Bible Forbids Additional Scriptures?

[Snow]

That was not only directed toward you. If this thread keeps going down this road I will close it.

I don't read every single post but I just don't see the acrimony that you see or don't like. It's just people dialoguing Still - my general thought is that the moderation at this site is the best I've run across anywhere so I can't complain too loudly. Your work is always appreciated. :) :) :)

[Traveler]

Since the "Bible" has been made available to the classes of man the results have been a diversification of religious ideas and practices - many justifying competitions resulting in bloodshed and death. Without question the kindness that Jesus taught towards others if different persuasion (example Samaritan) has become less evident in the global Christian community with the printing of the Bible.

But I am not talking about an enmity perhaps between non-believers and believers but between believers in the same Bible version that cannot find enough common ground to be kind towards one another (sometimes even within congregations trying to deal with shortened economic situations).

History would indicate that the Bible and modern translations are not enough to commit believers to some of the simplest instructions of forgiveness and love. Contrary to what some would purport – faith is not manifested by respect in canon of scripture but by fruits – The Bible has failed to bring about a unity in the faith – which is a main purpose of ancient scripture in the first place.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

Traveler, imho the failures of the church have much more to do with the failures of greedy, power-mongering men who use religion as a tool for their own ends than with any failure of scripture or translation.

[Traveler]

Traveler, imho the failures of the church have much more to do with the failures of greedy, power-mongering men who use religion as a tool for their own ends than with any failure of scripture or translation.

I would agree except that those that were inspired to canonize and define the Bible were aslo the greedy, power-mongering men who use religion as a tool for their own ends. Like the Pharasees and Scribs that perserved the Old Testament were the same that fought against Jesus and his teachings; those that bought about the Bible as it is today have not been the examples to humanity like those that wrote the scriptures (Moses, Isaiah, John, Paul and many others).

My point is that when the religious world no longer found need to be defined by men inspired to the writing of scriptures in favor of those that would tell us what was scripture and canon we seemed to have suffered a great lost to which we do not seem to ancious at all to recover from.

The Traveler

[Blackmarch]

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?

The bible does not forbid additional scripture- it forbids changing scripture. This means I can't write something new, stick it in revelations and say that John said it.... It does not prevent me from writing something seperate and saying that God told me to write it for instruction and scripture - in which case those reading it would have to test it.

Many people make the mistake of assuming that the bible is all one piece and constitutes all of scripture (so that adding new seperate scripture is changing it rather than giving new scripture).

During Christ's and the apostles time, Scriptures were seperate books... Many years later in an effort to cut down on false scripture, the church collected what they were sure was legit scripture and combined them into a single collection known as the Biblia (the books) which eventually came to be the bible (the book)

...and were we to take that approach that it means you can't add new seperate scriptures then as you pointed out we'd have to assume everything after deuteronomy is false scripture.

[Traveler]

It would appear that the concept of closed unalterable canon is a pagan notion adopted and pronounced divine; though unauthorized by G-d and contrary to 4000+ years of tradition and by scripture itself in order to justify a new teaching, tradition, doctrine, and method of G-d dealing with his covenant peoples by traditional Christians that respected the pagan notion more than following G-d.

The Traveler

[Hemidakota]

We also have 'closed minded' Saints...

[Traveler]

We also have 'closed minded' Saints...

How is it that a Saint could be closed minded? Also do you believe that all members of record are Saints?

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

I'm not sure delving into the alleged pagan viewpoints of some closed-canon folk, nor the position of the door on some Saints' minds is productive. On the other hand, the following link does seem to offer some thoughtful history and resources on the general subject of canonization: The Canon of Scripture

[Moksha]

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.

Extending that thought, I think the Book of Mormon symbolizes the Gospel of Jesus being meant for the entirety of Mankind.

[Snow]

The bible does not forbid additional scripture- it forbids changing scripture.

And yet Bible authors repeated changed scripture. For example:

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.

[Maureen]

And yet Bible authors repeated changed scripture. For example:

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.

Verse 3 is the part that quotes Isaiah:

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. (Isaiah 40:3)

M.

[Snow]

Verse 3 is the part that quotes Isaiah:

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. (Isaiah 40:3)

M.

Well - no. The quotation starts in verse 2, immediately following: "“In the prophet Isaiah it stands written:" then Mark gives the quote: “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.’”

The problem is that that DOESN’T stand written in Isaiah; it is a merging of the the first nine words of the Greek Septuagint version of Exodus 23:20, with a paraphrase of the Hebrew Malachi 3:1, then joined with the Septuagint Isaiah 40:3.

Mark changed scripture. To be fair to Mark (not really Mark, but the author of Mark), it is clear that he is quoting from an already composed account and didn't bother to check whether or not his source got it right. Mark himself was obviously not well acquainted with either the events he describe in the Gospel or the sources in the OT including in the Gospel.

Matthew, on the other hand, was more familiar with Jewish history and tradition and corrects Mark where necessary.

[Maureen]

...Mark changed scripture.... To be fair to Mark (not really Mark, but the author of Mark)...

It might be a little more complex.

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, 4...

4 tc Instead of “in Isaiah the prophet” the majority of mss read “in the prophets” (A W Ë13 Ï Irlat). Except for Irenaeus (2nd century), the earliest evidence for this is thus from the 5th (or possibly late 4th) century (W A). The difficulty of Irenaeus is that he wrote in Greek but has been preserved largely in Latin. His Greek remains have “in Isaiah the prophet.” Only the later Latin translation has “in the prophets.” The KJV reading is thus in harmony with the majority of late mss. On the other hand, the witnesses for “in Isaiah the prophet” (either with the article before Isaiah or not) are early and geographically widespread: א B D L Δ Θ Ë1 33 565 700 892 1241 2427 al syp co Ir. This evidence runs deep into the 2nd century, is widespread, and is found in the most important Alexandrian, Western, and Caesarean witnesses. The “Isaiah” reading has a better external pedigree in every way. It has the support of the earliest and best witnesses from all the texttypes that matter. Moreover it is the harder reading, since the quotation in the first part of the verse appears to be from Exod 23:20 and Mal 3:1, with the quotation from Isa 40:3 coming in the next verse. The reading of the later mss seems motivated by a desire to resolve this difficulty.

NETBible: Mark 1

M.

[Blackmarch]

And yet Bible authors repeated changed scripture. For example:

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.

possibly, we also don't have the original manuscripts to be able to know whether that is Mark's fault or someone later. It might also help to know if the scriptures mark was quoting is exactly the same as what we have to day...

I certainly don't believe that the bible has been immune to such "manglings" by various people.

Edited May 20, 2010 by Blackmarch

[Snow]

possibly, we also don't have the original manuscripts to be able to know whether that is Mark's fault or someone later. It might also help to know if the scriptures mark was quoting is exactly the same as what we have to day...

I certainly don't believe that the bible has been immune to such "manglings" by various people.

1. An appeal to mystery and the great unknown is not much of an argument.

2. Regardless, Matthew changed Mark and either Mark or Matthew changed Isaiah, so your point, mysterious as it is, is moot.

[teddyk]

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.

I will say this in defense of LDS leaders,in all of my time Looking into the bible,I do not ever recall them changing one word of scripture.

I take this to mean they oare very concerned with Gods rule,not to change or ad to the book of revelations. The BOM & D&C are separate books.

If the books mentioned above deviate from the spirit of the Law,then that's another thing. No one has proved to me they do,so its ok as far as I see.

In all my years this has been so.

[zippy_do46]

The diffrence is the power of the Holy Spirit with those who write scripture and those who read the same.

[Blackmarch]

1. An appeal to mystery and the great unknown is not much of an argument.

2. Regardless, Matthew changed Mark and either Mark or Matthew changed Isaiah, so your point, mysterious as it is, is moot.

Ok so then how do you know they are at fault?

Edited May 21, 2010 by Blackmarch

[Hemidakota]

Questions is, how do we know it was alter?

[anim82r]

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?

I'll just give what I know from memory and may not hit a few important things about this subject. The word Bible is from greek biblia meaning collection or library of small books, namely the Book of Moses Isaiah, Daniel, Malachi, the epistles of Paul, Peter, James, John, etc. Those verses you mentioned are not intended to mean the whole Bible as a book but referring to each individual books within the Bible. The verses are saying that, "You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take anything from" the Book or epistle of Moses, Isaiah, Deuteronomy, Corinthians, Revelations, the Gospels, etc, not the Bible. If I'm not mistaken we learned in Institute class that John wrote Revelation first before he wrote his own version of the Gospel. That the reason why the Book of Revelation was placed last in the Bible is that it is the most unique of all books in the Bible.

You have to put into consideration that the whole Bible took more than 2000 years in the making, which made it prone to additions, omissions, and probably some editings either divinely authorized or not. Prophets can edit or even reproduce any already written document previously written by any earlier prophets as they are directed by God.

In the New Testament days, they only had one version of the gospel for many years, which they've read from before the three other versions were written. What do you think did the Saints in those days feel of the addition of three more versions of the gospel if they've interpreted Deut. 4:2 as do modern Christians who are against LDS scriptures now interpret it? I just can't remember which of the four was the first one. But if I'm correct, I think it was Mark who wasn't even an apostle. The New testament was originally written in Greek, of which 5,650 handwritten copies have survived in Greek, meaning a lot has already been lost. Isn't that taking away if we are to follow Rev 22 and Deut. 4?

As a LDS I hope that our detractors would first fix their own stand on the Bible as many protestant and catholics scholars also dispute and disagree with each other regarding which books in the bible is/are divinely authorized and which ones are not.

Protestants, for intance number the books in the OT as 39 while the Jews numbers it at 24! Early church fathers accepted the apocrypha as canon while others disputed their status and did not accept them as divinely inspired.

Anyway, while they waste away their time distputing about the Bible, and nosing in on our scriptures lets just enjoy the fact that ours is an open canon and is still currently recording new revelations given to our modern Prophets.:)

[Snow]

Ok so then how do you know they are at fault?

Questions is, how do we know it was alter?

Dudes,

Put on your thinking bonnets. Please.

1. They both say different things. Either one is correct/accurate or neither is but they cannot both be accurate... CUZ THEY ARE DIFFERENT!

2. We know what Isaiah says. We know what Exodus says, We know what Malachi says. Mark misquotes, and Matthew corrects him. Look it up. It's in the Bible.

[Hemidakota]

possibly, we also don't have the original manuscripts to be able to know whether that is Mark's fault or someone later. It might also help to know if the scriptures mark was quoting is exactly the same as what we have to day...

I certainly don't believe that the bible has been immune to such "manglings" by various people.

Ok, what was the point of Joseph's correcting the Bible then?

[Hemidakota]

Dudes,

Put on your thinking bonnets. Please.

1. They both say different things. Either one is correct/accurate or neither is but they cannot both be accurate... CUZ THEY ARE DIFFERENT!

2. We know what Isaiah says. We know what Exodus says, We know what Malachi says. Mark misquotes, and Matthew corrects him. Look it up. It's in the Bible.

Being different doesn't imply one change the other or vice versa. It is matter of observational viewpoint and authorship that is at play here. We both can hear or see the same play, but will write it differently based on our authorship.

How many times have their been journalist writing on what they hear when Joseph Smith gives a sermon and not being entirely accurate with each other writings Snow? I think you know that answer.

[JohnnyRudick]

Being different doesn't imply one change the other or vice versa. It is matter of observational viewpoint and authorship that is at play here. We both can hear or see the same play, but will write it differently based on our authorship.

How many times have their been journalist writing on what they hear when Joseph Smith gives a sermon and not being entirely accurate with each other writings Snow? I think you know that answer.

Or when more then two people report an incident?

Sometimes it is laughable the discrepancies in the reports:eek: