which it says at Acts 9 is "hearing a sound", while same word, different case, is "understanding a sound"., at 22. .We could get that from the context and common sense, but it's better to have confirmation from the bigshots.
Acts 22:9 NWT is "they did not hear the voice".
NIV has "understand", which is closer to Vine's recommendation of the same base word. Wilson's Diaglott* has a variant of akouo. In 1869 he chose heard as translation; in our 1942 edition we chose understood. [Our edition includes both.] Go figure.
Our own Kingdom Interlinear, 1985, uses hear(d) throughout.
The NIV at 22:9 is thus closer to what most would take as the intended meaning, but by substituting rather than translating. That is the eternal conundrum of the translator. Works here, in any case.
But wait! At Acts 26:14 the same person, Paul, given by the same amanuensis, Luke, says they ALL fell down!
Thomas Newberry, in his Englishman's Bible at 22:9, also 1869, gives heard in the text and "or understood not" in the margin.
Another common misunderstanding comes from lack of knowledge of Bible manuscripts themselves. The NT was originally written in the Greek of the time and for many years after. The script was called uncial. This meant a script with very few spaces between words or between paragraphs, as we now call them, and with no punctuation. Any modern translation will thus be capitalized and punctuated according to the translator's personal choice. That can be literary or theological or a combination.
Consider Lu 23:43, w/o punctuation. "[Jesus said] truly I tell you today you will be with me in Paradise."
This can be taken two ways. A comma can clear up the ambiguity, but there are two choices for that, just before or immediately after "today". The choices are mutually exclusive, as one can see by rewriting both ways. [This is acknowledged by Lynne Truss, in her [non-religious] book, Eats, Shoots & Leaves.]
If we decide by looking only at the verse with a show of hands, virtually all have "you, today". Majority wins.
Until we look for clues in the rest of the Bible.
The thief could not have gone anywhere with Jesus that day [Saturday], because Jesus was in the grave for parts of three days. This is established by the Gospel accounts, and is in line with the "sign of Jonah" that Jesus himself gave, at Mt 12:39,40. [Luke gave a different sign to the "wicked generation", from the same book, at 11:29,30,32.]
Furthermore, Jesus did not ascend into heaven until the 40th day of his resurrection.
At the same time, the thief was not traveling at all, because he was in the grave, where "the dead know [and do] nothing". Ec 9:5,6,10.
Finally, as Paul explains in ch. 9 & 10 and 1Cor 15, Jesus had to enter heaven first, to open it up for mankind. Anyone who died before that remains dead until the resurrection of "the last day". John 6:39,40,44,54; 11:24.
So the correct idea is conveyed by "I tell you this today [right now, as a reward for your faith] [comma] you will be with me [someday] in Paradise."
How did so many translators miss this reasoning? They had no need for it. Long before the KJV, people believed that all good people would go to heaven and all bad ones would go to Hell, and the transfer would take place immediately. Augustine and the great Jerome ignored the plain import of Gen 1:28. Their writings still influence Catholic and other mainstream thought.
Only by understanding Jehovah's purpose for mankind, and that it was unchanging, can we understand Lu 23 and many other passages.
*He worked before Russell. In 1942 the plates were bought and donated to WTB&TS. He and Newberry had access to the Vatican Ms. 1209, arguably the best.