Where is the line?

[kmkemp]

Wow, this is sad. You guys are always talking about how we shouldn't go by only what is in the Bible, but yet you are refusing to look past a single word. Do you really think that God wants you to put words into his mouth for others to read?

Unless you are a prophet of God trusted with bringing His word to us, then you will be condemned for leading others astray.

I don't need a verse from the Bible (even though there are verses there) to tell me that I shouldn't dare to teach others what God wants for them unless it is backed up by scripture.

 

[Lindsey-Loo]

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.

I agree with you 100%. Christians may not add to, or take away from, the Bible. As far as I can see, we don't draw the line anywhere, because God has already drawn it.

 

[McBell]

Wow, this is sad. You guys are always talking about how we shouldn't go by only what is in the Bible, but yet you are refusing to look past a single word. Do you really think that God wants you to put words into his mouth for others to read?

Unless you are a prophet of God trusted with bringing His word to us, then you will be condemned for leading others astray.

I don't need a verse from the Bible (even though there are verses there) to tell me that I shouldn't dare to teach others what God wants for them unless it is backed up by scripture.

Is that not precisely the point?
To say that the verse is talking about all scripture is teaching something the scripture does not say.
Something that is clearly demonstrated in post #13.

So now who is the one leading the people astray?
Those who are teaching something that is flat out contrary to what the scriptures flat out states {the verse means all scripture even though it specifically specifies a specific book} or those who are understanding that the verse cannot be referring to all scripture?

 

[Mary23]

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.

That's the point. no one can change the God's word and there is no line to chnage.
When i think of the same thing as you think today, then this point chaged my mind and i studied the Bible.
I say when all will come to this point as you have raised today they will find Christianity nothing but Islam!

 

[Katzpur]

As far as I can see, we don't draw the line anywhere, because God has already drawn it.

Where did He draw it?

 

[McBell]

I agree with you 100%. Christians may not add to, or take away from, the Bible. As far as I can see, we don't draw the line anywhere, because God has already drawn it.

Please see post #13

 

[kmkemp]

Is that not precisely the point?
To say that the verse is talking about all scripture is teaching something the scripture does not say.
Something that is clearly demonstrated in post #13.

So now who is the one leading the people astray?
Those who are teaching something that is flat out contrary to what the scriptures flat out states {the verse means all scripture even though it specifically specifies a specific book} or those who are understanding that the verse cannot be referring to all scripture?

Proverbs 30:5-6, Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Like I said, what I am telling you is Biblical. It doesn't take a deep search into the Bible to realize that blasphemy is a sin.

 

[Mary23]

I agree with you 100%. Christians may not add to, or take away from, the Bible. As far as I can see, we don't draw the line anywhere, because God has already drawn it.

Where God says so????
Is there any verse therein God permit someone to change???

 

[athanasius]

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.

Amen! good insight! Nicea was not about the Canon at all. It was about refuting the arian heresy. The first offical declaration of the Canon was in 382 Ad At the council of Rome under Pope Damasus I in the Decree of Pope Damasus. Then ratified again at the councils fo Hippo(393) and Carthage(397) and then infallible ratified in florence(1439) and Trent(1546).

 

[Mary23]

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?
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.​

Funny?!!!
So, where is your religious Book???
What is the authenticity of what you commented here???
Or, you are in mode of joke????

 

[McBell]

Proverbs 30:5-6, Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Like I said, what I am telling you is Biblical. It doesn't take a deep search into the Bible to realize that blasphemy is a sin.

Interesting.
Would not the addition of the New Testament be a violation of this?

 

[Mary23]

Please see post #13

PLease see post # 30

 

[McBell]

Funny?!!!
So, where is your religious Book???
What is the authenticity of what you commented here???
Or, you are in mode of joke????

What are you going on about?

 

[McBell]

PLease see post # 30

i did.
And it makes no sense.

 

[kmkemp]

Interesting.
Would not the addition of the New Testament be a violation of this?

If it wasn't the word of God, yes.

 

[Mary23]

Now what does the Bible mean when it uses the word book?
Hint: It does not mean Bible.

lol.....

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.​

Why only these Books why not Holy Books Quran, Vadas etc etc

 

[doppelganger]

If it wasn't the word of God, yes.

And go round and round and round
in the circle game . . .

 

[Mary23]

i did.
And it makes no sense.

for you..........
Is there sense in you??????????
:no:
Then you cannot understand what i mean???

 

[McBell]

lol.....

Why only these Books why not Holy Books Quran, Vadas etc etc

You needs take that up with those who decided which books would and would not be included in the Bible.
Since I was not one of them...

for you..........
Is there sense in you??????????
:no:
Then you cannot understand what i mean???

If you have a problem with the quran not being included in the Bible, then you needs take that issue up with those who did the deciding on which books would and would not be included in the Bible.
I already stated that I was not one of them.
Now seeing as you do not know me, I find it your ad hominem rather amusing.
And in fact see it as an attempt at baiting an argument.

 

[McBell]

If it wasn't the word of God, yes.

But if the word of god was already pure and needed no additions in the Old TestamentProverbs 30:6,
then the whole of the New Testament is a violation of of Proverbs 30:6 because it is an addition.