22:7
Q 2 Well, what about his companions...all except Acts 9:7 seem to indicate they joined him on the ground? So does Acts 26:14 contradict Acts 9:7?
A 2 No. Why not? As one commentator (John W. Haley, source below) 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.
Source: John Wesley Haley, An Examination of the Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible, p. 359 Go here for online book Note: I've incorporated Haley addressing other aspects of Acts' verses into the rest of my response below.
Q 3 What about on what they saw? Do they harmonize?
A 3 Yes.
Q 4 How so?
A 4 Well, Stourme fails to address the basic Q of whether or not they Saw something or someone? (Of course, they saw at least something)
Q 5 What did Paul's companions see? Did they see any man or personage?
A 5 No, they did not see any MAN or PERSONAGE per Acts 9:7.
Q 6 Did they see a "light"?
A 6 Yes they did, per Acts 22:9.
Q 7 Does that contradict?
A 7 No, men aren't usually the source of pure light "brighter than the sun," (Acts 26:13) now are they?
Q 8 Last series of Q's: Did his companions hear something? Did they hear a voice?
A 8 Yes, when you include the NIV version of Acts 22:9, all three passages say they did: 9My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me.
(This is where Stourme needs a "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, Stourme, 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 specific 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 9 Is there another example of this being done in Scripture?
A 9 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.
So if Stourme believes that Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9 contradict on what they all heard, then he'd have to be consistent and say John 12:28 is a "contradiction," too...why would some only hear generic thunderous noise...whereas others heard a specific phrase from God the Father???
“The account of the birth of Christ in the Book of Mormon was given by people who had never been to Jerusalem and had never heard of Bethlaham. But they knew of Jerusalem from the records that were passed down to them. Understand the audiance of who they are speaking. It’s in the land of Jerusalem..Over there where we originally came from.”
I thought mormonites believed that the book of mormon was inspired by God- directly translated by God as Joe looked into his hat and the words appeared to him miraculously.
Had God forgotten that day what He prophesied in Micah - the specific small town and specific area of the clan of David?
Sorry, but your explanation points out God had nothing to do with the book of mormon. The mormon god (created spirit being who used to be a man), just didn’t know what God (the Real God, eternally God, neither created nor made) had said.
That is the downside of a created god...
Logic is not one of the antis strong points!