You Must Not Add To The Bible

[samova2133]

The last few verses of the Bible clearly state that, "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 prophesy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things that are written in this book. Why then did you add the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price?

[Uncle Dale]

The last few verses of the Bible clearly state that, "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 prophesy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things that are written in this book. Why then did you add the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price?

What if we moved the Book of Revelation to some other position in the Christian Bible? That would solve

the problem -- as then the words would only apply to that book, and not to the entire canon (which was

not assembled and set into its present order, until many decades after Revelation was completed).

UD

[LifeOnaPlate]

Holy worn-out argument, Batman!

Go read Deuteronomy 4:2 and explain to me how it applies to your question.

Then do a little research on the compilation of the Bible.

Then realize the LDS Church doesn't believe man added anything, but that God can and does.

[Scorpion]

The last few verses of the Bible clearly state that, "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 prophesy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things that are written in this book. Why then did you add the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price?

John was NOT referring to the Bible as a whole, he was referring specifically to the Book of Revelation. There is also another verse similar to this in Deuteronomy. Maybe we should get rid of everything after that too.

[jadams_4242]

The last few verses of the Bible clearly state that, "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 prophesy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things that are written in this book. Why then did you add the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price?

Well its very well known fact that John wrote rev? well after he wrote what you quoted.

he went on to write three other apistles! So if john was referring to the entire Bible when he made

the statement not to add to any of the scripture of this book. then he would have violated his

own words from god? he was not writing in referrance to the entire Bible. he was writing in referance to revealation only.

Also in deuteronamy. the same referance is made, then that would mean that every book in the holy bible

that came after deuteronomy was not valid? Once again the verse in Deuterononmy was not in referance to the entire bible.

also when statements in both Revealation and deuteronomy were nade, Niether of these books were part of the biblical cannon that we know today, So how could either of these statement been meant for the entire bible?

{This information is very well known stuff.}

[LifeOnaPlate]

John is accursed for adding to his own word, I guess. Translating the Bible certainly added words.

[Uncle Dale]

John is accursed for adding to his own word, I guess. Translating the Bible certainly added words.

The main point being, that nobody in those days was even thinking in terms of "a bible," which merely

means a library of texts. Some of the old Hebrew scriptures had been translated into Greek -- and that

compilation of texts (the LXX) was as close as anybody had yet come to creating a "bible."

More typically, each synogogue had its own collection of scrolls -- the sum contents of which varied from

place to place, with probably only the "Torah" and the "major prophets" being accepted as authoratative.

So, when the book of Revelation was completed, and copies sent out to the churches in Asia Minor (or

wherever its message was directed) neither the writer nor his readers thought of the message as being

part of any "bible."

If we read Paul carefully, we see that he wrote more epistles than were preserved and eventually put into

the Christian canon. Could have John the Revelator have known which of Paul's epostles would be saved

and passed in to future generations? If a "third letter to the Corinthians" surfaced the day after John

finished his book, would the early Christians have been cursed for reading Paul's third epistle?

What nonsense!

UD

[Nephi]

Heh... Post and run. Regardless, when John wrote that the Bible did not exist. So when he wrote that, he was referring to the book of Revelations itself.

[jwhitlock]

I'm curious as to which anti-Mormon site said to ask this question; I wonder also if they said that Mormons won't have any response for it...

Same tired, old, non-critically thought out questions.

[The_Monk]

Why then did you add the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price?

You've gotta be kidding me.

How about this response, well-informed by biblical and ANE sources.

[cjcampbell]

The last few verses of the Bible clearly state that, "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 prophesy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things that are written in this book. Why then did you add the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price?

God can do with the Bible whatever He likes. Jesus had no Bible. Neither did Paul. Neither did John. John's Revelation was recorded before several other books in the New Testament, yet that did not prevent the men who compiled the Bible from including those scriptures.

Wicked men posing as church leaders have always found excuses to stop listening to God. First they declared the heavens closed. Then they declared it illegal to read the Bible on pain of death. They killed those who attempted to translate the Bible into common languages and burned printed copies of it. Now, with the heavens opened, they attempt to silence the prophets with arguments like yours. Be warned. The people who told you that are wicked men who seek to oppress others and keep them ignorant of God, not enlighten them. They are servants of Satan.

When a man says that his interpretation of the Bible is more important than God, then he is an idolator. He worships a book instead of God.

[jadams_4242]

God can do with the Bible whatever He likes. Jesus had no Bible. Neither did Paul. Neither did John. John's Revelation was recorded before several other books in the New Testament, yet that did not prevent the men who compiled the Bible from including those scriptures.

Wicked men posing as church leaders have always found excuses to stop listening to God. First they declared the heavens closed. Then they declared it illegal to read the Bible on pain of death. They killed those who attempted to translate the Bible into common languages and burned printed copies of it. Now, with the heavens opened, they attempt to silence the prophets with arguments like yours. Be warned. The people who told you that are wicked men who seek to oppress others and keep them ignorant of God, not enlighten them. They are servants of Satan.

When a man says that his interpretation of the Bible is more important than God, then he is an idolator. He worships a book instead of God.

Thaaaank you very much!

[rameumptom]

The last few verses of the Bible clearly state that, "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 prophesy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things that are written in this book. Why then did you add the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price?

In John's day, there were many Christian sects popping up, which would often take the writings of the apostles and change them, so as to support that sect's teachings. Some writings were invented from scratch and given the name of an apostle or prophet, while other authentic writings were altered purposely to push their version of the gospel. What John wrote at the end was a normal curse added to many ancient documents of the time to scare people away from changing their writing. John's Revelation was not added to the canon until St Jerome did it a few centuries later, so he obviously could not have meant the entire Bible.

The problem with interpreting John's writing as to mean the entire Bible or to mean there is no more revelation to be given of God, is that it vastly changes the teachings of the other prophets and even John's writing. John mentions two prophets to arise and give major prophecies during Armageddon, yet that could not be with the interpretation given by many Christians of a completed canon.

God has always worked with men in only one way: through prophets (see Amos 3:7). There is no reason given in the scriptures for him to change it. Even Paul listened to the words of the prophet Agabus in the book of Acts, AFTER Jesus' death and resurrection. Paul tells us that the foundation of the Church is apostles and prophets, with Jesus as the chief cornerstone (Ephesians 2). If God chooses to give us more prophets and scripture, why should we fight it? The issue is for each of us to find out for ourselves who those prophets may be.

[Hoops22]

Wicked men posing as church leaders have always found excuses to stop listening to God. First they declared the heavens closed. Then they declared it illegal to read the Bible on pain of death. They killed those who attempted to translate the Bible into common languages and burned printed copies of it. Now, with the heavens opened, they attempt to silence the prophets with arguments like yours. Be warned. The people who told you that are wicked men who seek to oppress others and keep them ignorant of God, not enlighten them. They are servants of Satan.

When a man says that his interpretation of the Bible is more important than God, then he is an idolator. He worships a book instead of God.

Gee, this isn't inflammatory posturing at all. Whoever said LDS are self-righteous posers.

[J Green]

In John's day, there were many Christian sects popping up, which would often take the writings of the apostles and change them, so as to support that sect's teachings.

You see this at work with Paul's letters as well. He would dictate his missives, then write a few words at the end by way of greeting and to prove that the correspondence was really from him.

[JAHS]

Interesting to note that the plagues John is talking about are those found in the Book of Revelation("this book".(See Rev. 9:20, 11:6, 15:1, 15:6).

I know the Bible talks about plagues in other places but the scritures I refer to makes it more possible that he is talking about his book and not the entire Bible.

There have been many new translations of the Bible that have been published recently, that have things missing or added compared to the King James translation. Consider, for example the following two verses.

In Luke 17:36 of the King James version we read:

"Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left."

and

Acts 8:37: "And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

In the New International Version(NIV), the New Living Translation(NLT), and the English Standard Version(ESV), both of these verses have been completely removed.

How do the people who use these translations explain these missing verses?

[cjcampbell]

Gee, this isn't inflammatory posturing at all. Whoever said LDS are self-righteous posers.

It is the solid truth. Just because some people don't like it does not change things.

[Hoops22]

It is the solid truth. Just because some people don't like it does not change things.

Your statement or mine?

[jwhitlock]

Gee, this isn't inflammatory posturing at all. Whoever said LDS are self-righteous posers.

Snort...

And the OP isn't?

[Hoops22]

No, it isn't. The op may be ignorant of the LDS position but it is a legitemate question.

Typical LDS response though. He asks, "How does LDS justify adding to accepted historical scripture."

LDS answer: "Wicked men posing as church leaders

&

they attempt to silence the prophets

&

Be warned. The people who told you that are wicked men who seek to oppress others and keep them ignorant of God, not enlighten them. They are servants of Satan.

&

then he is an idolator. He worships a book instead of God.

Sorry, I don't see the comparison.

[Zakuska]

John is accursed for adding to his own word, I guess. Translating the Bible certainly added words.

Don't forget all those at Nicea, they are accursed because they added to Johns Letter.

Johannine Comma

[LifeOnaPlate]

Gee, this isn't inflammatory posturing at all. Whoever said LDS are self-righteous posers.

You did.

[Jersey Girl]

The last few verses of the Bible clearly state that, "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 prophesy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things that are written in this book. Why then did you add the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price?

This irks me to no end. Are you trying to disprove the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price? Find another way! You are MISUSING the very words in front of you! The above is a clear reference to the Book of Revelation itself.

Editing: Oh good grief, now I'll never shut up. The Bible didn't even exist when the Revelation was received and written! Please, if you're going to attack Mormonism, could you at least arm yourself with a cursory knowledge of the compilation of the Bible and the words you're quoting from it?

[Hoops22]

You did.

Nope. Never said it - at least I don't recall saying such a thing and would be ashamed if I did. I did, however, point out that were one to take the referenced post at face value and apply it as the whole of LDS thought one could certainly make the assumption on solid ground.

I have never said such a thing and have, in fact, said the opposite.

[Jersey Girl]

God can do with the Bible whatever He likes. Jesus had no Bible. Neither did Paul. Neither did John. John's Revelation was recorded before several other books in the New Testament, yet that did not prevent the men who compiled the Bible from including those scriptures.

Wicked men posing as church leaders have always found excuses to stop listening to God. First they declared the heavens closed. Then they declared it illegal to read the Bible on pain of death. They killed those who attempted to translate the Bible into common languages and burned printed copies of it. Now, with the heavens opened, they attempt to silence the prophets with arguments like yours. Be warned. The people who told you that are wicked men who seek to oppress others and keep them ignorant of God, not enlighten them. They are servants of Satan.

When a man says that his interpretation of the Bible is more important than God, then he is an idolator. He worships a book instead of God.

The part I bolded. Prove it.