Des Arc citizen., 1860-03-14

 but " unprejudiced decision of Mir. Ms own witness. Again, on ? Cor. 5:2l i; he says: 1" Had our transators attended their own method of ,ransla,ing the word in other places. where il means tine same as here. they would not have given this faise viec of a passage which has been made the foundofion of a MOST BLAsrnE- NOUS DOCTRINE" Now,his "false view originates in q false translation, thus the translation itself. becomes the ground of q most blasphemous doctrine" It will not noao do for M. to say that this is the decision of seclarian and armenian !" prejudice, for he has endorsed Clark as "unprejudiced." Is il frue that mis- translation can become the ground of a ]" bIasphemous doctrine "and ye, be " un- important" as M. declares aU the mis. ,ranslations are! I leave the decision, us 10 whether Dr. Moore or Dr.. Clarke be the better athorily, to the Des Arc Meth odiss
 Dr. Barnes, is next brough, upon the stand, who also tes,ifirs to nothing but general accuracy. In the ,ysry parngrdph from which M. quotes is thls sentence, which he (M carefully suppresses E" Phrases there may be, and it is con- tessed there are, which modern criticism has shown no, to express all the meaning of the original In his note on Matt. 20:23, he again, says: The translation of this place evidently does not express the sense of the original The trasa- tion. expresses the idea that Jesus has nothing lo do in bestowing rewards on his followers This is al variance with tbe uniform testimony of the Scriptures. Mir. Moore says: q it is untrue that there are any mistransaiions in our version of serlous import" but according to Barnes, here is one al " varidnce with the uni- form testimony of the Scriptures" there- fore, 10 be at variance with the uniform testimony of the Scriptures" is not of " serious import" Ina, which is mat ter of uniform testimony must be true. This translation Is al Udriance with uni- form testimony Then, the translation is nt variance with the truth. But that which is at variance with the truth must be " ie" Then, the said translator teaches an un,rulh, because opposed 10 lhe truth. Then, we have m untrulh in the sacred text; all of which, according to Parson M is not matter of serious import' have shown that Moore's own witnesses are against him. now introduce. THOMAS HAnrwELL Honsr, who says. on p. 4l3 of bis Introduction, in reply 10 the charge that the song of Solomon and Eze. l6lh and 23d chap; T contain passages offensive to common decency That most of Ahe forms of speech against which exceptions are made, are mistranslations and do mol erist in Me original" Ver,ly, Mis is not, "of serious import" Is not anything and everything of serious import that has to- do with Gods word And yet, be 1t known 10 all men, that the Rev. J. W Moore, has virtually declared. that things offensive to common decency, l" uuhich do not erist in fhe original" are not of !" se- rious import" Can any one give sin- gle good reason why these mistransla- lions should femain in the sacred text On the same page; "lt has been asserted, that the imprecations pronounced by the. Prophets. particularly in many passages Of the Psalms, show n spirit of mahce, inconsistent with humanity and highly vicious" HoasE replies: "Of all these tremendous lmprecations which appear in our common version of Deut 27: l5-26, fhere is moi one authorizsd 6y Ms original" Will any one give one reason why any, thing. not 10 say. tremendous impreca lions, unauthorised by the original should remain in Gods Book 2 Would i, mol look much better for ministers of "the word to be engaged in removing these miserable perverslons of the Holy Spnlts mind, than to be engaged in the ungra- cous and unchrslIan task of spItIng venom al those who would remova them 2
 REVISIONIST.