In one of his books, D. A. Waite noted that he "found only 421 changes to the ear from the 1611 original compared with the 1917 Old Scofield King James Bible of today" (FUNDAMENTALIST MIS-INFORMATION ON BIBLE VERSIONS, p. 53). In another of his books, D. A. Waite claimed that in "changes of words as to their sound from the King James Bible of 1611 to the present King James Bible there are only 136 differences" (CENTRAL SEMINARY REFUTED ON BIBLE VERSIONS, p. 24). He then indicated that if such small things as a change from "towards" to "toward" are included "you get 413 words in all" (p. 25). Later in this same book, he gives his "only 421 translational changes" count (p. 76), but he also gives a count of "only 435 changes" (p. 116). In this same book, he also states that "there are only 136 differences to the sound" (p. 80). Which of these counts [136, 413, 421, 435] does Waite actually stand behind? Does his use of words such as "in all" and "only" suggest that his count is presented as a complete or incomplete list of all the changes? Waite even recommended to others that they use his count when he wrote: "You tell them about the mere 136 changes of substance plus 285 minor changes of form only. Argue them down" (DEFENDING THE KJB, p. 244). Waite was so confident in his count that he indicated that he was sure that if another person did the same comparison that they "would get the same results" (FUNDAMENTALIST MIS-INFORMATION, p. 93). To top it off, in his study and comparison, Waite claimed that he took "these same examples" listed by Scrivener in his book (CENTRAL SEMINARY, p. 78). How does Waite explain that over 200 of Scrivener's examples in his appendixes A and C are missing from his list? If Waite did what he stated, it would be expected that there would be at least 200 more changes in his list. That does not even include other examples that can be found in the text of Scrivener's book. Has Waite contradicted his own claim that he is "not misinforming anyone around this country" in his writing or speaking (FUNDAMENTALIST MIS-INFORMATION, p. 31)? Based on his own statement that he took the "same examples" listed by Scrivener, is it possible that he has known for 20 years that his count is misinformation?