[OBW]

I was not talking about whether the scriptures speak against twisting its words. Or whether the scriptures gave sound advice for identifying or otherwise thwarting false apostles. I simply asked for some scriptural evidence that, besides the unclear reference in Revelation (unclear in whether it applies beyond its own writing to other scripture), indicated a boundary to what should be called scripture.

And for virtually every issue that you brought up in your post, the verses mentioned give some sound direction. Toward identifying false apostles and teachers. Toward revealing the nature of God and the life and work of Christ.

But none of them identified the writings that are or are not scripture in such a way as to be able to warn-off the possible inclusion of some other writing. Instead, they provide a basis for analysis of what you want to consider as scripture. It does not add to or alter what has already been spoken. It does not diminish the very clear words of God/Christ. I recall that toward the end of Matthew 5, Jesus gave a word that enhanced the meaning of adultery and murder. Then he said that anyone who taught less was guilty and would be least in the kingdom. Seems we know of someone who "took away" from scripture by saying that being right was not really so important as being "in the spirit." A kind of taking away.

But none of them identify that what we call the Bible is precisely the 66 books we have agreed to. Instead, they identify the nature of the content of what we have included. And the writings that have been omitted (from among the earliest writings) are either redundant, or have inconsistencies. Much like modern writings which may have a lot of help, mixed with thoughts that leave you wondering where they got that.

I am not suggesting that I question the 66 books as the standard. Just saying that the way you get to those is not entirely found in those verses. Those would surely be guides as you seek to determine what to include or exclude. But they don't say "this is it; don't add to or take away from it." They don't define the absolute limit of scripture, but the way to determine what is within and without. If the guys who gave us the 66 books had decided to also include other of Paul's writings, which they considered redundant, would there have been grounds based on any of these verses for us to exclude them? That is where I see the limit in the application of these various verses to establishing an intent in the writing of John to mean there is a defined quantity of scripture that you can't mess with.

Enough said. I'm not fighting. Just wanting to figure out where the claim that some make of a clear line of "in" and "out" comes from. And I don't see it. I don't disagree with what we have. Just some of the claims made around it.