AK false teaching about the authority of the Bible

DEDICATED to PBKs.
For PBKs who are affiliated to AIVV, and supporting 'Advanced Knowledge'.
Post Reply
ANU
Posts: 309
Joined: 05 Jun 2010
Affinity to the BKWSU: Academic
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: Sharing the results of research in the story of the Yagya collected with co-operation with western students.

AK false teaching about the authority of the Bible

Post by ANU » 01 May 2011

Another false knowledge that is spread by AIVV is the knowledge about who and when wrote the Bible.

AIVV teaches: The Bible was written by Christ's disciples after 100 years after his death.

It is not true. The Bible as the whole was not written by Christ's disciples 100 years after his death. The Bible consistst of many scriptures (app. 73) and divides into the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Old Testament is a much bigger part than the New Testament. The Old Testament was created centuries before the birth of Christ.
Only a small part of the Bible was written after Christ's death, and not after 100 years but very soon after he died. He died in 33 CE and his disciples wrote parts of the Gospel 51-96 CE.

User avatar
arjun
PBK
Posts: 11522
Joined: 01 May 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: PBK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: to exchange views with past and present members of BKWSU and its splinter groups
Location: India

Re: AK false teaching about the authority of the Bible

Post by arjun » 02 May 2011

Om Shanti. It is true that the Bible consists of the Old and the New Testament. But for a layman, the Bible virtually means the New Testament as it is more popular and referred more often by the Christians than the Old Testament. The Old Testament is like a mythological story of many generations of Prophets beginning from Adam.

As regards the Bible being written 100 years after Christ's death, anu has himself/herself stated that Bible was written many years (more than 50 years) after his death. So, there is not much difference between 50 and 100 when we are speaking about events that have taken place nearly 2000 years ago. I find newspapers replete with many major controversies related to the early history of Christianity where different research scholars have very wide differences of opinion. So, I think that ShivBaba's statement that the Bible was written 100 years after Christ's death should not be taken in a literal sense. I have already stated that ShivBaba is no historian or encyclopedia to give exact dates of all the events of the drama accurately. In that case every soul would start asking him 'Baba, please tell me the story of my every birth with every detail as to when and where I took birth, when I got married, when my children were born, when I died, etc. etc.'. Then I think ShivBaba would be busy writing/giving the details of every soul for the next thousands of years rather than giving the true knowledge for mukti-jeevanmukti.

The raising of above issue only shows how the above member is trying to rake up unimportant issues just to score points and to defame Baba.

ANU
Posts: 309
Joined: 05 Jun 2010
Affinity to the BKWSU: Academic
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: Sharing the results of research in the story of the Yagya collected with co-operation with western students.

Re: AK false teaching about the authority of the Bible

Post by ANU » 02 May 2011

arjun wrote:But for a layman, the Bible virtually means the New Testament as it is more popular and referred more often by the Christians than the Old Testament. The Old Testament is like a mythological story of many generations of Prophets beginning from Adam.
This statement is absolutely not true. Maybe the author of this statement thinks like this, hence his projects what he thinks. I discussed this issue with those who were brought up in Christian faith, not only in Bharat, but also in the west. I have checked in various biblical sourses. Laymen too when say "the Bible" they means the whole scripture and when they speak about the New Testament, they call it Gospel and make clear distinctions. I have learnt that part of the Bible, both the Old Testament and the New testament are read and analysied during messes in Christian churches and Christians do not equalise the Bible with the New Testament. Selected books from the Old Testament itself are the sacred canon in Jewish religion.

arjun wrote:The raising of above issue only shows how the above member is trying to rake up unimportant issues just to score points and to defame Baba.
AIVV student calls exposing facts "defamation" of Baba. What a great defamation of facts the student of AIVV commits.
arjun wrote:So, I think that ShivBaba's statement that the Bible was written 100 years after Christ's death should not be taken in a literal sense. I have already stated that ShivBaba is no historian or encyclopedia to give exact dates of all the events of the drama accurately.
Of course, we may say that the Bible is not the Bible, but 4 books from the New Testament, we may say that 100 years means 50 years. We may say that laymen think like this and whatever ShivBaba says is 100% true. And we may call all these distortions in teachings "unimportant issues". I do not chose this path. I will maintain what I said some time ago: It is better not to teach rather than to teach wrong facts as the truth, and later on, when inconsistency is exposed, to twist meanings of those facts and repeatedly to change meaninings of words in order to justify that what was said before was perfectly correct. If Baba doesn't know historical and other facts, if he cannot bring about any independent proofs, I think that he should not discuss those facts and say openly that he does not know them.

In the past I received from some PBKs e-mailings with articles criticising BKs for twisting facts, changing menaings, changing Murli points etc. Their authors often exposed that Baba said "if you add a drop of poison to the milk, the entire milk will be spoiled." But of course, it doesn't apply to AIVV, it only applies to BKIVV, as I understand from overall attitude of PBK students in this forum to discussing numerous serious, in my opinion, and deep inconsistencies, false information and ambiguities in the core doctrine of AIVV. The topic of the Bible is only one of them.

User avatar
arjun
PBK
Posts: 11522
Joined: 01 May 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: PBK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: to exchange views with past and present members of BKWSU and its splinter groups
Location: India

Re: AK false teaching about the authority of the Bible

Post by arjun » 02 May 2011

anu wrote:Only a small part of the Bible was written after Christ's death, and not after 100 years but very soon after he died. He died in 33 CE and his disciples wrote parts of the Gospel 51-96 CE.
What is the proof of the fact that parts of the Gospel were written only between 51-96 CE? Is there any foolproof record of events that took place almost 2000 years ago? When there are no tangible proofs for even very recent events in history how can we say for sure that parts of Bible were written 50 years after Christ's death and not 100 years after Christ's death? May be what anu says is correct, but using the dates available in some document (which he/she alone knows) to demean someone is not proper.

I would cite an example. If a cross-section of people (educated ones) is asked as to when was America discovered, one may get a difference of 100 to 200 years between different opinions. Similarly, when Baba Dixit is speaking, he is speaking extempore. While speaking extempore, he cannot stop his speech in between to refer to books and internet and give exact dates. Anu has time to research and counter the statements of Baba Dixit, but when Baba Dixit is speaking he does not have that facility. And anu is just cashing in on this.

User avatar
arjun
PBK
Posts: 11522
Joined: 01 May 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: PBK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: to exchange views with past and present members of BKWSU and its splinter groups
Location: India

Re: AK false teaching about the authority of the Bible

Post by arjun » 02 May 2011

Anu is so particular about dates. I would like to ask him/her a simple question. When he/she entered the path of BK/PBK knowledge, did he/she try to get any proof of the 5000 years drama and its division into 4 Ages of 1250 years each? He/She should have first made extensive research on this issue before entering the path of BK/PBK knowledge. Nobody stopped him/her from raising doubts at that time. He/she should have taken his/her own time to develop faith on the BK/PBK knowledge.

I don't say that raising questions is wrong. But taking each and every word in a literal sense to demean someone is not proper.

I would once again request all newcomers to go through all the available information (both positive and negative) about BK and PBK knowledge before taking the course and becoming a BK/PBK so that they do not have to repent later.

User avatar
arjun
PBK
Posts: 11522
Joined: 01 May 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: PBK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: to exchange views with past and present members of BKWSU and its splinter groups
Location: India

Re: AK false teaching about the authority of the Bible

Post by arjun » 02 May 2011

anu wrote:I discussed this issue with those who were brought up in Christian faith, not only in Bharat, but also in the west. I have checked in various biblical sourses. Laymen too when say "the Bible" they means the whole scripture and when they speak about the New Testament, they call it Gospel and make clear distinctions.
You discussed the above issue with the Christians, but did you also discuss with them their views about the creation of the world? As far as I know Christians believe that the world was created in seven days and the persons mentioned in the Old Testament lived for hundreds of years. Does anu also believe in such stuff just because millions of Christians believe so? If anu does not believe that, then how can we believe that parts of the new Testament were written only 50 years after Christ's death and not 100 years after his death? Did anu ever try to question the Pope about many of the imaginary beliefs of Christians?

ANU
Posts: 309
Joined: 05 Jun 2010
Affinity to the BKWSU: Academic
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: Sharing the results of research in the story of the Yagya collected with co-operation with western students.

Re: AK false teaching about the authority of the Bible

Post by ANU » 02 May 2011

arjun wrote:Similarly, when Baba Dixit is speaking, he is speaking extempore. While speaking extempore, he cannot stop his speech in between to refer to books and internet and give exact dates. Anu has time to research and counter the statements of Baba Dixit, but when Baba Dixit is speaking he does not have that facility. And anu is just cashing in on this.
Baba Dixit is not forbidden to study, check in advance available facts and prepare himself. He is not forbidden to check available dates and refer to them when he propagates his doctrine. He does not do this, and he results in spreading false facts. At the same time he and some PBKs students reveal a great accuracy and scrupulousness in counting and listing BKs regarding facts and dates and meaning of words. They analysed with a great accuracy how BKs falsified the date of Brahma Baba's date, the meanings of certain words. Baba Virendra Dev Dixit spent years on preaching that the Chariot of the beginning must be 60 when Shiva enters and that is why Brahma Baba could not be that. So, it is obvious that sometimes he can be extremely accurate and in some other cases he doesn't care and speaks whatever. What a great difference in standards depending on the need.
arjun wrote: You discussed the above issue with the Christians, but did you also discuss with them their views about the creation of the world? As far as I know Christians believe that the world was created in seven days and the persons mentioned in the Old Testament lived for hundreds of years. Does anu also believe in such stuff just because millions of Christians believe so? If anu does not believe that, then how can we believe that parts of the new Testament were written only 50 years after Christ's death and not 100 years after his death? Did anu ever try to question the Pope about many of the imaginary beliefs of Christians?
You don't focus on the issue we are discussing in this topic. Whether I Christians about other believes is not relevant for the topic discussed here. Don't you consider it to be possible that those books consisting the Bible may be as symbolical as Hindu books? Christians with whom I talked about their believes spoke about metaphorical meanings.
arjun wrote:Does anu also believe in such stuff just because millions of Christians believe so?
This question reflects the intellectual level of the person who asked it. Whatever point I raise I give proofs in form of my own interviews, reseach, available facts, and I have never said that those facts are the final truth. I have never said that I believe in something because millions do, but I refer to their believes and to their culture. If AIVV teaches that the Bible was written after Christ and arjun teaches that Christians equalize the Bible with the New Testament, I raise objection, because no available research confirm it. Additionally, I add as another proofs my interviews with Christians concerning the mentioned topic and on the bases of them it is quite clear that what arjun and AIVV say about the Bible is not true. So, instead of trying to attack, let arjun present the relevant proofs that Christians believe in what AIVV and arjun state about their scripture along with their [Christians] alleged belief in Krishna and the name of Krishna mentioned in the Bible.
arjun wrote:Anu is so particular about dates.
Yes, I pay attention to details and require accurate information based on facts. Particularly becasue I was taught in AIVV how inaccurate BKIVV are in facts, dates etc.

When he/she entered the path of BK/PBK knowledge, did he/she try to get any proof of the 5000 years drama and its division into 4 Ages of 1250 years each?
Yes I did and I wrote about it in the forum. I spent years on trying to get from Baba a single rational explanation on how certain things in so called 5000 year drama are possible. I spent months on exchanging views with few other students on this topic and on searching for any kind of evidence that we rotate in 5000 years drama. Neither Baba, nor anyone else could present any convintional facts.

ANU
Posts: 309
Joined: 05 Jun 2010
Affinity to the BKWSU: Academic
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: Sharing the results of research in the story of the Yagya collected with co-operation with western students.

Re: AK false teaching about the authority of the Bible

Post by ANU » 02 May 2011

arjun wrote:What is the proof of the fact that parts of the Gospel were written only between 51-96 CE?
The research wich I came across and read do not state with all certainity. The authors openly say that these facts so far cannot be stated with 100% accuracy. Different parts of Gospel were written in different periods within the mentioned period. One of important facts according to which researchers count dates is the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. I do not want to say that the dates 51-96 must be accurate and final.

Now, going back to Baba Virendra Dev Dixit teachings - in my opinion it would be much more informative if he states clearly that he doesn't know, and that there are no evidence when books were written instead of spreading information that the Bibke was written after 100 years. In this way he spread double false information. If he can be so meticulously accurate in talking about 5000 years drama with no second mistake or delay and so meticulous about Brahma Baba age, why he speaks so carelessly about Om Radhe age or the historical dates to which he refers or many other numbers, like for instance population of the world? By the way the world population is already 6.91575 billion. In 2012 it will reach the level of over 7 billions. So, from 5 millions in Sakar Murlis, it changed to 6-7 billions in Murlis clarification. 6- 7 billions according to Baba Virendra Dev Dixit is supposed to be the population at the time of the final destruction in 2036. Will he now again redefine meanings again? I conclude that the difference of 5 years, 50 years, or 1-2 billions do make any difference in the extremely accurate 5000 year drama in which every second counts.

ANU
Posts: 309
Joined: 05 Jun 2010
Affinity to the BKWSU: Academic
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: Sharing the results of research in the story of the Yagya collected with co-operation with western students.

Re: AK false teaching about the authority of the Bible

Post by ANU » 02 May 2011

arjun wrote: I don't say that raising questions is wrong. But taking each and every word in a literal sense to demean someone is not proper.
I disagree with saying that exposing facts, inconsistencies and critics based on evidence are demeaning.

If exposing facts means demeaning, a remarkable part of AK will have to be called "demeaning". AK includes direct and personal allusions and open critics of the way of BKIVV. Words, phrases and datas from written SM are analysed in a very specific way, so that certain assumptions could be proved. Points are extracted from SM and out of context put in groups under certain topics in order to prove certain thesis. In AIVV literature even words are added in brackets in order to suggest what certain words should mean. Words are analysed in their gramatical forms to prove that BKIVV are wrong in their teachings. A book containing deletions in BK versions of SM was printed in order to expose what they do. According to the athor of a quoted sentence what AIVV did should be called demeaning, but no one from PBK would say so.

And suddendly, when someone shows how AIVV works and teaches, when someone shows how many facts are being twisted, overinterpreted, taught in a wrong context, made superficial and stereotypized, PBK call it demeaning.

I disagree with the opinion wrote by arjun and I think that it is very biased and based on prejudice.

User avatar
arjun
PBK
Posts: 11522
Joined: 01 May 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: PBK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: to exchange views with past and present members of BKWSU and its splinter groups
Location: India

Re: AK false teaching about the authority of the Bible

Post by arjun » 02 May 2011

anu wrote:The research wich I came across and read do not state with all certainity. The authors openly say that these facts so far cannot be stated with 100% accuracy. Different parts of Gospel were written in different periods within the mentioned period. One of important facts according to which researchers count dates is the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. I do not want to say that the dates 51-96 must be accurate and final.
When anu is not sure of the accuracy of the information that he/she is quoting, then why point fingers at Baba Virendra Dev Dixit who is speaking extempore?
If exposing facts means demeaning, a remarkable part of AK will have to be called "demeaning". AK includes direct and personal allusions and open critics of the way of BKIVV. Words, phrases and datas from written SM are analysed in a very specific way, so that certain assumptions could be proved. Points are extracted from SM and out of context put in groups under certain topics in order to prove certain thesis. In AIVV literature even words are added in brackets in order to suggest what certain words should mean. Words are analysed in their gramatical forms to prove that BKIVV are wrong in their teachings. A book containing deletions in BK versions of SM was printed in order to expose what they do. According to the athor of a quoted sentence what AIVV did should be called demeaning, but no one from PBK would say so.
What AIVV is doing is all in public domain, but what most religions and religious organizations in the world are doing is shrouded in secrecy. It is the transparency in AIVV that anu is making misuse of.

ANU
Posts: 309
Joined: 05 Jun 2010
Affinity to the BKWSU: Academic
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: Sharing the results of research in the story of the Yagya collected with co-operation with western students.

Re: AK false teaching about the authority of the Bible

Post by ANU » 02 May 2011

arjun wrote: What AIVV is doing is all in public domain, but what most religions and religious organizations in the world are doing is shrouded in secrecy. It is the transparency in AIVV that anu is making misuse of.
Calling staying hidden and using false IDs as AIVV teacher does means now transparency? All right, I have learnt a new meaning of this word. Thank you.

I have also learnt from the statement above that it does not matter what AIVV does and what kind of information it teaches; untill AIVV does it all in public domain, everything is justified. OK, I have learnt another new thing about this organisation. Thank you.

So, let's now move to some facts. How AIVV changes dates and interpretation of dates, will be presented in a new topic "AIVV changes facts in publications". Welcome.

User avatar
arjun
PBK
Posts: 11522
Joined: 01 May 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: PBK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: to exchange views with past and present members of BKWSU and its splinter groups
Location: India

Re: AK false teaching about the authority of the Bible

Post by arjun » 03 May 2011

anu wrote:Thank you. ... Welcome
Thanks. :D

User avatar
button slammer
PBK
Posts: 226
Joined: 17 Jul 2006

Re: AK false teaching about the authority of the Bible

Post by button slammer » 15 May 2011

The Bible, both Old and New Testament has been written, and re-written for centuries. With each new publication came changes. So it is fair and accurate to say the followers of Christ wrote the Bible hundereds of years after His death. The Bible continues to be written even up to this day.
There is a saying ''To understand the Law is one thing, but to understand the 'Spirit of the Law' is another.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests