Language ...

[AV1611VET]

My question was threefold ...

Okay.

"What is the language of God and how is the creation and the process of it part of it?"

Answers:

1. Jacobean English, in my opinion.

2. The creation was, as God put it, "very good".

Genesis 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Today, though, it is in a fallen state.

3. I don't know what you mean by "What is the process of it?"

It runs on four fundamental processes of nature: gravity, electromagnetism, strong nuclear force, and weak nuclear force.

Would the language of God had any meaning without a tree,

Of course it would.

Would your language have any meaning if you lived in an area without any trees?

... or a garden man is put in to tend and keep ...

Yes.

... and why the leaves of a fig tree ...

I don't know.

... cohesive narrative or just happen to be the closest tree in proximity ...

Both?

 

[Mark Quayle]

What is the language of God and how is the creation and the process of it part of it?

I have delighted in CS Lewis' use of the notion of a Heavenly or God-language, as the only REAL language, so to speak, in his space trilogy (very good read) and mentions in many of his other books.

Here's one of my favorite quotes of his, not really a mention of God's language, but of our smallness of mind/ self-centeredness of heart, and how that affects what we say (and don't be put off by his mention of "the gods" instead of God. When you read the book, his intention is plain):
“I saw well why the gods do not speak to us openly, nor let us answer. Till that word can be dug out of us, why should they hear the babble that we think we mean? How can they meet us face to face till we have faces?” CS Lewis in Till We Have Faces: A Fable Retold

 

[Mark Quayle]

Would the language of God had any meaning without a tree, or a garden man is put in to tend and keep ... and why the leaves of a fig tree ... cohesive narrative or just happen to be the closest tree in proximity ...

The problem with this question, at least to my mind, is that it seems to assume validity to the concept, "tree", etc that we have in this temporal vapor of reality. From what I have studied, it seems more than valid to think of everything here, (tree, beauty, strength, music, mind, desire, action etc etc), to be mere pictures of the real thing we will see in the next life. (Eg, I don't call God male, to me that is anthropomorphism. He is extremely masculine, moreso than even males.)

 

[Scott Husted]

Okay.Answers:

1. Jacobean English, in my opinion.

2. The creation was, as God put it, "very good".

Genesis 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Today, though, it is in a fallen state.

3. I don't know what you mean by "What is the process of it?"

It runs on four fundamental processes of nature: gravity, electromagnetism, strong nuclear force, and weak nuclear force.Of course it would.

Would your language have any meaning if you lived in an area without any trees?Yes.I don't know.Both?

What is your reasoning behind Jacobean ... at best it only goes back to the 5th century ...

 

[Scott Husted]

The problem with this question, at least to my mind, is that it seems to assume validity to the concept, "tree", etc that we have in this temporal vapor of reality. From what I have studied, it seems more than valid to think of everything here, (tree, beauty, strength, music, mind, desire, action etc etc), to be mere pictures of the real thing we will see in the next life. (Eg, I don't call God male, to me that is anthropomorphism. He is extremely masculine, moreso than even males.)

I agree ... everything that came out of the mind of God must by nature hold eternal truths in relationship to him, and by default to us, including the process involved in bringing it to the present state we find it in now. What is in a word (not without process) becomes far more than the seed the word is to us at first.

 

[Scott Husted]

I have delighted in CS Lewis' use of the notion of a Heavenly or God-language, as the only REAL language, so to speak, in his space trilogy (very good read) and mentions in many of his other books.

Here's one of my favorite quotes of his, not really a mention of God's language, but of our smallness of mind/ self-centeredness of heart, and how that affects what we say (and don't be put off by his mention of "the gods" instead of God. When you read the book, his intention is plain):
“I saw well why the gods do not speak to us openly, nor let us answer. Till that word can be dug out of us, why should they hear the babble that we think we mean? How can they meet us face to face till we have faces?” CS Lewis in Till We Have Faces: A Fable Retold

Yeah ... love it ... God had to start somewhere ... hence a picture and notion of a seed in relationship to a kingdom that begins and ends with a son, or a city a tent dweller looked for, or what is in the name that is written on the white stone of who you are, like a tree whose seed is in itself ... deeply individual, deeply personal ...

 

[AV1611VET]

What is your reasoning behind Jacobean ... at best it only goes back to the 5th century ...

It hinges on this verse:

Revelation 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

IF those "books" are the sixty-six books of the Bible, then it stands to reason that the Bible was written in Heaven before It was written on Earth.

And given the fact that the King James Bible is God's last Translation in a line of seven purified Translations ...

Psalm 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

... wouldn't it make sense that the language of Heaven is Jacobean English?

Here's the translation sequence:

96 AD = Scriptures completed

1. Purified to the AV330 Gothic Bible
2. Purified to the AV700 Anglo-Saxon Version
3. Purified to the AV1389 Wycliffe Version
4. Purified to the AV1525 Tyndale Version
5. Purified to the AV1560 Geneva Bible for the Pilgrims who came to America
6. Purified to the AV1568 Bishop's Bible
7. Purified to the AV1611 King James Bible

Seven purifications, as foretold in Psalm 12.

 

[Scott Husted]

It hinges on this verse:

Revelation 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

IF those "books" are the sixty-six books of the Bible, then it stands to reason that the Bible was written in Heaven before It was written on Earth.

And given the fact that the King James Bible is God's last Translation in a line of seven purified Translations ...

Psalm 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

... wouldn't it make sense that the language of Heaven is Jacobean English?

Here's the translation sequence:

96 AD = Scriptures completed

1. Purified to the AV330 Gothic Bible
2. Purified to the AV700 Anglo-Saxon Version
3. Purified to the AV1389 Wycliffe Version
4. Purified to the AV1525 Tyndale Version
5. Purified to the AV1560 Geneva Bible for the Pilgrims who came to America
6. Purified to the AV1568 Bishop's Bible
7. Purified to the AV1611 King James Bible

Seven purifications, as foretoldl in Psalm 12.

Patterns can be found in everything relating to his purpose but they are merely a means to an end ...

There are 66 books in Bible but more often then not man's perception becomes the other 6 ...

 

[AV1611VET]

Patterns can be found in everything relating to his purpose but they are merely a means to an end ...

On the other hand, you can't treat the Bible like It's a Rorschach Ink Blot test, either.

There are 66 books in Bible but more often then not man's perception becomes the other 6 ...

What "other 6"? the books of the Apocrypha?

They don't belong.

 

[Scott Husted]

On the other hand, you can't treat the Bible like It's a Rorschach Ink Blot test, either.What "other 6"? the books of the Apocrypha?

They don't belong.

Day man was created on ...

 

[AV1611VET]

Day man was created on ...

Man was created on the sixth day of creation.

Sorry. I'm having a hard time understanding you.

There are 66 books of the Bible, and man was created on the 6th day.

What does this have to do with the language that was spoken, when God spoke the universe into existence?

In my opinion, that language was Jacobean English.

 

[Scott Husted]

Man was created on the sixth day of creation.

Sorry. I'm having a hard time understanding you.

There are 66 books of the Bible, and man was created on the 6th day.

What does this have to do with the language that was spoken, when God spoke the universe into existence?

In my opinion, that language was Jacobean English.

The perception of what was spoken ...

 

[honey badger]

On the other hand, you can't treat the Bible like It's a Rorschach Ink Blot test, either.What "other 6"? the books of the Apocrypha?

They don't belong.

your seven times purified 1611 KJV is not the revision used today, the one we use today is based primary on a later 1769 version, interestingly if one understands the patterns pertaining to the process of our soul which is relative to Gods language the 1666 edition of the KJV was the first not to include the 14 books of the Apocrypha ....

anyway just saying your Psalms 12:6 quote does not support your theory ....

 

[honey badger]

the language of God and the mind of Christ are one and the same ...

 

[AV1611VET]

The perception of what was spoken ...

Okay, Scott.

Have a nice day.

I don't think you're interested in discussing this.

One quick question, if you please:

Do you have a college degree? or have you at least been to college?

I suspect you have.

 

[AV1611VET]

your seven times purified 1611 KJV is not the revision used today,

Yes, It is.

It is the 1611 KJB, fifth edition.

As Gail Riplinger put it:

God created a gem in 1611, then polished it over time to a high gloss.

(Something like that.)

I have a digitally remastered 1611 KJB, first edition; but I use the fifth edition.

 

[AV1611VET]

the language of God and the mind of Christ are one and the same ...

Um ... okay.

And the language of Spaniards and the mind of Hernando Cortez are one and the same.

 

[Scott Husted]

Okay, Scott.

Have a nice day.

I don't think you're interested in discussing this.

One quick question, if you please:

Do you have a college degree? or have you at least been to college?

I suspect you have.

Your suspicion is wrong ...

I am discussing ... you asked what does this have to do with the language that is spoken?

What is the use of language outside of the perception it is spoken from, be it God or man ... is not your conclusion based on your perception of words?

 

[Mark Quayle]

I agree ... everything that came out of the mind of God must by nature hold eternal truths in relationship to him, and by default to us, including the process involved in bringing it to the present state we find it in now. What is in a word (not without process) becomes far more than the seed the word is to us at first.

Then I have a hard time reconciling that with your OP, or at least your follow up post #40, which, as I said, seems to assume validity to "tree" or whatever (--I'll add here-- validity in and of itself) as it exists in this temporal frame, and thus be useful for application to spiritual matters. We can't assess the eternal according to the temporal.

I must be missing something you are trying to say.

 

[Mark Quayle]

It hinges on this verse:

Revelation 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

IF those "books" are the sixty-six books of the Bible, then it stands to reason that the Bible was written in Heaven before It was written on Earth.

And given the fact that the King James Bible is God's last Translation in a line of seven purified Translations ...

Psalm 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

... wouldn't it make sense that the language of Heaven is Jacobean English?

Here's the translation sequence:

96 AD = Scriptures completed

1. Purified to the AV330 Gothic Bible
2. Purified to the AV700 Anglo-Saxon Version
3. Purified to the AV1389 Wycliffe Version
4. Purified to the AV1525 Tyndale Version
5. Purified to the AV1560 Geneva Bible for the Pilgrims who came to America
6. Purified to the AV1568 Bishop's Bible
7. Purified to the AV1611 King James Bible

Seven purifications, as foretoldl in Psalm 12.

I mean you no insult, but except where Scripture proscribes it, applying math at one's own discretion to spiritual matters is faulty at best, and dangerous at worst. It smacks of divination and witchcraft.

As for the logic of your method, what makes English so special? What are the other language speakers to do --learn Jacobean English? God's Word is in the meaning of the originals --not in one's favorite translation.