Who Was Baha’u’llah, and How Can We Evaluate His Claims?

[KWED]

Baha'u'llah did not speak in early 17th Century English, He spoke in Persian and Arabic.
His Writings were translated in that way.

Some time ago, @TransmutingSoul explained why the Writings were translated into King James English.

Tony said: The reason is that Shoghi Effendi went to England to study English so He could better translate the Writings of Baha'u'llah from Persian and Arabic into English.

From his studies he determined that King James English was the best form to portray Persian and Arabic to English speakers.

Apparently Persian and Arabic have a form of poetic prose that is hard to portray to English speakers. King James English must in a small way convey some of that poetic prose experienced by Persian and Arabic speakers.

Shoghi Effendi offered that the future may see different translations.

So it was not technical accuracy that was important, but poetic feeling.

 

[KWED]

That was not Baha'u'llah's claim. His claim is that He had no 'formal' education.

“O KING! I was but a man like others, asleep upon My couch, when lo, the breezes of the All-Glorious were wafted over Me, and taught Me the knowledge of all that hath been. This thing is not from Me, but from One Who is Almighty and All-Knowing. And He bade Me lift up My voice between earth and heaven, and for this there befell Me what hath caused the tears of every man of understanding to flow.The learning current amongst men I studied not; their schools I entered not. Ask of the city wherein I dwelt, that thou mayest be well assured that I am not of them who speak falsely. This is but a leaf which the winds of the will of thy Lord, the Almighty, the All-Praised, have stirred.”” Proclamation of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 57

So why do you always make such a big thing about it if you acknowledge that he was educated?

 

[Trailblazer]

But if there is no god, there are no messengers of god, so all those who claim to be one are delusional or dishonest.

Obviously that's true.

Before you can claim that anyone is a messenger of god you need to demonstrate that there is a god in the first place. That is basic logic and rational thinking.

No, that is not basic logic and rational thinking because it is not possible to know that there is a God without a Messenger of God since the Messenger is the only evidence of God.

In other words, God cannot be demonstrated to exist without the Messenger who represents God on Earth.

 

[Trailblazer]

Well, that is obvious nonsense because there are many millions who completely reject the concept of the supernatural.
Moreover, the billions who do believe in gods have widely varying ideas about it and their inspiration is completely different.
Bahaullah was wong.

The fact that the billions who believe in God(s) have widely varying ideas about God(s) and derive their inspiration differently is completely irrelevant to what Baha'u'llah offered. All it means is that people have widely varying conceptions of God, it does not mean there is actually more than One God.

"There can be no doubt whatever that the peoples of the world, of whatever race or religion, derive their inspiration from one heavenly Source, and are the subjects of one God."

 

[Trailblazer]

Bangladesh has nearly 3 times the population density of Israel, yet Israel has far better infrastructure, so it would not be a problem if all the Jews returned to Israel.

Even if that is true, the Bible prophecy does not say that ALL the Jews in the world will return to Israel. It says that Jews from all over the world will return to Israel, and that has already happened.

All the Jews in the world who have settled elsewhere do not want to live in Israel so why would they move there?

 

[Trailblazer]

I'm pretty confidence that the answer is "none".

It probably is none, but so what? Messengers of God do not come to Earth to make scientific discoveries.

 

[Trailblazer]

But that is what @Trailblazer and others here claim.
So you accept that his ability to write and his knowledge of the world came from traditional rather than supernatural means.

His ability to write and his knowledge of the world came from traditional means but Baha'is believe that His knowledge of God came from supernatural means, as He claimed:

“O KING! I was but a man like others, asleep upon My couch, when lo, the breezes of the All-Glorious were wafted over Me, and taught Me the knowledge of all that hath been. This thing is not from Me, but from One Who is Almighty and All-Knowing. And He bade Me lift up My voice between earth and heaven, and for this there befell Me what hath caused the tears of every man of understanding to flow.” Proclamation of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 57

“God is My witness, O people! I was asleep on My couch, when lo, the Breeze of God wafting over Me roused Me from My slumber. His quickening Spirit revived Me, and My tongue was unloosed to voice His Call.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 90

 

[Trailblazer]

So it was not technical accuracy that was important, but poetic feeling.

The translation was accurate. From his studies Shoghi Effendi determined that King James English was the best form to portray Persian and Arabic to English speakers.

 

[KWED]

Obviously that's true.

So you can't use a "messenger of god" as the evidence for a god.

No, that is not basic logic and rational thinking because it is not possible to know that there is a God without a Messenger of God since the Messenger is the only evidence of God.

In other words, God cannot be demonstrated to exist without the Messenger who represents God on Earth.

But you just admitted that if there is no god, then there can be no actual "messenger" - in which case said messenger cannot be evidence of that god.
So, in order to be sure that a person actually is a messenger of god, you first need to show that the god actually exists.
(Don't worry, I don't expect you to be able to grasp this pretty basic logic)

 

[Trailblazer]

So why do you always make such a big thing about it if you acknowledge that he was educated?

I only ever said that He was not educated in schools so he had no formal education and was not educated in all the subjects learned in schools.

Bahá’u’lláh, a title that means "the Glory of God" in Arabic, was born on 12 November 1817 in Tehran, Iran. His given name was Husayn Ali, and He was the son of a wealthy government minister, Mirza Buzurg-i-Nuri. The family could trace its ancestry back to the great dynasties of Iran's imperial past. Bahá’u’lláh led a princely life as a young man, receiving an education that focused largely on calligraphy, horsemanship, classic poetry, and swordsmanship.

His son, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, said this concerning His childhood: "… Bahá’u’lláh, belonged to the nobility of Persia. From earliest childhood He was distinguished among His relatives and friends.… In wisdom, intelligence and as a source of new knowledge, He was advanced beyond His age and superior to His surroundings. All who knew Him were astonished at His precocity. It was usual for them to say, 'Such a child will not live,' for it is commonly believed that precocious children do not reach maturity."(1)
The childhood of Bahá’u’lláh - The Life of Bahá'u'lláh

 

[KWED]

The fact that the billions who believe in God(s) have widely varying ideas about God(s) and derive their inspiration differently is completely irrelevant to what Baha'u'llah offered. All it means is that people have widely varying conceptions of God, it does not mean there is actually more than One God.

"There can be no doubt whatever that the peoples of the world, of whatever race or religion, derive their inspiration from one heavenly Source, and are the subjects of one God."

Just repeating an irrational statement does not make it any less irrational. There is obviously doubt that there is even a god in the first place, and there is certainly doubt that everyone gets their inspiration form any kind of god, and it is certain that there is more than one version of god.

Bahaullah's claim is simply and demonstrably wrong.

 

[KWED]

Even if that is true, the Bible prophecy does not say that ALL the Jews in the world will return to Israel.

@dybmh 's argument was more convincing than yours.

All the Jews in the world who have settled elsewhere do not want to live in Israel so why would they move there?

Because it is god's plan, obvs.

 

[KWED]

It probably is none, but so what? Messengers of God do not come to Earth to make scientific discoveries.

Why not? They have direct access to every piece of knowledge possible, so why not end all disease, poverty, pollution, etc?
Seems like a criminal waste of an opportunity.

 

[KWED]

His ability to write and his knowledge of the world came from traditional means but Baha'is believe that His knowledge of God came from supernatural means, as He claimed:

“O KING! I was but a man like others, asleep upon My couch, when lo, the breezes of the All-Glorious were wafted over Me, and taught Me the knowledge of all that hath been. This thing is not from Me, but from One Who is Almighty and All-Knowing. And He bade Me lift up My voice between earth and heaven, and for this there befell Me what hath caused the tears of every man of understanding to flow.” Proclamation of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 57

“God is My witness, O people! I was asleep on My couch, when lo, the Breeze of God wafting over Me roused Me from My slumber. His quickening Spirit revived Me, and My tongue was unloosed to voice His Call.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 90

But his "knowledge of god" could just be made up. We have nothing to check it against.

 

[Trailblazer]

So you can't use a "messenger of god" as the evidence for a god.

Why not? If a messenger is the ONLY evidence for God then we have to use Him as evidence.

But you just admitted that if there is no god, then there can be no actual "messenger" - in which case said messenger cannot be evidence of that god.
So, in order to be sure that a person actually is a messenger of god, you first need to show that the god actually exists.
(Don't worry, I don't expect you to be able to grasp this pretty basic logic)

No, that is not basic logic, it is not logic at all.
Logic is that if the messenger is the only evidence that God provided that will be the only evidence we will ever have.

In order to be sure that a person actually is a messenger of God, you have to check out what He offered as evidence to back up His claims. That is the only way to know.

 

[KWED]

The translation was accurate. From his studies Shoghi Effendi determined that King James English was the best form to portray Persian and Arabic to English speakers.

Why was the Elizabethan English used in the King James Bible deemed to be the best form of English? It was already somewhat archaic when it was written in the 17th century, and it just seems quaint now.

A rational explanation could be that he wanted it to mirror what was at the time established as the accepted style for spiritual texts, in the hope that familiarity would encourage acceptance.

 

[KWED]

Why not? If a messenger is the ONLY evidence for God then we have to use Him as evidence.

If a someone who claims to be a messenger of a god is the only evidence you have for that god - then you have no evidence.

No, that is not basic logic, it is not logic at all.
Logic is that if the messenger is the only evidence that God provided that will be the only evidence we will ever have.

You really are struggling with the concept of "evidence". It is not simply "whatever you have".
If the only evidence for a crime is someone claiming it had been committed, there is no case. There will be no arrests or trial. The police will dismiss it as a false report.

In order to be sure that a person actually is a messenger of God, you have to check out what He offered as evidence to back up His claims. That is the only way to know.

We have done that, and nothing Bahaullah said confirms that there is a god or that he was in contact with him.
Therefore we cannot be sure that he actually is a messenger of god.
QED.

 

[Trailblazer]

Just repeating an irrational statement does not make it any less irrational. There is obviously doubt that there is even a god in the first place, and there is certainly doubt that everyone gets their inspiration form any kind of god, and it is certain that there is more than one version of god.

Bahaullah's claim is simply and demonstrably wrong.

The fact that there is more than one version of God among the people of the world thus people get their inspiration in various ways is as easy to explain as falling off a log, but the fact that many or most people believe in different versions of God in no way proves that there is actually more than one God. To claim that is the fallacy of argumentum ad populum.

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."
Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

Baha'u'llah's claim is logically valid because it makes absolutely no logical sense that there would be more than one God since there would be no need for more than one God who is omnipotent and omniscient.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I am still wondering about all this early 17th Century English. Surely the latest messenger for today would speak as we speak today. If not, why not?

Baha'u'llah spoken in both Persian and Arabic. Which was the language of the day where he was born.

Shoghi Effendi translated those writings in to King James English. Shoghi Effendi also spoke Persian and Arabic and was educated at Oxford University in English.

Thus a well Educated Persian and Arabic spoken person, chose King James English, as it was seen as the best way to portray the poetry of the Persain and Arabic in English.

Regards Tony

 

[Trailblazer]

@dybmh 's argument was more convincing than yours.

Convincing to you, but that does not mean it is true.

Because it is god's plan, obvs.

It was never God's plan to bring ALL the Jews in the world back to Israel. That's why there is nothing in the verse that says all Jews will return to Israel.

The verse says God will gather Jews from all the nations, but it does not say God will gather all Jews from all the nations and return all Jews to Israel.

Jeremiah 29:14 And I will be found of you, saith the Lord: and I will turn away your captivity, and I will gather you from all the nations, and from all the places whither I have driven you, saith the Lord; and I will bring you again into the place whence I caused you to be carried away captive.