Bible scriptures
	SOURCES OF MY BIBLE TEXTS
	Bible scriptures, in this site, are from two different sources:
	1) The King James Version Bible: 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 Authorised by King James. Translated by 47 scholars & theologians from 1604 to 1611. Re-edited by Benjamin Blayney in 1769. Mind you, William Tyndale, back in 1525, had already done most of the translating. See: Wikipedia: William Tyndale.,, I mark King James Version scriptures with: KJV. For example: Jam c2 v10: For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. KJV
	2) My own abbreviation. I mark these with: my abbreviation or: my abbn. For example: Acts c3 v1-10: Peter healed a man who’d been born lame. my abbn If the Bible text is long I put: my abbreviation or: my abbn not only at the end, but also at the beginning. I made my own abbreviation texts because I needed to convey an overall meaning of a chunk of scripture. Also because I gained permission to use 464 verses from Cambridge University Press, and, though I’ve often thought of asking if I could use more, have, equally often, thought surely 454 is enough. You are more than welcome to ignore my abbreviations. I start every my abbreviations text with a link to BibleGateway. Hence you can see the proper KJV text. For example: Acts c3 v1-10: Peter healed a man who’d been born lame. my abbn
.
							N.B. If you want to search for Bible references on the BibleGateway search engine bear in mind that: The format I use is: Acts c3 Acts c3 v1 Acts c3 v1-10 Acts c3 – c4 Acts c3 v1 – c2 v10 Whereas BibleGateway uses: Acts 3 Acts 3:1 Acts 3:1-10 Acts 3-4 Acts 3:1-2:10
							Perhaps see: List of abbreviations of books of the Bible.,,,
			.
			CHANGES I MAKE TO KJV BIBLE SCRIPTURES
							I reckon that verse numbers distract from the Bible text. So, unless it’s appropriate to leave them in, I omit them.
							In this site, I italicise all Bible scriptures (both KJV and my own abbreviations) to make them distinct from the body text. Every version of the Bible is a translation of ancient manuscripts. But, as well as translate, translators also made changes so that their product made sense in the language of the day. The translators of the KJV were no exception. But, to make it clear which words they’d added, they printed the added words in italics. For example: ‘was’ and ‘he was’, in the following scripture. Isa c53 v5: But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. KJV However, as I italicise all Bible scriptures, I reverse this practice and, for extra clarity, I grey out the word. For example: Isa c53 v5: But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. KJV
							If I add my own comment to a Bible verse, I make it: always non-italicised, always in square brackets, and usually in small font. For example: Luke c22 v31-32: And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you [disciples], that he may sift you [disciples] as wheat ,, ,, ,, [relentlessly mention your faults to you]: But I have prayed for thee [Peter], that thy faith fail not: and when thou [Peter] art converted, strengthen thy brethren. KJV
							Where I do not complete a verse, I add: ctd … or: … ctd For example: 2 Cor c5 v15: And that he died for all, … ctd KJV As you can see, I make the reference into a link, to BibleGateway, so that you can view the whole text.
							I sometimes add an extra, bracketed, reference. For example: Matt c17 v20 (Luke c17 v6): And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you. KJV The bracketed reference is of a scripture that is nearly identical to the scripture shown. As you can see, I make the bracketed reference into a link, to BibleGateway, so that you can see the nearly identical text as well. With ‘my abbreviation’ references & texts it’s not relevant to add the brackets, so I don’t.
							King James’ translators made the first letter of every verse into a capital, even if it was grammatically inappropriate. For example: Eph c2 v4-7: 4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, 5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) 6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: 7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. KJV So I took the liberty of changing unnecessary capitals to lower case. I think it’s less distracting. For example: Eph c2 v4-7: 4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, 5 even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) 6 and hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: 7 that in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. KJV
							Many Christians write of God as He or Him or His, rather than the usual he or him or his. I find this distracting, so I’m glad the KJV doesn’t do it. However, the KJV (& indeed everyone everywhere) uses the word godly, rather than the word Godly, as an adjective for God & things/people of God. I find this distracting too. (You wouldn’t write: Pam’s made her dress very pammish or pamlike.) So I took the liberty of changing godly to Godly and ungodly to un-Godly. For example: 2 Cor c7 v11: For behold this selfsame thing, that ye sorrowed after a Godly sort, what carefulness it wrought in you, yea, what clearing of yourselves, yea, what indignation, yea, what fear, yea, what vehement desire, yea, what zeal, yea, what revenge! In all things ye have approved yourselves to be clear in this matter. KJV 1 Tim c1 v9: knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the un-Godly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, KJV
					.
			BIBLE VERSES THAT I OMIT
			Before I continue, I just want to emphasise how reliable the Bible is: YouTube: – Student learns the truth , , about errors in the Bible (Epic Q&A).,, Is the Bible Reliable and Accurate in Transmission?.,,
			The following five websites are my sources for omitting Bible verses: Wikipedia: List of New Testament verses ,, not included in modern English translations Should Mark 16:9-20 be in the Bible? What does the Bible say about snake handling? Translation errors and forgeries* in the Bible 6 Passages That Weren't in the Original New Testament. I reckon the above websites are sound & correct. But you should realise that I am a philosophical Christian, not a theologian, I don’t even know Greek.
			The King James Bible was translated, in 1611, from the oldest manuscripts available at the time. However, some time later, even older manuscripts came to light.
			These older manuscripts showed that the later manuscripts, that were used to make the KJV, had material added to them. I call them forged verses. These verses, at first sight, seem right and appropriate. But, on soaking them in, and the immediate & wider contexts, you can see that they are added. Ironically, some of them ended up being many people’s favourite Bible texts.
			Being interested in only the truth I do not use any of these forged verses. The only way you might bump into one, in this site, is where I have a BibleGateway link, to a clump of verses, and the forged verse is inside the clump.
			The concepts behind the forged verses are usually represented elsewhere in the Bible anyway. So me omitting them is usually of no importance. (I think that some of my, purely logical, arguments prove biblical truths without even referring to the Bible.)
			If Christians believe a forged verse to be true, and if a forged verse is consistent with true verses, then God, not being an idiot, would, I’m sure, treat the forged verse as true, for them, and respond accordingly. Conversely, when ignoring a forged verse in the Bible, I sometimes find that the focus of the remaining text then falls elsewhere, revealing a different emphasis. For example, see third cell of: PRAYING & FASTING. ,,,
			The KJV verses I’ve omitted are: Matthew c17 v21 Matthew c18 v11 Matthew c23 v14 Mark c6 v11 Only the last 23 words are forged. Mark c7 v16 Mark c9 v29 Only the last 2 words are forged. Mark c9 v44 Mark c9 v46 Mark c11 v26 Mark c15 v28 Mark c16 v9-20 Luke c4 v8 Only the 8^th to the 13^th words inclusive are forged. Luke c17 v36 Luke c22 v17-21 Luke c22 v43-44 Luke c23 v17 John c5 v3 Only the last 7 words are forged. and: John c5 v4 John c7 v53 and: John c8 v1-11 John c21 Acts c8 v37 Acts c15 v34 Acts c24 v6-8 Acts c28 v29 Romans c16 v24 1 Corinthians c14 v34-35 1 John c5 v7-8 Revelation c1 v11 Only the first 12 words are forged.
					.
						WHICH VERSION OF THE BIBLE TO USE
						Over the decades I’ve used three versions of the Bible: Good News Bible (a youth’s Bible). then the New International Version. then the King James Version. Since 2011 I’ve personally used mainly the KJV. This, and the old age of the KJV (making copyright permission, for so many Bible texts, more straightforward, I assume) are why I use it in this website.
						One helpful feature of the King James Bible is that, in Old English, the concept ‘you’ was split into singular and plural. Indeed Old English has four words for ‘you’: ‘thou’ (subject), and ‘thee’ (object), both singular, ‘ye’ (subject), and ‘you’ (object), both plural. Perhaps also see: Online dictionary of KJV words, and: How to use thee, thou, and other King James pronouns (the layout of their webpage needs tidying to make it more logical).
						However, I still find the KJV difficult when reading: Paul’s long sentences or some old-English words. Also, in this site, I tend to use the NIV version of 1 Cor c13 because the word ‘charity’ no longer means ‘love’. I value having become familiar with the Bible via the NIV, and I sometimes go back to the NIV to get a general grasp. But I’m wary of the NIV, for the following reasons.
						.
						My 1988 NIV concordance shows that the NIV calls God ‘Sovereign Lord’ 296 times, mostly in the Old Testament. However: 1) Most people, when they hear the word ‘Sovereign’, think king, queen, absolute ruler. and: 2) Most Christians give undue importance to the Old Testament. (See: SO, BE CAREFUL NOT TO ENTER INTO THE OLD COVENANT.) Hence: 3) The dictatorial quality of the word ‘Sovereign’ gets attached to the New Testament God. This is wrong because: o The New Testament finally insists that our destiny is in our hands. See: We choose where we go. o The New Testament finally insists that our healing is in our hands. See: CONTINUING THE SON’S WORK. Perhaps also see: GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY. Perhaps also see: Andrew Wommack’s Teaching Article: ,, Sovereignty Of God. ,,,
						Conversely, the KJV was translated when: The world was full of kings & queens and everyone understood sovereignty well. The KJV was even commissioned by a king. So I reckon that, if the word ‘Sovereign’ were the right word to use to describe God’s kingship, that, of all people, the King James’ translators would have used it. But they didn’t. Indeed, the words Sovereign, sovereign, Sovereignty, and sovereignty, are not in the King James Bible at all.
						I reckon that, if you do not have a full relationship with God but think & believe that you do, then you would, indeed, call God ‘Sovereign’: You know & believe he has power. But all his other good points (& possibly bad points – as far as you know) are still a mystery to you. See: GOD DOES NOT CHANGE ,, BUT HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH US CHANGES. I reckon this was the case with the NIV translator(s).
						Conversely, I reckon that the KJV may be as good as it is partly because: KJV translators restrained any preconceived notions that they had. Or rather, they had fewer preconceived notions (Darwin, for example, had not yet been born). The KJV was made in a culture that’s nearer to the culture of the Bible than today’s western culture.
	.
						However, I don’t think the KJV is a perfect translation: Perhaps see: Why I Do Not Think the King James Bible ,, is the Best Translation Available Today, and, the less authoritative: Errors and Mistranslations in the KJV. My personal criticisms of the KJV (and indeed of many Bible translations) are in: GOD’S SPIRIT and: THE SECOND BAD-YET-RIGHT ERROR: ,, “SURELY, GOD DID BAD BY BLINDING THIS MAN ,, BEFORE MAKING HIM WELL AGAIN”. ,,,
						I bought a New King James Version. But as soon as I read, and thoughtfully considered, What’s wrong with the New King James ,, (arguments favouring the KJV over the NKJV ,, and reading tips for the KJV), I decided to stick with the KJV.
						.
						In conclusion: The following video gives a valuable overall perspective. YouTube: – What is the best English Bible translation?.,,
		.
		HARD COPIES, PCs & LAPTOPS, & MOBILE PHONES.
						On your laptop or desktop PC perhaps use an online Bible: King James Bible Online. This is a KJV only Bible, but it’s easy to use, has red letters, a good search engine, and few adverts. On BIBLE OPTIONS I like 'Paragraph view'. (Though, if you leave it in ‘not Paragraph view’, and click on the Bible text, & scroll down, you can compare it to some other Bible versions.) Biblica. All the world’s languages. Any version of the Bible. Easy to use.
						Best of all, put a KJV Bible actually onto your PC/laptop. Go to my webpage: How to put KJV into MS Word, (this link does not open a new tab) and see my two options for doing this: QUICK WAY and IMPROVED WAY.
						I’ve never personally used a mobile phone Bible app but I can see they’re handy if you’re out & about. I believe the options are: King James Bible Online. Go to MOBILE option (at top of window) Google Play: The Bible App Free + Audio, Daily Verse, For Android phones. App Store Preview: Bible: Daily Study, Audio & Prayer iPhone etc.
						Almost as portable as a mobile phone is a cheap paperback New Testament. You’d be in good company. Smith Wigglesworth always had a New Testament with him but not always a Bible. And, as far as I can see, all his sermons were from the New Testament, not the Old Testament. God, in this Church Age, this New Covenant Age (i.e. 33ad to now), is loving, not just: In the KJV: The Old Testament contains 29 instances of the word justice. The New Testament contains 0 instances of the word justice. Similarly, last time I looked, Smith Wigglesworth’s online sermons contained: 0 instances of the word justice 277 instances of the word love. ,, ,, , Smith’s sermons are rotated by the site owner.
					.
					JOHN’S GOSPEL
		Some say that John’s gospel has little original material in it. I personally see it as authentic. Perhaps see: The Historical Reliability of John. But I also see it as: Not a raw, historical, document (like the other gospels). But as something already processed by a mature Christian mind. See: Wikipedia: Gospel of John. I reckon this resulted in John’s ‘sixth hour of the day’ error: In John c19 v13-16 Jesus is still talking with Pilate while, in the other three gospels, Matt c27 v42-45 Mark c15 v29-33 Luke c23 v39-44, he is already on the Cross.
		But I reckon this also resulted in the value of John’s gospel: His gospel is under the surface, is seen by the heart more than by the mind. It may not be literal (like, say, James’ epistle) but it is out-of-sight foundational. See: John c1 v1-18 John c3 v1-21 John c4 v6-26 John c5 v19-30 John c6 v24-69 John c9 – c10 etc.
		Perhaps also see: Isn’t the Gospel of John unreliable ,, compared to the Synoptic Gospels?. ,,,
		.
		Home page