When our scriptures quote myths from the Bible or Qur'an, does that make them historical?

[Sen McGlinn]

This is a great video and discussion, copied to Youtube from a presentation for the Corinne True Centre by JoAnn Borovicka :

“What Can We Assume When Central Figures of the Bahá’í Faith Cite Ancient Traditions?" Link:

This presentation effectively debunks the idea that because Baha'u'llah, or Abdu'l-Baha, reference a piece of the Bible such as the story of Lot's daughters (or a story in the Quran), that story must be historically accurate. Such matters, according to Baha'u'llah, are "revealed according to the prevailing understanding of the people of that time."

I agree with JoAnn. But then you have letters on behalf of the Guardian saying:

"...we cannot be sure how much or how little of the four Gospels are accurate and include the words of Christ and His undiluted teachings, all we can be sure of, as Bahá'ís, is that what has been quoted by Bahá'u'lláh and the Master must be absolutely authentic. As many times passages in the Gospel of St. John are quoted we may assume that it is his Gospel and much of it accurate." (23 January 1944 to an individual believer)

"We cannot be sure of the authenticity of any of the phrases in the Old or the New Testament. What we can be sure of is when such references or words are cited or quoted in either the Quran or the Bahá'í writings." (4 July 1947 to an individual believer)

"We have no way of substantiating the stories of the Old Testament other than references to them in our own teachings, so we cannot say exactly what happened at the battle of Jericho." (25 November 1950 to an individual believer)

Because there are these 3 letters on behalf of Shoghi Effendi endorsing the idea that what Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha quote must be absolutely authentic, the question JoAnne raises leads straight to the question of whether everything that is referenced as a letter "on behalf of Shoghi Effendi" is (a) authentic and (b) expressing a general truth, rather than being expressed according to the needs and understanding of the person who is addressed.

 

[badger]

This is a great video and discussion, copied to Youtube from a presentation for the Corinne True Centre by JoAnn Borovicka :

When our scriptures quote myths from the Bible or Qur'an, does that make them historical?​

Hi Sen,
I wanted to offer a reply to your thread title and I hope that's ok.

I'm not sure which reports from the Old Testament are myths, actually, and it seems quite possible that takes such as the exodus could have been based upon real events which later became exaggerated.... A massive breakout of slaves from Egypt across the papyrus marshes to the North of the Red Sea could possibly have later been raised to a 600,000 escape.

And on.....but the Gospels are somewhat more easy to investigate imo. After years of study and debate I reckon that most of the Gospel of Mark is a true account and nearly all of the miracles mentioned in it can have 'natural' explanations. But from there the others expand the duration of mission, message and miracle in to the Christ that suited the young church. Or that's how I see it.

 

[Sen McGlinn]

Well "most of" the Gospel is precisely the problem. The secretaries' letters say that when we find something quoted by Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha, we know it must be "absolutely authentic." That is a means of finding at least a few "authentic" pieces, but it does not mean that the rest is not authentic. The little apocalypse is quoted and commented by Baha'u'llah, but I see nothing in his commentary that indicates Baha'u'llah intended -- in addition to his main message -- to tell us that this is the authentic words of Jesus. I do not think they are authentic from Jesus, I think they are explanations after the fact of the destruction of the Temple, to serve the needs of the early church.

My main objection is not source-critical, but a matter of reading principles (hermeneutics). One should not use a text for an argumentive purpose that would not -- demonstrably -- be the purpose of the author or speaker. So even if there was evidence that the words came from Jesus, I would still say that one cannot use the words of Baha'u'llah as proof of this, because that was not the message he was teaching.

 

[badger]

Well "most of" the Gospel is precisely the problem. The secretaries' letters say that when we find something quoted by Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha, we know it must be "absolutely authentic." That is a means of finding at least a few "authentic" pieces, but it does not mean that the rest is not authentic. The little apocalypse is quoted and commented by Baha'u'llah, but I see nothing in his commentary that indicates Baha'u'llah intended -- in addition to his main message -- to tell us that this is the authentic words of Jesus. I do not think they are authentic from Jesus, I think they are explanations after the fact of the destruction of the Temple, to serve the needs of the early church.

My main objection is not source-critical, but a matter of reading principles (hermeneutics). One should not use a text for an argumentive purpose that would not -- demonstrably -- be the purpose of the author or speaker. So even if there was evidence that the words came from Jesus, I would still say that one cannot use the words of Baha'u'llah as proof of this, because that was not the message he was teaching.

Fair enough.
I don't expect that Baha'u'allah did intend to support the gospels as faultless when he referred to them. Obviously some Baha'i followers are likely to claim that Baha'u'allah cannot be wrong about anything and that I can understand.
For years bible debaters have insisted that, for instance, theological scholars decisions upon some verdict or other must be right for ad-hominem reasons, but obviously that is different because an academic name can't have the clout that a prophet can!
The only answer I could possibly give to a religious zealot who insists that their prophet or God cannot err is, 'I acknowledge your belief'.

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

Fair enough.
I don't expect that Baha'u'allah did intend to support the gospels as faultless when he referred to them. Obviously some Baha'i followers are likely to claim that Baha'u'allah cannot be wrong about anything and that I can understand.
For years bible debaters have insisted that, for instance, theological scholars decisions upon some verdict or other must be right for ad-hominem reasons, but obviously that is different because an academic name can't have the clout that a prophet can!
The only answer I could possibly give to a religious zealot who insists that their prophet or God cannot err is, 'I acknowledge your belief'.

The Messengers of God give the truth from God, God does not err. God gives us the apex of truth we can obtain to, relative to our given capacity and willingness to explore that truth.

The reality is, deviation from the truth is not of God, it is from Our own understanding of what was written.

Abdul'baha gave the key to understanding the subject of how useful the Bible is to us by His Inscription in an Old Bible, written by 'Abdu'l-Bahá in Persian

"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-Bahá 'Abbás. ('Abdu'l-Bahá, 'Abdu'l-Bahá in London, pp 17-18)

So when Baha'u'allah quotes the Bible or the Quran, in the context to the point Baha'u'allah is making, that supports the quoted scripture as having significant meaning, relative to what is being said, and accurate for this age.

As with all things it takes great effort to unravel the mysteries that are an intrinsic part of the Holy writings. The best way is many studying together and everyone gets an input into explaining what they see. Abdul'baha offered this.

"I have been informed that the purpose of your class meeting is to study the significances and mysteries of the Holy Scriptures and understand the meaning of the divine Testaments. It is a cause of great happiness to me that you are turning unto the Kingdom of God, that you desire to approach the presence of God and to become informed of the realities and precepts of God. It is my hope that you may put forth your most earnest endeavor to accomplish this end, that you may investigate and study the Holy Scriptures word by word so that you may attain knowledge of the mysteries hidden therein. Be not satisfied with words, but seek to understand the spiritual meanings hidden in the heart of the words.”

Regards Tony

 

[moralorel]

Years ago I was reading a Hebrew commentary on Exodus. I wish I could find it because it was an interesting read. The author claimed that most of the Israelites didn't believe the old stories about Adam, Eve, Noah, Abraham, etc. It wasn't until they started seeing miracles that they started believing these old stories. But the authors of the NT sure seemed to believe these stories as well.

But it was just the claims of one Hebrew scholar so take it with a grain of salt... especially because you are just hearing this from a stranger on the internet. But I do find it interesting that a culture could dismiss their history so quickly after only a few centuries, if true.

 

[TheLightWithin]

The only answer I could possibly give to a religious zealot who insists that their prophet or God cannot err is, 'I acknowledge your belief'.

Good answer.

 

[TheLightWithin]

The only answer I could possibly give to a religious zealot who insists that their prophet or God cannot err is, 'I acknowledge your belief'.

Perhaps sometimes, for clarity "I acknowledge your belief, though I do not share it myself"

 

[badger]

Perhaps sometimes, for clarity "I acknowledge your belief, though I do not share it myself"

Yes, you could if you want to get involved with a religious zealot's responses.
Sometimes I will just tell a person that I hear them if I don't believe that they want to hear me.

 

[badger]

The Messengers of God give the truth from God, God does not err.

I haven't seen him for some time but there's a man who lives rough and sometimes walk around Canterbury UK calling out his messages about life. I spoke with him once and he told me that he was/is a messenger from God.

'From God?' I replied.

'Absolutely! Know that I am ordained by almighty God.' he said.
Fair enough.

God gives us the apex of truth we can obtain to, relative to our given capacity and willingness to explore that truth.

Apex of truth? What exactly is the 'apex of truth'?