The witnesses are hardly mainstream. Their "doctrine" is figment of their own imagination rather than being based on the Word.

Quoted: The witnesses are hardly mainstream. Their "doctrine" is figment of their own imagination rather than being based on the Word.

Where did that come from?  I'm not quoting any JW doctrine, am I?  If anything, the post I just made was against JW doctrine, wasn't it?

I am not an expert on JW doctrine. But I have had enough JW dealings to know that much of their teachings are considerably off. They believe in lots of those translational errors...

Quoted: I am not an expert on JW doctrine. But I have had enough JW dealings to know that much of their teachings are considerably off. They believe in lots of those translational errors...

I agree 100%, so what's the problem?  A question was ask about when Satan fell to earth, I answered it. Didn't say anything about JW's or their doctrine.

Quoted: When was Satan cast out of heaven? Was it before 1914, or after 1914 as Jehovah Witnesses believe?   Q. When was Satan cast out of heaven? Was it at the beginning of the world or after (as Jehovahs Witnesses believe)? The JWs believe Satan was thrown out in 1914 when the first World War started. Now to me that makes no sense. Why would God keep Satan in heaven after he deceived Adam and Eve and so many others and only decide to throw him out in 1914? (Submitted by: J. W.) A. Satan clearly was tossed out of heaven long before 1914. One key text proving this is Luke 10:18, where Jesus said: "I was watching Satan fall from heaven like lightening." Satan was on earth when he initially revolted against God. Notice that Lucifer/Satan said in Isaiah 14:13: "For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: . . . " So although Lucifer had been the covering cherub, right over God Himself on His throne (see Ezek. 28:14), he then was transferred to the earth while still obedient. While on the earth, ruling over it, he (and one third of the other angels) decided to rebel against God. As he rose up to attack heaven, he was cast down to earth, as Jesus had seen. It does appear, however, that Satan will once again try to rise up from the earth to attack heaven, only to get cast down again. Notice Rev. 12:7-9, which is about the time of the end, not about the initial revolt of Lucifer against God: "And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. " So Satan will be thrown down to the earth again, but this hasn't happened yet. The year 1914 was too long ago for this second attack on heaven by Satan and the demons. I think it will occur during the Great Tribulation just before the Second Coming. If Jehovah's Witnesses teach it happened in 1914, they are wrong. Jesus did not return secretly that year, which is what I believe they teach about what happened then. This is an interesting topic. I did a google and found this.

Wow, what marvelous stories people can find in a brief blurb about a mortal Babylonian king who challenged God!

If you don't mind me asking, what is your evidence that Isiah 14 refers to any sort of supernatural bieng?  From where to you derive the name, "Lucifer?"

Quoted: When was Satan cast out of heaven? *** Snipped for brevity **** A. Satan clearly was tossed out of heaven long before 1914. One key text proving this is Luke 10:18, where Jesus said: "I was watching Satan fall from heaven like lightening." Satan was on earth when he initially revolted against God. Notice that Lucifer/Satan said in Isaiah 14:13: "For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: . . . " So although Lucifer had been the covering cherub, right over God Himself on His throne (see Ezek. 28:14), he then was transferred to the earth while still obedient. While on the earth, ruling over it, he (and one third of the other angels) decided to rebel against God. As he rose up to attack heaven, he was cast down to earth, as Jesus had seen. This is an interesting topic. I did a google and found this.

Not sure who this was directed at, but I'll assume it is for me. I was not espousing JW doctrine, or not intentionally (I am not a Jehovas Witness BTW). I was more concerned with the 1/3 of angels, who was in control of the earth, and who spoke to Eve

I believe it was the serpent and the serpent alone who spoke to Eve. The serpent was punished for his actions and eve was punished for hers, Satan was not mentioned (See Genesis 3).

The article cited is interesting, but just because it's google, doesn't make it true . In the Isaiah 14 passage cited, God (the LORD) was speaking to the king of Babylon, not to Satan (see verse 4). In the Ezekiel 28 passage cited, God (the LORD) was speaking to the prince of Tyrus, not to Satan (See verse 2). The Luke passage cited, is missing a time frame of when he saw it, it could have been at be at any time. This guy is playing fast and loose with the scriptures.

I'm just repeating the caution, and pointing out that we should be wary of how easy it is to violate the warning:

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:

OK, I see what you're getting at. That is interesting. Kind of makes you wonder, doesn't it.  It is so easy to mis-inturpet scripture, that's part of the problem today, too many people want to put their spin on what the Word of God says and not just take it at face value.  Of course we also read in Job that Satan went before God so isn't that kind of strange, Evil in the very presence of God,  I didn't think that God could even look upon evil.  That also kind of makes ya' wonder, doesn't it.

Quoted: OK, I see what you're getting at. That is interesting. Kind of makes you wonder, doesn't it.  It is so easy to mis-inturpet scripture, that's part of the problem today, too many people want to put their spin on what the Word of God says and not just take it at face value.  Of course we also read in Job that Satan went before God so isn't that kind of strange, Evil in the very presence of God,  I didn't think that God could even look upon evil.  That also kind of makes ya' wonder, doesn't it.

Sorry - didn't mean to imply that it was YOUR belief.  I have always been intrigued by these elaborate portrayals of "Hell" and "Satan" ("Lucifer"), and his "fall from grace" and all of those stories told by certain Christian groups - when I just can't see where they come from.  I read Isaiah 14 the same way you do.   Many read it as referring to the fall of an Angel, who becomes the Satan (instead of a satan) - and whose name is Lucifer.  This word "Lucifer" appears only in the King James version of the bible and appears to me to be the result of an incomplete translation from the latin (vulgate) text.

Good link.  So much for God protecting his Word from being messed with.  Looks like it's been messed with plenty.

Quoted: Good link.  So much for God protecting his Word from being messed with.  Looks like it's been messed with plenty.

Don't kid yourself.

God is keeping a scorecard.

he just hasn't called in the  chits yet.

Don't mistake God's mercy for His tolerance.

Quoted: Quoted: Good link.  So much for God protecting his Word from being messed with.  Looks like it's been messed with plenty. Don't kid yourself. God is keeping a scorecard. he just hasn't called in the  chits yet. Don't mistake God's mercy for His tolerance.

Yah, but all ya'll said he WOULDN'T let his word be messed with and it's clear that it has been messed with so what gives?  Either he protects it and keeps it as it was given or he doesn't, and I'm talking about the here and now, not sometime in the future.  Well, talk to me, what gives?

Quoted: Good link.  So much for God protecting his Word from being messed with.  Looks like it's been messed with plenty.

Be careful - the website is clearly written by one of those ardent KJV supporters.  His "removals" are based on the KJV - NOT the original Greek, etc. text.

Quoted: Quoted: Good link.  So much for God protecting his Word from being messed with.  Looks like it's been messed with plenty. Don't kid yourself. God is keeping a scorecard. he just hasn't called in the  chits yet. Don't mistake God's mercy for His tolerance.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:


Explains the many plagues that man have encountered through out history.

Quoted: Yah, but all ya'll said he WOULDN'T let his word be messed with and it's clear that it has been messed with so what gives?  Either he protects it and keeps it as it was given or he doesn't, and I'm talking about the here and now, not sometime in the future.  Well, talk to me, what gives?

God takes a long view of things. He operates on His own schedule.

OBVIOUSLY God IN THE SHORT TERM allows certain behaviours.

But ultimately all will be called to account.

In His mercy God gives us all the opportunity to repent. But tomorrow is NOT guaranteed us. TODAY is the day of salvation.

To answer the original question, I honestly believe that it referred to the whole Bible.

<----ain't gonna add to, nor take away!

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Good link.  So much for God protecting his Word from being messed with.  Looks like it's been messed with plenty. Don't kid yourself. God is keeping a scorecard. he just hasn't called in the  chits yet. Don't mistake God's mercy for His tolerance. Yah, but all ya'll said he WOULDN'T let his word be messed with and it's clear that it has been messed with so what gives?  Either he protects it and keeps it as it was given or he doesn't, and I'm talking about the here and now, not sometime in the future.  Well, talk to me, what gives?

The existence of various versions of the Bible today does not alter the truth of it. I will make this very simple:

The Apostles wrote letters to various churches that recorded the life and ministry of Jesus, their various travels, and once churches were established, they wrote letters instructing in doctrine and proper Christian conduct. These letters were written because after the Apostles had begun to spread the Gospel, various false teachers and false doctrines immediately began to spring up.

Thus they believed a written record of exactly what Jesus' ministry was about was necessary and acceptable. This is why the 4 synoptic gospels were written, to establish with definite authority the true ministry of Christ on this earth. These gospels were either written by eye witnesses of the ministry of Jesus, or in the case of Luke and Acts, were written by those taking down the account of witnesses. (Luke interviewed the Apostles in Jerusalem, and was also a companion of Paul.)

This was right and proper, because the Apostles had spent the most time with Jesus and He had comitted the work and guidance of the church into their hands.

The letters of instruction and doctrine like the Pauline writings were written to churches after they had been founded. The churches often had questions on the Christian life and on Christian doctrine, so they frequently wrote letters to the Apostles requesting guidance. When they received a response from the Apostles, these responses were read in the hearing of the members of the church and often dutifully copied and sent to other churches in the region.

Paul's letter to the church of Romans, for instance, would be found in most Christian churches at the time. So would the Gospels

This is an important detail. This means that eventually certain writings of the Apostles became widely circulated among the various Christian churches across the known world. These letters were kept, copied, treasured, and regarded as Holy Scripture. It also meant that if a Christian from Ephesus showed up quoting a different version of the Roman letter in Phillipi, that the Phillipian Christians would be able to judge the validity of what he said by the copies they had in posession. They also could write to men like Polycarp or Clement, who knew the genuine works of the Apostles intimately, to receive clarification of any contraversy. This type of communication was why Clement and Polycarp and others wrote various letters, some of which we still have today.

Fast forward to the time of the formation of the canon of scripture. When deciding what should be in scripture, the council looked at all the available writings. The members of this council were from all over the known world at the time, yet they all knew of Paul's letter to the Roman church, and they all agreed on what  it said.  There was no contraversy on the letter to the Roman church because it had been so widely circulated among the other churches that everyone knew what it contained.

Similarly, the other books that are now the New Testament were WIDELY CIRCULATED among the churches, and their existence in NUMEROUS manuscripts, all being in total agreement, reccomended them as genuine. The council, then, chose the works that COULD BE PROVEN GENUINE were included.

There were many proofs, such as the existence of multiple manuscripts all agreeing in content, the writings of the early church fathers and the Apostles themselves quoting from various works, whether or not the writing was consistent in style and message with other known genuine works of the writer, and many more criteria.  

There were LOTS of false works out there, which is why the decision to create a canon was needed. The idea of a canon had been around as early as AD170 with all but three books of what we know as the New Testament in it. So very early on in Christian history we see that there are various works that were the foundation of Christian faith.

These documents have been preserved in NUMEROUS manuscripts across the world, all agreeing with each other. This is how we know of ANY aincient work.

Homer's Illiad, for instance, has over 60 manuscripts in existence, all agreeing with each other and on the authorship of the work. Few question Homer.

The New Testament, on the other hand, has over 400 manuscripts in existence, all agreeing with each other.

The King James Bible, the New King James Bible, and the New International version are based on these manuscripts. When writing them scholars referred back to these ancient works in the original Greek and Hebrew.

Because of all of this, and because these manuscripts are still available for us to check, and because there are tools out there like Strong's Concordance that allow an EASY confirmation of what is written, I am sure beyond doubt that the New Testament as I read it today is the same as the works that formed the foundation of the faith of Early Christians, and that this faith is the same one delivered to the world by the Apostles of Jesus Christ.

There have been attempts throughout history to change the word of God to suit man. In that you are correct. But these attempts HAVE FAILED. There remains to this day a faithful witness of the faith first delivered by the Apostles in aincient transcripts that predate the canon of scripture by a long time.

The fact that there are many false works in the past and that today men try to "translate" the word in an effort to twist it for their own ends DOES NOT change the fact that the truth is STILL there, and is available for any who would search it out.

Quoted: Either he protects it and keeps it as it was given or he doesn't, and I'm talking about the here and now, not sometime in the future.  Well, talk to me, what gives?

Are you asking me to pray that God will strike you dead here and now for dishonoring His word??

Strangest prayer request I've ever received.

Quoted: To answer the original question, I honestly believe that it referred to the whole Bible. <----ain't gonna add to, nor take away!

But didn't the Protestants do just that when  they removed the Apocrapha(spelling??)from the "Bible" when they brought it over from the Catholic Church to the Protestant Church?  So you see, books have been added and taken away by whatever "mainstream" group has had it for centuries.  Up until 400AD there was no "Book" called the "Bible", just a bunch of books and letters that were passed between believers. Who is to say that one or more of the books that weren't included in the Bible shouldn't have been or that one or more of the books that are in the Bible should be?  The "Bible" wasn't given to the Church in the form that it is today(though many Christians think it was), the "Bible" is a book that is made up of many books and letters,  not just one book.  How can Rev.22:18 refer to the "Bible" when the "Bible", as we know it, wouldn't even be around for another 300 years?  Nope, I think it refers to the Book of Revelations and only the Book of Revelations because there wasn't any other "Book" at that time.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Good link.  So much for God protecting his Word from being messed with.  Looks like it's been messed with plenty. Be careful - the website is clearly written by one of those ardent KJV supporters.  His "removals" are based on the KJV - NOT the original Greek, etc. text. Hmm, hijack this thread or start a new one... I think the NIV is the lastest "accurate" translation, as it is not based on other bibles, but with translators re-translating the oldest copies of the various books around.    This is the same thing King James did, but 500 years leaves for a bit of advancement of language translation skills and available documents for comparison. A couple of the others reword the KJV to be more "friendly" to a cause (like homosexual issues, the strength of Christ, heaven and hell, etc.)

Precisely. These are FALSE DOCTRINES AND FALSE "TRANSLATIONS"!

We can tell they are doing this because we can go back to the original manuscripts that pre-date the canon and can check the translation. When we do this we can see the obvious attempt to change the intent and meaning of the original works.

Why this is so hard for people to understand is beyond me.

Doesn't it strike anyone else as "odd" the the majority of the "Bible" that we have today was written by a guy(Saul/Paul) that never personally knew Jesus when he was on earth?  OK, you can say that  he "met" him on the road to Damascus(that's his story and he's stickin' to it.) but really now, many of  the people that actually knew Jesue worte "books" that were not included in the  "Bible" and some guy comes along and writes a bunch of letters and they make it into the Bible, how strange it that?

Quoted: But didn't the Protestants do just that when  they removed the Apocrapha(spelling??)from the "Bible" when they brought it over from the Catholic Church to the Protestant Church?  So you see, books have been added and taken away by whatever "mainstream" group has had it for centuries.  Up until 400AD there was no "Book" called the "Bible", just a bunch of books and letters that were passed between believers. Who is to say that one or more of the books that weren't included in the Bible shouldn't have been or that one or more of the books that are in the Bible should be?  The "Bible" wasn't given to the Church in the form that it is today(though many Christians think it was), the "Bible" is a book that is made up of many books and letters,  not just one book.  How can Rev.22:18 refer to the "Bible" when the "Bible", as we know it, wouldn't even be around for another 300 years?  Nope, I think it refers to the Book of Revelations and only the Book of Revelations because there wasn't any other "Book" at that time.

The Apochrypha are NOT considered Divinely Inspired Scripture! They were/are considered beneficial works, but not inspired scriptures! Thus removing them IN NO WAY harms the faith, or the revelation of Jesus Christ, or anything else. The Apocrypha have always, even by Augustine, been considered beneficial, but not inspired scripture.

Quoted: Doesn't it strike anyone else as "odd" the the majority of the "Bible" that we have today was written by a guy(Saul/Paul) that never personally knew Jesus when he was on earth?  OK, you can say that  he "met" him on the road to Damascus(that's his story and he's stickin' to it.) but really now, many of  the people that actually knew Jesue worte "books" that were not included in the  "Bible" and some guy comes along and writes a bunch of letters and they make it into the Bible, how strange it that?

Paul MET Jesus Christ on the road to Damascus.

If you do not believe this, then there is no point discussing this with you. If you don't believe in the authority of the Bible because you are just an unbeliever, then all of this arguement has little point.

It is NOT "odd" that Paul wrote a great deal of the New Testament. Jesus Christ selects whomever He wills to use in whatever way He so desires. Paul, who was once a great persecutor of the church, had a great understanding of the Grace of Jesus Christ because he was the product of that grace. It is not suprising that Jesus would choose Paul, who was also the greatest evangelist who has ever lived, with writing a great deal of the New Testament when Paul's life embodied so much of the New Testament.

Paul didn't just start writing scripture. He served under Peter at Antioch for years, and was then comissioned to go out and preach in Jesus' name BY THE APOSTLES THEMSELVES. Paul was operating in perfect Apostolic authority.

Your arguements are more and more boiling down to the fact that you just don't believe and don't want to believe. I have demonstrated that the scriptures we have today are the same as what was thought to be scripture by the Apostles and those immediately after the Apostles. I have demonstrated how the hand of God has guided and preserved His word from corruption.

But now you are questioning the legitimacy of Paul's ministry. Paul who preached the gospel to more people and labored more abundantly than all of the Apostles who actually did walk with Jesus on this earth. You are in la la land now. To reject Paul and his writings is to reject fundamental and UNDISPUTED elements of Christianity.

Quoted: Quoted: To answer the original question, I honestly believe that it referred to the whole Bible. <----ain't gonna add to, nor take away! But didn't the Protestants do just that when  they removed the Apocrapha(spelling??)from the "Bible" when they brought it over from the Catholic Church to the Protestant Church?  So you see, books have been added and taken away by whatever "mainstream" group has had it for centuries.  Up until 400AD there was no "Book" called the "Bible", just a bunch of books and letters that were passed between believers. Who is to say that one or more of the books that weren't included in the Bible shouldn't have been or that one or more of the books that are in the Bible should be?  The "Bible" wasn't given to the Church in the form that it is today(though many Christians think it was), the "Bible" is a book that is made up of many books and letters,  not just one book.  How can Rev.22:18 refer to the "Bible" when the "Bible", as we know it, wouldn't even be around for another 300 years?  Nope, I think it refers to the Book of Revelations and only the Book of Revelations because there wasn't any other "Book" at that time.

Uh, Frank, just a reminder.....you DO remember who's Word we're talking about here, no?

GOD.

It may seem impossible for you and I that it could refer to things that hadn't been written yet, but remember, God's power can't even be comprehended by us. Don't doubt His ability to do ANYTHING. I've seen Him do things in my insignificant life, things that boggle my mind.....so I can't even BEGIN to think about what he would do to protect His Word.

When you find yourself asking, about any matter of Christianity, "How can it be?", remember who we're dealing with here.

Rule of thumb....if it's beyond your comprehension....He did it.

Quoted: 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: Is it talking about the whole Bible or just the book of Revelations? I'm of the opinion that it was just the book of Revelations. Seems we've missed a lot of the churches history in the past 2,000 years or so. Then again, it was probably all just repeated history.

Heh, heh........ Nice one Sweep.........

If one believes the Bible, is the inspired Word of Yahweh, (I do), and, if one believes Yahweh is omnipotent, and omni-present, (I do), then the ONLY conclusion is that He knew, when they were written, which books would make into the final version..... therefore, one MUST conclude, the curse refers to the whole book....  I.E The whole Bible..........

HOWEVER    .......... Strongs concordance, defines the word "book", as meaning,

"975 biblion biblion bib-lee’-on

a diminutive of 976; TDNT-1:617,106; n n

AV-book 29, bill 1, scroll 1, writing 1; 32

1) a small book, a scroll, a written document
2) a sheet on which something has been written
2a) a bill of divorcement "

Personally, Sweep, I believe what my Lord says..... "Joh 14:26  But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

We know truth when it is heard, because He has written it in our hearts. The Holy Spirit, confirms it.....

Thankfully, He, is always with us, who believe...............

How do we explain Revelation 22:18 [Rev. 22:18] that says not to add to the scriptures?

Eldin Ricks Department of Ancient Scripture, Brigham Young University

“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.” [Rev. 22:18-19] (Italics added.)
Let us first consider what John meant by “this book” and then consider what he meant by not adding to or taking from it. When John wrote the Book of Revelation in the latter part of the first century A.D., he was not writing the concluding pages of the New Testament, as there was no New Testament in existence at that time. He was an exile on the isle of Patmos and was writing a scroll addressed to seven branches of the Church on the western side of what we today call Turkey. His manuscript was entirely independent of the rest of the 27 separate manuscripts that later came to form the anthology that we know of as the New Testament. Nor was his manuscript necessarily the last one written. It is the consensus of those who have written on the subject that several of these 27 scrolls were written after the Book of Revelation was written. Not until the fourth century A.D. did the emerging collection of sacred writings become the New Testament essentially as we know it today. In the light of these facts, we may see that when John spoke of “this book,” he wasn’t referring to a not-yet-formed New Testament but simply to his own scroll, the Book of Revelation itself.
What, then, does John mean when he commands anyone who reads his work not to add words to it or to take words from it? He means that no one should tamper with the text of his scroll in any way. He wants no copyist, no would-be deceiver, no well-intentioned but misguided believer, no one to make any changes in the way it reads. He wants it to remain precisely as he has inscribed it under the inspiration of the Lord. It is interesting that the author of Deuteronomy, the fourth book of the Old Testament, similarly warns his readers, “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish aught from it.” (Deut. 4:2; compare Deut. 12:32.) In both cases the writers are commanding future viewers of their sacred manuscripts not to alter anything that has been written. Fortunately, no one seems to be arguing, on the basis of the injunction in Deuteronomy, that there never was to be any more scripture, for then some people might conclude that the rest of the Bible must be rejected.
Not only is John not saying that there never would be additional scripture, but the inevitable conclusion that one must draw from the Book of Revelation, when taken as a whole, is that John recognized that there undoubtedly would be additional scripture in the last days. How so? What is scripture (Latin: scriptura, “a writing”) but divine revelation in written form? A good portion of the Book of Revelation is a prophecy of heavenly messengers coming to earth at a time beyond John’s day. When such messengers come and a written record is made of the visit and their message, automatically new scripture is formed. In the 11th chapter of the Book of Revelation John predicts the mission of two prophets who will prophesy in Jerusalem at the time of the end. When they prophesy and their divinely revealed message from God is preserved in a written record, again new scripture will be formed. Rising above all other events in prophetic significance in the Book of Revelation is the predicted second coming of Jesus Christ. When Christ comes and men of God make a written record of his coming, once more new scripture will be formed.
Rather than the Book of Revelation teaching us that there was never to be more scripture given to the human family, the little volume, viewed from beginning to end, becomes splendid evidence that there would be and must be additional scripture in the last days.

Food for thought.  Found from Google.  Gotta love google.

Thank you sterling18, for adding some Logic to this debate.  For some strange, unknown reason some Christians think that the "Word of God" has to come from the 1st Century or before and that anything that has been recorded after can't be the "Word of God". I like the way  they say that God has no  limits then they limit him as to a time period when he can reveal his Word to mankind. Just goes to show that people will spin things to fit what they believe and not simply take the truth for what it is.  There is no reason that Gods Holy Scripture couldn't be revealed to someone today for us here in the 21st century, no reason what so ever.  It would be just as valid as something that Jonn or Paul had written down some 2000 years ago.  To think  that God simply stopped revealing himself to us after 100AD is just silly. I think he has spoken and will continue to speak to people through out the ages until we see him face to face at which time we'll need no more written words.

It's not so much "adding on" as it is their interpation of scripture that is already in exsistance. If I were to become inspired by God to write a book today as long as it lined up with approved scripture I see nothing wrong in it being added to the collective works that are already approved as scripture. IF it contridicted approved scripture then there'd be a problem.

Quoted: Doesn't it strike anyone else as "odd" the the majority of the "Bible" that we have today was written by a guy(Saul/Paul) that never personally knew Jesus when he was on earth?  OK, you can say that  he "met" him on the road to Damascus(that's his story and he's stickin' to it.) but really now, many of  the people that actually knew Jesue worte "books" that were not included in the  "Bible" and some guy comes along and writes a bunch of letters and they make it into the Bible, how strange it that?

Scripture addresses that.

Sterling18,

Thanks for the quote.  It's very insightful.

Quoted: So you are saying that JW have a Valid Concept in adding on their version?

Wouldn't it be sad, to think that God stopped talking to his children?  That our prayers is not heard by him.

If we pray but there is no one to listen, is there a god?

I'm sure scholars will continue to unearth many, many more books that were part of the Bible.  I'm hoping that god will continue to speak to us.

IMHO, as long as it's inspired by God, and can be proven that it meshed up with approved scriptures, I am willing to listen and learn.  But if you tell me the world will come to an end by 19??, then I will give you a .

Honestly, if you don't believe when you are on earth, then you will still have an opportunity to learn when we return to our father in heaven.  If you then see all the evidence in front of you, with heavenly father and our brother Jesus, and you still will not believe, then you are on your own.

Quoted: well, it's possible that paul (the man) meant revelation, however all scripture is God breathed, so FWIW.  however, you can find similar warnings in other places. Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32 Proverbs 30:6 there very well may be more than that.  my thoughts on it.   -Grant

Gal. 1:6-7 too ;)

Though this warning is aimed against the willful distortion of the BOOK of Revelations. The speaker is Christ himself. see V.20. Anyone who willfully distorts the message of the Book of Revelation shows him/herself NOT to be a genuine believer and will not participate in eternal life nor the blessings of New Jerusalem. Though, there is certainly a reasonable "argument" that God knew the entire "book" that would be compiled.... so... it's kinda a "toss up" ?