• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

How are these Great Beings explained?

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
As I have no access to references this morning, I have read Snippets here, snippets there over the last 33 years in search of the One God of a wide range of writings. I have read the Bible and Koran in full. I found those 2 books a challenge. Of the passages I have read from Buddhist, Zoroastrian and writings attributed to Hindu belief over the years, I seè a common theme clothed in very different garments.

But that is me.

Regards Tony
Again, it's a simple question. What have you read, or is just what the Baha'i' have posted, which are often really out of context?
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
They are indeed in the Bible, this has been posted often above in this thread. I think it wise not to do this again...unless you wish to?



The Baha'i's I have met from Iran say there is a lot of undestanding missing from some words when translating both Persian and Arabic into english. So I assume other languages will have the same Issues.

The story posted above hinted at this barrier of language.

This is what Shoghi Effendi was a master at. It is now a great challenge for future translators to render the writings into English.

Regards Tony
Effendi knew Tamil? (Old Tamil AND new Tamil?) Sanskrit? Cantonese? Mandarin? Perhaps you'tre just saying he was a master at Persian and Arabic though, it's hard to tell what you're trying to say.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
One of the factors that is largely ignored in this discussion is language and in particular, the translations of various languages into English. Words like God, soul, great being, manifestation, etc. certainly look the same when they are translated into English. But are they really? If the translator didn't know the concept or understand the concept really well, from living another paradigm, he really doesn't have a lot of choice, but to use his mother tongue. It's not like I can translate stuff from here into Tagalog. So everyone here is stuck with English. Whether it is suitable or not doesn't seem to matter, but we're stuck with it, and for the most part, we just assume that it's accurate. If you only have one source, it seems likely that you'll believe that source. I question this, and beleive that often it is illusion, folly, and even if the word is the same, quite likely it actually isn't.

Rajiv Malhotra, a Hindu scholar of Hinduism, proficient in Sanskrit, and in English, makes this point often. Last I heard, he's working on a list of untranslatable words. (Sanskrit to English). In other words, he maintains that the same concepts don't exist in English, period.

My Sri Lankan friend brought me a wood apple one day. Naturally, I figured it was some sort of tropical apple. It wasn't. I couldn't have been more wrong. Yes, it had that English name. That's where the similarity ended. It tasted bitter, and had the consistency of about cork ... a tough chew. Perhaps when we speak of 'soul', or 'God', it's as far off as 'apple' is.

Persian, Arabic, Mandarin, Tamil ... any of the ancient tongues that had religious scripture ... just how much distort is there in the translations?

This is a very important point. I have had many discussions with Christians about Christian topics and having an understanding of how the original sacred texts were written and in what language and in what context can be critical to understanding some verses. The OT is written in Hebrew but a translation into Koine Greek called the Septuagint was very much in the few centuries up until the time of Christ due to the Greek then Roman Empires occupying Judea/Israel. Jesus himself was though to speak Aramaic and Greek, and the early gospels were thought to be written in Greek, though there is discussion about a Hebrew version of Matthew. The Greek was later translated into Latin and then into English for the first time over 400 years ago with the King James bible. Understanding this history and some Greek and Hebrew can be very helpful to better grasp the subtleties and nuances of the NT and OT.

Baha'u'llah's revelation is recorded in both Persian and Arabic. We rely on good quality translation, and there have been Baha'is that have published their own translations according to their particular understanding that have not been authorised and have created confusion.

No doubt the history of sacred texts in Hinduism that includes some of the most ancient texts known, will have much more complex issues attached, making it even more difficult to properly understand. I recognise, that I'm completely out of my depth here. Baha'is who have been Hindu's and have a deep understanding of both religions are required and what's missing on this thread. No amount of reading that any of the Baha'is here do, is likely to come close. We are all outsiders. Moojan Momen's book has a similar 'outsider' problem.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
Baha'u'llah's revelation is recorded in both Persian and Arabic. We rely on good quality translation, and there have been Baha'is that have published their own translations according to their particular understanding that have not been authorised.

One of the additional problems is that the languages themselves evolve. All of us here would have a vague understanding of Olde English, but most would have difficulty understanding Shakespeare and his ilk really well, (I certainly miss a lot) and that's only a few hundred years, not 2000. The same applies to most languages. The Tirumanthiram was written in old Tamil. My Tamil friends couldn't read it. So any translation of old scriptures involves a double translation actually. First to a modern form of the language it was written in, and then to English, or whatever other language people want to take it to. So yes its hard. Surely much gets lost.

Interesting what you say about some Baha'i' translators. In Hinduism we don't have any single authority to 'authorise' anything. So we get plenty of translations of many of the books, and scholars or interested people can compare. Too bad there is no such opportunity for the Bahai's. That seems to limit this idea of 'investigation'. Perhaps somebody actually did do a more useful translation, and that's too bad. I guess it's one of the pitfalls of having a hierarchy of power who tell you what you can and cannot read.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Jesus himself was though to speak Aramaic and Greek...........
Who thought that Jesus could speak Greek?
Yeshua was a Galilean handworker in thre second order of land-displaced peasants. Who paid for Galilean peasants to be so well educated? I expect that even Galilean children were working at a very young age.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
Interesting what you say about some Baha'i' translators. In Hinduism we don't have any single authority to 'authorise' anything. So we get plenty of translations of many of the books, and scholars or interested people can compare. Too bad there is no such opportunity for the Bahai's. That seems to limit this idea of 'investigation'. Perhaps somebody actually did do a more useful translation, and that's too bad. I guess it's one of the pitfalls of having a hierarchy of power who tell you what you can and cannot read.

Its simply ensuring adequate quality.

We are a young religion that is not well known or understood. People with their own agendas can translate it to make it say what they want to say. We therefore rely on authorised translations.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
Its simply ensuring adequate quality.

We are a young religion that is not well known or understood. People with their own agendas can translate it to make it say what they want to say. We therefore rely on authorised translations.
I assume it's your central authority, the Universal House of Justice, that does the authorising?

BTW, I believe everyone has an agenda.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
A person is 100% free to read what they wish to.

The choice may be akin to swiming in a pool of contaminated mud, or a pool of pure water.

Regards Tony

How do you know that? If there were two or three translations available for a certain book, and you were actually interested in the message of the book, I think it would be wise to read more than one translation. It would expand your knowledge, no? In surveys on the Bhagavad Gita or the Upanishads,famous Hindu scriptures, you'll get maybe 10 different translations that somebody will claim to be 'my favorite'. But yes, some people in Hinduism would also refer to some translations as 'contaminated mud' or some other hate-filled idea, if it didn't suit their agenda.

I personally try to avoid translations, but more importantly commentary, done by Christians, because it has a bias, and wording from 'outside' as Adrian said. A common scheme is to compare a passage to some Bible passage, often with condescending tones. But this isn't always the case, and of course we can look for ourselves. Perhaps you already have.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
Who thought that Jesus could speak Greek?
Yeshua was a Galilean handworker in thre second order of land-displaced peasants. Who paid for Galilean peasants to be so well educated? I expect that even Galilean children were working at a very young age.

Aramaic, almost certainly.

Greek, probably. He certainly travelled beyond Galilea. Koine Greek was the Lingua Franca not to mention the Septuagint in common usage.

Did Jesus Speak Greek?
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Sources:

1. Insight for Living
2. Micah 5:1-5

The book of Micah provides one of the most significant prophecies of Jesus Christ’s birth in all the Old Testament, pointing some seven hundred years before Christ’s birth to His birthplace of Bethlehem and to His eternal nature (Micah 5:2).

But you, Bethlehem Ephratah, though you be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of you shall he come forth to me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.​

Surrounding Micah’s prophecy of Jesus’s birth is one of the most lucid pictures of the world’s future under the reign of the Prince of Peace (5:5). This future kingdom, which scholars call the millennial kingdom, will be characterized by the presence of many nations living with one another in peace and security (4:3–4) and coming to Jerusalem to worship the reigning king, that is, Jesus Himself (4:2). Because these events have not yet occurred, we look forward to the millennial kingdom at some undetermined time in the future.

Much of Micah’s book revolves around two significant predictions: one of judgment on Israel and Judah (Micah 1:1–3:12), the other of the restoration of God’s people in the millennial kingdom (4:1–5:15).

Remember. I do not believe in god. So, you would need to give me an explanation directly from the bible. Bahaullah said what he said but he is not christian nor jewish.

And he shall judge among many people, and rebuke strong nations afar off; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up a sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.

It sounds like the he is Jesus christ. "And jesus shall judge (be a ruler) among many people and rebuke strong nations (such as the restoration of god's people: the Jews) afar off; and they shall beat their (the people taking over) swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation (god's nation) shall not lift up a sword against nation, neither they learn war anymore (because god's nation will be restored).

1 Marshal your troops now, city of troops, for a siege is laid against us. They will strike Israel’s ruler on the cheek with a rod.
2 “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.”
3Therefore Israel will be abandoned until the time when she who is in labor bears a son, and the rest of his brothers return to join the Israelites.
4 He will stand and shepherd his flock in the strength of the LORD, in the majesty of the name of the LORD his God. And they will live securely, for then his greatness will reach to the ends of the earth.
5 And he will be our peace when the Assyrians invade our land and march through our fortresses. We will raise against them seven shepherds, even eight commanders,
In Christianity, they are talking about Jesus not Bahaullah.

Tony. I can't comment on Bahaullah's view. I also cannot understand nor read all the links in one sitting. You have to pick out your points and explain them in your own words.

Take your time.

It isn't a chat room and I'm about to go skating in an hour anyway.

Edit: Oh. Also, Micah isn't part of the Torah. How does a descendant of Abraham make Bahaullah a prophet descendant of the Jews (as the chosen people) and not the Gentiles?


images

Later folks.
 
Last edited:

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
How do you know that? If there were two or three translations available for a certain book, and you were actually interested in the message of the book, I think it would be wise to read more than one translation. It would expand your knowledge, no? In surveys on the Bhagavad Gita or the Upanishads,famous Hindu scriptures, you'll get maybe 10 different translations that somebody will claim to be 'my favorite'. But yes, some people in Hinduism would also refer to some translations as 'contaminated mud' or some other hate-filled idea, if it didn't suit their agenda.

I personally try to avoid translations, but more importantly commentary, done by Christians, because it has a bias, and wording from 'outside' as Adrian said. A common scheme is to compare a passage to some Bible passage, often with condescending tones. But this isn't always the case, and of course we can look for ourselves. Perhaps you already have.

I also try to find what is the closest to the original intent of what was originally said and intended.

This gets harder as the religion gets older. The mess the world has made with Muhammad, the Koran and the intent is the best of examples. The Bible a close 2nd.

I see the comantries in the Bible as the warning to not add to the book.

As for Hinduism, Buddhisim and Zoroastrian writings, I can comment less as I have read less of them and the culture. Commments from You and Carlita have shown that the Hindu and Buddhist Faiths are quite a diversity of thought and it appears to me, they have undolded in a much more harmonious and accepting way than the two aforementioned Faiths.

I guess at this point our two paths in Faith show our diversity of thought. My journey only started in 1984. Prior to that I had a limited Christain upbringing with some Sunday School as a child in the mix. My mother and Grandmother had high moral values and as an example and they lived them. I had no interest in Faith of any kind. My Father an Athiest. In 1984 when I was shown the writings of Baha'u'llah it was as a torrent of amazement to me. I had always considered, if there was a God, then all must point towards that.

Thus from that point on I have just continued to find the connection and I have never been dissapointed, apart from the result of my own choices. I attempt not look at anything without trying to see the source within.

As you say different points of reference.

In the end, you and I can live at peace and work with each other while we Love God in the way we have chosen. That has to be better than what we see on tye news each morning!

All the best wishes, Regards Tony
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
I noticed the timeline isn't on Isaac, Ishmael, and Midian. I read that Midianites were in Arabia. Did Midian had a prophecy that Bahaullah is a prophet rather than just a descendent just as many christians and jews say you and I are are well?

There is nothing to my knowledge about Midian in the bible other than he was the son of Abraham. Genesis 25:5-8

However we have the Midianites who were descendants of Midian

Midian - Wikipedia

Does being a descendant of the human race mean being part of a prophecy; if so, how?

Yes

'And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;'
Genesis 26:4

Baha'u'llah was also a descendant of Jesse, and there is a specific prophecy in Isaiah 11:1-10


This is what I read Bible and Islam. All the other prophets are mentioned directly in the Bible. If Muhammad and Bahaullah were important (not by their names but by their actions) then why are they not in their bible? Jews and Christians say they are gentiles. If Bahallah and Muhammad are not gentiles, they aren't prophets since they aren't mentioned in the bible, then is there connection valid because of the title they believe god gave them-as Joseph Smith and other people who heard from god?

The link you sent appears to confuse Muslims and Arabs. Muhammad was born 570 AD, so centuries after the NT books were composed.

Baha'u'llah does not appear in the Bible, for exactly the same reason as Jesus does not appear in the Tanakh. The Jews could not see Jesus fulfilling their prophecies and the Christians can not see Baha'u'llah fulfilling theirs.

Only Mormons believe Joseph Smith heard from God.

From a Christian point of view, how are you different from them and the rest of the gentiles that aren't chosen people of god like the Israelites?

We are Baha'is and believe in Baha'u'llah. So the Christians see us as lost souls just as everyone else. As the Jews think Christians have got it wrong, Christians think Baha'is have got it wrong.

I read something about Abraham's decedents were in Arabia. How does their location of travel make it different than other parts of the world they traveled?

Muhammad and Islam emerged from the Arabia Peninsula so the locality is very significant. Persia is much more significant though. As the Jewish King David prefigured the Jewish Spiritual King Jesus, the Persian King Cyrus (the anointed one in Isaiah 44:28. Isaiah 45:1-2) prefigured the Persian Spiritual King Baha'u'llah.

I hope that helps.:)
 

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
How do we explain these Great Beings: Buddha, Moses, Krishna, Christ, Zoroaster, Muhammad, the Bab & Bahaullah? They are somewhat unique and unparalleled in human history and were clearly not ordinary people.

There are famous people in history, famous artists, musicians and scientists but none can compare to the influence of the Educator, Teacher, Messiah or Prophet.

But Who were they? And why were they and still are so influential throughout history? Why did they inspire civilizations? Why have their scriptures become patterns of life followed daily by billions of people for thousands of years?

What gift did they possess to be able to be persecuted, oppressed, tortured, exiled and crucified by the most despotic and powerful leaders of their age with but a handful of followers and yet eventually triumph over adversity and establish Their Cause all over the world?

Statues, Churches, Temples, Pagodas, Mosques and Synagogues are built all over the world to pay tribute to these Great Souls.

Are they from another world? Did they pre exist? Without a special power how could they have accomplished what they did and who is their equal in influence?

And aren't we in dire need of another Great Spiritual Teacher to revive us spiritually?

And didn't Buddha say, :If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him?"
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
I also try to find what is the closest to the original intent of what was originally said and intended.

But how exactly can one do that? You don't read Persian do you? Is it the original intent, or what best suits yourself, and how you intuitively view the world? In a way I feel it is like poetry or art. The only person who actually knows the intent or objective is the author, or the artist. The rest of us are merely conjecturing.

Lots of commentators say things like, "Oh, he didn't really mean that." Bahai's do this with the many parts of the world's scriptures. Seems to me that is a flawed approach ... to think you can pass that sort of judgement on a book, better even than the adherents themselves can. Best to not read it at all that make your own interpretations as you go along.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
Thus from that point on I have just continued to find the connection and I have never been dissapointed, apart from the result of my own choices. I attempt not look at anything without trying to see the source within.

That is not at all uncommon in seekers, sticking with the first thing that makes any sense at all. I think it's a natural tendency, yet most likely hinders any further exploration at the same time. It's like finding a girl who'll actually go out with you. Hard to refuse that.
 
Top