Re: The forgotten verses

From: Robert Schneider (
Date: Sun Jun 15 2003 - 13:53:41 EDT

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

    Nowhere do I find in the Bible itself any claim of inerrancy. The book
    referred to in Rev. 22:18-19 must be The Revelation itself and not the Bible
    entirely. That should be clear from the text. It may be an attempt by the
    author to discourage any tampering with his text by means of scribal
    interpolation or deletion. I believe there are apocalyptic works (e.g., I
    Enoch?) that have been so revised.

    Historically speaking, The Revelation barely made it into the New Testament.
    It was one of the disputed works as late as 325, according to Bishop
    Eusebius of Caesarea in his notes on the canon, having been treated with
    suspicion in many Christian circles. It is not listed in the canon of
    Cyril, Bp. of Jerusalem (c. 350), nor in the canon of the Synod of Laodicea
    (c. 363), nor in the canon of Gregory of Nazianzus (dates: 329-389); the
    latter was ratified by the Synod of Trullis in 692. In the canon of
    Amphilochius of Iconium (d. after 394), this is said of The Revelation: "And
    again the Revelation of John, some approve, but the most say it is
    spurious." The earliest inclusion of The Revelation is in the canon of
    Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 367). In the Armenian Church, the Revelation
    to John was not received as Holy Scripture until so declared by a 12th
    century synod. (source: Bruce Metzger, _The Canon of the New Testament_.)

    I agree with Howard, Paul, and others that biblical inerrancy is a human not
    a divine declaration.

    Bob Schneider

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Alexanian, Moorad" <>
    To: "Walter Hicks" <>; "Howard J. Van Till"
    Cc: <>
    Sent: Monday, June 16, 2003 10:40 AM
    Subject: RE: The forgotten verses

    > 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.
    > Moorad
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Walter Hicks []
    > Sent: Mon 6/16/2003 9:57 AM
    > To: Howard J. Van Till
    > Cc:
    > Subject: Re: The forgotten verses
    > Is there anywhere in the Bible where it claims it's own inerrancy? I know,
    > example, that RC Pope has declared himself to be infallible wrt matters of
    > and morals. But, I have never heard of any clear cut claim of inerrancy
    > specifically made in the Bible. All that seems to be based upon inference
    > "logic".
    > Walt
    > "Howard J. Van Till" wrote:
    > > >From: Walter Hicks <>
    > >
    > > >
    > > > Has anyone advanced the notion that the Bible may be wrong in some
    > > >
    > >
    > > Yes, that idea has occurred to many people. In major portions of the
    > > Christian community, however, that would be considered heresy of the
    > > order. For such folk, protecting the Bible from this form of critical
    > > examination is given top priority. Recall a suggestion I have made here
    > > before -- look at the 'statement of faith' portion of creationist or
    > > conservative Christian web sites and note how often the very first
    > > is a declaration about biblical inerrancy, followed later in the list by
    > > statements about God and Jesus. Priorities are interesting things.
    > >
    > > Howard Van Till
    > --
    > ===================================
    > Walt Hicks <>
    > In any consistent theory, there must
    > exist true but not provable statements.
    > (Godel's Theorem)
    > You can only find the truth with logic
    > If you have already found the truth
    > without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
    > ===================================

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jun 16 2003 - 13:54:18 EDT