Des Arc citizen., 1860-03-21


 intention of the writer to inform us of the
 rate of this necessary article, as a charac-
 teristic of the time whereof he is speak
 ing. But our version not only gives no
 information on that head but has not
 even the appearance of giving any,which
 the word choenir would have had, even
 to those who did not understand 1t. But to say nseasiue, without giving what
 measure, is to say just nothing at all,
 The word penny here is also exceptiona.- bic. being used indefinitely, insomuch that the amount of the declaration is, e
 certain quantity of aoheat for certa'n T ouantitu1 Of money. This suggests no l idea of either dearth or plenty; and can be characteristical of no time, as Il holds
 equally of, every time. In this case, the original term, notwithstanding its harsh- ness, ought to be retained in the text, and
 explained in the margin" So speaks a
 IiustIy distinguished scholar and critic;
 and over against the crude and shallow
 scribblings of J. w. Moore, we put the
 authority quoted, viz: that ot GEORGE ICAMppELL. I shall now present some
 authorities, adverse to Mr. Ms declara-
 ton, that the common version: :" Is dH that ,oe need desire.'' Of Selden. whose
 praises of the King's version have been so often and so vauntingly, heralded forth,
 it is said; " when sitting with the Vest
 minister Assembly of Divines, some
 times when they had cited U text of
 Scripture to prove their assertions, Selden
 would tell them. perhaps in your ltlle
 pocket Bibles with gilt leaves ( (which they
 would often pull out and read ) the trans- :,
 iation may be thus; but the Greek and
 Hebrew signify thus and thus and SO
 avoula totally silence them" DR. MAc- KNIGHT. says, of Rom. l:l7, that the
 common version, s'is absolutely uninelli-
 be ]" and that ? Cor 5:2, is, !" q tumble of metaphors, which no ordinary reader can undersland." These are the words of man who doubtless, would not have
 "sloped." ."'to use the Parsons classlcism, from Greek Testament. Notwithstand-
 ing, competent witness declares that the common version contains passages "ab-
 soluteIy unintelligible," J. w. Moore.
 says, that 1t Is, /" all that we need desire.
 The common version, being confessed |ly unfailhful, the inevitable conclusion,
 Moore's declaration being true, is, that a
 faithful version is not desirable, that is, a part of the truth is more desirable than | the tuhole truth, or in other words, the whole truth we :. need not desire "-it is
 undesirable. Be it, therefore, known to all men, that Parson J. w. Moore de-
 cIares and affirms, that faithful version of the sacred Scriptures IS not desirable,
 but that an uniaithful version is FALL i, that we need desire" Dr. Macknight, also testifies that our version: Is 6y no
 means such jatst representation of the
 inspired originals as merits to De inpptacat- iv relied on, for determindng the contro- verted articles of the christian faiM and
 qa.ieting he dissensions Dhich have rent ]. lfhe church." 1 submit to the reader, } whether more importance and weight should be given to the crude sophisms ot parson Moore, than to the thoughtful and
 careful decision of a man of acknotct- edged ability and scholarship2 It often f trumphantly affirmed by the enemies of ! revision, that no christian doctrine is af- . |fected by the mistranslations Of the com , mon version, if this is true, why does Dr. Macknight say that the version 's not ; to be implicitly relied on, for determining r controverted articles of the christian faith?' r The reason Macknight gives, is, that they !, do not merit to be implicitly relied o,'. 2 To say that this oft repeated assertion, . betrays gross ignorance, not to say r :. sectarianism (which according to M. , are the Jachin and Boaz, of the Revision temple is to speak mildly MT. Moore c may vauntingly and immodeslly put for. ward his Hebrais,ic and Greek scholar. C ship-but the public will still demand 3 something more than his unsupported as ; serlions in reference to the point at issue ? Great men have lived since Agamemnon C and doubtless some future chronlclel 8 will write of great inguists long after : Mf. Moore's departure ''to the pale realms t of shade" ai 0 In Acts PAT, we have reading who'll . ly indefensible (will MT. M. defend 1t 9 3 and involving a palpable perversion Q : the sense of the original. 'sAnd lht ( Lord addedto the church daily such al ! should be saved Luke simply designed p to state fact that "the sayed' were V added. The translators by fostingi in thf E words " such as should be-" have caused !, the passage to express a purpose, no # simply to state a fact. That they hap ,f perverted the original we challenge denial |: sohy they did it we leave unsolved. Bu ,f this downright taInpering with the mean ,- ing of the Sacred Worlds not matte 'of serious import!!" Matthew 2:lt e states that Herod Sent forth and slew " all the children that were in Bethlehem;' j l. in this instance our Transators becom }, perverters of historical truth. Why dIt i" Herod kill the females, when it was ; 5, King he feared The original does no st state that he killed " all the children" bu 2. all he male children. Cannot any on le see how palpable isthis perversion of his ne toric truth? If he killed only the nal IS children, then, it is not true, that he kllle . HALL" The translation '' is ridculou: y, absurd and untrue" q. It is untrue tha , a there are ANY mistranslations in our yer