My favorite, as most of you are aware, is the King James Version.
Several months ago I ordered a CD from Southwest Radio Church http://www.swrc.com of an interview given by S. Frank Logsdon, given by him on February 17, 1974. (CD #A-183)
Following is some of the information on this CD. Of course, the NASB has totally downplayed Logsdon's involvment in the project. However, Logsdon's personal interview reveals a true man of God who wanted to set things straight before he met his Maker. He gave the interview when he was 74 years old, and died 13 years later at age 87:
A better translation? - Logsdon’s story
S. Frank Logsdon (1907-1987), a respected evangelical pastor and conference speaker, gives us his testimony about his well-meaning but mistaken attempt to relegate the Authorized Version of the Bible to oblivion by producing a new translation.
He tells his own story how it came about that from serving as a committee member for the production of the New American Standard Bible, he was constrained, by force of evidence and good conscience, to re-trace his steps back to the King James Version.
His involvement with the said project came about from an invitation by Franklin Dewey Lockman who, according to his opinion, “wasn’t schooled in language or anything; he was just a businessman; he did it for money; he did it conscientiously; he wanted it absolutely right and he thought it was right” (that is, the NASB).
Upon reflection and by hindsight, Logsdon reasons that “the devil is too wise to try to destroy the Bible. He knows he can’t. He can’t destroy the Word of God. But he can do a lot of things to try to supplant it, or to corrupt it in the minds and hearts of God’s people.”
A better translation?
He says how foolish it is for modern versions, among them the NASB, to pose as better translations than the AV (KJV). To give this impression, whenever there was an omission of words or phrases or even whole sentences in the NASB, the editors would put in a footnote: “Not in the oldest manuscripts.” But they do not tell you what those oldest manuscripts are. Or they say, “Not in the best manuscripts. What are the best manuscripts. They don’t tell you. By this subtle ploy, the average reader notices the note in the margin and he takes it for granted that the scholars know better than he. Who is he to protest? Who is he to raise his voice “against the scholars.” That would be the height of impertinence and foolhardiness.
But when the popular phrases, “the best manuscripts,” and “the oldest manuscripts” are thrown about here and there - to intimidate the inquirers - what is meant by them is quite surprising. By such phrases is usually meant the Codices A and B, that is, the Sinai and Vatican manuscripts. Where do we find these two “revered” manuscripts? Of all places, in the custodial care of Rome!!
Virtually all of our revisions, of recent years in particular, that claim to be superior to the AV, come through that stream. What’s more, nobody has seen the Vatican manuscript. It’s under lock and key in Rome. And the only copies we have are the copies Rome decided to give to the outside world.
What should our Protestant reaction be? Well, if we happen to be true Protestants, we wouldn’t trust them one bit. The guardian of these manuscripts is notorious for her apostasy and denial of New Testament Christianity. Why should we consult her manuscripts when the vast majority of ancient manuscripts are in agreement with each other, and so vastly different from the Vatican and Sinai manuscripts.
And yet, wonder of wonders, the United Bible Society and other smaller Bible translation societies, opted for the eclectic text as corrupted by these two manuscripts in particular. (The Trinitarian Bible Society of London is one noble exception).
Paul’s Bible, my Bible
Quoting Logsdon again: “I tell you, I used to laugh with others when a person would try to slander the intelligence, perhaps, of some who say, ‘Well, if the Authorized Version was good enough for Paul it’s good enough for me.’ You get a lot of ha, ha’s. Say, that perhaps is true. If this is the Word of God, and Paul had the Word of God, then things equal to the same thing are equal to each other. We have the Book that Paul had!”.
The reasoning is such: Paul had the pure Word of God (in a different language from mine). I have the pure Word of God (in the Authorized, since I’m much deficient in Greek and Hebrew).
Therefore Paul and I own the same Word of God.
But by the same reasoning, the reader of the NASB cannot say this. The hundreds of omissions in his Bible are the result of corrupted texts introduced and disseminated by the Gnostics and heretical teachers of the early church (Origen, Marcion, Eusebius, and so on). These omissions were done after the death of the apostle Paul. So the NASB reader and the apostle Paul do not read the same Bible.
Archaisms, archaisms, archaisms...
The impression is given that the AV (KJV) is loaded down with Elizabethan English that is outdated and foreign to today’s readership. It is a Bible that belongs to the past. It’s incumbent upon us then to update the Bible and present our faith to a modern culture in a more effective way, making a definite impact that could not be made with the AV (KJV).
Logsdon continues: “It’s true there could be, and perhaps should be, some few corrections of words that are archaic. And a few places where it could read just a little more freely.” What he’s hinting at is that it would be sensible and right to update the spelling, and this has actually happened twice since the first publication of the Authorized in 1611.
But the revisions were not in the sense or in the editing of the AV (kjv). It was in such minor things as spelling: for instance, instead of ‘sope’ it was updated to ‘soap,’ and so on.
“When I say corrected,” Logsdon clarifies, “I mean just some of the archaic words such as ‘he who lets will let until he be taken out of the way.’ Now we don’t use the word that way, but you can find out what it means by taking just a moment to look it up.”
Logsdon, however, is far from suggesting a revamping of the AV (KJV) text. “Back in Jeremiah 4:22, we read, ‘My people are sottish.’ There wouldn’t be two people in the congregation that would know what that means. But I like it because when I looked it up, I found that it had more meaning than any other word you could put there. It means thick-headed. God says, ‘I can’t get through to you because you are thick-headed.’ And maybe He wants it to stay there. If a person looks it up he gets a better understanding of it than if another word were put in there to change it.”
Difficult words
Studies have shown that, contrary to popular opinion, the AV (KJV) is easier to understand than the other modern translations (excepting, of course, the paraphrases which are no translations at all, taking such liberties with the text). The average length of AV (KJV) sentences is shorter than any other translation; the vocabulary is simpler.
Any earnest inquirer can check out these things for himself. He will be surprised how much mud-throwing has been done by those who want to sell there modern cheap wares.
“Actually,” says Logsdon, “I don’t think there is anything wrong with the AV (KJV), and it has been tested for 362 years. Are you ready to throw it overboard because the scholars have come along and said, ‘Well now, this is better; read better; you can understand it better’? I mean to tell you, with all their self-justification, people know less and less about God’s Word.”
A better translation? How could it be?
The criteria for a competent translation of the Scriptures, among other things, are at least two:
1. It should be done from the preserved Greek and Hebrew texts.
2. It should be done by devout men, fully qualified doctrinally and morally and intellectually speaking.
But this is not what we find on the committee for the first revision of the AV (KJV)!
Logsdon continues in his eye-opener lecture: “So when they saw that there wasn’t much to revise, here they had their committee arranged.[b] One was a Unitarian, a man by the name of Smith.[/b] That’s why you find on verses concerning the incarnation there’s something wrong. Such as 1 Timothy 3:16 ‘By common consent great is the mystery of godliness.’ Don’t you believe that the mystery of godliness depends upon what man thinks, or his opinion. The verse continues in the 1881 version, ‘he who was manifest in the flesh.’ You’ve been manifest in the flesh; I’ve been manifest; (that statement alone is meaningless). It’s God who was manifest in the flesh. Do you see the Unitarian flavour there? He got in some blows somewhere, and that must be one of them.”
Butchered by the critics’ penknife
Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Wordsworth, Westcott and Hort, in foot-notes and translations, have changed and mutilated the Greek text in about six thousand places. This is why we have so many omissions in our modern Bibles. Words omitted, in brackets, parentheses, or italics are counted as not authentic according to brain-washed modern scholarship.
-----------------
The interview continues, but that is what I will post for now.
Sincerely,
Walter
reformer wrote:
Which is your favorite version? I mostly read and study from the NASB, however, lately I have been liking the NKJV. Some of the words used in the NKJV have a stronger thought emphasize. Of course that is personal opinion. Here is an example:NASB:
1 Peter 4:1 " Therefore, since Christ has suffered in the flesh, arm yourselves also with the same purpose, because he who has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin,"
NKJV:
1 Peter 4:1 " Therefore, since Christ has suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves also with the same mind, for he who has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin,"
just some thought. I like the KJV but I have a hard time reading through.
What are your thoughts?
:-)
