Whoever Adds , Whoever Takes Away From This Book

[Quietfire]

This has been bought up before, but this is the most authoritive interpretation I had ever read on this question.
This particular verse has been quoted here from both sides and this should put it to bed completely.
From: Catholic Apologetics on the Internet

[i]Revelation 22:18-19 says, "I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words in this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words in this prophetic book, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city described in this book." Doesn't this verse render the Catholic doctrine of sacred Tradition scripturally unviable since your Tradition is added to the Bible?[/i]

That conclusion might be possible if John's phrase "this book" meant "the Bible," but it doesn't. It's a common mistake of Evangelicals and Fundamentalists to assume that John was speaking here of the Bible as we know it--all 73 books (seven less in Protestant versions), from Genesis to Revelation, bound between two covers.

John wrote Revelation before the year 100, so he could not have had the Bible in mind when he penned this warning, because the Bible as we know it (and as many Protestants think he meant it) would not exist in its present form for three centuries.

The Catholic Church defined the canons of the Old and New Testaments at the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397). Before that time Christians weren't certain exactly which books belonged in the canon because the Church hadn't yet made a definitive decision on the issue.

Besides, oral Tradition isn't something added to the Bible. Paul tells us in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 that Tradition comes to us in two forms, written and oral. He exhorts us to "stand firm and hold fast" to both the oral form and the written form of Tradition. In other words, the Lord gave the Church the Bible and oral Tradition as the two ways of preserving and handing on a single thing, the revealed Word of God.

There's another reason Revelation 22:18-19 doesn't disprove the Catholic doctrine of Tradition. Virtually the same warning is given in Deuteronomy 4:2. If we apply there the same principle that you want to apply in Revelation 22, we have a dilemma, because God would have prohibited the adding of anything to his statutes and decrees as found up to and including the book of Deuteronomy. If that were the case, all subsequent books of the Bible, including the book of Revelation itself, would be proscribed because they were added to the Pentateuch. That means Jeremiah and Ezekiel and Paul and John and all the writers of later books would have the aforementioned dreaded plagues "added unto them" because they added to what was already there.

So what was John really warning us about in Revelation 22? Simple. He had written the book of Revelation as a prophetic document for the edification and guidance of the Church, and he didn't want it tampered with--nothing added, nothing subtracted. He knew that some knucklehead in a later generation might decide he could improve on the message, or, like the Jehovah's Witnesses, twist it to better suit his personal theology. Revelation 22:18-19 is essentially a first-century copyright, designed to discourage people from altering the work.

Unfortunately, the anonymous "emendation" of texts was rife in the early centuries of the Church, and bishops had to exercise extreme caution in verifying the authorship of the many "holy books" that were in circulation.

Even in Paul's day there were con artists trying to pass of bogus "scripture" to unsuspecting Christians (many of whom only too readily took the bait): "We ask you, brothers . . . not to be shaken out of your minds suddenly or to be alarmed either by a 'spirit' or by an oral statement or by a letter allegedly from us to the effect that the Day of the Lord is already at hand. Let no one deceive you in any way" (2 Thess. 1:1-3).



Awesome.
Save this one.
Peace

[Quietfire]

Maybe I should have put this in the Apo board.
Anyway, it can be moved.
But in the meantime, it still rocks.

Peace.

[Apotheoun]

Eastern Catholics hold that Scripture is a part of Tradition, and so the former is contained within the latter. Clearly then, no one can ever separate Scripture from the Church's living Tradition, because they form a single whole, and to separate them involves distorting that which God has revealed to man in Christ.

P.S. - Nice article.

Edited July 19, 2004 by Apotheoun

[Guest JeffCR07]

Moreover, I do not think that such a notion is purely Eastern either, though it is admittedly more pronounced in the Eastern Tradition. The West also views the two as inseperable, as well as Magisterial Teaching. They are three legs to the stool of faith, so to speak, and it would cease to be a stool if any, or all, of those legs were removed. They are merely certain aspects of one form.

[Norseman82]

Additionally, read Rev. 1:3. The "book" referred to is not the bible, just the prophecies in the book of Revelations.

[conservativecatholic]

Indeed this is a very nice article! What many Protestants cannot comprehend is the fact that the Bible was compiled and not written as a whole. The Book of Revelation was written as a single book. John stated not to add or take away from that particular book-not The Holy Bible. Even if I were to agree that this verse is referring to the entire Bible, the Protestants would still be in the wrong because Martin Luther literally ripped multiple books out of The Bible and changed Sacred Scripture to support his belief in justification by faith alone.

May God Bless!
-conservativecatholic

[Quietfire]

Now Im glad I put it here in debate.
he,he.

[Quietfire]

I move for Phatcatholic to put the above in his Apo. board, anyone else?

[carrdero]

The "exclusion or inclusion" mentioned in Revelation may just be an extra consideration for us from GOD and could be used to represent all scripture or any other publications. I guess I should explain. The Bible as it stands right now is a fairly big book. To add anymore to that book would make it heavy and burdonsome and could actually harm or discourage us if we were to utilize a weight that heavy in our daily lives. And to lessen the book or take away may not enlighten our path or give us the added information that we need when we need it. The only thing that contains the Gospels in that form is the Bible's binding. It's practical, availiable and easy to handle in its own way.

[Quietfire]

I dont agree.
John was specifically speaking of Revelation. To make it into something it wasnt was dangerous.
The Bible hadnt even been compiled then.

To look at it your way though would simply prove that Luther had no right to remove books from the Bible and add things like "alone" in verses such as "we are saved by faith".

The Church, guided by the Holy Spirit chose those books for a reason, and no one has any right to sit here now and declare they didnt. The books of the New Testament were written by Catholics for Catholics. Period.

What happened 500 years ago is nothing more than sad.
To put it bluntly, temper tantrums led to Lutherism. Someone didnt get their way, and viola! A new religion pops up.

Now, I certainly dont want Protestants thinking I think they are wrong. They have some of the truth, but only Catholicism hold the fullness of the Truth.

Peace.
Comin' out like gangbusters arent you? he,he.

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='Quietfire' date='Jul 19 2004, 08:32 AM'] I move for Phatcatholic to put the above in his Apo. board, anyone else? [/quote]
do you have a link to that info?

that would be easier

[Quietfire]

If I find it I promise to link it on this page. It seems like I started that thread a hundred years ago.


Peace.