Revelation 22, the whole Bible or just Revelation?


#1

Revelation 22:18-19

King James Version (KJV)

18For 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:

19And 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.


#2

What does “this book” refer to?


#3

So your going to say it means just the book of revelation , and not the whole Bible. Well lets pick and choose then.


#4

[quote="Luvtosew, post:3, topic:274774"]
So your going to say it means just the book of revelation , and not the whole Bible. Well lets pick and choose then.

[/quote]

Pick and choose? I'm not sure what you mean. I was simply asking what "this book" referred to, which is obviously just Revelation. You seemed to use the quote within Revelation to support the notion that Tradition has no place in Christianity, specifically Bible-alone Christianity. I'm just wondering why you used a quote which does not support what you seem to be attempting to make it support.


#5

[quote="SteveGC, post:4, topic:274774"]
Pick and choose? I'm not sure what you mean. I was simply asking what "this book" referred to, which is obviously just Revelation. You seemed to use the quote within Revelation to support the notion that Tradition has no place in Christianity, specifically Bible-alone Christianity. I'm just wondering why you used a quote which does not support what you seem to be attempting to make it support.

[/quote]

You asked me a question, those verses is for the whole Bible.


#6

Q: Is this intended to be a defense of sola scriptura?

In v18, the “prophecy” is a specific reference to the Second Coming, and “book” is a specific reference to Revelation. We are not to add to that which has been revealed about it, lest we suffer the fates revealed therein.

In v19, we are warned that ignoring elements of the Revelation will subject us to a similar fate.

How, by logical extension, does that suggest we are to believe only what is written and as it is literally written?


#7

No, the “prophecy” is that of Revelation, of the Second Coming and the events to precede and foreshadow it.


#8

Hmm. Interesting. You mean, the whole Bible which did not yet exist in coherent form at the time of the writing of Revelation? Do you think John knew about the Bible when he wrote Revelation?

When did the Bible as you know it come into being? And how did it come to be? In other words, who compiled it in it’s final form and when?


#9

While I agree with you that the words John wrote about not adding to the book of prophecy did pertain to Revelation itself… I just wanted to point out your statement that I bolded.

He was John, I’m pretty sure he knew about it. Or at least what had been written at the time. Just because the canon was set hundreds of years later doesn’t mean the books weren’t already in circulation prior.


#10

Very poor example. Revelation was NOT the last book written. Several books, including the Gospel of John, were written after this. So, according to you, those books are not valid.

Even worse for your argument, there is a verse in Deuteronomy that says almost the same thing. Should we discard everything after that book?


#11

Where does the verse say it refers to the whole bible? The whole bible was not yet together when that passage was written?

It looks like you are stretching the verse?


#12

Nothing to do with God, do not put words in my mouth,


#13

does this refer to the whole bible or just revelations"

peace


#14

Lets go with the argument that this means the whole bible, which wasn’t compiled yet just for argument sake. Although it doesn’t, but I will entertain your personal interpretation and eisegesis of the text.

As it is written, Adding to Words of the book, or taking away words of the book in context. What book, you allude to it being the entire bible.

That would be condemning Protestantism, being, they removed 7 books of the bible.

The Catholic Church didn’t add books. This can be proven throughout history.

So, according to this specific prophesy, as interpreted through your (pastor’s because lets face it, you must be taught this tradition) eisegesis, you condemn Protestantism at large!

If this passage of the scriptures meant what you think it means, then prove that the Catholic Church added the seven books and you have made your point. Easy enough task :thumbsup: (Albeit to yourself, and others that have been taught by tradition, how to eisegete the scriptures in order to interpret the text to conform to your preconcieved notion)

St. Augustine
"Your design clearly is to deprive Scripture of all authority and to make every man’s mind the authority of what he is to approve or disapprove of. This is not to be subject to Scripture, but to make Scripture subject to you. If you discard authority, to what, I beseech you, will you take yourself?" (Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, 32:19 [A.D. 400])


#15

I didn’t.


#16

[quote="onemangang, post:14, topic:274774"]
Lets go with the argument that this means the whole bible, which wasn't compiled yet just for argument sake. Although it doesn't, but I will entertain your personal interpretation and eisegesis of the text.

As it is written, Adding to Words of the book, or taking away words of the book in context. What book, you allude to it being the entire bible.

That would be condemning Protestantism, being, they removed 7 books of the bible.

The Catholic Church didn't add books. This can be proven throughout history.

So, according to this specific prophesy, as interpreted through your (pastor's because lets face it, you must be taught this tradition) eisegesis, you condemn Protestantism at large!

If this passage of the scriptures meant what you think it means, then prove that the Catholic Church added the seven books and you have made your point. Easy enough task :thumbsup: (Albeit to yourself, and others that have been taught by tradition, how to eisegete the scriptures in order to interpret the text to conform to your preconcieved notion)

St. Augustine
"Your design clearly is to deprive Scripture of all authority and to make every man's mind the authority of what he is to approve or disapprove of. This is not to be subject to Scripture, but to make Scripture subject to you. If you discard authority, to what, I beseech you, will you take yourself?" (Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, 32:19 [A.D. 400])

[/quote]

The Church didn't always have the 7 books in their bible, I read the history. What do those books add, purgatory and payment for prayers? I know the CC doesn't like personal interpretation of scripture that is obvious. No reason really for a Catholic to have a Bible, the Church will teach you all you need to know.


#17

Most PROTESTANT Bible scholars assert the above verses are speaking of the Book of Revelation, not the entire Bible. You’re welcome to your opinion, but its in a minority, even on your side of the Tiber.


#18

What is interesting for fundamentalists is thier ‘dispensationalist’ left behind theology does just that, it adds to the Book of Revelation what is clearly not there.


#19

[quote="Luvtosew, post:5, topic:274774"]
You asked me a question, those verses is for the whole Bible.

[/quote]

Where do those verses state its reference to the entire Bible? Second,which Bible is it referring to since Christianity did not have a canonized Bible by the end of the 1st century.


#20

I believe it's a pretty big stretch, to put it nicely, to say it refers to anything outside of Revelation itself. My opinion is that this claim is most often meant to be an uncharitable 'zinger' than one based on truth in love.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.