Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1881-06-14

:. Grca. desl has boon written during tho past
month derogaiory Of the Revised Testament,
much Of which has been Incorporate. to 1.y tho
least. and in divers ins:aLc authors Of the arL
Giles in question actually adopted the lisparsg.
ing vioWs of tho work as oxprosaed By Others
,oiMout reading Tic book themselves. OF course,
such criticisms a7e worthy Of no consideration.
After q careful p2ruasl % tho many OBI cctions
urged sga!Ist thu new version. it il noticeable
fact to every uupr juGicel roader that tut fow
iEsinuations cast upon tho c;Trtc!:cSS OF tho
translation; in fsct Tho main hobby Of its enc.
mics seems to be 81 objection tleY haro 10 the
modern language tho reviss7a us,, thu people,
they urge, beijg moro f.uI:l:- with The word 4.
ing OF the kiag James &c ,uloGt, Eo7o. consd.
ering that the Englis!: spaskiaS race had TO uso
themselves 10 this samo versioa. Alter al, The
sc.ual changcs mGdo in tho reysoi edition nre
only those learned mon ani lovers Of tho truth
have insisted On for many years. 1: is 81 ncon-
trovertiblo fac. ths. nearly ell slta.nions N 40 &
cid much inthroWng light upon pss5,gea hcro!o
fore not fully Compounded By mlay who e. q
neither "Wayfsripg man, or "i5ols." I. would
be an insult 70 the intelligence Of mos. people 70
tell them that tho English langusgo is slwsys
undergoing certain cdsogas; that our motacr
tongue 2i0 years sgo was not Wha! i. is nov ::
these arc facts appi rom. Thorefcro, li1iobt
roaaoR ought 10 30 disco.neL why many obsolete
terms, the meaning Of which "a often cioudcd.
should 90 clothed ID rlo5;ra language, that -
that runs may read Q ;itc list OF instances
could be produced if spec permitted TO show
the transparency os thoughts expressed in the
new veraioa which often occasonod much spac
uls!ion in ths Old. For :.s!src,, Tho ga.
viour in speaking to the young ruler s:Ys WY
GALES. thou NO good ? the!e is mono good tu.
God" which reply has c1u:od every rfaler of
the old toxt to stop end think. n the revised
text Cd entirely different turn is aiyen 10 the
words of Jesus-aturn, however. which lingui:ts
at lest lily years $50 utged-which roGder: tho
passage plain and makes sup9Ial2 many o, the
vouminous comments n Il have b9na wriL!en in
explanation Of :lo worse. II tho Apocalypse
as every scholar Knows, two eopaea:o and dis.
tine. wor3s ara used e tho original 20 express
VIVA. tho cli version indiscrininstcly Translates
beast" Upon reference TO the 4.h chapter CT
thst book il tho revised edi!ion j. will be Geen
that what John saw in heaven sro termed 'liv.
ing crea.ure!," 6 different eiasS altogether from
the one in tho 12th Chsptor. We cannot, how
ever, see Tho otjec! Of tho ravisers in translating
damon and dab5los devil" in every instance,
though The foot notes show the difference. The
same observation i3 made in regard to aiom and
E1Smos. But Sc y whole ms9y cool, collected
Bible students regard Ties IN improvement on
the old at Sny rsta. 70. 10 orc undertake TO
crticse tho produc. Of ten cars rraYerful labor
without frs. carefully reading what company
Of eminent Christian scholars verify believe 70
be the literal word of God.