Bible verse about denying to drink something (pls, help to find)

[Fanees]

My uncle try to persuade me, that D&C contradict Bible. But I don't know about which verse my uncle tell and don't want perturb and force him to find this verse, therefore want asking anyone here, maybe you know where I can find verses, where Jesus told words like: "If someone will deny to drink (or eat) something, don't hear them, because its a lie".

Most my uncle don't love, that our church deny tea drinking, coffee drinking, alcohol ...

And often he also tell, that even Jesus transform water into the wine.

Can you help me with this and maybe other verses and your things about this problem.

Glad for any answers.

[a-train]

The first thing that comes to my mind is Paul's warning to Timothy about false prophets (1 Timothy 4:1-3):

Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocracy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

Of course, this is a far cry from any direct objection to the notions found in Doctrine and Covenants section 89.

-a-train

[Wingnut]

Daniel Chapter 1.

[Faded]

My uncle try to persuade me, that D&C contradict Bible. But I don't know about which verse my uncle tell and don't want perturb and force him to find this verse, therefore want asking anyone here, maybe you know where I can find verses, where Jesus told words like: "If someone will deny to drink (or eat) something, don't hear them, because its a lie".

No such passage exists unfortunately. As noted above, there is the scripture that talks about abstaining from meat. Well, alcohol, tobacco, tea and coffee are not meat.

Most my uncle don't love, that our church deny tea drinking, coffee drinking, alcohol ...

And often he also tell, that even Jesus transform water into the wine.

Can you help me with this and maybe other verses and your things about this problem.

Glad for any answers.

How about 4 books of the Bible: Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. In those books, God handed Israel a very strict list of dietary rules. He did it once, there's no reason he can't do it again. Israel was given some rules as they were on their way into the promised land. They were going into a land filled with a lot of people that were likely to corrupt their faith in God.

It is very interesting to read the reason the Lord gave us section 89: "In consequence of evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days, I have warned you, and forewarn you, by giving unto you this word of wisdom by revelation—"

To simplify, "I the Lord know that a lot of bad people will conspire to use these items to bring about a lot of terrible things." Tobacco companies have certainly been found guilty of exactly that. Beer and alcohol makers have gone to great lengths to glamorize and popularize the consumption of their products. The results? So have there been any bad things coming from these two items? Lung Cancer, Emphysema, Drunk Driving, Alcohol Poisoning, Increased Violence by Angry Drunks, Unwanted Pregnancy by being Drunk, Child and Spousal abuse by drunks, etc. All bad things I would say. From what I'm seeing, this revelation came as a warning for our day specifically. Circumstances were different back in Bible times. I would love to hear what this uncle explain all of the good things that Alcohol is doing for the world. The list is going to be pretty short.

Tea, Coffee and Tobacco were completely unknown to Biblical writers so you're not going to find jack squat on those in the Bible.

Jesus did turn water into wine. That does not equate to "thou shalt drink wine." The Lord can change the rules to fit the times -- that is His prerogative alone.

Edited March 2, 2009 by Faded

[AnthonyB]

Duet 14:25 ...then exchange your tithe for silver, and take the silver with you and go to the place the LORD your God will choose. 26 Use the silver to buy whatever you like: cattle, sheep, wine or other fermented drink, or anything you wish. Then you and your household shall eat there in the presence of the LORD your God and rejoice.

Is this a thou shalt drink wine?

[WillowTheWhisp]

I think the passage about denying something to eat being a lie might be to do with the Jewish laws on kosher food not being applicable as in when Peter saw the cloven hoofed animals and said he could not eat them because they were classed as unclean.

[Faded]

Duet 14:25 ...then exchange your tithe for silver, and take the silver with you and go to the place the LORD your God will choose. 26 Use the silver to buy whatever you like: cattle, sheep, wine or other fermented drink, or anything you wish. Then you and your household shall eat there in the presence of the LORD your God and rejoice.

Is this a thou shalt drink wine?

Obviously it isn't. While it is certainly clear that wine and alcoholic beverages had their place in Biblical times. But the Bible strongly counsels against drunkenness.

Some lovely Christian site has dug up all the Biblical references for me:

Bible Quotes About Why It's Wrong To Get Drunk

In the Old Testament, the Bible says:

Proverbs chapter 20 (CEV)

1It isn't smart to get drunk!

Drinking makes a fool of you

and leads to fights.

Hosea chapter 4 (TEV)

11 The Lord says, "Wine, both old and new, is robbing my people of their senses!"

Proverbs chapter 23 (TEV)

19 Listen, my child, be wise and give serious thought to the way you live. 20 Don't associate with people who drink too much wine or stuff themselves with food. 21 Drunkards and gluttons will be reduced to poverty. If all you do is eat and sleep, you will soon be wearing rags.

29 Show me people who drink too much, who have to try out fancy drinks, and I will show you people who are miserable and sorry for themselves, always causing trouble and always complaining. Their eyes are bloodshot, and they have bruises that could have been avoided.

31 Don't let wine tempt you, even though it is rich red, and it sparkles in the cup, and it goes down smoothly. 32 The next morning you will feel as if you had been bitten by a poisonous snake. 33 Weird sights will appear before your eyes, and you will not be able to think or speak clearly. 34 You will feel as if you were out on the ocean, seasick, swinging high up in the rigging of a tossing ship. 35 "I must have been hit," you will say; "I must have been beaten up, but I don't remember it. Why can't I wake up? I need another drink."

(The passages from the Book of Proverbs are, as the title of the book indicates, proverbial, and thus are meant as wise sayings, sometimes generalisations perhaps, but not meant to be taken as absolute truth.)

A prophet of ancient Israel said:

Isaiah chapter 28 (NLT)

1 Destruction is certain for the city of Samaria - the pride and joy of the drunkards of Israel! 7 Israel is being led by drunks! The priests and prophets reel and stagger from beer and wine. They make stupid mistakes as they carry out their responsibilities.

In the Book of Proverbs, the Bible says:

Proverbs chapter 31 (TEV)

1 These are the solemn words which King Lemuel's mother said to him:

2 "You are my own dear son, the answer to my prayers. What shall I tell you?

4 Listen, Lemuel. Kings should not drink wine or have a craving for alcohol. 5 When they drink, they forget the laws and ignore the rights of people in need.

6 Alcohol is for people who are dying, for those who are in misery. 7 Let them drink and forget their poverty and unhappiness."

There are also Bible quotations in the New Testament warning Christians not to get drunk. The whole frame of mind of a Christian should be one in which we don't want to be controlled by some substance that might make us do unchristian things.

The Bible advises Christians:

Ephesians chapter 5 (NLT)

18 Don't be drunk with wine, because that will ruin your life.

Instead, let the Holy Spirit fill and control you.

The Bible says that the Holy Spirit is a part of God who will be given to true Christians and will live in them to make them better people.

One of the writers of the letters that were put in the Bible, Paul, instructed and warned groups of Christians:

Galatians chapter 5 (NLT)

16 I advise you to live according to your new life in the Holy Spirit. Then you won't be doing what your sinful nature craves. 17 The old sinful nature loves to do evil, which is just opposite from what the Holy Spirit wants. And the Spirit gives us desires that are opposite from what the sinful nature desires. These two forces are constantly fighting each other, and your choices are never free from this conflict. ....

19 When you follow the desires of your sinful nature, your lives will produce these evil results: sexual immorality, impure thoughts, eagerness for lustful pleasure, 20 idolatry, participation in demonic activities, hostility, quarreling, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambition, divisions, the feeling that everyone is wrong except those in your own little group, 21 envy, drunkenness, wild parties, and other kinds of sin.

Let me tell you again, as I have before, that anyone living that sort of life will not inherit the Kingdom of God.

22 But when the Holy Spirit controls our lives, he will produce this kind of fruit in us: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,

23 gentleness, and self-control....

1 Thessalonians chapter 5 (NLT)

6 ... Stay alert and be sober. 7 Night is the time for sleep and the time when people get drunk. 8 But let us ... think clearly, protected by the body armor of faith and love, and wearing as our helmet the confidence of our salvation. 9 For God decided to save us through our Lord Jesus Christ, not to pour out his anger on us. 10 He died for us so that we can live with him forever, whether we are dead or alive at the time of his return.

Some people justify drinking by saying that Jesus turned water into wine so it must be alright. But some understanding of the cultural background/customs of the time and in the area where the miracle happened shows that this was not just a simple case of Jesus encouraging people to enjoy boozing.

From a sermon given at Durham Cathedral:

To run out of wine at a wedding was not a matter of life and death, but it was a major social faux-pas and would subject the family to social disgrace that would long be remembered. Apparently it might even be cause for a lawsuit by a disgruntled guest if he didn't get hospitality appropriate to the value of his wedding gift.

And from The New Testament Commentary: Vol. III--John (1886) by B. W. Johnson:

From some cause, perhaps from a larger number of guests than was expected, the wine gave out.

"None but those who know how sacred in the East is the duty of lavish hospitality, and how passionately the obligation to exercise to the utmost it is felt, can realize the gloom which this incident would have thrown over the occasion, or the misery and mortification it would have caused to the wedded pair. They would have felt it to be, as in the East it is still felt to be, an indelible disgrace."--Farrar.

The Bible commentary also discusses the strength of the alcohol content of the wine in Jesus' day:

It must be borne in mind that among the Greeks and Romans and in Palestine there were three kinds of wine: 1. Fermented wines, which, however, were very unlike our fiery liquors, and contained only a small per cent of alcohol. These were mixed with two or three parts of water. The laws of Zaleucus, the Locrian, put to death anyone who drank unmixed wine, except as medicine. The fermented wine, at first mild, and then diluted with water, was [46] a drink as used, that had no intoxicating power unless used in enormous quantities. 2. New wine, the fresh juice of the grape, like our new cider, not intoxicating. 3. Wines in which, by boiling the unfermented juice of the grape, or by the addition of certain drugs, the process of fermentation was stopped, and which had no intoxicating properties. We cannot surely determine which kind the Savior made here, but we agree with Whedon, who says: "We see no reason for supposing that the wine of the present occasion was that upon which Scripture places its strongest interdict, (Proverbs 20:1; 23:31; Isaiah 22:13,) rather than that eulogized as a blessing (Psalms 104:15; Isaiah 55:1)." Even adopting the view that it was fermented wine, it was totally unlike the fiery and undiluted drinks sold as wines in saloons, used in many families, offered at hotels and wine parties, and even poured out at communion tables.

All of the above is Biblical Christian doctrine and teaching. The goofy uncle posing the questions would probably try to argue with them too. I would question his real motives.

In this day and age, there's a lot of misuse of alcohol and a lot of bad things that come from it. I think that it is very clear that Biblical writers were well aware of the the potential problems and instructed the Lord's People accordingly.

Despite the many denunciations against drunkenness in the Bible, the Word of Wisdom and it's prohibition of alcohol does not take its authority from the Bible. It is a new commandment in this day.

Edited March 23, 2009 by Faded

[Fanees]

Thanks to all for replies.

I asked my uncle to show passages, and he shown me Colossians 2:16:

16 Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. 17 These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. 18 Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, [4] puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind, 19 and not holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God.

Also he told, that he seen much places, where Bible written in this tone. My uncle love tea & coffee (he drink it very often), and he love to smoke (and some times alcohol too), and because of he would not like to deny from it, and for him was very hard to stop smoking, he not passed first baptism interview, and therefore not baptised in our church, and he went to Roman Catholic Church. He tells: "What the dullness, cursed mormons denied tea. What if worthy in all respects people will love to drink tea and for him not will allowed to be baptised and accepted in the Church", and therefore he refer to Colossians 2:16 which show that no one can't deny drinking tea. And I didn't found any explanation of this contradiction, and will glad for any comments. Edited April 29, 2009 by Fanees

[Just_A_Guy]

If memory serves, Paul is talking to Christians who had formerly been Jews; who had rejected the Jewish dietary laws at the time of their conversion and afterwards became ashamed of their new faith and re-embraced the old ways. Paul's point is that salvation comes through Jesus Christ and not the Law of Moses with its dietary restrictions, sacrifices, and festivals.

It does not bar Jesus Himself from giving new commandments to His people as He deems appropriate--including dietary restrictions.

[Hemidakota]

If you ever read any of Richard Lloyd Anderson material, he does an excellent work in providing a case for each of Paul's letters. Here is a classic example of such:

Profile: Sent from: Paul, probably at Rome, joined by Timothy.

Sent to: Members at Colossae, in west central Asia Minor.

Date: About A.D. 61.

Purpose: To strengthen the branch on the return of Onesimus and to correct the false doctrine of "worshipping of angels."

Main themes: The Godhead; errors about Christ, days, and diet; developing celestial qualities.

Background

The City

Colossae lay in a high valley with mountain scenery resembling the arid west of the United States. A hundred miles east of Ephesus, it was mentioned on Xenophon's famous march from the coast and up the Meander River to the tributary basin of the Lycus River. Colossae was "prosperous and large," partly because it was on the east-west trade route. Christianity later marched the hundred miles from the coast to Colossae, for Paul was at Ephesus and reached "all Asia" with the gospel message (Acts 19:26). The regional economy depended not only on trade but also on grazing lands that supported the wool industry in Colossae and in nearby Laodicea. The geographer Strabo reported of Paul's time, "The country around Laodicea produces sheep that are excellent, not only for the softness of their wool . . . but also for its raven-black color, so that the Laodiceans derive splendid revenue from it, as do the neighboring Colossians from the color [of wool] which bears the same name."

Hierapolis and these two cities formed a triangle with sides about ten miles long. In writing to Colossae, Paul also named "them that are in Laodicea, and them in Hierapolis" (Col. 4:13). Substantial ruins of the latter city are spread out around its well-preserved stone theater. It was built adjacent to massive hot springs that attracted religious and recreational pilgrims. But Laodicea was the major city of the area in Paul's day. Just before Paul, Strabo wrote that Laodicea "grew large in our time and in that of our fathers." That geographer paid tribute to its "fertile territory" and the private wealth of some of its citizens.

Its ruins, including its theater, are badly deteriorated, but Laodicea's stone-strewn area is massive. Although Hierapolis is merely mentioned in Paul's Colossian letter, Laodicea is prominent, probably reflecting the size of the Church in that large city. Laodicea was possibly the regional center of Church administration. Three decades later John sent his letter to Laodicea as the most important branch of the Church in that area.

Reason for Writing

A letter to Colossae was certainly part of sending Onesimus back there, but another problem was serious enough to demand a separate letter of correction. How did Paul learn of this situation? Philemon's letter closes with a greeting from "Epaphras, my fellowprisoner in Christ Jesus" (Philem. 1:23). This is probably a way of honoring this man who was well known at Colossae; he was assisting Paul in prison, just as the returning Onesimus had done. Colossians also names Epaphras, "who is one of you, a servant of Christ" (Col. 4:12). The Colossians had "learned" the gospel from "Epaphras our dear fellowservant, who is for you a faithful minister of Christ" (Col. 1:7). Since he had "declared unto us your love in the Spirit" (Col. 1:8), Paul's knowledge of the current problems of that area came through this missionary with their interest at heart. And Paul apparently wanted them to know that negative information was relayed for their benefit, since Epaphras has a "great zeal for you, and them that are in Laodicea, and them in Hierapolis" (Col. 4:13). Only the letter to Colossians survives, but the lost Laodicean letter must have also included correction. That nearby branch probably had as many members as that at Colossae and was likely affected by the same false teaching.

What was the "Colossian heresy"? Biographies and commentaries discuss it but add little more than Colossians itself discloses. Some were debasing Christ's divinity and role in the Godhead, for chapter 2 refutes those who fail to hold Christ as "the Head" (Col. 2:19), whereas chapter 1 has Paul's most sustained testimony of the divinity and power of the Son. There is little contemporary religious information, but the writings of John went to the same locality some forty years later. They definitely show deviations from the gospel like those Paul criticized in his Colossian letter. The parallel with 1 Corinthians is striking, for Paul's inspired resurrection chapter answered their doubts on the Resurrection, just as Paul's powerful survey of Christ's mission corrected Colossian confusion. And Paul may have known more firsthand than is apparent. Some seven years earlier he had started his third mission by taking the land route from Antioch to Ephesus, visiting central Asia Minor (Acts 18:23) and going west from there through "the upper regions" (Acts 19:1, NKJB). This is clearly the east-west route through the Lycus River valley and the three cities under discussion. Paul expresses his intense concern for the Colossians "and for them at Laodicea, and for as many as have not seen my face in the flesh" (Col. 2:1). To some people that means that he had never seen the Colossians and Laodiceans, but his earlier journey through their area suggests the opposite—that he was worried about those from each city that he had met and also about those later coverted who had never seen him. Since Colossians 2:1 introduces Paul's refutation of the false teachings on Christ, it virtually identifies the heresy at both Colossae and Laodicea.

This last point is one strong reason for rejecting the insipid twenty apocryphal verses that pose as Paul's letter to the Laodiceans. The real one existed once, for Paul obviously sent it with the messengers delivering letters to Philemon and Colossae: "When this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea" (Col. 4:16). What truth is lost in this lost letter? The "Colossian heresy" was no doubt an area heresy, so both letters must have combined to correct it. Colossians stresses the bodily reality of Christ. Was Laodiceans suppressed because it bluntly spoke of the physicalness of the Godhead? This doctrine of the Early Church soon disappeared in the verbiage of Christian councils that legislated God's nature. But the imitation letter of the Laodiceans corrects nothing and has no distinct message. Scholars consistently reject it because it is a "worthless patching together of Pauline passages and phrases, mainly from the Epistle to the Philippians." But what if the real Laodiceans or the real 1 Corinthians someday came to light? Then creeds and Christians would be wrong in seeing the Bible as the whole revelation of God. And if the historical collection of apostles' letters is not complete, are there new revelations that God wishes to give today? Modern revelation testifies both to the truth of past revelation and also to its unfinished nature.

Edited April 30, 2009 by Hemidakota

[Hemidakota]

Part - 2 now deals the reasons behind Paul's comments concerning the Jewish dietary habits inflicted the early converted Saints:

Errors about Christ, Days, and Diet

Paul had given the Colossians the "more excellent way" (1 Cor. 12:31) before criticizing false views in Colossians 2. Here are some specifics of their revised doctrine, though their conceptions are not stated fully enough to bring agreement on what the "Colossian heresy" was. Yet there is a way through the maze of empty generalizations—the striking similarity of late New Testament heresy with that criticized by Paul in Colossians. Their beliefs added Jewish ceremonialism to the gospel, in some way dethroned Christ, and also explained away the divinity of his physical person. This last point is hardly understood by the average writer on Colossians. Some thirty-five years later the apostle John wrote to the same area of Asia, warning seven branches of the Church of false teachers in their midst. Common errors had spread throughout western Asia Minor. Writing to Philadelphia, sixty miles from Colossae, John warned against those "which say they are Jews, and are not" (Rev. 3:9). Other churches received the same warning and also warnings against "idolatry" of Balaam and Jezebel, both of whom sought to lead Israel from worshipping the true God. Colossians 2 also combines Jewish heresy with concern for false teachings about Christ. Not long after Revelation, John wrote letters to this area, specifying what he meant by "idolatry." Only one confessing "that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God" (1 Jn. 4:2), a caution repeated to reveal a major sickness in the Church (2 Jn. 1:7). This is a proved historical situation, for the letters of Ignatius were written soon after this and also show that some in every Asian area were denying the physicalness of Christ.

Since the debate on Christ's flesh was raging in the area a few decades after Paul, it is not to be ignored in understanding his Colossian warning, particularly when 1 Timothy was soon sent to the area representative in Asia to warn against the same problems mentioned by John. Christian commentators do not face Colossians as rebuking those explaining away the physicalness of the second member of the Godhead. The tendency was there for the same reason that some Corinthians ridiculed the bodily resurrection. Since God surpasses the human moral and intellectual level, many seek to define his person as different from the human form. At the end of the first century, the Early Church was besieged by those teaching that Christ's divinity had not been contaminated by earthly elements. In Colossians Paul opposes this point of view. They are being robbed of their heritage: "Beware lest anyone take you captive through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ" (Col. 2:8, NKJB). Right afterward Paul names the two misconceptions of Christ that he is correcting. The first: "For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily" (Col. 2:9, NKJB). Many commentators sidestep the italicized term by claiming that it can mean "essentially" or "really." But Paul used somatikos, formed from soma, the Greek word for "body," which Paul uses equally for man's earthly body and Christ's resurrected body. Thus, Paul testifies that Christ possesses godhood physically.

Paul adds his second correction: Christ "is the head of every authority and power" (Col. 2:10, literal trans.). Paul explains by building on his earlier testimony of Christ as the "head of the body, the church" (Col. 1:18). But false teachers added the "worshipping of angels," inventing things they had "not seen," which took away their true "head," Jesus Christ (Col. 2:18-19). Medieval Christianity added angels to intercede for mortals, whose lowly condition did not allow them to approach God. As will be seen in the next chapter, some first-century Christians taught the more radical doctrine that the physical creation was an inferior act of a lower divinity. And they added angels or divinities above the Old Testament creator. Paul fought such heresies at Colossae, for Christ's authority as the true creator was being challenged as well as his physical reality. Paul raised the standard of revealed Christianity—of believing in Christ as the only head and mediator under the Father—of believing in the physicalness of Christ, having the form of the Father.

Finally, the rituals of the Colossian heresy are a reminder that more extreme is not necessarily more religious. Little children graduate from the invariability of many rules to understand the principles behind those rules. That is why Paul warned the Galatians not to revert to the law that was "added because of transgressions" (Gal. 3:19). Just as some Colossians believed in additional holy beings, they also added Jewish dietary rules and rigid days of worship. The Early Church could obviously set its own day of rest without being tied to Jewish practices of the past. So the faithful were told to oppose legalism: "Therefore let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths" (Col. 2:16, NKJB). "Food" correctly changes the King James Version "meat," which was meant in the older English sense of any kind of food. This is obvious in the Hebrews warning against technical Jewish practices: "Meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances" (Heb. 9:10)—what is not drink is "meat," simply food in general in the Greek behind these English renderings.

Is such instruction relevant today? Proper diet is determined by common sense, nutritional science, and revelation in the case of the modern Word of Wisdom. But it is arrogance or ignorance to pursue hearsay theories and hobbies on what to eat and drink. Paul opposes overdone notions on this subject in a half-dozen epistles. Modern food fads frequently stem from religious fanaticism or desires for power over other people, certainly the motives behind the Colossian perversions of days and diet. But the gospel means renouncing mere theories of men, Paul reminded the Colossians, asking why they would subject themselves to "regulations—'Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle'" (Col. 2:20-21, NKJB). All major committee translations enclose these last phrases in quotation marks, since it is obvious that Paul here summarized the preaching of his opponents. Joseph Smith added words of explanation to make the same point of avoiding the "commandments of men, who teach you to touch not, taste not, handle not" (Col. 2:21,JST .

Hopefully this may help in answering your question.

[Maxel]

There's another thread about the Word of Wisdom that you might find helpful- here. It might help you learn more about the commandment to abstain from alcohol so you can connect it to the Bible- and explain it to your uncle- more effectively.

Ultimately, the premise of the Word of Wisdom (section 89 in the Doctrine and Covenants) lies in the fact that we believe God continues to give His children specific revelation for their time and circumstances. Perhaps explaining that to your uncle might help him understand.

[mattrhill]

Nothing in the bible says anything about we have to drink and nothing (and that includes the Revelations book of the bible that says thou shalt not take anything away from the book of prophecy which is commonly used by protestants to disprove us when it only applies to the book of revelations Not the bible in whole since the bible is not one book but many) sorry about the long dialog but since nothing says that you have to or should then there is no reason why additional scripture revealed to us in this modern day times would not ban alcohol your uncle is thinking in terms of just the bible he should be thinking of both and comparing them without narrow-minded prejudice(no offense) taking a walk in lds shoes i guess

[MikeUpton]

The scripture you're referring to in Revelations is quoted thus in the King James version:

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.

(Rev: 22:-19)

For those of you who are wondering about this scripture (I'm sure there are many on this board) three words in that scripture stick out to me. The word "man", the word "book" and the word "prophecy". Starting with the word prophecy it becomes apparent that John is talking about the book of Revelations, which when it was written was not a part of the bible. These books were not put together into the Bible that we know until later. Note his use of the singular term "prophecy". The bible is not just one prophecy, it is composed of countless prophecies and countless books. You can see from that phrasing that John is referring to one book, the book of Revelations.

read these phrases again:

that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, if any man shall add unto these things,

And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy

now read the whole scripture again.

Here is my next point, in my opinion a very important point. I hope you agree.

The word "man" is used. As in "if any MAN shall add to," or take away, etc. This leads back to the same old question that clarifies everything when the truth is revealed to you, and that is: is the Book of Mormon a work of God, or is it a work of man? God is not limiting himself by that statement. He doesn't want man adding to or taking away. He has said nothing about himself. It is foolishness to put God on the same level as man in order to put a limit on what God can or cannot reveal.

It is in the midst of a multiplicity of churches that say one thing or the other, contradict, fight, argue with each other, each one believing the other is wrong, with many men and women getting lost in the confusion, that a great beacon of hope has arrived. God again reveals himself to prophets and delivers his truth, continuing the revelations which had been stopped because of the disbelief of men and their unwillingness to follow him, in preparation for the second coming of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

And those who try to limit what God can or cannot reveal are crying "but wait! you can't add to or take away!"

Edited May 18, 2009 by MikeUpton
added a comma, took away a paragraph