Re: The forgotten verses

From: george murphy (
Date: Mon Jun 16 2003 - 12:02:45 EDT

  • Next message: Robert Schneider: "Re: The forgotten verses"

    "Alexanian, Moorad" wrote:

    > It seems to me that the following verses would make no sense whatsoever if the Bible did not claim inerrancy. Of course, the verses that follow do deal with the Book of Revelations only and so consistency between this book and the rest of the Bible has to be verified. Perhaps someone can find more all-encompassing verses.
    > ”I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book..” Rev. 22:18-19.

        In Luther's 1522 preface to Revelation he explains why he considers it "neither apostolic nor prophetic" and gives it a kind of deuterocanonical status with respect to the other books of the New Testament. His comment on the above verses is instructive.

        "He [the author of Revelation] seems to me to be going much too far when he commends his own book so highly [Revelation 22] - indeed, more than any of the other sacred books do, though they are much more important - and threatens that if anyone takes away anything from it, God will take away from him, etc."

    Among other things this recognizes that other "much more important" parts of scripture are not to be considered authoritative simply because they claim that they are.

        Luther was not a modern critical scholar, but if the fundamentally christological approach to scripture which he speaks of especially in his earlier writings had been followed we would have been spared a lot of grief. Scripture is "what pushes Christ" (/was Christum treibt/) & conversely the truth of parts of scripture - including Genesis - has to be
    understood christologically.

        Of course I am not suggesting that we can just go back and read the Bible the way Luther did nearly 500 years ago. But we can get a good deal of guidance for how and why the Bible is - & is not - to be considered authoritative.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jun 16 2003 - 12:02:00 EDT