What book does Rev. 22:18, 19 refer to?

Haruo,

Sorry, but Sue is right. The verse does not say "this book", it says "the book". The Bible is one book(Heb.10:7) and it's all about God manifesting Himself through His Son, Jesus Christ. "For the testimony of Jesus Christ is the spirit of Prophecy"(Rev.19:10).

The Bible puts warnings all through this book about adding and taking away. (Dt.4:2; Prov.30:5,6; Rev.22:18,19) to name just a few. When you compare Scripture with Scripture, you will find out it's best to adhere to "every word that proceeds out the mouth of God"(Lu.4:4).

Sue stated correctly. I don't know what you put your trust in, but you would be wise to put it in the Word of God(Prov.3:5-7).

 

In a thread on the Fundamental Baptist view of Scripture, Sue cited this as grounds for not adding anything to the Bible (such as Magisterial teachings). What grounds are there for that reading? It looks to me like an obvious misinterpretation. The "book of this prophecy" looks to me clearly to mean John's Apocalypse, what we call Revelation, not the Bible as a whole (which was still a couple centuries away from being a codex, apparently). </font>[/QUOTE]Sound interpretation demands that this warning apply to the actual “book” (literally the “scroll”) that John had written.

To apply it to the gospels, Paul’s letters, Peter’s letters, the letters of John, the letter to the Hebrews and all of the Old Testament doesn’t make much sense unless you make the assumption that the Holy Spirit dictated every word to each scripture writer (actually, they would be nothing more than a scribe) and that the personalities and events of the lives of the scripture writers had no bearing on what was written.

Because of the wealth of textual evidence that the writers of scripture did not work by mechanical dictation. In the New Testament alone, it is pretty clear that Paul had the assistance of a scribe for his letters and Peter probably had one for his first letter, but possibly not his second (2 Peter has grammatical problems and spelling errors if I remember correctly). Furthermore, variations on the choice of words and events depicted by the biblical writers reveals that they were actively involve in the process of inspiration.

Since it does not appear that the inspiration of scripture required dictation of the text, we can safely assume that John wrote those words to refer back only to the book of Revelation.

 

Haruo,

John is not the author of the book of revelation. Paul is not the author, although we say it that way. God(The Holy Spirit Himself) is the author of the Old and New Testament. Man penned what God told them to write. The more you understand that my friend, the more you will understand Rev.22:18,19.

I do not doubt your love for God, nor your zeal, nor your salvation. But rightly dividing God's Word brings a lot of things, deeper things to light.

 

Just because the original interpretion of John's words are clearly meant for Revelation does not preclude taking them, by extension, to also apply to all of the canon as we now understand it to be.

 

I agree! "Prophesy of this book" is tied to "plagues which are written in this book." Clearly this statement has the scroll of Revelation in mind. But Jesus said not one jot or tittle would pass away from the "Law," and "all scripture is God-breathed," etc. lends to the whole of it.

I cannot support it scripturally, but it has always been my belief that God's hand not only guided the pens of the 40+ authors of the biblical writings, but that God's hand continued to guide the canonical process and the translators who have provided modern translations as well as many foreign language translations. In other words, I believe God is capable of preserving along the way and finishing what He started!

 

Huaro,

I absolutely agree with you. We must FIRST interpret the Scripture before we apply it. Sound interpretation includes considering the textual and historical context of the statement. Thus considered, John (and the Holy Spirit) made the statement about Revelation, rather than about the entire body of Scripture.

Besides, who said Revelation needs to be the last book in the Bible? The books aren't necessarily put in our Bibles in the order God gave them.

In Christ,

Tim

 

Paul must have been very confused in the penning and signing of his epistles. The idea that God wrote our scriptures is a later addition to Christianity - and doubtless one that would have surprised the people who wrote the documents.

Joshua

 

In many of the earlier compilations of the Scriptures, Revelation came after John. The Pauline letters and others came later. Those church fathers seemed to agree that "this book" referred to simply the book of Revelation. There's a chance that John possibly hadn't even read the other letters and epistles that are found in our present-day Bible.

And I agree. I believe that God also worked within the hearts and lives of those who came up with the NT canon. What we have are THE books of the Bible. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

True, true. This doesn't take away the idea that these people were INSPIRED by the Holy Spirit, but simple examination of the texts shows huge variations in the actual words and grammar used. If God had dictated word-for-word the letters, then why would He use so many dialects and wordings?