Bible Forbids Additional Scriptures?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 136
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The whole Mark vs Matthew thing does not matter to me. It seems to be the foundation you have built this house of cards on, and it is nothing.

Well now that is persuasive indeed. How could anyone refute that.

Pray tell what is the house you say I've built.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Snow, I don't waste my time labeling people's apparent logical fallacies. That's the job you've apparently volunteered for.

So, let's see. You accuse me of using logical fallacies but then claim that I, not you, am the one that labels others posts as logical fallacies.

Black is white and old is new. Got it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh,

I'm not trying to persuade. That is apparently your job. But I haven't yet figured out what you, by the force of your self-convinced convincing arguments, want me to believe.

I could care less what you believe. All of your posts, it would seem, have been to carp about me, it's hard to tell if you have any other interests or beliefs worth examining.

Edited by Snow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

... 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.”

Here is what the scriptures you have quoted mean to me in my initial impression upon reading them.

To paraphrase the initial argument: 'Do not add to these words (or book).'

What words? The words of God.

It is in no way intended to be interpreted to mean, "do not add to this book" e.g. Bible, Old Testament. New Testament, Revelations etc by the publication of another book or anything like unto it. What it means is, "If I say, 'thou shalt not (fill in the blank)' that's what I mean. You are not at liberty to add anything else to it like, 'thou shalt not (fill in the blank) except when (fill in the blank) unless I tell you to add an exception via revelation because I am the final authority, not you. Same thing goes with not taking anything from out of the "book" or from my words. Just because it is convenient for you to make a deletion it is not OK unless I am the one telling you to make the change, for you have not the authority to make a change to my word unless I tell you to make the change."

With regards to this:

“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.”

Have you ever seen a non-LDS preacher try to teach the scriptures on TV or anywhere else? They are soooo far off the mark at times it can leave you speechless. No doubt a result of them trying to teach from their own wisdom, understanding, and philosophies, not having the light of the Holy Spirit to guide them in their understanding.

Then you get two different preachers from two different parishes or congregations or whatever together and they try to "enlighten" each other on the interpretation of some scriptures and neither of them really know what's going on. Then pride gets in the way. Neither listens to the other because they know that THEY are correct not the other guy, and they get "puffed up."

The initial argument of and believing that "not adding to this book, or words" means that the canon of scripture is closed and there can be no more word of God is a product of a mind which Satan has successfully spiritually darked and deceived. Don't take it the wrong way. People like this are not bad, but they have been deceived and successfully so.

Think of it this way:

Satan's design is to "blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men that he may lead them down to destruction" or something like that. He has at his disposal many tools and is an expert at his craft. One thing he possesses is the ability to quote scripture to make his point seem valid and true even though it is a lie. He is quite good at it and can quote scripture all day long. He put those scriptures quoted above and their false interpretation in the hearts of many many people as a basis for seemingly validly dismissing continuing revelation. Satan knows that the Book of Mormon and other continuing latter-day revelation is quite possibly his greatest threat these days, so if he can convince lots of people that there can't be any way it is true because God Himself said so then he is all over it. Especially if he can quote scripture! I can just hear him, "See! God said that he is done talking! I have the scripture to prove it! What are you listening to these wackos for?"

Just my two cents.

Edited by Javajot
third grade grammar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't help this one more dig. Snow, it has always been about YOU.

If it's you posting it obviously is. I'd tell you to stop obsessing but so far it seems a lost cause.

Seriously, you now have 17 posts. How many of them have been insults about me? 8? 9? More?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

None of my posts are insults to you. You would know that if you could get past yourself and let other people breathe. I'm going to bed now. I will forget about you, and post nothing about you forever more. You should do the same.

So is that 10 now or more?

So how about this. You stop obsessing on me and focus on the topic. K?

Edited by Snow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

And May I add, just because canons were closed for a very long time, it doesn't mean that God won't speak to man again as He did in the ancient days, we are reminded in the scripture that God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. He never change, else what does Amos mean when he recorded that God doeth nothing but He revealeth His secrets unto His servants the prophets? If prophets don't exist today then God is doing nothing, if so then we should not glorify Him nor give all the credits to Him for what man has achieved today. It means that man is capable of advancing himself without the aid of Heaven nor of a prophet. I can't imagine the earth being what it is today without the "light of inspiration showering down from heaven through the restoration of the Gospel and the opening of Heaven"

Even if it takes millions of years from the last open canon, the Lord still and will always have the right, the power and the authority to call prophets and speak to them and give them instructions as He so did in the past. I just can't grasp the thought as to why people can't accept this simple but exceedingly enlightening fact that now in our day God had once again spoken to man as He did long long time ago? Why do they have to limit by their own understanding of the scripture, particularly the BIble, the things God can and will do?:(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simply put, you are flat out wrong.

The author of Mark says: "In the prophet Isaiah it stands writtenL 'Here is my herald whom I send on ahead of you and he will prepare your way. A voice crying aloud in the wilderness Prepare a way for the Lord: clear a straight path for him." Mark 1:2-3

That is wrong - it is untrue. That does not stand written in Isaiah. Mark gets it wrong. Obvisiously he is writing from a pre-composed source that made the mistake and he doesn't bother to check what Isaiah really says. What Mark improperly attributed to Isaiah is a merging of the first nine words of the Septuagint Greek version of Exodus 23:20, with a paraphase of the Hebrew Malachi 3:1, that is then joined with a paraphrase of the Septuagint Isaiah 40:30.

Not wrong;

Mark 1;

1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;

2 As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my amessenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.

3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

can you please show me where mark attributes it to isaiah?

He says the prophets which includes all the scriptures. he doesn't even say if he's drawing each statement from the same person. (more further down)

Scholarly consensus dude. Do your own homework. The idea that Matthew preceded Mark was abandoned many years ago.

which scholars?

i'm not debating who came first, doesn't matter to me in this case who came first.

you're the one who's presenting

"Mark wrote: “In the prophet Isaiah it stands written: “Here is my herald whom I send on ahead of you, and he will prepare your way. A voice crying aloud in the wilderness, ‘Prepare a way for the Lord; clear a straight path for him.’” (Mark 1:2-3)

The trouble is that Isaiah doesn't say that/ Mark changed it - mangled it actually.

Then, Matthew, who had Mark as his source, repeatedly changed Mark, for example, he corrected Mark's mistaken quote of Isaiah and made changes in numerous other places"

you're the one who has the burden of proving it.

I didn't say a thing about mark or any apostle quoting anyone or anything before the mentioned post by you.

He WASN"T using the words of the Isaiah - that's the point. If you have a Septuagint and Hebrew OT you could check it. I have it in front of me and can see what's written.

no the bible said he's quoting the prophets (IE taking from all the scriptures), which means more than one (he doesn't name any specific prophet)- prophets who have said;

"Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me"

"The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God."

Which is what is said by the prophets.

this is what mark says was said by the prophets;

"

2 As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.

3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight."

now the only way your position holds any water is IF all the scriptures have been transmitted perfectly both to the apostles and then to us, IF mark had the scriptures with him, and IF Mark was wanting to quote them verbatim.

(as well as you having to show Mark specifying Isaiah, and Isaiah only).

... however you started off with the statement of Mark mangling isaiah, and the only support you've given to it is saying what mark says is different from what you think he is quoting.

now maybe you can get it through your head, or maybe not- but I'm fine with either conclusion, but if you want me to be using your position you've got to prove it.

Go ahead and claim that the verses have been altered. Be specific. Which words and verses were altered and how do you know. Burden of proof dude.

If you were reading my posts you'd see that I'm not claiming that verses have or have not been (i thought that is what you were doing?) , i'm asking how do you know they have not (or how would one know if they had been on the flipside)...

..However did you not provide the answer to that?

- the differences between the quoted verses.

Read you post. Your question implied that the Bible, in this case Mark, was wrong. Whatever - go ahead and demonstrate it you can. It's your implied claim.

you're reading a lot into a question. you're ass-u-me-ing here.

Perhaps ill ask it this way- do you believe that we have the scriptures exactly as the apostles had them, and that the apostles had them exactly as they were first penned?

and then why?

Edited by Blackmarch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not wrong;

Mark 1;

1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;

2 As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my amessenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.

3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

can you please show me where mark attributes it to isaiah?

He says the prophets which includes all the scriptures. he doesn't even say if he's drawing each statement from the same person. (more further down)

Okay, I will:

New American Standard

As it is written in Isaiah the prophet :

New International Version About NIV

It is written in Isaiah the prophet:

American Standard Version About ASV

Even as it is written in Isaiah the prophet,

Bible in Basic English About BBE

Even as it is said in the book of Isaiah the prophet,

Complete Jewish Bible About CJB

It is written in the prophet Yesha`yahu,

Douay-Rheims About RHE

As it is written in Isaias the prophet:

English Standard Version About ESV

As it is written in Isaiah the prophet,

GOD'S WORD Translation About GW

The prophet Isaiah wrote,

Good News Translation About GNT

It began as the prophet Isaiah had written:

Holman Christian Standard About CSB

As it is written in Isaiah the prophetwhich scholars?

New Century Version About NCV

as the prophet Isaiah wrote:

New International Reader's Version About NIRV

Long ago Isaiah the prophet wrote

New Living Translation About NLT

In the book of the prophet Isaiah,

New Revised Standard About NRS

As it is written in the prophet Isaiah,

Revised Standard Version About RSV

As it is written in Isaiah the prophet,

The Darby Translation About DBY

as it is written in [isaiah] the prophet,

The Message About MSG

following to the letter the scroll of the prophet Isaiah.

Today's New International Version About TNIV

as it is written in Isaiah the prophet:

Weymouth New Testament About WNT

As it is written in Isaiah the Prophet,

The Latin Vulgate About VUL

sicut scriptum est in Esaia propheta

The scripture quotes you post rely upon the Textus Receptus (TR) - a printed Greek Text that formed the basis of many Reformation-era translations. The TR was based upon a ver poor manuscript collection totaling no more than six manuscripts which didn't even have the complete New Testament between them.

Today's modern Bible have the entire manuscript corpus to work from... The Alexandrian, the Neutral, the Western and the Byzantine. No school of textual criticism today gives priority to the Textus Receptus... but hey, at least you have the KJV-only'ers to keep you warm at night.

which scholars?

Common knowledge. Do your own homework.

you're the one who has the burden of proving it.

I didn't say a thing about mark or any apostle quoting anyone or anything before the mentioned post by you.

I don't know what you are talking about. Mark is different from Matthew. Read em. It doesn't need to be proved. It is a factual matter that they differ. Matthew corrected Mark in Mark came first but regardless, they can't both be right. Only one or none can be right.

you're reading a lot into a question. you're ass-u-me-ing here.

Perhaps ill ask it this way- do you believe that we have the scriptures exactly as the apostles had them, and that the apostles had them exactly as they were first penned?

and then why?

Who's assuming? If you are going to claim (read assume) that the scripture have been changed, fine. What, specifically has been changed and what did it used to say?

I wrote a whole thread about people that when they get stuck, they throw in the old canard that the scriptures haven't been properly transmitted... as if that means a durn thing without specifics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not wrong;

Mark 1;

1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;

2 As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my amessenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.

3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

can you please show me where mark attributes it to isaiah?

He says the prophets which includes all the scriptures. he doesn't even say if he's drawing each statement from the same person. (more further down)

Okay, I will:

New American Standard

As it is written in Isaiah the prophet :

New International Version About NIV

It is written in Isaiah the prophet:

American Standard Version About ASV

Even as it is written in Isaiah the prophet,

Bible in Basic English About BBE

Even as it is said in the book of Isaiah the prophet,

Complete Jewish Bible About CJB

It is written in the prophet Yesha`yahu,

Douay-Rheims About RHE

As it is written in Isaias the prophet:

English Standard Version About ESV

As it is written in Isaiah the prophet,

GOD'S WORD Translation About GW

The prophet Isaiah wrote,

Good News Translation About GNT

It began as the prophet Isaiah had written:

Holman Christian Standard About CSB

As it is written in Isaiah the prophetwhich scholars?

New Century Version About NCV

as the prophet Isaiah wrote:

New International Reader's Version About NIRV

Long ago Isaiah the prophet wrote

New Living Translation About NLT

In the book of the prophet Isaiah,

New Revised Standard About NRS

As it is written in the prophet Isaiah,

Revised Standard Version About RSV

As it is written in Isaiah the prophet,

The Darby Translation About DBY

as it is written in [isaiah] the prophet,

The Message About MSG

following to the letter the scroll of the prophet Isaiah.

Today's New International Version About TNIV

as it is written in Isaiah the prophet:

Weymouth New Testament About WNT

As it is written in Isaiah the Prophet,

The Latin Vulgate About VUL

sicut scriptum est in Esaia propheta

The scripture quotes you post rely upon the Textus Receptus (TR) - a printed Greek Text that formed the basis of many Reformation-era translations. The TR was based upon a ver poor manuscript collection totaling no more than six manuscripts which didn't even have the complete New Testament between them.

Today's modern Bible have the entire manuscript corpus to work from... The Alexandrian, the Neutral, the Western and the Byzantine. No school of textual criticism today gives priority to the Textus Receptus... but hey, at least you have the KJV-only'ers to keep you warm at night.

Common knowledge. Do your own homework.

I don't know what you are talking about. Mark is different from Matthew. Read em. It doesn't need to be proved. It is a factual matter that they differ. Matthew corrected Mark in Mark came first but regardless, they can't both be right. Only one or none can be right.

Who's assuming? If you are going to claim (read assume) that the scripture have been changed, fine. What, specifically has been changed and what did it used to say?

I wrote a whole thread about people that when they get stuck, they throw in the old canard that the scriptures haven't been properly transmitted... as if that means a durn thing without specifics.

Which is why most of us use the King James Bible instead of all the other per-versions out there.:o

Yes, and I know it ain't perfect either.

But it is the best the

English speaking world has at the moment.:mellow:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which is why most of us use the King James Bible instead of all the other per-versions out there.:o

Yes, and I know it ain't perfect either.

But it is the best the

English speaking world has at the moment.:mellow:

If by "best" you mean "inaccurate" then yes.

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