-
Posts
-
Brooklyn_born wrote: When you render two separate meanings of one statement, it negates the literal value of the statement.
I do not agree with your statement above, BB. Take the following sentence as a very simple example: The car drove through the intersection. We can take that sentence literally, to mean that a car went from one side of the intersection to the other side. Simple, right? When someone of my grandmother’s age reads that sentence, they probably interpret it to mean ‘The car [was driven, presumably by a human] through the intersection.’ While someone who is young today and who reads that sentence about 10 years from now, might interpret it to mean, ‘The [self-driven/ unmanned] car drove through the intersection.’ Does the difference in interpretation change the literal meaning of that sentence? Not really. It’s a matter of perspective, the background and knowledge of the reader, and their individual experience of interpreting the sentence that makes it different/ unique. But the main message is identical for both.
Once I find the references I will show how revelation communicated in sentence format can yield multiple meanings; Midwayers have demonstrated this in the text, providing two different understandings of the same revelation verse. To address your example, that sentence is outside the scope of revelation so in my opinion it does not apply to this discussion. I should have given a better example, preferably a verse from the 4th epochal revelation or even poetry, instead of the Dr. Suess example to make my point.
The revelators tell us in the opening that our word symbols are used by them to convey revelation. But that those very words do not always LITERALLY capture the true meaning of the revelation, yet are used. Here is what they say about this matter:
2 “It is exceedingly difficult to present enlarged concepts and advanced truth… when we are restricted to the use of a circumscribed language of the realm… We have been instructed to introduce new terms only when the concept to be portrayed finds no terminology in English which can be employed to convey such a new concept partially or even with more or less distortion of meaning.”
Partially? They are allowed to communicate a revelation in partial form. So it begs the question, how do you identify revelation that is communicated partially? And Should one read a revelation that is communicated partially, literally?
BB
Hello all!! BB, I have not found that great a difference in interpretation by those readers of a certain level of study really. Some of course. Newer readers in their first 2-3 reads are just beginning to integrate the parts into the whole, and tend to hold preconception and no little misconception of what they bring to the text and discover within the text both.
Bradly perhaps on this board you may find little difference in interpretation among participants, but outside this board there is a world of difference. I have witnessed this first hand. Take for example the heated debate not too long ago over Chris’ interpretation of the word ‘liaison.’ You and Bonita were staunchly against his interpretation. And that is just one of several episodes of finding fault in Chris’ interpretation of TUB. Yet all three of you are seasoned readers. If anything, and this is no reflection on you, I think seasoned readers are the most rigid and close minded, having been set in their particular understanding for so many years, any new or foreign concept nearly instantly is rejected out of hand.
BB
Here is an example I found that speaks on different interpretations…
The surest safeguard for the creature throughout the long struggle to attain the Father, during this time when inherent conditions make such attainment impossible, is tenaciously to hold on to the truth-fact of the Father’s presence in his Sons. Literally and figuratively, spiritually and personally,the Father and the Sons are one. It is a fact: He who has seen a Creator Son has seen the Father.
So the oneness of Father and the Sons is literally true, figuratively true, spiritually true and personally true. That means when I read “Father and the sons are one” in TUB I am in no fault for imposing either a literal, figurative, spiritual or personal interpretation on the statement.
I am still looking for the two references. Please bear with me as I was introduced to them by Chris about 2 years ago. Scott, if you are around, I could use your concordance help
BB
Yes BB, I was also thinking of the claim of angelic rape and the term liaison…..and the trouble comes when someone (Chris in this instance) has a need to alter the very definition of the word “liaison” into an interpretation of intended violence – which doesn’t reflect any form of the definitions of the word chosen by the author. The UB text uses clear words to describe a situation wherein a seraphim understands the ultimate consequence of a choice (personal destruction) while those who have made that choice entreat and beguile/persuade her into rebellion against Michael by liaison forces. All in full context of a years long debate and free movement where none were harmed or even threatened by either side of the debate. I never did get the mystery of that one….and sure as heck don’t know where Chris got angelic rape or where he intended to go with that. And this is a good example of those who seek mystery and riddles – they will surely find them, even if they must invent them.
I participate on 3 forums regularly and have taken several different classes with many, many students and participated in over a dozen study groups over the decades and maintain my claim that there is not so many “interpretations” among veteran readers from around the world as one might expect…..until or unless they are sign seekers and code breakers – and those exist among biblical students as well, especially so with the Book of Revelation – where the author claimed no understanding but every fire and brimstone preacher since has a certain understanding and can predict the future by that understanding….not by the words written but by their interpretations of the words written. When I say there is little disagreement, I should say of the foundational teachings related to mortal source, destiny, and spirit connectivity. There is much about Paradise, the Absolutes, the Triunities and such Deity relationships that are way over my head to begin with. I’m not well read enough to even argue with Nigel, Bonita, and many others on this and other forums….I can hardly agree on that for which I have no understanding. I can read the words on some topics but claim no understanding of their meaning….and so do not argue. I can provide a long list of such topics. But it is a lack of knowledge and experience that delivers this inability to comprehend….not a symbolism or codex for interpretation.
Partial revelation is like Biology 101 compared to 505….so yes you can believe what you are taught in freshman biology and you will need that to understand 201, 301, etc. since knowledge is progressive as is revelation. Thus the wonder of time….which is what keeps everything from happening at once. All knowledge is a time construct of learning and applying that learned until truly known, to then know more. As to being close minded….again, not my experience at all. But your statement does tend to concur with my earlier point. All the veteran readers share is the UB itself and time in the UB….there’s no cliff notes or priests telling us what to believe…only the text guides us and it says what it says and it don’t say what it don’t say…..unless you believe it requires interpretation and either are such an interpreter or you have chosen one to explain the mysteries which you cannot understand yourself. And yes, experienced readers have a bit of an attitude about such ones – either the priesthood or those who give over their personal sovereignty to those mystical readers of the tea leaves (or head bumps or spirits of the dead or Taro or the stars).
The most foundational teaching is that we each are fully encircuited and able to find God within ourself and every other being and that none may give truth to any other but we must each transcend materialism and ascend into spiritization. We are fully equipped. We must choose this and do this for ourselves. No priests (read interpreters) needed. So why then would a book which teaches this then present its truths in riddles and codes? Completely illogical for a book that is otherwise so logical. Or so I see it.
Bradly, I don’t believe I implied that TUB is written in codes or riddles. If I ever suggested such I am retracting that idea. I will have to go over what I posted and see if I didn’t effectively communicate by thoughts. I am still searching for those references.
BB
These references are not the ones I was looking for, but they will suffice for now.
The purpose of citing the below references is to show one revelatory sentence can have multiple meanings. The idea that revelation recorded in TUB is subject to but one literal reading I think unnecessarily places limits on it.
“The divine mind is conscious of, and conversant with, the thought of all creation. His knowledge of events is universal and perfect… The very hairs of your head are numbered.” (Divine Counselor)
and…
“You have been told that the “very hairs of your head are numbered,” … Angels possess inherent and automatic (that is, automatic as far as you could perceive) powers of knowing such things.” (Melchizedek)
As you can see two different revelators are sourcing the same 4th epochal revelation verse yet rendering different meanings. Had they taken the literal approach, the interpretation for both would have been identical. I am still looking for the other reference but I think these examples give you an idea of what I am getting at.
BB
The most foundational teaching is that we each are fully encircuited and able to find God within ourself and every other being and that none may give truth to any other but we must each transcend materialism and ascend into spiritization. We are fully equipped. We must choose this and do this for ourselves. No priests (read interpreters) needed. So why then would a book which teaches this then present its truths in riddles and codes? Completely illogical for a book that is otherwise so logical.
I understand your point Bradly, but I also understand B.B.’s interest in such matters. Where the UB does indicate that the Thought Adjuster, does make adjustment to individuals minds, or as to go further, might just make adjustments to persons memories, and in these cases even adjust what was and is read in the Urantia Book and many other Books for that matter. Personally, whether we must “transcend materialism and ascend into spiritization” would be the same thing as saying that we have to wait until we die before we can intellectually understand what has been presented in all of these Books including the UB. But your presentation above, including that which preceded the small amount which I presented above, does present itself that you would rather that B.B., should not pursue these kind of topics or questions but, they are not “completely illogical” and have some validity if the Urantia Book context presents itself to some who possibly see more than what is “literally and figuratively” NOT “otherwise so logical” to some or others, where logical, understanding does not present itself with everyone the same way. You brought up the Book of Revelation from the Bible as a seed for misinterpretation of the words written, as prophetic to specific revelation, but as I have mentioned in the past, I have studied that Book for over thirty years and have found that all of a sudden the UB indicates that much of it was lost, where by having reread it again in recent times, and had noticed its recent abridgment, was as the UB authors indicated, but not actually lost, because it still rings unabridged in my mind and memory of its context, where I am able to compare the most recent text and asses that which was there and now not, and determine various speculative reasons for why these changes were made, and why, for that matter, it is possible for me to have retained this information in such detail. I can only speculate that my Thought Adjuster felt it necessary that I not forget or have this adjustment made for some reason. Therefore, if you have no recollection of any changes as I describe does not mean that others may not have noticed the same thing or for that matter that by reading the UB’s text promotes interest in subject matter which may spark ideas or questions which they find interesting or fascinating. So, why discourage these query at all, if they only sort out information which would otherwise never come up if not shared with others. Also, if the topic does not interest you, you have the option to just not respond, rather than discourage out of the box thinking, where even Einstein would have never come up with some of his theories if he did not think about, what if?
I can see where B.B. is attempting to go which this topic and although I think it might be a little to detailed, in attempt to associate this specific religious Church history with the “War in Heaven” but I would say that all of the religious history of time and specifically following the Jesus era and what followed with the various variations of Christianity, could very easily emulate what might have been going on in heaven, specifically at the time of the presentation of the Lucifer Manifesto. However, I don’t think that the “War in Heaven” should be looked at so much as a comparison of what occurs in a material realm but more so, what this rebellion might have caused in the spiritual realm, where the isolation which it caused would seem to have deprived the spiritual realm of something which was synonymous with the material realm, where even the UB indicates that a material creature is required for experience and that this creature also requires spiritual entities in order to make them human, rather than just animals. So, if a human being has multiple spirit entities which make it a personality, or that we know that now we have a thought adjuster, and at least one angelic host type entity along with what makes up our consciousness, would all of this have something to do with why there was a war in heaven, in that they were deprived of certain associations with us to experience what it would be like to have a material body?
Bradly, I don’t believe I implied that TUB is written in codes or riddles. If I ever suggested such I am retracting that idea. I will have to go over what I posted and see if I didn’t effectively communicate by thoughts. I am still searching for those references.
Me here: No, no…I introduced those words of interpretation, codes, symbolism, riddle, etc. I was associating those with your inquiry about metaphor – a mere synonym of the other terms. I think your inquiry is sound and sincere and of great interest. But there is a rabbit hole here to be aware of. You inquire about whether the words written say one thing but mean another thing. This is a common enough claim by many and in many ways. The UB is not a metaphorical presentation. It is a text to reduce confusion and error….or its not. We must each decide that for ourselves. It reduces both for me…..if metaphorical, it does the opposite for all. The issue is not whether some text may be taken one way or another….its whether the book is a literal, educational text or a book for priests and mystics to interpret. I don’t happen to think so. Again, just one opinion.
You inquire about whether the words written say one thing but mean another thing. This is a common enough claim by many and in many ways.That is not what I am saying. I am at the moment inclined to believe that various TUB statements can have MULTIPLE meanings. If you read my last entry I present an example of two revelators presenting different revelations based on the same one sentence. If you did not get a chance to view that post, I encourage you to do so and tell me what you think. Also I’d like to get your opinion on the following: “…Literally and figuratively, spiritually and personally,the Father and the Sons are one.” What is your take? Is the revelator telling us that the statement, “The Father and the Sons are one,” can be interpreted in various ways? And by the way, I respect your opinion and maturity as a reader of TUB. That is why I come to you guys to test my theories. If they can past the test, then all the more do I embrace them! BB
True but “Lucifer” is UNIQUE to the Catholic Church; it first appears in the Latin Vulgate. Lucifer isn’t a part of Judeo history or the 4th epochal revelation, nor is it found in the original Hebrew text of Isaiah the Prophet. Why did the revelators use the name of a super being exclusive to the Catholic Church?
The world’s religions confuse the name of the “devil”. The names, Lucifer and Satan are often interchanged and names like Caligastia and Daligastia are never mentioned. Lucifer and Satan go way, way back in history and are part of many ancient religions, including Zoroastrianism and Judaism. Lucifer/Satan are also a part of Islam, known as Iblis. Besides the list below, consider looking up the name Azazel.
Consider reading:
Sura 7:11-12; Sura 2:35-36; Sura 7:16
Hadith 2:302; Hadith 4:522; Hadith 6:71; Hadith 7:527; Hadith 9:124
Enoch viii. 1, ix. 6, x. 4–6, liv. 5, lxxxviii
Ezek 28:12-23; 1 Sam 16:14-16; 1 Sam 18:10-11; 1 Sam 19:9-10; 2 Sam 24:13-16; 1 Chron 21:1-30; Zech 3:1-10; Job 1:6-12; Job 2:1-7
Do you put any difference between literal, spiritual, mindal, morontial, philosophical meanings ?
I don’t know what you mean by mindal. How can you read something without using your mind?
Have you ever heard of lectio divina? It’s latin for divine reading. There are different stages that a person goes through mentally, emotionally and spiritually when they employ this method of reading revelation. It’s a process.
BTW, literal means taking words in their most usual and basic meaning without metaphor or allegory. The human mind is creative. It loves to create myths, metaphors and allegories. It’s rather hard to stop it, actually. The trick is to not take much, or any of it, seriously.
102:3.1 Religion must continually labor under a paradoxical necessity: the necessity of making effective use of thought while at the same time discounting the spiritual serviceableness of all thinking.
Do you put any difference between literal, spiritual, mindal, morontial, philosophical meanings ?
I don’t know what you mean by mindal. How can you read something without using your mind? Have you ever heard of lectio divina? It’s latin for divine reading. There are different stages that a person goes through mentally, emotionally and spiritually when they employ this method of reading revelation. It’s a process. BTW, literal means taking words in their most usual and basic meaning without metaphor or allegory. The human mind is creative. It loves to create myths, metaphors and allegories. It’s rather hard to stop it, actually. The trick is to not take much, or any of it, seriously.
102:3.1 Religion must continually labor under a paradoxical necessity: the necessity of making effective use of thought while at the same time discounting the spiritual serviceableness of all thinking.
Scratch out the “mindal.” I should not have put that in there.
BB
True but “Lucifer” is UNIQUE to the Catholic Church; it first appears in the Latin Vulgate. Lucifer isn’t a part of Judeo history or the 4th epochal revelation, nor is it found in the original Hebrew text of Isaiah the Prophet. Why did the revelators use the name of a super being exclusive to the Catholic Church?
The world’s religions confuse the name of the “devil”. The names, Lucifer and Satan are often interchanged and names like Caligastia and Daligastia are never mentioned. Lucifer and Satan go way, way back in history and are part of many ancient religions, including Zoroastrianism and Judaism. Lucifer/Satan are also a part of Islam, known as Iblis. Besides the list below, consider looking up the name Azazel. Consider reading: Sura 7:11-12; Sura 2:35-36; Sura 7:16 Hadith 2:302; Hadith 4:522; Hadith 6:71; Hadith 7:527; Hadith 9:124
Enoch viii. 1, ix. 6, x. 4–6, liv. 5, lxxxviii Ezek 28:12-23; 1 Sam 16:14-16; 1 Sam 18:10-11; 1 Sam 19:9-10; 2 Sam 24:13-16; 1 Chron 21:1-30; Zech 3:1-10; Job 1:6-12; Job 2:1-7
Lucifer is not a part of Judeo history. It is a Latin creation. You may find it in English translations or even Arabic writings but still not a part of Judeo history. There is no Lucifer in Jewish scripture and I am very sure of this; it is part of Christian theology. Why are you citing “Satan” or “Azazel”? They are not who I am talking about.
BB
There are different stages that a person goes through mentally, emotionally and spiritually when they employ this method of reading revelation. It’s a process.Okay and pretty much that is what I am saying. So you acknowledge that revelation isn’t meant to be read just literally. I provided a reference to Bradly, did you see it? This one: “Literally and figuratively, spiritually and personally,the Father and the Sons are one. ” This example definitely should jibe with ‘lectio divina.’
BTW, literal means taking words in their most usual and basic meaning without metaphor or allegory. The human mind is creative. It loves to create myths, metaphors and allegories. It’s rather hard to stop it, actually. The trick is to not take much, or any of it, seriously.102:3.1 Religion must continually labor under a paradoxical necessity: the necessity of making effective use of thought while at the same time discounting the spiritual serviceableness of all thinking.
For me this is semantics or just me not referencing the correct words, so forget metaphor or allegory or whatever. But I believe you do get my point. You say it is called “lectio divina.”
Can we build on lectio divina and TUB? The revelators call it ‘autorevelation’ I believe.
BB
I don’t know what you mean by mindal. How can you read something without using your mind?
How can you not know what “mindal” is, it is listed in the UB 24 times, generally each time in association with two other energies? In order to experience “mindal” energy, one must be able to completely blank out the conscious verbal thought, which opens the mind to complete expression of thought and communication.
Scratch out the “mindal.” I should not have put that in there.
B.B., why would you not include “mindal”, where it is a vital form of expressive communication, and would expand on your subject’s premise. It is also vital to understanding physical personality.
(334.7) 30:1.113 There are spirits: spirit entities, spirit presences, personal spirits, prepersonal spirits, superpersonal spirits, spirit existences, spirit personalities — but neither mortal language nor mortal intellect are adequate. We may however state that there are no personalities of “pure mind”; no entity has personality unless he is endowed with it by God who is spirit. Any mind entity that is not associated with either spiritual or physical energy is not a personality. But in the same sense that there are spirit personalities who have mind there are mind personalities who have spirit. Majeston and his associates are fairly good illustrations of mind-dominated beings, but there are better illustrations of this type of personality unknown to you. There are even whole unrevealed orders of such mind personalities, but they are always spirit associated. Certain other unrevealed creatures are what might be termed mindal- and physical-energy personalities. This type of being is nonresponsive to spirit gravity but is nonetheless a true personality — is within the Father’s circuit.
Login to reply to this topic.
Not registered? Sign up here.