Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1841-1853, 1846-08-27

not to be eaien because all The so The beast has is its
blood; and this is appointed to be specially to make
attonement for the sins of the human SOUL in sacri-
fee. nearest likeness 10 IT. The word psyche, then,
with strongest appearance Of probability, in the first
clause of the 1lth is used blythe translators OF
the Septuayint not to that the life Of the flesh
is its blood but that all The soul The beast has is its
blood. Certainly, they could not that the soul
of man and beast was the same, that in the first
part of the sentence psyche should be called life and
in the last part, soul.
There are instances in the book OF Genesis where
Psyche manifestly declines towards the meaning of
life and it will be found invariably in all those in
stances TO have the patieipial substantive form Of
the common Greek word denoting life added to it,
qualifying its peculiar meaning, and generaizing IT.
Ii is the phrase that means life, not the word. And,
moreover in every such case, there is In the subject
Of the passage itself that which fixes TO what form of
life the word is applied you are left in no doubt, be-
cause the context makes the application directly. But
IN the fourth verse of the ninth chapter, there is
such word added and there is nothing in the context
to fix the application to animal life. Why then
should it mean animal life! The appropriate word
in Greek for the human soul is that used IN this
verse. Why must it not mean human soul, unless
there be something specially to show it otherwisei
Who can discover that something there! On the
contrary there is that in the 9th verse, more partic
ulary noticed hereafter, when come TO speak of
the 9Th and 9th verses) which shows that the appli-
cation OF the word Is to man himself; that man him.
self is the subject the two verses 4th and 5th being
in reality two clauses of one and the same sentence
connected together and consequence by the
two partciples at the beginning of the 9th, the 9th
and 9th containing the result which Is TO follow
upon the act prohibited in the 4th
Has not the fact that the Mosaic law forbade the
eating of blood been the cause why this verse in the
law Of Noah has been interpreted correspoldingly!
But manifestly such correspondence In the interpret
alton of the laws IS wrong because there is not cor
respondence in the spirit of the two systems of law
on dis subject. The law OF Noah here IN this chap
ter and the law OF Moses on the same point are OPP
posite in spirit and principle For the law OF Noah
makes no distinction in animal food but gives all,
even reptiles and insects to be eaten whereas the
Mosaic law makes sacred distinction between AMI
mails, forbidding altogether to touch certain whole
classes for food, and consolidating this distinction
into the foundation OF the Jewish system. The law
of Moses cannot furnish the rule by which to interpret
an ambiguity in this verse in the law to Noah
The 4th verse in the 9th chapter OF Genesis, IN the
Septuagint. may stand then, with Its progeniors, in
the Hebrew and Samaritan thus:
But flesh an the blood Of the soul 81 man, eat ye not
Can there be doubt that the 4th verse of the 9Th
chapter OF Genesis is wholly mistranslated, IN our
English version of the Bible! and that Its simple
meaning Is, man shall not eat human mesh that body
which IS truly me image q he SoHf "seg' he image
Of God!
ms main point then estaolisned-and u Is eSlaoc
nshec-oh une reason Oh the 'n'n9' oy PrIncPles Vi
interpretation WHICH cons'rue all OUT laws anu vi
the authority OF me real sense OF the hebrew, Ga
naI"a", anu Ssi,aii we no' Say assuleoy = oieeA
Proniolloh Vi ine cnaP'el - "o' VI 'nuiuer
al, as no h ~ % a. OH. as s :
~ ~ no no S'.'0' '"' eSSe - M" a. :
P,elheula'eu naice' io' gam y. VI ,"e
hui mas II re,eIehIe 70 III Suuuen
anger nor any other slaughter OF man. saving his
o. Gouo, may De as 10 wnat was lne penay all&eo
" uiS @1' ~ 'ie o'i anu WI. 'eises !Snu .ney are
certainty ho' as YET ciearl yet iis one ing eear'
ana oeyohu the reach OF reasonaole dispute 10 any
one WHO VIII cay conSiuei IL, apart rum SECT Oias'
ana pre,occupaton OF mino IN iaVor OF the commonly
received mterpre'alion-namey, tnat Ihe Penally I'D
these ON ana oth verses Whatever De, is penalty
TOT canhloaIs, ana NOT mufoer' Vi ans.augh'ei IN
anger anu all argument III ia'oi Vi caP'di Punlsh-
men. oy human socletes' lol OF
OF any other crime except cahh,Ddnsih' ouiit upon
tis cnap'er ias, as me WALL wheh It's foundations
are er uug uhueic
A"e Niihe 'o'o.uueh III 'le Sh en"P'ei Vi oehes,S
IS not recognized In the laws OF any ciVnized people
Is NOT only not named IN OhrIstenooms iaw' OUT IL
IS crime not nameaDle among Christlans-crfnaen
non nomlndndum inter Chrtsfidnos. IT stands with
ueui a. III o0ioh law " 'iie A'neniaiis
not spoken OF al all because II was not 10 De though
as tne awglVer saG, una. man co1o pc 50 lmplO9s
=. - :" III -, III
In cVlilzed iaw as love hopes all crimes VIII one Ca
b fe a. nIs an m
us P,ope'siy ~ 'o'''Hl' e"1ii nav
oieu Out u .ne human eear: Law sndi uieI oe Posl,
, -. I n, - ~tJa s III .. ot o@ ~
ue - N'Is %''u nv '''I" s"es .O'' "''@e'
PendHy' III al human society," Id" aeansl CRIME
uooi suPpose. ne 1Iine 70 nave oeeh coniIa;eu ana
e propensity sun Al uia' SoSie'y !" eoinni' IL al
iu'gre'
LI Staaa Me"' Is oeycna reaSonaoe dtSPe'e,