# introductions

introduction:
<H4>Publishers' Note to the Third Edition</H4></a>

NOTWITHSTANDING the fact that the Revised Version of the Old and the New
Testament has come into the field since the learned and lamented author
first issued his <em>Literal Translation of the Bible</em>, the demand for it
from year to year has continued remarkably steady. This indicates that
it still fills a place of its own among helps to the earnest student of
Holy Scripture. In 1887 Dr Young issued a Revised Edition, of which two
impressions are exhausted. The work has been subjected to a fresh
revision, making no alteration on the principles on which the
Translation proceeds, but endeavouring to make it as nearly perfect in
point of accuracy on its present lines as possible. The Publishers
accordingly issue this new Revised Edition in the hope that earnest
students of the Bible, by attaining to a clearer apprehension of the
meaning of the inspired writer, may more clearly and fully apprehend the
mind of the Spirit by whom all Holy Scripture has been given to us.
<p>
Edinburgh, January 1898.
<p align=center>
<cite>                       ISBN: 0-8010-9910-2<br>

                Printed in the United States of America</cite>
<a name='#2'><h4>Preface to the Revised Edition.</h4></a>

THE following Translation of the New Testament is based upon the belief
that every word of the original is 'God-breathed,' as the Apostle Paul
says in his Second Epistle to Timothy, chap. 3.16. That language is,
indeed, applicable, in the first place, only to the Writings of the 'Old
Testament,' in which Timothy had been instructed, but as the Apostle
Peter, in his Second Epistle, chap. 3.15,16, expressly ranks the
'Epistles' of his beloved brother Paul along with 'the other
Scriptures,' as the 'Gospels' and the 'Acts' of the Apostles were
undoubtedly written before the date of Peter's writing, by men to whom
the Saviour promised and gave the Holy Spirit, to <em>guide</em> them to all
truth, to teach them all things, and to <em>remind</em> them of all things that
Jesus said and did, there can be no reasonable ground for denying the
inspiration of the New Testament by any one who holds that of the Old,
or who is willing to take the plain unsophisticated meaning of God's
Word regarding either.
<p>
This inspiration extends only to the original text, <em>as it came
from the pens of the writers</em>, not to any translations ever made by man,
however aged, venerable, or good; and only in so far as any of these
adhere to the original--neither adding to nor omitting from it one
particle--are they of any <em>real value</em>, for, to the extent that they
vary from the original, the doctrine of verbal inspiration is lost, so
far as that version is concerned.
<p>
If a translation gives a <em>present tense</em> when the original gives
a <em>past</em>, or a <em>past</em> when it has a <em>present</em>; a <em>perfect</em> for a
<em>future</em>, or a <em>future</em> for a <em>perfect</em>; an <em>a</em> for a <em>the</em>, or a <em>the</em>
for an <em>a</em>; an <em>imperative</em> for a <em>subjunctive</em>, or a <em>subjunctive</em> for
an <em>imperative</em>; a <em>verb</em> for a <em>noun</em>, or a <em>noun</em> for a <em>verb</em>, it is
clear that verbal inspiration is as much overlooked as if it had no
existence. THE WORD OF GOD IS MADE VOID BY THE TRADITIONS OF MEN.
<p>
A <EM>strictly literal</EM> rendering may not be so pleasant to the ear
as one where the <EM>apparent sense</EM> is chiefly aimed at, yet it is not
<EM>euphony</EM> but <EM>truth</EM> that ought to be sought, and where in such a
version as the one commonly in use in this country, there are scarcely
<EM>two consecutive verses</EM> where there is not some departure from the
original such as those indicated, and where these variations may be
counted by <EM>tens of thousands</EM>, as admitted on all hands, it is
difficult to see how verbal inspiration can be of the least practical
use to those who depend upon that version alone.

<p>
        Modern scholarship is beginning to be alive to the inconsistency
of thus gratuitously obscuring, and really changing, the meaning, of the
sacred writers by subjective notions of what they <EM>ought</EM> to have
written, rather than what they <EM>did</EM> write, for if we admit that in a
single case it can be lawful to render a <EM>past</EM> tense by a <EM>present</EM>,
where shall we end? who is to be judge? if we do so in one passage, to
bring out what may appear to us might, could, would, or should, be the
Scriptural meaning, we cannot deny the same privilege to others who may
twist other passages in like manner. The alteration of an <EM>a</EM> for a
<EM>the</EM> may appear a small matter not worth speaking of, but an attentive
comparison of the following Translation with the common one will
discover numerous passages where the <EM>entire force</EM> of the verse depends
upon the insertion or non-insertion of the article.

<p>
        For example, in Mat. 2.4, Herod is represented as enquiring
'where Christ ' should be born. But 'Christ' is the surname of the man
Jesus, who was quite unknown to Herod, who could not consequently ask
for a person of whose existence he was ignorant. The true explanation
is, that King James' Translators omitted the definite article which
occurs in the original. The correct translation is, where 'the Christ'
should be born. Herod knew of '<EM>the</EM> Christ,' <EM>the</EM> Messiah, <EM>the</EM> long
promised Saviour and King of the Jews, and his enquiry was, where He was
to be born, whose kingdom was to be over all. The simple article clears
up the whole. There are about <EM>two thousand</EM> instances in the New
Testament where these translators have thus omitted all notice of the
definite article, not to say any thing of the great number of passages
where they have <EM>inserted</EM> it, though not in the original.

<p>
        The following translation need not, and ought not, to be
considered, in any sense, as coming into competition with the Common
Version, but as one to be used in connection with it, and as auxiliary
to it; and not a few assurances have been received from clergymen and
others that they thus use it, and find it at once interesting and
profitable. The change of a single word, or collocation of words, is
often found to throw an entirely new shade of meaning over the
Scripture. This advantage is well known to all who have compared the
various ancient versions, or even the English versions that successively
formed what was popularly called 'the authorized version,' i.e.,
Tyndale, Coverdale, Geneva, Bishops, &c.

<p>
        The Greek Text followed is that generally recognized as the
'Received Text,' not because it is thought perfect, but because the
department of Translation is quite distinct from that of Textual
Criticism, and few are qualified for both. If the original text be
altered by a translator, (except he give his reasons for and against
each emendation,) the reader is left in uncertainty whether the
translation given is to be considered as that of the old or of the new
reading. And, after all, the differences in sense to be found in the
100,000 various Greek readings are so trifling compared with those to be
derived from an <EM>exact</EM> translation of the Received Text, that the
writer willingly leaves them to other hands; at the same time, it is
contemplated, in a future edition, to give, in an Appendix, all the
various readings of the Greek MSS. that are capable of being expressed
in English.

<p>
        With grateful thanks to the Father of Lights, this revised
edition is presented to the friends of Divine Truth, with the hope that
it may be a means, in the hands of the Divine Spirit, of quickening
their faith, and encouraging their hearts, in the work of the Lord.

<p>
R.Y.
<a name='#3'><h4>Preface to the First Edition</h4></a>

THE WORK, in its present form, is not to be considered as intended to
come into competition with the <EM>ordinary</EM> use of the commonly received
English Version of the Holy Scriptures, but simply as a strictly literal
and idiomatic rendering of the Original Hebrew and Greek Texts. For
about twenty years--fully half his life-time--the Translator has had a
desire to execute such a work, and has been engaged in Biblical pursuits
tending to this end more or less exclusively; and now, at last, in the
good providence of God, the desire has been accomplished. How far he has
been able to carry out the just principles of Biblical Translation,
founded on a solid and immoveable foundation, time alone will tell, and
for this he confidently waits. As these <EM>principles</EM> are to some extent
new, and adhered to with a severity never hitherto attempted, and as the
Translator has perfect confidence in their accuracy and simplicity, he
proceeds at once to state them distinctly and broadly, that not merely
the learned, but the wayfaring man need not err in appreciating their
value.

<p>
        There are two modes of translation which may be adopted in
rendering into our own language the writings of an ancient author; the
one is, to bring him before us in such a manner as that we may <EM>regard
him as our own</EM>; the other, to <EM>transport ourselves</EM>, on the contrary,
<EM>over to him, adopting his situation, modes of speaking, thinking,
acting,--peculiarities of age and race, air, gesture, voice, &c</EM>. Each
of these plans has its advantages, but the latter is incomparably the
better of the two, being suited--not for the ever-varying modes of
thinking and acting of the men of the fifth, or the tenth, or the
fifteenth, or some other century, but--for all ages alike. All attempts
to make Moses or Paul act, or speak, or reason, as if they were
Englishmen of the nineteenth century, must inevitably tend to change the
translator into a paraphrast or a commentator, characters which, however
useful, stand altogether apart from that of him, who, with a work before
him in one language, seeks only to transfer it into another.

<p>
        In prosecuting the plan thus adopted, a literal translation was
indispensable. No other kind of rendering could place the reader in the
position contemplated, side by side with the writer--prepared to think
as <EM>he</EM> does, to see as <EM>he</EM> sees, to reason, to feel, to weep, and to
exult along with him. His very conception of time, even in the minor
accidents of the grammatical past, present, future, are to become our
own. If he speaks of an event, as <EM>now</EM> passing, we are not, on the
logical ground of its having in reality already transpired, to translate
his present as if it were a past; or if, on the other hand, his
imagination pictures the future as if even at this moment present, we
are not translators but expounders, and that of a tame description, if
we take the liberty to convert his time, and tense--the grammatical
expression of his time--into our own. King James' translators were
almost entirely unacquainted with the two distinctive peculiarities of
the Hebrew mode of thinking and speaking, admitted by the most profound
Hebrew scholars in <EM>theory</EM>, though, from undue timidity, never carried
out in <EM>practice</EM>, viz:--
<ol>
<li type=I>That the Hebrews were in the habit of using the past tense to express
the <EM>certainty</EM> of an action taking place, even though the action might
not really be performed for some time. And
<li>That the Hebrews, in referring to events which might be either
<EM>past</EM> or <EM>future</EM> were accustomed to act on the principle of
transferring themselves mentally to the period and place of the events
themselves, and were not content with coldly viewing them as those of a
bygone or still coming time; hence the very frequent use of the
<EM>present</EM> tense.
</ol>
        These two great principles of the Hebrew language are
substantially to be found in the works of Lee, Gesenius, Ewald, &c.; but
the present writer has carried them out in translation much beyond what
any of these ever contemplated, on the simple ground that, if they are
true, they ought to be gone through with. While they affect very
considerably the outward <EM>form</EM> of the translation, it is a matter of
thankfulness that they do not touch the <EM>truth</EM> of a single Scripture
doctrine--<EM>not even one</EM>.

<p>
        Every effort has been made to secure a comparative degree of
uniformity in rendering the original words and phrases. Thus, for
example, the Hebrew verb <EM>nathan</EM>, which is rendered by King James'
translators in <EM>sixty-seven</EM> different ways (see in the subsequent page,
entitled 'Lax Renderings,') has been restricted and reduced to <EM>ten</EM>,
and so with many others. It is the Translator's ever-growing conviction,
that even this smaller number may be reduced still further.

<p>
        It has been no part of the Translator's plan to attempt to form
a New Hebrew or Greek Text--he has therefore somewhat rigidly adhered to
the received ones. Where he has differed, it is generally in reference
to the punctuation and accentuation, the division of words and
sentences, which, being merely traditional, are, of course, often
imperfect. For an explanation and vindication of these differences, the
reader is referred to the 'Concise Commentary,' which is designed to
supplement the present volume.

<p>
        The Translator has often had occasion to regret the want of a
marginal column to insert the various renderings of passages where he
has been unable to satisfy his own mind--he has, however, cast the chief
of these into an appendix, under the title, 'Additions and Corrections.'
and still more elaborately in the supplementary volume.

<p>
EDINBURGH, 10th Sept. 1862

<p>
<h5>Style of the Sacred Writers, and of this Translation.</h5>

ONE of the first things that is likely to attract the attention of the
Readers of this New Translation is its lively, picturesque, dramatic
style, by which the inimitable beauty of the Original Text is more
vividly brought out than by any previous Translation. It is true that
the Revisers appointed by King James have occasionally imitated it, but
only in a few familiar phrases and colloquialisms, chiefly in the Gospel
Narrative, and without having any settled principles of translation to
guide them on the point. The exact force of the Hebrew tenses has long
been a vexed question with critics, but the time cannot be far distant
when the <EM>general</EM> principles of the late learned Professor Samuel Lee
of Cambridge, with some modification, will be generally adopted <EM>in
substance</EM>, if not in theory. It would be entirely out of place here to
enter into details on this important subject, but a very few remarks
appear necessary, and may not be unacceptable to the student.
<ol>
   
   <li type=I>It would appear that the Hebrew writers, when narrating or
describing events which might be either <EM>past</EM> or <EM>future</EM> (such as the
case of Moses in reference to the <EM>Creation</EM> or the <EM>Deluge</EM>, on the one
hand, and to the <EM>Coming of the Messiah</EM> or the <EM>Calamities which were
to befall Israel</EM>, on the other), uniformly wrote as if they were alive
at the time of the occurrence of the events mentioned, and as
<EM>eye-witnesses</EM> of what they are narrating.

<p>
        It would be needless to refer to special passages in elucidation
or vindication of this principle essential to the proper understanding
of the Sacred Text, as every page of this Translation affords abundant
examples. It is only what common country people do in this land at the
present day, and what not a few of the most popular writers in England
aim at and accomplish--placing themselves and their readers in the times
and places of the circumstances related.

<p>
        This principle of translation has long been admitted by the best
Biblical Expositors in reference to the <EM>Prophetic Delineation</EM> of
Gospel times, but it is equally applicable and necessary to the
historical narratives of Genesis, Ruth, etc.

<p>
        
	<li>The Hebrew writers often express the <EM>certainty of a thing
taking place</EM> by putting it in the <EM>past</EM> tense, though the actual
fulfilment may not take place for ages. This is easily understood and
appreciated when the language is used by God, as when He says, in Gen.
xv. 18, 'Unto thy seed <EM>I have given</EM> this land;' and in xvii. 4, 'I,
lo, My covenant <EM>is</EM> with thee, and <EM>thou hast become</EM> a father of a
multitude of nations.'

<p>
        The same thing is found in Gen. xxiii. 11, where Ephron answers
Abraham: 'Nay, my lord, hear me; the field <EM>I have given</EM> to thee, and
the cave that is in it; to thee <EM>I have given</EM> it; before the eyes of
the sons of my people <EM>I have given</EM> it to thee; bury thy dead.' And
again in Abraham's answer to Ephron: 'Only--if thou wouldst hear me--<EM>I
have given</EM> the money of the field; accept from me, and I bury my dead
there.' Again in 2 Kings v. 6, the King of Syria, writing to the King of
Israel, says: 'Lo, I have sent unto thee Naaman, my servant, and <EM>thou
hast recovered him</EM> from his leprosy,'--considering the King of Israel
as his servant, a mere expression of the master's purpose is sufficient.
In Judges viii. 19, Gideon says to Zebah and Zalmunnah, 'If ye had kept
them alive, <EM>I had not slain you.</EM>' So in Deut. xxxi. 18, 'For all the
evils that <EM>they have done</EM>'--shall have done.

<p>
        It would be easy to multiply examples, but the above may suffice
for the present. Some of these forms of expression are preceded by the
conjunction '<EM>and</EM>' (waw, in Hebrew), and a very common opinion has been
that the conjunction in these cases has a <EM>conversive power</EM>, and that
the verb is not to be translated <EM>past</EM> (though so in grammatical form),
but <EM>future</EM>. This is, of course, only an <EM>evasion </EM>of the supposed
difficulty, not a <EM>solution</EM>, and requires to be supported by the
equally untenable hypothesis that a (so-called) <EM>future</EM> tense, when
preceded by the same conjunction <EM>waw</EM> ('and,') often becomes a past.
Notwithstanding these two converting hypotheses, there are numerous
passages which have no conjunction before them, which can only be
explained by the principle stated above.

<p>        
	<li> The Hebrew writers are accustomed to express laws,
commands, etc., in four ways:
<ol>
   
   <li>By the regular imperative form, e.g., '<EM>Speak</EM> unto the people.'
   
   <li>By the infinitive, 'Every male of you <EM>is to be</EM> circumcised.'
   
   <li>By the (so-called) future, '<EM>Let</EM> there be light;' 'Thou <EM>shalt</EM>
        do no murder; ' 'Six days <EM>is</EM> work done.'
   
   <li>By the past tense, 'Speak unto the sons of Israel, and <EM>thou
        hast said</EM> unto them.'
</ol>

<p>
        There can be no good reason why these several peculiarities
should not be exhibited in the translation of the Bible, or that they
should be confounded, as they often are, in the Common Version. In
common life among ourselves, these forms of expression are frequently
used for imperatives, e.g., 'Go and do this,'--'This is to be done
first,'--'You shall go,'--'You go and finish it.' There are few
languages which afford such opportunities of a literal and idiomatic
rendering of the Sacred Scriptures as the English tongue, and the
present attempt will be found, it is believed, to exhibit this more than
any other Translation.

<p>
        The three preceding particulars embrace all that appears
necessary for the Reader to bear in mind in reference to the Style of
the New Translation. In the Supplementary 'Concise Critical Commentary,'
which is now in the course of being issued, abundant proofs and
illustrations will be found adduced at length.
</ol>
<h4>The Battle of the Hebrew Tenses.</h4>

THE uncertain state of Hebrew criticism in reference to the Tenses is so
fully exhibited in the following extracts from one of the latest, and in
some respects one of the best, grammatical Commentaries (by the Rev. J.
A. Alexander, of Princeton, New Jersey), on the Book of Isaiah, that the
reader's attention to them is specially requested.

<p>
        On Isa. 5.13, Prof. A. remarks:--'Luther, Gesenius, and
Hendewerk take [the verb] as a future, which is not to be assumed
without necessity. Most recent writers evade the difficulty by rendering
it in the present tense. The only natural construction is the old one
(Septuagint, Vulgate, Vitringa, Barnes), which gives the preterite its
proper meaning, and either supposes the future to be here, <EM>as often
elsewhere</EM>, spoken of as already past,' &c.
        <small>[This principle, though admitted and maintained by Gesenius,
Lee, &c. has never been acted upon, to any extent, by any Translator
till the present. It is the only principle, however, that can carry us
through every difficulty in the Sacred Scriptures.]</small>

<p>
        On chap. 5.25, 'The future form given to the verbs by Clericus
is altogether arbitrary. Most of the later writers follow Luther in
translating them as presents. But, if this verse is not descriptive of
the past, as distinguished from the present and the future, the Hebrew
language is incapable of making any such distinction.'
        <small>[Let this principle be carried out, as it ought to be, and
nine-tenths of the common critical works on the Bible are rendered
perfectly useless, and positively injurious.]</small>

<p>
        On chap. 5.26, 'Here, as in v.25, the older writers understand
the verbs as future, but the later ones as present. The verbs in the
last clause have waw prefixed, but its conversive power commonly depends
upon a future verb preceding, which is wanting here.'
        <small>[And so it is in dozens of places where Prof. A. follows in the
usual wake of critics.]</small>

<p>
        On chap. 5.27, 'The English Version follows Calvin in
translating all the verbs as <EM>future</EM>. The Vulgate supplies the present
in the first clause, and makes the others future. But as the whole is
evidently one description, the translation should be uniform, and as the
preterite and future forms are intermingled, both <EM>seem</EM> to be here used
for the <EM>present</EM>, which is given by Luther, and most of the late
writers.'
        <small>[Here, leaving all certainty and settled principles behind him,
Prof. A. tells us how he thinks the inspired writer ought to have
written, not what he did write.]</small>

<p>
        On chap. 8.2, 'The Vulgate takes the verb as a <EM>preterite</EM>, and
Gesenius, Maurer, Knobel read accordingly with waw conversive. The
Septuagint, Targum, and Peshito make it <EM>imperative</EM>, and Hitzig
accordingly. Gesenius formerly preferred an indirect or <EM>subjunctive</EM>
construction, which is still retained by Henderson.' <small>[Here are <EM>four</EM>
ancient versions and, <EM>five</EM> modern critics at fives and sixes regarding
what is as simple as can well be imagined!]</small>

<p>
        On chap. 9.7, 'Another false antithesis is that between the
verbs, referring one to <EM>past</EM> time, and the other to the future. This
is adopted even by Ewald, but according to the usage of the language
[rather of modern Hebrew grammar], <EM>Waw</EM> is conversive of the preterite
only when preceded by a future, expressed or <EM>implied</EM>.'
        <small>[By this very extraordinary rule the critic can never have any
difficulty, for it is very easy to consider a verbal form implied when
it suits his convenience! Yet this egregious absurdity is very commonly
adopted in all existing translations, including the Common English
Version; e.g., Gen, 9.12-14, where the Hebrew Text has four verbs all in
the past tense, yet the first is translated as a present ('I do set'),
and the remaining three as futures! The first verb is undoubtedly in the
past, 'I have set,' the other three as undoubtedly, seeing the Waw by
which they are preceded cannot be conversive, except when preceded by a
future or an imperative, neither of which occur in this place. The
solution of the supposed difficulty is only to be found in the principle
stated above by Prof. A., and which is the basis of the New Translation,
and maintained by Gesenius and Lee, that the Hebrews were in the habit
of using the past to denote the certainty of an event taking place.]</small>

<p>
        On chap. 9.19, 'Ewald refers the first clause to the past, and
the second to the present. Umbreit the first to the present, and the
second to the future. But the very intermingling of the past and the
future forms shows that the whole was meant to be descriptive.'
        <small>[Would they not be descriptive had they been all past, or all
present, or all future?]</small>

<p>
        On chap. 10.14, 'The <EM>present</EM> form, which Hendewerk adopts
throughout the verses, is equally grammatical,'--<small>[<EM>though the first verb
is a</EM> perfect, <EM>and the second a</EM> perfect!]</small>

<p>
        On chap. 14.24, 'Kimchi explains [the verb] to be a preterite
used for a future, and this construction is adopted in most versions,
ancient and modern. It is, however, altogether arbitrary, and in
violation of the only safe rule as to the use of the tenses, viz., that
they should have their proper and distinctive force, unless forbidden by
the context or the nature of the subject, which is very far from being
the case here, as we shall see below. Gesenius and De Wette evade the
difficulty by rendering both the verbs as presents, a construction which
is often admissible, and even necessary(!) in a descriptive context, but
when used indiscriminately or inappropriately, tends both to weaken and
obscure the sense. Ewald and Umbreit make the first verb present, and
the second future, which is scarcely, if at all, less objectionable.'

<p>
The above extracts are surely sufficient to show that Hebrew criticism,
as hitherto taught, is capable of being used to any purpose, or moulded
to any form the Critic may wish. Such a state of things surely cannot
continue any longer, or be adopted by any one who regards simplicity
more than ingenious guesses, truth more than tradition.

<h4>View of Hebrew Tenses As Seen in the New Translation.</h4>

THE HEBREW has only two tenses, which, for want of better terms, may be
called <EM>Past</EM> and <EM>Present</EM>.

<p>
        The <EM>past</EM> is either perfect or imperfect, e.g., 'I <EM>lived</EM> in
this house five years,' or 'I <EM>have lived</EM> in this house five years;'
this distinction may and can only be known by the context, which must in
all cases be viewed from the writer's standing-point.

<p>
        In <EM>every</EM> other instance of its occurrence, it points out
either--

<p>
<ol>
<li><EM>A gentle imperative</EM>, e.g., 'Lo, I have sent unto thee Naaman my
    servant, and thou <EM>hast</EM> recovered him from his leprosy;' see also Zech.
    1.3 &c; or
  
  <li><EM>A fixed determination</EM> that a certain thing shall be done, e.g.,
    'Nay, my lord, hear me, the field <EM>I have given</EM> to thee, and the
    cave that is in it; to thee <EM>I have given</EM> it; before the eyes of
    the sons of my people <EM>I have given</EM> it to thee; bury thy dead;' and
    in the answer, 'Only--if thou wouldst hear me--<EM>I have given</EM> the
    money of the field.'
</ol>

<p>
        The <EM>present</EM> tense--as in the Modern Arabic, Syriac, and
Amharic, the only living remains of the Semitic languages--besides its
proper use, is used rhetorically for the future, there being no
grammatical form to distinguish them; this, however, causes no more
difficulty than it does in English, Turkish, Greek, Sanscrit, &c., the
usages of which may be seen in the Extracts from the principal
grammarians.

<p>
        In <EM>every</EM> other instance of its occurrence, it points out <EM>an
imperative</EM>, not so gently as when a preterite is used for this purpose,
nor so stern as when the regular imperative form is employed, but more
like the infinitive, Thou art <EM>to write</EM> no more; thou <EM>mayest</EM> write no
more.

<p>
        The present participle differs from the present tense just in
the same manner and to the same extent as 'I am writing, or, I am a
writer,' does from, 'I write, or, I do write.'

<p>
        THE ABOVE VIEW of the Hebrew tenses is equally applicable to all
the Semitic languages, including the Ancient and Modern Arabic, the
Ancient and Modern Syriac, the Ancient and Modern Ethiopic, the
Samaritan, the Chaldee, and the Rabbinical Hebrew--not one of which is
admitted to have the Waw Conversive.

   

   <p>     It may be added, that all the <EM>Teutonic</EM> languages--fourteen in
number--agree with the <EM>Semitic</EM> in rejecting a future tense; the
futurity of an event being indicated either by auxiliary verbs, adverbs,
and other particles, or by the context.


<h5>Analysis of the Verbs in Genesis ix. 12-15.</h5>

<blockquote>12 'And God saith, This <EM>is</EM> the token of the covenant that <EM>I
am making</EM> between Me and you, and every living creature that <EM>is</EM> with
you, for generations age-during; 13 My bow I <EM>have</EM> given in the cloud,
and it <EM>hath</EM> been for a token of a covenant between Me and the earth;
14 and it <EM>hath</EM> come to pass, in <EM>My sending</EM> a cloud over the earth,
that the bow <EM>hath been</EM> seen in the cloud, 15 and I <EM>have</EM> remembered
My covenant, that <EM>is</EM> between Me and you, and every living creature of
all flesh, and the waters <EM>become</EM> no more a deluge to destroy all
flesh.'</blockquote>
<ul>
        
	<li><em>Verse 12. And God saith.]</em> The present tense is used, according
to the almost universal custom of the Hebrews, &c., to bring up the
narrative to the present time. The conjunction <EM>and</EM> has no special or
logical significance, but is used simply to break the abruptness of the
opening sentence, as the Hebrews scarcely ever allow a verb in the
present or past tense to commence a sentence, especially in prose,
without some other word preceding it; the only other way would have been
to put the nominative before the verb, but this, though occasionally
used, is not agreeable to Hebrew taste.

<p>
        
	<li><em>This (is) the token.]</em> The Hebrew substantive verb is, in the
present tense, very frequently omitted; in the past tense, it is very
rarely, if ever, omitted.

<p>
        
	<li><em>That I am making, lit. giving.]</em> The participle is more
strikingly expressive of present action than if the present tense had
been employed.

<p>
        
	<li><em>That (is) with you.]</em> The present tense of the substantive verb
is understood as above, according to the <EM>unus loquendi</EM>.

<p>
       
       <li><em> V.13. My bow I have given in the cloud.]</em> The past tense here is
used to express a <EM>fixed determination</EM> that the circumstance mentioned
is undoubtedly to take place; most unwarrantably does the Common Version
translate as a present, 'I do set;' while the theory of the <EM>Waw
conversive</EM> has no place here, since there is no <EM>Waw</EM> to work on.

<p>
        
	<li><em>And it hath become.]</em> The fixed determination is here continued
from the preceding clause; on no grammatical principle can it be
rendered present, much less future, as it is in the Common Version; the
Waw here can have no converting power, there being no future preceding
it to rest on, as the rules of <EM>Waw conversive</EM> imperatively demand.

<p>
        
	<li><em>V.14. It hath come to pass--the bow hath been seen--I have
remembered]</em>--though rendered future in the Common Version, are all past,
being preceded by pasts, and are to be explained by the same
principle--of expressing the certainty of a future action by putting it
in the past, owing to the determination of the speaker that it must be.
</ul>
<p>
        The only remaining verb in the 15th verse is correctly put in
the present tense; the speaker, going forward in thought to the period
when the events alluded to take place, declares graphically that 'the
waters <EM>become</EM> no more a deluge to destroy all flesh.'

<h4>'Waw Conversive' A Fiction -- Not a Fact.</h4>

THE doctrine of 'Waw Conversive,' according to the common Hebrew
Grammars, is:--<p>
<ul>

<li>'The <EM>past</EM> tense with the prefix <EM>waw</EM>, expresses future time when
preceded by a verb in the <EM>future</EM> or by an <EM>imperative</EM>.' And again:--
<li>'The <EM>future</EM> tense, with the prefix <EM>waw</EM>, and dagesh in the
following letter, is used to express the <EM>past</EM>.' <small>[See the Grammars of
Hurwitz, Gesenius, &c.]</small>
</ul>
  <EM>The objections to this doctrine may be summed up in four particulars</EM>:--
<ol>
        <li start=I> It is insufficient to explain the many thousands of passages
in the Hebrew Bible where a <EM>past</EM> tense is preceded neither by a
<EM>future</EM> nor by an <EM>imperative</EM>, yet where it is 'converted' in the
Common English Bible, and with as much propriety as in any of those
instances that are supposed to be indisputable: e.g.

<p>
        Ge. 3.12, 'This (is) the token of the covenant that I am making
between Me and you ... my bow <EM>I have set</EM> in the cloud, and it <EM>hath
become</EM> the token of the covenant ... and it <EM>hath come to pass</EM> ... and
it <EM>hath been seen</EM> ... and I have remembered ... and the waters do no
more,' &c.

<p>
        Ge. 17.4, ' Lo, My covenant (is) with thee, and <EM>thou hast
become</EM> the father of a multitude of nations.'

<p>
        The true solution of the principle involved in these passages
is: That the Hebrews were in the habit of expressing <EM>the certainty of
an action taking place</EM> by putting it in the past tense (see
particularly Ge. 23.11, '<EM>I have given ... I have given ... I have
given</EM>;' also in verse 13, '<EM>I have given</EM>'), taking its fulfilment for
granted.

<p>
        
	<li>It leads to results rather startling, viz. that most, if not
all, of the Hebrew particles are conversive! Grammarians have already
been driven to admit, or rather assert, that <EM>az</EM> then, and <EM>terem</EM> not
yet, are conversive as well as <EM>waw</EM>.

<p>
But the list might be enlarged with such as the following:--
<pre>
   1 Kings 10.22--<EM>ahath</EM>, once . . . . 'once in three years <EM>cometh</EM>.'
      Num.  3.23--<EM>ahari</EM>, behind . . . 'behind they <EM>do encamp</EM> westward.'
     Judg.  5. 8--<EM>im</EM>, not . . . . . . 'there <EM>is</EM> not seen.'
     Judg.  5.29--<EM>aph</EM>, yea  . . . . . 'yea, she <EM>returneth</EM>.'
      Gen.  6. 4--<EM>asher</EM>, when . . . . 'when they <EM>come</EM> in.
     Deut. 12.30--<EM>aicah</EM>, how? . . . . 'how <EM>do they serve</EM>?'
     Ezek. 21.32--<EM>gam</EM>, also . . . . . 'this also <EM>hath</EM> not <EM>been</EM>.'
     1 Sa. 21.14--<EM>hinneh</EM>, lo  . . . . 'lo, <EM>you see</EM> the man is mad.'
     Exod. 18.15--<EM>ki</EM>, because . . . . 'because the people <EM>come</EM> unto me.'
     Exod.  1.12--<EM>ken</EM>, so . . . . . . 'so <EM>they multiply</EM>.'
      Gen. 32.26--<EM>ki im</EM>, except . . . 'except <EM>thou hast blessed</EM> me.'
      Ruth  2.13--<EM>lo</EM>, not . . . . . . 'and I--I <EM>am</EM> not as one.'
      1 a. 21.14--<EM>lamah</EM>, why? . . . . 'why <EM>do ye bring</EM> him unto me?'
           19.24--<EM>al ken</EM>, therefore . 'therefore they <EM>say</EM>.'
     Josh.  9. 8--<EM>me-ayin</EM>, whence?  . 'whence <EM>come</EM> ye?
      Gen. 37.12--<EM>ma</EM>, what? . . . . . 'what <EM>dost thou seek</EM>?'
           21. 7--<EM>mi</EM>, who?  . . . . . 'who <EM>hath said</EM>?'

</pre>
This is only a small specimen of what might be adduced. It is not too
much to say that the above <EM>twenty</EM> particles (including <EM>az</EM>, <EM>waw</EM>,
and <EM>terem</EM>) might be doubled, if not tripled, in number.

<p>
        
	<li>It requires us to admit that the form <EM>yiqtol</EM> is
essentially a future tense, while from the analogy of the Modern and
Ancient Arabic, as well as from its use in the following passages (which
might easily be multiplied), it is evidently an indefinite present,
expressive of habitual action, which may very naturally be viewed as
being or continuing in operation at some period afterwards as well as at
present.
<pre>

      Ge. 2.10--<EM>yippared</EM>, it is parted.
            19--<EM>yikra</EM>, he calleth
          6. 4--<EM>yavou</EM>, they come in.
         10. 9--<EM>yeamar</EM>, it is said.
         31.39--<EM>ahattenah</EM>, I repay it.
              --<EM>tevakshenah</EM>, thou dost seek it.
   1 Sa. 13.17--<EM>yiphneh</EM>, he turneth.
         14.47--<EM>yarshia</EM>, he vexeth.
         21.14--<EM>taviu</EM>, do ye bring; <EM>tiru</EM>, you see.
    Isa.  1.11--<EM>yomar</EM>, he saith.
     Job  3.11--<EM>amuth</EM>, do I die.
             3--<EM>ivvaled</EM>, I am born.


</pre>
None of these passages can with any propriety be regarded as expressive
of future action; and there seems no rational way of solving the problem
but by regarding the tense as is done above.


<p>        
<li>It is not found in any other language; and in particular, it
is unknown in all the cognate Semitic dialects, viz., the Samaritan,
Chaldee, Syriac, Arabic, and Ethiopic, and in all the voluminous
uninspired literature of the Jews. Attempts have been made to find
something like it in the use of the Arabic particle <EM>pha</EM>, but, as
Professor Lee has well remarked (in his Hebrew Grammar and Lexicon), the
same thing might be alleged of most other Arabic particles, such as
<EM>la</EM>, no, <EM>lam</EM>, not, <EM>lamma</EM>, why, <EM>summa</EM>, then, &c., which no one has
ever as yet thought of doing.

<p>
        The Arabs, in order to lessen the occasional ambiguity arising
from the same form of the verb being used indifferently for the present
and the future, sometimes prefix to it the particle <EM>sa</EM> (a contraction
of <EM>soufa</EM>, at last, hereafter), which makes it strictly future, and
sometimes the word <EM>ammal</EM> (an agent), which makes it strictly present.
</ol>

<h4>THE WAW CONVERSIVE -- IMPERFECT</h4>                    
<pre>
                                           bal tyyhw , Kta ytyrb hnh yna
                             hyhw , Mrba Kms-ta dwe arqy-alw , Mywg Nwmh
                                      :Kyttn Mywg Nwmh-ba yk , Mhrba Kms

</pre>
<EM>Common Version</EM>:-- 'As for Me behold, My covenant [is] with
thee, and thou SHALT be a father of many nations; neither shall thy name
any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham, for a father of
many nations HAVE I made thee.'

<p>        <EM>New Version</EM>:-- 'I--lo, My covenant [is] with thee, and thou
HAST become a father of a multitude of nations, and thy name is no more
called Abram, but thy name hath been Abraham, for a father of a
multitude of nations HAVE I made thee.'--Gen. 17.4,5.

   <hr width=20%>

        It is the first and the last of the verbs in the above verses to
which the reader's attention is specially requested, viz, those
translated in the Common Version, 'Thou <EM>shalt</EM> be,' and 'I <EM>have</EM>
made,' and in the New Version, 'Thou <EM>hast</EM> become,' and 'I <EM>have</EM>
made.'

<p>
        Both Versions agree in translating the last verb as a preterite,
'I <EM>have</EM> made;' as the form of the verb is admitted on all hands to be
that of a preterite.

<p>
        The versions differ, however, in the translation of the first
verb, the one rendering it by the future 'shall,' the other by the
preterite 'hast.'

<p>
        The question at issue is: Which of the two is right? <EM>both</EM>
cannot be right--one <EM>must</EM> be wrong.

   

   <p>     It is undoubtedly in the preterite form, precisely like the last
verb in the sentence, admitted on all hands to be a preterite. Why then
should this not be translated as a preterite likewise ?

<p>
        If it be said, that the <EM>sense</EM> requires it to be translated as
a future, seeing it is not literally true that Abraham <EM>was</EM> a father of
many nations at the moment that God addressed these words to him, then,
<EM>on precisely the same principle</EM>, the last verb ought to be translated
as a future, 'I <EM>will</EM> make thee,'--not 'I <EM>have</EM> made thee,' as both
versions agree in doing--as it is not literally true, that, at the
moment when God thus addressed him, He <EM>had</EM> made him a father of many
nations.

<p>
        If no one will venture to translate the last verb as a future,
why should the first be so rendered?

<p>
        If it be said that the first verb has a conjunction before it,
called <EM>Waw</EM>, signifying 'and,' and that the Hebrew Grammarians have
laid it down as an idiom of the language, that, in certain
circumstances, <EM>Waw</EM> before a preterite indicates that the preterite is
to be reckoned as a future, the answer is: These circumstances do not
exist in the present case.

<p>
        The fundamental Rule laid down by all Hebrew Grammarians to
regulate <EM>Waw Conversive</EM> is: that the first verb to be converted must
be preceded by one of a different tense, e.g., a preterite must be
preceded by a future, and a future by a preterite.

<p>
        But, in the passage before us, there is, in the Hebrew, no verb
at all preceding the one supposed to be converted, and consequently the
Rule cannot operate.

<p>
        <EM>On no principle of Hebrew Grammar, as commonly taught</EM>, can the
Conversive Principle come into operation in this passage, and it is only
one out of <EM>hundreds of similar instances</EM>.

<p>
        The solution of the matter is found in the principle: That the
Hebrews were in the habit of using the preterite form of the verb to
denote a fixed determination that the things mentioned <EM>shall</EM> and
<EM>must</EM> take place; this principle is common to all the Semitic
languages; it is distinctly admitted by the best Hebrew Grammarians; it
is common to the New Testament Writers, and to the whole series of Greek
and Latin Classics, (see Winer, Stuart, Kuhner, &c.) and it is the only
one that meets all cases.

<p>
        The <EM>Waw Conversive</EM>, on the contrary, is unknown in <EM>every</EM>
other Hebrew composition--in <EM>every</EM> other Semitic dialect--in <EM>every</EM>
other language on earth.

<h4>Hebrew Tenses Illustrated by Those of Other Languages</h4>           
<hr width=20% align=center>

<h5 align=center>RABBINICAL WRITINGS.</h5>                          

THE oldest writings in the Hebrew language, after the Old Testament, are
the <EM>Talmuds</EM>, large portions of which we have examined to find some
examples of Waw Conversive, but in vain; we have not found a single
instance of a preterite converted into a future, or any thing that bears
the slightest resemblance to it.

<p>
        With the same view we have read large portions of the best
Rabbinical Commentators, Kimchi, Jarchi, Aben-Ezra; the Jewish
Prayer-Books, the Hebrew translations of the New Testament, of the
Pilgrim's Progress, of Dr M'Caul's Old Paths, and have looked over other
Hebrew works too numerous to mention, and all with the same negative
result. How is it at all possible that the Hebrew language, as found in
the Old Testament, can have a Waw Conversive, if it be wanting in all
the oldest and most valued later Hebrew writings? Can credulity go
farther?

<p>
        The <EM>astounding fact</EM> is: that, out of the hundreds of languages
which are, and have been, spoken on the earth, not one, except the
Hebrew, is supposed to have the Waw Conversive; while, out of the
hundreds of volumes which have been published in the Hebrew language,
not one, except the Old Testament, has the Waw Conversive!

   <h5 align=center>SAMARITAN.</h5>                            

        NICHOLLS writes:--'Some verbs include, under the perfect form,
both a perfect and present tense, ... we sometimes find a future
circumstance related in the perfect tense, as something that has
actually taken place, the design of the writers in this case was to mark
the future occurrence as something already evidently decreed and decided
on, and therefore as it were accomplished: thus Ge. 15.18, 'To thy sons
have I given the land.'

<p>
          'The peculiar use of Waw, called Waw Conversive among the
Hebrews, is <EM>unknown</EM> to the Samaritans, Chaldees, and Syrians.
   

   <p>       'The future tense, besides the force of a future, seems to
have the force of a present; as Ge. 37.15, 'What seekest thou?' Ex.
5.15, 'Why do ye do so?''--<EM>Grammar</EM>, p. 93,94.

<h5 align=center>ETHIOPIC--ANCIENT.</h5>
                           

        LUDOLPH writes:--'<EM>Praesens</EM> tantum in subjunctivo occurrit; nam
indicativi futuro utuntur pro praesenti; quod quidem nostro idiomati
assuetis oppido iucommodum videtur, sensus tamen, constructio, longnsque
usus, huic defectui succurrit.

<p>
        'Praeteritum ... continet autem sub se caetera praeterita
latinorum, imperfectivum, et plusquam perfectum indicativi et
subjunctivi, nec non futurum subjunctiva, si particulae id poscant, ut
Ps. 50.17; 54.12,13.

<p>
        'Excipe <EM>hale</EM>; defectum, quod praesentis et imperfecti
indicativi signiticationem habet, est, erat adest, aderat.' 'Futurum, ut
dixemus, hic etiam pro presenti indicativi est.'--<EM>Gram</EM>. p. 19,20).

   <h5 align=center>AMHARIC.</h5>                             

        ISENBERG writes:--'The Abyssinians have not, strictly speaking,
more than two divisions of time, i.e., the past and the present; the
present being used also for the future.... The present, which might be
perhaps with propriety called aorist [?] because it is applicable to the
future, as well as to the present tense, is a form composed of the
contingent and the auxiliary.
<br>

        'Whether this form, when it occurs, is intended for the present
or the future, generally depends on the context. In order, however, to
have no doubt when they speak of future things, they use the simple
contingent form with additional particles, I have [am] to be honourable;
time is for me [to come] that I am to be honourable.'

<p>
        'The simple preterite of the indicative is used ... for the
present or immediate future. ... 'I am gone,' i.e., if you allow me I go
now; or when a person is frequently called, and does not come, he at
last answers, [I have come, I have come, i.e.] 'I come, I come.'

<p>
        'The present indicative is used for both the present and the
future tenses.

<p>
        'The future time is <EM>generally</EM> expressed by the same forms
which serve for the present, except the aoristic construction. In page
66 of this work we pointed out a decidedly future form, besides which
they make use of the contingent with <EM>al</EM> and <EM>dohonal</EM>; but these two
latter forms are not confined to the future; they are also used for the
present tense.'
<h5 align=center>MALTESE</h5>

                                

        GESENIUS writes:--'Ich folge der Anordnung der Grammatiker fur
die arabische vulgar-sprache, in welcher bekantlich, wie in Maltese, das
Fut. <EM>praesent</EM> ist.--P. 16.

<h5 align=center>COPTIC.</h5>                                

        TATTAM writes:--'Instances frequently occur, in which the
present tense is used for the perfect, and also for the future.
        'The future tense and future participles are sometimes used to
express the present and perfect tenses.'--<EM>Grammar</EM>, p. 61-66.

<h4>Hebrew Tenses Illustrated by Those of Other Languages.</h4>

                            <h5 align=center>ARABIC--ANCIENT.</h5>

        RICHARDSON writes:--'The <EM>preterite</EM> is used also in place of
the <EM>future</EM>, and other tenses, which an attention to the construction
only can render familiar.

<p>
        'The particle <EM>la</EM>, 'not,' gives to the <EM>preterite</EM> the
signification of the <EM>present</EM>, 'the fruit of timidity does not gain
[hath not gained], and doth not lose [hath not lost]. ... Perceded by
<EM>az</EM>, or <EM>aza</EM>, 'when,' it becomes the <EM>future</EM> of the subjunctive,
'when you shall be [have been] among strange people, to whom you do not
belong, then eat whatever is set before you, whether it be bad or good.'

<p>
        'The <EM>future</EM> corresponds more frequently to our present than to
any other tense, as may be remarked in almost every passage. ... It is
frequently <EM>restrained</EM> to a <EM>future</EM> tense when the particle <EM>sa</EM> is
prefixed ... the negative <EM>lana</EM>, 'not at all,' together with the
particles <EM>saufa, saf, saw, say</EM>, give it likewise the future sense.
When preceded by <EM>ma</EM>, 'not,' it has for the most part a present
signification. ... <EM>lam</EM> and <EM>lama</EM>, 'not yet,' gives it, according to
Erpenius, the sense of the <EM>preterite</EM>.'--<EM>Grammar</EM>, p. 81-89

   <h5 align=center>ARABIC--MODERN.</h5>                         

        FARIS EL-SHIDIAC writes:--'The form for the <EM>future</EM> of the verb
is also applicable for the <EM>present</EM>. The modern Arabs, therefore, make
it a real <EM>present</EM> by joining it to some other word. Thus <EM>howa
yaktuba</EM>, signifies <EM>he writes</EM>, or <EM>he will write</EM>. But <EM>howa ammal
yaktuba</EM>, has the single signification of <EM>he is writing</EM>.

<p>
        'Although in the classical Arabic there are two particles, <EM>sa</EM>
and <EM>saufa</EM> employed to confine the verb to the future, they are very
seldom used in ordinary books.'--<EM>Grammar</EM>, p. 38.

                           <h5 align=center>SYRIAC--ANCIENT.</h5>

        HOFFMAN writes:--'<EM>Praet</EM>. pro Fut. in sermonibus <EM>propheticis,
asseverationibus</EM>, vel in expectatione interdum, sed multo rarius, quam
in Hebraicis libris usurpatur (Praet. <EM>propheticum</EM>), ita ut viva
loquentis imaginatione id, quod futurum est, tanquam praeteritum aut
certe praesens fingatur; e.g., Es. 9.1, Ge. 17.20; 40.14, Job 19.27, Jo.
5.24.

<p>
        'Praet. pro <EM>Imper</EM>. ut quamquam non omnino prohibitum, tamen in
uno fere verbo <EM>hewo</EM> vulgare est, idque in sermonibus tum affirmantibus
tum negantibus, praecipue ubi cum Adject. aut Partic. conjunctum
legitur, ut Mat. 5.25; 6.7, Mar. 5.34; 13.37, Lu. 10.37; 11.2; 13.14,
Rom. 12.9-14, 16, 1Cor. 11.24; 14.20, Eph. 4.32, Tit. 3.1, 1Jo. 4.1.

<p>
        'Praet. pro <EM>Fut. exacto</EM> poni, non singulare putarim, quia hoc
tempus praeteriti notionem certo includit; ita in his sententiis
hypotheticis, De. 4.30, 1Sa. 10.2.

<p>
        The <EM>future</EM> is used: 'pro <EM>praes</EM>. neque tamen tam crebro, quam
in Hebraico sermone, e.g. 1Sa. 1.8, Ephr. 1.119, f., Ge. 4.15, Es.
43.17.

<p>
        'Fut. Syriaco ea quoque indicantur, quae Romani <EM>praes</EM>.
conjunct, designant; itaque <EM>a</EM>) <EM>Optativus</EM>, ut Ps. 7.10, Cant. 7.9,
1Reg. 17.21, deinde b) Germanorum formulae loquendi verbo quodam
auxiliari (<EM>mogen, durfer, konnen, sollen</EM>), effectae, ut Ps. 7.10, Es.
19.12; 47.13. Esdr. 19.14 Ge. 2.16; 3.2; 30.31, Ju. 14.16, Pr. 20.9, Non
minus c) <EM>Imper</EM>. hoc tempore signatur, quid? quod in praeceptis ad
aliquid prohibendum datis, cum Imper. <EM>prohibitive</EM> usurpari nequeat (P
132, 1), vulgo eo utuntur, e.g., Ge. 46.3, Ex. 20.13-17, Ruth 1.20.'--
<EM>Grammar</EM>, p. 332-336.

<p>

        UHLEMANN writes:--'The <EM>past</EM> designates the <EM>present</EM> tense a)
in <EM>prophecies, asseverations</EM>, and the like, which are viewed as
already fulfilled and accomplished.

<p>
        'The <EM>future</EM> stands for ... the <EM>present</EM>, although more rarely
than in Hebrew.

<p>
        'The <EM>preterite</EM> also stands for the <EM>imperative</EM>.'--Grammar, p.
171-7.

   <h5 align=center>SYRIAC--MODERN</h5>                          

        STODDART writes.--'<EM>Present tense</EM>. This is sometimes used ...
as a <EM>future</EM>, 'we are going after a month;' so in Ge. 6.17, where in
the modern language we have the <EM>present</EM> tense, and in the ancient the
active participle.

<p>
        '<EM>Preterite tense</EM>.--1) Used as a <EM>present</EM>: e.g., a man in
distress says; '<EM>I died</EM>, i.e., I am dead; <EM>I choked</EM>, i.e., I am
choked, or I am drowned.' A boy in recitation, if confused, will say
'<EM>it lost on me</EM>,' i.e., I have lost it. Ask a man how his business is
to-day, and he may reply, 'It remained [remains] just so.' Persons
coming to make a petition will tell us, 'we poured (i.e., we now place)
our hope on you.' Compare Ancient Syriac, (Hoff. P 129, 4.b.c.) (Compare
also Ps. 1.1, in the Ancient and Modern.

<p>
        '4) As a <EM>future</EM>, e.g., if you died to-morrow, you perished; if
you believe, Christ just now (i.e., at this moment) received [will
receive] you;' this is no doubt an emphatic future. Compare Nordh. P
966. 1,c.

<p>
        '5) As a <EM>subjunctive present</EM>. ... Many of the idioms mentioned
above give force and vivacity to the language. We are thus allowed to
speak of events and actions which are present or future, though
definite, or future and contingent, as if they had actually transpired
and were recorded in the past. On this account the preterite is often
used in Hebrew in the language of prophecy.

<p>
        'It is not strange that these different idioms lead to
ambiguity, which no acquaintance with the language will fully remove;
e.g., [a certain given phrase] may be translated, 'our sweet voices let
us all raise; <EM>or</EM> we do all raise, <EM>or</EM> we will all raise.' The
perplexity thus caused, however, is as nothing compared with the
puzzling expressions we often find in Hebrew.'--<EM>Grammar</EM>, p. 158-164.

         <h4>Hebrew Tenses Illustrated by Those of Other Languages.</h4>
<h5 align=center>TURKISH.</h5>

                                

        BARKER writes:--'The first tense [i.e. the present] has also a
future signification; <EM>aidrm</EM> is used for 'I do' and 'I will do'
equally. It is therefore called aorist [?] by Mr Redhouse.' The present
participle <EM>aider</EM>, 'doing,' has, Mr Barker says, a future sense also.--
<EM>Grammar</EM>, p. 27, 28.

<h5 align=center>PERSIAN,</h5>
                                

        BLEECK writes:--'In narration, when, after a verb in the
<EM>preterite</EM>, a second verb occurs, which in English would also be
naturally in a <EM>past</EM> tense, the Persians employ the present (or
aorist), as, 'The young tiger saw that he <EM>has</EM> not the power of
resisting.'

<p>
        'Similarly, in recounting a conversation, the Persians always
make use of a dramatic style, i.e., they report the very words, as,
Hattim told her that he would not eat--lit., Hattim said to her thus, I
will not eat.'--<EM>Grammar</EM>, p. 79.

   <h5 align=center>SANSCRIT.</h5>                            

        WILLIAMS writes:--'<EM>Present tense</EM>. This tense, besides its
proper use, is frequently used for the <EM>future</EM>; as, 'whether shall [do]
I go? when shall [do] I see thee?'

<p>
        'In narrative it is commonly used for the <EM>past</EM> tense; as, 'he
having touched the ground, touches his ears, and says.' ... The particle
<EM>sma</EM>, when used with the present, gives it the force of a
perfect.'--<EM>Grammar</EM>, p. 198, 199.

   <h5 align=center>GUJARATI.</h5>                            
        CLARKSON writes:--'<EM>Present</EM> [tense expresses] in familiar
conversation action as about to take place immediately, 'I am sending
[going to send] a servant with you; [also] action originating in past
time, and not yet completed, where the English uses the perfect of the
auxiliary, 'How many days have you been [are you] studying Gujarati.'

<p>
        'It is used in narrative of <EM>past</EM> events, when writing
seriatim.

<p>
        'It expresses <EM>future</EM> action, which, on account of its
certainty, is viewed as present by the speaker, e.g., I go [shall go]
this year to Bombay.

<p>
        'The first <EM>future</EM> ... is used ... where the English uses the
present, especially when preceded by <EM>jare</EM>, 'when,'--when my brother
comes, lit. shall come.'--<EM>Grammar</EM>, p. 73, 74.

   <h5 align=center>HINDUSTANI.</h5>                           

        Shakespear writes:--'The <EM>past</EM> indefinite of a verb seems at
times used in a present or future sense. ... The <EM>present</EM>, when
celerity in the performance of any enterprise is emphatically denoted,
may be used in the sense of the <EM>future</EM>. ... The indefinite <EM>future</EM> or
<EM>aorist</EM> may not only convey a present meaning, but it may even be
construed with an auxiliary verb as a present participle
even.'--<EM>Grammar</EM>, p. 136.

                               <h5 align=center>SIAMESE,</h5> 

        LOW writes:--'The present tense of this [indicative] mood is in
its nature indefinite, ... I remain <EM>or</EM> I will remain; you are not to
go yonder, i.e., you will [shall?] not go. ... 'I shot a bird,' as it
stands, might be also rendered, 'I shoot a bird.'--<EM>Grammar</EM>, p. 47.

                               <h5 align=center>TELOOGOO.</h5>

        CAMPBELL writes:--'It is of much importance for the reader to
understand that the two forms of the future tense are seldom used; the
present or the aorist being commonly substituted for them.'--<EM>Grammar</EM>,
p. 99.

                                 <h5 align=center>MALAY.</h5>

        CRAWFORD writes:--'Time is often left to be inferred from the
context, and, indeed, is expressed <EM>only when it is indispensable</EM> to
the sense that it should be specified.

<p>
        'The tenses, when they must be specified, are formed by
auxiliaries, which are either verbs or adverbs.'--<EM>Grammar</EM>, p. 48.

                              <h5 align=center>NEW ZEALAND.</h5>

        WILLIAMS writes:--'The present and perfect, when formed by <EM>ka</EM>,
will generally be distinguished by the sense.'--p. 63.

                                <h5 align=center>YORUBA.</h5>

        GROWTHER writes:--'The <EM>present</EM> and <EM>imperfect</EM> tenses are both
alike; as <EM>moh loh</EM>, I go, I went; <EM>awa de</EM>, we return, we returned; <EM>o
sung</EM>, he sleeps, he slept; <EM>o joko</EM>, thou sittest, thou sattest. ...
The present tense, strictly speaking, is more frequently expressed by
the sign of the particle <EM>ng</EM>, and [it] is then understood that the
action is not yet past; as <EM>a'ng--koh takardah</EM>, we are writing a
book.'--Vocabulary, p. 16.

<H4>Hebrew Tenses Illustrated by Those of Other Languages.</h4>         

                                <h5 align=center>ENGLISH.</h5>

        PRIESTLEY writes:--'A little reflection may, I think suffice to
convince any person that we have no more business with a <EM>future tense</EM>
in our language than we have with the whole system of Latin moods and
tenses; because we have no modification of our verbs to correspond to
it; and if we had never heard of a future tense in some other language,
we should no more have given a particular name to the combination of the
verb with the auxiliary <EM>shall</EM> or <EM>will</EM>, than to those that are made
with the auxiliaries <EM>do, have, can, must</EM>, or any other.'--<EM>English
Grammar</EM>.

<p>

        LATHAM writes:--'Notwithstanding its name, the <EM>present</EM> tense,
in English, does not express a strictly <EM>present</EM> action; it rather
expresses an <EM>habitual</EM> one. He speaks well--he is a good speaker. If a
man means to say that he is in the act of speaking, he says, <EM>I am
speaking</EM>. It has also, especially when combined with a subjunctive
mood, a <EM>future</EM> power. I beat you (--I will beat you) if you don't
leave off.'--<EM>English Language</EM>, p. 455.

<p>

        LINDLEY MURRAY writes:--'The <EM>present</EM> tense, preceded by the
words <EM>when, before, after, as soon as</EM>, &c., is sometimes [often?] used
to point out the relative time of a <EM>future</EM> action; as, '<EM>When</EM> he
arrives he will hear the news;' 'He will hear the news <EM>before</EM> he
arrives;' or, '<EM>As soon as</EM> he arrives,' or, 'At, farthest, <EM>soon after</EM>
he arrives;' 'The more she improves, the more amiable she will be.'

<p>
        'In animated historical narratives, this tense is sometimes
[always?] substituted for the imperfect tense; as, 'He <EM>enters</EM> the
territory of the peaceful inhabitants, he <EM>fights</EM> and <EM>conquers, takes</EM>
an immense booty, which he <EM>divides</EM> among his soldiers, and <EM>returns</EM>
home to enjoy an empty triumph.'

<p>
        'The <EM>perfect</EM> tense, preceded by the words <EM>when, after, as
soon as</EM>, &c., is often used to denote the <EM>relative</EM> time of a <EM>future</EM>
action; as, '<EM>When</EM> I have finished my letter, I will attend to his
request;' 'I will attend to this business, <EM>as soon as</EM> I have finished
my letter.'

<p>
        'It is to be observed, that in the <EM>subjunctive</EM> mood ... the
verb itself in the <EM>present</EM>, and the auxiliary both of the <EM>present</EM>
and <EM>past-imperfect</EM> tenses often carry with them somewhat of a <EM>future</EM>
sense; as, 'If he come to-morrow, I may speak to him; if he should <EM>or</EM>
would come to-morrow, I might, could, would, or should speak to him.'

<p>
        'Observe also, that the auxiliaries <EM>should</EM> and <EM>would</EM>, in the
<EM>imperfect</EM> tenses, are used to express the <EM>present</EM> and <EM>future</EM> as
well as the <EM>past</EM>: as, 'It is my desire, that he should, or would, come
now, or to-morrow;' as well as, 'It was my desire, that he should or
would come yesterday;' so that, in this mood, the precise time of the
verb is very much <EM>determined</EM> by the nature and drift of the
sentence.'--<EM>Grammar</EM>, p. 116-119.

<p>

        PICKBOURN writes:--'The first of these English tenses, viz., <EM>I
write</EM>, is an aorist [?], or indefinite of the present time.

<p>
        'Even those compound participles, which denote <EM>completed</EM> or
<EM>finished</EM> actions, may be applied to <EM>future</EM>, as well as <EM>past</EM> and
<EM>present</EM> time. Thus: 'Whenever that ambitious young prince <EM>comes</EM> to
the throne, <EM>being supported</EM> by a veteran army, and <EM>having got</EM>
possession of the treasures which will be [are] <EM>found</EM> in his father's
coffers, he,' &c.--<EM>English Verb</EM>, p. 111.

<p>

        MARSH writes:--'It is a curious fact that the <EM>Romance</EM>
languages, as well as the <EM>Romaic</EM>, at one period of their history, all
rejected the ancient inflected futures, and formed new compound or
auxiliary ones, employing for that purpose the verbs <EM>will</EM> and <EM>shall</EM>,
or <EM>have</EM> in the sense of duty or necessity, though French, Italian,
Spanish and Portuguese, have now agglutinated the infinite and auxiliary
into a simple future.

<p>
        'Why is it that the Gothic languages have always possessed a
<EM>past</EM> tense, never a <EM>future</EM>? Why did the Romance dialects retain the
Latin <EM>past</EM> forms, and reject the Latin <EM>future</EM>?'

<p>
        'If the expression of time is an inherent necessity of the verb,
special forms for the future as well as the present and the past ought
to be universal, but in most modern European languages, the future is a
compound, the elements of which are a <EM>present</EM> auxiliary and an
<EM>aorist</EM> infinitive, for in the phrases I <EM>shall</EM> go, he <EM>will</EM> go,
<EM>shall</EM> and <EM>will</EM> are in the present tense, and <EM>go</EM> is aoristic.

<p>
        'The Anglo-Saxon, with a single exception in the case of a
substantive verb, had absolutely no mode of expressing the future by any
verbal form, simple or compound. The context alone determined the time,
and in German, in the Scandinavian dialects, and in English, we still
very commonly, as the Anglo-Saxons did, express the future by a present.
<EM>Ich gehe morgen nach London</EM>, I go, or I am going, to London to-morrow,
are more frequently used by Germans and Englishmen, than <EM>ich werde
gehen</EM>, I shall or will go; and the adverbial nouns <EM>morgen</EM> and
to-morrow, not the verbs <EM>gehen</EM> and go, are the true time-words.

<p>
        'The use of the present for the past, too, especially in
spirited narrative and in poetry, is not less familiar, and in both
these cases the expression of time belongs to the grammatical period,
not to the verb.'--<EM>Lectures</EM>, p. 204.
<H4>Summary of the New View of the Hebrew Verb</h4>
               

From these pages the scholar can scarcely fail to infer that:--
<ol>
<li type=I> The form of the Hebrew verb <EM>yiqtol</EM>, denotes a <EM>real present</EM>, and
not a <EM>future</EM>:
  <ol>
  
  <li>Because it is admitted by Ewald, Gesenius, Lee, Rodiger, and every
  other Hebrew Grammarian of name, that it is so in numberless places,
  and because there are thousands of instances where the Common English
  Version, and all other versions, ancient and modern, do rightly
  translate it as a <EM>present</EM>.

  
  <li>Because there are numerous passages where it cannot possibly be a
  <EM>future</EM>; and as it is impossible, in the very nature of things, for a
  <EM>real future</EM> to express <EM>present</EM> time,--whereas it is very common,
  in almost all languages, rhetorically to express futurity by a
  present--it must be a present, and not a future.

  
  <li>Because in all the Cognate Semitic Dialects it is regarded as a
  present.
  </ol>
<li>The form of the Hebrew verb <EM>qatal</EM> denotes a <EM>past</EM> (perfect or
imperfect). It is also used idiomatically:--
  <ol>
  
  <li>To express a gentle <EM>imperative</EM>; this is universally agreed by all
  Hebrew Grammarians to be the case when it is preceded by a regular
  imperative, e.g., 'Speak and say,' lit., Speak, and thou hast said;
  but this limitation of theirs arises from imperfect acquaintance with
  the facts of the case, as there are many passages where there is no
  imperative preceding, yet where the past tense is used to express a
  command, e.g., Zech. 1.3, 'And thou hast said,' i.e, 'Say thou.' This
  idiom is also admitted to be common in all the Cognate Semitic
  Dialects.

  
  <li>To express a fixed determination that a certain thing must and
  shall be. This idiom is distinctly admitted by the above-mentioned
  Hebrew Grammarians, and is common, not only in the Cognate Semitic
  Dialects, but in the <EM>Greek New Testament</EM>, and also in the <EM>Greek</EM>
  and <EM>Latin Classics</EM>, as shown by Stuart, Winer, Macknight, Kuhner,
  and others.</ol>

<li>The <EM>Waw Conversive</EM> is unnecessary. It is based upon superficial
data, for:--
  <ol>
  
  <li>It supposes <EM>yiqtol</EM> to be an <EM>exclusively future</EM> form, which is
  not the case.

  
  <li>It ignores the idiomatic use of the past tense to express a 'fixed
  determination,' which is admitted by all Hebrew Grammarians.

  
  <li>It casts the utmost uncertainty over the language, as, on the very
  same principles by which <EM>waw</EM> is supposed to be conversive, the
  particles <EM>once, behind, not, yea, when, how? also, lo, because, so,
  except, why? therefore, whence? what?</EM> and <EM>who?</EM> must be held to be
  conversive likewise--which no sane man will venture to maintain.

  
  <li>It does not explain all the phenomena of the case, for there are
  numberless passages 'where a past tense is preceded neither by a
  future nor by an imperative (as the rules of Waw Conversive
  imperatively require), yet, when it is converted in the Common English
  Version, and with as much propriety as in any of those instances which
  are supposed to be indisputable.'

  
  <li>It is unparalleled among all the other languages of the
  world--ancient and modern, eastern and western.

  <p>
    It is found in no other composition in the Hebrew Language; in all
  the most ancient, and valued, and voluminous Hebrew writings it is
  wanting;--the Talmudim, the Perushim, the Midrashim, have it not. If
  the Hebrew language ever had a <EM>Waw Conversive</EM>, is it at all likely
  that it should <EM>suddenly, totally</EM>, and <EM>unobservedly</EM> drop out of
  existence?
  </ol>
</ol><p>
<EM>The result of the whole is</EM>: That the <EM>Waw Conversive</EM> does not exist
in the Hebrew Bible, and is Unnecessary, Imperfect, and Unexampled in
any language.

<p>
        It has only a <EM>traditional</EM> existence, being the too hasty
<EM>generalization</EM> of some ancient grammarians, who observed that the
Septuagint Translators had--with the freedom which characterizes their
whole work both in style and sentiments--deemed the Hebrew idioms too
<EM>colloquial</EM> for the fastidious Greeks, and too <EM>simple</EM> for the dignity
of literary composition; and as all succeeding translators, without an
exception, were under the spell of the sacred character of that Version,
it is no wonder, though much to be regretted, that their example was
followed. Of late years there has been a very strong tendency in
translators and expositors to adhere more than ever to the exact form of
the Hebrew and Greek Tenses, but the present Translation is the first
and only one in which it is carried out systematically.

<H4>Confused Renderings of King James' Revisers.</H4>

        The English verb 'destroy' is, in the Common Version, the
representative of not less than forty-nine different Hebrew words (as
may be seen in the 'Englishman's Hebrew Concordance,' p. 1510 of second
edition);-- the verb 'to set,' of forty, and 'to bring,' of thirty-nine,
&c. It ia evident, therefore, that the use of 'Cruden's Concordance,'
and all others based on the Common Version, can only mislead the mere
English reader.

<p>

        The following list of words, with the number of their Hebrew
representatives (according to the Common Version) expressed in numerals,
will surprise all who have not hitherto attended to this subject; viz:--

<p>
        To abhor 12, abide 13, abundance 11, affliction 12, to be afraid
22, after 13, against 13, among 11, to be angry 10, another 11, to
appoint 24, appointed 10, army 10, at 13, to bear 13, beauty 15, before
22, beside 14, to bind 15, body 12, border 13, bough 13, branch 20, to
break 33, bright 10, to bring 39, to bring forth 21, broken 12, to be
broken 16, to burn 19, burning 12, but 15, by 14, captain 16, captivity
10, to carry away 10, to carry 12, to cast 19, to cast down 19, to cast
out 15, to catch 12, to cease 21, chain 10, chamber 10, change 16, to be
changed 10, chief 10, to cleave 15, coast 10, to come 32, commandment
12, companion 10, company 22, to consider 18, to consume 21, consumed
10, to continue 11, corner 10, country 10, to cover 21, covering 13, to
cry 17, to cut down 10, to be cut down 13, to cut off 18, to be cut off
14, dark 11, darkness 10, to declare 11, decree 11, to be defiled 10, to
deliver 26, to depart 18, desire 13, to desire 13, desolate 16, to be
desolate 11, desolation 12, to despise 10, to destroy 49, to be
destroyed 17, destruction 35, to divide 19, to draw out 10, dung 10, to
dwell 14, dwelling 11, east 10, end 26, to establish 13, to be exalted
11, excellent 10, to fail 30, to faint 18, to fall 14, fear 16, to fear
10, flood 10, for 21, foundation 11, from 17, fruit 12, garment 14, to
gather 23, to gather together 16, to be gathered 10, to be gathered
together 14, to get 16, gift 12, to give 15, glorious 12, glory 10, to
go 22, goodly 15, governor 12, great 24, grief 10, to be grieved 17,
grievous 10, to grow 13, habitation 17, to harden 10, haste 11, to make
haste 10, height 11, to hide 14, to hide self 12, high 18, to hold 12,
hurt 11, idol 11, if 10, in 13, to increase 17, iniquity 11, to be
joined 10, judgment 10, to keep 11, to kindle 15, knowledge 12, labour
10, to be laid 10, to lay 24, to lead 12, to leave 15, to be left 11, to
lift up 15, light 13, to long 10, to look 16, to be made 11, majesty 10,
to make 23, man 12, to mark 10, measure 13, meat 14, to meet 10, midst
10, might 12, mighty 26, to mourn 12, to move 15, to be moved 13, much
10, multitude 14, net 10, not 14, now 13, of 10, to offer 22, offering
10, old 13, only 11, to oppress 10, to ordain 12, over 10, to overthrow
11, palace 10, part 14, people 10, to perceive 10, to perish 13, pit 12,
place 13, pleasant 17, pleasure 10, poor 10, portion 13, to pour out 12,
power 17, to prepare 14, to prevail 15, pride 10, prince 11, proud 16,
to put 28, to regard 17, rejoice 19, to remain 16, remnant 11, to remove
20, to be removed 11, to repair 10, to rest 17, reward 16, riches 10,
right 16, river 11, ruler 13, to run 14, scatter 12, to be scattered 10,
secret 12, to set 40, to be set 13, to set up 18, to shake 15, to shew
19, to shine 11, to shut 11, side 13, to be slain 14, slaughter 12, to
slay 15, to smite 12, sorrow 28, to speak 22, speech 10, spoil 10, to
spoil 16, to spread 15, to stay 14, to stop 10, strength 33, to
strengthen 12, strong 26, substance 14, to take 34, to take away 24, to
be taken away 10, to tarry 16, to teach 10, to tell 12, terror 10, that
16, these 16, think 12, this 20, thought 11, through 11, thus 10, to 12,
tremble 13, trouble 14, to trouble 12, to be troubled 14, truth 11, to
turn 15, to turn aside 10, to be turned 10, understanding 14, to utter
15, to vex 16, to wait 10, wall 13, waste 10, to waste 10, when 12,
where 13, which 11, wisdom 12, with 18, within 12, without 12, word 10,
work 15, wrath 10, yet 10, youth 11.

<p>
        To make afraid 8, ancient 8, army 8, ask 8, assembly 8, back 9,
band 9, battle 8, beat 9, because of 8, to behold 9, bottom 8, break
down 8, to be brought 9, burden 8, to be burned 8, cast down 9, cause 9,
to charge 8, chariot 8, clean 8, come upon 8, commit 8, to compass 9,
confirm 9, cry out 8, to cut 8, to dance 8, deceitful 8, deep 9, defence
8, to be delivered 9, destroyer 8, devour 9, to direct 9, to do 9, to be
done 8, to draw 9, to drive 8, drive away 8, dry 8, edge 8, enemy 9,
even 8, ever 8, excellency 8, except 8, fair 8, fall down 8, fat 8,
favour 8, to feed 9, fellow 9, first 9, flame 9, folly 9, foolish 9,
form 9, friend 9, full 9, to gather selves together 8, be glad 9, going
9, be gone 9, goods 8, grieve 9, guide 8, heart 8, here 8, be hid 9,
hole 8, honour 9, hope 9, image 9, increase 9, it 8, kill 9, lamb 9, to
lament 9, to lay up 9, to leap 8, lift up self 8, to be lifted up 9,
like 8, to be liked 8, line 8, little one 8, long 8, lord 8, lying 8,
majesty 8, manner 9, to melt 9, mischief 8, to mock 8, mourning 8, none
8, officer 8, one 8, to open 9, oppressor 8, other 8, pain 9, to part 8,
path 9, perfect 9, to perform 8, to pervert 8, piece 9, plain 8, pluck
8, polluted 9, possession 9, pray 9, precious 8, preserve 8, price 8,
prison 9, prosper 9, pure 9, purpose 9, put away 9, put on 9, raise up
9, ready 8, receive 9, rejoicing 9, rest 8, return 8, ruin 8, to rule 9,
to be sanctified 8, save 8, to say 8, search 8, see 9, shame 9, sheep 8,
to shoot 8, to shout 8, shut up 8, sin 9, since 8, to sing 8, small 9,
snare 9, son 8, sore 9, to sound 8, space 8, spring, 8, staff 9, step 8,
stir up 8, stranger 9, stream 9, strike 8, strive 9, stronghold 9,
subdue 8, such 8, surety 8, sweet 9, to be taken 8, tear 9, thick 8.

<p>
        The above are taken from a most useful book, entitled 'The
Englishman's Hebrew Concordance,' which only requires the insertion of
the Hebrew Particles to make it a complete work.

<p>
        'The Bible Student's Guide,' by the Rev. W. Wilson, D.D., cannot
be sufficiently commended as an accurate and elaborate Key to the mixed
renderings of King James' Revisers.
<h4>LAX RENDERINGS OF KING JAMES' REVISERS.</h4>
                

NATHAN, 'to give,' is rendered (in the Kal conjugation) by such words
as: to add, apply, appoint, ascribe, assign, bestow, bring, bring forth,
cast, cause, charge, come, commit, consider, count, deliver, deliver up,
direct, distribute, fasten, frame, give, give forth, give over, give up,
grant, hang, hang up, lay, lay to charge, lay up, leave, lend, let, let
out, lift up, make, O that, occupy, offer, ordain, pay, perform, place,
pour, print, put, put forth, recompense, render, requite, restore, send,
send out, set, set forth, shew, shoot forth, shoot up, strike, suffer,
thrust, trade, turn, utter, would God, yield; besides seventeen
varieties in idiomatic renderings=84!

<p>
ASAH, 'to do,' (in Kal) by: to accomplish, advance, appoint, to be at,
bear, bestow, bring forth, bring to pass, bruise, be busy, have charge,
commit, deal, deal with, deck, do, dress, execute, exercise, fashion,
finish, fit, fulfil, furnish, gather, get, go about, govern, grant,
hold, keep, labour, maintain, make ready, make, observe, offer, pare,
perform, practise, prepare, procure, provide, put, require, sacrifice,
serve, set, shew, spend, take, trim, work, yield; besides twenty
idiomatic renderings=74!

<p>
DABAR, 'a word,' is rendered by: act, advice, affair, answer, anything,
book, business, care, case, cause, certain rate, commandment,
communication, counsel decree, deed, due, duty, effect, errant, hurt,
language, manner, matter, message, oracle, ought, parts, pertaining,
portion, promise, provision, purpose, question, rate, reason, report,
request, sake, saying, sentence, something to say, speech, talk, task,
thing, thought, tidings, what, wherewith, whit, word, work; besides
thirty-one idiomatic renderings=84!

<p>
PANIM, 'face,'is rendered by: afore, afore-time, against, anger, at,
because of, before, before-time, countenance, edge, face, favour, fear
of, for, forefront, forepart, form, former time, forward, from, front,
heaviness, it, as long as, looks, mouth, of, off, of old, old time,
open, over-against, person, presence, prospect, was purposed, by reason
of, right forth, sight, state, straight, through, till, time past, times
past, to, toward, unto, upon, upside, with, within; besides forty-two
idiomatic renderings=94!

<p>
SUM or SIM, 'to set,' is (in Kal) rendered by: appoint, bring, care,
cast in, change, charge, commit, consider, convey, determine, dispose,
do, get, give, heap up, hold, impute, be laid, lay, lay down, lay up,
leave, look, be made, make, make out, mark, ordain, order, place, be
placed, preserve, purpose, put, put on, rehearse, reward, set, cause to
be set set on, set up, shew, take, turn, work; besides fourteen
idiomatic renderings=59!

<p>
SHUB, (in Hiphil) 'to turn back,' is rendered by: to answer, cause to
answer, bring, bring back, bring again, bring home again, carry back,
carry again, convert, deliver, deliver again, draw back, fetch home
again, give again, hinder, let, pull in again, put, put again, put up
again, recall, recompense, recover, refresh, relieve, render, render
again, be rendered, requite, rescue, restore, retrieve, return, cause to
return, make to return, reverse reward, send back, set again, take back,
take off, turn away, turn back, cause to turn, make to turn, withdraw;
besides fifteen idiomatic renderings=60!

<p>
NASAH, 'to lift up,' is (in Kal) rendered by: accept, arise, able to
bear, bear up, be borne, bring, bring forth, burn, be burned, carry,
carry away, cast, contain, ease, exact, exalt, fetch, forgive, go on,
hold up, lade, be laid, lay, lift up, pluck up, marry, obtain, offer,
pardon, raise, raise up, receive, regard, respect, set, set up, spare,
stir up, suffer, take, take away, take up, wear, yield; besides four
idiomatic renderings=46!

<p>
OBAR, 'to pass over,' is (in Kal) rendered by: to alienate, be altered,
come, come over, come on, be delivered, enter, escape, fail, get over,
go, go away, go beyond, go by, go forth, go his way, go in, go on, go
over, go through, be gone, have more, overcome, overpass, overpast,
overrun, pass, pass along, pass away, pass beyond, pass by, pass on,
pass out, pass over, pass through, give passage, be past, perish,
transgress; besides three idiomatic renderings=42!

<p>
RAB, 'many, much,' is rendered by: abound, abundance, abundant, captain,
elder, common, enough, exceedingly, full, great, great multitude, great
man, great one, greatly, increase, long, long enough, manifold, many,
many a time, so many, have many many things, master, mighty, more, much,
too much, very much, multiply, multitude, officer, plenteous, populous,
prince, suffice, sufficient; besides seven idiomatic renderings=44!

<p>
TOB, 'good,' is rendered, by: beautiful, best, better, bountiful,
cheerful, at ease, fair, fair word, to favour, be in favour, fine, glad,
good, good deed, goodlier, goodliest, goodly, goodness, goods,
graciously, joyful, kindly, kindness, liketh, liketh best, loving,
merry, pleasant, pleasure, precious, prosperity, ready, sweet, wealth,
welfare, well, to be well; besides four idiomatic renderings=41!

It 

<p>would be easy to multiply examples of lax renderings did space
permit. The following are some that have been marked; e.g.
        Ahad by 23, Altar 25, Ish 31, Al 36, Im 23, Amar 37, Aphes 23,
Asher 27, Bo 32, Bin 20, Ben 20, Gam 20, Halak 36, Ze 21, Hul 27, Hazak
23, Hai 22, Hayil 26, Tob 37, Jad 36, Jada 36, Yom 32, Hatib 28, Yalak
24, Jatza 37, Ysh 31, Yashab 20, Ki 36, Kol 20, Kalah 21, Lakah 20, Meod
21, Moed 20, Matza 22, Maneh 20, Mishpat 27, Natah 21, Naphal 20,
Nephesh 35, Sabab 20, Ad 22, Oud 26, Oulam 24, Al 34, Alah 37, Im 21,
Amad 23, Anah 20, Arak 20, Pe 29, Panah 20, Pagod 25, Qum 27, Qarah 24,
Raah 32, Rosh 21, Hirbah 30, Ra 37, Shub 35, Shalom 28, Shillah 27,
Shillet 20, Shama 20.

<H4>Chronological Order of the Books of the Old and New Covenants.</h4>             
<pre>



A.D.                                         
B.C. <br/>
1491 Genesis <br/>
 Job <br/>
1491 Exodus<br/>
1490 Leviticus <br/>
1451 Numbers <br/>
1451 Deuteronomy <br/>
1427 Joshua<br/>
1406 Judges<br/>
1312 Ruth<br/>
1055 First Samuel<br/>
1018 Second Samuel <br/>
1015 First Chronicles<br/>
 Psalms<br/>
1013 Song of Solomon <br/>
1004 First Kings, I.--XI.<br/>
1004 Second Chronicles, I.--IX.<br/>
1000 Proverbs<br/>
 975 Ecclesiastes<br/>
 897 First Kings, XII. &c. <br/>
 862 Jonah <br/>
 800 Joel<br/>
787 Amos<br/>
750 Micah<br/>
740 Hosea<br/>
713 Nahum<br/>
698 Isaiah<br/>
630 Zephaniah<br/>
626 Habakkuk<br/>
623 Second Chronicles, X. to the end.<br/>
590 Second Kings<br/>
588 Jeremiah<br/>
588 Lamentations<br/>
587 Obadiah<br/>
574 Ezekiel<br/>
534 Daniel<br/>
520 Haggai<br/>
520 Zechariah<br/>
509 Esther<br/>
457 Ezra<br/>
434 Nehemiah<br/>
397 Malachi<br/>
64 Acts  - - - - - Greece<br/>
64 1st Timotheus - Macedonia<br/>
64 1st Peter - - - Rome<br/>
64 Titus - - - - Macedonia or Greek<br/>
65 Mark  - - - - - Rome<br/>
65 2d Timotheus  - Rome<br/>
65 2d Peter  - - - Rome<br/>
69 1st John  - - - Judea<br/>
69 2d John - - - - Ephesus<br/>
69 3d John - - - - Ephesus<br/>
70 Jude  - - - - - Unknown<br/>
96 Revelation  - - Patmos<br/>
97 John  - - - - - Asia Minor<br/>
38 Matthew - - - - - - Judea <br/>
52 Galatians - - - - - Corinth or Macedonia<br/>
52 1st Thessalonians - Corinth <br/>
52 2d Thessalonians  - Corinth <br/>
56 1st Corinthians - - Ephesus <br/>
57 2d Corinthians  - - Macedonia <br/>
58 Romans  - - - - - - Corinth <br/>
61 Ephesians - - - - - Rome<br/>
61 James - - - - - - - Jerusalem <br/>
62 Philippians - - - - Rome<br/>
62 Colossians  - - - - Rome<br/>
62 Philemon  - - - - - Rome<br/>
63 Luke  - - - - - - - Greece<br/>
63 Hebrews - - - - - - Rome
</pre>

<H4>Explanation of 100 Bible Terms.</h4>

There cannot be the slightest doubt in the mind of any reflecting person but
that a much greater amount of error in reference to the truths of the Word of
God arises from simple ignorance or inattention than from any other worse
cause whatever. Words, in the course of time, lose their original meaning, and
acquire a conventional one very often considerably different, and which, from
constant use, becomes little more than the shibboleth of a party. Very many are
accustomed to use Scripture language without at all being able to understand
its real meaning, and thus they are rather injured than benefited by their
familiarity with Scripture phraseology. The following are only a selection and
specimen of what a variety of words may be illustrated from presenting their
primitive idea:--<p/>
<pre>

For accursed   read devoted,    everywhere in S.S.<br/>
... alms        ... kind act,        ...      N.T.<br/>
... angel       ... messenger,       ...      S.S.<br/>
... atonement   ... covering.        ...      ...<br/>
... Beelzebub   ... Beelzeboul.      ...      N.T.<br/>
... Belial      ... Beliar,          ...      ...<br/>
... betray      ... deliver up,      ...      ...<br/>
... bishop      ... overseer,        ...      ...<br/>
... blasphemy   ... evil speaking,   ...      ...<br/>
... blessed     ... happy,      very often in S.S.<br/>
... bondage     ... service,    everywhere in ...<br/>
... book        ... roll,            ...      N.T.<br/>
... bottle      ... skin,            ...      ...<br/>
... Canaanite   ... Cana-nite,   (Mat. 10.4; Mark<br/>
                                  3.18.)<br/>
... charity     ... love,       everywhere in N.T.<br/>
... children    ... sons,       very often in S.S.<br/>
... chosen      ... choice one,      ...      N.T.<br/>
... Christ      ... [the] Christ,    ...      ...<br/>
... church      ... assembly,   everywhere in S.S.<br/>
... condemn     ... judge,      very often in N.T.<br/>
... create      ... prepare,         ...      ...<br/>
... damnation   ... judgment,        ...      N.T.<br/>
... deacon      ... ministrant,      ...      ...<br/>
... devil       ... false accuser,   ...      ...<br/>
... devils      ... demons,          ...      ...<br/>
... earth       ... land,            ...      S.S.<br/>
... Easter      ... Passover, (Acts 12.4.)<br/>
... elect       ... choice one, very often in S.S.<br/>
... eternal     ... age-during, everywhere in ...<br/>
... everlasting ...                  ...      ...<br/>
... for ever    ...    ...           ...      ...<br/>
... faith       ... confidence, very often in ...<br/>
... farewell    ... be strong,  everywhere in ...<br/>
... feast       ... banquet,    very often in ...<br/>
... fool        ... thoughtless,     ...      N.T.<br/>
... fornication ... whoredom,   everywhere in S.S.<br/>
... friend      ... comrade,   (Mat.11.16; 20.13;<br/>
                                22.12; 26.50.)<br/>
... Ghost       ... Spirit,     everywhere in N.T.<br/>
... God forbid  ... let it not be,   ...      ...<br/>
... godliness   ... piety,           ...      ...<br/>
... gospel      ... good news,       ...      ...<br/>
... grave       ... unseen state, very often in S.S.<br/>
... heathen     ... nations,   everywhere in  ...<br/>
... hell        ... unseen state,    ...      ...<br/>
... heresy      ... sect,            ...      N.T.<br/>
... holiness    ... separation,      ...      S.S.<br/>
... holy        ... separate,        ...      ...<br/>
... hypocrite   ... profane,         ...      O.T.<br/>
... incense     ... perfume,         ...      S.S.<br/>
... iniquity    ... lawlessness, very often in N.T.<br/>
... inn         ... guest chamber, (Mark 2.7,&c.)<br/>
<br/>
For just         read right,      everywhere in S.S.<br/>
... justification ... state of being declared right.<br/>
... justify       ... declare right,   ...      ...<br/>
... kingdom       ... reign,      very often in N.T.<br/>
... labourer      ... workman,         ...      ...<br/>
... lamenting     ... smiting the breast,...      ...<br/>
... lord          ... sir,             ...      ...<br/>
... lust          ... desire,     everywhere in S.S.<br/>
... Magdalene     ... the Magdalene    ...      N.T.<br/>
... master        ... teacher, rabbi, &c., very often.<br/>
... mercy         ... kindness,   very often in S.S.<br/>
... minister      ... ministrant, everywhere in N.T.<br/>
... ministry      ... ministration,    ...      ...<br/>
... offend        ... stumble,         ...      ...<br/>
... parable       ... simile,          ...      ...<br/>
... passion       ... suffering, (Acts 1.3.)<br/>
... penny         ... denary,     everywhere in N.T.<br/>
... power         ... authority,  very often in ...<br/>
... presbytery    ... eldership, (1 Tim. 4.14.)<br/>
... raka          ... empty fellow! (Mat. 5.22.)<br/>
... repent        ... have a new mind, often in N.T.<br/>
... repentance    ... a new mind       ...      ...<br/>
... righteous     ... right,      everywhere in S.S.<br/>
... righteousness ... rightness,       ...      ...<br/>
... saint         ... separate, or kind one,   often<br/>
... salvation     ... safety,     everywhere in S.S<br/>
... sanctify      ... separate,        ...      ...<br/>
... sanctification ... separation,     ...      ...<br/>
... Satan         ... Adversary,       ...      ...<br/>
... Scripture     ... Writing,         ...      ...<br/>
... ship          ... boat,       very often in N.T<br/>
... shoes         ... sandals,    everywhere in S.S<br/>
... sin           ... lit. a missing of the mark.<br/>
... sinner        ... lit. one who misses the mark.<br/>
... sitting       ... reclining,  very often in N.T.<br/>
... streets       ... out-places, broad-places,<br/>
                                  everywhere in S.S<br/>
... tares         ... darnel,          ...      N.T<br/>
... temple        ... sanctuary,  very often in ...<br/>
... temptation    ... trial,           ...      S.S<br/>
... testament     ... covenant,   everywhere in ...<br/>
... thief         ... robber,     very often in N.T.<br/>
... take no thought, be not anxious,     everywhere.<br/>
... unleavened        unleavened food,      ...<br/>
      bread       ...<br/>
... uppermost         highest couches, (Mat. 23.6<br/>
      rooms       ...   Mark 2.39; Luke 11.43.)<br/>
... virtue        ... worthiness, everywhere in S.S<br/>
... visit             inspect, look after.<br/>
... wicked        ... lit. one in the wrong, every<br/>
                                       where in S.S<br/>
... world         ... age,        very often in ...<br/>
... worship       ... obeisance,  everywhere in ...

</PRE>


