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

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Haruo, Jul 29, 2003.

  1. Haruo

    Haruo
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2003
    Messages:
    500
    Likes Received:
    0
    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).

    Sue also gussied the text up with boldface for emphasis, which I think is arguably just as much "adding to the words" as adding words would be.

    Interested in people's take on this, fundamental or otherwise.

    Haruo
     
  2. lighthouse

    lighthouse
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2003
    Messages:
    37
    Likes Received:
    0
    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).
     
  3. Haruo

    Haruo
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2003
    Messages:
    500
    Likes Received:
    0
    "(I) have placed [my] trust in the living God, the savior of all and especially of those who believe." (1 Tim. 4:10, for those who like proof texts). I must respectfully disagree with you and Sue on this point. I know that you are stating a position popular among Fundamental Baptists, but I must reply that at the time that Revelation was written the Bible did not exist as a book, whereas Revelation did. I am interested in how you justify reading the then future "book", the Bible, back into what John of Patmos was writing in the first century. I don't see evidence that John is writing of "the book of this prophecy" in a foretelling-the-future vein (as millennialist chiliasm usually reads the bulk of the book's visions). It sounds to me like a "book" that will be available to the immediate readership for editorial revision, albeit, John warns, at a high price. But I'm interested in how those who see it otherwise arrive at their views.

    Thanks for your comment.

    Haruo
    who doesn't believe "every word that proceeds from the mouth of God" has any necessary and ongoing connection with a particular canon of books
     
  4. Baptist Believer

    Baptist Believer
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    6,659
    Likes Received:
    190
    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.
     
  5. lighthouse

    lighthouse
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2003
    Messages:
    37
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  6. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  7. John Wells

    John Wells
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2001
    Messages:
    2,568
    Likes Received:
    0
    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! ;)
     
  8. Tim

    Tim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2001
    Messages:
    967
    Likes Received:
    0
    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
     
  9. Rev. Joshua

    Rev. Joshua
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/cjv.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2001
    Messages:
    2,859
    Likes Received:
    0
    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
     
  10. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,417
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  11. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,417
    Likes Received:
    0
    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?
     
  12. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Think this thread is coming up with valid conclusions:

    (1) Warning is properly interpreted to the Apocalypse only

    (2) Warning is properly applied to the whole body of Holy Writ

    (3) Writers did NOT recognize their writing (or SOME of their writing) was God-breathed. Very little of the Scripture is "dictation".

    This final point warrants its own thread and I will so start one.
     

Share This Page

Loading...