Nope, no fancy logic, but actual facts which you have glossed over.shafique wrote:freza - the theologian comes up with an explanation for the contradiction, but agrees that the translations I posted are accurate.
In a nutshell the argument is 'did not hear' does not mean the opposite of 'did hear' - but rather means 'did hear, but did not understand'. Also the quote from Mat 13.13 shows the distinction between the words for 'hearing' and 'understanding'!
I understand that those 'with faith' will agree with such tortuous logic, but I have to say I remain unconvinced.
All it shows is that the Bible does contain contradictions which require some fancy logic to overcome.
Next you'll be trying to convince me there is a population problem!
Cheers,
Shafique
and I meant that you choose not to accept an explanation that is backed up by other actual examples in the Bible. there is evidence that these words in question have been used in a different context but you can't see it? (kinda ironic considering the subject )
translation of the word applied correctly is the issue here. you assumed that there is only one applicable translation and that that sole application is the one that contradicts these two passages of the same event.
akoo or akouw means to hear *but* it also means, to comprehend, understand, perceive and obey. And it has been used as such in the Bible, there are SEVERAL examples, as found in the quoted by John Echert above and as found by simply looking the word up. (Acts 3:22, Acts 4:19, Galatians 4:21 are some examples). We agree on this.
Fwnh (phon) means: voice but it also means sound.
ouk means not, negative or refused.
Now you state that there must be a clear contradiction in the translation of this passage compared to another one when the problem seems to be that you refuse to see it translated as it was meant to be interpreted. There is no dispute that there are more than one meanings to the words in question. There is no dispute that it has been used in more than one way in the bible itself. So why insist that it was used in an erroneous way here? Now let's look at logic. Why would the same author contradict himself when relating this same account? It does not make any sense. It makes a lot more sense that different words were used to explain the same event.
Here's a passage that I find significant in this recurring theme around the word in question. And I'm quoting form the NKJV,
John 8:43 "Why do you not understand My speech? Because you are not able to listen to My word."
another version of it is: "Why don’t you understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot accept my teaching."
The issue here is not a problem with one's ears/hearing. Rather it's a profound admonition to follow and fully understand God's words. On the subject we're discussing it's an example of a differentiation between hearing and comprehending/obeying/accepting of truth with that key Greek word akouw which in this case is obviously not about being able to physically "hear"
If you were to say that this passage means that it's about literally not being able to hear, I would again say that your translation is wrong.