Paul's Conversion--Acts vs. Galatians

The books of Acts and Galatians give two very different stories regarding the conversion and early ministry of the Apostle Paul. Acts was supposedly written by Luke. His story is so different from Paul's own first-hand account that he might have been talking about a different man. To make the comparison easier, I have compiled this table:

Acts	Galatians
Saul/Paul persecuted the church (9:1-3)	Saul/Paul persecuted the church (1:13)
Vision of Jesus makes him blind (vs.4-7)	No vision mentioned
Saul/Paul goes to Ananias to be healed (vs. 7-19)	Ananias not mentioned
Paul spends “several days” with the disciples in Damascus	Paul “did not consult with any man,” nor did he go to Jerusalem to talk with any disciples. (v. 16b-17)
Arabia not mentioned, nor was there time for him to go there, as he began preaching “at once” in the synagogues in Damascus. (vs. 20-22)	Paul went immediately to Arabia and then later to Damascus. (v.17b)
After “many days” had gone by, the Jews conspired to kill him and he had to be sneaked out of the city. (vs. 23-25)	No conspiracy mentioned
Paul is taken to Jerusalem right away. There is no indication of the passage of years. (vs.26-27)	After three years, Paul goes to Jerusalem.
Paul meets the disciples (plural). They reject him until Barnabus convinces them of his conversion.	Paul meets with Peter. (v.18) He is emphatic about not having met with ANY of the other disciples except James, the brother of Jesus (v.19)
Paul preaches in Jerusalem; Grecian Jews try to kill him, so the disciples send him to Caesarea and thence to Tarsus	No mention of going to Caesarea or Tarsus
Syria and Cilicia not mentioned.	Went to Syria and Cilicia (v.21)

There is no way that both of these stories can be true. Either one was lying and the other telling the truth, or else they both lied. Note that, in Galatians, Paul makes no mention of a vision, or of his blindness, or of his healing by Ananias. One can argue that just because he doesn't mention it, doesn't mean it didn't happen, and this is true; but it is such an integral part of his conversion in the book of Acts that it is rather odd that he makes not even a passing reference to it--especially given his tendency to boast about himself rather often.

Of particular note is Paul's insistence that, at the start of his career, his conversion was strictly between him and Jesus; he emphasizes that he consulted with NOBODY except for Peter and James and did not visit ANY disciples in Jerusalem. Luke, however, tells a story of Paul going straight to the other disciples and being rejected by them because they don't trust him. Barnabus finally convinces them of the genuineness of his conversion, and they allow him into their clique. One assumes that Paul did more than just engage in small talk about the weather over tea and crumpets, and that he did, indeed "consult" with the disciples about his conversion, and Jesus, and other things relating to Christianity; otherwise, why seek them out at all? He could have ignored them completely and gone about his business.

According to his own story in Galatians, Paul went "immediately" to Arabia and then to Damascus. In Acts, he is already in Damascus when his vision occurs, so there would have been no way to visit Arabia first. Instead, Luke says that he starts preaching "at once" in the synagogues in Damascus. He makes no mention of Arabia at all.

Luke says that many days go by and the Jews conspire to kill him, at which point he has to be smuggled out of the city and into Jerusalem. There is no sense of many years going by, as in Galatians; in fact, the urgency of the situation would demand that Paul seek refuge quickly in Jerusalem and not dally along the way. Depending on how fast they traveled, it could have been a few weeks to a few months. (I admit my ignorance of any more precise time period, as I am not sure how long it would take to travel from Damascus to Jerusalem by donkey, camel, or however they would have traveled back then.)

Contrary to what Luke says, Paul remarks that he does not go to Jerusalem until after THREE YEARS have passed, which is a good indication that there was no conspiracy to kill him in Damascus or else he wouldn't have hung about, waiting for a knife in the back or poison in his drink. He seems to have taken a leisurely route in his early years.

Back in Acts, Paul is now in Jerusalem preaching, but again the Jews want to kill him and so the disciples send him packing to Caesarea, and then Tarsis. In Galatians, there is no mention of these places. Instead, Paul says he went to Syria and Cilicia--which places are not mentioned in Acts!

In Galatians 1:20, Paul says an interesting thing: "I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie." Why would he need to say this? Could it be that false stories were already circulating about his early career, and he felt the need to set the record straight--stories like the one in the book of Acts? Or is this simply the false assurance of a man who is lying and is trying not to be caught out? What IS the real scoop on Paul the Apostle, anyway? This is one of the best examples of why the Bible is not a book we can trust. We are told that God inspired its writing, but if so, then he has some of the worst editors in the history of publishing. Some will say that it is not a big deal, for what really matters is the message of salvation from Jesus Christ. Yet, if the Bible is wrong on the unimportant things, how can I trust it on something as vital as my eternal fate? How can I trust it to tell me about Jesus when it cannot even tell me about Paul?