Does the Bible not teach not to add or take away from it?

[Katzpur]

So is God saying that, with Revelation, He is through talking to us? Can we legitimately use Revelation 22:18-19 to automatically exclude any other religious texts from being God's word?

Incidentally, I'm not trying to direct this discussion into a debate on the validity of The Book of Mormon. The question could just as easily be asked with reference to the Qur'an. It's just that I so often hear people insist that the book of Revelation marks the last time God would have anything new to say to us. I'm trying to figure out how people come to this conclusion.

 

[dawny0826]

The Book of Mormon was translated in the 1820s, but it was written between 600 BC and about 421 AD (according to LDS beliefs). For those who believe in the Bible and the Book of Mormon, they come from the same time period. I believe it was inspiried - even if the people who put the Bible together didn't have access to it.

"The Bible" is a collection of writings from many different people. To claim that what John wrote in Revelation regarding not adding or removing things had anything to do with the rest of the Bible doesn't make sense to me based on the history of the Bible. If it does than the compilors of the bible are screwed. They added and removed books for hundreds of years.

This link will give you some information on the process of the cannonization of the Bible:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon#Christian_canon

Okay...

Hypothetical situation...

I'm just curious...and I do mean this hyothetically...I'm interested what your take on this is...

Okay, let's say those books that you mentioned which were removed from the Bible are brought to the attention of a LDS follower through a vision and the individual is instructed by God to take these books and create another book which needs to be referenced in addition to the the Bible and the Book of Mormon.

Would the LDS accept this new book, granted the experiences of this prophet are consistent with those of Joseph Smith's?

Just a hypothetical question...

 

[jonny]

Okay...

Hypothetical situation...

I'm just curious...and I do mean this hyothetically...I'm interested what your take on this is...

Okay, let's say those books that you mentioned which were removed from the Bible are brought to the attention of a LDS follower through a vision and the individual is instructed by God to take these books and create another book which needs to be referenced in addition to the the Bible and the Book of Mormon.

Would the LDS accept this new book, granted the experiences of this prophet are consistent with those of Joseph Smith's?

Just a hypothetical question...

In order for something to be cannonized as doctrine in the LDS church, it needs to unanimously accepted by the First Presidency and then Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. It then must be presented before the church and the membership would vote to accept it.

That being said, I don't think that the LDS church will be cannonizing any ancient writings anytime soon. I suppose that there would have to be something of great doctrinal significance that is not already covered in the scriptures we have for the church to take this action. Since we believe in latter-day revelation, it is much more likely that new writings from our prophets would be added to our Doctrine and Covenants than it would be that we would add ancient books to the Bible.

There are two items that have been recently released that I feel may be cannonized in the future. They are The Proclamation to the World on the Family and The Living Christ.

 

[Quiddity]

"The Bible" is a collection of writings from many different people. To claim that what John wrote in Revelation regarding not adding or removing things had anything to do with the rest of the Bible doesn't make sense to me based on the history of the Bible. If it does than the compilors of the bible are screwed. They added and removed books for hundreds of years.

Excellent observations Jonny. But let me ask you a question.
Do you believe that when God inspired John to pen the words of revelation that he was not taking into consideration the totallity of the Bible? If not, then I assume you interpret the entire Bible the same way. In other words, when words like "you" are used it's not talking about you and me but the local church/person he was writing to. As you can see this can get you into a big mess.

 

[Katzpur]

Okay...

Hypothetical situation...

I'm just curious...and I do mean this hyothetically...I'm interested what your take on this is...

Okay, let's say those books that you mentioned which were removed from the Bible are brought to the attention of a LDS follower through a vision and the individual is instructed by God to take these books and create another book which needs to be referenced in addition to the the Bible and the Book of Mormon.

Would the LDS accept this new book, granted the experiences of this prophet are consistent with those of Joseph Smith's?

Just a hypothetical question...

In terms of the way you have phrased this question, dawny, the answer would be "No" -- unless the "LDS follower" in question was the President of the Church. Since we believe him to be a living prophet of God, he would be entitled to receive new revelation from God that would pertain to the Church of Jesus Christ as a whole. No other individual member of the Church (not even any of the Apostles) has been given that right and responsibility. Even our Prophet did receive a new revelation, there would be a certain series of steps (that jonny has explained) to make that new revelation official doctrine and, therefore, part of the LDS canon.

Kathryn

 

[Katzpur]

Excellent observations Jonny. But let me ask you a question.
Do you believe that when God inspired John to pen the words of revelation that he was not taking into consideration the totallity of the Bible? If not, then I assume you interpret the entire Bible the same way. In other words, when words like "you" are used it's not talking about you and me but the local church/person he was writing to. As you can see this can get you into a big mess.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your question, Victor, but I absolutely think that God was referring to the book of Revelation specifically. To begin with, John penned his gospel after he recorded Revelation. If God had not intended there to be any more inspired writings after He instructed John to write Revelation, I think John, of all people, would have picked up on that. Besides, God said, "if any man" should add to or take away from that prophecy, he would be sincerely punished. He did not say that He was through talking to us. Jesus Christ appointed prophets during His lifetime. Evidently, he intended to use them.

 

[Quiddity]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your question, Victor, but I absolutely think that God was referring to the book of Revelation specifically. To begin with, John penned his gospel after he recorded Revelation. If God had not intended there to be any more inspired writings after He instructed John to write Revelation, I think John, of all people, would have picked up on that. Besides, God said, "if any man" should add to or take away from that prophecy, he would be sincerely punished. He did not say that He was through talking to us. Jesus Christ appointed prophets during His lifetime. Evidently, he intended to use them.

As I understand it Katzpur. You guys are saying "don't add to Revelation, but Mathew, Luke, etc. are a green light." Am I misunderstanding?

~Victor

 

[Katzpur]

As I understand it Katzpur. You guys are saying "don't add to Revelation, but Mathew, Luke, etc. are a green light." Am I misunderstanding?

~Victor

Yup, you are misunderstand. I think God was saying "don't add to or take away from the book of this prophesy," meaning "Revelation." I don't think we're free to add to Matthew, Luke or any other of the Apostles writings, but if God wants to reveal something entirely new to a prophet today, I certainly don't want to be the one to tell Him to keep quiet!

 

[Halcyon]

I always look at the bible as what it actually is, a collection of books - not a book in itself.

So, logically the author of Revelation would be speaking only of Revelation, as jonny said, the author had no idea that men would place Revelation at the end of the bible.

I think the author made the statement for fairly obvious reasons. Revelation is a book of prophecy, thus if people start adding to or removing parts of the prophecies then they would be ruined and useless - no longer prophetic.

 

[jonny]

Excellent observations Jonny. But let me ask you a question.
Do you believe that when God inspired John to pen the words of revelation that he was not taking into consideration the totallity of the Bible? If not, then I assume you interpret the entire Bible the same way. In other words, when words like "you" are used it's not talking about you and me but the local church/person he was writing to. As you can see this can get you into a big mess.

I don't believe that the writers of the Bible were taking the writings of other Biblical writers into consideration necessarily as they wrote their books in most cases. I am not aware of any place in the New Testament where the writers indicated that they knew their writings would be compiled together into one book. If there is a verse in the New Testament you can point it out to me.

There are places where they quote from writings in the Old Testament. In these cases it is obvious that they are referring to other scriptures.

When the church chose the books of the Bible, I am under the understanding that one of the things that they were careful to do was make sure that none of the books contradicted another book in matters of doctrinal significance. A contradiction would be reason to have the book rejected from the bible (I don't remember who it was that posted this information a while back - I'll have to dig though my posts to find it). This indicates that even those who put the bible together realized that they were combining seperate, but related, writings into one book.

I would tend to agree that in many cases when the writers say "you" they are not writing directly to me. This is most obvious in Paul's epistles, where many of the chapters state who he is writing to. This does not mean that his writings don't apply to me. I would say that in most cases he is writing to the church, which would include all Christians. In 1 Nephi 19:23, Nephi teaches us to "liken all scriptures unto us, that it might be for our profit and understanding." The writings in the Bible may have not been directly written to me, but they were written to members of the church who were struggling to understand some of the same principles that I need to learn; therefore, it makes sense that I can also learn from the inspired words of leaders in God's church.

 

[Popeyesays]

So is God saying that, with Revelation, He is through talking to us? Can we legitimately use Revelation 22:18-19 to automatically exclude any other religious texts from being God's word?

Incidentally, I'm not trying to direct this discussion into a debate on the validity of The Book of Mormon. The question could just as easily be asked with reference to the Qur'an. It's just that I so often hear people insist that the book of Revelation marks the last time God would have anything new to say to us. I'm trying to figure out how people come to this conclusion.

I agree. Jesus promised not to leave us alone. Moses promised another messenger to come. Muhammed even promises the Mahdi.

Why should we be so arrogant as to assume God has taught us all there is to know of Himself?

Frubals,
Scott

 

[Quiddity]

Yup, you are misunderstand.

Ok. Further clarification is a good thing. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

I think God was saying "don't add to or take away from the book of this prophesy," meaning "Revelation."

Gotcha.

I don't think we're free to add to Matthew, Luke or any other of the Apostles writings,

Why not?

but if God wants to reveal something entirely new to a prophet today, I certainly don't want to be the one to tell Him to keep quiet!

I hope you see how this last statement can seem contradictory with the previous. So basically additions were made [at least in LDS theology] thru men [Joseph Smith], for the Church. Do I got that right?

~Victor

 

[Katzpur]

Why not?

Matthew's gospel is Matthew's gospel. He said all he wanted to say. It would be preposterous for anyone today to think it justifiable to expand on what Matthew said.

I hope you see how this last statement can seem contradictory with the previous. So basically additions were made [at least in LDS theology] thru men [Joseph Smith], for the Church. Do I got that right?

Sorry, I don't see the contradiction at all. We believe God personally directed Joseph Smith to write what he did. Joseph Smith did not merely take it upon himself to add to the writings of the Biblical prophets and apostles, passing his words off as theirs. There is an enormous difference between a man adding to God's word and God adding to His own word through a man.

 

[jewscout]

It means do not add something or take away something you like or dislike, just because you agree or disagree. Don't make things up to fit your own agenda. Understand the meaning for what it is, not for what you wish it to be.

well no disrespect to john or paul or anyone else...but that was told to the Israelites long before it appeared in the gospels

Deut. 4:2
You Shall not add to the word that I command you, nor shall you subtract from it, to observe the commandments of HaShem, your G-d, that I command you.

what does that mean...
PUT DOWN THE HAM SANDWICH!

 

[dawny0826]

PUT DOWN THE HAM SANDWICH!

LOL!

 

[Quiddity]

]I don't believe that the writers of the Bible were taking the writings of other Biblical writers into consideration necessarily as they wrote their books in most cases. I am not aware of any place in the New Testament where the writers indicated that they knew their writings would be compiled together into one book. If there is a verse in the New Testament you can point it out to me.

Nor do I. I won't argue this because I agree with you.

]
There are places where they quote from writings in the Old Testament. In these cases it is obvious that they are referring to other scriptures.

When the church chose the books of the Bible, I am under the understanding that one of the things that they were careful to do was make sure that none of the books contradicted another book in matters of doctrinal significance. A contradiction would be reason to have the book rejected from the bible (I don't remember who it was that posted this information a while back - I'll have to dig though my posts to find it). This indicates that even those who put the bible together realized that they were combining seperate, but related, writings into one book.

Basically you are correct. But this is a task that is and was extremely difficult on one's own faculities. The Holy Spirit was amidst the Bishops who assembled it. But what I don't get is if the Church apostasized, why accept a book they assembled close to 400 A.D? This is going off topic but perhaps you can address this in a latter time.

I would tend to agree that in many cases when the writers say "you" they are not writing directly to me. This is most obvious in Paul's epistles, where many of the chapters state who he is writing to. This does not mean that his writings don't apply to me. I would say that in most cases he is writing to the church, which would include all Christians. In 1 Nephi 19:23, Nephi teaches us to "liken all scriptures unto us, that it might be for our profit and understanding." The writings in the Bible may have not been directly written to me, but they were written to members of the church who were struggling to understand some of the same principles that I need to learn; therefore, it makes sense that I can also learn from the inspired words of leaders in God's church.

In complete agreement here.

~Victor

 

[Quiddity]

Matthew's gospel is Matthew's gospel. He said all he wanted to say. It would be preposterous for anyone today to think it justifiable to expand on what Matthew said.

The problem that I'm having with this is that both Matthew and Revelation have the same author [God]. So you seem to justify your position by attaching it only to the writer. So technically Revelation didn't have to tell us "not to add to it" because apparently you would have concluded that anyways. Just like you did that with Matthew, Mark, Luke, etc. See what I mean?

Sorry, I don't see the contradiction at all. We believe God personally directed Joseph Smith to write what he did. Joseph Smith did not merely take it upon himself to add to the writings of the Biblical prophets and apostles, passing his words off as theirs. There is an enormous difference between a man adding to God's word and God adding to His own word through a man.

You do this again here.

 

[Quiddity]

well no disrespect to john or paul or anyone else...but that was told to the Israelites long before it appeared in the gospels

Deut. 4:2
You Shall not add to the word that I command you, nor shall you subtract from it, to observe the commandments of HaShem, your G-d, that I command you.

what does that mean...

What has been the traditional understanding of this? Does it mean you can't add a single word or letter? Or something else?

~Victor

 

[Popeyesays]

[/color]

The problem that I'm having with this is that both Matthew and Revelation have the same author [God].
You do this again here.

The Bible is the word of God as RECORDED by a number of authors. There are for instance, probably five authors of the Books of Moses. I think there is symbologically important material in Revelations, but trying to look at any of it as literal is foolish, indeed. That does not make it irrelevant, but it is a "mystery" book much like Daniel, so the symbol and metaphor is the important thing not literal information.

For instance adding up the days in the Book of Daniel gives 1844 A.D. as the date of the Messiah's return. I know that is true metaphorically, but those who insist upon a Biblically "literal" return are lost in error they created for themselves.

I can post some metaphorical explanations of chapters eleven and twelve of the Apocalypse if anyone is interested. I can post a similar commentary on the Book of Daniel if it is of interest.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Quiddity]

The Bible is the word of God as RECORDED by a number of authors. There are for instance, probably five authors of the Books of Moses. I think there is symbologically important material in Revelations, but trying to look at any of it as literal is foolish, indeed. That does not make it irrelevant, but it is a "mystery" book much like Daniel, so the symbol and metaphor is the important thing not literal information.

For instance adding up the days in the Book of Daniel gives 1844 A.D. as the date of the Messiah's return. I know that is true metaphorically, but those who insist upon a Biblically "literal" return are lost in error they created for themselves.

I can post some metaphorical explanations of chapters eleven and twelve of the Apocalypse if anyone is interested. I can post a similar commentary on the Book of Daniel if it is of interest.

Regards,
Scott

I'm trying to follow as to what this has to do with the topic at hand.