Arkansas true Democrat., 1858-02-16
For the Arkansas True Democrat. p;N1o Dov;.;1o

Mir. EDIToR-ln an article in your paper of Dec. 29th under the head of "the English Blble-the New Translation," and signed J.
 ". M, several mistakes occur which I doubt not you will take pleasure in correcting. In the hrSt place the caption contains mistake. We have never proposel to make a ne,c trans- trt'on, but simply to correct the errors and ob- scurities in the old. We agree with J. w. M, as to the great eXcellences of King James yer sion. We are so careful t, guard the excellen- cies of the version that we bind all our revisors not to make any change except when fidelity to the inspired original demands it. J. w. NJ. has done good work in quoting the opinions of several candid and eminent scholars in favor of our version, but does he think it fair dealing to quote such opinions without giving the views of the same scholars the necessity of cor rectlng its glarng faults-its mistakes and per versions. Are known errors in the Holly Bible of no account? Has wicked King right to insert as many as he pleases, and are we to be forbidden to look into it and correct them? No man would reason thus in relation to a Spelling book, grammar or geography. Are the words of eternal life of less importance? J. w. M. has summoned the great Bishop Lowth. as witness. Let us put his testimony together and see how it reads. "The vulgar translation of | the Bible is the best standard of our language in respect to sense and accuracy of interpreta- ton, the Improvements of which it is capable are great and numberless"-and in his note to lsa. l: 3., he says: set this matter in clear light as It IS the first example of a whole word lost out of the text of which the reader will find many other plais examples in the course of these notes' Here the Bishop says there are many whole words lost out of King ames' yer sion which ought to be supplied.
 "Though 1 believe our translation to be far the best Tn any language, ancient or modern yet 1 am satisfied it stands much in need of revision. Most of the advantages which our unbelievers have appeared to have over certain passages of Scripture, have arisen from an inaccurate trans lation of the terms in the original; and an ap- peal to that has generally silenced the gainsay- ers But Tn the time i'll which our version was made, biblical criticism was in its infancy. if indeed 1t existed at all and we may rather won- der that we find things so we'll than be surpris- el that they are no better''-D- Adam Clarke
 |" No version is perfect-no version is to be found but what contains acknowledged error and, in great many instances, error that might be corrected. Yo.r committee are pursuaded. that if ever the Engligh authorized version were dealt with in the same manner as the Portuouese guese, an amount of individual mistransatons might be presented, would with equal justice give rise to the question--can such version be called the word of God? Errors are to be found. Tn which the humblest scholar could not only point out but correct. Errors, too, there are
 which obscure the sense, in some important in- stances. Let the critical abors of Lowth, Hors- ", Middleton, Blaney, and others, be consider ed, and the foregoing statement will be sustan- ed'-thirty-hfth annual report of the British and Foreign Bible Society. Is the British and Foreign Bible Society who published the above opposed to this version--a society which has circulated millions of copies?
 J. w. M. has made so many mistakes, that I can not undertake to correct them all. He says. the most systematic opposition ever made to | this version is that which commenced num- Der of years ago by portion of the Baptist church, in consequence of refusal of the Ame- rcan Bible Society to furnish aid in transa- ton in which the word baptze was confessedlv about to be rendered by word signifying to immerse.'' It is scarcely possible to embody more blunders in short paragraph. In the first place. the most systematic opposition ever