D. A. Waite (1)

Waite, despite possessing an academic background, lacks the competence to handle textual issues rooted in manuscript evidence.[1] This fundamental limitation shapes the problematic nature of his entire project.

Waite belongs to a group of KJV-only writers—including Peter Ruckman and Samuel Gipp—who employ particular tactics and strategies in presenting their position.[2] More specifically, these writers make errors in their writing, teaching, and preaching[2] that undermine their credibility. A critical problem involves misrepresenting historical scholarship: many great scholars who defended the Byzantine textual tradition cannot honestly be classified as KJV-only advocates, though they are frequently cited as such. Figures like Dean Burgon, F.H.A. Scrivener, and H.C. Hoskier—genuine scholars of the highest caliber—were not KJV-only proponents and all recognized the need for revision in both the King James Version and the Textus Receptus.[2]

Belief in KJV superiority represents a relatively recent position in fundamentalist circles that extends beyond historic fundamentalism, which has always prioritized God’s word as final authority without vesting that authority in any particular translation.[1] The movement itself began earnestly in the latter half of the twentieth century and gained significant momentum only in the mid-1970s.[1] This is rightly termed hyper-fundamentalism, where proponents add belief in KJV supremacy or inspiration to long-established doctrinal convictions.[1]

The KJV-only movement lacks unified coherence, with nearly as many variations of the position as there are defenders.[1] Waite’s particular weakness—his insufficient grasp of textual criticism—means his arguments rest on theological conviction rather than scholarly engagement with the actual manuscript evidence that determines which readings are authentic.

[1] Jeffrey P. Straub, “Fundamentalism and the King James Version: How a Venerable English Translation Became a Litmus Test for Orthodoxy,” Southern Baptist Journal of Theology Volume 15, ed. R. Albert Mohler (2011), 15:4:53–54.
[2] James R. White, The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations? (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2009), 129–130.