MormonDude Posted May 24, 2010 Posted May 24, 2010 http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/qa/adding_bible.htm Thoughts/Comments?
LinuxGal Posted May 24, 2010 Posted May 24, 2010 Thoughts/Comments?The article is correct. It assumes the books of the Bible were written in chronological order. The article mentions that the epistles of John were written after he left Patmos. The epistles of Jude and 2 Peter were probably written around 130 AD and some scholars date the book of James as late as 200 AD.
Programmer Posted May 24, 2010 Posted May 24, 2010 http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/qa/adding_bible.htm Thoughts/Comments?The works of the LORD are endless, and so are his words. The Bible is a mere drop in the bucket of all the words of an infinite and omnipotent GOD.
hagoth7 Posted May 24, 2010 Posted May 24, 2010 The works of the LORD are endless, and so are his words. The Bible is a mere drop in the bucket of all the words of an infinite and omnipotent GOD.Amen.And 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. Amen.
Cold Steel Posted May 24, 2010 Posted May 24, 2010 Yeah, I never hear this objection used any more. I think it's because people are more informed nowadays than they were back thirty years ago. You might hear it out in the snake handling areas of West Virginia, but I don't even think the Jehovah's Witnesses are using that argument these days.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted May 24, 2010 Posted May 24, 2010 Yeah, I never hear this objection used any more. I think it's because people are more informed nowadays than they were back thirty years ago. You might hear it out in the snake handling areas of West Virginia, but I don't even think the Jehovah's Witnesses are using that argument these days.Careful, it was just a few years back from 97to99 in West Virginia that at most doors I was told this. That was only 11 years ago. But maybe you are right.
urroner Posted May 24, 2010 Posted May 24, 2010 Yeah, I never hear this objection used any more. I think it's because people are more informed nowadays than they were back thirty years ago. You might hear it out in the snake handling areas of West Virginia, but I don't even think the Jehovah's Witnesses are using that argument these days.I use to post on freerepublic in the religion forum and I got this scripture throw at me all the time as rock solid proof of the evilness of the BofM. Even after I explained the scripture to the people, they just told me that I had been brainwashed by those evil people in SLC and that I needed to put my trust in Christ and not in the arm of man. I found this accusation rather ironic since they were putting their trust in their own misconstrued interpretation of God's word.
Jason Posted May 24, 2010 Posted May 24, 2010 You might hear it out in the snake handling areas of West Virginia, but I don't even think the Jehovah's Witnesses are using that argument these days.That's probably because you can flip to the chronology in the back of the New World Translation (the JW's Bible) and show them that according to their own Bible Revelation wasn't the last book written.
hordak Posted May 24, 2010 Posted May 24, 2010 When the Apostle John wrote these verses, the Bible as we know it today had not been compiled yet. Therefore, his words could not possibly be applied to the entire collection of writings today known as the Bible. John was referring specifically to the Book of Revelation.I have always subscribed to this idea but i find it a bit funny when "hearing" it put this way.In other words When John wrote Revelation(you know the book about end times) the bible didn't exist yet so he couldn't be speaking of it, It's not like he predicted the future.
Jason Posted May 24, 2010 Posted May 24, 2010 I have always subscribed to this idea but i find it a bit funny when "hearing" it put this way.In other words When John wrote Revelation(you know the book about end times) the bible didn't exist yet so he couldn't be speaking of it, It's not like he predicted the future. No, it's more like "it's not like he could use the words 'this book' in the present tense to refer to a book that didn't actually exist yet." Certainly John could have said "don't add to the Bible once it's compiled", but he didn't - he only refers to "this book" - the book he was writing at that moment - the book of Revelation.
pcarthew Posted May 25, 2010 Posted May 25, 2010 The works of the LORD are endless, and so are his words. The Bible is a mere drop in the bucket of all the words of an infinite and omnipotent GOD.Agreed 100%
MormonDude Posted May 25, 2010 Author Posted May 25, 2010 I heard out of all the books that John wrote, that the book of rev's was the first?I'm not sure if that's true or not... can anyone back me up? or is it just false?
LeSellers Posted May 25, 2010 Posted May 25, 2010 I heard out of all the books that John wrote, that the book of rev's was the first?It's not "Revelations", it's "Revelation", or the "Apocalypse" of John (or, better, of Jesus Christ). I've heard the same thing, and this site affirms it.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.