The Most Misinterpreted Scripture

[Still_Small_Voice]

One of the most misinterpreted passages of scripture is Revelation chapter 22 verses 18 to 20:

“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. He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.”

Many read these scriptures and interpret the meaning to be that this is the last book of scripture God would give to us and that there would no more given.

The true meaning of these verses is a warning to all men. We are warned to not alter the scripture God reveals to us through His holy prophets. As the Apostle Peter wrote:

“Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scriptures is given of any private will of man. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” II Peter Chapter 1 verses 20-21 Inspired Version

Around the year 80 A.D. (when the book of Revelation was recorded) copies of scripture were rare. If one wanted a copy of scripture they would have to painstakingly write the text out by hand. The inspired warning John wrote especially applied to those who copied what was written to not add or remove from the inspired text.

[drjme]

Deut 4:1 Now therefore hearken, O Israel, unto the statutes and unto the judgments, which I teach you, for to do them, that ye may live, and go in and possess the land which the LORD God of your fathers giveth you. 2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

If we were to take these scriptures in the same sense as people try to interpret Rev22:18-20 Then anything added after Deuteronomy would also be considered as 'men adding to scripture'.

[Still_Small_Voice]

Another of these warnings is found in Proverbs chapter 30:

5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

[Dale]

Mark Cares a is the author of Speaking The Truth In Love To Mormons. In his book he agree's with LDS that Rev. 22:18,19 is not strong proof for a closed canon. He feel's better verses exist to support their idea. So he tell's people in his book not to use the verses on LDS people. I like having his book around just in case the verses came up in conversation. That way i don't have to convince them i will let him do it for me.

He pastor's Messiah Lutheran in Nampa, Idaho where i live. i got to meet him a few time's. He is a nice Lutheran guy. But his ministry has a website on the internet going after their disagreements with Mormonism.

Joseph Smith changed the Book of Revelation's in the JST. So some allowance must be had for an authorized man prophet to take liberties with the wording.

If the Book of Revelation's warning did not scare off corrupt scribe's bent on tampering then the Bible is not innerant. If one book of the Bible was tampered with then other book's of the Bible might have been also. The original autographic manuscripts are lost. What we have has been has been used to say by Evangelicals that the scribe's were faithful.

Emanuell Tov an expert on Old Testament manuscripts has been used by FAIR & FARMS to support the idea tampering has happened. FAIR Wiki has some articles that cite him in it's section on the Bible if i recall right.

[NeuroTypical]

Additionally,

* The book of Revelation was written prior to some of the other biblical books, and prior the Bible being assembled into a collection of texts.

* Even if the passage in Revelation meant that no man could add to scripture; it does not forbid that God may, through a prophet, add to the Word of God.

* In Jeremiah 36, we see a story of a king burning a scroll of scriptures. Jeremiah is comanded by God to re-create the scroll. Which he does, "and there were added besides unto them many like words".

LM

[MorningStar]

I think there was a similar scripture in Galations too. To me these scriptures seem like a command not to corrupt the scriptures, which people certainly did. Which talk was it that talked about the monk writing, "They have taken my God from me!"?

[Still_Small_Voice]

God can add to His word whenever He wants to. I am convinced that not all the Joseph Smith Translations were restoration of the scriptures to their original state. I think some of the Holy Spirit inspired text Joseph Smith added is God adding to His own word.

It is amazing how well preserved the New Testament text is. I am more concerned with what has been removed from Biblical text than what is there. Most of text removal occurred in the Old Testament books I believe.

[Ron Beron]

My understanding is that is was part of an ancient tradition of placing a "curse colophon" on any body of scripture or writing to discourage disciples from imitating the original. Probably among the most famous are the curses placed on Egyptian tombs to discourage grave robbers.

[prisonchaplain]

Rev. 22 is a common "proof text" for a closed canon. On the other hand, most of us start by assuming the canon is closed, and then apply that passage as an after-thought. Ultimately, it fails, if for no other reason than in-context, the warning is specific to John's revelation, and not meant to conclude the Bible.

[Dale]

Of course if Joseph Smith added to the Bible false book's he would be open to the penalty of the warning. The Bible is God's word and adding, or taking away from the word's of any inspired book, or collection of inspired book's would be serious. Certainly the Lord would be concerned about all book's of the Bible's preservation not merely that of the Book of Revelation.

[Traveler]

Interesting that few have taken into account the possibility that many scriptures are an abridgement of a more complex or more variant text. In fact there are few text to which there more involved in the first original.

From the Dead Sea Scrolls we learn that all the scripture text in use at the time of Christ had a long and short or abridged version. There are indications that the gospels in the new testament were written as an abridgement to a text that is now lost.

Personally I believe that no man should ever pretend or deny that G-d will not have something of value to say about issues the human family faces.

The Traveler

[Dale]

I read someone propose John 2 as suggesting Jesus was the bridegroom in the story because he was in charge of the wine. I am not sure that is correct. But the early portion of the text treat's Jesus as an invited guest. It would be an example of a place where a scribe, or group feeling uncomfortable with the idea of a married Jesus could have inserted the invited guest part. Of course i havn't seen any scholar's verify that Jesus had to be the bridegroom just because he had something to do with the wine.

[MorningStar]

I would like to see a source for that too, Dale. :)

[prisonchaplain]

Bride groom's being responsible for the details of the reception??? Nah. There are many good reasons to believe that Jesus never married--his impending death and resurrection being primary.

We really don't need a new thing to spice up our faith. Far better to master the old, proven truths, imho.

[WillowTheWhisp]

I am more inclined to believe that Jesus did marry. Marriage is necessary in order to progress into the highest exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom. It makes no sense that Jesus would deprive himself of this.

[Dale]

I would like to see a source for that too, Dale. :)

My copy of the Gainsayer's by Derrick Troy Evenson contained the argument.

The author is not LDS anymore. That does not mean the book is not good.

Without the original of John we could not check for variants.

[Francine]

Bride groom's being responsible for the details of the reception??? Nah. There are many good reasons to believe that Jesus never married--his impending death and resurrection being primary.

While on the cross, Jesus committed his mother into the custody of John the Apostle, but not any wife.

[Francine]

I am more inclined to believe that Jesus did marry. Marriage is necessary in order to progress into the highest exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom. It makes no sense that Jesus would deprive himself of this.

Does this mean you believe Jesus, the Word made flesh, the begotten Son of the most High Living God, by whom all things were made, would have only attained to the Terrestrial Kingdom unless he were married during the 33 years he lived among us on Earth?

[prisonchaplain]

I am more inclined to believe that Jesus did marry. Marriage is necessary in order to progress into the highest exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom. It makes no sense that Jesus would deprive himself of this.

You believe that the only begotten Son of God, deity himself, could not enter the Celestial Kingdom unless He was married?

[Iggy]

PC, Francine - why was Jesus baptised?

[Francine]

PC, Francine - why was Jesus baptised?

Because Jesus identified with us sinners (he had to, in order to make the atonement efficacious), he submitted to the Father's plan for saving sinners, which includes water baptism. This is what he meant when he told John the Baptist that he must fulfill all righteousness.

[prisonchaplain]

Why was Jesus baptized? (Matthew 3:13-17)

13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. 14 But John tried to deter him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?"

15 Jesus replied, "Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness." Then John consented.

16 As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. 17 And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." (TNIV)

To fulfill all righteousness. He also showed his commitment to his father and to the kingdom.

To identify himself with sinners. (2 Corinthians 5:21)

Jesus showed us the correctness of John’s baptism of repentance.

(I'm allowed to cut and paste, if it's from my own teaching notes). :-)

[WillowTheWhisp]

While on the cross, Jesus committed his mother into the custody of John the Apostle, but not any wife.

A widow would not be considered someone able to care for the deceased's mother. A woman was not a breadwinner in that Jewish society. It was quite acceptable for a widow to be cared for by the relatives of her deceased husband, even to marry the brother or other kinsman of her deceased husband.

Does this mean you believe Jesus, the Word made flesh, the begotten Son of the most High Living God, by whom all things were made, would have only attained to the Terrestrial Kingdom unless he were married during the 33 years he lived among us on Earth?

Yes

You believe that the only begotten Son of God, deity himself, could not enter the Celestial Kingdom unless He was married?

Yes

Wasn't it also somewhat strange for a young Jewish man to remain single? (That's an understatement by the way.)

[Francine]

A widow would not be considered someone able to care for the deceased's mother.

You misunderstand me. I said Jesus did not commit his wife into John's safekeeping, only his mother. If Jesus was married, he would have made arrangements for his wife.

Wasn't it also somewhat strange for a young Jewish man to remain single? (That's an understatement by the way.)

It is written (Matthew 19:12) For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

[WillowTheWhisp]

We do not know that Jesus hadn't made prior arrangements for his wife and possibly children. For all we know, fearing for their safety as his immediate family after his impending crucifixion he may well have made arrangements for them well before that last supper. He may not. He may have made arrangements for his mother prior to then too and simply have been confirming that to her and John at the time. He may also have spoken about his wife from the cross and any references to that may have been removed as they would not be in keeping with the idea that he was celibate and single. We know that things have been removed from the Bible. In fact the Bible as it stands today has been added to and taken from before the final collection was agreed upon. (Even now some Bibles contain books which others do not) So the fact that something isn't said does not imply to me the the opposite must therefore be true. That is a fallacy. It's like saying all peas are green vegetables therefore all green vegetables are peas.

Are you suggesting that Jesus was a eunuch?