-
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!
NASB CO-Founder recants NASB.
- Thread starter Jordan Kurecki
- Start date
- Status
Greektim
Well-Known Member
So we can't use the KJV translators against KJVonlyism, but you can use this? What does it prove then? By the by, the KJV translators never renounced anything. They never fell into the cult of KJVonlyism.
They also never fell into the cult of "all truth is relative to what you think and feel"
Which is basically the idea behind new translations.
There has never been anything posted on this board that was less true than this.
thisnumbersdisconnected
New Member
That the guy/gal who posted that piece of garbage needs to repent for lying.
jonathan.borland
Active Member
This is like talking to Muslims about fellow Christians who converted from Islam.
"The Qu'ran says no Muslim will convert to another religion"
"But ____ grew up Muslim, lived in a Muslim country, attending prayers and a mosque, then he accepted Jesus Christ not too long ago."
"No, no Muslim will ever convert from Islam."
You just get nowhere with this junk.
"The Qu'ran says no Muslim will convert to another religion"
"But ____ grew up Muslim, lived in a Muslim country, attending prayers and a mosque, then he accepted Jesus Christ not too long ago."
"No, no Muslim will ever convert from Islam."
You just get nowhere with this junk.
That's good stuff there. This is in the comments section below that blog post, said beautifully:
But...but....it's on the internet, it MUST be true. This sermon set off my hooey alarm.
One preacher said it best when he said that warriors don't sit around bragging about how better their sword is compared to other types of swords...warriors USE their swords. Jordan, this seems to be THE issue for you. Why? Understand, I'm a KJV-preferred person. Is there something else to spend your time on? I'm just trying to understand the obsession with KJV. And if you tell me to mind my own P's & Q's, then that is fine.
One preacher said it best when he said that warriors don't sit around bragging about how better their sword is compared to other types of swords...warriors USE their swords. Jordan, this seems to be THE issue for you. Why? Understand, I'm a KJV-preferred person. Is there something else to spend your time on? I'm just trying to understand the obsession with KJV. And if you tell me to mind my own P's & Q's, then that is fine.
Greektim
Well-Known Member
That must also stand for the KJV translators since they were making a new translation. Why haven't I been talking to you before. You are easy to peg against the wall. Care to discuss a textual variant???
well, too bad there is no evidence that we were mistaken on folks in KJVO, as their mistaken views are still there!
I think there is no disputing that Logsdon did recant whatever his association was with the NASB. That seems clear from the record.
I think it also is clear that his association has been overblown by KJVO advocates.
David Cloud has summarized the record (which links Logdon and Otis Fuller, BTW) and, in my opinion, is a fairly evenhanded conclusion, though I might have shaded it differently.
"Part of the problem has been caused by some who have made claims for Logsdon which he did not himself make. Note that Logsdon never said that he actually worked on the NASV or the Amplified Bible translation or that he was an actual employee of the Lockman Foundation. He did not claim to be "co-founder" of the NASV. He said he was a friend of Lockman and as such was invited to come out to California and help launch the venture. According to his own testimony and that of his widow, that is precisely what he did."
http://theonemediator.com/KJV_FILES/036-Questions_On_The_Bible_Version_Issue_Answered.pdf
The entire episode must raise more questions than it answers. It was no secret that the ASV (which was to have been the starting point of the NASV) was an Americanized edition of the English Revised Version based on the Critical Text of Hort and Westcott. Why he would support such a venture, were he an advocate of the TR at the time, makes no sense. Thus he didn't know, or didn't care, that the new translation was not based on the TR.
His turning against the version, according to his own testimony, came later, and Cloud's transcription of a cassette from Logsdon gives the immediate impetus: Otis Fuller, who may be considered the godfather of Baptist KJV Onlyism. So far as I know, Logsdon never explained how Fuller convinced him of the errors of the NASB; the extant record is simply that he came to that view.
According to Cloud's transcription of a cassette of Logsdon, this is how Logsdon came to reject the NASV:
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 [Logsdon's wife], 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?'
Thus we can only surmise that Fuller's arguments were persuasive to Logsdon, through we don't know why.
In short, it appears that Logsdon, a well-known pastor and evangelist, but not known for any expertise in textual criticism, initially supported the NASB to help a very good friend, then was persuaded by Fuller that the version was wrong.
None of which, it seems, is particularly helpful in deciding the merits of the NASB or any other version.
I think it also is clear that his association has been overblown by KJVO advocates.
David Cloud has summarized the record (which links Logdon and Otis Fuller, BTW) and, in my opinion, is a fairly evenhanded conclusion, though I might have shaded it differently.
"Part of the problem has been caused by some who have made claims for Logsdon which he did not himself make. Note that Logsdon never said that he actually worked on the NASV or the Amplified Bible translation or that he was an actual employee of the Lockman Foundation. He did not claim to be "co-founder" of the NASV. He said he was a friend of Lockman and as such was invited to come out to California and help launch the venture. According to his own testimony and that of his widow, that is precisely what he did."
http://theonemediator.com/KJV_FILES/036-Questions_On_The_Bible_Version_Issue_Answered.pdf
The entire episode must raise more questions than it answers. It was no secret that the ASV (which was to have been the starting point of the NASV) was an Americanized edition of the English Revised Version based on the Critical Text of Hort and Westcott. Why he would support such a venture, were he an advocate of the TR at the time, makes no sense. Thus he didn't know, or didn't care, that the new translation was not based on the TR.
His turning against the version, according to his own testimony, came later, and Cloud's transcription of a cassette from Logsdon gives the immediate impetus: Otis Fuller, who may be considered the godfather of Baptist KJV Onlyism. So far as I know, Logsdon never explained how Fuller convinced him of the errors of the NASB; the extant record is simply that he came to that view.
According to Cloud's transcription of a cassette of Logsdon, this is how Logsdon came to reject the NASV:
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 [Logsdon's wife], 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?'
Thus we can only surmise that Fuller's arguments were persuasive to Logsdon, through we don't know why.
In short, it appears that Logsdon, a well-known pastor and evangelist, but not known for any expertise in textual criticism, initially supported the NASB to help a very good friend, then was persuaded by Fuller that the version was wrong.
None of which, it seems, is particularly helpful in deciding the merits of the NASB or any other version.
Greektim
Well-Known Member
I can't believe so many people have been defending the NASB so much on this thread instead of just throwing this hypocritical argument back into the KJVO face. If we can't use the KJV translators against their view, then no amount of NASB or ESV or NIV or fill in the blank translators make a hill of beans against us.
As we say here in Honduras, jue pucha.
jonathan.borland
Active Member
Good point. I may post some on this later due to some considerations, such as rsr's, from discussion with someone more familiar on the subject than I.
This stuff was posted elsewhere LONG ago by some rabid KJVO. Logsdon was a friend of Lockman's, and not one of the makers of the NASV.
Mr. Kurecki, no need to go dumpster-diving to attempt to justify your KJVO myth. All those old ones were shot down years ago. We Freedom Readers know you lack any SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT, or any other TRUE evidence with which to support the KJVO myth, but you really need something new. However, I, and just about any other Freedom Reader will shoot it down almost as quickly as it appears. There's simply NO defense for a FALSE DOCTRINE in light of the TRUTH.
Yet another desperate KJVO attempt to justify their myth goes "POOF!"
thisnumbersdisconnected
New Member
My favorite of those was a pamphlet I found in the library of the church I was saved in some years ago, claiming that the NASB lied and perverted God's word because it said Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, not David.
Problem is, obviously, that is a different Goliath that Elhanan killed. David's Goliath was a Gathite, not a Gittite. That second slaying of the second Goliath is reported in 2 Samuel 21:19, and the (of course!) KJV says the same thing!
I laughed and laughed and laughed, and would have loved to have known who left that worthless piece of paper behind so I could laugh with them when I showed them the passage. But of course, they wouldn't get the joke even if I could have done that.
Last edited by a moderator:
This sincere man was looking for an updated AV, and was disappointed in the results. He asked to have his name removed from the project and read, aloud, the letter to, and answer from the Editor :Lockman? Anyway, I whole-heartedly concur with his reaction, and desire, to simply continue updating the AV.
He also reminded me that many have proposed to do just that, but ended up incorporating nonsense from Nestle.
He also reminded me that many have proposed to do just that, but ended up incorporating nonsense from Nestle.
- Status