Re: Chemistry from a Baha'i perspective




"Douglas McAdam" <douglasmcadam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:a1d3d277f96dd40354f18cec677e4e9e@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

You: >There is the official translations of the Writings and their official
interpretation by the Beloved Master Abdu'l-Baha. However each one of
us, when we study these interpretations for our own understandings, which
often are different for each other.<

What is different for each other? Translation is different from (for?)
interpretation? I don't understand the sentance. There are translations
and interpretations. However we study and what? What is different?

You: >So we consult and we may find another point of view even greater than
our two original views. <

I am too lost to follow. Can anyone help?

--Kent



> Dear Kent-
> There is the official translations of the Writings and their official
> interpretation by the Beloved Master Abdu'l-Baha. However each one of us,
> when we study these interpretations for our own understandings, which
> often are different for each other. So we consult and we may find another
> point of view even greater than our two original views. And then we get
> deeper into the Writings and we find our original understandings changing
> dramatically. And then there is the subject of going all the way back to
> the original language and finding the English meanings we have been using
> are different than the original and so that may change our ideas somewhat.
> This does not mean the official translation or interpretation is wrong, it
> only means our understandings are relative and will change as we deepen
> and become more familiar with the original language as academics do their
> job and uncover things.
>
> regards,
> doug
>
> On Jan 9, 2006, at 11:32 AM, Kent Johnson wrote:
>
>>
>> "Douglas McAdam" <douglasmcadam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:9e234e97098a69cf7d4eeb035759a42f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> "However some academics will tell you that by going back to the original
>> language it might even change your current
>> interpretation ... or something to that effect."
>>
>> I would like to hear about an academic who promotes this practice. Who,
>> specifically, Doug, advocates changing current interpretation of the
>> Baha'i
>> Writings based on new translations? Or something to that effect.
>>
>> --Kent
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Dear Kent -
>>> I think you have a good point here.
>>> Many times I have considered the phrase in the prayer which says-
>>> "a prayer that shall rise above words and letters and transcend the
>>> murmur
>>> of syllables and sounds." and some other Writings I have perused which
>>> indicate to me that it is the concept that is the Revealed Word of God
>>> and
>>> it cannot be accurately embodied by any language, including the
>>> original.
>>> However some academics will tell you that by going back to the original
>>> language it might even change your current interpretation for even the
>>> Guardian said there will be future translations beyond his, or something
>>> to that effect.
>>>
>>> In recalling the verse about 70 and 2 meanings to each word, and the
>>> fact
>>> we are limited in our powers of perception and understanding, I don't
>>> get
>>> too caught up in nit picking over words in Scripture because also as our
>>> spirituality develops we may find our earlier understandings greatly
>>> modified by new evidence.
>>>
>>> God bless,
>>> doug
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 6, 2006, at 10:25 AM, Kent Johnson wrote:
>>>
>>>> It seems to me we should be reading the Writings in English
>>>> translations
>>>> provided by the Guardian and the Universal House of Justice. If we do
>>>> that,
>>>> there is no need to second-guess what Baha'u'llah meant when he used
>>>> one
>>>> word or another. His Writings are clearer in English, I am told, than
>>>> in
>>>> Arabic or Persian, even if your native language is Arabic of Persian.
>>>>
>>>> Spanish and French also use the word for "name" as the word for "noun"
>>>> in
>>>> grammar. In English, we use the word "noun" as a variation of the
>>>> French
>>>> word "nom" in the 14th century as an aid to studying grammar. Much
>>>> like
>>>> we
>>>> use the Germanic "pig" or "cow" on the farm but the French derivative
>>>> "porc"
>>>> or "beef" in the kitchen. There is very little difference in meaning
>>>> between the words "name" and "noun" anyway. A Noun is a naming word.
>>>>
>>>> Moreover, often when the Writings refer to names they differentiate
>>>> between
>>>> words and names. A word helps define and specify processes and events
>>>> in
>>>> our
>>>> world, while names familiarize our surroundings. With the words and
>>>> names
>>>> of
>>>> our languages we build our surroundings.
>>>>
>>>> To me, that we can name something does not mean we can dismiss it.
>>>> Doctors
>>>> who can call a malady by a Latinized name cannot necessarily treat it.
>>>> And
>>>> that is my point. What good is chemistry or physics or anthropology if
>>>> it
>>>> begins in words and ends in words?
>>>>
>>>> The analogies that Baha'u'llah used to explain spiritual verities, as
>>>> Christ
>>>> did with parables, show us the order of the universe. We have seen the
>>>> patterns in language and life, and now we can apply principles we have
>>>> learned to a higher order if we can but comprehend what He is telling
>>>> us.
>>>>
>>>> That is knowledge. That is applicable. It does not begin and end in
>>>> words.
>>>>
>>>> --Kent
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Matt Menge" <mspmenge@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>> news:1136421910.391280.210190@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> Dear Kent,
>>>>>
>>>>> That is a very deep topic. One thing that has occurred to me when I
>>>>> took my Arabic class this fall is that that Arabic word for 'name',
>>>>> which is 'ism' is essentially the same word for 'noun' in grammar.
>>>>> That is to say, any person, place, or thing (i.e. a noun) is a 'name'
>>>>> in Arabic.
>>>>>
>>>>> So when Baha'u'llah says things like:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Most of the people in Persia are steeped in deception and idle fancy.
>>>>> How great the difference between the condition of these people and the
>>>>> station of such valiant souls as have passed beyond the sea of names
>>>>> and pitched their tents upon the shores of the ocean of detachment."
>>>>> (Words of Paradise)
>>>>>
>>>>> I think He means that, yes, learning names is an important part of
>>>>> learning, but to really understand something you have to move beyond
>>>>> them. And yes, a lot of us could really bear that in mind from time
>>>>> to
>>>>> time.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Matt
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>


.