Adding to the Bible?

[_gdemetz]

Some Mormon critics have misunderstood Revelation 22:18, and have used that verse in the vain attempt to prove that Mormon's are wrong by adding to the Bible. This scripture states:

"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophesy of this book. If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book."

From even a casual reading of this scripture, it is obvious that the "plagues" that are mentioned in this book refer to the many plagues that the Book of Revelation itself mentions, and not the Bible as a whole. This is more obvious in the light that the Book of Revelation was a separate book at the time the Apostle John wrote it, and that the Bible as we know it was not compiled until the fourth century AD.

In addition to this, the Book of Deuteronomy (Deuteronomy 4:2) has a similar statement. Should we not accept anything after the Book of Deuteronomy? Also, the Apostle John wrote the Book of Revelation when he was a Roman prisoner on the Isle of Patmos in 95 AD, and after he was released in 96 AD, he wrote 1st John, 2nd John, and 3rd John. Should we not accept those books also? In addition, what about the prophesy recorded in Psalms 85:11?

"Truth shall spring out of the earth; and righteousness shall look down from heaven."

Should we ignore these great truths, including the Book of Mormon, that have sprung out of the earth? I think not! These are part of the great "restitution of all things!"

[_Bond James Bond]

This argument is fine for defense against Christians. Does nothing for secular based criticisms of the Book of Mormon.

[_gdemetz]

An "adulterous generation" seeketh for a sign.

[_LittleNipper]

Isn't the Book of Mormon such a sign?

[_Themis]

This argument is fine for defense against Christians. Does nothing for secular based criticisms of the Book of Mormon.

Now be nice, gdemetz is not equipped to deal with secular criticisms.

[_Themis]

Isn't the Book of Mormon such a sign?

One could view it that way, but the evidence suggests it is a sign of fraud.

Everyone wants a sign including LDS and other Christians. It's just physical signs that are supposed to be wrong for some dumb reason. Moroni's promise is encouraging people to seek a sign, even if it is circular reasoning.

[_gdemetz]

Yes, the Book of Mormon is a sign, but it is just too bad that so many spiritually blind can't see the sign despite Isaiah 29 and Ezekiel 37 as well as other evidences and testimonies!

[_Samantabhadra]

Yes, the Book of Mormon is a sign, but it is just too bad that so many spiritually blind can't see the sign despite Isaiah 29 and Ezekiel 37 as well as other evidences and testimonies!

Yes obviously the problem with the Book of Mormon has nothing to do with its uncountable historical, linguistic, and anthropological falsities, and is only rejected because of the "spiritual blindness" of historians, linguists, and anthropologists.

[_jo1952]

This argument is fine for defense against Christians. Does nothing for secular based criticisms of the Book of Mormon.

Actually, the RCC should not be included among those Christians for whom this argument is fine. They do not hold the book of Revelation with high regard. This book almost failed to make the cut for canonization. They do not believe that John really had a vision or that he knew what he was talking about. Additionally, they question whether it was really John the Beloved who wrote this book. They only concede that John the Beloved is the author after explaining that they cannot prove which "John" wrote the Apocalypse.

In fact, they feel the same away about Daniel's end-time prophecies. They are of the opinion that Daniel's prophecies were not really about the end-times, and they question whether it was Daniel who wrote them. They think they were written about much earlier events which had already taken place by the time the prophecies were recorded. Not only do they think these events were recorded after the fact as history, they believe they were written after Daniel was already dead.

Yet, Jesus called both Daniel and John "beloved"; and both of these prophets are the ones who received visions of the end-times which God asked them to record. Oddly, the RCC questions who really wrote both works, and whether or not they were written by Prophets, even though Jesus clearly states that Daniel was a Prophet and Jesus refers to Daniel's prophecies AS prophecies.

Blessings,

jo

[_Samantabhadra]

I just returned from my third pilgrimage to Patmos. Don't knock John the Theologian!