Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1841-1853, 1850-05-09

nc D4DfC~~~tCW NCtrtOns
The Baptist denomination would seem TO be good
deal convulsed by the resolution Of portion Of their
body TO issue revised fansation Of the Scripture,
wherein the word .bzpiize' shall be rendered i'm
merse, and 50 on. So far have means Of
judging, we think majority Of the sect opposed
&c the proposition.
While we express no opinion Of the merits Of this
controversy il that a revision Of the Re-
ceved Version Of the Bible is exceedingly desirable.
That version Is in the main good one. but it is
hardly possible that Tie 4 od of light thrown upon
the text by the researches of critics. scholars and
commentators during the last two centuries should
not enable transators now to render many passages
more clearly and accurately than in the present
sion.
For example. the words let pyerent and one or two
others, are used directly opposite to
that borne by them ri the time the Received Version
was made. when TO let sometimes meant to hinder to
obstruct, (See lisa. xiii. ID. Rom. H. H. Thess.
Ii. ID So prevent means 10 anticipate or 90 before
and rather to open way than close obstrUe IT.
(See Psalms xvii. 13, lxxxvi ID, kew. 2, cxx I45.
Amos TX. 10. /. Thess iv. l5.) Il strikes Ne that
faults so obvious and undepiabe as these vet so cal
culated to perpex and confound the unearned ought
not 10 remain uncorrected single year. So with the
garng grammatical blundrrs like Our Father l0kich
art in heaven Matt. vi. 9. Luke ri. p Many
doubtless suppose that the many Of this class
pertain to the text. when they simply faults Of
translation. which one would now commit, but the
grammar Of oar language was comparatively unset
tied and chaotic when the Received Version was
made.
The words printed in Italics in the Received Yer
sion given supplied by the iranslatOrs being
necessary TO complete the of the original
This statement gives false idea of the case In
many instances the words given supplied were
tualy though not literally in the originsl-that is
they were implied. according to the idiom Of the Ian
guage, In the words actually given the verb loues
m Emo tlSh book nd mnlioss anfiv
in the third person and singular number its nomi-
native to be expressed. il would be incorrect 1--WE
think TO print that nominative in Italics as an add.
ton to the original. Il was there. though not ex-
pressed in our English way.
But in good many places, our common Bible
seems to read if the translators had taken very
unnecessary trouble in supplying words which the
did not need, and which it would have been far clear
or without Thus Il Cor. XIV. 26) The last enemy hIt
shall be destroyed is DEATH" does not at all %
need the translator's supplied words in Italics. and
would have been clear, complete and forcble without
them. Unless the text actually implies them, it
does The words supplied in other, they and
pervert the sense. So in other The notion
justified by Received Version that the Bible need
ed good deal Of docioring and fixing up in the trans
laton is wholly unwarranted, though the great
trast in manners, ideas, conceptions between our
people TO day and the Israeites and Asatic Greeks
Of eighteen to twenty twenty-five centuries ago,
renders it sometimes difficult to find expression in
the English language Of to-day that will Fl, the
| thought IF Hebrew apostle of the time Of
| Isaiah Of Christ
If the work of simply revising and amending the
Received Version could be undertaken under such
auspices as would absove il from the imputation of
secaran bias of inadequate scholarship. we should
| rejnce il effected. We believe that consum-
nation would impel thousand to study their Bibles
who now neglect them, and would enable many who
now read the Scriptures to understand them better
than they DON Y. Tribune.