Open Debate Challenge on My Defending the KJV as the Perfect Word for Today in English

[Jay Ross]

Unless they simply have yet to figure out that they're actually electists who have just been ignorantly hanging out with the spiritual riff-raff.

.

I googled "electists" and they asked if I meant "electricians" with my enquiry. LOL

 

[BarneyFife]

You are being really nasty suggesting that someone is a "cave living Arminian" by using a fancy word on your part.

I wonder if you should be reported for this particular nastiness on your part.

It was sarcasm, Jay. I'm a free-willer and I've visited a few caves but the two are not related.

But you should do what you think is best instead of threatening to do it.

:)

 

[BarneyFife]

That's not true, they are actually blinded by their own wickedness and their hatred of God and their love of sin. They are totally depraved and every thought is evil continually. That's why they reject the gospel, it has nothing to do with God. He doesn't even know them, let alone have anything to do with their sin nature.

Nobody figures anything out, unless God reveals the truth to them. If He doesn't they remain blind forever. Let's not forget the fact that man is fallen and dead in trespasses and sin. What can a dead men do????, exactly thank you.

If God elected to save that that person who is currently ignorant and hanging out with the riff-raff, He will regenerate him and convert him at a time God chooses. Nobody has any say in when God opens their eyes. Some have their eyes open on their death bed and some when they are little children.

.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

LOL I guess you do not know that people can see right through you. What you say is not only not true….it does not even make sense. To you conspiracy theories are truth and reality, that is called an alternate reality. I am sure that most reading our conversations have picked up on that.

Anyone can read the quotes that are from Modern scholarship I provided to you proving that my statement was correct in that the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts are relied upon heavily in the Nestle and Aland 28th edition. So you are the one who is promoting a conspiracy theory by not believing basic facts that your side believes.

And again you are trying pigeon hole all these people work to the Nestle and Aland 28 (NA28) like they came in and copied all this over and hit print and went home. When the actual truth is that it took a lot of people and time and money and research to produce these translations. They looked at everything they could and had no favorites….either was fact or not.

The textual critic approaches the Bible as he would any other literary work of antiquity in which the original autographs are no longer available. The premise is that since the original copies have long since perished and that which has survived consists of questionable, conflicting copies, it is, therefore, impossible to have a pure Bible.

Textual criticism is then the science by which biblical scholars seek to restore or reconstruct the indefinite (lost) text of the Bible as close as possible to its original form by a detailed analysis of the various manuscripts. The standard criterion of reliability is age, assuming the older the manuscript, the closer it must be to the original. Unfortunately, this approach fails to consider that most Bible corruption took place in the first few centuries (2 Cor.2:17, 2 Peter 3:16).

As with any branch of academia, there are different schools of thought among textual critics. Disagreements abound and take many forms. Each group of scholars defends its own set of criteria and presuppositions for evaluating the superiority of one text type over another (textual disputes) or one family of manuscripts over another.

Then there are translation disputes, and disagreements over how to understand and translate the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts (original languages of the Bible) into English. For example, the Greek word “logismos,” found in 2 Corinthians 10:5, can mean; reasoning, imagination, or thought. According to Greek, any one of these three definitions would be correct. The question then arises, how do we determine the precise word (meaning) that the Holy Spirit initially intended? Who gets to make the determination, and on what basis, by what authority?

Then, there are other strange theories in Textual criticism.
For example, there are the following two textual theories.

Lectio Difficilior Potior (The More Difficult Reading is to be Preferred):

• Explanation: This principle suggests that when there are multiple textual variants, the more difficult or complex reading is likely the original. The reasoning is that scribes were more likely to simplify or clarify a difficult text rather than complicate an already simple one.
• Strangeness: It seems counterintuitive because we might assume that simpler, more straightforward texts are original. However, this principle acknowledges that scribes were prone to "improve" texts for clarity or theological conformity, making the more challenging reading potentially closer to the original.

Lectio Brevior Potior (The Shorter Reading is to be Preferred):

• Explanation: This theory proposes that the shorter of two or more textual variants is more likely to be the original. The rationale is that scribes were more inclined to add to the text (whether intentionally or unintentionally) than to remove words or phrases.
• Strangeness: This principle can be controversial because it assumes that additions are more common than omissions, which isn't always the case. Some argue that scribes could have also accidentally omitted text, especially if the text was difficult or if their eye skipped a line.

When you consider all the complexities and variables of textual criticism, not to mention the differences between the Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and English languages, it should be apparent that without supernatural intervention, it would be impossible to reconstruct the original text of the Scriptures, even if it had been lost. In reality, textual criticism is no more than theoretical guesswork, an academic exercise in futility and unbelief. The Bible sums up the science of textual criticism in 2 Tim.3:7 “Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. False doctrine originates with the acceptance of a false premise; deception is born out of failure to recognize truth.

The false doctrine of non-preservation is a doctrine that lacks any basis in the Word of God other than “Yea, hath God said…” (Gen.3:1). It is, in fact, nothing more than a theory constructed upon a flawed foundation that assumes inspiration was limited to the original autographs. It should be no surprise that many verses that uplift the importance of the Word of God are corrupted in Modern Translations.

To put it bluntly, it is highly suspicious that the very teachings of the Bible giving great importance to the Word of God are changed in Modern English Translations to favor the beliefs of Textual Critics, particularly in verses like Psalms 12:6-7, Psalms 96:13, Psalms 138:2, Romans 10:17, 1 Peter 1:23, 1 Peter 2:2, and 2 Corinthians 2:17. It is hard to ascribe these alterations in Modern Bibles as mere random chance, especially given the fact that these verses defend against the false tenets of Textual Criticism.

Source used:
Pastor A. W. Weckeman.

Why I Believe the King James Bible to be the Preserved Word of God - Perfecting of the Saints

Why I Believe the King James Bible to be the Preserved Word of God Pastor A. W. Weckeman Sept. 2002 There are two ways of approaching the subject of preservation regarding the Scriptures: First, from a technical perspective, the science of textual criticism. The textual critic approaches the...

www.perfectingofthesaints.com

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Again you live in conspiracy theories. Dr. frank logsdon made money scamming people. He was never involved with the translating process and never on the board….I listed those who were on the board….His involvement with them was not much more than taking out the trash. People can look this up.

Ah, so now who is weaving the web of conspiracy theories?

There is no reputable documentation or credible evidence suggesting that Dr. Frank Logsdon scammed people out of money. If such claims exist, they are likely rumors or misinformation rather than established facts. If you’ve encountered specific claims or sources that allege such behavior, it would be wise to approach them with skepticism and seek out verified information from reliable sources.

I also posted a YouTube video of Dr. Frank Logsdon providing an audio testimony to his renouncment of working on the NASB. He asked to be removed from the board and that is why his name is not in the creation of the NASB. So again, you don't know what you are talking about. You are not dealing with simple facts that are presented to you that are obvious even by those who are on the Modern Bible Scholarship side.

Initially, I was excited in our discussion on this topic because I was going to challenge you to a debate on YouTube on Nick Sayers channel. But you have proven that you are not even aware of basic facts that other Modern Textual Critics accept. I would be embarrassed to say the things you have stated in this thread. Anyone can see the simple things I presented to them. Try using ChatGPT to confirm things. While ChatGPT is not always perfect (because it searches the internet), it does give many correct answers and thus I think it will help you. Well, that is if you want to not have people roll their eyes at you and look at you crazy. You are not dealing with reality (facts). Again, your mental approach is just like the Leftist machine (even though you said you are not Democrat). While you are not a Leftist, you share a similar trait as them in the fact you have a problem in not dealing with reality or the facts that really matter. For example: In the world of the Left: You can ask them: What about the Economy? A closed border? No wars? Well, Dems do not appear to not care about these things, and they prefer to focus on talking about race (When we are should be united together as Americans). They look at the unimportant matters. So they deny reality.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I've read this website and another that say, that the dead sea scrolls were used? Both also agree that "new" manuscripts were the Vaticanus and Sinaticus. Just two. I can hardly believe that modern bibles will update based on these two only. Statical Analysis that I studied in college wouldn't even entertain this for a discissions. You are a well of knowledge my friend.

The Nestle and Aland is used for most Modern English Bibles. In the world of Modern Textual Criticism: the Nestle and Aland is a critical apparatus of the New Testament in Greek that compiles the latest manuscript discoveries in an effort to reconstruct a lost text (because they do not believe God preserved His words verbatim). However, despite that the Nestle and Aland uses many manuscripts, it still weighs in heavily the two manuscripts known as Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, which began with Westcott and Hort and their Revised Version and their own Greek edition of these two manuscripts in 1881. But the primacy of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus in the Modern Bible Movement is a fact that is agreed upon even by Modern Scholarship. Here are the sources that poster Grailhunter denies:

GotQuestions.org:

"Codex Sinaiticus, also known as 'Aleph' (the Hebrew letter א)... has been highly valued by Bible scholars in their efforts to reconstruct the original biblical text. Sinaiticus has heavily influenced the translation work of modern Bible versions... Codex Vaticanus, also known as 'B'... is one of the oldest and most complete Greek Bibles. It was first used as a source document by Erasmus... It has been instrumental in constructing a critical Greek text, which is the basis for many modern Bible translations."​

(GotQuestions.org)

The Text of the Gospels Blog:

"NA most definitely is an eclectic text; it is eclectically drawn from the texts of B and Aleph... Readings found in as many as 3000 other manuscripts are routinely ignored whenever they differ from the united testimony of B and Aleph."​

(The Text of the Gospels)

Wikipedia:

"Codex Vaticanus (B) and Codex Sinaiticus (ℵ) are considered two of the most important manuscripts for establishing the text of the New Testament. They are key witnesses to the Alexandrian text-type and have heavily influenced modern critical editions of the Greek New Testament, such as the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece."​

Link to source (Wikipedia)

Theopedia:

"The Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus are the two most important manuscripts for the reconstruction of the original New Testament text. They are frequently referenced in modern critical editions like the Nestle-Aland 28, where their readings often serve as the basis for determining the original text."​

Biblical Archaeology Society:

"Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus are among the oldest and most significant manuscripts of the New Testament, playing a crucial role in the creation of modern critical editions such as the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece. These codices provide a textual basis that is considered closer to the original New Testament writings than the later Byzantine text-type."​

Encyclopedia of Textual Criticism:

"The importance of Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus in New Testament textual criticism cannot be overstated. Both manuscripts are heavily relied upon in the Nestle-Aland 28th edition, which seeks to reconstruct the earliest attainable text of the New Testament."​

Christianity Today:

"Modern critical editions of the Greek New Testament, like the Nestle-Aland 28, draw extensively from Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. These manuscripts, due to their early dates and high quality, are pivotal in establishing the Alexandrian text-type, which is often regarded as closest to the original New Testament writings."​

Daniel B. Wallace:

Daniel B. Wallace highlights that the NA28, like its predecessors, is primarily an eclectic text, drawing heavily from Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. He notes that while the NA28 uses over 5,000 manuscripts, the readings from Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are often prioritized, with many other manuscript readings being disregarded when they conflict with these two.​

(Daniel B. Wallace).

James Snapp, Jr.'s Blog:

NA most definitely is an eclectic text; it is eclectically drawn from the texts of B [Vaticanus] and ℵ [Sinaiticus] (A in Revelation), with occasional resort to D, L, and a minuscule or two where those three do not supply a reading. So yes, the 'eclectic' compilation, though its supporters boast is based on over five thousand Greek manuscripts, is actually based on about five manuscripts. Readings found in as many as 3000 other manuscripts are routinely ignored whenever they differ from the united testimony of B and ℵ."​

 

[Grailhunter]

Anyone can read the quotes that are from Modern scholarship I provided to you proving that my statement was correct in that the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts are relied upon heavily in the Nestle and Aland 28th edition. So you are the one who is promoting a conspiracy theory by not believing basic facts that your side believes.

Anyone that has read along with conversation knows who the conspiracy enthusiast is.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Anyone that has read along with conversation knows who the conspiracy enthusiast is.

This statement does not really mean anything unless you can back it up. But that’s all you got, right? Just empty claims and statements. I have backed up my claims and you just ignore them.

 

[Grailhunter]

Ah, so now who is weaving the web of conspiracy theories?

There is no reputable documentation or credible evidence suggesting that Dr. Frank Logsdon scammed people out of money. If such claims exist, they are likely rumors or misinformation rather than established facts. If you’ve encountered specific claims or sources that allege such behavior, it would be wise to approach them with skepticism and seek out verified information from reliable sources.

I also provided a YouTube video of Dr. Frank Logsdon providing an audio testimony to his renouncment of working on the NASB. He asked to be removed from the board and that is why his name is not in the creation of the NASB. So again, you don't know what you are talking about. You are not dealing with simple facts that are presented to you that are obvious even by those who are on the Modern Bible Scholarship side.

Initially, I was excited in our discussion on this topic because I was going to challenge you to a debate on YouTube on Nick Sayers channel. But you have proven that you are not even aware of basic facts that other Modern Textual Critics accept. I would be embarrassed to say the things you have stated in this thread. Anyone can see the simple things I presented to them. Try using ChatGPT to confirm things. While ChatGPT is not always perfect (because it searches the internet), it does give many correct answers and thus I think it will help you. Well, that is if you want to not have people roll their eyes at you and look at you crazy. You are not dealing with reality (facts). Again, your mental approach is just like the Leftist machine (even though you said you are not Democrat). While you are not a Leftist, you share a similar trait as them in the fact you have a problem in not dealing with reality or the facts that really matter. For example: In the world of the Left: You can ask them: What abou tth eEconomy? A closed border? No wars? Well, Dems do not appear to not care about these things, and they prefer to focus on talking about race (When we are should be united together as Americans). So they deny reality.

It is an old conspiracy theory and scam that has long been laid to rest.

Published with permission from The Lockman Foundation

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.


Yesterday, I telephoned the offices of the Lockman Foundation and
spoke with a representative. This person, upon my request, emailed me
the Foundations official list of all of the original NASV translators. Dr.
Logstons name does not appear anywhere on this list.
I had also asked for information concerning any involvement of a Dr.
Franklin Logston with the original translation of the NASV. Regarding Dr.
Logston was the following information in the same email message I
received from the Lockman Foundation:

"The Board of Directors of The Lockman Foundation launched the
NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE translation work in the late
1950s following the completion of the AMPLIFIED NEW TESTAMENT. Dr. S. Franklin Logston was acquainted with Dewey Lockman, president of The Lockman Foundation, prior to Mr. Lockmans death in 1974. Mr. Logston was never a member of the Board of Directors, nor was he an employee of
The Lockman Foundation. Mr. Logston 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 to 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. Logston 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 Logston and The Lockman Foundation. He resided in Florida until his passing some years ago."

(Carole Holdinski, The Lockman Foundation; email, 9/26/00, to Gary
Hudson; emphasis mine).
The above represents a most unambiguous statement on Logstons true
involvement with the NASB and the Lockman Foundation, i.e., zero! On
his testimony tape, Logston claimed to be the author of the NASBs
preface, as he also claims in the above quote taken directly from
Gail Riplingers New Age Bible Versions. The Lockman Foundation
says that Logston most certainly did not "write the forward to the
NASB," that Logston never was "part of the translation team," and that
"he cannot be considered co-founder of the NASB."
The paper trail of propaganda and deceit from the major players in
King James Onlyism continues to abound. To the deliberate deception
and distorted editing of David Otis Fuller, the plagiaristic writing of J. J.
Ray, the inaccuracies of Ruckman, Chick, Riplinger, Gipp, Maynard,
Cloud, Wilkinson, and Grady et al., we must now add the fraud and
deception of S. Franklin Logston, the so-called "ex-NASV
translator."
Frank Logston, the one heralded by Fuller for so many
years as "renouncing his work with the NASB" and turning to King
James Onlyism is now on record as having misled many as to his
alleged involvement. No doubt, Ruckman and Riplinger will
continue to sell Logstons tape to the masses of unsuspecting,
uninformed King James Onlys who will go right on believing
Logstons deliberately fabricated "testimony."

 

[Grailhunter]

The Nestle and Aland is used for most Modern English Bibles. In the world of Modern Textual Criticism: the Nestle and Aland is a critical apparatus of the New Testament in Greek that compiles the latest manuscript discoveries in an effort to reconstruct a lost text (because they do not believe God preserved His words verbatim). However, despite that the Nestle and Aland uses many manuscripts, it still weighs in heavily the two manuscripts known as Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, which began with Westcott and Hort and their Revised Version and their own Greek edition in 1881. But the primacy of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus in the Modern Bible Movement is a fact that is agreed upon even by Modern Scholarship. Here are the sources that poster Grailhunter denies:

GotQuestions.org:

"Codex Sinaiticus, also known as 'Aleph' (the Hebrew letter א)... has been highly valued by Bible scholars in their efforts to reconstruct the original biblical text. Sinaiticus has heavily influenced the translation work of modern Bible versions... Codex Vaticanus, also known as 'B'... is one of the oldest and most complete Greek Bibles. It was first used as a source document by Erasmus... It has been instrumental in constructing a critical Greek text, which is the basis for many modern Bible translations."​

(GotQuestions.org)

The Text of the Gospels Blog:

"NA most definitely is an eclectic text; it is eclectically drawn from the texts of B and Aleph... Readings found in as many as 3000 other manuscripts are routinely ignored whenever they differ from the united testimony of B and Aleph."​

(The Text of the Gospels)

Wikipedia:

"Codex Vaticanus (B) and Codex Sinaiticus (ℵ) are considered two of the most important manuscripts for establishing the text of the New Testament. They are key witnesses to the Alexandrian text-type and have heavily influenced modern critical editions of the Greek New Testament, such as the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece."​

Link to source (Wikipedia)

Theopedia:

"The Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus are the two most important manuscripts for the reconstruction of the original New Testament text. They are frequently referenced in modern critical editions like the Nestle-Aland 28, where their readings often serve as the basis for determining the original text."​

Biblical Archaeology Society:

"Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus are among the oldest and most significant manuscripts of the New Testament, playing a crucial role in the creation of modern critical editions such as the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece. These codices provide a textual basis that is considered closer to the original New Testament writings than the later Byzantine text-type."​

Encyclopedia of Textual Criticism:

"The importance of Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus in New Testament textual criticism cannot be overstated. Both manuscripts are heavily relied upon in the Nestle-Aland 28th edition, which seeks to reconstruct the earliest attainable text of the New Testament."​

Christianity Today:

"Modern critical editions of the Greek New Testament, like the Nestle-Aland 28, draw extensively from Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. These manuscripts, due to their early dates and high quality, are pivotal in establishing the Alexandrian text-type, which is often regarded as closest to the original New Testament writings."​

Daniel B. Wallace:

Daniel B. Wallace highlights that the NA28, like its predecessors, is primarily an eclectic text, drawing heavily from Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. He notes that while the NA28 uses over 5,000 manuscripts, the readings from Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are often prioritized, with many other manuscript readings being disregarded when they conflict with these two.​

(Daniel B. Wallace).

James Snapp, Jr.'s Blog:

NA most definitely is an eclectic text; it is eclectically drawn from the texts of B [Vaticanus] and ℵ [Sinaiticus] (A in Revelation), with occasional resort to D, L, and a minuscule or two where those three do not supply a reading. So yes, the 'eclectic' compilation, though its supporters boast is based on over five thousand Greek manuscripts, is actually based on about five manuscripts. Readings found in as many as 3000 other manuscripts are routinely ignored whenever they differ from the united testimony of B and ℵ."​

Try getting a statement from these various modern translations instead of these hearsay sources.

 

[Grailhunter]

This statement does not really mean anything unless you can back it up. But that’s all you got, right? Just empty claims and statements. I have backed up my claims and you just ignore them.

All they got to do is read and the truth be known.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

It is an old conspiracy theory and scam that has been long been laid to rest.

Published with permission from The Lockman Foundation

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.


Yesterday, I telephoned the offices of the Lockman Foundation and
spoke with a representative. This person, upon my request, emailed me
the Foundations official list of all of the original NASV translators. Dr.
Logstons name does not appear anywhere on this list.
I had also asked for information concerning any involvement of a Dr.
Franklin Logston with the original translation of the NASV. Regarding Dr.
Logston was the following information in the same email message I
received from the Lockman Foundation:

"The Board of Directors of The Lockman Foundation launched the
NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE translation work in the late
1950s following the completion of the AMPLIFIED NEW TESTAMENT. Dr. S. Franklin Logston was acquainted with Dewey Lockman, president of The Lockman Foundation, prior to Mr. Lockmans death in 1974. Mr. Logston was never a member of the Board of Directors, nor was he an employee of
The Lockman Foundation. Mr. Logston 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 to 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. Logston 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 Logston and The Lockman Foundation. He resided in Florida until his passing some years ago."

(Carole Holdinski, The Lockman Foundation; email, 9/26/00, to Gary
Hudson; emphasis mine).
The above represents a most unambiguous statement on Logstons true
involvement with the NASB and the Lockman Foundation, i.e., zero! On
his testimony tape, Logston claimed to be the author of the NASBs
preface, as he also claims in the above quote taken directly from
Gail Riplingers New Age Bible Versions. The Lockman Foundation
says that Logston most certainly did not "write the forward to the
NASB," that Logston never was "part of the translation team," and that
"he cannot be considered co-founder of the NASB."
The paper trail of propaganda and deceit from the major players in
King James Onlyism continues to abound. To the deliberate deception
and distorted editing of David Otis Fuller, the plagiaristic writing of J. J.
Ray, the inaccuracies of Ruckman, Chick, Riplinger, Gipp, Maynard,
Cloud, Wilkinson, and Grady et al., we must now add the fraud and
deception of S. Franklin Logston, the so-called "ex-NASV
translator."
Frank Logston, the one heralded by Fuller for so many
years as "renouncing his work with the NASB" and turning to King
James Onlyism is now on record as having misled many as to his
alleged involvement. No doubt, Ruckman and Riplinger will
continue to sell Logstons tape to the masses of unsuspecting,
uninformed King James Onlys who will go right on believing
Logstons deliberately fabricated "testimony."

Listen to Logsdon’s audio testimony. Either they are lying or Frank Logsdon is lying. Well, I think that if Logsdon was afraid that he was in trouble with the Lord for altering God’s Word, it would not really help him to say that. It would be just as equally bad to lie. So the motivation in lying about that does not really help him. He sounds genuine in his testimony and there is no motivation for him to lie about it. So I would side with Logsdon in this case because I have known Modern scholars to lie and just make up stuff before when we can just search the internet and confirm the truth of things for ourselves. Also, you are claiming his testimony was fabricated? Really? Wow. That’s crazy. Again, who has most to gain here? The NASB people because they want money from their translation. What did Logsdon have to gain by lying if he did do so? If the tape was fabricated, do you have proof that it was?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Try getting a statement from these various modern translations instead of these hearsay sources.

By this statement itself, it just shows that you have no clue to the actual sources themselves. It is like you just arrived on planet Earth. Please do your own homework on the sources I provided and get back to me. Right now you lost all credibility.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

All they got to do is read and the truth be known.

Right, that is true, but I don’t believe they will learn truth by you on this topic. You are speaking against the truth on actual sources.
It takes a man to admit he is wrong. I have done so many times when a person shows me an article or source that is reliable that proves me wrong on certain facts in the past on rare occasion over the years. You need to do the same. You are so skeptical of new information correcting you. I know the Modern Scholars can lie about certain things when it comes to defending their agenda or translations, but they are not going to lie about things that they agree upon like the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus being weighed upon heavily in the Nestle and Aland 28th edition. There is no reason why they would all say that and be wrong about that fact. These are reputable sources in the world of Modern Scholarship. Only you are going lone wolf because you are not wanting to admit defeat and admit you made a mistake.

 

[Grailhunter]

By this statement itself, it just shows that you have no clue to the actual sources themselves. It is like you just arrived on planet Earth. Please do your own homework on the sources I provided and get back to me. Right now you lost all credibility.

No it just proves prefer hearsay and conspiracy theories.

 

[Grailhunter]

Right, that is true, but I don’t believe they will learn truth by you on this topic. You are speaking against the truth on actual sources.
It takes a man to admit he is wrong. I have done so many times when a person shows me an article or source that is reliable that proves me wrong on certain facts in the past on rare occasion over the years. You need to do the same. You are so skeptical of new information correcting you. I know the Modern Scholars can lie about certain things when it comes to defending their agenda or translations, but they are not going to lie about things that they agree upon like the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus being weighed upon heavily in the Nestle and Aland 28th edition. There is no reason why they would all say that and be wrong about that fact. These are reputable sources in the world of Modern Scholarship. Only you are going lone wolf because you are not wanting to admit defeat and admit you made a mistake.

LOL

 

[Bible Highlighter]

It is an old conspiracy theory and scam that has been long been laid to rest.

Published with permission from The Lockman Foundation

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.


Yesterday, I telephoned the offices of the Lockman Foundation and
spoke with a representative. This person, upon my request, emailed me
the Foundations official list of all of the original NASV translators. Dr.
Logstons name does not appear anywhere on this list.
I had also asked for information concerning any involvement of a Dr.
Franklin Logston with the original translation of the NASV. Regarding Dr.
Logston was the following information in the same email message I
received from the Lockman Foundation:

"The Board of Directors of The Lockman Foundation launched the
NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE translation work in the late
1950s following the completion of the AMPLIFIED NEW TESTAMENT. Dr. S. Franklin Logston was acquainted with Dewey Lockman, president of The Lockman Foundation, prior to Mr. Lockmans death in 1974. Mr. Logston was never a member of the Board of Directors, nor was he an employee of
The Lockman Foundation. Mr. Logston 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 to 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. Logston 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 Logston and The Lockman Foundation. He resided in Florida until his passing some years ago."

(Carole Holdinski, The Lockman Foundation; email, 9/26/00, to Gary
Hudson; emphasis mine).
The above represents a most unambiguous statement on Logstons true
involvement with the NASB and the Lockman Foundation, i.e., zero! On
his testimony tape, Logston claimed to be the author of the NASBs
preface, as he also claims in the above quote taken directly from
Gail Riplingers New Age Bible Versions. The Lockman Foundation
says that Logston most certainly did not "write the forward to the
NASB," that Logston never was "part of the translation team," and that
"he cannot be considered co-founder of the NASB."
The paper trail of propaganda and deceit from the major players in
King James Onlyism continues to abound. To the deliberate deception
and distorted editing of David Otis Fuller, the plagiaristic writing of J. J.
Ray, the inaccuracies of Ruckman, Chick, Riplinger, Gipp, Maynard,
Cloud, Wilkinson, and Grady et al., we must now add the fraud and
deception of S. Franklin Logston, the so-called "ex-NASV
translator."
Frank Logston, the one heralded by Fuller for so many
years as "renouncing his work with the NASB" and turning to King
James Onlyism is now on record as having misled many as to his
alleged involvement. No doubt, Ruckman and Riplinger will
continue to sell Logstons tape to the masses of unsuspecting,
uninformed King James Onlys who will go right on believing
Logstons deliberately fabricated "testimony."

Further discussion on this has been done and the witnesses do not favor the Lockman foundation.
Check out this thread here for the discussion.

S. Franklin Logsdon - the correction of a David Cloud error on his excellent testimony

The major CARM post #17 (which is now below) was deleted, which is irrelevant, possibly they did not like the fact that I mentioned the Facebook posting history (even without a url). The information is important to have a reasonably permanent place. Ken Matto has superbly corrected his page...

purebibleforum.com

 

[Bible Highlighter]

To all:

I am still looking for somebody to debate on YouTube via Nick Sayers channel in defending the KJV. If you know of anyone who is qualified and competent on the basics on this issue, please do not hesitate to reach out to me.

May the Lord Jesus Christ bless you all.

 

[Grailhunter]

Further discussion on this has been done and the witnesses do not favor the Lockman foundation.
Check out this thread here for the discussion.

S. Franklin Logsdon - the correction of a David Cloud error on his excellent testimony

The major CARM post #17 (which is now below) was deleted, which is irrelevant, possibly they did not like the fact that I mentioned the Facebook posting history (even without a url). The information is important to have a reasonably permanent place. Ken Matto has superbly corrected his page...

purebibleforum.com

You are boring me now.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

This false theory in Textual Criticism cannot be emphasized enough.

Modern scholars say,

A Scribe Was More Likely to Add to the Text Than to Subtract:

• Explanation: This principle suggests that scribes, when copying manuscripts, were more inclined to add content to the text rather than remove it. This could include adding clarifying phrases, explanatory notes, or harmonizing details across different parts of the text.
• Strangeness: This theory can seem strange because it assumes that all additions were deliberate and that scribes were more prone to embellishing or amplifying the text rather than accidentally omitting parts of it. While it acknowledges the human tendency to clarify or expand upon a text, it can be controversial because it downplays the possibility of accidental omissions, which could easily occur due to eye skips (homoioteleuton), tiredness, or other factors during the copying process. Moreover, it overlooks the historical reality that some individuals actively sought to corrupt the Scriptures by omission. For example, Marcion, a significant figure in early Christianity, rejected the Old Testament and edited the New Testament, omitting sections that did not align with his theological views, particularly those that connected the New Testament with the Old. This raises the question of why textual critics might generalize that scribes were more likely to add than subtract when there are notable examples of deliberate omission. This theory, therefore, may oversimplify the complexities of manuscript transmission and the varied intentions behind textual changes.