Did God Stop "Dictating" His Word After The Book Of Revelation??.......

[lesliedellow]

I suspect the persons you mention would be quick to disown the idea that their writings were of anything like the same significance of scripture.

So far as Christians are concerned, Christ was God's final revelation to man, and the canon is now closed.

 

[ViaCrucis]

The rather general consensus of the Christian Church is that the Canon is closed and a settled matter. Of course what makes this more complicated is that exactly what constitutes that Canon remains a matter of debate and disagreement; specifically in regard to the Deuterocanon.

The Roman Catholic Church has the Council of Trent which officially defined the Canon as far as Rome is concerned. However, since Trent is only meaningful to Catholicism, that doesn't really address Protestants, Orthodox, and other non-Catholics.

Most Protestant confessions speak of the Canon consisting of the standard sixty-six books as found in the Protestant Canon, based on the Masoretic tradition (rather than the Septuagint and Vulgate traditions), thus Esther and Daniel are both slimmer in the Protestant Canon than in the Orthodox and Catholic Canons.

Eastern Orthodoxy, as far as I know, has never *officially* spoken of the exact boundaries of the biblical Canon, such as that 4 Maccabees is generally regarded as apocryphal/deuterocanonical, but has in the past been found in some Orthodox Bibles, and according to Wikipedia is still in the Georgian Bible.

Then most strangely is the Ethiopian Canon, which exists in two forms, a broader and narrower form, with even the narrower Canon containing more books than any other historic Christian body (for example, the inclusion of Jubilees and Enoch as Old Testament Scripture). However the Ethiopian Church is also the oddity among the Oriental Orthodox Churches, let alone historic Churches in general. I've also read that the Coptic Canon sometimes includes both the authentic epistle of Clement (1 Clement) as well as the spurious epistle (2 Clement).

What is consistent across the board is that the Canon is not an "open document" in the same way that Mormonism treats its scriptures. Nobody is going to be adding C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity, Martin Luther's Small Catechism, John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress, or Pope Paul VI's Humanae Vitae to the Canon of Holy Scripture.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[mog144]

The WORD never changes but the light does shine brighter as one generation makes greater light of the lessor light. This means that we will have "Present Truth" for our generation. The ancients couldn't interpret the Scriptures as we can today. They looked forward in faith and vision, we can look back as witnesses. The Light should always shine brighter with each generation. This is not to include the increase of false doctrines that sweep the world by flood.

God doesn't have to add anything to what we presently have, we just need to collaborate all the Gospels as they were meant to be. He speaks to men even today in spirit and in Truth to make known the forgotten truths that satan conspired to destroy. The devil has succeeded for a time but the time is coming when he will be placed in bondage, the abyss and the Truth (GOD) is renowned.

 

[ViaCrucis]

The WORD never changes but the light does shine brighter as one generation makes greater light of the lessor light. This means that we will have "Present Truth" for our generation. The ancients couldn't interpret the Scriptures as we can today. They looked forward in faith and vision, we can look back as witnesses. The Light should always shine brighter with each generation. This is not to include the increase of false doctrines that sweep the world by flood.

God doesn't have to add anything to what we presently have, we just need to collaborate all the Gospels as they were meant to be. He speaks to men even today in spirit and in Truth to make known the forgotten truths that satan conspired to destroy. The devil has succeeded for a time but the time is coming when he will be placed in bondage, the abyss and the Truth (GOD) is renowned.

You base this notion of "greater" and "lesser" light on what exactly?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[OzSpen]

I would say that the fundamental problem with the issue in the OP as well as the follow-on question is the assumption that "The Bible" is God's revelation to mankind. It is not. God's revelation of Himself is the act of God showing Himself to us, of uncovering Himself, and that act is always a personal encounter. Those personal encounters before Christ were like God showing the prophets His shadow. But in Christ, God has shown us Himself completely. THAT is God's revelation. The Scriptures bear witness to that revelation - they write about the various personal encounters with God and tell about what God said to them - but they are not that revelation. Christ is the ultimate revelation of God, wherein God has completely shown Himself to us. When we read the Scriptures, especially the New Testament, we can know that the Christ that we're getting to know is the same Christ that the apostles knew, and the continuing witness of the saints over the ages since then testify to the same thing. Whether or not there are more books is irrelevant. What matters is that we are encountering the same Christ that the apostles encountered so that we can partake of that same Revelation that they experienced when they knew Him while He walked the earth.

How can we encounter the same Christ as the apostles did? We can't touch him.

Oz

 

[Fireinfolding]

Acts 17:27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:

Speaks of feeling after him and finding him

 

[Fireinfolding]

Heres a few that might be helpful, not sure.

But here in Daniel, he says...

Daniel 12:8 And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things?

The words are closed us and sealed here

Dan 12:9 And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.

Now here Jesus speaks to whoso readeth now (referencing Daniel who heard but he (himself) did not understand) and "let him understand"

Mark 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand)

Blessed is he that readeth

Rev 1:3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

Contrary to the words being sealed up (as spoken to Daniel)

Rev 22:10 And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.

Then adding to the prophecy of the book is adressed

 

[OzSpen]

Acts 17:27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:

Speaks of feeling after him and finding him

This is what happens when one tries to get a meaning from the English text as we understand the English. What did the Greek mean that was translated by the KJV as "might feel after"? The NIV translates as:

God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us.

So, what does the Greek verb, pselapeseian, mean? Does it mean "might feel" (KJV) or "reach out" (NIV). Simon Kistemaker in his commentary on the Book of Acts 17:27 translates this sentence, "Perhaps they might grope for him and find him" and makes that comment that God "hopes that people, even though blinded by sin may grope for God their maker" (p. 635, Baker Academic 1990).

One of the greatest Greek grammarians of the 20th century, Dr. A. T. Robertson, explained it this way. Pselapheseian is the first aorist active tense of the verb,

pselaphao, old verb from psao, to touch. So used by the Risen Jesus in his challenge to the disciples (Luke 24:39), by the Apostle John of his personal contact with Jesus (1 John 1:1), of the contact with Mount Sinai (Heb. 12:18). Here it pictures the blind groping of the darkened heathen mind after God to "find him".... whom they had lost. One knows what it is in a darkened room to feel along the walls for the door (Deut. 28:29; Job 5:14; 12:25; Isa. 59:10. [The blind] Helen Keller, when told of God, said that she knew of him already, groping in the dark after him (Word Pictures in the New Testament:Acts of the Apostles, vol. 3. Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman Press, p. 288).

So "might feel" is not a good translation if we understand it in the 2012 meaning of "feel". "Reach out" is a better translation, but "might grope (as in the darkness)" conveys the meaning more accurately.

It is important that we don't exegete the Scriptures from a 21st century understanding of the meaning of a word.

Sincerely, Oz

 

[Fireinfolding]

This is what happens when one tries to get a meaning from the English text as we understand the English. What did the Greek mean that was translated by the KJV as "might feel after"? The NIV translates as:
So, what does the Greek verb, pselapeseian, mean? Does it mean "might feel" (KJV) or "reach out" (NIV). Simon Kistemaker in his commentary on the Book of Acts 17:27 translates this sentence, "Perhaps they might grope for him and find him" and makes that comment that God "hopes that people, even though blinded by sin may grope for God their maker" (p. 635, Baker Academic 1990).

One of the greatest Greek grammarians of the 20th century, Dr. A. T. Robertson, explained it this way. Pselapheseian is the first aorist active tense of the verb,
So "might feel" is not a good translation if we understand it in the 2012 meaning of "feel". "Reach out" is a better translation, but "might grope (as in the darkness)" conveys the meaning more accurately.

It is important that we don't exegete the Scriptures from a 21st century understanding of the meaning of a word.

Sincerely, Oz

Whatever word works best for you just do it

 

[OzSpen]

Whatever word works best for you just do it

That is not how you do Greek exegesis. But that doesn't seem to be of interest to you with interpretation of this verse.

Oz

 

[Fireinfolding]

That is not how you do Greek exegesis. But that doesn't seem to be of interest to you with interpretation of this verse.

Oz

No Im not interested, even secular dictionarys have grope under feel, who cares? Its not like you can do it after the flesh anyway (lol)

 

[OzSpen]

No Im not interested, even secular dictionarys have grope under feel, who cares? Its not like you can do it after the flesh anyway (lol)

It's sad when you want to label my wanting to understand the Greek meaning of the text as "after the flesh".

We would not have any English translations at all, unless somebody knew how to translate Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek into English.

I can assure you that I, an evangelical Christian believer, am not acting "after the flesh" because I want to exegete the Scriptures according to what the original language states.

Sincerely, Oz

 

[Fireinfolding]

Just feel, grope (ro reach) after him, its really not all that technical. Whatever you'd like, cant do it after the flesh anyway, so how is the heart to know the difference between groping or feeling after or reaching for him if its not by the hand we do?

It matters nothing. But could care even less about this wrangling over words, they should have contacted you before publishing this version of the bible (lol) I mean, what do you want me to say?

 

[OzSpen]

Just feel, grope (ro reach) after him, its really not all that technical. Whatever you'd like, cant do it after the flesh anyway, so how is the heart to know the difference between groping or feeling after or reaching for him if its not by the hand we do?

It matters nothing. But could care even less about this wrangling over words, they should have contacted you before publishing this version of the bible (lol) I mean, what do you want me to say?

You're saying it.

Oz

 

[branchofthevine]

the answer would be no, it does not stop with Revelation because 1 John was written afterwards, a little jesting.

 

[Fireinfolding]

 

[Fireinfolding]

Start your own thread or something. Aliens are debated in eschatology find your happy place there

 

[razeontherock]

Wait, there are people itching for a fight in eschatology?!?

http://www.christianforums.com/f14/

 

[Fireinfolding]

Wait, there are people itching for a fight in eschatology?!?

http://www.christianforums.com/f14/

Be fruitful and multiply

 

[1Em1Esseswife]

Originally Posted by Fireinfolding

No Im not interested, even secular dictionarys have grope under feel, who cares? Its not like you can do it after the flesh anyway (lol)

Good one Fire, looks like He's still writing to me.
​

HEBREWS 10
12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; 13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool .

14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified .

15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before ,

16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord,

I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;

17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.

18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin. 19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, 20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say , his flesh; 21 And having an high priest over the house of God;

22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.