How are these Great Beings explained?

[oldbadger]

So who was Baha'u'llah writing about here?

Ouch! Himself?
So this is why Bahais are so adamant that Bahauallah had no education.
As a privileged child in a wealthy household he would have had a personal tutor, possibly to the standard of hafiz.

 

[siti]

Ouch! Himself?
So this is why Bahais are so adamant that Bahauallah had no education.
As a privileged child in a wealthy household he would have had a personal tutor, possibly to the standard of hafiz.

Actually he was writing about the Bab - who does seem to have had a rather rudimentary education...but then the problem is if Baha'u'llah comes along with the more complete version and is known to have been well-educated, learned and multi-lingual (as he was), the unfaithful could claim that he got his words from books not from God - and that wouldn't do at all so they make this quote apply to all the Manifestations - which is clearly absurd because we know very well that some of them (if they existed at all) were neither ordinary nor unschooled - Moses, for example, was, according to the Biblical tradition, educated in the courts of Pharoah and guided by a Midianite priest (his father-in-law) and served as both a prophet and a priest to Israel. The only option then left to Baha'is is to claim that the previous revelations have been corrupted in transmission so that Moses, for example, was not really the adopted son of Pharoah's daughter or the son-in-law of a rather clever priest, but a humble shepherd who could only have received everything he knew by direct divine revelation. But the problem they leave themselves with in that case, is where then is the scriptural precedent for a new Dispensation which, it is claimed, is foretold in all the previous revelations? Ah! say they...but that part of the revelations has survived intact, by God's grace! And of course the appearance of Baha'u'llah stands as proof! Whereupon the rest of us poor deluded rational folk slap our foreheads for the 14 thousand two hundred and seventh time.

 

[Sen McGlinn]

No he was not giving a summary - and you seem not to have read what Baha'u'llah actually wrote - to wit: "In another passage of the Gospel it is written

You are putting a lot of weight on a single word in a translation, which is never a sound method. You face three problems: first of all, you see through the eyes of the translator, never forget it. Second, languages do not have exactly corresponding words and idioms, something is always lost. Third, translators, always aware that the word they choose does not have all the connotations of the word in the original, will often make good on what is lost by their word choice elsewhere in the same sentence.

In this case, Arabic has a good exact word for "write", which is kataba, from which we get the word for book, ketaab. The various derivatives of kataba are used in Persian too (estektaab, cause to write, is an example), and Persian has its own pre-Islamic word for "wrote," which is navestan or nebeshtan. And Persian has idioms that mean precisely "write", such as zir-e qalam awardan, to bring under the pen.

But Baha'u'llah chooses a less precise term, the Arabic loan-word mastur (مسطور), which is comparable to the English equivalent, "limned" in the sense of describe in outline. Mastur comes from a verb that means drawing lines (whereas limn comes from the Latin word for light).

No wonder Baha'is claim the Manifestations were uneducated and barely literate

Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha were self-educated, but very widely read, not only in the classics and religious literature of the past, but also in current events, philosophy and to some extent the science of their own days. Baha'u'llah (Husayn Ali) was the kind of boy who could find the door to a library and find the many volumes of Islamic traditions (in Arabic) compiled by Majlis, and be shocked on coming to the story of the Banu Qurayza. A school was not required !

Likewise, I do not agree with the idea that Muhammad was illiterate, I think the word umi means "layman" ie not trained in priestcraft. And I think Jesus probably spoke Greek and Latin, which is a bit problematical for the source-critical method of identifying Greek and Roman bits in the NT and saying they must be later additions!

What "Bahais claim" varies, and usually represents the level of their knowledge and understanding. That is, Bahais are generally sincere, which is not to say they are always reliable sources of information. Caveat emptor

 

[siti]

You are putting a lot of weight on a single word in a translation

Not really Sen - the idea that the disciple's father had actually already died is not 'limned' in the Gospel account either. The idea that the man's father was already dead is not explicit in the Gospel - it is explicit in Baha'u'llah's retelling - they are not consistent. So it may (or may not) be correct to say that the man was dead - but it is not correct to state that the Gospel says that he was already dead - regardless of whether he is quoting directly or not.

I agree about the language thing - I know nothing about Persian or Arabic so I can't really comment on it from a linguistic point of view, but if you are able, perhaps you could check other passages where Baha'u'llah uses the same word 'mastur' followed by something that looks like it is intended to be a quotation. Was he quoting or outlining?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Thanks for the not so positive feedback lol.

The concern for teachings that accurately reflect what the prophet or Manifestation says is not a uniquely Baha'i trait but an Abrahamic one. That's why the Jews, Christians, and Muslims all have their scholars who take these matters enormously seriously.

There are clearly much more contradictions and inconsistencies in Hinduism. Hindu belief appears to encompass anything imaginable (you call it diversity). Hindus, unlike Abrahamics, seem unconcerned with contradictions... unless the Abrahamics start moving in and suggesting similarities with their own religion of course. Another difference is you don't have a set of sacred scriptures you all agree on. That scenario is unimaginable for the Abrahamics.

Adrian. You were doing well without harsh conversational bias. What happened?

All religions have inconsistency and contradictions. The nature of religion is not for every puzzle peace to fit together. One Buddhist sect says other Buddhas are real others say they are reflections of the mind. Some Buddhist sects lean away from worship. Others are headstone worshipers if looking from an Abrahamic perspective. Some say Maitreya is the chosen. Others say he is not. It doesn't depreciate the message of Buddhism (using that as an example; can't speak for Hinduism) or Christianity or any other religion for that matter. The diversity of these differences conflicting worldviews (jesus/god jesus and god) and so forth are what makes religions beautiful to practice. With Hinduism, it's a plethora of ways to connect to one god. You don't just have prophets who have to be one way or another, but you have so many gods and goddesses that to live the experience of god rather than believe in god has more depth.

Also, why are contradictions and inconsistencies a bad thing?

Sometimes I wear red socks with my black slacks and a purple jacket with polka dot blouse and double lined tie. No one is going to send me to the fashion police (maybe another woman maybe). It's not the end of the world.

Don't compare Hinduism to Abrahamics then there wouldn't be an issue with one needing scripture to live and the other using it as a commentary. Value diversity not belittle them.

 

[Vinayaka]

Do explain how that passage has any reference to doing it the Baha'i way;

Baha'is have maintained all along that Baha'u'llah is the key.

 

[Vinayaka]

Then why did you post it in a religious debate forum? Why not in a politics or current affairs forum? What was the point of the quote in relation to the topic of "How are these Great Beings explained?" What the heck does a non-religious quote about the UN have to do with the discussion taking place here?

People are totally free to post their personal beliefs and quotes in DIRs pertaining to that particular faith. Everyone can read them there, and can't debate them. It's a perfectly safe place for that. This pattern has been going on in this thread for a very long time ... some Baha'i's just posting quotes with no commentary. It has little to do with that individual post, but is a culmination of a long series of similar posts. How many times do we have to respond with, "Yes that is the Baha'i' belief." It's just totally redundant, and no longer debate.

Reminds me of having two kids do the same behaviour in school, and each suffer differing repercussions, punishment, and then one complaining it wasn't fair. Then the principal responding 'Well, Sonny, this is your 18th time you swore, and Bobby's first. That's why I'm suspending you, and he's just getting a warning.

 

[Vinayaka]

Also, why are contradictions and inconsistencies a bad thing?

Often contradictions simply means you're changing with the times. I didn't have the same sets of standards for all of my students, because I attempted to individualise it, based on learning style. I also changed as new psychology studies became available. My spiritual teachers have told different people totally contradicting advice. For example, Person A, might get the advice that ot's okay to have the occasional beer, whereas person B might get the advice to absolutely never have a drink. TThat's because Person A can handle it, but person B has a strong tendency to become an alcoholic.

So contradictions can be a great thing. It all depends on context. A good teacher will definitely contradict himself. So saying he doesn't basically says he copuldn't have been a very flexible of good teacher.

 

[Vinayaka]

Y

Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha were self-educated, but very widely read, not only in the classics and religious literature of the past, but also in current events, philosophy and to some extent the science of their own days. Baha'u'llah (Husayn Ali) was the kind of boy who could find the door to a library and find the many volumes of Islamic traditions (in Arabic) compiled by Majlis, and be shocked on coming to the story of the Banu Qurayza. A school was not required !

My great uncle was self-taught. He remained a communist throughout his life, and had a reasonably vast personal library when he passed. Never went to school.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

You are putting a lot of weight on a single word in a translation, which is never a sound method. You face three problems: first of all, you see through the eyes of the translator, never forget it. Second, languages do not have exactly corresponding words and idioms, something is always lost. Third, translators, always aware that the word they choose does not have all the connotations of the word in the original, will often make good on what is lost by their word choice elsewhere in the same sentence.

In this case, Arabic has a good exact word for "write", which is kataba, from which we get the word for book, ketaab. The various derivatives of kataba are used in Persian too (estektaab, cause to write, is an example), and Persian has its own pre-Islamic word for "wrote," which is navestan or nebeshtan. And Persian has idioms that mean precisely "write", such as zir-e qalam awardan, to bring under the pen.

But Baha'u'llah chooses a less precise term, the Arabic loan-word mastur (مسطور), which is comparable to the English equivalent, "limned" in the sense of describe in outline. Mastur comes from a verb that means drawing lines (whereas limn comes from the Latin word for light).

This is an example elsewhere Bahaullah uses the word Mastour:

O my friend! Vast oceans lie enshrined within this brief saying. Blessed are they who appreciate its value, drink deep therefrom and grasp its meaning, and woe betide the heedless.

Here the Translator has rendered the word Mastour as 'lie enshrined'. Obviously Bahaullah did not mean literally a vast ocean was written within a brief saying.


It seems to me, there are people who are very literal, and only consider the very literal meaning of the words. @siti seems to be very literal. Bahaullah certainly was not a literalist.

Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha were self-educated, but very widely read, not only in the classics and religious literature of the past, but also in current events, philosophy and to some extent the science of their own days. Baha'u'llah (Husayn Ali) was the kind of boy who could find the door to a library and find the many volumes of Islamic traditions (in Arabic) compiled by Majlis, and be shocked on coming to the story of the Banu Qurayza. A school was not required !

Well Bahaullah has written He did not read the Books people have. But if He did, should not we expect to see His followers who were around Him, witness Him reading books?


"Thou knowest full well that We perused not the books which men possess and We acquired not the learning current amongst them, and yet whenever We desire to quote the sayings of the learned and of the wise, presently there will appear before the face of thy Lord in the form of a tablet all that which hath appeared in the world and is revealed in the Holy Books and Scriptures. Thus do We set down in writing that which the eye perceiveth. Verily His knowledge encompasseth the earth and the heavens."

 

[Sen McGlinn]

...The idea that the man's father was already dead is not explicit in the Gospel - it is explicit in Baha'u'llah's retelling - they are not consistent. So it may (or may not) be correct to say that the man was dead - but it is not correct to state that the Gospel says that he was already dead - regardless of whether he is quoting directly or not.

... perhaps you could check other passages where Baha'u'llah uses the same word 'mastur' followed by something that looks like it is intended to be a quotation. Was he quoting or outlining?

Mastur is used for "written" in a non-literal sense, as in "those whose names have been inscribed "mastur" by the Pen of the Most High in His Book." This is like the recording angels meme - the book is the heavenly record of someone's deeds.

It's used for a general summary, as in "each of the various peoples of the world has its own account (mastur) of the age of the earth..."

and for a summary of scriptures :
"To this the scriptures bear witness (mastur)."

or of a particular scriptural passage:
"Moses intervened and slew him. To this testifieth the record (mastur) of the sacred book."

He uses it for a direct written quote, when he is quoting himself, for example "The first word ... revealed and inscribed (mastur) on the first leaf of paradise is this..." (in Epistle to the Son of the Wolf [ESW], quoting himself in the Words of Paradise). But the actual quote in ESW (a late text) is not word-for-word the same as the text in the "Words of Paradise." The latter for example has او است (it is) while ESW has ان است (that is). This is not a rare case: Baha'u'llah was not particularly worried about using the same wording every time.

"Gospel" is also a non-obvious term. In the passage in question, Baha'u'llah writes "dar enjil / در انچیل ". What is enjil? Is it a chapter in a book on paper, is it the new testament as a physical book, is it the message of the Gospels? It is used in all these senses in both the Bahai writings and in Christian theology. If someone wants to proclaim the Gospel, one doesn't generally ask which Gospel he will be using, and why not include Acts as well? One understands that the "gospel" will be not only one book, it will be an understanding of books, including the Old Testament, and explicitly or implicitly including Christian understandings of the texts. It is the record of God's action seen through Christian eyes that makes it the gospel.

 

[Aupmanyav]

What is required is the mind of man to accept His God.

It becomes apparent when one posts the greatest advice mankind could ever consider and the accusations of Proselytizing comes from every direction.

If you had taken the time to read the quotes they were not about conversion, but how humanity can work for peace.

Why should I read what is trash for me. Give me one sentence which is new. Do you make the acceptance of a fiction (God), a condition for dialogue for peace? If I do not accept God, then should there be strife only? If it is not a condition for dialogue, and if you see no problem in my accepting my God (whatever, 'to accept His God'), then stop talking about your God and your manifestation. Talk about peace and cooperation. Why should your God and your manifestation intrude in the process. Your God and my God has been the only obstacle to peace in the world. Baha'ullah too had to leave Iran and die in Israel.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

What is required is the mind of man to accept His God.

The world now reflects this.

It becomes apparent when one posts the greatest advice mankind could ever consider and the accusations of Proselytizing comes from every direction.

If you had taken the time to read the quotes they were not about conversion, but how humanity can work for peace.

Debate for the sake of debate, not looking for a unity of purpose, kills the soul, its killing mine.

Stay happy and well and I say goodbye to you.

Regards Tony

To make you feel better, by definition it's not proselytizing. You're evangelizing. The former is to convert and the other is to preach. When someone proselytize, they say "Here is a way to believe in my god" When you evangelize, you say "This is what my god is about just in case you choose to believe" when you converse it's "let's talk about our gods regardless of our positions of whether we believe in god(s) or not."

The reason you sound like you're proselytizing in this thread is because you are arguing (defending your point in an aggressive manner and pulling your hair out in the process) instead of conversing.

The "debate thread" title isn't an excuse to be defensive about your faith. If peace is really want you want BE the peace. Don't let where you post and talk be a justification for how you react to others.

Peace:

Not by evangelizing: we know your beliefs Tony

By conversing: "To talk informally with another or others; exchange views, opinions, by talking." (At least by Dictionary definition)

 

[Aupmanyav]

".. and woe betide the heedless."

Funny, that reminds me of how Jesus cursed the cities. The world did not change in 1,850 years.

"Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted to the heavens? No, you will go down to Hades. For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you."

“But those who disbelieved will have cut out for them garments of fire. Poured upon their heads will be scalding water. By which is melted that within their bellies and [their] skins. And for [striking] them are maces of iron. Every time they want to get out of Hell-fire from anguish, they will be returned to it, and [it will be said], "Taste the punishment of the Burning Fire!" .. "Indeed, those who disbelieve in Our verses - We will drive them into a Fire. Every time their skins are roasted through We will replace them with other skins so they may taste the punishment."

Are these the types of God and their messengers that you want me to believe?

"

 

[siti]

Baha'u'llah was not particularly worried about using the same wording every time.

But presumably he did not change the intent of the passage by claiming that he had previously written something that he had not, in fact, previously written.

"Gospel" is also a non-obvious term. In the passage in question, Baha'u'llah writes "dar enjil / در انچیل ". What is enjil? Is it a chapter in a book on paper, is it the new testament as a physical book, is it the message of the Gospels? It is used in all these senses in both the Bahai writings and in Christian theology. If someone wants to proclaim the Gospel, one doesn't generally ask which Gospel he will be using, and why not include Acts as well? One understands that the "gospel" will be not only one book, it will be an understanding of books, including the Old Testament, and explicitly or implicitly including Christian understandings of the texts. It is the record of God's action seen through Christian eyes that makes it the gospel.

Hmmm! So the phrase "it is written in the Gospel" could be understood to mean anything from "it is written in the Gospel..." to "it may have been understood by some Christians based on something that may or may not have been written in scripture (possibly but not necessarily including the Gospels) that those Christians may or may not have referred to in order to form their understanding of this point..." - I can see why the translator would have abbreviated this, and I can see how such an interpretation would support the notion of infallibility - how could you possibly be wrong when you haven't actually said anything?!

Anyway, just to help me get a better grip on all this perhaps you could look up which words are used for "Gospel" and "it is recorded" in the following excerpt from Kitab-i-iqan? Is the passage that follows a direct quote from Matthew's Gospel or not?

In the first Gospel according to Matthew it is recorded: And when they asked Jesus concerning the signs of His coming, He said unto them: “Immediately after the oppression of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the earth shall be shaken: and then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet.”

Bahá'í Reference Library - The Kitáb-i-Íqán, Pages 3-41

And when the translator puts this at the end of the same paragraph:

Similarly, in the three other Gospels, according to Luke, Mark, and John, the same statements are recorded.

What words does he translate "Gospels" and "are recorded"

And when, introducing the above accounts he renders Baha'u'llah's testimony:

To this testify the records of the four Gospels.

What word does he translate "testify" and which "four Gospels" is it that so testify?

Is it not really quite clear that Baha'u'llah was, in fact, referring to precisely what an English reader would understand by the word "Gospel" and "it is written/recorded" - i.e. quoting from Bible.

Why should we assume that this is different in the case of the "let the dead bury their dead" quote - which is - however you dress it up - a direct quotation of the supposed words of Jesus as recorded in the Gospel of Luke? And since all of these references to what "is written" in the Gospels are clearly intended to be direct quotes, why is the one he got wrong to be considered differently?

I admit, I am not an expert linguist in any language and I have no knowledge of Persian or Arabic at all - but I would have thought consistency would be at least aimed for if not required. Otherwise, any statement could mean anything anybody wanted to make it mean - which would effectively render scripture entirely meaningless as revelation - wouldn't it?

 

[arthra]

Wow I didn't thought i'd ever see Aupmanyav quote the Gospels!

And Siti's quoting them too!

 

[arthra]

I'm guessing you read Baha'i' sources on them. (That's not investigation at all.) Certainly, in Hinduism, there is no rejection of all the other faiths, as you imply. Not sure where you got your information. There is a key difference. In Hinduism, (my sect for sure) we just say other faiths are different than us, and are happy to leave it at that. India has opened the welcome mat to all of the other faiths. What you are generalising is the faiths that say, 'We're right, and the rest are wrong!' Not all faiths do that.

The idea that Krishna is prophet, just like the Abrahamic prophets, is just false. But yes, that's what the baha'i' books say.

Well ya know there oh Vinayaka your "guessing" could be off there just a tad! Before I read a Baha'i book in 1965 I had studied the Gita and met the translator Swami Prabhavananda (Jai Guru Maharajiki Jai!) and Christopher Isherwood and resided in an Ashram in Trabuco Canyon and later learned some Sanskrit but hey it's alright there. Wait that was when I studied some Jaina scriptures. Wait we used to practise Yoga during lunch hour in High School. Oh well! We don't generalize "the rest are wrong!" Lets be friends and bury the hatchet under a pillow. Maybe practice some "Ahimsa" or such.

 

[Sen McGlinn]

Well Bahaullah has written He did not read the Books people have. But if He did, should not we expect to see His followers who were around Him, witness Him reading books?


"Thou knowest full well that We perused not the books which men possess and We acquired not the learning current amongst them, and yet whenever We desire to quote the sayings of the learned and of the wise, presently there will appear before the face of thy Lord in the form of a tablet all that which hath appeared in the world and is revealed in the Holy Books and Scriptures.

LOL. You have a single verse that says "we perused not the books which men possess" and hundreds of attestations to Baha'u'llah reading stuff. Instead of adjusting your reading of the first text in line with the evidence of your eyes, you say that in view of [your understanding of a translation of] the first text, the evidence need not be considered !

"Know thou moreover that thy letter reached Our presence and We perceived and perused its contents. We noted the questions thou hast asked and will readily answer thee...."
(Tablets of Baha'u'llah, p. 183)

"Numerous letters from thee have been presented before Our Throne. We have perused them..."
(Tablets of Baha'u'llah, p. 196)

"THIS Wronged One hath perused thy letter in the Most Great Prison..."
(Tablets of Baha'u'llah, p. 266)

"Thine epistle was received, thy question was noted, "
(Baha'u'llah, Gems of Divine Mysteries, p. 3)

"ince thy letter had not reached me then, I began with some words of reproach. Now, thy new missive hath dispelled that feeling..."
(Baha'u'llah, Four Valleys, p. 63)

"O thou wayfarer upon the paths of justice,... thy missive arrived. I was apprised thereby of thy question, " (Baha'u'llah, Jawahiru'l-Asrar)

"Your letter reached Us, and We have perused it, with all its allusions..."
(Baha'u'llah, Commentary on the Surah of the Sun - Cole 1994)

"I verily inhaled the pure fragrances of the garment of thy love, and " attained thy very meeting from perusing thy letter. And since I noted thy mention of thy death in God..." (Baha'u'llah, Seven Valleys, p. 2)

"Thy letter was received, and We perused it and heard thy call."
(Tabernacle_of_Unity Oct2014)

"When this wronged one was a child, he read about the subjugation of the Banu-Qurayza, in a book attributed to Mulla Baqir Majlisi, and immediately became so grieved and saddened that the Pen is unable to recount it,.." (Tablet of Banu Qurayza).

"Although We never felt disposed to peruse other peoples' writings, yet as some had questioned Us concerning him, We felt it necessary to refer to his books, in order that We might answer Our questioners with knowledge and understanding. [If he didn't read the book, he would not give a knowledgeable answer] His works, in the Arabic tongue, were, however, not available, until one day a certain man informed Us that one of his compositions, entitled Irshadu'l-'Avam, could be found in this city. ... We sent for the book, and kept it with Us a few days. It was probably referred to twice. The second time, We accidentally came upon the story of the "Mi'raj" of Muhammad, ... We gathered from his statements that unless a man be deeply versed in [20 sciences], he can never attain to a proper understanding "
(Baha'u'llah, Kitab-i-Iqan, p. 184)

So back to the one contradictory quote, in the translation of the Tablet of Wisdom. I think your problem is just a bad translation. The key issue is the word ما which can mean "what" or "not." It comes three times in this sentence, and the first is definitely a "not." "We acquired NOT the learning current among the people." The second one is translated in Tablets of Baha'u'llah as "that which" but I translate is NOT. Along with removing some words in the translation ("all") that are not there in the original, and reading the verb as urednaa rather than aradnaa (passive rather than active, the written forms are the same), ... I understand he is saying that although people know he hasn't read (recited, studied)the books of the people and is not informed of the theological sciences current among them, nevertheless he has been asked to comment on the sayings of the divines and philosophers [even though] there appears before his face a tablet containing what has NOT appeared in the world and is NOT found in books. In other words, they are asking for a discussion of the scholarly tradition, when he can give them his direct insights. "we see it and we write it."


و انّک تعلم انّا ما قرأنا کتبَ القوم و ما اطّلعنا بما عندهم

من العلوم کلّما اردنا[1] أن نذکر بيانات العلماء و الحکماء يظهر ما ظهر فی

العالم و ما فی الکتب و الزّبر فی لوح امام وجه ربّک نری و نکتب

[1] Is this • (ʾaradnā) (form IV) first-person plural past active of أَرَادَ‏ (ʾarāda) or أُرِدْنَا • (ʾuridnā) (form IV), first-person plural past passive of أَرَادَ‏ (ʾarāda)

 

[siti]

And Siti's quoting them too!

Why wouldn't I? But its when someone misquotes them you should be concerned.

 

[Sen McGlinn]

perhaps you could look up which words are used for "Gospel" and "it is recorded" in the following excerpt from Kitab-i-iqan? Is the passage that follows a direct quote from Matthew's Gospel or not?

In the first Gospel according to Matthew it is recorded: And when they asked Jesus concerning the signs of His coming, He said unto them: “Immediately after the oppression of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the earth shall be shaken: and then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet.”

Bahá'í Reference Library - The Kitáb-i-Íqán, Pages 3-41

And when the translator puts this at the end of the same paragraph:

Similarly, in the three other Gospels, according to Luke, Mark, and John, the same statements are recorded.

What words does he translate "Gospels" and "are recorded"

In the first case, he writes "in the first scroll (safr), which is attributed to Matthew, on the occasion when they asked about the signs of the manifestation to come, he answered, "Immediately after the oppression etc..." It's a direct quote from Matthew, given first in Arabic.

In the second case he writes, "in the three scrolls attributed to Luke, Mark and John it is mentioned/recalled (dhekr ast)..."