The meaning of Revelation 22: 18,19

[dance-above]

The Old Testament is not in line with the New Testament. The OT is about "An eye for an eye" while the New Testament is about "Forgiveness", two contrasting ideas. You think God's law evolved, it didn't.

Actually, he told us that whatever measure we use will be measured to us. " An eye for an eye" . But for us not to judge one another . To leave judgment to God.
The new testament is about alot more than Forgiveness it was aso about the judgment. A seperation of the sheep and the Goats. Jesus said I did not come to bring peace but division.

Jesus spent most of His ministry telling people about His Father and proposed modern ideas that went against the traditional beliefs. That's why the priests were so threatened by Him.

The priest were threatened by him because he condemmed their ways, which for the most part was Hypocracy and because they knew that soon, they would lose their place.

You accept the "divine authority" of John to speak for God? I'm sure you do. What other idols do you worship as well? Pope's and saints? Perhaps you have a golden idol cross? It's not the same as a golden cow though, right?

What did Jesus mean when he told his diciples they would be his witnessess or when he told them whatever sins they retained he retained or whoever they forgive he forgives, they had divine authority.

 

[Scott C.]

What is this "divine authority" that you believe God gave to John?

I believe John was called and ordained by Jesus Christ to be an Apostle, which is a witness for Christ. This calling and ordination gave John certain authority. This does not make him infallible or an object of worship. He's just a person. However, he was chosen by God to have the great revelation on the isle of Patmos for the benefit of the world. The Book of Mormon, which I also believe, says this about John the Revelator. This is a revelation which I believe was given to a Book of Mormon prophet about 600 years before Christ (and John):

" 23 Wherefore, the things which he shall write are just and true; and behold they are written in the book which thou beheld proceeding out of the mouth of the Jew; and at the time they proceeded out of the mouth of the Jew, or, at the time the book proceeded out of the mouth of the Jew, the things which were written were plain and pure, and most precious and easy to the understanding of all men.
24 And behold, the things which this apostle of the Lamb shall write are many things which thou hast seen; and behold, the remainder shalt thou see.

25 But the things which thou shalt see hereafter thou shalt not write; for the Lord God hath ordained the apostle of the Lamb of God that he should write them.

26 And also others who have been, to them hath he shown all things, and they have written them; and they are sealed up to come forth in their purity, according to the truth which is in the Lamb, in the own due time of the Lord, unto the house of Israel.

27 And I, Nephi, heard and bear record, that the name of the apostle of the Lamb was John, according to the word of the angel." (B. of M. 1 Nephi 14: 23-27)



Notice it says "the Lord hath ordained the apostle of the Lamb of God that he should write them...and the name of the apostle of the Lamb was John". A further reading in context makes it clear that it's talking about the revelation of John.

This is why I personally accept John's writings and his authority to write them.

 

[Super Universe]

Actually, he told us that whatever measure we use will be measured to us. " An eye for an eye" . But for us not to judge one another . To leave judgment to God.
The new testament is about alot more than Forgiveness it was aso about the judgment. A seperation of the sheep and the Goats. Jesus said I did not come to bring peace but division.

The priest were threatened by him because he condemmed their ways, which for the most part was Hypocracy and because they knew that soon, they would lose their place.

Hmm, you say "actually He (Jesus) told us that whatever measure we use will be measured to us" as if it conflicts with something I posted or somehow alters the Jesus I presented. It does not.

Let me ask you this, what do you think "whatever measure we use, we will also be measured" means? I'll give you time to call your minister for the answer.

The New Testament is about a lot more than forgiveness? Okay, but what do you understand of the rest? Are you sure you know what the parables mean? What do you think a "separation of the sheep and goats" means? Why do you think Jesus said that He came to bring the sword but His actions were always non-violent (excepting a few cash boxes)?

I tell you this, and it is a truth you have not been told, forgiving others is the most important thing you can learn on the earth. You think you are supposed to believe in God but God will not prove Himself to you because He will not violate your free will.

You think you are supposed to believe in a book written by man, you think you are supposed to follow other men (preachers/ministers/priests) but you are not. You are supposed to choose your own path, understanding how the universe and God works comes later.

The priests knew they would lose their position? Why would they know this when it did not happen? These priests were not see'ers, they were not oracle's. Haven't you noticed that God never works through groups or any established religion.

What did Jesus mean when he told his diciples they would be his witnessess or when he told them whatever sins they retained he retained or whoever they forgive he forgives, they had divine authority.

I will surely respond to these questions but could you please provide the whole quote of these verses. I'm not sure if you are quoting from the New Testament or Book of Mormon.

 

[Mister Emu]

If you believe that the Bible is incomplete, yes. If you believe that the Bible is infallible, no.

Those ideas are not mutually exclusive... the Bible could be infallible(inerrant) in what it says but not complete either...

 

[Smoke]

I understand the common interpretation of Rev 22: 18, 19 to be something like this:

“I John have concluded my revelation and this concludes all revelation and scripture from heaven. The scriptural canon is complete and closed. If any man produces writings that claim to be scripture, you may know that he and they are fraudulent, since the canon is closed. Furthermore, such a fraud will be cursed with the plagues described in this revelation.”

I don't know how common that really is. Nobody who had any sense of context would interpret it that way, but then, lots of people don't have any sense of context.

However, I interpret these verses as follows:

“I John testify that if any man changes my prophesy, as written in the Book of Revelation, he will be cursed. He must not add to my revelation, by claiming that I wrote something that I did not write. He must not take away from my revelation, by removing some of the words that I did write. If any man tampers with my revelation, he will be cursed with the plagues described in my revelation.”

You're right on the money.

We are lucky that the book of James is even in there.

Depends on your perspective. Martin Luther thought you were very unlucky that James was in there.

 

[Katzpur]

Those ideas are not mutually exclusive... the Bible could be infallible(inerrant) in what it says but not complete either...

Would you agree that while the original manuscripts may have been infallible, there is no perfect translation of the Bible in existance today?

 

[Super Universe]

27 And I, Nephi, heard and bear record, that the name of the apostle of the Lamb was John, according to the word of the angel." (B. of M. 1 Nephi 14: 23-27)

John who?

 

[Mister Emu]

Would you agree that while the original manuscripts may have been infallible, there is no perfect translation of the Bible in existance today?

I would...

 

[Scott C.]

Joseph Smith created a need for new prophets and new covenants by claiming that the Bible had holes in it that needed to be filled. Of course, NOW the LDS church doesn't make that claim. Heck, I'm sure there are many LDS members that indeed believe the Bible to be infallible, but that was not the church's stance originally. Joseph Smith couldn't possibly started a religion by trying to add to a 'perfect' book. The entire implication of the Mormon religion is that the Bible is 'imperfect' when it really isn't.

So, going back to your original question: is there a possibility for future revelation? If you believe that the Bible is incomplete, yes. If you believe that the Bible is infallible, no.

I'm not aware of any explicit or subtle change in LDS teachings regarding the validity of the Bible. Joseph Smith wrote an article of faith that says in part "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly." These Articles of Faith are included in print side by side with our scriptures and are generally studied and understood by members of my church, starting from childhood.

However, I disagree with your assessment that the revelations given to Joseph Smith would not be necessary if the Bible were 100% accurate and had no mistranslations. It is indeed my strong belief in the Bible, word for word, that supports my belief in the need for the restoration of the gospel. I believe that the Bible, exactly as we have it today, teaches the need for living prophets, for priesthood, for an organized church, and for continuing revelation and a growing canon of scripture. When I read the New Testament, I see my church today in the New Testament church. Again, this is because I believe the Bible.

Rather than what you said: "the entire implication of the Mormon religion is that the Bible is imperfect when it really isn't", I would say: "the entire implication of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is that the New Testament church, exactly as described by today's Bible, no longer existed in it's original form in these latter-days, so God restored it through a new prophet".

While you may disagree with my assessment of what the Bible teaches in this regard, you will better understand where I, as a Latter-day Saint, am coming from, if you know how I feel about the Bible, it's accuracy, and its relationship to my church.

 

[tomspug]

Say you remove books of the Bible from the Bible, it becomes incomplete. Certain prophecies are not addressed and certain very important doctrines and revelations might be missing. Does it change the truthfulness of the Bible? No, but it makes it less 'complete'.

And yes, Joseph Smith DOES imply that the Bible is incomplete. What do you think 'as far as it is translated correctly' means? Exactly that, that the Bible has holes in it that need to be filled.

The implication is that, because the Bible has been mistranslated over time, that in fact Joseph Smith has the knowledge that the Bible is missing: such doctrines include but are not limited to - the fall of Man being God's intention, not mans and therefore good, the concept of multiple heavens, the notion that man can essentially become 'his own God', the rejection of the Trinity,

I know you didn't want to get in a discussion about the LDS Church, but I think that these changes in doctrine reflect a notion that the Bible 'doesn't quite get things right and needs to be clarified', thus the Doctrines and Covenants as well as the Book of Mormon.

 

[Scott C.]

Say you remove books of the Bible from the Bible, it becomes incomplete. Certain prophecies are not addressed and certain very important doctrines and revelations might be missing. Does it change the truthfulness of the Bible? No, but it makes it less 'complete'.

As a Latter-day Saint I don't believe that today's Bible contains all of the words which God wants us to have. This is true whether something was inadvertently lost from the Bible through mistranslation, intentionally omitted by somone with bad intentions, or if God just didn't provide the revelation through the Bible in the first place. So, yes, I agree the Bible is incomplete in that sense. The other scriptures I accept make the canon "complete", at least for now, meaning additional scripture will come forth at a later date.

 

[Katzpur]

Say you remove books of the Bible from the Bible, it becomes incomplete.

Yes, it does. I'm assuming it doesn't bother you that some books have already been removed from the Bible. Am I right about that? You're not a Catholic, so you don't use the same Bible that was used for centuries by the Catholic Church. The Protestant Reformers removed several books from the Bible known collectively as the Apocrypha. What makes you so sure that these books are not as scripturally valid as any of the rest of the Bible -- other than the Church that you attend says they're not? There are dozens of books mentioned in the Bible by name that are nowhere to be found. Why would some of Paul's letters have been included and others not? Where does the Bible even claim to be "complete"?

Certain prophecies are not addressed and certain very important doctrines and revelations might be missing. Does it change the truthfulness of the Bible? No, but it makes it less 'complete'.

Right again. And in the New Testament we are told that Jesus said and did so many things that were never recorded that if they were to be written down, they would fill all the books in the world. That sounds to me as if certain very important doctrines might be missing. What does it sound like to you?

And yes, Joseph Smith DOES imply that the Bible is incomplete. What do you think 'as far as it is translated correctly' means? Exactly that, that the Bible has holes in it that need to be filled.

Well, since it is impossible to translate something that isn't there, I'd say, "as far as it is translated correctly" probably means exactly what it says. I'm sorry, but I don't see what's wrong with not believing something that was not correctly translated. It doesn't make sense to me that anyone would do otherwise.

The implication is that, because the Bible has been mistranslated over time, that in fact Joseph Smith has the knowledge that the Bible is missing: such doctrines include but are not limited to - the fall of Man being God's intention, not mans and therefore good, the concept of multiple heavens, the notion that man can essentially become 'his own God', the rejection of the Trinity.

Again, you're mixing apples and oranges. Translation errors are one thing; missing scripture is something else entirely.

I know you didn't want to get in a discussion about the LDS Church, but I think that these changes in doctrine reflect a notion that the Bible 'doesn't quite get things right and needs to be clarified', thus the Doctrines and Covenants as well as the Book of Mormon.

Any one of the doctrines you have mentioned would make an interesting topic for a thread. This is the second time I have invited you to start such a thread, or two or three. Will you take me up on it? None of the LDS on this forum will want to get into a discussion about these doctrines on a thread that is about some other topic, but we will gladly address your concerns elsewhere. If you are so sure that the Bible is complete and perfect, could you at least provide some evidence to support this claim?

 

[tomspug]

You can't. It's a matter of faith. That's why your church is different from mine.

How exactly do you expect me to find 'evidence' for which books are divine and which books aren't? The only way you can determine this is by your own experience. If the books you read really ARE divine, then they will have actual relevance on your life and change your life. If they're just like any other man-made book, they will either steal ideas from books that were already written or do very little to affect your life.

I, personally, believe the Bible to be divine not only by faith, but by a justified faith that it has literally transformed my life every time I read it with a longing heart. I have become a better person because of it and I will continue to do so every time I reject my own sinful self and submit to the wonder of God's written Word.

I would rather not discuss the LDS church's differences from the Christian church. I already understand that you either believe the LDS church is Christian or you don't. Honestly, I think this can only be determined by personal experience, not discussion, so I'd rather not start an endless argument here (honestly, Katzpur, I'm not a fan of arguing, and you seem like a great guy, so how about a truce for now? ).

 

[Katzpur]

Honestly, I think this can only be determined by personal experience, not discussion, so I'd rather not start an endless argument here...

I agree. We all accept what we believe to be true based on faith and as we are guided by the Holy Ghost, so I'm totally okay with not arguing about it.

(honestly, Katzpur, I'm not a fan of arguing, and you seem like a great guy, so how about a truce for now? ).

A truce sounds like a great plan! Aside from the fact that I am very much NOT a guy, I would agree to it in a minute.

 

[Francine]

The other scriptures I accept make the canon "complete", at least for now, meaning additional scripture will come forth at a later date.

Then you must have an interesting take on the words "perfect" and "throughly furnished" since Paul wrote this before the coming of the BoM.

2 Tim 3:[16] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:[17] That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

 

[Katzpur]

2 Tim 3: All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

But the Latter-day Saints believe that, too. The fact that all scripture is from God and is profitable for men says nothing whatsoever about the Bible being complete.

 

[Francine]

But the Latter-day Saints believe that, too. The fact that all scripture is from God and is profitable for men says nothing whatsoever about the Bible being complete.

It's not the profitable part I'm focusing on, but the "perfect" and "thoroughly furnished" part. If scripture was not complete until the coming of Joseph Smith's translations of the plates, then it would have been impossible for men to attain to perfection and to be completely ready to perform every good work.

 

[Katzpur]

It's not the profitable part I'm focusing on, but the "perfect" and "thoroughly furnished" part.

Even so, I think you'll agree that it's not scripture itself that makes the man of God "perfect" or "throughly furnished." It's obedience to God's commandments. And even if it was scripture, there is still the question of what constitutes scripture in the first place. Wouldn't any writings inspired by God and recorded by His prophets qualify as scripture? Why would it have to be only the writings bound together in a single volume?

If scripture was not complete until the coming of Joseph Smith's translations of the plates, then it would have been impossible for men to attain to perfection and to be completely ready to perform every good work.

Actually, if the Bible contained all of the words of the ancient prophets and apostles, your argument would make a lot more sense. But it's a fact that some of their writings were lost before the Bible was even compiled. Paul, for instance, wrote several other epistles besides the ones found in the New Testament. We know this because they are mentioned in the epistles that are present. Jude also wrote another epistle, and many, many Old Testament writings are referred to throughout the Bible that are missing. It seems evident to me that it wasn't a matter of God not having given us all of the information He wanted us to have, but that some of this information was apparently lost.

 

[Francine]

It seems evident to me that it wasn't a matter of God not having given us all of the information He wanted us to have, but that some of this information was apparently lost.

Then I will take the opportunity to ask which plain and precious things were taken away from the book of the Lamb of God (1 Nephi 13:28), requiring a restoration of the Church. They must be very important doctrines indeed, if teaching authority was revoked for 1800 years.

 

[tomspug]

A truce sounds like a great plan! Aside from the fact that I am very much NOT a guy, I would agree to it in a minute.

D'oh! I gotta start looking at the right side of the profile... Sorry.