The B-I-B-L-E
I found something interesting the other day. I always knew that it said in Revelation that we were not to add or subtract from the words of the book. Literally speaking, it would be logical to think that could just apply to the Book of Revelation, but I always thought and taught it was talking about the Scriptures as a whole. I do not think that God would reveal anything new, although the Holy Spirit might give a new slant on certain things...I think any revelation or word of prophecy needs to be tested against the Written Word - the Holy Bible. And that word will never contradict the basic Bible teaching.
But as far as that "do not add command," I found it in at least 2 other places...One in Deuteronomy (4:2 and 12:32 ) and one in Proverbs 30:6. And a lot has been added to the Word since those times. Also - I am still quite interested in the (and I can never spell or pronounce this word) Apaphrica - uggg - the "extra" old testement books that are contained in the Catholic (and Orthadox I think) versions of the Bible. Someone said that it was Martin Luther who first decided that they didn't belong in the Bible...a few Rabbis I've consulted said that they were probably included in the Scriptures studied in the time of Jesus (and therefore would have been included in 2 Timothy 3:16 as "all Scripture") And Jude quotes at least one of them.
And one more thing, I always thought the quote "Let Scripture interpret Scripture" was actually in the Bible, and I can't find it there.
Well, that's all I have to say for now...blessings!
12 comments:
Great post.
I know you already know many of my thoughts about the bible so I won't say much.
Bible is not as simple as we may think. "The adding to this book" quote from Revelation is somewhat controvercial but I don't think we have any reason to think that the caommand extends beyond the book of Revelation.
We have to trust that when they cannonized the bible, they knew what they were doing. We Can trust the scriptures, why reach beyond them except for the purpose of better understanding them? For example it's ok to read the gospel of Thomas but in the end the purpose of doing so is to better undrstand the gospels which are in the cannon.
Sometimes I wonder, if we had never cannonized the scriptures, would God still have inspired writers? Might we have found stories of Christopher Columbus or Oscar Romero in the Scriptures? It's interesting to ponder.
Interesting point there. And in the sight of the other "do not add" verses I found in the Old Testament, perhaps it is acceptable to think the Revelation verse relates only to the book of Revelation. I guess, because Revelation seems to tell the "end of the story" that it is logical that it is the end of the BOOK. And, as hard as it is to admit, the canonization of the Bible was done at a time when the Roman Catholics held all the cards. It was their call. And that collection of other books, which I can not say or spell, were part of it. So who decided to take them out and why????
Ashley, your comment snuck in while I was typing mine...Glad to hear from you.
As far as Luther goes, the recent movie on his life was shown at our church a few months ago. The Small Group Leader who showed it said that we owed so much to Luther, that we wouldn't be the church we are now if it weren't for him. What a hero!
I was more or less indifferent to him at the time (Luther). I'm more of a Wesley fan...but when it comes to theology and doctrine, I like to go as far back as I can...to the root of the matter. After watching that movie, I started hearing some rather distrubing things about Luther, about his intense hatred of jews and the fact that he felt the Book of James didn't belong in the Bible because of that pesky old "Faith without works is dead" statement. And he did choose to leave out the...now how did you spell that? Apocrypha when he translated the Bible into German. I believe the corruption of the Roman Catholic Church had to be delt with, however, I don't see Luther as much of a hero figure.
The command, as Jason said whether it is found in the OT, or Revelation, applies to whatever is God's Word. Since the entire Bible is God's Word it applies to the entire Bible. It is irrelevant when in history that the command was written.
If you follow the sloppy exegesis of the emerging "theologians" you only view the Bible through an historical and cultural context, both of which are secondary to the Holy Spirit, and what the Scriptures are actually saying today to us.
The original King James 1611 had the apocrypha in it, and it was removed shortly thereafter. (always the "Roman" effort to discredit Luther and the Reformers)
The writings that Jude and Paul quote (book of Enoch etc) are not from the apocrypha that The RC includes in their Bible, which is the same one that originally was included in the first King James.
Those Books such as 1 and 2 Machabees, Sirach, Ecclesiasticus
and the editions to Daniel, i.e. Bel and the Dragon, etc. are considered by the Rabbis to be books that are historical but not included in the canon of Hebrew Scripture.
They were removed from the King James for the same reason.
Wes
I would like to know how studying the nonsensical gospel of Thomas, and/or the other infancy gospels, will help us understand the true Gospel narrative? Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are fact. Thomas is a fairy tale.
As far as the comment that we must trust that those who canonized the Bible knew what they were doing, I say I trust that God knew what He was/is doing, and therefore nothing is in the Scripture today that shouldn't be. Even the "portions" of the apocryphal books that Paul and Jude quote are true, and are therefore part of the canon. If it's there, the Lord wanted it there, so we would know it.
We do not have the control over things, that everyone assumes we have.
Maryellen
Since I am the "Luther-worshipping" small group leader you refer to I will say that I did not hold him, up as hero. God raised up Luther. He was flawed, and so was Wesley. If we are to judge by what we would consider men's faults, then Peter, Paul, David, Gideon etc. etc. should be tossed from our Bibles and never mentioned again. There are no sinless men, as 1 John 1 tells us.
Wesley would not have had the same opportunities that he actually had, if GOD had not raised up someone to free Scripture and the Church from papal oppression and tyranny.
This is what happens when we don't proclaim a sovereign, ominiscient, God who has a plan, rather than us creating our own future of which we, or God Himself, haven't a clue.
mpleysnh"If you follow the sloppy exegesis of the emerging "theologians" you only view the Bible through an historical and cultural context, both of which are secondary to the Holy Spirit, and what the Scriptures are actually saying today to us" - Chris, that's not 'emerging' exegesis, it's just bad exegesis. Good exegesis Takes into account context, Spirit, and truth. Exegesis that ignores any of those factors is sloppy. It's not confined to the EC, neither is it characteristic of it.
I'll admit that Mclaren can come across like that. It concerns me too! But I don't think it is common to the EC as a whole - at least, none of the ec-ers I've met (which is alot).
Maryellen, your word verification is doing the same thing to me that Cindy's was - making me write naughty words. Just FYI.
Chris, I did not call you "luther worshiping" and it was you who chose to identify yourself... I was just stating a fact, nothing personal. Since I do not carry tape recorders around, I do not remember your exact words before or after the movie, but I know your comments were very pro-Luther.
As you continue to comment, I get more and more confused about what you actually believe. If the "do not add" verse appeared in Deuteronomy and then words were added, and again it appeared in Proverbs and again words were added, and then in revelation...Did God change His mind...
"oh wait, I forgot something"
who is to say, using your logic, that mohammad or smith were wrong in adding to the word?
They both said they were receiving a revelation strait for God. And ofcourse we can't forget the book of Mormon. It was the Roman Catholics who cannonized the Bible... how can we trust them? If God used them to do his work, then why are you so sure that the Popes weren't agents of God to continue His revelation. If God used such a flawed man as Luther, why not Pope John XXIII? If God sent angels down to deliever messages to the saints of old, why couldn't Jesus send His mother? Ok, I am not really asking any of those questions. I haven't entirely lost my mind...
MaryEllen - You say that you are not really asking those questions, not having lost your mind. While I suspect he will answer them anyway, let me ask you the same questions then. What is to stop these facts from being true?
(I don't wholly believe that they are, but the why they aren't is crucial.)
MaryEllen: I think you know what I'm going to say. There were a LOT of problems in the Church at the time of Luther. But instead of working within the confines of the Church, he defied authority, became his own pope and "threw the baby out with the bathwater". He was a very intelligent man and could have used his intelligence for good instead of evil.
Now you have years and years of apostasy and heresy-all heaped on his shoulders.
Chris, Luther was not raised up by God. A Jew hating heretic is NOT raised up by God. If you aren't working on the side of God then you are working on the side of.............
No offense
but I am quite clear in what I said. The word of God is the Scriptures as they stand today excluding the apocrypha. So whenever the warnings were written, they are referring to the Word in its entirety.
God already knew what books would be in the Bible, The RC did not put it together. What is called the RC did not exist for many centuries until after Jesus. Ireaneus, who began forming the Scriptures together, and the early church Fathers were not Roman Catholics, inspite of Bridget's revisionist church history. She should talk about jew-hating heretics. The RC is full of them. In fact go back and read some of her's and her buddies blog posts. They are close to denying the holocaust ever happened.
Ashley, where was God when Luther was employing his questionable methods? Everyone is ranting about Luther, and never confronts the Bible "heroes" I brought up. David's sins are arguably worse than Luther's. Could it be that God calls and "elects" men and in the midst of all their flaws His will is done. Of course you would have to believe in a soverign, completely omniscient, God for this to be so.
As for exegesis, I adhere to the Torah steadfastly. I am also aware of the cultural and historical context of each book as I have studied these things. However since Israel and the nations addressed in Scripture do not currently exist in those forms, and since I am not a Hebrew from antiquity,(neither is anyone here for that matter,) and since God's promises and prophecies,i.e. His Word, transcend time and culture, then what does this mean in the present day to His Body? The Holy Spirit reveals the content,i.e.Christ, that the author,i.e. the Father, has spoken/written about.
God's Truths are eternal and are unchanging. So, did God not know that time/history would last as long as it has? History is His-Story. It is the visible evidence of His promises in Romans 8, and the evidence that He has complete prescient knowledge of every man, event, and choice ever made, or that will be made. Without that as your basis, you have all the obvious confusion that is exposed in what currently calls itself the church.
Actually, as we investigate our "family trees" Pastor Art has found quite a few Jewish roots, connections, so perhaps some of us are, at least in part, Hebrew's from antiquity. And as far as Ireaneus is concerned, I will let Pastor Art address that matter because he did extensive research on him in college (I remember typing the paper). I'll tell him to post it on Temple Corners because it will probably be a long one.
I do agree with Chris about the anti-jew sentiment of the Roman Catholics at times. And that some people who post comments on Bridget's blog are very anti-jew. I had to delete a few comments on my site that came from her neighborhood, because of that very thing.
Chris has a point that many Biblical "heros" were flawed. All people are flawed. One of my Bible teachers said that the fact the Bible tells the bad along with the good is proof that it is true, since most slanted history's only tell the good sides of the people who write them. And ofcourse we can learn much from the mistakes of these heros, and much about the forgiveness and steadfast love of God. But the Bible has been written, those stories are sealed...and Bridget too has an excellent point: Luther was not raised up by God. A Jew hating heretic is NOT raised up by God.
Though, I guess if God can speak through an Ass, he could work through a Luther.
Post a Comment