The Somerset herald. [volume] (Somerset, Pa.) 1870-1936, 1881-06-08


VIII. L but when Il comes % ilIe common
peoplc, lord, Whist gear 10 the people make
Of II q
. Df. fpwth says ''fhe improvements
Of which it is e.asble are great aud number
less > and On ellanging il lie says efhc
eSlealency Of which grows every day more
and more evident.
9. Dr. Kennico;t sGscat improvement
might now BE- made because the Hebrew
aud oinssk lansnasui have besn much es;iii-
waited and are Ear better understood since tlc
year lses.n
4. Dr. Blackwell ;cstiles .fnnumeTablc
instances might be given of faulty transla-
tons of the Divine Original.
5. DR. Mcknight, who has been called
one of the abIest biblical critics that ever
lived, says of oug version SIT is by no
means such q just representation Of the in
spired original as merits 10 be implicitly re-
lied on for determining the cantgogestcl ar
ticles Of the christian faith
c. John Wesley Tnaleseyeniy-two chang
IS in one chapter TO make the sense .better,
clearer. stronger or more consistent with
the context and nearer the original
!. Dr. Clarke - am satisfied it stands
much in need Of revision
S. The Foreign Bible Society in its an
nual report for 1889 declares. An amount
of mistranslations might Represented which
would give rise to Che question, can suala q
version be called the word Of Cod
9. Another Bible Society in 1852 publish
cd TO the world in its report that there are
in our authorized version nearly twenty
four thourand errors
The concurrent testimony Of these com
potent witnesses taken from all evangelical
churches, establishes the flet tha, our trans
la.ion, however endeared 70 the hearts Of
the people it may be, IS not at all free from
faults Shall these be corrected The re
visers. noted for their eminent scholar hip
to which they have added ten years Of sre-
clal study, answer this question in the az
frmatiyc and the weightiest presumption
is in their favor. Ignorance says no, and
appeals to tle conservative prejudices cfthe
people to hold fast to that-Tight or wrong
which has become cndeared TO theln. But
this is not always safe for age cannotsanc- /
tify error, nor long continued endearinent
Justify its use in place OF truth. Rest as
sared that the common version is no less
entitled 10 our confidence and highest es-
tecn with rs errors corrected and the truth
OF God substituted in its place and if this
process shakes anybody's Faith ii is be-
cause the faith Is built partly on error and
needs . vigorous shaking as boon from
God. For myself hail the new revision
as the most auspieious eyea. IL tic l.,tcr
half OF the nineteenth century
state a few facts in conclusion that
ought to be admitted ~ everybody.
l. That correcting what has been diseog
ed 70 be wrong, IS carrying ont tAe spirit Of
p That iniideiity is largely deprived Of
its material when The Bible IS correctly
translated
B. Tha; only those who read the original
languages in addition 10 their own yernacu-
lar are competent witnesses totestiiy whe.h
version is accurate.
T. The question now shonld neither be
any or sreat changes have been
made, nor whether the proposed revision
viii favor or disfayor any existing religious
but Is the revised version
Q more faithful Nnlcrins Of the original.
fit IS, and this is unquestionable, then no
amount of sentiment, prgudice,i Ignorance or
can check its course.
VII ".