Quote:
Originally Posted by Igzy
Well, Rev. 22:18 pretty much puts the kabosh on any boldness to add to the revelation. Seems to me what it says is that it is dangerous to claim to have revelation in addition to the Bible rather than constrained by it.
|
I agree but not for those reasons.
Consider that if those same standards were applied to the Old Testament then we would not have a New Testament today. Jews may fall back on the same reasoning to reject Christ and the gospels.
I believe Rev. 22:18 pertains only to that prophesy in, as it says, "this book", referring to Revelation. Not to the compilation of numerous books and endorsed with the seal of King James, for example.
I agree because the truth presented in Revelation is clearly all that remains.
If the Bible did not say anything about the future or describe an ending such as described in Revelation, I would disagree that the revelation was complete.
God's truth stands on its own - Romans 1:20-21 confirms. It existed before books were written. Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, Abraham and Lot and many others, were all living by direct revelation.
If the Bible alone was sufficient then God would not have given his people prophets, either in the old or the new testaments. As we see in the life of Christ, the Jews had the Scripture but he still had to explain to them so many things.
For example, the greatest and second greatest commandments about love were in their scripture, but they needed God's revelation to draw them out and put them at the forefront.
The New Testament is essentially a drawing out of the old testament, so it is not "new" in that sense. However there is much in the New Testament which is new or not obviously in the Old Testament.