How do I answer some of these anti - questions??

[rameumptom]

"What does the end of the book of Revelation say about additions to the word of God?? It makes a case-closed senario for many 'faiths' I'm afraid.

Thanks

Mike

I would suggest the following concepts.

Rev 22:18-19 states:

18 For I testify unto every man that heareth 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:

19 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.

Let's look at what it means, why John would write it, etc.

First, John wrote the Book of Revelation during a time when a lot of Christian faiths began sprouting out. Among these were the Gnostic Christians, who had varying beliefs. Some of these beliefs included:

1. that Jesus and Christ were separate beings. Jesus was born. Christ/God entered into Jesus at baptism (the Father states, 'Verily, today I have begotten thee'), and Christ left Jesus suffering on the cross ('My God, why hast thou forsaken me?').

2. they did not believe in the resurrection of the body, but only of the spirit.

These various Christian groups claimed to have a "secret truth" (Gnosis = secret knowledge) given to them. These secrets ended up finding their way into books written and claimed to be from one apostle/prophet or another. Other times, the Gnostics would change the writings of books actually written by the apostles. John warns of them, when he tells us that the anti-Christ would claim Jesus Christ did not come in the flesh.

1 John 2

18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

2 John 1

7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist

You'll note that John says "Jesus Christ", combining the two Gnostic beings into one.

So many changes were being made by people by the time John wrote Revelation, that he added a curse to the end of his book. Do not change the words in my book, or be cursed! Other early Christian leaders did the same thing with their writings, as well.

The Bible was not compiled until centuries after John. John was not stating that the Bible was complete. He was giving a warning not to corrupt his writings by turning them into a Gnostic writing.

You'll note that John stated that no man could make such changes. He never did say that God could/couldn't change his writings.

John knew there would be new prophecy and revelation in the future. In Revelation 11, he foresees two prophets that would give a prophecy during the last battle of Armageddon. Clearly, he was not worried about more word of God coming to mankind. He was concerned about the word of God being corrupted.

Next concept has to do with translation. If we were to understand his warning as do those who would seal up the Bible, how do we handle translations? Anytime one translates a book from one language to another, things are lost or added. This is especially true when one goes from a Semitic language to a modern language, like English. Which English translation is the correct one? Each is translated slightly or extremely different. Who should be cursed: those who translated the King James, the NIV, NRSV, Septuagint, Masoretic, etc? The Dead Sea Scrolls show that variations occurred in scriptural writings that weren't translated. We have Babylonian, Jerusalem and Egyptian versions of some ancient scriptural books. Which version did John refer to?

Revelation was placed at the end of the Bible by St Jerome, not by John. John could not have foreseen that Revelation was the last book of the future Bible, when he wrote his epistles afterward! In fact, St Jerome almost did not include Revelation, because of its questionable provenance, except that the Western Christian Church insisted it was added if St Jerome wanted them to accept his collection of holy books as the authoritative group.

Bart Ehrman, professor of New Testament studies at Univ North Carolina, has written several books on the varied and variety of New Testament-like writings. Even for those books that made it into the New Testament, of all the variations we find between Jesus' time and the invention of the printing press, there are more differences than there are words in the New Testament. Granted, many of these are minor changes, but many more are significant.

For example, the Johannine Comma, which was added perhaps as late as 1522 to the 1 John 5:7-8. This addition supports the Trinity, but is not found in early copies of John. Suddenly, if we are serious about the apostle John's warning, should we see that something has been added and the curse applied?

The wikipedia article above states:

The Comma Johanneum is a comma (a short clause) contained in most translations of the First Epistle of John published from 1522 until the latter part of the nineteenth century, owing to the widespread use of the third edition of the Textus Receptus (TR) as the sole source for translation. In translations containing the clause, such as the King James Version, 1 John 5:7-8 reads as follows (with the Comma in bold print):

5:7 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."

The resulting passage is an explicit reference to the Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and for this reason some Christians are resistant to the elimination of the Comma from modern Biblical translations. Nonetheless, nearly all recent translations have removed this clause, as it does not appear in older copies of the Epistle and it is not present in the passage as quoted by any of the early Church Fathers, who would have had plenty of reason to quote it in their Trinitarian debates (for example, with the Arians), had it existed then. Most Churches now agree that the theology contained in the Comma is true, but that the Comma is not an original part of the Epistle of John.

I've actually had a few Trinitarians quote it in defense of the Trinity. They had a problem when I explained to them that it was added over a millennium after Christ's death!

Finally, God speaks through prophets and apostles. What He speaks to them is scripture. As I mentioned before: no man is allowed to change God's word. But if God wishes to change it through His prophets, then He can. We see this occur with Jesus fulfilling the Law of Moses, Peter being commanded to take the gospel to the Gentiles (who were forbidden to receive it just years before by the mortal Jesus to his disciples), etc. God's word can change, if God chooses to change it.

The problem comes when those who are not prophets attempt to change the word of God to fit their own program. Here, we had one of the original twelve apostles warning readers to not change his words to fit their interpretation, but to heed his teachings as they were. And so it is with modern prophets.

Part of God's work is revealing himself and his secrets to man through his servants, the prophets (Amos 3:7). When the Bible and other Judaeo-Christian scripture-like writings predicts other scripture to come forth, perhaps we should keep an open mind on the Book of Mormon. I recommend Ezekiel 37, which tells of "sticks" which is better translated as "wood." What the Hebrew word Etz "wood" means depends on its useage. To write on wood, means to write on a book. Ezekiel's writing on this is very pertinent, as he is describing the form of book the Babylonians used (he was in exile in Babylon). They would put wax-like material on a board, then write in the wax. Then they would place two pieces together, so that the wax would be protected. So with Ezekiel, the two sticks/wood/books would be protected by placing them together.

The Odes of Solomon 23 predicts a future book, as well:

Ode 23

Joy is for the holy ones. And who shall put it on but they alone?

Grace is for the elect ones. And who shall receive it but they who trusted in it from the beginning?

Love is for the elect ones. And who shall put it on but they who possessed it from the beginning?

Walk in the knowledge of the Lord, and you will know the grace of the Lord generously; both for His exultation and for the perfection of His knowledge.

And His thought was like a letter, and His will descended from on high.

And it was sent like an arrow which from a bow has been forcibly shot.

And many hands rushed to the letter, in order to catch it, then take and read it.

But it escaped from their fingers; and they were afraid of it and of the seal which was upon it.

Because they were not allowed to loosen its seal; for the power which was over the seal was greater than they.

But those who saw the letter went after it; that they might learn where it would land, and who should read it, and who should hear it.

But a wheel received it, and it came over it.

And a sign was with it, of the kingdom and of providence.

And everything which was disturbing the wheel, it mowed and cut down.

And it restrained a multitude of adversaries; and bridged rivers.

And it crossed over and uprooted many forests, and made an open way.

The head went down to the feet, because unto the feet ran the wheel, and whatever had come upon it.

The letter was one of command, and hence all regions were gathered together.

And there was seen at its head, the head which was revealed, even the Son of Truth from the Most High Father. And He inherited and possessed everything, and then the scheming of the many ceased.

Then all the seducers became headstrong and fled, and the persecutors became extinct and were blotted out.

And the letter became a large volume, which was entirely written by the finger of God.

And the name of the Father was upon it; and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, to rule for ever and ever. Hallelujah.

Scholars know it references a book, but have no idea what book this could mean. Mormons who read it, easily see a prophecy of the Book of Mormon! It foresees Daniel's stone cut out without hands and becoming a great mountain.

[Hemidakota]

Hey guys - I have been a member all of my life - but live down in South GA in the middle of the "Bible Belt". I am a member of another forum and have gotten into a a little discussion on our religion and how the LDS religion is not Christian.

Here is what another guy posted on there:

"What does the end of the book of Revelation say about additions to the word of God?? It makes a case-closed senario for many 'faiths' I'm afraid.

Reference to anti-Mormon site deleted

So - what is a good scripture to give him -

Thanks

Mike

Mike, stop wasting so much energy on these people. We simply cannot convey the same level of humility and knowledge as the Holy Ghost can...I can attest, alot of these people really do not know the Godhead personally, even to make an attempt what is being conveyed in the scriptures. Focus your energy in building the kingdom and help those who are less-active in the church.

[HiJolly]

or that it is the Book of Revelation. One revelation.

Ben Raines

Just so.

I suppose that I should not have a pet peeve, but this is certainly one of mine. There is no easier way to show your ignorance of the Bible, in my opinion.

THERE IS NO BOOK OF REVELATIONS, unless you mean the entire New Testament, or Book of Mormon, or some such. THE BIBLE CONTAINS NO BOOK CALLED 'REVELATIONS'. AUGHHHHH!!!

<feeling better>

HiJolly

[rameumptom]

We have been taught and encouraged, especially recently, to share our testimonies with those online. If we don't do it, someone else will.

We do not have to debate or argue. If a person asks a question, we answer it. If they wish to debate it, we share our testimony, and let them know that we are willing to discuss, but not argue over issues.

A discussion means people want to sincerely understand the other's viewpoint, not be dogmatic about attacking one another. So, we offer them a discussion. If they wish to respond in kind, we discuss. If they wish to attack, then we share a testimony and leave the thread/discussion alone.

[prisonchaplain]

There's been a lot of counsel here to just blow-off anyone who uses "Anti" questions. Indeed, there are some people that should be politely put on "ignore," in real life. :-) On the other hand, each of us must try to be discerning about who might be open to truth. And, when we don't know, we ought to hope for that tiny opening, imho.

I heard of an atheist professor who loved to debate religionists. He'd argued with some of our most learned apologists, and was rather certain in his beliefs. One day his three year old niece saw the sign on his desk, "No God." And sounding it out, she says, "Wow...you know God?" Coming from this child, the thought so touched him that he began searching anew, and came to believe in God.

Where this story came from and whether this is "Christian urban legend," or true, I do not know. However, if nothing else, it illustrates that you just never know.

[AnthonyB]

PC,

I think "Surprised by Joy" CS Lewis's story of his own conversion, shows that even intelligent, committed athiest can came to a faith in God in real life.

gapebla,

As a non-LDS Christians I don't know if I should be helping to answer your questions but my response if placed in that situation would be to....

Ask them which version of the book of Acts they read, the Western version or the Alexanderian version. Although for most of the books of Bible the textual differences are not that significant, the two versions of Acts differ by about 10%. Both are very early in the textual tradition and although the Alexandrian is more likely the original text there is no absolute way of knowing. (I have even read some people argue that the same author might have written two version of Acts, an early plain version (Alexandrian) then a more colourful one (Western).)

[Prodigal_Son]

there is a scripture in Deuteronomy IIRC that say pretty much the same thing.

From a logical approach it says don't add to this book. The bible didn't exist when that was written so it means don't add to the book of revelation.

The beauty of this scripture is that: taking it at its word would completely eliminate the New Testament altogether! Hard to come back from THAT counterargument.

John was telling people to not add on to the book of revelations. What you need to understand is that the order of the books in the Bible were placed in their current order by man, not God.

Here's another thing -- when the Book of Revelation says that it is speaking specifically about itself, or in other words, the Book of Revelation only.

The Bible as it is did not just come into being as it is. God progressively revealed Himself, and going by LDS scripture still does reveal Himself.

If you read Elder Holland's Conference talk from 3 sessions ago, he actually details several of these facts most eloquently. It's a talk we should ALL be extremely familiar with.

Edited December 10, 2008 by Prodigal_Son
typos

[Mudcat]

Hey Mike,

Haven't seen a response to the recent replies, but I hope you are still reading them.

Some have said you may be involving yourself in exercise of futility.... and you may very well be. However, I would use myself as a case in point. A little more than a year ago, I had started participating in forums that discussed Mormonism. I had a very critical view and by some I could have been percieved as an anti-Mormon.

I began to realize most of the critical thoughts I had towards the CoJCoLDS were misconceptions. Granted, I am not LDS now, and it is quite possible that I may never be....only God knows that. But, I have come to a understanding of LDS and consider them my brothers and sisters in Christ.

This understanding has been achieved through those who were willing to engage me.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

[HiJolly]

Hey Mike,

Haven't seen a response to the recent replies, but I hope you are still reading them.

Some have said you may be involving yourself in exercise of futility.... and you may very well be. However, I would use myself as a case in point. A little more than a year ago, I had started participating in forums that discussed Mormonism. I had a very critical view and by some I could have been percieved as an anti-Mormon.

I began to realize most of the critical thoughts I had towards the CoJCoLDS were misconceptions. Granted, I am not LDS now, and it is quite possible that I may never be....only God knows that. But, I have come to a understanding of LDS and consider them my brothers and sisters in Christ.

This understanding has been achieved through those who were willing to engage me.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

I'm glad you're over here now, Mudcat -- I was there when you joined the MA&DB, and I think you've conducted yourself stellarly (if that's a word?).

I consider you a brother in Christ indeed. uh... it IS brother, right?

HiJolly

[Mudcat]

I'm glad you're over here now, Mudcat -- I was there when you joined the MA&DB, and I think you've conducted yourself stellarly (if that's a word?).

I consider you a brother in Christ indeed. uh... it IS brother, right?

HiJolly

Didn't know it was you.... I guess I get to see you from the other side of the coin.:) Pun intended.

Thanks for the kind words... I don't know if stellarly is a word, but I thank you for the sentiment.

Yes it is brother. Brother?

Mudcat

[MormonGirl02]

Try this answer from Jeff Lindsay's site:

Latter-day Saints (Mormons) and the Holy Bible: Frequently Asked Questions (LDS FAQ)

[rameumptom]

I agree with PC that we need to give everyone a chance to hear the gospel. We never know when someone will be ready to be touched by God's hand.

I was a military working dog handler in the USAF when I first went into the military. I was stationed in Korea, where I didn't fit in with most of the other guys and their lifestyle of booze and prostitutes. One night, I was assigned an outpost with a person that just came on our shift, who had a notorious reputation. I was not looking forward to spending a 14 hour long night with him. Well, we got out to our post, and when alone, he said he looked forward to talking with me, because he really respected me. He said he used to be religious, but fell away into a sordid life.

By the end of the evening, he agreed to attend Church with me and have the discussions with the missionaries. About a month later, we took him to Seoul to see the Korean temple, still under construction. I explained to him the corner stone ceremony, as the marble tile was not on it yet, and how it would precede the dedication. He asked if he could touch the temple, and I told him to go ahead and do it. He then said he wanted to be married in the temple someday, and said he wanted to be baptized. I baptized him about 2 weeks later in the Osan Air Base swimming pool.

Time and again, I've seen God prepare people to hear the gospel. Some are quickly prepared, while at other times I was just one of several contacts that influenced the final link in the chain of events.

This is why I am glad to discuss the gospel with anyone willing to discuss it. If they wish to argue, I won't join in, as contention is of the devil. I will invite the person to see me later when they are willing to discuss things in a cordial manner.

[Michael Spikes05]

I'm still here and still reading - the site I'm on is actually a hunting and fishing forum with a "spiritual study and debate" section where someone asked "Are Mormons Christians?" When I read something like that it gets my blood boiling:D

[ninjormon]

First of all remember not who wrote the Bible but who translated and put it together. The people that took the collective writtings and decided what to include/what to leave out, and what to change did this for not the reason of better understanding God but controlling the people. The wording of some of the scriptures are up for debate (in the begining, in the begining of what this world, this universe?) and im sure you can add this one in the mix too, also remember that the prophets and apostles in the Bible wrote according to thier knowledge of thier language and were not perfect themselves and that is why some of these things are left open. Christ never said he was God or the Father infact he refered to Heavenly Father numerous times, during the baptism of Christ; Heavenly Father was in heaven, Holy Spirit in the form of a dove and Christ in the water, showing them in three different places. Since Christ numerous times refered to Heavenly Father one must think he either 1had a father in heaven, 2 was a liar, 3 was crazy, Christ having a more perfect knowledge of how to use and control his words would not have said these things if they were not true, being Christ he could not lie, so that makes the words in red true, those that debate these things are not just anti LDS but anti Christ, if they dont understand that Christ used analogies and spoke in ways that were not so direct at times cannot realize that he himself was trying to word these things to make people try to see a deeper meaning thatn they could at that/this time coprehend. If they want to debate scripture and they want to refute undeniable logic about certain scriptures they are just trying to test your faith becasue thiers is already lost. Someone who asks sincerely would not do this, they would ask questions to understand more and you can actually see thier train of thought, dont de derailed.

[Guest ceeboo]

If they want to debate scripture and they want to refute undeniable logic about certain scriptures they are just trying to test your faith becasue thiers is already lost.

You gotta love LDS.Net :):) ( I know I do !!!) :):)

Peace,

Ceeeeeeeeboooooo

[Dale]

I know of a Lutheran Minister who confesses Rev. 22 is a poor proof-text to use for the closed Canon of scripture. He feels LDS answers to the verse satisfy him its a waek proof text. He feels better proof-texts support the closed canon idea better. Though i myself don't see his proof-texts as unquestionable as he would. His book with his treatment of the idea i love to trudge out is entitled Speaking The Truth in Love To Mormons by Mark Cares. Utah Lighthouse Ministry a leading Anti-Mormon ministry sells the book.

FAIR and its Wiki does treat popular Anti-Mormon questions they throw at Mormons. Being Reroganized LDS/Community of Christ we get hit with similar questions. This year i am studying an anti-Community of Christ book entitled Reorganized Latter Day Saint Church: Is it Christian?.(Carol Hansen? I basically have to study and practice answering her 40 questions, and other lists of trivia regularly in order to keep my skill at answering such stuff up.

For a beginning apologist i suggest becoming well read in the Foundation For Apologetic Information and Research material. LDS FAIR Apologetics Homepage FAIR links to its wiki on its main page. And they have a good links section that gives direction to finding LDS apologetic websites with answers also. But unless you are well aware of answers Anti-Restoration authors can mislead you with historical, doctrine, practice research they have done on your religion.

FAIR has a bookstore that has books and other materials they publish. Mike Ash has one book by FAIR, and a new one i am aware of they are staring to sell giving evidences for his beliefs.

[HiJolly]

Didn't know it was you.... I guess I get to see you from the other side of the coin.:) Pun intended.

Very good! :lol:

Thanks for the kind words... I don't know if stellarly is a word, but I thank you for the sentiment.

Yes it is brother. Brother?

Mudcat

RE: Your sig.... Nope, that Cat is NOT tame...

Yes, I am a brother. Again, glad to see you here.

HiJolly

[skippy740]

Having served my mission in the Tennessee Knoxville Mission, I have some ideas for you Michael.

#1 - ALWAYS answer a "biblical" question using the Book of Mormon. Let the spirit of The Book of Mormon help answer the question - and you'll take your "biblical opponent" to an unknown land where they cannot reject what we believe.

(BTW, if they say to only give answers in the Bible - end the conversation.)

#2 - Ask your ward's missionaries for a copy of their mission "scripture chains". These are versus of scripture that are arranged in a sequence so you can go from verse, to verse, to verse on a variety of topics. On my mission I actually had many scripture chains and I marked my scriptures at the top of the page with the topic and NEXT verse. Then went to the next verse and marked the topic and NEXT verse.

I mention #2 because this is a very useful thing FOR YOU, not for doing any "bible bashing" of any kind. The more scriptures you have in your memory, the better they can come to your mind. You can also give a quick Sunday School lesson without ANY preparation of any kind! (Believe me, I know because it happened to me.)

#3 - Bear your testimony. Your testimony is YOUR and yours alone. Manipulated scripture cannot refute your testimony.

You cannot PROVE that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is only in the LDS faith. That's why it's called FAITH.

But if you want to have a meaningful discussion, use the cornerstone of our faith - The Book of Mormon.

Then invite them to read the Book of Mormon and to pray about it, and if Joseph Smith was truly a Prophet of God.

Make it a missionary moment, not a bible bashing session.

Edited December 10, 2008 by skippy740

[prisonchaplain]

On this specific question (Rev. 22 and closed canon), I agree with Dr. Craig Blomberg (Denver Seminary), who conceded that there is no scriptural prooftext for a closed canon. The primary reason we (Protestants at least) believe the canon is closed is that there have not been any additions for 1900 years. As a Pentecostal, I might add that since we have the gifts of tongues and interpretation, the word of wisdom, the word of knowledge, and the gift of prophecy, it appears God saw fit to complete his written revelation with the Bible.

None of what I said precludes the possiblity that God could re-open the canon, nor does it automatically discredit your Sacred Works. However, minus a personal testimony of your latter revelations, I am forced to compare their content with the Bible and with the teachings that I do have a testimony of. Before I can gain a testimony of the new, I'd have to gain a testimony that much of what I've understood to be true . . . ain't.

[beefche]

None of what I said precludes the possiblity that God could re-open the canon...

PC, if you don't mind me asking, how would you know if God re-opened the canon?

[ColorMEreal]

Everyone can have a personal relationship with our Father in Heaven. Why not just ask him yourself. Pray and ask God wether or not the cannon is still open?

[Aesa]

Everyone can have a personal relationship with our Father in Heaven. Why not just ask him yourself. Pray and ask God wether or not the cannon is still open?

One n, one.

#1 - ALWAYS answer a "biblical" question using the Book of Mormon. Let the spirit of The Book of Mormon help answer the question - and you'll take your "biblical opponent" to an unknown land where they cannot reject what we believe.

(BTW, if they say to only give answers in the Bible - end the conversation.)

I think that's a pretty silly thing to say. Edited December 11, 2008 by Aesa

[Old Tex]

I would say "Thank you for your information. You've given me something to think about." And then drop it.

No matter what scripture you provide, s/he will always have another with which to disprove yours.

Why bother?

Elphaba

Been there, done that. I don't go there any more, but at the same time I still hope that I said something to someone in the past that sparked their interest later in their life.

[Abraham]

I could go on but will try to keep my remarks succinct as I know sometimes the antis can really make us think. Number one, why would you let a doubt overshadow or overpower what the Holy Spirit, a member of the Godhead by the way, has testified to you is true. Just put it aside, the doubt that is, and you can worry about the answer some other time. Also, I have never seen/read any anit literature that wasn't weak, laughable, and overall just a joke. A point regarding Revelation, and I apologize if someone said this, but there is much evidence that the Book of Revelation was not the last book written in the NT. There were other books added, so you see the NT was not put together in chronological order, so the anits point I guess we would have to throw out the other NT books that are "additions' that John so-called forbade. Every anit is living in the large and spacious building with no foundation. Their arguments have been hashed, rehashed, and regugatated and like ' a dog to its vomit' they return over and over again. Like has been said there are so much truth and light in the fullness of the Gospel of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I have a gazillion articles 'proofs' but they have nothing to do whether a 'thing is true or not" (Nibley) It comes from personal revelation and that relationship with the Holy Ghost is all that counts - along with obedience, faith, love etc. But you get my point. Take a moment are read the following and this is just a pico-tip of the iceberg but you'll get the point:

The Completeness and Infallibility of the Holy Bible

There are strong feelings among anti-Mormons about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints regarding the church's eighth article of faith: "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God." Those who hold the Bible to be the only source of divine authority and doctrine cannot accept the Book of Mormon or any other sacred writing--for obvious reasons. Unfortunately, anti-Mormons often deceitfully describe the church's use of the Bible in unkind and untrue ways, characterizing our study of the Bible as a mere pretense of biblical Christianity--a convenient tool to mislead others. Such statements are shamefully inaccurate. Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have great respect and reverence for the Bible. It is studied in the church as the word of God and a source of truth and understanding. I love the Bible. I rejoice in its teachings and in the spirit of truth it provides. The Bible is masterful in teaching the life of Jesus Christ and is a strong testament of his role as Savior and Redeemer. But the question before us is not the power or value of the Bible but rather its completeness and infallibility.

The facts in this case are fairly evident. The Bible is not complete. It does not say it is complete (the Bible never refers to itself); in fact, it strongly suggests the existence of other sacred writings. Anti-Mormons argue that the Bible does say it is complete and that it does refer to itself. However, to them the phrase "the Word of God," or "the Word," refers to the Bible exclusively since it is the only scripture they will accept. When we understand that those references actually mean any word spoken by God or his prophets to the children of earth, everything changes.

A little history about the Bible may be helpful here. Many people today think of the Bible as one book, although it is in fact a collection of books, letters (epistles), and histories that have been written, rewritten, translated, and retranslated. The Bible didn't just appear; it was assembled, disassembled, and reassembled as new ideas and new material emerged. The Muratorian Fragment of A.D. 180 did not include the books of Hebrews, James, and 1 and 2 Peter, but it did include the Apocalypse of Peter. At the same time, the Shepherd of Hermas was considered by Origen to be divinely inspired. Clement of Alexandria considered a "secret" book of Mark to be genuine. Celsus claimed that Christians altered the text of scripture and changed its character to "enable them to deny difficulties in the face of criticism." In about A.D. 300 the church considered the books of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation to be spurious. However, the Epistle of Barnabas, 1 Clement, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Acts of Paul, and the Apocalypse of Peter were admitted to the canon of scripture but later removed.30 More than a thousand years later, Martin Luther declared the biblical books of Esther, Jude, Hebrews, Revelation, and 2 Peter, among others, unworthy to be among the "true and noblest books of the new testament." Luther considered the book of James to be "an epistle of straw," having "no gospel quality to it."31 Perhaps he did not approve of these books because the teachings they contained were at odds with his personal preference for the Augustinian doctrine of grace alone as the key to salvation.

The first English language Bible was published less than 500 years ago. The popular King James Version was published in 1611, the Revised King James Version in 1885, the American Translation in 1931, the Revised Standard Version in 1947, the Good News Bible and the Jerusalem Bible in 1966, the New American Bible and the New England Bible in 1970, and the Common Bible in 1973.32 How many English translations of the Bible do we need? Clearly, for many the Bible has been and continues to be an evolving scripture.

As for the question of completeness, we might consider a few referenced biblical statements for which we have no reference. Matthew 2:23 says that Jesus "came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene." Matthew is citing a text unknown to us. To which prophets does he refer? Nowhere in the Old Testament does it say that Jesus will be called a Nazarene. One of the most popular of Christian scriptures is the Savior's statement "It is more blessed to give than to receive." We find this quotation in Acts 20:35 as part of a statement from Paul to the elders at Ephesus. This statement from the Savior does not appear in any other book of the Bible. Paul may have read or heard this statement elsewhere and then quoted the Master's divine words. It doesn't bother me that neither Matthew's nor Paul's statement includes a footnote to another scripture. But those who argue for a complete canon of scripture in the Bible--nothing excluded--beg a serious question.

The Bible is scripture--it is the word of God and should be reverenced, studied, and appreciated for its immense contribution to the salvation of the children of God. However, the Bible has been used for both good and evil. Unprincipled peopled have used Bible verses as justification for all sorts of mischief. Others have been led into unproductive and even damning paths because they have failed to understand and apply wise interpretation to Bible statements. The Bible has been used as a weapon against righteousness by evil-disposed pastors, priests, and pagans alike. The Bible, as with any scripture or statement by any religious leader, must be carefully considered against what is known and understood about truth and salvation. It is important that all scripture be translated correctly.

I will yield to respected Protestant writer Lloyd Averill for the last word on this biblical inerrancy issue. He writes,

It is clear that Calvin cannot be identified with the scriptural literalism affirmed by present-day fundamentalists. Nor, indeed, can any other major figure in the history of Christian thought prior to 1800. Contrary to fundamentalist claims, the doctrine of biblical inerrancy as they have formulated it is not a return to primitive Christianity or to Christian orthodoxy. Rather, it was an innovation fashioned scarcely more than a hundred years ago as a weapon to be used against the modernist movement.33

[Abraham]

If you want the rest of the article it is named "Disputatious Doctrines" It is one of a million awesome articles.

Merry Christmas,

Abraham