Heaven #4551 The Sun Shines Today
Dear Gloria
in this Heavenletter: The Sun Shines Today, written Dec 11 2012,
first paragraph:
"The sun shines today, and so must you. This is your privilege, this is your joy, and this is your destiny. You are to shine the world in all its glory to itself. You are to reveal the world in all its splendor. We can say that you are the chosen human being whose job is to polish the world’s windows. The world’s windows are other people’s eyes. And so you shine the world so that others may see as I do see."
I am really unsure how to translate: "You are to shine the world in all its glory to itself". Do you use the verb shine here in the sense "to make it glossy or bright by polishing it"?. But it is still difficult to connect "shine" with "the world in all its glory to itself". Could it be meant: polish the world so it can see its own glory?
Then, in paragraph 6 :
"Well, now I must say that the level of Oneness that you doubt, on this level, you and I and the stars are also One.. This is the magnificence of Creation. One looks like two. So, speaking on the level of Earth, while you play on it, there is good value in your knowing your Oneness. Oneness isn’t even an attribute, you understand. Is the One Truth. It is the basis of the whole Creation. It is your basis. In Truth, you are One, not many ones."
Is there a word missing in "Well, now I must say that the level of Oneness that you doubt, on this level, you and I and the stars are also One." It reads like: "the level of Oneness…you and I and the stars are also One". And does the "on this level" belong to the left member of the sentence or to the right member of this sentence?
And in "Is the One Truth", I guess you meant "It is the One Truth."
Thanks
Dear Normand, This is how I
Dear Normand,
This is how I see it:
The world doesn't know its glory. We want to shine the world, brighten it.
I have to run this minute. I'll come back and look at this more carefully.
Thank you, dear one.
God said: The sun shines
God said:
The sun shines today, and so must you. This is your privilege, this is your joy, and this is your destiny. You are to shine the world in all its glory to itself. You are to reveal the world in all its splendor. We can say that you are the chosen human being whose job is to polish the world’s windows. The world’s windows are other people’s eyes. And so you shine the world so that others may see as I do see.
This is an awkward sentence.
Let's try this on:
You are to shine the world in all its glory.
Then the paragraph reads this way:
The sun shines today, and so must you. This is your privilege, this is your joy, and this is your destiny. You are to shine the world in all its glory. You are to reveal the world in all its splendor. We can say that you are the chosen human being whose job is to polish the world’s windows. The world’s windows are other people’s eyes. And so you shine the world so that others may see as I do see.
Is that smoother?
Please let me know.
Yes, it is smoother and the
Yes, it is smoother and the meaning is not altered.
How about my other questions:
Then, in paragraph 6 :
"Well, now I must say that the level of Oneness that you doubt, on this level, you and I and the stars are also One.. This is the magnificence of Creation. One looks like two. So, speaking on the level of Earth, while you play on it, there is good value in your knowing your Oneness. Oneness isn’t even an attribute, you understand. Is the One Truth. It is the basis of the whole Creation. It is your basis. In Truth, you are One, not many ones."
Is there a word missing in "Well, now I must say that the level of Oneness that you doubt, on this level, you and I and the stars are also One." It reads like: "the level of Oneness…you and I and the stars are also One". And does the "on this level" belong to the left member of the sentence or to the right member of this sentence?
And in "Is the One Truth", I guess you meant "It is the One Truth."
Apologies, dear Normand. In
Apologies, dear Normand. In haste, I did not read far enough.
Well, now I must say that the level of Oneness that you doubt, on this level, you and I and the stars are also One."
Here's how I fixed this. I believe this will address your question, dear one.
"Well, now I must say that the level of Oneness that you doubt -- on this level -- you and I and the stars are also One.":
And for the last point you made, of course, there is no question. Clearly Is has to be It.
I still find that sentence a
I still find that sentence a bit bizarre in its construction. Removing the --on this level--, we read:
"Well, now I must say that [at?] the level of Oneness that you doubt, you and I and the stars are also One". Is it grammatically correct?
Beloved Normand, of course,
Beloved Normand, of course, we want good structure. I simply don't know what else to do with this one, Normand.
The way I see it -- God wanted an emphasis here, and I think the latest does it.
A bonus for me in the questions that translators ask is that I pay attention to my bases for making changes from what I initially receive in the original Godwriting™. I am beginning to know.
First of all, all errors are mine. I think, sometimes anyway, that God speaks to us all the same, and we hear in the language we are familiar with. One theory is that I am sort of translating from the pre-language that God must speak. I do not consciously translate, you understand. Some mechanism or something does it. I hear what I hear. As you know, writing down a Heavenletter is fast. It all just comes.
What seems to guide me most of all seems to be this: A change feels right to me or it does not.
I don't look to change God's Words, as I initially hear them.
However, I do make the following changes without hesitation:
1. Typos. They have to go. They interrupt the reading of a Heavenletter, distract from it. Spelling errors, my use of an incorrect word like when I mixed up fallible and infallible. Words omitted by mistake etc.
2. Clarity. Sometimes part of clarifying does have to do with grammar and syntax. If an antecedent of a pronoun is not clear, I do something, maybe change the pronoun back to the noun, do something so the structure does not obstruct the meaning.
This doesn't mean that everything God says has to be absolutely clear at the outset. There's a difference between having to mull over God's meaning and having a sentence mislead or be impossible for anyone to decipher and have a clue as to what the sentence is doing in the Heavenletter.
Once in a while, there is a Heavenletter that is not understandable to me at all! Usually the ones that seem to talk about physics or are all metaphors. I have no idea what it all means, and yet it satisfies something.
This reminds me, Normand, of a blog entry of yours which I absolutely loved and couldn't have told you at all what it said or was even about! You wrote a beautiful response!
By the way, Normand begins his blog with quotations from Heavenletters.
http://wordsbeyond.us/19_the_laws_of_illusions_iii_the_power_of_negation...
3. Rhythm. There is something about the beat of a Heavenletter. I don't want to disturb the rhythm. Perhaps we could call it the flow of the Heavenletter.
C'est ca!
That says it all, dear
That says it all, dear Gloria. It is a beautiful collaboration between God, you and the translators. We'll keep it that way.