On a serious note, there COULD be a reasonable explanation for Hanegraaff using Martin's work without credit given.
Hank replaced Martin at the CRI. And it would not surprise me if the works of Martin belong to the ministry, to be freely used by future CRI presidents.
I have nothing but a hunch there, but I used to hear Hank extoll the greatness of Martin very frequently when I listened to the show 13-14 years ago.
But rally, I think this whole plagiarism/credit issue is nonsense.
I can see if someone plagiarized on a test, proving they didn't know the material, or if someone writes a fiction novel, and someone steals the work to make money. Maybe they ought to be raked over the coals.
But getting bent out of shape because someone "stole" truth to make a point in a debate? Gimme a break. Is someone supposed to have the truth market cornered, to where they need "credit" for it?
Did that person give credit to the Holy Spirit for the enlightenment?
I once placed a one-time ad on Craigslist, offering electrical services. I had prices listed for almost everything, a troubleshooting guarantee that I fix it, or you don't pay one cent, a bit piece about trusting your contractor, etc.
One day about 6 months later, was scrolling through the ads and ran across a caption that sounded similar to what i had used. I clicked on the ad, and saw my ad. He didn't make a single change except name and number.
I was like "what the....?"
But then i thought about it. I had run that ad one time. It served me well enough that i was busy for 5 years because of it. I didn't need that ad anymore, God had provided. That guy obviously saw the value in it, to the point that he used it over and over.
I never got any credit, but if i had, it would only have served my already inflated ego. how much less should believers care about credit?