Deuteronomy 12:32 - We agree to ignore it

[ExtraMedium]

It says in
Deuteronomy 12:32: See that you do all I command you; do not add to it or take away from it.



Which I believe people interpret as saying, "You may not add to, or remove any part of the Bible". True? And I know this is said in other places as well (Psalms and at least another spot in the OT)



Theologians believe that Deuteronomy was written around 700BCE.


So that means, at the time it was written, NO other works could be added, right? So then why is the New Testament allowed to be in the canonized Bible since it was added after the death of Christ? And if the gospels of M,M,L,J were added, along with the letters from Paul and others... why not the other gospels considered to be gnostic? Just because they offer a different perspective than M,M,L,J doesn't mean they shouldn't also be considered.



If the council of Nicaea lead by Constantine, under the influence of Roman rule, canonized the Bible, then really it WAS added to according to man, thus ignoring what was written in Dt. 12:32 and other places.



Just looking for more perspective on this.


Happy new year all!

 

[Knotical]

If we did not include any part of the New Testament, or other part of the OT that were written after Deuteronomy, then we would not have the Gospel of salvation. There would have been no movement to put together a Christian religion and all we would have is Judaism and the myriad forms of paganism. Also, the world would look remarkably different considering it was in the name of Christ that many areas of this planet were conquered.

 

[John 8:32]

It says in
Deuteronomy 12:32: See that you do all I command you; do not add to it or take away from it.



Which I believe people interpret as saying, "You may not add to, or remove any part of the Bible". True? And I know this is said in other places as well (Psalms and at least another spot in the OT)



Theologians believe that Deuteronomy was written around 700BCE.


So that means, at the time it was written, NO other works could be added, right? So then why is the New Testament allowed to be in the canonized Bible since it was added after the death of Christ? And if the gospels of M,M,L,J were added, along with the letters from Paul and others... why not the other gospels considered to be gnostic? Just because they offer a different perspective than M,M,L,J doesn't mean they shouldn't also be considered.



If the council of Nicaea lead by Constantine, under the influence of Roman rule, canonized the Bible, then really it WAS added to according to man, thus ignoring what was written in Dt. 12:32 and other places.



Just looking for more perspective on this.


Happy new year all!

You can interpret this any way you wish, but what it actually says is...

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

Now back up and read the context...

Deu 12:29 When the LORD thy God shall cut off the nations from before thee, whither thou goest to possess them, and thou succeedest them, and dwellest in their land;
Deu 12:30 Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou enquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise.
Deu 12:31 Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God: for every abomination to the LORD, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods.
Deu 12:32 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

 

[stovebolts]

The passage your referring to are part of the covenant at Mt. Sinia and is part of the Torah which includes the first five books of the Bible. If you interpret that verse to exclude the NT, then it would also exclude the rest of the OT scriptures outside of Torah.

Anyway, Jer 31 states that one day a new covenant would be made, and we are in that new covenant. We refer to the bible as the old and new testament, but the word testement can just as easily be translated as covenant. Thus, new Testament aka New Covenant. Jesus even said, Matthew 26:28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins.

 

[ExtraMedium]

No, I totally agree with you on that. Christ had to come, had to save us, saved us and gave us a perfect example of living a life on mission for God. But going through the older texts it made me wonder if it was said that no other texts could be written, but then we added the NT, then...

Me personally, I follow the NT much more than the OT. And as a scientist I find it fun to put these pieces together and see if logic can either prove or question some of the things that cookie-cutter Christians follow.

 

[Danus]

It says in
Deuteronomy 12:32: See that you do all I command you; do not add to it or take away from it.



Which I believe people interpret as saying, "You may not add to, or remove any part of the Bible". True? And I know this is said in other places as well (Psalms and at least another spot in the OT)



Theologians believe that Deuteronomy was written around 700BCE.


So that means, at the time it was written, NO other works could be added, right? So then why is the New Testament allowed to be in the canonized Bible since it was added after the death of Christ? And if the gospels of M,M,L,J were added, along with the letters from Paul and others... why not the other gospels considered to be gnostic? Just because they offer a different perspective than M,M,L,J doesn't mean they shouldn't also be considered.



If the council of Nicaea lead by Constantine, under the influence of Roman rule, canonized the Bible, then really it WAS added to according to man, thus ignoring what was written in Dt. 12:32 and other places.



Just looking for more perspective on this.


Happy new year all!

That verse in 32 refers to the commands God has given proceeding the verse. If we look at Deuteronomy 12:32 in more context, we can open up the verses before it for a little more. 27-32

27 Present your burnt offerings on the altar of the LORD your God, both the meat and the blood. The blood of your sacrifices must be poured beside the altar of the LORD your God, but you may eat the meat. 28 Be careful to obey all these regulations I am giving you, so that it may always go well with you and your children after you, because you will be doing what is good and right in the eyes of the LORD your God. 29 The LORD your God will cut off before you the nations you are about to invade and dispossess. But when you have driven them out and settled in their land, 30 and after they have been destroyed before you, be careful not to be ensnared by inquiring about their gods, saying, "How do these nations serve their gods? We will do the same." 31 You must not worship the LORD your God in their way, because in worshiping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the LORD hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods. 32 See that you do all I command you; do not add to it or take away from it.

Why would you think this is meant to say no more of the bible should be complied? As for the "other" Gospels; They are not considered inspired Scripture. Therefore, they were not included in the Bible. Some have called these other gospels

 

[ExtraMedium]

Why would you think this is meant to say no more of the bible should be complied? As for the "other" Gospels; They are not considered inspired Scripture. Therefore, they were not included in the Bible. Some have called these other gospels

Well, from the way it's presented to me in church and bible studies, the recognized, canonized Christian bible is a completed, permanent work. You can't take texts/books out, and no more can be put in. And those who say this use passages such as the one in Deuteronomy to say, "it's a finished publication". Okay, so I understand why some people would say that the "gnostic" gospels shouldn't be included because their contents go against the known teachings of and about Jesus, but lets say archeologists find a NEW text. Something that just reinforces what is already stated in M,M,L,J and scientists date it back to like... 80AD in the actual handwriting of a disciple thus qualifying Christ and everything else as 100% truth... would we still stick to the canonized bible, or would we let this new text in as well?

 

[farouk]

Well, from the way it's presented to me in church and bible studies, the recognized, canonized Christian bible is a completed, permanent work. You can't take texts/books out, and no more can be put in. And those who say this use passages such as the one in Deuteronomy to say, "it's a finished publication". Okay, so I understand why some people would say that the "gnostic" gospels shouldn't be included because their contents go against the known teachings of and about Jesus, but lets say archeologists find a NEW text. Something that just reinforces what is already stated in M,M,L,J and scientists date it back to like... 80AD in the actual handwriting of a disciple thus qualifying Christ and everything else as 100% truth... would we still stick to the canonized bible, or would we let this new text in as well?

For the most part, New Testament books carry the authority of an Apostle.

It's my firm understanding that the age of Apostles has passed (although in Scripture we have the faith once delivered to the saints - book of Jude).

 

[John 8:32]

For the most part, New Testament books carry the authority of an Apostle.

It's my firm understanding that the age of Apostles has passed (although in Scripture we have the faith once delivered to the saints - book of Jude).

1Co 9:1 Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?

Seems to indicate some qualifications to being called an apostle, one of which is having seen Christ. This is inference, but it seems reasonable.

 

[ExtraMedium]

1Co 9:1 Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?

Seems to indicate some qualifications to being called an apostle, one of which is having seen Christ. This is inference, but it seems reasonable.

Paul was an apostle, but he never met Jesus, yet we use his teachings as a primary reference for how to live a life close to Jesus

 

[Ryan]

It says in
Deuteronomy 12:32: See that you do all I command you; do not add to it or take away from it.

Just looking for more perspective on this.


Happy new year all!

This is meaning if anyone comes along and changes or preaches anything that would take or add anything to what the Lord God had commanded would be deemed to be a false prophet. Deuteronomy 12:32 was the foundation for how one were to identify what a false prophet was as the immediate preceeding verses in Deuteronomy 13:1-5 "If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, 2 and the sign or the wonder comes true, concerning which he spoke to you, saying, ‘Let us go after other gods (whom you have not known) and let us serve them,’ 3 you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams; for the Lord your God is testing you to find out if you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. 4 You shall follow the Lord your God and fear Him; and you shall keep His commandments, listen to His voice, serve Him, and cling to Him. 5 But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has counseled rebellion against the Lord your God who brought you from the land of Egypt and redeemed you from the house of slavery, to seduce you from the way in which the Lord your God commanded you to walk. So you shall purge the evil from among you"

Simply means if anyone preaches or tries to take away or add words to his commandments, they are to be branded a false prophet. When one recognizes that Jesus's teachings and Paul's teachings had taught of never doing away with his Law or commandments, the easier it is to recognize that everything else is commentary on the 613 or so commandments. Everything spoken of in the Torah, was spoken of later in the Writings, Prophets, Epistles, Gospels. Nothing could be added or preached against or in violation of the Torah. That is why you have questions like you do, because theology teaches to start around the Gospels or Paul's writings as the foundation, when that is backward when one should be referencing to the front to see if a passage is in agreement. The addition of later books was never in disagreement of Deuteronomy 12:32 because it never took away from the commandments of God which that verse means.

 

[John 8:32]

Paul was an apostle, but he never met Jesus, yet we use his teachings as a primary reference for how to live a life close to Jesus

He said in 1Cor 9:1 that He had seen Christ, he also said this...

1Co 15:5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
1Co 15:6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
1Co 15:7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
1Co 15:8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

 

[stovebolts]

No, I totally agree with you on that. Christ had to come, had to save us, saved us and gave us a perfect example of living a life on mission for God. But going through the older texts it made me wonder if it was said that no other texts could be written, but then we added the NT, then...

Me personally, I follow the NT much more than the OT. And as a scientist I find it fun to put these pieces together and see if logic can either prove or question some of the things that cookie-cutter Christians follow.

When looking at the Bible as an authoratitive work, I view it as Kanon (canon / rule), which is to say that it sets the standard and boundries of our faith. (Galatians 6:16, rule = kanon).

Thus, when you read things outside of the Canon, it is not so much a matter of reconciling them with the Canon, but discernment though the Canon because it's our current Canon which sets the standard for all else.

This is separate from "Adding". People added additional books and letters which formed the OT Canon and none of that voided Deut 12:32. Why? Because it's Canon.

As far as following the NT, you have to keep in mind that all of the apostles as well as Jesus were Jewish. All of their writings are saturated with thoughts learned directly from Torah and Tanakh. So, whether you realize it or not, the teachings of Jesus affirm the correct interpretation of Torah and Jesus expects us to live accordingly.

 

[ExtraMedium]

That is why you have questions like you do, because theology teaches to start around the Gospels or Paul's writings as the foundation, when that is backward when one should be referencing to the front to see if a passage is in agreement.

But see, that's my very question, how do we know the bible is the complete Word of God as it is now if man (council of Nicaea) was the one who decided which books to be included?

The way I see it is this

Lets say in 50 years we want to write a book about Bill Clinton as a book all future presidents should use as a basis for how to be president. And of all the biographies made about Bill Clinton, a council decides NOT to include the ones mentioning his affair to Monica Lewinsky, but instead focus on all the good things he did, then that's not a complete document. And then later on, people might find those other bios and say, "this talks about Bill Clinton too, but not the way we want to portray him....", then those would be not allowed in.

Does that make sense?
I only try to stir-the-pot not because I don't have unfailing love and devotion to Jesus, but because the Bible tells me to continue to dig deep to find answers.

Thanks for all your replies.

 

[Danus]

Well, from the way it's presented to me in church and bible studies, the recognized, canonized Christian bible is a completed, permanent work. You can't take texts/books out, and no more can be put in. And those who say this use passages such as the one in Deuteronomy to say, "it's a finished publication". Okay, so I understand why some people would say that the "gnostic" gospels shouldn't be included because their contents go against the known teachings of and about Jesus, but lets say archeologists find a NEW text. Something that just reinforces what is already stated in M,M,L,J and scientists date it back to like... 80AD in the actual handwriting of a disciple thus qualifying Christ and everything else as 100% truth... would we still stick to the canonized bible, or would we let this new text in as well?

There are several references to similar verses. Let's look at two.

Deuteronomy 4:2, 2 Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you.

Joshua 1:7, 7 Be strong and very courageous. Be careful to obey all the law my servant Moses gave you; do not turn from it to the right or to the left, that you may be successful wherever you go.

Notice these are both referring to the Law. It's the same with Deuteronomy 12:32. It is reference to the law, more so than the collective work of scripture. This is not to say it does not apply to the whole of scripture, but it's better seen as to truth itself.

An interesting point of observation in your response. You asked what if another writing where to be found that would qualify Christ as 100% true. This suggest that what we have not does not qualify as 100% true. That's a problem with faith, not the bible. If what we have now does not qualify Christ, and all the rest of scripture as truth 100%, then no other writing is going to make a difference to anyone who does not already believe it.

 

[stovebolts]

But see, that's my very question, how do we know the bible is the complete Word of God as it is now if man (council of Nicaea) was the one who decided which books to be included?

The way I see it is this

Lets say in 50 years we want to write a book about Bill Clinton as a book all future presidents should use as a basis for how to be president. And of all the biographies made about Bill Clinton, a council decides NOT to include the ones mentioning his affair to Monica Lewinsky, but instead focus on all the good things he did, then that's not a complete document. And then later on, people might find those other bios and say, "this talks about Bill Clinton too, but not the way we want to portray him....", then those would be not allowed in.

Does that make sense?
I only try to stir-the-pot not because I don't have unfailing love and devotion to Jesus, but because the Bible tells me to continue to dig deep to find answers.

Thanks for all your replies.

Nothing wrong with looking at some of the Apocrypha. 1 Clement of Rome is disciple of John and the Didache is deemed to directly from the Apostles. However, 2 Clement of Rome is a fake, so we really have to watch what we read. You'll find both 1 Clement and the Dicache are in agreement with the Canon. However, they are not considered authorative like the Canon.

Remember, Canon meand rule, or ruler. It's what we measure everything else with. We don't use the Didache to measure the Bible, but we do use the Bible to measure the Didache. Get it?

 

[ExtraMedium]

An interesting point of observation in your response. You asked what if another writing where to be found that would qualify Christ as 100% true. This suggest that what we have not does not qualify as 100% true. That's a problem with faith, not the bible. If what we have now does not qualify Christ, and all the rest of scripture as truth 100%, then no other writing is going to make a difference to anyone who does not already believe it.

Truth. I think the important point is following what both the Law and Jesus say/did. But as an exercise in theology, I think it's interesting to contemplate an interpretation of just what is being said. Thus, if another book/verse/gospel/writing was found which discussed the life/teachings of Jesus but didn't contradict the Mosaic Law, then including it in the canonized bible should be perfectly okay? Like lets say we include this recently uncovered papyrus stating that perhaps Jesus was married to Mary (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...poke-wife-Mary-Magdalene-ancient-papyrus.html). Now that isn't going against the Mosaic Law, but it certainly contradicts what we perceive to be the life of our savoir.

 

[Ryan]

But see, that's my very question, how do we know the bible is the complete Word of God as it is now if man (council of Nicaea) was the one who decided which books to be included?

The way I see it is this

Lets say in 50 years we want to write a book about Bill Clinton as a book all future presidents should use as a basis for how to be president. And of all the biographies made about Bill Clinton, a council decides NOT to include the ones mentioning his affair to Monica Lewinsky, but instead focus on all the good things he did, then that's not a complete document. And then later on, people might find those other bios and say, "this talks about Bill Clinton too, but not the way we want to portray him....", then those would be not allowed in.

Does that make sense?
I only try to stir-the-pot not because I don't have unfailing love and devotion to Jesus, but because the Bible tells me to continue to dig deep to find answers.

Thanks for all your replies.

Good thoughts, and to be honest this isn't something I haven't really dug deep into thinking about. I just assume when I pick up a KJV, NASB, NIV, CJB Bible that what is in there is a fairly competent translation of the Word of God. I just trust God completely that he would never leave us in absence of the Word of God that would lead us astray. All scripture and books must agree with the others, and I haven't really heard a rallying cry about any books that shouldn't be in the Bible.

 

[Danus]

Truth. I think the important point is following what both the Law and Jesus say/did. But as an exercise in theology, I think it's interesting to contemplate an interpretation of just what is being said. Thus, if another book/verse/gospel/writing was found which discussed the life/teachings of Jesus but didn't contradict the Mosaic Law, then including it in the canonized bible should be perfectly okay? Like lets say we include this recently uncovered papyrus stating that perhaps Jesus was married to Mary (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...poke-wife-Mary-Magdalene-ancient-papyrus.html). Now that isn't going against the Mosaic Law, but it certainly contradicts what we perceive to be the life of our savoir.

Well there are several problems with that recent discovery. Most notable, It's the first Gnostic writing found to explicitly state, or suggest, that Jesus had a wife. No other written claims have ever been found. This fact alone lends incredibility to the document since it's reasonable that other writings would have stated this. The bible would not have been silent such an important issue. However, this idea that Christ was married is not a new one. It's been suggested, but it has been so without any documentation.

I think a good question to ask theologically is could Christ have been married? Biblically speaking there is nothing sinful about marriage and nothing sinful about sexual relations in marriage. So if he was married, and there is nothing sinful in it, why wouldn't it be well documented? one possible reason is that it does not matter. It's a none issue. Note for example, there are no writings of Christ having to use the bathroom. Why? Because it's not important. Mark 10:45 tells us what is; "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

 

[nmwings]

It says in
Deuteronomy 12:32: See that you do all I command you; do not add to it or take away from it.

So that means, at the time it was written, NO other works could be added, right? So then why is the New Testament allowed to be in the canonized Bible since it was added after the death of Christ?

The works of Messiah are all explained to us and prophesied in the Torah (Gen-Deut) the promise of His coming, His work of Redemption, and even His return. The New Testament glorifies and makes the Old even greater than Moses made it!

The problem you see is not in Deut 12:32 or even in the New Testament. The problem is a theology that teaches He came to change all of it.