Patrons of the Sacred Art

OPEN TO REGISTER: Click HERE if you want to join Alchemy Forums!

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4
Results 31 to 38 of 38

Thread: Glory Be To God In The Highest

  1. #31
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,818
    Blog Entries
    48
    For anyone feeling the "mind fuck":

    I did warn you....
    Join me; on a voyage of stupidity, and self discovery: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=vccZSHroTG4

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,452
    Quote Originally Posted by tAlchemist View Post
    Well that's why I asked you earlier, what is ''The Glory''? I ask because people give me different perspectives. I want yours!

    I am quite illiterate when it comes to the so called Eastern religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, etc)...
    The notion of the "Glory of God" is, in the west, quite linked to the abrahamic religions, but it also existed in the Greek religion... and it is somehow a double terrible translation... which made the original meaning get completely lost. If you go back to the original written sources, you will find that the notion is ALWAYS very linked to the senses.

    The Greeks talked often about the KLEOS of the Gods, which means "notorious, renown"... but the noun is a derivate of the verb KLUEIN, which literally means "to hear, to listen"... which, of course, linked the idea to the senses (the sense of hearing, of course).

    In the Jewish religion, you will find that this "glory" is KAVOD... which means "respectable, honorable"... but it also means "heavy, something that has a weight"... which again links it to one of the senses (the sense of touch).

    And in the Christian religion it became DOXA.... which is again a derivate from a verb (DOKEIN -something that appears, something that shows itself), but the most literal meaning of the noun is "shiny, bright" (which obviously links the idea to the sense of sight).

    The problem showed up with the Latin translations when the Hebrew Kavod and the Greek Doxa became GLORIA (GLORIA, Ae)
    [Actually the Septuagint translated "Kavod" as "Doxa", which is quite weird.... and then the Vulgate translated everything as "Gloria"]

    So, I think that the original sense was VERY linked to the senses, the notion of a sensorial experience of "God" (as something that can be listened, almost "touched" or felt as "heavy" or "with weight"... or something that can be seen as "shiny", something that "appears" or "shows itself").

    The Latin "gloria" (the most literal translation of "gloria" would be "glory" and it means the same than it means in English) is a terrible translation, because it detached the whole concept from the senses and made it some sort of abstraction and absolutely unrelated to the 5 senses.

    Anyway...I mean that if you go back to the original texts, the meaning of this Latin "gloria" (glory) is simply a bad translation. The original idea was by far more linked to the possibility of "perceiving with the senses" the divine... so talking about the "glory of God" doesn't make much sense to me, because it's the result of a horrible translation.

    Then again, since this is not "Theology Forums", but "Alchemy Forums", I think it is interesting that many alchemical texts talk about a sensorial, touchable, visible, etc manifestation of the divine (the Golden Chain came to my mind, but almost every classical text you can quote says at least something about it). So maybe the original idea was by far more simple and the Latin translation (and then the translation to English and other modern languages) made the whole thing become like an almost untouchable and abstract attribute, when it was actually the opposite.

    That's what I think.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,818
    Blog Entries
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by zoas23 View Post
    I am quite illiterate when it comes to the so called Eastern religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, etc)...
    The notion of the "Glory of God" is, in the west, quite linked to the abrahamic religions, but it also existed in the Greek religion... and it is somehow a double terrible translation... which made the original meaning get completely lost. If you go back to the original written sources, you will find that the notion is ALWAYS very linked to the senses.

    The Greeks talked often about the KLEOS of the Gods, which means "notorious, renown"... but the noun is a derivate of the verb KLUEIN, which literally means "to hear, to listen"... which, of course, linked the idea to the senses (the sense of hearing, of course).

    In the Jewish religion, you will find that this "glory" is KAVOD... which means "respectable, honorable"... but it also means "heavy, something that has a weight"... which again links it to one of the senses (the sense of touch).

    And in the Christian religion it became DOXA.... which is again a derivate from a verb (DOKEIN -something that appears, something that shows itself), but the most literal meaning of the noun is "shiny, bright" (which obviously links the idea to the sense of sight).

    The problem showed up with the Latin translations when the Hebrew Kavod and the Greek Doxa became GLORIA (GLORIA, Ae)
    [Actually the Septuagint translated "Kavod" as "Doxa", which is quite weird.... and then the Vulgate translated everything as "Gloria"]

    So, I think that the original sense was VERY linked to the senses, the notion of a sensorial experience of "God" (as something that can be listened, almost "touched" or felt as "heavy" or "with weight"... or something that can be seen as "shiny", something that "appears" or "shows itself").

    The Latin "gloria" (the most literal translation of "gloria" would be "glory" and it means the same than it means in English) is a terrible translation, because it detached the whole concept from the senses and made it some sort of abstraction and absolutely unrelated to the 5 senses.

    Anyway...I mean that if you go back to the original texts, the meaning of this Latin "gloria" (glory) is simply a bad translation. The original idea was by far more linked to the possibility of "perceiving with the senses" the divine... so talking about the "glory of God" doesn't make much sense to me, because it's the result of a horrible translation.

    Then again, since this is not "Theology Forums", but "Alchemy Forums", I think it is interesting that many alchemical texts talk about a sensorial, touchable, visible, etc manifestation of the divine (the Golden Chain came to my mind, but almost every classical text you can quote says at least something about it). So maybe the original idea was by far more simple and the Latin translation (and then the translation to English and other modern languages) made the whole thing become like an almost untouchable and abstract attribute, when it was actually the opposite.

    That's what I think.
    Nice. Thanks man, that was some pretty beautiful entomology (?).

    Edit: oops.. i mean etymology. ..
    Join me; on a voyage of stupidity, and self discovery: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=vccZSHroTG4

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Location
    I get around.
    Posts
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by Andro View Post
    So you think it may have been an "attempted insult" but you're not sure?

    Rest easy, it wasn't.

    The quote was to provide context for the video, which kind of continues this line of thought (i.e. "god is marvelous" -> "god, you are so big", etc...). Besides, it's a funny video, as you yourself have admitted.

    But having to actually explain why this is not an "attempted insult", now THAT feels "juvenile"

    This reminds me of Bacstrom, who saw Antimony everywhere, especially where there wasn't any
    I do not believe you are being truthful. I think your intentions were clear after reading your response. You quoted me along with the video as an insult. Rather than stating your own opinion, you chose to insult and then backtrack. I stand by my original statement that it was juvenile.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    5,284
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Seraphim View Post
    I do not believe you are being truthful. I think your intentions were clear after reading your response. You quoted me along with the video as an insult. Rather than stating your own opinion, you chose to insult and then backtrack. I stand by my original statement that it was juvenile.
    Then you're welcome to add this to all your other beliefs. Unless you're here to try and "enforce" some sort of agenda and intentionally "find reasons" to "feel insulted". If that's the case, you wouldn't be the first and most likely not the last. Advice from someone who's been around here for some years: Better let go of such projections and get on with it. It's the Internet

    On a side note: Almost EVERY time there's a religious/god-related "discussion" here, it tends to end badly. We have almost 11 years of case histories here to back this up. People preach their dearly-held belief systems and religious views, and then get "offended" whenever a different way to look at those views is brought up (humorous views included). All the more reason to stop projecting, let it go and move on.

    Logistical Note: This thread will not be derailed any further with this sort of ping-pong of personal accusations. If you truly feel you've been personally insulted, file a complaint.
    Last edited by Andro; 1 Week Ago at 05:39 PM.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,452
    Quote Originally Posted by elixirmixer View Post
    Nice. Thanks man, that was some pretty beautiful entomology (?).

    Edit: oops.. i mean etymology. ..
    Entomology is quite important, because the modern translations are completely filled with bugs that don't make sense. So we have to know which ones are these bugs, otherwise we end up discussing the concept of "Glory" (probably in the Bible)... and the most honest truth is that it is simply a terrible translation... which we mostly inherited from the terrible translation of (saint) Jerome.

    A friend with a good Koine Greek recently translated the new testament to Spanish and willingly ignoring the whole "tradition" of influenced translations... you wouldn't believe how different it is to the "standard" versions we often read. It doesn't really change the "ideology" of the text (except in some parts, but not many)... but it corrects a lot of weird mistakes or grandiose words which are simply not there. The concept of "Glory" is one of those bugs.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Location
    Far Side
    Posts
    119
    Quote Originally Posted by Kibric View Post
    Do you think God thinks so little of you ?.
    Why we he not want you to understand him completely ?


    There's a low coming from this spiritual high, be warned you will be reduce to tears.

    Do you think God wants you to pray for him or for others ?
    God think no more or less of me than anyone or anything. I hold no exalted place in His heart, yet He lays witness to my witness of Him and in such signals in affirmation.

    Many tears have come before and after these words.

    And let it be known even that being so none are in vain or brought forth from the bearing of pain, for they are the tears of truth and long have i hoped for the light to shine.

    It is just as it says in the texts that he who sees shall marvel and cry.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Location
    Far Side
    Posts
    119
    Also thanks for everyone here who cant see the simplicity in God is good.

    At the heart of it thats the basic gist of why I posted this.

    Guess it is true...alchemists of old who REALLY knew sought not to change metals, but men.

+ Reply to Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts