Towards, unto, into and in Theos

Prerequisites II – What is the word?

As we have established that we are now enquiring after Theos. It is critical that we consider the expression of himself, that is the word of Theos.

The expression of the spirit or mind which is Theos, that is the word, is spirit and is Theos.

In the beginning was the word and the word was towards Theos and the word was Theos. The same was in the beginning towards Theos. (Ioh.1.1,2)

And:

But the hour comes, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the father seeks such to worship him. Theos is spirit and they that worship him must worship in spirit and in truth (Ioh.4.23,24)

So the word and Theos are the same yet the word is also in a reciprocal relationship towards him. That is, it goes out from him, being him, and returns to him. The word is the expression of spirit. Theos is spirit.

Furthermore, because the word is Theos and Theos is without fault, then the word is also without fault. Man, contrariwise is full of faults. The word which is Theos, is of Theos and returns to Theos is faultless. The copying and enunciating of it by man is not without fault.

Furthermore, the pure and faultless word which is Theos needs to be sought out by man.

The glory of ‘elohym to conceal a word and the glory of kings to seek out a word (Prov.25.2)

The expression of his spirit is seen in the 66 books of the Bible. 39 of which, in the Old Testament were written in Hebrew, with the exception of portions of Dany’el and ‘Ezra’ which were written in Aramaic. The Hebrew which we have is written in a square Aramaic script that seemed to have emerged from Babylon from around the time of Dany’el and ‘Ezra’. Whereas the originals were probably written in paleo (or proto) Hebrew, a kind of Phoenician alphabet and, possibly, in the case of the first 5 books of the bible a script some refer to as proto-sinaitic. In any case all of these scripts are slightly different representations of the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet. The 27 books of the New Testament are written in koine (or common) Greek.

We are constantly in a process of trying to refine our association with this revealed word to try to get to the original expression of spirit which is Theos. If we use a modern English translation we are further away from that distilled spirit than if we are looking at Greek and Hebrew biblical manuscripts. If we are further away from receiving the pure spirit of Theos then we are further away from reciprocating it and, therefore, further away from him. Clearly, the word of Theos, being Theos, is only present in its pure form in heaven but, nevertheless, we must strive to attain unto that mind.

Furthermore, following on from the points made above about the purity and originality of texts in an attempt to get close to that ideal this blog will be based on analysis of the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia text for the Hebrew Old Testament with the proviso that it is understood that the original written form would not only have been written predominantly in paleo-hebrew script but would have also been written without pointing and accents as also is the case for the Greek New Testament for which we will reference the 26th Edition of the Nestle-Aland Text and the Hodges/Farstad 2nd edition of the Majority Text, which not only would have been unaccented but also written in uncial (capital) form.

Published by

untotheos

Responses

  1. Jonas avatar
    Jonas

    As you establish in the text, in translation meaning is usually lost. This does indeed infer that certain teachings and understanding can be lost in translation.
    This line of thinking seems familiar to how the koran can only truly be “understood” in Arabic.
    The reason I draw a similarity between the two is to highlight what I believe to be one of the defining differences between the two. That is to say that the Bible can be understood without the need for the ability to read Hebrew and Greek. Whilst ultimately it will likely bring us closer, I wonder if it might be by design and intent that the bible is made in many languages to spread the word of Theos.
    What do you think of this?

    Like

    Reply
    1. untotheos avatar
      untotheos

      Hi Jonas, I can’t really speak to the issue of the koran. The word of Theos is available in many languages and translations within those languages. I can’t really speak to what Theos intended, if he did, with regard to its ubiqity in those languages. I just make the point at proximity to the word being critical to understanding him. If we are to speak as the oracles of Theos, then we must become the word of Theos. It will be his judgment in the end as to how close individuals have become to achieving that goal.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
    2. untotheos avatar
      untotheos

      I’ve had a bit more time to think about this. My first reply was too quick and reactive. A major part of the argument in this blog is a focus on the title ‘el and its homographs. This is not possible without someone being aware that the Hebrew has these other senses and, therefore, takes us on a particular path of understanding to help us grasp why he chose these titles to describe himself. The same might be said for the use of Theos in the NT Greek. Therefore, without this information, we don’t have access to this path of understanding and we fail to know him in this way. Furthermore, our understanding may be subverted by our insisting on using terms like God to describe him focusing, as it does, on the notion of goodness, which is, as far as I can see, not a primary characteristic of ‘el as, for example, is revealed in Ex.34 where ‘goodness’ is actually the Hebrew ‘hesed’ which is better translated ‘loving kindness’. The terms used by him in his original revelation have been, in my view intentionally, subverted and replaced with terms that were used to describe contemporary deities. This means that the weight of probability in not getting to know him is increased the less familiar we are with the ‘original’ text. (Clearly, as mentioned in the blog, the original is in heaven.)

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
      1. Jonas avatar
        Jonas

        think you’re onto something for sure, though I’m somewhat skeptical of the notion that true understanding—if we can call it that—can only be achieved by examining the original writings. From what I’ve read so far, the word of Theos seems to be carried largely through symbolic meanings. This forms the foundation for what feels like a philosophical contrast with more literal interpretations of religious behavior, for lack of a better term.

        That said, the homographs in the text appear to mirror the symbolism, supporting its underlying themes. While there’s certainly information lost in translation due to interpretative decisions, I wonder if the translated text still preserves much of Theos’s values and intentions?

        Like

      2. untotheos avatar
        untotheos

        I’m not trying to prejudge exactly the trajectory of the blog in the end but the ‘to’/’unto’ sense of ‘el may lead you to think that a journey of understanding should lead to a closer unity of mind with him. The absolute true understanding, like the word, is in heaven. The word, or utterance/speech, of Theos is the expression of him, that is of his spirit/mind. Therefore, we need to get as close as possible to that utterance. If we are being asked to speak as the oracles of Theos then we should endeavour to be as close to that as possible. The problem we have is that the words that claim to be his word are mediated to us by men, scribes, copyists, translators. Some of these people had specific doctrinal positions they were keen to reinforce. Each step away from the pure utterance of Theos takes us further away from him. The point about these prerequisites is that they are pre-required for the furtherance of the argument. Any assertion I am making about the homographic nature of the Hebrew and Greek falls to the ground if we are not looking at the Hebrew and Greek in the first place. If we are content to read the native language translation of our choice and not seek out a text as close to the original as we can then we will miss the truths underpinning the titles and name he has chosen to call himself by. So, if the prerequisite of the word being as it is is false, then the rest of the argument’s journey is redundant.

        Like

Leave a reply to untotheos Cancel reply