How to investigate a Holy Book?

[amatuerscholar]

Question is, when a person wants to investigate a holy book (such as Quran, Bible, or Bahai scriptures), what should be the position of the investigator initially?

1. Should he start as a person who 'knows the book is Not from God', and then just tries to find problems in the book to prove it?
2. Should he start as a person who is considering the possibility that the book is from God?
3. Or He should not have any goal, or position. He should just read and investigate the text to see where it gets him to? (Completely neutral)

Which one is the fair position to begin with, when you want to read and investigate a holy book which claims to be from God?
Does it matter if your initial position is fair?

From your experience how has been your position? Were you biased in anyway? Do you think being bias helps you to really investigate and understand a holy book in the right way?

What you intention is matters. If you want to grow spiritually, your approach is going to be different than if you are just into the academia of it all. The manner in which you approach a scripture or religious text is going to change the way in which you see it, which will then change how you read it and interpret it.

I believe the best way to go forward is as neutral as possible, while realizing that you aren't neutral. You come with biases and preconceived notions. We all do, and if we can become aware of such, we can try to keep our biases in check.

However, a big problem is that just digging into the Bible, for example, isn't going to always do much good. You need some historical context to help you. You need to be aware of the purpose of the books, why they were written, the genre they were written in, cultural tools that would have informed the intended reader, etc. Most don't have that and it leads to a lot of confusion.

So an example. I went to school for Religious Studies and History while minoring in Greek and Classics, and now I'm beginning work towards a Master's in Theology. My background is Christianity and Judaism. So when it comes to those subjects, I can pick up on many of the cues that were written into the text, and I have a firm understanding of the writing process and history surrounding those texts. But that was only with years of education, and teachers who helped me understand all of that. Now, if I would then just into Asian philosophy, with only a background in Christianity and Judaism, the manner in which I would read the Upanishads, or the Tao Te Ching is going to be heavily influenced by my background, and I'm most likely going to interpret those works with a Christian bias.

I do have a bit of a background in Asian philosophy though, largely through comparative work. One of the things you learn about comparative theology is that there is a fine line. It's very easy to take a foreign concept, such as the Trimurti, connect it to the Christian concept of the Trinity, and then see them as the same, while ignoring the major differences. Doing such transforms the foreign concept into something it is not. But at the same time, using such a comparison can help better understand a different idea.

To break this all down then, my suggestion is 3 fold.
1) Try to approach the subject as neutral as you can. But be aware of your biases and preconceived notions so that you can hopefully keep them in check.
2) Look for mainstream educational resources. You don't want anything too conservative or too liberal. Commentaries are great as they give you a lot of background information.
3) Connect the ideas to something you know, but be careful not to overshoot the comparison.

 

[CG Didymus]

However, a big problem is that just digging into the Bible, for example, isn't going to always do much good. You need some historical context to help you. You need to be aware of the purpose of the books, why they were written, the genre they were written in, cultural tools that would have informed the intended reader, etc. Most don't have that and it leads to a lot of confusion.

Yes, who picks up the Quran, the Bible, or the Vedas or any other Holy Book and reads it and will understand it? Jews have commentaries on their Bible. Christians have commentaries on their Bible. Each sect of Christianity tells their people which verses to look at and how to interpret them to come to the proper conclusions.

Baha'is do the same. They tell us that their prophet has brought the true interpretation of all the Holy Books (but not much on Hinduism). Here is what they say about the Bible.They tell us not to take the Bible too literal. That Creation, the Flood and the resurrection and most "miraculous" things were symbolic. That changes everything. They say that Jesus is the true Messiah, but he's dead. He's not physically going to come back, but the "Christ" Spirit is going to and has returned... three times, Muhammad, The Bab, and Baha'u'llah. They tell us what the true interpretation of many verses in the Bible really are. The dragons and beasts are corrupt Islamic leaders. The 1260 days are the 1260 lunar years of Islam that ended in 1844. The year The Bab announced that he was sent from God to tell us that God was sending the "Christ", The Promised One. They tell us that the Three Woes of Revelation are Muhammad, The Bab and Baha'u'llah. The Two Witnessed from Revelation are Muhammad and Ali.

If by some chance all that is true, then no matter what other people think they know and believe about any of the Holy Books is wrong, unless it lines up with what Baha'u'llah says it means. And, if you don't know what he is saying about what these Books say and mean, then none of what we might think and believe isn't going to be right. But this is exactly what Christians did to the Jews. The Christians told the Jews how Jesus was predicted and could be found all over their Scriptures. Then Islam did it to the Jews and the Christians. And now the Baha'is interpret the Bible and the Quran to show how Baha'u'llah was prophesied in all those Books. And they do include Zoroastrianism, Buddhism and Hinduism.

And another key to "proper" interpretation and understanding of all these ancient Books is that anything that contradicts Baha'i writings that can't be explained away by saying it was "symbolic" and not "literal", than it very well could be a man-made tradition that got added into the beliefs of the religion. One example of this is that Baha'is say that Ishmael, not Isaac, was taken to be sacrificed by Abraham. How it made its way into the Bible with Isaac being the one, they don't explain. But one Baha'i said that probably some scribe did it. I don't remember if he said that it was on purpose or mistake. But I don't see how one scribe could do it and have all other scribes go along with the error?

So now the question is... are the Baha'i Scriptures true?

 

[CG Didymus]

Question is, when a person wants to investigate a holy book (such as Quran, Bible, or Bahai scriptures), what should be the position of the investigator initially?

1. Should he start as a person who 'knows the book is Not from God', and then just tries to find problems in the book to prove it?
2. Should he start as a person who is considering the possibility that the book is from God?
3. Or He should not have any goal, or position. He should just read and investigate the text to see where it gets him to? (Completely neutral)

Which one is the fair position to begin with, when you want to read and investigate a holy book which claims to be from God?
Does it matter if your initial position is fair?

From your experience how has been your position? Were you biased in anyway? Do you think being bias helps you to really investigate and understand a holy book in the right way?

As a Baha'i, how do you read the Scriptures of other religions? Like in the Bible, when it says Jesus walked on water, do you even for an instance take it literally or automatically look to a symbolic meaning?

 

[sayak83]

Question is, when a person wants to investigate a holy book (such as Quran, Bible, or Bahai scriptures), what should be the position of the investigator initially?

1. Should he start as a person who 'knows the book is Not from God', and then just tries to find problems in the book to prove it?
2. Should he start as a person who is considering the possibility that the book is from God?
3. Or He should not have any goal, or position. He should just read and investigate the text to see where it gets him to? (Completely neutral)

Which one is the fair position to begin with, when you want to read and investigate a holy book which claims to be from God?
Does it matter if your initial position is fair?

From your experience how has been your position? Were you biased in anyway? Do you think being bias helps you to really investigate and understand a holy book in the right way?

Third one. Treat it neutrally.

 

[PearlSeeker]

As a Baha'i, how do you read the Scriptures of other religions? Like in the Bible, when it says Jesus walked on water, do you even for an instance take it literally or automatically look to a symbolic meaning?

Excuse me to jump in.

1. What about anecdotal meaning? It's literal but it's not factual.

2. Literal and symbolic meaning don't necessarily exclude themselves.

3. Symbolic meaning can be unintended (coming from unconscious). And symbolic interpretation can also be a way of revealing content from interpreter's own unconscious mind. Maybe tapping into collective unconscious.

 

[danieldemol]

Question is, when a person wants to investigate a holy book (such as Quran, Bible, or Bahai scriptures), what should be the position of the investigator initially?

1. Should he start as a person who 'knows the book is Not from God', and then just tries to find problems in the book to prove it?
2. Should he start as a person who is considering the possibility that the book is from God?
3. Or He should not have any goal, or position. He should just read and investigate the text to see where it gets him to? (Completely neutral)

Which one is the fair position to begin with, when you want to read and investigate a holy book which claims to be from God?
Does it matter if your initial position is fair?

From your experience how has been your position? Were you biased in anyway? Do you think being bias helps you to really investigate and understand a holy book in the right way?

I think trying to remove one’s assumptions helps, assuming it to be true or assuming it to be false can give you a hard time getting to the bottom of it.

 

[CG Didymus]

Excuse me to jump in.

1. What about anecdotal meaning? It's literal but it's not factual.

2. Literal and symbolic meaning don't necessarily exclude themselves.

3. Symbolic meaning can be unintended (coming from unconscious). And symbolic interpretation can also be a way of revealing content from interpreter's own unconscious mind. Maybe tapping into collective unconscious.

Fundy Christians that I know seem to depend on a literal interpretation when it's not obviously symbolic. So when it says that God spoke from heaven or Jesus walked on water, that's exactly what happened. But who wrote these things? Were they eyewitnesses to the event? Or, is it based on oral traditions then written down? I think there is good reason to question the Bible stories as being historically accurate.

So does someone read the Bible believing it is historical and literal, or do they read it assuming the writers were embellishing the stories? Then, since Baha'is believe many of those Bible stories are not literal but symbolic, then they would be looking to get symbolic meaning out of Jesus walking on water and him rising from the dead. But, they won't and don't believe these things actually happened.

So how do you read the Bible, and, if you were to read Baha'i Writings, how would you approach them?

 

[Link]

3 is impossible. No one without interest in a holy book to see if it's true or false, will devote enough time. If you are neutral, it means you are not interested. So many religions, so little time. We have to go to a book to see if it's true or false, we have our expectations, God has his ways to guide, so just go at it. Quran challenges humans to find contradictions in Quran and allows that to be part of their reflection. It says go ahead try to prove it is false. If you can't find a contradiction, better yet, don't give up on proving it false, bring a book like it in terms of guidance and form. In fact, a book claiming to have all guidance required from Humanity is bound to contradict somewhere if not from God, such is the nature of human fallibility.

The case is now, that translations are such that Quran is awfully translated. It's translated and interpreted in a way, that the wonderful Creator of the universe, would never intend. So humans ended up finding faults with Islam and Quran, but this due to history and nature of humans relying on Satanic humans to think for them.

That and there no present miracles and great portion of the Quran is exactly about miracles and why you should not accuse those bringing such signs to be sorcerers.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

That and there no present miracles and great portion of the Quran is exactly about miracles and why you should not accuse those bringing such signs to be sorcerers.

I would say that's exactly why the miracles in Quran are not literal verses. Those are mutishabihat. Indeed if those Prophets had preformed such miracles, the infidles would have believed them. They would not say it is sorcery.. that should tell us, those stories are not to be taken literally! Moreover, Jesus resurrected people, but when people asked Muhammad to do the same miracle He did not!
You know why? Because jesus did not resurrect anyone either. I mean He did resurrect, but not physically. When a disbelievers is guided and becomes a believer through the guidance of God, it is metaphorically said, he was dead, but now he is alive. It has a spiritual meaning! Just look how shia holy imams interpreted that.

 

[Link]

Everything you wish to interpret by your desires, you call mutashibahat and do away with their apparent meaning. Mohammad was accused of being a sorcerer precisely because he performed a lot of literal miracles and the same Jesus was accused of being a sorcerer and all Messengers were accused of being sorcerers.

Sorcery - the reason they resorted to that accusation is because they didn't want to accept miracles.

Mohammad did raise the dead per Shiite hadiths, and as for the Quran, it only says their final excuse was to bring "all their forefathers" back, which is too much of a demand, since God is not going to resurrect all their ancestors nor would they accept at this point if he did.

 

[oldbadger]

Question is, when a person wants to investigate a holy book (such as Quran, Bible, or Bahai scriptures), what should be the position of the investigator initially?

1. Should he start as a person who 'knows the book is Not from God', and then just tries to find problems in the book to prove it?
2. Should he start as a person who is considering the possibility that the book is from God?
3. Or He should not have any goal, or position. He should just read and investigate the text to see where it gets him to? (Completely neutral)

Which one is the fair position to begin with, when you want to read and investigate a holy book which claims to be from God?
Does it matter if your initial position is fair?

From your experience how has been your position? Were you biased in anyway? Do you think being bias helps you to really investigate and understand a holy book in the right way?

Neutral.
But we can find that our objective findings can be received with less than neutral opinion sometimes, such as us being referred to as devil like, Pharisees and so forth.
It can get worse than that though, a very very strong Christian on another forum told me I am committed to hellfire and an endless raging inferno, which seemed just a tad over the top, or rather, deep down in to the void.

But objective reviewers can expect such responses, I find.

 

[ChristineM]

Question is, when a person wants to investigate a holy book (such as Quran, Bible, or Bahai scriptures), what should be the position of the investigator initially?

1. Should he start as a person who 'knows the book is Not from God', and then just tries to find problems in the book to prove it?
2. Should he start as a person who is considering the possibility that the book is from God?
3. Or He should not have any goal, or position. He should just read and investigate the text to see where it gets him to? (Completely neutral)

Which one is the fair position to begin with, when you want to read and investigate a holy book which claims to be from God?
Does it matter if your initial position is fair?

From your experience how has been your position? Were you biased in anyway? Do you think being bias helps you to really investigate and understand a holy book in the right way?

Read the book as a book with an enquiring, open mind. Then you can cherry pick the parts you want to know about and pretend the bad bits don't exist

 

[PearlSeeker]

Fundy Christians that I know seem to depend on a literal interpretation when it's not obviously symbolic. So when it says that God spoke from heaven or Jesus walked on water, that's exactly what happened. But who wrote these things? Were they eyewitnesses to the event? Or, is it based on oral traditions then written down? I think there is good reason to question the Bible stories as being historically accurate.

So does someone read the Bible believing it is historical and literal, or do they read it assuming the writers were embellishing the stories? Then, since Baha'is believe many of those Bible stories are not literal but symbolic, then they would be looking to get symbolic meaning out of Jesus walking on water and him rising from the dead. But, they won't and don't believe these things actually happened.

So how do you read the Bible, and, if you were to read Baha'i Writings, how would you approach them?

I've been in Catholic church. It's not so obsessed with literal meaning e.g. there is no creationism. Catholic interpretation acknowledges Bible as the word of God in human words, thinking, culture, time, limitations... Methods: historical-critical methods and literary criticism. But the church leadership has also relied heavily on tradition and decisions of men (too much IMO). That's why some things like the Trinity doctrine will never change or be regarded just as one of possibilities.

I'm not an expert in these areas but studies of biblical scholars have convinced me that stories are based on oral traditions and the writings were not just written but also redacted and transformed. Some things have a strong historical probability and some are less reliable...

How I would read Baha'i Writings? First I would need to inform myself about the historical frame, how did they originate, literary form etc.

 

[firedragon]

Question is, when a person wants to investigate a holy book (such as Quran, Bible, or Bahai scriptures), what should be the position of the investigator initially?

1. Should he start as a person who 'knows the book is Not from God', and then just tries to find problems in the book to prove it?
2. Should he start as a person who is considering the possibility that the book is from God?
3. Or He should not have any goal, or position. He should just read and investigate the text to see where it gets him to? (Completely neutral)

Which one is the fair position to begin with, when you want to read and investigate a holy book which claims to be from God?
Does it matter if your initial position is fair?

From your experience how has been your position? Were you biased in anyway? Do you think being bias helps you to really investigate and understand a holy book in the right way?

A book should be examined in light of the book. Not in light of stories, patristic theories, theologies, and battles lingering around centuries later. This is the main thing.

 

[CG Didymus]

I would say that's exactly why the miracles in Quran are not literal verses. Those are mutishabihat. Indeed if those Prophets had preformed such miracles, the infidles would have believed them. They would not say it is sorcery.. that should tell us, those stories are not to be taken literally! Moreover, Jesus resurrected people, but when people asked Muhammad to do the same miracle He did not!
You know why? Because jesus did not resurrect anyone either. I mean He did resurrect, but not physically. When a disbelievers is guided and becomes a believer through the guidance of God, it is metaphorically said, he was dead, but now he is alive. It has a spiritual meaning! Just look how shia holy imams interpreted that.

Luke 8
40 Now when Jesus returned, a crowd welcomed him, for they were all expecting him.
41 Then a man named Jairus, a synagogue leader, came and fell at Jesus’ feet, pleading with him to come to his house
42 because his only daughter, a girl of about twelve, was dying...
49 While Jesus was still speaking, someone came from the house of Jairus, the synagogue leader. “Your daughter is dead,” he said. “Don’t bother the teacher anymore.”
50 Hearing this, Jesus said to Jairus, “Don’t be afraid; just believe, and she will be healed.”
51 When he arrived at the house of Jairus, he did not let anyone go in with him except Peter, John and James, and the child’s father and mother.
52 Meanwhile, all the people were wailing and mourning for her. “Stop wailing,” Jesus said. “She is not dead but asleep.”
53 They laughed at him, knowing that she was dead.
54 But he took her by the hand and said, “My child, get up!”
55 Her spirit returned, and at once she stood up.

And how do you interpret this? Why do you think this was not a literal and physical healing?

 

[CG Didymus]

Everything you wish to interpret by your desires, you call mutashibahat and do away with their apparent meaning. Mohammad was accused of being a sorcerer precisely because he performed a lot of literal miracles and the same Jesus was accused of being a sorcerer and all Messengers were accused of being sorcerers.

Sorcery - the reason they resorted to that accusation is because they didn't want to accept miracles.

Mohammad did raise the dead per Shiite hadiths, and as for the Quran, it only says their final excuse was to bring "all their forefathers" back, which is too much of a demand, since God is not going to resurrect all their ancestors nor would they accept at this point if he did.

What does Islam believe about Jesus raising people from the dead, and he, himself, rising from the dead?

 

[CG Didymus]

Neutral.
But we can find that our objective findings can be received with less than neutral opinion sometimes, such as us being referred to as devil like, Pharisees and so forth.
It can get worse than that though, a very very strong Christian on another forum told me I am committed to hellfire and an endless raging inferno, which seemed just a tad over the top, or rather, deep down in to the void.

But objective reviewers can expect such responses, I find.

I was never neutral. Most of the time I expected to find some kind of spiritual wisdom and truth. If I let Baha'is influence how I looked at other Holy Books, I'd be expecting to find ways that confirm Baha'i beliefs... that all religions come from the same God and are in a progression. If I let Christians influence me, then I'd probably avoid all other Books from other religions, because I would believe them false. And that would include Baha'i books. And, if I did read them, it would be to find things that contradicted the Christian beliefs. And because Baha'is believe Jesus is dead and gone and didn't physically rise from the dead, and isn't the one coming back, but instead a Persian nobleman, I'd expect Christians would have a very negative view about the Baha'i Faith.

Now I could see how a Cultural Anthropologist could research religions and try not to let personal biases interfere, but I don't think most people can keep it neutral. Do you really think it is possible to stay neutral?

 

[CG Didymus]

I've been in Catholic church. It's not so obsessed with literal meaning e.g. there is no creationism. Catholic interpretation acknowledges Bible as the word of God in human words, thinking, culture, time, limitations... Methods: historical-critical methods and literary criticism. But the church leadership has also relied heavily on tradition and decisions of men (too much IMO). That's why some things like the Trinity doctrine will never change or be regarded just as one of possibilities.

I'm not an expert in these areas but studies of biblical scholars have convinced me that stories are based on oral traditions and the writings were not just written but also redacted and transformed. Some things have a strong historical probability and some are less reliable...

How I would read Baha'i Writings? First I would need to inform myself about the historical frame, how did they originate, literary form etc.

I'm amazed how much the Catholic Church has changed. I went to a video Bible study with some Catholic friends and it was a Protestant guy speaking.

I think it would be worth your while to learn about the Baha'i Faith. If they are for real, then "Jesus" has already returned. But not really Jesus... but the "Christ Spirit". They say all prophet/founders of all the major religions were, what they call "manifestations" of God, were all filled with that same Spirit and all came from the one true God. Then people, by misinterpreting and misunderstanding the teachings of those prophets, messed up each religion.

And the Catholic Church would be a good example. They interpreted verses in such a way to believe Jesus was God, that there was a Satan, the devil, that all non-believers would be cast into hell, that the bishop of Rome was infallibe, that Mary should be prayed to, to take indulgences and so on. The Baha'is say that Muhammad came and taught that Jesus was not God. To try and clear up that misinterpretation. The Baha'i prophet came and said all religions are one and that all people are one and it is the time to bring peace and harmony to the world.

So, on the surface, it sounds great and sounds true. Digging a little deeper, I have my doubts. But, I think it is definitely worth it for anyone to check them out.... of course with a neutral attitude.

 

[oldbadger]

I was never neutral. Most of the time I expected to find some kind of spiritual wisdom and truth. If I let Baha'is influence how I looked at other Holy Books, I'd be expecting to find ways that confirm Baha'i beliefs... that all religions come from the same God and are in a progression. If I let Christians influence me, then I'd probably avoid all other Books from other religions, because I would believe them false. And that would include Baha'i books. And, if I did read them, it would be to find things that contradicted the Christian beliefs. And because Baha'is believe Jesus is dead and gone and didn't physically rise from the dead, and isn't the one coming back, but instead a Persian nobleman, I'd expect Christians would have a very negative view about the Baha'i Faith.

Now I could see how a Cultural Anthropologist could research religions and try not to let personal biases interfere, but I don't think most people can keep it neutral. Do you really think it is possible to stay neutral?

Yes. Neutrality is possible, I think.
Because I can acknowledge what other folks believe I would call that mindset a kind of neutrality. It's only when a person:s beliefs start to interfere with other folks' lifestyles that my neutrality takes a dive.

Many Christians focus on love and understanding, whilst others turn their Christian faith in to a dark place by comparison.

 

[CG Didymus]

Yes. Neutrality is possible, I think.
Because I can acknowledge what other folks believe I would call that mindset a kind of neutrality. It's only when a person:s beliefs start to interfere with other folks' lifestyles that my neutrality takes a dive.

Many Christians focus on love and understanding, whilst others turn their Christian faith in to a dark place by comparison.

Good for you. I'm so skeptical now. And that is because I was so gullible when I was young and trusted that religious people were telling me the truth.