“Buhat” is a work or a deed. In the first verse the word “buhat” was define as a good deeds. Understanding the first line of the first verse, I could say that somebody or someone have told us about the good deeds of God the Father, given the fact that “mo” refers to God the Father.
Connecting the second to the first line, it slowly makes me hard to understand the text or the thought of the verse. I know each one of us has its own view and perspective about the first, second, third and fourth line. For me, I understand it as this, someone have told us about the good deeds of God, the Father and those good deeds were revealed or passed to us generations by generations until t this day. I haven’t seen the good deeds of God, the Father that is Jesus Christ. The good deeds of God do not took place in my world. Yet the second line proposes that we saw the good deed, Jesus Christ. Or could it be that the composer of this lyric was born during the time of Jesus Christ and he was only reincarnated in this present time. And what he meant of the “kami” was the people whom accompanied him, witnessing Jesus Christ, the good deeds of God. Yet why should he still wrote “nakabati” if “nakita nya man si” Jesus Christ? Since he lives a long time go much better and more understandable if the lyrics would be “Nakita namon ang maayo mo nga buhat sa ciudad sang GInoo”. On the other hand if the composer was not being reincarnated and was really born at the present the more understandable lyrics would be “Nakabati kami sang maayo mo nga buhat sa ciudad sang Ginoo”. “Diba mas klaro ang lyrics?”
The composer might have a different explanation about the lyrics but since the idea is converted already in a text, it has already its own life. Various explanation and understanding now is applicable to lyrics. The life of the text is not anymore controlled by the composer. We are now the one that gives meaning to the life of the text.
Connecting the second to the first line, it slowly makes me hard to understand the text or the thought of the verse. I know each one of us has its own view and perspective about the first, second, third and fourth line. For me, I understand it as this, someone have told us about the good deeds of God, the Father and those good deeds were revealed or passed to us generations by generations until t this day. I haven’t seen the good deeds of God, the Father that is Jesus Christ. The good deeds of God do not took place in my world. Yet the second line proposes that we saw the good deed, Jesus Christ. Or could it be that the composer of this lyric was born during the time of Jesus Christ and he was only reincarnated in this present time. And what he meant of the “kami” was the people whom accompanied him, witnessing Jesus Christ, the good deeds of God. Yet why should he still wrote “nakabati” if “nakita nya man si” Jesus Christ? Since he lives a long time go much better and more understandable if the lyrics would be “Nakita namon ang maayo mo nga buhat sa ciudad sang GInoo”. On the other hand if the composer was not being reincarnated and was really born at the present the more understandable lyrics would be “Nakabati kami sang maayo mo nga buhat sa ciudad sang Ginoo”. “Diba mas klaro ang lyrics?”
The composer might have a different explanation about the lyrics but since the idea is converted already in a text, it has already its own life. Various explanation and understanding now is applicable to lyrics. The life of the text is not anymore controlled by the composer. We are now the one that gives meaning to the life of the text.
RSS Feed