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

Adding To The Bible

Revelation 22:18-19 warns about adding to or taking away from this book of prophecy. Through the years there have been many people who claimed to be Prophets sent by God, yet they have added to, taken from, or distorted and perverted what is written by changing it. What are your thoughts?

Join Our Christian Penpals and Take The False Teachers Bible Quiz
 ---Rob on 6/3/12
     Helpful Blog Vote (4)

Post a New Blog



"I wrote..." Warwick

Yes, you're right, my apologies.

There are numerous variations of this quote on several sites, blogs and discussion boards. I grabbed (yes cut and pasted) the wrong one for my last post. I will try to be more careful in the future.

Here's the version that you didn't copy.

"Finally, BeDuhn prefers the translation "and the Word was divine." BeDuhn sees "divine" as merely meaning a non-physical being, which may be the true God or lesser spirit beings, such as angels. We may ask, however, if John meant to convey Jesus is 'divine' i.e. a nonphysical being (not God) why did he not use 'theios' (divine), which would have made the point without ambiguity?"
---scott on 6/10/12


John 1:1c in other languages: (1)

"And the Word was..."


ARABIC-
1983, Greek Orthodox "Book of Prayers"-

"a god".


CHINESE-
1954, "A Catholic Translation of the NT into Chinese"

"a god".


CHINESE-
1952, "A New Translation of the NT in Chinese"

"a god".


COPTIC (Bohraric)-
1862, Solomon Malan, "The Gospel According to St. John."

"a god".


COPTIC (Sahidic)-
1862, George Horner, "The Coptic Version of the NT."

"[a] God".


DUTCH-
1694, Rooleeuw, "The NT of Our Lord Jesus Christ."

"a god."
---scott on 6/10/12


Scott you say you are interested in what the Greek actually says. But then you give part/misquotes from people such as Philip Harner who show you that the Greek does not say what you claim it does. I repeat, that your witness Harner disagrees with you, writing "John wrote 'theos en ho logos' literally 'god was the word' i.e. 'logos has the nature of theos' Therefore as Jesus the Word (Logos) has God's nature He is God.

Harner says if John had meant to say 'the word was a god' he would have written 'Ho logos en theos' 'the word was god' i.e. Logos was a god or divine being. But as Harner points out John did not write the word was a god.
---Warwick on 6/10/12


Scott,

''a translator's theology can affect their rendering [of John 1:1]40 translators reflect the indefinite article and reject the ''Was God'' rendering.''

The first half you NEVER apply to your supporters. The second half, as we've demonstrated, is made up of men who communicate and ask for assistance from demons, unqualified men, and a very, very, very small group of Unitarian/Arians, who, by your first standard, should be rejected because of their bias. This leaves you with occultists and amateurs [and one Greek short-order cook].
---Marc on 6/10/12


"A person's view"- Micha9344

I'm interested in what the Greek actually says, not someone's personal views beyond that.

John uses very specific language under inspiration by God.

When commenting on the Greek alone many translators and textual scholars recognize (and readily admit) that "Theos" in John 1:1c (in reference to the Word) is missing the article and is therefore indefinite and qualitative.

I've never suggested that all of those scholars have abandoned their strongly entrenched Trinitarian beliefs. If you think a translator's theology can not affect their rendering you are mistaken.

40 translators reflect the indefinite article and reject the "Was God" rendering.
---scott on 6/9/12




"Qualitative significance..." Micha9344

BTW...I'll have to read it over a few times but I'm not sure Harner's quote is saying what you think it is. I don't think this helps your argument.
---scott on 6/9/12


Scott, I wrote "if John meant to convey Jesus is 'divine' i.e. a nonphysical being (not God) why did he not use 'theios' (divine), which would have made the point without ambiguity?"

You claimed these exact words were 'cut and pasted' from an anti JW site. You even posted them as if from such site.

But when challenged you supply :

"BeDuhn sees "divine" as merely meaning a non-physical being, which may be the true God or lesser spirit beings, such as angels. We may ask, however, if John's intended meaning was "divine" simply in the sense of a non-physical being, why he did not use the Greek word theios ("divine"), which would have expressed this sense in unambiguous terms?"
---Warwick on 6/9/12


Scott, I think it hilarious that you have said I cut and pasted my comments from a site, when from what you came up with, anyone can see I didn't.

But all the while you repeatedly provide dishonest mis/part quotes from the likes of Mantey, Harner, Barclay, and a series of others. Many of whom are in print as opposing JW views. You have fraudulently used these quotes, and continue to do so. But then you accuse me of cutting and pasting, even claiming you knew the site from where I did this. But you again lied and could not provide any proof. It appears you are so locked into the lies of the WTS that you can no longer recognize truth. You have adequately shown readers what a deceitful theocracy you represent. Good work!
---Warwick on 6/9/12


Scott,

Re Warwick's putative cut-and-paste, this is a victory for you? Congratulations. This is great to know: Can't win the theological discussion but you'll put that extra effort in to "win" a personal battle.
---Marc on 6/9/12


strongax, sinners said the same things that you say about me, they also said to about Christ. Whenever you're ready to receive the truth I preach, ask of me: but until then, do not ask. For why should I waste time preaching to the stubborn whom refuses to accept? and only asks questions of me in order to dis the answers given? It makes zero sense to supply truth to a wall. Bring down your wall, and be pliable to the truth I give: until you are ready to do this, the truth I preach is not much to you.
---Eloy on 6/9/12




In terms of the analysis that we have proposed, a recognition of the qualitative significance of theos would remove some ambiguity in his interpretation by differentiating between theos, as the nature that the Logos shared with God, and ho theos as the "person" to whom the Logos stood in relation. Only when this distinction is clear can we say of the Logos that "he was God." (Philip B. Harner, "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1." in The Journal of Biblical Literature)
--So, as Scott usually does, misrepresenting a person's view by taking a portion of what is wrriten or said without any contextual backdrop...
The same is true with Warwick's supposed quote...
---micha9344 on 6/9/12


"I repeat I did not cut and paste my comment." Warwick


Right. Here's the entire quote to help jog your memory.

"BeDuhn sees "divine" as merely meaning a non-physical being, which may be the true God or lesser spirit beings, such as angels. We may ask, however, if John's intended meaning was "divine" simply in the sense of a non-physical being, why he did not use the Greek word theios ("divine"), which would have expressed this sense in unambiguous terms?"

Whoopsey.
---scott on 6/9/12


Eloy:

So which translations SHOULD we use? The King James version? This happens to be the one I usually quote on here. However, you frequently give your own personal translations (especially whenever King James disagrees with your own strange personal interpretations). Yet you have also frequently stated that ALL translations after 1611 are corrupt. Wouldn't this therefore also include your own translations as well? I have asked you this question at least three times, but you have never yet answered it, so until you do, we should all take you AT YOUR OWN WORD, and consider your own translations to be corrupt.
---StrongAxe on 6/9/12


Scott, there is no point in part quoting Harner as I have read what he actually wrote. He points out John wrote 'theos en ho logos' literally 'god was the word' meaning 'logos has the nature of theos' Jesus has God's nature therefore is God.

Harner says if John had meant to say 'the word was a god' he would have written 'Ho logos en theos' 'the word was god' meaning logos was a god or divine being. But as Harner points out John did not write the word was a god. And Harner is opposed to this JW mistranslation of John 1:1. You have obviously only read the WTS mis/part quotes from Harner or you wouldn't be silly enough to profer him as one who supports the JW view.

More WTS deceit.
---Warwick on 6/9/12


\\So if a person stakes their life upon a faulty translation, then they will be led astray from the truth.
---Eloy on 6/8/12\\

Since youm have admitted earlier that yourm own translations are faulty (as they were made after 1611), why should we stake our lives on them and be led astray from the truth?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 6/9/12


Scott, I repeat I did not cut and paste my comment. These are my own words, gleaned from research.

That you are a deceiver is known fact. This being just another instance.

As you claim I cut and pasted this from a site I challenge you to give references to the site. I know you cannot so will wait and wait and...
---Warwick on 6/9/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Affiliate Program


Rob, some people are simply buy a so-called Bible off the shelf without first researching its validity. So if a person stakes their life upon a faulty translation, then they will be led astray from the truth.
---Eloy on 6/8/12


Scott,

I really don't think you really understand Harner's etc quotes? They actually support Trinitarian belief, not Arian. I'm sure you're not insane, so I can't actually understand WHY you are quoting these TRINITARIAN scholars when they clearly wouldn't touch the JW theology with a 40 feet pole.

Just read them carefully, fully, and in context.
---Marc on 6/8/12


Ooooo, busted!
---Jed on 6/8/12


Elder, I forgot to mention that what seems to make you madder than anything else is that I didn't roll over and admit you were right.

\\ lit.Eng:
"In beginning being the Word, and the Word being from him God,
and God being the Word. This One being in beginning from him God."
John 1:1,2.
---Eloy on 6/8/12\\

Eloy, youm yourmself have said that ALL translations of the Bible after 1611 are corrupted.

That means that yourms are, too.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 6/8/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Abortion Facts


"I did not cut and paste my comment about theios. The inverted comma is a typo!" Warwick

Warwick's "own words" (wink, wink) (6/7/12):

"if John meant to convey Jesus is 'divine' i.e. a nonphysical being (not God) why did he not use 'theios' (divine), which would have made the point without ambiguity?

And from the anti-Winess site (that he did not cut and paste from)-

"if John meant to convey Jesus is 'divine' i.e. a nonphysical being (not God) why did he not use 'theios' (divine), which would have made the point without ambiguity?"

inverted comma typo indeed.
---scott on 6/8/12


Philip B. Harner-

"In John 1:1, I think that the qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definite."

Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1", p. 85).


Julius Mantey-

"The article sometimes distinguishes the subject from the predicate in a copulative sentence. In Xenophon's Anabasis 1:4:6, ...and the place was a market, we have a parallel case to what we have in John 1:1, ...and the word was deity. The article points out the subject in these examples. Neither was the place the only market, nor was the word all of God, as it would mean if the article were used with qeoV."
---scott on 6/8/12


Scott, my comments regarding 'theios' are mine gained from research.

As usual you misquote people. Walter Martin asked Julius Mantey if he supported the Watchtower translation "the Word was a God" Mantey replied "The Jehovah's Witnesses have forgotten entirely that the order of the sentence indicates-that the 'Logos' [or Word] has the same substance, nature, or essence as the Father. To indicate that Jesus was just 'a god', the Jehovah's Witnesses would have to use a completely different construction of the Greek." He continued pointing out his rejection of JW beliefs and the New World Translation.

I feel sad for those poor souls you ensnare in your deceit.
---Warwick on 6/8/12


Scott let us have a peek at Philip B. Harner.

He wrote an article in the Journal of Biblical Literature 92 March 1993 pp 75-87 where he argued against the JW "and the Word was a god." He says had John written 'ho logos en theos' this could be translated "the word was a god." But John didn't, writing 'theos en ho logos' which can only mean the Word was fully God as is the Father with whom He existed "in the beginning."

As usual your misquotes fall apart upon close inspection.

Again I say how could the Son of God be 'a god' while at the same time be described in Scripture as the Mighty God, the God, the Creator, the Redeemer and the Alpha and the Omega?
---Warwick on 6/8/12


Shop For Church Pews


The literal Greek Constantinopolitan MSS, reads:
"En arch hn o LogoV, kai o LogoV hn proV ton Qeon,
kai QeoV hn o LogoV. OutoV hn En arch proV ton Qeon
".

= lit.Eng:
"In beginning being the Word, and the Word being from him God,
and God being the Word. This One being in beginning from him God."
John 1:1,2.
---Eloy on 6/8/12


Scott what does William Barclay say regarding 'the Word was a god'?

"The Watchtower article has, by judicious cutting, made me say the opposite of what I meant to say. What I was meaning to say, as you well know, is that Jesus is not the same as God, to put it more crudely, that is of the same stuff as God, that is of the same being as God, but the way the Watchtower has printed my stuff has simply left the conclusion that Jesus is not God in a way that suits themselves. If they missed from their answer the translation of Kenneth Wuest and the N.E.B., they missed the whole point" (A letter to Donald P. Shoemaker, 8/26/1977.)

Barclay says John is pointing out that Jesus is God but separate from God the Father.
---Warwick on 6/8/12


Scott,

Separated by distance it's difficult to know whether you're Greek (and English) illiterate or deliberately dishonest by misquoting scholars.

Philip Harner: ''In vs.1c the Johannine hymn's bordering on the usage of 'God' for the Son, but by omitting the article it avoids any suggestion of personal identification of the Word with the Father. For Gentile readers the line also avoids any suggestion that the Word was a second God in any Hellenistic sense. Perhaps the clause could be translated, 'the Word had the same nature as God.' This would be one way of representing John's thought, which is, as I understand it,''that ho logos, no less than ho theos, had the nature of theos.''(Journal of Biblical Literature, March 1973.)
---Marc on 6/8/12


Your Scholars-

Philip B. Harner-


"In John 1:1, I think that the qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definite."

Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1", p. 85).


Julius Mantey-

"The article sometimes distinguishes the subject from the predicate in a copulative sentence. In Xenophon's Anabasis 1:4:6, ...and the place was a market, we have a parallel case to what we have in John 1:1, ...and the word was deity. The article points out the subject in these examples. Neither was the place the only market, nor was the word all of God, as it would mean if the article were used with qeoV."
---scott on 6/8/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Acne Treatment


Your Scholars- 2

William Barclay


"Theos [in John 1:1c] becomes a description, and more of an adjective than a noun...[John] does not say that Jesus was God" (Barclay, Many Witnesses, One Lord, p. 23 - 24).

AND-

Robert Young-


"John 1:1 And the Word was God, ] more lit. 'and a God (i.e., a Divine Being) was the Word,' that is, he was existing and recognized as such". (Young, Concise Critical Comments on the Holy Bible).

Steven Byington-
(Translated The Bible in Living English").

"If you are digging for excellent or suggestive renderings this is among the richer mines." (Review of the NWT Christian Greek Scriptures, 1950 p 1296).
---scott on 6/8/12


\\"... I was giving you correct sound doctrine..."
Cluny
Yea, we have all seen your "sound doctrine" before. I don't know how you can even imply that since you gave no Bible verses at all. \\

You seem to have forgotten that a Bible verse was what was being discussed.

Spiritual things are spiritually discerned, Elder.

Glory to Jesus Christ1
---Cluny on 6/8/12


I think a lot of people whom intentionally corrupt the Scripture is because they do not realize that it is God's words, but mistake the Holy Bible as though it were just another one of many books from man, instead of being from God. Therefore they see nothing wrong with changing the words to coordinate with their own nonChristian ways and beliefs. Stretching a words meaning in order to accomodate a person and not to offend them is unrighteousness. Stop is stop, and go is go, not a little stop or a little go. God is very very precise on that what is right and that what is wrong, and there is no grey area with righteousness.
---Eloy on 6/8/12


"I did not cut and paste my comment about theios. The inverted comma is a typo!" Warwick

Really? Then how do you explain that the entire sentence, word for word appears on an anti-Witness site? Hmmm curious.
---scott on 6/8/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Bad Credit Loans


Scott,

Since you, quite predictably, avoided my simple question concerning Debuhn's qualification as a translator, I guess I can infer it's limited.

As I said, he has a PhD in Comparative Religion, and so that does not make him a serious translator. Heck, all my professors in that faculty had obtained similar PhDs but none, as far as I am aware, would be considered translators to the degree that you need to fully and accurately translate John 1:1.

I suppose because you "personally" know him I should defer to his/your greater expertise? Whaddaya say, Scott?
---Marc on 6/8/12


Scott, you are wrong, I did not cut and paste my comment about theios. The inverted comma is a typo! But even if it were cut and paste the point stands.

Also the point stands that the apostle John wrote this knowing full well that Jesus is the Creator, and called Himself God, as did His friends and foes. To apply "the Word was a god' to endeavour to show He is not God is taking Jesus out of Biblical context.

You endeavour to build a doctrine on a word!
---Warwick on 6/8/12


MY SCHOLARS Part 1

Philip Harner: "Because of the word order used by John, the verse can only be interpreted the Word (Jesus) was God in the same sense as the Father."
Dr. F. F. Bruce, "Much is made by Arian amateur grammarians of the definite articles omission of `God' in the phrase `And the Word was God'. Such an omission is common with nouns in a predicate construction. `a god' is totally indefensible."
Dr. Charles Feinberg: "I can assure you the rendering the JWs give John 1:1 is not held by any reputable Greek scholar."
Dr. Julius Mantey, "A grossly misleading translation. Its neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John l:1 'the Word was a god.
---Marc on 6/8/12


PART 2
Dr. Harry Sturz, ''The NWT rendering 'the Word was a god' is ungrammatical and tendential translation.''
Randolph Yeager: ''Only sophomores in Greek grammar are going to translate 'and the Word was a god.'
Dr. William Barclay, ''This sect's deliberate distortion of truth is seen in their New Testament translations. 'the Word was a god', a translation grammatically impossible. Its abundantly clear a sect which translates the NT like that is intellectually dishonest.
Bruce M. Metzger, Princeton Theological Seminary New Testament Language and Literature Professor, "Far more pernicious is the rendering and the Word was a god. It must be stated, if the JWs take this seriously, they are polytheists.''
---Marc on 6/8/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Bankruptcy


"Cut and Paste"- Warwick

You write: "if John meant to convey Jesus is 'divine' i.e. a nonphysical being (not God) why did he not use 'theios' (divine), which would have made the point without ambiguity?

But the question is Warwick...did you really write this?

(Psssst you should have deleted the other quotation mark...I know what site you cut and pasted this from).

Hello pot. Meet the kettle.
---scott on 6/7/12


---Elder on 6/7/12

If we take the phrase " do not add.. " when it first appears in scripture to mean do not add other books
Deuteronomy 12:32 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

We would have only five books:
Genesis | Exodus | Leviticus | Numbers | Deuteronomy and maybe Job as our bible.

It is because other books besides what Moses wrote also contain the word of God ( like Isaiah and daniel) that we are able to ADD THESE BOOKS to the collective word of God without violating the phrase "ADD NOT.."
---francis on 6/7/12


"The Word was a God"

Actually Dr. BeDuhn said:

"The bottom line is that The Word was a god" is exactly what the Greek says." "The Word was divine" is a possible meaning of this Greek phrasing...

..."The Word was God" is almost certainly ruled out by the phrasing John uses, and it is not equivalent to "The Word was divine" because without any justification in the original Greek it narrows the meaning from a quality or category (god/divine) to an individual (God)."

Jason BeDuhn
Professor of Religious Studies,
Department of Humanities, Arts, and Religion
Northern Arizona University.
10/2/2001
---scott on 6/7/12


Scott, regarding John 1:1 you endeavour to construct a doctrine on few words. As they say a text out of context is a pretext.

In this out of context context let us consider Hebrews 2:17 which speaking of Jesus says "Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect." Taking this by itself you could (and probably have) claimed Jesus is a creature, not God. But in 3:3 we read Jesus is worthy of greater honour as He is Creator, not part of the creation! Of course in chapter 1 God commands all His angels worship Jesus. And it is right that all angels worship Him who rightly asks "now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began." John 17:5.
---Warwick on 6/7/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Cash Advance


Scott, as I said "the Word was a God' is a possibility. However you take it out of its context with its application to Jesus.

"if John meant to convey Jesus is 'divine' i.e. a nonphysical being (not God) why did he not use 'theios' (divine), which would have made the point without ambiguity?

John didn't use 'theios' because He knew who Jesus was-the Creator God. It is John's gospel which records the numerous times Jesus called Himself God. John 10:33 shows His enemies testify that Jesus called Himself God, not a god. John 20:28-Sceptical Thomas finally understood Jesus was 'Ho Theos', The God!

The WTS has lead you astray.
---Warwick on 6/7/12


"francis, the warnings are not referring to adding other books. If it did, it would say so....Mark
If you understood the Bible you would see that it does. This also applies to Frances.
The entire Written Word of God is Prophecy. But, you wouldn't understand that either if you don't know what prophecy is.
---Elder on 6/7/12


francis, the warnings are not referring to adding other books. If it did, it would say so....---Mark_V. on 6/7/12

YEP good post
---francis on 6/7/12


'DeBuhn's qualifications'- Marc

I've spoken with him personally and one thing I can tell you is that he's not Jewish...

...so he's got that going for him. (Wink wink)

You've casually dismissed scholar Wilhelm Gesenius who created the Hebrew-Chaldee Lexican to the Old Testament because he was Jewish and obviously biased...(along with everyone else who disagrees with you)...

...why wouldn't you dismiss Dr. BeDuhn?
---scott on 6/7/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Credit Counseling


"This is not to say 'The Word was a god' is not a possibility." Warwick

Thank you. That's my only point.

This discussion began by someone stating what has been repeated many times...that the "a god" rendering is unique to Jehovah's Witnesses's NWT, an evil plot to change or depart from the Koine Greek text.

Again, some 40 (non Witness) translations reflect the missing article in John 1:1c by either using 'a god' 'divine' or similar.

The rest of your comments are about theology. How your theology is affected by what you now know about the Greek at John 1:1 is for you to decide...

...at least this has been an informative exchange that has dispelled some common misinformation.
---scott on 6/7/12


"... I was giving you correct sound doctrine..."
Cluny
Yea, we have all seen your "sound doctrine" before. I don't know how you can even imply that since you gave no Bible verses at all.
You blame and jump Eloy for the same thing. But I guess you have some special licence to establish "Cluny doctrine" with no evidence.
Ahh... visions of grandeur and a legend in your own mind. The intellectual side is missing Intel.
---Elder on 6/7/12


Scott, I researched BeDuhn and found he does not consider John 1:1 is evidence against the Trinity. This is not to say 'The Word was a god' is not a possibility. But if John meant to convey Jesus is 'divine' i.e. a nonphysical being (not God) why did he not use 'theios' (divine), which would have made the point without ambiguity? The reason I believe is the context, because John says He is Creator. You would have us believe Jesus was a creature who became the Creator! But we know from Genesis God is Creator. We also know from Colossians Jesus is Creator of everything ever created, therefore God, not Himself created.

Context Scott, context. You strive to build a theology upon one phrase.
---Warwick on 6/7/12


francis, the warnings are not referring to adding other books. If it did, it would say so. It is speaking about the word of God written already and adding or taking away from the books. Would God mean only those books where the warnings are given? Could not be so. That would mean that all the other books which the warnings are not mentioned, are open season for anyone to add what they want. That is not true, since even Jesus quoted many books in the old Testament and what would become the word of God in the New Testament.
---Mark_V. on 6/7/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Debt Relief


Scott,

I've seen DeBuhn's name mentioned favourably by JWs on a million sites. The one thing I don't see is his qualification in TRANSLATING Koine Greek. Yes, yes, I know he's a PhD in Religious Studies, and he teaches this subject, but what skill level does he possess for translation.

I have a degree in Religious Studies and did some Greek at uni, but translator? Me? Never!

Furthermore, the list of people who ARE qualified to translate and hold the NWT as a shocker is a lengthy one. AND, MOST IMPORTANTLY, THEY DON'T NEED DEMONS TO SEEK GUIDANCE FOR THEIR TRANSLATION.
---Marc on 6/7/12


Francis, you have to understand the difference and the criteria used to discern between what is genuine "Holy Scripture" and what is "Common Writing, or UnHoly Scriptture". The first criteria is: Valid authorship, for the old testament- the scripture had to be written by a Prophet, or holy man inspired by God. Ex.34:27+ Dt.6:1-8+ Jer.30:2. And for the New Testament, also: Valid authorship- the scripture had to be written by an Apostle, or a holy man inspired by God. For example: A Romance Novel is not equal to Holy Scripture, for a Romance Novel is not dictated are spoken from God to a holy man. The Holy Bible that we accept and use daily, is proven to be from God and worthy of our obedience.
---Eloy on 6/7/12


I have asked before, but never got an answer, so I will ask again:

Where in the current 66 book bible does it say that the WORD OF GOD is limited to 66 books?

If we take the phrase " do not add.. " when it first appears in scripture:
Deuteronomy 12:32 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

We would have only five books:
Genesis | Exodus | Leviticus | Numbers | Deuteronomy and maybe Job as our bible.

The phrase do not add to... only applies to what the specific writter is writing. It does not mean that another book cannot be added, nor does it mean the end of prophets, because we have many prophect after Moses
---francis on 6/7/12


\\I gave Biblical reasons why my statements are correct. They cannot be denyed by the pure spiritual seeking mind and heart.\\

If you truly had a pure spiritual seeking mind and heart, you would realize that you had NOT given Biblical reasons to justify your incorrect statements.

Instead, you would have realized that I was giving you correct sound doctrine, and would accept it as such.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 6/6/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Debt Settlement


Most people heer own KJV of the bible. In every king james verses, there are words in italics, and phrases or words in parenthesis.

If you read the front of your bible it will say that words or phrases in italics and parenthesis, were ADDED IN and not found in the original

One word that was added which has changed the original means of a verse is this:

Daniel 12:11 And from the time [that] the daily [sacrifice] shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, [there shall be] a thousand two hundred and ninety days.

by ADDING the word sacrifice, the translators gave it thier own meaning
---francis on 6/6/12


kevin5443, the Holy Bible contains 66 inspired books, therefore the Unholy books which contain the "added" NonScripture are not the Holy Bible and are not worth even the paper that their NonInspired words are written on it.
---Eloy on 6/6/12


John 1:1- Warwick

Your comments reveal an all-to-familiar lack of understanding of the Koine Greek text in this verse.

Some forty (non-JW) translators render John 1:1 c (kai theos ho logos) either as "a god", "a divine kind", "divine", "godlike kind", "god of a sort" because they understand the significance of the missing article before "Theos" (in reference to "the Word".)

"A lexical translation of the controversial clause would read: "And a god was the Word."

Jason BeDuhn, Ph.D, professor of religious studies Northern Arizona University, TRUTH IN TRANSLATION, 2003, p. 132
---scott on 6/6/12


Scott, Marc's actions are those of someone who will not remain idle allowing you to hoodwink the unknowing. He, like me, is well aware, from experience, the WTS leads an antiChristian cult which enslaves people as opposed to freedom in Christ.

Your quotes have been shown to be rubbish. You recently supplied part quotes from people you claimed supported the WTS idea that Jesus is "a god." Your quotes fell apart upon inspection. Some were total misrepresentations and others selectively quoted. Others were from people of no repute even spiritists like Greber and Thompson. I believe you got this cut and paste misinformation from the WTS, not from personal research.

If you have nothing to hide you should not fear Marc.
---Warwick on 6/6/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Distance Learning


"The lady doth protest too much, me thinks." Shakespeare

Marc's continual references to Jehovah's Witnesses on various threads, even when JW's have nothing to do with the discussion or topic, have not even posted, etc., is fascinating and, well, really adorable"...

...like an 8-year old boy throwing rocks at the little girl that he secretly has a crush on.

Who knows, perhaps at some point he will muster his 8-year old courage to ask if he can hold her hand.

(See conversion of Saul).
---scott on 6/6/12


kevin5443, just because some "bibles" have added chapters/books doesn't mean those books are Scripture. If they were it would still be mandated to not take away truth from them.
James L, the word "prophecy" means to either foretell the truth or to forthtell the truth. The Revelation contains both and so does the rest of the Bible.
To limit the removal of truth to just the Revelation and allow it to be removed from other parts of the Bible would not make sence. That would not be the mind of God at work either.
---Elder on 6/6/12


i find this a interesting topic as i have three bibles one has 66 books another has 72 books and the other has 86 books,which one is correct?
---kevin5443 on 6/6/12


When someone takes what you have said, and then they change what you have said or misapply your words to a different context, and then they re-tell "their own edited version" of what you have said and say that "you rather than they" are the author of the changed words, what does that make that person whom changed your words? The Bible says they are bearers of false witness, or simply put, they are liars. And Revelation chapter 21 and 22 reads that all liars are excluded from heaven.
---Eloy on 6/6/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Education


Elder, here is what I know to be true about Scripture, is that "Anyone who tempers with the Truth by attemping to falsify, mitigate, alter, or misinterpret the Word of God they will incur the judgments described in the Word of God."
If someone argues and says, no, only those books where it's written, then the rest of the Bible is open season. Which is not true at all. Since the whole of Scripture mentions the false teachers. And those warnings are for them also. There should not be an argument coming from those born of the Spirit. Maybe others can argue only certain books count, and the rest don't count as the Word of God, and don't be suprise, many here do.
---Mark_V. on 6/6/12


Good topic.

As you know the Watchtower adds to Exodus 24:11 the words "got a vision of the [true]" in order to lead people away from the fact that Moses et al "saw the God of Israel" (v.10). Why? To prevent people understanding that in Christ "dwells ALL the fullness of the Godhead bodily".

Anyway, their distortion doesn't make sense because why would God "lay his hand against them" if he had originally invited them up to see only a vision?
---Marc on 6/5/12


I agree with Cluny in his answer that "this book" refers to The Revelation itself.

the book of this "Prophecy"

That's what The Revelation is - prophecy

Though there are other prophecies in the NT, those "books" are not books of prophecy, they are books of testimony. Treatises of a New Testament. Of Good News.

Just as Psalms are not prophecies, per se.

Jesus spoke of Law, Psalms and Prophets concerning Himself. But the Law is not prophecy, per se.
---James_L on 6/5/12


Mark V you are so correct. Thanks.
Some get tunnel vision but we need to look and examine the whole Word of God.
---Elder on 6/5/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Home Equity Loans


Elder, you are correct in that when (Rev. 22:18,19) tells us to not added or take away from this book of prophecy, it is talking about the whole word of God that He has spoken through the whole of Scripture. These are not the first warnings in Revelation, there are others. Altering the biblical text brings judgment. Anyone who tempers with the Truth by attemping to falsify, mitigate, alter, or misinterpret it will incur the judgments described in the Word of God. We are reminded of that in (Deut. 4:2: again in 12:32: again in Prov. 30:6: and also in Jer. 26:2).
---Mark_V. on 6/5/12


"\\My statement remains the same correct one.\\
Except it wasn't the first time, and it's STILL wrong."
Cluny
I gave Biblical reasons why my statements are correct. They cannot be denyed by the pure spiritual seeking mind and heart.
Your responce is purly from a humanistic view of what you feel. Your responce is not based on Scripture or the mind of God.
You think because the Gospel of John was written around 90A.D. and the Revelation 95A.D. that God didn't know what He was stating. "Around" should be the key word.
Those that never "want to be wrong" about anything will deny the biblical references and reasons.
These are typical Cluny/Eloy responces and error. Who are you responding as today?
---Elder on 6/5/12


\\My statement remains the same correct one.\\

Except it wasn't the first time, and it's STILL wrong.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 6/4/12


The books didn't have to be written in chronological order for God to know what He was doing, wanted or meant.
The four beast in Rev 4:6-7 cannot be understood unless you study Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
The rainbow in v3 has no meaning with out understanding of the Genesis rainbow.
Rev 5:5-6
Who is the Lion of the tribe of Judah without the OT scripture? Who is the Lamb as it had been slain without the NT?
Rev 7 & 14
Who are the 7 tribes without the rest of Scripture?
Take away from the rest of the Bible and what understanding do you have of the Revelation?
My statement remains the same correct one. The verse in question referes to the rest of Scripture also.
---Elder on 6/4/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Interest Rates


\\I think the verse is concerning the entire written Word\\

Hardly so, as the Gospel according to St. John had not yet been written, nor had some of the Epistles.

You don't actually think that the books of the NT are printed in the chronological order of their composition, do you?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 6/4/12


Cluny said, "This book" is talking about Revelation itself."
I think the verse is concerning the entire written Word. I feel that we can't fully understand the Revelation if we don't have understanding of the rest of the Bible.
Cluney's view is fine because we are not dealing with revealed lifestyle doctrine.
So think it over, read the Bible to include the Revelation and make up your own mind.
---Elder on 6/4/12


Bearers of false-witness have been around since the beginning when the first liar said to the first woman, "Has God said?"
---Eloy on 6/4/12


"This book" is talking about Revelation itself.

Not all the Gospels had even been written yet.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 6/3/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Internet Marketing


Rob,
1st, the bible never was
"a" book! It is a collection of sacred writings bound together in one volume.
Only recently (historically) it has become a single book.(some denominations add or omit some books which is neither right nor wrong!)
2nd, Rev.22 18 refers "only" to Revelation.
3rd,Gospel of John, 1,2 & 3 John were written after Revelation!
Jesus referred to the OT as the Law the Prophets and Psalms,not numbering how many!
Some books may or may not be "holy" writings .IE The book of Esther does not mention God's name at all!
Salvation does not depend on how many books are in your bible!
---1st_cliff on 6/3/12


The Lord likes it when we take a 'leap of faith' in His direction.

Did you ever notice that this ULTIMATUM ('do this OR ELSE') is...[how would say] UNCHARACTERISTIC of a loving kind God? (you need to 'LEAVE THE BOOK' for a moment in order to BE SENTIMENTAL towards "Abba Father" and remember that HE IS A REWARDER).

Hebrews 11:6 "He REWARDS those who LOVE HIM" (instead of 'BOOK' HIM).

....I am not ashamed to have taken this "leap of faith" that my lord has given me the strength to do (I have used my foolishness to love Him and glorify Him even more than I glorified/loved Him before).

...THAT is the kind of love The Lord wants from us (PERFECT love like He gave us on the cross).
---more_excellent_way on 6/3/12


A "scribe" is a person who actually writes the words of an official document (a medical document or a legal document would be penned by a professional "scribe"). The only scribes that penned religious documents when Jesus was on earth were CHILDREN OF HELL (Matthew 23:15).

Scripture is "INSPIRED" by God, but it was CHILDREN OF HELL that actually chose all of the sentences/words that would finally end up on the pages.

Do you possess the ability to use common sense and DOUBT (for the sake of true faith) any of the sentences/words/expressions used in 2,000 year old writings by CHILDREN OF HELL?.

Upgrade your faith to a "FAITH for faith".
---more_excellent_way on 6/3/12


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