An Analysis of Dr. D.A. Waite’s King James Only Seminar, Slides #5-16: “God’s Words Kept Intact”

Section II – “God’s Words Kept Intact”: The Preservation Argument (Slides #5-#16)

Just observing this title, the word “intact” is again an indication of the underlying false premise: the written Word has to be “intact” (entire, exact) in order to be God’s Word. Anything that amounts to anything less than a 100% equivalent of the elusive original is considered counterfeit. Of course, this begs the proverbial, age-old question for the King James Only position: Where was the Word of God before 1611? If differences disqualify all but one version of being the true Word of God, and the King James is that one, what do we do with all the Bibles leading up to the King James of 1611? The Ruckmanite has no problem here, because he believes the English corrects the Greek, and even says the “mistakes in the King James are advanced revelation.” No matter how much he will deny this, the Ruckmanite’s position will always amount to double inspiration. But for men like D. A. Waite, a bigger problem exists. He has (understandably) distanced himself from the ideas of Peter Ruckman. Yet, Ruckman’s position will always be more consistent, because he can always cite English superiority and end the discussion. But Waite actually considers history and textual studies important to the conversation. It seems that he and other “moderate” King James Onlyists mold two positions into one: the Byzantine preferred position and King James Only position. I do not believe, however, there can be an agreement among the two. The Byzantine position, very similar to the Majority Text position, is one that favors the manuscripts that come from the Byzantine family. Though the earliest manuscripts of its kind are no earlier dated than the 4th century, proponents of this position believe this text type represents the original more accurately than eclectic texts which incorporate readings from Alexandrian manuscripts and other witnesses. The manuscripts of the Byzantine family represent the majority of extant Greek manuscripts available today and the majority of manuscripts from at least the 9th century on. Because of a strong belief in church authority and the power of consensus, many believe that these attributes argue for the priority of this text type. The underlying text of the King James New Testament, the Textus Receptus, is based solely on the Byzantine tradition. Though the vast majority of New Testament scholars lean toward the eclectic text position, the Byzantine type preferred position is a respected counterpart. John William Burgon, Zane Hodges, Arthur Farstad, and Wilbur Pickering were among scholars who espoused such a position, and their works continue to have influence on the ongoing debate. Although I believe the eclectic text position has been defended better than the Byzantine text position, I believe honest dialogue between the two can still go on. A main reason for this is that most of the proponents of the Byzantine text position do not make their position a standard of orthodoxy or test of separation. They believe, as do I, that no text or translation is perfect, and apply absolute inerrancy only to the autographs. They typically fellowship with modern version users and are not just loyal to the King James, as many of them support the use of the New King James Version – a version that, oddly enough, KJVOnlysits vehemently reject. The NKJV is also based on the Byzantine platform and  differs from the KJV, for the most part, in places in which the Textus Receptus departed from the majority of Byzantine manuscripts. I brought up that concise summary of the Byzantine position to make one thing clear: it is not the same as the KJVO position. But it must be understood because moderate King James Onlyists employ the same arguments of the Byzantine position, even quoting its proponents (especially Burgon), until they get to the year 1611. It seems all scholarship ended in 1611. The main problem with this is that the KJVOnlyist is forced to constantly change his goal.

An Analysis of Dr. D.A. Waite’s King James Only Seminar, Slides #1-4: The Root of the King James Only Position

My personal view on the King James Only position is that it is rooted in a misconception about the place of biblical inerrancy in Christian doctrine. Its basic premise is: Christianity stands or falls on biblical inerrancy. 

To begin his seminar, Dr. Waite began with this very premise. The first slide in his presentation represents the vast majority of KJVO defense works. He begins by quoting Satan in the garden, “Yea, hath God said?” (Genesis 3:1). The audience is told that the very first question in the Bible deals with Satan questioning the words of God. This idea corresponds directly with my theory, and provides the basis for the rest of his argumentation. If any word in the scriptures is questioned on its authenticity, it is equivalent to the work of Satan. Therefore, we must have a Bible that contains all of God’s words, without any question, if we are to believe the Christian message.

The problem with this underlying idea is that Satan was not questioning the words of God, as in His choice of nouns and verbs used to convey the idea. He questioned the message. Satan is opposed to the message God has given to man. No where in the Bible is it said that Satan is consenting to God’s message so long as the words are rearranged or a few words are missing. Upon examination of the portion of scripture used, one quickly finds that meaning is Satan’s intended target, not words:

Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? (KJV)

The serpent begins his conversation with Eve with a question that provoked her to reiterate God’s initial command. He seems to have purposely misrepresented God’s command in order to achieve a certain response. God restricted one tree, but he asked as if every tree was forbidden. It would be tantamount to a mother asking her son, “Did daddy tell you to play with that ball in the house?” The question is a bit rhetorical. The serpent knew the answer. He wanted to contradict the message, as we shall see.

An Analysis of Dr. D.A. Waite’s King James Only Seminar, Introduction

Introduction – Why This Analysis Exists

Within the span of about a year, I twice attended a seminar on Bible Versions from the King James Only (KJVO) perspective featuring Dr. D.A. Waite, president of The Bible for Today and The Dean Burgon Societies, and pastor of The Bible for Today Baptist Church. The material in both seminars was identical.

Dr. Waite is probably the most important figure representing the non-Ruckmanite KJVO view today. He has great academic credentials, teaching experience, and is an expert in biblical languages. He has been defending the King James Only view for several decades. Having read his book, Defending the King James Version, several pamphlets of his, as many articles as I could find both on the Bible for Today website and the Dean Burgon Society website, including articles by Jeffrey Khoo, Jack Moorman, and Timothy Tow, no one can accuse me of not being acquainted with his position. Combine that with attending his seminar twice, and I can be basically considered an expert!

Well, maybe not an expert. But a common accusation about former KJVonlyists is that they were KJVO until they read a book by James White or something. This is not the case! As for me, I have read a plethora of King James Only material as well as opposing material. My rejection of this position has more to do with prayerful consideration of the issues than just reading one book. I hope I can articulate my objections to King James Only argumentation as I provide this analysis of Dr. Waite’s seminar. I believe a fair examination of Waite’s arguments will be a big step in understanding the King James Only position.

Christ and the Scriptures, Part III: Jesus’ Bibliology

In the final post in this series, I want to consider what Jesus Christ personally taught about the scriptures. What our Lord said about and did with the scriptures are of utmost importance to all matters of bibliology because of the following argument, which I have tried to articulate in this series thus far:

1. The Christian faith is primarily and initially spiritual, not intellectual. The Christian is a believer because of a work that God has supernaturally performed in his heart, not because he intellectually “figured it out.”

2. Working in the person’s heart, the Holy Spirit testifies to Christ, while Christ draws men to Himself, given by the Father. This trinitarian phenomenon results in the believer’s first and foundational affirmation: that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, the Son of God.

3. Since believers come to Christ first spiritually, they should come to Christ first theologically. That is, a Christocentric model logically follows the believer’s own conversion and spiritual growth.

4. To begin with the Bible, as noble as it seems, is backwards, because no one can hold the Bible in the esteem of a Christian without first being a Christian. We do not believe in Jesus because we first accept biblical authority, we accept biblical authority because we first believe in Jesus. The danger of reversing this causes us to try to squeeze Jesus into our pre-made biblical constructs. Rather, Jesus should have preeminence in our theology to the extent that, if Jesus said or did something contrary to our understanding or theological framework, we should abandon that framework to follow Christ.

So what exactly did Jesus teach about the scriptures?