talking about other books again

The book of Revelation says we are not to add to 'the book of this prophecy'

That's good enough reason for me to leave it at 66

 

It doesn't say.
The early church chose the 66 by way of council.

 

Actually 77 would sound better if you are going for perfection. lol

 

If you take into account that perhaps some books were originally unified (e.g. 1 and 2 Kings), the number isn't all that important.

 

I would agree with StefanM. Originally twelve of the prophetical books were lumped together as one, so the number is not necessarily important.

What is important (to me) is recognising what we have and not adding to it. Here are my reasons which I am sure have done the rounds here before.

1. Revelation was the last book written - chronologically. And is the only one to have that warning at the end.

2. I Corinthians 13 mentions that when that which is perfect is come then that which is in part will be done away. The Perfect I believe to be the completed canon of Scripture.

The word used is in the neutral gender. If it referred to the coming of Christ would it not have been in the masculine? So, I believe new revelation no longer comes. It is interesting that after the apostolic era the so called "church fathers" (i.e. respectable old dudes), record that the gifts of healing/fresh revelation etc faded away.

3. Some believe John 16:13 has bearing on this topic

It is said the primary teaching is that once Christ had gone the Holy Spirit would give them all the truth they needed. In His presence were the disciples/Apostles. The last one to die, John, was the one who Revelation with its warning.

Secondarily I believe it means the Holy Spirit will enable us to use and understand and recall truth.

But that is just opinion and I would not be dogmatic about it.

4. History has seen greater times of revival and awakening than we have for a generation. That has happened with the canon of Scripture as recognised with 66 books.

Only when we started messing with it did Christianity truly start to decline. IMO Again, that is circumstantial and I would not be dogmatic.

MNW

 

UnchartedSpirit said:

where does it say again in the Bible that there are only to be the 66 that are written in here? Why don'y we have a more 'divine' number of books like at least 6 7 ?

The "number of the beast" is six hundred and sixty-six, not three sixes. 67 is not practically more "divine" than 66. There is nothing inherently evil about the number 6, or the number 66 or 666 for that matter.

 

the letter to Laodicia would surely have been included.

 

Rev. is speaking only of that book as I read it. Not that I would add to any of the books. Though some of you may say I attempt to do that at times.

 

I don't think the number is important. We can say we have what God wants us to have. The Bible has survived many years by God's grace. True people assembled the Books but I believe they did so with prayer and Divine guidance.