Is writing a book about the Bible adding to it?

For me, there is no scripture that forbids "adding to the Bible" or "taking away from the Bible."

There is specifically one scripture banning "adding or subtracting" to/from John's Apocalypse (the book of Revelation).

There are also several scriptures (the first of which occurs in Deuteronomy, as you referenced), which specifically ban adding to or subtracting from "the Word of the Lord." This is not quite the same scripture as in Revelation, although several people seem to interpret it as such.

In any case, a Bible companion, new translation, or a separate "book of scripture" are not blasphematory by the simple virtue of being new or different. What constitutes blasphemy is passing off one's own words to be those of God. In this sense, your belief of the nature of said works becomes the determining factor.

In the case of the Bible companion, most of these authors (and readers) understand that it is the point of view of the author solely, and that the author is not claiming to decree God's inalterable word. Thus, the companion is not blasphematory.

In the case of the new translation, if the translator is adding verses (as is the case of the JST) or taking them away (as is the case of the Watchtower's NWT), or materially changing the connotation of a verse (as is the case with both, as well as other translations), then the work is blasphematory, unless of course, the origin/nature of the translation is truly Divine.

In the case of Joseph Smith, one is pushed to discern whether Smith's claim of Divine prophetic authority in translation (of the Bible, the BoM, the Kinderhook plates, and the Book of Abraham) is authentic. There are several questions that provide clues about this:

1. Did all of his prophecies come to pass?

2. Is his word consistent with itself?

3. Is his word consistent with the previously revealed word of God, or does the word of God require modification to be consistent with Smith's word?

4. Did Smith's word and story change over time?

5. Are there physical evidences in favor of Smith's claims? How conclusive are they?

6. Are there physical evidences against Smith's claims? How conclusive are they?

7. How plausible are the apologetic arguments against #s 5 and 6? Which are more probable?

8. Did you take the question to God? What are the methods for determining God's answer? How reliable and bias-proof are each of these methods?

A lot of people have written comentaries about and study helps for the Bible. Those books are not presented as scripture (defined as being of divine origin), so that may be the key to them being accepted vs the Book of Mormon, which IS presented as scripture.

I disagree with a lot of the newer translations of the Bible, especially when they read different, doctrinally. That just seems wrong to me. I don't see a problem with updating the grammar or vocabulary for those who struggle with the archaic nature of KJV, but when the point isn't the same......

The books I struggle with are ones with titles like "The Woman's Bible" with just Biblical verses and passages relating to women, to name one example. To me, this is exactly what was refered to in the "taking away" phrase of the warning.

At the same time, I feel that the warnings in Deuteronomy and in Revelations apply just to those books. Chronologically, both the Old and New Testaments are all mixed up- Genesis-Joshua is in order, and Matthew-Acts is in chronological order. After that, there's little that is in chronological order- the books called The Prophets (Isaiah-Malachi), and the Paulian letters- they're in order of size- longest to shortest.

I don't feel that a loving Father would just stop talking to His children. I guess that's why I feel those warnings apply JUST to Deutreonomy and Revelation. When God speaks, and the hearer writes, to me- that is scripture. If God speaks to you, you write it, and I read it, I can still learn something from that, and so can others. Why should people be robbed of that opportunity??

I just really struggle with people who say that He's done talking to mankind. Check out the news sometime- we human beings need His guidance more than ever now.

You have been warned not to call something the Word of God or Scripture when it isn't, and not to compromise what is. For example, why is it that that the Mormon church cannot fully accept nor fully reject Joseph Smith's Inspired Version of the Bible? Notice how Joseph Smith's revisions to the Bible include prohpecy about himself???

I recommend the Complete Jewish Bible so that you can understand that the whole Bible is Jewish; the books of the New Covenant are Jewish. Christianity can be rightly understood ONLY from a Jewish perspective. Mormon, Roman Catholic, even Protestant, and every other anti-Semitism is condemned absolutely and forever.

Unlike the book of Mormon, you can go back to the Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek originals with the Bible. The purpose of life and the meaning of history is that God will deliver humanity from the misery of sin and restore the conditions that enable individuals and people to rightly relate with Him. This is the central message of the Bible and easy enough for a child to understand. Why do you think the Mormons have such a hard time understanding and thus forfeit communion with God?

The Complete Jewish Bible:

- follows the Hebrew Bible order of the Tanakh's books, the order with which Yeshua (Jesus) was familiar

- makes no separation between "Old" and "New" Testaments

- corrects misinterpretations in the New Testament resulting from anti-Jewish theological bias

- offers the original Hebrew names for people, places, and concepts, using easy-to-read English transliterations

- focuses on Messianic prophecy

- gives the traditional weekly and holiday synagogue readings, plus relevant readings from the "B'rit Hadashah" (New Testament)

The Complete Jewish Bible:

- reconnects Christians with their Jewish roots and the Jewish people

- connects Jews with the Jewishness of Messiah Yeshua and Messianic faith

You can read it free online:

http://bible.crosswalk.com/

Logical answer. No, because then every answer here about the Bible would be adding to the Bible.

Seriously we indelibly add to every line of scripture our own personal point of view. We may not publish this amended scripture, but we read and discuss it viewed through our own lens. Why not? Isn't the point to gain understanding. Who does not read Revelations, where this edict is invoked, without a comment on what is meant, and how close it is to our day? Have not a thousand commentaries been written about Revelations? Doesn't each 'add' to the book?

We are told that all scripture is reliable and authoritative. What we are not told in the bible is which writings are scripture. It would be very careless to just assume it is the 66 books in the modern protestant bible. Jesus said that The Holy Spirit would reveal all truth to us. John also tells us that if we have been anointed we do not need that any man teach us. People who think that they need others to explain what the bible means to them do not know how to tell the difference between the unholy and Holy spirits. The gnostic gospels are scripture and the o.t. is not.

depends on what you write~if it's about the Bible and agrees with it~good

but if it contradicts God's word and tries to supercede it~bad

John wrote in Revelations what happens if you add or take away;

why would you need another book about the Bible anyway?

The Word itself with the Holy Spirit leading and teaching and guiding will never contradict God's Word~He has the last word~Jesus according to John is The Word

I use Bullinger's Companion Bible and the Strong's Concordance, which allows me to take every word in the KJV back to the original language.

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. Deuteronomy 4:2

Revelation 22:18-19

18 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:

19 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.

I believe that a book can be written by someone that has thoughts and ideas about certain verses or the Bible itself, but to state that this book is the word of God, no.

no.just because someone writes about the Bible

doesn't make it a part of the bible. it is an extra.

like " Every Prophecy of the Bible" by John F.

Walvoord. it is definitly about the Bible but it isn't

a part of it nor is J. F. W. a prophet.

The book of Revelation was written when there was no Bible so no you are good, just don't add to that book