"Nothing shall be added unto this book"

[volgadon]

Really? Even assuming that Mark and Luke were the authhors of their gospels, what indicaton is there that they met Jesus?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Well I think it isn't necessary that the Lord add some to the Bible. I believe, He knows when it is finished. Like the New Testament start with the birth of the Lord.

In my opinion, there is nothing written new in the NT. The first Christians got only the OT. And the NT is in my opinion the eye witness report of the complete Bible. All of the writers are people who know Jesus in person.

Thanks for your thoughts on this I can respect your beliefs.

I have one more question. Can you find me a scritpure verse taht conveys that "it isn't necessary that the Lord add some to the Bible. I believe, He knows when it is finished.

If you can't taht is cool.

I interpret that you think that God knows that the bible really is finished.

[Zakuska]

Thanks for your thoughts on this I can respect your beliefs.

I have one more question. Can you find me a scritpure verse taht conveys that "it isn't necessary that the Lord add some to the Bible. I believe, He knows when it is finished.

If you can't taht is cool.

I interpret that you think that God knows that the bible really is finished.

I can find at least one place that speaks to the contrary...

Rev 10

4 And when the seven thunders had uttered their voices, I was about to write: and I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Seal up those things which the seven thunders uttered, and write them not.

<Best Garth Brooks Impression: ' When the Thunder Rolls... When the Thunder Rolls'. >

According to the divine pattern in Amos 3:7...

Amos 3: 7

7 Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.

Before this time comes for the thunders to roll God MUST reveal the secret to prophets. Since Christianity has no prophets... their up a creek without a paddle.

[Tsjoeva]

Really? Even assuming that Mark and Luke were the authhors of their gospels, what indicaton is there that they met Jesus?

About the gospel of Marc: I think he knows Jesus, because the house of his mother was the meeting of the first Christians. About Lucas: well you got a point: But he investigate and interview the eyewitness. So his testimony is actually an objective testimony of eyewitness.

[volgadon]

I wouldn't call either objective. Doesn't mean they aren't true though.

As for Mark, we don't know thatt he is the John Mark in question.

[Tsjoeva]

Thanks for your thoughts on this I can respect your beliefs.

I have one more question. Can you find me a scritpure verse taht conveys that "it isn't necessary that the Lord add some to the Bible. I believe, He knows when it is finished.

If you can't taht is cool.

I interpret that you think that God knows that the bible really is finished.

Mola, thank you for your respect.

Well actually you don't find a scripture that tells the opposite too. And for me what is written by John in Rev chap 22 is for me the evidence. If there is written in the NT about the Scripture and the Spirit it is always going about the OT. I know in the OT, there are called more books. But, I think, if the Lord wanted those in the Bible it would happen. Jesus Him self, never quote from those books.

But I can imagine that people think there are more books. And sometimes it is really interesting to read those books. And it is can be teaching too.

[Bill Hamblin]

Waiting ... Waiting ...

I'm off tomorrow for a week in Egypt. (HA-ha!) If Rob wants to respond in any way, he should do it soon.

I'm off to bed for an early start to Egypt tomorrow! No more playing at MADB

[Calm]

Jesus Him self, never quote from those books.

How would we know for sure if we didn't have the book to compare it to? Did Jesus always preface when he quoted something what he was quoting it from?

*** another modification: if the text of the known scriptures was "God breathed" and those very scriptures quoted from lost books, then wouldn't that indicate there was something very special about those lost books? Why would not the "God breathed" qualification be assigned to them as well?

I am also curious about the Protestant/Evangelical view of the Catholic Canon...what is the rationalization for removing those books from the canon when they were accepted as scripture for so long?

One more question---is the set of scriptures that Jesus had identical to what is called the Hebrew Bible today? How do we know (were there different versions floating around in his time as there are in our time?)

[Calm]

I'm off to bed for an early start to Egypt tomorrow! No more playing at MADB

We will miss you as always.

[Tsjoeva]

How would we know for sure if we didn't have the book to compare it to? Did Jesus always preface when he quoted something what he was quoting it from?

*** another modification: if the text of the known scriptures was "God breathed" and those very scriptures quoted from lost books, then wouldn't that indicate there was something very special about those lost books? Why would not the "God breathed" qualification be assigned to them as well?

I am also curious about the Protestant/Evangelical view of the Catholic Canon...what is the rationalization for removing those books from the canon when they were accepted as scripture for so long?

One more question---is the set of scriptures that Jesus had identical to what is called the Hebrew Bible today? How do we know (were there different versions floating around in his time as there are in our time?)

Hoi Calmoriah

I don't think the Lord got lost books. Do you really think that? My question on this is: Why are those books lost?

And the second question is: Why let the Lord this happen?

On your second question I can say: it is for me to long to write now why I think is happen. ( It is here 10.51 pm(=evening?) And I have to sleep in a while. So I hope that I will this question later.

Well I think if Jesus quote a book or a person never it was from a hidden book. And if there was quote from a 'hidden' book in the NT there was never told from which book it was. How we know that Jesus called the Hebrew Bible of today. I think the works of Flavius Josephus said in his works that the Jew got 22 books. He told in his work that after the time from Artaxerxes there were no prophets any more.

[Tsjoeva]

I am also curious about the Protestant/Evangelical view of the Catholic Canon...what is the rationalization for removing those books from the canon when they were accepted as scripture for so long?

Well in the Concile of Trente(1546) the Catholics wanted to gave an answer to the protestants. And the Cath.canon is established during this concile. Hyroniemus from Stridon, the churchfather who wrote the Vulgata, doesn't wanted to have the 'deutro'canonieke books into the Vulgate. It was in order from the pope Damasus. In the begin of his commentary of Daniel, he gave the canon like we know now.

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

Perhaps I have not made my position sufficiently clear. I will try again.

There is nothing wrong with an inspired writer producing a new text that covers much of the same material, whether historical (narrative) or didactic or liturgical, as an existing inspired text. My understanding of the biblical prohibitions against adding to or subtracting from the word of God (Deut. 4:2; Prov. 30:5-6; Rev. 22:18-19) would in no way impugn Deuteronomy repeating material found in Exodus, or Chonicles using Kings as a source, or Matthew adapting most of the material in Mark. It would, however, be a problem for my view if Matthew had issued a theologically doctored version of Kings (in which, say, he had Solomon speaking about dreams that he had about the coming of Jesus to die on the cross for our sins) and claimed to have "translated" the book of Kings.

Nor is there anything wrong with Greek-speaking Jews translating, say, Genesis from Hebrew into Greek. Admittedly, translations are generally imperfect, so the LXX ended up differing somewhat from the Hebrew text on which it was based. (In turn, the traditional Hebrew text, the MT, is very close to the original text of Genesis, but in some cases the LXX may preserve an earlier reading. But that's another issue!) What would be objectionable would be for Greek-speaking Jews to claim to have produced a "translation" of Genesis but in fact deliberately rewrote it to teach Platonism.

To give some examples from LDS scriptures, I would not argue that the use of the Sermon on the Mount in 3 Nephi is a violation of the biblical prohibition concerning adding to or taking away from the word of God (although I object to that text on other grounds). On the other hand, I most certainly do argue that Joseph Smith's revisions of the book of Hebrews in the JST violate that prohibition.

Rob,

In addition to the Synoptic gospels issue, note the relationship between Deuteronomy and the other books of the Pentateuch.

And the relationship between Kings and Chronicles.

These three examples all show that it was common, if not normative, for biblical writers to take scriptural materials and add and subtract text from earlier books.

The Bible itself makes clear that John's "principle" was not normative for all Bible writers.

And then there is the nature of the translation of the Septuagint from the Hebrew Bible, and the fact that NT authors tend to prefer the Septuagint.

The evidence of the Bible itself seriously undermines your claim.

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

I'm sorry, it looks like I didn't post my response in time.

Waiting ... Waiting ...

I'm off tomorrow for a week in Egypt. (HA-ha!) If Rob wants to respond in any way, he should do it soon.

[Rob Bowman]

Mola,

God can add anything he wants to Scripture, at any time he chooses. However, if such texts as Deuteronomy 4:2 and Revelation 22:18-19 are to have any real meaning, they must be understood to prohibit human beings tampering with the text of Scripture by rewriting it to fit one's theology and claiming to be authorized by God to do so. Otherwise, we could never conclude that anyone had violated these warnings.

A couple of observations might help flesh out the issues here:

* When God did inspire new revelations in the Bible, he did not add contradictory teachings to what he had already revealed. For example, God did not reveal at one place that everyone will be saved and then later reveal that only some people will be saved. He did not reveal to Moses that same-sex unions were immoral and then later reveal to the apostle John that same-sex unions were just fine.

* When God did inspire new revelations in the Bible, these did not take the form of theologically variant versions of existing books. For example, Solomon did not issue a new version of Genesis in which Abraham was made to prophecy a future great king who would build a glorious temple. Haggai did not rewrite Amos and have the book of Amos predicting the rebuilding of the temple.

See my post from today responding to Bill (unfortunately, apparently too late for him to see before his trip to Egypt) in which I elaborate more on what I am arguing.

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.

[Rob Bowman]

Sevenbak,

The Pharisees whom Jesus was condemning were those who were about to conspire to have Jesus himself put to death by the Romans. Their problem was not that they rejected the idea of new revelations but that they rejected JESUS.

To compare what Jesus said about his enemies to evangelicals denying that the LDS revelations are authentic revelations from God is both fallacious and insulting. Our position as evangelicals can be summed up as follows: There can be no greater or more complete revelation of God than Jesus, and any alleged new revelations must do two things: (1) cohere with the revelations we already have in the Bible, and (2) provide cogent evidence to support their claim to be revelations from God. I sincerely believe that the LDS revelations fail on both counts. This isn't about evangelicals telling God not to say anything new; it's about whether alleged new revelations really are from God.

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.

[kolipoki09]

Sevenbak,

The Pharisees whom Jesus was condemning were those who were about to conspire to have Jesus himself put to death by the Romans. Their problem was not that they rejected the idea of new revelations but that they rejected JESUS.

Rob- could you comfortably say that you accept Jesus, and yet reject the testimonies of Peter, James, and John? I could argue that when you reject those new revelations, you're rejecting Christ as well. Several New Testament Pharisees considered the "new scripture" being revealed as blasphemous and insulting in comparison to their beloved Old Testament. The thought of Christ teaching He was the Son of God was considered wholly out of line...and to think that this same Christ would come to fulfill, or in other words void the Law of Moses, that was shocking to them.

To compare what Jesus said about his enemies to evangelicals denying that the LDS revelations are authentic revelations from God is both fallacious and insulting. Our position as evangelicals can be summed up as follows: There can be no greater or more complete revelation of God than Jesus, and any alleged new revelations must do two things: (1) cohere with the revelations we already have in the Bible, and (2) provide cogent evidence to support their claim to be revelations from God. I sincerely believe that the LDS revelations fail on both counts. This isn't about evangelicals telling God not to say anything new; it's about whether alleged new revelations really are from God.

Are you saying that not all scripture is created equal? You summarized the evangelical position, yet are they universally defined and consistently applied among the body of Evangelicals? What constitutes "cogent evidence" for a revelation of God? It seems to me, and probably to most Latter-day Saints, that "cogent evidence" from the Evangelical position is that it must agree with your specific interpretation of the scriptures as established in the Protestant canon.

[Rob Bowman]

Kolipoki,

You wrote:

Rob- could you comfortably say that you accept Jesus, and yet reject the testimonies of Peter, James, and John? I could argue that when you reject those new revelations, you're rejecting Christ as well.

I would agree, but for this reason: apart from these men and their apostolic comrades, we would have no reliable information about Jesus Christ. It would make no sense to claim to believe in Jesus but reject the only reliable testimonies we have from the people of his own time and place as to who Jesus was and what he did for us.

Agreeing with this point does not commit me to accepting all subsequent claims by persons calling themselves prophets or apostles who assert that Jesus or an angel appeared to them or spoke to them. I'm not aiming this denial specifically at the LDS prophets; I reject the prophetic claims of Montanus, Ellen G. White, Mary Baker Eddy, Charles Taze Russell, and others.

You wrote:

Several New Testament Pharisees considered the "new scripture" being revealed as blasphemous and insulting in comparison to their beloved Old Testament. The thought of Christ teaching He was the Son of God was considered wholly out of line...and to think that this same Christ would come to fulfill, or in other words void the Law of Moses, that was shocking to them.

Well, the NT writers give compelling reasons to conclude that (1) Jesus did in fact fulfill OT Scripture and was consistent with it and (2) their claims as to what Jesus did are factually true. Thus, the NT writings pass the twofold test I set forth.

You wrote:

Are you saying that not all scripture is created equal?

No, and I don't know where you got the idea I was saying anything of the sort.

You wrote:

You summarized the evangelical position, yet are they universally defined and consistently applied among the body of Evangelicals?

If you're asking me if every evangelical understands and applies the principles I enunciated in precisely the same way and does so perfectly, no, of course not. Evangelicals are not perfect. Your question is so vague that I don't know what else to say; perhaps you could be more specific.

You wrote:

What constitutes "cogent evidence" for a revelation of God? It seems to me, and probably to most Latter-day Saints, that "cogent evidence" from the Evangelical position is that it must agree with your specific interpretation of the scriptures as established in the Protestant canon.

Let me repeat the distinction: to be acceptable as a genuine revelation from God, an alleged revelation must cohere with previous revelation AND there must be good evidence supporting it. Obviously, anyone can claim that their new revelation agrees with previous revelation, or dismiss criticisms that it doesn't by saying "that's just your interpretation." If a Mormon started claiming, let's say, that God had revealed to him that human beings are reincarnated twelve times before going to the spirit world, I presume you would apply the same two tests. You would object that his new doctrine does not agree with revealed LDS doctrine, and you would object that he has given no good reason to accept his claim that God revealed this doctrine to him. I doubt you would be dissuaded from your assessment by his followers responding that what you really mean is that his doctrine disagrees "with your specific interpretation of the scriptures."

"Cogent evidence" would include, for starters, multiple, independent witnesses to any major, dispensation-changing, religiously revolutionary events of the order of magnitude of the resurrection of Christ. This is something we just don't have for the major events on which the LDS Church's claims rest. I would be happy to elaborate on this observation if you're interested.

[volgadon]

Otherwise, we could never conclude that anyone had violated these warnings.

Who says that we are to concludee anything? I don't find that concept expressed or implied in the final verses of Revelation.

[kolipoki09]

I would agree, but for this reason: apart from these men and their apostolic comrades, we would have no reliable information about Jesus Christ. It would make no sense to claim to believe in Jesus but reject the only reliable testimonies we have from the people of his own time and place as to who Jesus was and what he did for us.

I completely agree, yet there is no biblical mandate for closing the canon.

Agreeing with this point does not commit me to accepting all subsequent claims by persons calling themselves prophets or apostles who assert that Jesus or an angel appeared to them or spoke to them. I'm not aiming this denial specifically at the LDS prophets; I reject the prophetic claims of Montanus, Ellen G. White, Mary Baker Eddy, Charles Taze Russell, and others.

I agree in the rejections of the alleged prophets that you've listed, particularly in regards to Russellism. I also agree that the biblically established prophetic fruits do not apply to these individuals. In what ways do you believe Joseph Smith is disqualified?

Well, the NT writers give compelling reasons to conclude that (1) Jesus did in fact fulfill OT Scripture and was consistent with it and (2) their claims as to what Jesus did are factually true. Thus, the NT writings pass the twofold test I set forth.

My reading of the Bible does not conflict with the potentiality of other scripture being added to the canon, nor does the life and ministry of Christ.

If you're asking me if every evangelical understands and applies the principles I enunciated in precisely the same way and does so perfectly, no, of course not. Evangelicals are not perfect. Your question is so vague that I don't know what else to say; perhaps you could be more specific.

Your answer was sufficient. Thank you.

Let me repeat the distinction: to be acceptable as a genuine revelation from God, an alleged revelation must cohere with previous revelation AND there must be good evidence supporting it. Obviously, anyone can claim that their new revelation agrees with previous revelation, or dismiss criticisms that it doesn't by saying "that's just your interpretation." If a Mormon started claiming, let's say, that God had revealed to him that human beings are reincarnated twelve times before going to the spirit world, I presume you would apply the same two tests. You would object that his new doctrine does not agree with revealed LDS doctrine, and you would object that he has given no good reason to accept his claim that God revealed this doctrine to him. I doubt you would be dissuaded from your assessment by his followers responding that what you really mean is that his doctrine disagrees "with your specific interpretation of the scriptures."

In what ways do you believe the LDS Scriptures conflict with the Bible?

"Cogent evidence" would include, for starters, multiple, independent witnesses to any major, dispensation-changing, religiously revolutionary events of the order of magnitude of the resurrection of Christ. This is something we just don't have for the major events on which the LDS Church's claims rest. I would be happy to elaborate on this observation if you're interested.

We have multiple accounts of several witnesses (particularly in the cases of the Kirtland Temple Dedication and the Transfiguration of Brigham Young) that testify of the Resurrected Lord and the prophetic callings of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. I would love for you to elaborate on how the LDS Church consistently lacks revolutionary events and independent witnesses. The story of Moses and the burning bush is based on only the testimony of Moses which is later reaffirmed by others to whom he told the story. Are multiple, independent witnesses required to validate all truth? I would agree that in the mouth of two or three witnesses that every truth should be established, and were this the case, almost every significant theological event in the History of the LDS Church has been in fact validated. Just a few thoughts. I could elaborate if you're interested as well.

[Zakuska]

Who says that we are to concludee anything? I don't find that concept expressed or implied in the final verses of Revelation.

Exactly. Not to mention the fact that even the Prophet Jeremiah tells us there was textually tampering going on.

Jer 8

8 How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the Lord is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain.

[volgadon]

The whole point of the warning being issued is that most people would not have had access to the text for comparison!

[Rob Bowman]

kolipoki,

You wrote:

We have multiple accounts of several witnesses (particularly in the cases of the Kirtland Temple Dedication and the Transfiguration of Brigham Young) that testify of the Resurrected Lord and the prophetic callings of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. I would love for you to elaborate on how the LDS Church consistently lacks revolutionary events and independent witnesses. The story of Moses and the burning bush is based on only the testimony of Moses which is later reaffirmed by others to whom he told the story. Are multiple, independent witnesses required to validate all truth? I would agree that in the mouth of two or three witnesses that every truth should be established, and were this the case, almost every significant theological event in the History of the LDS Church has been in fact validated. Just a few thoughts. I could elaborate if you're interested as well.

I will start a new topic thread to discuss this important issue, which is a bit far afield of the original topic here.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Mola,

God can add anything he wants to Scripture, at any time he chooses. However, if such texts as Deuteronomy 4:2 and Revelation 22:18-19 are to have any real meaning, they must be understood to prohibit human beings tampering with the text of Scripture by rewriting it to fit one's theology and claiming to be authorized by God to do so. Otherwise, we could never conclude that anyone had violated these warnings.

A couple of observations might help flesh out the issues here:

* When God did inspire new revelations in the Bible, he did not add contradictory teachings to what he had already revealed. For example, God did not reveal at one place that everyone will be saved and then later reveal that only some people will be saved. He did not reveal to Moses that same-sex unions were immoral and then later reveal to the apostle John that same-sex unions were just fine.

* When God did inspire new revelations in the Bible, these did not take the form of theologically variant versions of existing books. For example, Solomon did not issue a new version of Genesis in which Abraham was made to prophecy a future great king who would build a glorious temple. Haggai did not rewrite Amos and have the book of Amos predicting the rebuilding of the temple.

See my post from today responding to Bill (unfortunately, apparently too late for him to see before his trip to Egypt) in which I elaborate more on what I am arguing.

1st off, I am very pleased in your respectful dialogue. It is most refreshing.

2nd, I agree that God can add to his word anytime. That seems to be a position that not many Evangelical typs hold. And I agree that it shouldn't contradict previous doctrines. However there are times whe certain things appear to contradict when infact they dont. I imagine that the Jews living at the time of Christ would have seen much of what he was doing as a major contradiction. And in fact some Jews today argue that.

The only point I am trying to make is this: If God was going to reveal more scripture, how would he do it?