You Must Not Add To The Bible

[Uncle Dale]

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?

Heck! for all we know somebody DID monkey with the text. Whatever sterotypes the G&A Church may

have amongst Mormons, the notion of sacred texts being "monkeyed with" is not LDS innovation.

The writer of the text seems to have been surrounded by what he saw as apostasy -- if his initial message

was sent out as a comfort and instruction to seven or more churches in Asia Minor, the writer may have

feared that his vision would be pirated and altered by some of those apostates.

And, as I said, maybe it was.

UD

[Joshu]

I myself prefer the simple explanation offered by scholars of textual criticism, which has already been presented here. The process of transcription was a difficult one often littered with mistakes and "corrections" by well meaning monks. many things have been added to the bible including the story of the woman taken in adultery and the johannine comma. I believe the injunction has no spiritual validity whatsoever and remains a remnant of bygone publishing practices.

[Zakuska]

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?

Because they've been Monkeying with the text since the day it was written.

Jeremiah 8:8 (New International Version)

8 " 'How can you say, "We are wise,

for we have the law of the LORD,"

when actually the lying pen of the scribes

has handled it falsely?

To the point that we can't even recognize it as the word of God anymore.

[Uncle Dale]

I myself prefer the simple explanation offered by scholars of textual criticism, which has already been presented here. The process of transcription was a difficult one often littered with mistakes and "corrections" by well meaning monks. many things have been added to the bible including the story of the woman taken in adultery and the johannine comma. I believe the injunction has no spiritual validity whatsoever and remains a remnant of bygone publishing practices.

Then again, the Christian texts seem to have been finalized before the rise of monasticism and the

"dark ages" copyist schools.

More likely, some of the earliest people entrusted with the texts did not share out modern abhorance

of changing the wording. But, among Mormons, the urge to change the texts continues -- with changes

from the 1833 Book of Commandments to the 1835 Doctrine & Covenants, to later editions. Same

process can be seen in the editing/re-editing of the BoM and the JST.

UD

[hagoth7]

But, among Mormons, the urge to change the texts continues...

Resisting the urge to go back and edit my last post?

[Uncle Dale]

Resisting the urge to go back and edit my last post?

Oh, I think that GA Orson Pratt would extend that permisison -- he wrote a rather lengthy defense of

LDS revelation-changing in the pages of The Seer, at one point.

Uncle "So maybe it's time to add the Seer to the Standard Works?" Dale

[Son]

I wonder if those that carried the translation responsibilities winced when they came to the book of Revelation.

And if the lesser translations (IMO) are why the warning was given.

IE: the Living (garbage) Bible

[alter idem]

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.

So, you claim that these two verses refer "to the bible as a whole"? Well, then I don't see what the problem is. We didn't ADD the Book of Mormon or The Pearl of Great Price to the Bible. They are completely separate books. Please explain how the two verses you cited have anything to do with additional revealed scripture?

And now, a question for you--where in the Bible does it say that God no longer speaks to men?

[Uncle Dale]

We didn't ADD... The Pearl of Great Price to the Bible.

But Joseph Smith, Jr. added a substantial part of the PGP to the JST, of course.

Maybe we should all chip into a fund to purchase a copy of the RLDS Bible for samova2133.

That would probably be enough to give him a heart attack.

UD

[jadams_4242]

[quote (samova2133 @ Sep 2 2007, 10:32 PM)

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.

-----------------------------------------------

Then if john wrote this in revealation, how did he contradict his own warning by writing three

more epistles after saying this?

And how many books were written after the deuteronamy warning?.

its waayyyy obvious to even the most casual observer, these warnings were directed

to the books at hand!

And as a matter of fact the "bible" did not even excist when revealation was written.

there were books and scripture all over, but nothing had been put together to constitute

what we know as the bible. And many,many, books were deleted from this cannon as well.

[cdowis]

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?

Let me summarize some points.

For the convenience of the readers, each book of scriptures, or scrolls, was bound together with a front and back cover, and this was given a title, "The Bible". The prophets and early Christians had no concept of such a single book. And the "Bible" itself never refers to such a single book.

For the past several centuries, men have mistakenly assumed that this back cover was from the Lord, not considering the fact that man himself placed it there. This back cover then took on a doctrinal meaning, never intended by those who placed it there.

Man took on this back cover to mean that there would be no more revelation. For example, the scripture you cited was interpreted to mean the "Bible" (which did not exist at that time but hundreds of years later) rather than the scroll of Revelation itself.

If you will take the time to read the entire chapter, you will realize what John was actually referring to, rather than taking a few verses out of context.

Now, if you want to believe that the Lord himself placed this back cover on His word, that is just fine, but the scriptures do not teach this doctrine. It is a doctrine of man, not from God.

The LDS church accepts all revelation from God, including the Bible. We do not tell Him how to run His business. If He wants additional prophets and revelation, we accept them.

It is now your decision on whether you will give counsel to God, or to accept counsel from His hand.

Best of luck to you.

[jwhitlock]

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: "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 written" (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 "scriptures" 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: "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."

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: "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." If one interprets Revelation in the manner Orthodox Christians do, then one must discount all revelations received after Deuteronomy.

And Third it limits "Man" from adding to the Revelation, not God who is the source of all revelation.

Tad Callister's book was very good. Highly recommended as an LDS viewpoint of the apostasy.

You're right in making the point that it was evident that things were going badly wrong by the end of the first century. To have a closed canon at that point is more of an indication of how badly they were going, than an indication that things were so good, no more scripture was needed. I find the latter assertion to be extraordinary - and to require significant evidence (which does not exist) to prove it.

[jwhitlock]

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.

Yep. The old question of "What exit off the turnpike do you live?"

[Jersey Girl]

Yep. The old question of "What exit off the turnpike do you live?"

Like I said. If you're not from Jersey you will not likely understand the reference. IOW, no, you are incorrect. I still like your eyeball though!

Jersey Girl

[Trencher7]

Samova,

Biblically scholarship has generally concluded that the warning in Revelations were for those people taking the writings of the apostles and adding and subtracting things in their transcriptions. This was an ongoing problem at the time. They didn't have the internet nor did they have satellite broadcasts. An apostles words could only be read by letters that were duplicated into several epistles for distribution purposes. Many mistakes came out of this process and sometimes words were added or changed.

This makes perfect sense when you put the book and writing in it's proper context.

To believe the warning refers to the Bible as a whole is to ignore both how the book was compiled and when it was compiled.

Evangelicals believe (without Biblical support) the God would without a doubt "preserve his word". Apparently John didn't hold the same belief.

[Uncle Dale]

Evangelicals believe (without Biblical support) the God would without a doubt "preserve his word".

Apparently John didn't hold the same belief.

Nor did Jeremiah -- see the previously cited quote about the pens of lying scribes, in this thread.

One of the most interesting discoveries among the scrolls found at Qumran were texts of the books

of Samuel -- long regarded as one of the most problematic books in the Hebrew Bible. By comparing

the MT Hebrew, with the LXX Greek, with the Qumran versions of Samuel, biblical scholars have

finally been able to remove the corrupted passages from 1Sam and 2Sam, providing the "cleanest"

copy of that material available for reading in the last 2000 years. Most modern bibles already include

the changes. In some cases they amount to only a word or two on a page -- in other instances the

updated text is substantially different from that printed in pre-1960 bibles.

So, let some of the less informed EVs worship their 1611 KJVs, if that is their inclination -- modern

scholarship has passed them by.

UD

[erichard]

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.

Hi samova,

Correct. But what is that "fact"?

Do either of these scriptures say anything about what God can or cannot do? Or what He will or will not do? Do they put any limitations on God in any way?

If you answer NO to the above questions we are on the same page. If you say YES, then I am afraid you are doing the very thing these verses warn against: adding to them.

So, these scriptures warn MAN to not add or take from what God has given to us, and I am sure the same warning could be in any book of the Bible.

But notice that every book of the Bible, except the last one, has another book AFTER it-- often hundreds of years later. More Word of the Lord after earlier Word of the Lord-- all coming through men in the flesh, called as prophets. (The date order of these books is used for this illustration.)

So this warning to man is not the same as a statement by God that He has changed his ways and no longer will bring forth more of His word through the Prophets of Israel. You will have to go elsewhere in the Bible to look for God saying that-- if you can find it.

Did you read and consider John 16:12-13 which promises MORE thing will be said to the Lord's disciples until they have ALL TRUTH? Does that not mean a lot more of the Word of the Lord?

Richard