The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1881-06-09
The Revised New Testament and, the
Doctrine Of He'll.

If translation can at all convey to
the English readers mind the exact
meaning of the New Testament writers,
it is probable that the Revised Version
just published is the one.
The large number of religious demon.
nations represented in the Committee
on Revision, including the clergymen of
the Church of England, Protestant Epis.
copalians, Methodists, Baptists, Inde.
pendents, Wesleyans, Presbyterians of
Scotland and America, Lutherans,
Friends and Unitarians, renders any sec.
tartan bias impossible. 2
This version is the !, result 5of: theaeo
bined judgment of fifty: men Of England
and America. The. regiaers are .cele-
brated for their great abilities, vast. and
accurate scholarship, integrity, indepen-
dent thought and piety.
They have spent ten years in the work,
and have received thassuggestions of
hundreds of scholars. Their conclusions
have been reached with a.unanimity that
is almost complete.
In view of all these considerations it
must be said chat what confidence we
can not reposes in the fidelity of the
present version, we should have to deny
to any which could be made.
Much interest has been felt in possible
changes of rendering which might affect
doctrines long held by Christendom.
For various reasons the chief solicitude
has been concerning the doctrine of
future punishment. The report general
ly circulated, though as now seen, with
out foundation, that the word "hell"
would not appear in the revision, in
creased among all classes the interest felt
in the future status of that doctrine. Of
course the better informed knew that if
the word "helP' were stricken out, any
other word put in it's place would take
the same meaning, unless the context
were changed accordingly. This was
hardly to be expected by any, while
those who could read the Greek for them
selves knew it would be impossible if the
translation vas to be accurate.
1t is not our purpose to prove or dis.
prove the doctrine Of future punishment
from the Revised Version; but to COM
pare the teachings of the Revised Ver-
sion and tho Authorized Version upon
this point.
The word "hell," if We may trust
Cruden's Concordance, occurs just TWEEN.
ty.one times in the Authorized Version
Of the New Testament. In the Revised
Version the word "hades" is used in
place of "hell" ten times, the word
shell" appearing in the other eleven
places. But it is noticeable circum-
stance that "hell' is retained in every
place that has been depended upon as
proof of future punishment, with one
exception.
A comparison of the proof.texts for
future punishment as found in both
versions will show whether that doctrine
has been strengthened, weakened, or left
in statu quo by the revision.
Iu Matt. 1928, the passage Gear Him
which is able to destroy both soul and
body in hell" is the same in both ver-
sions.
The Authorized Version of Mark 9:43
reads, ''into hell, into the fire that never
shall be quenched."
The Revised Version of the same place
is "into hell, into the unquenchable fire"
If there is any difference the expression
"unquenchable fire" Is stronger than
sire that never shall be quenched."
The forty-eighth verse of the same
chapter is alike in both versions, and
reads: "Where their worm dieth not and
the fire is not Quenched." In the Au-
thorized Version this language form v.
A and 46, both of which are omitted in
the Revised Version. Also the words
"into the FIRE that never shall be
quenched," last clause of v. as of Mark
9, Authorized Version, are omitted in
the Revised Version. But every ex-
preston found in the Authorized Ver.
sion is also found in the Revised Version,
Except the one which is strengthened in
meaning, v. 49,, though not so frequent.
ly. So that taking the passage Mark
9:43.48, the doctrine of future punish
ment is strengthened rather than weak
ened by the Revised Version.
It was stated that all the passages upon
which the proof of the doctrine Of future
punishment depended translated "help
in the Authorized Version were with one
exception translated the same way in the
Revised Version. We will now look at
that exception. It is the celebrated par.
able of the Rich Man and Lazarus, Luke
16:l9-31. For "hell" in the Authorized
Version We read throughout "Hades" in
the Revised Version.
In v. %, Authorized Version, "in hell
he lifted up his eyes, being in torments;;"
Revised Version, "in Hades he lifted up
his eyes, being in torments." Since he
is "in torments," according to both yer.
sions, the failure of the revisers to trans.
late the Greek word "Hades" into the
Anglo.Saxon "Hell" will not be con.
sidered as weakening the sense.
Authorized Version, v. %, reads, II
am tormented in this fame" Revised
Version reads, Il am in anguish in this
aame," a more vivid expression than
"tormented." Again, v. "a, Authorized
Version, reads, "He is comforted and
thou art tormented." The Revised Yer.
sion has "He is comforted and thou art
in anguish" Torment has it's degrees,
but as Crabbe says, Anguish is an over.
whelming pain" Verse %, of this chap.
ter, speaks of "this place of torment" in
both versions.
Then those texts which have been
thought inexplicable except upon the
supposition that unbelievers are in i'm.
minent peril, remain the same or are
strengthened. John SIG is one of these
aud reads thus: "God 30 loved the world
that He gave His only begotten son that
whosoeyer belieyeth iD Revised Version
on) Him shall not perish, but have ever.
lasting (Revised Version eternar life"
With regard to the duration of future
punishment no change is made, except
to render the question more unequivocal.
The great gulf mentioned by Christ in
the parable of the Rich Man and Laza.
rus is the same impossible gulf in both
versions.
Matt. 25:4l, Authorized Version, reads,
"Then shall He say also unto them on