I have not heard much about your church but if I’m not wrong, is it true that you have your own Holy Book other than the Bible? If so, how would you interpret the sayings of the Bible
“If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. — Revelations 22:18-19?
Anonymous,
/Questions/heard_church_m_wrong_holy_ENG_198.php
2 Responses to “I Have not Heard Much About Your Church but if i’m not Wron…”
Miguel Miranda
2012-04-22 07:03:23
We believe the Bible is the Word of God, His sacred revelation to ancient prophets and apostles.
Hi friend. Mormons believe that any words that come from prophets, apostles, or the Savior Himself should be considered scriptures. Certainly the Holy Bible is an example of scriptures. Other examples include the Book of Mormon.
Revelation 22:18-19 seems to suggest that there cannot be additional books of scripture beyond the Bible. However, scholars universally agree that this scripture refers only to the Book of Revelation, not to the whole Bible. How can they be so sure? Because when this verse was written, the many books of our modern Bible had not been compiled into a single book. The Bible did not yet exist.
One Mormon recently addressed this issue in a sermon that was broadcast worldwide:
"One of the arguments often used in any defense of a closed canon is the New Testament passage recorded in Revelation 22:18... However, there is now overwhelming consensus among virtually all biblical scholars that this verse applies only to the book of Revelation, not the whole Bible. Those scholars of our day acknowledge a number of New Testament 'books' that were almost certainly written after John’s revelation on the Isle of Patmos was received. Included in this category are at least the books of Jude, the three Epistles of John, and probably the entire Gospel of John itself. Perhaps there are even more than these.
But there is a simpler answer as to why that passage in the final book of the current New Testament cannot apply to the whole Bible. That is because the whole Bible as we know it--one collection of texts bound in a single volume--did not exist when that verse was written. For centuries after John produced his writing, the individual books of the New Testament were in circulation singly or perhaps in combinations with a few other texts but almost never as a complete collection. Of the entire corpus of 5,366 known Greek New Testament manuscripts, only 35 contain the whole New Testament as we now know it, and 34 of those were compiled after A.D. 1000.
The fact of the matter is that virtually every prophet of the Old and New Testament has added scripture to that received by his predecessors. If the Old Testament words of Moses were sufficient, as some could have mistakenly thought them to be, then why, for example, the subsequent prophecies of Isaiah or of Jeremiah, who follows him? To say nothing of Ezekiel and Daniel, of Joel, Amos, and all the rest. If one revelation to one prophet in one moment of time is sufficient for all time, what justifies these many others? What justifies them was made clear by Jehovah Himself when He said to Moses, "My works are without end, and ... my words ... never cease.'"
Richard
2012-04-22 21:24:08
I would answer that question with Christ's own words
"16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. "
(New Testament | John 10:16)
Wouldn't it be cool if we had the record of those Other Sheep? Good news we DO! It is "The Book of Mormon: Another Testiment that Jesus is the Christ"
The Book of Mormon doesn't take anything away from the Bible, nothing will or ever can replace the Bible. The Book of Mormon was made to confirm the words of the Bible. Look up Ezekiel 37:15-17 ... It's the stick of Joseph (Judah/Bible) and the stick of Ephriam (Nephites/Book of Mormon) growing together.
Revelation 22:18-19 seems to suggest that there cannot be additional books of scripture beyond the Bible. However, scholars universally agree that this scripture refers only to the Book of Revelation, not to the whole Bible. How can they be so sure? Because when this verse was written, the many books of our modern Bible had not been compiled into a single book. The Bible did not yet exist.
One Mormon recently addressed this issue in a sermon that was broadcast worldwide:
"One of the arguments often used in any defense of a closed canon is the New Testament passage recorded in Revelation 22:18... However, there is now overwhelming consensus among virtually all biblical scholars that this verse applies only to the book of Revelation, not the whole Bible. Those scholars of our day acknowledge a number of New Testament 'books' that were almost certainly written after John’s revelation on the Isle of Patmos was received. Included in this category are at least the books of Jude, the three Epistles of John, and probably the entire Gospel of John itself. Perhaps there are even more than these.
But there is a simpler answer as to why that passage in the final book of the current New Testament cannot apply to the whole Bible. That is because the whole Bible as we know it--one collection of texts bound in a single volume--did not exist when that verse was written. For centuries after John produced his writing, the individual books of the New Testament were in circulation singly or perhaps in combinations with a few other texts but almost never as a complete collection. Of the entire corpus of 5,366 known Greek New Testament manuscripts, only 35 contain the whole New Testament as we now know it, and 34 of those were compiled after A.D. 1000.
The fact of the matter is that virtually every prophet of the Old and New Testament has added scripture to that received by his predecessors. If the Old Testament words of Moses were sufficient, as some could have mistakenly thought them to be, then why, for example, the subsequent prophecies of Isaiah or of Jeremiah, who follows him? To say nothing of Ezekiel and Daniel, of Joel, Amos, and all the rest. If one revelation to one prophet in one moment of time is sufficient for all time, what justifies these many others? What justifies them was made clear by Jehovah Himself when He said to Moses, "My works are without end, and ... my words ... never cease.'"
"16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. "
(New Testament | John 10:16)
Wouldn't it be cool if we had the record of those Other Sheep? Good news we DO! It is "The Book of Mormon: Another Testiment that Jesus is the Christ"
The Book of Mormon doesn't take anything away from the Bible, nothing will or ever can replace the Bible. The Book of Mormon was made to confirm the words of the Bible. Look up Ezekiel 37:15-17 ... It's the stick of Joseph (Judah/Bible) and the stick of Ephriam (Nephites/Book of Mormon) growing together.