Is this Bible infallible?

Posted by David Price in Facebook's Pentecostal Theology Group View the Original Post

Is this Bible infallible?

Nick Tavani [09/13/2015 8:39 AM]
Define each

Matthew West [09/13/2015 8:53 AM]
The bible? Absolutely not. The readers absolutely yes. Here is a question however, the translators? I will give my answer after a bit.

William Hooks [09/13/2015 10:26 AM]
It’s infallible and it’s inerrant. I believe KJV to be, however all these other translations all seem to differ from KJV. Some completely.

Ricky Grimsley [09/13/2015 3:19 PM]
The bible in its original form is infallible. However, some things to be considered. The kjv is not infallible. Note: the account of peter’s denial of jesus. In matthew one cock crow and one set of witnesses and mark’s account two cock crows and a different set of witnesses

William Hooks [09/13/2015 3:34 PM]
Be home shortly can address syllogism.

Nick Tavani [09/13/2015 3:38 PM]
Contradiction or corraboration? I say the latter would be expected from different witnesses.

William Hooks [09/13/2015 3:43 PM]
This is the very reason for faith and trust in our Father’s Word. Even the believer questions His Words and though seeks for truth always comes to the next question. It’s in us to have an intellectual understanding and question God as if we need no faith. So if I explain this to you it will only be a matter of time before you doubt again. No offense my brother it’s simply the truth. So give me a sec to get in the house and I’ll address it. Keep in mind the account of John also was different from the other 3 accounts Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Supposedly.

William Hooks [09/13/2015 4:07 PM]
Consider the following illustration. A family of three went to a high school football game together for the first time. The father and son had been to several games prior to this one, but the mother never had been fortunate enough to attend a high school game until now. After entering the stadium, Ricky tells his 16-year-old son, Cary, that they will meet him right outside Gate 12 after the buzzer sounds. Having filed away the instructions, Cary races to the stands to ensure that he sees the opening kickoff. Ricky’s wife, Vickie, who did not hear the instructions he gave Cary, then asks him when they were going to see Cary again. He responds, “We are going to meet him right outside the gate we just entered after the fourth buzzer.” After the fourth buzzer? But he told Cary after the buzzer sounded they would meet him. Did Ricky contradict himself? No. At this particular stadium, the time keepers normally sound a buzzer after each quarter. But, when we say “at the buzzer,” or when we speak of “a buzzer beater” (such as in basketball), usually we are referring to the final buzzer. Cary was familiar with sports lingo, and thus Ricky told him they would see him “ after the buzzer sounds.” Vickie, on the other hand, having never attended a football game in her life, was given different instructions. In a more precise way, Ricky instructed her that Cary would meet them, not after the first, second, or third buzzer, but after the fourth and final buzzer that marks the end of regulation play. Ricky knew that if he told Vickie, “Cary will meet us after the buzzer sounds,” she would have expected to meet him after the first buzzer sounded. Thus, Ricky simply informed Vickie in a more detailed manner. Surely, no one would claim that Ricky had contradicted himself.

In a similar way, no one should assume that, because three of the gospel writers mentioned one crowing while Mark mentioned two crowings, a contradiction therefore exists. Realistically, there were two “rooster crow

William Hooks [09/13/2015 4:08 PM]
s.” However, it was the second one (the only one Matthew, Luke, and John mentioned) that was the “main” crowing (like the fourth buzzer is the “main” buzzer at a football game). In the first century, roosters were accustomed to crowing at least twice during the night. The first crowing (which only Mark mentioned—14:68) usually occurred between twelve and one o’clock. Relatively few people ever heard or acknowledged this crowing (Fausset’s Bible Dictionary). Likely, Peter never heard it; else surely his slumbering conscience would have awakened.

William Hooks [09/13/2015 4:08 PM]
This a generic answer though true know to elaborate.

William Hooks [09/13/2015 4:15 PM]
Jesus said to him, “Assuredly, I say to you that this night, before the rooster crows, you will deny Me three times.” (Matthew 26:34; see also Luke 22:34; John 13:38)
Jesus said to him, “Assuredly, I say to you that today, even this night, before the rooster crows twice, you will deny Me three times.” (Mark 14:30)
The above records a total of six denials by Peter and three crows from a rooster.1 Faith in the Word of God reveals this. For assuredly, they both stand true, and Peter heard both statements (Matthew 26:35; Mark 14:31). In Matthew, Luke, and John, each record a set of three denials and one rooster crow. Mark records a set of three denials with two rooster crows. It is obvious (when the accounts are believed) they are not the same event, and the gospels bear witness to that.
I. First Set of Three

In John, Peter’s three denials all start with a question (John 18:17; John 18:25; John 18:26), and it records Peter’s denial as he responds to the questions (John 18:17; John 18:25; John 18:27). In Matthew and Luke Peter’s denials are preceded by various accusatory statements. When these three gospels are compared, it becomes evident there is more to the story than just one simple accusation and one simple denial, even within Matthew, Luke, and John which record the first three denials and first rooster crow.
A. First Denial

In the first denial, in John the servant girl who kept the door said to Peter,
You are not also one of this Man’s disciples, are you? (John 18:17)
Evidenced via Matthew, Peter’s first denial also included a servant girl saying,
You also were with Jesus of Galilee. (Matthew 26:69)
And Luke records a servant girl saying,
This man was also with Him. (Luke 22:56)
Peter’s response to the question was,
I am not. (John 18:17)
Peter’s response to the accusation recorded in Matthew 26:69 was,
I do not know what you are saying. (Matthew 26:70)
Peter’s response

William Hooks [09/13/2015 4:16 PM]
to the accusation recorded in Luke was,
Woman, I do not know Him. (Luke 22:57)
All of this is accounted by Matthew, Luke, and John as, not three denials, but the first denial.
B. Second Denial

John records a second question and says the question was asked while Peter “stood and warmed himself” (John 18:25). This time the question is asked from a “they” (i.e. those who were there).
You are not also one of His disciples, are you? (John 18:25)
Luke records,
another [male]2 saw him and said, “You also are of them.” (Luke 22:58)
Matthew records an additional accusation, describes it being at the gateway, and coming from a girl (as opposed to the male of Luke 22:58).
And when he had gone out to the gateway, another girl saw him and said to those who were there, “This fellow also was with Jesus of Nazareth.” (Matthew 26:71)
So, in this second denial these three gospels record a question by a group (“they”) and two different accusations, one from a male, another from a female.
Peter’s response to the question was,
I am not! (John 18:25)
Peter’s response to the accusation from the man was,
Man, I am not! (Luke 22:58)
Peter’s response to the accusation by the girl was,
I do not know the Man! (Matthew 26:72)
All of this is accounted by Matthew, Luke, and John as, not three more denials, but a second denial.
C. Third Denial

Finally, John records a third question from “One of the servants of the high priest, a relative of him whose ear Peter cut off.”
Did I not see you in the garden with Him? (John 18:26)
Matthew says,
those who stood by came up and said to Peter, “Surely you also are one of them, for your speech betrays you.” (Matthew 26:73)
Luke records someone “confidently affirmed,”
Surely this fellow also was with Him, for he is a Galilean. (Luke 22:59)
Now, no specific answer is given in John for Peter’s response to the question, except that it is noted that Peter “denied again” (John 18:27).
In Matthew, to “those who stood by” Peter “began to curse and swear,” saying,
I

William Hooks [09/13/2015 4:19 PM]
do not know the Man! (Matthew 26:74)
Luke records Peter’s response to the one accusation as,
Man, I do not know what you are saying! (Luke 22:60)
All of them record a rooster crowed immediately. So, it is evident by this that it happened very fast. Luke adds, “while he was still speaking” (Luke 22:60).
Finally, again, all of this is accounted by Matthew, Luke, and John not as three denials, but a third denial.
II. Compared to Mark

So, we see in Matthew, Luke, and John three somewhat involved denials before a rooster sounds.3 In Mark it is not that way. There is a rooster crow right away.
Now as Peter was below in the courtyard, one of the servant girls of the high priest came. And when she saw Peter warming himself, she looked at him and said, “You also were with Jesus of Nazareth.” But he denied it, saying, “I neither know nor understand what you are saying.” And he went out on the porch, and a rooster crowed. (Mark 14:66-68)
Here, after the first recorded denial in Mark a rooster crows.4 Moreover, as already noted, Mark records Jesus telling Peter, “before the rooster crows twice, you will deny Me three times.” In keeping with this prediction, Mark records the two rooster noise making occasions. Once after the first denial, and then the second after the third denial in Mark.
It says immediately after the last denial in Mark, “a second time, the rooster crowed” (Mark 14:72). Then it explicitly records what Peter remembered,
that Jesus had said to him, “Before the rooster crows twice, you will deny Me three times.” (Mark 14:72)
This is entirely different than what is found in Matthew and Luke, for in them,
Peter remembered the word of Jesus who had said to him, “Before the rooster crows, you will deny Me three times.”

William Hooks [09/13/2015 4:24 PM]
Peter remembered the word of Jesus who had said to him, “Before the rooster crows, you will deny Me three times.” (Matthew 26:75; see also Luke 22:61)
What Peter remembers Jesus saying are two different things, and the gospels record two different things. Matthew, Luke, and John record Peter denying the Lord three times before a rooster crows. Mark records Peter denying the Lord once, and a rooster crows, and then a rooster crows “a second time” after he denies him two more times.
In Matthew and Luke (the first set of three denials) it explicitly states Peter remembering these exact words of Christ, and it is for this reason it says,
So he went out and wept bitterly. (Matthew 26:75; see also Luke 22:62)
Why did Peter go out and weep bitterly? Because Jesus had said,
the rooster shall not crow till you have denied Me three times. (John 13:38)
It is evident then, because the account in the gospel of Mark is also true, that Peter came back in around and near the ungodly (after having gone out and wept). Mark records Peter warming himself “in the courtyard” at Mark’s first recorded denial (Mark 14:66-67). So, Peter comes back in where he gets confronted again three more times. He denies the Lord three more times (for a total of six), and then again, after denying the Lord for the sixth time (third time recorded in Mark), Peter remembers these explicit words of Christ:
Before the rooster crows twice, you will deny Me three times. (Mark 14:72)
And it says,
when he thought about it, . . . . (Mark 14:72)
What did he think about? Two rooster crows and three denials. What did he think about (remember) before this? Three denials before any rooster crow (“the rooster shall not crow this day” Luke 22:34). The three denials and two rooster crows recorded in Mark must have come after the three denials and one rooster crow recorded in Matthew, Luke, and John, because the first set mandated not a single rooster crow until three denials. Therefore, Peter’s rememberance and meditation

William Hooks [09/13/2015 4:29 PM]
the two events Christ warned him about further reveal a total of six denials and three rooster crows, because what he remembered and thought about were two different predictions and two distinct sets of events.
So, we see in the gospels that Peter denied the Lord three times, and afterward a rooster crows for the first time; and Peter goes out and weeps bitterly about it. Then, he comes back and gets confronted again, denies the Lord again, and a rooster crows. Yet, despite the crow, Peter continues to be where he can be confronted, and he gets confronted and denies the Lord another two times; and a rooster crows again. Then Peter remembers Christ’s words,
Before the rooster crows twice,5 you will deny Me three times. (Mark 14:30)
Then Peter weeps once again.
Now, when Peter “called to mind the word that Jesus had said to him,”
when he thought about it, he wept. (Mark 14:72)
After the first three denials and first rooster crow, Matthew and Luke state he “went out” (Matthew 26:75; Luke 22:62). Mark simply says he wept. It does not declare whether he continued where he was, or left. It is wrong, therefore, to say or indicate he went out after this, or to claim he stayed. It just doesn’t say, so neither should we (Proverbs 30:5-6).
Endnotes:

1. The crows are not necessarily from the same rooster.
2. The Greek word for “another” in Luke 22:58 is in the masculine form, ?????? (eteros).
3. The word translated “crows” or “crowed” in the gospels is simply the verb to make a “sound” or “noise.” It is each time from the Greek word ????? (phôneô).
4. That is what is found in most Greek manuscripts (Majority and Received Texts). The Critical Text puts these words in brackets [??? ??????? ???????] (kai alektôr ephônêse) “and the rooster crowed.” The NAS leaves them out altogether with a footnote stating, “Later mss. add and a cock crowed.” Yet, the NAS does have in Mark 14:72, “a cock crowed a second time,” but the NAS doesn’t record when the first of the two took place.

William Hooks [09/13/2015 4:35 PM]
Nonetheless, even the NAS notes there were indeed two rooster crows in Mark.
The Greek word for “a second time” in Mark 14:72 is ???????? (deuterou) and it is found also in Matthew 21:30 (RT); 22:26, 39; 26:42; Mark 12:21, 31; Luke 12:38; 19:18; 20:30; John 3:4; 4:54; 9:24 (“again”); 21:16; Acts 7:13; 10:15; 11:9 (“again”); 12:10; 13:33; 1 Corinthians 12:28; 15:47; 2 Corinthians 1:15; 13:2; Titus 3:10; Hebrews 8:7; 9:3, 7, 28; 10:9; 2 Peter 3:1; Jude 5; Revelation 2:11; 4:7; 6:3 (2x); 8:8; 11:14; 14:8; 16:3; 19:3 (“again”); 20:6, 14; 21:8, 19. All translated “second” in NKJV unless otherwise noted.
Moreover, in the rooster crow in Matthew (26:74), Luke (22:60), and John (18:27), the rooster immediately makes a noise. In the first denial in Mark (14:68), Peter denies, then goes outside, and then a rooster makes a noise.
5. “twice” is the Greek word ??? (dis) found also only in Mark 14:72 (“twice”); Luke 18:12 (“twice”); Philippians 4:16 (“again” used with ???? [apax] “once,” more literally, “once and twice” ???? ??? ??? [apax kai dis]); 1 Thessalonians 2:18 (“again” same as Philippians 4:16); Jude 12 (“twice”); Critical Text Revelation 9:16 (“two”).

William Hooks [09/13/2015 4:41 PM]
You have to study these things out it’s not always black and white as some suppose, however we could go into much deeper consideration of the Word and look at all context through a complex lense. All in all I recommend searching the passages, but after all research is done stay true to a childlike faith. These words are not my own printed above only a adolescent look into etymology and syllogism. In other words a play on words from diffrent views.

William Hooks [09/13/2015 4:43 PM]
Also Luke was not an eyewitness of anything involving Jesus’ life. He’s merely narrating things he’s heard from others. Fortunately, most of what he writes is corrborated by the other gospels.

William Hooks [09/13/2015 4:45 PM]
Also see John and synoptic gospel views.

Ricky Grimsley [09/13/2015 4:52 PM]
If jesus had asked peter “do you love me” 6 times i might agree with your 40 page answer

William Hooks [09/13/2015 4:52 PM]
I can find fault in anything if I look heard enough, but the fact is you and I are working with finite minds and words are simply an expression of ideas. God is in the supernatural and an infinite God bigger than anything we could imagine. His Word is w/out error and cannot fail. Our job is to simply believe in His Son’s finished work on the Cross. This is the Gospel that will bring us home. Rebellion is in our nature as our hearts are desperately wicked and incapable of good. Only by the work of the Holy Spirit can we see.

David John Maxfield [09/13/2015 5:56 PM]
“The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times”. Psalm 12:6

The word of God is perfect. To say that God’s written word is not perfect is also to say that his spoken word is not perfect thus calling God himself imperfect which is a major heresy. Jesus said “Heaven and earth will pass away but my words shall never pass” and going off psalm 12:6 those words are perfect.

Ricky Grimsley [09/13/2015 6:11 PM]
Obviously the word of god is perfect. But do you really believe we didnt have the word of god until the kjv we read today was put in final form. When was that like 1880 when the cut the books down to 66?

Charles Page [09/13/2015 6:23 PM]
for a start if it is not the authorized version it is infallible. The only truly infallible Bible are the original documents.

David John Maxfield [09/13/2015 6:23 PM]
Ricky Grimsley that’s an incorrect observation. I used to agree with you and think the same on that point, until I realized that God tells us all through scripture that he will preserve his word. The KJV is word for word accurate with the textus receptus manuscripts and the earliest manuscripts that there were. Now obviously this point could be debated for hours to and fro, however I don’t want to do that as its not my intention. The best thing I found was to actually test this view point for myself and what I found is that it’s true and God has preserved his perfect word in the bible. This alone should greatly add to our faith, but to say that it’s not perfect creates doubt and therefore the authority and authenticity of the bible is up for debate which is what the devil wants us to do, and as we know he is a liar and the father of lies. I’ll msg you something about the texts as a starting point and let you go from there 🙂 God bless you

Maryjane Williams [03/08/2016 6:09 AM]
absolutely

John Ruffle [03/08/2016 7:06 AM]
This illustrates the circular reasoning fundamentalists employ to defend their position, and is PRECISELY why Catholics and Orthodox hold to the Sacred Scriptures AND Sacred Tradition.

Be first to comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.