Sacred Scriptures

[Grumpy Old Man]

I would hope no Biblical literalist thinks the Bible is any flawless or literal representation of God. That is not what is meant by "the inerrant word of God." Just that it doesn't have mistakes. And these days, most qualify that with "in their original autographs," to allow for copy and translation errors. Aside from those, if we are finding mistakes, we are misunderstanding. (And really, the things people come up with to try to point out Biblical mistakes are almost always immaterial)

Like Jane, I too would like to know what you mean by "mistakes".

You know by now that I was a Biblical literalist. As far as I could tell, and still can, the Bible is meant to be read literally, with the exception of those passages were it is obvious that the author is being symbolic or using allegory. Such stories as the fall of Adam and Eve, the Flood, etc, would appear to anyone picking up a Bible for the first time, as stories that are meant to be read literally. I'm not sure whether you can appreciate what it's like for a strict literalist Christian to find that such stories aren't fact. Once a person, who once read the Bible literally, suddenly finds that these stories are not true, it is impossible to return to that faith they had in scripture once again.

I'm speaking about myself of course. When I used to read of Paul and Peter saying that all scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, I understood that to mean it was to be read as literally as contextually possible. If the Bible is NOT the inerrant word of God, what is it? And were does it leave faith if the Bible is not inerrant? What you have is a cherry-picked Christianity that is made up from your own interpretations.

I have to say, in all honesty, that I have more respect for those religions that do have a text than those that don't. The existence of such a text gives a foundation to the religion. Those religions that don't have a foundational text leave its followers free to make up their religion as they go along (although all religious people do this to various degrees depending on their personal interpretation of their religious text).

For me, when I was a Christian, the Bible was a divinely inspired book. I believed this because the Bible said so. This was my point in my first post in this thread. A few other people have said the same now, which is what I expected from this thread. If a book says that it is written by God, then you're either going to believe it or not.

 

[Arthra]

I suspect that the topic "Sacred Scriptures" could be a little broad.. and frays off a bit....

Issues can spin off from what are maybe theological doctrines rather than the scripture itself..An example might me the exclusive claims of a religion based on an undersatdning of a text.. over time a text becomes loaded with an understanding that is more important than the words of the text themselves.

The other issue is that if we look for areas of similarities in many scriptures, that could point to a common inspiration or revelation...or Source.

Does the language as a medium become more important than what was revealed? For some language itself is more important as in a sacred language.

For me the historical context of revelation could be almost as important as what was revealed.

The proximity of the revealed scripture to the Prophet or Messenger is also important.

 

[Arthra]

A note to JJ White:

JJ White's post #28 has the following statement:

Also, the whole "Manifestations" thing doesn't feel right. Then, as I mentioned, the quality of Arabic writing in Kitab-i-Iqan is the thing that just made me stop reading any more.

JJ.. You may want to check your sources but from what I gather the Kitab-i-Iqan was revealed in Persian.

See:

Shoghi Effendi describes Bahá'u'lláh's style as "a model of Persian prose, of a style at once original, chaste and vigorous, and remarkably lucid, both cogent in argument and matchless in its irresistible eloquence" (God Passes By 138-139). This assessment appears to be based on E. G. Browne, who wrote of the Iqan that "it is a work of great merit, vigorous in style, clear in argument, cogent in proof, and displaying no slight knowledge of the Bible, Qur'an, and Traditions" (Selections, 254). Bahá'u'lláh's choice of Persian for such a work as the Kitab-i Iqan optimized its diffusion among the Babi community. While the Babis are surely the immediate audience, Bahá'u'lláh addresses the world in such words as: "Sanctify your souls, O ye peoples of the world..." (ET, 3) and "Behold, O concourse of the earth, the splendours of the End" (ET, 168).

Kitab-i-Iqan

 

[JJWhite]

A note to JJ White:

JJ White's post #28 has the following statement:

Also, the whole "Manifestations" thing doesn't feel right. Then, as I mentioned, the quality of Arabic writing in Kitab-i-Iqan is the thing that just made me stop reading any more.

JJ.. You may want to check your sources but from what I gather the Kitab-i-Iqan was revealed in Persian.

See:

Shoghi Effendi describes Bahá'u'lláh's style as "a model of Persian prose, of a style at once original, chaste and vigorous, and remarkably lucid, both cogent in argument and matchless in its irresistible eloquence" (God Passes By 138-139). This assessment appears to be based on E. G. Browne, who wrote of the Iqan that "it is a work of great merit, vigorous in style, clear in argument, cogent in proof, and displaying no slight knowledge of the Bible, Qur'an, and Traditions" (Selections, 254). Bahá'u'lláh's choice of Persian for such a work as the Kitab-i Iqan optimized its diffusion among the Babi community. While the Babis are surely the immediate audience, Bahá'u'lláh addresses the world in such words as: "Sanctify your souls, O ye peoples of the world..." (ET, 3) and "Behold, O concourse of the earth, the splendours of the End" (ET, 168).

Kitab-i-Iqan

I can take a second look at that.

It was another major Baha'i site online with full library where I started reading it last time. This one: Bahá'í Reference Library - The Kitáb-i-Íqán

IF it's a translation from Persian, then my strongest objections would be gone, and you guys SERIOUSLY need to find a better translator, because the beginning right here sounds like it's written by someone who couldn't have studied Arabic over two-three years.

بسم ربِّنا العليّ الأعلى

"الباب المذكور في بيان أنّ العباد لن يصلوا إلى شاطئ بحر العرفان إلاّ بالانقطاع الصّرف عن كلّ من في السّموات والأرض. قدّسوا أنفسكم يا أهل الأرض لعلّ تصلنّ إلى المقام الّذي قدّر الله لكم وتدخلنّ في سرادق جعله الله في سمآء البيان مرفوعًا"

جوهر هذا الباب هو أنّه يجب على السّالكين سبيل الإيمان والطّالبين كؤوس الإيقان أن يطهّروا أنفسهم ويقدّسوها عن جميع الشؤونات العرضيّة - يعني ينزّهون السّمع عن استماع الأقوال، والقلب عن الظّنونات المتعلّقة​

Wiki says it was composed partly in Persian and partly in Arabic.

 

[bling]

Hence: "sacred tradition", as proposed by the Eastern and Western Church.

These “Churches” were not around before the NT Letters were written. The indwelling Holy Spirit is not “tradition”.

If it all boils down to love and nothing but love, what about the tenets of the Nicene Creed? The Beatitudes? Jesus's death on the cross and subsequent resurrection? Is everything that's in the Bible merely a footnote to "live lovingly"?

In that case, I can probably claim "Christianship" even though I do not put much stock in the Bible (OT or NT). Why? Because my spirituality is all about love and connection.

“Christian” was not meant to be a title, but was a descriptive term meaning “Christ Like” which is Godly type Love being shown.

That is wonderful and means you are right there, but let’s look at it further.

What is your “motive” for your “love”, because this is a very special type of Love I am talking about that goes way beyond all other forms of Love even the Love a non Christian mother has for her innocent child.

This Love is best defined by everything Christ said and did, but you can also look at 1 Cor. 13 and 1 John 4.

This “Love” is the most powerful force in all universes since it compels even God to do all He does.

This “Love” is so great that none of us deserve to have it or could we earn it or could we pay God back for it, God has to give it to us as a pure Charitable “gift” (unconditionally and undeservingly).

The problem is we have to humbly accept this gift as pure Charity or we do not get it (God will not force it on us). People naturally are not humble (this comes from good needed attributes) and unless they really feel the “need” for Godly type Love, we will not humble themselves enough to accept Charity.

Why do or did you need to accept God’s Charity?

 

[dazed]

To OP's topic: I don't think you'll find any ancient sacred text that would contain words of a supreme deity except for offshoots of Abraham's god. The early pious RC made sure that none of the pagan sacred texts survived. In the East, there was no need for text from a god because every Joe Schmoe monarch was the Son of God!

 

[JJWhite]

A note to JJ White:

JJ White's post #28 has the following statement:

Also, the whole "Manifestations" thing doesn't feel right. Then, as I mentioned, the quality of Arabic writing in Kitab-i-Iqan is the thing that just made me stop reading any more.

JJ.. You may want to check your sources but from what I gather the Kitab-i-Iqan was revealed in Persian.

See:

Shoghi Effendi describes Bahá'u'lláh's style as "a model of Persian prose, of a style at once original, chaste and vigorous, and remarkably lucid, both cogent in argument and matchless in its irresistible eloquence" (God Passes By 138-139). This assessment appears to be based on E. G. Browne, who wrote of the Iqan that "it is a work of great merit, vigorous in style, clear in argument, cogent in proof, and displaying no slight knowledge of the Bible, Qur'an, and Traditions" (Selections, 254). Bahá'u'lláh's choice of Persian for such a work as the Kitab-i Iqan optimized its diffusion among the Babi community. While the Babis are surely the immediate audience, Bahá'u'lláh addresses the world in such words as: "Sanctify your souls, O ye peoples of the world..." (ET, 3) and "Behold, O concourse of the earth, the splendours of the End" (ET, 168).

Kitab-i-Iqan

Arthra... or this part from the beginning of Kitab-i-Aqdas... I read the preface/intro thing in Arabic and it says that this bood was "revealed" in Arabic.

Just read...

بسمه الحاكم على ما كان وما يكون

(1) ان اوّل ما كتب الله على العباد عرفان
مشرق وحيه ومطلع امره الّذي كان
مقام نفسه في عالم الامر والخلق من فاز
به قد فاز بكلّ الخير والّذي منع انّه
من اهل الضّلال ولو يأتي بكلّ الاعمال

1

اذا فزتم بهذا المقام الاسنى والافق الاعلى
ينبغي لكلّ نفس ان يتّبع ما امر به من
لدى المقصود لانّهما معاً لا يقبل احدهما
دون الاخر هذا ما حكم به مطلع الالهام
(2) انّ الّذين اوتوا بصائر من الله يرون حدود
الله السّبب الاعظم لنظم العالم وحفظ
الامم والّذي غفل انّه من همج رعاع
انّا امرناكم بكسر حدودات النّفس
والهوى لا ما رقم من القلم الاعلى انّه
لروح الحيوان لمن في الامكان قد
ماجت بحور الحكمة والبيان بما هاجت
نسمة الرّحمن اغتنموا يا اولي الالباب
​

God does not reveal books in funny Arabic.

 

[JJWhite]

The Kitab-i-Aqdas is actually a PERFECT example of how trying to emulate the Qur'aanic style only produces hilarious results. The more I read, the more comical it appears. I truly don't mean to be disrespectful, but it looks like a clear fabrication to me.

 

[JJWhite]

The grammar isn't even right.

 

[smaneck]

It is true ray, they do have such findings, even before Moses.

Findings of what exactly? That there are archaeological remains of cities mentioned in the Bible? Why wouldn't there be?

 

[smaneck]

Could be either honestly. Personally, I am of the opinion that, at least largely, the Torah found today contains God's Words revealed verbatim.

Actually, a good deal of the Torah doesn't make that claim. Genesis, for instance is mostly historical narrative. The parts of the Bible which might be considered revelation in the Islamic sense are those parts which begin with the words "Thus speaketh the Lord" which is the Hebrew equivalent of the Qur'anic "SAY" (GUL). I find it interesting that in the Hebrew those portions of the Bible have the same kind of rhythm and rhyme (saj) to them as the Qur'an.

I agree that Muslims can and do understand the Scripture available to them.

I think our Christian friend may have been referring to the high illiteracy rates in some Muslim countries. Christians sometimes forget that the literacy rate in Western Europe at the height of the Renaissance after the printing press had been invented was only about 5%. It was twice that in the Islamic world and even higher in China.

There's a narration I once read where Umar ibn Al-Khattab asked Ibn Abbas how it was that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) prophesied that Muslims would go astray when God promised to preserve the Qur'an. Ibn Abbas's response was to look at the Jews and Christians around them... that they still had God's teachings, yet they had still gone astray.

Yes, when Baha'u'llah refutes the notion held by some Muslims that 'corruption of the Word of God" means that Christians have deliberately tampered with their scriptures he says:

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

As for continuous revelation, the texts that state that Muhammad was the final prophet sent by God seem very clear to me.

Doesn't really say Muhammad is the final prophet. As you know the verse in question reads: "Muhammad is the father of no man among you, but he is the Seal of the Prophets (khatamu'l nabi)." So the question really is what does that term mean. I once came across a hadith which said "Jesus is the Seal of the Saints (wali) as I am the Seal of the Prophets." Does this mean there were no saints after Jesus?

I don't see how, from an Arabic language perspective, they can be taken to mean any of the alternate understandings that I have seen put forth by Baha'is.

Have you seen this article?

Bahá'í Approach to the Claim of Finality in Islam, A

It is probably the most sophisticated treatment of the subject. I can't imagine how, given the Qur'an's condemnation of the Jews for believing that the Hand of God is tied up, why it would be telling Muslims to hold to the same basic belief. I am reminded of this passage from the Qur'an:

“And Joseph came to you aforetime with clear tokens, but ye ceased not to doubt of the message with which He came to you, until, when He died, ye said, ‘God will by no means raise up a Messenger after Him.’ Thus God misleadeth him who is the transgressor the doubter.”

Also, the whole "Manifestations" thing doesn't feel right. Then, as I mentioned, the quality of Arabic writing in Kitab-i-Iqan is the thing that just made me stop reading any more.

Uh, most of the Iqan is written in Persian, not Arabic. It contains a lot of Arabic vocabulary, but only a few verses are written in Arabic. The Arabic word translated as "Manifestation" is Zuhur which is a term that Shi'ite Muslims apply to their Imams. Baha'is tend to use the term exclusively in reference to Messengers who come with Revelation direct from God. I can understand why a Sunni Muslim might find the term objectionable.

 

[smaneck]

Yes, the english translation, Yusuf Ali. I don't care to hear the enemy of G*d's, carefully written hallucinatory music of the qur'an in arabic. I don't wish to know the enemy that well. Hearing the qur'an in arabic is what derails, deceives and prohibits its listeners from recognizing the truth. Its like a strong addictive drug that traps its listeners.

Your insults actually provide a powerful testimony to the power of the Qur'an is its original language. BTW, Muhammad didn't write so the Qur'an can't exactly be described as carefully written. The Qur'an means the Recitation and it was meant to be recited, not simply read.

I also found your admission that you don't really want to understand Islam that well interesting.

 

[smaneck]

I know exactly what you mean! The Book of Mormon has never struck me as anything other than fraudulent, and not just because of its usage of mangled King James English, its frequent anachronisms or its ridiculous historical claims.

It is also really, repetitious. I gave up about a third of the way through when I got tired of reading about God cursing people by turning their skin black.

Now, I think it's possible that people derive spiritual "nourishment" even from sources such as this, but more because of what's in themselves than because of some quality inherent to the text as such. Readers who engage with a text do so in an active manner, and what they derive from it quite often has its source in their own psyche.

That's a good point. W. Cantwell Smith wrote an interesting article entitled "Is the Qur'an the Word of God" where he makes the rather subtle argument that the Qur'an can become the Word of God at any time. I'm inclined to give anything that claims to be scripture the benefit of a doubt and read it listening for God's Word. Maybe there is something to be said for approaching all of life in this manner.

 

[JJWhite]

Oops.. I think I meant to say "misunderstand" and wrote "understand" by accident in one older post.

 

[smaneck]

Lol, Yusuf Ali's version is good--especially if you read the one with the extensive commentary--but it is only an approximation of the qualities of the Quran in Arabic.

What I don't like about Yusuf Ali's translation is that he inserts too many words that aren't in the original text. Granted he puts them in brackets but this is sometimes misleading.

In Catholicism, Islam is not the enemy, so I get to enjoy Sheik Mishari Rashid Alafasy's beautiful Quran recitations without becoming possessed, lol.

I'm not sure the current Pope believes that. Judging by the books he wrote as Cardinal Ratzinger he seems rather paranoid when it comes to Islam. I don't see the same spirit of openess as Pope John the XXIII had.

I take it you were once a Muslim?

Remember that the real enemy is often the one that speaks inside our own selves.

Amen to that! Baha'u'llah always spoke of the " Evil Whisperer, who whisper in men's breasts."

 

[dlamberth]

Now, I think it's possible that people derive spiritual "nourishment" even from sources such as this, but more because of what's in themselves than because of some quality inherent to the text as such.

Isn't it the spiritual nourishment one receives from a spiritual text the essence of which makes a particular scripture Holy for someone?

There are as many ways to God as there are belly buttons. What matters most, I believe, is how scripture strikes ones heart and the changes they go through in becoming a more human, Human Being as a result.

.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

I do not find Muhammad alleged illiteracy to be much of an argument for or against the validity of the Qur'an. Throughout history, illiterate cultures have produced a tremendous amount of oral epics and poetry, often memorizing tens of thousands lines of verse. In fact, the earliest literature known to us almost certainly started out as oral traditions, and only later achieved a fixed form that was put down in writing.

A telltale sign of such texts is their usage of "bridge verses": transitory lines that are repeated over and over to take the narrative flow from one section to the next.
Another is the usage of specific attributes that are always mentioned in conjunction with certain characters in the narrative.

Notable examples of this can be found in such diverse sources as the Illiad, the Gilgamesh epic, the Kalevala, Beowulf and several other famous texts from all over the world.

 

[JJWhite]

Actually, a good deal of the Torah doesn't make that claim. Genesis, for instance is mostly historical narrative. The parts of the Bible which might be considered revelation in the Islamic sense are those parts which begin with the words "Thus speaketh the Lord" which is the Hebrew equivalent of the Qur'anic "SAY" (GUL). I find it interesting that in the Hebrew those portions of the Bible have the same kind of rhythm and rhyme (saj) to them as the Qur'an.

I'm studying Hebrew and reading Torah slowly and carefully with commentary now. Really enjoying it.

Doesn't really say Muhammad is the final prophet. As you know the verse in question reads: "Muhammad is the father of no man among you, but he is the Seal of the Prophets (khatamu'l nabi)." So the question really is what does that term mean. I once came across a hadith which said "Jesus is the Seal of the Saints (wali) as I am the Seal of the Prophets." Does this mean there were no saints after Jesus?

I tried doing searches. All I can find are three fabricated (mawdoo') ahadith where it is claimed that Muhammad (pbuh) said he was the seal of the prophets and ALI was the seal of the saints. I can't seem to find anything like you mention in the hadith encyclopedias online. Do you have a reference?

Have you seen this article?

Bahá'Ã[bless and do not curse] Approach to the Claim of Finality in Islam, A

It is probably the most sophisticated treatment of the subject. I can't imagine how, given the Qur'an's condemnation of the Jews for believing that the Hand of God is tied up, why it would be telling Muslims to hold to the same basic belief. I am reminded of this passage from the Qur'an:

“And Joseph came to you aforetime with clear tokens, but ye ceased not to doubt of the message with which He came to you, until, when He died, ye said, ‘God will by no means raise up a Messenger after Him.’ Thus God misleadeth him who is the transgressor the doubter.”

I'll check it out, in shaa' Allaah.

One Jewish guy said that, btw, according to traditional commentary I've read on the verses. I believe he was objecting to something so he called God a miser (hand tied up) and because the other Jews didn't rebuke him for his statement, the verse was revealed rebuking the whole group present there at that time. Jews don't say or believe that, and it has nothing to do with revelation.. it was regarding money.

Uh, most of the Iqan is written in Persian, not Arabic. It contains a lot of Arabic vocabulary, but only a few verses are written in Arabic. The Arabic word translated as "Manifestation" is Zuhur which is a term that Shi'ite Muslims apply to their Imams. Baha'is tend to use the term exclusively in reference to Messengers who come with Revelation direct from God. I can understand why a Sunni Muslim might find the term objectionable.

What about Al-Aqdas?

 

[smaneck]

Such stories as the fall of Adam and Eve, the Flood, etc, would appear to anyone picking up a Bible for the first time, as stories that are meant to be read literally.

I'm not sure you are right about that. I didn't take them literally when I was a Christian, not even as a child. Even John Calvin indicated that the reference to the world being created in seven days should not be taken literally. I don't think the early church fathers took the Bible nearly as literally as some fundamentalists do today. Personally, I think these stories lose their spiritual depth when one reads them simply as a factual history.

When I used to read of Paul and Peter saying that all scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, I understood that to mean it was to be read as literally as contextually possible.

I think the only place this is found in the Bible is 2 Timothy 3:16 and most scholars would insist that Paul didn't write it. I don't know of any place where Peter says this.

If the Bible is NOT the inerrant word of God, what is it?

Maybe the best testimony we have to the one who is really the Word of God, namely Jesus Christ?

What you have is a cherry-picked Christianity that is made up from your own interpretations.

I'm not persuaded that people don't end up with a Christianity made up of their own interpretations even when they do take the Bible literally.

I have to say, in all honesty, that I have more respect for those religions that do have a text than those that don't. The existence of such a text gives a foundation to the religion. Those religions that don't have a foundational text leave its followers free to make up their religion as they go along (although all religious people do this to various degrees depending on their personal interpretation of their religious text).

I think you are right that having a Book does at least but some constraints on how much variation there is going to be.

 

[BruceDLimber]

There are many scriptures in the various religions (including the Jewish scriptures, the Biblical New Testament, and the Qur'an to name a few).

And the Baha'i Faith alone has around 200 volumes of scripture, roughly half of which were written either by Baha'u'llah, our Founder, or 'Abdu'l-Baha, His son and appointed successor/interpreter.

We accept these (and other scriptures) as legitimate and God-sent, the more so in the case of the Baha'i scriptures given that we have the original manuscript of every one of them! (Indeed, anything for which we don't have the original isn't consedered Baha'i scriptures no matter how "inspirational" it might be.)

Best!

Bruce