The whole Bible is not from God

[TransmutingSoul]

I will go with Mírza Abú'l-Fadl, there is actual knowledge as to why he offered us that.

I personally see that we need to consider that no one and I say again, no one, knows the Message of Baha'u'llah better then Abdul'baha Abdul'baha fully knows what the intent of that Message was, Abdul'baha was the first to believe in Baha'u'llah.

That Message was for the unity of all humanity and to show what Abdul'baha offered in the previous quote was reflecting the Message of Baha’u’llah, here is what Baha'u'llah offered in the Kitab-i-iqan.

Bahá'í Reference Library - The Kitáb-i-Íqán, Pages 81-93

We need to study that Passage, as Baha'u'llah is teaching Islam that it is not correct to say the Bible is corrupted and not a sure guide. Here is the extract near the end of the point being made, that the passage from Abdul'baha reflects.

". We have also heard a number of the foolish of the earth assert that the genuine text of the heavenly Gospel doth not exist amongst the Christians, that it hath ascended unto heaven. How grievously they have erred! How oblivious of the fact that such a statement imputeth the gravest injustice and tyranny to a gracious and loving Providence! How could God, when once the Day-star of the beauty of Jesus had disappeared from the sight of His people, and ascended unto the fourth heaven, cause His holy Book, His most great testimony amongst His creatures, to disappear also? What would be left to that people to cling to from the setting of the day-star of Jesus until the rise of the sun of the Muḥammadan Dispensation? What law could be their stay and guide? How could such people be made the victims of the avenging wrath of God, the omnipotent Avenger? How could they be afflicted with the scourge of chastisement by the heavenly King? Above all, how could the flow of the grace of the All-Bountiful be stayed? How could the ocean of His tender mercies be stilled? We take refuge with God, from that which His creatures have fancied about Him! Exalted is He above their comprehension!..."

The other comments by other Baha'is can be taken in the light of what the questions were and what they were replying to.

The light we need to share is that the Bible is a sure spiritual guide and it does contain the spirirual guidance needed for all of us to embrace this day of unity, that 'Day of God'. It is incorrect to use it literally.

We can argue about the Bible to the cows come home, but that will never find the unity we so desperately need Susan.

All the best, prayers for Lewis and you in these difficult times.

God bless all, God blessed us with the Holy Scriptures.

Regards Tony

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If you take the P52, it is dated via palaeography.

While I generally appreciate your posts, I would walk carefully here. See, for example, Wikipedia: Rylands Library Papyrus P52.

There is also an interesting paper by Brent Nongbri of Yale University titled

The Use and Abuse of P52: Papyrological Pitfalls
in the Dating of the Fourth Gospel

The Harvard Theological Review, Jan., 2005​

It concludes:

... P42 cannot be used as evidence to silence other debates about the existence (or non-existence) of the Gospel of John in the first half of the second century. Only a papyrus containing an explicit date or one found in a clear archaeological stratigraphic context could do the work scholars want P52 to do. As it stands now, the papyrological evidence should take second place to other forms of evidence in addressing debates about the dating of the Fourth Gospel.​

 

[Trailblazer]

I personally see that we need to consider that no one and I say again, no one, knows the Message of Baha'u'llah better then Abdul'baha Abdul'baha fully knows what the intent of that Message was, Abdul'baha was the first to believe in Baha'u'llah.

That Message was for the unity of all humanity and to show what Abdul'baha offered in the previous quote was reflecting the Message of Baha’u’llah, here is what Baha'u'llah offered in the Kitab-i-iqan.

Bahá'í Reference Library - The Kitáb-i-Íqán, Pages 81-93

Yes, I know that passage practically by heart, but as with ALL scriptures, it is subject to interpretation.

We need to study that Passage, as Baha'u'llah is teaching Islam that it is not correct to say the Bible is corrupted and not a sure guide. Here is the extract near the end of the point being made, that the passage from Abdul'baha reflects.

What does it mean to say that the Bible was not corrupted, that is what we need to ask ourselves if we are a critical thinker.

What does it mean to say that the Bible is "His holy Book, His most great testimony amongst His creatures?"

I am not claiming that the Bible is NOT a sure guide, I believe that it is, what I am saying is that it is not inerrant, like the Writings of Baha'u'llah, and it is not "the Word of God" in any real sense.

From Letters Written on Behalf of the Guardian:

...The Bible is not wholly authentic, and in this respect is not to be compared with the Qur'an, and should be wholly subordinated to the authentic writings of Bahá'u'lláh
. (28 July 1936 to a National Spiritual Assembly)

...we cannot be sure how much or how little of the four Gospels are accurate and include the words of Christ and His undiluted teachings, all we can be sure of, as Bahá'ís, is that what has been quoted by Bahá'u'lláh and the Master must be absolutely authentic. As many times passages in the Gospel of St. John are quoted we may assume that it is his Gospel and much of it accurate.
(23 January 1944 to an individual believer)

When 'Abdu'l-Bahá states we believe what is in the Bible, He means in substance. Not that we believe every word of it to be taken literally or that every word is the authentic saying of the Prophet.
(11 February 1944 to an individual believer)

We cannot be sure of the authenticity of any of the phrases in the Old or the New Testament. What we can be sure of is when such references or words are cited or quoted in either the Quran or the Bahá'í writings.
(4 July 1947 to an individual believer)

We have no way of substantiating the stories of the Old Testament other than references to them in our own teachings, so we cannot say exactly what happened at the battle of Jericho.
(25 November 1950 to an individual believer)

Except for what has been explained by Bahá'u'lláh and 'Abdu'l-Bahá, we have no way of knowing what various symbolic allusions in the Bible mean.
(31 January 1955 to an individual believer)

From letters written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice:

You ask for elucidation of the statement made on behalf of the Guardian in this letter of 11 February 1944, "When 'Abdu'l-Bahá states we believe what is in the Bible, He means in substance. Not that we believe every word of it to be taken literally or that every word is the authentic saying of the Prophet." Is it not clear that what Shoghi Effendi means here is that we cannot categorically state, as we do in the case of the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, that the words and phrases attributed to Moses and Christ in the Old and New Testaments are Their exact words, but that, in view of the general principle enunciated by Bahá'u'lláh in the "Kitab-i-Iqan" that God's Revelation is under His care and protection, we can be confident that the essence, or essential elements, of what these two Manifestations of God intended to convey has been recorded and preserved in these two Books?
(19 July 1981 to an individual believer)

In studying the Bible Bahá'ís must bear two principles in mind. The first is that many passages in Sacred Scriptures are intended to be taken metaphorically, not literally, and some of the paradoxes and apparent contradictions which appear are intended to indicate this. The second is the fact that the text of the early Scriptures, such as the Bible, is not wholly authentic.
(28 May 1984 to an individual believer)

The Bahá'ís believe what is in the Bible to be true in substance. This does not mean that every word recorded in that Book is to be taken literally and treated as the authentic saying of a Prophet.

...The Bahá'ís believe that God's Revelation is under His care and protection and that the essence, or essential elements, of what His Manifestations intended to convey has been recorded and preserved in Their Holy Books. However, as the sayings of the ancient Prophets were written down some time later, we cannot categorically state, as we do in the case of the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, that the words and phrases attributed to Them are Their exact words
(9 August 1984 to an individual believer)

The Bible: Extracts on the Old and New Testaments

The light we need to share is that the Bible is a sure spiritual guide and it does contain the spiritual guidance needed for all of us to embrace this day of unity, that 'Day of God'. It is incorrect to use it literally.

We can argue about the Bible to the cows come home, but that will never find the unity we so desperately need Susan.

I agree that the Bible is a sure spiritual guide and it does contain spiritual guidance, but sadly, it is not the Holy Book that God wants people to be following in this day.

"This is the Day when the loved ones of God should keep their eyes directed towards His Manifestation, and fasten them upon whatsoever that Manifestation may be pleased to reveal. Certain traditions of bygone ages rest on no foundations whatever, while the notions entertained by past generations, and which they have recorded in their books, have, for the most part, been influenced by the desires of a corrupt inclination."
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 171

"They that valiantly labor in quest of God, will, when once they have renounced all else but Him, be so attached and wedded unto that City, that a moment’s separation from it would to them be unthinkable.….
That City is none other than the Word of God revealed in every age and dispensation. In the days of Moses it was the Pentateuch; in the days of Jesus, the Gospel; in the days of Muhammad, the Messenger of God, the Qur’án; in this day, the Bayán; and in the Dispensation of Him Whom God will make manifest, His own Book—the Book unto which all the Books of former Dispensations must needs be referred, the Book that standeth amongst them all transcendent and supreme."
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 269-270

It is only logical, that as long as people continue to cling to the Bible they will never embrace the Revelation of Baha'u'llah, so by placating Christians and telling them "all they need is the Bible" all in service of unity, is not honest. There will never be unity as long as Christians cling to the Bible.

 

[firedragon]

While I generally appreciate your posts, I would walk carefully here. See, for example, Wikipedia: Rylands Library Papyrus P52.

There is also an interesting paper by Brent Nongbri of Yale University titled

The Use and Abuse of P52: Papyrological Pitfalls
in the Dating of the Fourth Gospel

The Harvard Theological Review, Jan., 2005​

It concludes:

... P42 cannot be used as evidence to silence other debates about the existence (or non-existence) of the Gospel of John in the first half of the second century. Only a papyrus containing an explicit date or one found in a clear archaeological stratigraphic context could do the work scholars want P52 to do. As it stands now, the papyrological evidence should take second place to other forms of evidence in addressing debates about the dating of the Fourth Gospel.​

P52 dating can lead up to the latter part of the first century. That's not my argument. The argument is that, if there is a person who is a hard empiricist who does not believe in any scholarship or critical analysis of literature, he could at least appreciate the dating of a manuscript. And, taking the synoptic problem into account, and Luke being dated prior to John, the gospels are bound to have existed at least 40 to 50 years prior to John. Well, in fact, if we go by Nongbri's dating, it assists my case even further because he dates it to the mid second century. He thinks it's extreme to date it to the late second century. So by default, it makes all other gospels physically dated to a much earlier date. I am taking the most extreme, late case. I am ignoring the scholarly consensus of all four gospels being written within the first century and maybe the first decade of the second century. I am being extremely skeptical banking on empiricism.

In redaction criticism, a scholar will deem part of the Gospel is written by someone else if the writing style is different. NOT THE HANDWRITING. It's the style. The linguistic style. The theology. And the brains behind it. If there is a redaction in any of the gospels, it has to be prior to the catholic church because the first time the word Katholike was mentioned was in the early second century by ignatius in a letter. So it's false to say that the Catholic church wrote everything not found in a manuscript that early, or that they wrote many of the Gospel parts much later in the 4th century. The point is that, all of these documents existed prior to the Catholic church, other than maybe the letters of clement found in alexandrinus. But they are not in the New Testament canon of Athanasius. The variations found in the gospels like the pericope adultarae or the long ending of Mark were interpolations and someone entered it intentionally. But the Gospel of Mark existed prior to the Catholic church. And the editing like the long end of Mark happened way way way after the 4th century as claimed above because there are three complete NT manuscripts found in the fourth century, and none of them have these variants. E.g. Pericope Adultarae, Comma Johanneum, Long Ending of Mark, variants in acts 18, etc etc. So if it was written in the 4th century, it's got to be there. Do you understand what I mean?

Thus, it's just not logical or makes any kind of sense to say that the Catholic Church wrote so much into the New Testament. Not a single scholar will agree to that. That is why I asked the gentleman to provide a scholar because I will seriously love to read it.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

It is only logical, that as long as people continue to cling to the Bible they will never embrace the Revelation of Baha'u'llah, so by placating Christians and telling them "all they need is the Bible" all in service of unity, is not honest. There will never be unity as long as Christians cling to the Bible.

You impute a lot that I did not say, nor did I think Susan.

I will not debate the Authenticity of the Bible, but to state that it contains all we need to find Muhammad, the Bab and Baha'u'llah. That is each person's quandary.

Regards Tony

 

[Trailblazer]

I will not debate the Authenticity of the Bible, but to state that it contains all we need to find Muhammad, the Bab and Baha'u'llah. That is each person's quandary.

I do not want to debate the Bible either...

I will just say one thing: I do not believe that the Bible is 'necessary' in order to recognize Muhammad, the Bab and Baha'u'llah. I am a case in point and I am sure there are others like me. I never read one page of the Bible before I became a Baha'i. Do you think that Zoroastrians, Hindus, Buddhists, the followers of other ancient faiths, or agnostics and atheists ho became Baha'is needed the Bible to recognize Baha'u'llah?

The only reason the Bible would be necessary in order to recognize Muhammad, the Bab and Baha'u'llah is if one is solely relying upon Bible prophecies, so it might be useful for Jews and Christians. However, Baha'u'llah never enjoined us to rely upon Bible prophecies, nor did Abdu'l-Baha. How to recognize Baha'u'llah is in the Writings.

Below is what Baha’u’llah wrote about the 'evidence' that establishes the truth of His claims. Baha’u’llah enjoined us to look at His own Self (His character), His Revelation (His mission and works, which can be seen in Baha'i history), and His words (His Writings).

“Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self. Next to this testimony is His Revelation. For whoso faileth to recognize either the one or the other He hath established the words He hath revealed as proof of His reality and truth. This is, verily, an evidence of His tender mercy unto men. He hath endowed every soul with the capacity to recognize the signs of God. How could He, otherwise, have fulfilled His testimony unto men, if ye be of them that ponder His Cause in their hearts. He will never deal unjustly with any one, neither will He task a soul beyond its power. He, verily, is the Compassionate, the All-Merciful.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 105-106

Once a person recognizes Baha'u'llah they will also recognize Muhammad, the Bab, and all the other Messengers of God who preceded them.

Edited to add: How is the Bible helping our friend @CG Didymus recognize Baha'u'llah?

 

[True]

The whole Bible is not from God. Some people who wrote parts of the Bible were wrong about God. God has never asked us humans to kill each other.

Yes many parts of the Bible is from God, but some parts of the Bible is not from God

How to know what is from God in the Bible? That is simple. God is love and just. What is against love and justice is not from God. God is against killing innocent people.

Any thoughts? Do you agree og disagree?

I like the analogy that the bible is like a ****ty garden on the side of the road. It's mostly garbage but there are a few flowers and hidden treasures

 

[rational experiences]

I believe books are evil.

If you want a true I'm just a human as a first review.

As human rights. Life's true only position.

I believe human theists wrote a human believed thesis. Then attacked our conscious mind. Which changed. Then it heard brain mind versions of voiced recordings which were translated.

Yet a human theist strung a lot of just human only ideas together first.

Why it doesn't just read sensibly.

I believe personal human commonsense is first.

 

[True]

I believe books are evil.

If you want a true I'm just a human as a first review.

As human rights. Life's true only position.

I believe human theists wrote a human believed thesis. Then attacked our conscious mind. Which changed. Then it heard brain mind versions of voiced recordings which were translated.

Yet a human theist strung a lot of just human only ideas together first.

Why it doesn't just read sensibly.

I believe personal human commonsense is first.

I believe human common sense as well and that comes with the ability to discern what is true from what is false. I believe books help expand our minds but in which direction is entirely up to the person. If you look for evil then all you will see is evil. I look for what I am meant to learn from things and the rest I use discernment for

 

[rational experiences]

I believe human common sense as well and that comes with the ability to discern what is true from what is false. I believe books help expand our minds but in which direction is entirely up to the person. If you look for evil then all you will see is evil. I look for what I am meant to learn from things and the rest I use discernment for

I only had to argue because of the human use of Indoctrinated false preaching. First stated as thesis writing documenting agreeing.

Books.

Hence as I read I know I was forced to for my own sake. Life's survival to argue.

After all the idea I keep records confessed that men built the tectonic carpenter four day human life sacrifice. When human knows God earth caused it naturally and lawfully a planet.

So science of men knew they had caused it to activate directly. Proven wrong as scientists.

It was a hypocrites...scientist for Indoctrinated confession. As designer is the reason civilisation was built then controlled by evil men...then technology applied that nearly destroyed all life.

So hypocrites also keep records and write books.

A few men realised books were evil yet they were the hypocrite like Hitler... Or the Alexander library burning.

Reasoning. I reason to live not to Infer.

 

[True]

I only had to argue because of the human use of Indoctrinated false preaching. First stated as thesis writing documenting agreeing.

Books.

Hence as I read I know I was forced to for my own sake. Life's survival to argue.

After all the idea I keep records confessed that men built the tectonic carpenter four day human life sacrifice. When human knows God earth caused it naturally and lawfully a planet.

So science of men knew they had caused it to activate directly. Proven wrong as scientists.

It was a hypocrites...scientist for Indoctrinated confession. As designer is the reason civilisation was built then controlled by evil men...then technology applied that nearly destroyed all life.

So hypocrites also keep records and write books.

A few men realised books were evil yet they were the hypocrite like Hitler... Or the Alexander library burning.

Reasoning. I reason to live not to Infer.

Books are not evil. That idea comes from the harmful and controlling way dictators rule. Banning free thinking is why books were burned. The true evil in this world is money. Money and jealousy led Hitler to do what he did because he grew up poor and surrounded by well-off Jewish people. He was a mentally ill wounded child parading as a man and preached hate against Jewish people

 

[danieldemol]

Because "my moral values say otherwise, I decide the one's that suit my standards are Gods words in a book that came long ago, and the rest that doesn't suit my morals today are not".

It's a fallacious argument. If the OP justifies based on trajectory hermeneutics or something of the nature that would have been something to ponder over.

As @It Aint Necessarily So pointed out that is not post hoc ergo propter hoc.

But I think you are putting words into the OP that aren't there. The OP did not say it is about her morals today. She said it was contrary to the principles of love and justice. It was always against the principles of love and justice to stone a woman for not being able to prove her virginity as an example, the morals of today have nothing to do with it unless you are asserting that love and justice are the morals of today as opposed to being those of God - in which case it is an unshared premise between you and the OP.

Also on the subject of fallacious thinking you have suggested that hermeneutics is a good approach. The problem is for hermeneutics to be a good approach the Bible would have to originally be wholly from God, and you can't demonstrate that without either circular reasoning or assuming the Bible to be the best work of its time and assume that best = divine. Both of these approaches are fallacious.

In my opinion.

 

[rational experiences]

Books are not evil. That idea comes from the harmful and controlling way dictators rule. Banning free thinking is why books were burned. The true evil in this world is money. Money and jealousy led Hitler to do what he did because he grew up poor and surrounded by well-off Jewish people. He was a mentally ill wounded child parading as a man and preached hate against Jewish people

Banning free thinking.

Why I burnt books is the human truth.

Hypocrites burnt books just to own one book dictatorship.

 

[rational experiences]

Banning free thinking.

Why I burnt books is the human truth.

Hypocrites burnt books just to own one book dictatorship.

I already owned naturally free thinking. Why I can argue book indoctrination.

 

[firedragon]

But I think you are putting words into the OP that aren't there.

Okay. So you agree with the OP that some parts of the Bible he doesnt like are not Gods words, but other parts that he likes are Gods words, is a good argument?

Also on the subject of fallacious thinking you have suggested that hermeneutics is a good approach.

That's a better approach. Something to consider. I also said "trajectory hermeneutics". You saying "I said good" is a strawman, and cutting my sentence in half cherrypicking the part YOU LIKE is actually worse than the OP.

The problem is for hermeneutics to be a good approach the Bible would have to originally be wholly from God, and you can't demonstrate that without either circular reasoning or assuming the Bible to be the best work of its time and assume that best = divine. Both of these approaches are fallacious.

That's absolutely false. Just some made up bogus argument.

Why don't you just read about what hermeneutics means. And try your best not to create arguments other people did not make trying your best to misrepresent them and then argue a caricature you created about others. If you want let me give you a laymans understanding of hermeneutics because what you said is just false. Hermeneutics focuses on the internal process of speech. When looked at from our perspective, be it naturalistic or believing its some divine revelation or what ever your world view is, it comes up with our use of signs. Maybe you misplaced it with biblical hermeneutics and thought that one has to believe in God to do an exercise. Lets say the most simplistic understanding of hermeneutics is just "understanding", I was saying that at least if the OP said that he has a different "understanding" of the verses that would have been a better thing to look at. Or if the OP said that through time the understanding of these verses changes and now we understanding them to be different, that would have been a better argument to look at. Not that I agree with that, but it's better. Not that it's "good" like you falsely claimed I said, but "better".

I think you are just looking for some way to create an argument. Anyway, I do affirm that the oldest form of hermeneutics was mostly on the Bible but it is also interpretation of all human acts and products, including history and the interpretation of a human life. You don't have to agree with everyone's hermeneutics. But it's a better argument than saying "I don't like some verses today. I was born like yesterday. And because I don't like them they are not God's words. But the verses I like, being born like yesterday, are God's words because they suit my moral compass".

).

 

[danieldemol]

Okay. So you agree with the OP that some parts of the Bible he doesnt like are not Gods words, but other parts that he likes are Gods words, is a good argument?

I'm saying that doesn't appear to be the OP's argument. One could dislike love and justice and still measure weather or not antique sayings measure up to love and justice or not. In other words it is not about personal likes of the OP, it is just coincidental if they like love and justice.

... Lets say the most simplistic understanding of hermeneutics is just "understanding", I was saying that at least if the OP said that he has a different "understanding" of the verses that would have been a better thing to look at.

Why is it better to have a different understanding of verses that have not been demonstrated to be divine in origin than to reject them?

In my opinion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm saying that doesn't appear to be the OP's argument. One could dislike love and justice and still measure weather or not antique sayings measure up to love and justice or not. In other words it is not about personal likes of the OP, it is just coincidental if they like love and justice.


Why is it better to have a different understanding of verses that have not been demonstrated to be divine in origin than to reject them?

In my opinion.

Fair enough. You have a good point. Rather than assuming that the OP meant something it might be better to ask the OP questions.

 

[firedragon]

I'm saying that doesn't appear to be the OP's argument.

Why not clarify from him? That's better.

Why is it better to have a different understanding of verses that have not been demonstrated to be divine in origin than to reject them?

It's better than making a fallacious argument.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Okay. So you agree with the OP that some parts of the Bible he doesnt like are not Gods words, but other parts that he likes are Gods words, is a good argument?.

Well, that's clear.

What I would find particularly interesting would be another thread - perhaps started by you - focusing on the textual criticism of the Qur'an.

 

[firedragon]

Well, that's clear.

What I would find particularly interesting would be another thread - perhaps started by you - focusing on the textual criticism of the Qur'an.

Wow. That's a really hard topic. One big reason is the polemics that comes to it are from unscholarly sources. E.g. David Wood, Daniel Pipes, Ali Sina, James White, and most prominently Jay Smith and his colleague Hatun Tash. I know this topic and have seen what takes place. It is not like a textual criticism of the New Testament topic where the Christian fundamentalists will come with Church tradition and church apologetics, yet other Christians will come with Christian scholars. I mean true to God Christian scholars. Not some preacher and anti christian internet star who has a Phd in a life story of a preacher who lived in India. Christians and anyone else could go to Christian scholars for the subject like Bruce Metzger, Richard Bauckham, people who have real Phd's in New Testament Criticism. But when it comes to Quran Criticism no one will go to scholarly sources. They will propose all kinds of irrelevant things, and go to "unnamed and unknown scholars", Christian preachers who again have Phd's in someones life-story in India, and some street preacher, an anti islamic preacher, etc. If they actually go to a scholar or someone who has a Phd, I know exactly who it will be, I can name him now, and I can call out the narrow path he has taken, but no one will engage with the argument but appeal to authority saying "he said it". That's it. No one, not even Muslims go to real scholars in the subject. Sorry but that is the outcome.

But yes. Can do. I will tag you on the first post after I open a new thread. You can watch the thread and tell me if my prediction was wrong. That will make me happy.

Cheers.