Adding to the Bible?

[_subgenius]

Well, My guess is that if any of the Mormon literature contradicts the Book of Revelation then the Mormons have a serious problem; however, if the book of Revelation was the last book written and written by an Apostile, John may have been placing the closing seal on the Word of God ---- closing God's dissertation with man and that would also be a very serious issue for Mormons.

emphasis above mine.
is it not well known that the book of revelation was actually composed of other little books ,and was not the "last" book written, chronologically speaking?

[_LittleNipper]

Well, My guess is that if any of the Mormon literature contradicts the Book of Revelation then the Mormons have a serious problem; however, if the book of Revelation was the last book written and written by an Apostile, John may have been placing the closing seal on the Word of God ---- closing God's dissertation with man and that would also be a very serious issue for Mormons.

emphasis above mine.
is it not well known that the book of revelation was actually composed of other little books ,and was not the "last" book written, chronologically speaking?

Saint Ignatius placed the date for Revelatiuon to be about 96 AD and attributed it to one author... The books of First, Second, and Third John are believed by many to have been written between 85-95 AD. That would make Revelation the newest /last book of the Bible written.

[_LittleNipper]

Well, My guess is that if any of the Mormon literature contradicts the Book of Revelation then the Mormons have a serious problem; however, if the book of Revelation was the last book written and written by an Apostile, John may have been placing the closing seal on the Word of God ---- closing God's dissertation with man and that would also be a very serious issue for Mormons.

Fortunately for all of us, the book of Revelation was not the last book written by an Apostle. In fact, more of John's writings, which he wrote after his Revelation, are also canonized. The books in the New Testament are not listed in the order that they were written.

Blessings,

jo

Saint Ignatius placed the date for Revelatiuon to be about 96 AD and attributed it to one author... The books of First, Second, and Third John are believed by many to have been written between 85-95 AD. That would make Revelation the newest /last book of the Bible written.

[_LittleNipper]

Some people here would do well looking at BookofMormonEvidences.org! Also, Little Nipper, The Book of Revelation appears last in the Bible, but it was not the last Biblical Book written. John was banished to the Isle of Patmos in 95 AD, and was released in 96 AD. It was after this time that he wrote 1 John, 2 John, and 3 John. Albion, what can I say? You once again win the prize for the dumbest post. IS IT NOT TRUE?!?

Saint Ignatius placed the date for Revelatiuon to be about 96 AD and attributed it to one author... The books of First, Second, and Third John are believed by many to have been written between 85-95 AD. That would make Revelation the newest /last book of the Bible written.

[_Themis]

Silly Drifting,

When we are praying for guidance and direction, we receive our answers from God via Spirit to spirit.

It is physical evidence for the purpose of deciding if we will believe in God or accept Christ we should not be seeking. When the Bible teaches against sign seeking, it is speaking about people asking for something they can see or hear with their physical eyes and ears; NOT their spiritual eyes and ears.

Seeking for physical signs in order to build a case for yourself to allow yourself to believe is manifesting an absence of faith or spiritual awareness and rebirth. OTOH, praying to God for help with something we are dealing with on the earth after we already believe, is manifesting faith that we believe God IS going to help.

As far as the signs in the Temple; these were not things which we were seeking for. Rather, they were things which were taught to us by God.

Blessings,

jo

The real problem is not sign seeking. It's all the signs that show one's beliefs are not correct. At this time one may wisely reevaluate those spiritual experiences.

[_Themis]

Interesting that no one can explain why their interpretation must be true and not all those other ones that conflict with theirs. The spiritual is most likely created by our bodies and then interpreted based on how we see the world and what we may want to believe.

Hi Themis,

On the contrary, I have seen posters who have explained to you why interpretations can appear to be in conflict. However, since you have not been spiritually reborn (or if in the past you had been, you have since rejected it and prefer the physical world), you will not be able to see the Truth in their comments.

Blessings,

jo

And I thought for a second you might be willing to say what those explanations were, but then you pulled the major dodge of you don't believe as I do so you must be spiritual blind and cannot see the truth. by the way truth is only in the proposition.

[_Themis]

Interesting that no one can explain why their interpretation must be true and not all those other ones that conflict with theirs. The spiritual is most likely created by our bodies and then interpreted based on how we see the world and what we may want to believe.

"Interesting"? hardly, because what you say does not actually occur..more interesting is how you claim something to be interesting then discount that claim immediately.
As to the 'psychosomatic' ramblings, you confuse a runny nose with a cold...as to say, you would have us all believe that the symptom is the cause.
Nice speculation on your part, but it is interesting how it has no foundation.

Get back to me if you have anything of substance to say on that issue.

[_Themis]

Yes the Book of Mormon makes objective truth claims that can be tested, and they come up very short.

perhaps you would like to pick a particular point to argue, rather than moving the goalposts.
Either you want to argue about "objective truth claims" or "criticisms"...
HERE

I love how people just throw out things like moving the goal posts as though making the statement some how makes it true. My comment was precisely on target. The LDS church makes truth claims that can be tested and fails. The Book of Abraham is the smoking gun to LDS truth claims that are specific to Mormonism. The Book of Mormon has many problems from copying parts of Isaiah that were not in existence at the time, to copying KJV text mistranslations and all, to DNA, to anachronisms, etc. I love your last link. To bad it was just thrown out there without any thought in hopes of making people think there was really a problem with what I said. Perhaps instead of just making assertions you could explain how it fits with your claims.

[_Themis]

Some people here would do well looking at BookofMormonEvidences.org! Also, Little Nipper, The Book of Revelation appears last in the Bible, but it was not the last Biblical Book written. John was banished to the Isle of Patmos in 95 AD, and was released in 96 AD. It was after this time that he wrote 1 John, 2 John, and 3 John. Albion, what can I say? You once again win the prize for the dumbest post. IS IT NOT TRUE?!?

I have looked at it. It is a poor site, and most apologists are very critical of it. I suppose since you like a more literal view of the Bible that is probably why they don't like it and you do.

[_subgenius]

Saint Ignatius placed the date for Revelatiuon to be about 96 AD and attributed it to one author... The books of First, Second, and Third John are believed by many to have been written between 85-95 AD. That would make Revelation the newest /last book of the Bible written.

But since there is no outside testimony of the book before Iranaeus, should not one also consider the text itself? The St. Ignatiius "tradition" relies solely on that single Iraneaeus statement.
After all your assertion that it was written about 96AD is nothing more than tradition, correct?
For example, if one considers the 7-headed beast to be the 7 roman emperors up to the fall of Israel, then the text must surely pre-date 70 ad.
What about Rev 1:1-3, 2:5, 3:3, 22:6-7, etc...surely the 2nd Advent is being noted as near in time...hardly supportive of 96AD, more likely circa 60AD.
Does not John speak about the people who pierced Christ being present at His return (Rev 1:7)?
Rev 11 speaks of the Temple being destroyed, which occurs 70AD.
...point being there is much more "evidence" that the Book(s) of Revelation were written before 96AD, than just the tradition handed down from St Iggy.