I’m not sure that I understand. Can you give me an example of a verse which can be correct in different ways? I would think that, in a contextual sense, meaning is either correct or incorrect.
Baha’u’llah wrote that the meaning of the Bible can never be exhausted, indicating it can have many meanings. He did not say they were all correct or that they were incorrect.
What I meant is that a verse can have more than interpretation which can lead to more than one meaning, and who knows which meaning is correct? How could we ever prove that one was meaning correct and another meaning is incorrect? For example:
Revelation 14:3 And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth.
Who are the 144000 in Revelation 14?
One understanding is that the
144,000 are recently converted Jewish evangelists sent out to bring sinners to Jesus Christ during the seven year tribulation period. Preterists believe they are Jewish Christians, sealed for deliverance from the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
144,000 - Wikipedia
When God delivered the Hebrews from slavery in Egypt and led them safely through the Red Sea, Moses and the Hebrews sang about the experience (Exodus 15). They praised God for redeeming them from the clutches of Pharaoh. It seems reasonable that the song mentioned in Revelation 14:3 focuses on God's power in purchasing the 144,000 by the blood of the Lamb and protecting them through the tribulation.
What does Revelation 14:3 mean?
Will only 144000 go to heaven?
Based on their understanding of scriptures such as Revelation 14:1-4, Jehovah's Witnesses believe that exactly
144,000 faithful Christians
go to heaven to rule with Christ in the kingdom of God.
Jehovah's Witnesses and salvation - Wikipedia
Who will enter heaven according to the Bible?
The World English Bible translates the passage as: Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will. enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; but he who. does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
Matthew 7:21 - Wikipedia
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Look at the verses below and please note that
Jesus did not say that the temple He was referring to was His body. The verse says
But he spake of the temple of his body. The verse does not say
But I spake of the temple of my body. Christians
assumed that Jesus meant His body because they have confirmation bias, since they already believed what they were taught, that Jesus rose from the dead.
John 2
19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
21 But he spake of the temple of his body.
22 When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.
Baha’is believe that the Temple Jesus was referring to was the Word of God, not the physical body of Jesus.
Baha'u'llah has explained to all that await a third temple, or the rebuild of a temple:
".... Thus have We built the Temple with the hands of power and might, could ye but know it. This is the Temple promised unto you in the Book. Draw ye nigh unto it. This is that which profiteth you, could ye but comprehend it. Be fair, O peoples of the earth! Which is preferable, this, or a temple which is built of clay? Set your faces towards it. Thus have ye been commanded by God, the Help in Peril, the Self-Subsisting. Follow ye His bidding, and praise ye God, your Lord, for that which He hath bestowed upon you. He, verily, is the Truth. No God is there but He. He revealeth what He pleaseth, through His words “Be and it is”.
Quoted in:
The Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh, Volume 3, Chapter 7
The three day period is a time of turmoil where the disciples needed Faith to carry on, the body of Jesus had gone and they needed to find Faith to carry on with what Jesus had instructed them to do.
I’ve seen Christians discussing on other threads, not so much arguing. Discussion is healthy; it’s how we learn. My view has been changed many times by discussion. Don’t you ever discuss the B. man’s words with others of your religion? Actually, I meant to ask you, do you ever meet together with other Bahais for study or worship?
He is not the B man, He is Baha’u’llah.
Yes Baha’is discuss the meaning of the Baha’i Writings with other Baha’is all the time.
Yes, Baha’is get together all the time to study and worship. They used to meet at houses but now it is all via Zoom, and the local Baha’is have study groups and prayer meetings several times a week. Some larger cities have Baha’i Centers where they have meetings.
You know they're true before you know what they mean? WOW!
However, although the whole chapter is a good start, it is only one part of context. There is also remote contact (where the passage in question is found elsewhere in the bible) and historical context (the background or setting in which the text was created). One thing for sure is that a couple of verses isolated from any sort of context and then provided as evidence is at best naïve and at worst dishonest.
I do know
generally what they mean and I know they are true. I meant I would have to read the whole chapter they are in (the context) in order to know
exactly what they mean.
I agree we would need to look at verses in the various contexts if we were studying the Bible in an effort to understand it fully. The same is true for the Baha’i Writings which are voluminous. I don’t even have time to study those, let alone the Bible!
Ecclesiastes 1:9 came up in a discussion I was having with a Jewish woman many years ago. As I recall she was using it to say that the Baha’i Faith has nothing “new” which of course is very untrue. So obviously her interpretation of her own verses was incorrect. She was interpreting it with a bias because she believed that the Torah is all humanity will ever need. Of course that is not true because after the Torah came the New Testament and it had many new teachings.
The context is this:
Ecclesiastes 1 King James Version
9 The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.
10 Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us.
11 There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after.
I am sure there is more I could look for context but I do not have time for Bible study right now, and it is so frustrating trying to figure out what it means anyway. The Bible is much more difficult for me to read and understand than the Baha’i Writings. I know the simple parables of Jesus mean but I have no idea what much of the rest of the Bible means, except the prophecies that refer to Baha’u’llah, but I would not know what they mean unless I could tie them to the mission of Baha’u’llah through Baha’i history.
Do you have evidence that Baha'u'llah unsealed the Book as per
Daniel 12?
The evidence is the same evidence that shows that Baha’u’llah was who He claimed to be, as stated in this post:
Questions for knowledgeable Bahai / followers of Baha'u'llah
Because if He is who He claimed to be He unsealed the Book.
Daniel Chapter 12:9 And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end. 11 And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days. 12 Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days.
The "Book" was intended to be sealed up until the time of the end
, until the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days came. A day is a year according to the day-year principle, and the 2,300 years came in
1844 when the Bab declared His mission, and the book was unsealed by Baha’u’llah. The math is explained in Some Answered Questions,
10: TRADITIONAL PROOFS EXEMPLIFIED FROM THE BOOK OF DANIEL.
Sorry, Tb, but to me it’s slightly ominous to hear people of any group, especially religious groups, say that they all agree with each other.
But on the subject of agreement, is the ‘Orthodox Baha'i Faith’ a different group to the ‘Baha'i Faith Group’?
I never said we agree on
everything, I said we agree on the core beliefs which are very clearly delineated in the Baha’i Writings. Sometimes we interpret some of the Writings a little differently and that is not preventable since we are all individuals.
The ‘Orthodox Baha'i Faith’ is not the Baha’i Faith. There is only one Baha’i Faith, the one that adheres to the Covenant of Baha’u’llah. The other ‘so-called Baha’is’ are all Covenant-breakers.
They will interpret the Bible to try to make it mean what they want to believe it means, instead of what it actually says.
