The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1885-07-15
For the Central Presbyterian.
New Revision of the Old Tesla
nent


The Central Presbyterian of May 9th
has an article headed, "iSonae of the Lead
ing Changes an the Revised Version,
which has excited my interest, and per-
haps that of others and to some Of these
changes I must ask your attention for
the purpose of removing doubts and diff
culties that are in my mind about them.
They may be found in the alphabetical
list of which "the incorrect aOord is placed
first, with a reference to one of the places
where it occurs, and then the true mean
ing as generally accepted among schol-
ars."
(1.) Bitterm, Isaiah xiv: %. Porcu-
pine.
The verse in Isaiah xiv %, reads
thus in the Authorized Version al will
also make it possession for the bittern,
and pools of water, and I will sweep it
with the bosom of destruction, saith the
Lord of Hosts" Any Encyclopedia, or
work on Natural History will inform the
reader that the 6ittera is bird of soil
tary habits, found in marshes and boys,
where are generally found also "pools
of water; w lile the porcupirad is a quad
ruped of tn hog species derived from
the Latin POI Isl, the habits and places
of abode Of winch are totally different
from those o the bittern Does it not,
therefore, seem very strange, if not in
credible, that the former revisers and
translators into English of the Author
lied Version should have made such a
mistake as would be implied by thus con-
founding two words of such different
meaning, and relating to such different
animals?
(2) Linen yarn, l Kings K: %. DroveS
of horses.
The whole verse here quoted reads
thus in the Authorized Version And
Solomon had horses brought out of Egypt,
and linen yarn the kings merchants
received the linen yarn at price. :"
Here, can understand how the Hebrew
word translated horses" could be more
properly translated "droves of horses
but how the word translated linen
yarn" could be made to mean droves
of horses" is more than l can compre-
bend, and 1 must suppose either that
there has been some strange typograph-
ical error, or else an unaocountable mis-
take in translation on the part of the
reviseis.
g. Mules, Genesis xxxvi "a. Warm
Springs.
The whole verse reads thus in the Au-
thorized Version: "And these are the
children of Zibeon both Allah, and
Anah this was that Anah that found
the mules in the wilderness, as he fed
the asses of Zibeon his father" Being
myself no Hebrew scholar, l cannot OF
course say whether or not this is pro-
per translation into English. But Is it
not very surprising that all the scholars
of all the ages should have fallen into
the mistake Of translating the Hebrew
word into mules, which really meant
" springs Of water"
a. Jar, Judges XIV: 10. Lehj (pro-
per name).
The verse referred to reads thus in the
Authorised Version q" But God clave a
hollow place that was in the jaw, and
there came water thereout; and when be
had drunk, his spirit came again, and he
revived wherefore he called the name
thereof En-hakkore, which is in Lehi
unto this day" For aught l know tc
the contrary, the original Hebrew here
translated law may be more properly
rendered into the proper name Lehi !.
but to a plain man, looking for the plaii
meaning of a Scripture passage, this
seems very strange, and even unintelli
gible. To make this change, the pas
sage would have to read thus Blu
,, God clave an hollow place in the Leh
and there came water thereout." Will
anybody tell me that this is an Improve
n1ent on the Authorized Version ? o.
that it is even intelligible2
There are many other changes tina