In Rev 22:18-19 it says "For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
Isn't the book of Mormon in a clash to this statement?
The Book of Mormon doesn't add or take away anything from Revelation. And Revelation is talking about the Book of Revelation. Notice how books were added (and taken away from) to compile the Bible. But you don't raise any flags for this why?
Primitive Mormon question asked countless times by people that have no clue how the Bible was actually compiled.
There are easier ways to prove how much of a bullshit religion Mormonism is.
....and when you present this question to any Mormon Bishop, he'll tell you to "Pray on it"....which is why i am no longer a member of their church. when i ask you questions about YOUR practices, don't put it off on my praying...I'm asking about YOUR practices...not God's. BIG difference!
The verse is local to the Book of Revelations. There was no "Bible" at the time for the author to defend, he can only be referring to his own work. You have a similar verse in Deut 4:2, which with this interpretation would nullify the New Testament.
Don't get me wrong, Mormonism is completely bunk, and this can be shown in so many wonderful ways. It just so happens that the verse in Revelations isn't one of them. The Book of Mormon is certainly an open and shut fraud case on its own lack of merit.
As an aside, though, do recall that Joseph Smith does create his own translation of Revelations and put this into the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible. This *would* resonate with the author of Revelation as a violation.
Naw, the Book of Mormon doesn't add to the Book of Revelations. It is a totally separate book.
This idea of a closed canon is a modern invention. No prophet or apostle ever considered that God would stop talking to his chosen servants. The idea that God speaks to men is the oldest doctrine of the Bible. After the church fell into apostasy, they lost many of the pure and simple doctrines of the gospel. Left without inspired leadership, they clung to the bible and tradition. The modern Christian churches bear little resemblance to the one that Jesus built.
( Galatians 1:6-9) also says" even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him eternally be condemned". (Matt 24:11) says"and many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many". The BOM is exactly what the bible warns about, the bible is complete and no other scripture is needed and no other prophets are required.
John is simply reiterating what he knew of the Old Testament, which WAS available at the time. He would have known the Torah well, being a Jewish boy in a Jewish dominated culture. Mormons prefer to say this warning is specific to the book of Revelation. Well, it is in a way. John warns people to not read what they want to into these particular prophecies, or to dismiss their warnings as imaginary. But he also was commenting on all divinely inspired scripture of God. Taken in social context as a Jew, through the Holy Spirit John remembered the verses in Deuteronomy warning of the consequences of changing ANY of God's Word to suit yourself, and applied them here.
However, notice how the Mormons go off into rabbit trails re: "how the whole bible has been changed" by men already, not just Revelation. Yet, curiously enough, they still claim to believe it, base their "religion" on it, but turn around and promote their book as 100% pure even though they know quite clearly it, too, has been altered in many ways. It was "translated" from one language to another, after all, wasn't it, in the same manner as the bible? By men? Who's to say which men were more "divinely inspired" than another? Them? Not that I even believe its ever been a translation either.
I"m just stating the LDS position for clarity's sake. Personally I think the whole shebang is all a cleverly contrived scam by a bunch of con-men who stood to gain from creating their own money-making church scheme, which became a very slick way to make free money in those heady spirits days. Consider, Joseph Smith and his ilk never worked in a regular job another day in their lives ever again! Yet, Mormons even today put down paid pastors because Joseph Smith did. Pot, meet kettle? Think about it.
Why would God give us all these words that WORK exactly like He said they would, if they weren't true? Why would He encourage us to seek after HIM through scripture, give us the Bible, then allow others to twist His words in the bible, then warn us IN the bible of others to come who WOULD try to twist and place doubt on His Word? And then the LDS comes along and does that very thing God warned us about in the book they don't trust but base part of their belief on?
Mormonism. Go figure.
Deuteronomy 11:32
...you shall be careful to do all the statutes and the rules that I am setting before you today.
Deuteronomy 12:32
??Everything that I command you, you shall be careful to do. You shall not add to it or take from it."
Well if you are, then you had better throw out everything after Deuteronomy in the Bible since Deuteronomy 4:2 says:
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.
The New Testament added to the Old Testament, right. Throw it out using your logic.
Your logic is flawed. These verses are obviously referencing that particular book.
You do know the Bible as we know it today was compiled after the death of Christ.
Also, I really hope you are Catholic. If not, you have probably violated this commandment (using your logic) in Rev 22:18-19 since the Protestants "take away" from the word of God by removing books from the Catholic version of the Bible.
Nope. I do not get why people still attempt to use Revelation 22. It's referring to Revelation alone, not the Bible as a whole. Another problem with people using this theory is there are no plagues. Read Revelation 14:6. This speaks of the Book of Mormon (everlasting gospel) being carried by an angel from heaven (Moroni). You know Deuteronomy and Proverbs say something similar to this right?
@mermaid Galatians specifically says "another" gospel. The Book of Mormon does not teach another gospel, it teaches THE gospel of Jesus Christ.
You might find this article interesting; you have to scroll down to the heading:
?How do we explain Revelation 22:18 that says not to add to the scriptures??
No. The Bible, as a combination of books, wasn't put together until somewhere around 400 C.E. When the words were written, the Book of Revelation was a single book, therefore the words in this verse pertain to the Book of Revelation solely.
Also, Martin Luther did a lot of "taking away" when he was compiling the Bible into the German language, so if these words were meant for LDS they'd also be applied to Martin Luther, founding Father of Protestantism, a fact people ignore or don't know about.
Its referring to Johns book of revelation. He wrote it as a somewhat copyright to his compilations of revelations. He didn't want people adding to it to alter what God had told him. It was written long before the Bible was even compiled and there are several books which were written AFTER that particular book. Even JOHN himself wrote books after revelation.
You need to remember that the Bible isn't just a start to finish story book. Its a compilation.
"The collection of writings consisting of the sixty-six books we know as the Bible were brought together and compiled into one volume long after John wrote the prophetic book that has been placed at the end of the collection. It is clear, therefore, that the terrible judgments pronounced upon those who add to the book could not possibly apply to the whole of the Bible or even to the New Testament, but only to the book of Revelation. "
"It is also interesting to note that John himself added to scripture after writing the book of Revelation, which is generally conceded to have been written while he was on the Isle of Patmos. It was long after John left Patmos that he wrote his first epistle. This fact standing alone would be sufficient to defeat the claim that revelation was closed and that man was enjoined from adding to scripture. This adds cumulative evidence that John had reference to the book of Revelation only. "
"A distinctive sign of the last days that will precede the eventual second coming of the Lord was seen in vision by that same Apostle who recorded the book of Revelation. He said:
?I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people.? (Rev. 14:6.)
The fact that John saw a messenger from God reveal anew a lost gospel negates the argument that further revelation could not be added to the Bible. "
Mormons: Question for you?
