Why Do We Trust Ancient Texts as Accurate?

[Thomas]

This thread does seem to have focussed on aspects of Christian doctrine, or perhaps that's me.

It might be better to look at the question generally. Why do Buddhists believe in their ancient texts? Or Taoists, or Hindus. Why do Bahai believe in their texts?

Of course, not all texts address Revelation, but then the total doctrine is believed to be revealed. The Hindu texts say 'remembered' rather than 'revealed', but on examination it means much the same thing, if we take as a working hypothesis that Revelation is something more than intellectual speculation.

Bahai's for example, speak of 'Progressive Revelation', but the acceptance of that is a matter if faith, there is no proof as such. Unless I've got it wrong, it simply accepts that the Abrahamics are revealed traditions, and then declares itself a continuity of a progression as it sees it.

As I understand it, Bahai believes in doctrines cover 'essential spiritual truth, and ephemeral social constructs' (Smith 'An Introduction to the Bahai Faith'). I think Abrahamic metaphysics and theology argues (as does the best of the Greek philosophical traditions, Hinduism, Taoism and Buddhism) that 'spiritual truths' and disclosures of the Divine Nature are atemporal because the Divine is atemporal. (Pantheism is more problematic as I'm not sure I've ever come across a sufficiently-worked out metaphysic. Panentheism in its various expressions allows for this to a greater or lesser degree).

Revelation is necessarily couched in the language of the day, but Revelation one can discern and know the Absolute and Infinite, and thus the core of Revelation, a self-disclosure of God, is not progressive in that sense, unless one believes God is relative and governed by finite contingency. The traditional metaphysical systems would say the idea of 'progressive revelation' is a confusion between the Absolute who reveals and the contingent in receipt of the revelation.

Thus when discussing 'ancient texts' then, we need to discern between the 'essential truths' and the 'social constructs'. The primacy of science is itself a social construct when it comments on the possibility of Revelation, and the forms by which it manifests, for example. A nephew of mine, a scientist, was once asked if he believed in God, and replied simply that he could not, because he was a scientist! Simply not so, but many, if not most, seem to think that science precludes a belief in God.

 

[Thomas]

Thomas, I think this just reflects where you live.

My views reflect a broader consensus, I think.

Have you ever lived in the Southern United States? Or viewed the huge following AnswersInGenesis.org has on Facebook? Over 400,000! As their illustration depicts below (which has over 8,000 likes), they see conflict between evolution and Christianity, between public education and Christianity

They may well do, but the Southern United States is not 'many if not most' Christians! And if the argument was presented as 'here in the Southern United States' I would have little to offer, other than consolation.

I'd be interested to know what percentage of those who support that view actually have a theological education and reference Patristic theology, for example, as opposed to those who follow whoever their leaders are, who patently misrepresent the general Christian teaching. Creationism as its presented there is not Catholic, Orthodox or Anglican (Evangelical) doctrine. What US denominations believe in it, I don't know.

So I can agree it's a problem in certain parts of America, but that would be nothing, except that America occupies a certain position on the world stage. All in all, it's a question of politics, not religion, really.

I have written here before about the way in which Christianity in America has been reshaped in light of 'the American Dream', and from what I see I think many think God somewhat closer to John Wayne than Jesus Christ, but here I think I might inadvertently offend American Christians.

 

[shunyadragon]

My views reflect a broader consensus, I think.


They may well do, but the Southern United States is not 'many if not most' Christians! And if the argument was presented as 'here in the Southern United States' I would have little to offer, other than consolation.

I'd be interested to know what percentage of those who support that view actually have a theological education and reference Patristic theology, for example, as opposed to those who follow whoever their leaders are, who patently misrepresent the general Christian teaching. Creationism as its presented there is not Catholic, Orthodox or Anglican (Evangelical) doctrine. What US denominations believe in it, I don't know.

So I can agree it's a problem in certain parts of America, but that would be nothing, except that America occupies a certain position on the world stage. All in all, it's a question of politics, not religion, really.

I have written here before about the way in which Christianity in America has been reshaped in light of 'the American Dream', and from what I see I think many think God somewhat closer to John Wayne than Jesus Christ, but here I think I might inadvertently offend American Christians.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-design.aspx]

The increase in recent years of 'Humans evolved, but God had no part in the process is due to an increase in young people embracing this view.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

The increase in recent years of 'Humans evolved, but God had no part in the process is due to an increase in young people embracing this view.

That poll, I can't find where it was conducted and how many participated in it.

 

[shunyadragon]

That poll, I can't find where it was conducted and how many participated in it.

Evolution Is Finally Winning Out Over Creationism
A majority of young people endorse the scientific explanation of how humans evolved.

Now, at long last, there seems to be hope: National polls show that creationism is beginning to falter, and Americans are finally starting to move in favor of evolution. After decades of legal battles, resistance to science education, and a deeply rooted cultural divide, evolution may be poised to win out once and for all.

The people responsible for this shift are the young. According to a recent Pew Research Center report, 73 percent of American adults younger than 30 expressed some sort of belief in evolution, a jump from 61 percent in 2009, the first year in which the question was asked. The number who believed in purely secular evolution (that is, not directed by any divine power) jumped from 40 percent to a majority of 51 percent. In other words, if you ask a younger American how humans arose, you’re likely to get an answer that has nothing to do with God.

The increase in younger people embracing evolution is “quite striking,” says Kenneth R. Miller, a biologist at Brown University and an expert witness the landmark court case Kitzmiller v. Dover, which kicked “intelligent design” out of public school classrooms in 2005. “We’re moving in the right direction.”

It’s not just the young who are moving in favor of secular evolution. The overall proportion of Americans who believe in secular evolution has doubled since 1999, from 9 percent to 19 percent, according to a 2014 Gallup poll. But it’s important to note that the jump in secular evolution does not necessarily correspond to an increase in the total number who believe in evolution. Instead, most of that increase has been drawn from the pool of Americans who previously reported that they believed in evolution guided by God, which simultaneously dropped from 40 percent to 31 percent.

* * *

 

[Ahanu]

It might be better to look at the question generally. Why do Buddhists believe in their ancient texts? Or Taoists, or Hindus. Why do Bahai believe in their texts?

Why do Baha'is trust ancient texts as accurate? For this discussion let's just limit ourselves to the ancient text of the Koran and more recent Baha'i Writings. From my limited understanding the simplest answer resides in the words of the Manifestations of God, their being, and their creative influences. They produce progress in the world of humanity, springing up entire civilizations. For example, see Muhammad. So we can say we trust the Koran because of Muhammad's own self. This is why, for example, Abdu'l-Baha tries to prove Muhammad's prophethood from this perspective we're taking regarding the creative influence of the Manifestations of God:

"In the sign of Muḥammad, the Sun of Truth rose over Yathrib (Medina) and the Ḥijáz and cast across the universe the lights of eternal glory. Then the earth of human potentialities was transformed, and the words 'The earth shall shine with the light of her Lord,' were fulfilled. The old world turned new again, and its dead body rose into abundant life. Then tyranny and ignorance were overthrown, and towering palaces of knowledge and justice were reared in their place. A sea of enlightenment thundered, and science cast down its rays. The savage peoples of the Ḥijáz, before that Flame of supreme Prophethood was lit in the lamp of Mecca, were the most brutish and benighted of all the peoples of the earth. In all the histories, their depraved and vicious practices, their ferocity and their constant feuds, are a matter of record. In those days the civilized peoples of the world did not even consider the Arab tribes of Mecca and Medina as human beings. And yet, after the Light of the World rose over them, they were—because of the education bestowed on them by that Mine of perfections, that Focal Center of Revelation, and the blessings vouchsafed by the divine law—within a brief interval gathered into the shelter of the principle of divine oneness. This brutish people then attained such a high degree of human perfection and civilization that all their contemporaries marveled at them. Those very peoples who had always mocked the Arabs and held them up to ridicule as a breed devoid of judgment, now eagerly sought them out, visiting their countries to acquire enlightenment and culture, technical skills, statecraft, arts and sciences.

Observe the influence on material situations of that training which is inculcated by the true Educator. Here were tribes so benighted and untamed that during the period of the Jáhilíyyih they would bury their seven-year-old daughters alive—an act which even an animal, let alone a human being, would hate and shrink from but which they in their extreme degradation considered the ultimate expression of honor and devotion to principle—and this darkened people, thanks to the manifest teachings of that great Personage, advanced to such a degree that after they conquered Egypt, Syria and its capital Damascus, Chaldea, Mesopotamia and Írán, they came to administer single-handedly whatever matters were of major importance in four main regions of the globe.

The Arabs then excelled all the peoples of the world in science and the arts, in industry and invention, in philosophy, government and moral character. And truly, the rise of this brutish and despicable element, in such a short interval, to the supreme heights of human perfection, is the greatest demonstration of the rightfulness of the Lord Muḥammad’s Prophethood.

In the early ages of Islám the peoples of Europe acquired the sciences and arts of civilization from Islám as practiced by the inhabitants of Andalusia. A careful and thorough investigation of the historical record will establish the fact that the major part of the civilization of Europe is derived from Islám; for all the writings of Muslim scholars and divines and philosophers were gradually collected in Europe and were with the most painstaking care weighed and debated at academic gatherings and in the centers of learning, after which their valued contents would be put to use. Today, numerous copies of the works of Muslim scholars which are not to be found in Islamic countries, are available in the libraries of Europe. Furthermore, the laws and principles current in all European countries are derived to a considerable degree and indeed virtually in their entirety from the works on jurisprudence and the legal decision of Muslim theologians. Were it not for the fear of unduly lengthening the present text, We would cite these borrowings one by one.

The beginnings of European civilization date from the seventh century of the Muslim era. The particulars were these: toward the end of the fifth century of the hegira, the Pope or Head of Christendom set up a great hue and cry over the fact that places sacred to the Christians, such as Jerusalem, Bethlehem and Nazareth, had fallen under Muslim rule, and he stirred up the kings and the commoners of Europe to undertake what he considered a holy war. His impassioned outcry waxed so loud that all the countries of Europe responded, and crusading kings at the head of innumerable hosts passed over the Sea of Marmara and made their way to the continent of Asia. In those days the Fátimid caliphs ruled over Egypt and some countries of the West, and most of the time the kings of Syria, that is the Saljúqs, were subject to them as well. Briefly, the kings of the West with their unnumbered armies fell upon Syria and Egypt, and there was continuous warfare between the Syrian rulers and those of Europe for a period of two hundred and three years. Reinforcements were always coming in from Europe, and time and time again the Western rulers stormed and took over every castle in Syria, and as often, the kings of Islám delivered them out of their hands. Finally Saladin, in the year 693 A.H., drove the European kings and their armies out of Egypt and off the Syrian coast. Hopelessly beaten, they went back to Europe. In the course of these wars of the Crusades, millions of human beings perished. To sum up, from 490 A.H. until 693, kings, commanders and other European leaders continually came and went between Egypt, Syria and the West, and when in the end they all returned home, they introduced into Europe whatever they had observed over two hundred and odd years in Muslim countries as to government, social development and learning, colleges, schools and the refinements of living. The civilization of Europe dates from that time."​

I think this question ("Why do we trust ancient texts?") is also problematic from the Baha'i perspective. I've included a long quote from Baha'i scholar Nader Saiedi to help explain why. "The Word" isn't just limited to the text you feel with your hands and read with your eyes; the Manifestation of God is the Speaking Book that reveals the hidden meanings of scripture that ordinary human beings can't penetrate. Also, he notes believers discern but a shadow of the truth (and this is related to what "one can discern" in Thomas' post):

"The words of the Manifestation are unique in the sense that they are the creative Logos through which all things come into existence. Infinitely creative at all levels of reality, those words give rise to infinite meanings. These infinite meanings are the intended meanings of the Manifestation. What is meant, thus, by 'words' is not just the visible alphabetical signs and audible sounds - those are mere shadows or symbols of the divine Word. When the Bab [the forerunner of the Baha'i Faith] speaks of the infinite meanings of the letters of the Qur'an, or when He deduces all reality from the Point, He is not speaking of the empirical words and letters that are accessible to human beings, but rather of the divine Word, which is identical to the Will of God. When the Manifestation of God utters this Word, it becomes the set of meanings that are realized at the level of the Manifestation, but when a human being utters that same word, he is expressing only a shadow of the word that was spoken by the Point of Truth. In his commentary on the Letter Ha, the Bab writes:

'For verily each name hath infinite degrees, and the meaning of each thing that is name pertaineth to its own degree. Behold the soul and the bodies of the Family of God, and then examine their words. For instance, the commonly used word 'justice' ('adl): when uttered by God, glorified be His mention, this word becometh the source of justice as destined within the realm of the Will. Thus when a word issueth forth from the Concourse on High, it assumeth its ultimate and supreme Meaning (the Will) . . . Were all to gather together to produce even a semblance of that 'Justice,' they would assuredly fail to do so, except for the same literal letters that spell the word, 'Ayn, Dal, and Lam, which are at the level of their own existence, while the spirit (inner meaning) of that word is utterly non-existent in the face of the Justice God hath fashioned for His own Self. The same is true with regard to the word 'Justice' as spoken by the Apostle of God, for verily its spirit is derived from His Spirit, while its literal pronunciation is associated with his body . . .'
​

The hierarchy of true interpretation is at the same time the hierarchy of the plenitude of meaning. The existential level of the Point is absolute and all-embracing: it encompasses all the infinite meanings of the divine words and their individual letters, but access to all those meanings is barred to ordinary humans. There is an important exception, however: those authorized interpreters who have been specifically conferred the authority to interpret the Word and have been granted access to the meaning of the Manifestation. Their interpretations alone are therefore reliably true and binding. Although the meanings of the Word that are accessible to the human mind are multiple - indeed, infinite - even this infinity of meaning itself is but a drop in the fathomless ocean of meanings that is created and intended by the Manifestation."

Now consider the Bab and his statements about those incapable and capable of understanding his scripture:

"The substance of this gate is that none shall encompass that which God hath revealed in the Bayan except Him Whom God shall make manifest, or the One Who is taught such knowledge by Him, as well as the Exalted Tree from which the Bayan hath emerged. For should all the oceans in the heavens and on the earth turn into ink, all the beings into pens, and all the souls into those who inscribe, they would be incapable of interpreting even a single letter of the Bayan, inasmuch as God hath destined neither a beginning nor an end for any letter thereof."

"Say! Verily the Revealer of the Bayan knoweth its beginning and end, which is none other than Him Whom God shall make manifest. As to all else besides Him, these know naught save that which He hath taught them."
​

Ian Kluge, a Baha'i philosopher I know, explains progressive revelation is an example of what a philosopher might call "evolutionary Platonic perspectivism":

". . . the Bahá’í Writings manifest not relativism but relationalism, an outlook that is often confused with relativism. In a nutshell, relationalism holds that all things exist in relationship to other things but it does rejects the idea that the existence or reality of things is dependent on the perceiver, that there is no neutral, privileged Archimedean point from which to make judgments among competing knowledge claims, that all knowledge claims are equally valid, that error is impossible, that partial knowledge is incorrect knowledge and that no knowledge/truth whatever can be universal (true from all possible standpoints), objective (independent of the perceiver) and foundational (not susceptible to further analysis). This relationalism leads to a position which may broadly be described as ‘evolutionary Platonic perspectivism.’ It is ‘evolutionary’ because our knowledge increases or progresses over time; ‘Platonic’ because there are 'eternal verities' true for all times and places and ‘perspectivist’ because there may be many perspectives on the truth although not all perspectives are necessarily valid. The doctrine of progressive revelation is an example of such ‘evolutionary Platonic perspectivism.’ For example, through successive revelations we have adopted various perspectives as we learn more and more about the relationship between the various Manifestations, but one of these possible perspectives, denying the 'station of unity,' is simply not valid."​

So we can see how our understanding of past Manifestations of God differ over time because of our progression in knowledge. Kluge wrote:

"In progressive revelation, the Writings expect all to accept the fact or reality of Christ as a Manifestation of God but also they expect us to understand or interpret what this fact means in different ways at different times in history. As we can see, the doctrine of progressive revelation logically depends on the mind’s ability to distinguish real and objective fact from interpretation."

With this in mind, I prefer a slight variation of our question:

"Why do we accept ancient understandings or interpretations of ancient texts?"

I hope this helps to illuminate the Baha'i view somewhat. Please keep in mind I'm not theologically or philosophically trained, so don't expect too much from me here.

 

[shunyadragon]

Why do Baha'is trust ancient texts as accurate? We don't accept all ancient texts as accurate. For example, the Buddhist scriptures. For this discussion let's just limit ourselves to the ancient text of the Koran and more recent Baha'i Writings. From my limited understanding the simplest answer resides in the words of the Manifestations of God, their being, and their creative influences. They produce progress in the world of humanity, springing up entire civilizations. For example, see Muhammad. So we can say we trust the Koran because of Muhammad's own self. This is why, for example, Abdu'l-Baha tries to prove Muhammad's prophethood from this perspective we're taking regarding the creative influence of the Manifestations of God:

Ian Kluge, a Baha'i philosopher I know, explains progressive revelation is an example of what a philosopher might call "evolutionary Platonic perspectivism":​

So we can see how our understanding of past Manifestations of God differ over time because of our progression in knowledge. Kluge wrote:

​

I hope this helps to illuminate the Baha'i view somewhat. Please keep in mind I'm not theologically or philosophically trained, so don't expect too much from me here.

To put it simply from the Baha'i perspective the scripture of each religion was trustworthy for the time and culture the Revelation was addressed. Humanity adds to and changes the original revelation and give it a cultural cloak. This is the "evolutionary Platonic perspectivism" that Kluge described. Each new revelation affirms many ancient spiritual laws and spiritual teachings, take off the cultural cloaks, and than add new spiritual laws and teachings. Revelation progresses as humanity spiritually matures over time. Essentially humanity both evolves spiritually and physically. This process is clearly exemplified by the evolution of humanities spiritual nature through the Old Testament to the New Testament, and also apparent in the spiritual evolution in the Koran and the Baha'i Revelation.

Actually this is how the different diverse religions relate in history as human cultures evolve overtime, whether the view of the Baha'i Faith is true or not.

 

[Ahanu]

To put it simply from the Baha'i perspective the scripture of each religion was trustworthy for the time and culture the Revelation was addressed.

I went back and corrected my comment on the Buddhist scriptures after reading a few excerpts online from Without Syllable or Sound: The World's Sacred Scriptures in the Baha'i Faith. I'll have to do more personal research in comparing Buddhism and the Baha'i Faith later; I'm busy learning more about Islam and Christianity at the moment (which is a handful).

 

[shunyadragon]

I went back and corrected my comment on the Buddhist scriptures after reading a few excerpts online from Without Syllable or Sound: The World's Sacred Scriptures in the Baha'i Faith. I'll have to do more personal research in comparing Buddhism and the Baha'i Faith later; I'm busy learning more about Islam and Christianity at the moment (which is a handful).

Side note: In considering ancient religions and trusting scripture. It is well documented that ALL ancient scripture has been edited, redacted and added to over time. There are no original scriptures of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Vedic religions nor Buddhism. The cultural cloak and time makes it difficult to accept that the scripture is absolutely trustworthy for today's world. This a significant part of the reason for the cyclic rebirth and renewal of Progressive Revelation.

Buddhism is the ancient religion that I am closest to, and I considered myself a Buddhist before I became a Baha'i. Buddhism has evolved into a belief system of many Gods and no God in different sects. The God of Buddhism is an apophatic God unknowable to human efforts. It in spiritually evolved from Vedic religion (Hinduism) a religion with a cultural cloak of too many Gods.

Despite the problems of being specifically reliable and trustworthy the scriptures of the world may be studied for inspiration and understanding of the spiritual cyclic evolution of humanity.

 

[shunyadragon]

Bahai's for example, speak of 'Progressive Revelation', but the acceptance of that is a matter if faith, there is no proof as such. Unless I've got it wrong, it simply accepts that the Abrahamics are revealed traditions, and then declares itself a continuity of a progression as it sees it.

To begin with, there is no proof as such, that any one scripture nor any one sequence of scripture, as in the Bible is or contains Divine Revelation or the only Divine Revelation. All belief in a religion or religions presupposes a heavy 'matter of faith' that the scripture is reliable and trustworthy as to what is believed. The matter of fact of the lack of original revealed scripture has been edited, redacted and added to over time. There is the obvious cultural and linguistic cloak in all ancient religions.

Actually 'Progressive Revelation' is based on more than just a 'matter of faith.' There is the evidence of the progressive nature of religions in the spiritual cyclic evolution of humanity. As with all religions there are assumptions of the nature and extent of Revelation from God and the relationship to humanity. The Baha'i Faith is based on the foundation of the relationship to God and humanity is universal throughout the history of humanity, and all Creation is progressive and evolves both physically and spiritually. As a matter of fact this is not believed by the ancient religions. Each ancient religion has a limited scope of Revelation and/or spiritual knowledge and truth as far as the relationship between God, God(s) or no God, and humanity. These beliefs classically relate to a limited cultural and regional paradigm of the world they formed in. As a matter of my search and study of religions and belief systems, the universal perspective was the only logical, reasonable and realistic approach, because of the contradictions of accepting only one of the many different claims of exclusivity of any one ancient religion over others. My conclusions considered the possibility that this evolution of the spiritual nature of humanity could be a purely natural evolution of behavior as reflecting the physical evolution of humanity, and there is the possibility that the 'Source' some call God(s) does not exist.

 

[Ahanu]

Side note: In considering ancient religions and trusting scripture. It is well documented that ALL ancient scripture has been edited, redacted and added to over time. There are no original scriptures of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Vedic religions nor Buddhism. The cultural cloak and time makes it difficult to accept that the scripture is absolutely trustworthy for today's world. This a significant part of the reason for the cyclic rebirth and renewal of Progressive Revelation.

I agree there's some editing, but not to such an extent that scripture is corrupted. Perhaps you'd like to start a thread in the Baha'i forum on the Baha'i view of tahrif. Baha'u'llah, responding to the Muslim accusation that the Christian scriptures are corrupted, asks: "Can a man who believeth in a book, and deemeth it to be inspired by God, mutilate it?"

 

[shunyadragon]

I agree there's some editing, but not to such an extent that scripture is corrupted. Perhaps you'd like to start a thread in the Baha'i forum on the Baha'i view of tahrif. Baha'u'llah, responding to the Muslim accusation that the Christian scriptures are corrupted, asks: "Can a man who believeth in a book, and deemeth it to be inspired by God, mutilate it?"

I do not believe that the Bible was edited to the point that the spiritual nature of the scripture could not be understood, but accounts of events were indeed added to the NT to support specific interpretations that became doctrine and dogma of churches. Corruption is indeed the product of interpretation of the text in the history of a religions. It was not mutilated, as such. The human element remains in the evolution of beliefs when doctrine and dogma is added as later interpretation of scripture, ie the traditional Christian interpretation of the Trinity.

The New Testament scripture is sufficient to understand the the reality of Christ's Divinity is spiritual not physical.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Ahanu –

From my limited understanding the simplest answer resides in the words of the Manifestations of God, their being, and their creative influences.

Agreed.

"The Word" isn't just limited to the text you feel with your hands and read with your eyes; the Manifestation of God is the Speaking Book that reveals the hidden meanings of scripture that ordinary human beings can't penetrate. Also, he notes believers discern but a shadow of the truth

Agreed.

We would say that ‘revelation’ is of the Divine Nature Itself, a ‘knowledge’ that cannot be spoken, and the ‘way’ from here to there, as it were, is contained in the text. At face value there’s the moral dimension, at a deeper level there is ‘the way of the heart’, and Scripture speaks from heart to heart. The way can be spoken, but the heart cannot be expressed in words, and it’s here that what matters more is not the content of the words.

A person might well enjoy a profound and personal union with the divine, but might well appear outwardly to the profane eye as ‘simple’, measured against cultural intellectual values. But someone who believes and obeys the literal word at its most simplistic level, even if they declare they have no spiritual sense, they are nevertheless engaged in ‘the way of the heart’. Man cannot see nor measure the heart and soul of himself or another … and the wise say ‘judge not lest ye be judged’.

There is nothing hidden from the heart of the faithful with regard to the Divine. In a union with God, there is nothing other than God.

So whilst we might talk of Revelation ‘unfolding over time’, this is from the outside as it were, looking up or looking in (depending upon your symbology). It is the view from this side of the veil, the view of time and space and finitude. There’s an old saying that says ‘there’s nothing new under the sun’ and there’s nothing new over the sun either. As far as I know, there is nothing in any Revelation that is not implicit in every Revelation, and is there ‘for those who have the eyes to see’, when that eye is the ‘eye of the heart’ rather than the eye of the (human) mind, which tends to get caught up in various forms of text criticism.

 

[shunyadragon]

I agree there's some editing, but not to such an extent that scripture is corrupted. Perhaps you'd like to start a thread in the Baha'i forum on the Baha'i view of tahrif. Baha'u'llah, responding to the Muslim accusation that the Christian scriptures are corrupted, asks: "Can a man who believeth in a book, and deemeth it to be inspired by God, mutilate it?"

I do not believe that the Bible was edited to the point that the spiritual nature of the scripture could not be understood. It was not mutilated. The human element remains in the evolution of beliefs when doctrine and dogma not in the original text is added as later interpretation of scripture, ie the Trinity.

I believe the scripture as is, is sufficient to understand that the Divine Reality of Jesus Christ is spiritual not physical.

 

[Thomas]

To begin with, there is no proof as such, that any one scripture nor any one sequence of scripture, as in the Bible is or contains Divine Revelation or the only Divine Revelation.

Quite.

The matter of fact of the lack of original revealed scripture has been edited, redacted and added to over time.

This does not necessarily mean its content or meaning has been changed or obscured. Scholars performed a cross-comparison between al the extant versions and came to the conclusion that there is no clear evidence of substantial change of emphasis or meaning.

There is the obvious cultural and linguistic cloak in all ancient religions.

Of course, and good scholarship takes this into account. The issue is not an insurmountable problem, the cultural differences between the West and the Far East have not rendered their ancient documents and teachings inaccessible.

Actually 'Progressive Revelation' is based on more than just a 'matter of faith.' There is the evidence of the progressive nature of religions in the spiritual cyclic evolution of humanity.

But there's no proof regarding the spiritual domain, so surely such statements are a matter of faith?

Man clothes his knowledge in ever more sophisticated language, but that does not mean that the spiritual content of even an inchoate belief falls short of an intellectually worked-out statement, nor does an inchoate belief impair the engagement between the soul and its Source, even though it might offend modern sensibilities.

Nor do I see any sign that man loves his neighbour any more or less than in antiquity. The Golden Rule applies today no more nor less than it did millennia ago ...

As a matter of my search and study of religions and belief systems, the universal perspective was the only logical, reasonable and realistic approach, because of the contradictions of accepting only one of the many different claims of exclusivity of any one ancient religion over others.

My studies of the Sophia Perennis have led me to different conclusions:
The great spiritual traditions speak in their own language, but the meaning of the teaching is universal and accessible.
Each confessional paradigm is complete and entire in and of itself to attain that of which it speaks.
It is inevitable that the most part of humanity will see their own belief as absolute – such is human nature – and by the same token that followers of one faith see fault and flaw in the others.

My conclusions considered the possibility that this evolution of the spiritual nature of humanity could be a purely natural evolution of behavior as reflecting the physical evolution of humanity, and there is the possibility that the 'Source' some call God(s) does not exist.

Quite.

 

[shunyadragon]

This does not necessarily mean its content or meaning has been changed or obscured. Scholars performed a cross-comparison between all the extant versions and came to the conclusion that there is no clear evidence of substantial change of emphasis or meaning.

Not all scholars. If you consider the apologetic scholars as believers, than your statement would probably be true.

Of course, and good scholarship takes this into account. The issue is not an insurmountable problem, the cultural differences between the West and the Far East have not rendered their ancient documents and teachings inaccessible.

The anecdotal claim here is what is good scholarship. I would go far beyond the apologist scholarship of traditional Christianity in consideration as to what is 'good' scholarship. Of course, the ancient documents of ALL religions are accessible, So what? Accessibility is not at issue.

But there's no proof regarding the spiritual domain, so surely such statements are a matter of faith?

Ultimately yes all such statements of belief in one religion or another are a matter of faith, but also yes it is based on the evidence of progressive nature of the teachings and beliefs of the world.

Man clothes his knowledge in ever more sophisticated language, but that does not mean that the spiritual content of even an inchoate belief falls short of an intellectually worked-out statement, nor does an inchoate belief impair the engagement between the soul and its Source, even though it might offend modern sensibilities.

Inchoate or embryonic spiritual teachings and laws exist in all ancient religions, that of course bloom and bear fruit in later Revelations. Modern sensibilities are often offended by embryonic spiritual teachings as well those that bear fruit in later Revelations.

It is not the sophistication of the language nor intellectually worked out statements (this sounds rather humanist and convoluted) that is meaningful concerning the spiritual evolution of humanity through progressive Revelation. It is the actual spiritual laws and teachings the become the standards in the changing and evolving spiritual nature of humanity that are meaningful.

Nor do I see any sign that man loves his neighbor any more or less than in antiquity. The Golden Rule applies today no more nor less than it did millennia ago ...

True, but that only confirms the limits of the fallible nature of humanity, and the universality of the Golden Rule. The concept of Progressive Revelation provides spiritual teachings and laws beyond the Golden Rule.

My studies of the Sophia Perennis have led me to different conclusions:
The great spiritual traditions speak in their own language, but the meaning of the teaching is universal and accessible.

True if you take into the universal consideration of all religions of their great spiritual traditions, the meanings and teachings of Revelations are indeed universal and accessible.

Each confessional paradigm is complete and entire in and of itself to attain that of which it speaks.
It is inevitable that the most part of humanity will see their own belief as absolute – such is human nature – and by the same token that followers of one faith see fault and flaw in the others.

Over simplified generalization, but in part justifies the problems of ancient religions that, of course, go much further than seeing faults and flaws. No the Baha'i Faith does not make the absolute claims that ancient religions do. Religions like Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianisms and Vedic beliefs do not make as absolute exclusive statements of belief as Judaism, Christianity and Islam.[/quote]

 

[Thomas]

Not all scholars. If you consider the apologetic scholars as believers, than your statement would probably be true.

No, it's the consensus of scholarship. Only those who hold a partisan position continue to try and create doubt.

New Testament specialist Daniel Wallace notes that although there are about 300,000 individual variations of the text of the New Testament, this number is very misleading. Most of the differences are completely inconsequential--spelling errors, inverted phrases and the like. A side by side comparison between the two main text families (the Majority Text and the modern critical text) shows agreement a full 98% of the time. (Wallace, "The Majority Text and the Original Text: Are They Identical?," Bibliotheca Sacra, April-June, 1991, 157-8)

Of the remaining differences, virtually all yield to vigorous textual criticism. This means that our New Testament is 99.5% textually pure. In the entire text of 20,000 lines, only 40 lines are in doubt (about 400 words), and none affects any significant doctrine.(Heisler & Nix, "A General Introduction to the Bible" Chicago: Moody Press, 1986, 475)

Greek scholar D.A. Carson sums up this way: "The purity of text is of such a substantial nature that nothing we believe to be true, and nothing we are commanded to do, is in any way jeopardized by the variants." (Carson, "The King James Version Debate" Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979, 56)

This issue is no longer contested by non-Christian scholars, and for good reason. They acknowledge that if we reject the authenticity of the New Testament on textual grounds we'd have to reject every ancient work of antiquity and declare null and void every piece of historical information from written sources prior to the beginning of the second millennium.

Has the New Testament been altered? Critical, academic analysis says it has not.

The infamous 'Johannine comma' (1 John 5:7-8) is a case in point.

Virtually no modern translation includes the 'Trinitarian formula', since scholars for centuries have recognized it as a late addition. The passage appeared for the first time in 1522 under political pressure and scholars then as now knew it was inauthentic. The early church did not know of this text, yet the Council of Constantinople in AD 381 explicitly affirms the Trinity! So to imply that the Johannine comma was inserted to support an invented doctrine is nonsense, as the doctrine was dogmatically defined at Constantinople but was in place from the beginning, as there is material evidence dating from the 1st century that clearly asserts a Trinitarian baptismal formula (The Didache).

How could they do this without the benefit of a text that didn’t get into the Greek NT for another millennium? Constantinople’s statement was not written in a vacuum: the early church put into a theological formulation what they got out of the NT.

The development of doctrine arrived through the process of theological debate and often in the face of imperial persecution. "Anyone with an understanding of the healthy patristic debates over the Godhead knows that the early church arrived at their understanding from an examination of the data in the NT. The Trinitarian formula found in late manuscripts of 1 John 5.7 only summarized what they found; it did not inform their declarations.” (Daniel B Wallace, PhD, Dallas Theological Seminary).

True, but that only confirms the limits of the fallible nature of humanity, and the universality of the Golden Rule. The concept of Progressive Revelation provides spiritual teachings and laws beyond the Golden Rule.

Can you give examples from your tradition?

True if you take into the universal consideration of all religions of their great spiritual traditions, the meanings and teachings of Revelations are indeed universal and accessible.

Exactly, that's the point. So the argument for a 'progressive revelation' that suggests earlier revelations are deficient is, in my opinion, flawed.

 

[shunyadragon]

No, it's the consensus of scholarship. Only those who hold a partisan position continue to try and create doubt.

Disagree, I believe it is the consensus of apologetic scholars ONLY. Scholars like Bart D. Ehrman do not share your view. I most definitely consider critical scholarship to be beyond apologist traditional scholarship, which I do nt consider unbiased and critical as it should be.

The infamous 'Johannine comma' (1 John 5:7-8) is a case in point.

Virtually no modern translation includes the 'Trinitarian formula', since scholars for centuries have recognized it as a late addition. The passage appeared for the first time in 1522 under political pressure and scholars then as now knew it was inauthentic. The early church did not know of this text, yet the Council of Constantinople in AD 381 explicitly affirms the Trinity! So to imply that the Johannine comma was inserted to support an invented doctrine is nonsense, as the doctrine was dogmatically defined at Constantinople but was in place from the beginning, as there is material evidence dating from the 1st century that clearly asserts a Trinitarian baptismal formula (The Didache).

First there is no such documented 1st century evidence for what you claim. The Trinity is most definitely a later development whether true or not. The Didache is most likely in evolved document with similarities with the 'Doctrine of Discipline in the Dead Sea scrolls. Dates range form ~very late 1st to the 2nd century. Ther is no evidence of any documents dating to the 1st century, and it does not support the literal Trinity formula nor the Resurrection. Claims are by inference only.

How could they do this without the benefit of a text that didn’t get into the Greek NT for another millennium? Constantinople’s statement was not written in a vacuum: the early church put into a theological formulation what they got out of the NT.

Of course, it was not written in a vacuum. It was compiled, edited and redacted under Hellenist/Roman culture. The Christian Jews were for the most part gone and were not involved in the later compilatin of the NT.

The development of doctrine arrived through the process of theological debate and often in the face of imperial persecution. "Anyone with an understanding of the healthy patristic debates over the Godhead knows that the early church arrived at their understanding from an examination of the data in the NT. The Trinitarian formula found in late manuscripts of 1 John 5.7 only summarized what they found; it did not inform their declarations.” (Daniel B Wallace, PhD, Dallas Theological Seminary).

Disagree, the Trinitarian formula was determined under Hellenist/Roman influence. Absolutely nothing is found in the first century to confirm the Trinitartian formula. There are many scholars in history that take either side on the comma issue, since it is in some but not all ancient manuscripts. I am indifferent to this debate, because I consider the the Trinitarian formula became the dominant view later under Hellenist/Roman influence, and it is in direct contradiction to Jewish Old Testament monotheism.

Can you give examples from your tradition?

simply the principles and spiritual laws of the Baha'i Faith, which you can read for your self. I may go into this further, maybe in another thread.

Exactly, that's the point. So the argument for a 'progressive revelation' that suggests earlier revelations are deficient is, in my opinion, flawed.

Not flawed at all, because it is well documented. I have no problem with the early Revelations being deficient based on the divided conflicting ancient religions on issues like the harmony of science and religion, and the social and legal equality of women.

The assumption of the Baha'i view that the absolute claims of ancient religions that each one is universal (catholic) is flawed, and Revelation is universal and an evolving changing spiritual nature of ALL humanity throughout human history lies at the heart of our disagreement. The individual religions and sometimes specific sects or churches make the claim that they are specifically the only universal Revelation. For example, the Roman Church claim to be catholic, and the only way of salvation for humanity.

 

[Thomas]

Disagree, I believe it is the consensus of apologetic scholars ONLY.

OK. I think you're wrong.

Scholars like Bart D. Ehrman do not share your view.

No, but his claims have been strenuously rebutted, and he rather represents the extreme position, having gone from 'born again' Evangelic Christian to Agnostic.

I most definitely consider critical scholarship to be beyond apologist traditional scholarship, which I do nt consider unbiased and critical as it should be.

I'm sure you do.

First there is no such documented 1st century evidence for what you claim.

Actually there is.

Disagree, the Trinitarian formula was determined under Hellenist/Roman influence.

Again, this is generally dismissed by scholarship. Too much evidence that the early church was very wary of Hellenist/Roman influence. The Arian dispute, for example, was a rejection of overt Platonism, even though the Fathers were themselves mostly Platonists. Origen and Clement came under similar suspicion. The Fathers could see the distinctions, even if you can't.

Absolutely nothing is found in the first century to confirm the Trinitartian formula.

Wrong. Didache. Ignatius of Antioch ...

It's evident to me that this is going nowhere, so I shall bow out at this point.

 

[shunyadragon]

No, but his claims have been strenuously rebutted, and he rather represents the extreme position, having gone from 'born again' Evangelic Christian to Agnostic.

This is a problem of well accepted academic scholar I know personally and lives in my area. I have most of his books, and I have read them and listened to some of his public lectures. No he has not 'been strenuously rebutted.' There are, of course, disagreements between scholars, but is unwarranted to trash a scholar, because you do not agree with his beliefs, and his conclusions. John Dominic Crossan is another recognized scholar that would not tow the establishment line.

Again, this is generally dismissed by scholarship. Too much evidence that the early church was very wary of Hellenist/Roman influence. The Arian dispute, for example, was a rejection of overt Platonism, even though the Fathers were themselves mostly Platonists. Origen and Clement came under similar suspicion. The Fathers could see the distinctions, even if you can't.

Your response does not dispute the distinct Platonic influence on scripture, doctrine and dogma by the church fathers and later leadership in the Roman Church. I did not claim overt Platonism. You in reality confirmed the influence of Platonism in the thinking of church fathers, which went along way to forming the foundation of traditional Christianity.

Wrong. Didache. Ignatius of Antioch ...

The Didache does not specifically mention the Trinity nor the Resurrection. It is an evolved document that supports the latter development of ritual used in traditional Christianity. No there is not evidence in the first century of the document as it appears in its later documented form.

It's evident to me that this is going nowhere, so I shall bow out at this point.

Bow out if you wish, but you cannot expect me to agree with your establishment party line of reasoning of apologist scholars, and it is unfortunate that you take disagreements personal and attack scholars beliefs trashing their well documented academics. My views and citations are not without merit, and have the support of well recognized scholars like John Dominic Crossan.