DLW 57
. . . angels are not angels of themselves,
but are angels in consequence of their conjunction with the human God;
and that conjunction depends on their reception of
Divine good and Divine truth,
which are God,
and which appear to emanate from Him,
even though they are in Him.
Moreover, their reception depends on their application of the laws of order
- which Divine truths are - to themselves,
because of their freedom to think and will in accordance with reason,
faculties that they have from the Lord as though they were theirs.
The same is the case with people on earth.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
This one surprised me this a.m. I don't think I've heard the expression "the human God" before. At first it sounded like a concept from primitive man. Then it began to sound like Swedenborg (sort of). Quirky way to translate 'Lord"? How come I've never heard it before? Or did I just not notice?
I was a bit puzzled by it myself. So I looked it up in my Swedenborg Society translation.
God-Man is rendered "the human God" by Bruce Rogers. I can't fault his choice human = man; but for some reason (perhaps only because of what I am use to) I like God-Man better.
Bill
I agree with an observation being made about the 'newer' translations. They are getting a reputation for being more readable at the expense of accuracy or Latin precision. I don't know if you are using the the New Century Translation or if Bruce Rogers comes from another edition. I like Marcia's post in another place with this illustration:
Newer translation (Rogers) -
Thought from the eye closes the intellect,
whereas thought from the intellect opens the eye.
Older translation of the same number:
Thought from the eye closes the understanding,
but thought from the understanding opens the eye.
=====================
I have only been in Writings 4 years but I too prefer the 'older' translations. I love Dole's 1986 translation of HH but not his 2004 New Century Edition. For that matter, however, I don't care for Ager for HH but I do like Ager for TCR. Go figure. Both are older.
This thread might better be moved to the Swedenborg forum! HA. See if others have same experience.
Keith
Hi -
Not to worry, your perception is fine.
There is a pellucidness that has been filtered out in the interest of making it more 'intelligible'. I do not believe this 'filtering out' to have been intentional, but to have been a by-product of the endeavor to render the text more palatable to exterior thought.
It may be that it is for some more intelligible to exterior thought; but whether it is indeed more 'intelligible' to a given reader may depend upon the 'side' of exterior thought with which the reader in general has been most comfortable.
I have assembled a side-by-side comparison of an older and the Rogers translations. Please see http://divineloveandwisdom.tripod.com/sidebyside (no extension). It is a single file, so may take a few moments to load. Also, the file is hosted on a free website, so there may be an annoying pop-up.
Glenn
o [W]hen a man is in interior thought from affection, and withdraws his mind from sensuous things and from the body, he is in rational perception; for then the things which are beneath, or which belong to the external man, are quiescent, and the man is almost in his spirit. But when man is in exterior thought, from causes which exist in the world, then his perception is from the interior natural, and the rational indeed flows in, but not with any life of affection. But when man is in pleasures, and in the delights of the love of the world and also of the love of self, the perception is from the sensuous; for his life is then in externals or in the body, and admits no more from the interiors than may serve to moderate his outbursts into what is dishonorable and unbecoming. But the more external the perception is, the more obscure it is, because exterior things are comparatively general[.] AC 5141
I love that quote too Marcia,, with the older wording of 'understanding' and not intellect. Intellect seems too intellectual - implying for me human ego... but that is just me I guess.
Norm
The side-by-side versions are really interesting - at times they don't even say the same thing (to me anyway).
But, I think my main surprise at hearing "the human God" was the way it sounded like something a cult would say. 'Wasn't Haile Selassie a human God?' was what my morning-fog brain thought.
Post a Comment