The Indefinite Article

Imagine the daunting task of translating an ancient text into your own language.

If the work means anything to you, it can be helped along by extrapolating the story line to fit your beliefs. The New Testament is filled with interpolations by the translators, but one in particular has my interest.

You see, in Greek there is no indefinite article—no a’s prefacing a proper noun. Whether the kingdom of heaven is a monarchy or a republic hinges on how translators add their own little words that don’t appear in the Greek. Lets take St. John for an example. In chapter 10:30-36 —I and my Father are one.

31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.

32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?

33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? (82 Psalm)

35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? See, there is no the in the original Greek. Non-biased translation of the missing article would be a son of god, meaning; of the nature of god.

I know that doesn’t seem like a real big deal, but a son of god makes heaven a republic, not a monarchy. Son of god—of the nature of god. That Jesus did not think his status peculiar to himself (he thought everyone could realize this) the Hebrew roots in monotheism demanded he walk a fine line or be executed. Jesus, however, was more Hindu or Buddhic in nature than Jewish, which is what Christianity is—without the intellect.

“You may notice that these non-translations are based on dogma—for religious reasons” Article HERE you may find interesting. It’s all been translated with dogmatic bias.

Advertisement

Creation Theory—A Destructive Force

Is there a better way to experience nature rather work against it, or do you prefer the Hebrew creation influence to confront it and lord over it?

Seeing the earth as a construct, an artificial scape to house the finite man that resides in the body, makes mankind a foreigner in a temporary setting, viewing nature as outside of himself.

The ecologist describes every organism and its relationship to the ecosystem. That western man views himself outside of nature has infected these thoughts that now threaten the world.

Underneath the superficial self—that one that pays attention to this and that, counts the rules and feels apart from nature, viewing life as a struggling visitor on a strange planet (trying your best to get out of here in one piece) there is another self, more really us, than I, and the more you become aware of that other self, the more you realize that you are inseparably connected with all that there is. Would that make you a better, more kind and reasonable person, or a worse, more destructive person? Knowing you are not just the ego confined to your skin, but that you are connected to your external environment as a total function of the ecosystem? I would think it would make you more responsible, more kind, and more aware of the needs of others, and intuitively careful with the earth and its resources.

The alternative to Jesus as lord and us as fallen sinners, isn’t that there’s nothing—to the contrary, it’s everything. It’s how many of our ancestors lived for millennia and left very little traces on the world. This fallen world idea (nothing created lasts forever) has an inevitable death sentence to it. And seeing things more deeply connected (which we are) could certainly improve our chances of surviving on this rock.

It is the way of the Tao—to roll with it, not against it. Nurturing it like an aging mother, not in the Judeo-Christian theme as natures lord and master.