What if these Christian beliefs are not true?

[Trailblazer]

I know that Baha'u'llah talks about Noah. But nothing about Adam? Or how about Abraham?

Baha'u'llah did say something about Abraham.

“Among the Prophets was Abraham, the Friend of God. Ere He manifested Himself, Nimrod dreamed a dream. Thereupon, he summoned the soothsayers, who informed him of the rise of a star in the heaven. Likewise, there appeared a herald who announced throughout the land the coming of Abraham.

After Him came Moses, He Who held converse with God. The soothsayers of His time warned Pharaoh in these terms: “A star hath risen in the heaven, and lo! it foreshadoweth the conception of a Child Who holdeth your fate and the fate of your people in His hand.” In like manner, there appeared a sage who, in the darkness of the night, brought tidings of joy unto the people of Israel, imparting consolation to their souls, and assurance to their hearts. To this testify the records of the sacred books. Were the details to be mentioned, this epistle would swell into a book. Moreover, it is not Our wish to relate the stories of the days that are past. God is Our witness that what We even now mention is due solely to Our tender affection for thee, that haply the poor of the earth may attain the shores of the sea of wealth, the ignorant be led unto the ocean of divine knowledge, and they that thirst for understanding partake of the Salsabíl of divine wisdom. Otherwise, this servant regardeth the consideration of such records a grave mistake and a grievous transgression.”

Bahá'í Reference Library - The Kitáb-i-Íqán, Pages 41-80

Baha'u'llah did not go into any detail about the Prophets of the past, and He explained why He did not do so.

“it is not Our wish to relate the stories of the days that are past.....
this servant regardeth the consideration of such records a grave mistake and a grievous transgression.”

I can guess why he called that a grave mistake and a grievous transgression, because it is an utter waste of time to talk about the past.

My opinion seems to be confirmed by what Baha'u'llah wrote below:
"Please God thou wilt turn thine eyes towards the Most Great Revelation, and entirely disregard these conflicting tales and traditions.”

My complaint about how he talks about Noah is that it has nothing to do with the Bible story, no flood and no ark.

Why would what Baha'u'llah said about Noah have anything to do with the Bible story?

You are either going to believe what Baha'u'llah said about Noah or the Bible stories. You cannot have it both ways.
I made my choice, but even if I was not a Baha'i, I would not believe the Bible stories. I have no use for the Bible and never would have had one. If I was not a Baha'i I would either be an agnostic or a deist, or maybe a Buddhist.

Baha'u'llah did mention the flood.

“Mention hath been made in certain books of a deluge which caused all that existed on earth, historical records as well as other things, to be destroyed. Moreover, many cataclysms have occurred which have effaced the traces of many events. Furthermore, among existing historical records differences are to be found, and each of the various peoples of the world hath its own account of the age of the earth and of its history. Some trace their history as far back as eight thousand years, others as far as twelve thousand years. To any one that hath read the book of Jük it is clear and evident how much the accounts given by the various books have differed.

Please God thou wilt turn thine eyes towards the Most Great Revelation, and entirely disregard these conflicting tales and traditions.”

Bahá'í Reference Library - Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, Pages 172-175

reference.bahai.org

Please take note of the last sentence. In order to please God we have to turn towards the Revelation of Baha'u'llah and completely disregard the conflicting tales and traditions of the past. Baha'u'llah also said that in the following passage:

“Our purpose is to show that should the loved ones of God sanctify their hearts and their ears from the vain sayings that were uttered aforetime, and turn with their inmost souls to Him Who is the Day Spring of His Revelation, and to whatsoever things He hath manifested, such behavior would be regarded as highly meritorious in the sight of God…”

Bahá'í Reference Library - Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, Pages 169-172

reference.bahai.org

Someday you are going to have to choose between the Bible and the Baha'i Faith, and for your own sake I hope that day comes sooner than later.
You may not like me but that doesn't mean I do not care about you. I do care.

 

[Trailblazer]

But Baha'is shouldn't be like that, but I'm afraid they are and kind of have to be. Since, if Baha'u'llah said it... or if even Abdul Baha' said it, no matter what anyone else says, they have to be right. So, onward we go with these endless threads where we argue and debate the same types of things over and over again. Baha'is say this, and other people say that. Ain't no unity in that.

Yes, we have to be because we made a choice about what to believe.
If we chose to be Baha'is we have to go with what Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha said or wrote. Otherwise we would not be Baha'is.

This is not about being right. Nobody can prove that any religion is right.
There can be beauty and harmony in diversity if people don't insist they are right but rather simply state what they believe.

Bahá'í Reference Library - Paris Talks, Pages 51-54

 

[cataway]

You know, it's not like Christians don't have the same kinds of problems in how they use the Hebrew Bible. The worst to me is how they make the "Morning Star" Satan. I think in Latin the morning star is "lucifer" or something. I wonder why they didn't use the Hebrew word?

But about 666, it's the number or mark of the beast. But there are two beasts and a dragon in Revelation. Here's the verses that mention it....

Rev 13:11 Then I saw a second beast, coming out of the earth. It had two horns like a lamb, but it spoke like a dragon. 12 It exercised all the authority of the first beast on its behalf, and made the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast, whose fatal wound had been healed. 13 And it performed great signs, even causing fire to come down from heaven to the earth in full view of the people. 14 Because of the signs it was given power to perform on behalf of the first beast, it deceived the inhabitants of the earth. It ordered them to set up an image in honor of the beast who was wounded by the sword and yet lived. 15 The second beast was given power to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that the image could speak and cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed. 16 It also forced all people, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads, 17 so that they could not buy or sell unless they had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of its name.​

​

18 This calls for wisdom. Let the person who has insight calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man.[e] That number is 666.​

​

The first beast I think is the one that is supposed to be Umayyad's. And the one with the head wound I think was the Umayyad ruler that was in Spain...

In 711, less than a century after the birth of Islam, an army of Arabs and Berbers serving the Umayyad caliphs of Damascus (in Syria) landed in the Iberian Peninsula, ushering in a new phase of art and culture in the region. Within a period of seven years, most of the peninsula was under Muslim rule. These new territories came to be known by their Arabic name, al-Andalus.​

​

In 750, the Umayyad dynasty in Syria fell to the Abbasids. The one surviving member, 'Abd al-Rahman I (reigned 756–88), escaped to Spain and established autonomous rule there.​

​

But the second beast is not the beast with the head wound. And it is the second beast that is associated with the number or mark of 666. So, I don't think that it can be made to be the date of when the Umayyad's first took control. But in Revelation it says that the mark or number of the beast was put on the hand or forehead of the people and they couldn't buy or sell unless they had this mark, which, it says, is the name or number of his name... and is the number of a man 666.

Anyway, I know it's something that a "true" believer can't easily examine and come up with any other conclusion except that the interpretation of their religion is what is true.

But that's the same problem we all have with Born-Again Christians. They only know and they only believe what the Bible and the NT says. They can't believe anything that contradicts their beliefs.

But Baha'is shouldn't be like that, but I'm afraid they are and kind of have to be. Since, if Baha'u'llah said it... or if even Abdul Baha' said it, no matter what anyone else says, they have to be right. So, onward we go with these endless threads where we argue and debate the same types of things over and over again. Baha'is say this, and other people say that. Ain't no unity in that.

And if it was Baha'i vs. Baha'is it would be that the "spark" of truth is found somewhere in the disagreement. But when it's Baha'i vs. a non-Baha'i, the Baha'is "knows" they are right. Here's that quote, and it's from, of course, Abdul Baha'

The shining spark of truth cometh forth only after the clash of differing opinions. – Selections from the Writings of Abdu’l-Baha, p. 87.​

there is something about the number 666 you have yet to understand . its the number 6 thats the issue . in scripture the number 6 refers to something thats inferior . its man's number . to emphases how inferior man is ,that is when compared to the most high God , the number is repeated 3 times . its the same as saying inferior ,inferior, inferior.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

No, it's easy. Humans might have at one time looked like a fish, but they were really a human being.

Then what next? They looked like a reptile? Then some lower mammal? Like maybe a mouse? Then later a monkey?

But all that time there were other fish, reptiles, mice, and monkeys that looked the same as them but were not humans?

One can make it complicated CG. Listen to what science is finding.

The humans species on earth is ancient and through evolution has take many forms. Yet man is man and ape is ape.

The Spirit is God given, attached at conception. So when we tie that spiritual knowledge to our scientific knowledge, we will find no matter how we evolved we know that the "Human" was more than animal and had the ability of conscious rational thought.

Science will continue to find that humans had capacity of advanced knowledge.

Baha'u'llah has said civilization on this earth is very ancient, but the records of many civilizations have been lost due to time and events that happened to this planet.

Next thing to consider CG, is that Human is more than and earth bound phenomenon, there are more species of human throughout creation. Human is a term for conscious rational thought, a given ability to know and love God.

Some of those ancient rock symbols may take on a different understanding in this context.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

When the Bab and Baha'u'llah came, which religion had set the bar very low? I think it was very low. Especially the largest religion, Christianity. It was being forced on people as the Europeans took over other lands. The religions of those people were outlawed and the Children were sent to Christians schools.

That question has been cover many times CG. Baha'u'llah teaches that all religions are subject to cycles from the rising of the sun to the setting of the sun in each given dispensation.

So when the Messengers come the bar is at ground level and the Message raises it to the height humanity must aim for.

So when Christ gave the Message, the religious bar was very low, corruption, ungodliness and materialism had lowered the previous religions standards. The Christians then strived to keep the bar at that height, but slowly, a majority of adherents lowered that bar by false assumptions, adding their own version of morality and justice to the teachings of Christ, lowering the bar further and further. Muhammad again raised the Bar, but an immediate schism to the Message lowered that bar for the breakaway very quickly.

That is why the Messages of the Bab and Baha'u'llah were given in Perisa and to Islam, as Islam had sunk to the lowest depth of justice, morality and lawfulness in Persia. We are also told that is why America was given the Message early, as its material degradation of Christianity was also rampant.

Now I offer we can see the Native peoples in a different light. God did not deliver the Message directly to them, obviously they had not degraded as much as the Islam Persians and Christian Americans, the Native faiths still had a level of productive spirituality. Christianity and Islam needed the Message and what better place to give it to them, than at the heart of where it was practiced at its lowest levels.

P/S The rise of Materialism is the war we all now still must fight, none of us are now exempt, the bar has been raised.

Regards Tony

 

[CG Didymus]

there is something about the number 666 you have yet to understand . its the number 6 thats the issue . in scripture the number 6 refers to something thats inferior . its man's number . to emphases how inferior man is ,that is when compared to the most high God , the number is repeated 3 times . its the same as saying inferior ,inferior, inferior.

Thanks for that, but what about the Baha'is trying to say it is a prophecy about the year the Umayyad dynasty started? To me, that's not even close to what the context of the verses Revelation are saying.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Thanks for that, but what about the Baha'is trying to say it is a prophecy about the year the Umayyad dynasty started? To me, that's not even close to what the context of the verses Revelation are saying.

Numbers have many meanings. To understand why 666 was recorded, we'll, we would have to be very well educated or open to divine inspiration as to many of its meanings.

Numeracy has a great history, numbers have many meanings and letters of the alphabet were also ascribed numbers. Scholars in the past could use numbers to portray a message and some messages had given numerical values.

We can sum the digits back to a single number, so 666 can be seen also as 9, which is interesting. From the number of the beast we can also have perfection. From Islam rose the Messiah.

Regards Tony

 

[Trailblazer]

then as to 1.- Is the Father God, are there two Gods? full circle to my question

There is only one God, the Father. Jesus was the Son of God, not God the Father.

The Return of Christ

Quality and quantity is Not the same thing Jesus forewarned us that MANY would prove false to him - see Matthew 7:21-23 Sure, a lot don’t know his true nature. Hopefully they will though.

www.religiousforums.com

 

[Trailblazer]

That question has been cover many times CG. Baha'u'llah teaches that all religions are subject to cycles from the rising of the sun to the setting of the sun in each given dispensation.

So when the Messengers come the bar is at ground level and the Message raises it to the height humanity must aim for.

So when Christ gave the Message, the religious bar was very low, corruption, ungodliness and materialism had lowered the previous religions standards. The Christians then strived to keep the bar at that height, but slowly, a majority of adherents lowered that bar by false assumptions, adding their own version of morality and justice to the teachings of Christ, lowering the bar further and further. Muhammad again raised the Bar, but an immediate schism to the Message lowered that bar for the breakaway very quickly.

That is why the Messages of the Bab and Baha'u'llah were given in Perisa and to Islam, as Islam had sunk to the lowest depth of justice, morality and lawfulness in Persia. We are also told that is why America was given the Message early, as its material degradation of Christianity was also rampant.

“All that lives, and this includes the religions, have springtime, a time of maturity, of harvest and wintertime. Then religion becomes barren, a lifeless adherence to the letter uninformed by the spirit, and man’s spiritual life declines. When we look at religious history, we see that God has spoken to men precisely at times when they have reached the nadir of their degradation and cultural decadence. Moses came to Israel when it was languishing under the Pharaoh’s yoke, Christ appeared at a time when the Jewish Faith had lost its power and culture of antiquity was in its death those. Muhammad came to a people who lived in barbaric ignorance at the lowest level of culture and into a world in which the former religions had strayed far away from their origins and nearly lost their identity. The Bab addressed Himself to a people who had irretrievably lost their former grandeur and who found themselves in a state of hopeless decadence. Baha’u’llah came to a humanity which was approaching the most critical phase of its history.

‘Abdu’l-Baha writes: ‘God leaves not His children comfortless, but, when the darkness of winter overshadows them, then again He sends His Messengers, the Prophets, with a renewal of the blessed spring. The Sun of Truth appears again on the horizon of the world shining into the eyes of those who sleep, awaking them to behold the glory of a new dawn. Then again will the tree of humanity blossom and bring forth the fruit of righteousness for the healing of the nations.’ Paris Talks, p. 32.’

Some conclusions can be drawn from this fundamental belief. First, all religions are divine in essence and consequently there are no religions which contradict or exclude each other, but only one indivisible divine religion which is renewed periodically and according to the requirements of the age, in cycles of about a thousand years: ‘Our command was but one word.’ Qur’an 54:51. It is therefore hardly surprising if many of Baha’u’llah’s teachings are to be found in former religions either expressly or in an embryonic form. As ‘Abdu’l-Baha says, the Baha’i Faith is ‘not a new path to immortality.’ quoted from: Principles of the Baha’i Faith. On account of this transcendent oneness of all religions, Baha’u’llah exhorted His people to associate with followers of all religions in a spirit of loving-kindness and to make of religion a cause of harmony and peace, not of discord and strife, of hate and division.

The second conclusion is that we cannot perceive what the essence of religion is and what it has the power to achieve if we examine the traditional great religions in their present form. They have achieved much but have reached the end of their road; they were the foundation of great cultures and for thousands of years they were the guiding-star of millions of people in their everyday life and activities. But during the course of history they have also accumulated large amounts of historical ballast. They have moved a long way from their origin and are burdened with their followers’ misdeeds and cravings for power. They are no pleasant sight today, least of all to young people, who no longer see in these religions the ‘salt of the earth’ as Jesus called his disciples, Matthew 5:13 but rather the ‘opium of the people’ (Karl Marx). And one is easily inclined to pass judgment on religion as a whole, and to see in it an anachronism of past times, long since overcome, like the belief in demons in former times. But a withered plant does not give us the faintest idea of its blossoming time. In reality, religions are the ‘light of the world’ and, according to Baha’u’llah’s teachings, the foundation of human culture. It is important to understand that they are as necessary for mankind as sunlight for the plant. Without divine revelation, there would be neither progress nor culture: ‘Were this revelation to be withdrawn, all would perish.’ Taken from (Baha’u’llah, Gleanings, XCIII).

(Udo Schaefer, The Light Shineth in Darkness, pp. 24-26)

 

[CG Didymus]

One can make it complicated CG. Listen to what science is finding.

The humans species on earth is ancient and through evolution has take many forms. Yet man is man and ape is ape.

The Spirit is God given, attached at conception. So when we tie that spiritual knowledge to our scientific knowledge, we will find no matter how we evolved we know that the "Human" was more than animal and had the ability of conscious rational thought.

Science will continue to find that humans had capacity of advanced knowledge.

Baha'u'llah has said civilization on this earth is very ancient, but the records of many civilizations have been lost due to time and events that happened to this planet.

Next thing to consider CG, is that Human is more than and earth bound phenomenon, there are more species of human throughout creation. Human is a term for conscious rational thought, a given ability to know and love God.

Some of those ancient rock symbols may take on a different understanding in this context.

Regards Tony

Just explain one little tiny complication... If man looked like another animal, but he had a human spirit inside and was destined to someday be a human and look like a human, but at the time looked just like them, did he stay separate from the others.

Because if he didn't, did he breed with the non-human animals that looked just like him?

 

[cataway]

Thanks for that, but what about the Baha'is trying to say it is a prophecy about the year the Umayyad dynasty started? To me, that's not even close to what the context of the verses Revelation are saying.

Baha'is should stay out of the book Revelation . they dont have a clue what its about .

 

[CG Didymus]

That question has been cover many times CG. Baha'u'llah teaches that all religions are subject to cycles from the rising of the sun to the setting of the sun in each given dispensation.

So, then Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism have long since become dead and gone? No spirituality left in them?

the Native faiths still had a level of productive spirituality.

You mean like the ones that did human sacrificing and worshipped many Gods?

 

[CG Didymus]

Baha'is should stay out of the book Revelation . they dont have a clue what its about .

But that's the thing, they believe their prophet is the return of Christ. So, they think their interpretations of the Bible are what is correct.

 

[cataway]

Just explain one little tiny complication... If man looked like another animal, but he had a human spirit inside and was destined to someday be a human and look like a human, but at the time looked just like them, did he stay separate from the others.

Because if he didn't, did he breed with the non-human animals that looked just like him?

Ecclesiastes 3:19​

for there is an outcome for humans and an outcome for animals; they all have the same outcome. As the one dies, so the other dies; and they all have but one spirit. So man has no superiority over animals, for everything is futile.

 

[cataway]

But that's the thing, they believe their prophet is the return of Christ. So, they think their interpretations of the Bible are what is correct.

they have been lied to, they continue the lie . really no better than the people that fallowed david koresh or marshall Applewhite

 

[Trailblazer]

Baha'is should stay out of the book Revelation . they dont have a clue what its about .

Christians should stay out of the book Revelation. They don't have a clue what its about.
Hint: It is not about Jesus.

 

[cataway]

Christians should stay out of the book Revelation. They don't have a clue what its about.
Hint: It is not about Jesus.

nope . its about the kingdom of God in which Jesus is the king. its about what will happen to false religion and the governments of the earth that stand in opposition to the kingdom rule over the earth.

 

[Truthseeker]

The religions of those people were outlawed and the Children were sent to Christians schools.

At least that was true about the indigenous peoples of America. In other places I don't think their religion was outlawed but the Christians offered "inducements" for them to become Christians. Charlemagne did force the people in lands he conquered to become Christians or else. Charlemagne was probably an ancestor of mine, by the way, though I'm not certain.

Within Christianity, one sect fought against another sect. Within a sect a person could be burned at the stake for not believing the "correct" doctrines.

That was true at least from 1618-1648 in Central Europe, where there were Protestant States and Catholic States . The Catholics was where you could be burned at the stake, or tortured to become Catholic. At least Thomas More did that in England, that's a little known fact.

Baha'is themselves say they are wrong about several of their doctrines... like the resurrection and ascension of Jesus, about Satan and hell, and about Jesus being God. If the Baha'is are right about those things, that puts the bar below ground level and makes them pretty much a false religion.

Christianity is not a false religion, but in the past some Christians and some Christians in the present are behaving badly. That is the only thing that matters, how members of a religion behaves.

Then what do you think of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and the Ahmadiyyas?

I don't know much about them. It doesn't matter to me at all. I know that the Bab was the Mahdi, and I think Baha'is should treat them like anyone else, which is with kindness.

 

[Truthseeker]

No, it's easy. Humans might have at one time looked like a fish, but they were really a human being.

Then what next? They looked like a reptile? Then some lower mammal? Like maybe a mouse? Then later a monkey?

But all that time there were other fish, reptiles, mice, and monkeys that looked the same as them but were not humans?

So, when the creature destined to become human evolved to the next higher animal did all of them change at the same time? Leaving none of the lower species behind? Or was it gradual? Some fish turned into a lizard but others changed later?

Because they looked like the other creature, did some of the human fish have sex with non-human fish? And like later when humans looked like monkeys. Did they know not to interbreed with non-human monkeys? Then what if a female monkey changed into a human before any males? Did she have sex with one of the male soon-to-be human monkeys until one of them changed into being fully human?

Now, in the early stages of evolution, when there was, let's say, only fish, were some fish destined to be humans and some giraffes, some elephants, some tigers and so on? Doesn't that create the same problem? Wouldn't these fish be breeding with other fish that looked alike but were really a different species?

Anyway, other than that, yes, an easy concept to understand. And, like you always do, I have complete confidence that you can clear up my simple questions.

ʻAbdu'l-Bahá discussed evolution, including making claims that appear to contradict the modern doctrine of common descent for all earthly life. For example, in Some Answered Question he said,

...from the beginning of man's existence on this planet until he assumed his present shape, form, and condition, a long time must have elapsed, and he must have traversed many stages before reaching his present condition. But from the beginning of his existence man has been a distinct species.[58]

His teachings were widely interpreted as a kind of parallel evolution, in which humans had a separate line of descent to some primitive form, separate from animals.[59][60] But the emphasis on the harmony of science and religion and the success of the modern evolutionary paradigm resulted in at least 19 books and articles from 16 authors over the period of 1990 to 2009 trying to address how Bahá'ís should view evolution in light of ʻAbdu'l-Bahá's statements, the majority of which took universal common ancestry as fact and attempted to reconcile with a new interpretation of the statements.[61] Two articles by Keven Brown and Eberhard von Kitzing,[62] jointly published under the title Evolution and Bahá'í Belief (2001), stand out as the only book-length review of the issue by Bahá'ís during the period, and has been well received.[63][64]

The new understanding viewed the apparent meaning of parallel evolution as an unfortunate misunderstanding that should be carefully studied and interpreted in terms that make sense today. Gary Matthews wrote,

...the apparent contradiction is nothing more than a question of semantics: perhaps ʻAbdu'l-Bahá is merely dating man's beginning as a distinct species from the soul's first appearance, to emphasize that we do not derive our higher spiritual nature from our animal forebears."[65]

This understanding was included in the Foreword to the 2014 printing of Some Answered Questions, stating:

...[ʻAbdu'l-Bahá's] concern is not with the mechanisms of evolution but with the philosophical, social, and spiritual implications of the new theory. His use of the term "species", for example, evokes the concept of eternal or permanent archetypes, which is not how the term is defined in contemporary biology. For Baha'is, the science of evolution is accepted..."[66]

Not all Bahá'ís were convinced of the argument that ʻAbdu'l-Bahá's statements are in complete alignment with modern evolutionary theory. Salman Oskooi wrote his 2009 thesis on the subject and was unconvinced by the various authors trying to reconcile the issue with modern science, writing that ʻAbdu'l-Bahá's statements have an "apparent discord with science", "appear uninterpretable in any sense but their apparent meaning", and the apparent meaning is that "humans have been distinct from other beings since the time of some primitive stage of our evolution."[67] Oskooi concluded that ʻAbdu'l-Bahá was fallible on scientific matters, but that the issue does not contradict the fundamental premise of the faith. Also in 2009, Ian Kluge wrote that, "There is no question that ʻAbdu'l-Bahá's views on human evolution are in conflict with current scientific thought", but he concluded that religion cannot "uncritically agree with science on all its pronouncements at all times" due to the changing nature of science itself.[68]

In 2023, Bryan Donaldson published On the Originality of Species, attempting to address the issue from the point of view of new research in evolutionary biology that could plausibly support the idea of "independent and parallel growth of many categories of plants and animals out of a network of gene-sharing unicellular roots."[69] Donaldson points to a variety of trends in evolutionary thought since the late 1990s, concluding that,

...it is no longer necessary to conclude that the concept of independent or 'parallel' descent is incompatible with science. In fact, the trend of discovery has clearly been in the direction of agreement... This new understanding appears to me to have only been possible since about 2015.

Baháʼí views on science - Wikipedia.

 

[Truthseeker]

I know that Baha'u'llah talks about Noah. But nothing about Adam? Or how about Abraham?

My complaint about how he talks about Noah is that it has nothing to do with the Bible story, no flood and no ark.

Not really anything about Adam, no, just that there were other prophets before Adam. He did talk about Abraham, confirming for instance what the Qur'an says about Abraham, that he was going to sacrifice Ishmael. Why not, I say. As a believer I believe that both Muhammad and Baha'u'llah received knowledge from God. The book of Genesis was written down after a period of at least a thousand years after Abraham. It's different for you, of course.

There is absolutely no evidence scientifically of a flood that covered the Earth. There is evidence that that this is impossible.