Some KJV defenders strongly object to being identified accurately as KJV-only even though they clearly have made exclusive claims for only one English Bible translation--the KJV. For one example, D. A. Waite (1927-2024), who was one of the founders of the Dean Burgon Society, has clearly made some exclusive "only" claims for the KJV that would provide valid, sound, convincing evidence for considering his position to be a form of “KJV-only” view.
D. A. Waite claimed: "There are no good translations except the King James Bible" (Central Seminary Refuted, p. 129). Waite asserted: "The King James Bible is the only accurate English translation in existence today" (p. 47). Waite declared: "If you use any other version than the King James Bible you are tampering with the Words of God" (p. 136). Waite claimed: "The King James Bible is always superior to all others in the English language" (p. 80). Waite declared: “I believe that the King James Bible is the only one that English speaking Christians ought to use” (p. 5). Waite wrote: "The only valid Bible is the King James Bible" (p. 131). Waite asserted: “I believe that one translation should be set up as a standard. The translation of the King James Bible is a standard” (p. 23). Waite claimed: “Loyalty to Christ and His Words are measured by what version you use” (p. 133). Waite declared: “It is my firm conviction that anyone who does not use the King James Bible to preach from, teach from, or study from has something defective in that individual’s knowledge of the Scriptures” (p. 144).
In another book, D. A. Waite stated: “I am one of the Christians who contend that only the King James Bible gives us the Words of God in English” (Fundamental Deception, p. 33). Waite maintained that the KJV "is the only acceptable translation from the preserved Hebrew and Greek texts" and "is the only true Bible in the English language" (Fuzzy Facts, pp. 8-9). Waite asserted that the KJV “is the only accurate translation” or “the only accurate, faithful, and true translation” (Critical Answer to James Price’s, pp. 5, 41, 131). Waite wrote: “The King James Bible, because of its accurate translation of those Words [Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek], can honestly and truly be called God’s Words kept intact in English” (p. 109). Waite asserted: "I do not say that the King James Bible is 'fallible' or 'errant.' I don't believe that there are any translation errors in the King James Bible” (Fuzzy Facts, p. 44). Waite declared: “I have said many times before, and I believe, that there are no ‘translational errors’ In the King James Bible” (Critical Answer to Michael Sproul’s, p. 42). Waite wrote: “I have never said I believe in ‘an inerrant KJV.’ That is pure Ruckmanism” (p. 65). When Waite himself directly and clearly contended that the KJV “is ’God’s Word kept intact’” and that “intact” means “not touched” and “nothing harms or defiles it,” he would seem to be in effect or in practice trying to claim or at least imply perfection for the translating in the KJV (Defending the KJB, p. 1). Waite asserted: “The KING JAMES BIBLE is the Word of God in English, and the other versions are not” (p. 52).
In spite of his own direct statements making exclusive only claims for the KJV, D. A. Waite asserted: “I do not go along with that ‘KJV-Only’ term” (Critical Answer to Michael Sproul’s, p. 13), and he declared: “I am not a ‘KJV-only’ advocate” (p. 69).. Waite alleged that KJV-only is “a slanderous smear term” (p. 13), but he failed to prove his allegation to be true. Is it not clear that Waite’s very own stated exclusive, only claims for the KJV would demonstrate that the term as soundly defined and explained in this book can be properly, accurately, truthfully, and honestly applied to Waite’s own stated views? It would not be at all slanderous or libelous to apply the accurate, defined term KJV-only to Waite’s own exclusive only claims for the KJV. According to his own statements, Waite does appear to use “only” in the literal sense of “no other” or “solely and exclusively” concerning English Bible translations. Does D. A. Waite in effect attempt to ignore and avoid a definition of KJV as being an English Bible translation when he offered a definition of the term KJV-only that was a definition for the word “only”—“no other, solely, exclusively” (Central Seminary Refuted, p. 138)?
Waite’s definition could be considered a partial and incomplete one since it does not soundly and accurately define KJV-only reasoning/teaching and what constitutes it according to those who use the term. Waite failed to demonstrate that he defines the term according to the meaning intended by those who use the term soundly and accurately. According to Waite's definition of KJV-only, Peter Ruckman and his followers would not be KJV-only.
Does Waite in effect try to have it both ways by making exclusive only claims for the KJV while trying to deny holding any form of a KJV-only view? As an old saying goes: “If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is a duck.” Likewise, if it looks like KJV-onlyism, walks like KJV-onlyism, and quacks or talks like KJV-onlyism, it is KJV-onlyism. Trying to claim that it should be given a different name would not change what it actually is.
