Updated October 28, 2004, (first published July 11, 2002) (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org; for instructions about subscribing and unsubscribing or changing addresses, see the information paragraph at the end of the article) –

Pastor Lloyd Streeter of LaSalle, Illinois, has published the second edition of his excellent book defending the King James Bible from the attack by some of today’s fundamentalists. The book is “Seventy-five Problems with Central Baptist Theological Seminary’s Book ‘The Bible Version Debate’” (First Baptist Church, P.O. Box 1043, LaSalle, IL 61301, fbc-1pc@core.comm.net). It was first published in 2001 and the second edition was published in 2003.

Brother Streeter has pastored the First Baptist Church of LaSalle, Illinois, since 1977, and he pastored two other Baptist churches before that. He received Christ as his Savior when he was 16 and holds both university and seminary degrees. He has been married 38 years to the wife of his youth, Karen, and they have three children and six grandchildren.

I have studied and reviewed literally hundreds of books on this subject, and I am very excited about this one. It will be helpful for three categories of believers: (1) It will be helpful for those who defend the King James Bible, because the author provides almost a handbook for answering the challenges of the modern Bible version defenders and for clearing up misconceptions pertaining to this important subject. (2) It will be helpful for those who are confused by the Bible version issue and do not know who to believe. By using this book, the reader can analyze for himself the modern version position side-by-side with the King James Bible position. (3) It will be helpful to those who are leaning toward the critical text, because they will see that many of the standard arguments in its favor are indefensible, or at the very least, they will see that “King James onlyism” is not what they thought it was.

Though written from a non-technical position and for a general audience, it is obvious that Pastor Streeter has studied this issue diligently for many years. He is passionate about his subject, zealous for the Word of God, and unhesitating in its defense, while at the same time kindly and patient toward those who are opposed to his view. I believe this attitude pleases the Lord.

The author is blessed with the ability to get to the heart of an issue and to simplify difficult concepts.

Following are some of the questions that are answered in the book:

Do the textual variants impact theology?
Have most fundamentalists been KJV only?
Do we believe that all non-English Bibles must be translated from the KJV?
Is a good new English version possible?
Are inspired translations possible?
Were any miracles involved in Bible preservation?
Is “baptism” a mistake in the KJV?
Who owns the term fundamentalist?
Is something wrong with the Masoretic Hebrew text?
Do historical negative factors make a perfect KJV impossible?
Is modern textual criticism destructive?
Was Erasmus a Catholic humanist?
Does God depend on natural processes for preservation?
Was the Traditional Text in the majority throughout history?
Was the first Traditional Text version made at the end of the Fourth Century?
Do we believe in “reinspiration”?
Do we opt for simplistic answers?
Do Dead Sea Scrolls vindicate emendations on the basis of conjecture?
Didn’t the KJV have the Apocrypha?
Has the KJV been revised?
Is the NASB the best translation?
Is the NIV a good translation?
Is the KJV hard to read?
Is there ever a time to separate over Bible versions?

Pastor Streeter concludes the first edition of the book with an appendix containing an insightful 29-page review of “From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man.”

The new edition of Pastor Streeter’s book contains a new appendix critiquing Central Seminary’s second book entitled One Bible Only? In reviewing this new section of the book Don Jasmin of the Fundamentalist Digest observes: “In this new 2nd appendix Streeter notes that that while One Bible Only? [OBO] is a revision and republication of Central Seminary's original book, The Bible Version Debate [TBVD], the revised book actually compounds the errors of the original book! Streeter deflates the OBO writers’ claims that it is the ‘KJV Only’ crowd that have caused the problem within Fundamentalism. It is just the opposite! Streeter states: ‘These pushers of new versions’ are the ones that ‘have caused controversy and confusion in fellowships, camps, conferences and churches’ because ‘they demand that their new versions be used for public preaching and teaching.’ They do so by denigrating ‘the old KJV to win their argument.’ Streeter candidly declares that ‘Fundamental colleges and seminaries should accept their share of the blame for the conflict that has developed.’ It is the ‘schools that have fed the fires of controversy’ as teachers in classrooms behind the scenes ‘have berated and belittled the KJB,’ while at the same time administrators claim public allegiance to the KJB from chapel platforms. In his appendix, Streeter delineates numerous weaknesses found inside the pages of One Bible Only? Among them, the fact that the OBO contributors favorably quote liberal, neo-orthodox and new-evangelical writers without any warnings or disclaimers, a dangerous and undiscerning inclusion. Streeter perceptively pens: ‘Things are changing very quickly now in what is called Fundamentalism. We see formerly stalwart institutions of uncompromising and militant separatism beginning to compromise. It starts with a less militant attitude and progresses on to endorsements and associations that would embarrass our Fundamentalist founders and forefathers’ (p. 265)” (The Fundamentalist Digest, Feb.-March 2004).

CONSIDER SOME EXCEPTS FROM THIS TIMELY BOOK:

“The Bible says that ‘in the last days perilous times shall come … evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived’ (2 Tim. 3:1 and 13). And yet we have fundamentalists who believe that in the last days there will be better and better Bible versions! I do not think so. This is the age of apostasy … Nothing better is going to develop during this age of apostasy--not better evangelism, scholarship, or organization; not better churches, culture, or standards; and certainly not better Bible versions.” (p. 37)

“We are not arguing here for so called ‘double inspiration’ i.e., that the translators of the KJV were used by God to ‘reinspire’ the Word of God. The fact is that the words of God were ALREADY INSPIRED before the KJV translators ever handled them or read them. Those words did not have to be ‘reinspired’ in order for us to have an inspired Bible in the KJV. As Dr. Ian Paisley, the Free Presbyterian fundamentalist from Ulster, has said, ‘The inspiration of the Bible DID NOT EVAPORATE’ just because it was translated.” (p. 47)

“[The word baptism] was an English word in 1611. … It had been an English word for hundreds of years before the King James translators were born. … Baptisid and baptym were found in Wycliffe’s Bible in A.D. 1380. This was 220 years before the King James translators used the word. … The word baptize does indeed mean to immerse, or to dip. That is the very literal meaning of the word. However, in using the word baptize FOR THE ORDINANCE OF WATER BAPTISM, the Holy Spirit obviously meant more than that. The ordinance of baptism is more than a burial. It is also a resurrection (Romans 6:4). … Therefore, we must conclude that the Holy Spirit helped the KJV translators to wisely use the word baptize rather than immerse. … Every new version we checked says ‘baptize.’ Not a single one of them says ‘immerse.’ Why do you suppose that the professor did not criticize the new versions on this point?” (pp. 57, 58).

“Of course, fundamentalists are not necessarily King James only. No one, to our knowledge, ever said they were. But, FUNDAMENTALISTS ARE NOT NECESSARILY NOT KING JAMES ONLY, EITHER. This is a fact that Central seems to be having a difficult time accepting. … The issue of the text was never a huge issue in fundamentalism until about thirty years ago. Fundamentalists just trusted what they were taught by conservative scholars, who, in turn, had been misled by liberal scholars. In the past thirty years, as the subject of the text and translations has been studied more, thousands of fundamentalists have come to the position that God has preserved His Word perfectly in the Traditional Texts of Scripture and the KJV.” (p. 61)

“Yes, it requires faith to believe that we have God’s Word when we consider the fact that some books of the Bible were written at least fifteen hundred years before Christ’s first advent and that until the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered there were no copies of any Old Testament book copied before A.D. 900. … since there are no copies of the Old Testament between 1500 B.C. and A.D. 900 we must have faith in God that He preserved His Word through those 2,400 years. … Those 2,400 years constitute a huge gap of time. In whom will you have faith for the preservation of Scripture during that gap? You can either have faith in God or you can have faith in man. … The Dead Sea Scrolls are not much help, except in the case of the book of Isaiah. … Almost all of the biblical literature in the Dead Sea Scrolls [except for Isaiah] consists of small fragments of animal skins and paper. The manuscripts had for the most part fallen apart, and the 60,000 fragments cannot even be handled to this day lest they disintegrate. … I have complete faith in the Old Testament as we have it in the King James Bible and in the process by which it came down from the Masoretic Text in Hebrew. This faith is not based on man’s scholarship or intelligence. … The Lord God promised to preserve His Word, and I believe He has done it.” (pp. 76-78)

“This new form of textual criticism, which has given us all these new versions, has caused division and confusion in the church. Many churches have been split. Schools and fellowships have been torn asunder because it is insisted that new versions (with their huge differences in text) must be considered as superior to the Bible which God’s people have used all along (for the past 400 years!). Contrary to what some have said in this regard, IT IS THOSE WHO BRING IN THE NEW TEACHING TO A GROUP WHO CAUSE THE DIVISION, not those who walk in the old paths.” (p. 88)

“There is an extreme ‘scarcity’ of pre-sixth century Greek manuscript evidence for either the Critical Text or the Traditional Text [that underlying the KJV]. … The truth is that most of the extant Greek manuscripts were copied in the sixth through the twelfth centuries. … And the truth is that the vast majority of these [five to six thousand] manuscripts (between eighty-five and ninety-five percent), whether uncial or cursive, whether vellum or paper, are of the Traditional Text and agree with the King James Bible. Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and Alexandrinus are not enough to overturn all of the other evidence for the King James Bible. … The New Testament could be almost completely reconstructed from the quotations of the early church fathers’ sermon and writings. Many parts of the New Testament could be reconstructed several times using this source. Those quotations favor the Traditional Text.” (pp. 94, 95)

“We have no original language manuscripts for the book of Job except those copied in A.D. 900 by Massorite scribes. That is a gap of approximately 3000 years. Actually, we do not even know the language in which Job was originally written. Think of it, dear reader--3000 YEARS WITH NO MANUSCRIPTS? How would you know that Job is God’s Word if you had to depend on ‘early manuscripts’? There is ONE way to know and that is by faith. God said He would preserve His Word and He kept His promise.” (p. 98)

“… it is not really necessary for us to defend Erasmus because the King James Version of the Bible is not based on the work of Erasmus alone. The Textus Receptus of Erasmus went through many improvements A.D. 1516 through A.D. 1611. Theodore Beza, John Calvin’s scholarly and able associate, brought forth ten editions of the Receptus. Beza, who also served on the translation committee of the Geneva Bible (1560), worked tirelessly to make refinements in Erasmus’ work. So what the King James translators had was not simply Erasmus’ Greek text, but also Beza’s text, Robert Stephanus’ four editions of the Receptus, and other manuscript material. … The perfection and trustworthiness of the King James Bible should be looked upon as a winnowing or refining process extending from Tyndale through 1769.” (pp. 99, 104)

“Nothing in the Dead Sea Scrolls or anywhere else argues against the Masoretic Hebrew text. As a matter of fact, the Isaiah scroll from cave one, and the Minor Prophets scroll from Wadi Murabba’at support the authenticity of the Masoretic Text and the King James Version. The Isaiah scroll is exactly the same as the Masoretic text, except for some of the spelling and grammar, even though 1,000 years separate the two.” (p. 154)

“Everyone has ‘problems’ about the Bible. I would not trade my problems for the problems of the Critical Text person. Those who believe the Critical Text do not believe that there is an inspired, infallible book anywhere on earth! They have been trying to reconstruct the Bible for 150 years, and they know they still do not have it! … Those who believe in the Critical Text have no final authority. … And they find themselves embracing the text which the faithful people of God (including Anabaptists, Waldensians, Albiginsians, Luther, Calvin, Knox, and Tyndale) have stood against all through the centuries. Now, those are problems!” (p. 161)

“The Greek manuscript evidence for the NASV is very slim. There are only about forty to forty-five pieces of manuscript evidence supporting that version. Most of those pieces of evidence are only fragments containing a few words or a few verses. Fewer than ten of those manuscripts contain any whole books of the Bible. Only three of those manuscripts contain most of the New Testament … By contrast, there are more than 5,200 Greek manuscripts which favor the KJV against the NASV. The Greek church and the independent churches through the ages copied the Traditional Text which underlies the KJV because they recognized it as superior. No one bothered much to copy the Critical Text underlying the NASV after the sixth century because it was known to be inferior.” (p. 188)

“Now I have a recommendation of my own for Central Seminary and for all who hold her position on the Bible text and on Bible versions: IF THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE NEW TRANSLATIONS AND THE KJV ARE AS MINOR AS YOU SAY (when you are trying to convince people that the new translations are not dangerous and should be used) WHY DON’T YOU JUST STICK WITH THE KJV AND AVOID ALL THE CONFUSION AND TROUBLE?” (p. 257)

Amen!