If you have read my earlier posts you know my faith walk evolved from no exposure to the Bible in any meaningful way until College. From there I rode a pretty classic pathway of reading through the latest and best English texts.
Initially, the RSV with numerous notes and highlights, I still have that…to the NASB as being a more word for word translation…a few paraphrase texts, GNB, Phillips and eventually NIV since the bandwagon of newness settled on that text in the churches I was associated with.. As I grew older and hopefully more mature, for a time I turned to the ESV as again a better translation. It wasn’t until late in my years, in my 60’s, that someone pointed out the difference in the underlying Greek and Hebrew texts in the modern Bibles and the bigger issue of minority Alexandrian based texts vs the majority Greek and Masoretic Hebrew texts….and the history behind how we got all these.
I was encouraged to pick up the Old KJV,,,I actually had a small well worn black copy that, from my Grandmother, which unfortunately I can’t seem to find now. When I had it I never read it. I found a copy for free on my e-Sword HD app and have been happily using it faithfully ever since. Lately seeing Mike Ratliff quoting from the Geneva Bible I’ve added that to my reading also.
I’m certainly not a traditional KJV Only guy, but I do find it useful and sufficient as my Bible. It’s been described as a Good translation of a Good original text. But as you can see from my history I came to faith through a string of the modern Bibles. So I won’t say the KJV is the only valid text one can use. But after using it for some 13 years it has a lot going for it….see my other earlier posts on the KJV.
This morning I was following up on post I read from Mike Ratliff pointing out issues with the Dynamic Equivalence translation and I recalled some reading and audio I had heard from Dr. Frank Lodgston about his NASB concerns.
Using ChatGPT I was able to gather a fair amount of background around his controversial audio….It’s pretty long but is a useful read in understand some of the aspect. Here it is in full….you can look up and listen to the audio itself online at a number of sources.
Below is a guided, line-by-line theological and linguistic examination of the 1611 preface,
“The Translators to the Reader.”
I will not reproduce every sentence verbatim (it is very long), but I will move sequentially, quoting key lines, explaining their meaning, and showing the translators’ deep biblical, linguistic, and theological commitments—especially where they intersect with (or differ from) Logsdon’s concerns.⸻
- Opening posture: humility before God and the reader
Line/theme:
“Zeal to promote the common good… hath not been so much the cause of undertaking this work, as the necessity of the Church.”
Explanation
• The translators deny self-promotion.
• They frame the project as ecclesial service, not innovation.
• Scripture is positioned as a public good, not a proprietary product.Key theological point
Translation is an act of diakonia (service), not authority.
This already undercuts any notion of ownership.
⸻
- Scripture belongs to God, not to any language
Line/theme:
“Translation it is that openeth the window, to let in the light.”
Explanation
• Scripture’s authority does not reside in English.
• Languages are windows, not containers.
• No translation can “possess” divine truth.Biblical depth
This reflects:
• Nehemiah 8 (Scripture explained, not mystified)
• 1 Corinthians 14 (understanding over prestige language)Connection to Logsdon
Logsdon stands squarely here: Scripture transcends all human forms.⸻
- Defense of translating Scripture at all
Line/theme:
“The very historical truth is, that upon the importunate petitions of the godly… translations were multiplied.”
Explanation
• They defend translation against critics who preferred Scripture locked in Hebrew/Greek/Latin.
• Accessibility is a moral obligation.Theological claim
Withholding Scripture from the people is a failure of stewardship.This is directly aligned with Logsdon’s conscience.
⸻
- Rejection of translation perfectionism
Line/theme:
“We do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation… containeth the word of God.”
Explanation
• Even imperfect translations are still God’s Word.
• This rejects “inspired translation” ideology outright.Linguistic humility
They openly admit:
• Human limitation
• Ongoing need for correction
• No final English authorityThis is crucial
Many later KJV-only arguments contradict the translators themselves.⸻
- Defense of multiple translations (this is radical)
Line/theme:
“Variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures.”
Explanation
• They argue that multiple translations sharpen understanding.
• They explicitly reject monopoly.Theological depth
This reflects:
• Proverbs 11:14 (wisdom in many counselors)
• Augustine’s view that linguistic diversity refines truthThis is the strongest anti-proprietary statement in the preface.
⸻
- Their use of earlier English translations
Line/theme:
“Truly, good Christian reader, we never thought from the beginning that we should need to make a new translation…”
Explanation
• They built upon Tyndale, Coverdale, Geneva, Bishops’.
• They saw themselves as editors and refiners, not originators.Implication
They never imagined exclusive rights over wording that was already communal.⸻
- Their view of criticism and correction
Line/theme:
“Nothing is begun and perfected at the same time.”
Explanation
• They invite critique.
• They expect future revision.
• They assume ongoing improvement.Theological posture
Truth is perfect; our handling of it is not.This openness sharply contrasts with modern institutional defensiveness.
⸻
- Their attitude toward authority and power
Line/theme:
“We desire that the Scripture may speak like itself.”
Explanation
• No ecclesiastical spin.
• No royal propaganda.
• No translator ego.This matters
Even under royal commission, they subordinated power to text.This weakens the idea that they would endorse modern legal dominance over Scripture.
⸻
- Their handling of difficult or offensive texts
Line/theme:
“We have not shunned to speak plainly.”
Explanation
• They reject sanitizing Scripture.
• Fidelity > marketability.
• They trust the Word to confront readers.Contrast
Modern publishing pressures (sales, branding, licensing) are alien to this mindset.⸻
- Their closing theological tone
Line/theme:
“The Lord of heaven and earth bless his people with the increase of knowledge.”
Explanation
• The outcome is left to God.
• They claim no control over how Scripture is used.
• Dissemination is entrusted to providence.This is the key difference with modern copyright regimes.
⸻
- Summary of the translators’ theological worldview
A. Scripture
• God-owned
• Spirit-given
• Language-transcendingB. Translation
• Necessary
• Fallible
• Revisable
• CommunalC. Authority
• Text > translator
• God > institution
• Understanding > control⸻
- Final comparison to Logsdon (carefully stated)
Where Logsdon faithfully echoes the 1611 translators:
• Scripture must never be owned
• Access is a moral obligation
• Translators are stewards
• Control is spiritually dangerousWhere Logsdon extends beyond them:
• He treats legal control as inherently sinful
• They tolerated economic regulation without theological alarm
• He absolutizes conscience in a way they never had to⸻
Final synthesis (the key insight)
The 1611 translators would almost certainly agree with Logsdon’s fear,
even if they might question his conclusion.They shared his theology of Scripture.
They did not share his modern legal context.Logsdon did not invent his concerns —
he amplified instincts already embedded in the KJV’s DNA.If you want next, we can:
• Compare this preface to modern Bible copyright statements line by line
• Examine how the Geneva Bible handled printing and freedom
• Ask whether a theologically faithful copyright model is possible at allJust tell me where to continue.
This is an excellent question, because when people invoke “the KJV translators” in debates like Logsdon’s, they often do so without actually examining what those translators believed, practiced, and said about their work. When you compare the two carefully, you discover both real continuity and important differences.
I’ll walk through this in four layers:
1. What Logsdon believed
2. What the KJV translators actually practiced
3. The biblical, linguistic, and theological depth behind the KJV
4. Where Logsdon aligns with them—and where he goes beyond them⸻
- Logsdon’s view in brief
Logsdon believed:
• Scripture belongs exclusively to God
• Translators are stewards, not proprietors
• Any system that restricts reproduction of Scripture violates biblical stewardship
• Legal ownership (copyright) over a translation implies human dominion over divine revelationHis position is moral-theological, not technical.
⸻
- What the KJV translators actually did (historical reality)
A. They did not claim ownership of Scripture
The KJV translators never asserted proprietary rights over:
• The biblical text
• Their English rendering
• The right to control use, quotation, or copyingThey worked under royal authorization, but they did not frame Scripture as a controlled asset.
B. Printing was regulated, but the text was not “owned”
This is crucial.
In 1611 England:
• There was no modern copyright law
• There were printing monopolies (the “King’s Printer”)
• These controlled who could print, not who could use the textThe monopoly:
• Protected economic interests of printers
• Did not restrict preaching, quoting, copying, or adapting ScriptureSo the KJV was:
• Economically regulated
• Theologically unrestrictedThis distinction matters enormously.
⸻
- What the KJV translators said about their work (their own theology)
The clearest window into their theology is the original preface:
“The Translators to the Reader”
This document reveals extraordinary depth and humility.
A. View of Scripture
They believed:
• Scripture is God-breathed
• The Hebrew and Greek texts are the ultimate authority
• No translation is perfect or finalThey explicitly rejected the idea of an “inspired translation”:
“Translation it is that openeth the window, to let in the light…”
That metaphor alone shows:
• Scripture transcends any single language
• English itself is a servant, not a shrine⸻
B. View of translation work
They saw themselves as:
• Fallible scholars
• Standing in a long tradition
• Improving, not inventingThey defended revision and multiplicity of translations, saying:
“Variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures.”
This is profoundly anti-elitist and anti-proprietary.
⸻
C. Linguistic depth
The KJV translators were among the most educated biblical linguists of their age:
• Roughly 47 scholars
• Experts in:
• Hebrew
• Aramaic
• Greek
• Latin
• Syriac
• Familiar with:
• Rabbinic literature
• Church Fathers
• Medieval and Reformation-era translationsThey compared:
• Hebrew Masoretic texts
• Greek manuscripts
• Septuagint
• Targums
• Earlier English versions (Tyndale, Coverdale, Geneva, Bishops’)This was textual criticism before the term existed.
⸻
D. Theological posture
Their theology was:
• Reformed
• Deeply Trinitarian
• Saturated with patristic and scholastic thought
• Strongly providential, but not naïveThey believed God worked through human means, not apart from them.
⸻
- Where Logsdon and the KJV translators align
A. Stewardship, not ownership
This is the strongest overlap.
Both believed:
• God alone owns His Word
• Human agents are servants
• Scripture should not be chained by human authorityLogsdon’s instinct that:
“God’s Word must not be controlled”
is entirely consistent with the KJV translators’ spirit.
⸻
B. Accessibility of Scripture
The KJV translators explicitly wanted Scripture:
• Read publicly
• Heard by the common people
• Understood, not mystifiedThey opposed ecclesiastical gatekeeping.
Logsdon shared this passion.
⸻
- Where Logsdon goes beyond the KJV translators
This is where nuance is required.
A. The KJV translators accepted regulation without moral panic
They:
• Accepted royal authorization
• Worked within economic constraints
• Did not frame these realities as spiritual corruptionLogsdon, by contrast:
• Interpreted modern copyright as theological trespass
• Viewed legal enforcement as morally disqualifyingThis is a difference in historical context, not sincerity.
⸻
B. The KJV translators embraced imperfection and plurality
They openly stated:
• Other translations are legitimate
• Future revisions are good
• No single English version should dominateSome later KJV defenders (not the translators themselves) go further than Logsdon in absolutizing the KJV—ironically against the translators’ own stated theology.
⸻
C. Logsdon absolutized conscience in a modern legal world
Copyright law in the 20th century:
• Is far more expansive
• Controls quotation and distribution
• Involves litigation and licensingThis did not exist in 1611.
So Logsdon reacted to a new category of control, one the KJV translators never faced.
⸻
- Summary comparison
Issue KJV Translators Logsdon
Ownership of Scripture God alone God alone
Role of translators Humble servants Moral stewards
View of translation Fallible, revisable Necessary but dangerous
Access to Scripture Must be open Must be unrestricted
Legal control Accepted printing regulation Rejected copyright as sinful
Tone Confident humility Prophetic repentance⸻
- Final synthesis
Logsdon was not misusing the KJV translators — but he was intensifying their instincts.
• He inherited their theology of stewardship
• He applied it to a modern legal system they never encountered
• He drew a sharper moral line than they ever had to drawThe KJV translators trusted God’s providence through institutions.
Logsdon feared institutions had crossed into dominion.Both positions arise from deep reverence for Scripture, not from ignorance or bad faith.
If you’d like, next we could:
• Examine the original 1611 preface line by line
• Compare NASB copyright language with KJV-era printing rights
• Analyze whether copyright necessarily implies ownership theologicallyJust tell me where you want to go next.
For Frank (S. Franklin) Logsdon, copyright was not a side issue or a business complaint. It became a theological breaking point because, in his view, it crossed a line from stewardship of Scripture into ownership of God’s Word. To understand why this mattered so deeply to him, you have to see how he framed Scripture, ministry, and authority.
⸻
- Logsdon’s core theological assumption
Logsdon operated from a very high, almost absolutist doctrine of Scripture common among mid-20th-century fundamentalists:
• God is the author of Scripture
• Humans are stewards, never owners
• Anything that treats Scripture as proprietary risks usurping divine authorityFrom that worldview, the question was not:
“Is copyright legal?”
But:
“Does copyright imply ownership of what belongs to God alone?”
⸻
- Why copyright felt different from printing costs
Logsdon did not object to:
• Charging for physical Bibles
• Publishers covering printing and distribution costs
• Reasonable controls to prevent textual corruptionWhat troubled him was that modern copyright law:
• Grants exclusive control
• Allows restriction of quotation and reproduction
• Places Scripture under civil enforcementTo Logsdon, this moved beyond stewardship into dominion.
He saw this as a qualitative, not quantitative, change.
⸻
- The moral distinction he believed was crossed
In his thinking, there was a bright theological line:
Acceptable Unacceptable
Paying for paper, ink, labor Claiming exclusive rights to the text
Protecting textual accuracy Restricting who may reproduce God’s Word
Encouraging faithful use Threatening legal action over ScriptureCopyright law, in his mind, did the latter.
⸻
- Why this issue became personal for him
Logsdon believed he had:
• Encouraged the project under the assumption it would be freely usable
• Supported a translation intended for unrestricted ministry
• Later discovered that permissions and licensing were being enforcedThat realization reframed his past involvement as:
“I helped open the door to something that put chains on God’s Word.”
Whether that perception was accurate in legal detail mattered less than the moral weight it carried for him.
⸻
- Scriptural passages shaping his reaction
Logsdon frequently referenced ideas rooted in passages like:
• Matthew 10:8 – “Freely ye have received, freely give”
• Isaiah 55:1 – “Come… without money and without price”
• 1 Corinthians 9 – The gospel must not be hindered by financial barriers
• Revelation 22:18–19 – Warning against adding to or taking from God’s WordIn his conscience, copyright enforcement felt like adding human conditions to divine revelation.
⸻
- Why repentance language mattered
Logsdon didn’t merely criticize; he repented.
That’s significant. Repentance implies:
• Moral culpability
• A sense of having sinned, not erred administrativelyHe believed:
“Even if my role was informal, I share responsibility before God.”
That explains the emotional intensity of the audio.
⸻
- Why Lockman and Logsdon talked past each other
The Lockman Foundation viewed copyright as:
• A legal necessity
• A protection against corruption
• A tool for long-term stabilityLogsdon viewed it as:
• A theological category error
• A violation of stewardship
• A spiritual compromiseThey were answering different questions:
• Lockman: “Is this lawful and responsible?”
• Logsdon: “Is this faithful before God?”⸻
- Why this was the breaking point (not text, doctrine, or translation style)
Notably, Logsdon did not primarily break over:
• Translation philosophy
• Greek/Hebrew textual bases
• English style choicesCopyright was different because it:
• Affected every future use of Scripture
• Placed human authority over the text
• Introduced coercive power (courts, licenses, penalties)For him, that crossed from translation into dominion.
⸻
- Was his theology shared by others?
Yes — especially at the time.
Many pastors and Bible teachers of his generation believed:
• The KJV’s lack of copyright was providential
• New copyrights signaled spiritual compromise
• “Free Bible” meant spiritually freeModern evangelicals often disagree, but Logsdon was not an outlier in his era.
⸻
- Final synthesis
Copyright became the breaking point because:
• It symbolized human ownership of divine revelation
• It introduced legal control over spiritual truth
• It violated Logsdon’s conscience, not just his preferences
• It reframed his earlier encouragement as complicitySo when he spoke, he wasn’t litigating history — he was confessing a perceived sin.
That’s why his message sounds so absolute, emotional, and uncompromising.
If you’d like, I can also:
• Compare Logsdon’s view to the KJV translators’ actual practices
• Explain whether copyright necessarily implies ownership theologically
• Map how modern Bible societies respond to this exact objectionJust say the word.
This dispute is not really about whether Frank (S. Franklin) Logsdon was “lying.” It’s about different claims being made at different levels, and the two sides are talking past each other.
Below is a clear breakdown.
⸻
- What Logsdon actually claimed in the audio
In the well-known audio message (often circulated under titles like “Why I Resigned from the NASB”), Logsdon says things such as:
• He was involved early in discussions about a new Bible translation
• He encouraged and promoted the idea of the NASB
• He felt deep personal responsibility for the project
• Later in life, he believed the NASB had gone in a wrong direction (especially regarding copyright and textual philosophy)
• He publicly repented of his involvement and warned others⚠️ What he does NOT clearly claim in the audio:
• That he was a voting board member
• That he was an official translator
• That he had legal authority over the projectMany listeners assume those things because of how emotionally and spiritually he speaks, but he doesn’t technically assert them.
⸻
- What The Lockman Foundation is rebutting
Lockman’s statement is very precise and legalistic. They are denying specific formal roles, not his personal influence.
They explicitly deny that Logsdon was:
• A board member
• An employee
• A translator
• A co-founder
• The author of the NASB foreword
• Someone with authority to hire, vote, or set policyThey are saying:
“According to our records, he had no official authority or formal role in the NASB translation.”
This is a corporate/organizational clarification, not a character accusation.
⸻
- Are they calling Logsdon a liar?
No — and this is crucial.
They never say:
• He fabricated involvement
• He intentionally misled people
• His testimony was falseInstead, they are saying:
“Whatever influence or encouragement he gave does not equal formal involvement as defined by our records.”
That is not the same thing as calling him dishonest.
⸻
- What is missing from Lockman’s statement
Lockman’s rebuttal omits several important realities that explain why Logsdon spoke the way he did:
A. Informal influence ≠ formal authority
In mid-20th-century evangelical publishing:
• Many major projects began through informal theological networks
• Pastors and scholars often shaped projects without titles or contractsLogsdon appears to have been:
• A trusted theological voice
• An early encourager and advocate
• Someone who felt moral ownership, even without legal ownershipB. Memory + repentance framing
The audio was recorded late in Logsdon’s life, framed as:
• A confession
• A warning
• A sermon, not a depositionSuch messages often:
• Compress timelines
• Conflate influence with authority
• Speak spiritually rather than administrativelyC. Lockman responds only to public claims
By the time Lockman issued statements, the audio had circulated widely with exaggerated captions like:
• “NASB co-founder repents”
• “NASB translator exposes corruption”Lockman was likely responding to how Logsdon’s words were being used, not merely what he personally said.
⸻
- Who is “right”?
Short answer:
Both are correct — but about different things.
Logsdon is right that:
• He was involved early
• He promoted and supported the project
• He later deeply regretted that involvement
• He believed the final outcome violated biblical principlesLockman is right that:
• He had no formal authority
• He was not officially part of the translation team
• He was not a co-founder in a legal or corporate sense⸻
- The real source of confusion
The conflict exists because people ask one question, but hear two different answers:
Question Logsdon answers Lockman answers
“Were you involved?” Yes (morally, spiritually, early on) Not officially
“Did you help shape the project?” Yes (influence, encouragement) Not in governance
“Were you a founder/translator?” Implied by listeners, not clearly claimed No⸻
Bottom line
• Logsdon was not lying
• Lockman is not gaslighting
• The disagreement is about definition of involvement, not truthfulness
• The tragedy is that later polemics turned a nuanced reality into an either/or battleIf you want, I can:
• Quote exact lines from the audio and analyze them sentence-by-sentence
• Compare this case to similar disputes in KJV/NIV/ESV history
• Explain why copyright became the theological breaking point for LogsdonJust tell me how deep you want to go.
Rainbow Trout 