The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1870-09-03

render It '.another'' or. on the other hand n we
ana use the word S as hey hase
In the margin. Now, that word .'wife' Is manufac-
t1red II q not In the orginaI; y cannot be found
DIR. Dwight and Dr. Edwards and the other learned
commentators We're In manufacturing the word
'wife" when there was no original word that Sig
nided it. only that they monogamists, and they
were very fearful that they could not find any law to
the word WIFE and STICK 1t into the margin. "But,"
says one, ''are NOT these IN the elght passages
anotherP" Yes Why, then, should thls be an
exception herea Why should King James, transla-
ern instead Of zone 70 anotherp, Why ' should
there be an exceptions Because they saw necessity
~ s where az e ps
occur ,shdh el dhOt-dh-wherever these occur We
find there IS noun preceding tem-sOmethmg TO
! case to be joined together. For instance, let me
refer you to the passages themselves that you
dhot-ah Ia two places sgnifylng the coupling to-
gether OF curtains zone to another;' ana the same
words are used In this text. Go then the NTH
verse Of the same chapter, and tsere we have the
loops OF the curtains coupled together, joined to-
ye case 70 ~ these nnu IA rs
dains and loops. Next. go to Ezekiel L.
p IL, % and you WA nnd - that rat, these
words. coupling the wings OF the cherubim one 10
another''-the wings OF the cnerubim were to be
| joined zone TO another.n Then, again, go to the
| third chapter OF Ezekiel and the thirteenth verse;
'and the wings or the living creature were to DO
|
lemons In these passages There may be other cases
overlooked by the Rev. DR.. Edwards. Now. what
that the word tshah should be translated zone"
and the word ahot lssterl should be translated
words agree in the seven other passages /
| inferred to- And what will be the consequence
| they had q right to manufacture q word when
there no original to sustain them IN that manu-
iact9re, have the same right to manufacture I,
thus Neither shalt thou take one sister to another
to vex her during her lfetime.n And that is really
the true rendering, and tnat agrees with King
| James's rendering, showing that It was part and
portion of the law of consanguinty that is contained
marriage between blood relatons-" Neither shalt
thou take sister to another TO vex her during her
Of translaDx . sa one ana anos anosser."
am willing to admit it. "But then,' says one 'you
have to manufacture the word sister and II we
have have right to manufac tule the word wife
word SISTER" Very well Let us see il we can get
yes. There is something now that will step in to
supply the place when We translate It according to
noun 'her''--"Nethor snalt thou take wife to her
sister," Where is that personal pronoun found
Hebrew word for sister. 1t reads '.a1o,-ah,'
signfying 'her sister," Now we all know what
the stead OF noun. Now supposing We supply the
noun that this word represents then 1t Will read
thus:-"Neither shalt tnou take sisters sister TO
restore the noun In place OF the pronOun represented
by the Hebrew letters an attached as SUNK to tho
noun diot. making 1t ahot-ah. Thus we see that In
examining this subject we have found out that 1t is
| q law prohibiting marriage In that day between
the blood relatives OF one sister to another. And
the reason Is stated why 1t Is thus given-"tO
vex her." "Ah whatr' says DR.. Newman, In
his sermon "this certainly would look very strange,
and indecd is absurd to suppose thar sisters ml5 mt
quarrel; we may look for quarrels on the other side,
between wives that were not blood relations; but
sisters would be very apt to live IN great peace and
harmony with each other" But what are the facts
IN relation to quarres In families between blooa re-
laftn Wtnfn rn I'm In ri n Np nd
Abel Who was IL that spilled the blood OF Abel2 1t
| was blood relation. Who was It that cast Joseph
| dragged him forth from his den and sold HIM as a
slave to persons that were trading through the coun-
| try9 1t was blood relations that did this. Among
blood relations there was an enmity existing. .
Who was 1t that slew the seven SONS OF Gideon upon
one stone Il was one Of tnsr no own brothers who
| David and caused him, with all HIS wives, except
ten concublnes to Zee out Of Jerusaemf 1t was his
| blood relation his son Absalom. Who was it that
quarreled IN the family OF JacobS Did Leah quarrel
| with Bilhahs Not q word Of quarrelling. Did she
quarrel with Zilpah No such thing In the record.
Did Rachel quarrel with either OF the two hand
malds2 Not a word concerning the matter; but the
quarrel seemed to exist between the two blood rela
| lions, Rachel and Leah and che Lord seeing this
probably gave that comm .ndment IN that day In
order to put stop to the marriage OF blood relations
| between sister and sister.
| Now then, having efectually answered an ap
peal to the original, Will DEFY not only the learned
gentleman but all the world OF Hebrew scholars TO
| find any word whatsoever IN the original 70 DO
translated "a wife," II the rendering be given that
1
| Why 1t taxes It's original position, and because
there Is no noun preceding the words zone TO an
other" as there Is IN the other seven passages
lone OF MIR. Pratt's friends seeing that he was
likely to exhaust all his time In his exegess OF the
| Hebrew, here whispered INTO his ear.
Mr.. PRATT am informed that nave only fifteen
minutes left. was not aware that had spoken
quarter OF that timc snail have to leave this sub
| feet and 60 on to another.
Tue next subject to which will call yoar .attcn-
ton very briefly Is In regard to the unlimited nature
! Of the command which was given IN the various
| passages which have referred to In my first re,
marks. II man shall enttcc maid; II a man snail
| Commit rape; Ii a man shall do thi5 that or the
other thing, viii any one pretend TO y tnat mar
man. then it proves thai the law Is general, ana Is
tile part OF my learned opponent TO prove that 1t Is
not general ! am not obliged TO alter passage to
prove something that not asserted. Let him
| prove that it is limited. Moreover the passage was
| gwen az The found ion and principal law by which
all the other passages to be tried The passage
Itself has failed and therefore all the other passages
stand together, unless there Is something else 10 be
! found.
| Perhaps we may near in the answer to my remarks
the passage Scripture referred TO that the future
KING Of israel should not multiply wives TO himself.
! mat was q law. Now the word mutt ply, IL Is al
! gued by great many opposed to polygamy, means
| twice one Is two; that means multiply and conse-
! auently the future Of israel must not multiply two
| wives. But right In the same c0nnection.ls conf
mand that he shall not multiply horses to himself.
| that the future kings OF Israel must only have one
horsea Why according TO that logic and interpreta-
ton 1t would mean THAI. But the very idea IS ridcu
los. IL very plainly tnat the future kings OF
| Israel shall not multiply them IN excess, either
| horses or wives We have no time TO dwell upon
| that any longer.
We will now refer to the case OF Ruth and BoaZ.
Boaz represented himself as not beng the nearest
kin. There was another Elm tlat was Stall nearer
| and he happened to DE the brother VI Bolz He
| PROBABLY was the Oldest and consequently 1t was
his right. Josepus tells u.s. according to the learned
gentleman, that the person who was oil nearest kin,
! PROBABLY the Oldest brother was a married man.
Supposng admit it, did not his brother know II
| why, then, saould lie represent him as being the
nearest OF and That he mad the right before him
| And even this other brother acknowledges his
right. married man acknowledging his right
| Go thou AMI redeem my right have right to
take her, but am AFRAID OF marrying my lnhert-
lance. Go thou and take my right" This, then
with the assistance OF Josephus TO carry us right,
| proves that married men were obliged TO comply
with the law. We have no further time to examine
| that passage. We shall now examine the passage
| that q conlnined I'm Matthew regard to divorce