• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why can nothing be added to the Bible?

Katzpur

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Buddha Dharma said:
Here's another point for Christians to consider (and I would if I were a Christian) about rather the canon is final or not. Whenever the verse all scripture is inspired by God was written there wasn't a New Testament canon, or any clear idea of what Christian scripture was. The author only meant the Hebrew Bible for certain when they said 'all scripture'.
Click to expand...
Very true. Besides, saying "all scripture is inspired by God" is not at all the same thing as saying "the Bible alone is inspired by God." You could have a tray full of delicious pastries, and everyone who tasted them could say, "All pastries are yummy." That wouldn't be saying what qualified as a pastry and it wouldn't be saying that all of the different kinds of pastries in the world could be found on that tray.
 
Grandliseur

Grandliseur

Well-Known Member
Gerry said:
Someone wanted a thread for this topic, so I decided to start one.
So here it is?

Why do some think the Bible is complete with 66 books, some have more than 66 books, some have less?
Who decides what constitutes the holy scriptures, and who decides whether or not there can be ongoing additions?
Also, why do some people think the Bible is the only holy scriptures and others think there may be different books?
Click to expand...
I think we need to be more specific.

If God wanted to give us prophecies for the future not contained in the present writings, or instructions on how to do things in Paradise, new material could be added as he pleases, or different books given.

The thing that we are prohibited from is altering what has been given: this means that the translators have to do their best to keep true to the original writings. It also means that if people add or subtract from what has been given, judgment is going to be handed out.
 
james bond

james bond

Well-Known Member
From what I was taught, the Bible is complete because there is an answer for every situation in life unlike man's science which changes as a better theory comes along. We started with Genesis and will end with Revelation. “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” 2 Timothy 3:16-17
 
Buddha Dharma

Buddha Dharma

Dharma Practitioner
james bond said:
“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” 2 Timothy 3:16-17
Click to expand...

Right, do you acknowledge my earlier point though? The author couldn't have had the New Testament in mind when this was written. If this verse has no contradiction with the New Testament, it's questionable if it does with others. IE: The Book of Mormon
 
F

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
Nowhere Man said:
A lot of people quote Revelations about having plagues added on, or your name taken out of the Book of Life. Well I haven't seen any outbreaks of plague occur so far in light of the insane amount of versions that are out now.
Click to expand...


Joseph Smith, a prophet and leader of the Latter Day Saints of the Mormon's.
It was reported that he was killed by a mob in Carthage Illinois on June 27,1844.

You can take this as you may want to.

But as you stated about the book of Revelation, about having plagues added.

Joseph Smith tampered to add to and delete from the book of Revelation.

Ellen G White, a prophet of the Seventh Day Adventist. During the remainder of her life,
Her and her husband, was plague by numerous sicknesses and diseases.
Her husband died of diseases. As well as she also died of sicknesses.

In many of her books, she is found to tampered to add and to delete from the book of Revelation.

Was the death of these just a conquincidence or because of their tampering with the book of Revelation ?

Revelation 22:18,19. "For I testify unto every man that hears 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;
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy,
God shall take away his part out of the book of Life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book"

When a person takes upon themselves to add and delete from the book of Revelation, that causes many people to be deceived by their adding and deleting from the book of Revelation, Then all the plagues that are written in the book of Revelation shall be upon them.

So is it a conquincidence about Joseph Smith, the prophet of the Mormons being put to death by a mob. In his adding and deleting from the book of Revelation ?
So is it conquincidence or is there something behind adding and deleting from the book of Revelation ?

So is it a conquincidence about the Ellen G. White the prophet of the seventh day Adventist, dieing of sickness and
diseases, for her adding and deleting from the book of Revelation, So is it conquincidence or is there something behind adding and deleting from the book of Revelation ?
 
Last edited:
taykair

taykair

Active Member
I have never met a believer (or, come to think of it, an unbeliever) who knew the Bible (or any other sacred text) and did not engage in a little "mental editing" of the text in order to bring it more into line with their own perspective. This is not bad or evil or a sin. It is human.
 
Jeremiah Ames

Jeremiah Ames

Well-Known Member
Katzpur said:
Well, let's take a brief look at the evolution of the biblical canon. In 1740, a list of the canonical books compiled in Rome just prior to 200 A.D. was discovered in the Ambrosian Library in Milan, Italy. Missing from the accepted canon in 200 A.D. were Hebrews, James, 1 Peter and 2 Peter. Only two of John's letters were considered canonical, not three, but we don't know for sure which two. The Apocalypse of Peter and the Wisdom of Solomon, however, were included.

Eusebius of Caesara, one of the most notable Church historians to have ever lived, described (in about 300 A.D.) a canon which included only twenty-seven of the books in today's New Testament. Hebrews, James, and 2 Peter where described as questionable, as were Jude and Revelation. In the fourth century, St. Gregory of Nazianzus continued to reject Revelation and states, "You have all. If there is any any besides these, it is not among the genuine [books]." The canon he set forth was ratified some three centuries later.

The Greek Codex Claromontanus, one of the most significant New Testament manuscripts, contains a list of the canonical books of the fourth century. (The manuscript itself originates in the sixth century, however most scholars believe that the actual list dates back to the Alexandrian Church from two centuries earlier.) That list did not exclude Philippians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians or Hebrews. But guess what? It does include the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas.

Other books that are mentioned by name in today's Bibles cannot be found there at all. One example is Paul's epistle to the Laodiceans. Why was it less authoritative than his other epistles? It's mentioned in Colossians 4:16. Obviously, it was considered authoritative at the time it was written. Paul also wrote an additional epistle to the Ephesians and another to the Corinthians. When did his "apostolic authorship" come into question? Jude, too, wrote another epistle. What reason is there to believe it was so unreliable as to have been intentionally omitted from the today's canon? Or maybe it was just lost.

If we go to the Old Testament, there are even more books that are missing. These were written by "Samuel the seer," "Nathan the prophet," "Shemaiah the prophet" and others. 2 Chronicles mentions many of these by name. Why haven't we gotten rid of 2 Chronicles by now, since it references so many prophets whose work was apparently not the word of God after all?

How people can pretend that "the Bible" as we know it today (and I'm not even talking about the hundreds of different translations, but the books that constitute the canon) was somehow signed, sealed and delivered to us exactly as God wanted it to be is beyond me. Of course, this doesn't mean that we should toss the Bible out in its entirety. We should simply recognize it for what it is -- a recorded record of God's dealings with mankind in one part of the world. It never claims to be complete. As a matter of fact, it claims quite the opposite. In the end of John, we're told that Jesus Christ did so many things as part of His ministry, that had they even been recorded, they'd more than have filled all of the books in the world. That's quite a statement, and to me, it's saying that we should love the Bible for what it is, but not try to make it into something it isn't, or even claims to be.
Click to expand...
Super response.
 
Jeremiah Ames

Jeremiah Ames

Well-Known Member
Buddha Dharma said:
Here's another point for Christians to consider (and I would if I were a Christian) about rather the canon is final or not. Whenever the verse all scripture is inspired by God was written there wasn't a New Testament canon, or any clear idea of what Christian scripture was. The author only meant the Hebrew Bible for certain when they said 'all scripture'.
Click to expand...

My wife said to me many years ago, that the Bible is a love letter from God. At the time I had little use for the Bible, but the concept sounded quaint and good, nevertheless.
When I did start to read the Bible, many problems arose. I would try to find logical answers, and if none were available, I would sweep them under the carpet.
Recently, since my spiritual eyes have been opened (thank you Lord), I have found that the Bible no longer contains any difficulties, contradictions, or problems for me. I also now realize it wasn’t actually written TO a chosen group of people. It was personally written by God directly to me.:D
So I now understand what my wife meant way back when.

To conclude, I cannot believe that my God would choose to shut off his communication to me just cause a religion says so. I am totally open to continued revelation from my God outside the Bible. And I have received it.
 
Q

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
Gerry said:
Someone wanted a thread for this topic, so I decided to start one.
So here it is?

Why do some think the Bible is complete with 66 books, some have more than 66 books, some have less?
Who decides what constitutes the holy scriptures, and who decides whether or not there can be ongoing additions?
Also, why do some people think the Bible is the only holy scriptures and others think there may be different books?
Click to expand...

Excellent question. Apparently for thousands of years God communicated directly with individuals to inspire them to record His Word. I've always wondered why the God of the bible stopped doing so. Or did He? Is it possible that much of what has been written in the past 2000 years was ALSO inspired by God, but simply hasn't been included in His official book? When did God specifically indicated what writtings should or shouldn't be included in His bibl, or was that PURELY a decision made by fallible human beings?
 
Q

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
InChrist said:
Because Jesus Christ has already come and been revealed. All the information pertaining to the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Christ and the mystery of God hidden throughout history has already been revealed through the gospel message of the scriptures. Everything necessary for salvation and eternal life, to know and love God and others is contained in the Bible, no more is needed.
Click to expand...

Too bad this all powerful God is incapable of clarrifying the parts of this bible that people have so vehemently disagreed on how to interpret that bloody wars have been fought over it. If everything has been revealed so clearly, why the heck are their 1000's of different versions of the same religion? Seems as if it's been made about as clear as mud to the majority of people.
 
Katzpur

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Faithofchristian said:
Joseph Smith, a prophet and leader of the Latter Day Saints of the Mormon's.
It was reported that he was killed by a mob in Carthage Illinois on June 27,1844.

You can take this as you may want to.

But as you stated about the book of Revelation, about having plagues added.

Joseph Smith tampered to add to and delete from the book of Revelation.

When a person takes upon themselves to add and delete from the book of Revelation, that causes many people to be deceived by their adding and deleting from the book of Revelation, Then all the plagues that are written in the book of Revelation shall be upon them.

So is it a conquincidence about Joseph Smith, the prophet of the Mormons being put to death by a mob. In his adding and deleting from the book of Revelation ?
So is it conquincidence or is there something behind adding and deleting from the book of Revelation ?
Click to expand...
That is absolutely preposterous. Joseph Smith never tampered one bit with Revelation. :rolleyes: You get a copy of the KJV, which Mormons use, and every word of Revelation is exactly as it is in every other KJV.
 
Buddha Dharma

Buddha Dharma

Dharma Practitioner
Gerry said:
But then , Joseph Smith says the same.
Click to expand...

Honestly, if I were a Christian I think I'd have to give fair consideration to works like the Koran and Book of Mormon going off of their internal content because the objection to them does more often than not seem to be a mere insistence that God wouldn't reveal anything else besides the Bible.

When you think about it, that is a hasty conclusion for anyone that accepts revelation to make without at least giving works like the Koran due consideration before ruling them out.
 
Katzpur

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Buddha Dharma said:
Honestly, if I were a Christian I think I'd have to give fair consideration to works like the Koran and Book of Mormon going off of their internal content because the objection to them does more often than not seem to be a mere insistence that God wouldn't reveal anything else besides the Bible.
Click to expand...
You know, you are absolutely right about that. I'm not going to comment on the Koran because I haven't read it, and I don't think that anyone who hasn't read a book has any right to comment on it's validity, truth, worth or usefulness. The biggest problem most non-LDS Christians have with the Book of Mormon is simply that it exists! It exists, Heaven forbid! The fact that it testifies of Jesus Christ as the Savior of the World pretty much from the first page to the last is evidently completely immaterial.
 
Buddha Dharma

Buddha Dharma

Dharma Practitioner
Yep and this unthinking rejection coming from people claiming to accept divine revelation...

It's exactly as you say. One might within their rights reject something reasonably, once they've read it.
 
Buddha Dharma

Buddha Dharma

Dharma Practitioner
Katzpur said:
You know, you are absolutely right about that. I'm not going to comment on the Koran because I haven't read it, and I don't think that anyone who hasn't read a book has any right to comment on it's validity, truth, worth or usefulness.
Click to expand...

I'll say this about the Koran and the Book of Mormon- having read both...

Actually as a Buddhist, I don't dispute a deity could make a revelation for it's own purposes (whatever purpose and motive the deity might have), but in Buddhism- the Buddhas come from the unconstructed. I won't go into why that makes Buddhist teaching superior- as Buddhists see it.

I think the Koran is interesting in that it is very flowing in it's language and almost poetic. Anyone that has read it knows what I mean. It isn't like the Bible, and that's because it was written much closer to when Muhammad lived- so that people still remembered the style of Muhammad's recitation.

The Koran reads like something someone is directly narrating to an audience. In a very poetic and melodious style like Arabs were fond to use.

The 'Arab poets' isn't just a generalizing term when encountered in history. It has a literal dimension in how Arabs narrated through their language.

I don't think that makes the Koran inspired, but a beautiful work in a certain sense- sure.

I wasn't convinced by the Book of Mormon for much the same reason I am not the Bible, and skepticism toward the claim of Nephite and Jaredite migration to the Americas I guess. I can understand why a Mormon accepts it, if they accept the book as authoritative, but it does admittedly come off odd to an outsider. That is not my trying to be insulting, so forgive me if it seems like it.

I came away from the Book of Mormon with the impression I'd just read a religious novel with theological repercussions. I don't mean to sound irreverent. That's my non-Mormon, non-Christian take on it.

I found the Book of Mormon quite enjoyable and exotic in a certain way.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top