|
Bible
scriptures
|
|
SOURCES OF MY
BIBLE TEXTS
|
|
|
Bible scriptures, in this site,
are from two different sources:
|
|
|
All Bible scripture, in this site,
are from the King James Version Bible.
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
Authorised by King James,
Translated by 47 scholars &
theologians
from 1604 to 1611.
Then re-edited by Benjamin
Blayney
in 1769.
However, William Tyndale had
already done
most of the work back in 1525.
See: Wikipedia: William Tyndale.,,,
,, ,, King James was a good king & politician
,, ,, and to be thanked for the King James Bible he authorised.
,, ,, But many Americans might be surprised to learn
,, ,, that he was gay, or more probably bisexual.
,, ,, See: Wikipedia:
King James. ,,,
I mark King James Version Bible
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
|
|
|
Other than KJV texts, the only texts I
actually include
are my own abbreviated versions.
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 of the
scripture
but also at the beginning.
As you are more than welcome
to ignore my abbreviations
I always add a link, to BibleGateway, to each one
so that 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 (or any 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 (etc) uses:
Acts 3
Acts 3:1
Acts 3:1-10
Acts 3-4
Acts 3:1-2:10
|
|
|
Perhaps also 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 have italicised all
Bible scriptures,
I reverse this practice. I also 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 [i.e. 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 revere God such as to
write his pronouns as: He, Him, His,
rather than: he, him, his.
I find this distracting (pronouns are used so frequently)
so I don’t do it (nor does the KJV).
Conversely, I find it distracting that godly
has a small g.
(You wouldn’t write:
Pam’s homemade dress made her very pammish, or pamlike.)
So I always write Godly, or un-Godly.
I also change Bible texts accordingly.
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 8th to the
13th 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 it easier
to get permission to use so many
Bible texts)
are the two reasons I use the
KJV 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,
in which case I resort to the NIV.
For example, in 1 Cor c13,
the KJV uses the word charity
(charity is the old English word for love)
whereas the NIV uses the word 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 call God ‘Sovereign’:
You
know & believe he has power.
But all his other good points
(& possibly his bad ones –
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 translated 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 recently got the KJV on my Android
phone:
It does not have italics.
(Nor my greyed out, ‘not in
older manuuscripts’ texts.
See, regarding above cell, USEFUL
CUSTOMISATIONS).
But it’s still handy.
The options seem to be:
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
Smith’s sermons were from
the New Testament, not the Old Testament.
Smith’s sermons are rotated by the site
owner.
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.
Likewise, last time I looked,
Smith Wigglesworth’s online
sermons contained:
0 instances of the word justice
277 instances of the word love.
|
|
|
I rarely used it myself, but if want to study Bible texts
in their original language,
you might like to use: Biblehub Interlinear Bible.,,,,,
|
|
|
.
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|