Did Waite admit his 421 count was inaccurate?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Logos1560, Oct 31, 2007.

  1. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Below is a portion of an email that I received from D. A. Waite's Bible For Today:


    D. A. Waite wrote: "
    My EARS found only a total of 421 changes from Genesis through Revelation. Only 136 of these were what I called “substantial” changes The remaining 276 changes were minor like “towards” changed to “toward”; “burnt” changed to “burned”; “amongst” changed to “among”; “lift” changed to “lifted”; and “you” changed to “ye.” (p. 5) These were basically the same words, but I counted them in the 421 changes.
    Rick Norris, on the other hand, used a different method in his study. HE DID NOT RELY UPON HIS EARS, BUT USED HIS EYES TO COMPARE THE 1611 KJB WITH THE 1769 KJB. He found 2,024 changes by using the method of the eyes rather than the ears. It took him 21 years to come up with these. I compared each of the 2,024 changes tabulated by Rick Norris. In my opinion, I found that only 1,095 of his changes to the ear were valid changes within his stated purpose."
    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<


     
    #1 Logos1560, Oct 31, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 31, 2007
  2. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    By the way, for the record, it did not take "21 years" for me to find the evidence that shows that Waite's 421 count was inaccurate.

    Even by his own comments, Waite in effect admitted that he missed over one half of the differences between the 1611 edition and today's KJV.

    Will Waite correct his count that is found in several of his books?

    Below are some examples of Waite's use of his 421 count.

    D. A. Waite admitted that there are "136 substantial changes" between the 1611 KJV and current KJV plus "285 minor changes of form" (Defending the KJB, p. 244, see also pp. 3-4). In another book, 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, see also pp. 90-93). He indicated that he was sure that if another person did the same comparison that they “would get the same results” (p. 93). In yet another book, Waite observed 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 his original 1985 booklet, Waite did acknowledge that he “might have missed a place or two throughout the course of the Bible” (AV1611 Compared to Today’s KJV, p. 4). He added that he “tried to record them all” (p. 4). He then referred to “the total translation changes of 421” (p. 4). How accurate and reliable was Waite’s research in comparing these two KJV editions? Should his count be regarded as an almost complete list of all the changes of sound between these two editions? When Waite used the words “total,” “only,” and “in all“ that are quoted above, does that suggest that his count is presented as a complete or incomplete list of all these changes? Waite seemed to recommend 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).
     
  3. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    This whole thing about "ear changes" amazes me. If you have ever heard an Englishman read the Bible, even in 21st century English, you will hear many, many, ear changes to what the American ear hears. I have heard some attempts to recreate the sound of 16th-17th century English and virtually every word is an "ear change" from the way things are pronounced today.
     
  4. David Lamb

    David Lamb
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    2,982
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree. The example that springs to mind is the name of the prophet Isaiah. Whenever I hear an American say that name, it comes over as "Eyes-ay-er" (second syllable rhyming with "day"), whereas in the UK we say "Eyes-eye-er".
     
  5. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    By the way, the email I quoted from was the email form of Bible For Today's newsletter that may still also be sent out in printed form. It was usually also posted at the Bible for Today website.

    In describing his own method, D. A. Waite wrote: "I listened to my own reading of the Bible from Genesis through Revelation on cassette tapes. For this Bible reading, I used the 1917 Old Scofield King James Bible. As I listened to the 1917 KJB, my eyes followed the Nelson Publishers’ 1611 King James Bible."

    It seems that Waite also made use of his "eyes" in his research of comparing the two editions. Evidently, Waite's method was faulty since he in effect admitted that he missed over one half of the actual differences. A method that produces less than 50% accuracy is not very reliable.

    Waite's 421 count has not usually been presented as "opinion." Instead, Waite himself and other KJV-only authors have presented it as an accurate and a complete [or nearly complete] count of all the differences.

    I acknowledge that there can be valid differences of opinion concerning whether some differences involve a difference of sound.

    I think that it can be shown that Waite's new count of 1,095 is also inaccurate.
     
  6. Jerome

    Jerome
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    5,629
    Likes Received:
    45
    Waite: "It took [Rick Norris] 21 years to come up with these."

    Yes, meticulous direct comparison of two texts, which does takes time, is preferable to Waite's "ear" method of comparing a text to a recording of himself reading the second text.

    Waite on his own audio Bible readings which he used in his "research":
    "I am sure these are not perfect"

    Has Waite ever published an actual list of the differences he found?

    I wonder what unique comparison method he would devise for a "find the difference" puzzle like this.:laugh:
     
    #6 Jerome, Nov 1, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 1, 2007
  7. npetreley

    npetreley
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, why don't you guys just learn to pronounce it the right way? ;)
     
  8. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    I's I uh? I's A uh?:sleep:
     
  9. npetreley

    npetreley
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    0
    You say I's I uh, and I say I's A uh... let's call the whole thing off.
     
  10. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Yes, Waite published his list of his claimed 421 changes in a booklet in 1985.

    Waite, D. A. The Authorized Version 1611 Compared to Today's KJV.
    Collingswood: The Bible for Today, 1985.

    It will be interesting to see if he corrects his booklet to list all the 1095 changes he now admits or if he keeps selling his faulty research in its 1985 form.
     
  11. Maestroh

    Maestroh
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2007
    Messages:
    107
    Likes Received:
    0
    What Would Be Even More Interesting

    is to see a public apology for how this man has shamelessly skewered the reputations of B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort. His book allegedly documenting the so-called 'heresies' of these guys is the most slanderous piece of literature I've ever read.
     
  12. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Seemsta me that waite has changed his count almost monthly for awhile now. But he still cannot get around the fact that he cannot find any support for KJVO in the KJV itself. However, he won't tellya THAT, now!
     
  13. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    So far as I know, D. A. Waite has not yet made available a list of the differences he would include in his new 1095 count. Thus, I cannot evaluate his actual new list. However, there are valid reasons for thinking that his new count would have to be inaccurate.

    If you just take the words that Waite himself listed as differences or changes that affect the sound and count the exact same differences in all the other verses where Waite failed to list them, those alone would add up to more than 674 [1095-421=674]. For example, Waite himself listed one time where the 1611 KJV has "then" while the present KJV has "than" [KJV 1611 Compared, p. 13; change #408]. There were 482 more times this same change was made since the 1611 edition had "then" at all 483 places where the present KJV has "than." Waite listed 82 of the places where the 1611 had "you" while the present KJV has "ye." Since they are actually over 300 places where this change was made, Waite failed to list over 200 of them. Just those two examples alone add up to more differences than Waite admitted his count was off. There are other such minor changes that Waite listed sometimes but did not list all the times the same change was made. For example, Waite did not list several of the places where "towards" was changed to "toward," "besides" to "beside," "amongst" to "among," "lift" to "lifted," and "burnt" to "burned."

    There were also a number of the type changes that Waite listed as "substantial" that Waite overlooked or failed to list. For example, Waite’s listing and count does not include the adding of two words at ten 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 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.

    All the actual differences between the 1611 and today's KJV that Waite failed to list clearly indicate that his new count of 1095 would also be incorrect.
     
  14. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Maybe Waite forgot to take his sox off before he began counting!
     
  15. Pete

    Pete
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2002
    Messages:
    4,345
    Likes Received:
    0
    I can't believe my....

    ....nevermind.... :rolleyes:
     
  16. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    Well, this is quick way to get to 4000 posts.
     
  17. Pete

    Pete
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2002
    Messages:
    4,345
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have one of the most consistent records on the BB - 4,299 posts now and none of them have said anything much :smilewinkgrin:
     

Share This Page

Loading...