Re: For the birds
- From: Douglas McAdam <douglasmcadam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 30 Aug 2005 18:50:18 GMT
Tell me James, what do you think about this quote-
“The God of Mercy hath created man and taught him articulate speech.” ( ESW p.1)
Sort of tells us the origin of language doesn't it?
The House will then face a
tricky choice between respect for Shoghi's great translations and support for
the fundamental Baha'i teaching of a world language to be chosen by the
governments.
Of course, a new translation does not really mean superseding the previous
there are several good translations of the Bible in use including the King
I once read where a psychologist claimed the spirit had gone out of or language which is why
we are inventing new words and phrases to describe our feelings, such things like "ripped off" for
stealing, and "hitting on" for flirting, etc. In fact the various street languages, rap etc. is most difficult to decipher unless one is of that genre.
As to the above regarding new translations I really do not see that new translations will correct the Guardian as much as I see them infusing a new spirit into the words an increasing our understanding and application.
regards, doug
On Aug 30, 2005, at 9:27 AM, John MacLeod wrote:
"Douglas McAdam" <douglasmcadam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:423867ea57c0c4adff86a00c6540d726@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxDear Susan-AM, smaneck@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
The qualification the Guardian made about his own translations being
superceded in the future is
certainly what we should heed. However do you feel that at this time
in our spiritual development there is any scholar capable of rendering
a translation to supercede the Guardian? Personally I believe it is
too early in our development for such a thing and I'm content to go
with the Guardian's translation for now, in my life time. When I see a
scholar who is exhibiting and manifesting the attributes of God like
the Guardian then maybe we can pay attention. > On Aug 29, 2005, at 3:10Another possible reason for superseding the Guardian's translation in the
future may be developments in language. The Guardian's use of archaic English
undoubtedly gives the Writings a special flavour particularly for older native
speakers familiar with the King James Bible and other works which use similar
structures. However, it already causes a problem for many moderns (and many
spell checkers). All languages evolve - sooner or later the Guardian's
English will be unreadable to many. This will be a particular issue if the
governments of the world do follow Baha'u'llah's advice and choose a world
language. If they choose English, it is likely that standard 'world English'
grammars, text books, and dictionaries etc will emerge and it is very likely
that they will not conform to Shoghi's usage. The House will then face a
tricky choice between respect for Shoghi's great translations and support for
the fundamental Baha'i teaching of a world language to be chosen by the
governments.
Of course, a new translation does not really mean superseding the previous
there are several good translations of the Bible in use including the King
James.
.
- References:
- RE: For the birds
- From: albert
- Re: For the birds
- From: smaneck
- Re: For the birds
- From: Douglas McAdam
- Re: For the birds
- From: John MacLeod
- RE: For the birds
- Prev by Date: Re: Language
- Next by Date: Re: 'Abdu'l-Bahá and evolution
- Previous by thread: Re: For the birds
- Next by thread: Re: For the birds
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|