Any here have and used a "Defined KJV" Bible?

I have a copy of Waite's Defined KJB. While the text of its KJV edition is not "Cambridge 1769 text" "unaltered" as its title page claims, overall its definitions for words in the KJV are good. A number of its definitions for archaic words in the KJV are the same or similar to the way that some modern translations would translate the original language texts. The articles in the back of it are not reliable because of their incorrect or misleading KJV-only claims and assumptions.

 

In a good number of cases, the definitions for archaic words in Waite's Defined KJB include the rendering that is presented in the text in the NKJV. Waite's Defined KJB could be considered evidence that shows the proper updating that is found in the NKJV. Thus, some KJV-only advocates such as Gail Riplinger have attacked Waite's DKJB because they do not like the fact that its definitions in effect show that many of the updated words in new translations are proper and correct.

If you have and read a copy of the NKJV and compare it to the KJV to see how it updated the KJV's archaic words, you probably would not need Waite's Defined KJB.