I have to draw the line. If you interpret "refusing to add words to the book of the Revelation" as closed minded, then you have an agenda; one which I caution everyone to avoid. Your interpretation (or the interpretation you are advocating) clearly denies Christ as per these instructions:
"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." (Rev 22:18-19 KJV)
Did you ever bother to read that? To understand it? Have you ever stopped to consider how strange it might seem to others when you present ideologically-biased books like "Fox's Book Of Martyrs" as biblical?
May God bless you,
Philip
You confuse application of scripture with scripture itself. Application of scripture is not the same thing as adding words to scripture. You've put yourself into some sort of religious vacuum or black hole.
Anyone can quote scripture my FRiend. Quoting scripture is not an argument. An argument requires you to support your assertions and scriptural conclusions with relevant evidence and facts. Your statements are conclusory. You begin with an assertion and conclude with scripture with no support. That is not an argument. An argument requires you to support your assertions and conclusions with reasonable application of relevant evidence and facts.
Since I have offered by far more relevant evidence to support my assertions and conclusion than you, regardless of whether you subjectively agree with me or not, I have won this debate in the forum of ideas by the objective standard of having offered the greater weight of relevant evidence.
Bye-bye.