Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal Lillywhite) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Scripture ends? Message-ID: Date: 8 Jul 89 04:25:10 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR. Lines: 55 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article bnr-fos!bnr-public!davem@watmath.waterloo.edu (Dave Mielke) writes: >The Bible does, in fact, contain a very ominous statement that we are >never to rely on any words other than those which have been already >written in it. Revelation 22:18 tells us "For I testify unto every man >that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall >add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are >written in this book:". An almost identical warning appears in Deut 4:2. Does this mean that we are to reject everything written after Deuteronomy? I think not. Aside from the question of whether the warning applies to the entire Bible or only to the book which contains it I think a little consideration will make the meaning clear. First: The warning is if any MAN add to or detract from what is written. There is no statement saying God cannot or will not do so. Of course we would not expect Him to subtract from what he has already given us but historically He has added to it since the pentateuch at least to about 100 AD. If a new prophet were to add to the scripture certainly his claim would be that the addition was from God and should be judged on this claim. According to Mat 4:4 we should live by EVERY word which proceeds from the mouth of God. Therefore we must determine if any claimed new revelation is from God. Of course there have been and will be false prophets but this does not preclude the possibility of true prophets else why did the Lord in the sermon on the mount describe how to distinguish the 2? I have heard a lot of claims that certain Bible passages preclude further revelation or scripture but on examining the passages in question I have without exception found that they say no such thing and often seem to me to support the idea of continuing revelation. Only the most forced reading gives any support to the revelation ending before the end of the world. There was a discussion on this on talk.religion.misc a little while ago. I don't know if anyone has a summary of it but if someone does perhaps they could post it. >those who wish to do so that they should give their position very >serious thought, given the severity of the warnings and stated >penalty. Since our omnipotent God does not need the protection of >fragile and difficult to impose earthly laws, we should rather insure >that we really know why He chose to make those two verses part of His >Word. There are other Scriptures which support the fact that the >"book" does indeed refer to the entire Bible, and none that contradict >it. I think you're really forcing things here. The Bible as a single collection of books did not exist until, if I remember correctly, about 300 years after Revelation was written. As I mentioned above, it would be blasphemous anyway for a man to presume on his own to add to the scripture. However it would be equally blasphemous for us to say that God cannot do so.