Sword Word of God Study Bible Easy Reading Magin Edition

August 09, 2022 Post a Comment

Joined:

Jun 13, 2009

Messages:

291

Likes Received:

0

This Bible is rated with a 4th grade reading level and has tons of study material in the back.Its the sword study bible easy reading KJV.I bought my sister one and I highly recommend it for those that claim the KJV is to hard to read.It comes in black or red or purple and has a giant sword on the cover.
http://www.swordbible.org/GuidedTour.html

God bless in Jesus.

Steven.
Joined:

Jan 26, 2008

Messages:

4,395

Likes Received:

2

Would this not be called a "corrected Bible?" Isn't that altering God's word? In one thread you praise a OKJV (as he called himself) poster and in this thread you advocate an altered version.
Joined:

Jun 13, 2009

Messages:

291

Likes Received:

0

I would rather see someone with an altered KJV than with modern day versions.Altered as you call it is updating the old archaic words not removing them as modern versions do.
God bless in Jesus.

Steven.
Joined:

Jan 26, 2008

Messages:

4,395

Likes Received:

2

By altering it have you not made it into a modern day version? After all it is no longer the KJV but an "Easy Reading KJV." I don't think they had an easy reading version in 1611.
Site Supporter

Joined:

Mar 31, 2005

Messages:

24,696

Likes Received:

2

You may want to re-think this. If it is "altered", it is no different than a MV.
Joined:

Jun 13, 2009

Messages:

291

Likes Received:

0

Perhaps you are right.I myself stick to the cambridge edition of the KJV not the Oxford edition.
God bless in Jesus.

Steven.
Joined:

Nov 28, 2006

Messages:

284

Likes Received:

0

I have both the Oxford 1769 KJV, and Pure Cambridge KJV Bibles. Also a 1967 Scofield NRB-KJV, that Bible up-dates a lot of words, and does not remove any. But is by anyone in the know, not considered a KJV.
So how could an easy reading KJV, which probably does more than the 1967 Scofield in changing words, be considered a trustful KJV.
Joined:

Jun 13, 2009

Messages:

291

Likes Received:

0

Dr DA Waite of TBFT a Masoretic/Textus Receptus/KJV English defender says {quote}if the thee`s and thou`s ye`s etc is missing it can`t claim to be a KJV Bible because it alters the meaning {unquote}.

I think its closer to the real deal than the other versions with their hundreds of missing words.

Jeremiah 34:16 in the oxford 1769 edition of the KJV But YE turned and polluted my name,and caused every man his servant,and every man his handmaid,whom HE had set at liberty at their pleasure,to return,and brought them into subjection.

In this verse the HE in the oxford 1769 edition of the KJV Bible is supposed to be YE.That is what David Sorenson in his book Touch Not The Unclean Thing says.He says the 1769 Cambridge edition translates the word correctly.YE is plural and HE is singular and does not mean the same thing.

Just as the Thee`s and Thou`s when they are changed from singular to plural from plural to singular it is not being honest and modern day versions are guilty.

Like when the KJV refers to seed as singular the modern day versions say decendants so the dispensational doctrine can fit.

{Galatians 3:16} Now to Abraham and his SEED were the promises made.He saith not,And to SEEDS,as of many,but as of ONE,And to THY SEED,which is CHRIST.

Many places in the KJV where the seed is singular the modern day versions say decendants {i.e.as of many}and then all kinds of political last day doctrines are created to help bring in the NWO for world domination over the elect while waiting to be pre-trib raptured and they dont know and sure wont believe it until its to late and they are un-prepared.

God bless in Jesus.

Steven.
Joined:

Nov 28, 2006

Messages:

284

Likes Received:

0

Both my Old Scofield, and Scofield lll which are KJV 1769, have Ye in Jeremiah 34:16, at both instances. So David Sorenson must have gotten his information from a corrupted KJV copy, not a 1769 KJV. That is unless Dr.Scofield himself, corrected the error in his Bible.
Even the nasty 1967 New Scofield has Ye, but that still does not make it a real KJV.
Joined:

Nov 28, 2006

Messages:

284

Likes Received:

0

Well I even have an old cheap ($6.00), stomped, scrubed, half obliterated, gift KJV Bible. Who know who! published it, and it has Ye at both occurrences in Jeremiah 34:16. It also claims to be Oxford text, it does not say which Oxford text, but doubtless nothing older than 1769 is floating about.
Oh, by the way the Cambridge edition was not 1769, it was 1762, before the Oxford printing in 1769.
Joined:

Jun 13, 2009

Messages:

291

Likes Received:

0

I would shelve the Scofield bibles and forget them.His system is crashing by the men who is revealing the kind of man he was and who financed him and for what purpose.He was a crook and a criminal who has done the Church of Christ a great harm.Who wasit that said tell a lie long enough and it will be accepted as the gospel truth?
God bless you and your KJV Bible.

Steven.
Joined:

Nov 28, 2006

Messages:

284

Likes Received:

0

I don't use the Scofield Bibles, because of Scofield. I just happen to like the way he laid it out, with the subheads, makes things easier to find.
I don't agree with his Gap Theory, or Pre-Trib Rapture. But that is why I own a Cambridge, no foot-notes, comments, concordance, or maps, just plain KJV.
Joined:

Jun 13, 2009

Messages:

291

Likes Received:

0

Amen to the plain KJV Cambridge Text bible.I found a New KJV Cambridge Cameo edition out of print for good for $35.00 it is black text only.Then I bought the large print KJV Cambridge black letter Text Only for $60.00.
The Nelson personal size large print Red letter #544 is a Cambridge edition and I think they have come out with a different edition to replace the bonded leather #544 and genuine leather #546 and are not near the quality.I think Nelson should keep printing the #544 and #546 because it is the closest you will get to the Cambridge edition printed by Cambridge.

#544 $30.00

#546 $50.00

The Nelson that will take the place of the #544 and #546 hand size large print wont open and lay on the table and you can hardly see the verse numbers at the spine.What a shame.

In Jesus.

Steven.
Joined:

Nov 28, 2006

Messages:

284

Likes Received:

0

That is the way of things, prices go up, and quality goes down. I paid a little more than $60.00 for my large print Cambridge, but I got it from a very small independant dealer. Which by the way is an older version printed in England, in place of the ones now printed in foreign countries.
He is the only Bible store in town, where you hardly find any KJV Bibles. So I try to keep him in buisness, whenever possible.

Funny when you say large print people say, I don't like those. Then I have to say, well large print for Cambridge is not like large print in a Nelson Bible, just oversized.
Joined:

Jun 13, 2009

Messages:

291

Likes Received:

0

Amen Brother.

I love my cambridge`s my smaller than Nelson`s Hand Size giant print #544 and #546 is a Cambridge Cameo which I think they quit producing.I have a Thompson Chain medium size and large print bible and love them both.

You are right the Cambridge large print text bible is not as Nelsons.I have been sending KJV large prints to Exodus Prison Ministry in Texas.I will buy one or two a week out of the dollar store for $10.00 and collect about 20 and send them.

What a blessing to know someone in prison will have a KJV large print to read while locked up and the lives that is changed from accepting Christ in jail.Because when they are let out and they got really saved in jail they will never be able to live lives of sin and be happy again.Praise God for Jesus and praise God for being Jesus.Amen.

In Jesus love.

Steven.
Logos1560 Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Joined:

Oct 22, 2004

Messages:

5,555

Likes Received:

282

Faith:

Baptist

One Cambridge revision of the KJV was printed in 1762. There was a Cambridge edition of the KJV printed in 1769, and I have a copy of one. Some may refer to the 1769 Cambridge because D. A. Waite claimed that the text of his Defined KJB was the 1769 Cambridge edition, even though his claim is incorrect.
Logos1560 Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Joined:

Oct 22, 2004

Messages:

5,555

Likes Received:

282

Faith:

Baptist

Gail Riplinger attacked the King James Easy-Reading Bible, suggesting that it is one of several "new sleazy reading bibles" and "illegitimate offsprings," and calling it a "counterfeit," and a "perversion" (In Awe, pp. 471, 474). Riplinger also included it in her list of claimed "corrupt versions" (p. 1184). Riplinger claimed: "The KJV-ER fouls its lines with so-called 'definitions,' which copy exactly the same evil tenor found in the text of the Jehovah Witness and NIV versions" (p. 481). She implied that "it departs from the Received Greek Text" (p. 474). Riplinger does not actually prove her misleading and incorrect accusations. Pointing out the attempted update of the spelling, archaic verb endings, archaic pronouns, and some archaic words is not valid evidence for claiming that another Greek text was supposedly used. Her misleading attacks on any edition that updates archaic spelling or words forms would seem to conflict with her own statement that "synonyms can be substituted" and her acceptance of the pre-1611 English Bibles. Do her accusations seem very extreme and inconsistent after considering the earlier quotations from Riplinger's book that indicate a high regard for the Bishops' Bible even with its claimed simpler vocabulary? Anyone who has collated the pre-1611 English Bibles should know that there are greater differences between the "pure" Bishops' Bible and the KJV than any differences the minor updating makes between the KJV and the KJV-ER. The actual documented facts indicate that Riplinger does not provide objective, reliable, and accurate information about the pre-1611 English Bibles and about updated revisions and present English Bibles.
In the November, 2007, BFT Update, it was reported that D. A. Waite's oldest son, who was the footnote author and editor for Waite's Defined KJB, had helped in the making of the King James Easy-Reading Bible. That indicates that the sources for many of the updated spellings and the definitions in the KJV-ER were likely the same ones used for Waite's Defined KJB. The Defined KJB had an appendix entitled "Old Verb Endings Classified and Explained" (pp. 1653-1660) that explained how to update the archaic verb endings in the KJV, and that appendix may have been applied to the making of the KJV-ER. The man who was responsible for the publishing of the King James Easy-Reading Bible seems to hold to a KJV-only view. D. A. Waite wrote: "Get a Defined King James Bible if you want to have the Words of God translated into understandable English" (Fundamentalist Deception on Bible Preservation, p. 40). Waite maintained that "the uncommon words are defined accurately in the footnotes" of his Defined KJB (A Critical Answer, p. 121). In a footnote, H. D. Williams asserted that Waite's Defined KJB "defines the archaic words excellently" (Pure Words of God, p. 13). If those same words excellently and accurately translated into understandable English are put in the text instead of in footnotes or marginal notes, do they become wrong?
Logos1560 Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Joined:

Oct 22, 2004

Messages:

5,555

Likes Received:

282

Faith:

Baptist

In one example in Jeremiah 34:16, the present Oxford KJV has "whom he" while the present Cambridge KJV has "whom ye." D. A. Waite wrote: "In Jeremiah 34:16 the Oxford University Press King James Version is wrong, false, and in error" (Foes of the KJB Refuted, p. 66). Concerning this same verse, Thomas Holland claimed that "the error was limited to the editions published by Oxford or those based on the Oxford edition" (Crowned with Glory, p. 101). He also identified it as "a printing error found in some current editions" (p. 100). David Daniels wrote that the Oxford printers "mistakenly printed 'whom he' instead of the correct 'whom ye' (Answers, p. 127). David Sorenson maintained that the Cambridge edition has the "correct translation" at this verse (Touch Not, p. 19). On the other hand, Scrivener pointed out that the rendering "whom he" was introduced into the KJV in the 1629 and 1638 Cambridge editions (Authorized Edition, p. 225). Two of the KJV translators themselves were among the editors of the Cambridge editions that introduced the rendering "whom he" into the text of the KJV. At this verse, the later Oxford editions were following earlier Cambridge standard editions. The 1762 Cambridge edition, one 1769 Cambridge edition, one 1790 Cambridge edition, one 1824 Cambridge edition, one 1833 Cambridge edition, one 1837 Cambridge edition, one 1842 Cambridge edition, one 1844 Cambridge edition, one 1865 Cambridge edition, one 1869 Cambridge edition, one 1872 Cambridge edition, and one 1887 Cambridge edition all have "whom he" at this verse, indicating that several Cambridge editions in the 1800's likely had this rendering. Peter Ruckman defended both renderings "ye" and "he" at this verse and suggested that either does "not alter the truth" of the statement in this verse at either edition of the KJV (Scholarship Only, p. 71). While the 1948 Pilgrim Edition printed by Oxford University Press in New York had "whom he" at Jeremiah 34:16, the 2003 New Pilgrim Bible [KJV] with consulting editors Jerry Rockwell and Douglas Stauffer has "whom ye." The 1997 Oxford World's Classics edition of the KJV printed by Oxford University Press has "whom ye" (Jer. 34:16).
Joined:

May 21, 2008

Messages:

201

Likes Received:

0

I used to own a couple of these. They update the pronouns and cover some of the archaic words. Otherwise, it's merely a KJV that disguises itself as "easy reading." This isn't true.
The Defined King James is better. More of the archaic words are defined at the bottom of each page.

Both still use the 400 year old grammar contained in the KJV.