Defending the King James Bible [Paperback]

D. A. Waite (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: June 1998

This book is now a classic. It has been printed ten times through two editions. It should be in every library, school, seminary, and home. Dr. Waite's work answer's two questions: (1) Which English Bible are we to read, study, memorize, preach from, and use today? (2) Which English Bible can we hold in our hands and say with great confidence, "These are the WORDS OF GOD in English"? He examine's the KING JAMES BIBLE, proving its superiority in four areas: (1) its superior TEXTS; (2) its superior TRANSLATORS; (3) its superior TECHNIQUES; and (4) its superior THEOLOGY.

Editorial Reviews

About the Author

The author of this book, Dr. D. A. Waite, received a B.A. (Bachelor of Arts) in classical Greek and Latin from the University of Michigan in 1948, a Th.M. (Master of Theology), with high honors, in New Testament Greek Literature and Exegesis from Dallas Theological Seminary in 1952, an M.A. (Master of Arts) in Speech from Southern Methodist University in 1953, a Th.D. (Doctor of Theology), with honors, in Bible Exposition from Dallas Theological Seminary in 1955, and a Ph.D. in Speech from Purdue University in 1961. He holds both New Jersey and Pennsylvania teacher certificates in Greek and Language Arts.

He has been a teacher in the areas of Greek, Hebrew, Bible, Speech, and English for over thirty-five years in nine schools, including one junior high, one senior high, three Bible institutes, two colleges, two universities, and one seminary. He served his country as a Navy Chaplain for five years on active duty; pastored two churches; was Chairman and Director of the Radio and Audio-Film Commission of the American Council of Christian Churches; since 1971, has been Founder, President, and Director of The Bible For Today; since 1978, has been President of the Dean Burgon Society; has produced over 700 other studies, booklets, cassettes, or VCR's on various topics; and is heard on both a five-minute daily and thirty-minute weekly radio program in defense of traditional Bible texts, presently on 25 stations. Dr. and Mrs. Waite have been married since 1948; they have four sons, one daughter, and (at present) eight grandchildren.

Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.

from Questions and Answers: Q. What would you suggest as a help to use with the King James Bible--one source or two you would use in everyday study? A. Strong's Concordance is good. It is keyed to Greek and Hebrew words, and in the back you have the Greek and Hebrew words given in alphabetical order, including the meaning of each word. You would also be helped by a good Bible dictionary. You don't really need much in addition to this in the beginning of your Bible study.

Q. Isn't it difficult to get the real meaning in the English language? A. The English language is a wide and expansive language with technical terms and detailed words from Latin, Greek and all languages. We have a way of saying it in English that many languages do not have. We have a vast number of adjectives, nouns, verbs, etc. that they don't even have in other languages. I would think the English language would be a good one to be able to say exactly what you mean and precisely what is in the Hebrew and Greek.

Q. Is it difficult to make the Hebrew exact into English? A. No, it is easy. But these men who translated the New American Standard Version and especially the New International Version (probably the greatest transgressor--except for the living version which is far-out) have purposely avoided bringing it over exactly. They don't want that. It's not a question that it is difficult and therefore they cannot succeed. They succeed in the goal they have set for themselves.

Let me show you in the New International Version of 1969, a word on what their goal was (page viii of the Preface): "The first concern of the translators has been the accuracy of the translation and its fidelity to the thought of the Biblical writers." Now, what's wrong with that? Is that what we're interested in, only the thought? You see, we're interested in the words. We believe in plenary, VERBAL inspiration of Scripture. "Plenary" is "full," (that is, from Genesis to Revelation). "Verbal" means the very words are "God-breathed." If you're only interested in fidelity to the thought, then you don't care about the words. You can throw this one away, or that one away. And they do. It just grieves me when I look at the NIV.

I listened every morning at 5:45 a.m. to the KING JAMES BIBLE on the cassettes while reading in the NIV to compare the two. How they rend it, twist it, add to it, and move it around! I have finished it finally. I found over 6,653 examples of dynamic equivalency without even half trying. There are many, many more. The NIV editors could have translated the Bible literally, with verbal and formal equivalence, but they wanted to stay with the thought, not the words. To continue reading from the NIV Preface:

"They have weighed the significance of the lexical and grammatical details of the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts. At the same time they have striven for more than a word-for-word translation." [They don't want word-for-word translation] "Because thought patterns and syntax differ from language to language, faithful communication of the meaning of the writers of the Bible demands frequent modification in sentence structure and constant regard for the contextual meanings of words." [New International Version, 1978 edition, p. viii.]

So they have to change the sentence structure, and they do. If it's a question, they often turn it into a statement. If it's a statement, they turn it into a question. Many of the things are backwards. So when you read this, you can see the purpose of it is not to make it exact. They think that is a wrong way to make it. It's not a question of being too difficult.

Let me start from the Hebrew copy. It says bera-shith. b is "in" and rashith is "the head, or beginning." So, Genesis 1:1 says, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." The King James translators wrote, "In the beginning . . . " That is a good start, simple, clear, easy. The next word, bara "created" elohim "God" (the Hebrew has the words in different order) eth (the sign of the accusative, or direct object) ha shamaim "the heavens" wa eth "and" plus the accusative sign again ha erets "the earth." This is exactly the way it is. You don't have to change it around.

You will find that the NIV and the others have probably kept this verse just as it is. I'll tell you something about the NIV as well as some of the others. The favorite and the familiar verses they keep pretty well intact in order to sell their Bibles. You turn to Psalm 23 in any of these Bibles they will be very much like the King James translation because they don't want to take you too far away from what you're used to. They know people look at John 3:16, Psalm 23, Genesis 1:1. The New American Standard has the same rendering of Genesis 1:1. But that doesn't mean that is the way they handle things throughout their translations. They purposely do it.

Product Details

• Paperback: 327 pages
• Publisher: The Old Paths Publications, Inc.; 3rd Revised edition (June 1998)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 1568480121
• ISBN-13: 978-1568480121
• Product Dimensions: 8.3 x 5.5 x 1 inches
• Shipping Weight: 15.2 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 4.3 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (14 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #672,982 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

20 of 25 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Best book on the subject! Indispensible!, May 8, 2000

By 

al ellefson - See all my reviews

This review is from: Defending the King James Bible: A Four-Fold Superiority : Texts, Translators, Te (Paperback)

This book, by textual scholar Waite, is my favorite defense of the KJV. Waite's outline of four areas in which the KJV is demonstrably superior to modern renderings of scripture is the clearest and most concise presentation I have found. It is also useful as an antidote to some mean-spirited pro-KJV writings that have become ammo for the "other side." Waite is not guilty of bombast or arrogance, and I praise God for it.

I once passed this book to a derisve individual who was baiting me almost incessantly after reading White's KING JAMES ONLY CONTROVERSY. I asked him to read Waite since I had already read White's popular and mock-charitable "establishment" treatment. Out of a sense of fairness, he reluctantly agreed. Well, I would be a liar if I said he drastically changed his views, but he is now unwilling to argue about the subject and seems to use only a KJV!

I strongly recommend this book.

2 of 2 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Defending The King James Bible, June 14, 2011

By 

Richard - See all my reviews

Amazon Verified Purchase

This review is from: Defending the King James Bible (Paperback)

I have not finished it yet, but it is exactly what I was told it would be by my Pastoral Theology instructor. A true exegesis of the God's Word.

6 of 8 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars more good stuff on the bible version question, June 11, 2007

By 

D. T. Kleven (Eau Claire, WI) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Defending the King James Bible (Paperback)

Defending the King James Bible does a pretty good job of just that. I found that much of it was the usual arguments in favor of the AV that are better portrayed in other books (in my opinion), although there were a few features here that I hadn't come across yet.

It's split into four sections as well as three appendices. The first section is devoted to the superiority of the underlying greek texts (the Masoretic Text and Textus Receptus) over the rest of the inferior minority texts, specifically Codex Aleph (Sinaiticus) and Codex B (Vaticanus). This is covered adequately by other authors, but it is interesting to read different perspectives of the argument, and Waite's was unique enough to warrant reading.

The second and third sections contained new information to me, as it discussed the AV translators themselves, their credentials, and their technique in translating. The AV position flies completely in the face of an evolutionary presupposition that still pops up in christian thinking. "Things get better," or in this case, "scholars get smarter and techniques get better, so since we are 400 years chronologically further along than the 1611 translators, therefore our scholars are better qualified to translate texts and they've come up with better methods and theories to do it." What this line of reasoning ignores is the fact that any knowledge that humans attain that leaves God out of the picture is foolishness. There was a shift in textual criticism in the mid 19th century (just like there was a shift in geology, biology, and a continuing trend in philosophy) when Westcott and Hort used naturalistic presuppositions as their basis for creating their "new" greek text. Also interesting was the fact that the translation technique used in the 1611 version has never been repeated before or since! It is truly a one of a kind event. Also detailed was the absolute genius of some of the translators. One of the men read through the Old Testament in Hebrew when he was five years old! Such a level of proficiency has never been attained by anyone since, yet, we are told that scholars today are more capable of evaluating the evidence and coming to better conclusions than the AV translators. "Professing themselves to be wise they became as fools."

The last section prints out dozens of verses where the difference between the versions makes a significant doctrinal difference. This was very helpful, and I spent a lot of time in my ESV, NIV, and NASV making comparisons. This may be the first step in the textual debate. If someone isn't willing to admit that the differences between the versions are significant when it comes to doctrine, then they are going to ignore the rest of the information. If someone becomes convinced that it actually matters which Bible you use, they will be motivated to investigate the rest of the facts.

Also, one of the appendices is a printout of many (I'm not sure if it includes all) of the references to "words" in the Bible. I had been planning to do that myself, but found it very helpful to read through these verses and get an understanding of a true Biblical approach to the words of God.

I found this to be a very helpful book. I still think Edward Hills' "The King James Version Defended," is the best starting point to this question, but Waite's work here is definitely worth a read as well.