[Springfield Reformer]

Nope, sorry, no problem here either.  Per Greek expert AT Roberson:

In 22:9 Paul says that the men “beheld the light” (to men phos etheasanto), but evidently did not discern the person. Paul also says there, “but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me” (ten de phonen ouk ekousan tou lalountos moi). Instead of this being a flat contradiction of what Luke says in 9:7 it is natural to take it as being likewise (as with the “light” and “no one”) a distinction between the “sound” (original sense of phone as in John 3:8) and the separate words spoken. It so happens that akouo is used either with the accusative (the extent of the hearing) or the genitive (the specifying). It is possible that such a distinction here coincides with the two senses of phone. They heard a sound (9:7), but did not understand the words (22:9) [1930, pp. 117-118, parenthetical items in orig.]. (emphasis added by me)

Quoted from this very helpful article which deals with the alleged Damascus Road contradiction extensively:  https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=731

As the article points out, we actually have a similar event in which both types of reaction are described, letting us know that under this special kind of circumstance, people can indeed hear sound without hearing meaning, which is the key to understanding the two descriptions of Paul's story:

Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again. The people therefore, that stood by, and heard it, said that it thundered: others said, An angel spake to him.
(John 12:28-29)

So in the two descriptions of Paul's experience, the Greek word akuo, to hear, could in one case be emphasizing that they heard something but didn't know what it was, and as Paul described it later, he uses akuo to make it clear they didn't hear the sound with any understanding. No contradiction in affirmed fact.

Peace,

SR

[StormPrepper]

So in the two descriptions of Paul's experience, the Greek word akuo, to hear, could in one case be emphasizing that they heard something but didn't know what it was, and as Paul described it later, he uses akuo to make it clear they didn't hear the sound with any understanding. No contradiction in affirmed fact.

You've proven my point for me. The fact that you have to go to another language to find your meaning, proves that the Bible as it is delivered today is not perfect and can't be read singly and lead the reader to the correct understanding.

But we're an agreement with that point, you do need to seek other text, other than the Bible to get the correct understanding of it's teachings.