Bible vs. tradition : in which the true teaching of the Bible is manifested, the corruptions of theologians detected, and the traditions of men exposed

Preface

Our Title would seem to Indicate that we have exposed <every case where the " Traditions of men have made void the word of God."" But s&Gt so : this would require volumes. But hy attacking ^error in its strongest hold, wedomucli to overturn its whole foundation. And we venture to affirm that he who shall embrace the truths treated of in this book, will be desirous «of pursuing the investigation still further. In these pages we fiave more particularly oonfined ourselves to the scriptural elucidation of The Mortality of Man, The Unconsciousness of the Dead, and the Destruction of the Wicked ; but we have likewise investigated the Nature of Man, The Penalty of the Law, The mature of the Sacrifice of €hrist, Endless Life obtainable only through Christ. The Resurrection of the Dead, The nature of Hell, The Gospel of the Kingdom and its Location, and various other matters that are not generally understood m these days of fables. The Immortality of the Soul, and the necessary departure from the sense of Seripture which this belief requires, jare tho basis of all sectarianism and of all creeds. These abandoned, and the way is opened to the introduction of a purer Christianity, based solely upon the Word of the Living God. If we can convince men that Godtneans what he says, and says what he means, we shall have opened the door into the Temple of Truth ; and may a merciful God induce many to enter therein, &hat they an ay be sanctified thereby.

NOTICE TO THE KEABER.

As we have been obliged to have recourse to quotations from the Hebrew and the Greek,, and our work is intended for popular reading ; we desire our readers to remember, that we shaii use the radical word, in most eases, without those inflections intended only to point out a different grammatical construction, which would only embarrass the reader, and cause him to suppose that two words were different in their radical meaning, because slightly different in spelling. For the same reason we shall often use the singular for the plural. In the Greek words we follow the spelling, not the pronunciation of the original i merely changing the Greek letters ' into English, and making no distinction between the long and short e and 0, and introducing an h for the Greek asperate ( f ), as adrfg. we spell hades. As there is considerable variety in the mode of spelling Hebrew words in English letters, we shall adopt the mode used by Professor Pick, in his Bible Student's Concordance, excepting in the use of such words, as the readers of Commentaries have become familiar with ; such words we shall spell in the most common manner. As Ruah instead of ruach. or rooakh, spirit / Adam for Odom ) man, or man of earth, properly, a man made of vegetable mould. a There was not an Adam to till the adamah /" Enoush, for mortal man^ Anosheem, plural of EnousK mortal men ; chayah, instead of khayoh, living ; chay, for life ; chayim, for khayeem, lives ; sheol. for sheoul. the state of death; nesme, for breath; nophash. naphash, nishmath, or neshomoh, all mean to breathe, expire, and we may sometimes comprehend them under the single term, nesme. The plural, will generally be expressed by eem. or outh y added to the singular, and not im, as in cherub, cherubim. In our quotations, we have often reversed the position of the noun, and the adjective expressing its quality, making the adjective precede the noun-

BIBLE VS. TRADITION.

€HAPTEE I

Introduction

I have read the whole translation and the margin of the Old Testament eight times, and the New Testament seven times; and have carefully examined every text on the soul, the state of the dead, and the end of the wicked. From this examination I am thoroughly convinced that the whole man becomes unconscious in death. w In that very day his thoughts perish." Ps. 146: 4. "Neither have they any more a reward" until the resurrection, (Eccl. 9: 5-6- Luke 14: 14,) and "All the wicked will God destroy;" yea, He will exterminate both soul and body in Gehenna. There is not a single text in the Old Testament that will not readily harmonize with these views, though there are a few texts in the New Testament from which inferences have been too hastily drawn, that would seem, to a superficial observer, to oppose these views. But where is the doctrine that an incorrect inference from some obscure text does not appear to contradict ? But patience and diligence in searching the scriptures, and a comparison of scripture with scripture, allowing the Bible to be its own dictionary, and its own interpreter, (for vain is the help of the learned in this matter,) and by carefully observing the context and the design of the writer, asking wisdom of Him " who giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not," we may discover the truth, and if we are willing to receive the truth m the love of it, and are obedient thereunto, we have the pro*- mise that we " shall not walk in darkness, but shall havethe light of life."

THE ORIGINAL SCR IPTUR ES ARE THE ONLY CORRECT

STANDARD.

I have found much error in our common translation ; the margin, which generally contains the better reading, contradicting the text. Adam Clarke says, page 17 of his Commentary, that u The marginal readings are essential to the integrity of the text a and they are ©f so much importance as to be in several instances preferable to the textual readings themselves," and they " are to be preferred to those in the text in the proportion of at least eight to ten" It is but too obvious that sectarian prejudice has too long prevented the eradication of many manifest errors, and that a correct translation, while it would completely harmonize with itself, would effectually undermine every creed in Christendom.

It is plain from history, that our first transcribers and translators were Komish priests, who were interested m sustaining the profitable corruptions of the separate existence of the soul in purgatory, and the endless misery of the wicked. Every English translation made prior to the 18th century, has but too clearly copied from the Vulgate, and the translators were not able, as Macknight has fully proved, to translate the whole Bible from the original tongues,, and the various editions only profess to be compared with the original. King James, who died a Papist, gave strict orders to the translators of our common version, not to deviate widely from the Bishop's Bible. The following directions of the King are copied from p. 16 of the preface to Clarke's Commentary :

1. " The ordinary Bible read in the church, commonly called the Bishop's Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the original will per mit -

4. " When any word hath divers signification®, that to be kept which hath been most commonly used by the most eminent father § 7 being agreeable to the propriety of the place, and the analogy of faith.

TRANSLATION OF THE SCRIPTURES.

14. " These translations to be used when they agree better with the text than the Bishop's Bible, viz. : — Tyn* daVs, Matthew's, Cover dale's, Whitchurch, Geneva"

Dr. Macknight says, that " Tyndale and Coverdale's translation, of which the rest are copies, was not made from the originals, but from the Vulgate Latin" It is evident that our authorized version was not a new translation from the Hebrew and Greek ; but only a revision of certain editions of the Papal Vulgate.

To the common version, it is objected, 1. That it often differs from the Hebrew to follow the Septuagint, and the German translation of the Septuagint. 2. That the translators following the Latin Vulgate, have adopted many of the original words, without translating them, such as hallelujah, hosanna, mammon, anathema, &c. 3. That by keeping too close to the Hebrew and Greek idioms, they have rendered the version obscure. 4. That they were a little too complaisant to the king, in favoring his notions of predestination, election, witchcraft, familiar spirits, &c. These, it is probable, were likewise their own opinions. 5. That their translation is partial, speaking the language of, and giving authority to, one sect, (meaning, probably, the Episcopalians.) 6. That where the original words and phrases admitted of different translations, the worse translations, by plurality of voices, were put into the text, and the better were often thrown out, or put into the margin. 7. That notwithstanding all the pains taken in correcting this and the former editions of the English Bible, there still remain many passages mistranslated, either through negligence or want of knowledge ; and to other passages, improper additions were made, which pervert the sense. See Preface to Macknight's translation of the Epistles, pages 21 to 25 .

The high encomiums passed on the authorized version, may be due to the simplicity, elegance, pathos, and earnestness of its style ; but certainly they do not belong to it for its fidelity to the original. On the immortality of the soul, the common version is not so faithful to the original as is the translation from the Latin Vulgate, sanctioned by Bishop Hughes. Drs. Clarke and Scott, who speak most highly of our translation, convict it of more errors than any other commentators. Be it always

BIBLE VS. TRADITION.

remembered, that all the transcribers of the manuscripts now in existence, and all the translators, previous to King James, with perhaps the only exceptions of Tyndal and Luther, were believers in the Popish doctrine of the immortality and separate conscious existence of the human soul. There is only one manuscript, marked B., the Cod. Vaticanus, No. 1,209, in the library of the Vatican, at Rome, that dates back as early as the 4th, though probably transcribed in the 5th century. Consequently, all the ancient manuscripts were transcribed 200 years after the kindred doctrines of the immortality of the soul, invo cation of dead saints, and purgatory, had become established in the Romish church, and the manuscripts being scarce, were completely under the control of the Popish clergy. The various readings of manuscripts, and differing opinions of commentators, prove them to have been fallible, and their creeds and traditions would naturally bias them in their interpretations of the original text. If therefore, we wish to obtain the truth, we are of necessity driven to the Hebrew and Greek originals, as the purest accessible fountains.

TRANSLATION OF THE SCRIPTURES.

The following ascertained facts will show the necessity for a more thorough revision, or for an entirely new translation of the Scriptures, to supplant King Jameses version. The common version at present in use, was printed A.D. 161 1. The only printed editions of the Greek Testament, which were in existence at that time were, Cardinal Ximenes, printed in A.D. 1514, Erasmus, 1516, Stephens, 1546, and Bejza, 1563, and editions that were printed from these. Nearly the same may be said of the O. T. The authorized version was not made from any edition whatever, uniformly. It is a somewhat startling assertion, yet an unquestionable fact, that although we have by public authority, a Standard English Version oftheBible y yet there exists NO standard Hebrew and Greek text, for the Original of tliat version ! What is called " The Received Text," is the text of Erasmus, who revised the Latin Vulgate and compared it with the Greek Text. This edition was corrected by Stephens, Beza, and Elzivir,

TRANSLATION OP THE SCRIPTURES. Q

and was published byElzivir, at Leyden, in Holland, A.D* 1624 — that is, not till thirteen years after the publication of the Authorized Version ! In the compilation of his Text, Erasmus was only able to consult eight recent manuscripts, which manuscripts are now considered as of comparatively slight authority. These manuscripts were those marked 1, 2, 3, 61, and 69; and the MSS. 4 and 7 were used in part of his text, and only one in Revelations, all of which were written later than the tenth century. The only manuscript from which he made up his Text for Revelations, had several chasms, and because the last leaf was wanting, he translated the Latin of the Vulgate into Greek ! to supply these deficiencies. See March's Introduction, vol. ii. p. 846, and Penn's Annotations. Such is the origin of the Received Text. In these times the Reformation had not made sufficient progress to allow of the compilation of a correct text.

The Received Greek Text, though compiled from eight comparatively modern manuscripts, is unsupported by any one manuscript, ancient or modern, and from recent developments, is now acknowledged to be the very worst Greek Text extant, in a printed form. Since its publication, between 600 and 700 manuscripts have been discovered, some of which are very ancient, and very valuable. The best is marked B, the Cod. Vaticanus, of the fourth and fifth centuries. The second, marked A, the Cod. Alexandrinus, of the fifth century. The third, marked C,' Cod. Ephrem, about the fifth century, and the fourth, marked D, Cod. Cantabujiensis, of the seventh century. The Received Text has not received the benefits of these, nor of the editions and collations of Mill, Wetstein, Matthei, London Polyglott, Bengal, Griesbach, Bently, Birch, Knapp, Lachman, Scholz, and Hahn, for the N. T., nor of many of the most celebrated collaters of the 0. T.

The first translation of the Bible into English, was made by Wicklifle, wholly from the Latin Vulgate, in A.D. 1380. This forms the basis of all the English editions. Tyndale published his first edition in 1525. Between this and the version of King James, in 1611, a period of only eighty-six years, four successive revisions were published by authority, as new stores of manuscripts w T ere discovered ; that is, one version was made on Jin

BIBLE VS. TRADITION.

average, every twenty-two years. Although in the 241 years since King James's revision was made, a greater multitude of manuscripts, of greater value and authority than any before known, have been discovered and collated, yet no subsequent revision has been made by authority. Still many will fondly cling to the common version, with all its errors and corruptions, and thereby help to conceal the precious truths which the providence of God has brought to light, and placed within the reach of the learned ;"but which are shamefully withheld from the community.

We are aware that sectarianism would suffer considerably from a correct translation. But what of that ? The gain to the cause of truth and righteousness would gloriously compensate. Indeed it may be set down as an axiom, that when the Scriptures are purposely corrupted to sustain any doctrine, that doctrine is presumptively false. No lover of truth tries to conceal her from himself. The " Bible Union" have convicted our translation of twenty thousand errors ! some indeed of small consequence. But the Scriptures have been purposely corrupted, to sustain the doctrines of the a immortality of the soul," " the separate conscious existence of the spirit of man," " the eternal misery of the wicked," &c, as we shall make abundantly manifest in the forthcoming pages. Sometimes whole stories have been introduced, probably, in the opinion of the transcribers, to embellish. Such are, — The woman taken in adultery ; The descent of the angel to trouble the waters of Bethesda ; The bloody sweat of our Saviour, and the angel strengthening him ; and The conversion of the dying thief upon the cross ; all of which are supposed to be spurious. But, perhaps, the worst of all these corruptions, is the transposition and omission of clauses of the verses in Mat. chap. 27, to conceal the essential fact, that Christ was truly slain by his enemies. The reading of the best manuscripts is, 50 v. : " They offered him vinegar : but another going to him, pierced his side with a spear ; and Jesus crying with a loud voice, expired." This passage of the piercing of Christ, prior to his death, was condemned, as late as the fourteenth century, by Popes Clement V., and his successor, John, because it conflicted with some of their notions respecting the Trinity. This shameful perversion

MEANING OP ORIGINAL TERMS.

Is sufficient alone Ijo condemn every edition in which it is contained.

Seemingly the best course now to be pursued, would be to adopt the principle of criticism recommended by Dr. Johnson, " For restoring the correct text of all ancient writings, whether profane or sacred." " Take the most ancient copy for the standard 5 to correct by authority, wherever it can be found ; and to resort to conjecture, only where authority is absolutely and altogether wanting ; observing always to hold a most rigid medium between presumption and timidity, by the former of which, we induce error upon truth, and by the latter, we consent to remain forever under the dominion of error, and in the power of chance, ignorance, or artifice."

This is the principle that has been adopted by Penn, in his revision of " The New Covenant." He has chosen the entire text of the most ancient surviving manuscript, and which is likewise the most free from those interlineations and alterations, that disfigure and render suspicious, other manuscripts : This one is the Codex Vaticanus, or celebrated Vatican MS. noted 1209 in the Vatican catalogue at Eome, and marked B. by Wetstein, making it the basis and substance of his revision,

MEANING OF THE ORIGINAL TERMS RENDERED SOUL AND

SPIRIT.

Assisted by an honest and learned friend of the Independent Congregational Society, we have traced all the original terms translated soul, spirit, life, breath, hell, grave, and others, throughout the whole Bible, so that any person may readily perceive their Bible definitions.

The Hebrew word, nephesh, of the Old Testament, occurs about seven hundred times, and is rendered soul four hundred and seventy-one times ; life and living, about one hundred and fifty times ; and the same word is also rendered a ma?i, a person, self they, me, him, any one, breath, heart, mind, appetite, the body (dead or alive,) lust, creature, and even a beast ; for it is twenty-eight times applied to beasts, and to every creeping thing.

The Greek word psuche, of the New Testament, corresponds with the word nephesh of the Old. It occurs one hundred and five times, and is rendered soul fifty-nino

BIBLH VS. TRADITION.

times, and life forty times. The same word is also rendered mind, us, you, heart, heartily, and is twice applied to the beasts that perish. Psuchikos r an adjective derived from psuche, occurs six times, and is translated natural and sensual ; it is properly translated animal in modern translations. 1 Cor. 15: 44, will bear this translation. It is sown soma psuchikon y a soz^-body, or an animal-body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is soma psuchikon, a so7il-body, or animal-body , and there is a spiritual body. 45th ver. And so it is written, (Gen. 2. 7,) The first man, Adam, was made into psuchen zosan, a living soul, the last Adam into a life-giving spirit. 46th ver. How< beit the spiritual was not the first thing, but the psuchikon, animal, or soul-m$m y and afterwards the spiritual man. Thus we see that the adjective psuchikon always indicates mortality and corruption, and designates the animal nature, or soul nature of man, in contradistinction to the spiritual nature, or incorruptible nature, which the Christian will receive at the period of his resurrection from the dead.

The word ruah, in Hebrew, corresponds with pneuma in the Greek. These words are mostly rendered spirit ; but are likewise rendered wind, air, breath, life, mind, disposition, &c, and are sometimes applied to the beasts. But it cannot be proved that either of the terms mean a ghost, or abstract conscious spirit, in either man or beast.

If any theologian, fearing that the craft is in danger, by which he obtains his wealth, should venture to deny the truth manifested in these pages, he must likewise deny the truth of the Bible. And to defeat this work by arguments drawn from the Bible, he would be required to produce as many pointed texts opposed to our views, as we have produced ; and likewise to show that the thousands of texts here produced are to be interpreted as contrary to their plain and obvious import, as the dead body of man is contrary to the immortal soul or ghost of a man ; for the words meth nephesh, dead soul, occur eleven times, and are four times translated dead body, although twice the word soul is put into the margin, (Numb. 19: 11 ; 6: 6,) but in the other places no intimation is given that the original words meth nephesh, dead $ouls } is improperly rendered. We give a few examples,

MEANING OF ORIGINAL TERMS.

Numb. xix. 16. And whosoever toucheth one that is slain with the sword in the open field, or a meth nephesh, dead soul, or a bone of a nephesh, soul, or a grave, shall be unclean seven days. 2 Ohron. 20: 24. Behold, they were meth nephesh, dead souls, fallen to the earth. 25th ver. They found among them in abundance both riches, with the meth nephesh, dead souls, and precious jewels. Ps. 79: 2. The rneth nephesh, dead souls, of thy servants have they given to be meat unto the fowls of the heavens. See also, Ps. 110: 6 ; Lev. 21: 11 ; Numb. 6: 6 ; 9: 10; 19: 16 ; Hag. 2. 13.

Thus, then, the fabled immortal souls have bones, and are slain with the sword. These plain texts must not be set aside by incorrect inferences drawn from a few texts which have been forced into the service of our opponents. Let us have scripture argument, for we shall treat human wisdom and invention as unworthy of notice. Although, in this discussion, we shall now and then be compelled to use plain and severe language to dishonest priests, who will neither acknowledge the truth, nor permit others to judge for themselves ; yet we do not design to treat unkindly the honest and the liberal, and especially do we desire to avoid anything that has the slightest tendency, to deter the sincere inquirers after truth.

In the forth-coming pages we shall unfold the truths of the Bible, relating to the nature and destiny of man, expose the pious frauds and forgeries of theologians, and manifest their numerous and glaring absurdities. And, First, we shall prove from the Bible, the corporeal being and mortality of the soul, and the nature of the spirit of man ; which spirit, not being a living entity, is neither mortal nor immortal. And, Second, we shall prove that the hell of the Bible imports the utter extermination of the wicked cast therein, the deprivation of their life and being.

Chapter II

PROOF FROM THE BIBLE OF THE CORPOREAL NATURE AND MORTALITY OF THE SOUL OF MAN, AND THE NATURE OF HIS SPIRIT.

" I will not contend forever, neither will I be always wroth : for the spirit should fail before me, and the souls which I have made." Isa. 57 : 16.

In tracing the word soul through the authorized version of the Bible, we find it occurs five hundred and thirty two times — four hundred and seventy-six times in the Old Testament, and fifty-six times in the New. God is represented as having a soul sixteen times. " Your new moons and appointed feasts my soul hateth." Isa. 1 : 14 ; Lev. 26: 11, 30 ; Judges 10 : 16 : Job 23 : 13 ; Ps. 11:5; Isa. 42 : 1 ; Jer. 5 : 9, 29 ; 6:8; 9:9; 12:7; 14 ; 19 ; 32 : 41 ; Zech. 11:8; and Heb. 10 : 38.

The word soul occurs five times in King James's version of the Old Testament, where nephesh is not the original term ; for the word neclivothee, which the margin calls darling, is rendered soul in Job 30 : 15 : it probably means munificence ; and in 2 Saml. 13 : 39, and Ps. 16 : 2, the word soul is added by the translators, there being no corresponding word in the Hebrew Text.

The word neshomoh, or nesme, is once rendered soul, in Isa. 57 : 16, the text we have chosen for our motto. Taylor, in his Hebrew Concordance, says, that " neshomoh, or nesme, signifies the chameleon, a kind of lizard, which has its mouth always open, gaping for the air, on which it was once supposed to live. Nesme is rendered breathy spirit, and life."

MEANING OF ORIGINAL TERMS.

It is rendered breath and spirit in the following texts, and expresses the idea of natural life, whether in man or beast. Gen. 2 : 7 ; 7 :. 22 ; Deut. 20 : 16 ; Jos. 11: 11, 14 ; 1 Kings 15 : 23 ; 17 : 17 ; Ps. 150 : 6 ; Isa. 2 : 22 ; 42 : 5.

But nesme cannot ever mean an abstract intelligence, or soul, or spirit ; for it would be absurd to translate Josh. 11 : 11, There was not any (nephesh) soul, left to (nesme, to soul, instead of to) breathe. Here nesme undoubtedly means breathe, and is so rendered. And in every other place where it occurs, it either means breath, or a breather, or life sustained by means of breathing the breath of lives ; that is, it signifies the chameleon or any other creature that lives by breathing. Our motto, then, should be understood thus, " lest the (ruah) spirit, or living creature, should fail before me, and the nesme, breather, that I have made.' 1 And so in Ps. 150 : 6; " Let every nesme, breather, praise the Lord." We conclude, therefore, that nesme nowhere means soul independently of our bodily organization.

Nephesh is rendered soul four hundred and fifty-four times ; and psuche is so rendered fifty-seven times, making five hundred and eleven times that nephesh and psuche are rendered soul, when applied to man ; and • seventeen times in the original we find these terms applied to beasts. There are more than three hundred other places where the same terms are rendered life, person, or body, &-c. ; for, had they been rendered soul in all such places, then the reader must have perceived that the word soul never could mean a something that could live separately from the man himself, neither as an u immortal soul," or " deathless spirit" Parkhurst says, that " nephesh, as a noun, hath been supposed to signify the spiritual part of man, or what we commonly call his soul. I must confess," says he, " that I can find no passage where it hath undoubtedly this meaning."

We say the true meaning of soul is, a creature that lives by breathing ; and as the essential endowment of such a creature is life, so life will stand often as a correct meaning of soul. When soul is applied to man, it may be translated life, soul, man, you, yourself, person, myself, thyself, &c, according to the text.

But some of our translators, more honest than the rest,

BIBLE VS. TRADITION.

have ventured, in a number of these places, to insert the true word, soul, in the margin ; but none of them were honest enough to give us the word soul in every place where nephesh and psucke occur. We shall endeavor to supply their deficiency.

In pursuing this subject we shall give the Bible answer to the following questions : — 1

1. Is the soul as great as theologians assume it to be?

3. Is the soul immortal so that it cannot fail, or cease to exist as a living being before God ?

4. What is a spirit ?

5. Is the spirit immortal, so that it cannot cease to animate the man ?

6. We shall shoiv that every text in the Bible ivill harmonize with our answers ; even the very texts from which a contrary inference has been erroneously drawn.

Our motto most certainly implied, that if God were to contend forever, or to be always wroth, that the spirits and souls of men would fail, die, or cease to exist as living beings before him. But waiving this, we proceed to answer the first question :

1 . Is THE SOUL AS GREAT AS THEOLOGIANS ASSUME IT TO BE ?

To this question we give an unquaiified negative. For, 1st. The word soul when applied to man, does not mean a ghost or independent entity. Because man and beast w 7 ould in this respect be on a level with God. For if a man's soul is a ghost, or spirit, because the soul of God is a ghost or spirit, as Luther Lee argues, then we say that a beast's soul is a ghost also. Now, allowing beasts to possess souls, as Mr. Lee admits, then upon this reasoning, surely all are up to a level with God, as all have souls : " For in his hand is the soul of every living creature, and the breath of all mankind." Job 12 : 10.

Again, if a man's soul is a ghost, because it goes by the same name as the soul of God, then, not only beasts and every creeping thing being souls, are ghosts ; and then, too, the soul of sheol (the grave, or death,) is likewise a ghost, because it goes by the same name, Isa. 5 : 14, " Therefore sheol, (the state of death, or grave,) hath enlarged her nephesh, (soul or being,) and opened her mouth