This is a favorite pair of texts (Acts 9:7 vs 22:9) for attempts by the uninitiated to show that the Bible has significant contradictions (I am not suggesting that the OP is "uninitiated".)

Note the apparent "problems" here:

Thus, superficially, there appears to be a double contradiction here; until we read more precisely what Paul is saying:

Hear vs Not Hear

It is true that in more than half the instances of the operative verb ἀκούω, a literal "hear/listen" or equivalent is appropriate. However, BDAG and most lexicons list a significant number of cases where the meaning is clearly "comprehend/understand".

Thus, it is entirely possible, even probable that "understand" is the intended meaning because we know that from Acts 9:7, Paul's companions did indeed hear a sound but did not understand what was heard. Whether this was because:

• the voice spoke in a language unknown to the companions but known to Paul (eg, Aramaic??), or
• the voice was uttered in such a way as Paul could only understand the words and not the companions
• the companions were too overcome with fear that they did not distinguish the words

... we are not told; but any of these possibilities are credible, perhaps even all three.

See vs Not See

This apparent contradiction is similar - Paul saw Jesus but the companions saw a light but could not distinguish what the image in the light was. Thus, it is correctly reported that they saw a light but saw no one.

Thus, no real contradiction remains.

The OP is correct that there appears to be contradictions between these two verses as shown in the table below.

Note the apparent "problems" here:

Thus, superficially, there appears to be a double contradiction here; until we read more precisely what Paul is saying:

Hear vs Not Hear

It is true that in more than half the instances of the operative verb ἀκούω, a literal "hear/listen" or equivalent is appropriate. However, BDAG and most lexicons list a significant number of cases where the meaning is clearly "comprehend/understand".

Thus, it is entirely possible, even probable that "understand" is the intended meaning because we know that from Acts 9:7, Paul's companions did indeed hear a sound but did not understand what was heard. Whether this was because:

• the voice spoke in a language unknown to the companions but known to Paul (eg, Aramaic??), or
• the voice was uttered in such a way as Paul could only understand the words and not the companions
• the companions were too overcome with fear that they did not distinguish the words

... we are not told; but any of these possibilities are credible, perhaps even all three.

See vs Not See

This apparent contradiction is similar - Paul saw Jesus but the companions saw a light but could not distinguish what the image in the light was. Thus, it is correctly reported that they saw a light but saw no one.

Thus, no real contradiction remains.

This is a favorite pair of texts (Acts 9:7 vs 22:9) for attempts by the uninitiated to show that the Bible has significant contradictions (I am not suggesting that the OP is "uninitiated".)

Note the apparent "problems here:

Thus, superficially, there appears to be a double contradiction here; until we read more precisely what Paul is saying:

Hear vs Not Hear

It is true that in more than half the instances of the operative verb ἀκούω, a literal "hear/listen" or equivalent is appropriate. However, BDAG and most lexicons list a significant number of cases where the meaning is clearly "comprehend/understand".

Thus, it is entirely possible, even probable that "understand" is the intended meaning because we know that from Acts 9:7 that Paul's companions did indeed hear a sound but did not understand what was heard. Whether this was because:

• the voice spoke in a language unknown to the companions but known to Paul (eg, Aramaic??), or
• the voice was uttered in such a way as Paul could only understand the words and not the companions
• the companions were too overcome with fear that they did not distinguish the words

... we are not told; but any of these possibilities are credible, perhaps even all three.

See vs Not See

This apparent contradiction is similar - the Paul say Jesus but the companions saw a light but could not distinguish what the image in the light was. Thus, it is correctly reported that they saw a light but saw no one.

Thus, no real contradiction remains.

This is a favorite pair of texts (Acts 9:7 vs 22:9) for attempts by the uninitiated to show that the Bible has significant contradictions (I am not suggesting that the OP is "uninitiated".)

Note the apparent "problems" here:

Thus, superficially, there appears to be a double contradiction here; until we read more precisely what Paul is saying:

Hear vs Not Hear

It is true that in more than half the instances of the operative verb ἀκούω, a literal "hear/listen" or equivalent is appropriate. However, BDAG and most lexicons list a significant number of cases where the meaning is clearly "comprehend/understand".

Thus, it is entirely possible, even probable that "understand" is the intended meaning because we know that from Acts 9:7, Paul's companions did indeed hear a sound but did not understand what was heard. Whether this was because:

• the voice spoke in a language unknown to the companions but known to Paul (eg, Aramaic??), or
• the voice was uttered in such a way as Paul could only understand the words and not the companions
• the companions were too overcome with fear that they did not distinguish the words

... we are not told; but any of these possibilities are credible, perhaps even all three.

See vs Not See

This apparent contradiction is similar - Paul saw Jesus but the companions saw a light but could not distinguish what the image in the light was. Thus, it is correctly reported that they saw a light but saw no one.

Thus, no real contradiction remains.