ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Don't Add To The Bible

How would you respond to these statements about the Bible? I've been witnessing to some people, and the subject about scripture in Revelation that says nothing can be added or taken away from scripture. One person said that John was only refering to the Book of Revelation only.

Moderator - They are correct, however there are other Books that refer to the Bible itself.

Join Our Christian Friendship and Take The Bible History Quiz
 ---Barbara on 10/8/06
     Helpful Blog Vote (27)

Post a New Blog



Ignatius, the books were not taken away by the Protestants. They were not accepted as inspirit from the very beginning. I don't know who told you the protestants took them. What the protestant did was to accept what was already inspired from the beginning. In fact those other books did not pass the test. Sorry but you will have to look the information up for yourself from different sources then your church to get the right information. Do a web search. You will find a lot of information.
---MarkV. on 11/3/09


ALL IS NOT LOST

The Letter to Laodicea is Ephesians. This was mistitled as Ephesians. Paul did not write this to the Ephesians. The letter a circulatory letter and was mentioned in Col 4:16. Both of these letter were written within weeks of each other. Early manuscripts do not say Ephesians and the 1st sentence does not exist (added later). One MS says Laodiceans.

THE 5 CORINTHIAN LETTERS

A fragment of the lost 1st Corinthians is found in our 2nd Corinthians 6:14-7:1. If you remove these in reading you can see it clearly. 3rd Corinthians (Letter of Tears) is explained in 4th Corinthian(2nd Cor). 5th Corinthians fragment is chs 10-13 of 4th Corinthians( 2nd Cor). Our 1st and 2nd Corinthian are 2nd and 4th Corinthians.
---PastorJIm on 11/3/09


Trav ... Your post to me of 11/3.
It's not worth commenting, except to say.
You have joined together, as if they floowed straight on, two completely separate sentences, one of which was addressed to you, and the other which came at the end of a comment I was making to Warwick.
---alan8566_of_uk on 11/3/09

I almost agree with you. ha.
Sometimes what is not said or seen that speaks the loudest. Sorry you didn't see it in your comment. Below...one more time.

That being so, I think he probably meant just The Revelation
---alan8566_of_uk on 10/31/09
---Trav on 11/3/09


Trav ... Your post to me of 11/3.

It's not worth commenting, except to say.

You have joined together, as if they floowed straight on, two completely separate sentences, one of which was addressed to you, and the other which came at the end of a comment I was making to Warwick.
---alan8566_of_uk on 11/3/09


Trav .."So it's OK to just add and take away anything that don't appeal right?" hat's a complete non sequitur, Trav.
....So we don't know what sciptures he would hav been referring to.
---alan8566_of_uk on 10/31/09

Point...you seem to be saying IF JOHN just wrote this concerning Revelations. Then we can change or add to the rest of it.
It has been friend. In multiple places translators added/changed to cloak intent or meaning. Nations/ethnos being one of the most unfortunate ones. LORD and GOD over 6,000 times.....but, then this lays the guilt to them.
Unless pointed at or too. Ezekiel 33:6
But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and people be not warned, if the sword come...
---Trav on 11/3/09




"what about the books of maccabees, apochripa? aren't they added to the bible? " (Mike)

No, they were removed by Protestants. Oddly enough, these books were included in the Greek Translation of the OT (LXX, Septuagint) highly favored by Christ, the Holy Apostles, and the Early Christians above the Hebrew version.

The majority of Christians today (which include Latin/Eastern Catholics, Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, etc) consider these books Holy Scriptures, as do the African Jews.

Mike, anti-Catholics will tell you that these books were "added" by Catholics in the 16th century, but history proves them wrong.

In IC.XC.,
---Ignatius on 11/3/09


Makes sense Mark. Just like not every word coming from someone witnessing or someone preaching is the Lords exact words, but the Holy Spirit will get the message delivered that God wants to be heard. That in spite of our poor performance as human messengers.

Thanks!
---Pastor_Jim on 11/2/09


John was referring to Revelations only?
what about the books of maccabees, apochripa? aren't they added to the bible?
---mike on 11/2/09


Pastor Jim, I believe God moved this man at the right time, at a moment in history when God was ready to bring this man together, put in their minds what they were to look for, and gave them enough to come out with the end result. In fact this man did not create Scripture God did. The moment the word was written it became the Word of God. All the man had to do was to cannonize the Word. The Church fathers did not make the Bible authentic which was otherwise doubtful or controverted, but acknowledges it as God's Truth. Canon means "measuring rod" or "Rule" and they made it a rule or a measuring rod of which to go by for all people. Thanks for the discussion. Man will always have debates.
---MarkV. on 11/2/09


Pastor Jim, I have read the history of how the Bible was put together. What manuscripts were not allowed in and which one's were. I believe that when the outcome came out we had what God wanted us to have. Whether it was voted in by one vote or many. Man struggles on what to do, but God already has it all complete in His sight. It is just a matter of moving man to do what God has ordained.
If the outcome depended on man, we would be in trouble. Even the evil thoughts of many who had evil intentions on which manuscripts to leave out were at work at the time, God ultimately turned them for good in some way or another. If other books are ever found, they cannot give us anymore Truth then what we already have.
---MarkV. on 11/2/09




Mark, thats a great point concerning the Holy Spirit part.

I go back and forth on this one. Luther took a pass and I think Calvin did as well.

But there are bibles which did not have books we now consider Canical and there bibles which had books that we now consider Non Canical.

Also Revelation was voted out in the first 2 votes and then made it in by only 2 votes. I belief Jude and James just made it in. The reason that Revelation pass was they did not understand it and decided to be safe than sorry. The Catholic bible has extra apocrypha books that the Protestants left out.

I guess if they are found it would be a great debate and whole lot of praying!
---Pastor_Jim on 11/2/09


Actually, I don't believe there was a BIBLE as we know when John wrote Revelation. Letters that circulated the Churches, but not a Bible.

John was referring to what the Lord showed Him, and what he was writing then.

There are going to be a lot in TROUBLE who have in fact added to and taken away...

Reason being, many teach these things have already taken place, or that it's spiritualized away rather than LITERAL as well as misleading others...and boy are they going to be surprised when they find out IT HASN'T! And what is yet to come!
---kathr4453 on 11/2/09


Pastor Jim, I get what you are saying and my answer is no. The writings of Scripture, the manuscripts were all pieces put together by man. They were even put in order by man inspired by God, Samuel was a long book so they made it two books, all done by man. Many other books that didn't get cannonized were not because they didn't pass the test. Some have a lot of Truth, but in them they contradicted in some area's God's Word. And since the Holy Spirit is in charge of everything coming to be, the Holy Spirit cannot err. If there was one book that needed to be in there or some manuscripts the Spirit wanted to be found, He would have made them available for them to be found before the closer of Scripture.
---MarkV. on 11/2/09


Alan sceptics mutter about what is missing, or wrong or what else should be included. Meanwhile the faithful concentrate on what is there, step out in faith receiving a rich reward. Decades ago by faith, not blind faith, I accepted Jesus as my Saviour, who willingly paid the price of my sin! This revolutionized my life, physically and spiritually. Since then I have seen many others take that same step and likewise become transformed-all by the power of God Almighty.

I have read Scripture through and through, and have neither seen or experienced anything which has caused me to doubt any of it.

If the Bible is the record of our Creator and Redeemer then no matter what sceptics believe it is His perfect life-changing word for us.
---Warwick on 11/1/09


Thanks MarkV!

We know that for a fact we are missing 1st Corinthians and 3rd Corinthians. The ones we have listed in our Bible as 1st and 2nd Corinthians are actually 2nd and 4th. There may even be a 5th(Debated).

Now if we find the true 1st and 3rd Corinthians. Would they not automatically be Canical? And if so, then we would need the "ADD" them to the bible.
Or do we not?
---Pastor_JIm on 11/1/09


\\What if we find 1st Corinthians or 3rd Corinthians? For those who don't know 1st Corinthians is really 2nd Corinthians and 2nd Corinthians is really 4th Corinthians. (There may be a 5th.) \\

What if we find them? What if we find the lost letter to the Laodiceans?

They would be most interesting, to be sure (assuming these were authentic). They would be documents from the milieu that produced both Christianity and the Bible.

But they would not be part of the Bible.
---Cluny on 11/1/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Franchises


Pastor Jim, I really don't know what your question is, if it is to me. Can you define what you are asking? I do like your answers very much and would like to answer yours if possible. Are you suggesting there is other books out there left out of what we now call the Bible? In other words do you believe that 1 Cor. is out there someplace and someone forgot to add it to Scripture? In some way stating that God's Word is out there, other manuscrip's, already written and someone forgot to included them in the Bible?
---MarkV. on 11/1/09


Warwick ... Yes as you say there have been a lot of books written, and here we have Pastor Jim suggesting there are two more books which could be included, if they could be found, and the RC says the Apocrypha should be included, and Luther had his doubts about a couple of books.

Paul said all scripture is written by the inspiration of God (did he intend that should refer to his own letters which expanded and explained what was previously recorded in the OT and in the Gospel accounts?), and John says there has to be no addition or subtraction,

But it was not until a couple of centuries later that others decided which books were ot be included in the canon.

How are we to know that that selection was inspired?
---alan8566_of_uk on 11/1/09


So if we find 1st Corinthians and 3rd Corinthians, Do we add them to the Bible?

Luther looked at this and left it open. Not sure what other writers said.
---Pastor_Jim on 11/1/09


Alan, we have always had 'experts' proclaiming this or that about Scripture. Books written, careers built on error, deceit, smoke and mirrors.

The Bible is God's ultimate truth and Satan who opposes Truth, attacks it via those he has duped. Notice how many people here work to prove all or part of Scripture wrong!

Nothing new, it is age old, and will continue. Amazing claims have been made in the past and are being made now. Some dismissed others to be dismissed when proven false.

Sceptics claimed the Bible invented nations of people who never existed. That King David never existed- archaeology proved them wrong.

God cannot lie, but man struggles to do otherwise.
---Warwick on 11/1/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Lead Generation


Look, every single genuine Christian should not even have to ask if adding or taking away from Revelation only is ok. All this talk about whether it meant Revelation or not is pointless. The whole of Scripture is the Word of God. No one has the right to add or take away from God's Word. Whether Samuel was one book or three books. It is nevertheless the Word of God. Whether John wrote it or someone else. Why does anyone question the Bible? To be able to add or take away from whats already authentic? If you are warned in Deut. or anywhere else, it means what it says. It doesn't say, but in other books you can add or take away if you don't find these phrase in it. It says to not add or take away from the Word of God. Don't do it. Period.
---MarkV. on 11/1/09


The Bible 2 continue: Just because the New Testament was not cannonized yet the words written were by inspiration of God. The Holy Spirit guided the apostles to write God's will in the Scriptures. What was been performed by the apostles was already to be the 27 books of the New Testament. By the close of the first century, the 27 books that compose the New Testament had been accepted by the early church. When the Word of God was written it became Scripture. As soon as John finished Revelation it became Scripture because of God not because of man. What good can anyone find from questioning if the phrase is meant for one book and not the whole of Scripture? What they do get is the ability to question other books in Scripture.
---MarkV. on 11/1/09


Here's the issue..

What if we find 1st Corinthians or 3rd Corinthians? For those who don't know 1st Corinthians is really 2nd Corinthians and 2nd Corinthians is really 4th Corinthians. (There may be a 5th.)

Also Ephesians is mistitled, it was written to Laodiceans.(Ref: Col 4:16). The 1st sentence was added, none of the early MS say Ephesians. One has Laodicean as the title
---Pastor_Jim on 10/31/09


Trav .."So it's OK to just add and take away anything that don't appeal right?" hat's a complete non sequitur, Trav.

Warwick has at least atrempted to put a proper reason to challenge my thoughts.

Warwick ... I thought that John the disciple wrote The REvelation. But i dunderstand that there is now considerable well founded opinion that he did not.
But that's not really my point, whichwas that the bible, aswe know it, was not assembled (and limited to certain books) until much later.

So we don't know what sciptures he would hav been referring to.
---alan8566_of_uk on 10/31/09


Send a Free Angel Ecard


Alan I think we need to remember that Revelation was the last NT book written. John was a central witness of the events as described in the earlier written NT Scriptures. It is fair to say John knew Peter referred to Paul's writings as Scripture, for example.

Having spent those years with Jesus, he knew these happenings were not the doings of man, but the fulfillment of OT prophecy. He therefore knew the reporting of these happenings would be done under the inspriation of the Holy Spirit, therefore Scripture.
---Warwick on 10/31/09


That being so, I think he probably meant just The Revelation
---alan8566_of_uk on 10/31/09

So it's OK to just add and take away anything that don't appeal right?

This is exactly what the denom's do....mainly, and in fairness because they cannot tie scripture together....because it just doesn't sound like it includes em.
Better to just ignore these thousands of verses and find a crack somewhere else.
---Trav on 10/31/09


Warnings for adding or taking away from the Word of God are found all through the Bible. Through inspiration, God warned people not to add are take away from His Word. The first warning came in Deut. 4:2, "You shall not add to the Word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord God of your fathers is giving you." Later in Proverbs 30:6 again God says, " Do not add to His Words, Lest He rbuke you, and you be found a liar" also in Jer. 26:2 God says, "Stand in the court of the Lord's house, and speak to all the cities of Judah, which come to worship in the Lords House. All the words that I command you to speak to them. Do not deminish a Word"
---MarkV. on 10/31/09


I had always thought that the comment referred to the whole Bible, but it seems from what's been said her eon other blogs that The REvelation was written before the Canon of th Bible was established. So John would not have known which scriptures would have formed the Bible.

That being so, I think he probably meant just The Revelation
---alan8566_of_uk on 10/31/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Mortgages


Contrary to previous posts, Saint John the Theologian, wrote the following:

"I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. (Rev 22:18-19)

Saint John wrote "in this book" (Refering to the book he was writing) four times. Note: Saint John was not writing on a book called "The Holy Bible", which this was the last page of the Bible.

And the Mod is wrong on his second part.

In IC.XC.,
---Ignatius on 10/31/09


The Reformers was not in agreement on the nature of the New Testament either. Martin Luther, although he add them in his translation, made an attempt to remove the books of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation from the canon. He never change his views on them, neither his friend Andreas Carlstadt. Zwingle rejected the Book of Revelation. He denied it was a Apostolic book, and hence never used it for doctrinal purposes. John Calvin doubted the genuineness of 2nd Peter and Pauline authorship of the Epistle of Hebrews.

Sources: 1) Philip Scahaff, History of the Christian Church, volume 6, 2)Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible.

In Sum, the Protestant Reformers was not in agreement on the exact nature of the OT and NT.

In IC.XC.,
---Ignatius on 10/31/09


The verse does not say, Do not add or take away from the Book of Revelation, but it reads, lit.Gk: "Truly I testify together, everyone hearing these words the prophecy of this Bibliou, If anyone add to these things, God he will add upon him the plagues that are written in this Biblio: and if anyone take away from the words of Bibliou which this prophecy, God he will take away the share of him from his Blessing the Life, and out of the city which holy, and of the things which are written in this Biblio." Revelation 22:18,19.
---Eloy on 10/31/09


When you study the book of Revelation you will find that the entire book refers back to the rest of the Bible.
As Rev 7 and Rev 14 speak of the 12 tribes you must go back to the Old Testament to find out about them. Then you find there were 14 tribes. Then you must search even more to understand why there are only 12 in the two chapters in Revelation.
If we take away part of the Old Testament we can never understand the message given to us in the Revelation.
You can full well believe that the taking away of Scripture refers to the rest of the Bible also.
---Elder on 10/30/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Personal Loans


The statement at the end of Revelations is referring to the prophecy of that particular book. But as the other bloggers mention, there are other references that warn against changing the word of God at all.
---jody3965 on 10/30/09


What if we find 1st Corinthians or 3rd Corinthians? For those who don't know 1st Corinthians is really 2nd Corinthians and 2nd Corinthians is really 4th Corinthians. (There may be a 5th.)

Also Ephesians is mistitled, it was written to Laodiceans.(Ref: Col 4:16). The 1st sentence was added, none of the early MS say Ephesians. One has Laodicean as the title.
---Pastor_Jim on 10/30/09


The Canon we now have not existing till the 17th century is a deliberate misstating of facts.

The Old Testament first used by the church included books that Jews did not consider Canon. But the early church did. The New Testament Canon was set in the 3rd Century.

Protestants rejected along with the Jews those portions of Scripture accepted by Orthodox churches. So this was a disagreement about the Apocrapha as being Canon. Not the New Testament.
---Samuel on 10/30/09


the "canon" we have now did not exist until the 17th century - FACT
the scriptures do not mention anything about 66 books
i believe there are other scriptures and it all comes down to discernment of the holy spirit
it is a protestant tradition to think that only "germanic" western nations have the perfect canon - NO ONE DOES
---glen on 10/29/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Auto Insurance


Thank you Moderater, I did quote Matt 5:18 and this is what one of them said "That opens a big can of worms. The new testament contradits the old testament and segments of the latter existed for centuries before the former. This is one reason that I really don't like religious discussions. (continued)
---Barbara on 8/10/07


One reason that some prefer the Old King James to the more accurate modern versions is that their doctrine is derived only from the King James Version. For instance, the SDA can only support their Investigative Judgement belief, based on Daniel 8;14 only from the KJV, as it has been poorly translated from the Hebrew language.
---lee1538 on 11/23/06


reading most of the blogs on this site, most go against the KJV and some say they have the authentic bible, (who knows it maybe a lie) and some educated big wigs try to make out they know more and down trod the KJV. It is the only bible available to many that is more reliable. Read Riplingers book on the many bibles we have with errors in. u.b.surprised. NIV and New word translation altho modern but is full of errors.
---bob on 11/23/06


"Things that are real, authentic or true are always attacked."-billy

I disagree with that.

"KJV..the only true bible. Amen"

I like the KJV, too.
---Kay on 11/21/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Holidays


Billy ... the NIV is attacked here much more than is the KJV
That must make the NIV the real authentic and true Bible.
---AlanUK_quent5969 on 11/21/06


then what did christians read prior to 1611? it is not the only true translation of the bible. it is merely the most widely accepted, because it has been around so long. and I guess those that don't read english are out of luck huh, since the KJV is the only bible and it's in english. very poor case saying that the KJV is the only true bible. (the only true word of God is Jesus, the Word made flesh)
---Jared on 11/21/06


If you all believe the KJV is not the right bible or word of God, then I say it is. Otherwise noone will complain. Things that are real, authentic or true are always attacked. KJV..the only true bible. Amen
---billy on 11/21/06


.john, The name Goliath in II Samuel 21:19 is preceeded by the word "ach" in Hebrew, which means "brother of" in English. This same verse is written in I Chronicles 20:5, where Goliath again is preceeded with the hebrew word "ach" and there we see more detail revealing the name of Goliath's brother which was slain.
---Eloy on 11/20/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Health Insurance


The italics was used in the KJV for proper sentence structure for English readers, some are indeed in the original Hebrew but were italicized because the English Tanach left them out. Some italicized are not in the original Hebrew but the sentence structure demanded a word to make sense of the reading, and others are English substituted words for the Hebrew word. I haven't found any italicized words purposely used to deviate from the original sense of the verse nor to lead the reader into any error.
---Eloy on 11/20/06


The niv may have removed but it might be said that the KJV added the same amount of words that weren't there. The tranlators do their best to give us a clear translation, If you don't trust them then learn to read the original language. Even the KJV is fallable because the original was in a different language. the Gospel message that Humans can't do it on their own and God brought us to him Himself. this is the core meaning and the main focus. that never changes, no matter what language it is in.
---Jared on 11/20/06


I am just curious.... Do any of you know who has the copyright of the niv?? Do any of you know which 3 oversaw the writing of this book??? Well if the niv is copyrighted that right there should tell you that they are not Gods words.

Please Google: Dr Al Lacy and download "Open Thou Mine Eyes"
---Mark on 11/20/06


The Italisized words in the KJV are there because the changing from one language to another would not make complete sense in all cases. Some languages say things backwards of the English, others have a given gender to nouns and so on and so forth. So to make the language work in English the words needed to be added for clarity for some of the public. You can read the KJV without the italisized words and most of it will make complete sense. God Bless and keep your "Sword" close by :-)
---Mark on 11/20/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Dating


"I agree with Bruce. If the KJV was so perfect why would it need all those italicized words in it? They say to make it clearer to read but if this is God's perfect preserved word why would it need anything added to it?"

john, when any book is translated into a different language sometimes words must be added in order to complete the sentence structure.
At least the KJ translators were honest enough to put their added words in italics.
---Kay on 11/20/06


r.w. You need to go back to your KJV and re read 2Sam.21:19. It does not say that David killed Goliath. It says that Elanan killed Goliath. The words "brother of" are in italics because they are not in the manuscripts. They were added. So if Jack's version is perverted then yours is too.
---john on 11/20/06


I agree with Bruce. If the KJV was so perfect why would it need all those italicized words in it? They say to make it clearer to read but if this is God's perfect preserved word why would it need anything added to it?
---john on 11/20/06


"Did you know that the NIV removed 64,000 words and many complete verses?"-Rev_Herb

I believe it.
---Kay on 11/20/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Health Treatments


"How many people do you think are acutualy aware that the italic entries are for "clarifcation"?"-Bruce

Two people, so far. :)
---Kay on 11/20/06


the trickx of the devil will have us all confused over which translation of the bible is the truth. He is enjoying this confusion amongst God's people. People, are you all aware of the devil amongst us>?//
---lily on 11/20/06


Bruce5656. In most cases the Italics in KJV do not clarify the meaning, they distort the meaning to fit the writers own beliefs or that of their King. Acts and the (unknown) tongues. The word tongue was their native language, to say (unknown) made it like it was a foreign tongue which it is not talking about. There are many like this, a good concordance generally sorts it out but not always as they to are mans translations. Put not you trust in man. Ps146:3, Prov3:5
---Toby on 11/20/06


God said... Read it yourself 2Tim 3:6, Ps 12:6+7,The 1611 KJV is in the 7th refining of the Elizabethan English language. vs-7 preserved FOREVER!!!! We do have Gods infinite word and don't let anyone fool you into thinking otherwise. The KJV is a "TRANSLITERATION" not a mere translation. It is what God said, not what man says God said. Read Rev: 22-18. As for the niv check out Rev: 2-28 + 22-16, Then Is: 14-12 Pay close attention the the "Morning Star" Which is Jesus Christ.
---Mark on 11/19/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Affiliate Program


jack -who do YOU think killed Goliath? my KJB states David killed Goliath. but your perversions state in 2 Sam 21:19 that Elhanan killed Goliath. KJB says he killed Goliath's brother. one is right/one is wrong. either david or elhanan killed Goliath. does it even matter to you folks? probably not. playing right into satan's hands with these perversions
---r.w. on 11/19/06


The word of God is inspired by God. The book of Revelation refers to scriptures and events recorded in other books also. As for "faith based" religions. Who here could even know of God without ever being exposed to the Bible's teachings somewhere? The Bible is the foundation by which Christianity is based. There are many versions today (KJV early but still a "V" version). All subject to the interpreter but we are guided by God to find His meaning.
---mikefl on 10/14/06


Herb,
If you believe God preserved the KJV as His word why would any clarification be necessary? Don't you think He knew what He was doing? How many people do you think are acutualy aware that the italic entries are for "clarifcation"? I would dare say that the majority of readers are not aware of that.

The orignial manuscripts were inspired by God and were infalible. Do you know of any? Do you have any in your possession? Could you read them if you did?
---Bruce5656 on 10/11/06


**. The new versions don't even do that, they want you to think they never added or took away from anything.**

Like where the KJV added the bit about Goliath's "brother" being slain by Elhaanan, which the Hebrew does not say?

Actually, many other translations DO insert italics where needed for clarification.
---Jack on 10/11/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Abortion Facts


Bruce, the words added to the KJV (those in italic) were added for a clearer understanding but they italicized them to let you know they could not find them in the original. The new versions don't even do that, they want you to think they never added or took away from anything. So since you are so smart, do we even have a perfect bible?
---Rev_Herb on 10/9/06


Some of the additonal words that the translators added were definately not necessary. I would much better undrestand the bible without some of the blatant obvious ones. I find myself ignoring them when reading the bible.
---Carla5754 on 10/9/06


It is simple: if some one says the Bible contradicts itsel, ask them to show you where. Most of the time they have no idea what they are talking about, and will change the subject.
---mike8384 on 10/9/06


We should not add nor take away what is already written. For example if a bible verse said point blank "...&he died to cease no more." then that's it, not"oh he died ,but yet returned again."no the bible said what it says, anyhow it does say that even more was written about Jesus ,but even the world itself can't contain all of it" otherwise there is much more about him not written in the bible,however what is in the bible is what we should focus on.
---candice on 10/9/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Acne Treatment


Herb,
Do you have a count of how many words have been added to the KJV (those in italic) also?
---Bruce5656 on 10/9/06


Did you know that the NIV removed 64,000 words and many complete verses? Did you know that all modern bibles have remove and added to the bible--and you gullibly accept it 'cause a man said it should be so. I would hate to have to answer for that one on the day of judgement.
---Rev_Herb on 10/9/06


"Add you not to his words, else he correct you, and you be found a liar. And to all them lying ones, of their part in that lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is second death. And where not at all may enter into the New Jerusalem every profaning, and making an abomination, and a lie, except those having been written in the Lamb's Book of Life." Proverbs 30:6; Revelation 21:8,27.
---Eloy on 10/9/06


If you stop at Revelation then you have to dicard John,1st,2nd and 3rd John as they were written after Revelation!
---1st_cliff on 10/8/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Bad Credit Loans


The warning about adding to or taking away refers only to the book of Revelation itself.

The Bible, as we know it, didn't exist at that point. For one thing, at least the Gospel according to St. John had not been written yet.
---Jack on 10/8/06


John spoke of the book of Revelation because there was no "Bible" when he wrote Revelation.
---Pharisee on 10/8/06


I agree with moderator. The "book" referring to the Bible was not put together yet. There is another verse in Deut.4:2 which says not to add or take away also. And then the rest of the OT. was added and the NT. too. If we literally couldn't add or take away then translating it would also be impossible. I think it means we are not to add or take away from what He us saying.
---john on 10/8/06


greatest blaspmies against your religion. The fact that you have faith is only proof that you need to justify your belief. What about the portion of the dead sea scrolls which seem to indicate several more books of the old testament that are'nt included in most christian Bibles. (continued)
---Barbara on 10/8/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Bankruptcy


"One person said that John was only refering to the Book of Revelation only"-True

The Bible quotes a dozen other books as scripture. The criterioa at those early RCC councils was very political, ax Constantine wanted a 'speedy end to troubles" The Bishops were happy to go along.

Long before the septuagent had 70 books for the OT (hence the term septuagent) There was debate over Sheperd of Hermas, Epistle of Barnabas, and Book Of Enoch.
---MikeM on 10/8/06


Also I believe the Eastern Orthodox bible contains several books of the old testament that aren't in most bibles. I could go on and on with exsamples where man has added and taken away from the Bible.

Help me give some answers my sisters and brothers! Thank you.
---Barbara on 10/8/06


That is correct. The Scripture in Revelation is referring specifically to the Book of Revelation itself. The plagues are those that are in the Book of Revelation. Not many other books of the Bible have any plagues in them. I have always been puzzled as to why preachers use this Scripture to apply to the whole Bible, when it is very clear it is only Revelation it is referring to.
---Helen_5378 on 10/8/06


Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.