The Intermountain Catholic. (Salt Lake City [Utah] ;) 1899-1920, 1904-04-23
BIBLE READER.

Replymg to our esteemed correspondent. We
would state that Catholics do not object to the Prot
estant version of the Bible because of its ornate and
chaste style the purity of its English but because
of It's obvious perversion of certain passages in or
der to make the English translation conform to GER
tain sectarian doctrines The Protestant Bishop
Ecott and other biblical critics admit that Prot
estant translators have changed the obvious and
plain meaning. of certain words in order to make
them conform TO their views, and apparently con-
denim certain Catholic teaching. Admitting the
Bible to be the word of God, no translator is free
to change the plain and obvious meaning of the
original text, which is really the word of God
Gods word is as Interchangeable as Himself and
when that change is made in the translation YOU
have not Gods entire word A few instances of
changes viii convince our correspondent that the
Church is justified in retaining her own Douay YER
SION and being opposed to her children reading the
King James version. The word that has been al
ways translated priest" was changed in the Prot
estant versions into Senior" elder priest
meant one ordained to offer up the sacrifice of the
mass and administer the sacraments. But Protest
ants have no sacrifice sacramental SYSTEM there
FORE no need of priesthood, and to make the Bible
conform to their system, the change noted was
made.
Another change of the original word for 'idols"
was translated images" But why substitute in
the translation images" for idols! It was for an
evident purpose, namely, to try and convict the
Catholic church of violating an explicit command
With such distortions, is it not evident to our cor
respondent why the Catholic church adheres to her
own translation of the Holy Scriptures? It is
llx that H.
idols" does not refer to images for we have II
on the authority of the Bible that God commanded
Moses TO make brazen serpent, which he raised
up in the desert. The Bible, both Catholic and |
Protestant, further tells that this was sanctioned by
God. since all who looked at the brazen image we're
cured.
There are other reasons, too, why the Catholic
church could not sanction the Protestant English
and one very cogent one is that the
Catholic includes in her canon certain books which
are not to be found in the Protestant Bible. These
are Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesasticus topetb
er with the first and second books of the Macabees
These books, it may be said are not to be found in
the Hebrew canon, but they will be found in tbe
ureek version, known as the Septuagint, which the
apostles used
we know that some years ago when a revision of
he Bible was made in England by Anglican bishops
heologlans and biblical critics that the version was
almost universally condemned. A writer in the
Standard" at the time said: "They have, neverthe
ess, thought themselves justified in mendinp tho
English and improving the grammar of passages
which have struck deep root in the hearts and
memory OF the English people. One word has been
INSTITUTED for another at the within of the New
testament company. Moods and lenses have been
hlfted about to satisfy some pedantic scheme Of
yntaxlcal symmetry; sentences treasured nm IN tb
opular mind, and enriched beyond expression bv
ne pathetic associations of hundreds of wears baro
cen tortured and crucifed into precise grammati-
al accord with the latest refnements of critical
lbor' upon comparison of the early manuscr;nt
exits and thus been robbed of all their true value
Even the Lords prayer, which every Emo.
sh-speaking child learns to lisp at its mothers
nee, has not been spared st. Paul's praise of
larlty' unequaled, is mangled and made unrecoo-
zable by the senseless substitution of the word !;
've' for charity" :
IN dispatch from London at the time if was :
ated that the Bishop Of Gloucester, in presenting y