this is a genuine question and not an attempt to trap you, but I see something very contradictory in your posts and would like you to clarify it for me.
you say,
I have read the bible many times. I go back to it all the time. I'm sorry that I can't see it as you do. You see it the way you and your brethren do. It just doesn't make any sense to me that way. I'm dumbfounded as to how you can take something that is clear even to an idiot like me and see it as literal when it is contrary to all the laws of nature. Nature being the handy-work of God.
then you say in another post.
i don't know too much about this Baha'i Faith at this stage but it is interesting to note that Baha'u'llah, the founder, claims to be the Kalki Avatar. The return of Krishna, who stated - 'I am born from age to age.' The date prophesied in the Bhagavad Gita for His return was 1844 which is when the Baha'i Faith was established. So what an amazing connection between these two religions you have pointed out.
Now where this gets interesting is that there are many claims that Christ would return in 1844.
I say,
I know nothing about hindhuism or the Bahaí faith, so I can't comment on either, my point is this,
If the founder is making a claim that is obviously contrary to all the laws of nature (re-incarnation) why don't you just dismiss it like you do the bible?
I'm not saying that the Baha'u'llah's claim is not genuine, I'm just saying that the laws of nature make that claim out to be incorrect, so, if you are applying your standards of the laws of nature to the bible, shouldn't you also apply it to the Bahaí faith?
