Adding To The Bible...?

[LDSGuy]

Not too many weeks ago, I spoke with someone about the church and the Book of Mormon. I heard a question that I had not heard in a while. "Doesn't it say not to add to the bible?," she asked.

Having not heard that question for a while from someone about the Book of Mormon, I wondered if it is a dying argument agaisnt the veracity of the Book of Mormon. Does anyone else hear that question still when introducing the Book or Mormon?

I have thought about the issue for some time and how best to respond. I have pondered on past explanations given such as: "man cannot add to scripture, but God can;" it says the same thing in Deuteronomy, so we shouldn't have any books past Deuteronomy; it doesn't apply to the whole bible, just the book of revelations; etc.

I think the best evidence for Joseph Smith being found to truly have brought forth additional scripture are in the scriptures found in John's Revelation.

Rev. 22:18, "For 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:"

If a man adds to the "book," then the plagues written in said book shall be added unto him. (As a side note, one could talk about whether the book refers to the entire Bible or just the Book of Revelations. If it refers to the Bible, then that's quite a few plagues.) One must ask if the plagues that are written in the book (plagues found in Revelations, or plagues of the Bible such as the ten plagues) were added unto Joseph Smith.

In the church history that I have studied, I have not found anything that would suggest that Joseph Smith suffered any such plagues. It has been suggested to me that they may come after death, and that he is suffering them now. I find that hard to believe, since the plagues would (in my opinion) serve two purposes:

1) Possibly, to punish the trangressor.

2) To identify to all that the person who brought forth additional scripture did so contrary to the will of God. Plagues would be easy to identify and record as happening.

If the person is to be punished after death, then the first one would be appropriate in addition to his eternity outside the presence of God. However, it would not fulfill the purpose of the second. In order to fulfill the purpose of the second, the plagues would have to happen during the person's life. If the plagues cannot be shown to have been added to Joseph Smith, which it can be shown from history that they were not, then we can conclude a few things:

1) Joseph did not add to the Bible/Revelation, and the Book of Mormon is true scripture.

2) Joseph did add to the Bible/Revelation, but God does not keep His promises.

3) (The atheist view) there is no God, so none of it really happened anyways and its all a lie.

What are your thoughts and opinions?

Edited November 15, 2011 by LDSGuy

[selek1]

The third purpose such plagues would serve would be as warning and confirmation to others.

Those tempted to add to the Book themselves would be deterred by the threat only if they saw the plagues come down on Joseph's head in real-time.

Adding to his suffering in secret/in the afterlife is redundant and ineffective, at best.

It does very little good to add the plagues to Joseph in the Afterlife- according to the theory, he's already suffering all the pains of Hell. Flies, locusts, and toads would add nothing to his suffering.

Why then would those plagues be "added" ? According to their rigid and merciless theology, Joseph is eternally damned. He has no chance to repent, no hope of redemption.

"Adding" the plagues to "eternal torment" (as they understand Hell) would be nothing more than a final, sadistic twisting of the screws from a merciless and vindictive God.

And that's not the Savior I know and love.

In point of fact, that threat has done very little to deter the Niceans, IRR, Bowman, and the rest from adding their narrow sectarian creeds to the Scriptures- even though they are they very ones who rely most heavily on the closed canon/sola scriptura arguments.

No- that particular threat serves only as a deterrant to others if they see the consequences.

Edited November 15, 2011 by selek1

[LDSGuy]

The third purpose such plagues would serve would be as warning and confirmation to others.

True! It would serve as a confirmation and warning for others not to do the same. The plagues would be a huge billboard saying that this guy here, Joseph Smith, did a big "no no."

[bluebell]

I thought that scholars had 'proven' that Revelation wasn't even the last bible book written? Am i making that up or did that actually get decided?

[LDSGuy]

I thought that scholars had 'proven' that Revelation wasn't even the last bible book written? Am i making that up or did that actually get decided?

Here is a chronology I have found. The reliabilty of the website, I have not verified.

James - 50 A.D.

First Thessalonians - 52-53.

Second Thessalonians - 52-53.

Galatians - 55.

First Corinthians - 57.

Second Corinthians - 57.

Romans - 57-58.

Philippians - 62-63.

Colossians - 62-63.

Philemon - 62-63.

Ephesians - 62-63.

Luke - 63.

Acts - 64.

First Timothy - 65.

Titus - 65.

Second Timothy - 66.

Mark - 66.

Matthew - 67.

Hebrews - 67.

First Peter - 67-68.

Second Peter - 68.

Jude - 68.

Apocalypse - 68.

John - c. 85.

Epistles of John - 90-95.

Edited November 15, 2011 by LDSGuy

[diglot]

Not too many weeks ago, I spoke with someone about the church and the Book of Mormon. I heard a question that I had not heard in a while. "Doesn't it say not to add to the bible?," she asked.

You should have replied with, "And which Bible would that be?"

If a man adds to the "book," then the plagues written in said book shall be added unto him. (As a side note, one could talk about whether the book refers to the entire Bible or just the Book of Revelations. If it refers to the Bible, then that's quite a few plagues.) One must ask if the plagues that are written in the book (plagues found in Revelations, or plagues of the Bible such as the ten plagues) were added unto Joseph Smith.

The author of Revelation was not referencing the Bible, but was only referring to his own text. The Bible wasn't in existence yet, and the author did not know that Revelation was going to be added to a new scriptural canon in the future.

If the plagues cannot be shown to have been added to Joseph Smith, which it can be shown from history that they were not, then we can conclude a few things:

1) Joseph did not add to the Bible/Revelation, and the Book of Mormon is true scripture.

2) Joseph did add to the Bible/Revelation, but God does not keep His promises.

3) (The atheist view) there is no God, so none of it really happened anyways and its all a lie.

What are your thoughts and opinions?

Or perhaps option # 4) The author of Revelation was merely using scare tactics to dissuade people from changing the text of his own book. Furthermore, God was not the meta-author of the epistle so there is no reason to expect anyone to actually receive the plagues for changing the text of the Bible or Revelation.

Edited November 15, 2011 by diglot

[diglot]

Here is a chronology I have found. The reliabilty of the website, I have not verified.

James - 50 A.D.

First Thessalonians - 52-53.

Second Thessalonians - 52-53.

Galatians - 55.

First Corinthians - 57.

Second Corinthians - 57.

Romans - 57-58.

Philippians - 62-63.

Colossians - 62-63.

Philemon - 62-63.

Ephesians - 62-63.

Luke - 63.

Acts - 64.

First Timothy - 65.

Titus - 65.

Second Timothy - 66.

Mark - 66.

Matthew - 67.

Hebrews - 67.

First Peter - 67-68.

Second Peter - 68.

Jude - 68.

Apocalypse - 68.

John - c. 85.

Epistles of John - 90-95.

Some are correct, but some are decades too early.

Edited November 15, 2011 by diglot

[LDSGuy]

Does anyone have a more accurate timeline of the New Testament Canon?

[diglot]

I thought that scholars had 'proven' that Revelation wasn't even the last bible book written? Am i making that up or did that actually get decided?

It is the consensus view in biblical scholarship that Revelation was not the last book written. It didn't get decided anywhere though. It's just the logical outcome of looking at the data.

There is no reason, of course, for thinking that Revelation was the last "bible book" written; the fact that it appears at the end of the New Testament canon is not a reason for supposing that.

Edited November 15, 2011 by diglot

[frankenstein]

In showing that Joseph smith did not suffer the plagues, there are two options, god is not real and Christianity is man made OR Joseph Smith is a prophet

[LDSGuy]

In showing that Joseph smith did not suffer the plagues, there are two options, god is not real and Christianity is man made OR Joseph Smith is a prophet

That is exactly my point.

Another point I would like to express is that of answering a person's question according to their knowledge, and not expounding on chronologies, histories, and so on, that would only confuse and require lengthy explanations.

However, in order to move the conversations along and to hear all view points, such things may be used for the purpose of this discussion.

[diglot]

Does anyone have a more accurate timeline of the New Testament Canon?

Matthew - ca. 75-90

Mark - ca. 70, give or take 3 years (there are some scholars who argue for a very early dating of ca. 39)

Luke - ca. 80-90

John - ca. 100 (give or take ten years)

1 & 2 Thessalonians - ca. 52-53

Galatians - ca. 49 (some would say ca. 53-55)

1 Corinthians - ca. 55

2 Corinthians - ca. 56-57

Philemon, Philippians - ca. 60-61

The rest of the Pauline epistles (Colossians, Ephesians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and TItus) and not thought to have been written by Paul, and so they are placed anywhere from about ca. 70-90.

Hebrews - Generally dated sometime before the destruction of the Temple in AD 70, so sometime ca. 60-65.

Revelation - Dating for this book is usually dated into two camps, ca. 69 and ca. 95

1, 2, and 3 John - I think about ca. 90-110

1 Peter - ca. 70-90 (unless one thinks Peter actually wrote it, then we are talking ca. 63)

2 Peter - ca. 90-130

Jude - either ca. 50-55 or ca. 80-90

James - ca. 100-150 (though many view it as an early piece of literature dating ca. 50-60)

Edited November 15, 2011 by diglot

[selek1]

Furthermore, God was not the meta-author of the epistle so there is no reason to expect anyone to actually receive the plagues for changing the text of the Bible or Revelation.

Ummm...diglot, could you clear up a misconception for me?

I was given to understand that you are an evangelical Christian. Are you suggesting that the Book of Revelations is not, in fact, inspired Scripture?

[diglot]

Ummm...diglot, could you clear up a misconception for me?

I was given to understand that you are an evangelical Christian. Are you suggesting that the Book of Revelations is not, in fact, inspired Scripture?

Book of Revelation, not "Revelations". Sorry, but its a pet peeve of mine

While I am not adamantly opposed to the concept of "inspired Scripture", I have to admit that I generally do not hold any text in such regard. This is mainly due to two reasons: (1) I see no reason to believe the biblical text is inspired (i.e. the Bible makes no such claim of itself. But even if it did it would be circular reasoning to accept such a claim); and (2) I find it very odd to proclaim the Bible is "inspired" when there isn't even any agreement in Christendom as to what books should be in the Bible.

Admittedly, I do have some days when I effectively believe Scripture to be inspired in a way that no other text is, but most of the time I do not.

P.S. And yes I do consider myself a mainstream evangelical Christian, though many people would say I am not due to some of my beliefs (such as the Bible not being inspired).

Edited November 15, 2011 by diglot

[cdowis]

Rev. 22:18, "For 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:"

"This book" is not the Bible. Read a few verses above, and look at the history of the bible. It was centuries later that a front and back cover was put on an assembly of books and called it "The Book" or Bible. This verse refers to the book of Revelation, not to something that did not exist at that time.

[Mudcat]

Not too many weeks ago, I spoke with someone about the church and the Book of Mormon. I heard a question that I had not heard in a while. "Doesn't it say not to add to the bible?," she asked.

Having not heard that question for a while from someone about the Book of Mormon, I wondered if it is a dying argument agaisnt the veracity of the Book of Mormon. Does anyone else hear that question still when introducing the Book or Mormon?

I have thought about the issue for some time and how best to respond. I have pondered on past explanations given such as: "man cannot add to scripture, but God can;" it says the same thing in Deuteronomy, so we shouldn't have any books past Deuteronomy; it doesn't apply to the whole bible, just the book of revelations; etc.

I think the best evidence for Joseph Smith being found to truly have brought forth additional scripture are in the scriptures found in John's Revelation.

Rev. 22:18, "For 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:"

If a man adds to the "book," then the plagues written in said book shall be added unto him. (As a side note, one could talk about whether the book refers to the entire Bible or just the Book of Revelations. If it refers to the Bible, then that's quite a few plagues.) One must ask if the plagues that are written in the book (plagues found in Revelations, or plagues of the Bible such as the ten plagues) were added unto Joseph Smith.

I think for those that post the argument that the Bible can't be added to, because of Rev. 22:18. It's a tired argument. As Diglot has stated, the book itself was referring to the book itself, not the Bible at large.

That being said, it should be noted that beyond Joseph Smith's attempt to add to the entire corpus of the Biblical text through the Joseph Smith Translation, he did indeed actually add to the text of Revelation.

See here... http://lds.org/scrip...-rev/1?lang=eng

here http://lds.org/scrip...-rev/2?lang=eng

and here http://lds.org/scrip...rev/12?lang=eng

manipulations to Revelation in italics.

In the church history that I have studied, I have not found anything that would suggest that Joseph Smith suffered any such plagues. It has been suggested to me that they may come after death, and that he is suffering them now. I find that hard to believe, since the plagues would (in my opinion) serve two purposes:

1) Possibly, to punish the trangressor.

2) To identify to all that the person who brought forth additional scripture did so contrary to the will of God. Plagues would be easy to identify and record as happening.

It's a hollow juxtaposition. If JS altered the book, there is no evidence via plagues that he did so. If JS placed the book in it's truest form, there is no evidence via plagues that anyone changed it giving rise to the need for JS to change it.

In regards to your reasoning on plagues. How do you account for the first born child of every Egyptian that was slain by the angel of death as either a punishment to themselves or that they added to Revelation? IMO, such plagues extend beyond the reasoning you have offered.

If the person is to be punished after death, then the first one would be appropriate in addition to his eternity outside the presence of God. However, it would not fulfill the purpose of the second. In order to fulfill the purpose of the second, the plagues would have to happen during the person's life. If the plagues cannot be shown to have been added to Joseph Smith, which it can be shown from history that they were not, then we can conclude a few things:

1) Joseph did not add to the Bible/Revelation, and the Book of Mormon is true scripture.

2) Joseph did add to the Bible/Revelation, but God does not keep His promises.

3) (The atheist view) there is no God, so none of it really happened anyways and its all a lie.

What are your thoughts and opinions?

In response to two of your three alternative points.

1. Joseph Smith did attempt to add to the Bible as a whole and also the book of Revelation via the JST.

2. This is a non sequitur. It only applies if your initial premise is that there are only the two possible reasons for plagues that you have suggested.

If the Bible and in particular Revelation was changed prior to Joseph Smith's attempted efforts to draw them back in line, then where is the evidence of some plague ridden individual who did so?

[Ron Beron]

Whatever the order the curse colophon in Revelations was a typical tactic used to insure that no one would plagiarize or make an unjustified use of the material. It was a form of 1st century copyright law.

[erichard]

Hi LDSguy,

The best response, in my opinion, is one you mentioned: that Revelations 22:18 is a warning to men, and cannot be used to put conditions upon God. If God brought forth the Book of Mormon, then is surely does not contradict that warning. As you noted, God gave the same warning to men in Deut. 4.

In my opinion, the creedal ideas about God and spirit and other things were essentially ADDED to the Bible in defiance of Revelations 22:18. There is a real culprit of this warning.

The creeds were used by the falling Roman Empire to reinvent itself as the only possible (Catholic) Christian church. They hijacked Christianity for political purposes, and placed a death penalty on anyone who disagreed with their creedal understanding of the Bible.

Richard

[Freedom]

Whatever the order the curse colophon in Revelations was a typical tactic used to insure that no one would plagiarize or make an unjustified use of the material. It was a form of 1st century copyright law.

I would agree. Also, if it was included with the book, there was likely a problem with people changing or adding to books.

[TAO]

Mudcat, we consider the JST a restoration of the Bible to original meaning, and not an addition. =)

[LDSGuy]

I think for those that post the argument that the Bible can't be added to, because of Rev. 22:18. It's a tired argument. As Diglot has stated, the book itself was referring to the book itself, not the Bible at large.

That being said, it should be noted that beyond Joseph Smith's attempt to add to the entire corpus of the Biblical text through the Joseph Smith Translation, he did indeed actually add to the text of Revelation.

See here... http://lds.org/scrip...-rev/1?lang=eng

here http://lds.org/scrip...-rev/2?lang=eng

and here http://lds.org/scrip...rev/12?lang=eng

manipulations to Revelation in italics.

It's a hollow juxtaposition. If JS altered the book, there is no evidence via plagues that he did so. If JS placed the book in it's truest form, there is no evidence via plagues that anyone changed it giving rise to the need for JS to change it.

In regards to your reasoning on plagues. How do you account for the first born child of every Egyptian that was slain by the angel of death as either a punishment to themselves or that they added to Revelation? IMO, such plagues extend beyond the reasoning you have offered.

In response to two of your three alternative points.

1. Joseph Smith did attempt to add to the Bible as a whole and also the book of Revelation via the JST.

2. This is a non sequitur. It only applies if your initial premise is that there are only the two possible reasons for plagues that you have suggested.

If the Bible and in particular Revelation was changed prior to Joseph Smith's attempted efforts to draw them back in line, then where is the evidence of some plague ridden individual who did so?

Criteria would have to be set up for what is considered adding to the Bible and or Revelation. A translation and/or restoration of the original meaning obviously did not fit the criteria for adding to "the book" since the plagues did not come upon those who have done so throughout history. However the point of the thread is to counter the claim suggested that the Book of Mormon violates the command not to add to "the book." Apparently it doesn't. So what is the next logical conclusion?

Edited November 16, 2011 by LDSGuy

[Rivers]

Even if John was referring to the Bible as a whole, we could still argue that Joseph Smith didn't add to the bible. It was God that added the Book of Mormon.