I would like to share this article since there is no permission required to use it.Why do you believe this brother Greek Tim renounced his involvement with the NASB?

Interesting indeed.

In Christ.

Brother Miller.


Why we use the King James version
by Dr. Frank Logsdon




As a pastor, I write this for the people in our church. On occasion, I have been asked why we, in our church, use the outdated King James Version. To answer that, we must touch on some complex and technical subjects. I, accordingly, have attempted to simplify the manner to a degree that most can understand.

In Proverbs 22:28 the Bible says to "Remove not the ancient landmarks which thy fathers have set." A landmark is a surveyor's term and refers to a benchmark or property marker. Today, in most jurisdictions, it is against the law to move or alter a survey landmark.

Christianity has its foundations in an authorizing and governing document. That document is the Bible. Any attorney will understand the critical nature of altering an authorizing and governing document. Because the Bible is in every sense the final and absolute foundation of what we as Christians believe and practice, it only is prudent that we be concerned that the foundation is sure and the benchmark has not been altered.

For almost two millennia the church of Jesus Christ accepted a set of Greek and Hebrew texts that were received by virtually all gospel preaching, Bible believing churches of whatever group. This text was called the Received Text (or Textus Receptus in Latin). Down through the centuries biblical scholars and church leaders had assembled the existing Greek and Hebrew manuscripts of the Bible. From that compilation, the vast majority were in virtual agreement. These formed the basis of the Received Text.

In the year 1611 A.D., King James I of England was influenced to provide a common Bible for the English speaking world. Hence, he authorized a translation of the Bible into English that came to be known as the Authorized Version or as it is more commonly known, the King James Version. King James selected a committee of Greek and Hebrew scholars from the Church of England. These men were "low church" individuals with ties to the Puritans and later the Pilgrims who emigrated to America. They worked from the text of the Greek and Hebrew testaments that had been received" or accepted by virtually all branches of gospel preaching, Bible believing Christians from the apostolic era to that time. Their product, the King James Version of the Bible, has been, until just recently, the universal standard for Bible believing Christians of the English speaking world.




Enter Textual Criticism

Textual criticism is an academic discipline in which scholars study existing Greek and Hebrew biblical manuscripts. Prior to the advent of the moveable type printing press in 1455 by Gutenberg, all copies of the Bible were hand copied by scribes and were called manuscripts. Because they were individually produced by human hands, they were prone to mistakes in manual copying.

Textual critics study the various extant (existing) manuscripts and note any discrepancies that may have occurred between different copies. Then, by comparing them, a majority consensus is established. Should a misspelled word be found, or should a word have been accidentally added or omitted from a given manuscript, the textual critic endeavors to by consensus establish the correct reading.

A major theory of textual criticism is that some later manuscripts were copied from earlier ones, therefore, the earlier manuscripts are presumed to be a more accurate source of the Scriptures. (The presumption is that scribal errors would accumulate in later copies). Hence, textual critics give much more credence to early manuscripts than to later copies even if the later be greater in number.

The problem with this theory is that the early church had great reverence and respect for their "accepted" or "received" manuscripts of the Scriptures. Accordingly, when a given copy of the Scriptures became tattered and worn, it was carefully copied and then burned Hence, there are virtually no copies of me earliest manuscripts used by the churches.

However, there is evidence that certain cults and sects within early Christians followed the opposite practice. They preserved their manuscripts regardless of condition. Therefore, the crucial premise of textual criticism - that the oldest manuscripts are always to be preferred to more recent copies is critically flawed.




Manuscripts Aleph and B

ln the latter half of the 19th century when textual criticism perhaps was at its zenith, two ancient manuscripts were found in the Mediterranean world that would come to revolutionize the work of the textual critics. A manuscript was "found" in a Roman Catholic monastery at the foot of Mt. Sinai in the Sinai desert. It came to be known as Manuscript Aleph and it also was known as Codex Sinaticus ("codex" being a Latin word for a bound volume).

About the same time another ancient manuscript was "found" in the library of the Vatican. It became known as Manuscript B or Codex Vaticanus. Both of these manuscripts were determined to have come from the 4th century A.D. and are considered the oldest basically complete copies of the New Testament to exist. Hence, they were considered by the textual critics to be the mother lode of ancient Bible manuscripts.

It is noteworthy that both of these manuscripts were "found" in Roman Catholic libraries. (The Roman Catholic Church historically has never given great credence to the Scripture or its teachings). Moreover, the Codex Sinaticus had been produced by scribes of the Alexandrian sect in early church history. The Alexandrians were a heretical cult similar to the modern Jehovah Witnesses. They held major doctrinal deviations pertaining to the person of Jesus Christ. Notwithstanding the questionable source of Codex Sinaticus, it became the premiere source for future textual criticism.




Drs. Westcott and Hort

Two British textual critics championed these newly found manuscripts. Their names were Dr. B. F. Westcott and Dr. F. J. A. Hort. They represented a branch of the Church of England which was enamored with the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. Westcott and Hort in their writings showed a keen friendliness to Roman Catholic theology, occult spiritism and German Rationalism otherwise known as modernism. They, by no stretch of the imagination, could he considered fundamentalists s the term was later coined and used. Rather, if they lived today, their theology and philosophy (as evidenced by their writings) would be called liberal, humanistic, sacramental and even have occult overtones.

Drs. Hort and Westcott together collated and Text o f the New Testament. The "new" Greek text was in contrast with and in distinction to the text mat had been received by virtually all Bible believing . churches for the preceding 19 centuries. In the last 100 years it has been re-edited by Nestle, Aland and others, and today is generally referred in as the critical text. 11 represents less than 1% of existing manuscripts.

From this critical text and its direct predecessor, the Westcott and Hort Text, virtually all modern translations and versions of the Bible have been translated into English.

WE BELIEVE THAT THE CRITICAL TEXT IS CORRUPT! Not only are its origins and associations suspect, the actual text itself is full of deletions and dilutions of the time honored Scripture received by translations based upon the critical text have diluted reference to the blood of Jesus Christ (e.g. Romans 3:25, Colossians 1:14, Revelation 1:11, Luke 22:20 et al), the Deity of Christ (e g Jude 4, Revelation 1:11). the inspiration of the Scriptures (e.g. 11 Timothy 3:16), and salvation by faith (e.g. John 3:36) to mention a few. Space does not allow us to list the numerous instances of serious dilution or deletions of major doctrinal truth in modern versions, but it is lengthy. There are thousands of textual changes

If a survey benchmark has been moved or altered, all surveying after that point will be distorted. And because the critical text is in our view corrupt. any version of the Bible translated from it is suspect.




Modern Versions

The venerable King James Version of the Bible is not copyrighted. It is considered a public domain publication of the Word of God. However, virtually all modern versions are copyrighted. As any author or publisher knows, a copyright is for protection of commercial rights. It means that no one else may market their Bible without paying the publisher or at the least receiving written permission to do so. Does not the Apostle Peter refer to some in the last days "making merchandise of you" regarding the things of God (II Peter 2:3)?

Moreover, a number of the modem versions (based upon the critical text) have used less than precise methods for translation. Some have used a literary device known as "dynamic equivalence". This is a fancy term that essentially means some translators have taken the liberty to come up with what they think are modern equivalents for specific words in the manuscript text rather than precisely translating the specific words of the text. In effect, this is a running commentary on the part of the translators, injecting into the translation what they think a given passage means, rather than rendering a precise translation of what the scriptural writers actually wrote. There is nothing wrong with Bible commentaries. However, to insert personal bias under the guise of translation is not only Iess than a faithful rendering of the text, it is deceptive.

In at least one case, a popular version bas bad the honesty to indicate m its subtitle mat it is a paraphrase. Unfortunately, unwary minds often look at such a Bible paraphrase as the Bible nevertheless. Some versions have used vulgar and crude terms m their translations They have seemed oblivious to the unique purity of purpose of the Scripture.

As mentioned above, cardinal New Testament doctrine such as the shed blood of Jesus Christ, the Deity of Christ and the inspiration of Scripture is routinely diluted m recent translations based upon -me critical text. That should give pause for concern!




The Godly Heritage of the KJV

In viewing the distortions, deletions, corruptions, dilutions, changes and questionable associations of the critical text and its resultant modernist translations, we will stick to the venerable King lames Version of the Bible that our forebearers so faithfully used. It is an ancient landmark

Down through the centuries, it has been the Bible used for every major revival to sweep across portions of the English speaking world. It was the Bible of tbe Pilgrim forefathers of this nation. And. it has been God blessed wherever it bas been used. It is based upon the ancient text which bas been, until just recently, the universally accepted text of the Scriptures from the time of the apostles.

Modern versions bave been marketed extensively as being easier to read than the archaic, old fashioned KJV Bible. However, recent computerized document analysis programs have objectively revealed that the King James Version of the Bible is in far easier to read than the NIV or the NASB. The Fleisch-Kincaid research firm has, through computerized analysis, sbown that the KJV vocabulary has fewer syllables per word than the NIV or the NASB. Furthertmore, the KJV has less complex sentences than the NIV or NASB. In reality, the KJV is easier to read than its modern counterparts in the manner of vocabulary and syntax.

There is undisputed eloquence and beauty in the King James Version. Moreover, the English language was at its zenith in the early 17th century for poetic beauty and eloquence. Interestingly, one of the major criticisms of the King James Version is actually a strength. People unacquainted with proper English complain about the use of "thee" and "thou" etc. in the King James text.

However, as anyone who knows linguistics will attest, many languages have at one time had a common level which was spoken on the street and a higher or formal level that was used in reference to royalty and God. The usage of "thee" and "thou" etc. in old English is a form of higher English that no longer is commonly used. It originally was used in formal situations where deference and respect to nobility, royalty and Deity were appropriate.

Unfortunately, our contemporary American English usage of "you" and "yours" etc. makes no allowance for such deference and brings all of our Ianguage back to the lower level. The King James Version respectfully and appropriately refers to God and other notables as "tbee" or "thou" in accordance with their due respect. Most modern language translations have diluted that deference.


-Dr.Frank Logsdon




NOTES
Dr. Frank Logsdon was the Co-founder of the New American Standard Bible (NASB). He since has renounced any connection to it. "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; it's 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, (editor's note: Mr. Lockman was the benefactor through which the NASB was published) explaining that I was forced to renounce all attachment to the NASV (same as the NASB).

You can say that the Authorized Version (KJV) is absolutely correct. How correct? 100% correct . . ."

-Dr. Frank Logsdon

Hold on hold on hold on.
I knew the context of what you were saying and thought it was aptly put. Are you saying that the KJ (what I might call it from now on) used wording and punctuation to perfectly preserve every single truth from the text it was translated from? In other words did the KJ have to suppliment the differences in language (puncutation & wording/word order) to make sense out of it in the translation?

I was really emphasizing your first statement, ""Preservation" or "preserving" is ongoing only in the sense of that the object being preserved continues to be as it was..." If the KJ is the preserved Word of God, then it did not continue to be as it was and therefore not preserved (according to your definition). That was my point of which I think you didn't mean to say. Personally, I thought it was a good definition and I would use it. That is why I study the Hebrew & Greek, b/c I believe the Word of God "continues to be as it was." Remember you were talking about the object itself and not the truths or thoughts of the object.

James, can I recommend that you use commas to seperate names when you are speaking directly to a person. When you said, "Why do you believe this brother Greek Tim renounced his involvement with the NASB?" it took me a while to figure out what you meant. It sounded like you were asking all the readers why I was renouncing my involvement w/ the NASB. I think you meant, "Why do you believe this brother, Greek Tim, renounced his involvement with the NASB?" Just a suggestion.

Hey, I do know something about English, Brother Tim.

I was hoping for an answer....

James, can I recommend that you use commas to seperate names when you are speaking directly to a person. When you said, "Why do you believe this brother Greek Tim renounced his involvement with the NASB?" it took me a while to figure out what you meant. It sounded like you were asking all the readers why I was renouncing my involvement w/ the NASB. I think you meant, "Why do you believe this brother, Greek Tim, renounced his involvement with the NASB?" Just a suggestion.

Hey, I do know something about English, Brother Tim.

My apologies Brother Greek Tim.


You still did not answer the question why ,that brother,renounced his involvement with the NASB thinking he was in trouble with the Lord?

And what flavor of the Bible do you trust as the preserved Word of God?You avoid answering me on this question.


Also some time back there was a debate on the John Ankerberg Show one group for the modern versions and one group for the KJ Bible.John Ankerberg who is a big NIV Believer called in these men to debate the issue and the KJ Defenders were out numbered nevertheless the debate began and tapes were rolling but one of the modern day version defenders just so happened to loose his voice.

Ankerberg demanded the tapes to be stopped and never aired that particular show.I think God was saying something by this man loosing his voice.Also Kenneth Taylor of the Paraphrased Living Bible almost completely lost his voice down to a whisper and said he believed this happened to him as a punishment from God for tampering with His Word as we have preserved in the King James English Bible.

Ankerberg loves the NIV so much he lies to say this never took place.

In Christ.

Brother Miller.

Ebenezer, "to wash" is in the semantical range of βαπτίζω. Even Thayer's primary definition for βαπτισμός is "a washing, purification effected by means of water." Context, Context, Context! Was the writer of Hebrews dealing w/ believer's baptism or any kind of baptism (βάπτισμα) in this portion of Scripture? I don't believe so. The context is most likely about washing. While the grammar allows, context requires.

Let me define what the "object" is. It IS the truths. It is the inspired Words of God - the message and truth given in human language and written by ordained men, not a particular manuscript containing these Words, and not a particular language in which they may be written*. [Note that the KJB was not translated from a text, but texts. ] The Holy Ghost (which IS His name) superintended the gathering together of the many sources which contained the preserved Words to bring them into one book, the KJB. He provided the guidance necessary for the 1611 translators and the later editors to understand the exact wording and punctuation required to preserve, without the slightest loss, His original message given to the original writers.

* This is why the specific wording between the OT and NT of a given OT quote is not an error. The exact truth intended to be conveyed has been maintained even though the language has changed. (Hebrew->Greek) If the "object" was a physical manuscript then preservation obviously failed. If the "object" is a particular language, then preservation has failed.

James, I have asked many questions which you have not answered. So tone it down a bit and be patient. I really didn't know you wanted me to given an answer to someone elses issues.

By the way, I did answer your second question in post #36.

As for the article which you posted, I cannot intelligently speak to what was going through his mind and reasonning. I am not God. I can only look on the outside. God knows his heart. I am sure there is a lot more to the story than what was written. There has to be b/c he even mentions everything in brief summary form. The issue is much larger than he is describing. Also, being a pastor, I know the principle that there are usually 2 sides to every story.

I am really not sure why you posted that article. Are you suggesting that since one person has changed his views on the version issue that all should? Isn't that authoritarianism? Didn't Billy Graham have an assistant that later renounced CHristianity (I know Billy is not a good example of fundamentalism too). Just because someone turns from the movement does not mean the movement was wrong.

Sorry for the confusion, Brother Tim. I guess what threw me off was your example w/ the Dec. of Ind. It sounded like in your example that the actual text itself was the object which has not changed by using the De. of Ind. Just so you know that I understand you, are saying the message & truths have been preserved? And then you believe that the message and truth have all been preserved in the KJ perfectly & completely? And now we actually have those messages & truths in one place which has become the object of preservation (which I was thinking of before, the text being the object)?

This post was last modified: Wed Jun 04, 2008 02:19 PM by Greektim.

For all intents and purposes, the PCE-KJB has become the object for the following reasons:
1. It is the current presentation of the Message.
2. It is complete within a single book.
3. It is in a language that is becoming globally readable.
4. The time of the end is near enough that a new translation in some advanced language will be unnecessary.

That said, it is in actuality the very same Words (truths) that are being preserved, so that if (and this is only for theoretical purposes, for it will not take place) the Biblical English of the KJB becomes so obsolete that, as Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, etc that came before it, the believers as a body cannot reasonably comprehend it, God will again direct a new work which in turn will become the new presentation of God's Pure Words. I must clearly state that the last sentence is given to place the emphasis on the Message, not the physical representation of that Message, though at any given point in time, the two are in essence the same.

This is what happens when we who know what we are saying try to communicate with those of you who think that you understand.

As for Billy Graham Greek Tim that is a totally different discussion.Billy Graham is a 33% degree mason and has promoted Per-Versions for years.Billy Graham gives an altar call and tells them to return to their faith`s including muslim`s-Mormon`s-JW`s-Wicca`s ect.I heard several audio sermon`s on why Billy Graham is going to hell.


Nevertheless standing or sitting in a garage doesn`t make you a car.


In Christ.

Brother Miller.

My point, brother Miller, was to use Billy as an example of a person leaving a movement. It was not to advocate his beliefs. I hope you understood that. Again, I don't see your point in bringing up that man who renounced the NASB. I know people who have renounced the KJOnly view. Maybe I should have used that story instead so as not to confuse the issue.

Ironically, you did accuse me in post #50 of "You avoid answering me on this question" when I already answered it (cf. post #36 & #53). But I have also asked you many questions, James, and have yet to have any of them answered. You made some pretty strong statements and I would love to hear your response to my questions concerning those statements. The questions were made in posts #31, #34, #36, indirectly in #38, & #53.

Even more ironical, James, I am known as the question dodger here (like a politician who dodges questions). I answer the question, but usually not in the way the questener was wanting. Or I will give a yes & no answer. Those are the most fun because I know it ruffles feathers. I usually do this when the questioner is trying to trap me into a corner and leave me with no viable options. Most of the time, the question is flawed and is assuming something that is also flawed (of course in my opinion, not in the opinion of the questioner ).

This post was last modified: Wed Jun 04, 2008 04:17 PM by Greektim.

What if I don't want to be a car?

{can James take a joke???}

By the way, praise the Lord He opened the door for my wife and me to move into a house! This was a huge answer to prayer. We are even paying less than what we were @ our old apartment (after utitilities [go well-water!]).

Funny enough, it has a garage and I was just standing in it right before I read your last post, James.

This post was last modified: Wed Jun 04, 2008 04:23 PM by Greektim.

Greek Tim.

Yes many have departed the Book of God KJ.

When I post and read someones post once that is enough.I will not go back and search post.If the modern version text`s agree with the TR/RT then why dont they both translate salvation as are saved instead of being saved then?

Your Bible you trust says being saved and you well know it.These per-versions do corrupt the Word of God and teach a different plan of salvation.The KJ Bible tells me I am saved and your Bible`s tell you you are being saved.Were the modern day per-version translator`s aware of this or did they do it on purpose.

Thats why you wont answer what per- version you trust is because they all tell you you are not saved but you are being saved.


Are you for Ecumenism Greek Tim or seperation?


In Christ.

Brother Miller.