|
Critics of the Bible suggest that Luke’s various accounts in Acts of
Paul’s conversion
are in conflict with each
other and that either Paul had a bad memory or Luke failed somehow.
Either of these notions cast aspersion on the scriptures which
claim to be without error. How
does one answer such accusations? The following commentary helps shed
light on the subject:
Did Paul Have a Bad Memory?
By
Pastor William B. Smith III – Glassy Mountain Baptist Church, Pickens,
SC
One of
the tools in Satan’s attempt to discredit the Bible is the weakness
and transitive
quality of human language.
This seeming “contradiction” in the story of Paul’s conversion has
been cited by Bible critics for many years as a mistake either in
Paul’s recollection of the events or in the scriptures themselves (let
me suggest that neither is the case for either is true, the
credibility of God’s Word is in question).
It does stand to reason though that if Luke is relating the
events under divine inspiration, and later as Paul is speaking about
such an important event as this (and being put on record for Luke to
record under divine inspiration) that the accounts would be without
error and not in contradiction with each other.
So what is the problem then?
One rule
of Bible interpretation is that if two verses as interpreted seem to
contradict each other
then there is an error in our understanding, not in the inspiration or
in the translation. This rule
when followed can help us when faced with critics of the Word and in
understanding sound doctrine.
For example, (though I do not have the time to address it in depth)
the group of verses that support the doctrine of eternal security
seems to have another group of verses that contradict it.
There are only two possibilities; either the Bible contradicts
itself, or I am misunderstanding one of the groups of verses.
Since the former is impossible, the latter is the only choice.
Typically
the root of the misunderstanding is due to transitive meanings of
words. At
Babel, God divided men up by
languages. Since that time we
have been attempting to reintegrate ourselves both culturally and
linguistically. It seems clear
that the languages that existed at Babel were not pre-existing
languages. God undoubtedly
authored and instigated all of the diverse tongues that men suddenly
began to speak in on that day.
I am sure that they were each and everyone grammatically and
functionally perfect and free of expletives and perversions of meaning
and pronunciation.
Over time
of course, man’s hands, or tongues as it were, began to corrupt and
damage that which God
had designed. Language, like
all of God’s creations, is not free from the effects of sin.
The world is winding down (entropy) and language as a form of
communication is subject to this force as well.
Between the blending of cultures and the vulgarity of the human
tongue, language has failed to remain pristine.
This
entropy of language has been taking place as well since the KJV was
translated and if any
problems they exist, it is only because our own vulgarity and misuse
of language have fostered them.
Word meaning is transitive between contexts, between cultures
and across time. The English
word “stood” as used in Acts 9:7 (Greek histēmi) means to stay or
cease from moving. Years ago I
was intrigued by a street sign that said, “No Standing.”
It meant that vehicles were forbidden to cease from moving.
In my mind I had thought it was ridiculous that it was illegal
to “stand” in that spot.
The
translators chose the best word to signify that they “stood” or
stopped dead in their
tracks, not stood up (notice
the word “up” can be used to differentiate from other references to
standing such as standing down, standing by, standing in, etc.), but
standing none the less, and as Paul clarifies in his own relating of
the event in Acts 26, they were “fallen to the earth.”
It is easy to see how the untrained eye will interpret it that
in one passage they are standing up and in another they are on the
ground.
As in all
language the meaning of a word can be determined by its context.
This is
another rule for interpretation.
Each word’s meaning can be determined by its context.
In some cases, hearing
means perceiving sound, and in other cases it means
understood.
Let the context determine the meaning.
Again Paul’s explanation of the story clarifies, and his
context specifies that they did not understand “the voice that spake
unto me.” Yes, their ears
picked up on a voice (Greek phone) as stated in Acts 9, but Paul’s
language and context in Acts 22 lets us know that they could not
comprehend what was being said.
Many
times I have heard a voice, but did not hear what was being said.
This is exactly
what is being explained in
the two accounts and they are not in contradiction to each other when
the rules of Bible interpretation are applied.
Both recollections are true and accurate.
Like Paul, the translators used the context to clarify just
what was meant by the word “hear” in the text, but over the last 400
plus years we have allowed language to corrupt through changes in use
and instead of being students of the language, we assume either the
scripture is in error or the translators made one.
This is
one reason people try so hard to update the words of God, through
modern translations.
I for one choose the KJV over any modern language version.
Copyright
2007 “Cross” Words.
May be
reprinted for distribution.
Other
articles available online at
www.gmbckjv.com/cross
E-mail
smithw650@aol.com
|
