Share this Page | Back to Main Page | Email Us

 

  The DEFINED King James Bible: Definitions For Change

Introduction

I will prove that The Bible For Today's The DEFINED King James Bible [1] is programming [2] Christians who regard the King James Bible as the word of God in English to a certain course of action: to accept doctrinal changes to the King James Bible by way of "definitions": Through the ruse of defining "uncommon" words, The Bible For Today published a King James Bible that is DEFINED for change.

D.A. Waite, Sr. (General Editor) and D. A. Waite, Jr. (Contributing Editor) as well as other family members who own and operate The Bible For Today, admitted that they set out to "improve" upon the King James Bible.  Waite, Jr. compared his efforts to "make a good version better" to that of the KJB translators:

It is my hope and prayer that the Lord will use my feeble efforts "to make a good [version] better" (as the KJB translators wrote).

(The DEFINED King James Bible, pg. vii)

Mr. Waite, Jr. conceded that his efforts to improve the King James Bible, might have brought in some error:

In attempting to do so, however, mistakes may have inadvertently crept in.

(The DEFINED King James Bible, pg. vii)

The following statement indicates that Mr. Waite was attempting to counter any outcry over his dangerous campaign to "improve" the King James Bible:

Please remember that God makes no mistakes: "His work is perfect" (Deuteronomy 32:4). May the Lord use this "imperfect "work" for His glory! "Keep the wheat; let the chaff fall to the ground."

(The DEFINED King James Bible, pg. vii. Bold/italics emphasis in the original; red emphasis mine )

How will young Christians on the milk of the word, children, and those who know English as a second language know how to identify the "chaff" that D. A. Waite, Jr. admitted is in The DEFINED King James Bible The King James Bible contains no chaff. It is The DEFINED King James Bible that contains chaffdue to The Bible For Today's additions of distorted and out of context definitions.

In reference to Waite's remark that "God makes no mistakes": If D. A. Waite and his son, D. A. Waite, Jr. (footnote author and editor) really believed that God made no mistakes (meaning the King James Bible is the word of God in English) why did Waite Jr. retranslate hundreds of words in the King James Bible? I am aware of over 300 retranslated words but there might be more.

D. A. Waite, Jr. retranslated the King James Bible words by choosing alternate words and definitions obtained from Greek and Hebrew Lexicons. The footnotes that contain the italicized notation of Gk or Heb  signal the reader to choose a word replacement for the King James Bible word. Using such tactics introduces change to both the King James Bible and the reader:

  •  The reader becomes acclimated to choosing a replacement word derived from a Greek or Hebrew Lexicon rather than enduring the sound doctrine taught by the real King James Bible word.

  • In regard to definitions of English words, the reader learns to depend on the definitions authorized by The Bible For Today rather than the Holy Spirit and the common sense understanding of the word in context.  

Mr. D. A. Waite, Jr. used his footnotes to institute change to hundreds of words in the King James Bible by doing the following:

  • He defined the word in the King James text and added a word or phrase from a Greek or Hebrew Lexicon 

  • He substituted a word or phrase from a Greek or Hebrew Lexicon

  • Mr. Waite's definition's are out of context in some critically important passages. Many times he uses several words to define a word and some of these words do not apply in the context. If Mr. Waite's intent was to help the reader understand what he is reading, he would give the reader the meaning of the word in the context in which that word is found. (For proof see the complete listing of critiques: DEFINED King James Bible: Definitions For Change Index Page)

  • In some cases, D. A. Waite Jr. came up with his own "take" on definitions by placing a word he favored most first in his list of definitions even though a dictionary or Lexicon placed that word near the bottom of the list.

For example, let us briefly review how The Bible For Today chose to convey the meaning of the word "pray." In every instance where the word, pray appears in scripture, the Waites indicated that it means "beg"!

Because D. A. Waite, Jr. indicated in his Preface that he consulted Lexicons and dictionaries to obtain his definitions, and because no dictionary that I could find used "beg" as the first definition, I compared his definition for pray with the usages of beg in the Strong's Concordance.

Strong's Concordance shows the various usages of the word "pray" [2065] [3] are as follows:

(1) question,

(2) ask, to request, entreat, beg, beseech.

Pray does mean to beg or entreat someone when one is speaking to another human being, but when pray is used in reference to speaking to God, it does not mean beg. Mr. D.A. Waite, Jr. perverted the meaning of a Christian's communication with God!

Every Christian must reject The Bible For Today's false, anti-Christian paradigm shift [4] on prayer.

E.M. Bounds' definition of prayer:

 "Prayer is the great, universal force to advance God's cause; the reverence which hallows God's name; the ability to do God's will, and the establishment of God's kingdom in the hearts of the children of men."[5]  

 

Strings of "Synonyms" and Retranslated Words Serve to Create Doubt

The Bible For Today's strategy of boldfacing targeted words throughout the entire DEFINED King James Bible has a modern-version-styled impact upon the reader:

The person's train of thought is continually interrupted by the boldfaced words with superscript numbers interspersed throughout the text of every page of the Bible. These emphasized words arrest his attention and drive him straight to the footnotes where he sees:

 (1) several "synonyms" with subtly different meanings for the King James Bible word and/or

 (2) the italicized notation of Gk or Heb. with oftentimes several substitutions for the King James Bible word to choose from.

This results in programming the King James Bible believer to question the purity of the King James Bible.

 

Definitions of Common Words Reveals Hidden Agenda

The only way to safely understand the meaning of words found in the King James Bible is to study each word in scriptural context. However, because the Waites stated that they used dictionaries and Lexicons to obtain their "definitions," I consulted some in my investigation of The DEFINED King James Bible to compare their definitions to those in the study tools. I also noticed they defined a lot of common words:

In spite of their claim to have defined uncommon words, the Waites of The Bible For Today defined many common words. By doing so they introduced error and obscured biblical teachings and warnings by means of false and out of context definitions.

Regarding context: We all know the context in which an English word is used is essential to understanding its meaning. If a word is being used to teach a spiritual principle, then that word must be defined in the context of the spiritual lesson being taught. D. A. Waite Sr. and Jr. of The Bible For Today selected definitions for words in their DEFINED work with no regard for the context.

 

Does God Give False Doctrines and Fruitless Designs a Pass?

Regarding D. A. Waite, Jr.'s disclaimer:

  1. He instructed his readers to keep the wheat (keep his correct definitions)

  2. and let the chaff fall to the ground (discard his wrong definitions.)

The Bible For Today author is clearly aware that some of his definitions are in the category of "chaff." 

What does chaff mean in the context of Holy Scripture?

In scripture, false doctrines, fruitless designs, hypocrites and ungodly men are compared to chaff.

(American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster 1828)

The publishers of The DEFINED King James Bible want you to ignore the "chaff" they footnoted into the King James Bible but God does not share that value system. His Holy King James Bible contains no chaff whatsoever.

Check out the rest of the articles in this series that prove Bible For Today published The DEFINED King James Bible as a platform to introduce change to King James Bible and its readers by way of "definitions."

 

Notes:

[1] The following men are primarily responsible for the publication of The DEFINED King James Bible, which was first published in October, 1998.

D. A. Waite, Th.D., Ph.D.  General Editor  (D. A. Waite is also the Founder and President of the Dean Burgeon Bible Society.)
D. A. Waite, Jr., M.A., M.L.A. 
Footnote Author and Editor
S. H. Tow, D.D., M.D. 
Contributing Editor
Daniel S. Waite, M.A., M.Div. 
Publication Coordinator

[2]Programming means an act of formulating a program for a definite course of action.  http://www.thefreedictionary.com/programming

[3] "pray" (Strongs' 2065) http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2065&t=KJV

[4] paradigm shift: "a change from one way of thinking to another."

[5] Quoted from The Weapon of Prayer, Chapter 2 by E.M. Bounds

(Check back for more articles in this series)

This series of articles was begun in January, 2013. I consulted the 2011 printing of The DEFINED King James Bible to do this exposé.

 

Complete listing of articles in this series:  DEFINED King James Bible: Definitions For Change Index Page

 Share this Page | Back to Main Page | Email Us


Liberty To The Captives Established in June 2001