Does the Bible mention Islam?

[CG Didymus]

The seven trumpets are described in Revelation 8 and Revelation 9:1-19. There are further references in Revelation 11:15-19. The seven trumpets are closely associated with the seventh seal judgments. The first four are tribulations that affect the early Christian Church until the advent of the Islamic Dispensation in 622 AD.

Following the fourth trumpet judgment, John describes an eagle flying through the air. This eagle cries out, “Woe! Woe! Woe to the inhabitants of the earth, because of the trumpet blasts about to be sounded by the other three angels” (Revelation 8:13). So its only the fifth, sixth, and seventh trumpets that are referred to as the three woes. These three woes are associated with the Islamic, Babi, and Baha'i dispensations.

The fifth trumpet or first woe is particularly dramatic as it concerns events that will unfold through the Islamic dispensation from 622 AD until the advent of the Bab 1844. There are of course references to events in Christendom during that period, not just Islam.

So the trumpet blasts five, six and seven are associated with the three woes and a new Manifestation of God. The trumpet blasts one to four are associated with tribulations of the Christian church prior to Islam. These tribulations are not associated with the three woes or the advent of a new Manifestation of God.

I didn't see much of an explanation in SAQ about the first "Woe". If Abdul Baha didn't explain the meaning of the verses, then who did and why should they be trusted as accurate? Here is the verses about the first Woe again and how exactly does this have anything to do with Muhammad?

Rev 9 And the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit.

2 And he opened the bottomless pit; and there arose a smoke out of the pit, as the smoke of a great furnace; and the sun and the air were darkened by reason of the smoke of the pit.

3 And there came out of the smoke locusts upon the earth: and unto them was given power, as the scorpions of the earth have power.

4 And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads.

5 And to them it was given that they should not kill them, but that they should be tormented five months: and their torment was as the torment of a scorpion, when he striketh a man.

6 And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them.

7 And the shapes of the locusts were like unto horses prepared unto battle; and on their heads were as it were crowns like gold, and their faces were as the faces of men.

8 And they had hair as the hair of women, and their teeth were as the teeth of lions.

9 And they had breastplates, as it were breastplates of iron; and the sound of their wings was as the sound of chariots of many horses running to battle.

10 And they had tails like unto scorpions, and there were stings in their tails: and their power was to hurt men five months.

11 And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon.

12 One woe is past; and, behold, there come two woes more hereafter.​

Abdul Baha uses Ezekiel 30:1-3 to show how the "Woe" is the coming of the Lord... But in context it is about Egypt.

Ezekiel 30 The word of the Lord came again unto me, saying,

2 Son of man, prophesy and say, Thus saith the Lord God; Howl ye, Woe worth the day!

3 For the day is near, even the day of the Lord is near, a cloudy day; it shall be the time of the heathen.

4 And the sword shall come upon Egypt, and great pain shall be in Ethiopia, when the slain shall fall in Egypt, and they shall take away her multitude, and her foundations shall be broken down.

5 Ethiopia, and Libya, and Lydia, and all the mingled people, and Chub, and the men of the land that is in league, shall fall with them by the sword.

6 Thus saith the Lord; They also that uphold Egypt shall fall; and the pride of her power shall come down: from the tower of Syene shall they fall in it by the sword, saith the Lord God.

7 And they shall be desolate in the midst of the countries that are desolate, and her cities shall be in the midst of the cities that are wasted.

8 And they shall know that I am the Lord, when I have set a fire in Egypt, and when all her helpers shall be destroyed.

9 In that day shall messengers go forth from me in ships to make the careless Ethiopians afraid, and great pain shall come upon them, as in the day of Egypt: for, lo, it cometh.

10 Thus saith the Lord God; I will also make the multitude of Egypt to cease by the hand of Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon.

11 He and his people with him, the terrible of the nations, shall be brought to destroy the land: and they shall draw their swords against Egypt, and fill the land with the slain.​

But this is what Abdul Baha says in SAQ:

The explanation of this subject, woe, is mentioned in the thirtieth chapter of Ezekiel, where it is said: “The word of the Lord came again unto me, saying, Son of man, prophesy and say, Thus saith the Lord God; Howl ye, Woe worth the day! For the day is near, even the day of the Lord is near.” 23
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. That is why it is said, “The second woe is past; behold the third woe cometh quickly!” This third woe is the day of the manifestation of Bahá’u’lláh, the day of God; and it is near to the day of the appearance of the Báb.
​

He's your infallible guy. How do you defend him taking those verses out of context? Or, because he is infallible, he knows what Ezekiel really meant by those words?

 

[CG Didymus]

The main mode of communication back in the days of Jesus was by way of story telling and word of mouth (oral traditions). Each gospel would take no more than 2 -3 hours to recite. As a religious story it is a narrative that is to be understood on many levels. Many biblical scholars realise the futility of insisting its all to be taken literally.

Then who decides what is literal and what isn't? Christians say Jesus rose from the dead, and Baha'is say that's impossible, therefore it must be symbolic. So it is you, the Baha'is, that have made that decision. And, by doing so, have blown up the foundational beliefs of most all Christians. And why are you surprised if they call Baha'u'llah a false prophet? And how are Baha'is going to unite all religions?

 

[Dale]

It is true that scholars can not agree about who were the authors of any of the four gospels. The Gospel of John has the strongest evidence of authorship based on a disciple of Jesus (the Apostle John). It is the words of the Gospels that are the greatest testimony to their Divine origin. Beyond that we know the Gospels were all written within the first century Christ was crucified. The earliest, the Gospel of Mark would have been written about 30 years after Jesus's crucifixion.



That is true.



The arguments about authorship are generally based on the words of the second century church fathers as you say.

Mark, Matthew, and Luke are known as the synoptic gospels and shared much material so undoubtedly there was collaboration. The order they were written is usually though of as Mark, Luke and then Matthew. However you are wrong to say that Luke and Matthew are simply copies of Mark.

This analysis of the material they share or is unique completely refutes any idea that Matthew and Luke are copies.


Synoptic Gospels - Wikipedia



The Gospel of Thomas is not considered canonical as it has gnostic influences.

The use of a Q-source is well known theory amongst bible scholars. It does not detract from the authenticity of the synoptic gospels which may have in part used a source that is now considered lost.

None of this of course supports an argument the gospels have been tampered with. They are simply works of scholars that consider how the gospels were derived in the first place.

The five gospels book is very left field in regards bible scholarship. At least scholars in the West are free to study the Holy books in such a manner. There is no such freedom of course in many Muslim countries. In some countries leaving Islam is punishable by death.

The Gospels are authentic. If they were not Muhammad would have said so. He didn't. If they weren't then they would contradict the Quran. They don't. The Gospels and Torah are authentic and the real deal as the Quran is. God has provided the Christians with His guidance through the gospels as He has the Jews through the Torah and the Muslims the Quran.

You are simply incorrect about Mathew and Luke copying Mark because this is well known and excepted by Christian scholars, they just differ about the percentage of copying and not the fact that Mathew and Luke copied Mark.

Gospel parallel's
Synoptic Gospel Parallels - Synoptic Gospels Comparison
Part 2
John And The Synoptic Gospels Comparison Chart

http://arizonachristian.edu/pdf/aca...rer - The Literature of the New Testament.pdf

The synoptic gospels are synoptic in that they share a majority of their information.
Mark contains 93% shared information, Matthew 58% and Luke contains 41%.1 The Gospel of John is the only gospel that is not considered part of the synoptic gospels because it is 92% peculiar, or dis similar in its
structure and makeup.

https://www.sfponline.org/Uploads/115/Synoptic_Gospels1.pdf
The Four Source Theory (the solution accepted by most scholars today)

Mark= the oldest written Gospel, which provided the narrative framework for both Matt and Luke Q= "Quelle" = a hypothetical written "Source" of some sayings / teachings of Jesus (now lost?).

By definition Q consists of materials found in Matthew and Luke and not in Mark M= various other materials (mostly oral, some maybe written) found only in Matthew L= various other materials (mostly oral, others
probably written) found only in Luke.

The Gospel of Mathew.
Mathew copied about 90% of his Gospel from Mark.

According to the book The Five Gospels Christian scholars
The Five Gospels page 10.
Mathew reproduces about 90% from Mark and Luke about 50%.


According to Bart Ehrman 92%
The Gospel of Matthew is a later copy of the Gospel of Mark, using 92% of its text. It is anonymous Bart Ehrman (2011) p225.

According to Graham Scroggie 75%. this could be incorrect it actually could be about 80% or more I am only going on memory, but in no way it's lesser then 75%, i simply don't have the book right now.
https://www.amazon.com/Guide-Gospels-Comprehensive-Analysis-Four/dp/0825439043


It is anonymous and it wasn't until about 150CE that the author "Matthew" was assigned Ehrman (2011) p228

It was written after the fall of the Jewish temple in 70CE, in Syria and almost definitely written before 100CE. It went through several versions, probably edited by different authors, until it reached its final form by the 3rd century. The first two chapters, the birth of Jesus and the genealogy, were not found in the early versions.

Matthew not written by an eye-witness of Jesus. We know this because it is a copy of Mark. No eye witness of such an important person would have needed, or wanted, to simply copy someone-else's memories about him. It is written in Greek and not in the native tongues of anyone who met and followed Jesus, and it was written too late to reasonably be the memories of an eye-witness.

Addition to Mathews Gospel
King James 2000 Bible (©2003) Matthew 28:19 Go you therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.


Gospel of Mark.
This anonymous gospel was the first to be written, around 80CE, by an unknown Roman convert to Christianity. The Gospel of Mark has undergone many changes and there are several ancient versions, none of which are exactly the same. The oldest versions of Mark all end at Mark 19:9-20, verses 9-20 didn't happen and was added latter.

Ehrman (2011). P228. - Ehrman points out that the gospels were not forgeries written by unknown people - they were anonymous, and it was a case of false attribution by later Christians that led to the document being assigned to Mark..16:9-20 was a later addition by another unknown author. Roberts (1997). P57

https://bloggingtheology.net/2017/03/14/1-john-57-and-matthew-2819-fabricated-trinity-verses/


Gospel of Luke.

Luke copied about 50% from Mark.


Luke is the third book in the New Testament. It copies over half of Mark. 54%
Ehrman (2003). Chapter 10 "Additional Weapons in the Polemical Arsenal: Forgeries and Falsifications" p220-221

Luke copied 50% of Mark.
According to the book The Five Gospels Christian scholars
The Five Gospels page 10.

Luke uses Mark, and 'Q', as sources of information. Out of Mark, 54% is quoted in Luke, and there are a hundred or so versus that, along with Mathew, he took from the source known as 'Q'. It is surprising that a first-hand eyewitness of Jesus would need to copy so much of other people's text about Jesus. Luke contradicts the rest of the Bible on quite a few points of theology and gets many elements of Jesus' life simply wrong (for example, the Roman-decreed census that never actually happened). For these reasons Luke is best not considered trustworthy. Bart Ehrman (2011) p248

The Gospel of John.
http://www.manyprophetsonemessage.com/2015/05/12/ten-reasons-why-we-must-reject-the-gospel-of-john/

John's Gospel is considered Gnostic origin among Christian scholars.
Gnostic elements
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John#Gnostic_elements


Written to late to be and EYEWITNESS ACCOUNT

The Gospel of John was written around 120ce. The oldest surviving fragment dates from 125CE. Conservatives prefer to believe an earlier date because it makes the Gospel more legitimate if it could be written by someone who knew Jesus. However, even conservatives allow a date of 100ce , which is still too late to be the words of an eyewitness of Jesus . Much of the theology professed in John is that which was developed until much later than the other gospels7. John 9 in particular contains several 'historical' details that were not actual true until several decades after Jesus' time.


John chapter 8 the women caught in adultery isn't found in the most ancient manuscripts of the New Testament.

Did the author of the Fourth Gospel write the famous story of the woman taken in adultery, or was this a later addition to the Gospel by a well-meaning scribe? The story is found in many of our later manuscripts between chapters 7 and 8 but not in the earliest ones; moreover, the writing style is significantly different from the rest of the Gospel. Almost all scholars acknowledge that the story was added to manuscripts of John's Gospel many years after it had first been circulated.”

"Lost Christianities" by Bart Ehrman (2003)24

The Crucifixion is Put on a Thursday: In the three synoptic gospels, it occurs on Friday. But in John, who tells the story with the intention of maximizing every symbolic element possible, Jesus dies on Thursday (John 19:14-16).

The earliest versions of John did not contain the final chapter, which describes Jesus Christ appearing to his disciples after rising from the dead.


The Gospel of Thomas is included with the term Synoptic Gospels.

Source http://www.gospelparallels.com/

Thomas is the closest to the 4 Gospels and this is why they included it, but it still has mistakes to, like the other 4 Gospels, i suggest you read it anyway, just like the other lost Gospels.

The Gospel of Thomas is just sayings of Jesus and doesn't include the Crucifixion.

One saying.
The Gospel of Thomas verse 15.

15 Jesus said when you meet the one NOT born of and women, fall on your faces and worship. That one is your father. The Five Gospels page 482, The Gospel of Thomas.


The Gospel of Mark.
According to Christian scholars Mark copied the Q Gospel meaning a lost source of inspiration.

The original source material of the Gospels are lost.

 

[Dale]

It is true that scholars can not agree about who were the authors of any of the four gospels. The Gospel of John has the strongest evidence of authorship based on a disciple of Jesus (the Apostle John). It is the words of the Gospels that are the greatest testimony to their Divine origin. Beyond that we know the Gospels were all written within the first century Christ was crucified. The earliest, the Gospel of Mark would have been written about 30 years after Jesus's crucifixion.



That is true.



The arguments about authorship are generally based on the words of the second century church fathers as you say.

Mark, Matthew, and Luke are known as the synoptic gospels and shared much material so undoubtedly there was collaboration. The order they were written is usually though of as Mark, Luke and then Matthew. However you are wrong to say that Luke and Matthew are simply copies of Mark.

This analysis of the material they share or is unique completely refutes any idea that Matthew and Luke are copies.


Synoptic Gospels - Wikipedia



The Gospel of Thomas is not considered canonical as it has Gnostic influences.




The use of a Q-source is well known theory amongst bible scholars. It does not detract from the authenticity of the synoptic gospels which may have in part used a source that is now considered lost.

None of this of course supports an argument the gospels have been tampered with. They are simply works of scholars that consider how the gospels were derived in the first place.

The five gospels book is very left field in regards bible scholarship. At least scholars in the West are free to study the Holy books in such a manner. There is no such freedom of course in many Muslim countries. In some countries leaving Islam is punishable by death.

The Gospels are authentic. If they were not Muhammad would have said so. He didn't. If they weren't then they would contradict the Quran. They don't. The Gospels and Torah are authentic and the real deal as the Quran is. God has provided the Christians with His guidance through the gospels as He has the Jews through the Torah and the Muslims the Quran.

Certain changes in the Bible. Qur'an being proven correct altered text in the Bible, Christians changing their scriptures.

Changing HE TO GOD, FALSIFYING The TRINITY.

Christians changed the Greek word who ὅς or ὅ; to θεός God.

I Timothy 3:16 [kjv]
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

I Timothy 3:16 is often used as a "proof" of the trinity.

The way this verse is mistranslated, its no wonder.

It really does look like proof of the trinity and the deity of Jesus Christ.

But once anybody quotes this verse to prove the trinity, you know they haven't done their homework.

They haven't done the research.

But when you're finished with this article, you will have absolute certainty of what I Timothy actually says and why.

What do the ancient biblical manuscripts say about I Timothy 3:16?

First we will look at a screenshot of a Greek interlinear of I Timothy 3:16 and can verify that the word "God" is not in here, but rather "who" instead.

Next, we can look at a Greek Lexicon of I Timothy 3:16, which verifies the Greek interlinear.

Next, we can look at the Mounce reverse Greek interlinear of I Timothy 3:16.

Codex Sinaiticus, the oldest complete Greek new testament in existence, dating back to the 4th century [if you go here, look at the lower-right quadrant of the screen and scroll down to I Timothy 3:16].

Lamsa bible - Aramaic text - 5th century.

St. Jerome's Latin Vulgate 405A.D. of I Timothy 3:16 in Google translate.

1 Տիմոթէոս

Immediately after the Felony Forgery of I Timothy 3:16, I Timothy 4:1 speaks for itself:
"Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils."

Facsimile of the Codex Alexandrinus
“Tregelles writes, "The ink in which this has been done in A is sufficiently modern and black to declare its recent application" (An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament, London, 1854). Without these marks, the manuscript originally read ΟC "He who was manifested in the flesh."”

1 Timothy 3:16 in Codex Alexandrinus

Reproduced below is the text of 1 Timothy 3:16–4:3 from Codex A, as presented in the photographic facsimile volume published by the British Museum in 1879. Of particular interest here is the reading in 3:16, where it may be seen that the manuscript reads ΘC "God was manifested in the flesh," employing the usual abbreviation ΘC for ΘEOC, with a stroke over the letters to indicate an abbreviation.

However, textual critics believe that the ink in the center of the Θ and the stroke above were added by a corrector in modern times. Reasons for this belief are the color of the ink, and the fact that a "dot" has been placed in the Θ instead of a line.

Without these marks, the manuscript originally read ΟC "He who was manifested in the flesh." In the photograph below the ΘC in 3:16 is circled. Further down, in verse 4:3, there is another ΘC circled for comparison.

Malachi 3:6
For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

God's original word never changes, therefore, all these subsequent changes cannot be authored by the one true God, the author of the bible.

1. 
   The Felony Forgery of I Timothy 3:16
   
   
   
   More Evidence The Greek says He who was phaneroo" which simply means: "declare", "reveal", "made known", "expose" etc.
   
   
   Paul is saying that God was "revealed" or "made known" through/in Jesus Christ. And Not that God is literally Jesus Christ!.
   
   
   Timothy 3:16 doesn't mean that God literally "became" a man/flesh.
   
   1 Timothy 3:16 Interlinear: and, confessedly, great is the secret of piety -- God was manifested in flesh, declared righteous in spirit, seen by messengers, preached among nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory!
   
2. The Qur'an is correct Christians changed their scriptures from He or Who, to God and every reader of this verse were reading a lie, thinking God manifested in the flesh when it's actually states.
   
3. God was "revealed" or "made known" through/in Jesus Christ. And Not that God is literally Jesus Christ.
   
   

 

[CG Didymus]

Jesus didn't teach the Gentiles. It didn't mean His religion wasn't for the Gentiles.

Wait, wait, you're missing the whole point. You said... "Muhammad taught pagans who had little or no knowledge of the Bible. Why would He provide in depth commentaries on the book of revelation?"
But doesn't Muhammad mention lots of things about Jesus in the Quran? And isn't Islam supposed to be the next religion in the "progression"? Isn't it supposed to "correct" the mistakes made by men in their interpretations of the older religions? Then Muhammad, was prophesied about in Revelation should have mentioned it, so he could prove himself the "Return of Christ" to the Christians. But, if Muhammad doesn't, then why are Baha'is going why out of their way to find verses in the Bible that they can apply to Muhammad? It's obvious that Baha'is are doing this, because they need Muhammad to be in the Bible. I guess... even more than Muhammad had to prove himself to be in the Bible.

 

[Trailblazer]

Then who decides what is literal and what isn't? Christians say Jesus rose from the dead, and Baha'is say that's impossible, therefore it must be symbolic. So it is you, the Baha'is, that have made that decision. And, by doing so, have blown up the foundational beliefs of most all Christians. And why are you surprised if they call Baha'u'llah a false prophet? And how are Baha'is going to unite all religions?

As I said to you before, whether Jesus rose from the dead or not does not amount to a hill of beans, not to anyone except Christians. Big deal, a man rose from the grave. Even if He did rise it would not matter. Jesus did not ascend up into the clouds and Jesus is not coming back to earth... That is the only salient point.

It is not the Baha'is who have made that decision, so why pick on the Baha'is for saying it is a false belief? Christians are the only ones who believe in the resurrection and not all Christians even believe it anymore.

Of course Christians have to call Baha''ullah a false prophet, so they can KEEP WAITING for Jesus. But Jesus is not coming, not ever. They are just waiting for nothing, it is so sad.

Baha'is are not going to unite all the religions. Eventually, after everyone has recognized Baha'u'llah, all the religions will choose to unite under one common banner. Christianity will be a thing of the past. I live for that day but unfortunately I won't live long enough to see it, so I guess I will have to view it from the spiritual world...

 

[Dawnofhope]

I didn't see much of an explanation in SAQ about the first "Woe". If Abdul Baha didn't explain the meaning of the verses, then who did and why should they be trusted as accurate? Here is the verses about the first Woe again and how exactly does this have anything to do with Muhammad?

Abdu'l-Baha is clear about what the first, second and third woes represent.

The first woe is the appearance of the Prophet, Muḥammad, the son of ‘Abdu’lláh—peace be upon Him! The second woe is that of the Báb—to Him be glory and praise! The third woe is the great day of the manifestation of the Lord of Hosts and the radiance of the Beauty of the Promised One.

The first Revelation as outlined in Revelation 9:1-11 refers to the dispensation of Muhammad. As you have worked out Abdu'l-Baha provides commentary on the 11th and 12th chapters of the book of revelation in SAQ but not the 9th chapter.

Lets consider a letter from the Research departmet of the Universal House of Justice;

Biblical Verses, Interpretation of

If you go to the bottom of the letter you will see a summary of known references to Baha'i writings and authoritative interpretations of the Guardian that refer to particular verses.

The only references to Chapter 9 are to verse 12 from God passes by and Messages to America.

That doesn't really help us unravel Revelation 9:1-11.

If you read the text of the letter;

In relation to the general question of the interpretation of biblical verses, the Guardian, in a letter dated 31 January 1955, written on his behalf to an individual believer, provided the following guidance:

"Except for what has been explained by Bahá'u'lláh and ‘Abdu'l-Bahá, we have no way of knowing what various symbolic allusions in the Bible mean."

It is clear from the Guardian's statement that we can be sure of the exact meaning of only such passages as have been authoritatively interpreted in our Writings. In time absence of any authoritative interpretation, the individual is free to draw his or her own conclusions about the meaning of the verses and prophecies. Some examples of individual interpretations include:

Ruth J. Moffett, "New Keys to the Book of Revelation". New Delhi: Bahá'í Publishing Trust, 1977.
Robert F. Riggs, "Apocalypse Unsealed". New York: Philosophical Library, 1981.

So Baha'is such as myself are free to draw conclusions about the verses. However there are examples of individual interpretations so that provides a useful starting point for my own analysis. Anything I say about these verses in not authoritative of course. I'm just an ordinary guy making my way in the world....

Abdul Baha uses Ezekiel 30:1-3 to show how the "Woe" is the coming of the Lord... But in context it is about Egypt.
Ezekiel 30 The word of the Lord came again unto me, saying,

Abdu'l-Baha uses Ezekiel 30:1-3 to provide an example of 'a woe' or tribulation being associated with the advent of a Manifestation of God, in this case Moses.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Then who decides what is literal and what isn't? Christians say Jesus rose from the dead, and Baha'is say that's impossible, therefore it must be symbolic. So it is you, the Baha'is, that have made that decision. And, by doing so, have blown up the foundational beliefs of most all Christians. And why are you surprised if they call Baha'u'llah a false prophet? And how are Baha'is going to unite all religions?

My friend @Trailblazer has answered this.

Baha'u'llah is the Manifestation of God for this day and has the authority to interpret. That authority to interpret He passed down to Abdu'l-Baha who in turn appointed Shoghi Effendi.

Christianity has become corrupted, divided and confused. The Baha'is are just correcting the errors.

Of course Christians don't like it and one here has even started a thread attacking the Baha'i Faith.

Is Baha'u'llah true or false Prophet?

Eventually man will find He needs the religion of God. If Baha'u'llah is the Manifestation of God for this day it is inevitable for this truth to be universally recognised. The schisms and misunderstanding amidst Christianity and Islam are irrepairable. Neither of these religions are suited to the modern era or provide the remedy the world so desperately needs.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Wait, wait, you're missing the whole point. You said... "Muhammad taught pagans who had little or no knowledge of the Bible. Why would He provide in depth commentaries on the book of revelation?"
But doesn't Muhammad mention lots of things about Jesus in the Quran? And isn't Islam supposed to be the next religion in the "progression"? Isn't it supposed to "correct" the mistakes made by men in their interpretations of the older religions? Then Muhammad, was prophesied about in Revelation should have mentioned it, so he could prove himself the "Return of Christ" to the Christians. But, if Muhammad doesn't, then why are Baha'is going why out of their way to find verses in the Bible that they can apply to Muhammad? It's obvious that Baha'is are doing this, because they need Muhammad to be in the Bible. I guess... even more than Muhammad had to prove himself to be in the Bible.

Muhammad did correct errors in Christianity. Obvious examples are the Christian's misunderstanding of the nature of God based on the Nicene Creed. Specific errors included the Trinity, that Jesus was God incarnate, the resurrection and that Jesus was physically the son of God.

The opportunity for Muslims to explain to Christians and Jews who Muhammad was based on the bible had always been easily available. Muslims failed to seize the opportunity. A major theme of the Kitab-i-Iqan is about how Muhammad fulfilled the prophecies of Christianity. However, Islamic religious leaders became vain and foolish, imagining the Gospels and Torah were corrupt.

Had Islam not been corrupted there would have been no need for the Baha'i Faith. Had Christianity not been corrupted there would have been no need for Islam. If Judaism had not become corrupt there would have been no need for Christianity. Islam of course became utterly corrupted after the Muhammad's death with Umar's self interested appointment of Abu Bakr as successor to Muhammad instead of Ali.

Eventually Ali did become the leader and 4th Caliph. He was assainated in 661 leading to the rule of the Umayyads.

 

[Trailblazer]

Had Islam not been corrupted there would have been no need for the Baha'i Faith. Had Christianity not been corrupted there would have been no need for Islam. If Judaism had not become corrupt there would have been no need for Christianity.

It is true that one reason God sends a new Messenger is because the former religion had become corrupted....

“This is the Day when the loved ones of God should keep their eyes directed towards His Manifestation, and fasten them upon whatsoever that Manifestation may be pleased to reveal. Certain traditions of bygone ages rest on no foundations whatever, while the notions entertained by past generations, and which they have recorded in their books, have, for the most part, been influenced by the desires of a corrupt inclination. Thou dost witness how most of the commentaries and interpretations of the words of God, now current amongst men, are devoid of truth. Their falsity hath, in some cases, been exposed when the intervening veils were rent asunder. They themselves have acknowledged their failure in apprehending the meaning of any of the words of God.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 171-172​

But if that was the only reason God sends a new Messenger, that would invalidate the core teaching in the Bahá'í Faith...

Progressive revelation is a core teaching in the Bahá'í Faith that suggests that religious truth is revealed by God progressively and cyclically over time through a series of divine Messengers, and that the teachings are tailored to suit the needs of the time and place of their appearance.[1][2] Thus, the Bahá'í teachings recognize the divine origin of several world religions as different stages in the history of one religion, while believing that the revelation of Bahá'u'lláh is the most recent (though not the last—that there will never be a last), and therefore the most relevant to modern society.[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_revelation_Baha'i​

 

[Dale]

Muhammad did correct errors in Christianity. Obvious examples are the Christian's misunderstanding of the nature of God based on the Nicene Creed. Specific errors included the Trinity, that Jesus was God incarnate, the resurrection and that Jesus was physically the son of God.

The opportunity for Muslims to explain to Christians and Jews who Muhammad was based on the bible had always been easily available. Muslims failed to seize the opportunity. A major theme of the Kitab-i-Iqan is about how Muhammad fulfilled the prophecies of Christianity. However, Islamic religious leaders became vain and foolish, imagining the Gospels and Torah were corrupt.

Had Islam not been corrupted there would have been no need for the Baha'i Faith. Had Christianity not been corrupted there would have been no need for Islam. If Judaism had not become corrupt there would have been no need for Christianity. Islam of course became utterly corrupted after the Muhammad's death with Umar's self interested appointment of Abu Bakr as successor to Muhammad instead of Ali.

Eventually Ali did become the leader and 4th Caliph. The Umayyad's murdered him.

God doesn't dwell in buildings made by man and God doesn't change
Malachi 3:6
King James Version
For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

Shanah - Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon - New American Standard
The Hebrew word these is shana or shanah it means to alter change oneself.
(Hithpael) to disguise oneself


lexicon
Strong's Hebrew: 8132. שָׁנָא (shana or shanah) -- to change
Definition

1. to repeat, do again, change, alter
   1. (Qal) to change
   2. (Niphal) to be repeated
   3. (Piel) to change, alter
   4. (Hithpael) to disguise oneself

Allah doesn't alter himself to become a man.

Allah doesn't dwell in buildings made by mankind

Acts 7:48

Verse
New International Version
"However, the Most High does not live in houses made by human hands. As the prophet says

Allah doesn't walk around and live and sleep in buildings or anything made by man.

God doesn't become a man.

There's nothing like God Bible, Ice Water or Liquid, Allah isn't like anything in the universe.


Verse page
Jeremiah 10:6
Verse Concepts
There is none like You, O LORD; You are great, and great is Your name in might.


Verse page
1 Samuel 2:2
Verse Concepts
"There is no one holy like the LORD, Indeed, there is no one besides You, Nor is there any rock like our God.


Verse
1 Chronicles 17:20
Verse Concepts
"O LORD, there is none like You, nor is there any God besides You, according to all that we have heard with our ears.


Verse
Deuteronomy 33:26
Verse Concepts
"There is none like the God of Jeshurun, Who rides the heavens to your help, And through the skies in His majesty.


Verse
Exodus 8:10
Verse Concepts
Then he said, "Tomorrow." So he said, "May it be according to your word, that you may know that there is no one like the LORD our God

Nothing like unto Him
“(Allah is) the Creator of the heavens and the earth: He has made for you pairs from among yourselves and pairs among cattle: by this means does He multiply you: there is nothing whatever like unto Him and He is the One that hears and sees (all things). To Him belong the keys of the heavens and the earth: He enlarges and restricts the Sustenance to whom He will: for He knows full well all things.” Quran 42:11-12

Also the Qur'an isn't corrupted.

Your confused like the Christians, and is learning the incorrect teachings.

May Allah guide you to the truth

 

[Trailblazer]

Also the Qur'an isn't corrupted.

Adrian did not say that the Qur'an was corrupted, he said that Islam was corrupted.

Shoghi Effendi, the Guardian of the Bahai Faith wrote:

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)
A Bahá'í View of the Bible​

 

[Dale]

Also the Qur'an isn't corrupted.

Adrian did not say that the Qur'an was corrupted, he said that Islam was corrupted.

Shoghi Effendi, the Guardian of the Bahai Faith wrote:

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)
A Bahá'í View of the Bible​

Islam isn't corrupted either, unless your talking about the different sects like the Nation of Islam and others.

Those other sects of Islam have different beliefs, and Allah will judge them, I only can try and guide them to the true Islam and pray for everyone, but it's their right to believe what they want to believe.

True Islam isn't corrupted at all.

 

[Trailblazer]

Also the Qur'an isn't corrupted.


Islam isn't corrupted either, unless your talking about the different sects like the Nation of Islam and others.

Those other sects of Islam have different beliefs, and Allah will judge them, I only can try and guide them to the true Islam and pray for everyone, but it's their right to believe what they want to believe.

True Islam isn't corrupted at all.

I do not know what you mean by True Islam. Do you mean that the other Muslims misinterpret the Qur'an?

That sounds a lot like some Christians say. Trinitarians say for example that all the other Christians are wrong and only we are right.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Also the Qur'an isn't corrupted.


Islam isn't corrupted either, unless your talking about the different sects like the Nation of Islam and others.

Those other sects of Islam have different beliefs, and Allah will judge them, I only can try and guide them to the true Islam and pray for everyone, but it's their right to believe what they want to believe.

True Islam isn't corrupted at all.

To be clear Baha'is regard the Holy Quran as being the authenticated repository of the word of God. I never claimed the Quran to be corrupt.

However the Baha'is also believe the Gospels to be authenticated too.

While I agree with most of the material presented about modern biblical scholarship, it does not detract from the reality that the Gospels are a true reflection of the the life and Teachings of Jesus. They do not contradict the Holy Quran at all.

There is not one verse in the Bible that supports the doctrine of the Trinity and ample verses that refute it. The whole argument that 1 Timothy 3:16 supports the trinity appears convoluted and weak.

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

If you want to see the trinity in this verse go ahead but it can clearly be interpreted in several ways that doesn't require the trinity at all.

The main theological differences btween Islam and Christianity resulted from the Nicene Creed in the 4th century AD. Those key diffrences are the sonship of Christ, The Divinity of Christ and the Trinity. These differences can be resolved with proper attention to the texts of the Gospels.

I stand by the comment that Islam has become corrupt. That is another topic though.

We are both agreed that Islam is mentioend in the Bible so that's an important point of agreement between us.

 

[Trailblazer]

However the Baha'is also believe the Gospels to be authenticated too.

With all due respect, that is not how I understand the Authoritative Writings of the Baha'i Faith:

From Letters Written on Behalf of the Guardian:

...The Bible is not wholly authentic, and in this respect is not to be compared with the Qur'an, and should be wholly subordinated to the authentic writings of Bahá'u'lláh.
(28 July 1936 to a National Spiritual Assembly)

...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)

When 'Abdu'l-Bahá states we believe what is in the Bible, He means in substance. Not that we believe every word of it to be taken literally or that every word is the authentic saying of the Prophet.
(11 February 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)

The Bible: Extracts on the Old and New Testaments​

 

[Dawnofhope]

With all due respect, that is not how I understand the Authoritative Writings of the Baha'i Faith:

From Letters Written on Behalf of the Guardian:

...The Bible is not wholly authentic, and in this respect is not to be compared with the Qur'an, and should be wholly subordinated to the authentic writings of Bahá'u'lláh.
(28 July 1936 to a National Spiritual Assembly)

...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)

When 'Abdu'l-Bahá states we believe what is in the Bible, He means in substance. Not that we believe every word of it to be taken literally or that every word is the authentic saying of the Prophet.
(11 February 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)

The Bible: Extracts on the Old and New Testaments​

The other side of the coin are verses that support the authenticity of the Bible;

Bahá'u'lláh writes concerning the Books of Christians and the peoples of other Faiths:
"...the words of the verses themselves eloquently testify to the truth that they are of God."
Bahá'u'lláh, The Kitáb-i-Iqan

"You must know the Old and New Testaments as the Word of God"
'Abdu'l-Bahá, The Promulgation of Universal Peace

"Surely the Bible is the book of God"
'Abdu'l-Bahá, Paris Talks,

"...We have also heard a number of the foolish of the earth assert that the genuine text of the heavenly Gospel doth not exist amongst the Christians, that it hath ascended unto heaven. How grievously they have erred! How oblivious of the fact that such a statement imputeth the gravest injustice and tyranny to a gracious and loving Providence! How could God, when once the Day-star of the beauty of Jesus had disappeared from the sight of His people, and ascended unto the fourth heaven, cause His holy Book, His most great testimony amongst His creatures, to disappear also? What would be left to that people to cling to..."
Bahá'u'lláh, The Kitáb-i-Iqan

"That city is none other than the Word of God revealed in every age and dispensation. In the days of Moses it was the Pentateuch; in the days of Jesus the Gospel
Bahá'u'lláh, The Kitáb-i-Iqan

A Bahá'í View of the Bible

We need to reconcile these verses with the ones you have provided from the Guardian. That's what the paper I've provided attempts to do just that.

My thoughts.

...The Bible is not wholly authentic, and in this respect is not to be compared with the Qur'an, and should be wholly subordinated to the authentic writings of Bahá'u'lláh.
(28 July 1936 to a National Spiritual Assembly)

Not wholly authentic isn't the same as saying it not authentic.

If we have an understanding of the meaning of biblical verses that conflicts with the Baha'i Revelation we unreservedly accept the Baha'i perspective.

...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)

The words are absolutely authentic as opposed authentic.

An enormous amount of the Gospels and New testament have been quoted by Baha'u'llah and particularly by Abdu'l-Baha.

There is not one statement from Abdu'l-Baha or Baha'u'llah that points to an error in the Gospels.

There are no Biblical verses I've come across that necessitate Baha'is arguing they are not authentic.

When 'Abdu'l-Bahá states we believe what is in the Bible, He means in substance. Not that we believe every word of it to be taken literally or that every word is the authentic saying of the Prophet.
(11 February 1944 to an individual believer)

Only the four Gospels have the Words of Jesus. Those gospels also have a theological narrative concerning events surrounding the mission of Jesus. This is quite different from the Quran that has only the words that Muhammad spoke. In addition, the New Testament part of the Bible refers to epistles of the Apostles which are not Divine revelation so can't be compared to the utterances of Jesus and Muhammad.

 

[wizanda]

So is Islam mentioned in the bible?

ישׁלם Y-Sh-L-M H7999 can mean 'to make peace'.

Proverbs 16:7 When a man’s ways please the Lord, he makes even his enemies to be at peace (ישׁלם) with him.

So if the Tanakh and New Testament are truly prophetic and from G-d why wouldn't these books mention other religions from G-d? Both Islam and Christianity are religions from G-d are they not?

That whole method is off, there is just one religion; the word 'Islam' is in the Tanakh, to be at Peace as we follow the Source of reality (the God Most High).

Rabbinic Judaism has rejected the God Most High; the Lord (Yeshua/YHVH) tried to correct them back to the Source (Father), and the Quran the same...

Christianity is a made up religion by the Pharisees; to try to cover up they've been cut off...

Which is all prophesied; people just don't read the book properly.

In my opinion.

 

[CG Didymus]

As I said to you before, whether Jesus rose from the dead or not does not amount to a hill of beans, not to anyone except Christians. Big deal, a man rose from the grave. Even if He did rise it would not matter. Jesus did not ascend up into the clouds and Jesus is not coming back to earth... That is the only salient point.

It is not the Baha'is who have made that decision, so why pick on the Baha'is for saying it is a false belief? Christians are the only ones who believe in the resurrection and not all Christians even believe it anymore.

Of course Christians have to call Baha''ullah a false prophet, so they can KEEP WAITING for Jesus. But Jesus is not coming, not ever. They are just waiting for nothing, it is so sad.

Baha'is are not going to unite all the religions. Eventually, after everyone has recognized Baha'u'llah, all the religions will choose to unite under one common banner. Christianity will be a thing of the past. I live for that day but unfortunately I won't live long enough to see it, so I guess I will have to view it from the spiritual world...

The Resurrection of Jesus is the biggest deal for any Christians that call themselves "Bible-believing". New Christians today are told that the Bible is the Truth and needs to be believed. They are told Jesus conquered death and rose again. And, in that sacrifice, people can be saved from eternal punishment by believing in Jesus. That's how the story goes. If the story itself is BS then fine. That means the Bible is BS. But, the Baha'i Faith doesn't say that... plainly.

They say that some things in the Bible have been changed, like Isaac for Ishmael in the attempted sacrifice by Abraham. They'll say not all things are "authentic". Which gives the Baha'is the ultimate decision on what is not authentic, since Baha'u'llah and Abdul Baha know best. Then, the other thing Baha'is use is to make things that they disagree with "symbolic". So nothing a Christian can say can prove anything. The Bible cannot be taken for what it says. The Bible can't be taken to mean what Christians have interpreted it to mean. The only true interpretation is the Baha'i interpretation. Which is essentially saying everything most Christians believe about their own book is BS.

 

[CG Didymus]

Abdu'l-Baha is clear about what the first, second and third woes represent.

The first woe is the appearance of the Prophet, Muḥammad, the son of ‘Abdu’lláh—peace be upon Him! The second woe is that of the Báb—to Him be glory and praise! The third woe is the great day of the manifestation of the Lord of Hosts and the radiance of the Beauty of the Promised One.

The first Revelation as outlined in Revelation 9:1-11 refers to the dispensation of Muhammad. As you have worked out Abdu'l-Baha provides commentary on the 11th and 12th chapters of the book of revelation in SAQ but not the 9th chapter.

Lets consider a letter from the Research departmet of the Universal House of Justice;

Biblical Verses, Interpretation of

If you go to the bottom of the letter you will see a summary of known references to Baha'i writings and authoritative interpretations of the Guardian that refer to particular verses.

The only references to Chapter 9 are to verse 12 from God passes by and Messages to America.

That doesn't really help us unravel Revelation 9:1-11.

If you read the text of the letter;

In relation to the general question of the interpretation of biblical verses, the Guardian, in a letter dated 31 January 1955, written on his behalf to an individual believer, provided the following guidance:

"Except for what has been explained by Bahá'u'lláh and ‘Abdu'l-Bahá, we have no way of knowing what various symbolic allusions in the Bible mean."

It is clear from the Guardian's statement that we can be sure of the exact meaning of only such passages as have been authoritatively interpreted in our Writings. In time absence of any authoritative interpretation, the individual is free to draw his or her own conclusions about the meaning of the verses and prophecies. Some examples of individual interpretations include:

Ruth J. Moffett, "New Keys to the Book of Revelation". New Delhi: Bahá'í Publishing Trust, 1977.
Robert F. Riggs, "Apocalypse Unsealed". New York: Philosophical Library, 1981.

So Baha'is such as myself are free to draw conclusions about the verses. However there are examples of individual interpretations so that provides a useful starting point for my own analysis. Anything I say about these verses in not authoritative of course. I'm just an ordinary guy making my way in the world....



Abdu'l-Baha uses Ezekiel 30:1-3 to provide an example of 'a woe' or tribulation being associated with the advent of a Manifestation of God, in this case Moses.

Are you sure Ezekiel 30 is about the coming of Moses? I think it has the King of Babylon coming and beating up on them.