Proposition: As no original manuscripts remain to prove the compositional language(s) of the Gospels; as there is no consensus amongst scholars or historians about the use of Greek in those originals; as most of the relied-upon, copied texts for the KJV are distant from the original authors by several hundred years; as interpretive choices in translation work, even by well-meaning translators, can, and often do, change meaning and intent (not to mention, “correctiveâ€? or “correlativeâ€? interpolations made by copyists and translators); therefore, it is questionable whether we know the precise words spoken by the Lord and whether the words have been accurately transmitted (e.g., compare the synoptic gospels with John’s). And more to the point, we cannot know with certainty how the Lord meant His words–probably spoken in Aramaic–to be understood.

Perhaps, in fairness to Peter, the safest course is not to take a dogmatic position either way, but to ask, as Spencer W. Kimball, “Are we sure of his motive in that recorded denial?� And then, to not be afraid of uncertainty about the matter (see, Bruce C. Hafen, “On Dealing with Uncertainty,� BYU Devotional, 9 January 1979, Ensign, Aug. 1979, 63-4 where he also addresses the Peter question).

for your comment, see my comment at #17.

I haven’t seen that anywhere. But I’m throwing it into the discussion in case someone else has been taught that and knows where it comes from.

Happy Birthday Peter! And a spiritual “swim at church” (that’s what mine called it, with awe in their voices, when they were littler.)

Does he like to eat pumpkins?