Des Arc citizen., 1860-04-04
RrBI,E REVISION.

.ipN4 BIBLE hEvlS1UN. 3NM #NA To THE READERS OF THE nEs ARC Ciri-
 ZEN :--In the discussion of the question of
 Bible revision, I shall endeavor in n calm and
 dispassionate manner, to show the truth as
 understand 1t.
 believe there ought to be revision of the Bible; and shall endeavor in the first place ! to show the fallacy of MT Moorc's position
 and in the second place will produce some reg
 sons of my own in favor of revision of the 1 Bible do not propose to quote any or the
 great authors of ancient or modern times
 neither do expect to become revisionist
 myself. by translating one or more words. i from the original.
 l The first objection, Mir. Moore has to a re-
 vision of the Bible. is that it will be Of a
 sectarian character--give us the proof MT. ! Moore. give us the proof have not seen i any evidence in MT. moore's writings, orelse ! whore that there is anything sectarisn in the | revision of the Scriptures now going on. gs. I Yet MT. Moore has made an assertion, and
 upon HIM rests the burden of evidence. The I friends of revision are not called on to prove ] that there is nothing sectarian, for that would ] be alling on them to prove asnegative--nev-
 ertheIess. it can be shown that there is n GREAT l PROBABILITY that there is nothing sectarian I in the revision of the Bible. now in progrcsI 1 Did any particlar church undertake to revise l the Holy Scriptures of themselves; did not
 the friends of revision invite every church.
 sect, and denomination in the land to come l forward and ASSIST in a true and faithful re-
 vision of the Sacred Scriptures. How COULD
 SUCH a revision be sectaran? ,6s 4 I But MT. Moore says it is to be a "Baptist i Bibleo aud in this connection he shows T bit-
 terpess of feeling. that no one ought to feel while in search .of the right and tfnih. If
 any one thinks the Baptist'swanta n revision in order to uphold the doctrine of immersion, {; they are mistaken. The Baptst's already have l evidence enought FOR THAT They. that do not believe that Christ and the early Chris l tians were immersed. would not believe with
 ANY evidence whatever. It may be said isof l them, as Abraham said to the rich man in 1 tormert, ,s' they have Moses and the prophets; 1; If they do not believe these, they would not 1 believe. though one went from the dead" If MT. Moore wanted to baptize any one, HE
 would reed nothing more than pl,che of I water and d glass but in old times hey had
 rivers, and although river is not mentioned
 in connection with every baptisn--yet, a l pitcher or other vessel. is NEVER MENTIONED
 as being in baptism. Oh no. the Baptist's want
 no revision to support immersion, THAT IS | already sufficiently clear. They that want a
 revision, want it for the whole Bible. But | MT Moore thinks. because the word that X translated Baptism in the p esent version has been translated imInersion in heneW rAyisinIi-- l is an evidence of sectarianism It is no exit dence at all? If the original word means l immersion, it ought to be translated immef-
 sion; and MT Moore would have to translate | it immersion himself; if he were translating
 the Bible. If the original N ora meant sprink- | ling, shonld not think it sectarian to trans- | late it sprinkIing. But. if immersion is not a | correct translation then, let Mir. Moore not | say that they are sectarian, but that they have ] falsified the word of God
 l Another objection Mr. Moore has to a re- vision of the Bible. is. thatit will weaken the confidence the people have in the Sacred Scrip | lures. Thisis fallacions objection and falls | to the ground as soon as it is examined. The present version is either correct transation,
 or it is not. If it is correct translation; ]; then, when the people see another class of
 men. go back to the original languages and produce pew translation of the Bible. and
 the people find that the new version is identi- cally the same with the old in sentiment and meaning will they not feel inspired with a new confidence that the Bible MUST be true. | But suppose the present version is incorrect;
 in that case, suppose every one would want the new translation, for no one would want a Bible with erro in it. Thus it is in any case
 better to have a thew revision. If ihe pres- ent Bible is correct, that new revision may inspire more confidence. If it is incorrect, that we may have the ruth. ga iiw i9salls In order to make this article as short as posslDie- >Hdil o"ly PirSrHt oHe ieaso" LII favor of Bible revision. but that reason to my mind is ALToGETHER CONCLUSIVE.
 Every living or spoken langnageis constant ly changing; new words are ever coming in- to the language and old ones becoming obso-
 lete-whie many words ae constantly chang iag meaning more or iess.N This is the case with our language in an eminent degree. The
 early English writers can now scarcely be understood Even Shakespeare is beginning to faa fha affsctS uf ai | chauOjnp ianpuApp.
 Oar present Bible has suffered much by the
 changes in our language. that it can now hardly be said to be Written in English. but
 in dialect of it's own; and yet IT IS DEs-.
 TINED TO suFFER MORE AND MORE. Then is
 it not better to have the Scriptures written in
 the spoken and written language of the pres
 ent day. BWaa b5jHn4 8NNeH' @a# ta'
 Reader I have endeavored to present the truth and let us remember that the TRUTH, is of more importance to US, than the interest of
 any sect or denominations Il. F s48a THE TR{JE BIBLE tlW