D. A. Waite

Waite’s foundational claim is that the Greek and Hebrew texts underlying the King James Bible are “the very words which God has preserved down through the centuries, being the exact words of the originals themselves,” and that these are “inspired words,” “preserved words,” “inerrant words,” and “infallible words.”[1] He further insists that the KJV alone accurately translates these preserved texts,[1] universally condemning the New King James Version despite its reliance on the same underlying Greek and Hebrew manuscripts.[1]

The most problematic aspect of Waite’s position involves his logical foundation. Modern textual scholars have moved beyond Westcott and Hort’s theoretical framework, and most contemporary scholars actually agree with many of Burgon’s criticisms of Westcott and Hort.[2] This directly undermines Waite’s primary argumentative strategy, which relies heavily on attacking Westcott and Hort as the basis for rejecting modern translations. Additionally, while Waite repeatedly claims the modern Critical Text is based on Westcott and Hort’s 1881 Greek text and uses this as grounds for refuting modern versions,[2] the actual state of contemporary scholarship has moved well beyond those nineteenth-century foundations.

More fundamentally, Waite’s doctrine of preservation conflates divine inspiration with textual transmission in ways that Scripture itself does not support. While Waite uses terms like “infallible,” “inerrant,” and “perfect” of the Textus Receptus rather than the KJV itself, he maintains uniform conviction that the KJV contains no errors.[1] This position—attributing to human copyists and translators the same degree of divine protection granted to original authors—lacks theological warrant. The extreme nature of Waite’s stance becomes clearest in his rejection of any alternative translation based on identical source texts, a position that prioritizes certainty about a single English version over fidelity to the actual manuscript evidence.

[1] William W. Combs, “The Preface to the King James Version and the King James-Only Position,” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal Volume 1 (1996), 1:255–256.

[2] Andrew S. Hudson, “Current Textual Criticism Theory: An Evaluation of Claims of Reliance on Westcott and Hort,” Journal of Ministry and Theology Volume 2 (1998), 2:1:81–82.