Dr. D.A. Waite’s King James Only Seminar: Conclusion

I stopped taking notes at around slide #150. I did note some of the Q&A time, but I addressed much of that in previous posts. Plus, I see this series has run its course. So I want wrap to this up with a few concluding thoughts.

The good

1. Dr. Waite’s gentlemanly demeanor. It’s unfortunate that Dr. Waite has to share a position with Texe Marrs, Peter Ruckman, Gail Riplinger, and Samp Gipp. Though he does generalize more than necessary and oddly singles out John MacArthur, Waite comes off as a sincere Christian man who is defending a view he really believes in. 

2. Non-ruckmanism. Dr. Waite did all he could to avoid Ruckmanism in his presentation and Q&A. He even went further than most non-Ruckmanite KJVO would go, in saying that the King James Version is not “inspired.” In fact, at one point he said he would hesitate to call anything man-made as “perfect”, and cited the fact that the original 1611 contained the Apocrypha as proof of its imperfection. I was both surprised and in agreement. I doubt Jeff Fugate would be.

3. Decent presentation of typical KJVO arguments. Overall, his 4-point outline is a decent presentation of what the more typical arguments for moderate KJVO are: 1. Text 2. Translators 3. Technique 4. Theology. I would be more than happy to stick with those four headings to counter his claims.

The bad

1. Overstating his case. Interestingly, the first time I attended, a man began to proclaim, a little more loudly than was necessary during the Q&A, “you’re overstating your case!” He said he was a Bob Jones grad who actually agreed with Dr. Waite, but wanted to say he overstated his case. I was a bit caught off guard at the time, but now, I couldn’t agree more. To relate textual variation in transmission to the serpent’s questioning in the garden; to make it seem like all modern versions depend on dynamic equivalence and the King James only uses formal/verbal equivalence; to make a long list of terrible synonyms for dynamic equivalence (ignoring the fact that the KJV uses it at times); to include different Bibles which varied one with another in the list of “good” Bibles; and to use the word “deny” as if modern versions actually reject certain doctrines of the Faith are all outstanding examples of how Dr. Waite indeed overstated his case.

2. The scholarship. Dr. Waite presents this to laymen in churches, not scholars in ivory towers. However, that doesn’t mean his claims shouldn’t be backed by good scholarship. Judging by his credentials (and the fact that his works all list those credentials), he should be able to provide a scholarly basis for his claims. But things like claiming the Septuagint was created by Origen “because it is found in his Hexapla” or using the Peshitta (which did not contain 2 Peter, I John 5:7, II John, III John, Jude or Revelation as part of its canon) as part of the good line of “received kind” Bibles lacks that basis. In addition, his out-of-context, tailor-made Westcott and Hort quotes reveal a failure in accuracy, whether oversight or willful deception (I believe the former).

3. Double standards. The argumentation was full of double standards. It’s ok for the KJVO to include different Bibles in his line of pre-1611 “types” of KJVs, but anything different today is not the Word of God. Dynamic equivalence is seen as evil, yet the KJV uses it. Talk of scholarship in the non-KJVO realm is seen as arrogant and man-centered, yet an entire section is given on the great scholarship of the King James translators. The fact that the Nestle-Aland text has reached 27 editions shows it’s “unsettled”, yet the TR itself has gone under multiple editions (roughly 30 according to Art Farstad). The science of textual criticism is man-made and wrong, yet Waite cites Burgon’s reasoning behind the inclusion of variants like Mark 16. Why should that even matter? If we were to employ the same argumentation Burgon did for Mark 16 to the whole New Testament, the King James would not be the result.

4. Lack of counter-argumentation. I realize this wasn’t a debate, but it would have been nice to offer some of what non-KJVO say on this issue. A lot has been written for the other side, but Waite hardly mentions it. The only time he did, he used multiple slides to show how many fundamentalists believe no doctrine is affected by the changes in the modern versions. People like James White, D.A. Carson, and others were dismissed as though they didn’t believe biblically. The audience is left thinking that anyone who is not King James Only is just plain ignorant.

Final thoughts: I attended Dr. Waite’s seminar the first time as a Byzantine/Majority text-type preferred Christian questioning whether or not I made a mistake dropping my King James Onlyism. Afterwards, I was convinced that it was not a mistake. The second time I attended, I had been persuaded by critical text arguments. Though I wasn’t necessarily committed to the critical text at that time, I recognized it as my default position and went into the seminar with an open heart for the King James Only side one more time. At the end, I was even more convinced that King James Onlyism was fundamentally flawed.

Dr. Waite’s seminar will only work for those who are already convinced of the King James Only position, or for those who do not bother to check what is being said. After examination of his points, however, I have hoped to prove in this series that when one does his homework, he will remain unconvinced of the KJVO view.

From now on, I will be writing on the King James issue on the King James Only blog, and will switch to new topics on this blog.


21 comments so far

  1. ModernBibleReader on

    Waite may come across as a gentle, Christian man, but he is practicing the art of deception. As far as I know, the Waite/Fuller/Ray group has never come clean about their SDA roots. Why do these people get a free pass for this, anyway? If anyone else had taken SDA material and disguised it as Christian and passed it off, and then were exposed, they’d be denounced. There are pastors who preach sermons on the SDA cult, and turn around and parrot Waite’s talking points to support the KJV.

    PS: He doesn’t like John MacArthur because MacArthur is Reformed, and Waite is an independent Baptist. MacArthur also repudiated dispensationalism. So they take the thing MacArthur said about the physical blood and blow it totally out of proportion.

  2. Damien T Garofalo on

    Well I do believe his work is deceptive, and I have pointed it out elsewhere. I would just rather give him the benefit of the doubt, that he is sincere, and leave the rest up to God, than use ad hominem attacks to get my point across.

    If you do the research, you’ll find that in recent years, some KJVO had to admit the SDA connection. But they would say it’s irrelevant anyway. They would say KJVO arguments exist prior to Wilkinson, and his arguments about the issue could be right despite his faulty theology. There is no excuse, you’re right – for that reveals yet another huge double standard.

    I realize why he doesn’t like MacArthur, actually (though dispensationalism wouldn’t be one of those reasons, MacArthur is a self-described “leaky dispensationalist” who is committed to premillennialism and pretrib). I just found that it’s odd he must bring him up when talking about the KJV issue.

  3. Erik on

    I know Dr. Waite personally (my father is on the DBS board) and I can tell you that he is indeed a gentleman of the first rate. Thank you for not lumping him in with Ruckman and his ilk, with their hatemongering and bigotry.

    The DBS actually split a couple of years ago over the perceived “weakness” of not supporting the KJV as inspired. His position (and that of my father and several other prominent DBS men) is that the MT/TR is the inspired word of God and the KJV is the only accurate translation of the MT/TR. There were some terrible things said about Dr. Waite, both in public and private, by those whom he had considered friends and co-laborers. He carried himself as a gentleman throughout the whole thing.

    Do I believe Dr. Waite is correct? No. Do I believe he is sincere? Yes. I do not think he is trying to deceive anyone, although I do believe he (and the DBS) turn a blind eye to the facts that do not fit into their system. He is a good man (if a tad boring and self-aggrandizing) who unfortunately holds to a dated and incomplete belief system.

  4. fundyreformed on

    Well said, Damien. Great conclusion. It gets to the heart of the problem with Waite’s presentation.

    I also affirm what Erik says. I do believe Waite is genuine. He is mistaken, and he tries to give his system every benefit of the doubt he can. He does ignore some things, but at the end of the day we all do something similar.

  5. P S Ferguson on

    Waite’s position is not linked to Wilkinson and the SDA. That is a Doug Kutilek myth that has done the rounds. Ironically, the SDA rejected Wilkinson’s views and accepted the CT position – do you still want to play that game.

    I have produced a 100 page document demonstrating that the TR only position based on perfect preservation is the only historical and biblical presuppositional view. I backed it up with more quotes from the original writings of the Reformers than anyone has managed to date:


    • Maestroh on

      I read Mr Ferguson’s paper, and it was little more than the typical KJVO ad hominem & nonsense. Waste of trees.

      • Maestroh on

        Actually, Waite’s position DOES come from Wilkinson. He got it from D.O. Fuller’s book, “Which Bible,” about half of which came from Wilkinson.

  6. Damien T Garofalo on


    I don’t think I’m playing a game, I’m pretty serious about this. As I’ve said in an above comment, many KJVO would say the Wilkinson thing is rather irrelevant due to the fact that KJVO presuppositions existed before him. I have not claimed that Wilkinson and the SDA are the root of this position.

    What is significant, however, is the fact that Fuller reproduced Wilkinson’s works (is this not true?) and didn’t mention the fact he was SDA, which flies in the face of many a KJVO guilt-by-association tactic. It is also a fact that Waite took up were Fuller left off. This is not to imply these men got their views from the SDA, but that there has been an infiltration of argumentation of a figure of who’s views were kept rather private.

    Thanks for the link. I will check it out.

  7. Danilo Agpoon on

    I believe Dr. Waite is sincere and correct.
    That doesn’t mean i believe in everything he said.
    I just admire the man for his dedication and commitment in defending the truth.I think some part of what Erick has said is right and I appreciate him for doing just that. But M/T and R/T are not the Inspired Word of God. The Inspired Word of God is the Original Manuscript or Autograph. We don’t have them today but just Copies of it. The word inspired means God Breathe and God did it just one time when He gave us the first complete Bible “All Scripture is given by Inspiration of God.” It means it was done once(the giving of Scripture). God doesn’t need to Inspire the Translator anymore because the one he is translating or copying is already inspired.I believe God has preserved His Inspired Word in the KJV 1611 for the English Speaking World.

    • Maestroh on


      Again, evidence overturns presumption. I’ve checked out every single reference in Waite’s book “Heresies of Westcott and Hort.” Virtually every reference is out of context. In some cases Waite is as bad as Riplingee and in one instance Waite didn’t even read the material closely enough to realize it wasn’t Hort’s words. Then he declared them in Hell on the basis of his distortion. So much for gentle.

      • Danilo Agpoon on

        Thanks for your comments on Waite’s book “Heresies of Westcott and Hort” but have you informed Dr. Waite about it? just asking! I think Dr. Waite is Innocent until proven guilty of any accusation thrown on him. The burden of proof lies on the one who accuses anybody.
        Thanks and God Bless you Maestroh

      • Maestroh on


        Thomas Cassidy already did. Waite’s response was to deny it & say that pointing it out was a libel of godly brethren.

      • HERRENS SVERD on

        So you dont have scripture? If you did it would be inspired according to 2 Tim. If I asked you “what saith the scriptures?”, you’d have to say I have no idea or else you would be lying again like when you said God only inspired the scriptures one time knowing that Jeremiah 36:32 is still in our King James Bible. If I didnt think I held the inspired scriptures of God’s mind on paper Id quit now and go a fishing. But see I have scriptures just like Timothy had them from his youth, and Christ had them in the synagogue. Copies can be inspired(see Jeremiah 36:32). People are scared to death of that word inspired. I wouldn’t listen to a singer, a preacher, or a writer who wasn’t inspired by God to do what they do. The greatest miracle to happen in the past 1800 yrs was the KJB and to call it anything but inspired is utter ignorance. There’s no point in fooling around with this Christianity stuff if we don’t have scriptures. For they are they which testify of Jesus Christ. In them ye think ye have eternal life.

      • HERRENS SVERD on

        Are you seriously going to waste your time defending Wescott and Hort? If any two men had more influence in transitioning the Church from Philadelphia to Laodicean Church Period apostasy its these clowns. Why so pious with the “so much for gentle” comment, be a man and speak like Jesus Christ. Those scribes are burning in hell, they match the description given by Jesus who called the scribes hypocrites, and said they made others the children of hell and should receive the greater damnation. You cant just go fooling around with God’s holy words . I cant imagine how many souls are burning because of W&H’s damage done to the once strong movement of KJB believing mission efforts across the globe during the Philadelphia period. The gospel sails lost their wind when the Word of a King got kicked to the curb for Catholic bibles and others that hung onto the KJB didnt believe for a second that it was any better than originals. The list of reasons why the KJB is superior to the originals goes on for pages but christians today have their own preferences instead of Gods and dont want to see the facts.

  8. Damien T Garofalo on

    thanks for the charitable disagreement, Mr. Agpoon. I would say, though, that your conclusion, “I believe God preserved his inspired Word in the KJV 1611 for the English Speaking World” is precisely what I was arguing against in this series, and since a critique of Waite’s seminar is a critique of many of the big arguments for that view, I invite you to read the rest of the series and interact with the arguments that were made.

  9. Danilo Agpoon on

    Thanks for your sincerity on what you think is right Mr.Garofalo But I believe that God who gave us the First Inspired Complete Bible(The Original Manuscript or Autographs, He gave us the Perfect Bible. Two verses in the Book of Psalms will support it.Psalms 119:89 For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.
    Psalms 19:7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.

    We don’t have the Autographs today but it is unthinkable not to have a preserved replica of God’s Word in this time of Apostasy and decay. I believe that God who can give us the First perfect Bible has also the Power to give us His Word in its Preserved form that is, He must have preserved His Word or we don’t have God’s Word that can be trusted by the Church today.

  10. Damien T Garofalo on


    The reasons you give for your doctrine are examined in the series in which this post is found. Again, I invite you to check it out and interact with what was being said. And if you believe that the KJV is a “replica” of those perfect originals as you’ve said, then the big question is obvious: where was the word of God before 1611? Check out the posts in the series please (type in “waite” in the search box and they should all come up).

    Also, what you replied to Mastroh is true, but it’s exactly what he and I and others are doing: the burden of proof indeed lies with the one making accusations, and Waite is the one making those accusations (against the modern versions, Westcott, Hort, etc). So here we are showing that his proof is lacking. Should we approach him personally about this? Maybe – I’ve thought about it. Whether it’s the right thing to do or not I’m not sure, but responding to the claims of others is something that is very common, especially in contemporary theological issues. We’re just responding to a publicly stated position.

    • Danilo Agpoon on


      Thanks for your sincere comment.
      I did not say the KJV is the replica of the Autographs. What I said is and I quote: “We don’t have the Autographs today but it is unthinkable not to have a preserved replica of God’s Word in this time of Apostasy and decay.” The Preserved Bible is Different from the Autographs.
      You asked me “where was the Word of God before 1611? The answer is obvious. As I said and I know you know it, that The KJV 1611 is the Preserved Word of God in the English speaking World. The KJV 1611 was translated from the editions of the Textus Receptus. Where do you think the Textus Receptus came from? The more than 5,000 extant Manuscripts that we have today, were Received by the Church down through the ages as the Word of God. The Preserved Word of God are in those Languages they represent Whether Greek, Hebrew, Latin or Aramaic. The KJV 1611 was just an English Translation of the Preserved Word of God. It shows that the Preserved Word of God in Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin was translated into English so that the English speaking world might have the Word of God in their own tongue.

      I think you are in the right track if you tell Dr. Waite about his “accusations.”

      Again I would like to thank you for your precious time in reading and replying to our comments.

      God Bless you!

  11. Robert Scheel on

    Dr Waite
    2 messages received from you left my computer hung up and Norton utilities working overtime
    even the instruction to unsubscribe failed to connect
    therefor please remove me


    please remove me, i repeat


    thank you

  12. Damien T Garofalo on

    Hi Robert. Did you mean for this comment to be directed toward Waite himself? I do not have associations with him personally, but you can contact him from his website: biblefortoday.org

  13. Eric S. Palabrica on

    To think that the men of God will always be arguing on the inspiration of the Scriptures – it’s somewhat sickening. The Word of God when revealed to men has the breath of Life for it comes from God. What saddened me is the ignorance of believers to think of God’s thoughts to be at the level of men’s thoughts. Every time we contend for the inspiration of a version of the Holy Bible discredits God’s sovereignty and the infinity of His Majesty, His Omniscience, His Omnipotence. We think as if His word could be contained by a version and that He does not have the infinite wisdom to protect and preserve His Word in any version or any language that He taught men to use. The revelations God gave to men today in the improved language versions do have the same intensity and wisdom as what He did from the beginning of time. What is inspired is His Word, NOT THE VERSION! Do not think of God to be at the level of men, for His thoughts are not like our thoughts, nor ours like His. Muster all the versions that you could within your power and God will reveal Himself to everyone who seeks, and He will reveal all those versions He blessed and show also all the perversions that the devil himself tainted with all his devilish schemes. KJV Onlyism could be a curse if we neglect to understand God’s purpose in having the updated versions of His Word – the reason why He allowed men to improve their languages. Be free to search and taste the sweetness of God’s revelations in whatever He deems necessary through His INFINITE Wisdom and Grace. If you are confused, go back and study all His Attributes, apply them in your study and you could never be wrong for God’s Holy Spirit will guide and comfort you as you seek for His face.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: