-
Articles/Ads
Article ON THE STUDY OF MASONIC ANTIQUITIES. ← Page 5 of 14 →
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
On The Study Of Masonic Antiquities.
from its irreconcilableness with the rise of the primitive empires ; the Assyrian , Egyptian , Indian , and Chinese , all suggesting earlier dates for the deluge . " And it may be added , " now that we can bring Egyptian positive annals , derived from writings on existing monuments , the chronology of the Hebrew version of the Bible is , in the opinion ofthe learned , altogether exploded . " It may be here observed that no less than three hundred systems of
chronology have been constructed at various periods , all of them differing in results , and many materially so . Let us compare a few of the dates with regard to the deluge . This event occurred , B . C .
According to the Septuagint version . . . 3246 " Hales 3155 " Josephus 3146 " Samaritan text .... 2998 English Bible .... 2348 " Cahnet 2344 Hebrew text .... 2288 " Vulgar Jewish computation . 2104
These chronological differences are to be regretted , but they in no manner affect the validity of any scriptural fact , being mere deductions drawn by different individuals from their various interpretations of the original text ; and we are aware that in points of interpretation as well as chronology , many eminently learned and pious individuals have entertained opinions of the most adverse description . In the present investigation , the TRUTH alone should be our study . Being one of the grand principles upon which our fraternity is foundedit is the point to which
, we should strenuously seek to arrive ; and it is of the utmost importance here to observe that the truth which we seek to establish is in accordance with Revelation , and is antagonistic only to the opinions of those who place on Holy Writ a false interpretation . In thus showing that the chronology in general use , though appended to our Bible by act of parliament , contains computations based on erroneous data , we merely prove that Archbishop Usher was wrong in his calculationsand do not seek
, to impeach the reality of any scriptural occurrence . Biblical chronology , indeed , is so uncertain , that among thirty-six Christian authorities who have computed the epoch of our Saviour ' s nativity , the year itself is a disputed point , and cannot be defined within ten years , so that whilst the whole of our dates are dependant upon the precise period of Christ ' s
birth for accuracy , we cannot for a certainty say whether this year , which we term 1847 , should be 1842 or 1852 Our present Christmas day was not determined until three hundred and twenty-five years after our Saviour ' s birth ; and if the year cannot be accurately determined , still less can we hope to define the precise day . Hales quotes Scaliger to the effect that " to determine the day of Christ ' s birth belongs to God alone , not to man . "
On the importance due to the evidence resultin ? from hieroglyphics , Mr . Gliddon observes— " The monuments of Egypt , whereon are chiselled thegloiving chapters of her history , presenting to us the records of events coeval with their erection , are , apart from the reverence due to inspiration , and the undoubted collateral testimony that demands our belief in Holy Writ , of interest next to the Bible in importance ; while , in authenticity of record , ( due allowance made for possible exaggeration
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
On The Study Of Masonic Antiquities.
from its irreconcilableness with the rise of the primitive empires ; the Assyrian , Egyptian , Indian , and Chinese , all suggesting earlier dates for the deluge . " And it may be added , " now that we can bring Egyptian positive annals , derived from writings on existing monuments , the chronology of the Hebrew version of the Bible is , in the opinion ofthe learned , altogether exploded . " It may be here observed that no less than three hundred systems of
chronology have been constructed at various periods , all of them differing in results , and many materially so . Let us compare a few of the dates with regard to the deluge . This event occurred , B . C .
According to the Septuagint version . . . 3246 " Hales 3155 " Josephus 3146 " Samaritan text .... 2998 English Bible .... 2348 " Cahnet 2344 Hebrew text .... 2288 " Vulgar Jewish computation . 2104
These chronological differences are to be regretted , but they in no manner affect the validity of any scriptural fact , being mere deductions drawn by different individuals from their various interpretations of the original text ; and we are aware that in points of interpretation as well as chronology , many eminently learned and pious individuals have entertained opinions of the most adverse description . In the present investigation , the TRUTH alone should be our study . Being one of the grand principles upon which our fraternity is foundedit is the point to which
, we should strenuously seek to arrive ; and it is of the utmost importance here to observe that the truth which we seek to establish is in accordance with Revelation , and is antagonistic only to the opinions of those who place on Holy Writ a false interpretation . In thus showing that the chronology in general use , though appended to our Bible by act of parliament , contains computations based on erroneous data , we merely prove that Archbishop Usher was wrong in his calculationsand do not seek
, to impeach the reality of any scriptural occurrence . Biblical chronology , indeed , is so uncertain , that among thirty-six Christian authorities who have computed the epoch of our Saviour ' s nativity , the year itself is a disputed point , and cannot be defined within ten years , so that whilst the whole of our dates are dependant upon the precise period of Christ ' s
birth for accuracy , we cannot for a certainty say whether this year , which we term 1847 , should be 1842 or 1852 Our present Christmas day was not determined until three hundred and twenty-five years after our Saviour ' s birth ; and if the year cannot be accurately determined , still less can we hope to define the precise day . Hales quotes Scaliger to the effect that " to determine the day of Christ ' s birth belongs to God alone , not to man . "
On the importance due to the evidence resultin ? from hieroglyphics , Mr . Gliddon observes— " The monuments of Egypt , whereon are chiselled thegloiving chapters of her history , presenting to us the records of events coeval with their erection , are , apart from the reverence due to inspiration , and the undoubted collateral testimony that demands our belief in Holy Writ , of interest next to the Bible in importance ; while , in authenticity of record , ( due allowance made for possible exaggeration