Jesus in the Bahai & Christian faiths, reconciliation or conflict??

[InvestigateTruth]

What I find strange is that not a single person has answered this question. I am sure they can read. At least attempt an answer.

4. Bahais seem to believe in the older Bibles without latter scholarship that identified interpolations based on older manuscripts. Thus, what is the clear belief of the Bahai's in the accounts of Jesus? Do they follow the masoretic text, vis a vis the older Bibles like the KJV or/and Tyndale or do they follow the latter critical texts? If Christians are open minded enough to move with scholarship and demarcate the interpolations how come it was not identified by Bab, Bahaullah, Abdul Baha, etc who are as we are told to be manifestations of God himself? If not their fault, is it the adherents fault? Which is the correct view of Jesus's ministry and teachings Bahai's believe in when they make their claims about the New Testament?

Honestly, your question is not very clear to me. I think you are asking what version of Bibles Bahais believe to be true. Can you explain what your question is?

 

[firedragon]

Honestly, your question is not very clear to me. I think you are asking what version of Bibles Bahais believe to be true. Can you explain what your question is?

Okay. Based on how you understood my question can explain the bahai position?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Okay. Based on how you understood my question can explain the bahai position?

KJV is just a translation of the Bible in English.
In Bahai scriptures, whenever, there is a reference to Bible, the English KJV translation is used.
In my understanding, whenever Bahai Scriptures refers to Bible, it is often for the purpose of providing correct interpretation, and it mostly emphasizes that many passages of Bible are not to be interpreted literally, rather they are symbolic. Then, the symbolic interpretations are given.

 

[firedragon]

KJV is just a translation of the Bible in English.
In Bahai scriptures, whenever, there is a reference to Bible, the English KJV translation is used.
In my understanding, whenever Bahai Scriptures refers to Bible, it is often for the purpose of providing correct interpretation, and it mostly emphasizes that many passages of Bible are not to be interpreted literally, rather they are symbolic. Then, the symbolic interpretations are given.

Nope. That’s wrong. The KJV is from the masoretic text. So saying it’s just a translation is absolutely wrong.

I have a lot of respect for you so I won’t say you’re ignorant. But please clarify to yourself sis. Please do.

 

[CG Didymus]

So for arguments sake if Baha’u’llah was the return of Jesus in the ‘Glory of the Father ‘ (which we believe Him to be) then wouldn’t He, as Jesus returned know full well what really transpired with regard to both the Resurrection and the Virgin birth as well as which of His Words were symbolical and which were literal?

To me it’s common sense that Christ returned would know all these things and if the most learned and astute scholar disagreed with Him? Well...

What if a not so "learned" person disagrees with him? Things are too vague for me to trust anyone's opinion. Including one who says he is the return of Christ. In fact, that makes me question him even more. I'd trust him more if he made both the resurrection and the virgin birth symbolic.

 

[CG Didymus]

KJV is just a translation of the Bible in English.
In Bahai scriptures, whenever, there is a reference to Bible, the English KJV translation is used.
In my understanding, whenever Bahai Scriptures refers to Bible, it is often for the purpose of providing correct interpretation, and it mostly emphasizes that many passages of Bible are not to be interpreted literally, rather they are symbolic. Then, the symbolic interpretations are given.

"Quite recently, the writer, in guiding at the Temple has been asked just what version of the Bible Bahá'ís use. May we have your directive on this, please?The Guardian's response appears in a letter written on his behalf, where we read:Shoghi Effendi himself uses the King James version of the Bible, both because it is an authoritative one and in beautiful English.
(28 October 1949 to an individual believer; published

in "Bahá'í News", no. 228, February 1950, p. 4).

It seems possible to us that this statement may underlie the impression held by some of the believers that the King James version of the Bible carries special authority in the Faith.
It is important to note, therefore, that in a letter written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice in response to a similar question, the same statement of the Guardian appears and is then followed by this statement:

The House of Justice points out, however, that there is nothing in statements made by Shoghi Effendi to indicate that the friends may not use other translations of the Bible.
(2 December 1987 to a National Spiritual Assembly)"

 

[firedragon]

"Quite recently, the writer, in guiding at the Temple has been asked just what version of the Bible Bahá'ís use. May we have your directive on this, please?The Guardian's response appears in a letter written on his behalf, where we read:Shoghi Effendi himself uses the King James version of the Bible, both because it is an authoritative one and in beautiful English.
(28 October 1949 to an individual believer; published

in "Bahá'í News", no. 228, February 1950, p. 4).

It seems possible to us that this statement may underlie the impression held by some of the believers that the King James version of the Bible carries special authority in the Faith.
It is important to note, therefore, that in a letter written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice in response to a similar question, the same statement of the Guardian appears and is then followed by this statement:

The House of Justice points out, however, that there is nothing in statements made by Shoghi Effendi to indicate that the friends may not use other translations of the Bible.
(2 December 1987 to a National Spiritual Assembly)"

The posed problem is not addressed. The KJV is written in beautiful English, but how could one say "its authoritative"? Is it because they don't have a choice or is it due to superior scholarship? As divinity, one should know the Bible far beyond a version of the Bible or any version for that matter and would not quote the proven errors in the KJV. So the question is still unanswered.

Someone simply claiming "its authoritative" is utterly simplistic. You speak to a Bible scholar about it and you would see what is spoken. KJV is not authoritative in any manner whatsoever unless you are a KJV absolutists which is another version of religious fanaticism.

I still cannot understand why no one would answer this question without a very superficial dismissal.

I will cut and paste it again maybe.