New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1850-05-25

sga;n will venture to Affirm. and that too with
the fullest conviction that Jamess transators have
less merit than any Of their predecessorsi andtnt
the vers on OF Tynda revised by Coverdaie' y a
far iuster representation OF the original ~ IS
well known that Dr. Joseph Bellamy. New Eng
lander of DO mean ability, in the last century ooA
strong grounds against the competency OF James
translators. Rev. Mr.. Coghlan OF London, Wnhe
vindicatng the common version, says: " IL must
not be concealed that there has been some contrO-
versy as TO the competency OF Jamess uans'aIors
10 discharge the duties b which they were ap-
poiuted" The lAmented knowles, whose name
has been strangely used Of late against the Propo-
sal 10 revise our common version, wrote IN loJo;
Excellent as the English Bible is It does not, as
every scholar knows, express, in many places tne
true meaning of the original text An English
reader NAV compare the common version with
Lowihs translation Of Isaiah, with Dr. Camp0eAs
version Of the Gospels and with Prof STARTS YER
sion Of the Epistes 70 the Romans and 70 the He
brews and he will see how many passages are
made more lucid by the improvements OF modern
criticism Shall we, them virtually reject al these
improvements and extinguish the additional light
which has been she'd on the Bible during the last
two hundred yearsl" Prof. Knowles says again:
awe call it a revision, because it was evidently
not a new translation" Rev. John L Dagg wrote,
in 1857: much dislike the s1perst,iOus regard
which some seem inclined 70 render 10 King
James's version. II ity-ioGr learned men were
selected.
hearts. they might find many Improvements which
they might make in that version without dissent
ing voice" Prof Hackett Of Newton, Mass wrote
few DAYS ago: Z" IL is admitted that the received
English version of the Scriptures is susceptible Of
Improvement During the more than two hundred
wears which have passed since 1t was made,
cur means for the explanation, both OF the
text and the subjects Of the Bible, have
been greatly increased The original Ian
euaees in which il was written have continued to
occupy the attention Of scholars, and are now more
perfectly understood. Much light has been thrown
upon the meaning of words. Many OF them are
seen 10 have been incorrectly defined, and many
| more to have been rendered with less precision
| than is now attainable. The various collateral
| branches of knowledge have been advanced 10
more perfect state. History, geography, anuqul-
| ties the monuments and customs OF the countries
| where the sacred writers lived, aud where the
scenes which they described took place, have been
| vestigated with untirng zeal, and have yielded
results which afford 10 the translator OF the Scrip
! lures at the present day advantages which no pre-
cedng age has enjoyed. Il is eminently desirable
| that we should have in our language translation
Of the Bible conorned to the present state OF critl-
| cal language" DR.. Fuller of Baltimore, writes:
THAT our present English version has some de-
lects is admitted on all hands and by every demon
| nation That the word OF God ought TO be purged
Of all defects in the translation which the people
| read is also admitted" Such testimonies might
l
satisfaction of all who candid that our version
has great defects which are susceptible OF improve
| ment. And yet you are 10 bind this version upon
| this society as its standard. say cannot en-.
dorse this known defective translation without in
curing great responsibility 20 God. Mr. Judd then
went into a critical history of the word Baptize,
but our limits compel 10 omit this portion OF his
speech. His remarks went to prove that the word
| is merely transferred and that denominations who
send Bibles TO the heather translate it variousy ;
for instance in the Seneca tongue they render 1t to
| sprinkle, in the Cherokee to immerse, and IN the
| Iceandic to wash. He said that strenuous efforts
have been made to poise the whole question OF re-
| vision on the retention or displacement OF this
word; course which he considered unfair since, al
though they insist on the necessyo giving IN PLAIN
English the exact aiming Of bdpti=e, yet this is
| but one of thousand errors which equally demand
| correction and he who makes this great question
| Of revision turn this single point, wants either
| the dscernment OF common sense, or the candor
| of Christian. Passing to the grammatical view
Of the question, Br. Judd stated that grammatical
errors were numerous in our Bible, such as be
| for are which for who,' &c 1t is of no 10
| say that they are Old English" and it is very
low business for a Doctor Of Divinity to deny that
| they are uDgramHatical. And beside these, the
version is full Of bad English, which might be east
" corrected without disturbing the structure Of the
| language or breaking up the established phraseo-
| oey. And if there be any book in which 1T Is i'm
| portant to use good language, 1t is the Bible; II
| there be any place in which language should be
propery used it is the sanctuary; If there be any
| truth worthy to be clothed in the best habiments
Of speech, il the inspiration OF the Holy Spirit
| MANY words have changed their meaning since our
| version was made. Thus Christ is made to say,
| Il should have received my own with usury
| where, instead of usury it should be interest -
| David is made TO say, The wicked have drawn
| out the sword, and have bent their bow, to cast
| down the poor and needy, and TO Stay such as be
OF upright conversation" where conduct IS meant
in place OF conversation Speaking OF Peter 1t Is
| said, When he was come into the house, Jesus
| prevented him, saying" &c have heard IN
| telligent persons asked what this meant, what
was prevented it could not be that he
| was prevented from entering since he was already
| in the house did it mean that he was prevented
| from going QUIT The Greek text says antlclpa-
| ted instead of prevented. Another place: " w
| took up our carriages and went up 10 Jerusalem
| What is understood by carriages can any one
| not knowing the original text answer Surely
they did not carry the vehicles Of travel. But the
| original saws baggage instead OF carriages In
! Corinthians, He that eateth and drinketh unwor
| tbily eateth and drinketh damnatlon unto him.
| self" instead Of damnatlon read condemnation
| as in the Greek. Some words have gone out OF
| u.e Who will tell the meaning OF the word
Leasing in the phrase, Thou shalt destroy them
| that speak leasing T. Speaking Of birds, " No
| man shall fray them away" what person uses or
even understands the word fray as here used
| al trow not" "Wot we not" Whatsoever ye
listed" al do you to wit" are phrases not now in
use, and fling obscurity the plain word Of God
why should not the precious Word thus covered
up. be made ineligible to the child, to all The
| instances of erroneous or inadequate translation
are numerous The word hell is used to trans
late two distinct Greek words, and thus confounds
the difference between the grave, or place OF de-
parted spirits and eternal perdition. DR.. Higbee,
lately devoted nearlythe half Of sermon to clearing
up the obscurity on this point The word devil
IL made 10 represent two very different words in
the original, making no distinction between the
Arch Deceiver and his evil spirits, or emisssries.
The term repent is used for two Greek words OF
very different meaning. We are told in the same
| i--....o :. Excarf We rananf ahan lkeWiae