|
Aswad -> RE: For those of a christian bent.... (6/9/2007 1:36:10 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GoddessDustyGold
So far as I know and have studied, there is no other reference in the bible that states one will be blessed for reading, hearing and keeping to the words.
I am not aware of any other place that makes such a claim, either. Which kind of makes it a bit odd.
Anyone can write such a piece and claim that it is genuine, and so forth, and indeed many have, some of which have been debunked. This one hasn't, but mostly because it doesn't give a whole lot to go on, and because it's hard to pin down anything much, though it seems likely that these are not the writings of the apostle John, but rather some other John.
Further, even if it is authentic, one question I raised remains: is his vision authentic? I've had experiences based upon which I could have written such a book. I find it a lot more likely that they were related to being in a state of borderline circulatory collapse for a few weeks, or an adverse drug reaction, however, despite the medicine in question not usually having such an effect on people. I find similarities to my experiences in what is written in the Apocalypse of John, and I find that his description seems very congruent with epilepsy. Hence, I'm at a loss as to which of these to assume is the case here.
Perhaps I'm just selling myself short, but I'm hesitant to claim vertical transmission for myself.
By extension, I'm hesitant to do so for someone who describes a similar experience.
quote:
This is further clarified at the end of the book 22:18-19 as a warning, per se: [...]
Yes, I noticed that part.
Translating the book would definitely constitute a violation of the intent of that passage, IMO.
As such, anything but a copy of the original script should theoretically incur G*d's wrath, and every major church has been involved with doing this, which would seem to be a rather problematic situation.
People rationalize this away by claiming that divine inspiration preserves the meaning. I don't hold to that. If so, I should be able to manually apply a cryptographic algorithm to the text, and the resulting gibberish should retain the meaning and divine inspiration, but it still won't make sense to anyone. Or, more to the point, if I decide to fold words into simpler ones, reducing the vocabulary used to about 200 words or so, by the same argumentation, the meaning should not be lost. To me, it is just rationalization, though.
In English, one would say "lamb of G*d" and "sacrificial lamb", for instance. By comparison, the Finnish (IIRC) version says "seal of G*d" and "sacrificial seal". The original sense, however, seems more accurately described as "Son of G*d" and "scapegoat", respectively. The meaning is more than a bit different; something has been added to the words, and something has been taken from the words.
Incidentally, the Norwegian translation doesn't read the same as the English one you quoted. At all. It simply says "He who adds to or subtracts from this book shall suffer all plagues described within it." That passage has been taken by many Norwegians- who don't study the different translations with any greater frequency than the rest of the world- to apply to the entirety of the Bible. Not that I get where that is coming from, except that people may not be aware of how the Bible came about.
In short, though, by that passage, this text belongs in its original language, which would effectively mean that nobody would bother to read it, most likely.
quote:
For Me, this is a pretty simple admonition that this is to be taken literally and it is not looked upon with favor if those reading try to put their own spin on it by adding to or taking away (i.e, dismissing certain things). I feel we are being told it is what it is, and we should read and heed.
Such may be the case. If so, one must take great care not to use a translation.
My position has been that I've been given a corrupted copy of a pure work, and that I should try to reconstruct the original intent to the best of my ability, in line with what life and spirituality teach me. As such, if one assumes this book is inspired, then the original should not have been added to or subtracted from. The original has been altered in that way, however, and not by me.
If there is any blessing to be had in a literal interpretation of the original words, it is lost to us, IMO.
quote:
It is the best I can do as a person of faith.
We all do what we can. I don't consider my approach superior. It's just my approach.
And, quite frankly, there's a whole lot fewer unanswered questions if one doesn't ask too many in the first place. A whole lot less confusion. My position is one that shifts with my understanding, as I'm trying to complete a picture without all the pieces. The churches, and so forth, provide a solid rendition which is about as likely to be "correct" as any other approach.
I'm pretty sure most Christians agree on a large number of the primary themes, at least on a secular level.
For me, I found it interesting that, in my view, Jesus espouses many of the same basic values I associate with Bushido: integrity (e.g. practice what you preach), courage (e.g. the crucifixion), compassion (main theme, IMO), respect, honesty, honor, loyalty, humility and so forth. In that sense, the human side would appear to have a basis that isn't exclusive to the Abrahamic traditions.
What I'm not nearly as clear on, is the spiritual aspect of things. That's a more complex puzzle.
|
|
|
|
