Loading...
Larger font
Smaller font
Copy
Print
Contents
  • Results
  • Related
  • Featured
No results found for: "undefined".
  • Weighted Relevancy
  • Content Sequence
  • Relevancy
  • Earliest First
  • Latest First
    Larger font
    Smaller font
    Copy
    Print
    Contents

    CHRONOLOGY OF THE WORLD

    It is said there are difficulties connected with the subject which make it impossible to fix upon any thing with certainty, and none but fanatics will have any thing to do with it. We will say nothing of the reflection which such a view of the subject casts upon God, who has directed us to the prophecies to guide us in the midst of the greatest dangers, for what is it but tantalizing us to give such a direction if the prophecies cannot answer their design? The supposed difficulties, however, are not so great as we at first sight might apprehend. “It is impossible,” we are told, “for any one to tell the age of the world.” Very well. No one pretends to tell, positively how long the world has stood, but still it is believed there are serious reasons for supposing that its age is not far from 6000 years. And if a general tradition,—which supposes that the present order of things is to be changed at the end of six thousand years, and which appears to be founded upon some portions of the word of God, may be worthy of our attention,—from what we can tell of the chronology of the world, it appears to harmonize with the more certain indications of the plainer prophecies. Dr. Weeks has strung up a catalogue of what he calls “mistakes of Mr. Miller and his friends, in relation to his chronology,” to the number of sixty. He might, on the same principle, have carried the number up to as many thousands, and then he might find as many more in every other system of chronology. But how he will make the apparent, contradictory statements of Josephus; and the variations from Ferguson, Rollin and Jahn, with Mr. Miller’s literary and theological deficiencies, “mistakes of Mr. Miller and his friends in relation to his chronology,” and all this without any criterion by which to make the test,—those who have the time and ability to devote to the subject can tell better than we. If any one should think it worth the while to make a new collection of “Curiosities of Literature,” they would find the Doctor’s article a rare specimen; it would be a perfect match for the celebrated performance of a clerical prototype, who preached some during sermons on the letter O. We wonder if the Doctor ever had anything to do with a permutation lottery! The Doctor seems to have fallen into the common “mistake” of making a jest of the subject, and to have forgotten that he is old enough to “put away childish things.” The fact that our Bible adopts the Hebrew record of time, and that this has been deemed of superior merit to the Samaritan, Septuagint, etc., is argument enough in favor of the source of our chronology, in the mind of all but those whose hyper-criticism has destroyed or impaired their confidence in the truth and faithfulness of God. And until some one can show that we may not rely upon it, or will furnish a better account, we cannot but regard its statements with some respect. That the Hebrew text gives a correct record of time from Adam to Moses, and from Saul to the time when the Old Testament scriptures close, we think there is little room to doubt. The period from which the difficulties arise is the time of the Judges. We have, so to speak, the depots and mile-posts all along on the track of time from Adam down to that period, and again from Saul down to the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. According to Mr. Miller’s calculation of the period of the Judges the time before Christ was 4157 years; according to Usher, 4004. That Mr. M. is near the truth, we have no doubt: that he or any other man can tell the exact time, we do not expect. The time given for that period by Paul, Acts 13:20, is very strongly in favor of Mr. Miller’s chronology.TSAM 13.3

    Dr. Clarke, in his preface to the book of Judges, makes this remark on “the Chronology of Archbishop Usher on this period,” which is the standard generally adopted: “Its correctness is justly questioned.”TSAM 15.1

    Dr. Clarke also quotes from Dr. Hales as follows: “It is truly remarkable, and a proof of the great skill and accuracy of Josephus in forming the outline of this period, that he assigns, with St. Paul, a reign of forty years to Saul, (Acts 13:21) which is omitted in the Old Testament. His outline also corresponds with St. Paul’s period of four hundred and fifty years from the division of the conquered land of Cannan, until Samuel the prophet.” See Dr. Hales Chronology, vol. i. pp. 16, 17; vol. ii. p. 28.TSAM 15.2

    Now if the reader will take the trouble to examine Mr. Miller’s chronology, in the diagram appended to this article, and compare it with the Bible, he can judge, perhaps as well as any one of its claims to his serious consideration. But let that be correct or not, the prophetic periods which are involved in his theory are not affected by it; they all be on this side of the time of the Judges. In reference to these there is not the uncertainty which exists in reference to the chronology of the world.TSAM 15.3

    The supposition has been named that the addition of 153 years to the age of the world must derange the whole matter of the prophetic times, by throwing the date of events into confusion. A simple illustration will show that these dates are not affected by this addition.TSAM 15.4

    In the following diagram, B B represents the time from Adam to Joshua. C C the time from Samuel to Christ. D D represents the period of the Judges, according to the shorter calculation. E E the same period according to the longer calculation.TSAM 16.1

    D D
    B B C C
    E E

    The period from Samuel to Christ is no more according to one calculation of the period of the Judges than the other. And all the intermediate periods or dates between Samuel and Christ stand related to each other exactly alike, according to either computation of the period of the Judges. Now all the prophetic periods involved in Mr. Miller’s theory begin after Samuel; so that the addition of 153 years before his time only affects the relation of the events in the two grand sections of time which lie before and after the Judges, to each other: that is, it makes the time from Adam to Christ, or from Moses to Christ, 153 years longer; but as the prophetic periods all begin this side of Samuel, they are not affected by the addition.TSAM 16.2

    Larger font
    Smaller font
    Copy
    Print
    Contents