Jump to content

"Nothing shall be added unto this book"


MannyPaquio

Recommended Posts

My christian friend says that nothing should be added onto the bible because of Rev 22: 18-19. I think it can be interprated in a few ways. I tried researching it, but I can't find what the churches postition is on this scripture. Can you please tell me?

Yes, it's the book of Revelation that is meant. Revelation wasn't the last book written in the New Testament times; it was merely the last one to be included. The warning was added because the great and abominable church was already removing sacred things from the writings of the apostles.

Link to comment

My christian friend says that nothing should be added onto the bible because of Rev 22: 18-19. I think it can be interprated in a few ways. I tried researching it, but I can't find what the churches postition is on this scripture. Can you please tell me?

If we applied this scripture as some would have us do, we'd have to throw out the entire Bible, after the 5 books of Moses.

Deut. 4: 2

2 Ye shall not aadd 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.

The scripture is about the Revelations of John, not the Bible. The bible wasn't even compiled in the order it was written.

I would add here this reference from 3 Nephi, the Savior speaking to the Nephites, which essentially says the same thing.

3 Ne. 11: 40

40 And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock; but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation, and the gates of hell stand open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them.

Link to comment

I'll take the rare liberty of cut-npasting myself.

Please note the singular book. In no way, shape or form does the singular book imply books plural or a collection of books.

A book was a scroll (no codices yet). In a few rare instances, such as 1 and 2 Samuel, it meant more than one scroll, but if so such was clearly indicated.

The whole current canon of the Bible could not have fit on a single scroll!

John's curse was also a standard formula throughout the ancient world, especially since books were usually read out loud, publically, so that formula was to prevent the reader from changing what he read.

Link to comment

OK, that is what I figured, just wanted to be sure.

What do you say to those that follow the Torah and their 613 laws only? It is funny that you mentioned Deut 4: 2, because my jewish friend told me this is why God's law stops after the 613 laws of the Torah, and Jesus is not to be followed.

Link to comment

OK, that is what I figured, just wanted to be sure.

What do you say to those that follow the Torah and their 613 laws only? It is funny that you mentioned Deut 4: 2, because my jewish friend told me this is why God's law stops after the 613 laws of the Torah, and Jesus is not to be followed.

There ya go!! Isn't it interesting that patterns of apostasy are the same. As Nephi prophesied... "Wo be unto him that shall say: We have received the word of God, and we need no more of the word of God, for we have enough!"

Link to comment

There ya go!! Isn't it interesting that patterns of apostasy are the same. As Nephi prophesied... "Wo be unto him that shall say: We have received the word of God, and we need no more of the word of God, for we have enough!"

Lol!

Do you think I should share that scripture with my jewish friend?

Link to comment
What do you say to those that follow the Torah and their 613 laws only? It is funny that you mentioned Deut 4:2, because my Jewish friend told me this is why God's law stops after the 613 laws of the Torah, and Jesus is not to be followed.

Well, Jesus wasn't too impressed with the standard Jewish exegesis. He directed some unkind remarks at such people. It's possibly one reason that their Messiah slipped right by them without many of them noticing. They need to think outside of the box.

.

Link to comment

Well, Jesus wasn't too impressed with the standard Jewish exegesis. He directed some unkind remarks at such people. It's possibly one reason that their Messiah slipped right by them without many of them noticing. They need to think outside of the box.

.

Can you share some of those scriptures with me?

Link to comment

Lol!

Do you think I should share that scripture with my jewish friend?

Sure. He'll find out eventually.

Zechariah 13:6

And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.

Link to comment

Some argue the Rev passage is referring to the Book of Revelation (rightly so), but that Joseph Smith added to that very book in his translations, and took things away.

I think the argument still just goes back to (surprise!) whether Joseph Smith was a prophet or impostor.

Arguing about the meaning behind various scriptures obviously doesn't work, because all these religions still exist despite what various passages say. I gotta admit both the Deut and Rev passages are pretty darned explicit, and yet here I am a believing Mormon.

Maybe everyone interprets stuff differently to fit what they believe.

Again, the argument just ends up at whether JS was God's instrument or not.

Link to comment

My christian friend says that nothing should be added onto the bible because of Rev 22: 18-19. I think it can be interprated in a few ways. I tried researching it, but I can't find what the churches postition is on this scripture. Can you please tell me?

Manny,

Point out to your friend that Rev 22:18-19 says NOTHING about what God can or cannot do, or what God will or will not do. God is telling mankind not to add or take from the Word he has given them through the prophets. Kinda like a copyright notice. As noted, he says the same thing in Deut.

But these verse put no conditions on God. They do not say that God cannot call another prophet and bring forth more of His words. That was the pattern for generations of time anciently when there were people ready to listen to his words. Who says that an unchanging God could not follow the same pattern again in our day if some are ready to listen again?

Those who try to use Rev. 22:18 to say that there will never be another prophet of God bringing forth more of his words are doing the very thing Rev. 22:18 warns against: they are adding to it.

Your friend will then say, "oh yeah, but we also know that God has once and for all given us his Word and will never give more revelation". But he will have to use other scriptures for that point, and not Rev. 22:18.

Richard

Link to comment

What do you say to those that follow the Torah and their 613 laws only? It is funny that you mentioned Deut 4: 2, because my jewish friend told me this is why God's law stops after the 613 laws of the Torah, and Jesus is not to be followed.

I would ask him then what about prophets like Isaiah or Jeremiah or Joshua? Did Israel not follow them? Did Joshua not take over from Moses and lead them into the promise land? I see a couple of other good things have already been pointed out above me in this thread, take note of them too.

Link to comment

My christian friend says that nothing should be added onto the bible because of Rev 22: 18-19. I think it can be interprated in a few ways. I tried researching it, but I can't find what the churches postition is on this scripture. Can you please tell me?

ask your friends about the Conservative Bible Project and see if they have objections then. secondly, depending on the situation your "christian" friends are terribly uneducated. The "bible" as we see it today did not exist until 3 - 4 hundred years AFTER John wrote the Book of Revelation, so the verse only applies to the Book of Revelation.
Link to comment
My christian friend says that nothing should be added onto the bible because of Rev 22: 18-19. I think it can be interprated in a few ways. I tried researching it, but I can't find what the churches postition is on this scripture. Can you please tell me?

The best short answers for this question imho are,

1. Deuteronomy 4:2 says essentially the same thing so the Bible should end there by that logic.

2. The Bible didn't exist when this was written so it only applies to the book of Revelation.

And of course I always add the truism that nowhere does the Bible claim to be the only and complete word of God.

But specific LDS doctrine itself would be 1 Nephi 14 in which Nephi sees the same vision as John, but is told not to write them because John was ordained to that duty (1 Nephi 14:25-28).

Link to comment

Some argue the Rev passage is referring to the Book of Revelation (rightly so), but that Joseph Smith added to that very book in his translations, and took things away.

I think the argument still just goes back to (surprise!) whether Joseph Smith was a prophet or impostor.

Arguing about the meaning behind various scriptures obviously doesn't work, because all these religions still exist despite what various passages say. I gotta admit both the Deut and Rev passages are pretty darned explicit, and yet here I am a believing Mormon.

Maybe everyone interprets stuff differently to fit what they believe.

Again, the argument just ends up at whether JS was God's instrument or not.

The only problem with this argument is it could also be made with the NIV, NKJV, the Phinney Bible, etc. etc. etc.

Many of the "Changes" Joseph Smith supposedly made with the Book of Revelation were actually the Phinney Bible translators who made them.

One example would be...

Rev 12

6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.

In the JST the verse reads.

Rev 12

6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore years.

'Days' where changed to 'Years'. John Welsey also made this change in his Bible comentaries. Its sad that JS gets a bumb wrap being a Prophet of God, while others who never claimed to be prophets are given a free pass.

Link to comment

The best short answers for this question imho are,

1. Deuteronomy 4:2 says essentially the same thing so the Bible should end there by that logic.

2. The Bible didn't exist when this was written so it only applies to the book of Revelation.

And of course I always add the truism that nowhere does the Bible claim to be the only and complete word of God.

But specific LDS doctrine itself would be 1 Nephi 14 in which Nephi sees the same vision as John, but is told not to write them because John was ordained to that duty (1 Nephi 14:25-28).

I also like to add that the Bible does claim to have whole volumns of Scripture that have been Checked out of the divine library and never retruned.

LOST SCRIPTURE

See also Scriptures to Come Forth; BD Lost Books

Ex. 24: 7 took the book of the covenant.

Num. 21: 14 book of the wars of the Lord.

Josh. 10: 13 (2 Sam. 1: 18) book of Jasher.

1 Sam. 10: 25 Samuel . . . wrote it in a book.

1 Kgs. 11: 41 book of the acts of Solomon.

1 Chr. 29: 29 book of Samuel the seer.

2 Chr. 9: 29 book of Nathan the prophet.

2 Chr. 12: 15 book of Shemaiah the prophet.

2 Chr. 13: 22 acts of Abijah . . . in the story of the prophet Iddo.

2 Chr. 20: 34 book of Jehu.

2 Chr. 33: 19 written among the sayings of the seers.

Matt. 2: 23 spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.

1 Cor. 5: 9 I wrote unto you in an epistle.

Eph. 3: 3 as I wrote afore in few words.

Col. 4: 16 read the epistle from Laodicea.

Jude 1: 3 when I gave all diligence to write unto you.

Jude 1: 14 Enoch also . . . prophesied of these.

1 Ne. 13: 26 taken away . . . many parts which are plain.

1 Ne. 19: 10 (3 Ne. 10: 16) words of Zenock . . . according to the words of Neum.

2 Ne. 29: 12 I shall also speak unto all nations . . . they shall write.

Jacob 5: 1 (Jacob 6: 1; Alma 32: 3; Alma 34: 7; Hel. 15: 11) do ye not remember . . . the words of the prophet Zenos.

Alma 63: 12 parts which had been commanded . . . should not go forth.

Hel. 8: 20 also Zenock, and also Ezias, and also Isaiah.

Ether 1: 5 (Ether 3: 17, 21) I give not the full account, but a part.

Ether 15: 33 hundredth part I have not written.

D&C 107: 57 book of Enoch.

Moses 1: 41 men shall . . . take many of them from the book.

Moses 6: 5 book of remembrance was kept.

I'd hate to pay their Library Late Fees?! shok.gif

Link to comment

Zakuska,

As far as I know, there was no such thing as a "Phinney Bible" that had its own "translators." The Phinney Company was a book publisher that published an edition of the King James Version of the Bible. Smith and his "scribes" used a copy of the KJV Bible published by the Phinney Company. That copy had hundreds of notations of changes to be made in the Bible, handwritten in the Bible by Smith or his scribes -- not part of the "Phinney Bible" itself. You can verify this information from this article by Robert J. Matthews, who was one of the foremost LDS authorities on the JST.

As for Revelation 12:6, John Wesley did not change the text of the Bible. In his commentary, he interpreted "days" to refer symbolically to years. Wesley's interpretation of Revelation 12:6 has some serious problems -- he thought it actually referred to a period of 777 years, from 847 to 1524! But he did not rewrite the text of the Bible, as Joseph Smith did.

The only problem with this argument is it could also be made with the NIV, NKJV, the Phinney Bible, etc. etc. etc.

Many of the "Changes" Joseph Smith supposedly made with the Book of Revelation were actually the Phinney Bible translators who made them.

One example would be...

Rev 12

6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.

In the JST the verse reads.

Rev 12

6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore years.

'Days' where changed to 'Years'. John Welsey also made this change in his Bible comentaries. Its sad that JS gets a bumb wrap being a Prophet of God, while others who never claimed to be prophets are given a free pass.

Link to comment

Yep, Wesley definatley went off the beat'n track...

Rev 12:6

And the woman fled into the wilderness - This wilderness is undoubtedly on earth, where the woman also herself is now supposed to be. It betokens that part of the earth where, after having brought forth, she found a new abode. And this must be in Europe; as Asia and Afric were wholly in the hands of the Turks and Saracens; and in a part of it where the woman had not been before. In this wilderness, God had already prepared a place; that is, made it safe and convenient for her. The wilderness is, those countries of Europe which lie on this side the Danube; for the countries which lie beyond it had received Christianity before. That they may feed her - That the people of that place may provide all things needful for her. Twelve hundred and sixty days - So many prophetic days, which are not, as some have supposed, twelve hundred and sixty, but seven hundred and seventy - seven, common years. This Bengelius has shown at large in his German Introduction. These we may compute from the year 847 to 1524. So long the woman enjoyed a safe and convenientplace in Europe, which was chiefly Bohemia; where she was fed, till God provided for her more plentifully at the Reformation.

http://www.biblestud...elation-12.html

The standard interpretaion was 1260 "common years", and as Luther showed us the 1260 years started in 570AD when Mohamud was born.

570AD +1260 years takes us 1830AD. Just intime for the Church to be restored... Out of the wilderness.

Thanks for bringing that up Rob. good.gif

Link to comment

Zakuska,

Way to ignore every point I made and change the subject.

I did a Google search and could not find any documentation for your reference to Luther. Could you please cite me where in his writings he said this?

In any case, interpreting the 1260 says to mean 1260 years is an interpretation that has been tried at least a dozen different ways, none of which had any merit. Furthermore, starting the 1260 days from the birth of Muhammad really does not fit the context of Revelation 12:6.

Yep, Wesley definatley went off the beat'n track...

The standard interpretaion was 1260 "common years", and as Luther showed us the 1260 years started in 570AD when Mohamud was born.

570AD +1260 years takes us 1830AD. Just intime for the Church to be restored... Out of the wilderness.

Thanks for bringing that up Rob. good.gif

Link to comment

Welcome to the list Rob. Thanks for your introduction as well. It helps us understand where you're coming from as an Evangelical scholar.

Welcome.

Edited to add: Is the chapter you wrote about the LDS Church available online so we can read it?

"I am an evangelical Christian biblical scholar and apologist. I contributed the chapter on "Latter-day Saints" to the 2005 InterVarsity Press book A Guide to New Religious Movements, edited by Ron Enroth.

Link to comment

Sevenbak,

Thanks so much for the welcome. I'm glad to be here.

As far as I know, the chapter I wrote about the LDS Church is not available online.

Welcome to the list Rob. Thanks for your introduction as well. It helps us understand where you're coming from as an Evangelical scholar.

Welcome.

Edited to add: Is the chapter you wrote about the LDS Church available online so we can read it?

"I am an evangelical Christian biblical scholar and apologist. I contributed the chapter on "Latter-day Saints" to the 2005 InterVarsity Press book A Guide to New Religious Movements, edited by Ron Enroth.

Link to comment

Some argue the Rev passage is referring to the Book of Revelation (rightly so), but that Joseph Smith added to that very book in his translations, and took things away.

I think the argument still just goes back to (surprise!) whether Joseph Smith was a prophet or impostor.

Arguing about the meaning behind various scriptures obviously doesn't work, because all these religions still exist despite what various passages say. I gotta admit both the Deut and Rev passages are pretty darned explicit, and yet here I am a believing Mormon.

Maybe everyone interprets stuff differently to fit what they believe.

Again, the argument just ends up at whether JS was God's instrument or not.

This begs the question, do any of the manuscripts we have accurately contain the revelation as originally written down?

The other question is can god ask someone to clarify the meaning of Revelation, or is that off-bounds even for God.

Link to comment

Sorry to hear that. Can you give us a brief synopsis or outline?

Here is a link to the preview of the book: http://books.google....page&q=&f=false

The LDS section is not online. I was not impressed by the Jehovah's Witnesses section. He also apparently recommends Richard Abanes' book for some reason [****found the footnote, he recommends it as a good nonLDS treatment of LDS history], another a huge red flag in my view.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...