Waite, D. A. Foes of the King James Bible Refuted. Collingswood, NJ: The Bible for Today, 1997.
In his book in response to a debate on the Bible translation issue, D. A. Waite incorrectly labeled believers who disagreed with his KJV-only view as “foes” of the KJV. On the other hand, Waite also strongly condemned the KJV-only view of Peter Ruckman and Samuel Gipp as being “serious heresy” (pp. 6-7); but he does not label them “foes” of the KJV.
Waite noted: “You cannot corrupt and change the Greek and Hebrew text and correct it with the English King James Bible or any other language version” (p. 6). Again he stated: “Truth is gone when you take the truth out of the Hebrew or out of the Greek texts” (p. 121). Waite wrote: “If we throw away the starting points, then we have nothing” (p. 46).
Allowing Waite once again to speak for himself, he wrote: “That is a misleading statement to say that the King James Bible is ‘perfect’ if you mean 100% ‘perfect’ and is ‘inerrant,’ without any errors of any kind, even spelling or typographical” (p. 65). Several times he points out the errors in Ruckman and Gipp’s position (pp. 6-10, 34, 39, 46-47, 58-59, 65).
Waite admitted that he has “found at least 3 errors in the Oxford edition of the KJV” (pp. 117, 66). According to some of his other books, he would blame those three errors on printers at Oxford even though those three renderings were found earlier in Cambridge KJV editions before they were picked up by Oxford editions.
Waite asserted: “Wherever the King James translators added words, they put those words in italics to show that the word does not appear in the Hebrew or the Greek but was added to convey the meaning for the English reader” (p. 96). This statement is not completely true, and Waite should have known it. The truth is known that later KJV editors had to change a good number of such added words in the 1611 edition that were in regular type to italics in order to try to make the use of italics more consistent.
Waite’s argument on page 19 that it is not needed and is forbidden to add the name of God when it is not in the Hebrew or Greek texts implied that the KJV is also in error when it added the name of God in phrases such as “God save the king,” “God forbid,” “God speed,” and “would God. He acknowledged that the Greek for the KJV’s “God forbid” would be literally translated as “may it not be” (p. 96). Although not applying his statement to the KJV, he claimed that such adding, subtracting, or changing of God’s words is a “diabolical methodology” (p. 47). Waite asserted: “In my considered opinion, it is a ‘diabolical’ methodology, no matter who makes use of it” (p. 47). At Revelation 22:19, Waite contended that the correct rendering is “tree of life” (p. 43) although I think that he meant to write “book of life.”
Waite defended the pre-1611 English Bibles such as Coverdale’s, Great, Geneva, and Bishops as being based on the Traditional text (p. 38). Nevertheless, he seemed to be willing to overlook renderings in these early good translations that he would probably condemn in the NKJV and other modern translations. At Genesis 1:28, Wycliffe’s, Tyndale’s, Coverdale’s, Matthew’s, and Geneva Bibles have “fill” in agreement with the NKJV and other modern translations. At Deuteronomy 28:67, Coverdale’s Bible did not add the word “God” that is not in the Hebrew.
Coverdale’s has “leviathan” at Job 3:8 while Coverdale’s, Matthew’s, and Great have “ostriches” at Job 30:29. Coverdale’s and the Geneva Bibles have “pelican” at Zephaniah 2:14. The old Syriac Peshitta, Luther’s German Bible, and several of the earlier English Bibles have “Joshua” at Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8. At 1 Corinthians 14:4, Tyndale’s, Coverdale’s, Matthew’s, and Great Bibles did not add the word “unknown.” Also at 1 Corinthians 16:2, Tyndale’s, Coverdale’s, Matthew’s, and Great Bibles did not add “God.”
All the earlier English Bibles have “hope” at Hebrews 10:23. At 2 Peter 1:1, all the earlier English Bibles have “our God and Saviour Jesus Christ.” The phrase “of God” added at 1 John 3:16 in the KJV [perhaps from the Latin Vulgate] was not added in Tyndale’s, Coverdale’s, Matthew’s, Great, Geneva, or Bishops. Many later KJV editions have the words “of God” in italics although they were not in italics in the 1611 edition. Many more examples could be given.
When the earlier English translations are compared to the KJV, there are differences in number of words, in meanings of words, in whether a noun or pronoun is used, in use of italics, etc. For example, the 1540 edition of the Great Bible has over one hundred words in just one New Testament book (Acts) and over one hundred words in one Old Testament book (Psalms) that are not found in the KJV. Such facts must be unimportant to KJV-only advocates since surely they would not want the truth covered up.
In this 1997 book, Waite tolerated and even defended the extreme views of Gail Riplinger, even though she promoted the same incorrect position as Ruckman. She implied that the added words in italics in the KJV are inspired (Blind Guides, p. 41). Riplinger also promoted and offered for sale the writings of Ruckman and Gipp in her 97-98 catalogue. In 1997, Waite seemed to imply that her writing of four or five books in her field of interior design qualified her as a careful researcher in the completely different field of Bible translation. He also claimed: “If she has made an error of fact or quotation, she is willing to admit it and correct it” (p. 55).
Has Riplinger corrected her false and perhaps libelous claims that the NKJV copied the Jehovah Witness’s Version in several places? Her false claim, which attempts to condemn the NKJV by associating it with a cult, is based on the ad hominem (poisoning the well) fallacy. Did Riplinger correct the problems and errors in her writing pointed out by David Cloud, a fellow KJV-only advocate, or did she attack him personally under the heading “O Madmen” (Blind Guides, p. 22)? Does Waite believe that Riplinger’s unscriptural practice of teaching doctrine to adult men and even pastors in local churches is acceptable? Over ten years after the writing of this book, Waite is no longer defending Riplinger, and he has disagreed with some of Riplinger’s claims in his endorsement of Kirk DiVietro’s book Cleaning-Up Hazardous Materials.
Waite wrote: “I don’t think he [James White] is very scholarly to call the prophets and apostles ‘inspired’ instead of the Words of God” (p. 33). Would he apply his claim consistently to the early English translators and the KJV translators? Tyndale’s, Matthew’s, Great, Whittingham’s, and Bishops’ Bibles rendered Mark 12:36 as follows: “for David himself inspired with the Holy Ghost.” To refer to the inspiring of men or to “inspired men” is consistent with early English Bible terminology from the very good Bibles in the line of good Bibles promoted by KJV-only advocates. Is this understanding or interpretation of the early translators an accurate description of the process of God in giving His Word to men? At John 20:19, the Geneva Bible and an edition of the KJV printed in 1672 have the following marginal note: “Christ in that he presented himself before his disciples suddenly through his divine power, when the gates were shut, doth fully assure them both of his resurrection, and also of their Apostleship, inspiring them with the holy Ghost, who is the director of the ministry of the Gospel.” The Geneva Bible and a KJV edition printed in 1672 have the following note at 1 Corinthians 14:32: “The doctrine which the prophets bring, which are inspired with God’s Spirit.” At 1 Corinthians 14:2, the same two Bibles has a note that begins as follows: “By that inspiration which he has received of the Spirit.” John Wycliffe is cited and translated as writing that “the apostles were inspired by the Holy Spirit” (Levy, John Wyclif, p. 211). Stephen Westcott’s modern-spelling edition of the 1388 Wycliffe New Testament has the following rendering of 2 Peter 1:21: “for prophecy was not brought at any time by man’s will, but the holy men of God, inspired with the Holy Ghost, spoke it.” In the preface of the 1568 Bishops’ Bible, Matthew Parker maintained that the apostle Paul was “inspired from God above” and that “he did inspire Moses” (Richmond, Fathers, VIII, pp. 146, 151). Lancelot Andrewes, KJV translator, used this early Bible terminology when he preached that Christ “inspireth them [the apostles] with the Holy Ghost” (Ninety-Six Sermons, Library, V, p. 83). Andrewes stated that “the Prophet did nothing but as inspired by the Holy Ghost” (Ninety-Six, III, p. 317). Concerning 2 Peter 1:19, Andrewes commented: “the apostle teacheth us that we have the Law from God immediately, and all other scripture by the ministry of men, but yet as they spake nothing but that which the Spirit of God commanded them and inspired into them, and therefore that which they delivered we must hold for a most sure and infallible truth” (Pattern of Catechistical Doctrine, p. 46). KJV translator John Overall wrote: “For we hold it resolutely, that whatsoever the Apostles did either write, teach, or command, they wrote, taught, and commanded it as they were inspired and directed by the Holy Ghost” (Convocation Book, p. 120). Thomas Bilson, co-editor of the KJV, wrote: “The prophets were inspired from above” (Perpetual Government, p. 136).
Logically, if disagreeing with Waite’s opinions actually makes a believer a foe of the KJV, than his disagreeing with Ruckman’s KJV-only opinions could be said to make him a foe of the KJV. The truth is that disagreeing with the opinions of men does not make any person a foe of God’s Word. Thus, as the title of his book indicated, Waite seemed to have misrepresented other believers who may disagree with his opinions as “foes” of the Bible. Since justice to the truth demands the correction of false claims, surely Waite will correct his misrepresentations of his fellow believers.