What does Revelations 22:18-19 mean when you read Deuteronomy 4:2-3?

God doesn't contradict His Word.

Remember that Deuteronomy was written over 1500 years before Revelation. The collection of books that make up the Bible was indeed complete when God gave John the book of Revelation.

I'm not sure who gave you the dates of New Testament books, as being completed after Revelation. Conservative scholars generally believe Paul actually wrote the 13 or so letters that bear his name, and that 26 of the 27 books making up the New Testament were already in existence. Peter mentions (at least) some of Paul's letters as being equal with "other scripture (see 2 Peter chapter 3)". Some of the "Ante-Nicene church fathers quote from many of the New Testament books: examples, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Epistle of Clement, and others. You can check this out at sites like http://www.ccel.org/

Noted Biblical scholar Bart Ehrman wrote:

The very real danger that [New Testament] 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 [quotes Revelation 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. Similar imprecations can be found scattered throughout the range of early Christian writings.

This threat was a real threat in John's eyes. Unfortunately, it appears that the threat went unheeded. The Book of Mormon prophet Nephi saw the same things that John the Beloved saw, but was not authorized to write them (1 Nephi 14:21-25). He made this interesting prophesy.

Wherefore, thou seest that after the book [the Bible] hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God (1 Nephi 13:28).

Nephi is later promised that the Lord would send forth other books such as the Book of Mormon to restore those precious and plain things that were taken away.

These last records [The Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, etc], which thou hast seen among the Gentiles, shall establish the truth of the first [The Bible], which are of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, and shall make known the plain and previous things which have been taken away from them... (1 Nephi 13:40)

The critics misuse Revelation, misunderstand the process by which the Bible cannon was formed, and must ignore other, earlier scriptures to maintain their position. Their use of this argument is a form of begging the question whereby they presume at the outset that the Book of Mormon and other scriptures are not the Word of God, which is precisely the point under debate. In its proper context, the passage in Revelation actually supports the teachings of the Book of Mormon that many plain and precious things would be taken away from the Bible. It also shows clearly the need for another book of scripture like the Book of Mormon to restore those lost and sacred teachings. If the Book of Mormon and other modern scriptures are the work of uninspired men or the arm of flesh, then of course one ought not to trust them. If, however, they are indeed the word of the Lord to prophets, then all who desire to be saved ought to carefully heed them.

The Bible is the Jewish holy books but a collection of letters written within a few decades of Christ's death, by those who knew Him or, like Luke the physician, by a few who worked closely with those who knew Him.

John was the only one of the 12 who died a natural death and in his old age. He wrote Revelation as an old man, after all the other books had been written. Still, it wasn't written later than about 90-95 AD - only about 60 years after Christ's death.

A few dates of when letters of the New Testament were written. All years are AD, of course:

Matthew:55-ish

Mark:?

Luke: 65-ish

John:sometime between 60-90 (same guy who wrote Rev)

Acts: 60-64

Romans: Fall of 57

1 Corinthians Spring of 56

2 Corinthians Fall of 56

Galatians 48

James: 46-ish

etc., etc.

Manuscripts from very close to the time of the original writings exist. Do your homework, kiddo.

God speaks through His word.

You've been listening to liberal scholars who haven't done serious study of the Bible. Read these men, who've done their homework:

John MacArthur: http://www.gty.org/

John Piper: http://www.desiringgod.org/

Ravi Zacharias: http://rzim.org/

Check this site out for great information:

http://monergism.com/

Get yourself a good study Bible, like the ESV:

http://www.esv.org/

No the books weren't collected together until later. The Book of Deutoronomy speaks of itself when it says do not take away or add and not another book. As does Revelation, it only speaks of the Book of Revelation and not the whole Bible. Revelation was most likely put at the end for this reason to "prove" the rest of the Bible.

Which translation of the Bible do you use? Do you know that Mark 16:9-20 was removed by the RSV? There are footnotes on other translations that 'two most reliable early manuscripts' do not have it. So there is a debate on what the orginal version said. So before you consider books that do not even claim to be a part of the Bible are unbiblical, you have to decide if the verses that have been there for centuries are correct. Revelation itself states there is another book that will be revealed at another time. Why would John curse the fulfillment of Revelation? Revelation 10:8 And the voice which I heard from heaven spake unto me again, and said, Go and take the little book which is open in the hand of the angel which standeth upon the sea and upon the earth. 9 And I went unto the angel, and said unto him, Give me the little book. And he said unto me, Take it, and eat it up; and it shall make thy belly bitter, but it shall be in thy mouth sweet as honey. 10 And I took the little book out of the angel’s hand, and ate it up; and it was in my mouth sweet as honey: and as soon as I had eaten it, my belly was bitter. 11 And he said unto me, Thou must prophesy aagain before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings.

He meant that specific book... The book of revelation.

Christians take the bible out of context. It was simply a compilation of books and letters, by people who knew Jesus. As you said, compiled hundreds of years later. In fact, the authors of the NT didn't write their gospels etc, until 30-50 years after his death. They were literally written by elderly men. The reason for it's contradictions.

It was simply meant for humans to have an account of who Jesus was, what he did and how He wants us to live. It is no more 'Holy' than you or I.

And yes, I am a follower of Jesus

The Bible was not written down until long after the events happened. Check out The Nag Hammadi Library if you really want to get the full story.

Go get emm tiger! But a man convinced against his own will is of the same opinion still, we can just pray and hope for the anti-s to repent.

The bible is perfect. It was written by God. Only the divinely inspired can understand it.