Additions to the Bible ?

[GlorytoGod]

why are there no additions to the Bible ?

is this biblical that, the Bible is the final revelation from God ?

 

[bananabrain]

according to most bible scholars and critics, the "bible" is pretty much just additions upon additions. and, according to christians, the "new" testament is "final", whereas according to muslims, the Qur'an is "final", whereas according to the baha'i, there are yet more revelations. in point of fact, the only bit that everyone (apart from bible critics) agrees is *definitely* Revelation is the pentateuch, or jewish Torah!

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[GlorytoGod]

and, according to christians, the "new" testament is "final"

and that is my question, why is the New Testament final and is the this a Biblical belief ?

 

[bananabrain]

well, i'm jewish, so i don't hold that belief. and i'm not sure what you mean by asking whether it's a biblical belief. do you mean is it in the bible itself? as to that, i really couldn't say, i don't know of that myself

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Marsh]

and that is my question, why is the New Testament final and is the this a Biblical belief ?

Well, as a Christian I believe that the Bible is a book that contains knowledge of the one, true, living God-- the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. I believe that the book I know as the Old Testament is a revelation of God: his creation of the world, the ways he wanted us to live by, his reaction to us when we choose not to follow those ways, etc.

I believe that the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John should be added to the Bible because these are the books that speak of Jesus' life, and since I believe that Jesus is the messiah, his life is an important revelation of God.

Though other Christians believe whole-heartedly in Acts and in the letters as being the fully-inspired word of God, I believe that they are letters written by early Christians and based on their experiences as Jesus' first followers. I believe that they are written to advise and to encourage Christians in their lives, and that the authors had an extremely close relationship to Christ (i.e. had been his disciples, or had received visions and empowerment by the Holy Spirit), but personally I am critical about these letters, and don't put an equal amount of importance on them as I do the rest of the Bible; the choice of these letters was by consensus, and some were left out. I don't place as much importance on the book of Acts, either, though it does make for an interesting comparison between my church and the first church.

I believe that the Revelation of Jesus Christ is the final prophecy given to us by God before the end of the age, and basically that means there is nothing else that really needs saying until the prophecy is fulfilled, and Christ returns to establish his kingdom. Just like there was a gap of about 400 years between the last of the OT prophecies and the birth of Christ, there is now simply a gap between Revelation and its fulfillment. Adding anything would be superfluous.

 

[winner08]

Well, as a Christian I believe that the Bible is a book that contains knowledge of the one, true, living God-- the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. I believe that the book I know as the Old Testament is a revelation of God: his creation of the world, the ways he wanted us to live by, his reaction to us when we choose not to follow those ways, etc.

I believe that the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John should be added to the Bible because these are the books that speak of Jesus' life, and since I believe that Jesus is the messiah, his life is an important revelation of God.

Though other Christians believe whole-heartedly in Acts and in the letters as being the fully-inspired word of God, I believe that they are letters written by early Christians and based on their experiences as Jesus' first followers. I believe that they are written to advise and to encourage Christians in their lives, and that the authors had an extremely close relationship to Christ (i.e. had been his disciples, or had received visions and empowerment by the Holy Spirit), but personally I am critical about these letters, and don't put an equal amount of importance on them as I do the rest of the Bible; the choice of these letters was by consensus, and some were left out. I don't place as much importance on the book of Acts, either, though it does make for an interesting comparison between my church and the first church.

I believe that the Revelation of Jesus Christ is the final prophecy given to us by God before the end of the age, and basically that means there is nothing else that really needs saying until the prophecy is fulfilled, and Christ returns to establish his kingdom. Just like there was a gap of about 400 years between the last of the OT prophecies and the birth of Christ, there is now simply a gap between Revelation and its fulfillment. Adding anything would be superfluous.

Greetings Marsh, I was wondering why you don't put much belief in the letters from Paul to the churches?? I know you believe in scriptures and that scriptures are the inspired word of God. You don't believe that Paul was inspiered by God to write those letters to the churches?? I believe that Paul was inspiered by God to write those letters. Just a question.

 

[Dondi]

It is common belief in some Christian circles that the verses in Revelation 22:18-19 extend to the entire canonical bible.

"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

But the canon of the bible wasn't finalized for another 200 years after Revelation was written, so I find it difficult to believe that this warning would extend outside of a book that was circulating around well before the New Testament was compiled.

On the other hand, since Revelation is a prophesy on the end of the age, the end of all things and the creation of a new heaven and new earth, it makes a tidy bookend to match Genesis and it was the last book to be written by an Apostle, if you take the traditional approach.

My feeling is that as much as we stick as close to the original sources, the more preserved and pure will we find the original teachings of Christ. If we start considering late sources, we chance on finding aberrant or heretical teachings. Even the canonical writers speak of such false teachings creeping in.

Personally, I value Paul's letters as scriptures. Realize that his letters are dated before the Gospels were even written. So his writings were even closer to the events than the Gospels, albeit he never walked with Christ while Jesus was alive.

And such as it is, there is soooo much we need to master from the bible as it stands now, I feel there is really no need to delve into any other extant writings. We need to know what is already there and apply to our lives that it will take a lifetime or more just to obtain that.

It is also why I am skeptical with these TV evangelists who seem to have a 'prophetic word' week after week. People are so latched onto that, that they really do not understand what the bible really says.

100 fold return on you seed gift, indeed. Pssft!

 

[Marsh]

Greetings Marsh, I was wondering why you don't put much belief in the letters from Paul to the churches?? I know you believe in scriptures and that scriptures are the inspired word of God. You don't believe that Paul was inspiered by God to write those letters to the churches?? I believe that Paul was inspiered by God to write those letters. Just a question.

Well, I'm not really sure, Winner. I believe that Paul was an apostle of Jesus Christ, and that he was a very faithful man, and that he gave his life up for the glory of God. And yes, I think that Paul was inspired by God to go on his mission trips and to spread the good news. I also believe that Paul was an apostle, and not a prophet.

Prophets receive prophecy from God, and write it down for others to read. Paul instructed, but not as a prophet. The idea that the letters are the inspired word of God doesn't sit well with me; instead, I look at them as being extremely well-intentioned writings of people with intense faith and knowledge that exceeds my own at this point, but not the word of God per se.

There are exceptions, though, and I do admit that there are certain times where, I believe, Paul does prophecy in his letters. There are also times where he states his own opinion-- and tells us that he's doing so.

I still read the letters from time to time, but just not as much as the gospels.

 

[iBrian]

why are there no additions to the Bible ?

is this biblical that, the Bible is the final revelation from God ?

The Bible canon we have now was finalised by councils in the 4th century - interesting enough, some of the NT letters were originally refuted, or even held likely to be forgeries - but interesting enough to consider as essential Christian reading.

Meanwhile other books also popular at the time, such as the Shepherd of Hermes and 2 Clement were removed from future publications, and I believe it was the case that Revelations was one of the last to be accepted - while immensely popular, there seems to have been a lot of unease about including it.

There are also various "scriptural" and related additions in the existing canon that were not present in the earlier tests - the end of Mark is a classic example, which appears to have finished at the crucifixion in early manuscripts, before a resurrection account was apparently added onto it - and kept.

Hope that helps.

 

[winner08]

Well, I'm not really sure, Winner. I believe that Paul was an apostle of Jesus Christ, and that he was a very faithful man, and that he gave his life up for the glory of God. And yes, I think that Paul was inspired by God to go on his mission trips and to spread the good news. I also believe that Paul was an apostle, and not a prophet.

Prophets receive prophecy from God, and write it down for others to read. Paul instructed, but not as a prophet. The idea that the letters are the inspired word of God doesn't sit well with me; instead, I look at them as being extremely well-intentioned writings of people with intense faith and knowledge that exceeds my own at this point, but not the word of God per se.

There are exceptions, though, and I do admit that there are certain times where, I believe, Paul does prophecy in his letters. There are also times where he states his own opinion-- and tells us that he's doing so.

I still read the letters from time to time, but just not as much as the gospels.

Greetings marsh:
Just so I understand what you are saying, That only the prophets were inspiered by God to write what they saw are what was said to them. Is this correct?? If so then what was James, Peter, John, Jude, Matt. Mark Luke and John?? I believe these were not prophets. Meaning prophet as in the old testement. You know God given an account of what is to happen in the future. Maby warnings about certain situations. I believe these guys were teachers, or instructors like Paul. just think about it for a moment. Here we have Saul who hated God and all chrisitans and God chose him on the road to damascus. I wonder just how much did Saul know about God and the teaching of Jesus Christ. Then In a split sec Saul was converted. Who taught Paul? I have an idea but that's for a different thread. If i miss understood you I apologized. (it would not be the first or the last) Thanks for understanding.

Darren

 

[GlorytoGod]

The Bible canon we have now was finalised by councils in the 4th century - interesting enough, some of the NT letters were originally refuted, or even held likely to be forgeries - but interesting enough to consider as essential Christian reading.

Meanwhile other books also popular at the time, such as the Shepherd of Hermes and 2 Clement were removed from future publications, and I believe it was the case that Revelations was one of the last to be accepted - while immensely popular, there seems to have been a lot of unease about including it.

There are also various "scriptural" and related additions in the existing canon that were not present in the earlier tests - the end of Mark is a classic example, which appears to have finished at the crucifixion in early manuscripts, before a resurrection account was apparently added onto it - and kept.

Hope that helps.

I accept the Bible as a complete work, however I am unsure of the scriptural basis for not accepting other works as the revealed word of God.

So far it seems to be entirely based on what Dondi posted

It is common belief in some Christian circles that the verses in Revelation 22:18-19 extend to the entire canonical bible.

"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

 

[iBrian]

There was no agreed canon at the time of Revelations, though - which is commonly dated at the end of the first century. There were a raft of other manuscripts in circulation which were used by the faith, and as above with Mark, "scribal additions" have certainly made their way into the Bible, which can be seen by comparison of our later copies with early versions.

And the only way the canon was decided was through a democratic vote of the bishopric - claiming that the "spirit of God" would work through whichever council was at work at the time with God forcing a majority vote one way or another. The tragedy is that few Christians ever see political expediency at work when Rome's appointed made these decisions. Or perhaps I'm too cynical?

 

[wil]

I accept the Bible as a complete work, however I am unsure of the scriptural basis for not accepting other works as the revealed word of God.

So far it seems to be entirely based on what Dondi posted

It is common belief in some Christian circles that the verses in Revelation 22:18-19 extend to the entire canonical bible.

"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

There was no agreed canon at the time of Revelations, though - which is commonly dated at the end of the first century. There were a raft of other manuscripts in circulation which were used by the faith, and as above with Mark, "scribal additions" have certainly made their way into the Bible, which can be seen by comparison of our later copies with early versions.

And the only way the canon was decided was through a democratic vote of the bishopric - claiming that the "spirit of God" would work through whichever council was at work at the time with God forcing a majority vote one way or another. The tragedy is that few Christians ever see political expediency at work when Rome's appointed made these decisions. Or perhaps I'm too cynical?

Now this is another one that always puzzled me.

Everyone is correct that is what is said at the end of the book of Revelation. But it does not pertain to the bible, or to entire New Testament or to the entire Old Testament. That statement pertains to the book of Revelation, which was written before the canon as mentioned, and then conveniently put at the end when of the compilation, so as the statement now seems to reference the whole book and Revelation seems more like a chapter in the book.

So, the question is. Was this line added after the canon? Or what method do we use to think it applied to the whole book? (tis always a great way to end a book anyway isn't it.)

 

[Dondi]

Now this is another one that always puzzled me.

Everyone is correct that is what is said at the end of the book of Revelation. But it does not pertain to the bible, or to entire New Testament or to the entire Old Testament. That statement pertains to the book of Revelation, which was written before the canon as mentioned, and then conveniently put at the end when of the compilation, so as the statement now seems to reference the whole book and Revelation seems more like a chapter in the book.

So, the question is. Was this line added after the canon? Or what method do we use to think it applied to the whole book? (tis always a great way to end a book anyway isn't it.)

As i have already pointed out immediately after my quote:

But the canon of the bible wasn't finalized for another 200 years after Revelation was written, so I find it difficult to believe that this warning would extend outside of a book that was circulating around well before the New Testament was compiled.

 

[wil]

As i have already pointed out immediately after my quote:

Right, but you do realize that most don't see it that way, and I'm wondering if those that cannonized realized this and whether or not this is thought of as an addition or not.

 

[Amica]

Peace--

I think that the final revelation is easily recognized. First, we have the Jewish documentation of the Message. Even though, according to Islamic teachings, there have been thousands more prophets for humanity besides the israelite prophets pbut, unfortunately the only first book format/written documentation of the original Message (I say this because I think it would be awesome to see all the ones that preceeded the revelation of the Old Testament, just for the further confirmation) is the Holy Bible (both the Old and New Testaments). Therefore, I think anything denying the Holy Bible as the Revelation of God is not the final testament. In my personal belief, the denial of the Bible includes that which teaches people to worship other besides the God as revealed by the Old Testament. The Holy Qur'an states that it confirms the Holy Bible and that it is a Warning, the Last Revelation/Ending of the Revelation all together. It does not demand of Christians or Jews to follow it, it rather encourages Jews and Christians to follow "that which was revealed to them." Although the Holy Qur'an criticizes certain Jews and Christians about changing certain aspects of the Message, at the same time it tells that all believing Christians and Jews (those who follow that which was revealed to them in the original format, the Bible as it was revealed) will go to Heaven, not necessarily do they have to become Muslims to go to Heaven.
Any other claim to new revelations usually include aspects of other non-monotheistic faiths, which to me personally, is a big red flag alarming people that it is not a genuine Revelation from God.
Peace.

 

[TheKhan]

If I had my way,

I will make parts of Buddhism, especially the stories and knowledge passed on by him when he was alive part of the Bible.

If not, I will also require all Christian priests to have an in-depth understanding of buddhism and make it like a higher education requirement for Christian professionals. Like a minor in p.h.d if there is such a thing.

If I was a fascist, I may even require that Muslims and Rabii`s get a degree in buddhism, so that we may all have some common ground to work on.

Look around. Buddhists don`t care if you are buddhist or not. And that is why this could work out.

TK

p.s. in saying this, I don`t mean that buddhist institutions should be given special treatment or nothing of the sort. I just think people around the world should know what buddhism is before buddhism disappears from the face of the earth by adhereing to the practice of showing the other cheek. Now only two or three countries, buddhism may cease to exist in Asian countries within the next thousand years. And I believe in Christian Buddhism.
There are no Ceasars in Buddha`s doctrine.

 

[seattlegal]

I just think people around the world should know what buddhism is before buddhism disappears from the face of the earth by adhereing to the practice of showing the other cheek. Now only two or three countries, buddhism may cease to exist in Asian countries within the next thousand years. And I believe in Christian Buddhism.
There are no Ceasars in Buddha`s doctrine.

Wow. I've never heard put so urgently before. (Looking at what's going on right now in Asia, (Tibet, Burma, Thailand, etc.,) your scenerio doesn't seem so far out of the realm of possibility. )

 

[Marsh]

Greetings marsh:
Just so I understand what you are saying, That only the prophets were inspiered by God to write what they saw are what was said to them. Is this correct?? If so then what was James, Peter, John, Jude, Matt. Mark Luke and John?? I believe these were not prophets. Meaning prophet as in the old testement. You know God given an account of what is to happen in the future. Maby warnings about certain situations. I believe these guys were teachers, or instructors like Paul. just think about it for a moment. Here we have Saul who hated God and all chrisitans and God chose him on the road to damascus. I wonder just how much did Saul know about God and the teaching of Jesus Christ. Then In a split sec Saul was converted. Who taught Paul? I have an idea but that's for a different thread. If i miss understood you I apologized. (it would not be the first or the last) Thanks for understanding.

Darren

I agree completely: they were teachers and instructors. However, they were just like you and me, Darren, with the exception that they had been alive and had been chosen by Jesus as the messengers of the good news. Insofar as they preach the good news, I really enjoy reading their letters. To the extent that they sacrificed their own lives to preach that good news, I would say that they were inspired by God. However, I don't necessarily think that their words can be taken as God's own words because, unlike the prophets, they wrote by their own accord.

The Revelation is different; it is a prophecy delivered to John with the precise instructions to make it known.

The gospels are different; they are historical accounts of Jesus' life, and they contain Jesus' own words (as close as we're gonna get to them, anyways), which have the authority of God's own words because Jesus spoke what God wanted him to speak.

The letters are an important part of my faith; I just don't attach the same level of importance to them as I do to the rest of the Bible. After all, by the time they were written the victory had already been won, the message had been made straight, and there was nothing else that needed to be said. In a sense, the letters just paved the way for the theology that divides Christians today, even though they were not meant to do so, by taking a simple message and making it more complicated.

 

[winner08]

I agree completely: they were teachers and instructors. However, they were just like you and me, Darren, with the exception that they had been alive and had been chosen by Jesus as the messengers of the good news. Insofar as they preach the good news, I really enjoy reading their letters. To the extent that they sacrificed their own lives to preach that good news, I would say that they were inspired by God. However, I don't necessarily think that their words can be taken as God's own words because, unlike the prophets, they wrote by their own accord.

The Revelation is different; it is a prophecy delivered to John with the precise instructions to make it known.

The gospels are different; they are historical accounts of Jesus' life, and they contain Jesus' own words (as close as we're gonna get to them, anyways), which have the authority of God's own words because Jesus spoke what God wanted him to speak.

The letters are an important part of my faith; I just don't attach the same level of importance to them as I do to the rest of the Bible. After all, by the time they were written the victory had already been won, the message had been made straight, and there was nothing else that needed to be said. In a sense, the letters just paved the way for the theology that divides Christians today, even though they were not meant to do so, by taking a simple message and making it more complicated.

I do agree 100 percent Marsh. the Theologens do take the simple message and do make it more complicated than need to be. They also take Christ message and God's word (scripture) and straight up lie to their flock in order to use fear instead of love for God. They use the fear of a place called hell where God who is an all loving God and full of mercy but yet He will send you there to be toture and burned for all eternity. One more thing. A God who knows the end from the beginning. OK So He knew before He created anyone of us, who would be a non believer and would be sent to hell before we were even created. Yet still created us. What kind of god is that? To know before hand that he would be sending them to hell and yet still create them??