Whats the best version of the bible for someone beginning the journey into Christianity?

Attached: 1524558853524.png (870x817, 196K)

>Uses outdated terms

Which means it's a garbage beginner's bible and should only be read when you are already familiar with the thing and want to do some serious fine-tooth comb studying.

OP, find yourself some study-bible which gives you historical context, annotates/"hyperlinks" references to other passages in scripture and highlights sections which have been interpreted to have important prophetic or doctrinal implication, because otherwise there is a shit-ton of stuff you simply won't get, reading it like an ordinary book the first time round. I'd recommend one, but I only know my german study-bible and have to say it would have been more helpful if I had read it before I did my NIV, especially when it comes to the New Testament, where it links parallel verses and scenes inbetween the Gospels so you flip inbetween them and get a better understanding of how the narative changes, something you don't really notice reading them one after the other.

The entire "which bible is best" debate only matters once you are familiar with scripture and christianity to the point that a couple verses deleted here and there will make you go apeshit and a question about doctrine depends on how single words have been translated.

>Not reading Douay-Rheims

Attached: BZwTZIl.jpg (600x600, 40K)

KJV

Try The Voice but keep biblegateway available for verses you're unsure about. The Bible is meant to be studied moreso than just read.

Wrong meme flag u got there.

Attached: 2010122000072.jpg (441x610, 61K)

These user's got it right. New translations for the most part rely on late 19th century edition that was done by 2 masons.

>2016
>still reading books

Attached: 1523296789915.jpg (504x334, 60K)

This is what I'm reading. I'm not a Catholic but I want to be one. I'm using the second edition that removes the thou's and didst's and stuff like that. It's the same otherwise afaik.

Attached: RSV-SCE.jpg (260x384, 20K)

NKJV
Easy to understand, written in plain English

Attached: 22506BD7-084F-4E7F-958E-924316E14CFD.png (919x205, 44K)

This is the one you want to use ultimately. Oxford Edition if you can find it. Otherwise the Ignatius RSV-CE.

Long Answer:
Real quick way to know if your bible is up to par.
Compare this Greek with John 3:36
biblehub.com/text/john/3-36.htm

If it's wrong, get another Bible.
Correctly translated Bibles for John 3:36
-------------------------------------------
American Standard Bible
Amplified Bible
English Standard Version
1599 Geneva Bible
Good News Bible Catholic Edition
Lexham English Bible
Catholic and Anglican Revised Standard (Oxford) and Revised Standard Version (Ignatius) Bible
Jerusalem Bible (Not the new jJruslaem bible)

Secondly your Bible Must contain all the Deuterocanonical Books or it is not a Bible.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterocanonical_books

It is important because if you don't have such a Bible you will not understand that the Jews are Edomites and not Hebrews because you cannot read about the Maccabean Wars. You will also not understand purgatory. Protestant Bibles (KJV etc) do not have it.

I'd get a Douay Rhiems for the Old testament and a Revised Catholic Version (Oxford Press if you can find one) or (Ignatius Bible) for the New Testament.(Once you are getting serious about it.

If you just want the easiest read available get the Good News Bible Catholic Edition.

Attached: John 3 36 Greek Text Analysis.png (997x546, 48K)

Bibles containing the Deuterocanonical Books.
Douay-Rheims Version (DRA), New American Bible (NAB), Jerusalem Bible (JB), New Revised Standard Version(s) Catholic and Anglican, Ignatious (NRSV-Catholic), Revised Standard Version (RSV) Catholic and Anglican, (GNB) Good News Bible Catholic Edition.

"The Council of Hippo in 393, and the third (according to another reckoning the sixth) Council of Carthage in 397, under the influence of Augustine, who attended both, fixed the catholic canon of the Holy Scriptures, including the Apocrypha of the Old Testament. It did not change until Martin Luther changed it 1200 years later. Catholics still read bibles with them 1900 years later.

Jesus and the Apostles read the Koine Greek Septuagint (LXX) - which include the deuterocanonical books.

Catholic Bible - The Septuagint - Deutercanonicals
holytrinityparish.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Our-Catholic-Bibles.pdf

Even the translators of the KJV of the Bible in 1611 said so.
Here read it from the translators of the 1611 KJV mouths.

Translators’ Preface to the 1611 King James Version: “For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident: so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption. Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: [S. Aug. 2. de doctr. Christian. cap. 14.] so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is no so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded.”

Attached: 1611-KJV-(Septuagint is biblical 1).jpg (1271x534, 567K)

Opps wrong quote

Here is another portion of the translators notes from the 1611 KJV of the Bible telling you that the Septuagint is biblical and "the word of God". The books that modern KJV bibles do not include in their bibles.

Translators’ Preface to the 1611 KJV: “But, when the fulness of time drew near, that the Sun of righteousness, the Son of God should come into the world, whom God ordained to be a reconciliation through faith in his blood, not of the Jew only, but also of the Greek, yea, of all them that were scattered abroad; then lo, it pleased the Lord to stir up the spirit of a Greek Prince (Greek for descent and language) even of Ptolemy Philadelph King of Egypt, to procure the translating of the Book of God out of Hebrew into Greek. This is the translation of the Seventy Interpreters, commonly so called, which prepared the way for our Saviour among the Gentiles by written preaching, as Saint John Baptist did among the Jews by vocal… The translation of the Seventy dissenteth from the Original in many places, neither doth it come near it, for perspicuity, gravity, majesty; yet which of the Apostles did condemn it? Condemn it? Nay, they used it, (as it is apparent, and as Saint Jerome and most learned men do confess) which they would not have done, nor by their example of using it, so grace and commend it to the Church, if it had been unworthy of the appellation and name of the word of God.”
library.osu.edu/innovation-projects/omeka/exhibits/show/the-king-james-bible/sections/item/72

Attached: KJV 1611 included the Apocrapha.jpg (800x712, 582K)

KJV.

i read the gospels for the first time recently. had with me two finnish translations (an old and a newer one), and two english (KJV and NIV). KJV hits you the hardest.

>He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
CHAD
>Whoever has ears, let them hear.
weak

The Alexandrian one if you want the earlist common copies. There are others near in age, but they have heretical books by all Christian tradition. When looking at a translation btw, there's a root source, and then the noted group who made it from the root source. All true Alexandrian versions are restrictive on their content, that is it doesn't add bs or theological interpretations like the KJV. The long ending of Mark, and the pericope of the audultress are literally labeled with a ((())) in mine as questionable. I do believe those stories happened, mainly because Polycarp said the adultress story was John's favorite story to tell in public, and the endings of the other gospels aren't in dispute. Its a literary technique also found in Acts, a cliff-hanger.

This thread makes me have hope for white men, where else do you see this kind of thought expressed openly?

Attached: IMG_4638.jpg (1024x774, 124K)

Luther 1545

Garbage.

Get an annotated study Bible. Id get the Catholic study Bible published by Oxford press.

King james bible i literally burned my modern version when i found out about the corruption

Extented Edition

Esplain?!

King James commissioned a new, rushed translation of the bible and made sure that the sections he considered to be entertaining are more embellished.

It's a rubbish piece of shite that has only historical value as proof of insight into King James' mind.

>(((Bible)))
>(((Christianity)))
user, please.

Attached: 7838490579834795.jpg (338x500, 40K)

>had with me two finnish translations (an old and a newer one), and two english (KJV and NIV). KJV hits you the hardest.

I have the same with the dutch version , i always take the KJV before the dutch one. God bless for the English language and God bless for the king james

CATHOLIC.
BIBLE

None of that protie shit except if you like the degeneracy it brought.

What is there to explain modern versions are corrupt , one bible even removed leviathan and named it crocodile . Burn bible of satan

Attached: kjb_chart-large.gif (1772x2250, 219K)

NIV of course. Easiest to understand. Start with the Gospel of John

The real question is what printing of it is best. The answer is the Cambridge Clarion.

uh huh

Attached: KJV Only .png (938x872, 78K)

"Thou shalt keep them"

Oh yeah, so let's translate the text.

Fucking idiots. Original or nothing.

Every new translation of these books brings further inaccuracy and misinterpretations depending on who translated them.

Please consider you're taking God's word from a human, man made product, that claims to accurately convey His word after several millennia of Telephone.

No human should have the right to be God's mouthpiece.

Or if you're more like me.

Attached: JesuitBible.jpg (1000x756, 91K)

How can any of it be objective law when translating it through the ages makes it totally subjective?

King james bible still has his flaws but it is the best bible to read

I think people are being fooled, personally.

ITT

Attached: 839CF2C5-2066-4517-AFA6-D93D29B9DE96.jpg (661x716, 189K)

I'm aware. I was confused as to how he thought the KJV and its modern translations weren't infused with added sentences and interpretations to make it easier on the new, literate reading middle classes of the time. The KJV folks come out of the woodwork everytime when you point out that the Trinity isn't named directly. It flows naturally from the scripture though, so anyone questioning it is rightfully criticised. 98%+ of Christian sects believe in the the Trinity, its not controversial. We just don't need it pointed out with added text if you want to try and know the apostle's minds.

res

KJV

everytime

Aahah.

Accurate as fuck.

But this raises a good point. Shouldn't that say something when a person has to worry about being lied to or tricked when looking for "God's word"?
If humans are inherently corrupt then naturally they must have corrupted the bible among other things.

I've got a CCB from when I was confirmed, is it any good or should I just keep it as a memento?

I've got a New King James Version that translates all of the old timey stuff into modern vernacular.

It's all subjective, which has a variety of ramifications on all Faith.

I'm actually watching a good video on this now. The King James Version is the only true Word.

youtube.com/playlist?list=PLqIZxk1fdq3fb5w3HkAGnLduUdvZ8tG4B

Indeed it does. For example, Catholics believe in Purgatory for many reasons. Protestants say you can't find it in the bible. Well of course not, you took out a bunch of books.
Here is ONE reason the Apocrypha is so important.
The New Testament quotes the Old Testament which accepts the Catholic books of the Bible. This means that the New Testament writers accepted the Septuagint version, and thus the seven books which the Protestants reject.

... But there’s more. In Hebrews 11:35 of the Protestant and Catholic Bibles, we see a reference to an event which is only recorded in the Second Book of Machabees chapter 7.

Hebrews 11:35- “Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection...”

This reference is found in only one place in the Bible. It’s found in 2 Machabees 7, which tells the story of the mother and her seven sons. This mother and her seven sons refused deliverance from torture so that they might receive resurrection with the just. So, in Hebrews 11:35, St. Paul is making reference to the Second Book of Machabees. This demonstrates that 2 Machabees, which the Protestant Bible doesn’t have, is part of the true
Old Testament. 2 Machabees chapter 12 clearly teaches prayer for the dead and therefore Purgatory.

2 Machabees 12:46- “It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.”
This verse teaches Purgatory.

If you're going to listen to jews, Robert Alter has an excellent old testament translation with copious footnotes. He also notes the KJV as the least shit from a literary perspective, though does point out it's numerous flaws.

THE ORTHODOX STUDY BIBLE

The only right version you heretics.
azbyka.ru/otechnik/assets/uploads/books/18430/The_Orthodox_Study_Bible_-_St.pdf

King james bible no doubt best baptist bible unedited written documents

or if you can't get any.
A church of england edition or othodox versions
they don;t have bits cut out of old testiments

also only read old testiment

The new testiment is full of conjecture and virtue signaling watered down bible.

also read the bible your self and go to a bible study group as some random christains home its more one to one stuff and you get to ask questions and shit
also did i mention , pick a church
listen and sing bible songs
listen to your bible reader
go home and read that your self

find parts that relate to you and how you live your life.

take head of the ten commandments YOU MUST NEVER BREAK THESE RULES
to saty christain this is your key to heaven
and god written laws not the laws of man

because fuck human law words only god's law is life.
live like the examples if a good soul.do good to others even give food to homeless
be humble and say nice things etc.

say a prayer and a thank you prayer for every meal for it is the lords will that you eat and thus live.

pay to god to give you his fire / his holy spirit
And good things will come.

remeber we don't give a fuck about politics
we are her to save our souls and the souls of others to give good in a world full of evil and sin.

t.baptist

That's if you assume that God isn't powerful enough to let His Words be uncorrupted. This means you have no faith in God.

John 10:35b
...and the scripture cannot be broken;

Psalms 12:6
The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

Proverbs 30:5-6
5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Don't listen to the KJV cultist.

Go with Douay-Rheims or Knox. Protestant bibles such as KJV have books missing plus questionable translations to support their theology.

>inb4 complaints about advocating for a translation of a translation
Douay-Rheims is translated from the Latin Vulgate, which itself is a translation of the oldest manuscripts of Koine Greek from St Jerome. Jerome's proficiently in Koine Greek (the original language of the bible) was unparalleled, it is a dead language now, but during his time he was able to grasp the full meaning of the language and properly translate it into the Latin.

Attached: 259fe7bfb4ff6f7e93618a9c0f66f033ed7598f1e0772651917926f92708ed46.jpg (225x225, 10K)

Attached: golden_lul.jpg (250x224, 7K)

The REAL 1611 KJV had a calendar for each month of the year. The calendar for the month of October contains such things as

- a list of designated saints days' (Oct. 18, Luke the Evangelist; Oct. 28, Simon and Jude);
- a list of designated fast days;
- a notation about which sign of the zodiac the sun is in that month (Oct. 12, "Sol in Scorpio");
- a schedule of Scripture readings for morning and evening prayer which includes passages from the Apocrypha (Judith, Oct. 6-13; Wisdom, Oct. 14-17; Ecclesiasticus, Oct. 18)
* Significance: saints' days and fast days are considered "popish" and "Romanist" by some KJV-Only advocates, yet there they are listed in the 1611 KJV
* Significance: many KJV-Only supporters consider astrology "New Age" and "of the devil," yet there it is in the 1611 KJV
* Significance: the 1611 KJV encourages rather than discourages the use of the Apocrypha in devotional reading and public worship, which is strange if the Apocrypha is not considered in some way inspired and authoritative Scripture
---------------------------
- Daniel 8:25 - the note in the margin reads, "2 Macc. 6:9," a cross-reference to a book of 2 Maccabees in the Apocrypha
- Matthew 6:7 - the note in the margin reads, "Ecclus. 7:16," a cross-reference to a book of Ecclesiasticus in the Apocrypha
- Matthew 23:37 - the note in the margin reads, "Wisd. 2:15,16," a cross-reference to a book of Wisdom in the Apocrypha
- Matthew 27:43 - the note in the margin reads, "4 Esd. 1:30," a cross-reference to a book of 4 Esdra in the Apocrypha
- Luke 14:13 - the note in the margin reads, "Tob. 4:7," a cross-reference to a book of Tobit in the Apocrypha
- John 10:22 - the note in the margin reads, "1 Macc. 4:59," a cross-reference to a book of 1 Maccabees in the Apocrypha
- Hebrews 11:35 - the note in the margin reads, "2 Macc. 7:7," a cross-reference to a book of 2 Maccabees in the Apocrypha
*Significance: why have a cross-reference to "uninspired," "unauthoritative," "unscriptural" books?

Attached: 1611-KJV-(October).png (619x864, 1.49M)

Douay rips from kjv with some vulgae thrown in. The apocrypha aren't especially good nor do they contain anything of value. The Vulgate is also pretty shitty. Don't get me started on Knox, why would you read a Bible for Catholics when Catholics don't read the Bible?

This, but I do have to admit, the KJV is the most poetic of them.

Attached: Papa Bless.jpg (354x480, 31K)

At the time of Christ there was no consensus on a canon of scripture. Instead there were competing Jewish communities with different lists of books Christ, the Apostles and the early Christians used the Septuagint as their primary Old Testament Bible. Of the approximately 300 Old Test
ament quotes in the New Testament, two-thirds of them are quotes from the Septuagint as opposed to the Hebrew Scriptures

How do we know? Because the wording of the Septuagint is sometimes different from that of the Hebrew Bible. A classic example of this is Isaiah 7:14. In the original Hebrew it states that a young woman (Hebrew: almah) will bear a child and he shall be called Emmanuel.
In the Greek Septuagint it states that a virgin (Greek: parthenos) will bear a child and he shall be called Emmanuel.

Matthew the Apostle, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, chooses the Greek Septuagint version of this verse to quote .They regarded as inspired. No Jewish council had defined a canon of books. The Pharisees revered 39 books, the same 39 found in Protestant Bibles today. Two other groups, the Sadducees and the Samaritans recognized only the first 5 books of Moses known as the Pentateuch (Genesis - Deuteronomy). The Essenes were a Jewish sect that held to a third list. The complete list of their revered books is not known; we only know that the list was different.
It should be noted that the Pharisees, Sadducees, Samaritans and the Essenes were geographically centered in Palestine. This is in stark contrast to our last Jewish group that was not only located in Palestine, but also dispersed throughout the known world. They therefore had a more far-reaching influence in their practices. This group was known as the Hellenists, the Greek speaking Jews dispersed throughout the Roman Empire. The Scriptures revered by this group were in the books contained in the Greek Septuagint

Attached: KJV1611_Page t33 (Liturgy for the Annunciation of Mary).png (644x871, 1.42M)

The Alexandrian is much older than the Textus Recrptus. By hundreds of years. Its a myth that the Catholics latched onto at one point in history to settle on a source. Thats all.

>That's if you assume that God isn't powerful enough to let His Words be uncorrupted. This means you have no faith in God.

Man corrupt thus the bible corrupts its common sense with free will , scripture is not broken we still can read his words

Só all of them?

Catholics use the Majority text.
The Textus Receptus is not the Majority text even though KJVonists would have you believe so.

Look up John 3:36 in the KJV and compare it to the Greek.
biblehub.com/text/john/3-36.htm

Pic related.

Read this page. Especially the part about the Majority text vs the textus Receptus. Watch the video if you are so inclined.

mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/is-the-king-james-bible-infallible/

Attached: 1611-KJV- Page35 (Marys Liturgy).jpg (552x852, 497K)

In my little research I either haven't run across this, or forgot it. Thx Sir, I'am so inclined.

Catholicism is Roman sun worship combined with pagan idolatry pretending to be Christianity. Every Catholic tradition is in direct violation of scripture and that's why they've manipulated the distribution of the bible for centuries until they realized they couldn't so they flooded the world with new ((translations)) every few years.

Matthew 23:9
“And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.”

1 Timothy 2:5
“For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;”

Matthew 15:9
“But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.”

This is why the KJV is the true Word, ye of little faith
youtu.be/lO0UVZns8wk

Attached: maltese-cross-sun-god.jpg (150x346, 34K)

>Douay rips from kjv with some vulgae thrown in.
Lies, Douay-Rheims was written before KJV. IN fact, it's likely the other way around.

>The apocrypha aren't especially good nor do they contain anything of value
Wrong. As pointed out by user Bible Must contain all the Deuterocanonical Books or it is not a Bible.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterocanonical_books
It is important because if you don't have such a Bible you will not understand that the Jews are Edomites and not Hebrews because you cannot read about the Maccabean Wars. You will also not understand purgatory. Protestant Bibles (KJV etc) do not have it.

>The Vulgate is also pretty shitty
No sweetie, a 17th century English translation is not more accurate than a Latin based translation from the period of the early church when the oldest documents still existed.

>Catholics don't read the Bible
Untrue. We just don't worship the Bible like Protestants do because we didn't invent the man made doctrine of sola scriptura.

Attached: 790bb2e4504d533652e827bc2703e1c67502b74023adb773b88e1a63ef56f7f8.jpg (191x255, 18K)

Why would the ‘authorization’ of an English king (more than 1,500 years after Christ) make a translation of the Bible infallible? Obviously it wouldn’t. God never promised that English kings centuries after Christ, let alone King James I, speak infallibly or authorize without error for all of Christ’s faithful.

Attached: You iz Luther.jpg (640x640, 101K)

Quoting a racemixing nigger lover, disgusting

It was written after, the rest of your scrizophrenic rambling isn't even worth replying to.

>This is why the KJV is the true Word, ye of little faith

No its not its the best we got available bible translations where a mistake

18For 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: 19And 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.

Umm no it wasn't
The New Testament portion was published in Reims, France, in 1582, in one volume with extensive commentary and notes. The Old Testament portion was published in two volumes twenty-seven years later in 1609 and 1610 by the University of Douai.

The KJV was published in 1611

The Geneva Bible is the correct Protestant Bible, banned by the sodomite King James because it questioned the authority of any monarchies and the Catholic Church. King James was a Jeffery Dahmer king.

Catholics do not read the bible, proof:
youtu.be/V6OwlfNwc9A 0:47

2 Chronicles 6:20 according to this guy:
"Only God knows the hearts of the children of men"

What it ACTUALLY says:
2 Chronicles 6:20
“That thine eyes may be open upon this house day and night, upon the place whereof thou hast said that thou wouldest put thy name there; to hearken unto the prayer which thy servant prayeth toward this place.”

The Catholic church is the Whore of Babylon, mother of Harlots and is leading people to hell. Repent and come out of her

Why wouldnt the best translation we have be God's word? You're underestimating the Big Guy.

Attached: rcc-priests-baal.jpg (600x800, 187K)

Wow, strong argument you got there.

>It was written after
WHOOPS

Attached: 3e8a53ff786de84b1d8a7a864423f0d8.png (277x637, 188K)

And both were pozzed up by kjv in the challoner revision, which is the only version you can find anywhere.

Can't recall quoting your mother

>All this Prot/Cath shitflinging
And this is what's making Orthodoxy more and more attractive to me.

So study the history of it and forget about modern translations. Try the Geneva Bible: first, just researcg what it is. Then check out some old Greek translation. I forget the name

MODS!

firewood threads are not politics

Attached: burning-church-tattoo.jpg (560x700, 30K)

Orthodoxy is just Catholicism lite. No graven images, now bowing to them.

4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
>5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them:
for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

Attached: catholics_deceived.jpg (645x484, 284K)

Based off the translation named after a sodomite, human and animal mutilating King, who banned the Geneva Bible for questioning the authority of the king and the pope.

Wrong pic, but this proves my point that there is no difference between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, its still idolatry

Attached: devil_icon_worship6.jpg (410x328, 34K)

King James was a sodomite. He copied the Geneva Bible but got rid of all the translators for notes. The note that questioned the authority of the king and the pope. The king James Version ought to be called the Jeffery Dahmer Version

Except, what he said is actually in the bible my man.

1 Kings 8:39
>Then hear thou in heaven, in the place of thy dwelling, and forgive, and do so as to give to every one according to his ways, as thou shalt see his heart (for thou only knowest the heart of all the children of men).

>The Catholic church is the Whore of Babylon, mother of Harlots and is leading people to hell. Repent and come out of her
Notice how all protestant hearts are clouded by hate for the church Christ established. Truly sad.

The Quran

I like this dude. But this is cringy.

Yeah no it's not.
The KJV took out 7 books and almost took out the Gospel of James.
Thanks for proving your own point even though your Revelations quote is only talking about the Book of Revelations.

King James was a sodomite who took an already popular version, the Geneva Bible, and stripped it of it's footnotes that questioned the authority of the king and the pope.

>Notice how all protestant hearts are clouded by hate for the church Christ established. Truly sad.

maybe it has to do with the catholic church being a murdering tyrant ? Praise god for truth after the reformation

Attached: Screenshot_199.jpg (728x804, 134K)

Download E-Sword, it's a free digital version of Strong's Concordance (KJV). It's very important to learn the proper definition of the words used. Most people get it wrong at Genesis.