The story behind the King James translation or KJV, including the men who were involved in producing it
Please always get the latest version of this document, from the Bible Pages web site, at this address: www.biblepages.web.surftown.se/es03c.htm
Need larger text? Go to your browser's "View" menu and look for "Text size" or "Zoom".
In the USA, especially in the Baptist- and Freemason-influenced South, there is
a strange movement or cult, "KJV only", which claims that the King James version
supposedly is the most accurate one, "without error", "inspired by God" and "superior
to other translations". Particularly its 1769 edition is often considered to be
"The Bible". But is that true? In other words: The King James bible, the Authorised
Version – is it somehow "the inspired Word of God", better than other translations,
or a particularly "holy" bible-version, or the best or most exact or accurate one
as some have claimed? Also: In what way or sense is it thought to be authoritative
– or, who "authorised" it?
This essay has some details of the story behind the King James translation or KJV, including the men who were involved in producing it. Two examples of pages in KJV-1611 are included as well; one of them is an image that shows the page with Hebrews 1, the other one contains a facsimile, PDF-format copy of the book of Matthew in the original edition of the King James version. There are also some brief remarks on the so-called "Received Text" or Textus Receptus, the Greek NT text compilation produced by the Catholic priest Gerrit Gerritszoon ("Erasmus"), which some claim to have been the "basis" for the KJ version.
A side-note: In the linguistic context, the words "version" and "translation" (both of Latin origin) have the same meaning. For more on this, look under the headings "Translate" and "Version" in the key-word index for this site.
Some examples of pages in the first edition of the King James version which was published in 1611, are displayed later in this essay:
Those things are found later in this document, but first, here is a small sample of the looks of the KJV-1611, a part of Genesis 1:
Can you read the text style in the actual verses in the image above? If not, here is that same passage in modern-day letters (but with the original wording and spelling):
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the Heauen, and the Earth. 2 And the earth was without forme, and voyd, and darkenesse was vpon the face of the deepe: and the Spirit of God mooued vpon the face of the waters. 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God diuided the light from the darkenesse. 5 And God called the light, Day, and the darknesse he called Night: and the euening and the morning were the first day. 6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters: and let it diuide the waters from the waters. 7 And God made the firmament; and diuided the waters, which were vnder the firmament, from the waters, which were aboue the firmament: and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament, Heauen: and the euening and the morning were the second day. 9 And God said, Let the waters vnder the heauen be gathered together vnto one place, and let the dry land appeare: and it was so. 10 And God called the drie land, Earth, and the gathering together of the waters called hee, Seas: and God saw that it was good. 11 And God said, Let the Earth bring foorth grasse, the herbe yeelding seed, and the fruit tree, yeelding fruit after his kinde, whose seed is in it selfe, vpon the earth: and it was so. 12 And the earth brought foorth grasse, and herbe yeelding seed after his kinde, and the tree yeelding fruit, whose seed was in it selfe, after his kinde: and God saw that it was good. (KJV-1611)
In other words: Was that new version produced for some "ecclesiastical" reasons, such as for the need or purpose of producing a translation that was closer to the original languages? No. Read on, for more.
It was in 1604 that James ordered a new version to be produced (for the Church of England). The group of men who were engaged in that project, were given orders to produce a text that was as close as possible to the 1602 edition of the Bishops' bible, also a Church of England translation, with as few changes as possible. In other words: A "new" translation was ordered in 1604, to replace a translation that had been published just two years earlier. But, it was to be a close copy of that 1602 version. So, what was the point with that project?
The answer is that it was for political reasons that James was not happy with the 1602 translation. It was for that reason that he in January 1604, half a year after he was coronated as the king of England, [A] gave an order that the 1602 translation was to be revised. He wanted certain specific things in the text to be changed ("doctored"). That new edition was to give better support for the "divine right of kings" dogma which James needed for staying in power. Also, the new text was to be written so that it in a better way supported "church hierarchies" and related things. (James wanted to have the local priests of the Church of England under control, so that his own power position would be secured. He could not personally control all priests, but he could do that by the help of a "church hierarchy". For that reason, the men who were to produce a new edition of the 1602 version, were given specific orders regarding certain things. There is more on this, later in this essay.)
[A] James was the king of Scotland from 24 July 1567 to 27 March 1625 (coronated as James VI of Scotland on 29 July 1567), and the king of England from 24 March 1603 to 27 March 1625 (coronated as James I of England on 25 July 1603).
It could be that some of those men were among the "best translators" found in England at that time, but really who were they, and what was their religion and what were their goals?
(For a list of the names of those who are said to have participated in the translation work, see the footnote towards the end of this essay.)
In the early 1600s, when the 1602 and 1611 editions were produced, Europe had been ruled by the Catholic Church for a thousand years. Even though there had been some few changes in the Church of England, it was still basically Catholic, in regard to its teachings and practices. So were also the men who were set to produce a new edition of the 1602 Bishops' bible.
It seems that king James was a Knight-Templar (about the same as a Freemason). It is also said that at least some of the translators he employed to produce a new bible-version, were Knight-Templars. A note: These things are not very easy to verify. Many Freemason writers are not very careful with facts when they include all kinds of people in their own "history". But, it is clear that there was a Knight-Templar presence in Scotland (that is where James came from), and again, many say that James was a Templar himself. It is worth noting that king James seems to be a special "hero" for present-day Freemasons. But, that is not because Freemasons would be bible-believers; Freemasonry is a Satan-worshipping religion. The essay ew04d.htm has more on that subject.
The KJV-cult appears to have its origins in the Baptist and Freemason South of the USA. Thousands of Baptist pastors are at the same time Freemasons, just as probably tens of thousands of Baptist "deacons" are, and hundreds of thousands of other members of the Baptist movement. It probably is because of those circles (and from similar ones, which are many) that the KJ version has become idolised in such an incredible way. (Again, the essay ew04d.htm has more on Freemasonry.)
Some have claimed that the New Testament part of the 1611 KJV was based on a "superior Greek text". But, the facts are different.
For the first, the King James version contains many wordings that are not supported by any Greek text, but which are found in the Catholic, Latin Vulgate version. The various editions of the KJ version are influenced by Catholic things even in other ways. The 1611 edition even included the Apocrypha – in other words, it included all the parts of the Latin Vulgate's Old Testament. And, the apocrypha was still there, also in the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV.
Most present-day editions of the King James bible are of a much later date. Numerous textual changes have been made since 1769, not to mention 1611. Some modern-day printings may give the appearance of being "the 1769 edition, re-printed", but often that is not true at all.
Further: It is not true that the KJV would have been "based on the Hebrew and the Greek texts". Again, when James in 1604 ordered a "new translation" he gave orders that it was to based on the 1602 edition of the Bishops' bible, with as few changes as possible. Some of the men in the group who produced that new edition for James, might have looked even at some Hebrew and Greek texts, but they were told to use already existing translations (Latin, English and other) as a basis for their work. And again, the end result of their work was to be a slight revision of the 1602 version, with changes mostly to certain specific matters because of political reasons. More: In regard to certain things, they received specific instructions which hindered them from producing a text that would have correctly carried over the meaning of the Greek text.
Regarding the so-called "Erasmian text" – see the next point.
There is a cult around the Erasmian text, which some misleadingly claim to have been the "basis" for the King James bible's New Testament part. Some have spoken much about the supposed "supremacy" of Erasmus' (Gerritszoon's) text. But, the facts are different. Read on:
The compiler of the "TR" text was a Dutchman by the name Gerrit Gerritszoon (circa 1466-1536), a Catholic monk and priest (and an illegitimate son of a man who later was a Catholic priest). Gerritszoon took the Latin name "Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus"; the part "Erasmus" apparently after the Catholic "saint" Erasmus.
In the early 1500s, a Basel book printer by the name Johann Froben asked Gerritszoon to produce a Greek text of the New Testament, for publishing purposes. Apparently, Gerritszoon did not have access to Greek manuscripts for all of the NT. But, the publisher wanted a text and pressed on, and so, Gerritszoon produced one, in a hurry. This was circa 1516. A number of things indicate that in certain passages for which Gerritszoon lacked Greek manuscripts, he produced a Greek text, by translating the Latin text of the Catholic Vulgate into Greek. This, and many other things in connection with his hasty work, brought in many errors.
Over the decades that followed, several different, revised editions of that "Erasmian" text came to be published. The text that Gerritszoon produced, and the texts that today are called "Textus Receptus" or "Erasmian text", have numerous differences.
In 1624, the Dutch Elzevier brothers' printing-house (in Amsterdam) published a Greek NT, basing it on revised versions of the text which Gerritszoon had produced around a hundred years earlier.
In 1633, almost a century after Gerritszoon's death, the Elzevier brothers published yet another edition. In its publisher's preface, they included the Latin "blurb" (sales phrase) textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum, in quo nihil immutatum aut corruptum damus, meaning, "so you have the text that is now accepted by all, in which we present nothing that has been changed or that is corrupted". That was not true – all did not at all accept that text, and it was in no way a text without errors – but sales talk is sales talk.
It is from that publisher's sales phrase, that the misconception "textus receptus", "received text", has been produced.
In short: Some want people to believe that the different Greek text compilations which are based on what Gerritszoon in a hurry produced in the early 1500s, supposedly are a "Received Text" (or "inspired text)" – but that is plain deception. The phrase textum ergo habes nunc ab omnibus receptum did not in any way refer to some "receiving from above" or "inspiration"; it was only the publisher's for sales purposes produced (false) claim that their text supposedly was "accepted by all" (ab omnibus receptum).
It is very strange that so many preachers use the phrase "Received Text", and claim texts based on Gerritszoon's compilation to be "superior" – because, many of those preachers must be well aware of the fact that Gerritszoon's text was not in any way superior, and that it in fact was a compilation that was made in haste and had many errors, and even without access to all of the NT in Greek so that the lacking parts were produced by translating the Vulgate's Latin into Greek.
Yes indeed – in what way or sense is the KJ version "authoritative", or, who "authorised" it?
James, the dictator king who for political reasons ordered the creation of a new bible-edition, apparently demanded that he personally was to check and "authorise" the text, before it was published. He had made himself "head" of the Church of England, and now he wanted to have a translation that would help him to control that church and the people in that country. Thus, the KJ version was indeed produced "at his majesty's special command" – for his goals and purposes. The results were according to that.
So, the "authority" of that translation is in no way of God. But, one can view the matter even this way: The King James bible is not without reason called "authorised version". The translators who produced it, wrote into that translation a lot of "authority" and "power" and "rights" for the king (James), and also for the priesthood that was to support James' power-position.
James actually claimed that it would be right to call him "god". He saw himself as a "heavenly king" with a "divine right" to rule. He claimed that he was "not answerable to any man". He ordered and controlled a new bible-translation; into it was then dutifully written support for his claims. (There is more on the "divine right" dogma, below, and also in the essay ew02c.htm which is about worldly rulers.)
Regarding the phrase "Authorised Version" – the word "authority" comes from Latin auctor which meant "the originator", "the author". James the king had no "biblical authority". He could not "authorise" a bible. The only true "biblical authorities" are those who can be said to be the real originators (authors) of books of the Bible: Jesus and God the Father.
The essay es06d.htm has more on "biblical authority".
To see an example of the text of the 1611 edition (both as a facsimile image and plain text), see the second footnote, towards the end of this present treatise. Under that footnote there is a link to a printable PDF-file that contains the book of Matthew as it was in the original KJV (facsimile copy), and also, a link to a web site where one can browse the entire KJV-1611 in facsimile format (page for page, JPG-format).
That is a truly interesting area of study. First, as an example, the word "deacon". Sometimes, the men who produced the KJ version, did not translate the Greek word diakonos (which meant "aider", "attendant", "servant") but rather left it untranslated, in the corrupted form "deacon". But for the most part, they "translated" it with the Latin noun "minister" (which meant "aider", "attendant", "servant", just as the Greek diakonos did).
Why – for what reason – did those translators use the Latin word minister, instead of translating diakonos properly as "attendant", "aider", "servant" or "helper"? Most probably, the answer is that they did not want it to be known that in the New Testament, elders were commonly referred to by the noun diakonos, a word which meant "attendant", "aider", "servant", "helper".
It is said that James personally gave special orders that certain specific words were to be used, while others were not to be used. It is said that he wanted the wording to be "church", instead of the more proper "assembly" or "congregation", and "bishop" (a corruption of a Greek word, not a translation) or "minister" instead of the more clear "elder". And so on.
The essay ee01c.htm has more on the Greek words episkopos, diakonos and presbuteros. The essay ea08b.htm has more on titles of men in the religious context.
A note: The seven men whom the saints in Jerusalem elected for taking care of the social welfare distribution (Acts 6:1-5), were not referred to by the noun diakonos. The essay ee01c.htm has more on this.
"Ranks" and "ordination" were "written in", without any basis for that in the Greek text. Why was that done? Most probably because James wanted his church (the Church of England) to be controlled by a hierarchical system. It is said that he felt, "No bishop, no king." That is: If James could control a level of "higher churchmen", they would in their turn control the local churches and their priests. That would more or less guarantee that the church which he had made himself the "head" of, would support him and secure his own power-position.
So, he made sure that support for such things were written into the new translation which he had ordered to be produced. He saw to it that men of his liking had "high" positions in the Church of England; then he made an unholy alliance with those men. They helped him to stay in power, and he recompensed them for that help.
Among the concepts that were written into the KJ version without support in the Greek text, were "ordination", "office" and "ranks". They have no basis in the Greek text of the NT. The essays ee01c.htm and ee02b.htm have more on this.
Also: The KJ version makes it seem that elders "ruled", in the saints' fellowships. There, the translators used shrewdly chosen wordings and gave a totally upside-down turned picture of the apostle Paul's teachings, and of how things were among the saints. The essay ee04c.htm has more on that subject.
Another area where the KJ version is very misleading, is that of "religious titles". The essay ea08b.htm has more on that subject.
The Geneva Bible (an English translation published in 1560) had marginal notes which were not favourable to dictators. That disturbed James. So, he ordered a new translation to be made, one where the marginal notes were acceptable to him.
Among the dogmas which James arranged to be written into the translation he had ordered, was the concept of a supposed divine right of kings. He had some truly incredible claims about himself. In a speech to the parliament (which he regarded as nothing), he claimed that
"kings are iustly called Gods", and that "they haue power of raising, and casting downe: of life, and of death: Iudges ouer all their subiects, and in all causes, and yet accomptable [accountable] to none but God onely", and even, "I conclude then this point touching the power of Kings, with this Axiome of Diuinitie, That as to dispute what God may doe, is Blasphemie; but quid vult Deus [what God wants], that Diuines may lawfully, and doe ordinarily dispute and discusse; for to dispute A Posse ad Esse [from 'may be' to 'is'] is both against Logicke and Diuinitie: So is it sedition in Subiects, to dispute what a King may do in the height of his power".
The translators whom James put to work – and perhaps more the final editor who revised their work – saw to it that support for his claims about a "divine right" was written into that new translation. Later translations have then copied those things. Thus, even though there is no biblical basis for the "divine right" dogma, it is in some ways found in many translations of the Bible (even in ones that were produced before the KJV-1611).
Now, understanding these things in full is not possible without knowing some things about the Knight-Templars and Freemasonry. (Again, it is said that James was a Knight-Templar.) But, that is a subject too large to be included here. May it be enough to say that some Knight-Templars and Freemasons have claimed that a "kingly lineage" with a "heavenly right" has been continued from ancient times – even from times before the Flood. (That is an occult claim that refers to certain beings, or a special kindred, who lived here on Earth before the Flood.) Again, Freemasonry is a Satan-worshipping religion. The essay ew04d.htm has more on that matter.
As a part of those claims regarding "divine right" and "lineage", there is also the Knight-Templar relic stone above which James sat when he was coronated. That stone is connected to occult things too sinister to be mentioned here, but in short, the story is that a stone of some kind "came down from heaven" (from the stars), and that it somehow is connected to a "heavenly bloodline". That seems to be the origin of the concept of "blue blood"; blue was not the colour of the blood but rather the colour of heaven. That story has it that that "divine bloodline" came from "the gods who came down from heaven, mating with human women". These things might sound strange, but that is nevertheless the actual story around that Knight-Templar (Freemason) mystery-stone upon which even king James I of England was coronated. The essay ey14b.htm more on that "stone" matter.
Many claim, echoing wordings written into the King James translation and many other versions, that the rulers of this world supposedly are "appointed by God" and "continually in his service". Is that so? Was Genghis Khan "appointed by God" and "in his service"? Or Mao Tse Tung? Or Joseph Stalin, Lenin, Mussolini, Pol Pot, or any of the other great tyrants and butchers? Or – other rulers of this world? No, of course not. It is only that bible-translations which have been created at the order and under the control of the worldly rulers, make it seem so. The essay ew02c.htm has more on the rulers of this age (worldly rulers).
A note: The dogma about a supposed "divine right of kings" seems to originate with old "sun-god" religions such as Mithraism. Often, mystery-stones are important symbols in those religions.
Another note: The KJ version makes it seem that people should "follow preachers". That is based on a twisted way of translating the apostle Paul's words. What Paul really said (in the Greek text) was not "follow me", but instead, "imitate my example". Most churches and preachers do not want people to know what Paul's example really was. The essay em03c.htm explains that matter in detail.
But, it is enough to know that it certainly is not an "inspired" translation. It has many errors and twisted things, and its claimed accuracy is a myth. It is simply a translation that James the dictator ordered to be produced, for his own political purposes.
It is important that believers acquire and use proper study tools which make it possible for them to penetrate at least some of the smoke-screens created by translators. The page es01d.htm has more on tools for bible study.
Are there better translations, then? Well, one could say that there are some translations which are not quite as bad. But, there are no "good" translations. The existing ones are virtually always a work by biased men (or women) who worked for this world's churches or rulers, or were under their influence. Consequently, one must have, and use, proper study tools. Acquiring an extensive computer bible is where one must begin. Such computer bible packages are available even for free. For more, see the pages es01d.htm and es02c.htm.
Footnotes
1) A list of the men who are said to have been involved in the producing the KJ version.
Some notes: Most of the translators were either clergymen or university people, or both. Universities and religion were closely tied to each other. Also, many of those men were personal favourites of James the king, and defended his claims of "divine right", and more. Further, it is important to realise that in those days (early 1600s), the religion of England was basically Catholic. That was so, despite the political and economical break between the Church of England and Rome. England never had a "reformation" of the continental type – particularly not in those days. In many ways, it can be said that in the early 1600s, the religion of England was more Catholic than the Catholicism of our day is. It was that kind of men – doctrinally basically Catholic, and politically allies of James who acted as a de facto dictator – who produced the KJ version. All of them were unconverted men, of course, and they worked for a deceiving church which was controlled by a ruthless king who had ordered a new translation to be made, because of political motivation.
Those translators worked in six groups, each concentrating on a specific part of the Bible. There were 54 of them, but the names of them all are not known with certainty, nor is there full agreement regarding what group each of them worked in. Thus, the list below is not to be taken as any "absolute fact".
First Westminster group (Genesis to 2 Kings):
Second Westminster group (the Epistles):
First Cambridge group (1 Chronicles to the Song of Solomon):
Second Cambridge group (translated the Apocrypha):
First Oxford group (Isaiah to Malachi):
Second Oxford group (the Gospels, Acts, Revelation):
2) Below is an image that shows an example of the text of the 1611 version, both as a facsimile image and as plain text.
Note the archaic spelling – "diuers", "yeeres", "sonne", "oyle", et cetera, including the occasional use of v instead of u, the use of both "shal" and "shall", and so on.
(For those who are interested – a word-search puzzle consisting of 65 archaic words from KJV-1611: puzzle45-p.pdf. The meaning of the old words in the puzzle is also explained in that document. For a large print version and many more bible-based word-mazes, see the page ep01.htm.)
A note: Present-day KJV-editions differ in countless ways from the 1611 edition. Also, most present-day KJVs omit the variant readings and alternative translations and the apocrypha, which were included in the original printing.
More of the KJV-1661 in facsimile: If you want to see a larger portion of the KJV-1611 in facsimile, here is a PDF-version of the book of Matthew: kj1611mt.pdf (Note: If you use Windows, clicking on the link with the right-hand mouse button gives you an option to save the file on disk, "save as". The file-size is almost 4 megabytes; that takes a while to load.)
The dedication letter: If you want to see the pages where the 1611 translation was dedicated to "the most high and mightie Prince Iames, by the Grace of God King of Great Britaine, France and Ireland", see the page es03-3.htm.
A facsimile image of the page with Hebrews 1 in the 1611 edition of the KJ version.
(For the same page as plain text with modern-day letters, see further down.)
If you want to see a high-resolution version of this picture, a JPG-image 1.2 megabytes in size, see the page es03-2.htm.
Again, if you want to see a high-resolution version of this picture, see the page es03-2.htm.
Below, the Hebrews 1 part of that same 1611-version page, as plain
text with modern-day letters:
|
THE EPISTLE OF PAVL the Apostle to the Hebrewes. |
|||||||||
|
CHAP. I.
|
maketh his Angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire. CHAP. II. I Wee ought to bee obedient in Christ Iesus, 5 and that because he vouchsafed to take our nature vpon him, 14 as it was necessarie.
|
||||||||
Above: The text of page with Hebrews 1 in the KJV-1611, with modern-day letters.
For a facsimile image of the page in question, see further above. If you want to
see a larger in portion of the original King James version, here is a PDF-version
of the book of Matthew:
kj1611mt.pdf (Please note that the size of this PDF-file is almost 4 megabytes.
For viewing it, you need a reasonable recent version of the Adobe Reader.)
Table of contents – What's new here? – Key-word index – Search function – Goal and purpose – Contact, comment, question
If this page did not contain what you were looking for, see the links below, and the key-word index and the table of contents, or use the search function.
Additional reading at the Bible Pages, on related as well as other issues:
A high-resolution version of the picture of the KJV-1611 page with Hebrews 1. → es03-2.htm
The dedication letter in the 1611 translation. → es03-3.htm
The book of Matthew in the KJV-1611 in facsimile, as a PDF-document. → kj1611mt.pdf (If you use Windows, clicking on the link with the right-hand mouse button gives you an option to save the file on disk, "save as". The file-size is almost 4 megabytes; that takes a while to load.)
For those who are interested: A free, printable word-search puzzle consisting of 65 archaic words from the original 1611 edition of the King James version. (The meaning of each of those old words is explained in that document.) → puzzle45-p.pdf – A large print version, and many more bible-based word-mazes. → ep01.htm
What does the Bible say about authority? Who has biblical, spiritual or religious authority on the mundane, human level? Who can speak for God? Knowing the answers to those questions is a vital key to understanding the Bible in a better and deeper way. → es06d.htm
Jesus warned his disciples about false prophets, teachers of falsehood, deceivers and deception. He said that many would be deceived. → eo09e.htm
A clarifying explanation of the short names for the bible-versions quoted or mentioned at this site, such as that NKJV stands for New King James Version, YLT for Young's Literal translation, HCSB for Holman Christian Standard Bible, NRSV for the New Revised Standard Version, and so on. → es09c.htm
The so-called "divine right of kings" – is there such a thing? Are kings, rulers and governments appointed by God? → ew02c.htm
Freemasonry and Freemason halls – things believers should know about them. → ew04d.htm
Check your bible knowledge. A basic self-test with 15 biblical questions (with answers and commentary). → es04b.htm
What does the Bible say about elders? What was their role in the saints' fellowships? Also, was there a "hierarchy" with "ranks"? → ee01c.htm
What the Bible says about titles of men in the religious context. A few comments regarding certain ecclesiastical titles, such as apostle, bishop, deacon, doctor of theology, evangelist, father, minister, pastor, priest, prophet, reverend, and so on. → ea08b.htm
What does the Bible say about ordaining and ordination? In other words: How did the saints appoint or choose their elders? And, were those elders "ordained", and did they function as "priests" of some kind? → ee02b.htm
Were the saints "ruled" by elders, as some have claimed? On Hebrews 13:7 and 17 and a number of other passages. → ee04c.htm
The prophet Jeremiah – where did he die? Did Jeremiah go to Ireland, as some have claimed? What about the so-called "stone of destiny" which many Anglo-Israelists talk about? → ey14b.htm
On the example the apostle Paul set, for others to imitate. Paul did not tell people to "follow him as a leader"; what he did was that he told the saints to imitate him, to copy his example. It is important for believers to know what kind of example Paul referred to and meant, and in what connection. → em03c.htm
The origin and meaning of the word "church". → eg06b.htm
How to study the Bible in a deeper way. Some simple guidelines and notes on study methods. Also, advice and information on easily available practical study helps and useful modern-day tools and resources which, on top of many other things, can help one to view and translate the Hebrew OT and Greek NT texts. → es01d.htm
For real and thorough in-depth study and exegesis of the Scriptures, an interlinear bible with Strong's numbers and a concordance with a lexicon and bible commentaries are not good enough; a computer bible is needed. Some facts and recommendations regarding bible study suites for computers, including tools for word search, word study and adding and editing your own electronic marginal notes verse for verse, tools for studying the Hebrew text of the Old Testament and the Greek text of the New Testament, and links for download of bible software (both free and commercial). → es02c.htm
How to understand the Bible. Easy keys to interpreting and understanding Scripture in a better and deeper way, by avoiding certain fundamental but common mistakes and errors in bible study. These vital keys are really the basics for objective bible study. Knowing these keys will make many things easier to interpret and comprehend, and one will see several central matters in the Bible from a new and different perspective, especially in connection with the Gospels and the Epistles. → eg02c.htm
"Amateur bible students" versus "professional theologians". Some preachers have spitefully called people who actively study the Bible on their own, "amateur theologians". Indeed, many a clergyman seems to feel that a layman should not put his or her nose into theological studies but should rather leave those things to "experts". But, is that correct? This treatise sorts out that matter, and clarifies and explains in layman's terms the linguistic and historical background of the concepts "clergymen" and "laymen", and gives the definition and actual meaning of such words as "clergy", "laity", "scholar" and "scholarly". → es07c.htm
What does the English language word and concept "doctrine" literally mean? Likewise, the terms "dogma", "creed" and "tenet", what do they signify? Countless preachers and doctors of theology compile dogmas, creeds, tenets and doctrinal statements of beliefs, and claim them to be "the Truth". But, they do not agree with each other. Their opinions and teachings differ, depending on their denomination and its viewpoints, and there is much confusion. So, the pertinent question is, who has the "true doctrines" or "correct dogmas"? What should one think – do the Scriptures give any guidance regarding this matter? What does the Bible say about "doctrine"? In this essay, those things are clarified. → es08c.htm
Many people wonder, why does God allow evil, sickness, pain, war and suffering? What is the biblical answer – does the Bible explain that matter, or in some way make it understandable? → ew01b.htm
The Ten Commandments – that phrase was coined in the Middle Ages and is a mistranslation. The Hebrew text talks about "the words of the covenant, the ten words". On the Decalogue, the "ten words" or eser dabarim as the Hebrew text has it, or tous deka logous as the Greek Septuagint or LXX translated it. → ec06f.htm
Many talk about "the letter of the law" versus "the spirit of the law" – but those expressions are not found in the Bible. A detailed, down to the core study on 2 Corinthians 3:6-8 and Romans 7:6 and what the apostle Paul really meant and referred to when he wrote about the letter as opposed to the Spirit. → ec13c.htm
Gentiles, pagans and heathen or heathens – what do those words mean? This exposition makes it plain and clear what the concepts "gentile", "pagan" and "heathen" actually refer to, in the Bible. → eg01c.htm
Info on the goal and purpose of this site, and a contact address.
→
purpose.htm
Table of contents for this site, including a synopsis or a short, summary description
of each essay or article. →
filename.htm
Search for specific words, phrases or bible passages at this site. →
search.htm
An alphabetical bible topic keyword index of the essays and articles at this site:
1-9
– A
– B
– C
– D
– E
– F
– G
– H
– I
– J
– K
– L
– M
– N
– O
– P
– Q
– R
– S
– T
– U
– V
– W
– X
– Y – Z –
Detailed index overview
If you find any of the essays or treatises at this site interesting and helpful, please provide a copy to other people as well. But before printing or distributing anything, make sure to get the very latest version, exactly as it is, directly from this web site. In regard to printable copies of these pages, for example as PDF-format papers, booklets or brochures or so – there are no specially printer friendly variants (except some bible puzzles), nor is there a need for that – simply, when you print an essay, set the margins and the text size to fit your needs and the paper you use, in the program you use for viewing these pages, and then send it to your printer. (This varies in different browsers and word processing programs. In web browsers, for setting the margin size and headers and footers, look for "Print Format" in the File menu; to set the text size for print-out, look under "Preview" or "View" in the same menu.)
Important: You are welcome to quote the documents at this site – the Bible Pages – provided that you mention the source, by giving the full web address to the page in question. Please link to these essays and give copies to friends. However, you may not re-publish any part of the contents of this site, as a booklet, brochure or on the Internet or in other ways, without a permission from the author; he retains the copyright. For more on copying and quoting, and a few words about the author and his religious education and credentials, see the page purpose.htm.
The essays at this site are not in "bible lesson" or "bible study course" format, nor are they meant as on-line "bible study classes" of some kind. Even though this site gives ready answers to biblical questions of many kinds, its main goal is providing food for thought on a variety of biblical subjects, and challenging and encouraging people to get started with deep personal bible study and then continue with that. (Many religious organisations and denominations have their bible lessons and correspondence courses; they are ready-made "studies" which are shrewdly constructed and written in such a manner that they lead the reader to conclusions that fit the dogmas of the group in question.) A careful, closer study of the books of the Bible with proper tools will help a believer to gain better and deeper biblical understanding. In that way, one will find out more about what the Bible really says, means and teaches. One can then, with wisdom, use that knowledge as a guide for one's life, instead of accepting as "biblical truths" whatever commercial religion – churches and their ministers (preachers) – have taught and want people to believe.
A more thorough, bible-based study with care and with thought will, not only help one to learn more, but also show one how many a popular belief has no scriptural basis or support but is altogether false and not biblical at all. This applies, not only to prophecy and "end time" related things, but also to many other subjects where prevailing dogmas are often taken "for granted". For this reason, it is extremely important for believers to personally study the Writings, and to thoroughly analyse them down to the smaller details, in order to find out the real facts. For doing that, it is not necessary to know the Hebrew, Greek or Latin languages (even though learning their letters and alphabet can be a good idea); there are modern, advanced tools which can help one to study in an effective way – see the pages es01d.htm and es02c.htm for more on this. The essay eg02c.htm supplies a number of easy, elementary keys to acquiring a better and deeper understanding of the Bible, simply by consciously and methodically avoiding certain usual errors and pitfalls.
This site is non-denominational and non-sectarian. It is not connected to any church, sect or religious organisation or movement. This site looks at things from a biblical perspective, and not from a dogmatic one. It does not claim to be without error or to "know it all" or to have a perfect or complete explanation to all things – it consists of an ongoing bible study that has been made public, and as the study goes on, the contents of these pages are revised and also expanded, with new topics and themes being addressed. Readers are invited and welcome to write to the author with thoughts and comments, or to ask questions or to point out a mistake if they feel that they have found one. For more on this, see the page purpose.htm.
The address to this page is www.biblepages.web.surftown.se/es03c.htm
Please send or mention the address to this site to others, and link to these pages.
This page was created or modified 2010-02-26.