Bahai's and the Bible. Errant or Inerrant. Holistic or cherry picking?

[firedragon]

The Bahai's quote the Bible for very many things, like the resurrection of Jesus, post resurrection appearances to disciples, some Pauline Christology, the book of revelations for "allusions of Bahaullah and the Bab", the Old Testament for some of their prophecies that "allude" to Bahaullah etc etc.

But they also believe that it is not inerrant.

Thus, I would like to ask the Bahai's, what methodology they use to pick and choose which parts are good for all of their allusions and prophecies etc etc etc, and what parts are errant. Is there a methodology or is it just ad hoc cherry picking.

This topic is purely about the Bible, not about the Quran, not about the Geethas, the Shruthis, the Buddha, Krishna or any other thing that is irrelevant to the topic.

This is purely addressing the Bible, and the Bahai methodology

1. of choosing which parts are historically valid, and which parts are errant, based on their own belief statements.

2. What critical method do you apply to identify anything in it? Is it just anything that seems to support the theology of the Bahai's or is there another method?

Peace.

 

[stvdv]

But they also believe that it is not inerrant.

Bahai's and the Bible. Errant or Inerrant. Holistic or cherry picking?

IMO:

IF they apply the same open mindedness with their Scriptures as with the Bible (not inerrant) THEN it's more trustworthy ELSE it's less trustworthy

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Bahais believe that, In Essence the Bible is true. There has never been any corruption in it. It has been legitimate. There could be some inaccuracies in some words, but not to the point that makes its doctrines illegitimate.

Bahai view is by far different than the mainstream view on this. The mainstream Muslims think the Bible is illegitimate and untrustworthy.

 

[Brian2]

The Bahai's quote the Bible for very many things, like the resurrection of Jesus, post resurrection appearances to disciples, some Pauline Christology, the book of revelations for "allusions of Bahaullah and the Bab", the Old Testament for some of their prophecies that "allude" to Bahaullah etc etc.

But they also believe that it is not inerrant.

Thus, I would like to ask the Bahai's, what methodology they use to pick and choose which parts are good for all of their allusions and prophecies etc etc etc, and what parts are errant. Is there a methodology or is it just ad hoc cherry picking.

This topic is purely about the Bible, not about the Quran, not about the Geethas, the Shruthis, the Buddha, Krishna or any other thing that is irrelevant to the topic.

This is purely addressing the Bible, and the Bahai methodology

1. of choosing which parts are historically valid, and which parts are errant, based on their own belief statements.

2. What critical method do you apply to identify anything in it? Is it just anything that seems to support the theology of the Bahai's or is there another method?

Peace.

Interesting question and I want to watch the answers from Baha'is.

 

[firedragon]

Bahais believe that, In Essence the Bible is true. There has never been any corruption in it. It has been legitimate. There could be some inaccuracies in some words, but not to the point that makes its doctrines illegitimate.

Bahai view is by far different than the mainstream view on this. The mainstream Muslims think the Bible is illegitimate and untrustworthy.

This is not about the Muslim view so that's irrelevant. Knowing that irrelevance is inevitable with the Bahai's I said in the OP "This topic is purely about the Bible, not about the Quran, not about the Geethas, the Shruthis, the Buddha, Krishna or any other thing that is irrelevant to the topic. "

You have not answered the question of the OP. Let me cut and paste them FYI.

This is purely addressing the Bible, and the Bahai methodology

1. of choosing which parts are historically valid, and which parts are errant, based on their own belief statements.

2. What critical method do you apply to identify anything in it? Is it just anything that seems to support the theology of the Bahai's or is there another method?

Peace.

 

[Audie]

Bahais believe that, In Essence the Bible is true. There has never been any corruption in it. It has been legitimate. There could be some inaccuracies in some words, but not to the point that makes its doctrines illegitimate.

Bahai view is by far different than the mainstream view on this. The mainstream Muslims think the Bible is illegitimate and untrustworthy.

You sure thats it, just minor details of semantics?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

This is not about the Muslim view so that's irrelevant. Knowing that irrelevance is inevitable with the Bahai's I said in the OP "This topic is purely about the Bible, not about the Quran, not about the Geethas, the Shruthis, the Buddha, Krishna or any other thing that is irrelevant to the topic. "

You have not answered the question of the OP. Let me cut and paste them FYI.

This is purely addressing the Bible, and the Bahai methodology

I think my answers were very clear.

1. of choosing which parts are historically valid, and which parts are errant, based on their own belief statements.

Bahais believe the whole Bible is legitimate. There is no corruptions. But there could be inaccuracies in words. Though there is no error in the sense that, there is any false teachings or untrue theology.

Is this clear enough for you?

2. What critical method do you apply to identify anything in it?

Bahais are free to take into account any valid scholarship studies into account for farther studies.

Is it just anything that seems to support the theology of the Bahai's or is there another method?

Peace.

There is nothing in the Bible that refutes the Bahai beliefs. Thus, there is nothing in the Bible that a Bahai will say, this is an error in Bible, or making excuses.
Have you ever seen a Bahai tells you, this part of Bible is false?
If the verses of Bible support the Bahai view, therefor it does. It does not mean Bahais are cherry picking, the part that supports and then reject a part that does not support.
Have you ever seen anything in the Bible that you think it refuted or contredicts the Bahai view?

Is this clear enough for you?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

You sure thats it, just minor details of semantics?

The Gospels for example, were not written directly by Jesus. The disciples memorized those words of Jesus and the events, and later were written. So, it is possible that some inaccuracies are in the Gospels. But that does not mean false teachings, or that they made up anything falsely.

@firedragon
I give you an example what I am thinking.

Suppose, someone says to you

"today I am very tired as I had to do a lot of work, so I am going to sleep sooner"

You hear this, and later you narrate it as :

He said

" today i am exhausted as I was so busy. I am going to lay down earlier"

Now, compare the two. Overall what you narrated is legitimate, though it is not the exact same words.
So, some verses of the Hebrew or Christian Bible may not be the exact words, but they are still legitimate, and true.

Is this clear?

 

[Audie]

The Gospels for example, were not written directly by Jesus. The disciples memorized those words of Jesus and the events, and later were written. So, it is possible that some inaccuracies are in the Gospels. But that does not mean false teachings, or that they made up anything falsely.

@firedragon
I give you an example what I am thinking.

Suppose, someone says to you

"today I am very tired as I had to do a lot of work, so I am going to sleep sooner"

You hear this, and later you narrate it as :

He said

" today i am exhausted as I was so busy. I am going to lay down earlier"

Now, compare the two. Overall what you narrated is legitimate, though it is not the exact same words.
So, some verses of the Hebrew or Christian Bible may not be the exact words, but they are still legitimate, and true.

Is this clear?

No chance they memorized the sermon on thd mount and wrote it verbatim.
Agreed on that.

Personally, i doubt much of anything
attributed to "Jesus" actually came from him.

Its a human thing to attribute folk widdom to a great teacher.

But that is the least of the inacvuracies
and plain garbage in the bible.

Of course, those who pick n choose and
otherwise edit can explain away anything
false, or any degree of inacurracy.

 

[firedragon]

Bahais believe the whole Bible is legitimate. There is no corruptions. But there could be inaccuracies in words. Though there is no error in the sense that, there is any false teachings or untrue theology.

Is this clear enough for you?

Okay. So basically you believe the whole Bible is "true" in theology but there could be inaccuracies in words. Can you explain what are "inaccuracies in words"? Give an example and explain, because it is not specific. Thanks.

Bahais are free to take into account any valid scholarship studies into account for farther studies.

1. What "Valid" scholarship?
2. What is "Valid"? What do you mean by that?

Bible scholarship varies in many a way so you should be specific.

There is nothing in the Bible that refutes the Bahai beliefs. Thus, there is nothing in the Bible that a Bahai will say, this is an error in Bible, or making excuses.
Have you ever seen a Bahai tells you, this part of Bible is false?
If the verses of Bible support the Bahai view, therefor it does. It does not mean Bahais are cherry picking, the part that supports and then reject a part that does not support.
Have you ever seen anything in the Bible that you think it refuted or contredicts the Bahai view?

Is this clear enough for you?

Not really. Its not clear enough. I am not gonna have a theological debate here because it is irrelevant. The thread was opened to get some specific responses. If you answer the above two questions that should be good enough.

 

[firedragon]

@firedragon
I give you an example what I am thinking.

Suppose, someone says to you

"today I am very tired as I had to do a lot of work, so I am going to sleep sooner"

You hear this, and later you narrate it as :

He said

" today i am exhausted as I was so busy. I am going to lay down earlier"

Now, compare the two. Overall what you narrated is legitimate, though it is not the exact same words.
So, some verses of the Hebrew or Christian Bible may not be the exact words, but they are still legitimate, and true.

You are not giving an "inaccuracy" as you stated.

 

[Vinayaka]

If a person believed in the entirety of the bible, wouldn't that, by definition, make him a Christian?

 

[firedragon]

If a person believed in the entirety of the bible, wouldn't that, by definition, make him a Christian?

I would respond to that with a "not really" brother. Because the Bahai's have all the right to believe in the entire Bible and not call themselves Christians.

 

[Vinayaka]

I would respond to that with a "not really" brother. Because the Bahai's have all the right to believe in the entire Bible and not call themselves Christians.

Isn't there something in the bible about Jesus being the only way? Or is that a myth? (I'm not familiar with it ... at all.

 

[firedragon]

Isn't there something in the bible about Jesus being the only way? Or is that a myth? (I'm not familiar with it ... at all.

Definitely in the New Testament it says very clearly that Jesus is the only way. I agree.

Yet, even if the Bible is completely against the Bahai faith, they have a right to claim it as their scripture if they wish. It is just a manner of approach anyone who comes from a sociology of religion school of thought would take, to say "they have all the right".

But in a theological debate if the theology is in harmony, there could be many many criticisms to take into account. So I see that you are taking a theological approach and that too, I must agree. You know what? Since I am on the Bahai topic since of late, maybe I will open a new thread to understand this further.

The problem I see is that the Bahai faith is very vast in their scripture since they have the Bab, Bahaullah, Effendi, Baha etc etc. So I honestly cannot study their theology extensively. Also one must note that their theology is a mix of all of their writings and a lot of other apologetical writings, all found in their websites.

Nevertheless, maybe I will start a new thread on that topic. It might be interesting, if the Quran, Krishna, the Buddha, and some other irrelevant writings and people are not brought into the thread to completely derail it.

Peace.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

You are not giving an "inaccuracy" as you stated.

Thats what I meant by inaccuracy. If you understood me differently, that should be clear now. It may not be what you hoped to hear, as obviously you are trying to find problems or inconsistencies in Bahai view. Now that you could not find it, you are simply saying it is not clear.
I hope you understand.

Peace.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Okay. So basically you believe the whole Bible is "true" in theology but there could be inaccuracies in words. Can you explain what are "inaccuracies in words"? Give an example and explain, because it is not specific. Thanks.

I already gave an example to make it clear what I intended when I say there are inaccuracies. I did not say errors. I said inaccuracies. Hence the difference.

1. What "Valid" scholarship?
2. What is "Valid"? What do you mean by that?

Bible scholarship varies in many a way so you should be specific.

Whatever scholarship that can provide factual information. Not just opinions of scholars with no proofs.
Any unbiased scholarship, which is not biased toward a particular belief, such as to disprove or defend Christianity. A neutral scholarship based on verifiable evidences.
I hope it is clear.

 

[firedragon]

Thats what I meant by inaccuracy. If you understood me differently, that should be clear now. It may not be what you hoped to hear, as obviously you are trying to find problems or inconsistencies in Bahai view. Now that you could not find it, you are simply saying it is not clear.
I hope you understand.

Peace.

Okay. So that's not an inaccuracy you are quoting, its a paraphrasing. And maybe you think you are God or the Buddha to have the Irdhi power to know what others are hoping, or maybe you are just thinking "everyone else is just like you" so you make assumptions about what others are hoping from your standard.

If you want to discuss inconsistencies about you, another thread would do.

 

[firedragon]

Whatever scholarship that can provide factual information. Not just opinions of scholars with no proofs.
Any unbiased scholarship, which is not biased toward a particular belief, such as to disprove or defend Christianity. A neutral scholarship based on verifiable evidences.
I hope it is clear.

So you think "what ever" is a specific response?

All vague statements. That means you have no standard whatsoever. Unless of course, you provide some standard clearly. Dont discuss Christianity, because I am not asking for a theological debate on Christianity. You are from a faith that completely turns Christianity upside down, but you are looking for scholarship that doesnt do that? It is you who is disproving christianity when convenient, but defending it when convenient as well. Thats inconsistent in itself.

Whats your standard?

 

[firedragon]

It may not be what you hoped to hear, as obviously you are trying to find problems or inconsistencies in Bahai view. Now that you could not find it, you are simply saying it is not clear.
I hope you understand.

I think you are looking for a discussion on inconsistencies? Are you sis? Tell me clearly, if you wish we could have that discussion. I am not an expert on the Bahai scripture, nor am I any educated in your faith. I am asking a question about the Bible, and two inconsistent views I have heard from Bahai's in this same forum.

But you are judging others from the same standard of yours. Maybe you are like that with hidden agendas behind you and obviously as that old story goes "a rogue thinks others are all rogues". Of course, he does not know any better. I know you are a senior person than me, but dont expect naive responses to your insulting nonsense, repeatedly. Not gonna happen anymore.

So tell me clearly. Do you want to have a discussion on inconsistencies?