Thoughts on “Foes of the King James Bible Refuted” by D. A. Waite

I am in favor of any book that promotes the King James Bible, or even the Textus Receptus. I believe that the King James Bible is the preserved word of God in English and is therefore given by inspiration of God (2 Tim. 3:15-16). I understand that the KJB departs from the Textus Receptus in numerous places. See this article 

https://textusreceptusbibles.com/Variations_Between_TR_and_KJV

With that being said, I still believe that the KJB is the word of God in English. I understand that some people take one of the following positions 

TR Believing (TR is perfect)

TR preferred (TR is most accurate)

I understand that neither of these is a King James Bible believing position, but I still like to read their material. This is because I know how to “eat the meat and spit out the bones”. For the most part, what these people are doing is helping the KJB believing position. They have a few flaws, so I may not would share their material with a new believer. For example, TR Only people believe that the word or God is bound to a particular language of a couple of ancient cultures, namely Hebrew and koine Greek. By “bound” I mean that they do not believe God has put His word in any other language or that it is possible to do so perfectly. I disagree with this position. But the TR Only positions are better than the “Alexandrian Cult” position as Dr. Ruckman called it. And the TR Only material does help support the KJB indirectly. Therefore, I read and recommend the material of D. A. Waite, Dean John Burgon, David Otis Fuller, Jack Moorman, Phil Stringer, David Sorensen, etc. 

I recently read the book Foes of the King James Bible Refuted by D. A. Waite of the Dean Burgon Society. Overall I enjoyed the book. It is his commentary on the old John Ankerberg show episodes on the King James Bible. D. A. Waite was invited to be on the show, but opted out due to John Ankerberg having Dr. Sam Gipp on the program (Dr. Gipp being there in place of Dr. Ruckman, representing the “Ruckman brand” of KJV Onlyism, I would fall into that category). I think this was misfortunate. I would have liked to have seen the original desired line up, G. A Riplinger, Dr. Peter Ruckman, and D. A. Waite on the show. Riplinger opted out because Ankerberg would not agree to give the KJB Only folks equal time to speak nor allow her to have her own camera crew. D. A. Waite opted out because he did not want to be associated with Sam Gipp or Peter Ruckman. And I am unsure why Dr. Ruckman opted out. But if I had to guess he probably already had a preaching engagement scheduled, which is more important than a “debate”. Especially when everything he believes about the KJB was already in print at that time if anyone wanted to read it. I say this is probably why he opted out based on what he said about debates in his correspondence with James R. White of the King James Only Controversy (their correspondence was printed on James White’s website and in the Bible Believer’s Bulletin). 

Here are a few things I noted about the book Foes of the King James Bible Refuted. 

1.) D. A. Waite is not a King James Bible believer. He believes that the word of God is perfectly preserved in the Hebrew Maseoretic Text (Ben Chayyim 1524 edition) and the Textus Receptus (presumably the Scrivener edition printed by the TBS or the Beza’s 5th edition of 1598). I disagree with this position, but I commend him for taking a stand on what book he believes is “all authority” (Titus 2:15). Even the proponents of the modern critical text will not come out and say that any of the Nestle/Aland or UBS editions are the preserved word of God (because most of them do not believe the words were inspired, much less preserved). 

2.) D. A. Waite says numerous times throughout the book that Psalms 12:6-7 cannot apply to the KJB because God did not originally give His word in English and that English had not been developed when Psalms was written. This goes back to what I mentioned previously, most TR Only people believe that the word of God is bound to the languages of ancient Hebrew and koine Greek. However, by D. A. Waite’s logic, then Psalms 12:6-7 cannot apply to the TR New Testament either, since God had not yet put His word in Greek but was only speaking through the Hebrews (Ps. 147:19-20). 

3.) D. A. Waite did a good job showing the bias on John Ankerberg’s part. The KJB Only people only allowed to speak about 1/4 of the time. The show should have given 50/50 opportunity to both sides of the issue (which is why G. A. Riplinger did not come on the show). Obviously John Ankerberg spoke the most since he is the show host, but the next person that spoke the most was James R. White of the King James Only Controversy. 

4.) D. A. Waite lists a lot of good manuscript evidence for the King James Bible, though I do not believe the KJB strictly based on manuscript evidence. Believing the Bible is a faith position. I do not have to see an ancient piece of archaeology (manuscript) for every word of the Bible in order for me to believe it. 

5.) D. A. Waite is probably one of the most well known TR defenders, but his books rely a lot on the manuscript  research of Dr. Jack Moorman (also associated with the Dean Burgon Society). I say this based on D. A. Waite’s frequent mention of his name and books. I have Dr. Jack Moorman’s books Forever Settled; Early Manuscripts, Church Fathers, and the Authorized Version, and When the KJV Departs from the Majority Text. He lists a lot of manuscript evidence for disputed readings in the King James Bible. So if that is what you are interested in reading, I recommend those books. They are to the point and do not have a lot of fluff. I like reading about the history of the Bible, but like I said previously, I believe the Bible by faith. I do not believe it is possible or necessary to trace every single word of the Bible back to when it was written. Else, our faith would be in archaeology and not in the word of God simply because it is the word of God. 

Those are just a few general observations from the book. I have nothing bad to say about it or D. A. Waite. It is a good book to have if you enjoy studying the KJB issue. It is also enlightening to see just how biased that John Ankerberg program was.