The text of Bible is not preserved in its original form

Hank Kimball Says vide his comments dated April 19, 2013:

“There is a warning to anyone messy with the bible from God; Revelation 22: 18-19“I am bearing witness to everyone that hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone makes an addition to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this scroll; and if anyone takes anything away from the words of the scroll of this prophecy, God will take his portion away from the trees of life and out of the holy city, things which are written about in this scroll.”

Paarsurrey says:

I don’t think that one could generalize that which has been stated in the above passage in Revelation to the whole NT or to the whole Bible OT+NT.

Bible is not one book rather it is a collection of many books bound in one volume for convenience of the readers. The number of Books varies between the Jews, Catholics and Protestants.

It is therefore essential that for preservation of its contents every book must contains some warning or confirmation individually; then we could look into such claim on merit if it is correct or wrong.

I just quote three passages from Wikipedia:

1. Collections of related texts such as letters of the Apostle Paul (a major part of our society of which must have been made already by the early 2nd century)[2] and the Canonical Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (asserted by Irenaeus of Lyon in the late-2nd century as the Four Gospels) gradually were joined to other collections and single works in different combinations to form various Christian canons of Scripture. Over time, some disputed books, such as the Book of Revelation and the Minor Catholic (General) Epistles were introduced into canons in which they were originally absent. Other works earlier held to be Scripture, such as 1 Clement, the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Diatessaron, were excluded from the New Testament. The Old Testament canon is not completely uniform among all major Christian groups including Roman Catholics, Protestants, the Greek Orthodox Church, the Slavic Orthodox Churches, and the Armenian Orthodox Church. However, the twenty-seven-book canon of the New Testament, at least since Late Antiquity, has been almost universally recognized within Christianity(see Development of the New Testament canon).

2. The books that eventually found a permanent place in the New Testament were not the only works of Christian literature produced in the earliest Christian centuries. The long process of canonization began early, sometimes with tacit reception of traditional texts, sometimes with explicit selection or rejection of particular texts as either acceptable or unacceptable for use in a given context (e.g., not all texts that were acceptable for private use were considered appropriate for use in the liturgy).

3. Over the course of history, those works of early Christian literature that survived but that did not become part of the New Testament have been variously grouped by theologians and scholars. Drawing upon, though redefining, an older term used in early Christianity and among Protestants when referring to those books found in the Christian Old Testament although not in the Jewish Bible, modern scholars began to refer to these works of early Christian literature not included in the New Testament as “apocryphal”, by which was meant non-canonical. Collected editions of these works were then referred to as the “New Testament apocrypha”. Typically excluded from such published collections are the following groups of works: The Apostolic Fathers, the 2nd-century Christian apologists, the Alexandrians, Tertullian,Methodius of Olympus, Novatian, Cyprian, martyrdoms, and the Desert Fathers. Almost all other Christian literature from the period, and sometimes including works composed well into Late Antiquity, are relegated to the so-called New Testament apocrypha. These “apocryphal” works are nevertheless important for the study of the New Testament in that they were produced in the same ancient context and often using the same language as those books that would eventually form the New Testament. Some of these later works are dependent (either directly or indirectly) upon books that would later come to be in the New Testament or upon the ideas expressed in them. There is even an example of a pseudepigraphical letter composed under the guise of a presumably lost letter of the Apostle Paul, the Epistle to the Laodiceans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_testament

One could view Hank Kimball’s comments @:

https://paarsurrey.wordpress.com/2013/04/18/seeing-the-apparitions-of-mary-and-jesus/#comment-2484

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , ,

One Response to “The text of Bible is not preserved in its original form”

  1. Hank Kimball (@HankKimball1) Says:

    Either all scripture is inspired of God, or it is not. The bible I read has 66 books penned by 38 men directed by God in every word. Either what is said in it can be interpreted by what is said in it, or it can not. If one scripture seems,on the surface to contradict another, further study and understanding is indicated. If we do not use scripture to interpret scripture, we have relied on our own understanding. That is precisely why so many religions exist today.
    Either all warnings against purposeful change in the text of the bible applies to ALL of scripture and or scrolls, or they don’t. Now, the bible I read, has a beginning, a middle, and an end. It is made to be in order, or chronological. The understanding of this book is most important to the generation that experiences ‘this system of things’. It does tell us that ‘the difficult times hard to deal with’, and the end of this system will all occur within that generation. It is clear to me that from what I have read in this bible, that the warning in revelation is understood by those that have understanding.
    You see, the bible is not an intellectual curiosity to me. Although I do find many things in it amazing. It is the purpose of the bible that is the ONLY thing that is important. All conveyance about the bible should be in the effort to spread the good news God obviously wants us to know. The point you make about my ‘generalizing’, begs me to ask; “Really? That’s what you got from all that was written? ” To those that don’t know better, you seem to make an intelligent argument to an obvious naive statement. I’m sorry, but for someone so ‘smart’ and ‘knowledgeable’ you seem to know so little about the most important issue in life. God. Either God is EVERYTHING, or God is NOTHING. EITHER God IS or God ISN’T. What is your choice to be??

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: