Responding THE REBUKER - Don't Add or Diminish Issue

So here's another "New Kid in Town," which seems too arrogant, the way he converses with the LDS people, thinking his criticism seems to overpower them. Let's find out how it all ends up and what we can get in his response right after this. Without further ado, let's dive in -

Actually, I was asking him if he knew the context of the scriptures.
It turns out he throws it back, so I guess he never understood the context of it.

Okay, so here's the Thing, John, as the author of the Revelation, was banished to the isles of Patmos during this time, one of the common Roman Punishments during their time. And at the same time, the apostasy of the early Christian church had already begun. Most of the saints were taken in prison, and some other apostles and disciples lay low 'cause of this situation. But we will not take that part since it is not our concern. Let's just consider this as a common ground to know what this has to do with the subject.

John of Patmos - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_of_Patmos

So, the question to you, THE REBUKER, was the "Revelation 22:18-19" all about adding or diminishing something in the Bible? My direct Answer is simply NO! As I have said earlier and pay close attention, THE REBUKER. The writtings or the Book of Revelation was all about "John's account of the revelations that he receives from God" right before he left mortality or during his final days on the isles of Patmos, and yes, of course, as I have said over and over in this blog, the "Bible as we have it today wasn't available yet on John's time". (For more information on the Collection of the Bible and the Historicity of the Scripture. Check out this Link.)

"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. - Revelation 22:18-19"

Take note of the parts where John says "of this Book" βιβλίου τούτου, "This Prophecy", which he meant directly as the writings he made or he was holding, or the apocalyptic messages that he received. John did not directly say anything about the Bible that we currently have; he didn't even say anything about the Torah, Neviʾim, and the Ketuvim or the Tanakh in general, which was widely available in their time, but rather the things that he had written and held in his hands during his stay on the isle of Patmos. Now my Question to you, THE REBUKER -

Why would you generalize that into a collection of writings, while historically it wasn't even possible at that time, not even John on the Isles of Patmos?

My response to his mocking comments is to answer on my own.

While you keep on dodging, provoking, and mocking someone's understanding, why won't you just take time in responding to a simple request rather than keep posting on the same verse that doesn't even connect to the issue? I have made my stand and on this one already all over in this blog, and every time it was opened up, it was silent for some time, and there you are, who think could debunk it. So I challenge you to do it now.

Now, let's examine these next verses that I came across, and I guess this one makes sense. Will see -

His continued mocking and arrogant comments.

You open up Deuteronomy 12:32, thinking this one would do the trick. Come on, dude, you're quoting the Old Testament in an irrelevant time period. Seriously? A Primary would simply laugh at that. So here's the thing, and let's make it logical. If you think ch. 12:32 is exclusively on the entire book, then why would you consider the New Testament, or even the next book right after Deuteronomy 12:32? Bro, that was totally a stupid thing for a bigot.

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

You won't realize that the given scripture was exclusively for the laws that were introduced to the Israelites without reading the first verse and even the entire chapter to get its meaning. let me help you - 

"These are the statutes and judgments, which ye shall observe to do in the land, which the LORD God of thy fathers giveth thee to possess it, all the days that ye live upon the earth. - Deuteronomy 12:1"

Okay, so THE REBUKER, can you tell me, does it says anything like "don't add/take" out thing from the Bible? Will, maybe, to help you out, since it was written as their laws, but to be clear, this was all about a certain commandment at that time for the Israelites to follow, so they could live in accordance with what the Lord God wants them to be and what standards they should keep. This has nothing to do with the entire bible or adding something to the Bible, but what it meant exactly not to add or diminish his laws that he wants them to fulfil at that time. If you think you still need those words, then go ahead and follow those specific laws that were introduced in that whole chapter, or even the entire Deuteronomy. But to be fair, the specific command could also be used in some ways to understand the Lord's Command or will, for since the Lord would never void his words but would rather fulfill them. But in the sense that it was all about the whole writings of the Bible, you should go back to your seminary program, if you have, to understand your Theology.

And on the other side, you also quoted "1 Corinthians 4:6". Do you have any thoughts or anything to say on this matter, and what was this all about, THE REBUKER? Probably NO, as I could tell it. OK, then, let's get to it, shall we? 

And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another. - 1 Corinthians 4:6

Back to my question, do you have any idea or any thought on what this all means, THE REBUKER? Do you think Paul's statement was all about the Bible in general? Did Paul intend to let the Saints at Corinth understand the Bible or the principle written? So to answer your critics since you try to point it out as something about adding on the scriptures, or maybe something such as no other scriptures than what was written, and of course, as you stand about just the bible thing. But what exactly Paul means here to the Saints and Leaders of the church at Corinth is to elevate themselves to the standards according to the scriptures. Nope, that doesn't sound like "any other scriptures to be added", but rather he is helping them to understand what principles they should abide by, and that everything was there to help them about the attributes they need to live as a Christian. So basically, the statement "above that which is written" meant simply to abide by the principles of Goodness, Righteousness, and everything that was taught to them or as what they'd learned. This has nothing to do with "don't add books" or anything like it at all. And this THE REBUKER guy thinks on quoting it, maybe because it was something about it. That doesn't work, brother.

His comment on the thread, which he added, 2 Timothy 3:15-17

Not again, this is so obviously taken out of context that it was even discussed over and over and even posted in this blog somewhere for some time. I would love to answer it again in this article for the sake of individual critics.

So here's my response with a question. Was the Bible already completed or compiled during Timothy's time? Did Paul and Timothy know anything about the New Testament during their time? Well, of course, no, and that is exactly the point here. Timothy grew up to be well-informed in their writings, which were the Hebrew Scriptures of their day. I would use Ellicott's Commentary to give additional insight into this, so it might help you understand what Paul and, at the same time my knowledge about his epistle -

The holy scriptures.—Literally, the sacred writings. The Scriptures of the Old Testament are here exclusively meant. The expression “writings” for the Scriptures is not found elsewhere in the New Testament; it is, however, used by Josephus.

Two powerful arguments have been here used by the Apostle to induce Timothy to remain steadfast to the great doctrines of faith, and neither to take anything from them or to add anything to them. The first presses upon him the source whence he had learned them. He, better than any one, knew who and what St. Paul was, and the position he held with his brother Apostles, as one who had been in direct communication with the Lord Himself; and the second reminded him of his own early training, under his pious mother. He appealed, as it were, to Timothy’s own deep knowledge of those Old Testament Scriptures. St. Paul’s disciple would know that the great Christian doctrines respecting the Messiah were all based strictly on these Old Testament writings. Timothy had a double reason for keeping to the old paths pointed out by the first generation of teachers. He knew the authority of the master who instructed him; and then, from his own early and thorough knowledge of the Scriptures of the Jews, he was able to test thoroughly whether or no his master’s teaching was in accordance with those sacred documents. - Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers

And another one from Barnes' Notes on the Bible

And that from a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures - That is, the Old Testament; for the New Testament was not then written; see the notes at John 5:39. The mother of Timothy was a pious Hebrewess, and regarded it as one of the duties of her religion to train her son in the careful knowledge of the word of God. This was regarded by the Hebrews as an important duty of religion, and there is reason to believe that it was commonly faithfully performed. The Jewish writings abound with lessons on this subject. Rabbi Judah says, "The boy of five years of age ought to apply to the study of the sacred Scriptures." Rabbi Solomon, on Deuteronomy 11:19, says, "When the boy begins to talk, his father ought to converse with him in the sacred language, and to teach him the law; if he does not do that, he seems to bury him." See numerous instances referred to in Wetstein, in loc. The expression used by Paul - "from a child" (ἀπὸ βρέφους apo brephous) - does not make it certain at precisely what age Timothy was first instructed in the Scriptures, though it would denote an "early" age. The word used - βρέφος brephos - denotes: - Barnes' Notes on the Bible

Simple as that, Paul's statement to Timothy was his encouragement to continue on reading and understanding the Old Testament Scripture, which, perhaps, could lead him to understand about Christ and the fulfilment of the Law. Paul did not tell him to read the entire Bible or just the Bible, since it wasn't available. So, why would you take it as a trump card to finish up the concern, while it has nothing to do with it? See where you fail?

Lastly, you could say whatever you want in this matter using scriptural references that you'd like, just make sure you know what was this all about. The way you criticized things like the Book of Mormon without even knowing what was inside was just too arrogant. You can't be an apologist for your own ideology by being ignorant of simple things.

Thank you and have a nice Day