Replies

You might want to check those "sources" you keep citing.

No need to. I've been through this many times. It doesn't take a theological degree to find all the differences between the Byzantine/Majority Greek Textform and the 19th century newly constructed Greek text synthesized from a narrow selection of corrupted "older" codices, and te translated products from them. But attacking the author of the blog does not solve your problem. Someome licensed to practice architecture has to have a pretty keen mind, and though he might not have a degree in theology, he might be pretty good at it, with a bit of study in the 30-odd intervening years and a good library. Good enough to find the work of those who have excelled in Biblical issues, that is, and use that work.

and correcting the mistakes in the website.

And those mistakes are? Believing the testimony of the man who claimed to have been in on the production of the NASB as compared to the disclaimer of the Lockman Foundation whose profitability might be endangered by Logsdon's testimony of involvement. From Moody Publishers, who are reasonably reliable on this issue: Here is Frank Logsdon's recorded testimony of how the NASB came about:

THE NEW AMERICAN STANDARD VERSION

Back in 1956-57 Mr. F. Dewey Lockman of the Lockman Foundation contacted me. He was one of the dearest friends we've ever had for 25 years, a big man, some 300 pounds, snow white hair, one of the most terrific businessmen I have ever met. I always said he was like Nehemiah; he was building a wall. You couldn't get in his way when he had his mind on something; he went right to it; he couldn't be daunted. I never saw anything like it; most unusual man. I spent weeks and weeks and weeks in their home, real close friends of the family. Well, he discovered that the copyright [on the American Standard Version of 1901] was just as loose as a fumbled ball on a football field. Nobody wanted it. The publishers didn't want it. It didn't get anywhere. Mr. Lockman got in touch with me and said, "Would you and Ann come out and spend some weeks with us, and we'll work on a feasibility report; I can pick up the copyright to the 1901 if it seems advisable. "Well, up to that time I thought the Westcott and Hort was the text. You were intelligent if you believed the Westcott and Hort. Some of the finest people in the world believe in that Greek text, the finest leaders that we have today. You'd be surprised; if I told you you wouldn't believe it. They haven't gone into it just as I hadn't gone into it; [they're] just taking it for granted. At any rate we went out and started on a feasibility report, and I encouraged him to go ahead with it. I'm afraid I'm in trouble with the Lord, because I encouraged him to go ahead with it. We laid the groundwork; I wrote the format; I helped to interview some of the translators; I sat with the translators; I wrote the preface. When you see the preface to the New American Standard, those are my words.

I got one of the fifty deluxe copies which were printed; mine was number seven, with a light blue cover. But it was rather big and I couldn't carry it with me, and I never really looked at it. I just took for granted that it was done as we started it, you know, until some of my friends across the country began to learn that I had some part in it and they started saying, "What about this; what about that?" Dr. David Otis Fuller in Grand Rapids [Michigan]. I've known him for 35 years, and he would say (he would call me Frank; I'd call him Duke), "Frank, what about this? You had a part in it; what about this; what about that?" And at first I thought, now, wait a minute; let's don't go overboard; let's don't be too critical. You know how you justify yourself the last minute. But I finally got to the place where I said, "Ann, I'm in trouble; I can't refute these arguments; it's wrong; it's terribly wrong; it's frightfully wrong; and what am I going to do about it?" Well, I went through some real soul searching for about four months, and I sat down and wrote one of the most difficult letters of my life, I think.

I wrote to my friend Dewey, and I said, "Dewey, I don't want to add to your problems," (he had lost his wife some three years before; I was there for the funeral; also a doctor had made a mistake in operating on a cataract and he had lost the sight of one eye and had to have an operation on the other one; he had a slight heart attack; had sugar diabetes; a man seventy- four years of age) "but I can no longer ignore these criticisms I am hearing and I can't refute them. The only thing I can do--and dear Brother, I haven't a thing against you and I can witness at the judgment of Christ and before men wherever I go that you were 100% sincere," (he wasn't schooled in language or anything; he was just a business man; he had the money; he did it conscientiously; he wanted it absolutely right and he thought it was right; I guess nobody pointed out some of these things to him) "I must under God renounce every attachment to the New American Standard. "I have a copy of the letter. I have his letter. I've shown it to some people. The Roberts saw it; Mike saw it. He stated that he was bowled over; he was shocked beyond words. He said that was putting it mildly, but he said, "I will write you in three weeks, and I still love you. To me you're going to be Franklin, my friend, throughout the course. "And he said, "I'll write you in three weeks." But he won't write me now. He was to be married. He sent an invitation to come to the reception. Standing in the courtroom, in the county court by the desk, the clerk said, "What is your full name, Sir?" And he said, "Franklin Dewey.." And that is the last word he spoke on this earth. So he was buried two days before he was supposed to be married, and he's with the Lord. And he loves the Lord. He knows different now. I tell you, dear people, somebody is going to have to stand. If you must stand against everyone else, stand. Don't get obnoxious; don't argue. There's no sense in arguing. But nevertheless, that's where the New American stands in connection with the Authorized Version. I just jotted down what these versions, translations, and paraphrases are doing. Consider:

One, they cause widespread confusion, because everywhere we go people say, What do you think of this; what do you think of that? What do young people think when they hear all of that?

Two, they discourage memorization. Who's going to memorize when each one has a different Bible, a different translation?

Three, they obviate the use of a concordance. Where are you going to find a concordance for the Good News for Modern Man and all these others? You aren't going to find one. We're going to have a concordance for every one; you're going to have to have a lot of concordances.

Four, they provide opportunity for perverting the truth. There are all these translations and versions, each one trying to get a little different slant from the others. They must make it different, because if it isn't different why have a new version? It makes a marvelous opportunity for the devil to slip in his perverting influence.

Five, these many translations make teaching of the Bible difficult. And I'm finding that more and more as I go around the country. I mentioned this thing the other night. How could a mathematics professor or instructor teach a certain problem in a class if the class had six or eight different textbooks? How about that? How could you do it?

Six, they elicit profitless argumentation. Because everywhere we go they say this one is more accurate. Which one is more accurate? How do they know? And this is not a reflection against those saying this, because I would have done this a few years ago. Lest I forget, in one of these questions somebody said, "How can we know that we have the whole truth?" Well, just simply by believing God. And what do I mean by that? John 16:13--"When he the Spirit of Truth is come he will guide you into" how much? Tell me. Tell me, now. "All truth." And if we don't have all truth, the Holy Spirit isn't doing His work. We have to have all truth for Him to lead us into all truth. And there are many, many other passages which teach this. If we could hear His voice we would have no trouble learning His Word from the Authorized Version. Let me tell you this: You might not be able to answer the arguments, and you won't be [able to]. I can't answer some of them, either. Some of these university professors come along and say, What about this; what about that? They go into areas that I haven't even had time to get into. As I said to you a couple of minutes ago. You don't need to defend yourself, and you don't need to defend God's Word. Don't defend it; you don't need to defend it; you don't need to apologize for it. Just say, "Well, did this version or this translation come down through the Roman stream? If so, count me out. Whatever you say about Erasmus and Tyndale, that's what I want." And besides this, we've had the AV for 362 years. It's been tested as no other piece of literature has ever been tested. Word by word; syllable by syllable. And think even until this moment no one has ever found any wrong doctrine in it, and that's the main thing. He that wills to do the will of God shall KNOW the doctrine.

Well, time is up. Let's be people of the Book. It took my mother to heaven; and my dad, my grandfather, my grandmother. It was Moody's Book; it was Livingstone's Book. J.C. Studd gave up his fortune to take this Book to Africa. And I don't feel ashamed to carry it the rest of my journey. It's God's Book. "Our Father, we thank Thee and praise Thee for Thy Word. Help us to love it, and preach it, and teach it, and tell everybody we can the Good News through thy Word. In Jesus' name. Amen."

Either Logsdon is a liar, or the Lockman Foundation is lying. Do they have incontrovertible proof that someone else wrote the preface to the first issue of the NASB? Did Logsdon pen a preface that was merely massaged and put into shape by an editor so his words were preserved but his authorship unrecorded or obscured, and thus unclaimable for posterity? I don't know, and neither do you. If they can prove other authorship, they have a contest; but without it, their disclaimer is just factless hearsay.

At the time of Logsdon's oral testimony, did they come forward and dispute him? Apparently not, but that is moot now, I guess.

But at the root, the NASB follows the Westcott/Hort/UBS/Aland/critical text approach, not the Majority Text one, and is therefore highly suspect as to value, in my estimate.

I cannot find any reference to Logsdon being a member of the translation committee.

You won't. In the above testimony, he said, "I helped to interview some of the translators; I sat with the translators; . . .". He didn't say that he did any of the translating. That was well over a hundred years ago. Records for that time may well be non-existent, or at least not available to the casual fdault-finder.

You are rapidly losing any credibility in this argument with your citations of these factually challenged websites.

With you, maybe. So? What about the NASB or other modern versions? Did the RSV or a requirement for MDiv help the Methodists or not? Maybe they needed a few ordained ministers with some other breadth than just a Seminary training. But that's getting away from the core issue. Is reliance on the KJV/AV as the premier reference Bible bad?