Real Meaning behind Revelation 22:18-19

[apexviper13]

http://www.freewebs.com/nell0/Ehrman,%20Bart%20D.%20-%20Misquoting%20Jesus%20%5BThe%20Story%20Behind%20Who%20Changed%20the%20Bible%20and%20Why%5D.htm

"Charges of this kind against "heretics"—that they altered the texts of scripture to make them say what they wanted them to mean—are very common among early Christian writers. What is noteworthy, however, is that recent studies have shown that the evidence of our surviving manuscripts points the finger in the opposite direction. Scribes who were associated with the orthodox tradition not infrequently changed their texts, sometimes in order to eliminate the possibility of their "misuse" by Christians affirming heretical beliefs and sometimes to make them more amenable to the doctrines being espoused by Christians of their own persuasion."

The very real danger that texts could be modified at will, by scribes who did not approve of their wording, is evident in other ways as well. We need always to remember that the copyists of the early Christian writings were reproducing their texts in a world in which there were not only no printing presses or publishing houses but also no such thing as copyright law. How could authors guarantee that their texts were not modified once put into circulation? The short answer is that they could not. That explains why authors would sometimes call curses down on any copyists who modified their texts without permission. We find this kind of imprecation already in one early Christian writing that made it into the New Testament, the book of Revelation, whose author, near the end of his text, utters a dire warning:

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 described in this book; and if anyone removes any of the

words of the book of this prophecy, God will remove his share from the tree of life and from

the holy city, as described in this book. (Rev. 22:18-19)

This is not a threat that the reader has to accept or believe everything written in this book of prophecy, as it is sometimes interpreted; rather, it is a typical threat to copyists of the book, that they are not to add to or remove any of its words."

Since many of our critics like to use these verses I figured I'd bring up the real purpose John had for writing these verses. In early Christianity many copyists, the people who would copy the sacred text found on the ancient scriptures, would alter, add, and even delete words and/or entire phrases from the text. Not just the people who were considered heretics but also those who would be considered "orthodox" Christians by people of today. Although the book of Revelation is mostly apocalyptic, this part, however, is not. Notice how this threat is at the end of the book. At this point John was done speaking about the future. The final apocalyptic verse is Revelation 22:5. The threat in verses 18-19 were to the copyists. John was warning them to leave his words alone. If not, the violators would be plagued.

Edited October 21, 2011 by apexviper13

[prisonchaplain]

Many evangelical and other Christian scholars agree that the warning in Rev. 22 is specific to the book of Revelation, since the canon was not compiled when the book was written. Using that passage to condemn the Triple, for example, is insufficient at best.

[mordorbund]

I'm afraid this interpretation still condems Joseph, just not in the way lazy anti tracts would have us believe.

[jerome1232]

I've never thought about it that way, but I don't feel it does condemn since it isn't officially canonized, and it's considered by believers to be an inspirational restoration to the original text.

If you believe Joseph Smith was a false prophet I suppose it does fit the bill however if you believe he was a true prophet, then it's an inspired restoration. Normally the JST isn't quoted from, sometimes in Sunday School we'll refer to it in discussions for further clarification.

[bytebear]

I'm afraid this interpretation still condems Joseph, just not in the way lazy anti tracts would have us believe.

Yes and no, depending on interpretation. Was the JST a true translation? Was it an interpretation? Was he correcting the mistakes of past scribes? Was he receiving new "words" from God making the JST less of a re-write but more of a commentary or additional scripture? The Book of Moses is clearly not just a translation correction. It was a flow of revelation using Genesis as the catalyst. it is not meant to replace Genesis or alter it, but to expand it and clarify it. Same with the JST of Revelation. Oh, and add to that the fact that it was never canonized like the Book of Moses was, so it really was not more than Smith jotting notes of clarification.