Edgefield advertiser. [volume] (Edgefield, S.C.) 1836-current, 1857-08-12
CoMmUNIG S.
For tie Advertiser.
pruYcrnr NT-RECKLESSNESg.

statements are made and quotations given from |
authors whose names the Rovisionists are desirous
of placing on their lit of friends, also, deserves
exposure. While many instances could be given,
taken from reports public speeches, &c, q few
specimens found in the articles under review will
answer.
Mr. EpMoSps says, that the present version is
obscure and inaccurate, no scholar will dony 1t is
almost impossible to open single book written by
any biblical scholar within the past century that is
not full of evidences to this effect" In support Of
this statement, lie quotes from two or three emf
nent scholars, DIR. CLARK, CoSSrngAnE and How
son, and cndeavors to make the impression, that
because there are some "obscure and inaccurate "
renderings in the present version these men usti-
fy new translation; whereas nothing is further
from the truth, as We will show, first by quota
tion from Or. Clark's general preface" to his
Commentary, to which we call the readers special
attention "Thosc WHO hare compared most of
the European TRANSACTIONS with the original have
not Scruped to say, that ic English translation OF
the Bible, made under the direction of King James
the first, is the most accurate and faithful of the
whole Nor is this its only praise; the ranslators
have seized the very soul and spirit Of the orig-
nal, and expressed this almost ercry,.here with
pathos and energy. Besides our translators have
not only made standard Translation, but they
have made their translation the standard Of our
language. The English tongue in their day wa,
not equal to such a work, but God enabled them
to stand upon Mt. Sinai, to use the expression of
learned friend. and crane up their country Ian
guage to the dignity Of the original, so that after
the lapse Of 200 years, the English Bible: is, with
fer exceptions, the standard of the purity and e1
celencc Of the English tongue. The original from
which it was taken is alone superior to the Bible
translated by the authority Of King James"
"This adds the DR.. I" is an opinion in which my
heart, my judgment and my conscience coincide"
Mr. Edmonds, is, if possible, even less fortunate
in his reference to Mcssrs Connybeare and How
son. In the introduction to their work, the Life
and Epstles Of St. Paul." to which he refers, they
say, as If in rcbuke to the Revsionsts, (of whom,
probably they never heard, "it is rash expert
ment to provoke contrast between The rnatehlcss
style of the authorized version, and that of the
modern translator thus placed side by side" They
justify their work on the ground, that they had
ga special object in view, which could only be ac-
complished by paraphrase," and declare them
selves to be Paraphrasts, and not translators.
They further say, that the authorized version is
a standard Of authority, and ultimate appeal in
controversy, and as such. is inimitable and unap-
p,0achable." These quotations show whether their
learned authors considered new version necessary
"E. L. W." also, makes assertions with as little
caution. He says that Doddridge Wesley, Nc
Knight and others, were in the habit of rivising
the Scriptures" But does it follow that because
they rendered few words differently, they were
in favor of new translation? Can "E. L. w."
show where these learned men ever intmated
desire for new translation, such as the Revision
lists of our day are attempting, or in fact, new
version at all? Or can he show that they designed
their version, to supersede the one in common use?
This is the way reference is made to every learned
man. who has taken any exceptions to the manner
in which any passage in the common version is
translated. All he says, Is construed and published
as so much said in favor of this movement, no
matter how unequiyocally he may haro oxprossod
The reasons given by Mr. Edmonds and " E. L.
W." to justify the Revision Of the Scriptures, are
fair sample Of all that we have seen, and will re-
ccivc brief notice. We are told that the Bible
contains "real contradictions" specimens being
given; fer example, in one place it reads I" thou
shalt not covet," then in another place we are ex
hortcd to "coret earnestly the best gifts" Again,
it rcadcs, "God did tempt Abraham" In another
place it says, "God tcmpteth no man." and hence
the wonderful discovery has been made that the
Bible contains contradictions It is also said that
words found in tho common version have gone out
of use The writer should have said that one Of
the sgniications of certain words was obsolete,
and not the word itself, though it may have under
gone some change in its structure. Such objec-
tons these are perfectly puerile with person in
any degree conversant with the genius of language
Words in all languages are ofcntmcs used in diff
ferent senses; for example, the word form, has
according to Webster eighteen different sgnilca-
tions the word wash, has twelve or fourteen diff
fcrcnt meanings; the word quarter has nineteen
or twenty. Other words have thirty or forty diff
ferent meanings being used sometimes in a good
sense, and then in sense quite tho opposite.
This is true in all languages, and will explain why
VIC frequently see the same Greek or Latin or He
brew word, rendered differently in English in the
same translation, as is often the in the Bible
But will this furnish reason for believing that
one or moro of the translations arc wrong by no
means. All may be correct
We would suggest to those casuistic gentlemen,
that before the Bible is revised they 60 to work to
revise tho doctors and dictionaries, and not suffer
any one word to have more than one meaning, or
be used in more than one sense. The Rcvisonists
hare>charged tile translators of King James Yer
sion, with resorting to the "popish artilice Of
transfer" for using the word baptize when the or
dinance of baptism is referred to. This We affirm,
to be untrue The translators in rendering baptizo
by baptize, did really translate Greek word by
an English word. 1t is true the word haptizc was
taken from the Greek, but at tho time of tile trans
lation it was rs much an English word as it is now.
We refer "E. L. w." to some Baptist authorities.
DR.. Bowling says the word baptizc, is itself to all
intents and purposes an English word" Rev. DR..
Ide says Il suppose that baptize is the only Eng
lish word by which you can translate baptizo."
I" 1t is eight hundred years older than immerse." J"
D- W;ll;on,a aoys m the score OF age the word