THE BIBLE VERSUS TRADITION IN WHICH THE TRUE TEACHING OF THE BIBLE IS MANIFESTED, THE CORRUPTIONS OF THEOLOGIANS DETECTED, TRADITIONS OF MEN EXPOSED. www.CreationismOnline.com BY AAEON ELLIS REVISED AND MUCH ENLARGED BY THOMAS READ. SECOND EDITION. PUBLISHED AT THE OFFICE OF BIBLE EXAMINER, 1853. JOHN J. KEED PRINTERS, NEW YORK Page 1 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 not so: this would require volumes. But by attacking error in its strongest hold, we do much 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 'have more particularly confined 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 nature of the Sacrifice of Christ, 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 in these days of fables. The Immortality of the Soul, and the necessary departure from the sense of Scripture which this belief requires, are the 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 God means 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, that they may be sanctified thereby. NOTICE TO THE READER 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 shall use the radical word, in most cases, 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, merely changing the Greek letters into English, and making no distinction between the long and short e and o, and introducing an h for the Greek asperate ( f ), 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 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, or man of earth, properly, a man made of vegetable mould. There was not an Adam to till the adamah f Enoush, for mortal man, Anosheem, plural of Enoush, 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, nesnie. The plural, will generally be expressed by eem, or outh, added to the singular, and not im, as in cherub, cherubim. In our quotations, we have often reversed the position of the noun r and the adjective expressing its quality, making the adjective precede the noun. CHAPTER 1 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. “In that very day his thoughts perish.” Psalm 146:4. “Neither have they any more a reward” until the resurrection, Ecclesiastes 9:5-6; Luke 14:14,) and “All the wicked will -God destroy;” yea, He will exterminate both soul and body in Grehenna. 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 gives to all men liberally and upbraids 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 promise that we “shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life,” Page 2 THE ORIGINAL SCRIPTURES 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 “The marginal readings are essential to £he integrity of the text;” “and they are of so much importance as to be in several instances preferable to the textual readings themselves,' 7 and they “are to be preferred to those in the text in the proportion of at least eight to Pen” 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 Romish priests, who were interested in sustaining the profitable corruptions of the separate existence of the soul in purgatory r 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 Bible. The following directions of the King are copied from page 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 permit. 4. “When any word hath divers significations, that to be kept which hath been most commonly used by the most eminent fathers, being agreeable to the propriety the place, and the analogy of faith. 14. “These translations to be used when they agree better with the text than the Bishop's Bible, viz.: — Tynda Vs, 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, etc. 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 favouring his notions of predestination, election, witchcraft, familiar spirits, etc. 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 Macknights translation of the Epistles, pages 21-25 . 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 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 Tyndale and Luther, were believers in the Popish doctrine of the immortality and separate conscious existence of the human soul.