Cloud repeats Waite's inaccurate count

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Logos1560, Jan 10, 2008.

  1. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    In the January 10, 2008, FBIS newsletter of David Cloud, David Cloud wrote:
    "Waite found only 1,095 changes* that affect the sound throughout the
    entire 791,328 words in the King James Bible. Of these, the vast
    majority are minor changes of form, such as "towards" changed to
    "toward," "burnt" changed to "burned," "amongst" changed to "among,"
    "lift up" changed to "lifted up," and "you" changed to "ye."
    Obviously these are not real changes of any translational
    significance. [* Waite's original report stated that he found 421
    changes that affect the sound, but he later revised that to 1,095
    changes.]

    Dr. Waite found ONLY 136 SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES (out of 791,328 words)
    between the original KJV of 1611 and the contemporary Oxford edition. "

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    It is interesting that David Cloud repeats D. A. Waite's new inaccurate count of only 1,095 differences that affect the sound even though he has the evidence available that it is inaccurate. He was mailed a copy of my booklet TODAY'S KJV AND 1611 COMPARED AND MORE that lists all the differences. In addition, he was emailed the information that informed him that Waite's new count was also inaccurate. Even if you just add up the differences or words that Waite himself counted in other verses but that he failed to list in some verses, that count would add up to more than 674 [the amount that Waite increased his count] 421 + 674 = 1,095

    Cloud also continues to repeat Waite's inaccurate count of only 136 substantial changes. There was a good number of the differences that Waite failed to list and count in his original 421 count that would be in his category of substantial changes.
     
  2. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,574
    Likes Received:
    10
    Dunno about Cloud, but it seems Waite was going through the "Count Of The Week" for awhile. Maybe some day, his new glasses will arrive.
     
  3. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Here is some evidence that clearly shows that Waite's count of only 136 substantial changes is inaccurate.


    D. A. Waite counted the adding of three words at six different verses (Lev. 26:40, Num. 7:31, 7:55, Ezek. 3:11, 2 Cor. 11:32, 2 Tim. 4:13) as being only one change each and the adding of two words at other verses (Exod. 21:32, Ezek. 34:31) also as one change each (AV1611 Compared to Today‘s KJV, pp. 7, 9, 12, 13). Thus, the adding of twenty-two words is listed and counted as being only eight changes. Can twenty-two actual word changes be accurately listed as only eight? Waite did count the adding of two words at 2 Corinthians 9:6 and at Revelation 5:13 as two changes each (pp. 12-14), which sets a precedent for also counting the above examples as more than one change each. Furthermore, Waite’s listing and count does not include the adding of two words at ten other verses (Exod. 15:25 [“for them”], Exod. 35:11 [“his boards”], Lev. 19:34 [“unto you”], Lev. 26:23 [“by me”], Deut. 26:1 [“thy God”], 1 Sam. 18:27 [“and went”], Ezek. 46:23 [“row of”], John 7:16 [“and said“], 1 John 5:12 [“of God“], Rev. 1:4 [“which are“]), three words at three other verses (Josh. 13:29 [“the children of“], Jud. 1:31 [“of” three times], 2 Kings 11:10 [“of the LORD“]), and six words at one verse (Eccl. 8:17 [“yet he shall not find it”]). Thirty-five more word changes missed by Waite. There are also over 60 verses where later editors added one word that are not included in Waite’s list. There are at least fifteen verses where later editors omitted one word in the 1611 that are not on Waite’s list. Over thirty changes of the number [singular/plural] of words in the 1611 are also not listed. Several other changes like those Waite listed as “substantial” are also not included.
     
  4. Jerome

    Jerome
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    5,635
    Likes Received:
    45
    I believe this was Waite's method:
    He made a recording of himself reading aloud the later KJV.
    He later played that recording as he followed along reading the 1611 with his eyes.
    He marked the changes he happened to notice.

    It is no wonder he missed so much using this convoluted and amateurish textual comparison technique.
     
  5. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    David Cloud had quoted or cited Waite’s inaccurate count of “421 changes”--“136 changes of substance plus 285 minor changes of form” in at least five of his books (Way of Life Encyclopedia, pp. 232, 233; For Love of the Bible, p. 40; Faith vs. the Modern Bible Versions, p. 590; Bible Version Question/Answer, p. 136; Glorious History of KJB, p. 209). Cloud commended the “diligent study” and “diligent research” of Waite, and he indicated that Waite should be taken as an example of those who defend the KJV” (Examining “the King James Only Controversy,“ pp. 18-20). Cloud had maintained that Waite “has tallied and categorized every change and has shown us exactly what the differences are” (p. 73).

    Did Cloud cite a reliable and trustworthy source?
     

Share This Page

Loading...