Having perused some of the other “scholarship” of Dr. Fred Wittman that is to be found online I continue to hold it in low regard. His APT is simply the product of a man with too much time on his hands and far, far too high regard for his own understanding.
For example on his “Wheel Card,” (http://www.happyheralds.org/WheelCard.htm) which is to be used after the “Decision Card,” Dr. Fred instructs the holder that the best way to read the Bible is to read Mark first, for the works of the Lord, then John for the words of the Lord, then Acts, for the beginnings of the church, and then Romans for the meaning of all this, then Matthew through Revelation, and only then the whole Bible.
A simple question: If that is the best way to read the Bible, or, let us say, just the New Testament, why did God bother to put Matthew first in the New Testament? If God had been as smart as Dr. Fred Wittman, He would have worked it out that the order would have been Mark, John, Matthew, Luke, or even Mark, John, Acts, Romans, Matthew, Luke.
Imagine what a fool Luke was to presume that people would be reading his gospel account before the Acts of the Apostles (”The former account I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach ...” Acts 1:1). It is a good thing he died before Wittman came along. Otherwise he would have looked like such a fool.
I wonder if the Twelve wrote up “Decision Cards” and “Wheel Cards” in all the different languages the Holy Spirit gave them the ability to speak before departing for all the nations of the earth?
Another area where Dr. Fred’s brilliant insights into the truth of the Bible shines is his chart of spiritual reality. I encourage everyone to take a look:
http://www.happyheralds.com/KingdomofGod-KingdomofHeaven-Chart.htm
I don’t think Jesus Himself understood these things as well as Dr. Fred.
I am going to stop now, I have learned not to argue with people who are smarter than God.
That's good, you've answered part of my original question; although it would be interesting to compare your personal translation/interpretation of the Robinson-Pierpont/TR text quoted to see how much less precise the APT is in those verses quoted (Critical Text has at least 5 variances).
As to Peter's denials, the view you have on the Mk. 14:66-72 passage, of denials occurring after one crow but before a second crow, would be very interesting. Without arguing over it, I would be glad if you could give more clarity on that.
Thanks for giving your thoughts on this topic.
If you are speaking from the standpoint of an aged pastor that has had to devise a reliable method of guiding hundreds of humans into The Faith and ever-increasing commitment to discipleship; or if over years of missionary work have introduced an aborigine tribe that has never seen a lamb, much less than the concept of substitutionary death and deliverance from sin and death, then your proposals would be something to consider.
Do you have this practical experience? I am not criticizing or debating, just inquiring as to your viewpoint.
Also, I might add it would be interesting as to your level of training and experience in Greek grammar, translation, and exposition? That would help to place the level of qualifications upon which to rely for your judgments offered in this thread.