R
RJS
Guest
Good question! So I asked a friend of mine, who is Hindu, and he told me that Brahma is the main god of the Hindu religion. He said there are many but Brahma is the main one.
My Freemasonry | Freemason Information and Discussion Forum
Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Holy Scriptures
- Thread starter jonesvilletexas
- Start date
Good question! So I asked a friend of mine, who is Hindu, and he told me that Brahma is the main god of the Hindu religion. He said there are many but Brahma is the main one.
Nate Riley
Premium Member
Sounds like something cool to do in a ritual.
JBD
Premium Member
OK - as promised here is the answer - at least for Texas Masons.
I was at the Warden's retreat all weekend in Waco with The Grand Officers, Committee on Masonic Education and several past grand masters.
I asked several got opinions - was provided with the opportunity to ask the GM in the Q&A session - His answer to my question - on the Petition, not referring to the Lodge Altar but the question in the Petition. Does "divine authenticity of the Holy Scriptures" mean the Holy Bible or the "Holy Scriptures" to the one being initiated. He answered -his belief, not yours not mine, his".
So, for those of you in Texas you now have the words from the GM AND he turned to the line and asked if any wanted to add anything and those in the room at the time indicated they agreed.
I was at the Warden's retreat all weekend in Waco with The Grand Officers, Committee on Masonic Education and several past grand masters.
I asked several got opinions - was provided with the opportunity to ask the GM in the Q&A session - His answer to my question - on the Petition, not referring to the Lodge Altar but the question in the Petition. Does "divine authenticity of the Holy Scriptures" mean the Holy Bible or the "Holy Scriptures" to the one being initiated. He answered -his belief, not yours not mine, his".
So, for those of you in Texas you now have the words from the GM AND he turned to the line and asked if any wanted to add anything and those in the room at the time indicated they agreed.
jonesvilletexas
Premium Member
So the Holy Scriptures in question 30 of the petition can be any book of his choosing?
JBD
Premium Member
Correct in the context of question 30, it can be any "Holy Scripture" like torah, quaran, bible, etc.
In the Lodge there is a difference, the Holy Bible, KJV need to be on the altar when the Lodge is open. If the candidate wants to use their "Holy Scripture" you move the Lodge Bible, but DO NOT remove it and allow the candidate to use their book
I just want to put this out there. Here is the actual GLoTX Law.
Art. 397. (434). Religious Belief. A firm belief in the existence
of God, the immortality of the soul, and the divine authenticity of the
Holy Scriptures is indispensably necessary before a candidate can
be initiated, but this Grand Lodge does not presume to prescribe any
canonical books or what part thereof are inspired. It is the policy of
this Grand Lodge to permit a candidate whose religious persuasion
is based upon other than the Holy Bible to be obligated upon the
book of his chosen faith, and same may be situated upon the Altar
in front of the Holy Bible during the conferral of the three degrees of
Masonry. In which event, all esoteric references to “The Holy Bibleâ€
during the conferral of the degree(s) and the lessons appropriate
thereto shall be substituted with “The Book of your (my) Faith.â€
(Revised 1995)
Just because I may be missing something, where did you learn that it must be KJV? Everything I see just says Holy Bible.
Art. 397. (434). Religious Belief. A firm belief in the existence
of God, the immortality of the soul, and the divine authenticity of the
Holy Scriptures is indispensably necessary before a candidate can
be initiated, but this Grand Lodge does not presume to prescribe any
canonical books or what part thereof are inspired. It is the policy of
this Grand Lodge to permit a candidate whose religious persuasion
is based upon other than the Holy Bible to be obligated upon the
book of his chosen faith, and same may be situated upon the Altar
in front of the Holy Bible during the conferral of the three degrees of
Masonry. In which event, all esoteric references to “The Holy Bibleâ€
during the conferral of the degree(s) and the lessons appropriate
thereto shall be substituted with “The Book of your (my) Faith.â€
(Revised 1995)
Just because I may be missing something, where did you learn that it must be KJV? Everything I see just says Holy Bible.
Agreed.
Well for discussion sake, is there anyone else that uses any version other than KJV? I know this is the only version I have found in the format of a "Masonic Bible". I am just curious why would it matter? Are they all not translations of the Hebrew texts? (By the way I am totally ignorant and just trying to learn something here)
Last edited:
JBD
Premium Member
I doubt the validity of your last sentence my Brother, seems I KNOW better about your abilities
All "Bibles" are not translations, some are some are not
Wingnut
Premium Member
King James I (previously he was James the VI of Scotland BTW) ordered a new translation of the Bible in 1604. The most popular versions at that time were the Geneva and the Bishops Bibles. It took the group of scholars until 1611 to finish their work. They had 15 'rules' or instructions to follow:
1. The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops' Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the original will permit.
2. The names of the prophets and the holy writers, with the other names in the text, to be retained, as near as may be, accordingly as they are vulgarly used.
3. The old ecclesiastical words to be kept, as the word church, not to be translated congregation.
4. When any word hath divers significations, that to be kept which hath been most commonly used by the most eminent fathers, being agreeable to the propriety of the place and the analogies of faith.
5. The division of chapters to be altered either not at all, or as little as may be, if necessity so require.
6. No marginal notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek words, which cannot, without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed, in the text.
7. Such quotations of places to be marginally set down as shall serve for the fit reference of one Scripture to another.
8. Every particular man of each company to take the same chapter or chapters; and, having translated or amended them severally by himself where he thinks good, all to meet together to confirm what they have done, and agree for their part what shall stand.
9. As any one company hath dispatched any one book in this manner, they shall send it to the rest, to be considered of seriously and judiciously; for his Majesty is very careful on this point.
10. If any company, upon the review of the book so sent, shall doubt or differ upon any places, to send them word thereof, to note the places, and therewithal to send their reasons; to which if they consent not, the difference to be compounded at the general meeting, which is to be of the chief persons of each company, at the end of the work.
11. When any place of special obscurity is doubted of, letters to be directed by authority to send to any learned man in the land for his judgment of such a place.
12. Letters to be sent from every bishop to the rest of his clergy, admonishing them of this translation in hand, and to move and charge as many as, being skillful in the tongues, have taken pains in that kind, to send their particular observations to the company, either at Westminster, Cambridge, or Oxford, according as it was directed before in the king's letter to the archbishop.
13. The directors in each company to be the Deans of Westminster and Chester, for Westminster, and the king's professors in Hebrew and Greek in the two universities.
14. These translations to be used, when they agree better with the text than the Bishops' Bible: Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's [Rogers'], Whitchurch's [Cranmer's], Geneva."
15. By a later rule, "three or four of the most ancient and grave divines, in either of the universities, not employed in translating, to be assigned to be overseers of the translation, for the better observation of the fourth rule."
One interesting observation is that this group of scholars translated the original Hebrew (Old Testement) and Greek (New Testement). Which brings up...
HERE is a great chart that shows all the major versions/translations of the Bible. As you can see, some are formal translations, some are attempts by (mostly) modern men to paraphrase another version into more modern language. The problem there of course is that it man's trying to say what the Bible really means (at least to them). The most famous of these types is The Living Bible which is paraphrased based on the American Standard Version
As several sites will point out, the problem with any translation is that its that particular translators attempt at taking the original language and translating it to the language in use/vogue at the time. This leads to issues as you can well imagine...
I started looking for the comparative chart above and got side tracked. This history of the KJV was interesting and got me into a lot of reading I didnt plan on doing at lunch.
1. The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops' Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the original will permit.
2. The names of the prophets and the holy writers, with the other names in the text, to be retained, as near as may be, accordingly as they are vulgarly used.
3. The old ecclesiastical words to be kept, as the word church, not to be translated congregation.
4. When any word hath divers significations, that to be kept which hath been most commonly used by the most eminent fathers, being agreeable to the propriety of the place and the analogies of faith.
5. The division of chapters to be altered either not at all, or as little as may be, if necessity so require.
6. No marginal notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek words, which cannot, without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed, in the text.
7. Such quotations of places to be marginally set down as shall serve for the fit reference of one Scripture to another.
8. Every particular man of each company to take the same chapter or chapters; and, having translated or amended them severally by himself where he thinks good, all to meet together to confirm what they have done, and agree for their part what shall stand.
9. As any one company hath dispatched any one book in this manner, they shall send it to the rest, to be considered of seriously and judiciously; for his Majesty is very careful on this point.
10. If any company, upon the review of the book so sent, shall doubt or differ upon any places, to send them word thereof, to note the places, and therewithal to send their reasons; to which if they consent not, the difference to be compounded at the general meeting, which is to be of the chief persons of each company, at the end of the work.
11. When any place of special obscurity is doubted of, letters to be directed by authority to send to any learned man in the land for his judgment of such a place.
12. Letters to be sent from every bishop to the rest of his clergy, admonishing them of this translation in hand, and to move and charge as many as, being skillful in the tongues, have taken pains in that kind, to send their particular observations to the company, either at Westminster, Cambridge, or Oxford, according as it was directed before in the king's letter to the archbishop.
13. The directors in each company to be the Deans of Westminster and Chester, for Westminster, and the king's professors in Hebrew and Greek in the two universities.
14. These translations to be used, when they agree better with the text than the Bishops' Bible: Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's [Rogers'], Whitchurch's [Cranmer's], Geneva."
15. By a later rule, "three or four of the most ancient and grave divines, in either of the universities, not employed in translating, to be assigned to be overseers of the translation, for the better observation of the fourth rule."
One interesting observation is that this group of scholars translated the original Hebrew (Old Testement) and Greek (New Testement). Which brings up...
HERE is a great chart that shows all the major versions/translations of the Bible. As you can see, some are formal translations, some are attempts by (mostly) modern men to paraphrase another version into more modern language. The problem there of course is that it man's trying to say what the Bible really means (at least to them). The most famous of these types is The Living Bible which is paraphrased based on the American Standard Version
As several sites will point out, the problem with any translation is that its that particular translators attempt at taking the original language and translating it to the language in use/vogue at the time. This leads to issues as you can well imagine...
I started looking for the comparative chart above and got side tracked. This history of the KJV was interesting and got me into a lot of reading I didnt plan on doing at lunch.
M
master-m73
Guest
in my Lodge there is the Holy Bible and the Koran, they are side by side and that is the way that have to be.
Last edited by a moderator:
I have seen the Book of Shadows used for a Wiccan mason. I also had the pleasure of visiting with a GL officer of Pakistan who visited 148 and told me the Holy Qu'ran is the book that is always on their alter but the Holy Bible can be placed there if needed. Makes me feel Masonry felt a duty to protect all knowledge and rights even freedom of religion.
Scott Kursk
Registered User
Yes and no. I'm a practicing Hare Krishna. We believe in one and only one God as does most of the religious beliefs described under the umbrella word "Hindu". The word Hindu comes from the Anglicized wording for the Indus River to describe all the faiths that use the Vedas. Kinda like lumping Judiaism, Christianity, and Islam in the same group by calling them "Old Testament Religions" since they all have that in common.
When it comes to the more than one God question, it's a misunderstanding of the belief system. Usually, they believe in one God. All the other "Gods" are actually just avatars or incarnations of the one true God. In a way, it's like worshiping or praying to a specific aspect of God. I liken it to praying to a patron saint of XYZ. No, it's not God but you are looking for relief due to a certain aspect of that Saints relationship with God.
The Hare Krishna's for one don't differentiate between the Baghavad Gita and the Bible. We view them as aspects of God's word. We don't doubt Jesus or his divinity. We think that God appeared to the Jews to give them what they needed to advance morally and to escape slavery.
Hope that helps.
Ajay Chandar
Registered User
Hindu Mason here. Hinduism is essentially monotheistic or monistic in nature.