The Baha'i Source some call God(s) and why I believe in God.

[robrecht]

The highlighted above is revealing and will be responded to the other thread. I do not believe that Westermann proposed that 'the original authors, editors, and redactors as a whole as opposed to later interpreters' can be reasonably accomplished. This is probably the root of our disagreement.

No, the root of our disagreement is that you said I overstated conclusions of Westermann's commentary when in fact I have not done so and you would not even quote me as supposedly doing so and still have done so. Such an unsubstantiated accusation only makes you look foolish.

Just one of the various authors, redactors, editors did not portray Adam as an historical person' is too anecdotal and vague for me to accept it as a reasonable conclusion that the original authors etc, remotely believed that Adam was not real person. I need better references.

My characterization here is a very modest version of this position and requires no further reference other than the Hebrew text. But since you have never been willing to enter into a reading of the Hebrew text with me (though the offer still stands), I already gave you a reference to Francis Fiorenza's summary of exegetical opinion on this topic, which fully supports my view. Now that you have access to Westermann's commentary, we can also take a look at his treatment of this question:

[shunyadragon]

No, the root of our disagreement is that you said I overstated conclusions of Westermann's commentary when in fact I have not done so and you would not even quote me as supposedly doing so and still have done so. Such an unsubstantiated accusation only makes you look foolish.

No our disagreement is over the intent of the Original Authors .

[robrecht]

No our disagreement is over the intent of the Original Authors .

You may think so, but that is not my view of our disagreement. I could not care less about your view of this question if you are not willing or able to discuss the Hebrew text. I only care about the fact that you have made an unsubstantiated claim that I have misrepresented the conclusions of Westermann's commentary when in fact I have done no such thing.

[robrecht]

... I do not believe that Westermann proposed that 'the original authors, editors, and redactors as a whole as opposed to later interpreters' can be reasonably accomplished. ...

While this is not something that I have previously claimed specifically about Westermann, your assertion here is demonstrably false so I thought you might appreciate my pointing this out. See, for example, the pages I have already referred you to with reference to the purpose of the Priestly account of creation (p. 173):

The interpretation of this chapter has shown that church teaching on creation and the Bible must be thoroughly rethought. ... Church teaching has tended always to speak of the creation of the world and of humanity in fixed formulas: "God created the world out of nothing," "God created the world in seven days"; "God created man in his own image," and so on; the biblical text [of the P-account of creation Gen 1,1-2,4a] shows everywhere the opposite tendency. Talk about creator and creation is everywhere colored by a reverent concern to guard the inaccessible mystery of creation from the human attempt to describe it. The attitude that one discerns behind all this is that of a speaker who praises the majesty of the creator god. Our first encounter with this attitude was in the very first sentence which embraced the whole work of creation, and also in the antiphon verse which closes the various works: "And God saw that it was good."

See also his description of the purpose of the Yahwist account of 'the Fall' as opposed to how it was later interpreted in later Judaism and Christianity (p. 275):

But there is the widest of chasms between the broad sweep of the original meaning of these narratives and the restricted dogmatic meaning given them in their traditional Christian explanation. This is illustrated by the description of "the Fall" which has become the title of the story in all Wester languages. When this description occurs today in scholarl works, and it often does, it is usually written in quotation marks. It has rarely been contested up to the present, so deeply is it rooted in Western tradition. The description implies that the narrative has a definite meaning, the meaning which has become established in the Christian dogmatic teaching on the Primeval State, Fall, and Original Sin.

The description and the meaning inherent in it has a history of which the main line can be easily traced. Its origins lie not in Christian tradition, but in the tradition of late Judaism. ...

[shunyadragon]

No God is not doing this, and no it is not symbolic punishment. I already answered this. Humans have free will and the consequences of rejecting the Revelation and Laws of God is very real in this world and the next. Punishment is self inflicted by ones own decisions.

[robrecht]

No God is not doing this, and no it is not symbolic punishment. I already answered this. Humans have free will and the consequences of rejecting the Revelation and Laws of God is very real in this world and the next. Punishment is self inflicted by ones own decisions.

[One Bad Pig]

Commence evasive action!

[shunyadragon]

No, the torment is self inflicted by the free will decisions of the humans involved.

The question was answered, the problems of being 'wrapt in the densest veils of satanic fancy, are the result of the free will decisions of the Jews themselves.

[shunyadragon]

Commence evasive action!

go for it!!!! It is your mode of operation, Duck Bob and Weave. Fly by drop of smelly bomb in the night.

[robrecht]

No, the torment is self inflicted by the free will decisions of the humans involved.

The question was answered, the problems of being 'wrapt in the densest veils of satanic fancy, are the result of the free will decisions of the Jews themselves.

[shunyadragon]

I fully realized what you are asking and answered the question completely and fully. Human free will determines the consequences of ones spiritual destiny in this world and all worlds we pass through in the future. Nitpicking the interpretation of a few citations does not change this. This is abundantly true of all theistic religions including Judaism, Christianity and Islam. God does not autonomously choose on person over another for punishment unless that person rejects God's Revelation.

The consequences of the rejection of God's Revelation is not 'merely' anything regardless of whether you are a Jew, Christian, Muslim or a Baha'i. It is consequence of their choices to reject the Revelation of God.

[robrecht]

I fully realized what you are asking and answered the question completely and fully. Human free will determines the consequences of ones spiritual destiny in this world and all worlds we pass through in the future. Nitpicking the interpretation of a few citations does not change this. This is abundantly true of all theistic religions including Judaism, Christianity and Islam. God does not autonomously choose on person over another for punishment unless that person rejects God's Revelation.

The consequences of the rejection of God's Revelation is not 'merely' anything regardless of whether you are a Jew, Christian, Muslim or a Baha'i. It is consequence of their choices to reject the Revelation of God.

[shunyadragon]

Answered the questions. From the Baha'i writings: 'Verily, I have wrong them not, they have wronged themselves.'

[robrecht]

Answered the questions. From the Baha'i writings: 'Verily, I have wrong them not, they have wronged themselves.'

[shunyadragon]

That's originally from the Koran, right?

Probably both the Koran, and the Baha'i writings in many forms.

That is possibly the case, but I reserve judgment, and leave that to a higher power. I know that in the Baha'i writings it refers to the knowledge and sincerity of the individual that determines the nature of the spiritual journey through many worlds, which of course I could not possibly answer.

I do not consider 'God inflicting punishment' is an accurate understanding. I believe the consequences of punishment is self-inflicted.

You appear to be hammering on a few individual citations without the broad understanding and comprehension of the writings of Baha'u'llah. Translation form Persian is not as literal and accurate as some may wish or believe.