The Waco daily examiner. [volume] (Waco, Tex.) 187?-1888, 1881-12-18
THE NEW VERSION.
The kfng James and Later
EsendcriuGs Again
Conisderd.
ARTICLE NO. REV. B. A. ROGERS.

| tOns~ueru.
ARTICLE NO. 4-REV. b. A. ROGERS
Before entering here upon a compari-
son of the merits of the common, or
King James version, and the new ver-
sion, desire to notice again the point
So often made, and notably, IN recent
newspaper editorial, that 1t IS reason
able that persons should opJect TO any
change III the language ol ldIlillar anu
precious DOCKS no matter whethef sd
cred OF Secuiar' AI'' !" clincl t tne t''ii.''
we are ashed WIZ liTI II M"'tiu pe ei1
duIaole lnaV t'ie M"i NJ u 'ol,''i>7 ~
Hlitoh S@"uiu ''F pi'"-". o"t W. w
c 'dnEeS |inSud ~ a''l " 'iie
taste "a nc '--''>7 1,i
how nuth !'s9' saE -he'' Ndn 1t "I AZ
lo"ea 'hal .ile sac. Sdc' ca veAt' e'ite't ~
US a'iAe u! us 'liNlue d''''i'' al
countess s'clt'i dSSocid'lo'i7 'iio'''''
cnahsea my i'ui P'9e 4oos NOT
ne pom ,''Ii''9 NJ, are as
oetE eAain'iiutioii L-i'iiIo cnaIsnaara and
uHiIAe dS - L.. t,;1,h ,,nsit,,,n
hliuoh . W.; ,' ',,o I'll. Iacansa Of
Iu o"l 90 - t,'ar;t p',i mi ,,artlv
Sleli wi -,,,,,.'+;,,,, f,r thcir an
!, because ~ o ,, rata thay ,,ara thair an
tIlole' u - - ',,4;+iod tn nut their
tilors anu ,',' Io',,,,,a,ta .rJ
Slo.'S u Iit' nv III - iI,l,i;.i, ia.,J,r, ara
tllell tnG.i itrS ~ a.. I,,,,,.ra -; ,yicb
ilset'di ".ie IN t a,' D. t1isan IN Cor
tlie! oiIE.i',' Ii,. 49,, VII. cIear-
man oI ietoil' Hi,''' III I'a "a ,,,,,st
~ tie peSu u I-'i-. ,lI-t,,l
llShli pIl4'u t',,. III md
gone belore he" one more la
dered thansthe orlglhai |ol'lu 0.iP1, 80 Se''e
them all, as II ouSiik Ana 'illS III iillS'
us to one OF the chlei polhts do lssue'
the right to change ana tie sacreuiieHS
of the text OF the hlng James version
1t is translation ana IlaDie To uepaFt,1
ures from the true sense oi Iile orIS MAJ
through the ignorance OF ITS tfahSiatorS
or slip of the pen OF type, Ilke otnef
translated books. 30 Tar 1t StIhus De
side the supposed case OF Shakespeare
in German. But the parallel lalis III
latlon. The translatora are not lts a'th-
ors., Nor DO we nave any VGhera'lGm on icL
the book SIMPLY because OF thehl' 1hcli
work was valuable, not lor tnGr own
ideas OF thelr own lalisuase' pu.' ,n,.s Unrs
rcT tlle accuracy "i'H "liltn WIZ 1T tttI yf ca
able 10 pIing us in1 fr 80 "UiJ VIZ Grooll
out OF tle ertsill@i I'd 5..i iieuiem a" "r ioUye nf
alll no De;tutS - or sonrfinn to
'lIue van ~ .,,',, ,r,,,, yrLnn ono
ail! u 'I-I.,. 'to-l 10 - r.
VI ~ iii' w. ,.ar,, i,aant,, &c IanIr,aoa
pi"oG l., ;4-Iafodf Iansa of r5mr IS
l..a! Ita,-i,, To ;,',,,,a+a,.;oI 10 ,'t[0
Wv W. .r,, i,',,, ant IN snaak Of tbe St James
,,,rl,;o, ~. thnr,,b II were fine original
;+soIf md as +hougb fine New Version
u,as an attnmnted change of divinely
written Ianpuare. itself. Yet everybody
knows or ought to, that in 1911 it was
but one in the line of a multitude of
previous efforts to properly and truth
fully translate the Bible into English.
And that. as each effort had done some
thing towards the accomplishment
of that end, without fully achieving
it, SO that added its share to
the same work, but (as nobody
knows better than those engaged IN it,
without fully accomplishing the good.
From the first known eNtant English
translation down through WIcklitle,
Tindale, Coverdale, Matthew, Hallybush,
Cranmer, Tavemer and others TO the
King James version, there had been
some fifteen tranSlatlOns and amended
versions OF the Bible, or parts OF 1t,
in the English language. And they were
all in the interest Of accuracy and faith
fulness to the divine word. And why
there was not Just as good reason to cry
out "Tampering with the holy word"
then rs now, it is hard to see. In fac,
there was much opposition. and If took