Why these warnings in Revelation?

[Chuckt]

If mankind isn't supposed to either add or subtract from the Bible, then why was the King James Version so heavily edited at the Niecine Council?

For that matter, why is it that so many different versions of Christianity interpret the Bible in accordance with their own belief system, even if it goes against another version of Christianity?

Catholics don't believe what Lutherans do, and Northern Baptists have a very different view than Southern Baptists.

Trust me.......................I know.........................I was baptized Lutheran, but was put into a Catholic school for a year or two, and spent part of my time growing up in a Northern Baptist family.

So.........................like I said.........................if you're not supposed to add or subtract from the Bible, then why do so many Christian sects do so?

The King James version wasn't translated until 1611. The council of nicea was AD 325 so they couldn't have edited the King James version.

Why does God say not to make images of him? If you went to the art museum, why does Jesus look Italian if the painter was Italian or why does Jesus look Mexican if the artist was Mexican?

I don't want to go beyone scripture and write my ideas as to why I think why and answer your questions.

If God made things easier, people could have eaten at the tree of life but instead God took it away. Why? Would you like to live forever in a fallen state? Would you like to have death and dieing for all eternity or would you like to have all the problems you have now for all eternity?

Suppose you didn't have Satan to snatch the word out of your heart? Do you know why it can be snatched? Because the seed of God's word didn't fall on good ground. Why is that? A person didn't repent and still has evil in his or her heart that would allow someone like Satan the opportunity to let them think evil about God or doubt God. Even though the word is plain, what would be accomplished if we made faith plain and clear, people saw the evidence of God and unconverted sinners just were given salvation and they came to heaven and didn't love God but decided to continue to have war, fighting and armageddon in heaven? What kind of people can't hear God by faith? People that aren't interested in God. What kind of people can't figure out a parable? Those who aren't interested in listening. What kind of people get divided? Those who don't give God their limits in understanding or those people who choose wrong focal points that God didn't set up.

Matthew 13:13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

Matthew 13:14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:

Matthew 13:15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

Why would God not want to heal them? Jesus spoke in parables so they wouldn't be converted and he wouldn't heal them.

Matthew 13:12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.

If you want light, God will give you more light but if you don't use it, it can be taken away.

A pastor and I picked up on Jesus' speech but it is not something easy that I can just throw into a five minute Bible study.

Why does God let you use your heart to judge where you go? If you love evil, it could be that your heart lets you weed yourself out and away from God making it easier for there to be peace in the millenium and God's kingdom.

 

[PainefulTruth]

The gospel is also found in the Hebrew Bible that the Jews have control over.

What Gospel is that? Not that it matters since it would just be another Gospel.

The New World Translation that the Jehovah Witnesses use and the Lamsa Bible are cultic Bibles. The words have been changed in those Bibles.

They've been changed in every version of the Bible.

God's word being infallible refers to the law that we have today and also the original manuscripts to which we may have just copies.

??

The actual variance in copies is very very small but you could reproduce the Bible from the writings of the church fathers except for maybe 10 to 20 verses. I would have to find you the actual numbers.

I teach about God's word being sufficient because non believers won't let me go farther in teaching innerancy but I could teach about other things.

All the versions are inerrant?

Rev 22:18 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:

Rev 22:19 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.

Is it possible for us to edit the "Word of God"? If not, why the warning? Does scripture not have divine protection? Since it apparently doesn't, how many times has it been added to and taken away from over the millennia? Is it the fear of what we might find if scholars are able to strip away the layers: superstition, misperception, lies, or worst of all, the Truth?

Eve added to what God said and it is why we don't live in Eden today. It is that important.

She didn't edit it, she disobeyed God. And, btw, they ate the apple which was symbolic for becoming self-aware, which is the source of our recognition of good and evil. And that self-awareness didn't cause us to die, it made us conscious of our mortality. That part of the story is really pretty profound, especially given the period in which it was written.

We can edit anything that's written. What we can't do is change the events by editing the book.

That leaves the book as worthless because we can't trust it either way.

No. Scripture is not divinely protected. There is a new politically correct Bible being published now without one reference to Christ. If you come across one, line your bird's cage with it.
The Catholics practically rewrote the Bible using replacement theology.
And therein lies the reason for the warnings. If you change 'Jewish Temple' to 'the Church' you've lost all understanding of what is in store for the Jews, their Temple, and their Messiah. Our Messiah.

So why the warning? It's been changed and one of the changes was the warning.

If you are concerned about what scholars might find, no need. The King James version is remarkably the same as the ancient Greek version. The Dead Sea scrolls testify that except for certain remakes by some groups, the Bible remains in tact. You can trust the King James version.

The Dead Sea Scrolls, which were handled by the same people who wrote the early version of Revelation, despised Paul for how much he changed what Jesus had said and stood for--incorporating Mithraism into "Christianity" which was still there when Constantine "converted". If nothing else, look a his arch there in Rome.

Scholars can strip all the way back to the Septuagint, Jerome's Latin Vulgate, or the remnants of Job, and won't uncover anything but what they already have in front of them.

But using reason, we can deduce an incredibly simple moral code without all the uncertainty behind its supposed divine authority.

Catholics don't believe what Lutherans do, and Northern Baptists have a very different view than Southern Baptists.

Amen to that, they both used the Bible to justify abolition and slavery. And they both have opposing views on separation of church and state (Jefferson coined the term in his agreement with the Connecticut Baptists' desire for such separation).

So.........................like I said.........................if you're not supposed to add or subtract from the Bible, then why do so many Christian sects do so?

“It is only in the CREATION that all our ideas and conceptions of a word of God can unite. The Creation speaketh an universal language.... It is an ever-existing original, which every man can read. It cannot be forged; it cannot be counterfeited; it cannot be lost; it cannot be altered; it cannot be suppressed. It does not depend upon the will of man whether it shall be published or not; it publishes itself from one end of the earth to the other. It preaches to all nations and to all worlds; and this Word of God reveals to man all that is necessary for man to know of God.”
—Thomas Paine

If there is a Word of God, that's it.

 

[Avatar4321]

The Apostle couldn't exactly appeal to copyright law to protect the revelation he recieved.

I think the Lord is very much aware that some people would try to change the words. That's why He gave a warning that the consequences would be serious. Because you can't exactly punish someone for something they haven't been warned about.

As for what's been taken away or added. Could be anything. That is why the Holy Spirit is vital. Because He is a revelator and can teach us the truth of all things.

Why would a prophet of God need copyright protection?

I wonder about producers of religious media and their need for copyrights... Does the Lord not provide?

The Lord has told us to use the laws of the land for the benefit of His work.

The Lord can save us if we jump off a cliff. Doesn't mean it's a good idea to tempt Him.

 

[LittleNipper]

The final draft needed to scare superstitious idiots from not reading material such the Dead Sea Scrolls which prove the middle east had a variety of crazy cults and there is no such thing as Ancient Israelites nor Yahweh.

Ah, no... That's not it...

 

[LittleNipper]

If mankind isn't supposed to either add or subtract from the Bible, then why was the King James Version so heavily edited at the Niecine Council?

For that matter, why is it that so many different versions of Christianity interpret the Bible in accordance with their own belief system, even if it goes against another version of Christianity?

Catholics don't believe what Lutherans do, and Northern Baptists have a very different view than Southern Baptists.

Trust me.......................I know.........................I was baptized Lutheran, but was put into a Catholic school for a year or two, and spent part of my time growing up in a Northern Baptist family.

So.........................like I said.........................if you're not supposed to add or subtract from the Bible, then why do so many Christian sects do so?

Let's start with John 3:16

New International Version
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

New Living Translation
"For God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.

English Standard Version
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

New American Standard Bible
"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

King James Bible
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
"For God loved the world in this way: He gave His One and Only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life.

International Standard Version
"For this is how God loved the world: He gave his unique Son so that everyone who believes in him might not be lost but have eternal life.

NET Bible
For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
For God loved the world in this way: so much that he would give up his Son, The Only One, so that everyone who trusts in him shall not be lost, but he shall have eternal life.

GOD'S WORD® Translation
God loved the world this way: He gave his only Son so that everyone who believes in him will not die but will have eternal life.

Jubilee Bible 2000
For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

King James 2000 Bible
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

American King James Version
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

American Standard Version
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life.

Douay-Rheims Bible
For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting.

Darby Bible Translation
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believes on him may not perish, but have life eternal.

English Revised Version
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life.

Webster's Bible Translation
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whoever believeth in him, should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Weymouth New Testament
For so greatly did God love the world that He gave His only Son, that every one who trusts in Him may not perish but may have the Life of Ages.

World English Bible
For God so loved the world, that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

Young's Literal Translation
for God did so love the world, that His Son -- the only begotten -- He gave, that every one who is believing in him may not perish, but may have life age-during.

 

[Hawkins]

Rev 22:18 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:

Rev 22:19 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.

Is it possible for us to edit the "Word of God"? If not, why the warning? Does scripture not have divine protection? Since it apparently doesn't, how many times has it been added to and taken away from over the millennia? Is it the fear of what we might find if scholars are able to strip away the layers: superstition, misperception, lies, or worst of all, the Truth?

It is a necessary measure again false witnessing. Some people (religious or not) have the habit of altering things in accordance to their own will. It thus has the effect that,

Christians don't care about what non-Christian will do about the Bible. The changes made by non-Christians basically have no effect on the Christians
So the danger is actually from people who call themselves Christians but making changes by their own will. In this case, the warnings have effect to them because they are the believers (may not be true Christians though), to prevent them from making changes by their own will.

 

[Chuckt]

Rev 22:18 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:

Rev 22:19 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.

Is it possible for us to edit the "Word of God"? If not, why the warning? Does scripture not have divine protection? Since it apparently doesn't, how many times has it been added to and taken away from over the millennia? Is it the fear of what we might find if scholars are able to strip away the layers: superstition, misperception, lies, or worst of all, the Truth?

It is a necessary measure again false witnessing. Some people (religious or not) have the habit of altering things in accordance to their own will. It thus has the effect that,

Christians don't care about what non-Christian will do about the Bible. The changes made by non-Christians basically have no effect on the Christians
So the danger is actually from people who call themselves Christians but making changes by their own will. In this case, the warnings have effect to them because they are the believers (may not be true Christians though), to prevent them from making changes by their own will.

Bibles go from literal to less than literal.
If you have a word in Greek, it may require more than one word in English. I have a Bible where the Bible translator used as many words as possible to translate the meaning.
All translation is an interpretation.

Because good translators don't want to make a mistake, they use the most literal meaning and they usually have a group that are highly educated and work to give a translation that doesn't have any denominational bias in it.

There are paraphrases like "The Message" where you don't know where the translation ended and the commentary begins and this is a Bible that violates adding and subtracting because there is no translation justification for some of the words in there.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Rev 22:18 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:

Rev 22:19 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.

Is it possible for us to edit the "Word of God"? If not, why the warning? Does scripture not have divine protection? Since it apparently doesn't, how many times has it been added to and taken away from over the millennia? Is it the fear of what we might find if scholars are able to strip away the layers: superstition, misperception, lies, or worst of all, the Truth?

It is a necessary measure again false witnessing. Some people (religious or not) have the habit of altering things in accordance to their own will. It thus has the effect that,

Christians don't care about what non-Christian will do about the Bible. The changes made by non-Christians basically have no effect on the Christians
So the danger is actually from people who call themselves Christians but making changes by their own will. In this case, the warnings have effect to them because they are the believers (may not be true Christians though), to prevent them from making changes by their own will.

Bibles go from literal to less than literal.
If you have a word in Greek, it may require more than one word in English. I have a Bible where the Bible translator used as many words as possible to translate the meaning.
All translation is an interpretation.

Because good translators don't want to make a mistake, they use the most literal meaning and they usually have a group that are highly educated and work to give a translation that doesn't have any denominational bias in it.

There are paraphrases like "The Message" where you don't know where the translation ended and the commentary begins and this is a Bible that violates adding and subtracting because there is no translation justification for some of the words in there.

You are right.

Quick question.................are you willing to translate it from Hebrew (meaning the original language) or do you think you have to translate it from the Roman (meaning Latin witch means a lot of translation problems where they translate it to what they believe).

Sorry, but unless you translate directly from the Hebrew to whatever language you speak, you're gonna get the wrong stuff.

 

[Vox]

Anybody, anybody?

you overstate the significance of Revelation.

Besides not everybody is in the futurist or historicist camp, you know

 

[Avatar4321]

Not really seeing why it's so difficult to understand that God might want us to know the consequences of our actions.

 

[BreezeWood]

.

Why these warnings in Revelation?

Bibles go from literal to less than literal.

If you have a word in Greek, it may require more than one word in English.

what if it is not the wording .. but the message ?

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

.... no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

well what if it is not the wording but an (errant) scripture used as a foundation by the Christian religion that is antithetic to the true religion of Remission as commanded by God ?


Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life:

nothing wrong there -

it is the latter embellishment that is at fault - "no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."



Why these warnings in Revelation?

the warnings themselves may be inaccurate - what the warnings really are saying is (to) find the inaccuracies (why mankind is expelled) and correct them to find the True Path of Remittance to the Everlasting.



JC was chosen by God but not for his embellishments ... Eloi, Eloi, Lama Sabachthani

.

 

[PainefulTruth]

It is a necessary measure again false witnessing. Some people (religious or not) have the habit of altering things in accordance to their own will. It thus has the effect that,

Christians don't care about what non-Christian will do about the Bible. The changes made by non-Christians basically have no effect on the Christians
So the danger is actually from people who call themselves Christians but making changes by their own will. In this case, the warnings have effect to them because they are the believers (may not be true Christians though), to prevent them from making changes by their own will.

So Christians don't need the Bible? If only Revelations is corrupt, take it out. All in favor...... (That's how they decided 400 years after Jesus lived which books were "holy".) I think whoever wrote those warnings had Paul first in mind. He's the one who came up with the pagan, mystery rite of consuming symbolic human flesh and blood.

Because good translators don't want to make a mistake,

Yeah, and bad ones do, but they're both wrong. And how are we to know which is right, if any of it, 2-3000 years later?

they use the most literal meaning and they usually have a group that are highly educated and work to give a translation that doesn't have any denominational bias in it.

Literal when the author meant allegory and vice versa. One of the biggest mistakes mankind makes is trying to decide Truth by committee. That's how the Bible was decided on, then the victors went out and started burning all the heretical stuff. But they missed some in the Nag-Hammadi Library and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Now they've found Jesus' family tomb, but they lost his bones. Children were playing with them the first night they were found because they didn't secure the tomb. Doesn't look like God protect the Bible or sacred bones--not that It can't or won't, but that It mustn't.

There are paraphrases like "The Message" where you don't know where the translation ended and the commentary begins and this is a Bible that violates adding and subtracting because there is no translation justification for some of the words in there.

Yes, but unfortunately that doesn't stop people from guessing or interpolating and saying that's what God told them to write.

you overstate the significance of Revelation.

Is it not part of the Bible? How do you know it isn't, or that the rest of the Bible, or parts (?) of it, are genuine revelation. That's the problem, people been deciding what God says, and what It really means, since man's been thinking at all--either by committee, or a single monk in his cell.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Revelation is a book of the Bible written by men who were born long after the time of Christ, as well as who were Christians who ignored a lot of the OT because they were trying to show they had the one true line to God.

Sorry, but if you want to get the true meaning of what God said, you've got to go and ask the Jewish people, they are the only ones who have kept the words (as well as the meaning) true.

Yes.....................Jesus (or............if you call Him by His true Name, Yeshua) was Jewish. It's only because of Paul and the Romans that His teachings have been bastardized.

Catholics are wrong, and so are Lutherans, as well as many other sects of Christianity. They all try to convince people they're the right ones, while denigrating the other sects who don't have the same views.

I really don't think that God wanted mankind to have religion, because if you look at the Jewish faith, it's more of a blueprint for how society should function, rather than how they should believe.

Jews have 613 "rules" (or mitzvoth if you prefer), but not all of them apply to all people. There are different rules for men than women, as well as different rules for the butcher, the baker, as well as the priests.

 

[PainefulTruth]

Revelation is a book of the Bible written by men who were born long after the time of Christ, as well as who were Christians who ignored a lot of the OT because they were trying to show they had the one true line to God.

I disagree. In fact, Paul with his Christology is the one who ignored The Law; and the core of Revelation was written by early Ebionites or Jewish followers of Jesus around 90 CE, which was added to by Pauline Christians later.

But that's irrelevant here anyway. The issue is divine sanction. If some of the Bible doesn't have it, which parts don't. I of course believe none of it does, but for the sake of argument I'm asking that if one or some parts don't, what's your authority/evidence against a divinely sanctioned whole except an emotionally driven blind faith that excuses any problems you come across. The same style warning is also in Deuteronomy. Is that book or passage not the Word of God either?

I've gotta say that in all the years I've been discussing religion, particularly Bible based religion, this is the first time I've come across this tack, and I must say it smacks of desperation. To deny that the Bible's divine authority as a whole opens a whole new Pandora's Box of worms.

Sorry, but if you want to get the true meaning of what God said, you've got to go and ask the Jewish people, they are the only ones who have kept the words (as well as the meaning) true.

If the true meaning has to be parsed, then how can it be the Word of God? Wouldn't God have the ability to speak plainly to all? If the Word can get bogged down in translation, syntax and shades of meaning, that alone shows its vulnerability to human corruption.

The views behind these first two comments seem to be different than your statements that follow:

Yes.....................Jesus (or............if you call Him by His true Name, Yeshua) was Jewish. It's only because of Paul and the Romans that His teachings have been bastardized.

If that's the case then the book of James and parts of Revelation are about the only ones exempt from Paul's corrupt, Herodian influence--an argument which I'm making as well, btw.

Catholics are wrong, and so are Lutherans, as well as many other sects of Christianity. They all try to convince people they're the right ones, while denigrating the other sects who don't have the same views.

What, if any, type of Christian are you then?

I really don't think that God wanted mankind to have religion, because if you look at the Jewish faith, it's more of a blueprint for how society should function, rather than how they should believe.

Monotheism was the first and foremost tenet of Judiasm. "Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God, the LORD is one", is the Shema Y'Israel, the most important part of a prayer service in Judaism. But I agree with the sentient of your statement. I believe we're here to be tested, to see how we choose to interact with others, and what personal conduct we choose to follow--without any evidence of God's supervision. Our actions should be the same as if there is no God. Our interpersonal morality is self-sustaining.

Jews have 613 "rules" (or mitzvoth if you prefer), but not all of them apply to all people. There are different rules for men than women, as well as different rules for the butcher, the baker, as well as the priests.

True, and I believe that besides its basis in divine revelation, that's Judaism's greatest flaw. Universal, interpersonal morality is very simple. Mixing that up with personally determined virtues is where things get so screwed up; and it happens when the powers that be use such an all encompassing morality and fear to manipulate the people.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Interesting discussion, P.T. - J.

 

[PainefulTruth]

Interesting discussion, P.T. - J.

What are your thoughts on it?

 

[Vox]

you overstate the significance of Revelation.

Is it not part of the Bible? How do you know it isn't, or that the rest of the Bible, or parts (?) of it, are genuine revelation. That's the problem, people been deciding what God says, and what It really means, since man's been thinking at all--either by committee, or a single monk in his cell.

Being PART of the Bible does not make it even equal significance to the Scriptures.
and taking few words out of context to make it fit your agenda - may help you to start a new profitable sect, but it still does not change the fact you are manipulating the words to fit YOU.

and you conveniently ignored the second part of my post
I'll repeat - if YOU are a historicist or a futurist, that does not mean everybody else is.

Most theologians are preterists, with some being idealists and that tells it all.

 

[Chuckt]

you overstate the significance of Revelation.

Is it not part of the Bible? How do you know it isn't, or that the rest of the Bible, or parts (?) of it, are genuine revelation. That's the problem, people been deciding what God says, and what It really means, since man's been thinking at all--either by committee, or a single monk in his cell.

Being PART of the Bible does not make it even equal significance to the Scriptures.
and taking few words out of context to make it fit your agenda - may help you to start a new profitable sect, but it still does not change the fact you are manipulating the words to fit YOU.

and you conveniently ignored the second part of my post
I'll repeat - if YOU are a historicist or a futurist, that does not mean everybody else is.

Most theologians are preterists, with some being idealists and that tells it all.

Citation? How do you know most theologians are preterists?

 

[PainefulTruth]

Being PART of the Bible does not make it even equal significance to the Scriptures.

What? Isn't the Bible, scripture?

and taking few words out of context to make it fit your agenda

What's out of context? Please explain how they're taken out of context. That's such an easy charge to make, especially when you can't back it up.

may help you to start a new profitable sect, but it still does not change the fact you are manipulating the words to fit YOU.

"Profitable sect"??? I don't believe in any of it's supernatural elements except for the history and an occasional bit of wisdom it might contain. And I'd really really love to know how I'm making a profit by merely proclaiming the Truth. You're just throwing accusations up on the ceiling to see what sticks.

and you conveniently ignored the second part of my post
I'll repeat - if YOU are a historicist or a futurist, that does not mean everybody else is.

Most theologians are preterists, with some being idealists and that tells it all.

More accusations couched in obscure labels. For the record, I'm merely an advocate of the Truth, something I'd be willing to bet you claim to advocate as well. The difference is that while you would probably equate Truth with the Word of God, I equate it with God Itself.

 

[Vox]

what is your problem with the text, to start with?

for a big number of Christians, which are preterists, Revelation does not mean anything in particular, except the historical depiction of the events of the first century.

Why should they concentrate on something which is not as relevant as the Gospels themselves?