I have a question concerning the following:
Quote:
|
Rev 22:11-19 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.
|
Does this apply to what is written in Revelation, or to what is written in what we now call the Bible?
(I know that I read some kind of reference to this today, but didn't want
I am not questioning whether there is open-season on changing words, or adding to or taking away from the canon of scripture. I am fully on-board with the Bible being the Bible and it is not our job to alter it (like certain teachers have a bent to do to get things to work out their way).
I am simply questioning whether this particular statement was intended to extend beyond the writing in which it was originally placed?
For starters, when this was written, was there anything like a set idea of what would eventually come to be called the NT? Maybe a decent list that was sort of close. But not complete. So while I know that whatever God wanted to be in there would eventually be there. But are we sure that it only took the few centuries that it did? Or that it wasn't complete some time prior. Either way, God can get to the "right" canon at some point. But what makes this one "it."
Again, not questioning the canon of scripture. I like it. but evidently Luther did not. Probably Lee didn't either. Just too careful to say it out loud. Doesn't make them evil or reprobate.
But is it right to throw these two verses around at every misunderstanding of scripture that we run across? Someone misinterprets a verse and therefore they are in violation of this passage.
Is this maybe just a cry of "cult" in different clothing? And maybe even using terms like "biblical." We use them to mean that it means what we think it means. If you think differently, then your thinking is "unbiblical." Proving the interpretation wrong by claiming the Bible simply says otherwise.
Isn't it better to just have the discussion about what is the right way to understand things? Rather than decrying Evangelical as being "unbiblical," show what we believe to be the errors in his understanding.
(And since I don't think anyone has said that yet, I am hoping to not be stepping on anyone's toes here. In any case, it is not my intention. And if "your" toes feel stepped on, then take on the idea, not me. I'm just thinking out loud about this. Let's discuss it.)