new thought on deuterocanonicals often times most recently on this list in the last few days i ve heard the passage from revelation whoever adds to the sacred words of this book whoever removes words from this book used as an arguement against the deutercanonical books i feel this is ridiculous for two reasons they weren t added later by the catholic church they were always part of what was considered inspired scripture this has been dealt with in previous postings no reason to repeat the info it is more likely than not that when st john or whomever wrote the book of revelation what was then considered scripture was not the same thing you and i are holding in our hands if one takes the translation of this book in rev or somewhere around there to mean all of scripture then all of us are likely holding something that is in violation of this command it is impossible to exactly date the scriptures even the n t ones they didn t like to date their letters i guess i really wish i had my bible with me right now to get the facts straight but i believe that several of the n t letters chief among them peter have their most likely date of composition in the early second century a d revelation was almost certainly written durin the reign of domition sp a d thus it could be argues that we are all in sin if we accept peter as scripture since it was added to the book after the composition of revelation when we are told to add nothing more if you want to get the exact dates get a copy of the new american bible i ll try to follow this up tomorrow if i remember mike walker mdw uxa cso uiuc edu univ of illinois
