firedragon
Veteran Member
This is opened particularly to discuss the Bahai claims about the New Testament and the Quran basing their belief on Bahaullah, Abdul Baha, Shoghi Effendi, of course the Bab, and the elders (Not sure if I am making correct terminology so if there is a mistake I apologise).
Christian scholarship in the turn of two centuries has taken a very critical approach to the New Testament and the field of NT criticism is vast, and growing. It is Christian scholars who found variants between manuscripts and developed highly sophisticated methodologies to get a critical text of the New Testament. Their efforts have been so authentic that they have come up with many methods of criticism that enables them to find the authentic text. This is highly respectable because most of these scholars are in fact Christian scholars with their faith in them, not atheists, Muslims or Hindu's. I said most, but a few of them are.
The Bahai's claim that Bahaullah had "innate knowledge" which means he was a divine being with divine inspiration. Thus, it is obvious that he would have known what the original text said. I presume that is not a very difficult deduction to explain. If this was the case, Bahaullah would have known that a verse that he says "was symbolic" should have actually been "never existed" because he is quoting a textual variant that is regarded as unauthentic because the earliest manuscripts earlier than lets say P75 does not have that verse. I hope you understand this point. Christian scholars have pointed this out, but the Bahai's seem to hold on to the tradition defying all scholarship and all manuscript evidence. Thus, they are similar to the KJV absolutists because Bahaullah was obviously reading the KJV which is the textus receptus, not a critical text, nor is it based on any manuscript tradition but again, textus receptus.
The Bahai's have been very quick to commit the Tu Quoque fallacy of bringing up Muhammed and the Quran to argue against this argument. So many times, that it is inevitable that this can of worms should be opened. So I would like to invite the Bahai's in this forum to discuss the criticism of both these books.
First of all, the New Testament has 27 books. Now. But it used to have 29!! The Codex Sinaiticus has two extra books. The Shepard of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas. These were part of the canon, probably prior to the athanasian canon in the latter part of the 4th century. Thus, though the Christian scholars, even the scholarly priests have an explanation behind this, the Bahai's seem to simply believe in it. Nothing more, nothing less. Thus my question is "why not take these two books as well into your bible"?
How about the first and second epistles of clement? They are in the Codex Alexandrinus. DO you take that as the New Testament? How would you reconcile this?
How about Bahaullah quoting the end of Luke saying it was symbolic, but the earliest manuscripts have a different text proving that Bahaullah was not having divine inspiration, but was reading the KJV?
I know through experience that this will not be engaged with directly, but lets see how we could learn something out of this.
Peace.
Christian scholarship in the turn of two centuries has taken a very critical approach to the New Testament and the field of NT criticism is vast, and growing. It is Christian scholars who found variants between manuscripts and developed highly sophisticated methodologies to get a critical text of the New Testament. Their efforts have been so authentic that they have come up with many methods of criticism that enables them to find the authentic text. This is highly respectable because most of these scholars are in fact Christian scholars with their faith in them, not atheists, Muslims or Hindu's. I said most, but a few of them are.
The Bahai's claim that Bahaullah had "innate knowledge" which means he was a divine being with divine inspiration. Thus, it is obvious that he would have known what the original text said. I presume that is not a very difficult deduction to explain. If this was the case, Bahaullah would have known that a verse that he says "was symbolic" should have actually been "never existed" because he is quoting a textual variant that is regarded as unauthentic because the earliest manuscripts earlier than lets say P75 does not have that verse. I hope you understand this point. Christian scholars have pointed this out, but the Bahai's seem to hold on to the tradition defying all scholarship and all manuscript evidence. Thus, they are similar to the KJV absolutists because Bahaullah was obviously reading the KJV which is the textus receptus, not a critical text, nor is it based on any manuscript tradition but again, textus receptus.
The Bahai's have been very quick to commit the Tu Quoque fallacy of bringing up Muhammed and the Quran to argue against this argument. So many times, that it is inevitable that this can of worms should be opened. So I would like to invite the Bahai's in this forum to discuss the criticism of both these books.
First of all, the New Testament has 27 books. Now. But it used to have 29!! The Codex Sinaiticus has two extra books. The Shepard of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas. These were part of the canon, probably prior to the athanasian canon in the latter part of the 4th century. Thus, though the Christian scholars, even the scholarly priests have an explanation behind this, the Bahai's seem to simply believe in it. Nothing more, nothing less. Thus my question is "why not take these two books as well into your bible"?
How about the first and second epistles of clement? They are in the Codex Alexandrinus. DO you take that as the New Testament? How would you reconcile this?
How about Bahaullah quoting the end of Luke saying it was symbolic, but the earliest manuscripts have a different text proving that Bahaullah was not having divine inspiration, but was reading the KJV?
I know through experience that this will not be engaged with directly, but lets see how we could learn something out of this.
Peace.
Last edited:
