Online Bibles Online Bible Study Tools

When it comes to study of the actual "Holy Bible containing Old and New Testaments" itself, one book having two testaments, even mention therein of two Holies, yet notably not called a Holy Holy Bible; And I speak of the Book (of books) which defines and explains itself quite adequately to the reader thereof if the student thereof is seeking God's holy truth, the truth which is come, came by Jesus Christ: John 1:17, as the sort of truth which makes you free of "fear hath torment", via truth about the law which shall be ever more made known unto all, and as if "also that" shall be told wheresoever this gospel of this/that gospels is preached throughout the whole world, even unto the full monty revelation(uncovering) promised us in Luke 12:



When it comes to that sort of study, uncovering what's been covered up, hidden, I've done more than most, including the likes of Billy (goat) Graham and JVI: Jack of the 'Impe' family. Having worn out more Bibles and versions (many perversions) thereof than a man can carry, and prior to age 50; My study preference of the Holy Bible containing Old & New Testaments is the Authorized KJV. But notably not the traditional 1611 perversion having the Roman Catholic Apocrypha; Rather the earlier one which is neither Protestant nor Roman Catholic as told in the Epistle Dedicatory (perhaps why many Protestants and Roman Catholics war against the Authorized KJV).

I find the Holy Bible (King James Authorized KJV) reliably accurate, especially when searching out the allegory thereof, to solve the "mystery" of God. For of many versions I've studied, it is by far the most consistent when doing biblical searches. I do not fear the Apocrypha, but rather have dared to compare it, and found it as faulty as translators did, who did neither include nor canonize it in the Holy Bible (KJV Authorized by KJ) which probably got done and printed earlier than 1611, perhaps 1610. Thereafter both Roman Catholics and Protestants oft paid for and printed whatever perversion such "popish" and "self conceited" brethren desired. For not only Oxford University Press, but Nelson, Zondervan, Wycliffe, etc, all have a mandate: to make money printing, and print whatever perversion people pay for.


And for clarity about the Authorized KJV, I mean "the" Holy Bible of said King (James) of Great Britain (England, Scotland, Wales), France, and Ireland, said Defender of The Faith ("the law is not of faith": Galatians 3:11), who did authorize (sanction) as one perfect english translation of six existing Bibles, making it the seventh of seven as if making a complete and perfect work, and notably to make what's good "better", in the same manner that God saw only "good" x 6, but then God saw "very good" the seventh time in Genesis 1):

                      The Holy Bible is Seventh of Seven: A complete and perfect work
                              (notably not counting a 1385 Wycliffe Bible nor a 1582 Douay-Rheims Bible)
                      1. Tyndale's Bible ... 1525AD
                      2. Coverdale's Bible... 1535AD
                      3. Matthew's Bible (by Tyndale & John Rogers) ... 1537AD
                      4. Cramer's (Great Bible) printed by Whit church ... 1539AD
                      5. Geneva Bible... 1560AD
                      6. Bishop's Bible... 1568AD
                      7. Holy Bible (Authorized KJV) containing Old & New Testaments...1611


Why King James' guidelines to translators did not include mention of a 1385AD Wycliffe NT Bible (already translated into english), nor mention a Douay-Rheims 1582AD Bible is not such a great mystery, for Epistle Dedicatory, Notes to Readers, and Guidelines For Translation suggest they were probably Protestant and Roman Catholic blame game flavored. I would also note King James was catholic(universal), but neither Roman Catholic nor Protestant. Such is noted in the Translator's Epistle Dedicatory and Notes to Reader. I have diligently sampled and compared many versions, also studied enough about King James history, Shakespearean history (he was contemporary with King James and with Bible translators, and had same royal favor as Bible Translators). I've also studied past and present version debates, and information about Bible Translators: enough to feel safest of safe safer safest in using the Holy Bible (Authorized KJV with an Epistle Dedicatory but not the Apocrypha) as the final authority.

As to the 1611 Authorized KJV, there were several KJVs printed 1611 and after, just as there are different KJVs still being printed today. For the mandate of Oxford University Press was to make money for the University printing books. Hence any who paid for it got whatever perversion of the KJV they paid for, such as a RC flavored 1611 KJV with the Apocrypha.

For clarity I mean making one 'Holy Bible' which was neither Jewish nor Gentile, neither Hebrew nor Greek, and neither Roman Catholic nor Protestant flavored; Said holy truth work to be diligently translated and set in order (not necessarily chronological order, but more allegorical order) by Kingly "appointed" Translators of the Bible: "learned men all" who thought it "preposterous order to teach first and learn after". Said holy work to be open to suggestion and scrutiny of all learned men in the kingdom; Not as if making something new, but making one Holy Bible from six existing Bibles (see item #14), all six collectively called "good" (perhaps since God saw only "good" x 6 in Gen 1), and notably to make a "good" one "better" (perhaps as the seventh of seven, for God saw "very good" the seventh time in Gen 1). Selah.

And perhaps said good one to be made to better (one) is in the same manner as of two one man scenarios in Rom 5, or of two Adams in 1Cor 15, or of two spokesmen in Hebrews, etc; one of twain is better. And perhaps as the old testament, law thereof, is called "good", but the new testament, grace thereof, is called a "better testament" having a "better hope" than a good old testament, merciless law thereof, which leaves readers fearful hopeless sinners all. And perhaps a good one(God) made better is as "ye" do err folk are afterward made a perfect "you" who never errs: never adds law to "grace is sufficient", and by the God of all grace.

The recorded purpose of said kingly appointed work (Authorized KJV) was to make God's holy truth the more known throughout the world. In other words, to make one God, "the only wise God" of foolish/wise Gods, "the only true God" of false/true Gods, "the living God of the living", "the God of all grace", "that God" of this/that Gods, "that God is light and in him there is no darkness at all", "that God was in Christ reconciling the world", the more known to all people in printed book form, so they might read about and better know such an Holy one themselves, instead of having to take sides with 'popish persons' ('Roman' Catholics) or 'self conceited brethren' (Protestants) erroneously interpreting it for them in ministerial pulpits of warring churches, along with their Roman Catholic & Protestant biases tainting God's truth.

It should be noted that once translation of the Authorized KJV got completed (1611?), many Roman Catholic and Protestant flavored versions of KJV were also printed afterward, some having the Apocrypha therein, few having the Epistle Dedicatory. Why? Because the mandate for the Oxford University Press was: make money for the University. Whoever paid got whatever they paid for, like many publishers today, such as Nelson and Zondervan to name two, print other versions for money: perhaps love of money. However the Authorize' KJV was both made and published "to make God's holy truth the more known" and for love of God.

It should also be noted said Authorized KJV has survived much false accusation of being erroneous, and by many deceived by many for nearly 400 years, about the same length of time the works of Shakespeare have survived and are nearly as widely studied. It may interest some to note Shakespeare was contemporary with and given the same royal favor(grace) of King James as the Bible Translators. When it comes to allegory, Shakespeare is considered among the best. He was probably biblically astute. A Bible was found in the attic of his house.


I try not to offer dangerous helps. Rather I point all to throne of grace, to get "help", in time. The Bible doesn't say ask men for wisdom, not even learned men; Rather "ask God": James 1.
The Bible is allegoric. Once a biblical fact gets established, Bible study becomes more interesting. Godshew.org offers revelatory topics and revelatory sermons to help you get understanding; But not in a manner of teaching, rather in a manner of sharing what I have learned, both from much study and from asking God for wisdom, nothing wavering, after much study became a weariness of the flesh.

As for Evangelists: perhaps "many" are evangelastic deceivers: many shall come... to deceive. Here's what Paul The Apostle said to Timothy: "Evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry", study to shew thyself approved unto God, then help those who oppose themselves to recover. Such falls in line with first get the beam out of your own eye to see better how to help others; which also falls in line with "when thou art converted, then strengthen thy brethren". For conversion is from law to grace, and born again is of incorruptible seed: grace, which Christ is, by being Christ is the end of the law (not the mend of law); Since reconciliation does not law impute sin to confess or cover up, and if you're not reconciling, you're alienating: Mt 12:30, which many do by law imputing sin to others, and thereby condemn themselves in the process.

As for Biblical Scholars: some reveal major dah when it comes to the "better" New Testament. I find most so-called Bible Scholars don't get past the first verse of Revelation without failing the final exam of the Bible. What many teach or preach is what Paul The Apostle calls "dung". As Bible Translators said: it's preposterous order to teach first and learn after, which many do.
Give more earnest heed to biblical evidence, then make up your damn mind woman (church).