Secret Koran
ROBERT ARVAY
provocative, so I'll apologize up front if offense is taken. But this
is the question: are there two Korans, one version for Arabs, and
another for non-Arabs? Over the years, I have repeatedly run into this
persistent report. Until recently, I simply discounted it for lack of
corroborating evidence. But I thought I should begin asking around
among people who might know.
Basically, the rumor I run into is this: the original Koran as written
is a racist document that regards only Arabs as having souls. Arab
non-Muslims lose their souls to Hell. But non-Arabs don't even have
souls. Non-Arabs are the moral equivalent of unclean animals. They can
be killed, raped, lied to or cheated with impunity. No sin can be
committed against non-Arabs because non-Arabs have no soul.
The Koran (which I am told exhorts men to beat their wives into
obedience), is printed in two editions, one of which is only for Arab
consumption (and perhaps only for upper echelons in the faith), the
other of which is for general worldwide public consumption for reasons
which should be obvious if the above rumor is true.
I know that this rumor is probably on a plane with leprechaun sightings.
But even if it is false, its decades-long persistence and widespread
repetition is a phenomenon worthy of study.
If, however, there is any grain of truth to it, the non-Arab world may
be facing a fight to the death against racist fanatics willing to kill
themselves in their cause.
Any objective, empirical input would be appreciated.
Once again, my apologies to anyone offended by this topic.
Pat Kohli
is an exaggeration. Conventionally, there is one Holy Qor'an, written in
Arabic, somewhat like the King James Bible to the extent that many know
every word, verse by vers of the whole book. Unlike the King James, that
Holy Qor'an is conventionally accepted as the Text received from God. In
fact there may have been some very minor variant renditions in the early
years, but w/in a few decades of the Prophet Muhammad's life (the reign of
on of the first three Kalifs), there was only one version.
Anything other than this Arabic text is understood to be an interpretation,
rather than the Holy Qor'an and in this respect it is quite different from
your Bible.
There is no basis for the allegation that only Arabs have souls. Most
Muslims are not Arabs at all, and many of them understand Arabic well enough
to figure out if the Holy Qor'an casts them as "unclean animals". In the
Holy Qor'an, Blessed Jesus Christ is regarded as God's Representative on
earth, and He was a Jew and not an Arab.
This is the first time that I've heard this fantastically offensive piece of
anti_Islamic propaganda. Please politely tell all that you hear this from
that it is an utter fabrication, of the worst stripe.
Blessings!
- Pat
ko...@ameritel.net
Paul Hammond
Dear Robert,
First time I've heard any rumour even remotely like this. It sounds as
paranoid and
wrongheaded as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion - a self-serving myth to
justify Islamophobia, as the Protocols were a self-serving myth to justify
jew hating.
What I *have* heard is that Muslims tend to consider that the Arabic text
of the Koran is the perfect word of God, and that it is in fact impossible
to
translate - which is why muslims, whatever their native tongue, place a
great
stress on learning and memorising the Koran in its original language.
This is the reason why Muslims have been so often reluctant to translate to
Koran themselves, or to give any official status to translations produced by
others.
Good translations of the Koran are around these days, and I would suggest
the way to dispel these myths for yourself would be to study these
translations
and the history of the Koran for yourself.
Paul
Bookbug
>the way to dispel these myths for yourself would be to study these
>translations
>and the history of the Koran for yourself.
Orrrr.... it's easy enough to enrol in an Arabic class and he could go
and read the original for himself.
Bookbug
Nima Hazini
"ROBERT ARVAY" <RAR...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:1131-3BA...@storefull-112.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
ROBERT ARVAY
shall attempt to be less ignorant, but always to pay more attention to
the fundamentals of God's word.
Adelard R
Hi Robert,
I am just curious, could you tell us what are the fundamentals of God's
word?
Adelard
Mesbah
do this we have failed to acknowledge the truth of this blessed verse.
For it is evident that whoso hath failed to acknowledge the truth of
the Qur'an hath in reality failed to acknowledge the truth of the
preceding Scriptures. This is but the manifest implication of the
verse. Were We to expound its inner meanings and unfold its hidden
mysteries, eternity would never suffice to exhaust their import, nor
would the universe be capable of hearing them! God verily testifieth
to the truth of Our saying! [-Bahá'u'lláh, Kitáb-i-Íqán, p. 204]
ROBERT ARVAY
A few weeks ago I (and others) discussed the issue of Christian
fundamentals in a thread on TRB (if you care to look it up). Basically,
they are encapsulated in the Apostle's Creed: There is one God who
created all that was created. God is triune (Father, Son, Holy Spirit,
3 persons in one God). The son, Jesus, was born of a virgin, suffered
and died on the cross for the remission of our sins, and was raised
again from death. He is now physically in heaven, but will (soon?)
return in glory to establish His kingdom on earth. Those who humbly
trust in Jesus will be rewarded eternally in heaven. Those who reject
His loving salvation will suffer eternally in the outer darkness or lake
of fire. These comments are impromptu, and incomplete, but I will be
happy to discuss them further if you wish. May God bless us all in
these coming days!
ROBERT ARVAY
interview on TV (last night) with some Moslems which reignited the
matter. The interviewees were anti-Taliban Afghanis. They admitted
that they trade in drugs. When asked, isn't this against your religion,
they replied that it's forbidden to harm Moslems with drugs, but not
non-Moslems. They said that this is supported in the Koran.
Now look, I'm not looking under the bed for reasons to impugn Moslems or
their Koran. But others in this thread have said that they never heard
of such rumors (of a secret Koran). I wondered why I had. All I'm
saying now is that, if these Afghanis are willing to so openly state
that non-Moslems are not to be regarded as human, then there is indeed a
sliver of evidence behind these rumors. To be sure, religious bigotry
is not confined to Moslems. Christians have historically persecuted
nonChristians. And the Bible has been misused toward that end. I'm not
trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. I'm simply concerned, in
light of the recent atrocities against us, to know more about the
mindset of those whose acts of destruction are limited only by their
physical ability to inflict them on us. If they are not limited by
morality, the war is a matter of life and death for us.
A related question: is it true that in every majority-Moslem country,
there is no freedom of religion for non-Moslems? How does that portend
(if at all) as our own Moslem populations increase?
Am I a nut case for thinking of these things?
Adelard R
<Snip>
<
The son, Jesus, was born of a virgin, suffered
> and died on the cross for the remission of our sins,
<snip>
What does it mean ?
As i understand what you are saying is that you can still commit sins, but
if you believe in Christ, you will be save by Christ's salvation. Is that
true?
Adelard
Timothy Casey
The same methods used in Christian Fundamentalism are used in Muslim
Fundamentalism: Misquotation, appeal to authority, deciet by omission,
consensus by elimination, outrageous paraphrasing, etc. If they did not
quote chapter and verse, chances are they were quoting their own opinion and
not necessarily the Quran. There are two versions of Quran published that
differ only in the dialect of english used (as seen in various Bible
translations) and the chapter and verse system in use. E.g. The Muslim
non-aggression commandment is found in Sura 2:190 in one version, and in
Sura 2:186 in the other version. There are easily enough Arabic-speaking
Westerners to have discovered and raised academic curiosities if there was
ever a secret Quran. There has been over a millenium for this skeleton to
stumble out of the closet!
The Quran is not the only source of material written or dictated by
Mohammed. There are also a number of Prophet's Charters which, explicitly
prohibit the persecution or harassment of Christians. I have provided these
for your perusal:
The Prophets Charter
Written by Ali on behalf of Mohammed in the year 2AH.
"This is the certificate written by Mohammed son of 'Abdallah, the Prophet
of God, and His messenger unto all mankind, delivering both promises and
threats, and having in his keeping the deposit of God unto His Creation,
that men might have no plea after the coming of the Messengers. And God is
mighty and wise. This he wrote concerning the people of the Christian
religion, and to such as profess the Christian religion in the East and
West, near and Far, clear speaking and barbarous, known and unknown. He
wrote it for them as a charter, and whosoever violates, alters, or
transgresses the covenant that is therein, shall have violated the covenant
of God, broken His promise, ridiculed his religion, and earned His curse,
whether he be a sovereign or any other Moslem. If any monk or pilgrim
entrench himself in mountain, valley, cave, township, level, sand, or
church, I shall be behind them defending them from any that shall envy them,
by myself, my helpers, my people, my sect, and my followers, inasmuch as
they are my subjects and the people of my covenant. And I exempt them from
the vexation in victuals which is endured by the people of the Covenant in
that they have to pay the tax, save so far as they themselves of their own
free will offer it, and there is to be no compulsion nor force employed. No
Bishop is to be removed from his diocese, nor monk from his monkdom, nor
ascetic from his cell, nor pilgrim from his pilgrimage, neither is any of
their assembling-places or churches be pulled down. Neither shall any of the
wealth of their churches be employed for the building of mosques or houses
for moslems; and whoever doeth this shall have violated the charter of God
and the charter of His Prophet; neither shall there be taken from monks,
bishops, or ministers any poll tax or fine. I shall maintain their security
wheresoever they be, whether on land or sea, east, west, north, or south.
They shall at all times and in all places be under my protection and within
my covenant and immunity from all mischief. Likewise the hermits in the
mountains and blessed places shall not have to pay land-tax nor tithe on
that which they sow, nor shall a portion be taken from them seeing that it
is only enough for their own mouths, nor shall they have to render
assistance at harvest-time, nor shallthey be forced to go out on service in
time of war, neither shal more be demanded of them that pay the land-tax and
the owners of property and estates and those that engage in merchandise than
twelve dirhems altogether once a year. None of them shall be made to pay
more than is due, neither shall they be striven with save in kindly dealing.
They shall guard them under the wing of mercy by keeping off them the
vexation of all mischief wherever they be and wheresoever they dwell. And if
Christians dwell among Moslems, the Moslems shall satisfy them, and suffer
them to pray in their churches, and shall not interfere in any way with the
practice of their religion. And whoso violates the charter of God, and does
the contrary thereof, shall be counted a rebel against His covenant and
against His Apostle; further, the Moslems shall aid in repairing the
Christian churches and places, which shall remain in keeping of the
Christians on condition that they abide in their religion and act according
to the charter. None of them shall be compelled to bear arms, for the
Moslems shall protect them. And none shall violate this charter for all
time, even unto the Day of Judgement and the end of the world."
(Reproduced on page 123 of "Umayyads and 'Abbasids".
Being the fourth part of "Jurji Zayden's History of Islamic Civilization".
Authored by Jurji Zayden.
Translated by D. S. Margoliouth, D. Litt.
For Darf Publishers, London.
First published 1907.
New impresssion 1987. - All spelling and punctuation errors of this book's
rendition preserved as found for future study.)
(Prior Source:
Feridun Bey
"Compositions of the Sultans")
(Original kept in the Monastery of Mt. Sinai
Removed in 1600 AD by Sultan Selim the Conquerer to Constantinople
For translation into Turkish
A copy of which was returned to the monastery)
Another such charter is:
Charter to Christians
http://users.erols.com/zenithco/charter1.html
Here is what Gary L. Matthews has to say about this charter:
"Perhaps Muhammad's single strongest statement (of which I'm aware) isn't in
the Qur'an. It's His "Charter to the Christians" -- a legally binding
document which He, as head of the Muslim State, issued to the monks of St.
Catherine at Mount Sinai. Dictated by the Prophet Himself, it was
transcribed by His son-in-law and successor, Ali, then signed and witnessed
by twenty-two of His leading companions. This agreement spells out
Muhammad's attitude and policy toward Christians everywhere -- a mandate He
sternly imposes upon every Muslim "until the Day of Resurrection". An
English translation by Anton Haddad was published in 1902 by the Baha'i
Board of Counsel in New York, under the title: "The Oath of Muhammad to the
Followers of the Nazarene". The Arabic text is found, perhaps among other
sources, in Naufal Effendi Naufal's "Sunnajutu't-Tarab". "
The more people join become privy to a conspiracy, the less likely it will
succeed, and the faster it will be exposed. This is why the only successful
covert organisations operate in smll cells. That way, each operation that is
conspired is only known to a minimal number of people. When you speak of two
versions of one book referenced by millions of people, that nobody is aware
of in spite of international travel and friendship, it seems impractical.
Now there is more than one version of Christian canon, and the Coptic Bible
is a completely different book to the Orthodox/Catholic/Protestant Bibles.
If there were more than one Quran based on differing Islamic canons, then we
would see numerous Islamic sects dedicated to one version or the other, as
we do in Christianity.
--
Timothy Casey
South Australia
wor...@iprimus.com.au
Formerly:
ca...@smart.net.au
"ROBERT ARVAY" <RAR...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:26026-3B...@storefull-111.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
[SNIP]
ROBERT ARVAY
You ask the crucial (no pun intended) question, can a saved sinner
continue sinning and yet still be saved? Can? Yes. Does? No.
Salvation of a lost soul does not mean the perfection of that soul into
one who never fails, never stumbles, never sins. Salvation is the
rescue of that soul from the slavery to sin. Just as God breathed a
soul into Adam giving him spiritual life, Adam's sin suffocated that
life, leaving mankind in a hopeless condition, a condition of spiritual
death. Christ suffered that death for us, in our place, even being
separated from His Father in Heaven (and thus His dying words, "My God,
my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?"). Hopelessness became hope.
When a person gives his life to Jesus, he does not lose his life, but
rather gains it. Just as Jesus suffered the penalty of sin for us, so
also did he conquer death for us in the resurrection. Therefore, we,
too are raised from the death of sin by His loving grace.
When a person accets this free gift from Jesus, a gift so valuable we
could never earn it ourselves, he undergoes a dramatic transformation
which no one can begin to understand unless he has experienced it. The
Bible describes it as having become a new person, and at the same time,
having all things made new unto him. But the unsaved cannot understand,
just as the saved cannot expain it.
The closest I can come is to say that salvation filled me with an
enduring, intense sense of gratitude to Jesus which dominates my life
through all of life's joys and pains, through all its hills and valleys.
Yet, as Paul said, I do the things which I ought not, and do not the
things which I ought. Although I am transformed from a slave of sin
into a servant of God, I am like the Israelite freed by Moses from
slavery and entering into the desert of freedom, of its uncertainty and
its responsibilities. The Israelites wanted to turn back to Egypt and
become slaves once again! Could they have? Yes. But they did not.
So also the saved sinner has not reached the Promised Land, but rather,
only just set out upon the journey. Through the valley of the shadow of
death he must pass--- not around it. All the way, he continues to need,
and to receive, God's leadership, guidance and direction. When he sins,
God corrects him, with punishment or other means, but never with
condemnation. God's love is unconditional.
And God is always, always with us in our struggles.
It is not true that one can use salvation as a license to commit evil
with immunity. (The Bible says, do not use your liberty for evil.)
Acceptance of salvation is not mechanical. It is heartfelt. It is a
humbling, an admission of wrongdoing, an abject remorse, and a
transforming resolve to devote one's life to God. And because God is
constantly imploring each and every unsaved person to accept His free
gift, it actually requires an act of will and of irrevocable rebellion
(the sin against the Holy Spirit, the acceptance of the mark of the
Beast) to avoid being saved. This is how salvation is open to all, even
if they have never known of Jesus in the intellect. Somehow, in the
spirit, God gets through to everyone.
I know that I can never adequately answer your question. It can be
answered only by God. But He has promised that you shall know the
truth, and that it shall set you free. If you pray to Him, He will
answer. If you read His word (the Holy Bible is God's inerrant word for
this and all ages to come), you will be enriched. If you commune with
His devoted followers, God will nurture you through them.
May the peace of Jesus Christ, that peace which surpasses understanding,
be upon us all, now, and during these difficult times to come.
Timothy Casey
news:9or8a...@enews2.newsguy.com...
Hai Adelard!
There is another way of looking at this topic.
When Christ died on the cross, He forgave His persecutors - Christ must have
forgiven them if He asked God to forgive them. This was done as an example
of what we must do. The Golden Rule is the summation, purpose, and therefore
the very context of the Bible. Every interpretation thereof, must fit with
the Golden rule. Matthew 7:12 states the Golden Rule in full:
"Do unto others as you would that others do unto you; for this is the Law
and the Prophets."
The "Law and the Prophets" was how such collections of canonical religious
texts as the Bible, were referred to in Christ's time. The statement from
Mathew 7:12 is a paraphrase of a statement in Talmud Shabbat 31a:
"What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. That is the entire Law;
all the rest is commentary."
It is clear that if the entire Law (and Prophets, etc) is summed up by the
Golden Rule, then it is true that the correct interpretation of every
religious precept is a reflection of the Golden Rule in specific
application.
So what does this have to do with remission of sins?
Well, the mission statements (such as the Golden Rule as it is held in
Judaism and Christianity and quoted above) define the limitation of
definition and meaning, that such concepts as "salvation" and "remission of
sin" can have if they are used in the same collection of texts in which, the
mission statement occurs. Remission of sins is an excellent example. It
seems that Christ was extremely consistent with what He intimated to be the
purpose of religion. In Matthew 6:14-15 we read:
[Matthew 6:14] "For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly
Father also will forgive you;
[Matthew 6:15] "but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will
your Father forgive your trespasses."
This definition of salvation is clearly in line with the context of the
Bible discussed above, and further serves the same purpose of the Bible as
discussed above. It is further supported by such statements as:
[Luke 6:37] "Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you
will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven"
[Matthew 5:7] "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy."
When Christ died on the cross, He forgave His oppressors and this is an
example of the degree to which we must forgive others. This is how the
crucifixion is Biblically related to "salvation" and "remission of sins"
As for the name of your faith, this is largely irrelevant for:
[2 John 1:9] "Any one who goes ahead and does not abide in the teaching of
Christ does not have God; he who abides in the teaching has both the Father
and the Son."
In other words, it is the teaching and not the teacher that is important.
The light and not the lamp -
[Luke 6:43] "For no good tree bears bad fruit, nor again does a bad tree
bear good fruit;
[Luke 6:44] for each tree is known by its own fruit. For figs are not
gathered from thorns, nor are grapes picked from a bramble bush.
- The fruit and not the tree.
Abdu'l-Baha is reported to have said:
"When Christians act according to the teachings of Christ, they are called
Baha'is. For the foundations of Christianity and the religion of
Baha'u'llah are one. The foundations of all the divine Prophets and Holy
Books are one. The difference among them is one of terminology only. Each
springtime is identical with the former springtime. The distinction between
them is only one of the calendar - 1911, 1912 and so on. The difference
between a Christian and a Baha'i, therefore, is this: There was a former
springtime, and there is a springtime now. No other difference exists
because the foundations are the same. Whoever acts completely in accordance
with the teachings of Christ is a Baha'i. The purpose is the essential
meaning of Christian, not the mere word. The purpose is the sun itself and
not the dawning points. For though the sun is one sun, its dawning points
are many."
(`Abdu'l-Baha: Promulgation of Universal Peace, Pages: 247-248)
This reflects a similar and unifying theme in published Baha'i literature.
Anyway, that is just my perspective...
--
Timothy Casey
South Australia
wor...@iprimus.com.au
Formerly:
ca...@smart.net.au
"The religion of God is for love and unity; make it not the cause of enmity
and dissension." (Baha'u'llah, Kitabi Ahd)
Randy Burns
and Armenian may be the most important one of his life.
Cheers, Randy
--
Timothy Casey <wor...@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:3bb2...@news.iprimus.com.au...
ROBERT ARVAY
In reading Timothy Casey's response, I wish to commend him for his well
researched comments, and to say that I agree with much of what he says.
However, he necessarily steers away from the main point, which is to
address the nature of salvation (ref Adelard's question of works vs
faith) through Christ. Tim's focus on the Golden Rule does not suffice.
Salvation from sin is the center and core of Christ's unique role as the
one and only begotten Son of God, the Messiah. The Golden rule is a
subset, not an overarching principle, of salvation.
The key error in Baha'i doctrine (as I see it), is that while quoting
the Bible on the one hand, Baha'is reject the Bible as the uncorrupted,
inerrant word of God. Therefore, they are resorting for support to
something they regard as unreliable support! Holding the Koran as
superior to the Bible, they quote the Bible whenever the quote seems to
support their position. But then they turn around and dismiss (or
tortuously interpret) the Biblical quotes which undermine their
position.
They do this of necessity, because in order for Baha'i (or Islamic)
theology to work, Jesus must be demoted from His true nature as one
person of the Trinity. Adam, on the other hand, through whom sin
entered into the world, must strangely be elevated to a position of
equality with Jesus. Each of them becomes merely one among many
"springtimes," or "manifestations," (but not the thing being
manifested), none to be preferred above any other.
This inherent contradiction between the Baha'i and Christian essentials
of faith cannot be overcome by any attempts at reconciling the two. One
of them must be flat wrong. And while Baha'i apologists are
impressively skilled at making the attempt, even they must resort to
verbal contortions, shifting back and forth between literal and liberal
interpretations at the drop of a verse. And while they seem to do well
with individual (inconvenient) passages of the Bible, the overall
Biblical message stands as an insurmountable fortress against all
attempts to make it fit the Baha'i concept of Jesus being only a
manifestation of God, and not God incarnate.
I am not the only former Baha'i to have noticed these things.
Baha'is themselves are well intentioned and beloved by God. But Baha'i
doctrine is a dangerous deception. The only shield and shelter is a
personal relationship with Jesus Christ. You can know that for a fact
based not on what I say, but by your own experience through prayer,
Bible reading, and fellowship with saved Christians. Jesus proves
Himself to me all the time. He is reaching out to you, also. May He be
extra close to us in these unsteady times.
ROBERT ARVAY
Strange. My WebTV "discuss" messageboard did not pick up your message
14617 that begins with "You know the drill." But I got it by
happenstance off Mailgate. Never mind.
I want to thank you for the post. It was very informative, and frankly,
quite gratifying to find that there is unequivocal Moslem textual
support for religious tolerance. Taking it at face value, I am
reassured that we are not facing into the maw of a worldwide,
intractable ideology bent on our annihilation--- although the smaller
version of it which we do face is horrific enough, having already killed
thousands of us in one fell swoop.
It does leave me with the question of political repression of nonMoslem
religions in Moslem dominated countries, but that question leaves a
hopeful future.
I'll disagree with your characterization of Christian Fundamentalists,
but I've addressed that in other posts on TRB.
Thank you again, Timothy, and may God richly bless you and yours!
Timothy Casey
:^)
Cheers indeed!
--
Timothy Casey
South Australia
wor...@iprimus.com.au
Formerly:
ca...@smart.net.au
"Randy Burns" <randy....@gte.net> wrote in message
news:aQIs7.118$2u5....@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net...
Timothy Casey
> Hello Adelard and Timothy;
> In reading Timothy Casey's response, I wish to commend him for his well
> researched comments, and to say that I agree with much of what he says.
Thankyou, Robert.
> However, he necessarily steers away from the main point, which is to
> address the nature of salvation (ref Adelard's question of works vs
> faith) through Christ.
Faith vs. works is an interesting false dilemma that seems as old as
Christianity itself. The second chapter of James was written to address this
fallacy. To summarise, it says that works are the life of faith, and without
works, faith is dead. In today's language, one could go as far as
interpreting that without deeds, there is no faith, for all deeds are done
in good faith of something. Depression, which is a lack of motivation, is
the consequence of despair, which is a complete lack of faith in anything.
The ultimate product of lack of faith is inaction.
> Tim's focus on the Golden Rule does not suffice.
If indeed, the question concerned the "faith and works" issue, then perhaps
I missed my mark. However, as stated in the final clause of Matthew 7:12,
the Golden Rule forms the foundation for Christian belief. A foundation is
always a good place to begin building, as surely as the first tool of the
explorer is a compass.
> Salvation from sin is the center and core of Christ's unique role as the
Individual salvation as the purpose of the unique aspect of Christ's role,
is a viable interpretation. Even the crucifixion revolves around this issue
by exemplification of the mission statement in Matthew 7:12
> one and only begotten Son of God, the Messiah.
"Son of God" is analogous with "Friend of God", "Apostle of God",
Manifestation of God" etc. in Baha'i theology. However, in Christian
(Biblical) doctrine, a son or daughter of God is whoever does the will of
God:
[John 1:12] But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave
power to become children of God;
[John 1:13] who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of
the will of man, but of God.
By:
[Mat 5:9] "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of
God.
Because:
[Mat 12:50] For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother,
and sister, and mother."
Thus, according to Christ, a "son of God" is far from unique in station.
Certainly far more humble than the Baha'i analogy with Manifestation of God.
How interesting that the next Manifestation chose to name His religion,
"Surrender to Peace", which is literally what, "Islam" means.
> The Golden rule is a
> subset, not an overarching principle, of salvation.
According to the final clause of Matthew 7:12, "for this is the law and the
prophets", the Golden Rule is not a meagre subset, but the foundation on an
entire religious system of which, individual salvation is only a part
thereof. This is further supported by the statement that:
“So we know and believe the love God has for us. God is love, and he who
abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him.”
(1 John 4:16)
There is no other approximation of God in the Bible, and as God is the
object of religion IE:
[Mark 12:28] And one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with
one another, and seeing that he answered them well, asked him, "Which
commandment is the first of all?"
[Mark 12:29] Jesus answered, "The first is, `Hear, O Israel: The Lord our
God, the Lord is one;
[Note the use of "the Lord _OUR_ God" by Christ]
[Mark 12:30] and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and
with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.'
[Mark 12:31] The second is this, `You shall love your neighbour as
yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these."
It stands to reason that love as defined by the Golden Rule, stands above
all else in the Bible, and sets the context for all Biblical interpretation
in accordance with the last clause of Matthew 7:12
> The key error in Baha'i doctrine (as I see it), is that while quoting
> the Bible on the one hand, Baha'is reject the Bible as the uncorrupted,
> inerrant word of God. Therefore, they are resorting for support to
> something they regard as unreliable support!
Not really. The text of the bible is regarded by the Baha'i Faith as
follows:
"THIS book is the Holy Book of God, of celestial Inspiration. It is
the Bible of Salvation, the Noble Gospel. It is the mystery of the Kingdom
and its light. It is the Divine Bounty, the sign of the guidance of God."
Abdu'l-Baha Abbas.
(`Abdu'l-Baha: Abdu'l-Baha in London, Page: 18)
In other words, there is much truth to be gleaned from the Bible. However,
historically, the Bible did not exist as such until the canon was ordained
by the Catholic Church in 492 AD. Most of the New Testament texts were
written decades after the ascension of Christ. They reflect the cultural,
historical, and legal context of the time, in addition to the teachings of
Christ. Of a necessity, much of these works is symbolic or written in
parables because Aramaic, the language of the Bible, has only a tiny
vocabulary. Things such as materialism and fundamentalism find no words to
express them in ancient Aramaic. This is best exemplified by the comparison
of the story of the Virgin Birth with the fact that not only is the lineage
of Christ depicted inconsistently, but through Joseph. The lineages being
traced through Joseph, are in complete contradiction with the Virgin Birth
account. This demonstrates that in the minds of the authors, the male
dominance characteristic of their culture influenced their writing more than
reason and logic could.
> Holding the Koran as
> superior to the Bible,
The Quran has only a slight edge on the Bible in that it was dictated or
written by Mohammed. The great equaliser is that the Quran was assembled
from scattered fragments and writings by later followers, and in this sense
is still vulnerable to the influence of culture and history. This is because
the order and organisation of such fragments can also influence the message
with the cultural bias possessed by the people who compiled these into the
Quran. What is really challenging for the reader of the Quran is the
difficulty of finding obvious mission statements that give direction to
Islam. Any lack of mission statement severely restricts the meaningfulness
of the text because it denies that text any purpose.
> they quote the Bible whenever the quote seems to
> support their position.
I think Baha'is tend to quote the scripture of relevance to the people with
whom they communicate. That has always been my approach, both as a Baha'i
and before I became a Baha'i.
> But then they turn around and dismiss (or
> tortuously interpret) the Biblical quotes which undermine their
> position.
Every theology has its far share of literalism and "tortuous" symbolic
interpretation. The key to determining the accuracy of a given theology is
to determine the objectives of the scriptures concerned and measure the
consistency of interpretation against this certain foundation of purpose.
> They do this of necessity, because in order for Baha'i (or Islamic)
> theology to work, Jesus must be demoted from His true nature as one
> person of the Trinity. Adam, on the other hand, through whom sin
> entered into the world, must strangely be elevated to a position of
> equality with Jesus.
Adam has a dual nature. There are two different creation stories in Genesis.
One describes the creation of Adam the Manifestation, while the other
describes the creation of Adam, the community that followed the
Manifestation. In Genesis 5:2 we read that Adam is plural _and_ both male
and female. This further demonstrates significance of Adam the community as
opposed to Adam the individual. The community of Adam sinned and was caste
out of the Garden of Eden, just as the community of Christ did sin in its
persecution of "heretics", and likewise was cast out of the Garden of the
Trust of the Peoples and their Kindreds. In this very day, minor extreme
elements of Islam following in the footsteps of history's extreme elements
of Christianity etc., persecute those they consider heretical or different.
The sin of Adam (the community) is judgement being the fruit of knowledge of
good and evil. Judgement is the sin of all those who persecute others.
> Each of them becomes merely one among many
> "springtimes," or "manifestations," (but not the thing being
> manifested), none to be preferred above any other.
> This inherent contradiction between the Baha'i and Christian essentials
> of faith cannot be overcome by any attempts at reconciling the two.
If it is the same sun that rises every day, does this make the sun any less
than it is. Likewise, if the spirit of Christ is present at every
Manifestation of God, does this fact belittle the Spirit of Christ?
As for Christian essentials, these must necessarily be determined by a
scriptural mission statement and not by a theologian or tortuous
interpretation.
> One
> of them must be flat wrong. And while Baha'i apologists are
> impressively skilled at making the attempt, even they must resort to
> verbal contortions, shifting back and forth between literal and liberal
> interpretations at the drop of a verse.
This is verily better than disregarding some verses altogether - such as the
final clause of Matthew 7:12, or Luke 6:37, or 1John 6:7-8, or the
Beatitudes, or Matthew 6:14
> And while they seem to do well
> with individual (inconvenient) passages of the Bible, the overall
> Biblical message stands as an insurmountable fortress against all
> attempts to make it fit the Baha'i concept of Jesus being only a
> manifestation of God, and not God incarnate.
The literal interpretation of such "inconvenient" passages of the Bible are
completely out of context with respect to the mission statement of
Christianity in Matthew 7:12.
God incarnate, manifesting in a form with which material beings may
interact, does not possess the material form of Homo Sapiens, but the
spiritual form of humanity. Thus was it said that God Created humanity
(Adam) in Her/His own image. The Bible is not about material truth, but
rather is it about spiritual truth. E.g.. Christ is not said to return on
the clouds of Earth (material), but rather upon the clouds of Heaven
(spiritual). Yet, ignoring the specifics of such prophesy, the materialists
look for Christ to return on material clouds while the spiritual find that
Christ's return is upon spiritual clouds.
> I am not the only former Baha'i to have noticed these things.
> Baha'is themselves are well intentioned and beloved by God. But Baha'i
> doctrine is a dangerous deception. The only shield and shelter is a
> personal relationship with Jesus Christ.
A personal relationship with God is the unique experience of every
individual. Thus it is that no two individuals possess the same set of
beliefs and convictions. You simply cannot get more personal than that.
Buddha tells the story of the elephant and the blind men, that is later
retold by Rumi, as a parable of the elephant and the people in a dark room
where they could not see: (Each person came forth from this dark room)/(each
blind person came forth); with a different impression of the elephant.
Though their impressions were drastically different, the fact still remained
that it was but the same elephant they experienced. (See The Spiritual
Couplets of Maulana Jalalu'Din Muhammad Rumi, Book III, Story V & Udana 6.4,
Tittha Sutta) Likewise is it beyond any human being to comprehend
spirituality in its entirety, for how can the finite encompass the infinite?
So each of us has the experience of spirituality that is unique to our
spiritual journey: our personal relationship with God.
> You can know that for a fact
> based not on what I say, but by your own experience through prayer,
> Bible reading, and fellowship with saved Christians.
All who forgive are saved. The only alternative is that the author of the
concept: "Forgive others their trespasses against you, and God will forgive
you your trespasses" is lying.
As for being lead by the nose through the Bible: Been there, done that. My
own Bible reading revealed much that Christians are reluctant to discuss. My
experience tells me that compared to Bible reading, fellowship leaves a lot
to be desired from a truth gathering perspective. The Gospels teach us not
to judge, and yet my experience in Christian fellowship has seen me judged
for having my own unique individual belief. Such judgement is not a good
example to follow. Judgement is what religious communities are most prone
to. This is the lesson of Genesis, that sees its ultimate consequence in the
story of Cain and Abel, and indeed, the persecution of every other
Manifestation of God.
> Jesus proves
> Himself to me all the time. He is reaching out to you, also. May He be
> extra close to us in these unsteady times.
Likewise do all the other Manifestations of God prove themselves to me when
I read Their works. It is through their sharing of common objectives, as
taught in culturally and historically different circumstances that proves
that their message is one, but it is our diverse cultures and needs that
colour the message with different shades.
It is inevitable, that an interpretation that is not constrained by a
mission statement, or statement of context, goal, or objective; is doomed to
fragmentation, scriptural contradiction, and deviation from the intention of
the scripture concerned. Such baseless interpretations find themselves
vulnerable to materialism, as their proponents must assume some basis or
foundation in reality, if they do not accept the stated scriptural
foundation or basis. Thus did those compassless explorers of old denounce
Christ with the cry, "He saved others but cannot save himself" because they
sought a material king and not the Spiritual King. What, other than
materialism, can step into the void left when the purpose of religion is
removed?
Matt Menge
> Hello Adelard and Timothy;
> In reading Timothy Casey's response, I wish to commend him for his well
> researched comments, and to say that I agree with much of what he says.
> However, he necessarily steers away from the main point, which is to
> address the nature of salvation (ref Adelard's question of works vs
> faith) through Christ. Tim's focus on the Golden Rule does not suffice.
> Salvation from sin is the center and core of Christ's unique role as the
> one and only begotten Son of God, the Messiah. The Golden rule is a
> subset, not an overarching principle, of salvation.
> The key error in Baha'i doctrine (as I see it), is that while quoting
> the Bible on the one hand, Baha'is reject the Bible as the uncorrupted,
> inerrant word of God. Therefore, they are resorting for support to
> something they regard as unreliable support!
My understanding is that although there are some errors in the Bible,
they tend to be about insignificant issues. For example it is certain
that Baha'is believe Abraham sacrificed Ishmael and not Isaac. Shoghi
Effendi says as much. But on the other hand this is not a very
significant issue.
Paul was a very great man, but he was not a Prophet like Isaiah or
Jeremiah. In fact I don't really have a problem with what Paul says.
Maybe this is because I have not studied him carefully enough. If I
had any problem with Paul it is what he chooses to emphasize. Indeed
his emphases appear to be different than those of Jesus. From this it
is clear that he is marketing Christianity to the Gentiles who are not
familiar with the concept of revelation. So instead Paul talks to
them in terms they understand like sacrifices (which they practised)
and faith (as in faith in their pagan Gods or in the Roman Empire).
Jesus did not emphasize these things (although they do appear in His
teachings) but Paul did, because he was marketing Christianity to the
Gentiles.
Holding the Koran as
> superior to the Bible, they quote the Bible whenever the quote seems to
> support their position. But then they turn around and dismiss (or
> tortuously interpret) the Biblical quotes which undermine their
> position.
> They do this of necessity, because in order for Baha'i (or Islamic)
> theology to work, Jesus must be demoted from His true nature as one
> person of the Trinity.
Adam, on the other hand, through whom sin
> entered into the world, must strangely be elevated to a position of
> equality with Jesus.
From what I have seen there is a lot more of this elevation going on
than demotion. The arguments against Jesus Godhood are at quite an
abstract level and have few practical ramifications. For all
practical purposes, such as prayer, divine intervention, forgiveness
of sins, and so on Jesus is indeed God. In fact Baha'u'llah on
numerous occasions stated that he himself was God, meaning the same
thing.
Where Baha'i teachings genuinely differ is their view of Messengers
other than Jesus. Indeed figures such as Adam, Moses, the Buddha,
Muhammad and so on are also seen as being effectively God. They could
also be viewed as appearances of Christ.
As for Adam, my understanding is that the farther back one goes the
more one has to interpret. The Adamic age ended some 5,000 years ago,
and people thought and acted very different at that time than they do
now. I view the story of Adam in twi different ways. In one sense
Adam, which means 'man' or 'earth man', is actually representative of
mankind itself. In another sense I think Eden represents heaven.
That is to say Eden is the world of God, and Adam's 'sin' (sin means
to separate oneself from God) is his interest in mankind, which causes
him to be cast out of heaven and born into the human world. But it
was this act which actually allowed him to guide and educate mankind.
Each of them becomes merely one among many
> "springtimes," or "manifestations," (but not the thing being
> manifested), none to be preferred above any other.
Actually the Manifestations are what they manifest for all practical
purposes. The Manifestations are all-knowing, all-powerful, all-wise,
and the creators of the universe. Your down-playing of
Manifestationhood is actually a cheap trick to make Baha'is look like
something they are not.
There is definitely one to be preferred above others, and that is the
most recent one. To a Baha'i the only thing important about Christian
beliefs and practices is the extent to which they are similar to
Baha'i beliefs and practices. Also as a general rule Manifestations
are greater than the ones that preceded them. Adam and Baha'u'llah
are exceptions to this rule because they founded a cycle and the
Manifestations after them were not, or will not be, as great. That is
to say Baha'u'llah is greater than Adam, but not Noah.
> This inherent contradiction between the Baha'i and Christian essentials
> of faith cannot be overcome by any attempts at reconciling the two. One
> of them must be flat wrong.
I think the errors in the Bible are pretty minor. I do not see any
contradictions on significant issues.
And while Baha'i apologists are
> impressively skilled at making the attempt, even they must resort to
> verbal contortions, shifting back and forth between literal and liberal
> interpretations at the drop of a verse.
Well, Baha'is generally accept Baha'i interpretations (the
interpretations of Baha'i scripture) of the Bible as superior. They
do not always fully grasp why this is the case. But I can tell you as
a fact that Baha'i scriptural interpretation was a large part of what
made me interested in the Faith at first. Not just because it allowed
for another Prophet, but because I actually found it to make more
sense than common approaches. The first Baha'i book I read was a
small introduction to the Faith, but it was second book, the
Kitab-i-Iqan which actually converted me. I simply found the Baha'i
approach to scripture to be superior to any I had seen thusfar.
And while they seem to do well
> with individual (inconvenient) passages of the Bible, the overall
> Biblical message stands as an insurmountable fortress against all
> attempts to make it fit the Baha'i concept of Jesus being only a
> manifestation of God, and not God incarnate.
I don't know where your coming from. There is nothing small or petty
about being a Manifestation of God. For all practical purposes a
Manifestation is God. It is only at a highly abstract level that He
is not. There is no limit to Manifestation's knowledge or power or
goodness. They are truly infinite. To see this as downplaying the
station of Christ boggles the mind. I really don't know what you are
talking about.
Best Regards,
Matt Menge
ROBERT ARVAY
Once again I commend your lucidity and thoroughness. I think you make
as good a case as can be made for your point of view. In doing so,
however, I still think that you conclude as I do, that the Baha'i and
Christian viewpoints are not reconcilable. Your Biblical quotations are
some of my favorites (although I didn't remember chapter and verse
numbers). But you see them through a different lens than I do. And I
see them as the inspired, literal, inerrant word of God, which you allow
that you don't, although I notice that you choose your words very
carefully, attributing much of the Bible to historic and cultural
context. But when you say that the Koran "has only a slight edge on the
Bible," you encounter that breaking point which separates Christianity
from Baha'i by an infinite gulf. We do not regard the Koran in any way
superior to the Bible. God's word is perfect, and we believe He has
protected His holy scripture from any corruption.
Ironically, I do agree with much of what you say. But when one is
dealing with such absolutes as truth, a grain of difference can in
reality be a mountain.
For example, I do agree that the Bible is heavily saturated in culture.
The very concept of the atoning sacrifice, the scapegoat, the remission
of sin by blood alone--- all that is Hebrew from beginning to end. The
male lineage of Jesus, even though Joseph is not the bio-father, is also
richly Hebrew. None of this disqualifies the truth of the Bible, but
brilliantly reinforces it! The Jews are the chosen people through whom
the Messiah enters the world, and through whom all the people of the
world are blessed. In the old testament, there are numerous indications
that fatherhood was not counted from the seed, but from marriage to the
mother. Jesus fulfilled the prophecies so thoroughly and so completely
that the book The Passover Plot made the case that it had to be an
elaborate, fraudulent setup (which would be true, except for the miracle
of the virgin birth!).
Yet, the setup would have to be so impossibly complex that it is
entirely implausible.
Tim, if I have been uncouth, I apologize. I cannot claim the slightest
share of any authority of my own. I came to the Bible an unworthy
publican, and remain wretchedly sinful. My only boast is in Jesus. I
would continue further, but unless it interests you, I'll not delve into
every detail of every verse. I believe in every jot and tittle of the
Bible, and not because of any intellectual capacity, but only as the
unmerited gift of God.
Yes, love and forgiveness are the law. But grace, the blood of Jesus,
transcends the law.
May you share in the feast of salvation (and I don't rule out that you
are already saved) as I do, and may we share His joy in heaven forever!
ROBERT ARVAY
You state that your understanding is that there are some errors in the
Bible, but that they are insignificant. You choose as an example a
crucial difference between the Bible and the Koran. In Genesis, Abraham
offers Isaac up as a sacrifice. In the Koran, it's not Isaac but
Ishmael.
This is a vital difference. Indeed, in a book written by a holy,
perfect God, any error would be significant. The Bible has no "filler"
lines, no tossaway verses. Every "jot and tittle" is purposeful and
indispensable.
The story of Isaac's almost-sacrifice is a prophetic passage,
foreshadowing Christ's crucufixion and resurrection. Genesis Chapter 22
tells this fascinating story. God tells Abraham to take his son, "your
only son," (see John 3:16), and sacrifice him upon a far distant
mountain. Some have thought this mountain to be Golgotha, where Jesus
would be crucified centuries later. Along the way, Isaac asks his
father, where is the sacrifice? Abraham tells Isaac, prophetically,
that God will provide the sacrifice. Later, they find a ram tangled in
the bushes and sacrifice it. But the sacrifice which God will (has)
provide(d) is His Only Son, Jesus Christ, the Messiah.
In this story, we can vicariously experience the pain and anguish of
Abraham, who loves God so completely that he will lose his only son
Isaac in perfect obedience. Only then can we begin to imagine the pain
of God the Father, as He gave up His only son Jesus for us.
In referring to Isaac as Abraham's only son, God is not misspeaking, nor
is the significance trite. It is Isaac, not Ishmael, who is in the
legitimate lineage of the Messiah. Ishmael is a child born of Abraham's
(And Sara's) momentary departure from faith. Isaac is the child
promised to Abraham, born of faith, not the work of intercourse with a
slave girl.
Not to pillory Ishmael, who is rescued by God in the wilderness. But he
is not the equal, not the superior of Isaac. And this is no
insignificant matter.
Once again the Christian / Moslem and Christian / Baha'i dichotomies are
sharply either / or. Moslems and Baha'is are certainly beloved and
sought by God for eternal salvation. I don't say that one must belong
to a church to be saved. Salvation is from Jesus alone, a free gift to
us, the undeserving.
But the Bible is the inerrant, enduring word of God. To lose that is to
lose much.
May God richly bless us all in these coming times of trial!
Timothy Casey
> Hello, Timothy;
> Once again I commend your lucidity and thoroughness. I think you make
> as good a case as can be made for your point of view. In doing so,
> however, I still think that you conclude as I do, that the Baha'i and
> Christian viewpoints are not reconcilable.
Thankyou for your kind assessment of my poor expression. I cannot say that I
feel that Baha'i and Christian viewpoints are irreconcileable. There is a
common purpose and goal. All that differs is cultural - the differences of
"traditions of men". Everything else must necessarily derive from purpose,
such that a Christian who lives the life that Christ prescribed is described
by `Abdu'l-Baha as a Baha'i.
> Your Biblical quotations are
> some of my favorites (although I didn't remember chapter and verse
> numbers). But you see them through a different lens than I do. And I
> see them as the inspired, literal, inerrant word of God, which you allow
Dare I say that if we allow the "Word of God" to decree that PI=3 or that
the greatest tree is the mustard tree, what then do we do with practical
geometry or for that matter, the mountain ash or even the sequouia? See:
Daniel 4:10-11, Matthew 4:8 (Basis for some modern Flat Earth theories)
Joshua 10:12, 1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, & Psalm 104:5
(Basis for a Geocentric Universe with a fixed non-rotating Earth - A view
used to convict Galileo of heresy)
1 Kings 7:23, 1 Chronicles 4:2 (10 X Pi = 30, not 31)
Mark 4:31-32(The mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds and becomes the
greatest of all trees)
Genesis 7:19-24 (Global flood)
Literal inerrancy has lead to a clash of science and religion of titanic
proportions, not to mention the questioning of the ethics of religion in
general. It is of vital importance to draw the line between scripture and
interpretation. What is on the page is scripture, but what we glean from
reading scripture is interpretation - even if it is literal. If we
generalise or homogenise our interpretation, we will always encounter
problems. This is why the purpose of religion as expressed in religious
mission statements are so vitally important. They determine the correctness
of our interpretation. So when read that Baha''u'llah said that copper in
its own mine, turns into gold over a period of seventy years; I need not
throw away 200 years of geology to conform the decree of literal inerrancy;
nor need I neglect the vast majority of copper deposits in the world on the
basis that they are much older than seventy years by several orders of
magnitude - Nor need I allow the literal inerrancy stance to determine that
I should fraudulently mislead mining operations and their shareholders into
believing that all these ancient copper deposits must really be gold...
...I only need question my own very fallible interpretation of the verses as
to its relevance to the Covenant or the Ninth Ishraq.
> that you don't, although I notice that you choose your words very
> carefully, attributing much of the Bible to historic and cultural
> context. But when you say that the Koran "has only a slight edge on the
> Bible," you encounter that breaking point which separates Christianity
> from Baha'i by an infinite gulf.
I suspect that my personal attitude to the Quran puts me right in the middle
of that "infinite gulf". Just what half of infinity is, does cause me to
wonder at this situation! :^)
> We do not regard the Koran in any way
> superior to the Bible. God's word is perfect, and we believe He has
> protected His holy scripture from any corruption.
You are entitled to belief. However where do you draw the line between
belief and denial? I also held on to the idea that the Bible was inerrant
for a very long time. I still think that the Bible is wonderful and find it
difficult to accept that what God has decreed, the Human hand has so
arrogantly censored. However, there are bits missing everywhere. There are
also at least five canons (Egyptian, Slavic, Greek, Roman, English). If
human beings can happily burn the inconveniant books, nonchalantly fabricate
others, and offer biased translation without marginal notes detailing all
ambiguities and margins for error, I have to face the fact that people do
impress their own beliefs over scripture by the very act of sifting
(choosing a canon) "refining" (adding vowels) and selectively transating
into a language with a far far greater vocabulary. What is most damning is
all the cross-references to missing portions of the Bible. It is obvious
that the book-burners have had a field-day.
Consider:
Reference Missing Book
Numbers 21:14 The Book of the Wars of the LORD
Joshua 10:13 The Book of Jashar
2 Samuel 1:18 The Book of Jashar
1 Kings 11:41 Acts of Solomon
1 Chronicles 29:29 Chronicles of Samuel the Seer
Chronicles of Nathan the prophet
Chronicles of Gad the seer
2 Chronicles 9:29 History of Nathan the prophet
Prophecy of Ahi'jah the Shi'lonite
Visions of Iddo the seer
(concerning Jerobo'am the son of
Nebat)
2 Chronicles 12:15 Chronicles of Shemai'ah the prophet
Chronicles of Iddo the seer
2 Chronicles 13:22 Story of Iddo the seer
2 Chronicles 20:34 Chronicles of Jehu the son of Hana'ni
[Supposed to occur in "The Book of
the Kings of Israel"]
2 Chronicles 33:19 Chronicles of the Seers (major subsection)
Colossians 4:16 The letter of Paul to the La-odice'ans
Jude 1:14 The Book of Enoch
> Ironically, I do agree with much of what you say. But when one is
> dealing with such absolutes as truth, a grain of difference can in
> reality be a mountain.
And mountains are there to be climbed! :^)
The problem with absolutes, is that there is only one Absolute. Human
fallibility deems that there is always more to learn, and that one more
piece of information can always upset the applecart of human knowledge and
belief.
> For example, I do agree that the Bible is heavily saturated in culture.
> The very concept of the atoning sacrifice, the scapegoat, the remission
> of sin by blood alone--- all that is Hebrew from beginning to end. The
> male lineage of Jesus, even though Joseph is not the bio-father, is also
> richly Hebrew. None of this disqualifies the truth of the Bible, but
> brilliantly reinforces it!
Such pecadillos define the nature of Biblical truth - They disqualify it
from material truth and emphasise its spiritual truth. In doing so they
disqualify a materialist approach.
> The Jews are the chosen people through whom
> the Messiah enters the world, and through whom all the people of the
> world are blessed. In the old testament, there are numerous indications
> that fatherhood was not counted from the seed, but from marriage to the
> mother. Jesus fulfilled the prophecies so thoroughly and so completely
> that the book The Passover Plot made the case that it had to be an
> elaborate, fraudulent setup (which would be true, except for the miracle
> of the virgin birth!).
That was also something that bothered me when I was a Catholic. Hearing the
*We're-in-the-business-of-deliberately-and-thoughtfully-engineering-the-fulf
ilment-of-prophecy* quotes from the weekly readings of the Gospels used to
throw me. However, perhaps there is a lesson to this like deliberation,
mindfulness, and thughtfulness? It also showed the mercy of Christ for the
Jewish people by giving them signs to believe.
> Yet, the setup would have to be so impossibly complex that it is
> entirely implausible.
Doesn't stop people from trying. Christ had a competitor who started an
uprising and was crucified for it in 66AD - About the time that the Roman
persecution of Christians began. This "other Christ", mentioned occasionally
by Paul, also had brothers and sisters, mother and father with the same
names. A theory is that this was the False-Christ who, leading his people as
a material king; started a revolt and because of what they called
themselves, got the rest of Christianity blamed for the crime as well.
> Tim, if I have been uncouth, I apologize. I cannot claim the slightest
> share of any authority of my own.
Likewise, I apologise if you feel included in any of my harsh
generalisations. You do tend to behave more like the Baha'is I am accustomed
to dealing with. I have observed few other people with the maturity to
apologise and reconcile themselves with others - On the slight chance that
it _might_ be necessary. Although I must say that I am an authority on my
own opinion in those moments when I can remember it all! :^)
> I came to the Bible an unworthy
> publican, and remain wretchedly sinful.
I came to the Baha'i Faith lost and blind, frightened and wanting. I can't
say that I have all the answers, but in the Baha'i Faith, my fears were
banished and my questions answered. In the Baha'i Faith I found unparalleled
freedom and security. I can wander amongst the scriptures of any religion
secure in the knowledge that all scripture is from the same God to different
peoples and their different cultures.
> My only boast is in Jesus. I
> would continue further, but unless it interests you, I'll not delve into
> every detail of every verse. I believe in every jot and tittle of the
> Bible, and not because of any intellectual capacity, but only as the
> unmerited gift of God.
"Unmerited Gift of God": That it is, along with all scripture.
> Yes, love and forgiveness are the law. But grace, the blood of Jesus,
> transcends the law.
Well put, but perhaps love and forgiveness are more than the law. After all,
it is written: "God is love", and Christ certainly did blaze a sure path to
love and thus to God.
> May you share in the feast of salvation (and I don't rule out that you
> are already saved) as I do, and may we share His joy in heaven forever!
Perhaps such things as feasts, salvation, heaven, and hell are not
constrained by space-time as we are. Perhaps such things are as much here as
there, or need not be then or now or later, but just *be" at all, and at any
time... ...perhaps it all depends on who we become...
Matt Menge
> Hello, Matt;
> You state that your understanding is that there are some errors in the
> Bible, but that they are insignificant. You choose as an example a
> crucial difference between the Bible and the Koran. In Genesis, Abraham
> offers Isaac up as a sacrifice. In the Koran, it's not Isaac but
> Ishmael.
> This is a vital difference. Indeed, in a book written by a holy,
> perfect God, any error would be significant. The Bible has no "filler"
> lines, no tossaway verses. Every "jot and tittle" is purposeful and
> indispensable.
The Bible is very well preserved, but there is nothing magical about
being in the Bible. Many of the people in the Bible are special and
in some cases even the narrators are special. But the people who
compiled the Bible were not special. The Qur'an makes this correction
because there is meaning attached to it, but not a meaning which
contradicts Biblical teachings. See below.
> The story of Isaac's almost-sacrifice is a prophetic passage,
> foreshadowing Christ's crucufixion and resurrection. Genesis Chapter 22
> tells this fascinating story. God tells Abraham to take his son, "your
> only son," (see John 3:16), and sacrifice him upon a far distant
> mountain. Some have thought this mountain to be Golgotha, where Jesus
> would be crucified centuries later. Along the way, Isaac asks his
> father, where is the sacrifice? Abraham tells Isaac, prophetically,
> that God will provide the sacrifice. Later, they find a ram tangled in
> the bushes and sacrifice it. But the sacrifice which God will (has)
> provide(d) is His Only Son, Jesus Christ, the Messiah.
Ok, so where does it make a difference whether it was Isaac or
Ishmael? Isaac is generally believed to be father of the Jewish
people and Ishmael of the Arabian people. Hence, Isaac in some sense
represents Moses and Ishmael Muhammad. However, neither of these
individuals were actually sacrificed.
Abraham's true seed was Christ Who was sacrificed (Galatians 3:16).
And this seed was born through Isaac (Genesis 21:12), as Christ came
from the Jewish people but was not a Messenger to the Jews only.
> In this story, we can vicariously experience the pain and anguish of
> Abraham, who loves God so completely that he will lose his only son
> Isaac in perfect obedience. Only then can we begin to imagine the pain
> of God the Father, as He gave up His only son Jesus for us.
Again, this isn't really affected by whether it was Ismael or Isaac.
Are you saying that Abraham cared more for one son just because of how
it was born?
> In referring to Isaac as Abraham's only son, God is not misspeaking, nor
> is the significance trite. It is Isaac, not Ishmael, who is in the
> legitimate lineage of the Messiah. Ishmael is a child born of Abraham's
> (And Sara's) momentary departure from faith. Isaac is the child
> promised to Abraham, born of faith, not the work of intercourse with a
> slave girl.
Then it would actually make more sense to sacrifice Ishmael, if he was
really conceived out of sin... Here it is, God refers to Isaac in
this way in Genesis 22:2. I suppose you could just substitute Ishmael
for Isaac. After all, if Paul is to be believed it is neither Ishmael
or Isaac who is the true seed, but Christ.
> Not to pillory Ishmael, who is rescued by God in the wilderness. But he
> is not the equal, not the superior of Isaac. And this is no
> insignificant matter.
So you're judging a person on the way he was born? Shouldn't we judge
people on the basis of their personal qualities?
> Once again the Christian / Moslem and Christian / Baha'i dichotomies are
> sharply either / or. Moslems and Baha'is are certainly beloved and
> sought by God for eternal salvation. I don't say that one must belong
> to a church to be saved. Salvation is from Jesus alone, a free gift to
> us, the undeserving.
You seem to be a very kind person.
> But the Bible is the inerrant, enduring word of God. To lose that is to
> lose much.
The Bible is pretty reliable. The Qur'an is apparently designed to be
a kind of purification of scripture. Remarkably most of what is seen
in the Qur'an agrees pretty closely with the Bible. There are some
things added and of course there is different wording, but very few
corrections. Baha'u'llah makes one amendment to the New Testament in
the Kitab-i-Iqan. Overall the corrections are few and far between,
and not too significant.
I know the people who compiled the Bible were supposed to be guided by
the Holy Spirit. But in my mind that is kind of a weak argument.
Maybe I was guided by the Holy Spirit when I wrote you this letter. I
think God works to protect the integrity of scripture but He doesn't
do all the work for us. We have to do our part too, and if we fail we
come up with problems.
God bless you,
Matt
ROBERT ARVAY
Awhile back (months ago?) I exposited on the practical meaning of the
literal (vs liberal) interpretation of the Bible. To recap:
Literalism, while strictly loyal to the scripture, is not a slavish
obedience to the dictionary. Instead, it is a disciplined approach to
Bible reading which begins at the exact wording of the oldest available
manuscripts. (The exact methodology considers more than just age, but
I'm only a layman.) This discipline simply prevents unwarranted,
creative departures (license) from the word of God, especially
interpretations based on personal preference.
Literalism takes into account symbolism (as in parables) and the
difficulty of describing the spiritual in physical terms (as in
visions). It also accepts that analogies are always approximate (else
there would be no need for them), and that they make use of the familiar
as a steppingstone to understanding the unfamiliar (and hence the
familiar mustard tree being the greatest tree without mentioning the
sequoia). Honest disagreements, even with the rigid discipline of
literalism, are possible, of course. Literalism, however, provides
common boundaries for the discussion of those inevitable human
misunderstandings (1 Cor 13:12--- we see only in part, not the
whole...).
Literalism seeks the truth, and follows the path of truth wherever it
might lead. It has no interest in substantiating any particular
foregone conclusion.
One of my greatest difficulties with Baha'i explanations of Biblical
passages is that they frequently seem almost unrelated to the exact
wording. (Even parables and visions are clearly indicated as such by
the context. We don't just assign these categories at will.) In Baha'i
writings, it is as if the Biblical wording were irrelevant and could
mean anything or nothing. One glaring example of this is the "Pit of
Error" interpretation of the bottomless pit in The Revelation Ch 20.
And in general, Baha'i interpretations of Rev ignore the entire
structure of the story line, making Heidi out of War and Peace (or vice
versa). Of course this is necessary to the Baha'i position, because no
meteoric object (Rev 8:8) has yet crashed into the sea destroying a
third of all ships, etc etc etc.
But, not to lose the forest for the trees (or the Bible among the
verses), misinterpreting individual passages is only one way in which
Baha'i misses the mark. The overall plan and message of the Bible is
markedly different from the overall Baha'i message.
The Bible frames creation with a definite beginning and a conclusive
end. Baha'i doctrine holds to no specific beginning and to no ultimate
finality. The Old Testament and New are intimately intertwined with
each other, but not with the Bhagavad Ghita (etc). The OT is rich with
references to Jesus [who is the Angel of the Lord in Genesis 32:24
wrestling with Jacob, and who appears to Manoah and his wife in the
story of Samson in Judges 13]. The Trinity, which is elucidated in no
one passage of the Bible, is exposited by the Bible in toto (it is a
miraculously holistic book, unlike any other).
The overall message of the Bible, more so than any particular passage
(or selections thereof) presents a distinct picture, a divine
world-view, which precludes any joining of Bible-based Christianity with
any other world view. In the relevance to our discussion, the idea of
Jesus being merely one among a number of (or among an unnumbered series
of) manifestations is, excuse the expression, manifestly incompatible
with the Biblical world-view AND its passages in context.
And that is why--- either the Bible or Baha'i writings must be declared
unreliable in order to achieve a fit.
While appreciating the sincerity of your faith, and its positive effect
on your life--- even your higher station in heaven than mine will be---
my own experience in life, my spiritual journey, has led me into the
garden of Biblical literalism, its constant joys of discovery, its
continual protection from fatal errancy--- and to the personal
relationship with Jesus as the only one who can say, No man comes unto
the Father but by me.
He has yet to return, but each day brings us closer to that time when
denial is no longer possible, that day when every knee shall bend, and
every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.
May he richly bless you and yours!
ROBERT ARVAY
It seems to me that you were opposing my view of Ishmael and Isaac in
detail without considering the argument in whole. I'd ask you to reread
it, but maybe I just failed to express the point clearly.
Actually, the theme of older and younger brothers is a recurrent one in
the Old Testament. Abel and Cain, Esau and Jacob, Joseph and his
brothers, the kingdoms of Israel and Juda, and in the New Testament, the
Prodigal Son and his brother.
I see in all of these a relationship between the Jewish people (our
elder brothers in the faith of God) and Christians. It's rather
complex, but the relationships and rivalries are prophetic. The younger
brother (Christians, Jacob) inherit the birthright of the older, but are
ultimately reconciled, indeed, even as Ishmael helped Isaac bury their
deceased father Abraham (prophetic of a reconciliation between Jews and
Arabs?).
But it does matter whether Cain killed Abel or the other way, whether
Esau is the rightful heir of Isaac, and yes, whether Isaac or Ishmael is
the prototype for the crucifixion.
Also--- the Bible's authenticity originates with God's inspiration---
and continues through the scribes, the translators and the publishers.
It is not to say that fraudulent or erroneous editions cannot occur---
they certainly do. But they don't win out. Many past translations have
fallen by the wayside, as have many false doctrines of Christianity, to
be as forgotten as the Nicolaitans. I regard the King James version as
authentic, but remain open to Biblical arguments for other translations,
trusting that God will lead me aright if only I allow Him.
But if we begin to say that errors in God's word can be inconsequential,
I think we will have gone upon a dangerous spiritual side road, one that
leads nowhere good.
I respectfully ask you to reconsider your position on this, as I have in
the past benefitted greatly by reassessing my own erroneous beliefs.
God will guide you. And may He richly bless us both!
Matt Menge
> Hello, Matt;
> It seems to me that you were opposing my view of Ishmael and Isaac in
> detail without considering the argument in whole. I'd ask you to reread
> it, but maybe I just failed to express the point clearly.
> Actually, the theme of older and younger brothers is a recurrent one in
> the Old Testament. Abel and Cain, Esau and Jacob, Joseph and his
> brothers, the kingdoms of Israel and Juda, and in the New Testament, the
> Prodigal Son and his brother.
> I see in all of these a relationship between the Jewish people (our
> elder brothers in the faith of God) and Christians. It's rather
> complex, but the relationships and rivalries are prophetic.
Well, I think it depends on how far you want to go. In some sense if
it was completely insignificant there would be no point in correcting
it. I said it was relatively insignificant, not completely.
But I guess I see Isaac as a prototype for the Jewish people, and
Ismael as a prototype for the Arab peoples. Jesus is Isaac's "seed"
(Genesis 21:12). That is, He is the seed of the Jewish peoples.
Ishmael, however, is Abraham's seed (21:13), because Muhammad came
directly to the Arabs and not especially to the Jews.
But if we were to select a prototype for Jesus's sacrifice, I don't
think I would be ashamed of either Ishmael or Isaac. They both seem
like fine and upright people. In fact I think the idea of the younger
son inheriting has another message, that you should judge people on
their personal qualities, not the manner in which they were born.
> Also--- the Bible's authenticity originates with God's inspiration---
> and continues through the scribes, the translators and the publishers.
> It is not to say that fraudulent or erroneous editions cannot occur---
> they certainly do. But they don't win out. Many past translations have
> fallen by the wayside, as have many false doctrines of Christianity, to
> be as forgotten as the Nicolaitans. I regard the King James version as
> authentic, but remain open to Biblical arguments for other translations,
> trusting that God will lead me aright if only I allow Him.
Well, maybe the Jews didn't like the idea of not being Abraham's
sacrifice, and so made an error in transcription. In this case the
correct transcription won out, but through a correction made by
Muhammad, not an internal one. As you probably know it is a Muslim
belief that truth ultimately vanquishes falsehood.
My experience has been that religious errors almost always result in
bringing a _temporary_ benefit to a religion. For instance St.
Ephrem's literal interpetation of the creation story made God look
more powerful in the short term, only in more recent centuries
appearing to be factually incorrect.
> But if we begin to say that errors in God's word can be inconsequential,
> I think we will have gone upon a dangerous spiritual side road, one that
> leads nowhere good.
I don't think its inconsequential. I think it is relatively
inconsequential.
> I respectfully ask you to reconsider your position on this, as I have in
> the past benefitted greatly by reassessing my own erroneous beliefs.
> God will guide you. And may He richly bless us both!
I have guests, I have to go.
Later,
Matt
Matt Menge
> But if we begin to say that errors in God's word can be inconsequential,
> I think we will have gone upon a dangerous spiritual side road, one that
> leads nowhere good.
I think God helps in the preservation of texts, but He does not do
everything for you. It is similar to how God helps the spiritual
progress of society. But civilization does not just take care of
itself. It needs the periodic intervention of the Manifestations of
God. Otherwise good would not triumph over evil. Truth would not
vanquish falsehood. And our knowledge of scripture would likewise not
improve.
> I respectfully ask you to reconsider your position on this, as I have in
> the past benefitted greatly by reassessing my own erroneous beliefs.
> God will guide you. And may He richly bless us both!
Dear Robert, my problem is that I don't see anything special about the
people who compiled the Bible. Hence there are all kinds of
possibilities for error. Which books do we include? How much weight
do we give so and so? Generally speaking I think God protects
scripture, but human action is important in this as well as everything
else.
Best Regards,
Matt
Matt Menge
> But if we begin to say that errors in God's word can be inconsequential,
> I think we will have gone upon a dangerous spiritual side road, one that
> leads nowhere good.
I am not sure that my last message got through.
Dear Robert, I think that God does intervene to try to preserve
scripture. But its just like good conquering evil, or truth
triumphing over flasehood or mankind's spiritual progress or anything
else. First, human's need to make sufficient effort. Second,
periodic intervention is needed by the Manifestations. Without the
Manifestations good would not triumph over evil, nor will truth
triumph over falsehood, nor will our understanding of scripture
improve.
> I respectfully ask you to reconsider your position on this, as I have in
> the past benefitted greatly by reassessing my own erroneous beliefs.
> God will guide you. And may He richly bless us both!
Well, I am often thinking about religion so I'm sure I will. But why
is the Bible canon so special? Why include Paul and James and not
someone else? Why leave out the Appocrypha? The compilers of the
Bible were nothing but ordinary people like you and me, so what is so
special about them?
Best Regards,
Matt
ROBERT ARVAY
Blessings to your guests!
I pretty much agree with most of what you said. But I most strongly
disagree with any suggestion that the Bible contains any fraudulent
entries (Isaac/Ishmael), or that there can be any benefit, even
temporary, from untruthfulness in scripture. But perhaps I did not
clearly understand if this is what you meant--- after all, you had
guests waiting--- and I'm getting ready for church right now--- haste
makes for poor writing? (As for science: I believe in the Biblical
account of creation, too.)
And finally, I can't grasp the concept of an inconsequential error in
such an absolute context as truth--- ie Biblical truth.
God bless you!
ROBERT ARVAY
My belief is that the compilers etc of the Bible were not special
people--- but that they operated under divine guidance or protection,
just as you and I do when we prayerfully embark upon some special task
to which God has set us. The task of translating and compiling the
Bible was a most especial and sacred task, since it is the setting down
of God's own words. Even so, I might begin to believe that God would
allow errors to creep in if I were to see any persuasive evidence. So
far, although I have encountered many allegations of such, some of them
initially convincing, I have yet to find one that holds up. It is
frankly quite comforting to know that the Bible is a safe refuge, and
that it always will be.
Randy Burns
What do you do when you kids or grand kids get sick? Do you rely on your
Church for faith healing? Everytime?
Cheers, Randy
--
ROBERT ARVAY <RAR...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:25226-3B...@storefull-111.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
Matt Menge
Well, I will have to admit that I have not studied this issue in great
detail, although I know of some Baha'is who have. I am only aware of
the two instances that I have cited, in which an obvious Biblical
event is referred to but different words are used.
I am not really interested in the matter, outside of vindicating that
the Baha'i teachings are correct. Generally speaking I prefer the
interpretation approach.
Best Regards,
Matt
Matt Menge
> Hello Matt;
> Blessings to your guests!
> I pretty much agree with most of what you said. But I most strongly
> disagree with any suggestion that the Bible contains any fraudulent
> entries (Isaac/Ishmael), or that there can be any benefit, even
> temporary, from untruthfulness in scripture. But perhaps I did not
> clearly understand if this is what you meant--- after all, you had
> guests waiting--- and I'm getting ready for church right now--- haste
> makes for poor writing?
There really isn't any benefit other than that it causes people to be
more cautious, I suppose.
When I was talking about temporary benefits I was referring to
errors made by the church in general. Most of the errors the church
appears to have made gave a temporary benefit to the church, but hurt
them in the long run.
As for the creation story, I don't see any errors, but I don't
interpret it literally either. I am not aware of any official Baha'i
position on the issue, but personally I see the seven days as the
ministry of seven Prophets.
> And finally, I can't grasp the concept of an inconsequential error in
> such an absolute context as truth--- ie Biblical truth.
Let me put it in another way. Some groups, such as certain Muslims,
see _major_ errors in the Bible. For instance some believe that the
prophecies about the second coming are erroneous. I even heard one
Muslim say that the Old Testament laws are really the laws of the
Qur'an but they hadn't been properly transcribed. I am really
interested in dissociating Baha'is from claims like this.
I don't know if I can fully assess the importance of the Isaac/Ishmael
debate. I am just saying that, compared to other claims about
Biblical errancy, these claims are minor. I want to dissociate myself
from these claims made by others.
Best Regards,
Matt
Dermod Ryder
"Matt Menge" <mspm...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:dc19cfc5.01100...@posting.google.com...
> RAR...@webtv.net (ROBERT ARVAY) wrote in message
news:<25226-3B...@storefull-111.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
>
> see _major_ errors in the Bible. For instance some believe that the
> prophecies about the second coming are erroneous. I even heard one
> Muslim say that the Old Testament laws are really the laws of the
> Qur'an but they hadn't been properly transcribed. I am really
> interested in dissociating Baha'is from claims like this.
The world does not revolve around Bahais. Unless an official Bahai organ is
the source of this assertion, Bahais are not going to be linked to it -
indeed nobody gives a toss what they think about it - so there is no need to
go around dissociating Bahais from it.
ROBERT ARVAY
You ask whether I rely on faith healing for me and my loved ones---
every time.
Well, let's see:-)
I don't rely on faith nutrition (substituting prayer for eating), nor on
faith transportation (wish I were there), etc etc.
Faith is trusting in God, specifically, trusting that "all things work
together for the good of them that love the Lord." By faith (not
physics) I believe that life has meaning, purpose and plan beyond
temporal biological survival. By faith I believe that I am more than an
assortment of atoms, that thought is more than neural impulse, and that
love is more than hormonal chemistry.
By faith I arise each morning and thank a merciful, forgiving God for
all my many blessings, even when others might consider me poor or
unfortunate. By faith I strive each day to avoid sin and to seek to
become more virtuous. And at night, by faith, I thank God for my daily
bread and ask that He forgive, once again, my many abysmal failings.
And although I have personally witnessed miracles, including miracle
cures beyond the understanding of medical science, I also believe by
faith that miracles are not God's parlor tricks, nor His whimsical
favors to a select few, but rather, His signature upon His personal
messages that convey His eternal love. And I believe by faith that
this kind of miracle is available to ALL who ask of Him.
If God can love even me, He can most assuredly love you, Randy. Why not
ask Him for His close, personal relationship?
May He richly bless you!
ROBERT ARVAY
You stated that most of the errors made by the churches gave them a
temporary benefit but hurt them in the long run.
Bingo.
Sin always takes one further than one wanted to go, and always costs
more than what one was willing to pay.
Which, I suppose, is why churches shouldn't sponsor bingo:^)
God bless us all.
ROBERT ARVAY
Ref your comment on Biblical literalism not being a major interest, and
that you prefer the interpretation approach.
Your position is honestly stated, and I respect that.
I'm aware that I cannot persuade anyone to my view. I can only hope to
accurately describe what that view is, and why I hold it, and hopefully
to dispel some of the many false notions of literalism which I see here
and elsewhere.
My personal belief is that, if one reads scripture prayerfully, asking
God to interpret, He will protect you from going grievously astray. In
my case, I feel that is how God keeps me in His fold, despite my
inclination to jump the fence and fall prey to the wolves. Scripture
alone is not enough. Even the devil quoted it to Jesus.
May God bless and keep you!
Matt Menge
> Hi, Matt:
> Ref your comment on Biblical literalism not being a major interest, and
> that you prefer the interpretation approach.
> Your position is honestly stated, and I respect that.
> I'm aware that I cannot persuade anyone to my view. I can only hope to
> accurately describe what that view is, and why I hold it, and hopefully
> to dispel some of the many false notions of literalism which I see here
> and elsewhere.
> My personal belief is that, if one reads scripture prayerfully, asking
> God to interpret, He will protect you from going grievously astray.
This doesn't sound like literalism to me. And actually I said that
Biblical accuracy was not a major interest.
What I am saying is that sometimes the Bible uses special language and
terms which have a particular meaning in Biblical context. An obvious
example of this is something like justice or love. It may mean one
thing to a Christian, something else to an atheist, and something else
again to a Buddhist or Jew.
However, this is even the case when the Bible describes objects and
things. In some cases a star has a special meaning, and sometimes a
cloud. In some instances these are physical objects, sometimes they
are spiritual objects having a spiritual meaning, and sometimes both.
Nor is this unique to the Bible. This kind of terminology exists in
other religions as well, including the Baha'i Faith.
Hence I think that the meaning of a particular passage in scripture
may not be immediately obvious. You have to look at how those words
are used in other parts of the Bible. For example if Christ says He
is a vine, then you have to look at other parts of the Bible where
vines are mentioned and see if the term is used the same way.
The same goes for Baha'i teachings. I remember when I read some years
ago that Baha'u'llah said that every planet has creatures on it. This
caused me considerable trouble until I slowly realized that
Baha'u'llah saw almost everything as being alive in some way. In one
case he even said that everything except the Word of God is a
'creature'.
There have also been a few cases when I seriously misapprehended even
relatively literal passages, things about ethics and conduct and such.
Best Regards,
Matt
Matt Menge
> My personal belief is that, if one reads scripture prayerfully, asking
> God to interpret, He will protect you from going grievously astray.
So you are saying that your first impression is always right? Or
rather the first conclusion you arrive at? I am not sure how this
differs from some form of egoism.
Best Regards,
Matt
Matt Menge
> My personal belief is that, if one reads scripture prayerfully, asking
> God to interpret, He will protect you from going grievously astray. In
> my case, I feel that is how God keeps me in His fold, despite my
> inclination to jump the fence and fall prey to the wolves.
One more thing. I am saying this philosophy would seem to support
egoism, not that you are egotistical. What's wrong with just saying
that your current opinion is the best you can do, so just to go with
it for now?
Best Regards,
Matt
Dermod Ryder
Although I disagree with him, Robert strikes me as a desperately sincere
man, who takes his study of the Bible seriously, is prepared to defend his
POV and obviously ties to live according to the dictates of his conscience.
Against that you proffer standard Bahai theory that anybody who does not
accept your particular version is suffering from "ego" problems. This is ad
hominem. In intellectual, academic and even moderately intelligent circles
"ego" is not an explanation of any opinion, POV or interpretation.
What Robert is saying in essence is that he allows the spirit of the words
in the Bible to guide him. If I am correct in that, he actually doesn't
need the Bible or anything else - he has got the whole thing sorted out by
himself and for himself - with possibly a little help from the Deity
(Whoever She is)
ROBERT ARVAY
No, of course not. I'm not sayng that when you first read scripture you
get it right. Au contraire. I think of it as if (and perhaps
literally) that when one opens the Bible, two spirits come to him, one
the Holy Spirit, the other most unholy. The unholy spirit says, "Hey,
you're smart enough to interpret this for yourself," and then proceeds
to plant false interpretations in one's mind. But by asking the Holy
Spirit (the author!) to interpret for you, the evil one is chased away,
and the true meaning is made known, or at least, false meanings are
prevented. Understanding a Biblical passage MAY come immediately, or
may come later, and may arrive in any of a number of ways, suddenly or
gradually. Finally, there is no limit to the depth of meaning of a
passage--- although this does not mean it can signify just anything.
Since I wrote this hurriedly, please interpret it liberally :^)
God bless you.
ROBERT ARVAY
ROBERT ARVAY
Actually, I have a high opinion of Matt (but don't let him know). I
appreciate the nice things you said (?) about me. But I don't have "the
whole thing sorted out" by any means! Indeed, the Bible is silent on
some subjects, and for good reason. I simply need the Bible (and prayer
and fellowship) for guidance. It's a lifelong process. My presence
here is to try to focus attention on Jesus. He (and He alone) is all
sufficient to meet our every need.
May He meet yours! His blessings be upon you.
Dermod Ryder
Robert,
Matt isn't the worst but he displays certain aspects of intolerance, which
are peculiar to BIGS. I'm very hot on tolerance of other's opinions - has
much to do with living in a society where religious hatred and bigotry are
dear to many and the road away from that is of tolerance of another's
viewpoint, no matter how wrong that person may appear to be.
Tolerance is a way of saying that a person has arrived at his faith system
through work, study, meditation and prayer not ignorance, prejudice or ego.
Tolerance is a way of living with those with whom we disgree most
vehemently, by acknowledging that they have honestly and sincerely arrived
at their erroneous opinions. Tolerance is the overcoming of hatred!
As ever,
Dermod.
PS I never display toleration of bigotry and prejudice - there's no point as
they are the very things that are perverse and opposed to what I believe in.
>
Paul Hammond
ROBERT ARVAY wrote in message
<25226-3B...@storefull-111.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
Hello Matt;
(As for science: I believe in the Biblical
account of creation, too.)
Which one?
Paul
ROBERT ARVAY
I share with you an intolerance for intolerance. But I must be careful
to remember that I have my own set of serious flaws. So while opposing
intolerance, I must be tolerant of intolerant people.
BTW, tolerance does not mean permitting evil to continue when we are
given the opportunity to stop it. I take a Dr Laura position on that.
Since you mention living in a bigoted society, I'm curious as to what
you mean by that. Care to comment further?
God bless you and yours!
Timothy Casey
> Hello, Timothy;
> Awhile back (months ago?) I exposited on the practical meaning of the
> literal (vs liberal) interpretation of the Bible. To recap:
> Literalism, while strictly loyal to the scripture, is not a slavish
> obedience to the dictionary. Instead, it is a disciplined approach to
> Bible reading which begins at the exact wording of the oldest available
> manuscripts. (The exact methodology considers more than just age, but
> I'm only a layman.) This discipline simply prevents unwarranted,
> creative departures (license) from the word of God, especially
> interpretations based on personal preference.
> Literalism takes into account symbolism (as in parables) and the
> difficulty of describing the spiritual in physical terms (as in
> visions). It also accepts that analogies are always approximate (else
> there would be no need for them), and that they make use of the familiar
> as a steppingstone to understanding the unfamiliar (and hence the
> familiar mustard tree being the greatest tree without mentioning the
> sequoia). Honest disagreements, even with the rigid discipline of
> literalism, are possible, of course. Literalism, however, provides
> common boundaries for the discussion of those inevitable human
> misunderstandings (1 Cor 13:12--- we see only in part, not the
> whole...).
> Literalism seeks the truth, and follows the path of truth wherever it
> might lead. It has no interest in substantiating any particular
> foregone conclusion.
Hai Robert!
This would seem to be the Academic approach to understanding old texts. A
potential problem is departure from purpose, and often a departure from
subject. Often, academics take a guess at what meaning to pick from an
ambiguous source, or what departure the meaning of a symbol might take from
what has been understood since before the time of the text. An example of
the former is Luke 17:21 which could read "...the Kingdom of Heaven is
_amongst_ ye..." or "...the kingdom of Heaven is _within_ ye...". An example
of the latter is the "Seal of the Prophets" which can be interpreted as an
end if we neglect the fact that seals were used to verify not just the
authenticity of a document, but also the integrity of a document. In the
latter and most common case, a seal marks the beginning and not the end
because it must be passed _before_ the scroll or letter may be opened and
the contents can be read. However, a majority of scholars have guessed "end"
as the meaning on the basis of avoiding the consequences of the historically
fashionable "consensus by expulsion".
This is not to invalidate these methodologies, but to limit them to purpose,
and where necessary to the subject of the text(s) under investigation.
Direction would make such methodologies very powerful indeed, and perhaps
might even lead the student to producing the very first unifying theory of
the Humanities....
> One of my greatest difficulties with Baha'i explanations of Biblical
> passages is that they frequently seem almost unrelated to the exact
> wording. (Even parables and visions are clearly indicated as such by
> the context. We don't just assign these categories at will.) In Baha'i
> writings, it is as if the Biblical wording were irrelevant and could
> mean anything or nothing. One glaring example of this is the "Pit of
> Error" interpretation of the bottomless pit in The Revelation Ch 20.
> And in general, Baha'i interpretations of Rev ignore the entire
> structure of the story line, making Heidi out of War and Peace (or vice
> versa). Of course this is necessary to the Baha'i position, because no
> meteoric object (Rev 8:8) has yet crashed into the sea destroying a
> third of all ships, etc etc etc.
This is another good example.
The problem here remains a departure from purpose and topic. The text is
about spiritual matters, and not about material matters: About morals, and
not about history. The use of parables has demonstrated that the truth of
the object is irrelevant so long as it demonstrates the truth of the
subject. If we remain true to the subject matter, the meteor is unlikely to
be a material meteor striking a material ocean, but a spiritual meteor
striking a spiritual ocean. The latter is far more relevant to the topic at
hand, is it not?
> But, not to lose the forest for the trees (or the Bible among the
> verses), misinterpreting individual passages is only one way in which
> Baha'i misses the mark. The overall plan and message of the Bible is
> markedly different from the overall Baha'i message.
> The Bible frames creation with a definite beginning and a conclusive
> end.
Once again, we must ask of purpose and topic; creation of what? Every
religion is marked by a definite beginning and a conclusive end (once it
institutionalises any deviation from the scripturally intended purpose).
> Baha'i doctrine holds to no specific beginning and to no ultimate
> finality.
It does and it doesn't. The world that comprises a religion, as relevant to
the necessarily spiritual topic of scripture, is definitely acknowledged in
Baha'i scriptures as having a beginning and an end. However, creation as a
product of spirituality necessitates that Creation as a product of unending
spirituality, is of itself an everlasting process associated with the
Unchanging Creator. Imagine! Should creation begin or end, thus must the
creativeness of the Creator begin or end. Therefore would the Creator come
and go into and out of being. This is at odds with the concept of the
Eternal One.
> The Old Testament and New are intimately intertwined with
> each other, but not with the Bhagavad Ghita
Actually, this will merit further investigation.
Islamic material is also intertwined with Buddhist material and a lot of
Christian material. Additionally, the Bhagavad Ghita is only a tiny
miniscule part of Hindu sacred text.
(etc). The OT is rich with
> references to Jesus [who is the Angel of the Lord in Genesis 32:24
> wrestling with Jacob, and who appears to Manoah and his wife in the
> story of Samson in Judges 13]. The Trinity, which is elucidated in no
> one passage of the Bible, is exposited by the Bible in toto (it is a
> miraculously holistic book, unlike any other).
However, these Christian interpretations of Jewish and Sabaean symbolism are
not unlike the Baha'i interpretations of symbolism drawn from every former
religion. It would seem that religions tend to draw on the scripture of
previous dispensations according to their availability to the people to whom
the Manifestation of God comes.
> The overall message of the Bible, more so than any particular passage
> (or selections thereof) presents a distinct picture, a divine
> world-view, which precludes any joining of Bible-based Christianity with
> any other world view. In the relevance to our discussion, the idea of
> Jesus being merely one among a number of (or among an unnumbered series
> of) manifestations is, excuse the expression, manifestly incompatible
> with the Biblical world-view AND its passages in context.
> And that is why--- either the Bible or Baha'i writings must be declared
> unreliable in order to achieve a fit.
Not necessarily. When a scripture is confined to purpose, subject, and
topic; there is no conflict possible with other scriptures sharing the same
purpose. Contradictions between interpretations of various scriptures of
common purpose are not a measure of scriptural unreliability, but of the
defectiveness of the interpretation by deviation from purpose.
> While appreciating the sincerity of your faith, and its positive effect
> on your life--- even your higher station in heaven than mine will be---
> my own experience in life, my spiritual journey, has led me into the
> garden of Biblical literalism, its constant joys of discovery, its
> continual protection from fatal errancy--- and to the personal
> relationship with Jesus as the only one who can say, No man comes unto
> the Father but by me.
> He has yet to return, but each day brings us closer to that time when
> denial is no longer possible, that day when every knee shall bend, and
> every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.
> May he richly bless you and yours!
I appreciate also your spirituality and sincerity of faith. I would
encourage you as I do others, to use purpose as the guiding light with which
to draw upon the treasures of every dispensation.
Purpose gives meaning and meaning turns chaos into order.
--
Timothy Casey
South Australia
wor...@iprimus.com.au
Formerly:
ca...@smart.net.au
Matt Menge
> Although I disagree with him, Robert strikes me as a desperately sincere
> man, who takes his study of the Bible seriously, is prepared to defend his
> POV and obviously ties to live according to the dictates of his conscience.
>
Yes, he strikes me as being very sincere.
> Against that you proffer standard Bahai theory that anybody who does not
> accept your particular version is suffering from "ego" problems. This is ad
> hominem. In intellectual, academic and even moderately intelligent circles
> "ego" is not an explanation of any opinion, POV or interpretation.
I was saying that it is dangerous never to change your opinion about
anything. Robert tells me that he does sometimes change his opinion
on things, hence I no longer regard him as egotistical (did I ever?).
He doesn't have to mould his opinion to mine, just change it from time
to time.
Regards,
Matt
ROBERT ARVAY
Both.
I believe that the first two chapters of Genesis are reconcilable in the
original text. One reason for this is that, had there been a true
conflict between them, this would have been recognizable from the
beginning. Someone would have pointed it out, and the matter would have
been addressed early on. Scholarship in ancient times was no less
rigorous than today. I continue to look into the matter, however, and
hope to give a more precise answer in future.
ROBERT ARVAY
Got your post at work, but it doesn't appear on my Web TV, so I'll fit
in a reply here.
Your reply to mine was rather more than I can digest at once, but I'll
remark on selected points.
My defense of Biblical literalism has been based on defining it as an
approach, a beginning point, rather than as an inflexible adherence to
the gospel of Webster (his dictionary). I feel that any departure from
the exact wording of the Bible should be based on rational grounds. We
would certainly apply this standard to any literary work which makes use
of symbolism within its framework. History, science, even mathematical
texts will employ symbols or metaphor as aids to convey a meaning.
But if the plain and literal meaning of a text is ignored, and a
spiritual meaning is attached to it, for reasons merely of personal
preference, then I will challenge that. I will ask for the rational
basis which requires (or at least permits) the departure from the
literal, and which justifies the specific departure taken. I would do
the same in an academic work of history (see my satiric post on bin
Laden as future history).
One example I use to illustrate my point is Revelation 8:8. Many years
ago, before anything was known of meteors, St John apparently had a
vision of one, revealed by God, and wrote it down. In olden days, it
may have been reasonable to interpret this as some kind of nonphysical
event. But today, it is more reasonable to at least strongly consider
the meteor explanation (if one believes that God can send visions of
future events). The verse goes on to say that a third of the sea became
blood. Therefore one could argue for a symbolic sense of the "mountain
burning with fire," rather than the meteor interpretation. However, the
blood reference is also used in Exodus, where the Nile is turned to
"blood" during the plagues of Egypt. In that case, it clearly refers to
something that physically happened to a literal river. Therefore, a
physical (appearance) interpretation is strongly suggested in The
Revelation, not a purely metaphorical or spiritual one. My belief is
that Rev 8:8-9 predicts a meteor impact which will occur during the
period of the 7th Seal, after the collapse of the Satanic Empire and
before the triumphal return of Jesus to establish His millennial
kingdom. And that belief is based on the text of the scripture, not on
a need to insert a meaning in support of some external agenda. Finally,
I find the Baha'i interpretations of this (and many other Biblical
passages) to be strained, based not on the Biblical text, but rather, to
artificially support the Baha'i message, and without justifying the
specific interpretation taken. On that basis, any other interpretation
is also supportable, however fanciful.
Yes, as you say, the object of the Bible is spiritual truth. But that
does not disconnect it from physical fact. The two are not in conflict.
The Bible has been and continues to be my spiritual manual in life. It
has more than earned my trust, and I thank God for it.
While I have not changed your view, I hope I have explained mine.
God bless you.
Matt Menge
Dear Robert,
I think there are two versions of the creation story for the same
reason that there is more than one version of the Appocalypse, because
what is recorded is not literal. Surely they are important events,
but not literal ones.
In the first creation story, for example animals are created before
man. In the second man is created before the animals.
Best Regards,
Matt
ROBERT ARVAY
Perhaps I am reporting back too soon, but I have been spending some time
in Genesis 1 and 2, trying to discern whether there are two conflicting
stories of creation. My preliminary result is of course not conclusive,
but I still find the two chapters telling the same story.
To be sure, the NRSV seems to strongly suggest a conflict. But the KJV
seems to clear that up. Reading them side by side puts it in
perspective.
NRSV 2;4-8 reads: "...In the day when the Lord God made the earth and
the heavens, when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb
of the field had yet sprung up....then the Lord God formed man...
planted a garden in the east..."
At first, this makes it seem that man was formed "when no plant of the
field was yet in the earth."
But let's look at KJV.
"...in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, And
every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of
the field before it grew... And the Lord God formed man... planted a
garden eastward in Eden..."
Just the slightest difference in wording between the two translations
clears it up.
The words "then" in NRSV and "And" in KJV change the focus. I have not
found a Hebrew analysis of these passages, but I suspect that in
English, the translation suffers here.
To summarize, both passages seem to recap the entire six days of
creation which were already related in more detail in chapter 1.
Chapter 2 sweeps us from day 1--- "in the day that the Lord God made the
earth and the heavens," to the sixth, when He made man. Surely we don't
conclude from the passage that God made man in day one. Yet a reading
of the English translation makes that point supportable if one were
disposed to argue for it.
Perhaps a stronger argument against conflict between the chapters can be
made based on a rather obvious supposition. We can suppose that the
first people to read Genesis--- in Moses' day--- would have noticed even
a slight irregularity--- reported it to Moses--- and either corrected
the error, or else explained the apparent conflict in some manner that
would be handed down in anticipation of further criticism. This leads
us to suppose quite reasonably that there was no irregularity in the
original--- and that any apparent error is in us.
What say you?
God bless us all.
Matt Menge
> Hi, Matt;
> Perhaps I am reporting back too soon, but I have been spending some time
> in Genesis 1 and 2, trying to discern whether there are two conflicting
> stories of creation. My preliminary result is of course not conclusive,
> but I still find the two chapters telling the same story.
> To be sure, the NRSV seems to strongly suggest a conflict. But the KJV
> seems to clear that up. Reading them side by side puts it in
> perspective.
> NRSV 2;4-8 reads: "...In the day when the Lord God made the earth and
> the heavens, when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb
> of the field had yet sprung up....then the Lord God formed man...
> planted a garden in the east..."
> At first, this makes it seem that man was formed "when no plant of the
> field was yet in the earth."
> But let's look at KJV.
> "...in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, And
> every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of
> the field before it grew... And the Lord God formed man... planted a
> garden eastward in Eden..."
> Just the slightest difference in wording between the two translations
> clears it up.
I am using the King James Version presently.
> The words "then" in NRSV and "And" in KJV change the focus. I have not
> found a Hebrew analysis of these passages, but I suspect that in
> English, the translation suffers here.
The person who first called my attention to this was a professor of
religion who was fluent in both Hebrew and Greek (and knew a little
Aramaic). I am not saying to take his word for everything, but he did
make an impression upon me.
> To summarize, both passages seem to recap the entire six days of
> creation which were already related in more detail in chapter 1.
> Chapter 2 sweeps us from day 1--- "in the day that the Lord God made the
> earth and the heavens," to the sixth, when He made man. Surely we don't
> conclude from the passage that God made man in day one. Yet a reading
> of the English translation makes that point supportable if one were
> disposed to argue for it.
I thought you were going to argue that the second story took place in
Eden only.
The second creation story is a little longer than this an extends at
least until the beginning of chapter 3. We see that later on the
plants were made in 2:9 and then the animals in 2:19.
> Perhaps a stronger argument against conflict between the chapters can be
> made based on a rather obvious supposition. We can suppose that the
> first people to read Genesis--- in Moses' day--- would have noticed even
> a slight irregularity--- reported it to Moses--- and either corrected
> the error, or else explained the apparent conflict in some manner that
> would be handed down in anticipation of further criticism. This leads
> us to suppose quite reasonably that there was no irregularity in the
> original--- and that any apparent error is in us.
> What say you?
I don't think it was an error. I think it was deliberate.
God bless,
Matt