91% of matthews is plagiarized from mark

Placid wrote: Hi iec, Quote: This was my question? I was reading the NIV study Bible and in the beginning of each chapter they give an account of the author of the book in question,and this is where i found that 91% of matthews is plagiarized from mark.So my next question is where was the Holy spirit while this was happening could he not have stopped Matthew from cribbing Marks work??? Response: --- The simple answer is in your statement, --- �I was reading the NIV Study Bible and in the beginning of each chapter (Book) they give an account.� --- �Where was the Holy Spirit?� --- They weren�t writing by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. --- The Holy Spirit wasn�t with them. --- What you read is not the Scriptures that they translated, but the comments of the scholars and critics who produced this �International� version. It is a �Scholarly� version, --- it is not a Spiritually guided version. --- What you read in the comments is not the Scripture itself, but the words of the final committee, who present a more �critical� focus on the authors, --- rather than the Scripture, --- given originally by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. If you look at the Preface, --- It will likely say the same in the Study Bible as it does in my copy. Quote: The New International version is a completely new translation of the Holy Bible made by over a hundred scholars. Wikipedia �The New International Version project was started after a meeting in 1965 at Trinity Christian College in Palos Heights, Illinois, of the Christian Reformed Church, National Association of Evangelicals, and a "group of international scholars.� --- End of quote. From the Preface: �This group, though not made up of official Church representatives, was trans-denominational.� --- �The responsibility was given to a self-governing body of fifteen, the Committee on Bible Translation, composed for the most part of Biblical scholars from colleges, universities and seminaries.� --- These institutions have secular professors and teachers. --- It goes on to mention representatives from various Countries and denominations to give it international flavor. --- And they have a mixture of: 1. The Accurate Scriptures, which are the Books themselves, --- And: 2. Their secular comments in the introductions and, in some cases, footnotes. However, the translation is perhaps accurate to Scripture from a scholastic point of view. Quote: �All this involved many thousands of hours of research and discussion regarding the meaning of the texts and the precise way of putting them into English.� --- 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. --- 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. It is better to put it on a shelf and get an authorized version as your study Bible. --- 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. --- It is very simple, it doesn�t matter what version you read, if you have been influenced away, by secular scholars, from believing that God inspired the writers, through His Holy Spirit, --- you will always be trying to make a case against God, as a critic. --- It is God�s word, and Gabriel �confirmed� the former Scriptures as true in Surah 3: 2 God! There is no god but He, - the Living, the Self-Subsisting, Eternal. 3 It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus). Placid

Hi Placid,

This is what we Muslims are telling you that the Quran confirms that the Good news was given to Jesus(PBUH)But we are telling you that the Bible that you hold in your hand is not the good news that was given to Jesus you have a book that has forty different authors and anonymous books several were thrown out as apocrypha doubtful fabricated scripts.this in a book of God no my friend this storey that you are trying to pass on to us about the Holy Spirit is another of those fabrications.

greetings iec

Hi iec,

Sorry to be slow to get back to this topic but let�s look at what it says in the Quran about the �Three in heaven.� --- When you say there is no description of a trinity in the Bible, --- that is right, because the doctrine came out of the Roman Church and not the Bible.
However what is written in the Quran corrects the faulty part of the trinity doctrine, if you will accept it. --- Let�s look at the Word (Logos, the creative power of God.)

In the Quran it says this of the birth of Jesus in Surah 3:
45 Behold! the angel said: "O Mary! God giveth thee glad tidings of a �Word� from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honour in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to God;
47 She said: "O my Lord! How shall I have a son when no man hath touched me?" He said: "Even so: God createth what He willeth: When He hath decreed a plan, He but saith to it, 'Be,' and it is!
--- Also, Surah 19:20   She said: "How shall I have a son, seeing that no man has touched me, and I am not unchaste?"
21 He said: "So (it will be): Thy Lord saith, 'that is easy for Me: and (We wish) to appoint him as a Sign unto men and a Mercy from Us': It is a matter (so) decreed."

--- It was announced that the Word (Logos) would come down from heaven to indwell the human Jesus.
Mary said �How�? --- And the angel says, �When God decrees a plan He simply says to it �Be� and it is.�
In 21 he says, �He will be a Sign unto men and a Mercy from Us': It is a matter (so) decreed."
So it was God�s plan to have the Word, who is invisible, the same as the Holy Spirit, to come down and indwell the physical body of Jesus so He could be seen, and would represent God on earth.

--- Jesus was CALLED the Son of God, but He was not a biological son. --- So, let�s look at the verse that says it all, in Surah 4:
171 O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of God aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) an apostle of God, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a Spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in God and His apostles. Say not "Trinity" : desist: it will be better for you: for God is one God: Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is God as a Disposer of affairs.

171 O People of the Book (in this case Christians, and particularly Trinitarians)
--- �Commit no excesses in your religion, or say what isn�t true� --- don�t exaggerate the truth, as in the trinity doctrine.
--- �Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) an apostle of God,� --- Since (no more than) is in brackets, it indicates that it was not in the Arabic, but other translators use �just� an apostle of God. --- This is to indicate that Jesus was not God, --- but �just an Apostle, or Messenger,� also called the Messiah.

--- �An apostle of God, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary,� --- So Jesus was an Apostle, Messenger of God (the Father of all), --- and His Word which He (God) bestowed on Mary, (as it says in 3:45,) --- and a Spirit from Him (God).
--- So, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit are all of God
Is this not exactly what it says in 1 John 5:7 --- For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one, --- (they are all of God).

--- Notice,: --- It says, �So, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit are all of God,�
But it says, �Say not "Trinity" : desist: it will be better for you: for God is one God: Glory be to Him.�
--- And notice this: --- �Say not �trinity� meaning �three,�--- there has to be �three� to refer to, and the three are: --- God the Father, --- the Word, --- and the Holy Spirit (the Spirit of God)

If you can understand this, you can see that the Quran is here correcting the faulty doctrine of the �trinity,� because Jesus was the visible Messenger of the �Three� from heaven. --- But notice, Jesus is NOT ONE OF THE 'THREE.�
(A little more later)

Placid

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.

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