LOGSDON: "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.
"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.
CLOUD: We don't know the motive for this communication from the Lockman Foundation; apparently they are giving information based on their resources at hand. Obviously they don't have all the facts. This was admitted to me by a translator who represents the Lockman Foundation and the New American Standard Version. In an e-mail message to
me dated February 16, 1996, Dr. Don Wilkins said, "Perhaps the truth of the whole matter is that none of us has all the facts about the situation."
I have three witnesses to Logsdon's involvement with the NASV
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have to get out the door -- but this is a less than honest response, Judy. You could not have possibly missed the point that the issue is tied to the word "TRANSLATOR." This was your claim and as such, it is a false claim.... period. He was neither a translator of the NASV as you claim below nor did he work on the project. But what was most interesting was how you got out of having to admit that you were wrong (again). In debate -- I always quote the opposition (if possible). It makes for a better apologetic. Cloud is clearly NOT on my side of the issue. If anyone had a reason to press this false claim, it would be Cloud (other than yourself, of course) and , walla, he even adm its that this is not true.Case closedJd
-----Original Message-----
From: Judy Taylor <jandgtaylor1@juno.com>
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Sent: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 16:42:42 -0500
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor - TT'ersWhether the Lockman Foundation who Logsdon claims "did it for the money" wants to honor his confession is besidethe point. Fact is he did "repent" so it is NOT a "SILLY RUMOR" as you claim. No the accuser is as well ensconsedas ever... and I am really surprised that you would seek the counsel and dare to post the findings of David Cloud whowould be as far from your theology as east is from the west. judytOn Mon, 21 Nov 2005 15:49:25 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:The claim was first posed to this forum as a rumor -- with no names, details, or supporting evidence.You now restate the claim (that a TRANSLATOR of the NASV repented) and once again have associated me with the "accuser." You and others just cannot have a discussion without making personal attacks. It is apparently impossible, in your case and Mr Deegan's. The following is a statement taken from a conservative Baptist KJV only site concerning this rumor of a TRANSLATOR repenting: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.Have a nice day. Apparently the "accuser" has changed residences !!!! :--) JD
From: Judy Taylor <jandgtaylor1@juno.com>
Another baseless accusation JD? how is it that some ppl just can't learn to recognize the accuser when he comes?What you call a "silly rumor" is as follows: The NASV translator is Dr. Frank Logsdon and he writes:"I must under God renounce every attachment to eh New American Standard. 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, it's terribly wrong; it's fighteningly wrong and what am I going to do about it? I can no longer ignore these criticisms I am hearing and I can't refute them ...When questions began to reach me at first I was quite offended. However, in attempting to answer, I began to sense that something was not right about the NASV. Upon investigation, I wrote my very dear friend, Mr. Lockman, explaining that I was forced to renounce all attachment to the NASV. The product is grievous to my heart and helps to complicate matters in these already troublous times...The deletions are absolutely frightening .. there are so many .. Are we so naive that we do not suspect Satanic deception in all of this?I don't want anything to do with it ...The finest leaders that we have today ... haven't gone into it (the new version's use of a corrupted Greek text), just as I hadn't gone into it ... That's how easily one can be deceived .. I'm going to talk to him (Dr. George Sweeing, then president of Moody Bible Institute) about these things ... You can say the Authorized Version (KJV) is absolutely correct. How correct? 100% correct! ... If you must stand against everyone else, stand."On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 12:21:58 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:"That guy" did not "repent" of anything. Just a silly rumor. NASV is based upon a greek text that is older than the Church controlled Byzantine text of the 1500's. There is nothing sinister or worthy of "repentance" in the translating of the NASV. The fact that no one is going to answer the questions I asked of < SPAN class=correction id="">deegan is evidence to me of the weakness of your argument. Dean , you use the KJ translatio n to defeat the NASV while completely missing the point of the various translations and assuming the very thing that is in question ------------- the supremacy of the KJ bible.Jd
-----Original Message-----
From: Dean Moore <cd_moore@earthlink.net>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 07:57:03 -0500
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor - TT'ers
----- Original Message -----From: Judy TaylorTo: [email protected]Sent: 11/20/2005 7:21:16 AMSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor - TT'ersOn Sun, 20 Nov 2005 06:56:04 -0500 "Dean Moore" <cd_moore@earthlink.net> writes:cd: I don't believe we have to go to that extreme:-) As we do not hold to the versions that do this-also there is a difference between the degree of altercations in the NASV and the Book of Mormon-huge difference. One left off words or made mistakes while the other was turned into a complete new religion by Smith.I hear what you are saying Dean - ATST it is hypocritical to castigate them while doing the same thing ourselves in the name of scholarship. I read somewhere that one of the NASB translators had a change of heart and repented for the part he played in that translation. The NIV which is used in most churches today is one of the worst offenders. Cutting the second part of Romans 8:1 out is a real travesty that leads ppl to believe that all they must do to be free from condemnation is to say their prayer. Never mind walking after the Spirit and not fulfilli ng the lust of the flesh, it's OK to remain ignorant about that. No wonder the professing church is so sick...cd: Thank you for that info on Romans 8:1 It was as you stated in the Greek and the Hebrew. KJ right again. Glad to hear that Guy repented sis :-)
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
