Re: Not Exhausted

[Rich Ater]

Gilberto Simpson wrote: Dear Rich, I highly respect what you said and would agree with alot of it. Just a few issues around the question of Biblical corruption: [2.79] Woe, then, to those who write the book with their hands and then say: This is from Allah, so that they may take for it a small price; therefore woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn. [end quote] Rich: This may be open to interpretation. I respect that you believe it means that the Gospel and Torah here today are forgeries. Gilberto: I wouldn't use the term "forgeries". All I mean when *I* say corruption is that the first five books of the Bible are not identical to the Torah given to Moses. The 4 Biblical gospels are not identical to the Gospel given to Jesus. I even know of Bibles put out by Christians were the explanatory notes explain that the texts are "corrupted". I wouldn't necessarily ascribe sinister motives to the people who put the texts together. Especially in the case of Jesus and the Gospels I think the corruption of doctrine was a result of pious exageration. (I'm not sure if I'm using the term correctly but I think the Bahai writings talk about "veils of glory". Is that appropriate here?) I think that what I'm saying is pretty mild. What you're saying is mild. I was jumping to conclusions based on conversations that I've had with other Muslims. You mentioned in other posts that you believe the essense of the Injil is in the four Gospels, I believe that we are in aggreement there. Gilberto: I don't think there is a fundamental difference in what we are saying. Some of the Bible may be the word of God. Some isn't. If even one letter is off, if some numbers are missing, then "corruption" has occured. If the wrong books were canonized, then "corruption" has occured. Everything else is just a matter of degree. In this sense, yes, corruption has occurred. Although I don't know that there ever was a literal book of Jesus' We know about the Q source meerly as an inference. In other postings you discussed the genocidal tales in the Old Testament. I've used those with Christians and Jews to illustrate that the Qur'an not only isn't warlike, but considerably milder than the Bible. I don't have trouble with believing that these events may have occurred, considering the times. I don't have that much trouble with Paul either. I think he's largely misunderstood, but that's a huge topic in itself. Rich PS I agree that, while tact is indicated, we should not shy away from topics that can be upsetting. There are fundamental diferences with the Baha'i perspective on Islam and the Muslim perspective. Hopefully open and respectful dialogue will help us to build an understanding. After all, there is a fundamental diference between Judaism, Christianity, and Isalm in viewpoint, but it didn't stop the Golden Age of Mideval Andalucia. Rich What I say when I say the Bible is "corrupted" is alot milder than what you deny when you say it isn't. I think I know what you mean here, but i'm not sure. Rich __________________________________________________ You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:archive@mail-archive.com To unsubscribe, send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, use subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Baha'i Studies is available through the following: Mail - mailto:bahai-st@list.jccc.edu Web - http://list.jccc.edu/read/?forum=bahai-st News - news://list.jccc.edu/bahai-st Public - http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist Old Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.net New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.edu