On 8/27/03 1:40 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > So my initial reaction to this information was that Baha'u'llah perhaps had > a non-conventional understanding of what constitutes a "creature".
I can't answer your question, but I'll give my personal take on this. I have always found SAQ rather disconcerting. Since I've been on-line, I *may* have found the reason. It appears that Lady Blomfield was both very intelligent and very well read. While Lady Blomfield consulted with Abdu'l-Baha's translators, this is essentially her translation. This has led some to claim that this is in fact a poor translation. This does not seem to fit with what we know of the situation. I have heard that Abdu'l-Baha's language in these talks is rather simple when compared with the language he used discussing similar topic with equally learned Persians. I think that Lady Blomfield understood exactly what He was saying beause they had a similar background in these topics. My personal conclusion at this time is that the problem is not with the translation per se, but with our understanding of it. I believe that eventually there wil be an annotated edition that will explain what His essentially 19th century terminology means in todays terms; just as there are annotated editions of Aristotle and Plato that explain what they meant in modern terminology. Until that time, I am very reluctant to say that I understand what Abdu'l-Baha was really saying in some of these passages. I would appreciate others comments on this view. Don C - - - - - He who believes himself spiritual proves he is not. ---------- You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Baha'i Studies is available through the following: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://list.jccc.net/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=bahai-st news://list.jccc.net/bahai-st http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist (public) http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] (public)
