Dear Mr. Howe:

You wrote:

<<Mitch, what a jackass this Romans 9 guy is! And what a coward!! He will not even DISCUSS your rebuttal. I guess J. Greene nor Romans 9 have any courage or character!!>>

Obviously, you have not read my latest e-mail to Mitch. I am pasting it below. As you will see, I have discussed his rebuttals. And he has given me his word that he will post ALL of this correspondence online.

I can't speak for Jay Greene.

<<Thank God their perverted translation will never see the light of day.>>

Ah, the true colors shine forth. Mitch tried to sound reasonable, saying "I, for one, am certain that any faithful* translation of the Scriptures from the Masoretic, Majority & Received Text types both IS and CONSTITUTE the Word of God." But the true colors of the KJV-Only advocates shine forth: any translation that is not the KJV is "perverted." Typical KJV-Only stupidity.

<<Calvinists always are a bunch of cowards. Watch out, Mitch....they may have you burned at the state if they really believe Calvin's works.>>

I am not a Calvinist. If you would check out our web site, you would see that we believe that Calvin was an unregenerate man. I do, however, believe the TRUE gospel of salvation conditioned on the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ alone. This means that I believe that it is the work of Christ alone that makes the difference between salvation and damnation. If you believe that Jesus Christ died for everyone without exception, then you do NOT believe the true gospel. You do NOT believe that it is the work of Christ alone that makes the difference between salvation and damnation. Instead, you believe that it is the work of the SINNER that makes the difference between salvation and damnation. This is the damnable false gospel of salvation conditioned on the sinner. All who believe this damnable false gospel are unregenerate. Most people who call themselves "Calvinists" would still consider such people to be their brothers in Christ. This shows that they, too, are unregenerate, because they have no idea what the gospel is. I encourage you to check out our web site at www.outsidethecamp.org.

Below is the response to Mitch's rebuttals that you say I would not make, since I'm supposedly a coward.

To God alone be the glory,

Marc D. Carpenter


Dear Mitch,

The fact that you are posting all of this correspondence online where people other than yourself (possibly including true Christians) will read this changes things. I will respond to your articles, not for you in particular, but for Christians who might benefit from my response. I am noting that you wrote that "ALL of this correspondence will be posted online." Now if you are a man of your word, you will do what you said you will do, which is post ALL -- every single word of -- this correspondence online. This includes the article entitled "Gospel Atonement" that I attached to my e-mail of May 10. 2003. This article can also be found at www.outsidethecamp.org/gospatone.htm . Please notify me of the URL where ALL of this correspondence will be posted so I can see for myself.

Thanks,

Marc


Before I respond to the articles, I would like to say a word to those of you who call yourselves Christians but who believe that Jesus Christ died for everyone without exception (or who consider at least some universal advocates to be your brothers in Christ). The gospel is the power of God to salvation to believers (Romans 1:16). In the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed (Romans 1:17). Those who do not believe the gospel are lost (Mark 16:16). Those who are ignorant of the righteousness of God revealed in the gospel are going about to establish a righteousness of their own and are thus lost, no matter how zealous they are for God (Romans 10:1-3). The righteousness of God that is revealed in the gospel is His salvation of sinners based on the propitiatory sacrifice and imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ alone (Romans 3:21-4:8; 10:4; 2 Corinthians 5:21). Anyone who does not abide in the doctrine of Jesus Christ is lost (2 John 9). Anyone who speaks peace to one who brings a false gospel is lost (2 John 11). Those who believe the true gospel believe that it is the work of Jesus Christ alone that makes the difference between salvation and damnation. They believe that the work of Jesus Christ ensured and secured the salvation of everyone for whom Jesus Christ died. If you believe that Jesus Christ died for everyone without exception, then you do NOT believe that it is the work of Jesus Christ alone that makes the difference between salvation and damnation. You believe that it is the sinner's OWN effort that makes the difference between salvation and damnation. This is a damnable false gospel of salvation conditioned on the sinner. It is the very antithesis of the true gospel. All who believe that Jesus Christ died for everyone without exception are unregenerate. All who believe that at least some universal atonement advocates are regenerate are unregenerate. (See the article "Gospel Atonement" at the URL above.) If you want to know the true gospel, please look at the links I have provided to Mitch earlier in this correspondence. I would be happy to correspond with you about the true gospel. The true gospel of Jesus Christ is the most important thing in the universe. If you do not believe the true gospel, nothing else makes any difference. The whole KJV-Only debate makes no difference if you do not believe the gospel. My "KJV-Only Hypocrisy" article (www.outsidethecamp.org/kjvonly.htm ) or my response to Mitch's articles may convince you of the hypocrisy of the KJV-Only advocates, but if you do not believe the gospel, it makes no difference. You may be convinced that the Literal Version of the Bible is the best translation, but if you do not believe the gospel, it makes no difference. You may be a staunch KJV-Only advocate, a moral fundamentalist, an upstanding citizen in your community, a regular active church participant, a missionary or a supporter of missions, or anything else, but if you do not believe the gospel, it makes no difference. You have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge (Romans 10:2). So everything I say after this is meaningless if you do not believe the gospel. You shouldn't even go any further if you do not believe the gospel. This preface is a MUST, because without the gospel, all else (including the KJV-Only debate) is vanity.

Having said that, I will respond to Mitch Allman's two articles, both of which are entitled, "Rebuttal against LITV proponent." I will call them "Rebuttal 1" and "Rebuttal 2" for the sake of clarity. I will surround Mitch's quotes with << >>.

REBUTTAL 1

<<I, for one, am certain that any faithful* translation of the Scriptures from the Masoretic, Majority & Received Text types both IS and CONSTITUTE the Word of God. I also believe that Bibles translated from the Minority, Wescott-Hort texts are inherently corrupt.>>

Yet, as stated above, your belief about translations means NOTHING, because you do not believe the gospel. It makes NO DIFFERENCE that you believe the Masoretic, Majority & Received Text types are the Word of God and that Bibles translated from the Minority, W-H texts are inherently corrupt. Since you do not believe the gospel, everything you say, do, and think is an abomination in the sight of God.

<<I'm sure you're aware that not only do ALL the previous English translations use "God Forbid", but so does the ASV of 1901, in every place the KJV uses it, and mention should be that the Douay of 1950, the RSV of 1881, Wesley's, Weymouth's, the NCB, TEV, NASB and the NKJV all, in one place or another use the term "God Forbid" or "Heaven Forbid" to translate the text. But this is not the issue.>>

If this is not the issue, then there was no reason to bring it up. Obviously, it is an issue to you. My response regarding the fact that all these translations use "God forbid" is SO WHAT. That doesn't make it right.

<<I noticed that at the very bottom of your article that you believe that the best Bible translation is the LITV. Well, for one thing I was surprised that I'd never heard of it, so I did a little research. From what I can tell it purports to be a more literal translation of the text and so forth, was translated and edited by one gentleman (whose scholarship I'm still having trouble verifying) named Jay P. Green, Sr.>>

The LITV is published by Sovereign Grace Publishers, Inc., P.O. Box 491, Mulberry, IN 46058.  Their web site is at http://www.sgpbooks.com, and their telephone number is (765) 296-5538. Jay P. Green, Sr., is the translator of the LITV. Although Mr. Green professes to believe in the doctrines of grace, our endorsement of the LITV in no way implies that Mr. Green is a regenerate man and in no way is an endorsement of Sovereign Grace Publishers or everything that Sovereign Grace Publishers distributes. You can find the LITV online at http://www.sgpbooks.com/cubecart/read-kj3-here/info_16.html. The LITV is also one of the versions that can be included in e-Sword, which is the best free Bible software I have found. You can find this at www.e-sword.net. This is in no way an endorsement of the programmer of e-Sword or of everything that is included on the e-Sword software.

<<Regarding the scholarship of Mr. Green (whatever it might be), I know that even though knowledge today has increased, learning has certainly waned.>>

You should ask Mr. Green himself about his scholarship.

<<I think the prospect of new English translations should be laid to rest. With so many dozens of prominent and not so prominent versions on the market since the close of the 19th century, you can hardly convince me that we need yet another modern-speak English Bible.>>

We certainly do not need another modern-speak English Bible if the KJV cannot be improved upon. But, as I showed in the article, the KJV has some serious flaws. If by "modern-speak English Bible" you are implying modern colloquial English, then the LITV would not fall into that category. The LITV is a word-for-word translation from the original into English, and it is more accurate than the KJV.

<<In addition, from the preface of the LITV and other write-ups concerning it, it seems that it takes in some places the standard rhetoric that so many Bible versions do: namely, that it is easier to understand than the KJV. This mantra is so prominent that it might make a body think that there was some hidden conspiracy against the KJV. Where are the claims of the new translations that their text is "easier to understand than that of the NRSV, or NIV, etc?>>

The LITV should not be promoted (by the translator, the publisher, or anyone else) as the version to use because "it is easier to understand than the KJV." This should NOT be the primary (or even secondary or tertiary) reason why someone uses the LITV rather than the KJV. I would disagree with anyone who is promoting the LITV in this way.

<<For this reason and many other such, I take the position that God and his divine influence is a considerable distance away from the pursuits of Mr. Green than He was when the translators sat down in 1607.>>

Ah, yes, the "divine influence" of the KJV translation. Read the "KJV-Only Hypocrisy" article for a response to this.

<<And if this is the case, we may not be surprised if the LITV does not receive the blessing and mass acceptance that the KJV had and continues to have.>>

I see this a lot amongst KJV-Only advocates: the "mass acceptance" of the KJV must mean that it is good. But who are the "masses" that are accepting the KJV? Most people who call themselves Christians are actually unregenerate. The "masses" of those who accept the KJV (and any other translation, for that matter) are made up mostly of unregenerate people. The worthiness of a translation (and the worthiness of anything else, for that matter) does not rest on and is not proven by "mass acceptance."

<<Finally, allow me to say that TIME is on the side of the LITV. If it is indeed what it purports to be, it will need little help finding its way into the homes, churches and hearts of the body of Christ. For all the "errors" that it has avoided it should most certainly be received with widespread acceptance by the general populace (unless it adopts the multi-billion dollar ad campains that all the modern versions are so well know for).>>

Of course, your view of true churches and the true body of Christ differ greatly from what God calls true churches and the true body of Christ. True churches, the true body of Christ, are those that proclaim and judge by the true gospel. All true churches will agree in full with the Christian Confession of Faith, found at www.outsidethecamp.org/ccf.htm . As far as "widespread acceptance by the general populace" goes, true Word of God, which contains the true gospel, has NEVER had "widespread acceptance by the general populace."

<<And I doubt that the KJVonly camp will prevent that from happening, just as much as the opponents of the KJV who opposed it at its inception were unable to stop the hand of God from using it to displace every previous English version. On the other hand, if the LITV falls into the pages of obscurity as had been the case with Ben Franklin's, Noah Webster's and John Wesley's translations, then something else might be said of the work of Jay P. Green, Sr, wouldn't you agree?>>

Whether or not the LITV "falls into the pages of obscurity" is of no importance to me as to what is the best translation. In my search for the most accurate English translation, I have found the LITV to be the best. Other believers have found the same thing. I really couldn't care less if it becomes popular. Scholarship is not a popularity contest, and popular opinion is not the judge of the scholarship of a translation. In fact, if something is popular (or, in your words, has "widespread acceptance by the general populace"), it should raise questions as to why it has such popular appeal. For example, if our newsletter, "Outside the Camp," ever became amazingly popular and gained "widespread acceptance by the general populace," I would wonder what was wrong.

REBUTTAL 2

<<The above quote from Doug Kutilek exposes the mindset behind the charge that's levied against the AV's use of "God Forbid".

He says, "Frankly, I am at a loss to explain how it came to pass...." I, on the other hand, think that instead of casting off the translation wholesale,>>

Perhaps you didn't read my article carefully. I am not advocating for "casting off the translation wholesale." I wrote: "We must next establish the fact that this article is not against the use of the KJV altogether. The KJV, for the most part, is a good translation of the Bible, and it is fine to use it where it is not in error. However, we are against certain passages in the KJV; the KJV contains some egregious errors that need to be pointed out so they can be avoided."

<<consideration should carefully be given to the fact that during the period of roughly three hundred years, learned men and other divines (whose learning and mental acumen eclipse anything produced today) used and retained the rendering. It cannot be charged to oversight, blasphemy or poor scholarship as Kutilek, yourself and others claim. It must have been something else: Today's accepted phrase "may it never be" may have been just as foreign to the KJV translators as "God Forbid" is to us today. In our small expanse of reasoning, this seems almost impossible, but it is possible. Also, it is demonstrable that the use of God's name in common speech (while not being blasphemous) was much more prevalent then that it is today. "God Forbid" may well have been a common term to denote anything that should not be. The same may apply to "Godspeed".>>

Thank you very much for making my point for me. "'God Forbid' may well have been a common term to denote anything that should not be.'" Exactly! The KJV translators used the COMMON IDIOM, the COMMON COLLOQUIALISM of the day to translate "me genoito" into "God forbid." Instead of translating word-for-word, they translated idea-for-idea, which is DYNAMIC EQUIVALENCE. You have proven my point.

<<In closing, I'll reiterate that I am not "at a loss" on how to explain how "God Forbid" entered and remained in the English text (although the phrase does not appear in the Greek).>>

And neither am I "at a loss." These were the words of someone else, not me. I am definitely NOT at a loss to explain how "God forbid" and "God save the king" entered and remained. They were POPULAR COLLOQUIAL IDIOMS. Or, in your words, they were idioms that had "widespread acceptance by the general populace."

<<I am aware of the fact that I live in a culture with a completely reconstructed and augmented form of English than that of the early translators. My suspicion is that Kutilek, yourself and others have the misguided notion that you can counter-attack the KJVonly camp by attacking the Bible they defend.>>

In exposing the hypocrisy of the KJV-Only advocates, errors in the KJV (including errors in translation method) must be included, because the KJV-Only advocates attack other translations on this basis. I don't know Kutilek, and I can't speak for him.

I appreciate this opportunity to respond publicly. And I need to end this as I began: the MOST IMPORTANT subject is THE GOSPEL. The KJV contains the gospel. The LITV contains the gospel. The most pressing question is this: DO YOU BELIEVE THE GOSPEL? If you believe that Jesus Christ died for everyone without exception, you DO NOT believe the gospel. Jesus Christ's atoning work ACTUALLY ACCOMPLISHED full pardon, full redemption, full propitiation, and full reconciliation for everyone whom He represented on the cross. If you do not believe the gospel, you are commanded to repent of ever believing a false gospel of salvation conditioned on the sinner and to believe the true gospel of salvation conditioned on the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ alone. If you do believe the gospel, I would love to fellowship with you. My e-mail address is otc@outsidethecamp.org. May God be glorified in this response.

To God alone be the glory,

Marc D. Carpenter

Sovereign Redeemer Assembly

www.outsidethecamp.org


Home

E-mails, Forums, and Letters