How to interprete Scriptures (Bible or Quran)

[Reverend Richard]

I said "I accept" the "possibility". I did not say I agree.

Sorry, either you agree that it is possible, or you do not. You said you agreed that it is possible. You can't have it both way, and parsing words won't work here.

In another word, we should analyze the scriptures, with the possibility of flaws. That does not mean I accept them as flawed before analyzing them, simply because I think they contradict each other.
Many of these contradictions are due to misinterpretation and literal readings.

Then, I farther had clarified. Quran, Christian and Jewish Bible are legitimate to be used. (Not flawed). Older scriptures, have not been preserved that well, but still contain the Truth.
It is also good to consider difference between "minor inaccuracies" and "flawed"
Hope this makes it clear.

No it does not. And in fact you are arguing in circles.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Sorry, either you agree that it is possible, or you do not. You said you agreed that it is possible. You can't have it both way, and parsing words won't work here.

No it does not. And in fact you are arguing in circles.

oh, perhaps I should make it clear.
What I said, is that Religion or belief should be based on independent Investigation of Truth. That means, suppose a person is born in a family or society with a certain belief. Then he/she should not just accept that belief to be the truth without investigating and considering that it could be false.
So, seeing from this view, I am saying, yes, I have considered the possibility that these Scriptures were flawed, but after investigating, I concluded that they are not flawed. There are appearant contradiction that would make one to believe they are flawed, but that in my conclusion is due to misinterpretation and misunderstandings.

It's like someone has died. They ask: "Is it possible that this person was killed?" I say: "yes, it is possible" it does not mean I agreed that he was actually killed. After investigation we found out, He died of a natural cause.

Let me ask you this: you are saying that the Scriptures are flawed, right? How did you make that conclusion?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Let me ask you this: you are saying that the Scriptures are flawed, right? How did you make that conclusion?

How did you conclude with such certainty that author(s) of Genesis did not believe that man was literally created on the 6th 24-hour day of creation?

 

[Shiranui117]

you are right, Christian tradition has nothing to do with the bible...the bible was around a lot longer then any of the so called 'church fathers' and they did not always use the bible as the basis for their teachings.

No, I said the exact opposite of what you think I said. I said that Christian tradition and the Church Fathers were around a lot longer before the Bible in its present form. Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Rome, Polycarp and Justin Martyr, 4 Fathers of the Church, all lived during the late first and early second centuries. Polycarp and Ignatius were two personal students of St. John the Apostle, one of the Twelve. Each of these predated the current NT canon by 200 years. Plus, it's the JW's that remove books of the Bible that were quoted by these first-century Christians, who were in personal contact with the Apostles while they were still alive. Clement of Rome himself was a personal friend of St. Paul, and he quotes from the Deuterocanonical books. The Didache, the manual of Christian living dating from 50 AD, quotes from the Deuterocanonical books. Polycarp, the aforementioned personal student of St. John the Apostle, quotes the Deuterocanonical books.

Some of the church fathers taught thing which were contrary to the hebrew and Greek scriptures and this is acknowledged by the catholic church:
For example, the Bible clearly shows that the soul can die: “The soul that is sinning—it itself will die.” (Ezekiel 18:4)
Yet the Church Fathers taught that man has an immortal soul:
“The Christian concept of a spiritual soul created by God and infused into the body at conception to make man a living whole is the fruit of a long development in Christian philosophy. Only with Origen in the East and St. Augustine in the West was the soul established as a spiritual substance and a philosophical concept formed of its nature. . . . [Augustine’s doctrine] . . . owed much (including some shortcomings) to Neoplatonism,” New Catholic Encyclopedia.

Link to your source?

The real Christian teaching is that the soul is only immortal through the grace of God. Also, there are different senses of spiritual death; for example, everyone is spiritually dead (Ephesians 2 and Colossians 2:13, for starters) before coming to Jesus Christ. That doesn't mean that they were spiritually nonexistent, now, does it? So surely there are other meanings of being dead in the spirit aside from the spirit not existing.

The ideas that they began teaching in the 3rd/4th centuries were based on Greek philosophy, not the bible. And that is why christians should not consider their writings as valuable in learning about Christianity...they dont teach christian ideas, you only get those teachings from the canonized scriptures.

Au contrare, you don't seem to understand what the Fathers and the Apostolic Tradition teach at all.

 

[Levite]

Levite, I would love to see you demonstrate. What guiding methodologies would you employ to evaluate:

• the six days of creation,
• the flood, and
• the Exodus?

Are each of these [also] literally true?

I personally don't think any of them have to be literally true precisely as set forth, although I tend to think there are grains of truth at the root of the Exodus story. But the general point IMO as a rabbi is not whether or not the narratives are factual, but what mitzvot (commandments) are grounded within them, and how we are supposed to observe the relevant halachot (laws); I prioritze the halachic aspect because that is the closest that we come to widely agreed-upon meanings. The theological interpretations, moral/ethical interpretations, etc., are far more diverse, and have infinitely more room for flexibility and creativity; and those meanings also don't require that the narratives be literally factual according to the pshat (plain meaning) of the text.

So, going from the halachic view, a major nafka mina ("what is taken from it," the lesson or point of a verse or narrative), for example, for the Creation story might be to keep Shabbat; another might be to make proper brachot (blessings) before eating and drinking, or after relieving oneself, or upon encountering natural phenomena. Likewise, the nafka mina of the Flood story might be to remember to say the brachah upon the rainbow; and that of the Exodus might be to recall our commitment to the covenant and our obligation to fulfill all the mitzvot (insofar as one can do so in one lifetime).

But as for more formal interpretations of particular verses or the above narratives as a whole, what am I interpreting toward? Our Rabbis don't show us how to randomly interpret without agenda, they show us how to find or construct different kinds of meanings: so am I looking for a halachic nafka mina? Theological? Moral/ethical? Mystical? Homiletical? Textual/linguistic? Or something else entirely?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

There is a framework of guiding methodologies for interpretation of the text in the Rabbinic tradition, but there are several variations of the basic methodologies, and no single way is considered dogmatic.

Levite, I would love to see you demonstrate. What guiding methodologies would you employ to evaluate:

• the six days of creation,
• the flood, and
• the Exodus?

Are each of these [also] literally true?

I personally don't think any of them have to be literally true precisely as set forth, although I tend to think there are grains of truth at the root of the Exodus story. But the general point IMO as a rabbi is not whether or not the narratives are factual, but what mitzvot (commandments) are grounded within them, and how we are supposed to observe the relevant halachot (laws); I prioritze the halachic aspect because that is the closest that we come to widely agreed-upon meanings. The theological interpretations, moral/ethical interpretations, etc., are far more diverse, and have infinitely more room for flexibility and creativity; and those meanings also don't require that the narratives be literally factual according to the pshat (plain meaning) of the text.

So, going from the halachic view, a major nafka mina ("what is taken from it," the lesson or point of a verse or narrative), for example, for the Creation story might be to keep Shabbat; another might be to make proper brachot (blessings) before eating and drinking, or after relieving oneself, or upon encountering natural phenomena. Likewise, the nafka mina of the Flood story might be to remember to say the brachah upon the rainbow; and that of the Exodus might be to recall our commitment to the covenant and our obligation to fulfill all the mitzvot (insofar as one can do so in one lifetime).

But as for more formal interpretations of particular verses or the above narratives as a whole, what am I interpreting toward? Our Rabbis don't show us how to randomly interpret without agenda, they show us how to find or construct different kinds of meanings: so am I looking for a halachic nafka mina? Theological? Moral/ethical? Mystical? Homiletical? Textual/linguistic? Or something else entirely?

Yes, thank you.

Still, the question raised by the OP was ...

It is believed by most people that the Scriptures contain both literal and symbolic verses and stories.
How do you decide where to interprete a passage literally and where to inteprete it symbolically or Figuratively.
I am looking for a method that can be used to decide "consistantly" if a passage is symbolic or literal.

He asked for a method and you spoke of guiding methodologies but it's unclear to me how (or if) you address his question.

 

[Pegg]

No, I said the exact opposite of what you think I said. I said that Christian tradition and the Church Fathers were around a lot longer before the Bible in its present form.

the bible in its present form contains the Hebrew scriptures... i dont think any christian tradition has been around longer then these. And I know what you meant, but Im pointing out that the church fathers had NOTHING whatsoever to do with the hebrew or christian scriptures... .the only christians who had anything to do with the christian scriptures are those who actually wrote them (Peter, John, Paul, James, Jude, Luke, Matthew & Mark) They laid down the Chrisitian teachings, no one else.

Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Rome, Polycarp and Justin Martyr, 4 Fathers of the Church, all lived during the late first and early second centuries. Polycarp and Ignatius were two personal students of St. John the Apostle, one of the Twelve. Each of these predated the current NT canon by 200 years.

Why do you call these men 'fathers'? (just curious what makes them worthy of such titles)

Also, i dont know if you are aware, but Polycarp did not subscribe to the trinity teaching. In his letter to the Philippians he separates God and Christ, the Father and Son, and says that it is “by the will of God through Jesus Christ” that we gain salvation and “May the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ Himself..." hence showing that at this early stage, the trinity was not a christian tradition.
And Ignatius writings do not give any credence to the trinity either. He calls Almighty God “the only true God, the unbegotten and unapproachable, the Lord of all, the Father and Begetter of the only-begotten Son,” Jesus is 'begotten' God is not begotten which means God has no beginning but Jesus had a beginning. So there is no teaching of a trinity by him.

Plus, it's the JW's that remove books of the Bible that were quoted by these first-century Christians, who were in personal contact with the Apostles while they were still alive. Clement of Rome himself was a personal friend of St. Paul, and he quotes from the Deuterocanonical books. The Didache, the manual of Christian living dating from 50 AD, quotes from the Deuterocanonical books. Polycarp, the aforementioned personal student of St. John the Apostle, quotes the Deuterocanonical books.

let me assure you that it was not JW's who decided which books to keep and which to remove. That was done a long time ago.
It was none other than Roman Catholic Jerome, the translator of the Vulgate, who said: “All apocryphal books should be avoided; . . . they are not the works of the authors by whose names they are distinguished, . . . they contain much that is faulty, . . . it is a task requiring great prudence to find gold in the midst of clay.”

Quoting from the books is one thing, but actually attributing the teachings of those books to God is another. Anyone can read and quote from those books, but that isnt going to mean they are suddenly inspired because a christian quoted from them.

Link to your source?

I dont have a link as its not from the internet, its from a book.

The real Christian teaching is that the soul is only immortal through the grace of God. Also, there are different senses of spiritual death; for example, everyone is spiritually dead (Ephesians 2 and Colossians 2:13, for starters) before coming to Jesus Christ. That doesn't mean that they were spiritually nonexistent, now, does it? So surely there are other meanings of being dead in the spirit aside from the spirit not existing.

now you are moving away from the teachings of the inspired canon of scripture.... these ideas do not come from the bible.

“There is no dichotomy [division] of body and soul in the O[ld] T[estament]. The Israelite saw things concretely, in their totality, and thus he considered men as persons and not as composites. The term nepeš [ne′phesh], though translated by our word soul, never means soul as distinct from the body or the individual person. . . . The term [psy·khe′] is the N[ew] T[estament] word corresponding with nepeš. It can mean the principle of life, life itself, or the living being.”—New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967), Vol. XIII, pp. 449, 450.

“The belief that the soul continues its existence after the dissolution of the body is a matter of philosophical or theological speculation rather than of simple faith, and is accordingly nowhere expressly taught in Holy Scripture.”—The Jewish Encyclopedia (1910), Vol. VI, p. 564

Au contrare, you don't seem to understand what the Fathers and the Apostolic Tradition teach at all.

I do know what the Apostles taught for they laid it down in writing. But im not interested in what the so called 'apostolic fathers' taught because by the 3rd/4th centuries they were no longer teaching from the writings of the Apostles.

You need only compare their teachings on the trinity, hellfire, purgatory, infant baptism, Mary Mother of God, immaculate conception.... all these ideas come from your church fathers.... but not from Jesus apostles.

 

[Shiranui117]

Pegg, I'm going to preface this by saying that it may be a good idea for us to pick this up in the 1v1 debate forum, so we don't completely derail this thread. As is, I'm going to post my response here. If you wish to continue, then tell me, either on this thread or via PM, and I can set up a topic in the 1v1 debate forum.

the bible in its present form contains the Hebrew scriptures... i dont think any christian tradition has been around longer then these.

The Scriptures are not a tradition unto themselves, nor is it possible for them to be so. Even the Jews have the Talmud and the Midrash, and the Muslims have the Hadith.

And I know what you meant, but Im pointing out that the church fathers had NOTHING whatsoever to do with the hebrew or christian scriptures... .the only christians who had anything to do with the christian scriptures are those who actually wrote them (Peter, John, Paul, James, Jude, Luke, Matthew & Mark) They laid down the Chrisitian teachings, no one else.

So your pastors do not teach you anything? They just sit there passively doing nothing when the time for a sermon rolls around? Or do you not even have sermons?

Also, I see you ignored the fact that the Christian NT was compiled by the Church.

Why do you call these men 'fathers'? (just curious what makes them worthy of such titles)

St. Paul considered the Corinthians and Timothy his spiritual children. From 1 Corinthians 4:

14 I do not write these things to shame you, but as my beloved children I warn you. 15 For though you might have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet you do not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. 16 Therefore I urge you, imitate me. 17 For this reason I have sent Timothy to you, who is my beloved and faithful son in the Lord, who will remind you of my ways in Christ, as I teach everywhere in every church.

Also, we call them "fathers," because they are our fathers in the faith, building up the Church (we call the founders of America the Founding Fathers for much the same reason), instructing and guiding us as their own children in the Faith and in Christian living.

Also, i dont know if you are aware, but Polycarp did not subscribe to the trinity teaching. In his letter to the Philippians he separates God and Christ, the Father and Son, and says that it is “by the will of God through Jesus Christ” that we gain salvation and “May the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ Himself..." hence showing that at this early stage, the trinity was not a christian tradition.

You know, you could have at least told me where it's from. I finally found it in his Epistle to the Philippians, chapter 1.

The following is from the Martyrdom of Polycarp, chapter 14, Polycarp's prayer:

Wherefore also I praise Thee for all things, I bless Thee, I glorify Thee, along with the everlasting and heavenly Jesus Christ, Thy beloved Son, with whom, to Thee, and the Holy Ghost, be glory both now and to all coming ages. Amen.A Trinitarian formula. The same praising, blessing and glorifying that Polycarp accords to God the Father, Polycarp also accords to the Son and the Holy Spirit.
​

And Ignatius writings do not give any credence to the trinity either. He calls Almighty God “the only true God, the unbegotten and unapproachable, the Lord of all, the Father and Begetter of the only-begotten Son,” Jesus is 'begotten' God is not begotten which means God has no beginning but Jesus had a beginning. So there is no teaching of a trinity by him.

Where's that even from? After looking for a mere two minutes, here are several references from just one epistle where Ignatius identifies Jesus as God.

Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which is at Ephesus, in Asia, deservedly most happy, being blessed in the greatness and fulness of God the Father, and predestinated before the beginning485 of time, that it should be always for an enduring and unchangeable glory, being united486 and elected through the true passion by the will of the Father, and Jesus Christ, our God: Abundant happiness through Jesus Christ, and His undefiled grace. Source
​

For our God, Jesus Christ, was, according to the appointment609 of God, conceived in the womb by Mary, of the seed of David, but by the Holy Ghost. He was born and baptized, that by His passion He might purify the water. Source
​

Our God Jesus Christ? Check.

I have become acquainted with your name, much-beloved in God, which ye have acquired by the habit of righteousness, according to the faith and love in Jesus Christ our Saviour. Being the followers490 of God, and stirring up491 yourselves by the blood of God, ye have perfectly accomplished the work which was beseeming to you. Source
​

The blood of God? A clear reference to Jesus' blood on the Cross.

So, at the very least, we have evidence that Ignatius believed that Jesus was God, contrary to the JW position that Jesus is the Archangel Michael.

let me assure you that it was not JW's who decided which books to keep and which to remove. That was done a long time ago.

Yes. And the JW's went against that decision and made up their own. Every Bible up until at least the 1600's had all the so-called deuterocanonical books.
(cont)

 

[Shiranui117]

(cont)

It was none other than Roman Catholic Jerome, the translator of the Vulgate, who said: “All apocryphal books should be avoided; . . . they are not the works of the authors by whose names they are distinguished, . . . they contain much that is faulty, . . . it is a task requiring great prudence to find gold in the midst of clay.”

Even he included them in his Bible, though, and considered them Scripture, despite whatever objections to them that he may have had:

Jerome referred to them as scriptural and quoted from them despite describing them as "not in the canon". In his prologue to Judith, without using the word canon, he mentioned that Judith was held to be scriptural by the First Council of Nicaea.[26] In his reply to Rufinus, he affirmed that he was consistent with the choice of the church regarding which version of the deuterocanonical portions of Daniel to use, which the Jews of his day did not include: What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the Story of Susanna, the Song of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they [the Jews] are wont to make against us. (Against Rufinus, 11:33 [AD 402]).

Source
Also, what's your source for the Jerome quotation? Where's it from? What work or letter of his?

Quoting from the books is one thing, but actually attributing the teachings of those books to God is another. Anyone can read and quote from those books, but that isnt going to mean they are suddenly inspired because a christian quoted from them.

Who said they weren't inspired? Why did the first Christians treat them as having the same authority as Scripture? Jerome was quite the lone wolf in drawing a distinction between the Hebrew OT and the so-called Apocrypha.

now you are moving away from the teachings of the inspired canon of scripture.... these ideas do not come from the bible.

How am I moving away from the teachings of the Bible, if I used the Bible to support my position?

The Israelite saw things concretely, in their totality, and thus he considered men as persons and not as composites. . .—New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967), Vol. XIII, pp. 449, 450.

The Israelite also didn't originally have any idea of the Messiah or of the Resurrection. Nor did he originally see Sheol as being compartmentalized into different areas where the wicked suffered and the righteous were blissfully in the Bosom of Abraham, as was the case in the time of Jesus.

—The Jewish Encyclopedia (1910), Vol. VI, p. 564

Again, the Jews used to not believe in the Resurrection of the Dead for the longest time, either; even in the time of Jesus, the Sadducees denied the Resurrection.

I do know what the Apostles taught for they laid it down in writing. But im not interested in what the so called 'apostolic fathers' taught because by the 3rd/4th centuries they were no longer teaching from the writings of the Apostles.

Yes they were. If you look at the writings of the Fathers from the first century, they are in full agreement with the writings of the Fathers from the 300's and 400's.

You need only compare their teachings on the trinity, hellfire, purgatory, infant baptism, Mary Mother of God, immaculate conception.... all these ideas come from your church fathers.... but not from Jesus apostles.

And then there's the argument of how you decide what the Apostles meant. I take into account their words and what their students have said. What is your standard of measure?

Plus, I can very easily pull out proofs for each of the things that you listed (aside from the Immaculate Conception) from Scripture.

 

[Pegg]

Shiranui,
I wont respond in this thread but I will transfer your post to the one-on-one debates and send you a pm when its up and we can continue to discuss these things there.

 

[Reverend Richard]

oh, perhaps I should make it clear.
What I said, is that Religion or belief should be based on independent Investigation of Truth.

I do agree a religious belief should be based on a person's individual investigation of that belief.

That means, suppose a person is born in a family or society with a certain belief. Then he/she should not just accept that belief to be the truth without investigating and considering that it could be false.

I have done this at various times in my life, and each time I find new information that conflicts with my beliefs, I have modified my beliefs. I was born/brought up as a Baptist (Christian), but I no longer ascribe to many of those beliefs.

So, seeing from this view, I am saying, yes, I have considered the possibility that these Scriptures were flawed, but after investigating, I concluded that they are not flawed. There are appearant contradiction that would make one to believe they are flawed, but that in my conclusion is due to misinterpretation and misunderstandings.

Again, I have done the same thing in terms of investigation. However in my conclusion I found the scripture to be flawed due to those apparent contradictions. But it's not only the contradictions that we must consider. It is the reliability of the source. I will not belabor the point of who actually wrote scripture since that has been discussed numerous times on this forum, I will simply point out that clerics and Bible scholars still cannot agree on who wrote the Biblical Synoptic Gospels. For example, by tradition we accept the Gospels allegedly written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. But in reality, many scholars would argue that it is unlikely that these Gospels were actually written by the persons they are named after. And in fact there is evidence of a 5th undiscovered Gospel that may have been the source for at least one or two of the others. Who wrote that 5th Gospel?

Continuing along the same line, by tradition several other books of the New Testament were written by the apostle St. Paul. However there is strong evidence that many if not most of these were actually written by an unknown person who wanted us to believe he was St. Paul.

It's like someone has died. They ask: "Is it possible that this person was killed?" I say: "yes, it is possible" it does not mean I agreed that he was actually killed. After investigation we found out, He died of a natural cause.

Let me ask you this: you are saying that the Scriptures are flawed, right? How did you make that conclusion?

Yes, I do believe that many if not most scriptures are flawed. That includes the books of the Old Testament, the New Testament, the Quran, and the Book of Mormon.

Each of these books or collections of books is supposed to provide us with insight as to how we are to worship God, and how to live according to God's laws. But each successive scripture either updates the previous one, or simply says that it replaces all previous spiritual revelation. My conclusion can be summarized like this:

1. God is unable to get His message across to us in a consistent manner.
2. God is unwilling to get His message across to us in a consistent manner.
3. God is, for the most part, silent on how we should worship him, but man keeps trying to figure it out and write it down as "scripture".

Each time, the scripture provided by a particular religion tells us a different story, reaches different conclusions, and gives us different "instructions" on how/why God should be worshiped/obeyed.

The first two conclusions above make God appear flawed since He has been unsuccessful in getting his message across. The third conclusion places the blame on man, which I think is much more likely.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

IEach of these books or collections of books is supposed to provide us with insight as to how we are to worship God, and how to live according to God's laws. But each successive scripture either updates the previous one, or simply says that it replaces all previous spiritual revelation. My conclusion can be summarized like this:

1. God is unable to get His message across to us in a consistent manner.
2. God is unwilling to get His message across to us in a consistent manner.
3. God is, for the most part, silent on how we should worship him, but man keeps trying to figure it out and write it down as "scripture".

Each time, the scripture provided by a particular religion tells us a different story, reaches different conclusions, and gives us different "instructions" on how/why God should be worshiped/obeyed.

The first two conclusions above make God appear flawed since He has been unsuccessful in getting his message across. The third conclusion places the blame on man, which I think is much more likely.

I think I already replied to most of what you are saying in my previous posts.
Your point 1, 2 and 3 is mostly about why God is not consistant with His Message?
I have already said, He has been perfectly consistant. The appearant differences are due to:

1) In each age the condition of human civilization changes, therefore it would require a different sets of Laws and ordinances.
This is like when we were a baby we were given only milk, and solid food could kill us. Later when we grow up we can eat other foods. SO, as the condition of human civilization has been evolving throughout Ages, these Laws and ordinances from God, has been changing by God to match and fit with the requirements of time of the Prophet that has appeared.

2) Another reason for these appearant differences is due to misinterpretations and changing the original message throughout the Ages, but the original spiritual teachings of All Prophets are fundamentally the same.

3) Most people limit their search within the Religions that they are born too, and just change from 1 denomination to another. Specially they look into a religion that is "popular" in their country. God has not been silence, and He kept sending guidance, and in my view the Baha'i Faith which is the latest worldwide religion has corrected all the misunderstandings of other older religions.

4) most people think that there is Only one True religion, and the revelation of God Stopped. That is not the case. The revelations of God is progressive and preiodically appears as humanity needs always guidance, and as humanity evolves, so does the Laws and ordinances. If we were sick and we needed Antibiotic for infection, another time we may have a different sickness and a different medicine is needed. No medicine is forever. No Religion is for ever. They come and change according to the requirements.

 

[Reverend Richard]

I think I already replied to most of what you are saying in my previous posts.
Your point 1, 2 and 3 is mostly about why God is not consistant with His Message?
I have already said, He has been perfectly consistant. The appearant differences are due to:

1) In each age the condition of human civilization changes, therefore it would require a different sets of Laws and ordinances.
This is like when we were a baby we were given only milk, and solid food could kill us. Later when we grow up we can eat other foods. SO, as the condition of human civilization has been evolving throughout Ages, these Laws and ordinances from God, "has been changing by God" to match and fit with the requirements of time of the Prophet that has appeared.

Well, I appreciate your attempt to maintain God's integrity. However, that would appear to make God very schizophrenic.

2) Another reason for these appearant differences is due to misinterpretations and changing the original message throughout the Ages, but the original spiritual teachings of All Prophets are fundamentally the same.

This sentence specifically contradicts what you said in the previous paragraph. You said first that "the Laws and Ordinances from God have been changing to match and fit the requirements of the time," and then you say that the apparent differences are due to misinterpretations". Which is it?

3) Most people limit their search within the Religions that they are born too, and just change from 1 denomination to another. Specially they look into a religion that is "popular" in their country. God has not been silence, and He kept sending guidance, and in my view the Baha'i Faith which is the latest worldwide religion has corrected all the misunderstandings of other older religions.

Wait a moment. You said above (1) that God did change His message to meet current requirements of the time, then (2) you said the changes we see in scripture are due to misinterpretation so they haven't really changed, now (3) you say that Baha'i is the latest religion that corrected the misunderstandings of other older religions.

So why do so many of us still misunderstand what we are supposed to do?

4) most people think that there is Only one True religion, and the revelation of God Stopped. That is not the case. The revelations of God is progressive and preiodically appears as humanity needs always guidance, and as humanity evolves, so does the Laws and ordinances. If we were sick and we needed Antibiotic for infection, another time we may have a different sickness and a different medicine is needed. No medicine is forever. No Religion is for ever. They come and change according to the requirements.

Then by your logic, over the last few millenia, man should have:

1. first been Jewish,
2. then changed to Christianity, (which version, Catholic, Baptist, Methodist?)
3. then moved to Islam, (which version? Sunni or Shia?)
4. then became a Mormon (which version? mainstream, fundamentalist, or reformed?)
5. Finally, Baha'i is the latest of God's revelations that correct all previous religious misinterpretations.

And this doesn't even cover non-theistic religions such as Buddhism. Are their scriptures false, or simply misunderstood?

Still, you insist God's message has not changed, that it has simply been misinterpreted?

Nope. Your point has not been proven, and in fact your own arguments collapse due to self-contradiction.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Well, I appreciate your attempt to maintain God's integrity. However, that would appear to make God very schizophrenic.

Not sure how you concluded "God would be very schizophrenic"

This sentence specifically contradicts what you said in the previous paragraph. You said first that "the Laws and Ordinances from God have been changing to match and fit the requirements of the time," and then you say that the apparent differences are due to misinterpretations". Which is it?

No, they do not contradict.
You may not be aware that Religion has TWO parts. The spiritual Teachings Which God does not change them. Then there are Laws and ordinances, which God change them according to the requirements of time. This is like the remedy that is changed according to the conditions.

It does not make sense that people who lived 4000 years ago, and people who live in the our Age have the same Laws and ordinances, does it?

Wait a moment. You said above (1) that God did change His message to meet current requirements of the time, then (2) you said the changes we see in scripture are due to misinterpretation so they haven't really changed, now (3) you say that Baha'i is the latest religion that corrected the misunderstandings of other older religions.

The misinterpretation is another factor. It's like I tell you smoking causes cancer. Then I tell you asbestos causes cancer.
Now you are saying I am contradicting myself, because it's either smoking or Asbestos.
No, I am not contradicting. Well, each is a factor.
So, if you see a contradictions that is due to misinterpretations. (ex. Christianity says Jesus was crucified, Islam says, Jesus was not)
If you see a change in Laws and Ordinances, then that is a change from God. (ex. Jewish Faith required Sabbath Law. Christianity does not---- Chrsitian can drink moderately, in Islam cannot....Islam: do not eat pork, Baha'i can eat pork)

So why do so many of us still misunderstand what we are supposed to do?

Because we need to do an independent investigation of Truth, to remove our misunderstandings. Moreover, Religion must be learned from its True Source which is God. Not the clergy, Mullahs, etc....
Each person should learn and investigate on his own.

Then by your logic, over the last few millenia, man should have:

1. first been Jewish,
2. then changed to Christianity, (which version, Catholic, Baptist, Methodist?)
3. then moved to Islam, (which version? Sunni or Shia?)
4. then became a Mormon (which version? mainstream, fundamentalist, or reformed?)
5. Finally, Baha'i is the latest of God's revelations that correct all previous religious misinterpretations.

Well, the Mormon in my belief is an offshoot of Christianity, not a new Revelation.

And this doesn't even cover non-theistic religions such as Buddhism. Are their scriptures false, or simply misunderstood?

The original teachings of Buddha or Hinduism are not available. There is still truth in their scriptures, but mostly are changed, and ofcourse interpretation is another factor.
These Faiths have been divided into many sects and denominations. The main reason that there has been made many sects, is due to various interpretations. Thus, obviously not all the interpretations are correct.

Your point has not been proven, and in fact your own arguments collapse due to self-contradiction

If it still seems to you there is a contradiction in my statements, I think you did not understand what I am saying. I suggest, you give some examples. Then I make them clear.

 

[Shia Islam]

Yes.


As far as I know (and correct me if I am wrong) there are many Tafseers, but not Taweels from the 12 Imams or Muhammad.
From the 12 Imams are there any Taweels? I am specifically interested in recorded sayings or writings from Prophet Muhammad or 12 Imams that says: "Taweel of this verse is this....."
As far as I know there Just Tafseers.
.

Here are two examples (i am using my wordings to convey the meanings of the AhlulBayt a.s (the prophet and the imams peace be upon them):

1:
"Show us the straight path,
سورة الفاتحة - سورة 1 - آية 6
اهدنا الصراط المستقيم"

Imam Ali is the straight path.

2: "Let man consider his food:
سورة عبس - سورة 80 - آية 24
فلينظر الانسان الى طعامه"

his food= his knowledge; from where he gets it?!"

According to the Hadiths (sayings of the ahlulbayt a.s.) the quran has many layers of meanings. Also generally, there is no strict dividing line between what is Tafseer and what is Taweel, however, I remember that in many occasions it's written "Taweel of this verse is this....."

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Here are two examples (i am using my wordings to convey the meanings of the AhlulBayt a.s (the prophet and the imams peace be upon them):

1:
"Show us the straight path,
سورة الفاتحة - سورة 1 - آية 6
اهدنا الصراط المستقيم"

Imam Ali is the straight path.

2: "Let man consider his food:
سورة عبس - سورة 80 - آية 24
فلينظر الانسان الى طعامه"

his food= his knowledge; from where he gets it?!"

According to the Hadiths (sayings of the ahlulbayt a.s.) the quran has many layers of meanings. Also generally, there is no strict dividing line between what is Tafseer and what is Taweel, however, I remember that in many occasions it's written "Taweel of this verse is this....."

The word "Taweel" in Quran is used to mean interpretation of the verses or sayings that have"inner and figurative meaning"
For example in Surah of Joseph, this word is used to interpret the dreams. "the seven lean caws ate seven fat caws" is interpreted as 7 years of difficulty and less food is followed by 7 years of abundance. So, it seems that in Quran, Taweel is for the verses that their meaning is not outward.

"Tafsir is used in explaining a word which carries only one meaning, whereas ta’wil is used in choosing one of the connotations of a word that possesses many connotations."
Sciences of the Qur’an part 1: The Definition of Tafseer and T’awil | al-Mustaqeem Publications

Verse 3:7, makes a clear distinction between the verses that are "muhkamat" and the verses that are "Mutishabihat".
Now regardless of the word Taweel or Tafseer, the point is Scriptures contain verses that have outward meaning, and verses which have figurative meaning.
And According to verse 3:7, No one knows the "Taweel" of "Mutishabihat" verses of Quran, except God and those who are well-grounded in knowledge.
Who are those who are well-grounded in knowledge? I believe only the infallible chosen ones of God, such as 12 Imams and divine Messengers.

 

[Shia Islam]

No one knows the "Taweel" of "Mutishabihat" verses of Quran, except God and those who are well-grounded in knowledge.
Who are those who are well-grounded in knowledge? I believe only the infallible chosen ones of God, such as 12 Imams and divine Messengers.

There are Hadith (Sayings) of the 12 imams saying that ahlulbayt (a.s.) the household of the prophet a.s. are the well-grounded in knowledge.

 

[CG Didymus]

Well, if the scriptures are inspired by God, it makes sense there should be a consistant way of interpreting them, otherwise if the Books of God cannot be understood clearly and consistantly, then the god of these Books is confusing His own people, when the matter of fact is, He claimes His Perpose was to guide, but not to confuse. Moreover, if God has created the world containing the Rules of physics which are part of His own knowledge, why should His own Books contain things that are contrary to scientific Rules?

I like the Baha'i Faith. It is very practical and could be a solution to all our problems. But, how do you get anybody to believe in it? All Scriptures from all religions have to be homogenized and strained of anything that is contrary to Baha'i beliefs. A good example of doing this is what Christianity did to Judaism.

Was Judaism going to "save" the world? Did Jews ever make an effort to go out and make converts? Their God didn't seem that concerned about the rest of the world. Christians, on the other hand, had a universal message and were commanded to go spread it. They came up with a religion that all people could follow--easy to join and not too many rules. They came up with a "method" of interpreting Scripture that worked very well. They made everything in the Hebrew Scriptures point to Jesus. The new "Scriptures" made the the old ones, old.

Baha'is are doing the same thing with all the religions. If there is a contradicting doctrine, re-interpret it. Like did Jesus rise from the dead? That is not scientific. That must be symbolic. But does a symbolic explanation make sense? Jesus, allegedly, said for Thomas to touch him and see for himself that he was real. Jesus rose into the sky in front of a bunch of them. Paul said that if he hasn't risen that Christians are all lost and have no hope. So Biblical, literal, Christianity believes Jesus rose physically from the dead. I question it. I'd prefer it to be symbolic, but it's what Christians are taught to believe. Without a risen Lord, they are nothing. A Baha'i interpretation takes the heart out of Christianity. But, that's not the worst thing in the world, Christianity took the heart, the Law, out of Judaism. After all, it was just symbolic.

 

[gnostic]

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?

If you go by that logic, then absolutely everything in the bible and qur'an should be taken as symbolic or metaphoric, and therefore, not to be taken literal.

This is because nothing in these scriptures, are considered to be "scientific".

Religious scriptures should never be treated as science books, and science should never be treated as books on theology. They are two completely sources of knowledge - one relies on belief and faith and superstitions, while the other relies on observation and testing of hypotheses, and relied heavily on evidences, to either support the hypothesis or debunk it.

There are some statements (verses) that may be somewhat accurate, but that doesn't mean they are "scientific". Some Muslims and Christians make the assumptions when the verses in their respective scriptures, are deemed "scientific", when they really are not.

The Qur'an for instance says that the Sun is bright (91:1); this is not scientific statement, because poets, farmers and carpenters would know this too. Heck, even the Neolithic people knew that the sun is bright. The Qur'an is stating the obvious, which doesn't require a genius to utter such simplistic verse.

Verses about day (91:3) and night (91:4) are obvious and simplistic, and not very accurate. They are not descriptive enough to be "scientific", and even the Neolithic people can distinguish night and day.

Science, particularly real astronomy, would explain why the sun is so bright, supplying more factual statements than verse 91:1. For the Qur'anic verse to be scientific, it needs to explain why the sun is bright; it doesn't.

But getting back to scriptures being literal or symbolic, we would have problem with Qur'an verses 91:1, 3 and 4. 91:1 could be taken literally, but due to the accuracies of 91:3 and 91:4, we would take this as being symbolic. My point is that it would be terribly inconvenient and confusing to jump back-and-forth, from literal-to-symbolic, symbolic-to-literal, and then literal-to-symbolic again, etc.

I think it would be silly to use science as a yardstick to determine what verses are to be taken literal, and which verses should be taken as symbolic, especially when there is no relation between religion and science.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

If you go by that logic, then absolutely everything in the bible and qur'an should be taken as symbolic or metaphoric, and therefore, not to be taken literal.

This is because nothing in these scriptures, are considered to be "scientific".

Religious scriptures should never be treated as science books, and science should never be treated as books on theology. They are two completely sources of knowledge - one relies on belief and faith and superstitions, while the other relies on observation and testing of hypotheses, and relied heavily on evidences, to either support the hypothesis or debunk it.

There are some statements (verses) that may be somewhat accurate, but that doesn't mean they are "scientific". Some Muslims and Christians make the assumptions when the verses in their respective scriptures, are deemed "scientific", when they really are not.

The Qur'an for instance says that the Sun is bright (91:1); this is not scientific statement, because poets, farmers and carpenters would know this too. Heck, even the Neolithic people knew that the sun is bright. The Qur'an is stating the obvious, which doesn't require a genius to utter such simplistic verse.

Verses about day (91:3) and night (91:4) are obvious and simplistic, and not very accurate. They are not descriptive enough to be "scientific", and even the Neolithic people can distinguish night and day.

Science, particularly real astronomy, would explain why the sun is so bright, supplying more factual statements than verse 91:1. For the Qur'anic verse to be scientific, it needs to explain why the sun is bright; it doesn't.

But getting back to scriptures being literal or symbolic, we would have problem with Qur'an verses 91:1, 3 and 4. 91:1 could be taken literally, but due to the accuracies of 91:3 and 91:4, we would take this as being symbolic. My point is that it would be terribly inconvenient and confusing to jump back-and-forth, from literal-to-symbolic, symbolic-to-literal, and then literal-to-symbolic again, etc.

let's forget religious text for the time being.
Do people normally talk in symbolic language sometimes.
For example if someone talks about someone else, saying: "He is shining like a star"

Is this symbolic or literal?
How do you decide this sentence is symbolic or literal?

Is it scientific to assume that person is emitting or reflecting light so much, and looks like a star physically and literally?

Now, if same statement appeared in a Holy Book. Here you have two choices:
Choice one, Yes it is literal, and it is a miracle. God made him emit light, just as a star glowing.
or you say, it is obviously a symbolic or metaphoric statement.

Holy Books are NO different. Prophets of God spoke the language we speak so we may understand.
However, there are at least two types of people:
There are people, that they need Miracles in religion, in order for them to accept this is really from God. Thus they go with choice one, and say it was a miracle.
There are some people, that do not need Miracles to believe in religions. Thus, they know, whenever there are statements that cannot be scientific, they take them as symbolic.

I think it would be silly to use science as a yardstick to determine what verses are to be taken literal, and which verses should be taken as symbolic, especially when there is no relation between religion and science

I don't think there is no relation between religion and science. How do we know there is no relation between science and religion?

What I would say, is, Religion has its own role, and science its own role. That does not mean they have to contradict each other or there is no relation.
See, what many people assume, or believe, is that Religion is a Myth. Based on this assumption, they go and conclude, Religion is against Science. The reason they concluded religion is a Myth, is based on literal reading of the Book. Now consider, the Authors of these Books, had already said, they are also writing Metaphors and Parables. So, literal reading just contradicts with what these Authors meant, weather one reads literally to believe in Miracles, or believe it is a Myth Book.

There are people that believe, God has given Religion in order to teach Morality and bring Rules to organize human's society. While God has given mind to people to discover science, and He does not wish to include scientific secrets in Religion to make a bunch of lazy people, that are given everything.


Regarding your verses of Quran, I believe many of them are in poetry style. Quran is not meant to be a science Book, as God did not claim, He was giving a science Book. He said, this a Book to show the straight Path. For many people, if it is said to them Quran is only a Book that came to show the straight Path, then they have no reason to believe it is from God. Thus for them to prove and accept for themselves and others that the Book is from God, it is necessary to find Miracles or Scientific Secrets that was unknown before. Others, read these Books literally as to prove they are Myth and thus cannot be truth.

For some people, if the Book came to bring the right path, to a corrupted people, is just enough proof for it to be from God.
Now the fact is, these Prophets, when they were asked to perform Miracles to prove, They rejected this request, as it is recorded in both Quran and Bible in several instances. Now if the Authors of Bible or Quran were writing Myth, they would have surely written, the Prophets accepted the request of these people and performed miracles. But that is not the case if you refer to the Books.