You Must Not Add To The Bible

[hagoth7]

No you are wrong. The Bible existed in 95 A.D. when John finished Revelation. All the books had already been written. What you mean is that it had not yet been compiled and put in its present form. That happened 225 years later under Constantine. I maintain that God knew the final form that the cannon would take and that Rev. 22:19 refers to the whole bible.

Dear Sam,

I'll agree that you have an intriguing point that God knew the final form the Bible would be in.

However, as stated earlier in this thread, Protestant Bibles have fewer books than Catholic Bibles, before factoring in other Christian versions of the Bible (Syrian, Coptic, etc.). One of these versions even excludes the Book of Revelation. There is no constructive need to ask which Bible compilation you accept as the canon from which nothing has been removed (or added). Because basically, if I agree with your general premise of God's foreknowledge, (which I do), we would likely agree that God knew there would be confusion in the last days as to which Bible version the followers of Christ should accept as authoritative.

Knowing this, what would God do to attempt to resolve such confusion?

The issue that seems to form the undercurrent of your original question is, did God finish revealing his will to/through mankind over two thousand years ago (is the canon closed)? Or, did God intimate centuries ago that prophets would once again walk the earth? By way of answer, the Bible itself attests that *God would send prophets.* Jesus said such in passages like Matthew 23. The Book of Revelation testifies likewise.

Back to your question: is the Book of Mormon or the Pearl of Great Price added to the Book of Revelation or to the Bible? No on both counts. They are separate records, most of which were recorded well before John the Revelator was born.

This might provide an initial glimpse of why many LDS people heed Paul's counsel about the need for prophecy in Christ's church - even and especially in our day - as suggested by such passages as Ephesians 4. Not simply because prophecy was promised and declared by scripture to be an important part of Christ's church. But more importantly, because the truth of that principle has been confirmed to many of us by the Spirit of God. Or, as the Book of Revelation repeatedly beckons, He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches...

I hope this serves as a helpful response.

[Zakuska]

No I didn't at all.. you guys/gals come up with new screen names and here I am with 12000+ posts. I think I should be nominated for the biggest loser.

Didn't Luither say the book of Revelation was not Scripture?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther_Bible

Ah yes...

Initially Luther had a low view of the books of Esther, Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation. He called the Epistle of James "an epistle of straw," finding little in it that pointed to Christ and His saving work. He also had harsh words for the book of Revelation, saying that he could "in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it."[3] He had reason to question the apostolicity of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation because the early church categorized these books as antilegomena, meaning that they were not accepted without reservation as canonical. Luther did not, however, remove them from his editions of the Scriptures. His views on some of these books changed in later years.

Luther chose to place in the Apocrypha, an inter-testamental section of his bible, those portions of the Old Testament found in the Greek Septuagint but not in the Hebrew Masoretic text. These were included in his earliest translation, but were later set aside as "good to read" but not as the inspired Word of God. The setting aside (or simple exclusion) of these texts from Bibles was eventually adopted by nearly all Protestants.

[Jersey Girl]

Will Scarecrow

Brain cramp alert!

I was just brushing my teeth and realized my error. I've been getting you mixed up with liz!

You're Lady Sundancer from back when. Duh!

OK, my brain in connected again -- by two of its last threads.

I apologize. I'm working through my third teenager, and it's really starting to take a toll ...

Can you find it in your heart to forgive me? I promise to never screw up again.

Until tomorrow, that is ...

Of course I can find it in my heart to forgive you. You're male.

[Jersey Girl]

No I didn't at all.. you guys/gals come up with new screen names and here I am with 12000+ posts. I think I should be nominated for the biggest loser.

Actually, this is my original screen name, but one that you wouldn't recognize me by. I said who I was with the first few posts using this screen name.

[Zakuska]

I missed it... I had a 6-8 Month Hiatus from the boards there.

[Jersey Girl]

I missed it... I had a 6-8 Month Hiatus from the boards there.

Me too! I sent you a little PM.

[Jersey Girl]

I thought of the question myself. There was no anti-Mormon site. Don't be so paranoid.

samova,

They aren't being paranoid. They are drawing a reasonable conclusion based on your first post on this board. While you might think it was original, they have likely encountered it hundreds of times over. That is to say, you're not the first and certainly won't be the last to have presented it.

There are a couple of things that I want to follow up on with you. First, I tried multiple times to reason with you while you virtually ignored those attempts until I suppose you felt pressured to reply. When you did reply, you did so in an attacking form assuming that I was LDS. That's not the first time that's happened to me.

Do not assume that when someone strongly disagrees with you on a board like this, that the person is LDS. And if you think they are LDS, it is not advisable to use phrases such as "your so-called prophets" because it makes you appear as someone who doesn't like being challenged and who will resort to disparaging remarks instead of considering what is presented to you.

In one of your posts you say that you've studied the Bible for most of your life and that you are 69 years old. Do you think you know everything there is to know about the Bible? If someone challenges you on a board like this, you might learn something from it. Don't you want to keep learning?

I assume that you feel ganged up on and maybe you feel tricked because I didn't tell you that I wasn't LDS to begin with.

If so, your assumptions are what tricked you into thinking that if someone on this board challenged your assertions they must be LDS and that is obviously not the case. Not one of my posts gives the appearance that I'm LDS. I simply challenged what you wrote.

Anyway, if you've lived 69 years you must know how to get back up on the horse.

So do it.

Jersey Girl

[Avatar4321]

No you are wrong. The Bible existed in 95 A.D. when John finished Revelation. All the books had already been written. What you mean is that it had not yet been compiled and put in its present form. That happened 225 years later under Constantine. I maintain that God knew the final form that the cannon would take and that Rev. 22:19 refers to the whole bible.

which is exactly why he wrote his gospel and epistles afterwards... cause they were all written.

[Avatar4321]

This is starting to look bad for the OP.

Next thing you know, he'll be accusing me of following Brigham Young!

UD

You mean you havent grown one of those manly Brigham Young beards? i mean seriously who wouldnt want to follow him? lol

[Ms. Jack]

I can't believe this old turd has gone to 7 pages. You guys must be really bored.

[urroner]

I can't believe this old turd has gone to 7 pages. You guys must be really bored.

What are you doing up so early young lady? I hope the baby isn't the reason.

[urroner]

There are a couple of things that I want to follow up on with you. First, I tried multiple times to reason with you while you virtually ignored those attempts until I suppose you felt pressured to reply. When you did reply, you did so in an attacking form assuming that I was LDS. That's not the first time that's happened to me.

Do not assume that when someone strongly disagrees with you on a board like this, that the person is LDS. And if you think they are LDS, it is not advisable to use phrases such as "your so-called prophets" because it makes you appear as someone who doesn't like being challenged and who will resort to disparaging remarks instead of considering what is presented to you.

Jersey Girl

Yeah, there is no way Jersey Girl would be allowed to join the Church. Anything or anybody related to New Jersey is forbidden from joining the Church. Well, Texas also.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Hi Samova,

I would be very interested in hearing your response to what was presented in response to your opening post. You were interested in hearing those responses, weren't you? Were they in any way informative, or even persuasive? What prompted you to post that question? Samova? Are you there? Hello, Samova? Yoo-Hoo Samova, we're waiting to hear back from you. Please.

**doop doop doop....The number you have attempted to dial has been disconnected. Please check the number and dial again.**

[LifeOnaPlate]

I wish there was a way to save a thread in a "favorites" folder within the site.

[Lachoneus]

I maintain that . . . that Rev. 22:19 refers to the whole bible.

I have always found this position rather odd when one looks at the Greek. Why would John refer to the whole collection of 66 books as a "little book" ("biblion") in verse 19? That makes no sense to me. As has been pointed out several times already, the "little book" is the book of Revelation.

[cjcampbell]

I think that Deut 4:2 and Rev 22:19 refer to the Bible as a whole. They are two witnesses to the same fact.

I would say then that it is equally valid to say that these verses apply to modern scripture as well. Did not God know about the coming forth of the Book of Mormon? How do you know that Rev 22:19 applies only to the books that you say it does and not to any others?

Ezekiel prophecies that the "Stick of Judah" (the Bible) and the "Stick of Joseph" (the Book of Mormon) would one day be joined into a one book. If they are one book, then attempting to remove the Book of Mormon from that book would bring the curse of Rev 22:19 upon you.

[TrespassersW]

First, the whole "God knew the final form of the Bible" seems a rather shaky argument if you ask me. But if we assume that it is actually a legitimate argument, then what is to stop LDS from simply asserting, in a similar manner, that God also knew the final form the modern LDS quad would take? And that the warnings in John and Deuteronomy simply refer to ALL scripture that God has provided us?

Seems to me that what's good for the goose...

EDIT: Awww... CJ beat me to the punch by just a few seconds.

[Uncle Dale]

You mean you havent grown one of those manly Brigham Young bears?

i mean seriously who wouldnt want to follow him? lol

The BY cubs grow up to be unmanageable adults. Grizzlie Adams' pet to the contrary notwithstanding.

Yer Unk

[jwhitlock]

I thought of the question myself. There was no anti-Mormon site. Don't be so paranoid.

No paranoia here; your posts don't add up.

The question you claim you thought of yourself has been around for quite a while and been thoroughly debunked, not only by LDS scholars, but by non-LDS Christian scholars.

Your claim to be a Bible scholar, which would also infer that you are well read, is inconsistent with the claim that you thought up this question yourself.

The LDS and non-LDS Christian response has been explained to you, but you dismiss them as simply being wrong without responding why. Very scholarly.

You claim to know the mind of God and his motivation for this scripture, which is mere speculation, while claiming a closed canon of revelation.

You need to address the responses made instead of just sticking your head in the sand and parroting very inadequate speculation about what God may have meant.

[LightBringer]

From Tad R. Callisters "The Inevitable Apostasy" on not adding to the Bible:

Nearly every one of these epistles was written to counteract some form of apostasy which was creeping into the Christian Church in the very days in which the original Twelve Apostles lived. Does it seem logical that there was a magical moment in time, say 100 A.D. , when all error had been eliminated, all doctrine clarified, all Saints perfected and thus no new epistles needed?

John the Beloved explains: â??There are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be writtenâ? (John 21:25) Here John is explaining that there was so much more additional revelation out there; basically there could be no end. A closed canon would mean that Christians would reject any of these new writings.

There are at least 15 books, prophecies, letters or visions that are referred to in the Bible as authentic, but which are not found in our current Bible. Paul referred to an additional epistle to the Corinthians that we do not have (1 Cor 5:9) and Jude referred to prophecies of Enoch that are nowhere to be found in the Bible (Jude 1:14-15).

In addition, clement of Rome (A.D.30-100) cited â??scripturesâ? not currently located in our Bible. When these come forth, will some reject them because we have a Bible and there can be no more of the word of God?

The New Testament contains only some of the words of some of the Apostles. Does it seem likely that Peter, the chief apostle, should have only eight chapters, or 12 pages Of teachings after 30 years of ministry? Or that Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew and Simon and others who were, likewise, apostles of Jesus should have nothing worthy of recording? The truth is, there must be volumes of the word of God missing from the Bible.

Many argue that there can be no new revelation because Revelation 22:18 states: â??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.â?

The caution against adding anything to the Book was referring to the specific book of Revelation. The Bible, as a collective work, did not even come into existence for several hundred years thereafter.

Second: almost the identical command was given in Deuteronomy 4:2: â??Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.â? If one interprets Revelation in the manner Orthodox Christians do, then one must discount all revelations received after Deuteronomy.

And Third it limits â??Manâ? from adding to the Revelation, not God who is the source of all revelation.

[Son]

There are at least 15 books, prophecies, letters or visions that are referred to in the Bible as authentic, but which are not found in our current Bible. Paul referred to an additional epistle to the Corinthians that we do not have (1 Cor 5:9) and Jude referred to prophecies of Enoch that are nowhere to be found in the Bible (Jude 1:14-15).

Side note:

The book of Enoch has always been included in the Ethiopic translation. They use it to this day.

I would add that the revelation of God is written on the book of our souls, and if we add anything contrary or take away anything contrary, we will receive our due.

There is a depth of spiritual understanding to be ever aware of what we allow into our temples.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Orson Pratt on scripture:

"Many people think that all the duties of man are recorded in the Bible; that idea is held by many of the sectarian world; they think this book contains all the duties in regard to the relationships between man and man, and that it is a sufficient rule of faith and practice; and enough to govern them in all their dealings with each other, and in their duties towards their God. Let me tell you, if any one man's duties (if he lived to be an old man) were clearly written, and foretold before he was born, it would take a larger volume than the Bible to contain them all; and when we consider the thousands and millions of human beings that are on the earth now, and the millions that have dropped into their graves in ages past, it is absurd to suppose that one such volume could point out all their duties, even if they all could have been foretold by the spirit of prophecy. This is reason why the Lord has appointed a living Priesthood on the earth; why He has sent down the Holy Ghost from heaven, why it enters the heart of man, and inspires him with knowledge and information concerning his own duties, and the duties of others also, that he may impart to them, week after week, and from one meeting to another, in public and in private, before large assemblies and in the family circle, every principle and duty that is necessary to be known; that his family, his wives and his children, and the Church of God at large may be taught by the Holy Ghost-the Comforter that guides into all truth; it is that power that instructs men in regard to all their duties," (JoD 2:54-61).

And again, Br. Pratt:

"The words contained in this Bible are merely a history of what is gone by; it was never given to guide the servant of God in the course he should pursue, any more than the words and commandments of God, given to a generation under one set of circumstances, would serve for another generation under another set of circumstances. There must be something to suggest or to draw forth the command to answer the circumstance under which we are placed at the time.

It is so with the servants of God. There is a Spirit that is ever ready, and points out, under varied and conflicting circumstances, the very course which the servants of God should pursue. The Bible is not a sufficient guide; it is only the history of the people who lived 1800 years ago. The history of our Church in this day, presents the scenes and transactions of this people-the revelations and words of God to them; but if an individual living an hundred, or eighteen hundred, years hence, under different circumstances, were to adopt the history of this people for his guide in all things, he would not find it sufficient to answer the circumstances surrounding him," (JoD 2:75).

[Cold Steel]

So, are you telling me that God did not know that Revelation would be the l

last book of the Christian bible? God is omnicient and knows all things. God wrote the Bible through inspired prophets and all the books are in the right place.

Yes, and don't you think God knew that the Book of Mormon was going to come forth as well as the restoration of other scriptures? Just as He knew about the coming of the Messiah (Isa. 53), so, too, did He know about the coming forth of the Book of Mormon (Isa. 29).

There are books not in the Holy Bible that have the same type of warning about not adding or deleting from the words of their books. Why are we supposed to apply your private interpretation for the Apocalypse?

The Eastern Orthodox church doesn't even accept the book of Revelation. Did God miss that?

[consiglieri]

I think that the most frequently unasked question regarding Revelation 22 is why the author would be concerned that someone might monkey with the text?

[Jersey Girl]

Yeah, there is no way Jersey Girl would be allowed to join the Church. Anything or anybody related to New Jersey is forbidden from joining the Church. Well, Texas also.

Now, that's not entirely true and you know it, urroner. When last I saw the church's stragetic plan for Jersey, only Newark and Secaucus were blacked out, as well they should be. Can anything good come out of Newark or Secaucus? Of course not.

Exit 117 here. I'm totally on the strategic grid, buddy.

Jersey Girl

p.s. If you're not from Jersey, you will likely not understand the last line of this post. See? We have our own Jerseyspeak just like you Mormons have.