I am working my way through the King James Bible Seminar #10 which was posted to sermonaudio. I'm having a difficult go of it because it's 13 messages which are each two fifty-minute lectures. Just finding time to listen to all this material is hard. It's also hard to understand the speaker, Dr. D.A. Waite, because he mumbles and runs his words together. I don't have his voluminous books nor can I see the on-screen presentations, so that's a handicap. But, it's not a big deal, and I am thankful that a way exists for him to get his material onto the Internet so everyone can listen to it and evaluate what he has to say. That's what makes the Internet so great.
The one thing in this seminar that jumps out at me is the fact that Dr. Waite sees only two possibilities: either someone is ignorant, or malicious. People either are ignorant of his material and just don't know, yet, what they should know. Or, people know the material and are involved in maliciously perpetuating something that they know is wrong. He makes absolutely no allowance that someone could listen to his material, without a preconceived opinion, then evaluate the evidence on both sides, and come to a different conclusion in good faith. Many people either support the King James Bible for different reasons than he does, or they have evaluated the evidence and do not find his views convincing. But he doesn't seem to acknowledge that these people exist. There's no middle ground. What about people who listen to his method of argumentation and simply don't agree? Not out of malice or desire to subvert God's word, but just because they don't agree that his is the proper (or, to him, only) interpretation of the evidence.
It's interesting that Dr. Waite is a non-Protestant Baptist who rejects the Reformed doctrine of limited atonement. (See http ://ww w.bib lebel iever s.net /Calv inism /kjca lvn4. htm) If this is his view, he must subscribe to the view that salvation is available to all, and that people will go to hell if they do not hear and understand the gospel message and choose of their own free will to be saved. Ironic, then, that Dr. Waite has devoted his life to the King James Bible, which a lot of people have difficulty understanding, and therefore would go to hell because they did not understand the salvation message. If someone is truly a free-will Christian, wouldn't a lesser translation that explained the gospel message in simple terms that anyone could understand be worth more than a perfect translation that people don't read? After all, people in the free-will view are sending themselves to hell, and an imperfect but understandable Bible would be of more use to them than a perfect one they don't read. Their eternal lives depend not on God's sovereignty, and ability to save, but on their own efforts to acquire enough knowledge to accept Jesus for their own salvation. I disagree with "unlimited atonement" (which to me amounts to either universalism or a God who is not sovereign) but realize that other people look at the same evidence I have examined, and come to a differnet conclusion, and can respect that.