How can one believe the Book of Mormon to be scripture when the Bible says we shouldn't add to the B

[Norman]

How can one believe the Book of Mormon to be scripture when the Bible says we shouldn't add to the Bible (Revelation 22:18-19)?
The phrases "the prophecy of this book," "the book of this prophecy,"
and "this book" refer only to the book of Revelation. At the time
John recorded those words, the Bible did not exist; there were only separate scrolls
for each book. The first bound Bibles do not appear until the fourth century A.D.
Some of the earliest Bible manuscripts do not end with the book of Revelation
and, in fact, some of them don't even include that book and omit other New
Testament books as well.
Moreover, similar warnings are found in earlier Bible books. For example, in
Deuteronomy 4:2, we read, "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command
you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments
of the Lord your God which I command you" (see also Deuteronomy 12:12).
While mortals are forbidden to add to the divine word, the Lord himself is not
bound by such restrictions. God's word is revealed through prophets, and
it is through prophets that he has always added to his own word. Thus, we read
that, when the king had burned the words written by Jeremiah (Jeremiah 36:1-4,
23), the Lord commanded him to restore these words (Jeremiah 36:27-28). "Then
took Jeremiah another roll, and gave it to Baruch the scribe, the son of Neriah;
who wrote therein from the mouth of Jeremiah all the words of the book which
Jehoiakim king of Judah had burned in the fire: and there were added besides
unto them many like words" (Jeremiah 36:32).

 

[Unveiled Artist]

How can one believe the Book of Mormon to be scripture when the Bible says we shouldn't add to the Bible (Revelation 22:18-19)?
The phrases "the prophecy of this book," "the book of this prophecy,"
and "this book" refer only to the book of Revelation. At the time
John recorded those words, the Bible did not exist; there were only separate scrolls
for each book. The first bound Bibles do not appear until the fourth century A.D.
Some of the earliest Bible manuscripts do not end with the book of Revelation
and, in fact, some of them don't even include that book and omit other New
Testament books as well.
Moreover, similar warnings are found in earlier Bible books. For example, in
Deuteronomy 4:2, we read, "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command
you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments
of the Lord your God which I command you" (see also Deuteronomy 12:12).
While mortals are forbidden to add to the divine word, the Lord himself is not
bound by such restrictions. God's word is revealed through prophets, and
it is through prophets that he has always added to his own word. Thus, we read
that, when the king had burned the words written by Jeremiah (Jeremiah 36:1-4,
23), the Lord commanded him to restore these words (Jeremiah 36:27-28). "Then
took Jeremiah another roll, and gave it to Baruch the scribe, the son of Neriah;
who wrote therein from the mouth of Jeremiah all the words of the book which
Jehoiakim king of Judah had burned in the fire: and there were added besides
unto them many like words" (Jeremiah 36:32).

They don't believe the book of Mormon as scripture. If I'm getting my facts correct (Mormons???) they believe the Book of Mormon is another revelation from God. Just like if I had a revelation from God and wrote it in a book, that book isn't scripture even though it's written by the same person (God) as that of the Bible... its just a revelation testimony that so happen to be written. Same as the Book of Mormon "except" their Book is a sacrament rather than just any other book. I never heard a Mormon equalize the Book of Mormon to scripture.

 

[rrosskopf]

"Surely the Lord God will do nothing save he reveal his secret to his servants the prophets." (Amos 3:7)

Apparently some people believe he is doing nothing...

Merry Christmas!

 

[Norman]

They don't believe the book of Mormon as scripture. If I'm getting my facts correct (Mormons???) they believe the Book of Mormon is another revelation from God. Just like if I had a revelation from God and wrote it in a book, that book isn't scripture even though it's written by the same person (God) as that of the Bible... its just a revelation testimony that so happen to be written. Same as the Book of Mormon "except" their Book is a sacrament rather than just any other book. I never heard a Mormon equalize the Book of Mormon to scripture.

Hi Carlita, I am sorry but I am not sure what you are trying to say? Could you please expound on this?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Oh. I never heard of a Mormon saying that the Book of Mormon is equal to scripture. What I know, though I'm not an expert, is that the Book of Mormon is a testimony revelation to Joseph Smith (I believe) from God. It's not an addition to scripture. That's what their denomination focuses on the inspiration of Joseph while holding scripture as the Word of God.

Hi Carlita, I am sorry but I am not sure what you are trying to say? Could you please expound on this?

 

[Norman]

Oh. I never heard of a Mormon saying that the Book of Mormon is equal to scripture. What I know, though I'm not an expert, is that the Book of Mormon is a testimony revelation to Joseph Smith (I believe) from God. It's not an addition to scripture. That's what their denomination focuses on the inspiration of Joseph while holding scripture as the Word of God.

H Carlita, Yes, you are correct Joseph Smith did receive gold plates from an angel and did translate them into what we now have as the Book of Mormon. We believe that the Book of Mormon is another Testament that Jesus Is the Christ. We also hold the Bible to be the word of God and we do read it and teach from it. My comment was that precious passages were removed from the Bible and stated my sources to this effect. We believe that the Book of Mormon is equal to scripture because we believe it is scripture.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Because you believe that the Book of Mormon is scripture, are you asking how is it scripture given the Bible says there is no additional revelations than the books it already has?

H Carlita, Yes, you are correct Joseph Smith did receive gold plates from an angel and did translate them into what we now have as the Book of Mormon. We believe that the Book of Mormon is another Testament that Jesus Is the Christ. We also hold the Bible to be the word of God and we do read it and teach from it. My comment was that precious passages were removed from the Bible and stated my sources to this effect. We believe that the Book of Mormon is equal to scripture because we believe it is scripture.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Because you believe that the Book of Mormon is scripture, are you asking how is it scripture given the Bible says there is no additional revelations than the books it already has?

Not a Mormon but I just wanted to say that (correct me if i'm wrong) the books of the bible were found and there's no way in telling if there's missing pages. The Bible couldn't say there are no additional revelations, because it would assume we found all of them. I believe the Book of Mormon isn't an add-on but actually officially part of it.

I'm probably going to be totally wrong about this, so sorry if I am lol

 

[Katzpur]

Not a Mormon but I just wanted to say that (correct me if i'm wrong) the books of the bible were found and there's no way in telling if there's missing pages. The Bible couldn't say there are no additional revelations, because it would assume we found all of them. I believe the Book of Mormon isn't an add-on but actually officially part of it.

I'm probably going to be totally wrong about this, so sorry if I am lol

I'd say it's not a part of the Bible, because it takes place in an entirely different part of the world and was written by an entirely different group of people. It does, however, complement the Bible. It testifies of Jesus Christ from beginning to end, and witnesses to His divinity and power to save. The Bible itself says that if everything Jesus had done had been written down for posterity, all of the books in the world could not contain the stories. Why people would object to another book testifying to the truths presented in the Bible is beyond me.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

How can one believe the Book of Mormon to be scripture when the Bible says we shouldn't add to the Bible (Revelation 22:18-19)?

A question:

The NSRV renders Revelation 22:18-19 as …

I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this book;

if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away that person’s share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.
​

Since this was written long before the canonization of the Christian Bible, on what grounds might one interpret the phrases "this book" and "the book of this prophecy" to mean "the Bible" rather than, simply/merely, the book of Revelations? And, if there are not sufficient grounds, is not the opening quote a fanciful misreading of the text?
​

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I wouldn't be surprised if the Book of Mormon is part of scripture. I agree that that there could be more books in the Bible that has been found and put together. Especially, giving that books were "chosen" out of other books to be inspired from those that aren't. Whose to say they aren't inspired, really.

Not a Mormon but I just wanted to say that (correct me if i'm wrong) the books of the bible were found and there's no way in telling if there's missing pages. The Bible couldn't say there are no additional revelations, because it would assume we found all of them. I believe the Book of Mormon isn't an add-on but actually officially part of it.

I'm probably going to be totally wrong about this, so sorry if I am lol

 

[Norman]

They don't believe the book of Mormon as scripture. If I'm getting my facts correct (Mormons???) they believe the Book of Mormon is another revelation from God. Just like if I had a revelation from God and wrote it in a book, that book isn't scripture even though it's written by the same person (God) as that of the Bible... its just a revelation testimony that so happen to be written. Same as the Book of Mormon "except" their Book is a sacrament rather than just any other book. I never heard a Mormon equalize the Book of Mormon to scripture.

Hi Carlita, who are they? To The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints the Book of Mormon is holy writ. It is another Testament that Jesus
is the Christ. Well, we do believe it is scripture just like the Bible. You can visit the LDS church at www.lds.org and learn exactly what we teach about
the Book of Mormon.

 

[Norman]

"Surely the Lord God will do nothing save he reveal his secret to his servants the prophets." (Amos 3:7)

Apparently some people believe he is doing nothing...

Merry Christmas!

Hi rrosskopf, Yes, a lot of people believe that the heavens are closed; but to Latter Day Saints the heavens are not closed. We have a true
prophet of God Thomas S. Monson and twelve living apostles and this church is a church of revelation. Most people think that the great
prophet Amos is out of date. However, in the days of Amos ancient Israel did not believe in prophets anymore which led to this passage;
Amos 3:7 Surely the Lord God‍ will do nothing, but‍ he revealeth‍ his secret‍ unto his servants the prophets.

 

[Norman]

Because you believe that the Book of Mormon is scripture, are you asking how is it scripture given the Bible says there is no additional revelations than the books it already has?

Hi Carlita, I have heard this for years and the answer is very simple:
The phrases "the prophecy of this book," "the book of this prophecy,"
and "this book" refer only to the book of Revelation. At the time
John recorded those words, the Bible did not exist; there were only separate scrolls
for each book. The first bound Bibles do not appear until the fourth century A.D.
Some of the earliest Bible manuscripts do not end with the book of Revelation
and, in fact, some of them don't even include that book and omit other New
Testament books as well.
Moreover, similar warnings are found in earlier Bible books. For example, in
Deuteronomy 4:2, we read, "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command
you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments
of the Lord your God which I command you" (see also Deuteronomy 12:12).
While mortals are forbidden to add to the divine word, the Lord himself is not
bound by such restrictions. God's word is revealed through prophets, and
it is through prophets that he has always added to his own word. Thus, we read
that, when the king had burned the words written by Jeremiah (Jeremiah 36:1-4,
23), the Lord commanded him to restore these words (Jeremiah 36:27-28). "Then
took Jeremiah another roll, and gave it to Baruch the scribe, the son of Neriah;
who wrote therein from the mouth of Jeremiah all the words of the book which
Jehoiakim king of Judah had burned in the fire: and there were added besides
unto them many like words" (Jeremiah 36:32).

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Revellation was only accepted into the bible after a long dispute.
the words mentioned can not be referring to the bible canon as it was not in existance.

 

[Norman]

Not a Mormon but I just wanted to say that (correct me if i'm wrong) the books of the bible were found and there's no way in telling if there's missing pages. The Bible couldn't say there are no additional revelations, because it would assume we found all of them. I believe the Book of Mormon isn't an add-on but actually officially part of it.

I'm probably going to be totally wrong about this, so sorry if I am lol

Hi The Sum of Awe, you made a valid statement, Yes, there are witnesses that there are many passages that were removed from the Bible. The Book of Mormon is separate from the Bible. The Bible had there prophets and scriptures in the Eastern Hemisphere and the Book of Mormon had there prophets and scripture in the Western Hemisphere. Just a couple of examples:
Ezra 10:19: ‘Missing passages in Ezra about the Savior’
According to a passage in Justin Martyr’s dialogue with Trypho, a Jew, Ezra offered a Paschal lamb on this occasion, and addressed the people thus: ‘And Ezra said to the people, This Passover is our Savior and our Refuge; and if ye will be persuaded of it, and let it enter into your hearts, that we are to humble ourselves to him in a sign, and afterwards shall believe in him, This place shall not be destroyed for ever, saith the Lord of Hosts: but if ye will not believe in him, Nor hearken to his preaching, ye shall be a laughing-stock to the gentiles’ (Dial.cum Tryphone, sec.72). “This passage Justin says, the Jews, through their enmity to Christ, blotted out of the book of Ezra. He charges them with canceling several other places through the same spirit of enmity and oppisition. (Adam Clark, The Holy Bible…with a commentary and Critical Notes, 2:752.)

1 John 5:"7-8 For there are three that bear record, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." Only these words represent the original Greek text of 1John. The italicized words 'in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one'. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, were added to Erasmus' Greek text of 1 John in his 1522 edition. The added wording had not been in Erasmus' original 1514 edition, so a church official manipulated Erasmus to add the wording to his Greek text. As conservative biblical scholar F.F. Bruce (History of the English Bible, Third Edition, New York: Oxford University Press, 1978, pages 141-142) explains
A justification of the Trinity does appear in the KJV's errant wording of 1Jo 5:7,8, which reads:
1 John 5:"7-8 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."
Only the words above in bold represent the original Greek text of 1John. The italicized words were added to Erasmus' Greek text of 1 John in his 1522 edition. The added wording had not been in Erasmus' original 1514 edition, so a church official manipulated Erasmus to add the wording to his Greek text. As conservative biblical scholar F.F. Bruce (History of the English Bible, Third Edition, New York: Oxford University Press, 1978, pages 141-142) explains:

Bruce (History of the English Bible, Third Edition, New York: Oxford University Press, 1978, pages 141-142) explains:
The words ["in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth."] omitted in the R.V. [Revised Version, 1881] were no part of the original Greek text, nor yet of the Latin Vulgate in its earliest form. They first appear in the writings of a Spanish Christian leader named Priscillian, who was executed for heresy in A.D. 385. Later they made their way into copies of the Latin text of the Bible. When Erasmus prepared his printed edition of the Greek New Testament, he rightly left those words out, but was attacked for this by people who felt that the passage was a valuable proof-text for the doctrine of the Trinity. He replied (rather incautiously) that if he could be shown any Greek manuscript which contained the words, he would include them in his next edition. Unfortunately, a Greek manuscript not more than some twenty years old was produced in which the words appeared: they had been translated into Greek from Latin. Of course, the fact that the only Greek manuscript exhibiting the words belonged to the sixteenth century was in itself an argument against their authenticity, but Erasmus had given his promise, and so in his 1522 edition he included the passage. (To-day one or two other very late Greek manuscripts are known to contain this passages; all others omit it.)
His additional words appears to have derived from a glossed/annotated version of the Latin Vulgate that was translated into Greek and handed to Erasmus as proof that the text was in the original Greek text. (For more details, browse: http://www.bibletexts.com/versecom/1jo05v07.htm.)

 

[Norman]

A question:

The NSRV renders Revelation 22:18-19 as …

I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this book;

if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away that person’s share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.
​

Since this was written long before the canonization of the Christian Bible, on what grounds might one interpret the phrases "this book" and "the book of this prophecy" to mean "the Bible" rather than, simply/merely, the book of Revelations? And, if there are not sufficient grounds, is not the opening quote a fanciful misreading of the text?​

Hi Jayhawker, you made a good point, there was no New Testament at the time of John the Revelator, I believe that John was referring
to his manuscript only. However, a lot of people do not see it that way; however, with that, then, they would have to explain away several
other older manuscripts in the Old Testament that said the same thing. For example:
Rev...22-18-19…If meaning “not adding to the whole bible,” then it should have stopped at the writings of Moses in Duet 4:6...Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep my commandments of the Lord your God which I command You...and Duet 12:32...what thing so ever I command you, observe to do it: thou shall not add, nor diminish from it....or Proverbs 30:6...Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a Liar....

This also may seem minuet to other people as well, however, I think it is how one wants to believe or not believe these other passages.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

In other words, are you saying that because revelations was talking about itself not the whole Bible that the Book of Mormon can be scripture without contradiction to popular belief that it is an addition to scripture--therefore false?

Revellation was only accepted into the bible after a long dispute.
the words mentioned can not be referring to the bible canon as it was not in existance.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

My facts where in correct. I assumed that Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints believed the Book of Mormon as another revelation to scripture rather than scripture itself. They being LDS. My mistake.

Hi Carlita, who are they? To The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints the Book of Mormon is holy writ. It is another Testament that Jesus
is the Christ. Well, we do believe it is scripture just like the Bible. You can visit the LDS church at www.lds.org and learn exactly what we teach about
the Book of Mormon.

 

[McBell]

How can one believe the Book of Mormon to be scripture when the Bible says we shouldn't add to the Bible (Revelation 22:18-19)?

Um...
I am confused.
What version of Revelation says "Bible"?

I wonder...
How do Christians explain the NT when in the OT (Deuteronomy, I think) it says the same thing?

Would they not be hypocrites for excepting the NT if they apply the same "logic" equally to both verses?