Bible Forbids Additional Scriptures?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 136
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest mormonmusic

Snow mocks everyone. He's very good at it. Look at his posting history. It's not to be taken seriously.

Same deal as South Park. At first I was offended at the episode on the Mormons, since I'd never watched the show before and didn't know its personality.

And then, when I was discussing it with someone at school, he said "I don't attach any importance to it -- South Park mocks everyone".

But back to the topic -- one feature of the "No additional scripture" argument is an appeal to tradition -- that somehow "the way we've always done it by consensus is a method of discerning truth from error". The "no additional scripture" argument is entrenched in traditional acceptance and belief, therefore, it has to be true, says the "appeal to tradition" argument.

I've never really bought into the argument that there can be no additional scripture simply because tradition dictates this. Tradition can be wrong. In fact, the Book of Mormon cites the "the tradition of...fathers" as a cause of belief in error for generations.

Think about traditionally held beliefs such as "the world is flat" or beliefs held by the Catholic Church which science has since proven to be false.

Also disturbing is that tradition often makes no claim to develop beliefs with authority of any kind, particularly within Protestant religions. And tradition has no inherent authority of her own, nor does it claim to have any outside of the Catholic church.

I think appealing to tradition ranks with argumentation fallacies such "Appeal to Authority" (general authority, based on someone's schooling or apparent superior knowledge) where no real solid reasons are given, only an appeal to the fact that "wise Biblical scholars have agreed to it".

Also, a wise man once said "Most breakthroughs are break-withs". I think the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and our belief the Heavens can provide new scripture at any time is a huge breakthrough in the dissemination of divine knowledge. And it was only accomplished by breaking with the notion that tradition by consensus is a valid source of truth.

Edited by mormonmusic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Actually, it means Proverbs isn't scripture either, because Exodus was long before. :)

I am baffled, as you seem to be, how this argument can even be presented. It's as if people ignore how we got the Bible and that time transpired between all the books and prophets. They look at the Bible as a book that was just handed to us one day whole, in it's entirety. I believe this is part of the reason it is so misunderstood.

Another argument you can use to this "evidence" against the Book of Mormon is that Revelation wasn't even the last book written in the Bible. It appears last, but chronologically is wasn't the last. So, you would have to do a chronological study and throw away everything written after Revelation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

denigrating 1. To attack the character or reputation of; speak ill of; defame. 2. To disparage; belittle: The critics ...

Snow,

So I have learned another word through your agruments. I need to work on my post if I came across as denigrating. I pray that this is not what I did. If I have I am truely sorry.The fact he feels like he can come back and even bring his friends leads me to believe I have not defame or belittle him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

denigrating 1. To attack the character or reputation of; speak ill of; defame. 2. To disparage; belittle: The critics ...

Snow,

So I have learned another word through your agruments. I need to work on my post if I came across as denigrating. I pray that this is not what I did. If I have I am truely sorry.The fact he feels like he can come back and even bring his friends leads me to believe I have not defame or belittle him.

Wound up a little tight?

You denigrated the value of argumentation. You weren't rude to anyone you were simply saying that arguing didn't have value and implied that your methodology - bearing your testimony was superior to argumentation. However, your post was an argument so you engaged in the same thing that you were speaking against.

Argumentation is not a negative thing per se. It is a process of applying facts and logic to demonstrate the validity of a conclusion. It can be quite effective as a learning tool to those that participate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Methinks Wingnut has outted you...:lol:

Wingnut thinks I mock everyone uniformly.

I don't.

I primarily mock four types of posters:

Anti-Mormons

Those that attribute evil behavior to God

Science deniers

Illogical posters

Unethical posters... those that invent things - false things that they try to pass off as true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's knock off the whining and talk about the subject.

What are talking about?

The poster was concerned that he may have offended someone - thinking that I had said he had denigrated someone. I assured him that he had not. Please read the posts before complaining about them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wingnut thinks I mock everyone uniformly.

I don't.

I primarily mock four types of posters:

Anti-Mormons

Those that attribute evil behavior to God

Science deniers

Illogical posters

Unethical posters... those that invent things - false things that they try to pass off as true.

I like your mocking of illogical posters.

That makes at least 5 Snow. :)

I was going to mock him for that. :)

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.

Hi Melissa,

A person is only a prophet of God when God chooses them and gives them priesthood keys to act in His name. It doesn't necessarily mean they have a certain talent -- if just means they were given authority from God. In fact, if you look throughout history, you'll find that most prophets felt very inadequate to their calling. Enoch said he was "slow of speech". Moses said, "O my Lord, I am not eloquent, neither heretofore, nor since thou hast spoken unto thy servant: but I am slow of speech, and of a slow tongue." (Ex 4:10). Joseph Smith only had a third grade education and needed a scribe to translate the Book of Mormon. In the early years of Joseph's life, his spelling and grammer were horrible. The Lord still used him as an instrument because he was humble and teachable. All these prophets eventually became great, intellegent men.

God doesn't change, but He calls prophets in every generation to address the needs of that time. Every generation has its own unique problems. The revelation of God to Noah to build an arc wouldn't apply to the people in Moses' day. The revelation to Moses to lead the children of Israel to the promise land wouldn't apply to our day. The fact that God continues to call prophets means that He doesn't change.

There is only one Bible, but look how many different churches use the Bible and each interpret it differently. God needs a prophet in every dispensation to interpret scripture and provide new revelation. The sign of the true church since Adam has always been new scripture.

Why does God give prophets?

"11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers,

14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;" (Ephesians 4:11,14)

We need prophets so we can learn the truth and not be led by the false doctrine of men.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My simple explanation for Protestant hesitation of Joseph Smith's claims is that the canon seemed so closed for so long. .

If you look at periods of apostasy since Adam, it seems appropriate that God allowed the longest or Great Apostasy to occur after the greatest of all prophets was killed -- the Savior Jesus Christ. The greatest apostasy follows the greatest sin.

"1 And he began to speak unto them by parables. A certain man planted a vineyard, and set an hedge about it, and digged a place for the winefat, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country.

2 And at the season he sent to the husbandmen a servant, that he might receive from the husbandmen of the fruit of the vineyard.

3 And they caught him, and beat him, and sent him away empty.

4 And again he sent unto them another servant; and at him they cast stones, and wounded him in the head, and sent him away shamefully handled.

5 And again he sent another; and him they killed, and many others; beating some, and killing some.

6 Having yet therefore one son, his wellbeloved, he sent him also last unto them, saying, They will reverence my son.

7 But those husbandmen said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance shall be ours.

8 And they took him, and killed him, and cast him out of the vineyard.

9 What shall therefore the lord of the vineyard do? he will come and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto others. " (Mark 12:1-9)

The vineyard is the world. Heavenly Father is the owner. The servants are the prophets that were killed. Father sent his one "wellbeloved" son and they killed Him also. The greater the sin the greater the consequence. The light and knowledge of the gospel were taken for centuries. The world fell into the greatest period of darkness called the "dark ages". Ignorance and evil were common. The Lord knew that if he were to restore His true gospel with true prophets during those dark times, those prophets would have been killed immediately -- the church never would have survived. The Lord had to wait for the proper time. (But the Lord knew all this beforehand.) People came and settled in this special land called America. They eventually established a Constitution under the inspiration of God. Independence was declared in 1776. The gospel was restored in 1830 in New York by a prophet named Joseph Smith. The heavens were opened and angels came down and bestowed keys of authority as in days of old. I believe the main reason for God establishing this great land of liberty called America, was so that He could establish His gospel again on the earth in preparation for the Second Coming of the Lord. No one can deny that following 1830 came the greatest light and knowledge upon the face of the earth in the history of all mankind. Within only about 200 years, advancements in science and the quality of life catapulted far beyond all that was accomplished in the last 5,000 years. Freedom was a great part of this success, but I believe the main cause was the light of inspiration showering down from heaven when the gospel was restored and when the heavens were opened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris, just as FYI, I believe that this passage has generally been interpreted as an explanation of Jesus as to why the gospel would eventually go beyond the Jews to the Gentiles...because they had rejected God's prophets--and finally Jesus--the Good News would be extended to Gentiles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

These verses are not an indication of God changing his mind. But I can see why you might think that. The first and second verses are just reiterating and illuminating what God had already said. Matthew and Mark are just talking about a person needing to prove their faith before being blessed.
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?

Since this is already answered, you need to remind your friend, this statement could be added to any book in the scriptures except, Songs of Solomon. In this book, they can add much as they want. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Additionally, the "Bible" used to mean several different versions that contained a variety of books. Even today, the Catholic Bible contains the Apocrypha, which Protestants do not accept. Which Bible?

The Jews of Qumran, who brought us the Dead Sea Scrolls had virtually all of what we now know as the Old Testament, but also hundreds of other books. Is that part of the Bible, also?

In the New Testament, they quote the book of Enoch dozens of times (see Jude). Why isn't that in the Bible?

What does it mean to change the writing? If one were to translate the writing from Greek/Aramaic into English, hasn't it been changed? There is no word-for-word translation. Phrases made in these languages are different in English, or may not mean anything. So, does translating it break this command to not add/change/delete? Finally, if translation is okay, which translation? For if one translation is okay, but another is very different, then isn't the second one breaking the rule?

Finally, the end of Revelation is a normal "curse" placed in religious texts of that day. It was to ensure that no one changed the writing of that one particular book (in this case, the book of Revelation). It could not have had anything to do with the entire Bible, as it wasn't compiled for several more centuries, and some of its books were not yet written.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adding to Ram posting, the most prominent of the "bible lost books" concerning the Old Testament are mentioned in the following passages:

I Chronicles, 29:29;

2 Chronicles 9:29;

2 Chronicles 12:15;

I Samuel, 10:25;

I Kings, 4:32, 33.

Then we have the following list of biblical "lost books" mentioned in the New Testament:

Scripture of Abraham's Time: "And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the Gospel unto Abraham." (Galatians 3:8.) The Christian world says, "Moses was God's first pen," but it appears from the above quotation that some one wrote scriptures even before Abraham's day, and he read them, learned the Gospel from them and also learned that God would justify the heathen through faith.

Prophecy of Enoch: Speaking of characters who are like "raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame," Jude says: "And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of His saints to execute judgment upon all," etc. (Jude, 14, 15.) From this it appears that Enoch had a revelation concerning the glorious coming of the Son of God to judgment. May not the prophecy of Enoch have been among the scriptures with which Abraham was acquainted?

Another Epistle of Jude: "When I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the Saints." (Jude 3.) We have but one epistle of Jude. Would not the epistle on the "common salvation" be as important as the one the only one we now have from Jude's pen?

Another Epistle to the Ephesians: In Ephesians, 3 and 3rd, Paul alludes to another epistle which he had written to that people, but of which the world has no knowledge except from this reference which is made by its author. This epistle contained a revelation from God.

An Epistle to the Laodiceans: "When the epistle [Colossians] 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." (Colossians, 4:16.) The epistles to the Laodiceans is among the lost scripture.

Another Epistle to the Corinthians: In the "first letter to the Corinthians" is this statement: "I wrote you in an epistle not to company with fornicators" (1 Corinthians, 5:9). From this it would appear that our so-called first epistle to the Corinthians is really not the first, since Paul in it speaks of a former letter he had written to the Corinthians, and which was doubtless as good scripture as the two which have been preserved.

Regarding to the future possibility to the Prophecy of Enoch, which is contained in the "Writings of Moses," about this time were revealed to the Prophet and published in the "Pearl of Great Price." It will be understood, then, by the reader, that the "Prophecy of Enoch" itself is found in the "Writings of Moses," and that in the text above we have but a few extracts of the most prominent parts of "Enoch's Prophecy." For the complete prophecy the reader is referred to the "Pearl of Great Price."

We are left to our own imagination on what could have been presented by other New Testament Apostles, seventies, who served with the Savior and later with Peter. What few fragments that are found, most likely pales what was written in their time. I am still waiting...:lol:

Even the Old Testament, the Book of Genesis, comprised of what Moses or others condensed from past written records; or received by revelations of seeing into the past. I would love to have that record to read. If the Brother of Jared was commanded to bring forth a record after the tower fell, what records did he bring to the promise land? Well, we know it was not the Five Books of Moses. How many of the minor Old Testament prophets are we missing that was not recorded? Where are the records of the lost ten tribes? The records of the Enoch’s translated city of Zion. Melchezidek records of the City of Shalem. So…so…many records and we have but a few to read from. :eek:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Additionally, the "Bible" used to mean several different versions that contained a variety of books. Even today, the Catholic Bible contains the Apocrypha, which Protestants do not accept. Which Bible?

For Protestants the answer is clearly the Protestant version--with its 66 books. We accept that the original canonization process was anointed by God. The Apocrapha was approved later for reasons that would entail a debate I'm not competent to engage in. However, those extra books do have some incidences that support unique Catholic doctrines. Ironically, as books that fit more with the Old Testament--books written by Jews--it is telling that the books are rejected by Judaism. So, the effort here to suggest that there are a hopeless number of editions of the Bible with countless variances is overdrawn rather substantially, imho. Christianity is in solid agreement on the 66 books, and Catholicism doesn't really need the Apocrapha, since church tradition supports those same doctrines, and is held in equal regard by the Church. Bottom line: There's little confusion in Christianity over what the Bible is, and which one to use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PC,

MODERN Christianity is in agreement on the 66 books. Ancient Christianity is a very different thing. There were literally dozens of books considered sacred scripture prior to St Jerome compiling the list we now use.

As for "which one to use", are you sure? Which version do you use? I know some people that swear one can only use the KJV, while others think it is a poor translation, etc. Of course, there are some Bibles that take away God and Jesus' masculinity, calling the Lord, the "Sovereign One" and rewriting the Lord's Prayer to say "Our Father and Mother who art in heaven...." So it isn't as cut and dried as we would like it to be.

And I won't even bring up the JW Bible. Okay, so maybe I did.... ;)

Edited by rameumptom
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hidden

Wasn't it the German version that Joseph stated was more correct and was used by him during biblical correction?

Joseph Smith made much use of what knowledge of Biblical languages he possessed. He realized very definitely the shortcomings of the King James version of the Bible, something which many of our people still are not aware of. On one occasion the Prophet said:

"I am now going to take exceptions to the present translation of the Bible. Our latitude and longitude can be determined in the original Hebrew with greater accuracy than in the English version." (Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 290)

On still another occasion he made this remark:

“…the old German translators are the most nearly correct-most honest of any of the translators; and therefore I get testimony to bear me out in the revelation that I have preached for the last fourteen years. The old German, Latin, Greek and Hebrew translation all say it is true; they cannot be impeached, and therefore I am in good company." (Ibid., pp.364)

It will be perceived from what has already been said that Joseph was not afraid of the ghost of King James; accuracy meant more to him than mere beauty of language, important as that may be. He was very modern in his views respecting the necessity of good Bible translations. We may be sure that the Prophet's influence was acting upon President Brigham Young when many years later the latter said in a discourse:

"Take the Bible just as it reads; and if it be translated incorrectly and there is a scholar on the earth who professes to be a Christian, and he can translate it any better than King James' translators did it, he is under obligation to do so. If I understood Greek and Hebrew as some may profess to do; and I knew the Bible was not correctly translated, I should feel myself bound by the Law of Justice to the inhabitants of the earth to translate that which is incorrect and give it just as it was spoken anciently. (Journal of Discourses, XIV, 226)

Link to comment

Wasn't it the German version that Joseph stated was more correct and was used by him during biblical correction? Dr Sperry a remarkable research in giving us more clarity on which language that was closer to the original authors. We can see, it was not the King James version;

Joseph Smith made much use of what knowledge of Biblical languages he possessed. He realized very definitely the shortcomings of the King James version of the Bible, something which many of our people still are not aware of. On one occasion the Prophet said:

"I am now going to take exceptions to the present translation of the Bible. Our latitude and longitude can be determined in the original Hebrew with greater accuracy than in the English version." (Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 290)

On still another occasion he made this remark:

“…the old German translators are the most nearly correct-most honest of any of the translators; and therefore I get testimony to bear me out in the revelation that I have preached for the last fourteen years. The old German, Latin, Greek and Hebrew translation all say it is true; they cannot be impeached, and therefore I am in good company." (Ibid., pp.364)

It will be perceived from what has already been said that Joseph was not afraid of the ghost of King James; accuracy meant more to him than mere beauty of language, important as that may be. He was very modern in his views respecting the necessity of good Bible translations. We may be sure that the Prophet's influence was acting upon President Brigham Young when many years later the latter said in a discourse:

"Take the Bible just as it reads; and if it be translated incorrectly and there is a scholar on the earth who professes to be a Christian, and he can translate it any better than King James' translators did it, he is under obligation to do so. If I understood Greek and Hebrew as some may profess to do; and I knew the Bible was not correctly translated, I should feel myself bound by the Law of Justice to the inhabitants of the earth to translate that which is incorrect and give it just as it was spoken anciently. (Journal of Discourses, XIV, 226)

Edited by Hemidakota
Link to comment
Share on other sites

PC,

MODERN Christianity is in agreement on the 66 books. Ancient Christianity is a very different thing. There were literally dozens of books considered sacred scripture prior to St Jerome compiling the list we now use.

To me, the reality that canonization took place over a period of time, and then remains largely unmolested and stable is an indication of strength.

As for "which one to use", are you sure? Which version do you use? I know some people that swear one can only use the KJV, while others think it is a poor translation, etc.

All of the major translations are acceptable. Yes, I am confident. The debates about individual passages, added verses, missing verses, etc. are all nippings at the edges. Much of KJV-onlyism is not very substantive. The most extreme of them actually believe it does no good to study Greek or Hebrew, since God gave English speakers the KJV.

There are a few translations that may be suspect, such as the New World Translation. It's problem is that it is published by a single religious sect, appears to engage in some bias, and it's been criticized for some of its notes, in that it quotes scholars who claim their words were taken out of context to support translating renditions they in fact do not agree with.

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