Adding/Taking Away from the word

[Delphiki]

Deut 4:2 -
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

Deut 12:32 -
What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

Prov 30:5-6
Every word of God [is] pure: he [is] a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Most, including myself, interpret this as the bible saying that it is the word. You shall not add to it, or omit any part of it. However, isn't that exactly what the New Testament is -- an expansion or addition to the Old Testament? I suppose the real question I am asking here is: What about the New Testament gives it immunity to the rule set by Deut 4:2? What is the qualifier that allows it (NT) to append itself to the OT?

The reason I am asking is because I was having a conversation wit my wife (a Christian) and she found herself not only unable to answer, but beginning to get frustrated with me. Of course I just shut my mouth before I was sent to the dog house (hehe).

I had to stop because when I brought up the Mormon faith (of which she is not), and how they consider the Book of Mormon is a further addition to the bible, thats where she began to get frustrated with me.

Having read most of the bible myself (as an ex-Lutheran), I don't recall any mention of Deut 4:2 in the New Testament, only that it attempts to justify itself by fulfilling the prophecy of Christ. As far as I know, the Book of Mormon also contains similar form of self-justification. So the question I was asking her was: "If the New Testament can justify itself as an addition to the Old Testament, why would one have to stop there and not move on to the Book of Mormon, also containing it's own self justification?"

"Because Jesus being born, crucified, etc all really happened." she tried to explain. Meaning, the New Testament says itself is real, so it is.

But the Book of Mormon, according to itself, also really happened...

What right would any non-Mormon Christian have, then, to criticize the beliefs of a Mormon, even jokingly, when their addition to the bible is just as self-justifies as the NT? (rhetorical question, don't worry about this one)

I do notice, also, that the New Testament put's it's own similar stipulation in the book of Revelations -- saying that adding or removing anything from the bible will bring plagues upon themselves or some such. Now, if the Book of Mormon is wrong because it's in violation of the book of Revelation, then how is it different than Revelation being in violation of Deuteronomy and Proverbs?

 

[Bear.Fr00t]

Deut 4:2 is talking specifically about the what is being taught in Deut. This can be seen in the first verse Hear now, O Israel, the decrees and laws I am about to teach you. God did not finish speaking in Deut but indeed continued to speak through prophets and then through His Son and finally through the apostles.

 

[Delphiki]

Deut 4:2 is talking specifically about the what is being taught in Deut. This can be seen in the first verse Hear now, O Israel, the decrees and laws I am about to teach you. God did not finish speaking in Deut but indeed continued to speak through prophets and then through His Son and finally through the apostles.

Well, that easily explains the Deuteronomy passages then, thanks!

Is the context in the passage from Proverbs similar? I notice it starts off by referring to "every word" of God.

Thanks again for clearing up the Deut. part!

 

[razeontherock]

Key elements of your question to consider:

the relationship of time to us and God;

what God said (in the Judeo-Christian traditions) about Him speaking further.

The Torah pre-dates Proverbs, which pre-dates most of the Prophets and prophecies. At no time during that period did God ever say he was done talking to mankind forever, nor had what He promised occurred. So it's reasonable to conclude more is on the way.

God promised His Church specific gifts, including hearing from Him about specific things, but the language used is specific enough to tell this does not include Scripture.

Then the last book tells us Scripture is done. This is consistent, from Genesis to Revelation, w/o conflict.

So today we may discuss "I heard _______ from God," and that poses no problem. Pretending it's Scripture, starting a whole new church based on it? Meh, not so much.

 

[salida]

The Word is the bible itself. The Old Testament was fulfilled by the New Testament.


Bible verses that warn us not to add/subtract from Biblical Revelations
Deut 4:2; 12:32/Prov 30:5-6/Galat 1:6-12, Rev 22:18-19
http://www.creationists.org/cults-new-revelations.html

 

[ebia]

Deut 4:2 -
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

Deut 12:32 -
What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

Prov 30:5-6
Every word of God [is] pure: he [is] a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Most, including myself, interpret this as the bible saying that it is the word. You shall not add to it, or omit any part of it. However, isn't that exactly what the New Testament is -- an expansion or addition to the Old Testament? I suppose the real question I am asking here is: What about the New Testament gives it immunity to the rule set by Deut 4:2? What is the qualifier that allows it (NT) to append itself to the OT?

There is no point at which the OT was ever percieved as a closed and finished thing - what those quotes caution against is adding not-of-God stuff to the God-stuff, not that God will never speak again.

. So the question I was asking her was: "If the New Testament can justify itself as an addition to the Old Testament, why would one have to stop there and not move on to the Book of Mormon, also containing it's own self justification?"

Content. In the end, one makes a decision about whether the N.T. portrays Christ to us, and if it does how one will respond to that. And that response tends to imply "it is finished". God's work in that particular sense is done with the close of the New Testament canon.

Similarly one makes a judgement about whether the book of mormon makes any sense and if one answers "yes" then one decides how to respond. If one decides that the book of mormon is a load of made up gibberish by a very strange American one is hardly going to add it to scripture, is one.

"Because Jesus being born, crucified, etc all really happened." she tried to explain. Meaning, the New Testament says itself is real, so it is.

But the Book of Mormon, according to itself, also really happened...

But it didn't.

 

[zaksmummy]

There is a story on Jewish tradition, which is recorded in the Talmud, about King Solomon, when he was writing out his copy of Torah (the first five books of the Bible that he was required to write out in order to keep Gods commandments). Whilst the priest who was supervising his wasnt looking he added a jot to a particular verse to change the meaning of a word, thus giving hi the excuse that he was still following Gods commandments as he had them in his scroll.

The commandment he changed was the one where God says that the King must not take many wives, but he changed it so that he could take many wives, because he thought he understood the reason that God had given this commandment, so that his heart would not be far from God, and so as he was wise, he could keep close to God even if he had many wives. Unfortunately, he didnt, he wasnt wise enough to realise that God knows more than we do.

This is an illustration of why we should not add or take away from what God has said.

The New Testament is badly called because it isnt new - if you read much of it you will find that much of it - the letters of the apostles, are mostly commentary on what is written in the old testament. A much better name for it would be the apostolic scripture because it contains the writings of the apostles, and the story of Jesus' life.

Christians would say the the new testament is the final revelation of God until the end of the age, this can be seen because the thing that links the old and the new is prophecy. The old gives the prophecy, and the new mostly fulfils it, I say mostly because some of the things prophesied are yet to happen.

The only way you are going to resolve you issues with the bible is to study it. Read far and wide and ask God top show you then things you need to see.

 

[beforHim]

As usual, it seems razeontherock hit the nail on the head. But all in all, the general point is:
The passages were talking about the passages they are in context with (Deut talking about Deut laws, and Revelation [the book], I believe, was simply talking about Revelation[the book]). But what I have yet to hear. . .

Proverbs is different in that "the word of God" means wisdom (as in an attribute of God). Hence, when Prov. says this, it's not just talking about written words in a single volume of books (in our case the Bible), but talking about God's revelation in general- His wisdom communicated to us. Hence, if it's revelation from God, ie God's wisdom/God's word, then obviously don't add or subtract, don't question, don't change, follow it, etc.

BUT- now this leads to the question of "how do we identify what is and isn't His revelation/wisdom/word, which is another topic altogether. (too many topics in one question lol ) The Book of Mormon has so many historical and archeologicval innacuracies that it's not even considered by serious scholars, unlike the Bible. That's the main reason I (and MANY others) rule the Book of Mormon out.

 

[Under Grace]

Deut 4:2 -
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

Deut 12:32 -
What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

Prov 30:5-6
Every word of God [is] pure: he [is] a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Most, including myself, interpret this as the bible saying that it is the word. You shall not add to it, or omit any part of it. However, isn't that exactly what the New Testament is -- an expansion or addition to the Old Testament? I suppose the real question I am asking here is: What about the New Testament gives it immunity to the rule set by Deut 4:2? What is the qualifier that allows it (NT) to append itself to the OT?
I do notice, also, that the New Testament put's it's own similar stipulation in the book of Revelations -- saying that adding or removing anything from the bible will bring plagues upon themselves or some such. Now, if the Book of Mormon is wrong because it's in violation of the book of Revelation, then how is it different than Revelation being in violation of Deuteronomy and Proverbs?

The context of the warning in Deut is to not add to the commandments of G*d towards Israel. Like zaksmummy's comment, I too feel the NT is a written record; a testimonial and a historical account, much of it inspired by G*d thru the presence of His Spirit in the writers.

Apocalypsis clearly states it is a "testimony of Jesus"... given to John thru visions and "in the spirit" (out of body), and concludes with a warning. This book stands on its own.

The scripture of mormon was handed to Joseph Smith thru an angel Moroni. This is unlike any book of the OT and NT. No Biblical scripture ever came to man thru an angel. Same applies to islam which had scripture handed to muhammad thru an angel gabriel. Based on this alone, both mormonism and islam are wrong.

 

[razeontherock]

Thank you for this!

Proverbs is different in that "the word of God" means wisdom (as in an attribute of God). Hence, when Prov. says this, it's not just talking about written words in a single volume of books (in our case the Bible), but talking about God's revelation in general

When he was very young, I habitually read Proverbs to my younger son, from "The Message." It translates this as "Lady Wisdom," making much clearer this fact you bring out, that it does in fact mean Wisdom as an attribute of God. (Which also happens to be Christ Himself) He got quite a kick out of that and never forgot! He truly experienced the Joy of the Lord, just from the word (Sorry, just had to share)

now this leads to the question of "how do we identify what is and isn't His revelation/wisdom/word

"His word shall not return void, but will accomplish that for which it is sent." There is NO soap that can scrub off God's word! Just don't tell the atheists here ...

 

[DoctorJosh]

Deut 4:2 -
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

Deut 12:32 -
What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

Prov 30:5-6
Every word of God [is] pure: he [is] a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Most, including myself, interpret this as the bible saying that it is the word. You shall not add to it, or omit any part of it. However, isn't that exactly what the New Testament is -- an expansion or addition to the Old Testament? I suppose the real question I am asking here is: What about the New Testament gives it immunity to the rule set by Deut 4:2? What is the qualifier that allows it (NT) to append itself to the OT?

The reason I am asking is because I was having a conversation wit my wife (a Christian) and she found herself not only unable to answer, but beginning to get frustrated with me. Of course I just shut my mouth before I was sent to the dog house (hehe).

I had to stop because when I brought up the Mormon faith (of which she is not), and how they consider the Book of Mormon is a further addition to the bible, thats where she began to get frustrated with me.

Having read most of the bible myself (as an ex-Lutheran), I don't recall any mention of Deut 4:2 in the New Testament, only that it attempts to justify itself by fulfilling the prophecy of Christ. As far as I know, the Book of Mormon also contains similar form of self-justification. So the question I was asking her was: "If the New Testament can justify itself as an addition to the Old Testament, why would one have to stop there and not move on to the Book of Mormon, also containing it's own self justification?"

"Because Jesus being born, crucified, etc all really happened." she tried to explain. Meaning, the New Testament says itself is real, so it is.

But the Book of Mormon, according to itself, also really happened...

What right would any non-Mormon Christian have, then, to criticize the beliefs of a Mormon, even jokingly, when their addition to the bible is just as self-justifies as the NT? (rhetorical question, don't worry about this one)

I do notice, also, that the New Testament put's it's own similar stipulation in the book of Revelations -- saying that adding or removing anything from the bible will bring plagues upon themselves or some such. Now, if the Book of Mormon is wrong because it's in violation of the book of Revelation, then how is it different than Revelation being in violation of Deuteronomy and Proverbs?

I have a large group of Mormon friends, but I am always working hard on correcting them and many in the past I have helped them see Mormon is a complete false addition to the Bible. What you are trying to find is a reason to add the excuse that the book of mormon should be seen as a true book of the bible when it completely goes against what the Bible says in so many ways. Just a few examples, the heads of the mormon church are false prophets, hence in Revelations 22:18-20, this means as it is written that there will be no more prophets after Revelations or as Revelations mentions in the last days. Mormons also believe that you can be married forever, this also the opposite of what Jesus said. Mark 12:23-28 and in verse 25 it says, "When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in Heaven." Also, mormons think they become gods when God says there will be no other God before me and you shall not worship any other god in blatant terms that makes it pretty clear. These are just a few examples of the book of mormon that really is the entire opposite of the Holy Bible and what it says. Not to mention, Joseph claims an angel told him to dig up the book of mormon in his back yard in New York which was a book of gold (which would have weighed over 700 pounds) and he was able to translate it from an ancient language? Come on, how brainwashed are you? Now, I tell the other Mormons they are still Christian if they believe in Jesus, but once they start to follow the other objectionable material and believe in false things they are falling further away from God rather than living in the Holy Word from the Holy Bible. burn the book of mormon for it is nothing but garbage and false prophecies, which is also filled with blasphemy against God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit, not to mention blasphemy against angels. It is absolutely garbage. If you fail to agree, do your research. Everything in the mormon Bible is false, even the dating of the beginning of the Indians the angel claimed to be from, which science proves this wrong as well as the Bible itself. Everything, I mean everything about the mormon book is science fiction that is based upon. But..that it is your choice whom you follow. More and more mormons are dropping the book of mormon in the trash and following the True Word from the Holy Bible. The ONLY Book that will lead you to the Truth and not mislead you is the Bible, but stick with Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Revelations and you will be even less confused. God Bless.

 

[Delphiki]

I'm sorry, I'm not sure how you might have gotten the impression that I was Mormon. I'm not only not Mormon, I'm not even Christian. What I was trying to find in my original post was why/how non-Mormon Christians justify the New Testament as a valid part of the bible, despite the Old Testament prohibiting any further additions to the bible, while the book of Mormon is equally self-justifiable, yet denied by non-Mormons and dismissed as fiction, rubbish, or nonsense. I'm not trying to make any kind of statement on Mormonism, but rather find out why it's okay for Christians to add to the Jewish Torah and say it's okay, but tell Mormons it's not okay for them to add to it.

As non-Mormons, you may be conditioned to either dismiss, overlook, misinterpret, or even deny the existence of the many contradictions between the New Testament and Old Testament. The most common explanation for these contradictions is that the New Testament is simply more of an update. I suspect when confronting a Mormon, a non-Mormon might give the same explanation -- that the New Testament is outdated and has some archaic methodologies that couldn't possibly apply to today's society, so the BoM allegedly fits with modern times.

I personally don't follow either or any of these books, but I do enjoy learning about them and how they are applied to influence society, where the conflicts arise, and why there are so many arguments, interpretation, and disagreements over the contents of the same one book, despite it's self-proclaimed infallibility.

 

[razeontherock]

how non-Mormon Christians justify the New Testament as a valid part of the bible, despite the Old Testament prohibiting any further additions to the bible

You've gotten several good answers showing you that there is no such conflict. Are you just content to spread lies, or what?

where the conflicts arise, and why there are so many arguments, interpretation, and disagreements over the contents of the same one book, despite it's self-proclaimed infallibility.

As far as anything we'd actually DO, there is no conflict. People that are content to argue about how many angels fit on the head of a pin? Yeah, they can squabble.