The meaning of Revelation 22: 18,19 (Jesus, priest, reject, Moses, Earth)

[Scott C.]

Originally Posted by tomspug

Well, it wasn't an agreement completely. I hope you didn't skip my entire argument, otherwise you won't know my perspective. Most of it wasn't about Mormonism.



Since I believe the Bible is infallible, my answer is NO, not YES.

Yes, I did read it all. Maybe I jumped the gun on finding an area of agreement. I thought you agreed that Rev 22: 18,19 does not declare the scriptural canon to be closed. If so, we're in agreement on that point, but maybe only that point. Does it make you nervous to agree with a Mormon?

[tomspug]

Not at all. Mormons believe everything Christians believe, except when they disagree with them.

Rev: 22: 18, 19 does not declare scriptural canon to be closed. However, this does not follow that the Bible is then 'open'. The very nature of the Bible, as I have already argued, argues that scriptural canon is indeed closed.

Do you disagree that the Bible is complete and in no need of addition?

[Reverend Rick]

Is the Bible perfect? Please tell me where it says the Bible is perfect? The Bible has been added and subtracted from and MEN have decided what should be included and what should be excluded. We are lucky that the book of James is even in there.

If the Bible was perfect, why are there so many revisions? Can you translate from one language to another and keep the message perfect or real close to perfect?

Hell, we can't even get the ten commandments right, Is it thou shall not kill or murder?

I believe God's word was perfect, but the folks who put it to paper were human and humans make mistakes. Just read the different accounts of the resurrection in the first 4 books of the New Testament. Just how many people where first there when the stone was rolled away? Who was it that went to Jesus tomb that morning? Please straighten that out for me and tell me how the Bible is perfect. Which version is the perfect version anyway? Was it just the two Mary's? Who was Salome?

[athanasius]

The passage refers to the book of revelation itself on a literal level and not the whole bible. Although some may see it referring to the whole bible on a spiritual deeper level. One cannot add other words or meanings to the already written text so as to change it. This is why Luther was heavily condemned because the added the word alone to Faith in Romans 3:28. This is also why Jehovah's Witness bibles are not even viewed as actual translations by all modern Christian biblical Scholars but rather seen as transliterations and poor ones at that.

[Scott C.]

Originally Posted by tomspug

Not at all. Mormons believe everything Christians believe, except when they disagree with them.

Rev: 22: 18, 19 does not declare scriptural canon to be closed. However, this does not follow that the Bible is then 'open'. The very nature of the Bible, as I have already argued, argues that scriptural canon is indeed closed.

Do you disagree that the Bible is complete and in no need of addition?

I believe that there is always room for additional witnesses of Christ. The Bible would have been good with Matthew, Luke and John, but no Mark. But it's better with Mark. I believe the entire canon of scripture is better with the Book of Mormon added. I have trouble with the idea of "no need". More is always better, as long as the more is true and from God.

[Super Universe]

Originally Posted by tomspug

So... you believe in Jesus, but not in the Old Testament. Can you say... biblical illiteracy? Jesus spent most of his ministry quoting from it.

The Old Testament is not in line with the New Testament. The OT is about "An eye for an eye" while the New Testament is about "Forgiveness", two contrasting ideas. You think God's law evolved, it didn't.

Jesus spent most of His ministry telling people about His Father and proposed modern ideas that went against the traditional beliefs. That's why the priests were so threatened by Him.

Originally Posted by Scotty

As a Latter-day Saint Christian I do accept the divine authority of John to speak for God. I believe his revelation is a "revelation of Jesus Christ".

You accept the "divine authority" of John to speak for God? I'm sure you do. What other idols do you worship as well? Pope's and saints? Perhaps you have a golden idol cross? It's not the same as a golden cow though, right?

[Scott C.]

Originally Posted by Super Universe

You accept the "divine authority" of John to speak for God? I'm sure you do. What other idols do you worship as well? Pope's and saints? Perhaps you have a golden idol cross? It's not the same as a golden cow though, right?

I don't know where you're coming from. No, I don't worship any person or thing, except God. Believing that God calls prophets, does not imply worshiping a prophet.

[Scott C.]

Originally Posted by athanasius

The passage refers to the book of revelation itself on a literal level and not the whole bible. Although some may see it referring to the whole bible on a spiritual deeper level. One cannot add other words or meanings to the already written text so as to change it. This is why Luther was heavily condemned because the added the word alone to Faith in Romans 3:28. This is also why Jehovah's Witness bibles are not even viewed as actual translations by all modern Christian biblical Scholars but rather seen as transliterations and poor ones at that.

As a Catholic, do you believe that Rev 22: 18,19 states that the canon of scripture is closed? I understand you believe it says we should not tamper with scripture. I know the Catholic tradition, which is binding to you, teaches the canon is closed, but does Rev. 22:18,19 teach this in your view?

[Scott C.]

Originally Posted by athanasius

This is why Luther was heavily condemned because the added the word alone to Faith in Romans 3:28.

I didn't know Luther added "alone" to the text. Does this show up in a version of the Bible today? It's not in my King James version. Curious.