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:

	 1.  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.)

	2.  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 18:22 (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 2 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. 80-96.  Thus it could be argues that we are all
	in sin if we accept 2 Peter as scripture, since it was "added" to the
	book after the composition of Revelation, when we are told to add 
	nothing more.