The meaning of Revelation 22: 18,19 (Jesus, Latter-Day Saints, reject, Epistles, translation)

[dance-above]

[quote]

Originally Posted by Super Universe

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.

Actually, he told us that whatever measure we use will be measured to us. " An eye for an eye" . But for us not to judge one another . To leave judgment to God.
The new testament is about alot more than Forgiveness it was aso about the judgment. A seperation of the sheep and the Goats. Jesus said I did not come to bring peace but division.

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.

The priest were threatened by him because he condemmed their ways, which for the most part was Hypocracy and because they knew that soon, they would lose their place.

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?

What did Jesus mean when he told his diciples they would be his witnessess or when he told them whatever sins they retained he retained or whoever they forgive he forgives, they had divine authority.

[Scott C.]

Originally Posted by Super Universe

What is this "divine authority" that you believe God gave to John?

I believe John was called and ordained by Jesus Christ to be an Apostle, which is a witness for Christ. This calling and ordination gave John certain authority. This does not make him infallible or an object of worship. He's just a person. However, he was chosen by God to have the great revelation on the isle of Patmos for the benefit of the world. The Book of Mormon, which I also believe, says this about John the Revelator. This is a revelation which I believe was given to a Book of Mormon prophet about 600 years before Christ (and John):

" 23 Wherefore, the things which he shall write are just and true; and behold they are written in the book which thou beheld proceeding out of the mouth of the Jew; and at the time they proceeded out of the mouth of the Jew, or, at the time the book proceeded out of the mouth of the Jew, the things which were written were plain and pure, and most precious and easy to the understanding of all men.
24 And behold, the things which this apostle of the Lamb shall write are many things which thou hast seen; and behold, the remainder shalt thou see.

25 But the things which thou shalt see hereafter thou shalt not write; for the Lord God hath ordained the apostle of the Lamb of God that he should write them.

26 And also others who have been, to them hath he shown all things, and they have written them; and they are sealed up to come forth in their purity, according to the truth which is in the Lamb, in the own due time of the Lord, unto the house of Israel.

27 And I, Nephi, heard and bear record, that the name of the apostle of the Lamb was John, according to the word of the angel." (B. of M. 1 Nephi 14: 23-27)



Notice it says "the Lord hath ordained the apostle of the Lamb of God that he should write them...and the name of the apostle of the Lamb was John". A further reading in context makes it clear that it's talking about the revelation of John.

This is why I personally accept John's writings and his authority to write them.

[Super Universe]

Originally Posted by dance-above

Actually, he told us that whatever measure we use will be measured to us. " An eye for an eye" . But for us not to judge one another . To leave judgment to God.
The new testament is about alot more than Forgiveness it was aso about the judgment. A seperation of the sheep and the Goats. Jesus said I did not come to bring peace but division.

The priest were threatened by him because he condemmed their ways, which for the most part was Hypocracy and because they knew that soon, they would lose their place.

Hmm, you say "actually He (Jesus) told us that whatever measure we use will be measured to us" as if it conflicts with something I posted or somehow alters the Jesus I presented. It does not.

Let me ask you this, what do you think "whatever measure we use, we will also be measured" means? I'll give you time to call your minister for the answer.

The New Testament is about a lot more than forgiveness? Okay, but what do you understand of the rest? Are you sure you know what the parables mean? What do you think a "separation of the sheep and goats" means? Why do you think Jesus said that He came to bring the sword but His actions were always non-violent (excepting a few cash boxes)?

I tell you this, and it is a truth you have not been told, forgiving others is the most important thing you can learn on the earth. You think you are supposed to believe in God but God will not prove Himself to you because He will not violate your free will.

You think you are supposed to believe in a book written by man, you think you are supposed to follow other men (preachers/ministers/priests) but you are not. You are supposed to choose your own path, understanding how the universe and God works comes later.

The priests knew they would lose their position? Why would they know this when it did not happen? These priests were not see'ers, they were not oracle's. Haven't you noticed that God never works through groups or any established religion.

Originally Posted by dance-above

What did Jesus mean when he told his diciples they would be his witnessess or when he told them whatever sins they retained he retained or whoever they forgive he forgives, they had divine authority.

I will surely respond to these questions but could you please provide the whole quote of these verses. I'm not sure if you are quoting from the New Testament or Book of Mormon.

[Mister Emu]

If you believe that the Bible is incomplete, yes. If you believe that the Bible is infallible, no.

Those ideas are not mutually exclusive... the Bible could be infallible(inerrant) in what it says but not complete either...

[Smoke]

Originally Posted by Scotty

I understand the common interpretation of Rev 22: 18, 19 to be something like this:

“I John have concluded my revelation and this concludes all revelation and scripture from heaven. The scriptural canon is complete and closed. If any man produces writings that claim to be scripture, you may know that he and they are fraudulent, since the canon is closed. Furthermore, such a fraud will be cursed with the plagues described in this revelation.”

I don't know how common that really is. Nobody who had any sense of context would interpret it that way, but then, lots of people don't have any sense of context.

Originally Posted by Scotty

However, I interpret these verses as follows:

“I John testify that if any man changes my prophesy, as written in the Book of Revelation, he will be cursed. He must not add to my revelation, by claiming that I wrote something that I did not write. He must not take away from my revelation, by removing some of the words that I did write. If any man tampers with my revelation, he will be cursed with the plagues described in my revelation.”

You're right on the money.

Originally Posted by Reverend Rick

We are lucky that the book of James is even in there.

Depends on your perspective. Martin Luther thought you were very unlucky that James was in there.

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by Mister Emu

Those ideas are not mutually exclusive... the Bible could be infallible(inerrant) in what it says but not complete either...

Would you agree that while the original manuscripts may have been infallible, there is no perfect translation of the Bible in existance today?

[Super Universe]

Originally Posted by Scotty

27 And I, Nephi, heard and bear record, that the name of the apostle of the Lamb was John, according to the word of the angel." (B. of M. 1 Nephi 14: 23-27)

John who?

[Mister Emu]

Would you agree that while the original manuscripts may have been infallible, there is no perfect translation of the Bible in existance today?

I would...

[Scott C.]

Originally Posted by tomspug

Joseph Smith created a need for new prophets and new covenants by claiming that the Bible had holes in it that needed to be filled. Of course, NOW the LDS church doesn't make that claim. Heck, I'm sure there are many LDS members that indeed believe the Bible to be infallible, but that was not the church's stance originally. Joseph Smith couldn't possibly started a religion by trying to add to a 'perfect' book. The entire implication of the Mormon religion is that the Bible is 'imperfect' when it really isn't.

So, going back to your original question: is there a possibility for future revelation? If you believe that the Bible is incomplete, yes. If you believe that the Bible is infallible, no.

I'm not aware of any explicit or subtle change in LDS teachings regarding the validity of the Bible. Joseph Smith wrote an article of faith that says in part "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly." These Articles of Faith are included in print side by side with our scriptures and are generally studied and understood by members of my church, starting from childhood.

However, I disagree with your assessment that the revelations given to Joseph Smith would not be necessary if the Bible were 100% accurate and had no mistranslations. It is indeed my strong belief in the Bible, word for word, that supports my belief in the need for the restoration of the gospel. I believe that the Bible, exactly as we have it today, teaches the need for living prophets, for priesthood, for an organized church, and for continuing revelation and a growing canon of scripture. When I read the New Testament, I see my church today in the New Testament church. Again, this is because I believe the Bible.

Rather than what you said: "the entire implication of the Mormon religion is that the Bible is imperfect when it really isn't", I would say: "the entire implication of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is that the New Testament church, exactly as described by today's Bible, no longer existed in it's original form in these latter-days, so God restored it through a new prophet".

While you may disagree with my assessment of what the Bible teaches in this regard, you will better understand where I, as a Latter-day Saint, am coming from, if you know how I feel about the Bible, it's accuracy, and its relationship to my church.

[tomspug]

Say you remove books of the Bible from the Bible, it becomes incomplete. Certain prophecies are not addressed and certain very important doctrines and revelations might be missing. Does it change the truthfulness of the Bible? No, but it makes it less 'complete'.

And yes, Joseph Smith DOES imply that the Bible is incomplete. What do you think 'as far as it is translated correctly' means? Exactly that, that the Bible has holes in it that need to be filled.

The implication is that, because the Bible has been mistranslated over time, that in fact Joseph Smith has the knowledge that the Bible is missing: such doctrines include but are not limited to - the fall of Man being God's intention, not mans and therefore good, the concept of multiple heavens, the notion that man can essentially become 'his own God', the rejection of the Trinity,

I know you didn't want to get in a discussion about the LDS Church, but I think that these changes in doctrine reflect a notion that the Bible 'doesn't quite get things right and needs to be clarified', thus the Doctrines and Covenants as well as the Book of Mormon.