I have seen a number of religions that claim to be Christian yet do things that defy Christian belief completly. For example. Some groups have added their own spiritual testements to the bible when it states very clearly in the bible that anyone who adds anything to the bible is damned. The only argument I have read is that they don't believe the part of the bible that states that. Once again this goes against the bible completly since it says you can't take anything away from it either. So where is the line between re-writing Gods word? If you are a Christian you can't change the bible, God says so in it.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Where is the line?
- Thread starter NomyRomy
- Start date
Prometheus
Semper Perconctor
That verse is speaking only of the Book of Revelation. It doesn't apply to the entire Bible. If it did, having all these different translations would be unchristian as well.
doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
The line is wherever you see it drawn or choose to draw it. Programming subject to change. 
That is ludicrous. Translations don't take away or add words except in a very literal sense. They are there purely to represent what is already there and only what is already there. To say that the verse is only speaking about Revelation (not with an 's' btw) is crazy.
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
Nowhere in the Bible does it state that nothing is to be added to the Bible.
Especially given the fact that the "Bible" did not exist back then.
All that existed are the scriptures that are contained within the Bible.
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
To say that the verse in Revelation is referring to the whole "Bible" shows a complete lack of knowledge on how said Bible came about.
Bishka
Veteran Member
How so? The Book of Revelation was written well after most of the other books were written so it make complete sense for it to be about that book only.:yes:
Prometheus
Semper Perconctor
That's funny. If you listened to yourself you might laugh too.
Yes, too many people that I've talked to say "Revelations" and it rubs off on me sometimes.
Darkness
Psychoanalyst/Marxist
There were many other Scriptures which were cut from the Book we now call the Bible. Who is to say one of those books weren't Scripture to the Author of Revelation? The Bible is simply a collection of seperate Scriptures Christians put together and claimed was the inerrant Word of their Lord.
True--most of the authors of the writings in the Bible probably never predicted that their works would be put together in one big volume. They didn't know what was in the other books, so we can't really expect them to comment on the collection we know as the Bible.
So in other words you are saying that the bible is flawed? If one is a Christian they must believe in the word of God. So in other words if revelations was chosen to be the final book of his word then revelations would also be refering to the entire scripture. I see it as sad that different religions pick and choose what they want and just assume it is ok with God.
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
The verse does not say "the entire scripture" or "The Word Of God."
It says 'book.'
Rev 22:18
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
Now what does the Bible mean when it uses the word book?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
Hint: It does not mean Bible.
In fact, the word Bible means a collection of Holy Books:
Bible
early 14c., from Anglo-L. biblia, from M.L./L.L. biblia (neuter plural interpreted as fem. sing.), in phrase biblia sacra "holy books," from Gk. ta biblia to hagia "the holy books," from biblion "paper, scroll," the ordinary word for "book," originally a dim. of byblos "Egyptian papyrus," possibly so called from the name of the Phoenician port from which Egyptian papyrus was exported to Greece. The port's name is a Gk. corruption of Phoenician Gebhal, lit. "frontier town" (cf. Heb. gebhul "frontier, boundary," Ar. jabal "mountain"). The Christian scripture was refered to in Gk. as Ta Biblia as early as c.223. Bible replaced O.E. biblioðece "the Scriptures," from Gk. bibliotheke, lit. "book-repository" (from biblion + theke "case, chest, sheath"), used of the Bible by Jerome and the common L. word for it until Biblia began to displace it 9c. Figurative sense of "any authoritative book" is from 1804. Bible Belt first attested 1926, reputedly coined by H.L. Mencken.
early 14c., from Anglo-L. biblia, from M.L./L.L. biblia (neuter plural interpreted as fem. sing.), in phrase biblia sacra "holy books," from Gk. ta biblia to hagia "the holy books," from biblion "paper, scroll," the ordinary word for "book," originally a dim. of byblos "Egyptian papyrus," possibly so called from the name of the Phoenician port from which Egyptian papyrus was exported to Greece. The port's name is a Gk. corruption of Phoenician Gebhal, lit. "frontier town" (cf. Heb. gebhul "frontier, boundary," Ar. jabal "mountain"). The Christian scripture was refered to in Gk. as Ta Biblia as early as c.223. Bible replaced O.E. biblioðece "the Scriptures," from Gk. bibliotheke, lit. "book-repository" (from biblion + theke "case, chest, sheath"), used of the Bible by Jerome and the common L. word for it until Biblia began to displace it 9c. Figurative sense of "any authoritative book" is from 1804. Bible Belt first attested 1926, reputedly coined by H.L. Mencken.
Booko
Deviled Hen
Sometimes they do. The Authorized Version in 1611 added the words to the famous prayer "Thine is the Kingdom, and the glory, and the power...."
Those aren't in the original. It was an addition by the translators to give King James a message.
I guess they're all burning in that lake of fire now.
Too bad, as they otherwise made a beautiful translation.
Halcyon
Lord of the Badgers
Lol, funny thread.
Firstly, FYI Inky, Christian means "little Christ" and was originally used as an insult.
Secondly, people are perfectly correct in that the order forbidding change applies only to the Revelation of Jesus Christ.
The Apocalypse was written at the end of the first century, but before the Gospel of John, the epistles of John, Timothy, Titus and Jude. It's common sense that the author referred to his book alone, not to some future anthology of which several works weren't yet in existence.
Also, ever heard of the Shepherd of Hermas? It was a book of the new testament that was removed. Obviously removed because it didn't belong in the Bible right? In that case why did Irenaeus accept it as scripture?
Who's Irenaus you ask? He's the guy who decided the four Gospels in the current NT were scripture!
So, if Irenaeus was inspired to chose the Gospels and several other books of the NT for inclusion, why was one of his scriptural choices removed - Holy Spirit only working through him part-time was it?
Firstly, FYI Inky, Christian means "little Christ" and was originally used as an insult.
Secondly, people are perfectly correct in that the order forbidding change applies only to the Revelation of Jesus Christ.
The Apocalypse was written at the end of the first century, but before the Gospel of John, the epistles of John, Timothy, Titus and Jude. It's common sense that the author referred to his book alone, not to some future anthology of which several works weren't yet in existence.
Also, ever heard of the Shepherd of Hermas? It was a book of the new testament that was removed. Obviously removed because it didn't belong in the Bible right? In that case why did Irenaeus accept it as scripture?
Who's Irenaus you ask? He's the guy who decided the four Gospels in the current NT were scripture!
So, if Irenaeus was inspired to chose the Gospels and several other books of the NT for inclusion, why was one of his scriptural choices removed - Holy Spirit only working through him part-time was it?
Popeyesays
Well-Known Member
Well actually, in a chronological sense there was no "Bible" in existence when John wrote The Apoalypse (Revelation). The New Testament was still a box full of unassociated and largely unwritten accounts, letters, etc.
The Bible in its form today was not assembled until the Council of Nicaea in the days of Constantine (who oddly was not a Christian at all at the time).
So by your criteria, the whole bible is "additions" and therefore damnable.
Care to reconsider?
Regards,
Scott
doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
No one has the right to rewrite God's word. More importantly, no one has the right to tell God He's through talking.
Halcyon
Lord of the Badgers
That's not quite right Scott, the canon was decided long after the first council at Niceae. Niceae was pretty much just about the Nicean Creed.