91% of matthews is plagiarized from mark

Hi Placid,

The Scholars seemingly did not know the history of the Gospel of Matthew in Aramaic, a Hebrew dialect, --- and that it was no doubt the format for the three Synoptic Gospels, --- so their comments have misled readers.

corrupted in your own words not mine.

If you read the NIV with no comments you would be, not too far astray, but, since it is not from Spiritual origin, it is not a good translation to rely on.
In the bin goes my NIV Bible.Thank you.

The King James Bible was translated from the Greek Manuscripts in early 1600 and is still widely used. --- The New King James updates the language from the Old English, and I believe is the best version today.

Preface to the Revised Standard Version

Yet the King James Version has grave defects. By the middle of the nineteenth century, the development of Biblical studies and the discovery of many manuscripts more ancient than those upon which the King James Version was based, made it manifest that these defects are so many and so serious as to call for revision of the English translation.

Thirty-two scholars have served as members of the Committee charged with making the revision, and they have secured the review and counsel of an Advisory Board of fifty representatives of the cooperating denominations.

After all the revision they revised it and it is still in a mess.

Placid wrote: Hi iec, Quote: Thirty-two scholars have served as members of the Committee charged with making the revision, and they have secured the review and counsel of an Advisory Board of fifty representatives of the cooperating denominations. Response: --- Notice again that the RSV is the result of the thirty two scholars, who conferred with an advisory board of fifty of the �co-operating denominations.� Quote from intro to the RSV: �The Council appointed a committee of scholars to have charge of the text of the American Standard Version; and in 1937 it authorized this Committee to undertake a further revision, on the grounds that there is need for a version which will --- �embody the best results of modern scholarship as to the meaning of the Scriptures, and express this meaning in English diction which is designed for use in public and private worship and preserves those qualities which have given to the King James Version a supreme place in English literature.� Thirty two scholars have served as members of the Committee charged with making the revision; and they have secured the review and counsel of an advisory board of fifty representatives of the co-operating denominations.� End of quote. --- (Note: --- This would not include the mainline Evangelical denominations because it was the work of scholars and boards of Religious education. --- And it does not mention prayer or Spiritual guidance, so it is, like the NIV, a scholarly version of the Scriptures. --- However, this revision is perhaps �less accurate� than the NIV, --- which I can show you later.) To continue, quote: �The Committee has worked in two sections, one dealing with the Old Testament, and one dealing with the New Testament. Each section has submitted its work to the scrutiny of the other section, however; --- and the Charter of the Committee requires that all changes be agreed upon by a two thirds vote of the total membership of the Committee.� End of quote. --- (Note: --- so the final revision was agreed upon by only 66% of all of those that worked on the Committees. --- Reports have been that it was to be a readable version that would be used in schools and homes. --- However, its attempt to adapt with the times has never made it popular. --- It is not that revisions are so wrong, but the scholarly versions are decided on by the opinions of men, --- so, there�s another one to set on the shelf for reference.) I want to show you a change that was made from the King James to all the newer translations, 1 Corinthians 13: ** 1 King James: Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. ** 1 RSV: If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. ** 1 NIV: If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. ** 1 NKJ: Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal. --- You see, the only change is the word �charity� from the 16th century, to �love.� The idea of a �sounding brass� or �a noisy gong� --- and a clanging symbol, is that they are not �solo instruments.� --- A noisy gong doesn�t give a message to the hearers. --- And a clanging symbol is usually the finality of a �crescendo.� So unless the words of charity or love are genuine, they are just noise. --- Our present meaning of love is inadequate to carry the meaning of the Greek. People say, �I love chocolate cake� --- �I love football,� --- but they may rarely say to their family members, �I love you.� --- In any language there are words that are hard to translate with meaning, and this is one from Greek to English. --- However, the Amplified Bible is for that purpose. --- Where needed, it gives the full meaning of the Greek, and that is why it is a good one to have on your shelf for reference, as well. --- Notice this ** 1 Amplified Bible: If I [can] speak in the tongues of men and [even] of angels, but have not love (that reasoning, intentional, spiritual devotion such as is inspired by God�s love for and in us), I am only a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. --- (You see, it does not change the wording of the Scripture, but adds in brackets the full meaning of the Greek word. --- (that reasoning, intentional, spiritual devotion such as is inspired by God�s love for and in us). --- So it is a Spiritual, devotional, giving, love, --- and our casual word �love� doesn�t express that, does it? So --- what did the word �charity� mean? This is where our modern culture has made it a cold hard word. --- �I don�t want this any more so I will give it to charity.� --- �These clothes are old, but somebody might wear them so I�ll give them to charity.� --- What did charity really mean? --- It was a giving to others and not expecting anything in return. --- It was an expressing of God�s love through them to others. --- So the original meaning of �charity� in the King James is the best word, is it not? However, to know the meaning you have to read the context where it explains that kind of �giving� love, as in these verses: 4 �Love suffers long (is patient) and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up (with pride); 5 does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; 6 does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth.� --- (Another example later) Placid

Hi Placid,

Yet the King James Version has grave defects.

[18] For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
[19] And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Hi Placid.

1.2.2.5 1 John 5:7

The only verses in the whole Bible that explicitly ties God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit in one "Triune" being is the verse of 1 John 5:7
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

This is the type of clear, decisive, and to-the-point verse I have been asking for. However, as I would later find out, this verse is now universally recognized as being a later "insertion" of the Church and all recent versions of the Bible, such as the Revised Standard Version the New Revised Standard Version, the New American Standard Bible, the New English Bible, the Phillips Modern English Bible ...etc. have all unceremoniously expunged this verse from their pages. Why is this? The scripture translator Benjamin Wilson gives the following explanation for this action in his "Emphatic Diaglott." Mr. Wilson says:
"This text concerning the heavenly witness is not contained in any Greek manuscript which was written earlier than the fifteenth century. It is not cited by any of the ecclesiastical writers; not by any of early Latin fathers even when the subjects upon which they treated would naturally have lead them to appeal to it's authority. It is therefore evidently spurious."

Others, such as the late Dr. Herbert W. Armstrong argued that this verse was added to the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible during the heat of the controversy between Rome, Arius, and God's people. Whatever the reason, this verse is now universally recognized as an insertion and discarded. Since the Bible contains no verses validating a "Trinity" therefore, centuries after the departure of Jesus, God chose to inspire someone to insert this verse in order to clarify the true nature of God as being a "Trinity." Notice how mankind was being inspired as to how to "clarify" the Bible centuries after the departure of Jesus (pbuh). People continued to put words in the mouths of Jesus, his disciples, and even God himself with no reservations whatsoever. They were being "inspired" (see chapter two).
If these people were being "inspired" by God, I wondered, then why did they need to put these words into other people's mouths (in our example, in the mouth of John). Why did they not just openly say "God inspired me and I will add a chapter to the Bible in my name"? Also, why did God need to wait till after the departure of Jesus to "inspire" his "true" nature? Why not let Jesus (pbuh) say it himself?
The great luminary of Western literature, Mr. Edward Gibbon, explains the reason for the discardal of this verse from the pages of the Bible with the following words:
"Of all the manuscripts now extant, above fourscore in number, some of which are more than 1200 years old, the orthodox copies of the Vatican, of the Complutensian editors, of Robert Stephens are becoming invisible; and the two manuscripts of Dublin and Berlin are unworthy to form an exception...In the eleventh and twelfth centuries, the Bibles were corrected by LanFrank, Archbishop of Canterbury, and by Nicholas, a cardinal and librarian of the Roman church, secundum Ortodoxam fidem. Notwithstanding these corrections, the passage is still wanting in twenty-five Latin manuscripts, the oldest and fairest; two qualities seldom united, except in manuscripts....The three witnesses have been established in our Greek Testaments by the prudence of Erasmus; the honest bigotry of the Complutensian editors; the typographical fraud, or error, of Robert Stephens in the placing of a crotchet and the deliberate falsehood, or strange misapprehension, of Theodore Beza."

"Decline and fall of the Roman Empire," IV, Gibbon, p. 418.
Edward Gibbon was defended in his findings by his contemporary, the brilliant British scholar Richard Porson who also proceeded to publish devastatingly conclusive proof that the verse of 1 John 5:7 was only first inserted by the Church into the Bible in the year 400C.E.(Secrets of Mount Sinai, James Bentley, pp. 30-33).
Regarding Porson's most devastating proof, Mr. Gibbon later said
"His structures are founded in argument, enriched with learning, and enlivened with wit, and his adversary neither deserves nor finds any quarter at his hands. The evidence of the three heavenly witnesses would now be rejected in any court of justice; but prejudice is blind, authority is deaf, and our vulgar Bibles will ever be polluted by this spurious text."

To which Mr. Bentley responds:
"In fact, they are not. No modern Bible now contains the interpolation."

Mr. Bentley, however, is mistaken. Indeed, just as Mr. Gibbon had predicted, the simple fact that the most learned scholars of Christianity now unanimously recognize this verse to be a later interpolation of the Church has not prevented the preservation of this fabricated text in our modern Bibles. To this day, the Bible in the hands of the majority of Christians, the "King James" Bible, still unhesitantly includes this verse as the "inspired" word of God without so much as a footnote to inform the reader that all scholars of Christianity of note unanimously recognize it as a later fabrication.
Peake's Commentary on the Bible says
"The famous interpolation after 'three witnesses' is not printed even in RSVn, and rightly. It cites the heavenly testimony of the Father, the logos, and the Holy Spirit, but is never used in the early Trinitarian controversies. No respectable Greek MS contains it. Appearing first in a late 4th-cent. Latin text, it entered the Vulgate and finally the NT of Erasmus."

It was only the horrors of the great inquisitions which held back Sir Isaac Newton from openly revealing these facts to all:
"In all the vehement universal and lasting controversy about the Trinity in Jerome's time and both before and long enough after it, the text of the 'three in heaven' was never once thought of. It is now in everybody's mouth and accounted the main text for the business and would assuredly have been so too with them, had it been in their books� Let them make good sense of it who are able. For my part I can make none. If it be said that we are not to determine what is scripture and what not by our private judgments, I confess it in places not controverted, but in disputed places I love to take up with what I can best understand. It is the temper of the hot and superstitious part of mankind in matters of religion ever to be fond of mysteries, and for that reason to like best what they understand least. Such men may use the Apostle John as they please, but I have that honor for him as to believe that he wrote good sense and therefore take that to be his which is the best"

Jesus, Prophet of Islam, Muhammad Ata' Ur-Rahim, p. 156
According to Newton, this verse first appeared for in the third edition of Erasmus's (1466-1536) New Testament.
For all of the above reasons, we find that when thirty two biblical scholars backed by fifty cooperating Christian denominations got together to compile the Revised Standard Version of the Bible based upon the most ancient Biblical manuscripts available to them today, they made some very extensive changes. Among these changes was the unceremonious discardal of the verse of 1 John 5:7 as the fabricated insertion that it is. For more on the compilation of the RSV Bible, please read the preface of any modern copy of that Bible.
Such comparatively unimportant matters as the description of Jesus (pbuh) riding an ass (or was it a "colt", or was it an "ass and a colt"? see point 42 in the table of section 2.2) into Jerusalem are spoken about in great details since they are the fulfillment of a prophesy. For instance, in Mark 11:2-10 we read:
"And saith unto them, Go your way into the village over against you: and as soon as ye be entered into it, ye shall find a colt tied, whereon never man sat; loose him, and bring [him]. And if any man say unto you, Why do ye this? say ye that the Lord hath need of him; and straightway he will send him hither. And they went their way, and found the colt tied by the door without in a place where two ways met; and they loose him And certain of them that stood there said unto them, What do ye, loosing the colt? And they said unto them even as Jesus had commanded: and they let them go And they brought the colt to Jesus, and cast their garments on him; and he sat upon him. And many spread their garments in the way: and others cut down branches off the trees, and strawed [them] in the way And they that went before, and they that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna; Blessed [is] he that cometh in the name of the Lord: Blessed [be] the kingdom of our father David, that cometh in the name of the Lord: Hosanna in the highest."

Also see Luke 19:30-38 which has a similar detailed description of this occurrence. On the other hand, the Bible is completely free of any description of the "Trinity" which is supposedly a description of the very nature of the one who rode this ass, who is claimed to be the only son of God, and who allegedly died for the sins of all of mankind. I found myself asking the question: If every aspect of Christian faith is described in such detail such that even the description of this ass is so vividly depicted for us, then why is the same not true for the description of the "Trinity"? Sadly, however, it is a question for which there is no logical answer.

greetings
iec

iec786 wrote: 91% of matthews is plagiarized from mark 50% of Luke is plagiarised from Mark. Now why would they cheat and steal one anothers writings if they were eyewitnesses? What happened to the Holy Ghost while all this was happening??? why did he not stop this from happening??? Some early gospels may have vanished because they were secret gospels and very few copies were made. Others could have been lost due to wars, conquests, upheavals, and persecutions. In addition, there have been accusations that early church leaders intentionally destroyed some books in order to cover up embarrassing facts about the origins of Christianity. Some intentional destruction did take place, but exactly what was lost can't be determined.