Bible Forbids Additional Scriptures?


Recommended Posts

I was talking to a non-denominational girl this afternoon at my local college about LDS. She does believe in the bible and all, but she mentioned our other books like BOM, DC, Pearl, etc.... And she said that the bible forbids additional scriptures.

I wanted to check it out for myself, so I looked it up online, and I found this quote from Revelation 22:18-9 which states:

"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: 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."

Some online religious blogs say that's just telling us not to add to Revalation, but it is said in other places too:

Deut. 4:2 “You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take anything from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you."

Also:

Proverbs 30:5-6 “Every word of God is pure; he is a shield to those who put their trust in Him. Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.”

The Bible refers to its writings as Scripture 1 Cor. 4:6 “that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other.”

Can anyone offer some clarity on this?

Edited by Melissa569
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 136
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Frankly, one of the most pathetic arguments there are.

The contents of the collection of books known as the Bible were not finalised (in Western Christianity) until several centuries after Revelation was written.

not that the warning refers to a book, singular, not books, plural. The distinction is important, because a book was a scroll usually (with a few exceptions) containing but a single book. The entire Bible could not fit on one book.

John's warning was not unique, such things were often written on even secular letters, to warn copyists and reciters not to change the message. Books, you see, were not read to one's self, but were read aloud to the entire congregation.

Nowhere does it say that GOD cannot give us more of his word.

If we were to accept your friend's interpretation of Proverbs 30:5-6, that would mean that no book of the Bible past that verse was scripture. Bye-bye to the ENTIRE New Testament.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm, good point! Come to think of it, I guess there are a lot of later additions to the “word of god”.

It’s a very tricky subject though… There once was a time when everyone who has officially been deemed a “profit” was NOT thought of as such. They were simply a regular person, with a talent for listening to god with their heart (and in some cases, seeing him with their eyes, or hearing him out loud). And it seems that (particularly after Jesus came along) god does make exceptions and changes, as he sees fit.

Difficult to say though, weather some random person you are speaking to (or even you) have the same talents that profits in the past had, and what the very latest word of god is… And if the word of god never changes, why would we need current profits? It doesn’t take a profit to simply re-read what has already been written, and stick to it.

To me, this is proof that god does change his mind on some things, and needs a human vessel through which to reach us.

Edited by Melissa569
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that the Book of Mormon, D&C, and Pearl of Great Price reveal the word of God. If I say God said something that he really did'nt say, then I would be commiting a sin, and would cause others to sin. That would make me a liar. And God continues to reveal his word to those who will hear and believe. But he does'nt change his mind. That would make him a liar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was talking to a non-denominational girl this afternoon at my local college about LDS. She does believe in the bible and all, but she mentioned our other books like BOM, DC, Pearl, etc.... And she said that the bible forbids additional scriptures.

I wanted to check it out for myself, so I looked it up online, and I found this quote from Revelation 22:18-9 which states:

"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: 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."

Some online religious blogs say that's just telling us not to add to Revalation, but it is said in other places too:

Deut. 4:2 “You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take anything from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you."

Also:

Proverbs 30:5-6 “Every word of God is pure; he is a shield to those who put their trust in Him. Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.”

The Bible refers to its writings as Scripture 1 Cor. 4:6 “that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other.”

Can anyone offer some clarity on this?

Yes - here's the clarity: the person who tried to sell you that story is either incredibly ignorant or unbelievably dishonest. Anyone who believes what she told you is the former or just really young.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And God continues to reveal his word to those who will hear and believe. But he does'nt change his mind. That would make him a liar.

Really - then according to you and the Bible, that would make God a liar:

Genesis: 18:20-32

Ezekiel 4:12-15

Matthew 15:22-28

Mark 7:25-30

Do you really think that God is a liar or do you just think that the Bible is?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm, good point! Come to think of it, I guess there are a lot of later additions to the “word of god”.

It’s a very tricky subject though… There once was a time when everyone who has officially been deemed a “profit” was NOT thought of as such. They were simply a regular person, with a talent for listening to god with their heart (and in some cases, seeing him with their eyes, or hearing him out loud). And it seems that (particularly after Jesus came along) god does make exceptions and changes, as he sees fit.

Difficult to say though, weather some random person you are speaking to (or even you) have the same talents that profits in the past had, and what the very latest word of god is… And if the word of god never changes, why would we need current profits? It doesn’t take a profit to simply re-read what has already been written, and stick to it.

To me, this is proof that god does change his mind on some things, and needs a human vessel through which to reach us.

When using the word 'prophet', please spell it correctly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest mormonmusic

Also, you can give arguments from the Book of Mormon against this. When I was a missionary (greenie) I thought any assertion I made had to be from the bible or people wouldn't believe it.

Well, that never worked.

Even if they don't accept the Book of Mormon, you can use the reasons and logic written in it to shore up your case. For example, find in 2 Ne where it talks about "A Bible, A Bible....". In that section it describes what God has to say about people who limit his word to a few books put together from the available choices decades ago. From memory he says:

1. He has more people to whom he wants to talk than just the groups to whom the Bible was originally written. Isn't he allowed to speak to them too via scripture?

2. He speaks to whoever He wants to speak to. He's not bound to any one book of scripture; he can reveal more of his Word at any time he pleases -- after all, he's God.

3. The testimony of more than one nation of his gospel is an even stronger than a single witness of his gospel (the spiritual history of the Jews).

4. The fact that he preaches the same gospel to multiple nations, generating multiple books of scripture clarifies the gospel and also shows he's the same today, and forever.

5. His work isn't finished yet, so of course He's going to reveal additional light and knowledge -- and this will continue until "the end of man".

2 Nephi 29: 6-14.

Personally, I think it's high-minded of people to put shackles on God's ability to communicate with us on earth, saying He gave us a Bible and that's all we get. I think it's born out of a lack of a belief in modern prophets to turn to for guidance that they believe so.

Edited by mormonmusic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The text most often used for this one is the Revelation passage. Since it occurs at the end of the Bible as we now have it, it seems convincing on the surface. I'm quite sure I heard it growing up, and never thought twice about it. From the Protestant perspective especially (Catholics rely as much on church tradition and teaching, and are not as married to the "just the Bible" approach), the other reality that we have not seen any additions approved in centuries leads us to the intuitive conclusion that we have all the written word we need.

So, while I agree that the argument is very weak, from an interfaith argument perspective, it should help you to understand why we have a hard time embracing the idea of "another testament."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, while I agree that the argument is very weak, from an interfaith argument perspective, it should help you to understand why we have a hard time embracing the idea of "another testament."

If that argument helps understand why you have a hard time embracing the idea of "another testament" how is it that you accept other books found in the New Testament? - both those written prior to the time of Revelations but not combined with Revelations into any unified testament and especially those works NOW in the New Testament but yet unwritten at the time of Revelations?

If the argument has enough merit to grant understanding of such things, certainly it has to dissuade you from accepting other NT books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that argument helps understand why you have a hard time embracing the idea of "another testament" how is it that you accept other books found in the New Testament? - both those written prior to the time of Revelations but not combined with Revelations into any unified testament and especially those works NOW in the New Testament but yet unwritten at the time of Revelations?

If the argument has enough merit to grant understanding of such things, certainly it has to dissuade you from accepting other NT books.

Not the argument itself, but rather the caution of the "no additions" passages combined with the reality, from our perspective, that there has been nothing new since scripture was canonized--and really since roughly 90AD. Granted, God did speak after the 400 year hiatus between the Old Testament and the advent of Christ. Then again, the OT prophesied his coming, so it's not surprising that new revelation would come. What the NT prophesies is the second coming for final judgement. At that point, 1 Cor. 13 tells us we'll see as Jesus sees, so perhaps new written revelation will be unnecessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The text most often used for this one is the Revelation passage. Since it occurs at the end of the Bible as we now have it, it seems convincing on the surface. I'm quite sure I heard it growing up, and never thought twice about it. From the Protestant perspective especially (Catholics rely as much on church tradition and teaching, and are not as married to the "just the Bible" approach), the other reality that we have not seen any additions approved in centuries leads us to the intuitive conclusion that we have all the written word we need.

So, while I agree that the argument is very weak, from an interfaith argument perspective, it should help you to understand why we have a hard time embracing the idea of "another testament."

I realize that many Protestants think everything they need is in the bible - and that such thinking shows a lack of understanding the methods and reason of G-d. Genesis 41:32 indicates that things "established" by G-d are not of such thinking of man that everything one needs is all in "one" place. G-d establishes his word in his way and not the way of man.

From the Dead Sea Scriptures we learn that all books considered to be sacred scripture were maintained as more than one version - some with as many as five.

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler
added the Dead Sea Scripture stuff
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not the argument itself, but rather the caution of the "no additions" passages combined with the reality, from our perspective, that there has been nothing new since scripture was canonized--and really since roughly 90AD. Granted, God did speak after the 400 year hiatus between the Old Testament and the advent of Christ. Then again, the OT prophesied his coming, so it's not surprising that new revelation would come. What the NT prophesies is the second coming for final judgement. At that point, 1 Cor. 13 tells us we'll see as Jesus sees, so perhaps new written revelation will be unnecessary.

Now I'm confused.

The Roman Catholic Church canonized the Bible in 1546 at the Council of Trent, The Church of England in the Thirty Nine Articles in 1563, British Calvinism in the Westminster Confessions of Faith in 1647 and Greek Orthodox in 1672 for the Greek Orthodox. The Pentecostal branch of the faith did not exist until centuries later than that.

Besides canonization, "scripture" continued to be written well after 90 CE. Current critical opinion puts Jude as late as 110 CE, 2nd Peter between 120 and 130 CE. same for 2nd and 3rd John, The Gospel of John wasn't completed until well into the 2nd century... to say nothing of the Ethopian New Testament Canon which has scripture composed into the 3rd century.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a convert I can tell you that I did not argue scripture. We let the teachers and pastor teach. I went to church and study those things I was given. This is a mind frame I think. This is what it was. Now, days I see more people arguing points. I recently met a young man who was a Pentecostal. He was going to a Bible College where one of the classes was being able to agrue a point. This is one of the points he was taught. lol I think I shake him. I do not argue. I tell Him what I believe and thank him for his testimony of belief. He has been back several times with diffrent points and I am able to tell him what I believe and thank him again. No room for agruement lol The world we live in today is a "prove your point" It is not enough that you believe ... you have to prove why you believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My reading of those scriptures has always been its commandment to us humans not to add the the Word of God or take away from it. Something that has been done over time, and each of us is capabable of doing with our poor understanding.

I see nothing in any of those scriptures that says God cannot add to scripture

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a convert I can tell you that I did not argue scripture. We let the teachers and pastor teach. I went to church and study those things I was given. This is a mind frame I think. This is what it was. Now, days I see more people arguing points. I recently met a young man who was a Pentecostal. He was going to a Bible College where one of the classes was being able to agrue a point. This is one of the points he was taught. lol I think I shake him. I do not argue. I tell Him what I believe and thank him for his testimony of belief. He has been back several times with diffrent points and I am able to tell him what I believe and thank him again. No room for agruement lol The world we live in today is a "prove your point" It is not enough that you believe ... you have to prove why you believe.

Yeah. Others of us use argumentation to learn things not previously understood or appreciated.

Of course, it goes without saying that you, in your post above, are engaging in the very type of argumentation you are denigrating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ive heard this arguement a thousand times. We probably all have. My response is always the same. One, The bible has many missing books and the ones we do have are not in Chronological order. Meaning "Do not take away from" is said in many books and I think it referred to the particular passage or "book" not the entire Bible.Two, The BOM. D&C and Pearl of great Price are not added to the bible. They are books that stand alone and are only meant to be companions to original scripture. Another testament of Christ, not another story of Christ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now I'm confused.

God is not the author of confusion...so I suppose the blame goes to me. ;)

The Roman Catholic Church canonized the Bible in 1546 at the Council of Trent, The Church of England in the Thirty Nine Articles in 1563, British Calvinism in the Westminster Confessions of Faith in 1647 and Greek Orthodox in 1672 for the Greek Orthodox. The Pentecostal branch of the faith did not exist until centuries later than that.

Well, I'll only speak for my own group...I can, with a good deal of confidence, assert that when the General Council of the Assemblies of God approved its Statement of Fundamental Truths at the 1917 session, it was simply formalizing and underlying a long-accepted truth--that we hold the 66 books of the Protestant Bible to be inspired Scripture. That we had to say so at all is probably more a response to the accusation of Fundamentalists that we were naught but a bunch of wild-eyed fanatics, swayed by every wind of doctrine that we claimed the Holy Spirit gave us on any given day.

Besides canonization, "scripture" continued to be written well after 90 CE. Current critical opinion puts Jude as late as 110 CE, 2nd Peter between 120 and 130 CE. same for 2nd and 3rd John, The Gospel of John wasn't completed until well into the 2nd century... to say nothing of the Ethopian New Testament Canon which has scripture composed into the 3rd century.

I'm skeptical that a discussion of the dating of some of the latter NT books--the gospel of John in particular--will do little to sway our discussion one way or the other. I've noted that you tend to favor later-dating of Scriptures, and that you also express those later datings with a good deal of confidence. Irregardless...even if John's gospel dated to 500AD, that will still leave an incredible gap between it and the discovery of the BoM, not to mention the D&C, which has an iron-clad dating in the 1800s. My simple explanation for Protestant hesitation of Joseph Smith's claims is that the canon seemed so closed for so long. .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share