Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1890-05-17
NECESSITY OF CONTINUOUS
REVELATION:
Or, is the Bible Sufficient for the
Guidance Of Men to Salvation.
DIFFICULTIES IL AsCERTAINISG
THE MEANING OF TIE
sCRIPTuREs.

whether the Bible is sufficient for
the guidance Of men to salvation, il
| becomes a matter Of great import.
ance TO ascertain whether the Ian,
guage employed 10y the sacred writ
ers is sufficiently Gear to be under
stood, in al main points ut least. Il
the Spirit Of God, In directing this
composition Of the books Of tn,
Bible, INTENDED to make these book,
4 code Of divine laws whereby fur
ther revelation should he rendered
superfluous, we may reasonably ex
| pect to find in the Bible clear Ian
guage conveying the ijeas in Z
manner 10 be easily understood 10y
the earnest reader. We my expect
to find no ambiguity no indislinct'
ness.
Human laws are written with the
greatest possible care. Lawmakers
aim ut clearnezs. seeing that this is
Indispensable when laws are made
Z for the guidance Of the citizen.
Yet with all possible care in framing
laws, it has been found that 10 law
/ ever was framed, however carefully
Z worded, that could not be construed
in more than one way. Hence the
necessity Cf n supreme court TO
which all eases can he appealed, the
meaning Of any disputed paragraph
| OF the law authoriiatively given.
No human law would ever be q
complete guidance for the citizens
without such supreme court.
Now, the question is simply this:
Is the Bible clesT enough ~ that il
undoubtedly can he understood in
only one way: IL il be. then there
may not be any need for the 'sI-
preme court" Of Divine revelation
10 appeal to in order To ascertain its
meaning, ,'nce this is in no instance
doubtful. But il the Bible Is not clear
enough; il il is 20 wOnled that, in
many instances, the same passage
may be understood in more than one
way, then further revelation is nee
essaTy in order 10 settle these points.
II every passage OF the Bible does
not convey only one meaning, and
this unmistakeably;i il many passages
can be, and have been, construed in
various ways, and If Divine reveal
ton he abolished, then we are cx-
acily ia this position; We have a
code Of laws and a collection Of doe
trines; but for the right understand
ing Of those laws and doctrines we
are entirely at the mercy Of the
sagacity or the stupidity OF the (theO-
iosical) lawyers with WHOM We hap
pen to be connected. There, is, then
no appeal, no authority, no certain
ty.
Let us honestly consider some Of
the facts IN the case, without shrink
ing from the newt bic conclusion.
First, we are met by the sad fact
that mankind has not yet been able
10 decide exactly how many and
which OF the ancient books really
belong to the Bible. The Protestant
churches now accept six;y-fiye books
in all, viz, thiIty-eight in the Old
Testament and twenty-seven in the
New. But Luther was not quite
certain about the canOnicity O: all
Of the twenty-seveu books OF the
New Testament. The Revelation Of
John was always suspicious TO him,
because he did not understand il,
and the Epistle Of James he thought.
was more fit 10 be burned than o be
read As 20 the books Of the Old
Testament, Z much later and better
informed critic, Michaelis, has pro-
posed 20 exclude the two books Of
Chronicles from the cauOn, while
Others have had their grave doubts
concerning the Song Of Songs.
But the Catholic church, 50 far
from being disposed TO dimin-
ism the number OF books. has
added all those which by Protestants
have been called apOcryphal. The
whole apocrypIal collection was
by the Council OF Trent, 1915. de-
ciared 70 be holy Scripture. ami the
council did 50 with some antiquity
in support OF the decision too. For
the book Of Baruch Is quoted as can
Onical by Origcn. Athanasius. Cyril
and Epihanius. Tabith. Judith,
Wisdom OF Solomon. EcciesiasticIs
and two Maccabees are quoted rs
canonical lay the great Augustine.
Whether, then, the Bible should
consist Of seventy-nine books Tin
Guiding the fourteen apOcryphal or
Of siX;y-iive, or OF only sixry-one.
excluding the two Chronicles and
James and the Revelation, il
yet question awaiting it, .
final decision. Aud il would seem
but reasonable not 10 abolish the T.
immediate revelations from God |
until this problem has been satisfac- I
torily solved.
Secondly, accepting any OF the /,
above mentioned books as canoni- !
cal, a great difficulty presents itself /
in determining the precise text. !
What the first authors wrote is in F..
some eases impOssible 10 determine. /
Let il be remembered that our pres
snt Bibles, with their divisions of
chapters and verses, are by no
means exactly such as the first
authors left them. Much is the
work Of uninspired man. The
original manuscripts were copied in
editions, aud Il was al
ways possible in copying 70 drop
A letter, TO misspell a word, 10 /
leave out n word, etc. TRANSACTIONS
anu paTaphraSes have been maize.
These were not always correct IN
every particular. Ia the case OF the
Dl1 Testament the original authors
lid not write the vOwels, but only
he cOBs0Uants. 1t was the work OF
alter men to insert all the vOwels,
Jut whether these later men IN al /
or even in most, inserted
he right vOwels is another open
question. At all events, if il were
IOssitle 10 prove that all the
of the Old Testament
Ire identical with those written by
he original authors, and therefore
inspired, yet all the vowels, which
Ire added many years afterwards by
men, cannot be proved
o be Of divine origin or such as God
intended them TO be.
A few instances may be quoted 10
Illustrate the nature Of such easily |
changes as the sacred
ext has suffered. In Jonah /: Q,
he Prophet says: 81 am Hebrew"
where the original reading probably
vas las the Septuagint has it,: II
m a servant Of Jehovah" The
Inference is between IuTi, Hebrew,
nd [udi, the servant Of Jehovah.
n / Pet. .: ,, it will always be !
ubieus whether the correct reading
): IF We have tasted that the Lord
; g-ocious," or chat the Lond is
2iTist.'' The fact Is that both these
Fords were sometimes written with
be letters Chs, standing both 70.
yTsstos and GsrestOs, gracious. In
ienesis /: 5, the words: GOOD saw
hat it was gOod' is wanting at the /,
nd Of the second days creation, {
ut il is found in yerse 10, in the I
middle of the third days work, in
icatiDg a transposition. Sometimes
erses have been added by later ]
opyists. Such variations amount
D many thousands in all, leaving
he present text very far from salts
IL :