what do you spect the writting were inspired or at least directed by J the same as the wt publications
Bible Error: Peter Denies Knowing Jesus
by JosephAlward 35 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
radar
Hi Joseph
What you are saying is that the gospel writers cocked up.
-
revdrjohnson
In the first place, Mark's account is based upon what Matthew reported TO Mark -- inasmuch as Mark was not an eyewitness to the events, as John was.
Secondly, the DATES of John's and Marks account differ by at least a decade -- probably longer, and in different settings to different audiences. (For example, John is looking back, at the end of his life, at his recollections of his experience with Jesus.)
Thirdly, and most ikmportantly Peter denied Jesus and THEN the cock crowed. How many times and whether the crowing took place after the third denial or before does not negate the statement that the Lord made to Peter.
Furthermore, there is nothing in Jesus' statement to infer that it was meant to be interpreted as prophetic. A child could see that the main point that Jesus was making here was that Peter's opinion of himself was inflated, and -- in the end -- that he was going to respond in a typical human fashion, just like the others: but AFTER he came face to face with his own weakness he would be a powerful force in establishing the CHurch. THAT was the part that was prophetic, and the evidence that THIS prophecy was fulfilled was in Acts 2 and 4.
Acts 2:37 [LITV] And hearing, they were stabbed in the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, Men, brothers, What shall we do?
38 And Peter said to them, Repent and be baptized, each of you on the name of Jesus Christ to remission of sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
39 For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all those afar off, as many as the Lord our God shall call.
40 And with many other words he earnestly testified and exhorted, saying, Be saved from this perverse generation.
41 Then truly the ones gladly welcoming His Word were baptized. And about three thousand souls were added that day.Acts 4:4 But many of those hearing the Word believed; and the number of the men came to be about five thousand.
By the way, while I am an avid defender of the KJV, I would add that anyone who attempts to do "apologetics" using the KJV as the SOURCE is either lazy or ignorant
Keep the Faith
RAY -
JosephAlward
Rev writes,
By the way, while I am an avid defender of the KJV, I would add that anyone who attempts to do "apologetics" using the KJV as the SOURCE is either lazy or ignorant
That's an interesting statement. What source do you use? Do you believe it has no errors, inconsistencies, or contradictions?Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible" -
JosephAlward
Rev writes,
In the first place, Mark's account is based upon what Matthew reported TO Mark -- inasmuch as Mark was not an eyewitness to the events
How do you know that Mark got his information from Matthew, and how do you know that the disciple called "Matthew" was the one who wrote the gospel?If Matthew told Mark, then how did Matthew know what words Jesus spoke in his prayer at Gethsemane? Did somebody tell Matthew, and then Matthew told Mark?
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible" -
puzzled
"We see clearly that either John was wrong about what Jesus predicted"
"or Mark was wrong about when the cock crowed,"
"Before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times."
"Wait a minute! John said Jesus predicted the cock wouldn’t crow until"
"I say unto thee, The cock shall not crow, till thou hast denied me thrice"
"most importantly Peter denied Jesus and THEN the cock crowed."
"the writer of John 13 above says Jesus predicted there would be no crowing"
"Jesus is predicting that the rooster would not crow until after"
" the King James Version--shows that there was a cock crow after the first denial"
"And he went out into the porch; and the cock crew."
" And immediately the cock crowed a second time."
"there's no discrepancy in Mark's story: three denials are made before the cock crowed twice,"
" How many times and whether the crowing took place after the third denial or before does not negate the statement"
there was a cock And the cock crowed!
thank you AbbottAlward and revdCostello.
This is almost the funniest thing I have read for long time ROTFLMAO!!!!
plum
-
SixofNine
It would be funny, plum, except for the fact that within the details of scriptures such as these, lies the foundations for wacky religious doctrines, such as no blood transfusions, shunning, etc.
It's important for people to see the humor in following the bible as a guideline for life. The joke is on the follower. Sometimes the teller is a religion, sometimes not.
-
revdrjohnson
As to the first question: "How do you know . . . "
Read it in a book, somewhere
As to question 2, there isn't any source I know of that will answer your question, so I coujld only answer you speculatively. Perhaps either Peter, James or John stayed awake long enough to overhear part of His prayer, and THEY reported what they'd heard Him say. For me, it's not important how he knew.
Keep the Faith
RAY -
revdrjohnson
Rev writes,
quote:
By the way, while I am an avid defender of the KJV, I would add that anyone who attempts to do "apologetics" using the KJV as the SOURCE is either lazy or ignorant
That's an interesting statement. What source do you use? Do you believe it has no errors, inconsistencies, or contradictions?More than one, INCLUDING KJV and TR . . .
Also the Apostolic and Ante-Nicene Fathers, and more. I have a library . . .Sure there are bound to be statements that seem on the surface to be "errors, inconsistencies, and [even] contradictions," (most scholars would use the term "variances"). There are about 13,000 known manuscripts containing portions of the New Testament, and almost none of them are exactly the same. Most variance is attributed to human factors consistent with the fact that the MSS were copied by hand. Philip Comfort's "Early Manuscripts & Modern Translations" of the New Testament covers variance very well …I'd recommend it as a good read, as is F. F. Bruce's "The Books and the Parchments : How We Got Our English Bible," "The Defence of the Gospel in the New Testament," and "The English Bible : A History of Translations from the Earliest English Versions to the New English Bible."
There seems to be general consensus that most of the places in the text where there are variances involve matters that have no relevance to doctrine … certainly any criticism that arises out of theses usually-trivial textual inconsistencies must be attributed to the scribe, not to the "speaker."
-
julien
I have never seen a thread before with so many uses of the word cock. Someone using a search engine looking for cock is liable to stumble into this page. I wonder if Jesus' disciples who were around when he made the original statement snickered when he said it.
"huh huh huh huh heheh huh Lord you said cock"