Biblical prophecies and statements. Are they about Jesus Christ or Bahaullah?

[firedragon]

Sorry the 3 Woes mentioned in Revelation are prophecy of 3 Messengers.

It is explained the the coming of a Messenger is as a woe to humanity, great change is a direct result, many are not ready to face the change.

"..... The three woes to come are the dawnings of the Lord's Days of Muhammad, the Bab, and Baha'u'llah. That a "woe" signals a Day of the Lord is made clear by Ezekiel._/11 'Abdu'l-Baha says,
"Therefore it is certain that the day of woe is the Day of the Lord; for in that day woe is for the neglectful, woe is for the sinners, woe is for the ignorant..... ."

Regards Tony

I completely reject it brother. No offence, but this is in my opinion too much inference. It is an inference upon the text where ouai is not spoken of as a woe only to the ignorant, neglectful, sinners etc while seven thousand people dying in an earthquake after the first so called 'woe' and two prophets going unto heaven before the third one comes, and they are called up by God at once, not at intervals. Earthquake will come in "a land", does not say anything like only sinners. The beast is supposed to come and make war. You would have to make a lot of inferences and claim some of them are just allegorical and some of them literal etc. Also, what would you say about the variances in the number 666, 645 and 616 in manuscript evidences and as even attested by several so called "church fathers"?

Tell me Tony. Why have you stopped at Revelations? Did not the other books in the earliest Bibles that was discarded later not known to Bahaullah? Im just curious to know how you respond to that? E.g. Epistle of Barnabas.

 

[oldbadger]

See, these are not my claims. These are Bahai claims, and the person (s) who made the claim had corresponded in this thread extensively.

Yeah, but you are the OP and you referred to such verses in post 1.

 

[firedragon]

Yeah, but you are the OP and you referred to such verses in post 1.

No I didnt.

 

[oldbadger]

No I didnt.

Well, you did in 295, and your OP could have made all clear, I would suggest.

 

[firedragon]

Well, you did in 295, and your OP could have made all clear, I would suggest.

I dont know what 295 is. But I gave you some references because you asked, but the OP is not about me quoting scripture, but it is about the Bahais claims and the Bahais have responded here. So I dont know what you are trying to achieve here.

If you read the references I gave you it does not necessarily say anything directly, but they interpret them as prophecies about Bahaullah. Maybe if you go through this thread you will understand better. Unless you are looking for an argument that would discredit the OP for whatever reason of yours but not engage in the discussion itself.

Your prerogative.

 

[Skywalker]

Try and respond to this with analysis, nut a cut and paste or a strawman.

Isaiah 7:14. Prophecy of Jesus Christ or an Eisegesis?

The fallacious translations


Isaiah 7:14 King James Version


Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.


The most apparent and blatant mistranslation - Its not Virgin in this verse, its a young woman. Virgin is Bethula in hebrew but in this verse its Almah which means young woman. So this is an intentional and blatant mistranslation. In Genesis and all over the place e.g. Genesis 24:43 Almah is maiden, but miraculously in Isiah 7:14 word meanings change to virgin to fit the need of a need that arises 7 centuries later.


The grammatical misrepresentation - Haureh in Hebrew is not in the future tense. Its in the perfect tense. Just like in Genesis 16:11 where the KJV translates it “You are with child” but strangely in Isaiah 7:14 it changes all the grammatical rules and becomes a future tense. So they made it “shall be with child” as if its a future prophecy. This is something that has already happened, she is already with child, its not a future event.


Who is naming the child Emmanuelle? - The Karaw used here as Karat is feminine. It means she will call the child emmanuel. Here too, the KJV has mistranslated it.

A maiden is a virgin. That verse you mentioned reminds me of the Bible verse where it says His name shall be Jesus and he will save his people from their sins.

 

[firedragon]

A maiden is a virgin. That verse you mentioned reminds me of the Bible verse where it says His name shall be Jesus and he will save his people from their sins.

But doesnt mean virgin. You can repeat the same thing a million times, but it does not negate the fact that the KJV intentionally mistranslated this verse in order to make it a prophecy. You cannot refute it, that's why you are neglecting the real issue and not answering it. Are you intentionally not seeing this?

Try and respond to this with analysis, nut a cut and paste or a strawman.

Isaiah 7:14. Prophecy of Jesus Christ or an Eisegesis?

The fallacious translations


Isaiah 7:14 King James Version


Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.


The most apparent and blatant mistranslation - Its not Virgin in this verse, its a young woman. Virgin is Bethula in hebrew but in this verse its Almah which means young woman. So this is an intentional and blatant mistranslation. In Genesis and all over the place e.g. Genesis 24:43Almah is maiden, but miraculously in Isiah 7:14 word meanings change to virgin to fit the need of a need that arises 7 centuries later.


The grammatical misrepresentation - Haureh in Hebrew is not in the future tense. Its in the perfect tense. Just like in Genesis 16:11 where the KJV translates it “You are with child” but strangely in Isaiah 7:14 it changes all the grammatical rules and becomes a future tense. So they made it “shall be with child” as if its a future prophecy. This is something that has already happened, she is already with child, its not a future event.


Who is naming the child Emmanuelle? - The Karaw used here as Karat is feminine. It means she will call the child emmanuel. Here too, the KJV has mistranslated it.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I completely reject it brother. No offence, but this is in my opinion too much inference. It is an inference upon the text where ouai is not spoken of as a woe only to the ignorant, neglectful, sinners etc while seven thousand people dying in an earthquake after the first so called 'woe' and two prophets going unto heaven before the third one comes, and they are called up by God at once, not at intervals. Earthquake will come in "a land", does not say anything like only sinners. The beast is supposed to come and make war. You would have to make a lot of inferences and claim some of them are just allegorical and some of them literal etc.

Bahai scriptures clearly says the three woes are the three revelations. This is sufficient for a Bahai to believe.
As for someone who does not believe in Bahai Scriptures, obviously, they won't believe in this interpretation.

As @Tony Bristow-Stagg said, these three revelations are Muhammad ,the Bab and Bahaullah.
Its details are explained in Some Answered Questions. So, feel free to do your own reading to see that There are signs that can be seen this fits with these three revelations. For example, the Bible says, the third woe comes quickly after the second woe. That is the revelation of Bahá'u'lláh which came right after the Bab.
In the Quran, there are two trumpets, which follow each other. In Bahai scriptures the two trumpets are revelations of the Bab and Bahaullah which followed each other.

Also, what would you say about the variances in the number 666, 645 and 616 in manuscript evidences and as even attested by several so called "church fathers"?

Very simple. Because Bahai scriptures confirm 666 is correct. Bahais believe in their scriptures. But obviously if you dont believe in Bahai scriptures, you have no way to know.

Tell me Tony. Why have you stopped at Revelations? Did not the other books in the earliest Bibles that was discarded later not known to Bahaullah? Im just curious to know how you respond to that? E.g. Epistle of Barnabas.

Very simple. Bahai scriptures confirms Revelation. It does not confirm Barnabas. So, again, this is sufficient for Bahais. As for those who don't believe in Bahai Scriptures, you have no way to know what to accept and what not to accept, other than using your own wishes.

 

[firedragon]

Bahai scriptures clearly says the three woes are the three revelations. This is sufficient for a Bahai to believe.

Of course. But I reject it vehemently.

As @Tony Bristow-Stagg said, these three revelations are Muhammad ,the Bab and Bahaullah.

Thanks for the reiteration, but I have had responded to it. I know its a very concise response but I did not get any response to it from you.

Very simple. Because Bahai scriptures confirm 666 is correct. Bahais believe in their scriptures. But obviously if you dont believe in Bahai scriptures, you have no way to know.

Yeah. But that would mean to me that the Bahai scripture did not know the later found scholarship, which means they were following the KJV.

Very simple. Bahai scriptures confirms Revelation. It does not confirm Barnabas. So, again, this is sufficient for Bahais. As for those who don't believe in Bahai Scriptures, you have no way to know what to accept and what not to accept, other than using your own wishes.

Again, that's probably because the writer did not have a clue of Bible scholarship that obviously was developed later. The writer did not know that they would find Bible manuscripts later so he was obviously reading the KJV.

Thats that.

 

[CG Didymus]

Almah refers to maidens, who are young unmarried women. It wouldn't be appropriate to give the detail that they are virgins.

It's all kind of vague isn't it about an actual child that was the "sign" for King Ahaz? But still, there should be someone and that someone was probably not born of a virgin.

 

[CG Didymus]

Ali is most likely Elijah of the Muslim dispensation.

That is what I have always thought, as Elijah always comes first.

Regards Tony

Did Ali come before Muhammad in a similar way that The Bab came before Baha'u'llah and John came before Jesus? But unlike them, Ali becomes the leader after Muhammad?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Of course. But I reject it vehemently.



Thanks for the reiteration, but I have had responded to it. I know its a very concise response but I did not get any response to it from you.



Yeah. But that would mean to me that the Bahai scripture did not know the later found scholarship, which means they were following the KJV.



Again, that's probably because the writer did not have a clue of Bible scholarship that obviously was developed later. The writer did not know that they would find Bible manuscripts later so he was obviously reading the KJV.

Thats that.

You did not prove that three woes don't fit with Bahai interpretations. It is not even clear what you were saying about the three woes.
You did not prove that 666 is the wrong number. Neither you proved that why should the Barnabas be considered as divinely inspired.

You don't seem to know how prophecies work.
The prophecies are written in figurative and symbolic language. Do you claim to know the meaning of symbols in revelations from God? Of course you dont. No, other than one who has knowledge from God can do such a claim.


All you do, is, confirm you dont really know what to believe, so, conveniently you just reject, as if, if something you reject, it means it is false. Where did you get this kind of logic?

 

[CG Didymus]

It's not a problem for me CG as I see it all fits perfectly.

Regards Tony

Of course you don't have a problem with it, but could you explain these claims in a way to make sense to someone who is skeptical. I think there are six times something gets converted into 1260 years. Sure, it's remarkable that 1260 years in the Islamic calendar comes up to 1844. But each time one of them is mentioned it is talking about a different event. And each time the Baha'is make the starting point 621AD. How and why does each event start there? Except that Baha'is need the event to end on the year 1844? The Umayyads and Abbasids did not start in 621AD and they didn't end in 1844. But, for Baha'is, they are made to start and stop in those years?

But in another prophecy the start of the Umayyads is said to have started in 661AD. That's from the number or mark of the beast, 666. Baha'is make it a year, and to get to 661AD, they start counting the 666 years in 4 or 5 BC citing that Jesus was not born in year zero, and most likely, which is just a guesstimate, 4 or 5 years before that. So 666 minus 5 equals the year Baha'is desire for the prophecy, 661AD.

But anyway, I don't expect and I don't think there are clear answers to these questions that Baha'is could give. But just like Christians, these types of question, somehow, don't bother the believers?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Of course you don't have a problem with it, but could you explain these claims in a way to make sense to someone who is skeptical. I think there are six times something gets converted into 1260 years. Sure, it's remarkable that 1260 years in the Islamic calendar comes up to 1844. But each time one of them is mentioned it is talking about a different event. And each time the Baha'is make the starting point 621AD. How and why does each event start there? Except that Baha'is need the event to end on the year 1844? The Umayyads and Abbasids did not start in 621AD and they didn't end in 1844. But, for Baha'is, they are made to start and stop in those years?

But in another prophecy the start of the Umayyads is said to have started in 661AD. That's from the number or mark of the beast, 666. Baha'is make it a year, and to get to 661AD, they start counting the 666 years in 4 or 5 BC citing that Jesus was not born in year zero, and most likely, which is just a guesstimate, 4 or 5 years before that. So 666 minus 5 equals the year Baha'is desire for the prophecy, 661AD.

But anyway, I don't expect and I don't think there are clear answers to these questions that Baha'is could give. But just like Christians, these types of question, somehow, don't bother the believers?

The bottom line is, there are thousands of prophesies about an End Time, in Bible , Quran, Hadithes, Zoroastrian prophecies, etc. Bahai Faith fits every single one of these prophecies. We can show this. The skeptical will say, it is coincidental or it is a trick.
In what else can they believe then?

 

[CG Didymus]

They didn't conspire. They didn't gain money, power, or relationships from what they did. The New Testament writers conspired together to gain power and influence | CARM.org

But Christianity did gain power and money eventually by saying that the Bible was the inerrant and infallible and literal Word of God. Those stories made Jesus into a God.

But the people coming out their graves, as I recall, is in only one gospel, so let's skip that. If Jesus is physically dead like Baha'is claim, then either the resurrection story is metaphorical or Christians did conspire and invented the whole thing. Who could have pulled off such a thing? One Baha'i said that it isn't all that difficult to believe that the followers of Jesus could have stolen and hid the body. That Baha'i says that the followers of The Bab successfully hid the remains of what was left of his body. But that's not the same. Christians would have had to make it look like Jesus had come back to life. They would have had to make up stories about him appearing to them and others. And never... telling the truth, that they had hid the body and lied about the appearances of Jesus.

But with Jesus dead, buried and gone... and not returning, the Baha'is have cleared the path for them to claim each and every prophecy about the end times for their own. So, for them, Jesus is much better off dead.

 

[CG Didymus]

To me is so simply explains how 3 Messengers after Christ are evidently foretold, the 3 Woes that mankind has faced and that they were clearly foretold.

But I guess that is why I am a Baha'i

Regards Tony

Can you show from the context of what happen during those Three Woes how that is Muhammad, The Bab and Baha'u'llah. Then, how come other "Woes" are not made into prophecies about manifestations?

Rev 8:6 Then the seven angels who had the seven trumpets prepared to sound them.

7 The first angel sounded his trumpet, and there came hail and fire mixed with blood, and it was hurled down on the earth. A third of the earth was burned up, a third of the trees were burned up, and all the green grass was burned up.

8 The second angel sounded his trumpet, and something like a huge mountain, all ablaze, was thrown into the sea. A third of the sea turned into blood, 9 a third of the living creatures in the sea died, and a third of the ships were destroyed.

10 The third angel sounded his trumpet, and a great star, blazing like a torch, fell from the sky on a third of the rivers and on the springs of water— 11 the name of the star is Wormwood. A third of the waters turned bitter, and many people died from the waters that had become bitter.

12 The fourth angel sounded his trumpet, and a third of the sun was struck, a third of the moon, and a third of the stars, so that a third of them turned dark. A third of the day was without light, and also a third of the night.

13 As I watched, I heard an eagle that was flying in midair call out in a loud voice: “Woe! Woe! Woe to the inhabitants of the earth, because of the trumpet blasts about to be sounded by the other three angels!”​

So four angels had sounded their trumpets... but stuff happened. Judgements on the people of the Earth. Then it say "Woe! Woe! Woe!" for what is going to happen during the next three trumpet blasts. So what is going to happen? God is sending his manifestations to bring new laws and move mankind forward in an ever advancing civilization? Or more bad stuff?

9 The fifth angel sounded his trumpet, and I saw a star that had fallen from the sky to the earth. The star was given the key to the shaft of the Abyss. 2 When he opened the Abyss, smoke rose from it like the smoke from a gigantic furnace. The sun and sky were darkened by the smoke from the Abyss. 3 And out of the smoke locusts came down on the earth and were given power like that of scorpions of the earth. 4 They were told not to harm the grass of the earth or any plant or tree, but only those people who did not have the seal of God on their foreheads. 5 They were not allowed to kill them but only to torture them for five months. And the agony they suffered was like that of the sting of a scorpion when it strikes. 6 During those days people will seek death but will not find it; they will long to die, but death will elude them.

7 The locusts looked like horses prepared for battle. On their heads they wore something like crowns of gold, and their faces resembled human faces. 8 Their hair was like women’s hair, and their teeth were like lions’ teeth. 9 They had breastplates like breastplates of iron, and the sound of their wings was like the thundering of many horses and chariots rushing into battle. 10 They had tails with stingers, like scorpions, and in their tails they had power to torment people for five months. 11 They had as king over them the angel of the Abyss, whose name in Hebrew is Abaddon and in Greek is Apollyon (that is, Destroyer).

12 The first woe is past; two other woes are yet to come.​

That's the first Woe, go ahead and give the Baha'i interpretation of how this is about Muhammad. And why didn't Muhammad tell everybody that this was about him? After this comes the Two Witnesses. Like I said they happen during the second Woe that is supposed to be The Bab.

Long after the second Woe is ended, in Chapter 12, we get another prophecy about 1260 days. And this is still kicked back to starting in 621AD and ending in 1844. The only Baha'i explanation? That it is not in chronological order? Yes, the Baha'i explanation doesn't seem to be in any kind of order other than making everything fit their religion. I don't expect you to be able to explain this stuff in any meaningful or convincing way, but if you can... go for it.

 

[Skywalker]

But Christianity did gain power and money eventually by saying that the Bible was the inerrant and infallible and literal Word of God. Those stories made Jesus into a God.

But the people coming out their graves, as I recall, is in only one gospel, so let's skip that. If Jesus is physically dead like Baha'is claim, then either the resurrection story is metaphorical or Christians did conspire and invented the whole thing. Who could have pulled off such a thing? One Baha'i said that it isn't all that difficult to believe that the followers of Jesus could have stolen and hid the body. That Baha'i says that the followers of The Bab successfully hid the remains of what was left of his body. But that's not the same. Christians would have had to make it look like Jesus had come back to life. They would have had to make up stories about him appearing to them and others. And never... telling the truth, that they had hid the body and lied about the appearances of Jesus.

But with Jesus dead, buried and gone... and not returning, the Baha'is have cleared the path for them to claim each and every prophecy about the end times for their own. So, for them, Jesus is much better off dead.

The Apostles didn't get power and money from it. Why would the apostles conspire and invent the whole thing? It's doubtful.

 

[Skywalker]

But doesnt mean virgin. You can repeat the same thing a million times, but it does not negate the fact that the KJV intentionally mistranslated this verse in order to make it a prophecy. You cannot refute it, that's why you are neglecting the real issue and not answering it. Are you intentionally not seeing this?

Try and respond to this with analysis, nut a cut and paste or a strawman.

Isaiah 7:14. Prophecy of Jesus Christ or an Eisegesis?

The fallacious translations


Isaiah 7:14 King James Version


Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.


The most apparent and blatant mistranslation - Its not Virgin in this verse, its a young woman. Virgin is Bethula in hebrew but in this verse its Almah which means young woman. So this is an intentional and blatant mistranslation. In Genesis and all over the place e.g. Genesis 24:43Almah is maiden, but miraculously in Isiah 7:14 word meanings change to virgin to fit the need of a need that arises 7 centuries later.


The grammatical misrepresentation - Haureh in Hebrew is not in the future tense. Its in the perfect tense. Just like in Genesis 16:11 where the KJV translates it “You are with child” but strangely in Isaiah 7:14 it changes all the grammatical rules and becomes a future tense. So they made it “shall be with child” as if its a future prophecy. This is something that has already happened, she is already with child, its not a future event.


Who is naming the child Emmanuelle? - The Karaw used here as Karat is feminine. It means she will call the child emmanuel. Here too, the KJV has mistranslated it.

It wouldn't be appropriate to give the word for virgin. A maiden conceiving refers to the virgin birth in an appropriate way.

 

[CG Didymus]

The bottom line is, there are thousands of prophesies about an End Time, in Bible , Quran, Hadithes, Zoroastrian prophecies, etc. Bahai Faith fits every single one of these prophecies. We can show this. The skeptical will say, it is coincidental or it is a trick.
In what else can they believe then?

Yes, lots of tricky manipulation of numbers. A mark that is placed on a person so they can buy and sell becomes a date? But that date is said to be a prophecy for when the Umayyads take power. But in another prophecy about the beasts and dragons they are also made to be about the Umayyads and also the Abbasids, but this time the start is pushed back to 621AD? Why? That's not when they gained power? It is only so Baha'is can say the 1260 days are 1260 lunar years that end in 1844. But, was 1844 the return of The Christ? The Messiah? No, it was the year his forerunner came. The Bible is a gold mine for things that can be made into prophecies.

 

[CG Didymus]

The Apostles didn't get power and money from it. Why would the apostles conspire and invent the whole thing? It's doubtful.

I agree. It is doubtful they could have pulled off such a hoax and not get caught. And I think it is doubtful that the gospel writers didn't throw in some embellishments to spice up the story. But to say that the whole resurrection part of the story is metaphorical, like Baha'is claim, is very strange. So right now, I question and doubt both Baha'is and Christians.