How to interprete Scriptures (Bible or Quran)

[InvestigateTruth]

If we all became Baha'is instead of Jewish, Islamic, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist etc would we get along? Or, would we still fight over something?

I think, regardless of, if everyone becomes Baha'i or not, the World would eventually become united.
The Baha'i Faith has explicit teachings that abrogates the Holy War concept under any condition, to the point that says if religion causes fight and war, it is better to be without religion.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I have already left my birth religion and became Sunni. After realizing that Hadith were man made innovations, I left Sunnism too. Quran is the only thing I can rely on and feel congruent about. I have looked into the Baha'I faith briefly and wasn't convinced. It didn't have the same effect on me that Quran did. I have no emotional attachment to anything except the truth. If you could prove to me that Baha'I is the true religion, I would indeed convert. But so far, I haven't seen the evidence. Peace.

Actually for me Baha'i Faith perfectly fulfills the Prophecies In Islam, as well as other religions. Once I put myself in a position as if I am Muslim, and I looked into Quran to see if It is possible to accept Baha'i faith through Quran.I spent a few months though and Later I was convinced that Baha'i Revelation was Promised in Quran. I found Quran like a bridge that could get me to Baha'i Faith. Just giving you my view.

 

[Reverend Richard]

Muslims don't disagree on the Quran. Every Muslim regardless of sect, reads the same Quran. They differ on which Hadith books they follow. Hadith books were written 250+ years after Muhammad by humans. They are supposedly the sayings and actions of Prophet Muhammad but they're full of contradictions. I personally don't consider them to be part of Islam as they were not authorized by God or the Prophet. Sunnis have their own set of Hadith books they consider authentic and shiites have their own. But they don't differ on Quran. The mistake they made was allowing Hadith books to become part of their religion. So comparing Quran to Bible is like comparing apples to oranges. Quran has one author (God) and is one single book. The Bible is a compilation of several books by several authors. Example... Gospel of Mark, Gospel of Matthew, Gospel of Luke, etc. Sometimes they tell the same story but Matthews account contradicts Lukes account and so forth. As for the claim that Bible also uses the same argument against contradictions, I don't think you're understanding what I mean about contradiction. I'll show you in another post the difference between a material contradiction in the Bible and alleged contradictions in Quran. Peace.

Peace to you as well brother.


I understand why Muslims claim that the Quran is without error, but, like the claims of Jews and even of us Christians with regard to the Bible, it would still seem to me that the Quran is subject to the same human flaws as any other scripture.

The Bible was delivered to Jewish prophets and to Jesus’ disciples directly from God, through divine inspiration, or through the words of Jesus. The Quran, it would seem, was delivered from God, through the angel Jibril (Gabriel?) and then to Mohammad, who could neither read nor write. Then Mohammad passed it to others by recitation. Mohammad had to memorize the Quran so he could recite it. Given the unreliability of human memory, I fail to see where this process is any more (or less) reliable than any other. Consistency is no guarantee of accuracy.

Any errors that might have been introduced are simply accurately passed on. In fact, because there is no written corroboration or comparison that might highlight or catch inaccuracies before they can be passed on, recitation would seem to be even less reliable than having multiple source documents.

Even if all Muslims do accept the same Quran, the fact that they (like Christians and Jews) still disagree with each other, it simply points out the flaw in all religions. That flaw is that humans are involved in telling other humans in whose God they should believe, which scripture is true and correct, and how they should or should not worship in order to be acceptable. No single book and no single prophet will ever change that, regardless of any claim to the contrary.

Please do not misunderstand. I am not trying to pick apart Islam. My belief is that all religions (Islam, Christian, Jewish, or Buddhist) are subject to the same human frailties and weaknesses, regardless of claims as to their divine origin.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

The Bible was delivered to Jewish prophets and to Jesus’ disciples directly from God, through divine inspiration, or through the words of Jesus. The Quran, it would seem, was delivered from God, through the angel Jibril (Gabriel?) and then to Mohammad, who could neither read nor write. Then Mohammad passed it to others by recitation. Mohammad had to memorize the Quran so he could recite it. Given the unreliability of human memory, I fail to see where this process is any more (or less) reliable than any other. Consistency is no guarantee of accuracy.

Hi Richard,

You are bringing up a good point. Just noticed your comments on this issue a few times. So, I thought telling you why I can believe this Process is reliable.

The Gabriel or Jibril or whatever you like to call, in Baha'i View, is a symbolic Representation of Holy Spirit.
So, in Baha'i View, All these divine Prophets were the embodiment of the Holy Spirit.
However, for these prophets to explain things to people in a way that is understandable, they said there is such a thing as Angel who brought the Message from God to them.
Whereas in Baha'i Belief, Buddha, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, the Bab and Baha'u'llah are all the embodiment of Holy Spirit, which can reflect the Will of God into the World.
It is like a Perfectly Clean and Polished Mirror that Reflects the Light of Sun. They Reflect the Will and Word of God Perfectly. This is why All these Prophets, such as Muhammad, Moses, Krishna, Jesus, Baha'u'llah, and Others claimed that They are the same as God. That is because they are a Perfect Image of God. By Image is meant, the image that appears in a Perfect Mirror. Note that is different from us, who are not perfect Mirros (or perfectly clean heart). We have spirit, but They have Holy Spirit. Hence they are infallible Word of God.

And secondly, what I don't understand about your argument is that, you are basically suggesting that if God wants to communicate with us to guide us, He was unable to have a correct Process.
Something that I fail to see how could a powerfull and all-knowing God who has created us, has failed to also create a reliable way to communicate with His own creatures. Anyways, like I explained I see that there is an answer in Scriptures that is convincing. (i.e. Holy Spirit)

 

[CG Didymus]

Even if all Muslims do accept the same Quran, the fact that they (like Christians and Jews) still disagree with each other, it simply points out the flaw in all religions. That flaw is that humans are involved in telling other humans in whose God they should believe, which scripture is true and correct, and how they should or should not worship in order to be acceptable. No single book and no single prophet will ever change that, regardless of any claim to the contrary.[

Rather than mirrors like Investigate Truth is saying, what do you think of prophets and messengers are painting us pictures. These pictures can reflect what our old religious beliefs told us are true. These pictures can then be interpreted different depending on what we want it to be.

 

[Reverend Richard]

Hi Richard,

You are bringing up a good point. Just noticed your comments on this issue a few times. So, I thought telling you why I can believe this Process is reliable.

Thank you, Truth. I admire your optimism and your enthusiasm, even though at times I feel it is misguided.

The Gabriel or Jibril or whatever you like to call, in Baha'i View, is a symbolic Representation of Holy Spirit.

I do not disagree with this view.

So, in Baha'i View, All these divine Prophets were the embodiment of the Holy Spirit.
However, for these prophets to explain things to people in a way that is understandable, they said there is such a thing as Angel who brought the Message from God to them.
Whereas in Baha'i Belief, Buddha, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, the Bab and Baha'u'llah are all the embodiment of Holy Spirit, which can reflect the Will of God into the World.

I (sort of) agree with this. I believe it is man's imperfect attempt at discerning the Will of God. Whether or not it is an accurate reflection, is the part I have problems with.

It is like a Perfectly Clean and Polished Mirror that Reflects the Light of Sun. They Reflect the Will and Word of God Perfectly.

With all due respect, no, they do not. :no:

This is why All these Prophets, such as Muhammad, Moses, Krishna, Jesus, Baha'u'llah, and Others claimed that They are the same as God. That is because they are a Perfect Image of God. By Image is meant, the image that appears in a Perfect Mirror. Note that is different from us, who are not perfect Mirros (or perfectly clean heart). We have spirit, but They have Holy Spirit. Hence they are infallible Word of God.

Sorry, but again no. :no:
But I think you still misunderstand why I believe this is incorrect.

And secondly, what I don't understand about your argument is that, you are basically suggesting that if God wants to communicate with us to guide us, He was unable to have a correct Process.

Let me clarify that it is not that I believe God is unable to use a correct process. I mean, He is God, so the fault could not be His, could it? So if there is blame for all the misunderstandings over scripture it must be a human problem, and not a God problem.

Something that I fail to see how could a powerfull and all-knowing God who has created us, has failed to also create a reliable way to communicate with His own creatures.

You are exactly right. God has not failed. I think where we (humanity) have failed is attempting to use scripture because scripture is a human invention. However divinely inspired a prophet or disciple might be in writing scripture, scripture will always be a very weak and poor "reflection" (to use your term) of who or what God is, and it is not God's fault that we never do it correctly.

I do agree that prophets and holy men, at various times in history, have attempted to try to discern "God's Will" for our lives, and they may even write scripture to try and put that discernment into words. However, that discernment is always inaccurate, and it is biased by the local (tribal?), social, and political climate, that the current prophet comes from.

Anyways, like I explained I see that there is an answer in Scriptures that is convincing. (i.e. Holy Spirit)

Again, I sincerely admire your optimism, but I simply point to the fact that, so far, the majority of humanity remains unconvinced by any particular or any singular religion's scripture. Again, it is not God's fault. It is man's fault for "trying the same process (scripture) over and over again but expecting different results." (Didn't someone famous say that's the definition of insanity?)

So where does that put me in terms of belief in God? I simply believe that scripture from almost any religion or belief system might contain some useful wisdom, it is still weak a human attempt to discern God's Will (whatever that might mean). Personally, I believe that the image of God that we have been given by religion, is for the most part, incorrect. For example, most Abrahamic religions characterize God as perhaps loving and forgiving, but also as jealous, angry, and even vengeful when we disobey Him. However, based on my personal experience, I have no evidence that God is the jealous, angry and vengeful God as described by most scripture.

So if I continue to believe in God (and I do), what must He (or She) be like? I personally believe that God is, at worst, a benign deity, or at best one who is loving and forgiving and has placed humanity here to share the divinely created emotions of love and compassion with each other. It seems to me that the whole world works best when we all do the latter, and stop worrying so much about who has the best or most accurate scripture.

 

[Reverend Richard]

Rather than mirrors like Investigate Truth is saying, what do you think of prophets and messengers are painting us pictures. These pictures can reflect what our old religious beliefs told us are true. These pictures can then be interpreted different depending on what we want it to be.

Hi CG - I might ask that you look at my last response to InvestigateTruth. I think that post best explain my take on scripture, and why I believe putting too much faith in scripture misses the whole point.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

For example, most Abrahamic religions characterize God as perhaps loving and forgiving, but also as jealous, angry, and even vengeful when we disobey Him. However, based on my personal experience, I have no evidence that God is the jealous, angry and vengeful God as described by most scripture.

Ok, let me make sure I understand you correctly.
Basically you are saying, the Scriptures cannot be a correct representation of God or His Will, because they do not make sense. As how could God be jealous and angry (for example)?
Thus, These Prophets cannot be an infallible Men. For how could Moses, if He was Perfect, describe God as jealous, angry?
Thus, the idea that Religions are direct Revelation of God or reliable cannot be True. Thus, the Prophets cannot be a Perfect Image of God, or Holy Spirit, who reflects the Words of God correctly.

So, this is like a chain or sequence of your thoughts, which concludes what you believe.
Now, If I understood you correctly, then let me tell you the Baha'i View, which to me is breaking this chain or sequence of thoughts.
Basically, The Baha'i Scriptures suggests, that if we Think of the whole humanity as One Person,then from the Time of His Life on earth, he started to grow, and will continue to grow. From infancy to teenager, to adulthood, to old age and maturity.
Now, in this view, suppose a Perfect Teacher, or Father, who from beginning till always, takes care of this child, and teaches him and guides him.
Thus, this Perfect teacher, treats, and teaches this Person according to his age.
So, for example, when this Humanity, is at a very infancy or childhood, for him God is described, as if He is jealous, so this Child Humanity can understand, God Loves him, wants him to Love God or obeys God, otherwise He gets angry. This does not mean God is jealous, but this is how a child Humanity needs to understand, for he is not capable of understanding better. As this Child grows older and become closer to maturity, he is told a more correct Truth.
Thus, if you had read some of my previous posts, I said, the Truth is revealed relatively and gradually, according to the "level of understanding" of people living in an "age"
Thus, it is written, in some religions, that, the Prophets do not speak to people according to their own mind. But they speak according to mind and capabilities of people of their time.
Another example, is like a child that goes to grade one, two, etc. The teacher gives him a Book that he would be able to read and understand. As the child goes to the next grade, a better and more advanced Book is given. And this Process will continue for ever.

 

[CG Didymus]

Hi CG - I might ask that you look at my last response to InvestigateTruth. I think that post best explain my take on scripture, and why I believe putting too much faith in scripture misses the whole point.

Yes, that explains very well what I was trying to say about the picture the different religions paint. I thought about it after and would like to add that after they paint the picture, they chop it up into a jig-saw puzzle and tell us to re-assemble the picture from the pile of clues.

 

[CG Didymus]

The teacher gives him a Book that he would be able to read and understand. As the child goes to the next grade, a better and more advanced Book is given. And this Process will continue for ever.[/FONT][/COLOR]

Hindu and Jewish thought are beyond one prophet and cover the same time period. Buddhism falls within in that time also and makes changes that relate to Hinduism. Christianity and Islam jump on in and makes changes to Judaism. Other "minor" religious movements get mixed in too. It is not grade to grade like in a school. It is different schools of thought maybe.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Hindu and Jewish thought are beyond one prophet and cover the same time period. Buddhism falls within in that time also and makes changes that relate to Hinduism. Christianity and Islam jump on in and makes changes to Judaism. Other "minor" religious movements get mixed in too. It is not grade to grade like in a school. It is different schools of thought maybe.

Most religious scriptures divide prophets in Two Types. The Divine Messengers who are the Manifestations of God. These are the Founders of Major Religions.
Buddha, Krishna, Muhammad, Moses, Jesus, The Bab and Baha'u'llah are among the known Manifestations of God, who have lived in the past 6000 years.
Then there are minor Prophets, such as Aaron, David and Solomon.

So, for example the Revelation of Moses and Jesus are two levels or grades analogy. The Islam and the Baha'i Revelation is likewise two different grades.
but those minor prophets are only promoters, who just teach what the Divine Manifestation revealed, so they still fall within the same dispensation.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Yes, that explains very well what I was trying to say about the picture the different religions paint. I thought about it after and would like to add that after they paint the picture, they chop it up into a jig-saw puzzle and tell us to re-assemble the picture from the pile of clues.

The reason that it seems difficult or puzzle is because the true Seeker of Truth makes an effort to discover. There should be a difference between someone who doesn't make an effort, and the one who truly is after truth. don't you think so?
The Prophets have said, Our Cause is extremely difficult. Whoso makes an effort for God, He will guide him in His ways.

 

[CG Didymus]

Hi there Investigate Truth, I've got some more tough questions for you. This goes back to the Jewish sacrificial system. Was the lamb, or whichever animal, symbolic or real in its ability to get God to forgive the sins of the people? If it was symbolic then the ritual was just for show and didn't really accomplish anything. If it was real why did the Christians say we need Jesus to get our sins forgiven. But then, how about Jesus' sacrifice? Was it symbolic? Most Christians, of course, believe his death on the cross was the atonement needed to square things up with God and that is the most important event in history. He redeemed mankind with his blood. What is the Baha'i interpretation of that Christian doctrine. Thanks.

 

[Koldo]

Why not saying God created the world including its sciences of physics and chemistry...etc., AND He does not have to break His own rules. By Rules I mean all Rules, including the sciences. Thus, whenever the Scripture is saying something against science, it must be symbolic, and should not be taken literal. Is this meathod consistant?

By what standards would you judge whether a scripture comes from God or not?

I am asking this because by using this method you suggest you turned all of them unfalsifiable.

 

[Avoice]

In Bible There are Two times when it is said Jesus was raised.
One is when He recieve His revelation, which is expressed as a "dove"

In this sense, He was in the state of "Inactive". Once he raised to preach the Word of God, after the dove came on Him, the scripture says, "Jesus was raised"
Meaning He was raised from the state of "Inactive" to state of "active"

The second time that Scriptures says Jesus was raised, is after His Crusifixtion. Which I have already explained, it was the Desciple of Jesus, who symbolically were the Body of Christ, raised to preach the Word of God.

Would you provide the scripture for the first time Jesus was "raised" I've checked 2 versions of the Bible and find only the resurrection after his physical death.

 

[Avoice]

I think one of the verses that shows it is not literal is when Jesus says: "Take off the grave clothes and let him go."

Here the cloth of grave, represents the cloth of sin, and transgression.

I disagree.

Similar to when Jesus said:

"No man places a new strip of cloth and sews it on an old garment lest the fullness of that new cloth takes from the old, and it rips more.” Mark 2:21
Jesus compared the old and wrong way of life, with His own new way of life. (old cloth verses new cloth)

Jesus used a literal situation to illustrate a spiritual truth. He uses several examples in succession and is speaking as such to his disciples. In the Lazarus example "death" in the Greek used there is literal death.

Now if we pay attention carefully, we see, there was no reason, for Jesus to ask Him literally to take off his cloth of grave in front of everyone else. He would be naked. Moreover, if the man literally became alive, he would realize and would take off his cloth of grave later anyways. Why should Jesus, say something obvious?

As I recall the full burial wrapping enclosed the hands and would not allow a person to unwrap themselves. Jesus' burial was hurried and not completed. Shock at a man dead and in the grave for several days and "already smelling", would delay the people from acting. Jesus' words prompted them to do the obvious.

I think another key verse to interpret this story is this verse:

John 11:4 "When Jesus heard that, he said, This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God might be glorified thereby."

followed by: Joh_11:14 Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead.

Now we need to carefully analyze what the "Authors" of Bible meant by "glorifying God", not what we think "glorifying" means.

For that we can refer to other verses which are the key:


Mat. 5:16 "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven."


and

John 15:8 "Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit"

Thus it becomes clear that, according to the Authors of Bible, when the followers of Christ become fruitful and do good works and become righteous, then they Glorify God. Not performing literal Miracles as many would imagine, even as Jesus rejected to do any literal and physical Miracles:


"He sighed deeply and said, "Why does this generation ask for a sign? Truly I tell you, no sign will be given to it." Mark 8:12


I think the story is a symbolically tells us that Lazarus was a sinful man, but later he became a righteous man (he was dead, then he became alive).
Now since Lazarus was dead in sin, spiritually sick in the eyes of others, and when Jesus made him spiritually alive and he did good works, by this God was glorified, because He had the power to make a sinner to become righteous.

"This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God"

This would be a lot more meaningful than physical Resurrection, which he died anyways. What's the point of bringing someone to life when he dies at the end anyways.

I think you are intelectualizing the situation way too much. As I've pointed out Lazarus was dead; Physically dead. In addition, any time a person was recruited into the disciples and was a sinner first it was pointed out not leaving it to speculation from the tax collecter Matthew and the zealot Judas who later betrayed him to Paul who stood by at the stoning of Stephen.

The thing is that how do we know the Resurrection of Christ is literal?

1Jn 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
1Jn 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
1Jn 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
1Jn 4:4 Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

It is a primary tenant of being "of God"

What I am saying is that, outside of the Bible there is no historical evidence for Jesus physical resurrection.
And when we read Bible, the Author of Bible did not say they were writing literal historical Books. They said all Scriptures are inspired by God.

The apostles were working from memory and the spirit in writing the Gospel accounts. Luke was trying to work from their experience to divulge the happenings of the life of Jesus. I'll take what it says over what any other book says of Jesus' life.

This inspiration is done with the tongue of spirit, not a physical literal language.


"for he who is speaking in an unknown tongue -- to men he doth not speak, but to God, for no one doth hearken, and in spirit he doth speak secrets" 1. Corin 14:2

So, God speaks by the language of spirit, which appears unknown to us. But this is how He tells us the secrets.

Paul said all scripture was inspired of God. He was primarily talking Hebrew scriptures as the letters of the Apostles were letters to him.

Now going back to the subject of resurrection of Jesus, I believe we should analyze what the Authors of Bible meant based on scriptures.
Now, the point is to find out "what did the Authors of New Testament mean", by saying Jesus was raised in the 3rd day. For that we need to read the scriptures, to see what they meant by Resurrection of the Body of Christ.

The answer is in their own Writing. This is the Key verses:

"Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it." 1 Cori. 12:27

So, I believe what the Authors meant is, that Once Jesus was killed, after 3 days, His Disciples, who were "The Body of Christ" raised. They raised to teach the cause of Christ. So, all this is expressed in a symbolic language.

The women who went to the tomb might just disagree with you. The male disciples, including the Apostles, were cowering from the Romans and the Jews. And they did that until the women proved Jesus was no longer in the physical tomb and they met the resurrected Christ Jesus.

We as the Body of Christ is Paul's effort to unite the fragmented believers.

This also depends how you interpret the second coming of Christ.
For that we need to go back to Scriptures to see what it means by "Return".
I believe the Key is to remember the Prophecies regarding the Return of Elijah.
When John the Baptist appeared, Jesus said John was the return of Elijah. So, by "Return" was not meant the same exact person. But a new Person who has the same spiritual characteristic. This is the Key. The same key applies to unlock the mystery of return of Christ. That is return of another Person with the same Spiritual characteristic of Jesus.

While I believe the Bible to be in layers of meaning is spots, I cannot agree with you here.

(Acts 1:10, 11) 10*And as they were gazing into the sky while he was on his way, also, look! two men in white garments stood alongside them, 11*and they said: “Men of Gal′i·lee, why do YOU stand looking into the sky? This Jesus who was received up from YOU into the sky will come thus in the same manner as YOU have beheld him going into the sky.”

I see the Bible as a Book that teaches certain things by examples. Then it tests us. If we read the Book well, and understood the "essence" of teachings, we can also know what the secrets are in the Book. It is like a Book, that requires keys to unlock the mysteries. But the Keys are in the Bible itself. It's just we need to find them.

Yet we must not "rely on {our} own understanding" but the leading of holy spirit.

 

[gnostic]

Muslims don't disagree on the Quran.

Oh yes, they do.

Whenever you get more than one Muslim, to read the Qur'an, there are bound to be disagreement on the interpretation of specific passages in their scripture.

Last year...or was it the year before...there were disagreement about whether a husband has to right hit his wife for disobedience (chapter 4, don't remember the verse number), in one of the threads (don't remember which thread it was).

Only two Muslims were quite adamant that husband can do so, because in their mind, man is superior to woman, so any disobedient can result in wife being beaten. The majority were against these 2 views.

The disobedience could be severe as adultery, or as trivial as wife not asking for permission to go out or not wearing "right" headscarf or veil.

And if any passage is vague or obscure, then there will be bound to be different interpretation of the passage's context.

And the example of this, is the number of English translations. Not every verses conveyed the same message. That because some of these verses (in original Arabic text) have ambiguities. If it was clear, then every single verse would have the same context. But they don't.

One of the points of having "Islamic scholars" is to help ordinary Muslims understand the holy text. But even the scholars themselves may not agree with each other. And that because, the scholars themselves have to interpret the Qur'an; and if the Qur'an has ambiguities then they will disagree with what the passages mean.

So what you have said, about "Muslims don't disagree with the Qur'an", is not true. They will or may disagree with each other, and each will say the other's side "interpretation" or "view" is wrong.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Hi there Investigate Truth, I've got some more tough questions for you. This goes back to the Jewish sacrificial system. Was the lamb, or whichever animal, symbolic or real in its ability to get God to forgive the sins of the people?

I haven't seen anything in Baha'i scriptures that talks about animal sacrifices, so, I cannot say what the Baha'i view is about animal sacrifices.
I read the Lev. chapter 9. So, I can tell you my personal view.
Let's go back again to the example of the interpretation of dream of the Seven caws in the story of Joseph. I am sure you have read that story in Bible.
These things are not literal historical facts, but require interpretation.
Just as "the seven caws ate seven other caws", represented seven years of difficulties followed by seven years of prosperity.
Now, the Authors of Bible, have said they have been inspired. This inspiration happened to them mostly through dreams and visions.
That means that for example, when Scriptures says, in Lev. 9:9 :
"And the sons of Aaron brought the blood unto him: and he dipped his finger in the blood..."

It is not a literal historical fact. This is how, and what the Author of Bible have seen these things in his dreams or visions. And this is what He has written.
Now, this dream or vision, needs to be interpreted.
The way I personally understand or interpret this story is this:
Moses, had a revelation from God to bring guidance to people, so that they leave the sinful way of life. For His cause to succeed He and His followers, who were the chosen ones of God had to sacrifice their souls and lives, so that the words of God be spread and others may be guided and avoid sins.
So, now, symbolically the scriptures says a "lamb" to be sacrificed. That lamb represents the souls of the holy ones of God. (Jesus is also called lamb)
The goat can represent the sins. So, the story symbolically saying that for the cause of God to spread, some holy people must sacrifice their souls, so that the Sin (Kid) burns among people, when the word and guidance of God is spread, and progressed among children of Israel.

So, when Scriptures says that Moses said:

"...Take thee a young calf for a sin offering, and a ram for a burnt offering, without blemish, and offer them before the LORD."
It's not like actually Moses said such a thing at all. These thing s should be seen as a symbolic representation of certain spiritual Truths.

If it was symbolic then the ritual was just for show and didn't really accomplish anything.

If historically, the Jews actually did these animal offerings, it only helped to remember the sacrifices of Moses and the chosen ones of God, who sacrificed their lives, in order to burn the sins among people, and save them.
(A symbolic act to remember a historical event that was important to remember for centuries)

If it was real why did the Christians say we need Jesus to get our sins forgiven. But then, how about Jesus' sacrifice? Was it symbolic? Most Christians, of course, believe his death on the cross was the atonement needed to square things up with God and that is the most important event in history. He redeemed mankind with his blood. What is the Baha'i interpretation of that Christian doctrine. Thanks.

The sacrifice that Jesus did, has similar meaning. The example that Bible give, and Abdulbaha confirms, is that of a seed and Tree. The Seed is Sacrificed and looses its form, so that a greater thing (a Tree) is established.
So, Jesus sacrificed His Life, so, the Word of God, His cause, which is the good Tree, is established, and gives fruits. The Fruits are the spiritual teachings of the Cause of God. When people eat these fruits, they avoid sins. (their sin is forgiven, and their spirituality progresses)

 

[InvestigateTruth]

By what standards would you judge whether a scripture comes from God or not?

Well, though I think your question falls outside of the OP, since I am only discussing how to interpret the scriptures regardless of they are from God or not, but my personal belief is based on the Life and Writings of Baha'u'llah. I believe He must have been inspired, as He did not even go to school to learn any of the things He knew, and the righteous, pious and powerful character that He had.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Yet we must not "rely on {our} own understanding" but the leading of holy spirit.

How do we know if we are lead by holy spirit or not?

I mean I have a different interpretation than yours. How do we know my interpretation is not lead by holy spirit, by your interpretation is?

Jesus used a literal situation to illustrate a spiritual truth.

Sorry, but I think what you are saying cannot be seen in scriptures.

Jesus said, the reason for Him to raise Lazarus is to glorify God.
According to Author of Bible, glorifying God is done when a person stops sinning and do good works (Spiritually dead, dead in sin, becomes live, and righteous.)
This is the essence of teachings of Bible, which is fruitful, and thus is lead by Holy Spirit, as the Authors were inspired.
While a physical interpretation, is lead by the desire for a worldly life (in my belief).

As I recall the full burial wrapping enclosed the hands and would not allow a person to unwrap themselves. Jesus' burial was hurried and not completed. Shock at a man dead and in the grave for several days and "already smelling", would delay the people from acting. Jesus' words prompted them to do the obvious.

The scriptures says, Lazarus "stinks"
This again an expression, that is used in Bible, which means, if a person appears sinful and hated by others.
an example of this found in Both Old Testament and New. For example:

Gen. 34:30 "And Jacob said to Simeon and Levi, Ye have troubled me to make me to stink among the inhabitants of the land"

followed by: Joh_11:14 Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead.

Here you are suggesting "Plainly" means physically. But plainly dead does not indicate physically dead. It means, Jesus said it very clearly and explicitly that Lazarus was dead in Sin.

I think you are intelectualizing the situation way too much. As I've pointed out Lazarus was dead; Physically dead. In addition, any time a person was recruited into the disciples and was a sinner first it was pointed out not leaving it to speculation from the tax collecter Matthew and the zealot Judas who later betrayed him to Paul who stood by at the stoning of Stephen.

The message of Bible is essentially spiritual. It teaches that we have a spiritual body. Now these Authors mostly were concerned with the life of Spirit, and not the physical body, which is worldly and selfish. God Himself is a Spirit, and we are in His image. This is our Spiritual Body in His image, not our physical body.
I am not intellectualizing these stories. I am viewing them, based on the essential teachings of Bible. I am trying to view them, with the "eye of Authors" of Bible, rather than my own eye, or others.

The apostles were working from memory and the spirit in writing the Gospel accounts. Luke was trying to work from their experience to divulge the happenings of the life of Jesus. I'll take what it says over what any other book says of Jesus' life.

No, the Apostles did not say they were working from Memory. If so, please quote such a thing from Bible.
They said, all Scriptures are inspired by God. They said they had visions or dreams.

Paul said all scripture was inspired of God. He was primarily talking Hebrew scriptures as the letters of the Apostles were letters to him.

I think He was talking about "ALL" scriptures.

If all these Scriptures were not inspire by God, they would not be worthy to be reliable.

The women who went to the tomb might just disagree with you. The male disciples, including the Apostles, were cowering from the Romans and the Jews. And they did that until the women proved Jesus was no longer in the physical tomb and they met the resurrected Christ Jesus.

Remember the story of Moses and Elijah, appearing to Jesus and Disciples?
“Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus.” Matthew 17:3
The above verse likewise is symbolic, even according to some Christians.


It's not like they actually appeared there. That is a symbolic representation.
Likewise, the Story of Jesus, appearing to others after death are all symbolic.
In addition to the above, I give you these reasons:


If we read those paragraphs in Bible regarding the appearance of Christ to the Disciples, we might see some hints that shows, this is not a literal fact.

For example: in John 20:19 it says:

"...when the doors were shut….came Jesus and stood in the midst….”

It does not say, anybody opened the door to let Jesus in, but it says, “when the doors were shut”


Likewise in Acts 1:11, it rebukes them for looking in the sky, to expect Jesus return physically from the Sky:

“…they said, "why do you stand here looking into the sky?...”

Meaning, the coming of Jesus is not physically from sky, but the same way He left. Which means, He did not leave physically.