"There is a difference between
"authorized" and "authoritative". The Guardian and Abdu'l Baha could make
authoritative translations as part of their station within the
faith."
Uh, Scott. There was one major obstacle
preventing Abdu'l-Baha from doing any translations. He didn't know
At 7:53 AM -0500 1/12/06, Susan Maneck wrote:
There is a difference between authorized and authoritative. The
Guardian and Abdu'l Baha could make authoritative translations as
part of their station within the faith.
Uh, Scott. There was one major obstacle preventing Abdu'l-Baha from
doing
On 1/11/06, Scott Saylors [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gilberto Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But even just with the fact that the UHJ does translation work means
it is interpreting at least on a really basic level.
Scott:
The House does not translate anything, it takes the work of the
Uh, Scott. There was one major obstacle preventing Abdu'l-Baha from
doing any translations. He didn't know English. ;-}
What about Turkish? I have heard that he carried on a fair
correspondence in Turkish.
Dear Don,
Yes, there are some Tablets in Ottoman Turkish, but to my knowledge no
But I would still say that even that binary decision of
looking at a potential translation of the writings and saying Ok or
not Ok implies interpretation.
Dear Gilberto,
Aren't you going about this all wrong? You are after all, not a Baha'i and
therefore not really in the position to say
At 10:03 AM -0500 1/12/06, Gilberto Simpson wrote:
A likely resolution is that there is a special sense of the word
interpret which some Bahais are using, but which is different from
the ordinary meaning of the term in English.
I think, rather, that a special meaning is given to
Susan Maneck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: "There is a difference between "authorized" and "authoritative". The Guardian and Abdu'l Baha could make authoritative translations as part of their station within the faith."Uh, Scott. There was one major obstacle preventing
`Abdu'l-Baha has prayers and perhaps some Tablets in Turkish.
Regards,
Iskandar
On Thu, 12 Jan 2006, Don Calkins wrote:
What about Turkish? I have heard that he carried on a fair
correspondence in Turkish. If so, did he ever quote the Writings in
Turkish?
Don C
The
In my experience Bahais aren't necessarily saying right off the bat
that they are using certain terms in a very unique and unconventional
way.
Dear Gilberto,
That's because they don't see their use of those terms as 'unique'
or 'conventional.' But they do have a technical meaning in a
Gilberto Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:On 1/12/06, Susan Maneck wrote:
But I would still say that even that binary decision of
looking at a potential translation of the writings and saying Ok or
not Ok implies interpretation.
Dear Gilberto,
What you ought to be
asking is what do
For example, when Scottwas trying to explain what *he* meant by interpret and elucidatate
he didn't whip out a super-secret Bahai decoder ring.
Okay, who told Gilberto about the decoder rings?
Ben :)
The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments thereto ("e-mail") is
Well, you did, Benjamin . . . . I had mine installed as a PDA aid, how about you?Regards, ScottBenjamin La Framboise [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For example, when Scottwas trying to explain what *he* meant by "interpret" and "elucidatate" he didn't whip out a super-secret Bahai decoder
On 1/12/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In my experience Bahais aren't necessarily saying right off the bat
that they are using certain terms in a very unique and unconventional
way.
Dear Gilberto,
That's because they don't see their use of those terms as 'unique'
or
Gilberto Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Gilberto:So an infallible body selects and approves a translation which is tobe used by all Bahais, and that doesn't imply that the approvedtranslation is a correct interpretation of the original text?Gilberto: What do they check for when they don't
On 1/12/06, Scott Saylors [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gilberto Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gilberto:
So an infallible body selects and approves a translation which is to
be used by all Bahais, and that doesn't imply that the approved
translation is a correct interpretation of the original
Gilberto Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:On 1/12/06, Scott Saylors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: Gilberto Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: Gilberto: So an infallible body selects and approves a translation which is to be used by all Bahais, and that doesn't imply that the approved
On 1/12/06, Scott Saylors [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dear Gilberto,
translate and interpret are not perfect synonyms.
I agree. But translation implies interpretation. You can interpret
without translating (from one language to another). But you can't
translate without interpreting (unless you
Title: Re: The Universal House of
Justice
At 10:13 PM -0500 1/12/06, Benjamin La Framboise wrote:
For example, when Scott
was trying to explain what *he* meant by interpret and
elucidatate
he didn't whip out a super-secret Bahai decoder ring.
Okay, who told Gilberto about the decoder
So could the UHJ could approve a translation, and the translation
be mistaken?
Yes, certainly.
The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments thereto (e-mail)
is sent by the Johnson County Community College (JCCC) and is intended to be
confidential and for the use of
19 matches
Mail list logo
