BIBLES, MANY AND VARIOUS.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XI, Issue 32, 7 December 1883, Page 23

BIBLES, MANY AND VARIOUS.

A COBBBSPONDBSNT signing hirns9lf « Bible Reader," writes as folio wrp in the Nelson Colonist, of November 22 : — > "As this commemoration, of Luther's 4th centenary seems to point out in our age the necessity of readius? the Bible, and as I am myself a Bible reader, I wish to ask those interested in the question, which Bible or which version of the Bible they would recommend. Would they recommend Luther's version ? But Bucer, one of his followers, tells us that such a version is full of errors. The three first gospels of Sr. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke, Luther himself declares are false, ani that the epistle of St. James is no batter than straw, and in his Dutch translation of toe New Testament Staphylus found more than 1400 wilful corruptions (1 Liad. Dub. p. 81). Will they recommend Munster's version ? But Luther informs us that that version misrepresents the word of God. They will perhaps tell me to take Castates's translations ; bat Beza denounces it as an abmrd version. Then they will advise me to try Beza's version ; but Castates exclaims against it: Ptrhaps Servetus's version might be the right one ; but Calvin will not have it. Likely Calvin's version will not offer objections ; bub Miricus coudemas it. And what about Tindal and his followers ? English ministers and great abettors of the Reformation protest against it ; and they, not on account of some oversights or light mistakes, or the following of different copies, but accusing one another of being absurd and senseless in their translations, oE perverting the meaning of the Holy Ghost, of omissions aad additions, of perverting the text in 818 places ; such a Bible being so evidently mistranslated, and being exclaimed against and cried dowa by the most learned Protestant, it pleased His Majesty King James the First to command a review and reformation of those translations which had passed for God's word in King Edward the Sixth's and Queen Elizabeth's days. But such review and reformation was was only partial, and did not affect one-tenth of the doctrine, so that the foregoing version essentially remained unaltered, and is the one generally used now in England. New, sir, out of so many conflicting versions ib is no easy matter to be able to find out the true one, neither is it surprising that so many different sects have sprung up and are daily springing up since Lather's time, all taking their doctrine from the Bible, no matter how opposed to each other. A Unitarian or Socinian who denies the Trinity of Persons in the Godhead will tell you he takes his doctrine from the Bib'e ; so will a Catholic, Anglican, or Presbyterian, who, though widely differing among themselves condemn the Unitarian. Then there are the Lutherans, the Cilviaists, Wesley an Methodists, Primitive Methodists, Bible Christiana, Baptists, Anabaptists, Quakers, Moravians, and hundreds of various ramifications down to our own Salvation Army, all proclaiming aloud that they take th.-ir stand from the Bible. Poor Book lif you could only speak what a different lesson you would tench us. As truth and error are always opposed to each other, you would not teach us both at the same time. You were given to man to be his guide, t> bring him peace and to teach him charity ; and yet through the perversion of men you only confound him the more, sow discord among sects, and your admirers and preachers, instead of teaching the gospel of Him who was charity by excellence, make their dissenting brethren the butt of their daily harangues. What an argument for the Atheist, Infidel, or Freethinker to build upon ? Behold how these Christians love one another.