Truth: either God exists or He don't.

[Trailblazer]

You may not understand this, but if the Flood of Noah actually happened then God is liar.

God did not write the Bible so God did not lie. The Noah's Ark story was just a story men wrote, just like the stories about Jesus rising from the dead.

 

[paarsurrey]

No, it is not a peculiarity of the Baha'i Faith. All religions do this.
Religious people all BELIEVE they have the correct interpretation of the Scriptures, but that is logically impossible since their interpretations differ..... So who really knows which one is correct? Scriptures can have many meanings all of which are correct, but only God knows the intended meaning, and as such the Representative of God has the most correct interpretation. Baha'u'llah was the Manifestation of God for this age and as such He was the Representative of God among men.

“Know assuredly that just as thou firmly believest that the Word of God, exalted be His glory, endureth for ever, thou must, likewise, believe with undoubting faith that its meaning can never be exhausted. They who are its appointed interpreters, they whose hearts are the repositories of its secrets, are, however, the only ones who can comprehend its manifold wisdom. Whoso, while reading the Sacred Scriptures, is tempted to choose therefrom whatever may suit him with which to challenge the authority of the Representative of God among men, is, indeed, as one dead, though to outward seeming he may walk and converse with his neighbors, and share with them their food and their drink.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 175-176

Magenta ^.

Isn't it an admission that it is special about the Bahaism people, please?
Yes another, the Second one, peculiarity of the Bahaism people is that they just look for a pretext to quote from Bahaullah etc., and there they go. Right friend, please?
And Bahaullah was not even a Bahai himself, not ever mentioned in Iqan as such, if I missed, please quote from Iqan. Right friend, please?
Allah never had a direct Converse with Bahaullah, I did not find any sentences in the Iqan, if I missed please quote from Iqan, please.
So Bahaullah was neither a prophet/messenger of Allah nor his manifestation, never, as I understand. Right friend, please?
Bahaullah fits to be, I understand, like Paul a manifestation of Dajjal- the Deceiver and that of Masih-ud-Dajjal.
Right friend, please?

Regards

 

[Trailblazer]

And Bahaullah was not even a Bahai himself, not ever mentioned in Iqan as such, if I missed, please quote from Iqan. Right friend, please?

I told you before that Baha'u'llah was a Muslim, not a Baha'i. Baha'is are people who follow Baha'u'llah.

Allah never had a direct Converse with Bahaullah, I did not find any sentences in the Iqan, if I missed please quote from Iqan, please.

Allah did have direct Converse with Baha'u'llah, but that is not in the Iqan. The Iqan is just a small part of all the tablets that Baha'u'llah wrote.

So Bahaullah was neither a prophet/messenger of Allah nor his manifestation, never, as I understand. Right friend, please?

You understand incorrectly because Baha'u'llah was a prophet/messenger of Allah and his Manifestation.

Bahaullah fits to be, I understand, like Paul a manifestation of Dajjal- the Deceiver and that of Masih-ud-Dajjal.
Right friend, please?

No, that is not true. Baha'u'llah was a Manifestation of God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

God did not write the Bible so God did not lie. The Noah's Ark story was just a story men wrote, just like the stories about Jesus rising from the dead.

I agree. The problem is that for Bible literalists that the evidence against the Noah's Ark myth is so strong that to state that it actually happened would require that same God to plane massive false evidence that tells us that the flood never happened. In other words if one believes that the Flood actually happens then one also believes that God is a liar.

I have pointed out many times that the Christian geologists who first refuted the flood myth did not believe that God lied so they could not interpret the Bible literally.

 

[Trailblazer]

I have pointed out many times that the Christian geologists who first refuted the flood myth did not believe that God lied so they could not interpret the Bible literally.

Problem solved! The whole Bible was never intended to be interpreted literally.

 

[Pilgrim Soldier]

So it is impossible to know anything about the past?

You are right: it isn't simply the number of articles. It is also their provenance, the consistency between them, the variety of writing styles, etc.

But, of course, this same criticism applies (even more) to your Bible. is it impossible for it to have been forged? Impossible that the 'prophesies' were actually written *after* the events foretold? Impossible that it is propaganda from a ruling class of priests? Impossible that those who wrote it or assembled it simply didn't understand the actual events?

The further into the past, the less we know about provenance, about motive, about cultural beliefs, etc. And hence, the *less* reliable the writings will be.

Yep, it's impossible to know anything for sure. This is why everyone makes up their own version of history, and this is why we have world wide mass confusion.Nobody knows anything so they can't prove anything and everyone's truth is equally valid

 

[Pilgrim Soldier]

I would argue that it t is easier to forge an ancient document. There were fewer ways to test its veracity back then than it is today to get away with false claims.

It appears that you do not know how we can test modern ideas to test their veracity. How would you test the veracity of the Bible?

You can easily verify the veracity of the Bible by the large number of eye witnesses, who all recorded the same events even though they never knew each other. These were all independent eye witnesses and you just don't find this kind of proof with any other historical accounts of anything.

 

[Pilgrim Soldier]

By "ignorant people", are you talking about the consensus of actual bible scholars?


Historical reliability of the Gospels - Wikipedia

Christian apologists and most lay Christians assume on the basis of 4th century Church teaching that the gospels were written by the Evangelists c.50-65 AD, but the scholarly consensus is that they are the work of unknown Christians and were composed c.68-110 AD

Please don't waste your time or anyone else's time by referring to wikipedia for any reliable information. Any fool can make any claim, so it's open slather and that makes it a great big pile of junk

 

[Pilgrim Soldier]

Yet nobody seems willing to provide it.

How come?

You can't force a judge to face the evidence, when he's hell bent on ignoring it. Nobody has looked at the evidence, that should ring alarm bells for any intelligent person but it's obvious they're in short supply these days. Most people blindly believe whatever CNN or NBC tell them and they never ever question, since ignorance is bliss and we wouldn't want to wake them up now would we

 

[Pilgrim Soldier]

Are you one of them QAnon conspiracy nutters?
You sure sound like one.

One can only keep one's head buried in the sand for so long before someone comes along and shafts them

 

[Pilgrim Soldier]

That is so false, it's not even funny.

May I further remind you that Christians were the only one's to give the world Universities, Hospitals, Schools and charity organisations. you wouldn't have schools or universities unless the Christians scientists invented them so you wouldn't have science without them, you'd be back in the stone age without them

 

[Trailblazer]

You can easily verify the veracity of the Bible by the large number of eye witnesses, who all recorded the same events even though they never knew each other. These were all independent eye witnesses and you just don't find this kind of proof with any other historical accounts of anything.

The Bible is not history, it is just stories that say there were eyewitnesses, but anyone can write a story that has eyewitnesses in it. Unless there is someone who is not IN the story who can verify the events in the story from the outside, there is no way to know that anything in the story ever took place.

 

[Trailblazer]

May I further remind you that Christians were the only one's to give the world Universities, Hospitals, Schools and charity organisations. you wouldn't have schools or universities unless the Christians scientists invented them so you wouldn't have science without them, you'd be back in the stone age without them

May I further remind you that Christians were not the only one's to give the world Universities and science.

A Blind Spot in History

EVEN in this modern age of enlightenment few people are aware of the significant contributions made by the Islamic world to the progress of humanity. Yet for more than five centuries that civilization not only led the world in science, but was the only portion of mankind actively engaged in the systematic pursuit of knowledge.

Read more: Islamic Contributions to Civilization

 

[Pilgrim Soldier]

That's right. Why would the Almighty God appear in physical form? LOL.
God manifests His attributes in a man who is called a Manifestation of God, but God does not BECOME a man.

1 Timothy 3:16 King James Version (KJV)

16 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.

Why are you contradicting yourself, first you ask why God would manifest in the flesh, then you list a verse which speaks about Him doing just that. Is this a glitch in the Matrix

 

[Pilgrim Soldier]

The Bible is not history, it is just stories that say there were eyewitnesses, but anyone can write a story that has eyewitnesses in it. Unless there is someone who is not IN the story who can verify the events in the story from the outside, there is no way to know that anything in the story ever took place.

With all due respect, you are utterly unqualified to make any of the above comments. Since they are all based on your own private opinion which is worth 1 in 7 billion opinions. I'd need much better than those odds before I gave your view any oxygen

 

[Pilgrim Soldier]

May I further remind you that Christians were not the only one's to give the world Universities and science.

A Blind Spot in History

EVEN in this modern age of enlightenment few people are aware of the significant contributions made by the Islamic world to the progress of humanity. Yet for more than five centuries that civilization not only led the world in science, but was the only portion of mankind actively engaged in the systematic pursuit of knowledge.

Read more: Islamic Contributions to Civilization

While the above articles are interesting, their authors are not recognised authorities on the subject. They are just ordinary PHD's, none of them mentioned what their sources were in comprising their articles.

The easiest thing to do in the world is write about history, especially when there are no historical documents to support their views. so with all due respect, I must dismiss those papers as waste paper, fit for the shredder

 

[Subduction Zone]

You can easily verify the veracity of the Bible by the large number of eye witnesses, who all recorded the same events even though they never knew each other. These were all independent eye witnesses and you just don't find this kind of proof with any other historical accounts of anything.

There are almost no eyewitness accounts in the Bible. Anyone that has studied it knows that. Please name some examples.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please don't waste your time or anyone else's time by referring to wikipedia for any reliable information. Any fool can make any claim, so it's open slather and that makes it a great big pile of junk

Anyone that makes that claim has no idea how Wikipedia works. It is not true that anyone can change it. Do you want to learn why it is more reliable than most encyclopedias?

 

[Subduction Zone]

May I further remind you that Christians were not the only one's to give the world Universities and science.

A Blind Spot in History

EVEN in this modern age of enlightenment few people are aware of the significant contributions made by the Islamic world to the progress of humanity. Yet for more than five centuries that civilization not only led the world in science, but was the only portion of mankind actively engaged in the systematic pursuit of knowledge.

Read more: Islamic Contributions to Civilization

Hot dang! And here I thought that they were all camel jockeys or terrorists. You learn something new every day.

On a serious note that appears to be the beliefs of far too many Christians. What one needs to read is why they lost that early lead.

 

[Polymath257]

You can easily verify the veracity of the Bible by the large number of eye witnesses, who all recorded the same events even though they never knew each other. These were all independent eye witnesses and you just don't find this kind of proof with any other historical accounts of anything.

Really? Who were those eyewitnesses? Where are their reports?

All I know of is a few gospels, written by advocates, who *say* there were other witnesses. They also claim the sky went dark when Jesus died. Funny that *nobody* else at the time mentioned this. And that is in spite of the fact that the Romans were incredibly superstitious and would have taken such an event very seriously.