Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by ryarn, Apr 8, 2013.
Does anyone own The Common Man's Reference Bible or know anything about it ?
I found it HERE.
One of it's headings says "The main focus of the Bible is the second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ".
Umm no. The main focus of the Bible is Christ and His redemption of man. (although the 2nd coming is a very important doctrine.)
It's a KJV from a KJVO site.
starnge, thought paul taught the central theme was Christ and the Cross!
A Better Idea
Ryarn...that one may be ok but I would recommend the "The Defined King James Bible"...see the following links:
The Bible For Today HomePage
Defined King James Bibles
why not just get the NKJV, as it the KJV in modernized english!
Nope....I've seen enough evidence to the contrary to satisfy myself that THAT "ain't":laughgood southern english word) so and I'm confident in the matter. I'm also not willing nor do I have any intention of arguing the matter with you or anybody else here. Have a nice day. I was just offering the good brother another good option in the world of KJ Bibles.
I once had a new Scofield KJV, that replaced old English words with what they considered more modern englsh, and put the replaced word in the margins!
Which is why it annoys me to no end when the 3rd verse of It is well with my soul is skipped. There is no heaven without redemption.
The main focus of the Bible is the glory of God.
Has D. A. Waite corrected the false claim on the title page of his Defined KJB yet?
On that title page in several editions, Waite had claimed that the text of his Bible was that of the 1769 Cambridge "unaltered."
A year ago Waite was mailed a book that documented over 400 places where the text of the Defined KJB has been altered or changed from that in an actual edition of the KJV printed at Cambridge in 1769.
Thouhgt that the perfect version would no alterings done to it, right?
How did he respond to the letter?
I did not write him a letter. I sent him an earlier printed edition of my research entitled Facts from 400 Years of KJV Editions: Do We Use a 1769 KJV?. It has now been over a year ago since I sent it to the pastor of the church where the Dean Burgon Society meeting was held in New Jersery a couple years ago, and that pastor informed me that he gave it to D. A. Waite. I have not heard from D. A. Waite directly about the proof that he was sent.
Facts from an edition of the KJV printed at Cambridge in 1769 can be used to prove conclusively that the text of D. A. Waite’s The Defined King James Bible is not the “Cambridge 1769 Text” “unaltered” as claimed on the title page in its first  and second editions. A later edition printed in 2005 still has this same assertion on its title page. The word “unaltered” would seem to be a broad-sweeping claim that not even one letter or one word of the “Cambridge 1769 Text” was altered in Waite’s edition.
D. A. Waite wrote: “The Cambridge 1769 is a good standard to be used, as we do in our Defined King James Bible” (Critical Answer to James Price’s King James Onlyism, p. 130). Others may have accepted Waite’s claim about his edition being the 1769 Cambridge. For example, Phil Stringer wrote: “I identify completely with the statement by Pastor Robert Barnett (Dean Burgon Society meeting, July, 2010).” Stringer quoted Barnett’s comment about “God’s truth in our 1769 Cambridge edition of the King James Bible” (Messianic Claims of Gail Riplinger, p. 97). Kirk DiVietro claimed that Waite’s DKJB “uses the 1769 revision of the 1611 King James Bible Cambridge edition, which most of us use as the King James Bible” (Cleaning-Up Hazardous Materials, p. 91). Waite’s assertion about the text of the edition of the KJV in his Defined KJB is actually incorrect.
There would be well over 400 alterations or differences between an actual edition printed at Cambridge in 1769 and the edition in Waite’s Defined KJB.
Perhaps D. A. Waite has never actually seen and examined an edition of the KJV that was printed at Cambridge in 1769. The title page of the DKJB misinformed its readers whether intentionally or unintentionally. If D. A. Waite perhaps earlier only assumed what he put on the title page, he has been properly informed that his claim is actually incorrect.
are they another reputed KJVO authors who acyually have been trained in textual criticism, for most of the ones I am aware of have nothing in regards to that schooling?