"Nothing shall be added unto this book"

[ChristKnight]

Here is a link to the preview of the book: http://books.google.com/books?id=pRLlwZoPJ94C&printsec=frontcover&dq=A+Guide+to+New+Religious+Movements+enroth&source=bl&ots=BPJbk7NICP&sig=cKQyrFnKIvwt-kegZ9tfXauVRfw&hl=en&ei=ErJTS-vfA5PANdnXyOEP&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=false

The LDS section is not online. I was not impressed by the Jehovah's Witnesses section.

The LDS section is in the link you provided...

[Calm]

The LDS section is in the link you provided...

My link shows only the first three chapters are previewed. It ends around page 50 and the LDS section starts around page 80. You can do a search on terms to come up with some sentences used, which is how I found the Abanes reference (I searched on "Mormon".)

[ChristKnight]

My link shows only the first three chapters are previewed. It ends around page 50 and the LDS section starts around page 80. You can do a search on terms to come up with some sentences used, which is how I found the Abanes reference (I searched on "Mormon".)

That's very odd! I clicked on the link, scrolled down to the Table of Contents, and clicked "Latter Day Saints, Robert M. Bowman, Jr.". The entire chapter is part of the preview (I just quickly read it), from page 78-96.

[Calm]

That's very odd! I clicked on the link, scrolled down to the Table of Contents, and clicked "Latter Day Saints, Robert M. Bowman, Jr.". The entire chapter is part of the preview (I just quickly read it), from page 78-96.

I wonder if the section shown is random.

****figured it out, there is a viewing limit. If you want to read the LDS section, go there first using the table of contents, do not cycle through pages.

[ChristKnight]

I wonder if the section shown is random.

Hmm, I don't know (I always thought the Google Books preview was the same for everyone). You said you saw the JW chapter, but that's not included in the preview when I clicked your link. Maybe try clicking your link again (the one included on this thread), then click the "Contents" drop-down menu at the top. "Latterday (sic) Saints" is the first chapter link listed.

Weird.

[ChristKnight]

Or, just click this link (it takes me directly to the LDS chapter):

http://books.google.com/books?id=pRLlwZoPJ94C&lpg=PP1&ots=BPJbk7NICP&dq=A%20Guide%20to%20New%20Religious%20Movements%20enroth&pg=PA78#v=onepage&q=&f=false

[Calm]

Hmm, I don't know (I always thought the Google Books preview was the same for everyone). You said you saw the JW chapter, but that's not included in the preview when I clicked your link. Maybe try clicking your link again (the one included on this thread), then click the "Contents" drop-down menu at the top. "Latterday (sic) Saints" is the first chapter link listed.

Weird.

JWs are not available to you because you used your allotment on LDS....hope that's what you wanted because I'm annoyed with what I got.

[ChristKnight]

JWs are not available to you because you used your allotment on LDS....hope that's what you wanted because I'm annoyed with what I got.

Haha, the JWs never interested me. Maybe my link works for you...Either way, the LDS chapter didn't really introduce anything that I haven't heard before. I'm sure it's familiar territory for everyone here. The book seems to be written from an Evangelical perspective, where it touches on a number of the "unique" beliefs, says what the Bible says (or what their interpretation of the Bible says, to be precise), and how to witness.

[SearchDog]

I've been looking for the General Conference talk by Russell M. Ballard about the fallacy of this Christian belief that scriptures are closed because of this verse in John's Book of Revelation. He pointed out that the Bible as constituted today was not even compiled as such until 1000 AD. Therefore the warning could not apply to the Bible as a whole.

Does someone have a link to that talk?

I think it would be worthwhile for MannyPaquio to read it.

[volgadon]

I was going to add that most lists of the 'canon' ommit Revelation!!!

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

My favorite argument, is that even if we give the EVies the benefit of the doubt and give them their interpretaion, the text says "If any man should add too.....if any man should take away".. The key word is man. We know that God can add to His word or take it away.

The question then becomes, "How does God do that". Amos 3:7 is the key. He will do it through his prophets. None of the NT was written by Jesus. They were all 2nd or 3rd hand accounts. I am unaware of any scripture verse that says "That God will not reveal any more scripture". If teh EVies wish to make their point, that is the langauge that would do it for me.

[Sevenbak]

Or, just click this link (it takes me directly to the LDS chapter):

http://books.google.com/books?id=pRLlwZoPJ94C&lpg=PP1&ots=BPJbk7NICP&dq=A%20Guide%20to%20New%20Religious%20Movements%20enroth&pg=PA78#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Thanks. Looks pretty fair, though I think he accepts and standardizes the critical view of the various First Vision accounts as being authoritatively dismissive. I didn't get past that.

[Rob Bowman]

Mola,

Others here have made the same reply. I'm not sure I go along with this. John's warning at the end of Revelation seems to preclude anyone adding or subtracting from the book. To make prophets an exception is a loophole big enough to excuse anything. "Well of course I can add to the book of Revelation, because I'm a prophet!" "Oh, that's all right, then." I don't find this persuasive.

Then there is the matter of the kinds of changes that Joseph Smith made to the book of Revelation. These changes don't look like inspired restorations of the true text or the true meaning of the text. They look like changes made to remove difficulties that Smith didn't understand. For example, twice in Revelation the JST changes "rule them with a rod of iron," once to "rule them with the word of God" and the other time to "rule them with the word of his mouth" (Rev. 2:27; 19:15). In making this change, which may sound pious and sensible enough, Smith removed the clear allusion in these texts to Psalm 2:7-9, thus missing the point that Jesus will rule in fulfillment of the Messianic message of that psalm. We know Smith missed this point because he didn't bother to change Psalm 2 to fit his changes to Revelation.

My favorite argument, is that even if we give the EVies the benefit of the doubt and give them their interpretaion, the text says "If any man should add too.....if any man should take away".. The key word is man. We know that God can add to His word or take it away.

The question then becomes, "How does God do that". Amos 3:7 is the key. He will do it through his prophets. None of the NT was written by Jesus. They were all 2nd or 3rd hand accounts. I am unaware of any scripture verse that says "That God will not reveal any more scripture". If teh EVies wish to make their point, that is the langauge that would do it for me.

[Beowulf]

Mola,

Others here have made the same reply. I'm not sure I go along with this. John's warning at the end of Revelation seems to preclude anyone adding or subtracting from the book. To make prophets an exception is a loophole big enough to excuse anything. "Well of course I can add to the book of Revelation, because I'm a prophet!" "Oh, that's all right, then." I don't find this persuasive.

Then there is the matter of the kinds of changes that Joseph Smith made to the book of Revelation. These changes don't look like inspired restorations of the true text or the true meaning of the text. They look like changes made to remove difficulties that Smith didn't understand. For example, twice in Revelation the JST changes "rule them with a rod of iron," once to "rule them with the word of God" and the other time to "rule them with the word of his mouth" (Rev. 2:27; 19:15). In making this change, which may sound pious and sensible enough, Smith removed the clear allusion in these texts to Psalm 2:7-9, thus missing the point that Jesus will rule in fulfillment of the Messianic message of that psalm. We know Smith missed this point because he didn't bother to change Psalm 2 to fit his changes to Revelation.

Rob, believe it or not, I actually agree with you. Much of what Joseph Smith was doing with the JST was attempting to clear up things that he did not understand. As noted above, John Wesley did this too (and Luther, according to one poster, but you disputed it... I wouldn't know), as have a host of other people attempting to understand John's book of Revelation. Hardly surprising, seeing how difficult it is to understand in places.

Question: Do all these others get a free pass for messing with the Bible, while Joseph Smith does not?

Joseph's handling of the Bible often strikes me as heavy-handed, and I read it with those caveats. But sometimes, he strikes me so hard that I reel back, saying Whoa! Where did that come from?

And then I know that he was a prophet.

I do not have to insist that everything he said and wrote was correct for me to also believe that he was a prophet acting as the mouthpiece of God when the occasion demanded. Unlike you, who take a rigid, fundamentalist view that prophets "breathe" the word of God, and can therefore have no opinions or thoughts of their own.

Thanks for the time,

Beowulf

[volgadon]

To make prophets an exception is a loophole big enough to excuse anything. "Well of course I can add to the book of Revelation, because I'm a prophet!" "Oh, that's all right, then." I don't find this persuasive.

Thhe LDS view is that as a prophet he was making inspired changes or clarifications. Does God not get a loophole?

[Rob Bowman]

Beowulf,

There is a big difference between offering a comment on a text and rewriting it. Saying "this is what I understand this verse to mean" is not "messing with the Bible." Rewriting it to say what you think it should have said is "messing with the Bible."

And as to whether "others get a free pass for messing with the Bible, while Joseph does not": No. Anyone else who tried to rewrite the Bible to fit his evolving theology would come under the same criticism as Joseph Smith. But let's put things in context. Luther and Wesley offered their own comments on the Bible and did not claim that they were prophets whose interpretations must be followed. Smith rewrote parts of the Bible and issued other alleged scriptures and did claim that he was a prophet whose revelations must be followed. The bigger the claim, the more one must be held accountable. So it would be perfectly consistent to give a "free pass," or at least a lesser criticism, to humble folks who made no pretensions to being something they weren't, while taking a very dim view of a man who claimed to be something really fantastic but who wasn't.

This is my response to your characterization of me as taking "a rigid, fundamentalist view." Make big claims, better deliver. Claim to be the Prophet of the Restoration, expect to have your alleged prophetic revelations scrutinized. Claim to have God, Jesus, angels, apostles, and prophets appearing to you with thunderous new revelations, expect to have those revelations critically assessed. This is a far more reasonable stance than the one that says "I accept my guy as speaking as a wonderful prophet of God except where he gets caught goofing, and then, even if it's in something that's supposed to be scripture, I give him a free pass, because he's only human, y'know."

One other point: If I found that Joseph was remarkably accurate almost all of the time, but there were one or two places where it seemed he made a mistake, I would probably go along with your view. But Joseph made numerous "mistakes" just in the JST, and there are lots of problems in his other revelations. How many times must a prophet blow it before we start thinking he might not be a true prophet of God after all?

Rob, believe it or not, I actually agree with you. Much of what Joseph Smith was doing with the JST was attempting to clear up things that he did not understand. As noted above, John Wesley did this too (and Luther, according to one poster, but you disputed it... I wouldn't know), as have a host of other people attempting to understand John's book of Revelation. Hardly surprising, seeing how difficult it is to understand in places.

Question: Do all these others get a free pass for messing with the Bible, while Joseph Smith does not?

Joseph's handling of the Bible often strikes me as heavy-handed, and I read it with those caveats. But sometimes, he strikes me so hard that I reel back, saying Whoa! Where did that come from?

And then I know that he was a prophet.

I do not have to insist that everything he said and wrote was correct for me to also believe that he was a prophet acting as the mouthpiece of God when the occasion demanded. Unlike you, who take a rigid, fundamentalist view that prophets "breathe" the word of God, and can therefore have no opinions or thoughts of their own.

Thanks for the time,

Beowulf

[Lightbearer]

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?

Elder Holland gave an interesting talk that gives a good answer to this objection:

(Jeffrey R. Holland,

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Mola,

Others here have made the same reply. I'm not sure I go along with this. John's warning at the end of Revelation seems to preclude anyone adding or subtracting from the book. To make prophets an exception is a loophole big enough to excuse anything. "Well of course I can add to the book of Revelation, because I'm a prophet!" "Oh, that's all right, then." I don't find this persuasive.

There are 2 logical extensions of you wish to go down this road.

One is that, you are saying that God cannot add or take away from His word? Were did you get taht idea from. Are you limiting God? So far I cannot find a single bible verse that tells me that Gods word is complete and there shall be no more.

Two is that if you do limit God, are you ready to accpet that you are equating Him to a man? As the text says "If any man add to these words".

I maintain that God can add to His word as I have not heard on thing from the bible that claims that He can't or wont becuase the bible is finished.

If God can add to His word, how do you suppose that He would do that? How did He do that in the past.

Tell me, How did the Children of Israel know that Moses was a true prophet?

How do you deal with similar wording that is found in Deuteronomy?

FWIW, I don't expect you to agree with me. I am sure you will find some way to disagree with every one of my points. What I am looking for is a biblical reason to do so, not just your assertions.

[Sevenbak]

Oh the irony of it all.

A common theme in the bible, is that often people might accept ancient dead prophets, but not accept live ones. Christ Himself said this (Mat. 23:29-37). The New Testament harshly condemns the Pharisees and Sadducees and scribes who couldn't accept the revelation in their day, and some segments of Christianity have despised Jews for 2,000 years. Ironically, generic Christianity's arguments against the LDS Church reflect remarkably well many of the same attitudes of the Jews against Christianity 2,000 years ago.

[Bill Hamblin]

Hi Rob,

The usual form this anti-Mormon argument takes is:

1- Revelation says the "book" cannot be added to.

2- This "book" is the Bible.

3- JS added to the Bible in the BOM and DC, etc. violating this command.

Do you agree that this traditional anti-Mormon argument is bogus?

You seem to be making an altogether different argument, thereby distracting attention from the failure of the original anti-Mormon claim. If I understand you correctly, you believe that the JST Revelation violates the proscription in Revelation by changing the text of Revelation. JS is therefore still in violation of this command, even though the original anti-Mormon argument is bogus.

I have two questions for you.

1- Can a translation or interpretation change a book? If so, then all translators and interpretors of Revelation are in violation--including all the Evangelicals (which are the vast majority in my experience), who falsely interpret this passage as referring to the Bible rather than to the book of Revelation. Aren't they themselves violating John's prohibition by "changing" the plain meaning of the text?

2- Do we have the original autograph manuscript of Revelation? If not, then how can we possibly know if JS's changes in Revelation are or are not authentic textual corrections or interpretative clarifications? If we can't know this, what's the point in arguing?

Adieu, adieu,

Hamblin of Jerusalem

My link/

[SearchDog]

Elder Holland gave an interesting talk that gives a good answer to this objection: The entire article can be found here:"My Words... Never Cease"

In addition when I have this scripture quoted to me, I always agree that "no man" can add to the words of God, only God can do that, and He always does so through His prophets and apostles whom He has called. That is our contention today, in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints we have living prophets and apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ with us today, when the Lord chooses to add more to His revelation He does so.

Hope this helps.

Great talk. That was the one I was looking for (although I thought it was by Ballard). I was so happy when he addressed this very important obstacle in Christian theology. It opens the door to seeing that a church with living revelation by the power of the Holy Ghost and the authority of the apostolic priesthood is the only true extension of Christ's first Church.

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

I have been making this same argument for about 25 years. Yes, I would agree that the argument you describe is fallacious; Revelation 22:18-19 is referring specifically to the Book of Revelation and is not addressing the question of whether the canon of Scripture is open or closed. On the other hand, it enunciates a principle that goes beyond that one book, which is that no one may alter God's word in Scripture. Again, I have been saying this for many, many years. My intent is not to "distract attention" from the fallacious argument that I didn't use but to present a sound argument that I do use.

I would repeat what I have already stated in this thread: There is a big difference between rewriting the Bible and interpreting the Bible, and there is a big difference between doing either of these and claiming to be a prophet of God versus doing either of these and not making any such claims.

When a translator deliberately changes the text of Scripture (i.e., intentionally alters its wording in such a way as to alter its meaning), that translator is in violation of the warning. However, drawing a mistaken inference from a passage of Scripture is not a violation of that warning, particularly when no dogmatic or divine authority is claimed for that inference. Find for me an evangelical who says "I am a prophet of God, and I'm telling you by my authority as God's prophet this is what John meant," and I'll agree that such an evangelical crossed the line. It would be rather absurd, however, to say that anyone who has ever misunderstood a verse in Revelation is guilty of this sin.

No, of course we don't have the autograph of the book of Revelation. But it doesn't follow that we can't be reasonably sure that Joseph Smith's alterations of the text were not inspired restorations of the original text or inspired clarifications of the meaning of the text. Bill, I think that you know enough about textual criticism to know this is a "bogus" argument. The manuscript evidence that we have is sufficient to establish the wording of the text to such a high degree of confidence that any argument to the contrary is grasping at straws. Furthermore, we can look at Smith's changes to the text and see that they reflect a lack of understanding or appreciation for the text as witnessed by the extant manuscripts and even by the KJV. I gave an example from the JST of Revelation in an earlier post to this thread. There isn't any reasonable chance that Revelation 2:27 and 19:15 did not originally contain the expression "rod of iron." Smith replaced this expression in those verses with references to God's word, a change that does not "clarify" the text but rather simply changes it, and in doing so eliminates a clear allusion to Psalm 2:7-9. This change is not plausibly explained as either a restoration of the original text or as a helpful clarification of the meaning of the text.

Hi Rob,

The usual form this anti-Mormon argument takes is:

1- Revelation says the "book" cannot be added to.

2- This "book" is the Bible.

3- JS added to the Bible in the BOM and DC, etc. violating this command.

Do you agree that this traditional anti-Mormon argument is bogus?

You seem to be making an altogether different argument, thereby distracting attention from the failure of the original anti-Mormon claim. If I understand you correctly, you believe that the JST Revelation violates the proscription in Revelation by changing the text of Revelation. JS is therefore still in violation of this command, even though the original anti-Mormon argument is bogus.

I have two questions for you.

1- Can a translation or interpretation change a book? If so, then all translators and interpretors of Revelation are in violation--including all the Evangelicals (which are the vast majority in my experience), who falsely interpret this passage as referring to the Bible rather than to the book of Revelation. Aren't they themselves violating John's prohibition by "changing" the plain meaning of the text?

2- Do we have the original autograph manuscript of Revelation? If not, then how can we possibly know if JS's changes in Revelation are or are not authentic textual corrections or interpretative clarifications? If we can't know this, what's the point in arguing?

Adieu, adieu,

Hamblin of Jerusalem

My link/

[volgadon]

Out of curiosity, do you read ruling (in itself somewhat of a loose translation) with a rod of iron as literal, or as figurative? if figurative, then what does it mean?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Mola,

Then there is the matter of the kinds of changes that Joseph Smith made to the book of Revelation. These changes don't look like inspired restorations of the true text or the true meaning of the text. They look like changes made to remove difficulties that Smith didn't understand. For example, twice in Revelation the JST changes "rule them with a rod of iron," once to "rule them with the word of God" and the other time to "rule them with the word of his mouth" (Rev. 2:27; 19:15). In making this change, which may sound pious and sensible enough, Smith removed the clear allusion in these texts to Psalm 2:7-9, thus missing the point that Jesus will rule in fulfillment of the Messianic message of that psalm. We know Smith missed this point because he didn't bother to change Psalm 2 to fit his changes to Revelation.

I figured I would respond to this part separately as I didn't want to get into huge long posts.

And this is a separate issue. One is "Is God's word done, and no more scripture can be revealed?"

The other is "Is JS a prophet of God". This post address more of the 2nd statement that you have made.

In LDS theology the word of God is the Iron Rod. We even have a primary song that mentions it. Also I fail to see the difference in principal if we are to say the "word of God" and "The word of his mouth". Are they both not His word?

I don't believe the JST to be a restoration of text that is missing or a restoration of how it would or should be translated if we had the original text. I believe it to be an inspired interpretation. I hope that helps.

[ChristKnight]

I don't believe the JST to be a restoration of text that is missing. I beleive it to be an insipered interpretation. I hope that helps.

I'm curious, does the church have an official view on the JST?