YThe Melchizedek Bible
|The Melchizedek Bible combines an interpretation of
metaphor with the King James Version, guiding students to the hidden treasures of Holy
Writ. While not all the books of the Bible are included in this work, the ones that are
can serve as a guide to the interpretation of metaphor in the others. An interpretation
would not have been necessary for the earliest students who were familiar with the use of
their teachers' metaphor. Through millennia, the Bible's inspired writers' original intent
has been obscured by vested interests whose main purpose could only be served by
interpreting the Scriptures according to various theological biases.
The Bible abounds in metaphor, but it was not until Mary Baker Eddy wrote Science and Health, with Key to the Scriptures, first published in 1875, that Bible metaphor was first correctly and fully interpreted. The interpretations in the Melchizedek Bible are based primarily on the writings of Mary Baker Eddy.
The sponsor of this work is The Order of Melchizedek, and the interpretations are done by students of ontology who each have worked independently to interpret the metaphors, allegories, parables, and similes from the original text of the books of the Bible, with each student working on separate books.
The King James Version has been used as the standard to determine a correct, literal translation and whenever its verses could be generally kept intact, they are retained with the exception of adhering to modern English usage. Also, as a rule, its spellings and names remain intact. Errors found in the King James Version are corrected when translated in the Melchizedek Bible, and in some cases, the verses are brought in line with recent discoveries.
In this interpretation, the male domination of Scriptures has been, for the most part, removed. In some cases, the male element is required by the text, and in those cases it is retained.
This work has been, first and foremost, guided by the motive to set forth, clearly and correctly, the original meaning of Holy Writ, and not to comfort any sectarian bias. The sponsor is content with the ancient writers' true and original meaning no matter how it may be received by scholastic theology.
An important example of sectarian bias is seen in this: there has been, for many years, a struggle in the schools to teach the correct theory of creation. If that controversy were based on facts, the senseless struggle would cease. There are those who hold to the position that God created the universe in seven calendar days, while with others the Darwinian theory prevails. If the schools taught the theories of Darwin correctly, they would characterize it as a theory of adaptation, not evolution. A theory of adaptation is not at odds with the Science of being found in the account in Genesis.
The Bible speaks of turning things upside down, and that is what those who reason from effect to cause have done. It must be understood that we have body functions because we have life, such as having eyes because we see, not that we see because we have eyes, and so it is that we have legs because we have locomotion, and not that we have locomotion because we have legs, and so forth. This leads to an easy understanding of how it is that our faculties adapt to whatever situation in which they are required to function. Life doesn't reside in the body, but the body is the effect of Life, whose manifestation is omnipresent.
As for those who advocate a seven calendar day period in which God created the universe, they should either read the Bible carefully enough so as to detect their own mistake, or stop slandering the holy Bible by crediting it with their false and pagan views of the origin of the cosmos, then a correct view of all things could be taught to young, budding thought advancing the race immensely.
Organized groups continue to thrust upon educators a completely false interpretation of Genesis, the falsity of which any scholar should easily be able to understand. The literal reading of the Bible, without its figurative interpretation, sounds foolish, but when it is read with an understanding of its metaphor, the message becomes both beautiful and scientific. For example, the word day is first defined by the original author before that word is employed in the text as the days of creation. Its definition occurs on the fifth verse of the first chapter of Genesis, and in the King James Version, it reads, "... God called the light Day, and darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day." In the Melchizedek Bible, its metaphor is translated accordingly, "God defines enlightenment as day and the ignorance thereof as night, with peace and progress attending the first dawning stage of enlightened consciousness ..." As neither the sun nor moon has yet been introduced into the account, light, nevertheless, accompanies God's word. (See Science and Health, with Key to the Scriptures, by Mary Baker Eddy, page 504:3) So it is that the original author's metaphor speaks clearly, instructing us to know that light attends God's word, which is in this context, without a doubt, enlightenment, and God's enlightenment is not contained within visual organs, nor is it a factor of physical light. Moreover, the light that physical sense measures by visual organs is nothing more than a reflex image of mortal sensation, without a shred of divine substance. But, the light of God unfolds the infinite glory of reality, imperceptible to finite sense.
Carrying the explication of Genesis further, it is commonly believed that the first chapter is speaking of creation, when in fact the original intent of the author was to set forth the basis of all things as revelation rather than creation. (See page 504:14 of Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures by Mary Baker Eddy) The infinite One reveals the universe, without any need to create it. It is only because of our finite values that we feel a need to find an origin for the universe. The infinite cannot have an origin. Furthermore, why must the plan of Being be necessarily observable or perceptible to the physical senses?
Moreover, the term seven was always used by Hebrew seers to indicate completion. So in the first chapter of Genesis and a portion of the second, the original Hebrew, when translated understandingly, referred to successive stages of enlightenment leading to the complete revelation of the universe by God.
It is clear that the universe is revealed by completely enlightened consciousness (seven stages), but what or who is God? One only needs to consult the original Hebrew to learn that there is an important difference in the God of the first account (revelation) and the god of the second account (creation) as they appear in Genesis. In the first chapter of Genesis and a portion of the second, the original Hebrew word for God is, after supplying vowels, Elohim, and the god of the second account is, after supplying vowels, Jehovah. Elohim is the one universal God, while Jehovah is a tribal god, mankind's finite view of God who only serves certain people. As the books of the Bible progress, mankind's view of God improves, until that view, called Jehovah, nearly touches the infinite.
Nevertheless, mankind's finite and false view of God, called Jehovah, results in a finite and false view of man and woman, at first called Adam and Eve. As mist obscures the view, so it is that the author of the Adamic allegory made it clear that a mist watered or covered the whole face of the earth. The view of objective forms was obscured, or incorrectly perceived, by a subjectively false concept of God and mankind, called "Jehovah" and "mortals," before Adam (the mortal) was formed out of dust, or atomic elements. Only overwhelming hubris would care to create the impression that atomic theory did not evolve until this age.
The Bible is for spiritual instruction, and it is essentially centered on the history of the children of Israel. While it speaks of the Lord, Jehovah, or the Lord God, it contains ample definitions of those terms. But the true God is defined in the Bible as Life, Truth, Soul, Spirit and Love, as our Father or parental Principle, and this one infinite God is not anthropomorphic, but is infinite Mind. Also, the definition of God as I-am, or the one and only Ego, appears throughout the Bible. (See Exodus 3:14 and page 587:5 of Science and Health, with Key to the Scriptures by Mary Baker Eddy). Now mankind's finite concept of God is also defined, but it is defined in terms of human values, such as Jehovah or the Lord being a god of vengeance or war, or being able to curse and destroy mankind. The thought of such a God must have been impossible to the ancients except in terms of limited human notions that negate the One altogether lovely. Therefore, they might never have imagined future readers would believe the tribal gods of which they wrote are really playing the true role of God almighty. In the Bible, Jehovah is not God almighty, but just mankind's inferior concept of God. (See Exodus 6:3). Once the student learns how to distinguish between God and Jehovah, Bible study becomes inconceivably more rewarding.
Throughout both the Old and New Testament, Bible metaphor has been employed to unveil divine reality in a practical way so students can demonstrate for themselves the Science of Being. When its inspired message is seen, those marvels, which have been incorrectly represented as miracles, become the natural result of applied understanding, and are no longer mystical or beyond the ken of mortals. In fact, one can test and prove the availability of divine power for oneself and experience marvels in one's own life by attaining spiritual understanding according to the teachings of Holy Writ, and its Science of Being, found in the Bible and perfectly articulated in that "little book," Science and Health, with Key to the Scriptures by Mary Baker Eddy.
Blessed is the one who opens, or understands, the "little book," and may this work, which is based on that book, be useful when studying it.