1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Dr. Frank Logsdon and the NASB... according to KJVO's

Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by LRL71, Oct 17, 2002.

Top Posters
Page 1 of 2
  1. LRL71

    LRL71 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2002
    Messages:
    580
    Likes Received:
    0
    There is an 'urban legend' out there that a man by the name of Frank Logsdon, who was supposedly a "co-founder" of the NASB, had 'recanted' his associations with the Lockman Foundation and the NASB. KJV-onlyists have placed this (mis)information in their tracts as proof that the NASB is unequivically the most perverse translation out there. I have in my possession a tract by David Sorensen (a KJV-onlyist) of the Northstar Publications which states the following about the NASB:


    "Dr. Frank Logsdon was the co-founder of the New American Standard Bible (NASB). He has since renounced any connection to it.
    [Quoting Dr. Logsdon]
    "I must under God renounce every attachment to the New American Standard Version. I'm afraid I'm in trouble with the Lord... We laid the groundwork; I wrote the format; I helped interview some of the translators; I sat with the translator; I wrote the preface... I'm in trouble; I can't refute these arguments; its wrong, terribly wrong... The deletions are absolutely frightening... there are so many... Are we so naive that we do not suspect Satanic deception in all of this?
    Upon investigation, I wrote my dear friend, Mr. Lockman, (editors note: Mr. Lockman was the benefactor through which the NASB was published) explaining that I was forced to renounce all attachment to the NASV (editors note: This is the same as the NASB).
    You can say that the Authorized Version (KJV) is absolutely correct. How correct? 100% correct..."
    [Dr. Frank Logsdon]


    ---> These were the words, supposedly made by Frank Logsdon himself, in David Sorensen's tract, and it is obviously condemning-- if it were true! KJV-onlyist lies and deceit through and through had fabricated this statement up and now it has been passed along as being a true statement by Frank Logsdon by KJV-onlyists. Here is the statement from the Lockman Foundation, which is the translation committee that produced the NASB:


    The Board of Directors of The Lockman Foundation launched the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE translation work in the late 1950's following the completion of the AMPLIFIED NEW TESTAMENT. Dr. S. Franklin Logsdon was acquainted with Dewey Lockman, president of The Lockman Foundation, prior to Mr. Lockman's death in 1974. Mr. Logsdon was never a member of the Board of Directors, nor was he an employee of The Lockman Foundation. Mr. Logsdon had no authority to hire employees or translators for the Foundation, to set policy, to vote, to hold office, to incur expenses, etc. He cannot be considered "co-founder" of the NASB, nor part of The Lockman Foundation, nor part of the NASB translation team, nor did he write the forward of the NASB. According to our records, he was present at board meetings on two occasions -- once to hear a travel report; and once to deliver an "inspirational thought."

    Mr. Logsdon last wrote to Mr. Lockman in fall of 1973 that he was moving to Florida. Mr. Lockman replied that he was surprised and saddened by his decision to leave the area. Mr. Lockman passed away in January of 1974, and no further correspondence was exchanged between Frank Logsdon and The Lockman Foundation. He resided in Florida until his passing some years ago.

    The grass withers, the flower fades; but the word of our God stands forever. Isaiah 40:8 (NASB)

    The Lockman Foundation
     
    #1 LRL71, Oct 17, 2002
  2. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,960
    Likes Received:
    228
    Faith:
    Baptist
     
    #2 Pastor_Bob, Oct 17, 2002
  3. LRL71

    LRL71 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2002
    Messages:
    580
    Likes Received:
    0
    </font>[/QUOTE]** The above quote is only a part of the original by Pastor Bob**

    Perhaps David Cloud's ambiguity in this manner can be made more clear by the following statement from Robert L. Thomas, Professor of New Testament, The Master's Seminary. He wrote an article refuting Gayle A. Riplinger's Book and this is a part of his refutation of G.A. Riplinger. Perhaps the 'rumor' of Frank Logsdon being a 'co-founder' of the NASB started with her! Read on:

    Such perversions as these four pervade the book. In addition to notice of such misrepresentations, two more general observations are in order. First, some have found an endorsement page included in some of the printings of New Age Bible Versions to be troubling. The longest of the endorsements`though an endorsement not of the book, but of the King James Version`is from Frank Logsdon (probably known more widely as S. Franklin Logsdon). It is a repudiation of the NASB with which he had a loose association for a while. This reviewer knew Logsdon (who died about four years ago) and knows to be false the endorsement's claim that he was "Co-founder" of the NASB. Logsdon's only tie to the NASB was his personal friendship with Dewey Lockman. Lockman was the sole founder of the NASB project, and Logsdon's role was extremely minor as an occasional adviser to Lockman. This reviewer remembers well the meeting of the Editorial Board of the Lockman Foundation when Lockman read the letter from Logsdon declaring his desire not to have any further association with the NASB. Lockman was crushed personally, but Logsdon's role was so minor that Lockman saw no need to interrupt the project in even the slightest way when he received this letter.
    [end of quote]

    ***********
    I have written an e-mail to both Alpha and Omega Ministries and the Lockman Foundation as to a reply about David Cloud's statement. I would agree with David Cloud that Dr. Logsdon did not have any motive to lie about his involvement with the Lockman Foundation, but perhaps with this rumor started by G.A. Riplinger, she put words in Logsdon's mouth things that he did not claim or say! Hmmmm.......
     
    #3 LRL71, Oct 17, 2002
  4. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,960
    Likes Received:
    228
    Faith:
    Baptist
    A little insight to the Lockman Foundation. They are the producers of the NASV. The following quote can be found in the preface of the NASV.

    emphasis mine

    Did the Lockman Foundation do us a favor? I don't think so. If the ASV was such a "great and important work," why was it "fast disappearing from the scene" to an "enevitable demise?" The true Word of God is never in danger of inevitable demise.

    We can clearly see who preserved the NASV. It was the Lockman Foundation, not God.
     
    #4 Pastor_Bob, Oct 17, 2002
  5. eric_b

    eric_b <img src="http://home.nc.rr.com/robotplot/tiny_eri

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    442
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, as you know, the King James has been updated quite a bit from its original text in order to keep it from "disappearing from the scene". If the spelling had not been modernized, I don't think it would be very widely used today... it would just be to darn tough to read. The fact that a translation needs to be updated does not, in and of itself, imply that the translation is better off discontinued.

    And the people who updated the spelling of the King James were the Oxford and Cambridge groups, not God Himself either, so that's not quite a fair criticism of the NASB.

    Eric

    [ October 17, 2002, 09:57 PM: Message edited by: eric_b ]
     
    #5 eric_b, Oct 17, 2002
  6. LRL71

    LRL71 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2002
    Messages:
    580
    Likes Received:
    0
    emphasis mine

    Did the Lockman Foundation do us a favor? I don't think so. If the ASV was such a "great and important work," why was it "fast disappearing from the scene" to an "enevitable demise?" The true Word of God is never in danger of inevitable demise.

    We can clearly see who preserved the NASV. It was the Lockman Foundation, not God.    </font>[/QUOTE]Now, now Pastor Bob! Perhaps you have 'read' into the context of this statement from the Lockman Foundation your (biased) interpretation of what they meant! What do you think they (the Lockman Foundation) meant by saying 'demise'?? A little history of the ASV is in order here, although they did not mean 'demise' in the sense that the Word of God was going down the drain!! The formal equivalency style of translation is what was meant here in their use of 'demise'. The ASV needed to be updated to modern English since it retained the flavor of the KJV and RV (1881) where it used a lot of the Elizabethan language. It was necessary to update the ASV so that over passing time its form of translation would be preserved. In this day of 'dumbing' down the translation of God's Word from the original Greek and Hebrew languages, we get a lot of paraphrases and overly-dynamic translations that do injustice to the text. This is why I don't prefer to use the NIV, although I think it to be a good translation, but it isn't close enough to the Hebrew & Greek in its translation.

    A second point to this is that Pastor Bob thinks that God didn't 'preserve' the NASB-- and is implying that it is not the Word of God. I think this statement is grossly immature, "We can clearly see who preserved the NASV. It was the Lockman Foundation, not God.", and it says that Pastor Bob has a corner on what he thinks what the Word of God is! No, God did not 'preserve' His Word into the KJV or any other translation, nor did God say that He ever did. Is the NASB the Word of God in the English language-- yes-- and ALL of it! Can we say that the KJV is the Word of God in the English language-- yes-- and ALL of it! Pastor Bob, don't put words into the mouth of God things that He didn't say, lest you are guilty of adding to God's Word!

    [ October 17, 2002, 10:06 PM: Message edited by: LRL71 ]
     
    #6 LRL71, Oct 17, 2002
  7. LRL71

    LRL71 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2002
    Messages:
    580
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, as you know, the King James has been updated quite a bit from its original text in order to keep it from "disappearing from the scene". If the spelling had not been modernized, I don't think it would be very widely used today... it would just be to darn tough to read. The fact that a translation needs to be updated does not, in and of itself, imply that the translation is better off discontinued.

    And the people who updated the spelling of the King James were the Oxford and Cambridge groups, not God Himself either, so that's not quite a fair criticism of the NASB.

    Eric    </font>[/QUOTE]Great point, eric_b!! ;)
     
    #7 LRL71, Oct 17, 2002
  8. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,960
    Likes Received:
    228
    Faith:
    Baptist
    That statement was not meant to be offensive. I'm sorry if it came across that way. I do believe that God's Words are preserved in the NASV, I just do not beliveve that the NASV is the preserved Word of God. That is a textual preference issue.

    If the Lockman Foundation would not have stepped in, the ASV would have disappeared. That tells me the lack of use was overwhelming. The NASV is not just a revision of the ASV. It is a "new" translation like the name implies. It is not the same as the revisions of the KJV.
     
    #8 Pastor_Bob, Oct 17, 2002
  9. LRL71

    LRL71 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2002
    Messages:
    580
    Likes Received:
    0
    That statement was not meant to be offensive. I'm sorry if it came across that way. I do believe that God's Words are preserved in the NASV, I just do not beliveve that the NASV is the preserved Word of God. That is a textual preference issue.

    If the Lockman Foundation would not have stepped in, the ASV would have disappeared. That tells me the lack of use was overwhelming. The NASV is not just a revision of the ASV. It is a "new" translation like the name implies. It is not the same as the revisions of the KJV.    </font>[/QUOTE]Forgiveness is granted!

    However, you could have said " I do believe that God's Words are preserved in the NASV, I just do not beliveve that the NASV is the preserved Word of God. That is a textual preference issue." rather than the first one. At least we now know what you meant without making this a "God is on my side and not on yours because I say it's so" kind of statement. We've seen this silliness in grade school, and it shouldn't be on the Baptist Board-- especially from a Pastor and moderator!

    I should start another thread on "providential preservation", but I'm tired and need to get to bed! This, I believe, is at the heart of the issue amongst KJV-onlyists and MV-preferred people like myself. Ugh! I wish I would not have to sleep!
     
    #9 LRL71, Oct 17, 2002
  10. Singleman

    Singleman New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2002
    Messages:
    88
    Likes Received:
    0
    Of course, you could argue that God did indeed preserve the ASV --by inspiring later scholars to translate its KJVesque language into modern English. ;)
     
    #10 Singleman, Oct 17, 2002
  11. ChristianCynic

    ChristianCynic <img src=/cc2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2001
    Messages:
    927
    Likes Received:
    0
     
    #11 ChristianCynic, Oct 18, 2002
  12. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,960
    Likes Received:
    228
    Faith:
    Baptist
    It would be like a Biography -vs- an Autobiography. A Biography will contain some of the words of the subject; an Autobiography is the very words of the subject.
     
    #12 Pastor_Bob, Oct 18, 2002
  13. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Neither the KJV nor the NASB nor any other translation for that matter are the "words of God." Good translations can rightly be called the Word of God since they communicate the same meaning that God intended to communicate in the originals. I guess your statement above implies that you believe that the KJV is the words that God spoke Himself while the NASB is some kind of second hand observation. Both notions are false.

    You asked on another thread why your views could not be afforded the same respect as those of MV preferred's. This thread is a good testimony as to why. Your views diminish all other translations to something less than the true Word of God without objective proof.
     
    #13 Scott J, Oct 18, 2002
  14. BrianT

    BrianT New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, ... containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God." - the KJV translators
     
    #14 BrianT, Oct 18, 2002
  15. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,960
    Likes Received:
    228
    Faith:
    Baptist
    This sounds good Brother but the problem is, there is not one shred of biblical support for this theory. Where does God say that He would preserve His "intended meaning?"

    This is another misconception. I do not believe that the KJV are the very Words that God spoke. I believe the KJV is the result of the preservation of the original Words that God spoke. God spoke the originals, the human authors wrote them down, the copiest copied them, translators translated them, and today we have a descendant of the originals in the form of an English Bible. Here is where we disagree so I'll leave it at that.

    As far I the NASV being a second hand observation, that is not what I believe either. The MV's may have a sincere intent. The publishers may be upright and honest in their desire to get the Word of God out. My problem is not with the MV's, my problem is with the underlying textual basis.

    Why does that bother you? They are simply what you state, "my views." I base my views on the information I have gathered; you do the same. Why is a mere "view" so offensive to you? Have I ever condemned you or anyone else for using a MV? I don't think I have. All I have done is state my views on the KJV and I am called on the carpet to explain my views and then the conflict begins. There is just as much dogmatism on the MV side as there is on the KJV side. In my personal situation there is far more on the MV side than I choose to take. If you're not a member of my family or my church, you'd never hear me bring this issue up unless I am asked.

    The bottom line is this: I have to stand before God one day and answer to Him for myself, my family, and my church. I must do what I feel is biblical and best for me on that day when I do stand before God.
     
    #15 Pastor_Bob, Oct 18, 2002
  16. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,960
    Likes Received:
    228
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Brian,

    I believe these men made this statement in all sincerity. But you have to remember, the "good" Dr.s Westcott and Hort didn't arrive on the scene for another 250 years.

    IMO, they were speaking of a translation based on the same texts that they used. Someone else could take the same resources (texts) and make an equally reliable translation that could be declared the Word of God.
     
    #16 Pastor_Bob, Oct 18, 2002
  17. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The meaning is His Word. It is a matter of definitions that KJVO's often stumble over. If I give you my word that I will do something, the words I use to say it are only important to the extent that the communicate the meaning accurately. The object is not to choose one set of words exclusively but to communicate my intent.

    This is the difference between God's Word and His words as well. The sum of the words communicate the Word... the Word is not limited to a certain set of words.

    But at the same time when a translation disagrees with the words of the KJV you say it is not the Word of God. You can't have it both ways. You are being inconsistent with your arguments.
    As do I... because they communicate the message or meaning of the originals, not because the words used to do it are exclusively significant.
    Yes, and the NASB, NKJV, ESV, etc. have every bit as much a claim to that title as does the KJV. They are all descendents of the originals.

    Why does that bother you? They are simply what you state, "my views."</font>[/QUOTE] It doesn't bother me. You made a comment on another thread about the acceptance of your views. I used your posts here to answer your question.
    I think you err in who you trust but am willing to accept this as your prerogative.
    This is the heart of the matter. You have not done so directly but earlier you stated that the Bibles we use other than the KJV are not the Word. The analogy you used was the difference between an autobiography and a biography. (One contains quotes from the subject while the other has the subject as author.) This is simply an indirect way of condemning the wisdom and discernment of anyone who uses anything other than the KJV.
    The conflict begins because your view precludes our view without factual proof. Your view says de facto that you are right and anyone who uses a MV is wrong. No supporter of MV's that I know of here has said that the KJV was not the Word of God or discouraged its use, directly or indirectly.
    No. I disagree completely. Please point to the MV supporters (liberals excluded since they don't think any of us have God's Word by any measure) that say the KJV is anything less than the Word of God.
    That may be true away from the BB but being subtle does not mean that you are not dogmatic. Your statement above attempting to explain the difference between the KJV and MV's is very dogmatic.

    [ October 18, 2002, 12:45 PM: Message edited by: Scott J ]
     
    #17 Scott J, Oct 18, 2002
  18. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,960
    Likes Received:
    228
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Christian Cynic said
    http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000572;p=2#000017
     
    #18 Pastor_Bob, Oct 18, 2002
  19. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You know that he was being facetious. CC often mockingly states the absurd to demonstrate the absurdity of various KJVO arguments.

    I don't personally like the style but any effort to take his statements literally is silly. In fact, he engages in this type of dialogue so persistently that in all my observation I could not tell you with certainty a single thing that he believes.

    [ October 18, 2002, 01:38 PM: Message edited by: Scott J ]
     
    #19 Scott J, Oct 18, 2002
  20. BrianT

    BrianT New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    Brian,

    I believe these men made this statement in all sincerity. But you have to remember, the "good" Dr.s Westcott and Hort didn't arrive on the scene for another 250 years.

    IMO, they were speaking of a translation based on the same texts that they used. Someone else could take the same resources (texts) and make an equally reliable translation that could be declared the Word of God.</font>[/QUOTE]I disagree completely. They said nothing about the "same resources (texts)", and they would not exclude W/H's New Testament nor Bibles since then from their statement. How do I know? Because a Bible that they *did* have, which is based on *different* resources (texts), and *much* more different from the KJV than "modern versions" are, they also said was "the word of God" (not just "contained" some of the word of God). The Septuagint is drastically more different than "new" versions are, and yet they said about it:

    "The translation of the Seventy dissenteth from the Original in many places, neither doeth it come near it, for perspicuity, gravity, majesty; yet which of the Apostles did comdemn it? Condemn it? Nay, they used it...which they would not have done, nor by their example of using it, so grace and comment it to the Church, if it had been unworthy the appellation and name of the word of God."

    Elsewhere, about the Septuagint, they said "it pleased the Lord" to have it created, and " it seemed good to the holy Ghost and to [the apostles]" to accept and use it.
     
    #20 BrianT, Oct 18, 2002
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 1 of 2
Loading...