Rahmatullah Kairanvi [1864]

About the Books and its Author

Part 1 : The Books of the Bible.
Part 2 : Contradictions and Errors in the Biblical Text.
Part 3 : Distortion and Abrogation in the Bible. The Trinity Refuted.
Part 4 : Authenticity of The Holy Traditions. Authenticity of Hadith and The
Holy Quran
This book, internationally recognized as one of the most authoritative and
objective studies of the Bible, was originally written in Arabic under the title
Izharul-
Haq (Truth Revealed) by the distinguished 19th century Indian scholar,
Rahmatullah Kairanvi, and appeared in 1864. The book was subsequently
translated into Urdu, and then from Urdu into English by Mohammad Wali Raazi.
Rahmatullah Kairanvi wrote the book in response to the Christian offensive
against Islam during the British rule in India, and specifically to counter the
subversive attack made by the Rev. C. C. P. Fonder. Rev. Fonder had written a
book in Urdu entitled Meezanul Haq, the open intention of which was to create
doubts into the minds of the Muslims about the authenticity of the Qur’an and
Islam.
Kairanvi’s intention in his book was first of all to show that the Bible cannot
in any
way be considered as a directly revealed book. He does this very effectively by
means of his voluminous and authoritative knowledge of the Jewish and
Christian scriptures. He demonstrates beyond doubt that the Books of the Old
and New Testaments have been altered, almost beyond recognition, from their
original forms. The work is even more notable in the light of subsequent Jewish
and Christian scholarship and the various discoveries that have since been made
in this field which all bear out the truth of Kairanvi’s thesis.

The Books of The Bible

These are nothing but names
Which ye have devised
-ye and your Fathers

for which God has sent down

no authority whatsoever .(Qur`an:53:23)
The books of the Bible are divided by the Christians into two main parts:
The Old Testament and The New Testament.
The books of the Old Testament are claimed to have been received through the Pro
phets
who were prior to the Prophet Jesus, the Messiah. The books of the New Testament
are
believed to have been written through inspiration after Jesus.
All the books of the Old and the New Testament together are called Bible. Bible
is a
Greek word which means `book`
Both the Testaments are further subdivided into two parts. The first part of the
Old
Testament is believed to be authentic by almost all the ancient Christians, whil
e the
authenticity of the other parts is held to be doubtful and controversial.

The Divisions Of The Old Testament

The Divisions Of The New Testament
Review Of The Books By the Councils
The Books Rejected By The Protestants
The Absence Of Certainty In The Bible
The Present Pentateuch Is Not The Book Of Moses
Errors In The Calculation Of The Israelites s Number
Status Of The Books In The Old Testament
The New Testament And The Status Of The Four Gospels
The Epistles And The Revelation

This collection comprises of 38 books:

1 GENESIS
The Book of Genesis describes the creation of the earth skies and gives an histo
rical
account of the Prophets Adam Noah, Abraham, Isaac and Joseph. The book ends with
the
death of the Prophet Joseph. This is also called the book of Creation
2 EXODUS
Exodus is mainly a description of the life of the prophet Moses.
It includes the teachings of Moses, his altercations with Pharaoh, Pharaoh`s dro
wning in
the sea and the oral communication of God
with Moses. It ends with the Israelites`camping in the desert of Sinai. It is ca
lled Exodus
because it describes the event of the Israelites` exodus from Egypt
3 LEVITICUS
Leviticus is a collection of the injunctions and laws given to the Israelites du
ring their
wanderings in the desert of Sinai. It has 27 chapters.
4 NUMBERS
The Book of Number includes events of the census of the Israelites , their histo
ry before
their departure to the Canaan and the injunctions of the Prophet Moses revealed
to him by
the bank of the river Jordan. It contains 36 chapters.
5 DEUTERONOMY
The book of Deuteronomy is a collection of those events and injuctions which too
k place
from after the period of the Book of Numbers to the death of Moses. It contains
34
chapters.
The collection of these five books together is called the pentateuh or Torah. Th
is is a
Heberw word meaning ”the law” .The word is also occasionally used to mean the Ol
d
Testament in general.

6 THE BOOK OF JOSHUA

The book of Joshua is ascribed to the Prophet Joshua son of Nuh who was the reli
able
servant and minister of Moses. He was made the Prophet of Israelites after the d
eath of
Moses.He made war on the Amalekites and was victorious over them. This book
describes his life up to the time of his death .It contains 24 chapters.
7 THE BOOK OF JUDGES
The Book of Judges covers the period after the death of Joshua. This period is c
alled the
period of the Judges, because, due to their transgression and wickedness God set
cruel,
foreign kings over them to punish them until they returned to God and repented t
heir sins.
Then some leaders were raised up among them and came to their rescue. These Isra
elite
leaders were known as the Judges. It has 21 chapters.
8 THE BOOK OF RUTH
The Book of Ruth describes events in the life of a woman of Moab called Ruth. Sh
e was
the mother of Obed the grandfather of the Prophet David. She migrated to Bethleh
em and
married Boaz. They bore a child Obed. His son was Jesse who was the father of th
e
Prophet David. It has only 4 chapters.
9 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL
The First book of Samuel concerns the Prophet Samuel who was the last of the Jud
ges of
Israelites. Samuel was made king of the Israelites in his period. It also includ
es the killing
of Goliath by David and other incidents up until the death of Samuel. It has 31
chapters.
10 THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL
The Second Book of Samuel describes the events after the death of Saul. It inclu
des the
kingship of David and his war against the sons of Saul. It has 24 chapters.
11 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS
The first Book of kings begins with the old age of David and includes the events
of his
death, the reign of the prophet Solomon, his death and the lives of his sons up
until the
death of Ahab. The Prophet Elijah`s descriptions is also included. It has 22 cha
pters.
12 THE SECOND BOOK OF KINGS
The second Book of Kings includes the events from the death of Ahab to the reign
of
Zedikiah. The Prophets Elijah and Josiah are also mentioned. It has 25 chapters.

13 CHRONICLES I

Chronicles 1 comprises genealogies from Adam to Solomon. It also includes short

historical accounts leading up until the time of David and gives details of Davi
d`s reign
over the Israelites. It contains 36 chapters.
historical accounts leading up until the time of David and gives details of Davi
d`s reign
over the Israelites. It contains 36 chapters.
14 CHRONILCES II
Chronicles 11 describes Solomon`s rule in detail and also gives a short account
of various
Kings after Solomon up until the reign of Zedikiah. The invasion of Nebuchadnezz
ar is
also covered at the end.
15 THE FIRST BOOK OF EZRA
Ezra I describes the reconstruction of Jerusalem by Cyrus the King of Persia aft
er the
invasion of Nebuchadnezzar. It also mentions the exile of Ezra and return of the
Israelites
from Babylon to their homeland. It contains 10 chapters.
16 THE SECOND BOOK OF EZRA
Ezra II is also called the Book of Nehemiah. Nehemiah was a cupbearer of Artaxer
xes the
King of Persia. When he learnt about the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnez
zar, he
sought the King`s permission and came to Jerusalem. He reconstructed it with the
help of
Ezra. This Book describes all these events and the names of those who helped in
rebuilding Jerusalem. These events took place in 445 BC. It contains 13 chapters
.
17 THE BOOK OF JOB
The Book of job is said to be by the Prophet Job whose patience and forbearance
are also
acknowledged and praised by the Holy Qur`an. He was born in Uz, a city to the ea
st of
the Dead Sea. The Book mainly consists of conversations between Job and his thre
e
friends Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shubite, Zopher the Na`amathite who ins
ist that
the calamities of Job are the result of his sins while Job refutes this. This bo
ok is held to
be of great literary merit. It contains 42 chapters.
18 THE BOOK OF PSALMS
The Book of Psalms is the corrupt form of the book of which the Holy Qur`an says
, “We
have given the Zaboor to Dawood.” The book is a collection of 150 Psalms, or son
gs of
praise, to God.
19 THE BOOK OF PROVERBS
The Book of proverbs is a collection of the exhortations and proverbs of the pro
phet
Solomon. The Christians claim that this book was compiled by Solomon himself. Ki
ngs I
says: “And he spoke three thousands proverbs”. (4:23). It contains 31chapters.

20 THE BOOK OF ECCLESIASTES

The book of Ecclesiastes is also called the “Book of the Preacher”. It said the
name of
one of the sons of David was “the preacher”. It begins with these words: “The wo
rds of
the preacher, the son of David.” (1:1). The book is a collection of exhortations
and
advices.
21 THE BOOK OF THE SONG OF SOLOMON
The Book of the Song of Solomon is said to be a collection of songs which were
composed by Solomon of which the book of Kings says: “He spoke three thousand
Proverbs and his songs were a thousand and five.”It has eight chapters.
22 THE BOOK OF ISAIAH
The Book of Isaiah is ascribed to the Prophet Isaiah, son of Amoz, who was advis
er to
Hezekia, the king of Judah, in the 8th century BC. When Sennacherib, the king of
Assyria, invaded Jerusalem, Isaiah was of great help to Hezekiah, the king of Ju
dah. This
book is a collection of his visions and predictions of future events. These pred
ictions
according to the Christinas were made by Isaiah in the reigns of the kings Azari
ah,
Jotham and Hezekiah. It has 66 chapters. This book contains many passages of gre
at
literary merit.
23 THE BOOK OF JEREMIAH
Jeremiah was an apostle and pupil of the Prophet Isaiah. God made him a prophet
in the
days of Joshua or Zedikiah. He was sent to the Israelites to prevent them from t
heir
perversion. He preached to the Israelites but they did not listen to him. God re
vealed to
him that Israelites would soon be subjected to a punishment from God in the form
of an
invasion by Nebuchadnezzar. Jeremiah warned them of this and advised them to
surrender but they mocked him. In the end Jerusalem was totally destroyed by
Nebuchadenzzar. The Prophet Jeremiah migrated to Egypt. According to some schola
rs
the Holly Qur`an refers to this incident in Surah 2:259. It has 56 chapters.
24 THE BOOK OF LAMENTIONS
The book of lamentations is a collection of songs of mourning which are said to
have
been compiled by the Prophet Jeremiah after the destruction of Jerusalem by
Nebuchadnezzar. It has only 5 chapters.
25 THE BOOK OF EZEKIEL
The Book of Ezekiel is claimed to be by the prophet Ezekiel, the son of Buzi. He
was a
descendant of Levi, the son of Jacob. He fought bravely against Nebuchadnezzar.
This
book is said to be a collection of his revelations, which consists of prediction
s,

exhortations and warnings to the people about God`s Judgement on them and about
the
coming fall and destruction of Jerusalem. coming fall and destruction of Jerusal
em.
26 THE BOOK OF DNIEL
The Prophet Daniel was among the wise people who were exiled form Judah and were
taken into captivity by Nebuchadnezzar. The interpretation of some dreams of the
king
were made clear by him through revelations, and the king made him the governor o
f
Babylon. It also includes the dreams of the Prophet Daniel regarding the future
of the
Israelites. These dreams also contain a prophecy about the advent of Jesus, the
Messiah.
It has twelve chapters.
27 THE BOOK OF HOSEA
Hosea was one of the prophets of the Israelites. He is said to have lived in the
period of
Jotham, Azariah and Hezekiah, the kings of Judah. This book is said to have been
revealed to him during the period of their reigns. The book mostly consists of h
is
admonitions to the Israelites against their perversion. His revelations are most
ly in the
form of proverbs or in symbolic language. It consists of 14 chapters.
28 THE BOOK OF JOEL
The Torah (Pentateuch) claims that Joel was a prophet of God. This book which
has only three chapters consists of his revelations and includes injunctions abo
ut
fasting and warnings against the evil deeds of the Israelites
29 THE BOOK OF AMOS
Amos is also said to be a prophet. In the beginning he was a shepherd in the cit
y
of Tekoa. He was made prophet by God in c.783 BC. The nine chapters of this
book are said to have been revealed to him in the reign of King Azariah. This
book comprises his admonitions to the Israelites on account of their evil deeds.
The book also predicts the invasion of Jerusalem by the king of Assyria as a
punishment from God, which is mentioned in Genesis (29:15)
30 THE BOOK OF OBADIAH
This small scripture consists of only 21verses and includes a dream of Obadiah
the Prophet. There are some predictions regarding the defeat of Adom, the enemy
of Judah.
31 THE BOOK OF JONAH
This book is said to have been revealed to the prophet Jonah. He was sent to the
people of
Nineveh. The story given by Torah is a little different from the one known by th
e
Muslims.

32 THE BOOK OF MICAH MICAH

This book is said to be from the Prophet Micah, the Morashite, who was a prophet
in the
period of the king Hezekiah c. 900 BC. He warned the Israelites of God`s wrath o
n
account of their perversion. The king, Hezekiah, acknowledged his prophethood an
d
abstained from evil deeds. (Kgs. 32 : 26)
33 THE BOOK OF NAHUM
Nahum is also regarded as a prophet by the Torah. Very little is known about his
life.
This book of 3 chapters describes a dream of Nahum which includes predictions of
the
down fall of the city of Ninveh.
34 THE BOOK OF HABAKKUK
Habakkuk is also claimed to be a Prophet by the Torah. We are not definite about
his
period. The Torah seems to put him in the period before Nebuchadnezzar`s invasio
n of
Jerusalem. This book mentions of of his dreams which admonishes the Israelites o
n their
evil deeds and predicts the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchdnezzar. It has 3
chapters.
35 THE BOOK OF ZEPHANIAH
Zephaniah is also supposed to be a prophet who was ordained by God to prophethoo
d in
the period of Josiah, the son of Amon, king of Judah. This script of 3 chapters
warns the
people of Israel against the invasion of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar.
36 THE BOOK OF HAGGAI
The script of 2 chapters is attributed to Prophet Haggai who lived in the time o
f Darius,
the king of Persia, in 500 BC, after the invasion of Nebuchadnezzar. He urged th
e
Israelites to rebuild Jerusalem and warned those who obstructed them.
37 THE BOOK OF ZECHARIAH
Zechariah was also a prophet. It should be noted here that this Zechariah is not
the one
who was been mentioned in the Holy Qur`an . He is said to be a companion of the
prophet Haggai at the time of the rebuilding of Jerusalem. This book consists mo
stly of
dreams which include prophecies regarding the future of the Israelites and the c
oming of
the prophet Jesus. It has fourteen chapters.
38 THE BOOK OF MALACHI
The Book of Malachi is ascribed to the Prophent Malachi. He is the last Prophet
of the
Old Testament. The book has 4 chapters and describes the thanklessness of the Is
raelites.
The Prophet Malachi lived about 420 years before the Prophet Jesus, the Messiah.

These thirty eight books are believed to be genuine and authentic by almost all
the
Christian. The Samaritans, however, a sect of the Jews, believed in only seven o
f them, Christian. The Samaritans, however, a sect of the Jews, believed in only
seven of them,
I.e. the five books of Moses and the book of Joshua son of Nun and the Book of J
udges.
Their name refers to the city of Samaria in Palestine. They differ from the Jews
in two
points, the acknowledged number of the Books and what constitutes a place of wor
ship.
There are nine books in this part. The authenticity of these books has been a po
int of
controversy among Christians. The Protestant faith, for instance, does not ackno
wledge
the divine origin of these books, and they have discarded them from their Bible.
They do
not form part of the King James Version of the Bible. The collection of these ni
ne books
and five other books together called Apocrypha .
1 THE BOOK OF ESTHER
Esther was a Jewish woman who was among the captives from Jerusalem in Babylon.
Ahasuerus, the king of Persia, was unhappy with his first wife and married Esthe
r. A
man, a minister of the king, had some differences with Mardochaeus, the father o
f the
Queen Esther. He plotted to destroy the Jews. Esther convinced the king to comba
t this
plot and saved the Jews. This book describes this event in 10 chapters.
2 THE BOOK OF BARUCH
Baruch was disciple and scribe of the prophet Jeremiah (Jer. 32 : 13 – 36, 36 :
4 – 32, 43
:3 – 16, 45 : 1- 3) The Protestant Bible does not include this book.
3 PART OF THE BOOK OF DANAEL
4 THE BOOK OF TOBIAS
Tobias was a Jew who had been taken to Assyria in the period of exile. The book
describes a dangerous journey made by him and his son. It also includes the even
t of his
marriage with a strange woman Sara. This book is has great literary merit.
5 THE BOOK OF JUDITH
This book is ascribed to a very brave Jewish named Judith. She saved and deliver
ed her
people from the oppression of the king of Assyria. It also includes the story of
her love.
6 WISDOM OF SOLOMON

This book is ascribed to the prophet solomon. It contains wise saying of the Pro
phet and
is similar in many ways to the Book of Proverbs. is similar in many ways to the
Book of Proverbs.
7 ECCLESIASTICUS
This is a collection of preachings and exhortations. it is attributed to Masiah,
a preacher
in c. 200 BC. This book is also of great literary merit.
8 THE FIRST BOOK OF MACCABEES
This book describes the rebellion of the tribe of the Maccabees.
9 THE SECOND BOOK OF MACCBEES
This book describe the history of a short period of time and contains some unbel
ievable
or corrupt reports.
THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
THE FIRST DIVISION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
There are twenty books in the first part of the new Testament. These twenty book
s are
believed to be genuine and authentic by the Christian.
1 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW
Matthew was one of the Twelve Disciples of the prophet Jesus. This book is consi
dered
to be the oldest of the Gospels. The book begins with the genealogy of the Proph
et Jesus.
And describes his life and teachings up until his ascension to the heavens.
2 THE GOSPEL OF MARK
Mark was a pupil of Peter, the Disciple of the Prophet Jesus. This gospel begins
with the
prophecies made by previous Prophets regarding the coming of the Prophet Jesus.
It
describes the life of Jesus up until his ascension to heaven .It consists of 16
chapters.
3 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE
Luke was a Physician and was a companion of Paul and travelled with him on his
journeys (Col. 4:14, Acts 16) He died in 70 AD. His gospel begins with the birth
of the
Prophet John “the Baptist” (whose Qur’anic name is Yahya) and covers the life of
Jesus
up until his ascension to heaven. It has 24 chapters.

4 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN

This book also begins with the birth of John the Baptist and describes the event
s from the
birth of the Prophet John to the ascension of the Prophet Jesus. It consists of
21 chapters.
It should be noted here that John the son of Zebedee, the disciple of Jesus is c
ertainly not
the author of this book. Some of the Christians claim that the author of this bo
ok may be
John the Elder, but this claim too is not supported by any historical evidence.
These four books are also called the four Evangels. Sometimes the word Evangel i
s also
used for all the books of the new Testament. The word is of Greek origin and mea
ns good
tidings and teaching.
5 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES
It is said that this script was written by Luke to Theopheus. It includes the ac
ts and
achievements of the disciples of the Prophet Jesus after his ascension. It parti
cularly
describes the journeys of Paul until his arrival in Rome in 22AD. It has 28 chap
ters.
6 EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS
This is a letter written by Paul to some of his Roman followers. Paul was a Jew
and an
enemy of the followers of Jesus in the beginnig . Some time after the ascension
of Jesus
to heaven he suddenly appeared and claimed to have received instructions from Je
sus.
7 FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE CORINTHIANS
This is Paul`s first letter to the Corinthians and it consist mostly of teaching
and
injunctions regarding unity among the Christian. At that time they were involved
in
various disputes. Chapter 7 includes some injunctions concerning matrimonial rel
ations.
In chapter 8 the evils paganism and the Christians’ attitude towards a pagan soc
iety are
discussed. The last few chapters include a discussion on atonement and the Herea
fter.
Chapter 16 describes the blessings of alms-giving and donation for Christianity.

8 SECOND EPISTLE OF PAUL OF THE CORINTHIANS

This letter was also written to the Corinthians by Paul and contains 16 chapters
. These
chapters include religious instructions, guidance, and suggestions regarding the
discipline
of the Church. From chapter 10 to the end paul speaks of his ministerial journey
s.
9 EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS
Galatia was a province of Rome in the north of Asia Minor. This letter was writt
en to the
churches of Galatia in early 57 AD. Paul had heard that the people of Galatia we
re being
influenced by another religion. In this letter he tries to prevent them from con
version.

10 EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE EPHESIANS

Ephesus was an important trading city of Asia Minor. There was a great house of
worship
there to the goddess Diana. Paul turned it into a great centre of Christianity i
n three years
of great effort. (Acts 10 : 19). In this letter he gives some moral instuctions
to the people.
11 EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS
This letter of Paul is addressed to the people of Philippi, a city of Macedonia.
This is the
first city in Europe were Paul preached Christianity. He was arrested there. Thi
s letter
includes his moral teachings and exhortations for unity among the Christians.
12 EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS
This letter of paul is addressed to the people of Colossae, a city of Asia Minor
. Paul is
encouraging them to remain Christians and calls upon them to abstain from evil d
eeds.
13 FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE THESSALONIANS
This letter of Paul was written to the people of Thessalonica, a city of the pro
vence of
Macedonia which is a part of Greece today. He discusses, in this letter, the pri
nciples
which bring about God`s pleasure. It also speaks of other subjects. It has 5 cha
pters.
14 SECOND EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE THESSALONIANS
This letter, containig only 3 chapters, offers, Paul`s encouragement to the Thes
salonians
on their good deeds and some instructions regarding their general behaviour.
15 FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE TIMOTHY
Timothy was a pupil and disciple of Paul. (Acts 14: 17, 16 : 1-3) Paul had great
trust and
admiration for him (Cor. 16: 10 and Phil. 2:19). The letter contains description
s regarding
rituals and ethics.
16 SECOND EPISTLE OF PAUL TO TIMOTHY
This second letter to Timothy speaks of certain people who had converted to othe
r
religions and also includes instructions to Timothy about preaching and also som
e
predictions for the last ages. It has 4 chapters.
16. EPISTLE OF PAUL TO TITUS
Titus was also a companion of Paul on some of his journeys (Cal. 2: 1). Paul had
great
love for him (Cor. 2: 13). Paul left him in Crete so that he could preach there.
This letter
had 3 chapters and gives preaching instructions and details of the prerequisites
of
bishops. bishops.
18 EPISTLE OF PAUL TO PHILEMON
Philemon was also a companion of Paul and had travelled with him. The letter was
written by Paul when he sent Onesimus to Philemon (Phil. 1: 10)
19 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER
Peter was one of the closest apostles of Jesus. The study of the New Testament s
hows
that Paul had some differences with him in later years. The letter was addressed
to the
Christians who were scattered throughout the northern part of Asia Minor i.e. th
e people
of Poutus, Galatia, Cappadocia and Bithynia. The main purpose of the letter was
to
encourage the readers who were facing persecution and suffering for their faith.

20 FIST LETTER OF JOHN

SECOND DIVISION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
In this division of the new Testament there are seven books. The genuineness and
divinity of these books is doubted and debated by the Christians. Some lines for
m the
first letter of John are also not believed to be authentic.
21 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE HEBREWS
The Jews are also called the Hebrews. The word has an association with `Aber` a
title
given to the Prophet Jacob. Hebrews is also used for Christians. The letter was
addressed
to a group of Christians who were on the way to abandoning the Christian faith.
The
writer encourages them in their faith.
22 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER
This letter from Peter is addressed to the early Christians. Its main concern is
to combat
the work of false teachers and false prophets. It also speaks of the final retur
n of the
Messiah.
23 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF JOHN
The second letter of John was written by John to the “dear Lady and her children
”.
According to the Christians the “lady probably stands for the local church.
24 THE THIRD EPISTLE OF JOHN

This letter was addressed to Gaius, one of the pupils of John and a church leade
r. The
writer praises the reader for his help to other Christians, and warns against a
man called
Diotrephes.
writer praises the reader for his help to other Christians, and warns against a
man called
Diotrephes.
25 THE GENERAL EPISTLE OF JAMES
This James is not the apostle James, the son of Zebedee and brother of John The
writer is
James, the son of Joseph the carpenter. He is frequently mentioned in the Book o
f Acts.
The letter is a collection of practical instructions and emphasizes the importan
ce of
actions guided by faith.
26 THE GENERAL EPISTLE OF JUDE
Jude is a brother of the James who was one of the 12 apostles. He is mentioned i
n John
14 : 22. The letter was written to warn against false teachers who claimed to be
believers.
Jude is not the Judas who is said to have betrayed Jesus.
27 THE REVELATION
The revelation of John is a collection of visions and revelations written in sym
bolic
language. Its main concern is to give its readers hope and encouragement in thei
r
suffering for faith.

It is important to note that in 325 a great conference of Christian theologians

and
religious scholars was convened in the city of Nicaea under the order of the Emp
eror
Constantine to examine and define the status of these books. After thorough inve
stigation
it was decided that the Epistle of Jude was genuine and believable. The rest of
these
books were declared doubtful. This was explicitly mentioned by Jerome in his
introduction to his book.
Another council was held in 364 in Liodicia for the same purpose. This conferenc
e of
Christian scholars and theologians not only confirmed the decision of the counci
l of
Nicaea regarding the authenticity of the Epistle of Jude but also declared that
the
following six books must also be added to the list of genuine and believable boo
ks: The
book of Esther, The Epistle Of James, The Second Epistle of Peter, The Second an
d
Third Epistles of John, The Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews. This conference pron
ounced
their decision to the public. The book of Revelations, however, remained out of
the list of
the acknowledged books in both the councils.

In 397 another great conference was held called the Council of Carthage. Augusti
ne, the
great Christian scholar, was among the one hundred and twenty six learned partic
ipants.
The members of this council confirmed the decisions of the two previous Councils
and
also added the following books to the list of the divine books : The Book of the
Songs of
Solomon, The Book of Tobit, The Book of Baruch, Ecclesiasticus, The First and Se
cond
Books of Maccabees.
lled the Council of Carthage. Augustine, the
great Christian scholar, was among the one hundred and twenty six learned partic
ipants.
The members of this council confirmed the decisions of the two previous Councils
and
also added the following books to the list of the divine books : The Book of the
Songs of
Solomon, The Book of Tobit, The Book of Baruch, Ecclesiasticus, The First and Se
cond
Books of Maccabees.
At the same time the members of this council decided that the book of Baruch was
a part
of the book of Jeremiah because Baruch was the deputy of Jeremiah. Therefore the
y did
not include the name of this book separately in the list.
Three more conferences were held after this in Trullo, Florence and Trent. The m
embers
of these meetings confirmed the decision of the Council of Carthage. The last tw
o
councils, however, wrote the name of the book of Baruch separately.
After these councils nearly all the books which had been doubtful among Christia
ns were
included in the list of acknowledged books.

The status of these books remained unchanged until the Protestant Reformation. T
he
Protestants repudiated the decisions of the councils and declared that the follo
wing books
were essentially to be rejected: The Book of Baruch, The Book of Tobit, The Lett
er of
Jude, The song of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, The First and Second Books of Maccabe
es.
They excluded these books from the list of acknowledged books.
Moreover, the Protestants also rejected the decision of their forbears regarding
some
chapters of the book of Esther. This book consists of 16 chapters. They decided
that the
first nine chapters and three verses from chapter 10 were essentially to to be r
ejected.
They based their decision on the following six reasons:
1 These works were considered to be false even in the original Hebrew and Chalda
ean
languages which were no longer available.
2 The Jews did not acknowledge them as revealed books.
3 All the Christians have not acknowledged them as believable.
4 Jerome said that these books were not reliable and were insufficient to prove
and
support the doctrines of the faith.
5 Klaus has openly said that these books were recited but not in every place.

6 Eusebius specifically said in chapter 22 of his fourth book that these books h
ave been
tampered with, and changed .In particular the Second book of Maccabees.
Eusebius specifically said in chapter 22 of his fourth book that these books hav
e been
tampered with, and changed .In particular the Second book of Maccabees.
Reasons Nos. 1, 2, and 6 are particularly to be noted by the readers as self-suf
ficient
evidence of the dishonesty and perjury of the earlier Christians. Books which ha
d been
lost in the original and which only existed in translation were erroneously ackn
owledged
by thousands of theologians as divine revelation. This state of affairs leads a
non-
Christian reader to distrust the unanimous decisions of Christian scholars of bo
th the
Catholic and the Protestant persuasions. The followers of Catholic faith still b
elieve in
these books in blind pursuance of their forebears.
It is a prerequisite of believing in a certain book as divinelyrevealed that it
is proved
through infallible arguments that the book in question was revealed through a pr
ophet
and that it has been conveyed to us precisely in the same order without any chan
ge
through an uninterrupted chain of narrators. It is not at all sufficient to attr
ibute a book to
a certain prophet on the basis of suppositions and conjectures. Unsupported asse
rtions
made by one or a few sects of people should not be, and cannot be, accepted in t
his
connection.
We have already seen how Catholic and Protestant scholars differ on the question
of the
authenticity of certain of these books. There are yet more books of the Bible wh
ich have
been rejected by Christians. They include the Book of Revelation, the Book of Ge
nesis,
the Book of Ascension, the Book of Mysteries, the Book of Testament and the Book
of
Confession which are all ascribed to the Prophet Moses. Similarly a fourth Book
of E zra
is claimed to be from the Prophet Ezra and a book concerning Isaiah’s ascension
and
revelation are ascribed to him. In addition to the known book of Jeremiah, there
is
another book attributed to him. There are numerous sayings which are claimed to
be from
the Prophet Habakkuk. There are many songs which are said to be from the Prophet
Solomon. There more than 70 books, other than the present ones, of the new Testa
ment,
which are ascribed to Jesus, Mary, the apostles and their disciples.
The Christians of this age have claimed that these books are false and are forge
ries. The
Greek Church, Catholic church and the Protestant Church are unanimous on this po
int.
Similarly the Greek Church claims that the third book of Ezra is a part of the O
ld
Testament and believes it to have been written by the Prophet Ezra, while the Pr
otestant
and Catholic Churches have declared it false and fabricated. We have already see
n the
controversy of the Catholics and Protestants regarding the books of Baruch, Tobi
t, Jude,
the Song of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus and both the books of Maccabees. A part of t
he
book of Esther is believable to the Catholics but essentially rejected by the Pr
otestants.
In this kind of situation it seems absurd and beyond the bounds of reason to acc
ept and
acknowledge a book simply for the reason that it has been ascribed to a prophet
by a
group of scholars without concrete support. Many times we have demanded renowned
Christian scholars to produce the names of the whole chain of narrators right fr
om the
author of the book to prove their claim but they were unable to so. At a public
debate
held in India, one of the famous missionaries confessed to the truth that the ab
sence of

authoritative support for those books was due to the distress and calamities of
the
Christians in the first three hundred and thirteen years of their history. We ou
rselves
examined and probed into their books and took great pains to find any such autho
rities
but our findings did not lead beyond conjecture and presumption. Our impartial s
earch in
the sources of their books showed that most of their assertions are based on not
hing but
presumptions.
Christians in the first three hundred and thirteen years of their history. We ou
rselves
examined and probed into their books and took great pains to find any such autho
rities
but our findings did not lead beyond conjecture and presumption. Our impartial s
earch in
the sources of their books showed that most of their assertions are based on not
hing but
presumptions.
It has already been said that presumption and conjecture are of no avail in this
matter. It
would be quite justified on our part if we refused to believe in these books unt
il we had
been given some arguments and authorities to prove their genuineness and authent
icity.
However, for the sake of truth, we still go forward to discuss and examine the a
uthority
of these books in this chapter. It is quite unnecessary to discuss the authority
of each and
every book of the Bible and we intend to examine only some of them.

The Book Of Moses

The Pentateuch (Torah) included in the Old Testament is claimed to be the collec
tion of
the revelations of the Prophet Moses. We firmly claim that the books of Pentateu
ch do
not possess any authority or support to prove that they were in fact revealed to
Moses and
that they were written by him or through him. We possess sound arguments to supp
ort
our claim.
THE FIRST ARGUMENT:
The existence of the Torah, Pentateuch, is not historically known before King Jo
siah, the
son of Amon. The script of the Pentateuch which was found by a priest called Hil
kiah 18
years after Josiah`s ascension to throne is not believable solely on the grounds
that it was
found by a priest Apart from this obvious fact, this book had again disappeared
before the
invasion of Jerusalem by Nebuchdnezzar
Not only the Pentateuch, but also all the books of the Old Testament were destro
yed in
this historical calamity. History does not evince any evidence of the existence
of these
books after this invasion
According to the Christians the Pentateuch was rewritten by the Prophet Ezra.
This book along with its copies were again destroyed and burnt by Antiochus at t
he time
of his invasion of Jerusalem.
THE SECOND ARGUMENT:

It is an accepted notion of all Jewish and Christian scholars that the First and
Second
books of Chronicles were rewritten by Ezra with help of the Prophets Haggai and
Zechariah, but we note that the seventh and eighth chapters of this book consist
of
descriptions of the descendants of Benjamin which are mutually contradictory. Th
ese
descriptions also contradict statements in the Pentateuch, firstly in the names,
and
secondly in counting the number of the descendants. In chapter 7 we read that Be
njamin
had three sons and in chapter 8 we find that he had five sons while the Pentateu
ch claims
that he had ten sons
books of Chronicles were rewritten by Ezra with help of the Prophets Haggai and
Zechariah, but we note that the seventh and eighth chapters of this book consist
of
descriptions of the descendants of Benjamin which are mutually contradictory. Th
ese
descriptions also contradict statements in the Pentateuch, firstly in the names,
and
secondly in counting the number of the descendants. In chapter 7 we read that Be
njamin
had three sons and in chapter 8 we find that he had five sons while the Pentateu
ch claims
that he had ten sons
Both the Christian and the Jewish scholars are unanimous on the point that the s
tatement
made by the First Book of Chronicles is erroneous, and they have justified this
error by
saying that the Prophet Ezra could not distinguish and separate the sons from th
e
grandsons, because the genealogical tables from which he had quoted were defecti
ve and
incomplete.
It is true that three prophets (who wrote the Pentateuch) were necessarily since
re
followers of the Pentateuch . Now if we assume that the Pentateuch of Moses was
the
same one written by these Prophets, it seems quite illogical that they should de
viate and
or make mistakes in the divine book, neither was it possible that Ezra would hav
e
wrongly trusted an incomplete and defective table of genealogy in a matter of su
ch
importance.
Had the Pentateuch written by Ezra been the same famous Pentateuch, they would h
ave
not deviated from it. These evidences lead us to believe that the present Pentat
euch was
neither the one revealed to Moses and written down by him nor the one written by
Ezra
by inspiration. In fact, it is a collection of stories and traditions which were
current
among the Jews, and written down by their scholars without a critical view to th
eir
authorities.
Their claim that three prophets committed mistakes in copying the names and numb
er of
the sons of Benjamin leads us to another obvious conclusion that, according to t
he
Christians, the prophets are not protected from wrong action and can be involved
in
committing major sins, similarly they can make mistakes in writing or preaching
the holy
books.
THE THIRD ARGUMENT:
Any reader of the Bible making a comparison between chapters 45 and 46 of the bo
ok of
Ezekiel, and chapters 28 and 29 of the Book of Numbers, will find that they cont
radict
each other in religious doctrine. It is obvious that the prophet Ezekiel was the
follower of
the doctrines of the Pentateuch. If we presume that Ezekiel had the present Pent
ateuch
how could he have acted upon those doctrines without deviating from it.

Similarly we find in various books of the Pentateuch the statement that the sons
will be
accountable for the sins committed by their fathers up until three generations.
Contrary to
sons will be
accountable for the sins committed by their fathers up until three generations.
Contrary to
this, the Book of Ezekiel (18 : 20) says, “Son shall not bear the iniquity of th
e father,
neither shall father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righ
teous shall be
upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him”.
This verse implies that no-one will be punished for the sin of others. And this
is the
Truth. The Holy Qur`an has confirmed it. It says:
“No bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another.”
THE FOURTH ARGUMENT:
The study of the books of Psalms, Nehemiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel testifies to th
e fact
that the style of writing in that age was similar to the present style of Muslim
authors;
that is to say, readers can easily distinguish between the personal observations
of the
author and his quotations from other writers.
The Pentateuch in particular, is very different in style, and we do not find eve
n a single
place to indicate that the author of this book was Moses. On the contrary it lea
ds us to
believe that the author of the books of the Pentateuch is someone else who was m
aking a
collection of current stories and customs of the Jews. However, in order to sepa
rate the
statements which he thought were the statements of God and Moses, he prefixed th
em
with the phrases, “God says”or “Moses said”. The third person has been used for
Moses
in every place. Had it been the book of Moses, he would have used the first pers
on for
himself. At least there would have been one place where we could find Moses spea
king
in the first person. It would certainly have made the book more respectable and
trustworthy to its followers. It must be agreed that a statement made in the fir
st person by
the author carries more weight and value than his statement made by someone else
in the
third person. Statements in the first person cannot be refuted without powerful
arguments,
while statements in the third person require to be proved true by the one who wi
shes to
attribute those statements to the author.
THE FIFTH ARGUMENT:
The present Pentateuch includes within its chapters some statements which are
historically impossible to attribute to Moses. Some verses explicitly denote tha
t the
author of this book cannot have existed prior to the Prophet David but must eith
er be a
contemporary of David of later than him.
The Christian scholars have tried to justify the opinion that these sentences we
re added
later on by certain prophets. But this is merely a false assumption which is not
supported

by any argument. Moreover, no prophet of the Bible has ever mentioned that he ha
s
added a sentence to a certain chapter of a certain book. Now unless these chapte
rs and
sentences are not proved through infallible arguments to have been added by a pr
ophet
they remain the writings of someone other than the Prophet Moses.
y argument. Moreover, no prophet of the Bible has ever mentioned that he has
added a sentence to a certain chapter of a certain book. Now unless these chapte
rs and
sentences are not proved through infallible arguments to have been added by a pr
ophet
they remain the writings of someone other than the Prophet Moses.
THE SIXTH ARGUMENT:
The author of Khulasa Saiful-Muslimeen has quoted from volume 10 of Penny
Encyclopaedia (which we reproduce here from Urdu) that Dr Alexander Gides, an
acknowledged Chritstian writer, has said in his introduction to the New Bible:
“I have come to know three things beyond doubt through some convincing arguments
:
1 The present Pentateuch in not the book of Moses.
2 This book was written either in Cana`an or Jerusalem. That is to say, it was n
ot written
during the period when the Israelites were living in the wilderness of the deser
t.
3 Most probably this book was written in the period of the Prophet Solomon, that
is,
around one thousand years before Christ, the period of the poet Homer. In short,
its
composition can be proved to be about five hundred years after the death of Mose
s.
THE SEVENTH ARGUMENT:
Norton, a learned Christian scholar has said, (we reproduce here an abridgement
translated from Urdu).
“There appears no appreciable difference between the node of expression of the
Pentateuch and the idiom of the other books of the Old Testment which were writt
en after
the release of the Israelites from the captivity of Babylon, while they are sepa
rated by not
less than nine hundred years from each other. Human experience testifies to the
fact that
languages are influenced and change rapidly with the passing of time. For exampl
e, if we
compare current English language with the language of four hundred years ago we
notice
a considerable difference in style, expression and idiom between the two languag
es. By
the absence of this difference in the language of these books Luselen, a learned
scholar,
who had great command over Hebrew language assumed that all these books were
written in one and the same period.
THE EIGHTH ARGUMENT:

We read in the book of Deuteronomy (27: 5) “And there shalt thou build an altar
unto the
Lord, thy God, an altar of stones. Thou shalt not lift up any iron tool upon the
m. And
thou shall write upon the stones all the work of this law very plainly.”
This verse appears in Persian translation published in 1835 in these words:
“And write all the words of the Pentateuch (Torah) on the stones very clearly.”
In the
Persian translation of 1845, it appears like this:
“Write the words of this Torah (Pentateuch) on the stones in bright letters.”
And the book of Joshua says:
“Then Joshua built an altar unto the Lord God of Israel in Mount Ebal, as Moses,
 the
servant of the Lord commanded the children of Israel.” (8 : 30, 31)
And verse 32 of the same chapter contains:
“And he wrote there upon the stones a copy of the law of Moses which he wrote in
the
presence of the children of Israel.”
(Josh. 8 : 32).
All these extracts sufficiently show that the laws of Moses or the Pentateuch wa
s just as
much as could be written on the stones of an altar.
Now if we presume that it is the present Pentateuch that is referred to in the a
bove verses
this would be impossible.
THE NINTH ARGUMENT:
Norton, a missionary, said, “Writing was not in vogue in the time of Moses, “ind
icating
that if writing was not in use in the period of Moses, he could not be the autho
r of the
Pentateuch. If the authentic books of history confirm his statement this can be
a powerful
argument in this connection. This statement is also supported by the book “Engli
sh
History” printed by Charles Dallin Press, London in 1850. It says “The people of
the past
ages used to scribble on plates of copper, wood and wax, with needles of iron an
d brass
of pointed bones. After this the Egyptians made use of the leaves of the papyrus
reed. It
was not until the 8th century that paper was mace from cloth. The pen was invent
ed in the
seventh century AD.”
If this historian is acceptable to Christians, the claim made by Norton is suffi
ciently
confirmed.

THE TENTH ARGUMENT:

The present Pentateuch contains a large number of errors while the words of the
Prophet
Moses must have been free of this defect. Genesis 46:15 says:
“These be the sons of Leah which she bore unto Jacob in Padanaram with his daugh
ter
Dinah: all the souls of his cons and daughters were thirty and three”
The figure 33 is wrong. The correct number is 34. The famous commentator Horsely
also
admitted this mistake. He said :
“If you count the names, including Diana, the total comes to 34 and Dianah must
be
included as is evident form the number of the sons of Zilpha, because Sarah was
one of
the sixteen.
Similarly the Book of Deuteronomy 23 : 2 contains this statement:
“A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord, even to his tenth
generation
shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord.”
This statement is also not correct. On the basis of this statement the Prophet D
avid and all
his ancestors up to Perez would be excluded from the congregation of the Lord be
cause
Perez was an illegitimate son of Judah. This is quite evident form the descripti
on in
chapter 38 of the Book of Genesis. And the Prophet David happens to be in his te
nth
Generation according to the genealogical descriptions of Jesus in the Gospels of
Matthew
and Luke. Needless to say that the Prophet David was the leader of the congregat
ion of
the Lord, and according to the Psalms of David he was the first born of God.

Israelites`s Number
We read in the book of Numbers (1:45-47) this statement:
“So were all those that were numbered of the Children of Israel,
by the house of their fathers, from twenty years old and upward all that were ab
le to go
forth to war in Israel; even all they that were numbered were six hundred thousa
nd and
three thousand and five hundred and fifty. But the Levites after the tribe of th
eir fathers
were not number among them.”

These verses imply that the number of fighting people of the Israelites was more
than six
hundred thousand. This number excludes the men, women and children of the Levi T
ribe
and all the women of the other tribes of the Israelites and all those men who we
re under
twenty years of age. If we include the number of all the people of Israelites ex
cluded
from this enumeration, their total should not be less than twenty-five hundred t
housand.
This statement is wrong for five reasons.
ting people of the Israelites was more than six
hundred thousand. This number excludes the men, women and children of the Levi T
ribe
and all the women of the other tribes of the Israelites and all those men who we
re under
twenty years of age. If we include the number of all the people of Israelites ex
cluded
from this enumeration, their total should not be less than twenty-five hundred t
housand.
This statement is wrong for five reasons.
THE FIRST REASON.
The total number of men and women of the Israelites was seventy at the time of t
heir
arrival in Egypt. This is evident from Genesis 46 : 27, Exodus 1 ;5 and Deuteron
omy 10:
22. The greatest possible period of their stay in Egypt is 215 years. It can not
be more.
It has been mentioned in the first chapter of the Book of Exodus that the sons o
f the
people of Israel were killed and their daughters left to live, 89 years before t
heir
liberation from Egypt.
Now keeping in mind their total number at their arrival in Egypt, the duration o
f their
stay in Egypt, and the killing of their sons by the King, if we assume that afte
r every
twenty five years they doubled in number and their sons were not killed at all,
even then
their number would not reach twenty-five thousand in the period of their stay in
Egypt let
alone twenty-five hundred thousand. If we keep in view the killing of their sons
, this
number becomes a physical impossibility.
THE SECOND REASON:
It must be far from the truth that their number increased from seventy to twenty
-five
hundred thousand in such a short period, while they were subjected to the worst
kind of
persecution and hardships by the king of Egypt. In comparison, the Egyptians who
enjoyed all the comforts of life did not increase at that rate.
The Israelites lived a collective life in Egypt. If they are believed to have be
en more than
twenty-five hundred thousand it would be a unique example in human history that
a
population of this size is oppressed and persecuted and their sons killed before
their eyes
without a sigh of resistance and rebellion from them. Even animals fight and res
ist to
save their offspring.
THE THIRD REASON:
The Book of Exodus chapter 12taken with them the cattle herds and flocks, and th
e same
book also informs us that they crossed the river in a single night; and that the
y used to
travel every day and that Moses used to give them verbal orders to march.
THE FOURTH REASON:

If the number were correct it would necessitate that they had a place for their
camp large
enough to accommodate twenty-five hundred thousand of people along with their he
rds
of cattle. The fact is that the area surrounding Mount Sinai, and the area of th
e twelve
springs in Elim are not sufficiently large to have accommodated the Israelites a
nd their
cattle.
enough to accommodate twenty-five hundred thousand of people along with their he
rds
of cattle. The fact is that the area surrounding Mount Sinai, and the area of th
e twelve
springs in Elim are not sufficiently large to have accommodated the Israelites a
nd their
cattle.
THE FIFTH REASON:
We find the following statement in Deuteronomy 7:22.
“And the Lord, thy God will put out those nations before thee by little and litt
le: thou
mayest not consume them at once, lest the beasts of the field increase upon thee
”.
It is geographecally true that Palestine extended nearly 200 miles in length and
ninety in
breadth. Now, if the number of the Israelites was really twenty-five hundred tho
usand,
and they had captured Palestine after killing all its residents all at once, how
was it
possible for the beasts to have overcome the number of the Israelites, because h
ad they
been much less in number than stated, even then, they would have been enough to
populate such a small area.
Ibn Khaldun, also refuted this number in his “Muqaddimma” Saying that, according
to
the researches made by the scholars, the gap between Israel and Moses is only th
ree
generations. It is unbelievable that in a period of only three generations they
could
increase to that number.
In view of the above arguments, it is obvious that the People of the Book “(The
Christians and the Jews do not possess any arguments to prove their claim that t
he books
of the Pentateuch were written or conveyed by the Prophet Moses.
It is, therefore, not binding upon us to believe in these books until irrefutabl
e arguments
to support their claim.
We have already seen that the Pentateuch, which enjoys the status of being a fun
damental
book of the Christian faith, cannot be proved to be authentic and believable. Le
t us now
proceed to find out the truth about the Book of Joshua, the next book in importa
nce.
First of all, the name of the author of this book is not known with certainty, a
nd the
period of its composition is also unknown.
The Christian scholars profess five different opinions:

1. Gerrard, Diodat Huet, Albert Patrick, Tomlin and Dr Gray believe that it was
written
by the Prophet Joshua himself.
2. Dr Lightfoot claims that Phineas is the author of this book.
3. Calvin says that it was written by Eleazer.
4. Moldehaur and Van Til believe it to have been written by Samuel.
5. Henry claimed that it was written by the Prophet Jeremiah.
Readers should note the contradictory opinions of these Christian scholars, espe
cially
keeping in mind the fact that Joshua and Jeremiah are separated by a period of 8
50 years.
The presence of this great difference in opinion is, in itself, a strong evidenc
e that the
book is not believed to be authentic by them. Their opinions are generally based
on their
calculations supported by some vague notions indicating that a certain person mi
ght be
the author of a certain book. If we make a comparison between Joshua 15: 63 and
Samuel
5: 6-8, it is quite clear that this book was written before the seventh year of
the ascension
of the Prophet David to the throne. Joshua 15; 63 says,”As for the Jebusites the

inhabitants of Jerusalem, the children of Israel could not drive them out; but t
he Jebusites
dwell with the children of Judah at Jjuresalem unto this day”. The above stateme
nt may
be compared with the statement made by the Second Book of Samuel which confirms
that the Jebusites were living in Jerusalem up until the seventy year of the asc
ension of
David to throne (5: 6-8),the author of Joshua`s statement said that the Jebusite
s dwelt in
Jerusalem “unto this day “meaning the seventh year of David`s ascension to thron
e. This
clearly implies that the author belonged to that period.
Similarly the same book includes this statement, “And they drove not out the Can
aanites
that dwelt in Gezer, but the Canaanites dwell among the Ephraimites unto this da
y.” We
find another statement in I King 9:16 that the Pharaoh had driven out the Canaan
ites from
Gezer in the time of Solomon. This leads to the conclusion that the book was wri
tten
before the time of Solomon. G.T. Menley has therefore admitted that a comparison
of
Josh. 15:63 with 2 Samuel 5:7-9 and of Josh. 16:10, with I Kings 9:16 leads to t
he
conclusion that this book was written before Rehobo`aam. See 2-Samuel 1:18
In view of this evidence, it is logical to conclude that the author of the book
of Joshua
must have lived after the Prophet David.
THE STATUS OF THE BOOK OF JUDGES
The book of Judges is the third most respected book of the Old Testament. Again
we are
faced by a great difference of opinion regarding the author of the book and the
possible
period of its compilation.

Some Christian writers claim it to be the book of Phineas, while some other beli
eve it to
have been written by Hezekiah. In neither of these cases can it be said to be a
revealed
book because neither Phineas nor Hezekiah are Prophets. Hezekiah was the King of
Judah. (2 Kings 18 and Chr.32)
have been written by Hezekiah. In neither of these cases can it be said to be a
revealed
book because neither Phineas nor Hezekiah are Prophets. Hezekiah was the King of
Judah. (2 Kings 18 and Chr.32)
Some other writers have asserted that this book was written by Ezra. It may be n
oted that
difference of time between Ezra and Phineas is not less than nine hundred years.

This difference of opinion could not arise if the Christians possessed any real
evidence
concerning it. According to the Jews all these claims and assertions are wrong.
They, on
the basis of conjecture, attribute it to Samuel. So there are six different opin
ions about it.
THE BOOK OF THE RUTH
This book, too, is the subject of great differences of opinion. Some Christians
think that it
was written by Hezekiah, in which case it is not a revealed book. Some others ho
ld the
opinion that the author of this book is Ezra. All other Christians and the Jews
attribute it
to Samuel.
It is stated in the introduction to the Bible printed in Strasbourg in 1819 that
the book of
Ruth is a collection of family stories and the Book of Job is only a tale.
THE BOOK OF NEHEMIAH
The same kind of difference is present regarding the author and the period of th
is book.
The most popular opinion is that it was written by Nehemiah. Athanasius, Epiphan
ius and
Chrysostome believe it to have been written by Ezre. According to popular opinio
n it
cannot be accepted as a revealed book.
The first 26 verses of chapter 12 are different from the rest of the book of Neh
emiah
since in the first eleven chapters Nehemiah is referred to in the first person,
while in this
chapter the third person is used for no apparent reason. Furthermore, we find Da
rius, the
King of Persia being mentioned in verse 22 of the same chapter, when in fact he
lived one
hundred years after the death of Nehemiah. The Christian commentators have to de
clare
this anomaly as a later addition. The Arabic translator of the Bible has omitted
it
altogether.
THE BOOK OF JOB
The history of the book of Job is even more obscure and uncertain than the other
books.
There are about twenty-four contradictory opinions regarding its name and preiod
.
Maimonides, a celebrated scholar and Rabbi of the Jews, Michael, Leclerc, Semler
,
Hock, Isnak and other Christians insist that Job is a fictitious name and the bo
ok of Job is

no more than a fiction. Theodore has also condemned it. Luther, the leader of th
e
Protestant faith, holds it as purely a fictitious story.
a fiction. Theodore has also condemned it. Luther, the leader of the
Protestant faith, holds it as purely a fictitious story.
The book has been attributed to various names on the basis of conjecture. Howeve
r if we
assume that the book was written by Elihu or by a certain unknown person who was
a
contemporary of Manasse, it is not acceptable as a prophetic and revealed text.
THE PSALMS OF DAVID
The history of this book, too, is similar to the history of the book of Job. We
do not find
any documentary evidence to show a particular man to be its writer. The period o
f
collection of all the psalms is also not known. Whether the names of the Psalms
are
Prophetic or not is also unknown. The ancient Christians have different opinions
about it.
The writers, Origen, Chrysostome and Augustine believe it to have been written b
y the
Prophet David himself. On the other hand, writers like Hilary, Athanasius, Jerom
e and
Eusebius have strictly refuted this. Horne says:
“Undoubtedly the former statement is altogether wrong.
According to the opinion of the latter group, more than thirty psalms are from u
nknown
authors. Ten psalms from 90 to 99 are supposed to be from Moses and a seventy-on
e
paslms are claimed to be from David . Psalm 88 is atteibuted to Heman and 89 to
Ethan,
while Psalms 72 and 177 are said to be from Solomon, And three psalms are believ
ed to
be from Jeduthun and one hundred and twenty psalms from Asaph , but some Christi
ans
refute that Psalms 74 and 79 are written by him. Eleven psalms are supposed to h
ave
been written by three sons of kore.
Some writers even think that the author of these psalms to the various writers c
oncerned,
while yet others of the psalms were written by another unknown persom. Calmat sa
ys
that only forty-five psalms were written by Daved, while the rest are by other p
eople.
The ancient Jewish scholars enumerate the following names as the writers of the
Psalms:
the Prophets Adam, Abraham, Moses; and Asaph, Heman, Jeduthun and the three sons
of
Kore. David only having collected them togther. According to them David, himself
is not
the author of any of the Psalms; he is just the collector of them.
Horne said that the judgement of modem Christian and Jewish scholars is that thi
s book
was written by the following authors: the Prophets Moses, David and Solomon; and
Asaph, Aeman, Ethan, Jeduthun and the three sons of kore.
The same contradiction and confusion is found regarding the period of its compil
ation.
Some scholars hold them to have been written and compiled in the time of David;
some
believed that they were collected by some friends of Hzekiah in his period; whil
e some
others think that they were compiled in different periods. Similar differences a
re also

expressed about the names of the Psalms. Some claim that they are revealed, whil
e others
think that someone who was not a prophet had called them with these names.
thers
think that someone who was not a prophet had called them with these names.
Psalm 72, verse 20 says, ``the Prayers of David, the son of Jesse are ended. ``T
his verse
has been omitted in the Arabic translations apparently with the purpose of suppo
rting the
opinion of the first group that the whole Book of Psalms was written by the Prop
het
David. On the other hand it is also possible that this verse might have been add
ed later to
support the second group’s opinion that the Prophet David was not the author of
this
book. In both cases the distortion of the text is proved either by omission of t
his verse or
by addition of it.
THE BOOK OF PROVERBS
The condition of this book, too, is not much different from the books we have di
scussed
so for. A few writers have claimed that the author of this whole book is the Pro
phet
Solomon himself. This claim is false because of variations in linguistic idioms
and style,
and repetition of several verses found in this book.
Apart from this the first verses of chapters 30 and 31 also refute this assumpti
on.
Even if we accept that some part of this book could have been written by Solomon
which
is possibly true for 29 chapter, these were not collected or compiled in is his
period
because there is no doubt that several of them were collected by Hezekiah as is
evident
from 25:1:
``These are also proverbs of Solomon, which the men of Hezekiah, King of Judah,
copied
out.``
This was done 270 years after the death of Solomon.
Some writers are of the opinion that the first nine chapters of the book were no
t written
by Solomon. Chapters 30 and 31 are attributed to Agur and Lemuel, as cited, but
strangely the nor are they sure of their being prophets.
On the basis of their usual presumptions they hold that they were Prophets. Howe
ver, this
kind of conjecture is not acceptable to an impartial reader. Some of them think
that
Lemuel is the second name of Solomon, but Henry and Scott state:
``Holden has rejected the assumption that Lemuel was another name of Solomon, an
d he
has proved that Lemuel was a separate person. Perhaps he has got sufficient proo
f that the
book of Lemuel and the book of Agur are revealed books. Otherwise they could hav
e not
been included in the canonical books.``
Adam Clarke says in his commentary:
``This claim is not supported by any evidence that Lemuel was Solomon. This chap
ter
was written a long period after his death. The idioms of the Chaldean language t
hat are
found in the beginning of this book also refute this claim.``
supported by any evidence that Lemuel was Solomon. This chapter
was written a long period after his death. The idioms of the Chaldean language t
hat are
found in the beginning of this book also refute this claim.``
And he comments on chapter 31:
``Certainly this chapter could not have been written by Solomon. ``
Verse 25 of this chapter says:
``there are also proverbs of Solomon which the men of Hezekiah copied out. ``
Verse 30 in the Persian version of the Bible printed 1838 says:
``The words Agur, the son of Jakeh, even the Prophecy: the man spoken unto Ithie
l and
Ucal. ``
And the Bible printed in the Persian language in 1845 contains this:
``The word of Acur, son of Jafa, were such that the man spoke unto Ithiel, even
Ithiel and
Ucal. ``
The majority of writers have admitted that the book was compiled by many people
including Hezekiah, Isaiah and perhaps Ezra.
THE BOOK OF ECCLESIASTES
This book, too has a history of serious differences. Some writers have claimed t
hat its
author was Solomon. Rabbi kammchi, a famous Jewish scholar, said that it was wri
tten
by Isaiah. The scholars of the Talmud attribute it to Hezekiah while Grotius say
s that this
book was written by Zorobabel for his son, Ebihud. John, a Christian scholar, an
d some
German scholars calculate it to have been written after the release of the Israe
lites from
Babylon.
THE BOOK OF THE SONG OF SOLOMON
The history of this book is even more obscure and uncertain. Some of the writers
attribute
it to the Prophet Solomon or some person belonging to his time. Dr Kennicot and
some
writers coming after him and the opinion that the claim of its being written by
Solomon
was historically wrong and that it was written a long time after his death. Theo
dore, a
missionary who lived in the fifth century AD, strictly condemned his book and th
e Book
of Job, while Simon and Leclerc did not acknowledge it as a genuine book. Whisto
n said

it was a foul song and should be excluded from the holy books of the Old Testame
nt.
Some others have made the same judgement about it. Semler holds it as a forged a
nd
fabricated book. The Catholic, Ward, has pointed out that Castilio declared it t
o be a vile
song decided that it should be excluded from the books of the Old Testament.
Some others have made the same judgement about it. Semler holds it as a forged a
nd
fabricated book. The Catholic, Ward, has pointed out that Castilio declared it t
o be a vile
song decided that it should be excluded from the books of the Old Testament.
THE BOOK OF DANIEL
The Greek Translation, the Latin translation and all the translations of the Rom
an
Catholics include the Song of Three Children and chapter 13 and 14 of this book.
The
Roman Catholic faith acknowledges this song and the two chapters, but the Protes
tants
disapprove of it and do not consider it genuine.
THE BOOK OF ESTHER
The name of the writer of this book as well as the time of its compilation is un
known.
Christian scholars believe that it was written by scholars living in the period
between
Ezra and Simon. A Jewish Scholar Phlion claims that it was written by Jehoiachin
, the
son of Joshua,who had come to Jerusalem after the release from Babylon. St Augus
tine
believed it to be a book of Ezra. Some other writers attribute it to Murdoch and
Esther.
Other details of this book will later be discussed in chapter 2 of this book.
THE BOOK OF JEREMIAH
We are certain that chapter 52 of this book cannot be claimed to have been writt
en by
Jeremiah. Similarly the eleventh verse of chapter 10 cannot be attributed to Jer
emiah. In
the former case, because verse 64 of chapter 51 of the Persian Version 1838 cont
ains:
``Thus far are the words of Jeremiah.`` While the Persian Translation of 1839 AD
says:
``The words of Jeremiah ended here.``
In the latter case the reason is that verse 11of chapter 10 is in the Chaldean l
anguage,
while the rest of the is in Hebrew. It is impossible to trace who inserted them
in the text.
The commentators have made several conjectures regarding the persons making this
insertion. The compilers of Henry and Scott remarked about this chapter:
“It appears that Ezra or some other person inserted it to elucidate the predicti
ons
occurring in the previous chapter.”
Horne says on the page 194 of vol. 4 :

“This chapter was added after the death of Jeremiah and the release from the cap
tivity of
Babylon, some of which we find mentioned in this chapter too.”
aptivity of
Babylon, some of which we find mentioned in this chapter too.”
Further in this volume he says:
“Certainly the words of this prophet are in the Hebrew language but chapter 10:1
1 is in
the Chaldean language.”
The Reverend Venema said:
“This verse is a later addition.”
THE BOOK OF ISAIAH
A public debate was held between Karkanar, a religious leader of the Roman Catho
lics,
and Warren about this book. This discussion was published in 1852 in Agra (India
).
Karkaran writes in third letter
That Stalin, a learned German writer, had said that chapter 40 and all the chapt
ers up to
chapter 66 of the book of Isaiah were not writer by Isaiah.
This implies that twenty-seven chapters of this book are not the writings of Isa
iah.

Four Gospels
All the ancient Christian writers and a great number of modern writers are unani
mous on
the point that the Gospel of Matthew was originally in the Hebrew language and h
as been
completely obscured due to distortions and alterations made by the Christians. T
he
present Gospel is merely a translation and is not supported by any argument or a
uthority.
Even the name of its translator is not definitely known. There are only cojectur
es that
possibly this of that person might have translated it. This kind of argument can
not be
acceptable to a non-Christian reader. The book cannot be attributed to its autho
r only on
the basis of uncertain calculations.
The Christian author of Meezn-ul-Haq could not produce any authority regarding t
he
author of this book. He only conjectured and said that Matthew might possibly ha
ve
writtten it in the Greek language. In view of this fact this translation is not
acceptable and
is liable to be rejected.
The Penny Encyclopedia says regarding the Gospel of Matthew:

“This Gospel was written in the Hebrew language and in the language which was in

vogue between Syria and Chaldea in 41 AD Only the Greek translation is available
. And
the present Hebrew version is only a translation of the same Greek version”
Thomas Ward, a Catholic writer, says in his book:
“Jerome explicitly stated in his letter that some ancient scholars were suspicio
us about
the last chapter of the Gospel of Mark, and some o them had doubt about some ver
ses of
chapter 23 of the Gospel of Luke; and some other scholars were doubtful about th
e fist
two chapters of this Gospel. These two chapters have not been included by the
Marchionites in their book.”
Norton writes in his book printed in 1837 in Boston:
“This Gospel contains a passage running from verse none to the end of the last c
hapter
which calls for research. It is surprising that Griesbach has not put any sign o
f doubt
about its text, since he has presented numerous arguments to prove that this par
t was an
addition by some later people.”
Later in his book, giving some more arguments, he said:
“This proves that the passage in question is doubtful, especially if we keep in
mind the
habit of writers in that they usually prefer to add to the text rather than to o
mit from it.”
Griesbach is one of the most reliable scholars of the Protestant faith.
THE INAUTHENTICITY OF THE GOSPEL OF JOHN
There is no authority for the claim that the Gospel of John in the book of the A
postle
John to whom it has been attributed. On the contrary, there are several argument
s that
strongly refute this claim.
THE FIRST ARGUMENT:
Before and after the period of the Prophet Jesus, the style of writing and the m
ethod of
compiling books was similar to the style of the present Muslim writers. It does
not appear
from this Gospel that John was making his own statements.
It is not possible to refute the obvious evidence which the text itself offers u
nless strong
arguments are presented to negate it.
THE SECOND ARGUMENT:

This Gospel contains this statement in 21:24:

``This is the disciple which testifieth of these things: and we know that his te
stimony is
true,`` describing the Apostle John. This denotes that the writer of this text i
s not John
himself. It leads us to guess that the writer has found some script written by J
ohn and has
described the contents in his own language making some omissions and additions t
o the
contents.
THE THIRD ARGUMENT:
In the second century AD when the authorities refused to accept this Gospel as t
he book
of John, Irenaeus , a disciple of Polycarp the disciple of John, was living. He
did not
make any statement to negate those who refused to accept the book and did not te
stify
that he had heard Polycarp saying that this Gospel was the book of John, the Apo
stle.
Had it been the book of John, Polycarp must have known it. It cannot be the trut
h that he
heard Polycarp saying many secret and profound things which he related but did n
ot hear
a single word about a matter of such importance. And it is even more unbelievabl
e that he
had heard it and forgot, since we know about him that he had great trust in verb
al
statements and used to memorize them. This is evident from the following stateme
nt of
Eusebius regarding the opinion of Irenaeus about verbal statements:
“I Listened to these words with great care by the grace of God. And wrote them n
ot only
on paper, but also on my heart. For a long time, I have made it my habit to keep
reading
them.”
It is also unimaginable that the remembered it and did not state it for the fear
of his
enemies. This argument also rescues us from the blame of refusing the genuinenes
s of
this Gospel from religious prejudice. We have seen that it was refused in the se
cond
century AD and could not be defended by the encient Christian.
Celsus, who was a pagan scholar of the second century AD, fearlessly declared th
at the
Christians had distorted their Gospels three or four times or more. This change
of or
distortion changed the contents of the text.
Festus, the chief of the Manichaeans and a scholar publicly announced in 4th cen
tury AD:
“It has been established that the book of the New Testament are neither the book
s of the
Christ, nor are they the books of his apostles but unknown people have written t
hem and
attributed them to the apostles and their friends.”
THE FOURTH ARGUMENT:

The Catholic Herald, printed in 1844,includess the statement in vol.3on page 205
that
Stapelin said in his book that the Gospel of John was undoubtedly written by stu
dent of
scholar in Alexandria. See how blatantly he claims it to be a book of a student.
Stapelin said in his book that the Gospel of John was undoubtedly written by stu
dent of
scholar in Alexandria. See how blatantly he claims it to be a book of a student.

THE FIFTH ARGUMENT:

Bertshiender, a great scholar said:
“The whole of this Gospel and all the Epistles of John were definitely not writt
en by him
but by some other person in the second century A.D.”
THE SIXTH ARGUMENT:
Grotius, a famous scholar, admitted: “Three used to be twenty chapters in this G
ospel.
The twenty-first chapter was added after the death of John, by the church of Eph
esus.”
THE SEVENTH ARGUMENT:
The Allogin, a sect of the Christians in the second century AD, disowned this Go
spel and
all the writing of John.
THE EIGHT ARGUMENT
The fist eleven verses of chapter 8 are not accepted by any of the Christian wri
ters and it
will soon be shown that these verses do not exist in the syriac version.
If there were any authentic proof to support it most of the Christian writer wou
ld have not
made such statements. Therefore the opinion of Bertshiender and Stapelin is undo
ubtedly
true.
THE NINTH ARGUMENT:
Horne in chapter two of vol.4 of his commentary says:
“The information that has been covered to us by the historians of the church reg
arding the
period of the four Gospels is defective and indefinite. It dose not help us reac
h any

meaningful conclusion. The ancient theologians have confirmed absurd statements

and
written them down. Subsequent people accepted them just out of respect to them.
These
false statements thus were communicated from one writer to another. A ling perio
d of
time has passed, and it has become very difficult to find out the truth.”
statements and
written them down. Subsequent people accepted them just out of respect to them.
These
false statements thus were communicated from one writer to another. A ling perio
d of
time has passed, and it has become very difficult to find out the truth.”
Further in the same volume he says:
The first Gospel was written either in 73 A.D. or 38 A.D. or in 43 A.D. or in 48
A.D. or
in 61, 62, 63 and 64 A.D. The second Gospel was written in 56 A.D. or at any tim
e after
it up until 65 A.D. and most possible in 60 or 63 A.D. The third Gospel was writ
ten in 53
or 63 or 64 A.D. The fourth Gospel was written in 68, 69, 70 or in 89 or 98 A.D.
”

The Epistle to the Hebrews, the Second Epistle of Peter, the Second and the Thir
d
Epistles of John, the Epistle of Jacob, the Epistle of Jude and several verses o
f the First
Epistle of John are wrongly attributed to the apostles. These books were general
ly
supposed to be doubtful up until 363 AD and continue to be considered false and
unacceptable to the majority of Christian writers up until this day. The verses
of the first
Epistle of John have been omitted in Syrian versions.
The Arabian churches have rejected the second Epistle of Peter Epistles of John,
the
Epistle of Jude, and the Revelation. Similarly the churches of Syria have reject
ed them
from the beginning of their history.
Horne says in the second volume of his commentary (1822) on pages 206 and 207:
``The following Epistles and verses have not been included in the Syrian version
and the
same was the case with Arabian churches; the second Epistle of Peter, the Epistl
e of Jude,
both the epistles of John, the Revelation, the verses from 2-11 of chapter 8 in
the gospel
of John, and chapter 5 verse 7 of the first Epistle of John. The translator of t
he Syrian
version omitted these verses because he did not believe them to be genuine. Ward
confirms this in this book (1841) on page 37: “Rogers, a great scholar of the Pr
otestant
faith has mentioned the name of a number of Protestant scholars who declared the
following books as false and excluded them from the holy scriptures: the Epistle
s to the
Hebrews, the Epistle of Jacob, the second and the third Epistles of John, and th
e
Revelation.”
Dr Bliss, a learned scholar of the Protestant faith stated:
“All the books up until the period of Eusebius are found acceptable,: and he ins
ists on the
point that:

“The Epistle of Jacob, the second Epistle of Peter and the second and third Epis
tles of
John are not the writing of the Apostles. The Epistles of the Hebrews remained r
ejected
for along period, similarly the Syrian church did not acknowledge the second Epi
stle of
Peter, the second and third Epistles of John, the Epistle to Jude and Revelation
.”
and third Epistles of
John are not the writing of the Apostles. The Epistles of the Hebrews remained r
ejected
for along period, similarly the Syrian church did not acknowledge the second Epi
stle of
Peter, the second and third Epistles of John, the Epistle to Jude and Revelation
.”
Lardner said in vol. 4 of his commentary on page 175:
“Cyrillus and the Church of Jerusalem did not acknowledge the book of Revelation
in
their period. Apart from this, the name of this book does not even occur in the
list of
Canonical books which he wrote.”
On page 323 of the same volume he further said :
“Revelation was not the part of the Syrian version. Barhebroeus and Jacob did no
t
include this book for comments in their commentary. Abedjessu omitted the second
Epistle of peter, the second and the third Epistles of John, the Epistle of Jude
and the
Revelation from his list. All other Syrian have the same opinion about these boo
ks”.
The Catholic Herald (1844) contains the following statement on page 206 of vol.
7:
Rose has written on page 161 of his book that many Protestant scholar consider t
he book
of Revelation non-believable. Professor Ewald has produced powerful arguments to
prove that the Gospel of John and the Epistles of John and the Revelations of Jo
hn cannot
be the writings of the same person.
Eusebius makes the following statement in chapter 25 of vol. 7 of his history:
Dionysius says that some ancient writers excluded the book of Revelation from th
e Holy
Scriptures and have completely refuted it. He said that this book is meaningless
and a
great example of ignorance. Any association of this book with John or with a rig
hteous
man or with any Christian is wrong. In fact, this with book was attributed to Jo
hn by a
heretic Cerinthus. I wish I had the powers of excluding it from the Holy Scriptu
res. As far
as my own opinion is concerned, I believe it to be from someone who was inspired
. But
what I cannot easily believe is that the writer was any of the apostles, or that
he was the
son of Zebedee or brother of Jacob.”
On the contrary the idiom of the text and style strongly indicate that the write
r cannot
have been the Apostle John who is mentioned in the Book of Acts because his pres
ence
in Asia Minor is not known. This John is totally a different man who is an Asian
. There
are two graves in the city of Ephesus, both bearing the inscription of John . Th
e contents
and the style of this book indicate that John, the Evangelist, is not the writer
of this book.
Since the text of the Gospel and the Epistles is as refined as the style of the
Greeks.
Contrary to this the book of Revelation contains a text very different in style
from the
Greeks, full of uncommon expressions.

Besides this the Evangelists have a common practice in that they do not disclose
their
names in the Gospels nor in the Epistles, but describe themselves in the first p
erson or in
the third person, which writer of this book has mentioned his own name. In the r
evelation
names in the Gospels nor in the Epistles, but describe themselves in the first p
erson or in
the third person, which writer of this book has mentioned his own name. In the r
evelation
of Jesus in chapter 1 he says: “The revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave un
to him to
show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and s
ignified
id by his Angel unto his servant John.” He also writes in chapter 4: “John to th
e seven
churches which are in Asia.” In chapter 9 he says: “I, John, who am your brother
, and
companion in tribulation and in this kingdom, and patience of Jesus Christ.” Aga
in in
22:8 he says: “I John saw this things and heard them.”
He mentions his name in all the above verses contrary to the general practice of
the
Evangelists. The explanation that the writer has disclosed his name against his
normal
practice in order to introduce himself cannot be acceptable because if this had
been his
object he would have used specific words to gether with his name defining his in
tention.
Fore example, he could have written John, the sun of Zebedee or brother of James
. He
only uses some general words like “your brother”, companion in patience etc., wh
ich do
not serve the purpose of his introduction.
Eusebius also says in chapter 3 of vol. 3 of his book:
“The first Epistle of Peter is genuine, but his second Epistle should never be i
ncluded in
the Holy scripture. Fourteen Epistles of Paul are, how ever, read. The Epistle t
o the
Hebrews has been excluded by some people.”
He further elaborates in chapter 25 of the same book: “It has been a point of de
bate
whether the Epistles to James, and Jude, the second He epistle of Peter, and the
Epistles
of John I and II were written by the Evangelists or some other writers of the sa
me names.
It should be understood that the Acts of Paul, the Revelation of Peter, the Epis
tle of
Barnabas and the book entitled, “The Institution of the Disciples” are rejected
books and
this can be proved. The Revelation should also be included in this list.”
Eusebius also quotes a statement of Origen concerning the Epistle to the Hebrews
in
chapter 25 of vol. 6 of his book:
“It is a popular notion among the people that this Epistle (Hebrews) was written
by
Clement of Rome (150-220) and some people think that it was written by Luke.”
The Irish missionary Lyon (178) and Hippolitus (220) and Nouclus, the missionary
of
Rome (251), refused to accept the genuineness of the Epistle to Hebrews. Turtull
ien, the
bishop of Carthage (d. 200) says that this Epistle belongs to Barnabas. Caius, t
he
Presbyter of Rome (d. 251) counted thirteen Epistles of Paul and did not count t
his
Epistle. Cyprien, the bishop of Carthage (248), does not make any mention of thi
s
Epistle. The Monophysite churches still refuse to acknowledge the second Epistle
of
Peter and the second and third Epistles of John.

Scaliger disowns the Epistle to the Hebrews by saying that whoever was the autho
r of
this Epistle had wasted his time Eusebius, in chapter 23 of vol. 2 of his book s
ays: this Epistle had wasted his time Eusebius, in chapter 23 of vol. 2 of his b
ook says:
“Generally this Epistle is supposed to be false and several ancient writers have
mentioned
this. Our opinion about the Epistle of Jude is not different but many churches s
till act
according to it.”
The History of the Bible (1850) contains this statement:
“Grotius says that this Epistle, that is, the Epistle of Jude was written by Jud
e Oskolf
(Archbishop) the 15 th Oskolf of Jerusalem living in the period of Emperor Hadri
an.”?
Eusebius has stated in his history vol.6, chapter 25:
“Origen said in vol. 5 of his commentary on the Gospel of John that Paul did not
write
any thing to the Churches, and if he wrote to any Church it was not more than a
few
lines.”
According to Origen, all the Epistles which are attributed to Paul, where not wr
itten by
him.They are hypothetically attributed to him. Perhaps a few lines of Paul might
also
present in these Epistles. Keeping all this statements in mind, we are led to be
lieve the
truth of the following statement made by Festus:
“The author of the New Testament is neither Jesus Christ nor his apostles, but a
certain
man of unknown identity has written them and attributed them to the Evangelists.
”
The truth of this statement has been proved beyond doubt. We have already shown
earlier
in this book that this six Epistles and the book of Revelation were believed in
and
remained rejected up 363; and they were not acknowledged even by the council of
Nicaea
in 325. Then in 364 the members of the council of Liodesia acknowledged the six
Epistles. The Book of Revelation remained excluded even in this meeting but late
r on in
397 was acknowledge by the Council of Carthage.
The decision of the two counccil about these cannot be considered as an argument
for
obvious reasons. Firstly all the councils had acknowledge the Book of Jude. The
Council
of Liodesia then accepted the ten verses of chapter 10 from the Book of Esther,
and the
six chapters subsequent to chapter 10. The Song of Solomon, Tobit, Baruch, Eccle
siastes
and Maccabees were acknowledged by the council of Carthage, while all the subseq
uent
councils cofirmed the decision of the above three councils.
Now, if the decisions of these councils were founded on authenticated arguments,
which
they most certainly were not, then the Protestant would have accepted them, but
on the
other hand, if their decision s were arbitrary, as was in fact the case, it was
necessary for
the Protestant s to reject all of these books. We are very much surprised to not
e that they
accepted the councils` decision regarding the six Epistles as well as the Book o
f
Revelation but rejected it concerning the other books, especially the book of Ju
dith which

had been unanimously acknowledged by the councils. This decision again arbitrary
and
with out justification. with out justification.
Their only proffered reasons, does the original versions of these books has been
lost,
cannot be accepted because Jerome confirmed the fact that he found the original
versions
of Jude and Tobata in the Chaldean language and the origional book of Ecclesiast
icus in
Hebrew, and these books have been translated from the original versions. On this
basis,
the Protestants should at least accept these books and they should in fact rejec
t the Gospel
of Matthew since the original of that book was lost.
The statement of Horne, already quoted previously, proves the fact that the anci
ent
Christians were not very particular about looking into the Authenticity of their
traditions.
They used to accept and write all kinds of mythical and fabulous stories and tra
ditions
which were followed and acted upon by the people of subsequent times. In view of
this,
the most acceptable conclusion is that the scholars of these councils must have
heard
some of these traditions, which, after having been rejected for centuries, where
acknowledged by them without any authentication.
Because the holy scriptures are treated by the Christians in the same way as ord
inary
books of law and civil administration, they continually changed and altered the
texts suit
their needs. A few examples of this will be sufficient to establish our claim.
The Greek translation was consistently acknowledged as the authoritative text fr
om the
time of the Apostles to the 15th century. The Hebrew versions were believed to h
ave been
distorted and the Greek translation was considered the accurate version. Subsequ
ently the
position of theses books was altogheter changed. The destroyed version was
acknowledged as accurate and accurate one as distorted.
The Book of Daniel in the Greek version was genuine in the eyes of the early sch
olars,
but after Origen declared that it was incorrect, they rejected it and replaced i
t with the
version of Theodotion.
The Epistle of Aristias remained on the least of the Holly Scriptures but in the
seventeenth century some objections were raised against it and suddenly it turne
d into a
false document of the eyes of all the Protestant scholars.
The Latin version is believed genuine by all the Catholics, while it is consider
ed distorted
and unbelievable by the Protestants.
The small book of Genesis remained genuine and believable up until the 15th cent
ury
while the same book was declared false and rejected in the 16th century.
The Third Book of Ezra is still acknowledge by the Greek church but has been rej
ected
by both the Catholics and Protestants. Similarly the Song of Solomon was conside
red
genuine a part of he Holly Scriptures and can still be found in the Codex Alexan
drine, yet
it is now rejected.

The gradual realization of the distortions present in a number of their holy boo
ks is bound
to lead the Christians, sooner or later, to admit to the truth of the fact that
the great part of
the Judeo-Christian scriptures have undergone great changes and distortions.
to lead the Christians, sooner or later, to admit to the truth of the fact that
the great part of
the Judeo-Christian scriptures have undergone great changes and distortions.
We have shown that the Christians do not possess any authentic records or accept
able
arguments for the authenticity of the books of either the Old Testament of The N
ew
Testament.

Contradictions and Errors in the

Biblical Text
Introduction
Contradictions 1 -32
Contradictions 33 -45
Contradictions 46 -75
Contradictions 76 -96
Contradictions 97 -119
Errors 1 -35
Errors 36 -55
Errors 56 -83
Errors 84 -110

By
Syed Hassan Mohamrnad Kutbi
Former Minister of Hajj
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

The Truth Revealed is a book which describes Islam as the inspired truth,
guiding mankind to faith, peace and security. Islam is the religion of Abraham
from whom all the followers of the three heavenly religions claim to belong.
guiding mankind to faith, peace and security. Islam is the religion of Abraham
from whom all the followers of the three heavenly religions claim to belong.
The conflict between Islam and the Christian missionaries in the Indian
subcontinent turned into a fierce fight in which Islam was defended by a faithfu
l
man who depended on Allah alone. He was equally true and faithful in his
understanding of the other heavenly religions in their true form, as revealed to
the Prophets Moses and Jesus Christ, which in essence accord with the
teachings and spirit of Islam.
The conflict was of greater importance than the wars with early Arab infidels (t
he
Quraysh and other tribes) and the Crusades, and so was the victory. One side in
it was supported by the strength, resources and media of a strong Christian
government. The stake was enormous as any set-back would be fatal to them in
this most important and strategic area. All the powers of the Christian religion
joined to defend their teachings from being blamed for alterations in their
scriptures which, if proved, might mean Christians abandoning their religion.
The Christians go on pilgrimage not only to seek forgiveness, but also to gain
spiritual blessings to fight against all the other religions, Islam being the fo
remost.
In this particular conflict they had a clear plan to destroy Islam and the Musli
ms in
India before spreading their fight to the rest of the Islamic world, as, having
already achieved victory in India, it would then be easier elsewhere.
Islam had already made its strength felt in India by Rajab 70 AH, and India and
its people became a great Islamic power, as India had a great civilization and
great wealth. It also became a major aim for the ambitious colonial powers to
conquer India and the sub-continent. Since the power in India was with Islam
they, therefore, mischievously started spreading Christianity. The activities of
the
Christians started by appointing a bishop for the Christians and changing the
Great Mosque of Delhi into a church. Books denouncing the Islamic faith were

published to confuse the common Muslims. The old prejudice of Christianity

against Muslims even led them to commit murders.
mmon Muslims. The old prejudice of Christianity
against Muslims even led them to commit murders.
This conduct startled Muslim scholars into defending their faith, without any
regard to the sacrifice involved. The Muslims decided to publish books and to
increase the religious awareness of the common Muslims so as to counteract the
unfair attack on Islam. This program was effective in protecting the image of
Islam. A number of books were written, numerous debates were conducted, and
a lot of meaningful speeches were delivered in the mosques transmitting Islam
as the true religion.
All this brought into the limelight a great man to lead the Muslims engaged in
defending Islam. This learned scholar, Shaykh Rahmatullah Kairanvi not only
defended Islam, but also exposed Christianity and its teachings by obtaining
guidance only from the Qur an. Being a true Muslim scholar, he had all the
courage necessary to sacrifice his life for the sake of Allah, cherishing the sa
ying:
If I am killed for being a Muslim, I do not care on which side my body lies.
It is for the sake of Allah.
The great and faithful Shaykh Rahmatullah challenged the head of the Christian
Mission of India at that time, the Rev. C-C-P Fonder to an open debate to prove
to the Christians that Muslims had been silent merely because they did not feel
that an answer had been necessary. However, since the anti-Islamic forces had
been making false claims and increasing their efforts against Islam, the time ha
d
come for a Muslim scholar to expose the true facts in an open debate.
The Rev. Fonder said, "Let it be here in Agra where the Muslim scholars have
been reading the Bible, and reading my books, and other books written by
Western scholars in order to prove that the Bible was false as it contains
alterations and that my books are also false."

The debate took place in January, 1854, in Akbarabad in the city of Agra. Shaykh
Rahmatullah proved that the Bible used at that time and still in use now was not
the one given to Jesus (peace be upon him). The Rev. Fonder admitted that
there were alterations in the Bible in seven or eight places.
Rahmatullah proved that the Bible used at that time and still in use now was not
the one given to Jesus (peace be upon him). The Rev. Fonder admitted that
there were alterations in the Bible in seven or eight places.
Shaykh Qamar al-Islam, the Imam of the Grand Mosque, asked a journalist
Khadim Ali Khan to publish the missionary s admission that there were seven or
eight alterations in the Bible, upon which the Rev. Fonder shouted, "Yes, I do
admit to this, but this small alteration does not affect the Holy Book of the
Heavens!"
Hearing this Shaykh Rahmatullah commented, "If any alteration is proved to have
been perpetrated in a particular text, it is considered null and void and
invalidated. Since you admit that the Bible has been altered in seven or eight
places, how can you claim that it is true and how can you believe in it?"
The first debate ended on this note.
On the 11th of April 1854, there was a second debate, attended by diplomats and
important dignitaries from all walks of life. It also ended in humiliation for t
he
Chief Missionary, who disappeared after a couple of sessions and did not attend
the rest of the debate.
Before starting the debate, the Chief Missionary had asserted in front of all th
ose
present, "This debate is held at the request of Shaykh Rahmatullah. I have
accepted it without any personal benefit to me. I am going to show you the clear
proofs that prove the Christian religion to be a true one. You should be aware
that the subjects of this debate are: revelation, alterations, the divinity of J
esus,
the Trinity, and the mission of Muhammad."
Shaykh Rahmatullah asserted that he would convert to Christianity if he failed t
o
answer the questions of the missionary who also made the commitment to
accept Islam if he was defeated.

The result was the admission that the Bible had been altered. The victory,
proving Islam to be the true religion caused the brutal aggression on the part o
f
the British government against the Muslims in India in 1857, in which thousands
of renowned Muslim scholars were killed. Shaykh Rahmatullah was at the top of
the list, but Allah saved him. He escaped to Makka al-Mukarrama, and there he
established the Madrasa Saulatia.
proving Islam to be the true religion caused the brutal aggression on the part o
f
the British government against the Muslims in India in 1857, in which thousands
of renowned Muslim scholars were killed. Shaykh Rahmatullah was at the top of
the list, but Allah saved him. He escaped to Makka al-Mukarrama, and there he
established the Madrasa Saulatia.
Sultan Abdul-Aziz Khan invited Shaykh Rahmatullah to Constantinople, where he
held a great celebration for him, and requested him to write a book on the
debate. He wrote the book, The Great Debate, which later became known as The
Truth Revealed (Izharu l-Haqq).
Then times changed and scholars in the West themselves started rejecting their
altered religion. Some scholars accepted the fact of the Holy Qur an and became
Muslims while others did not accept the truth of the Holy Qur an and have yet to
join the faithful.
A dire need was felt to translate the book of The Great Debate into English so
that its message would be read and comprehended. Allah has now made this
possible and the book has been translated into English. I pray to Allah to accep
t
it as a sincere work and reward all those who were associated with it.
May Allah make it a cause for the fight guidance of those who read it in the
search for truth and a straight path.
Madina al-Munawwara
21 Jumada th-Thani 1409 AH
28 January 1989 AD

THE BIBLICAL TEXT:

CONTRADICTIONS 1 -32
Contradiction No. 1
Any serious reader making a comparison between chapters 45 and 46 of the
book of Ezekiel, and chapters 28 and 29 of the book of Numbers will notice
great contradiction in the doctrines mentioned therein.
Contradiction No. 2
A comparison between chapter 13 of the Book of Joshua and chapter 2 of
Deuteronomy concerning the inheritance of the children of Gad discloses a plain
contradiction. One of the two statements has to be wrong.
Contradiction No. 3
I Chronicles chapters 7 and 8 concerning the descendants of Benjamin makes a
statement which contradicts chapter 46 of Genesis. The Judaeo-Christian
scholars have had to admit that the statement made by Chronicles is erroneous.
This will be discussed later.
Contradiction No. 4
There is great discrepancy in the description of genealogical names in
Chronicles 8:29-35 and 9:35-44. This contradiction was noticed by Adam Clarke
who says in volume 2 of his commentary: “The Jewish scholars claim that Ezra
had found two books which contained these sentences with the contradicting
names and since he could not prefer one to the other, he included both of
them.”

Contradiction No. 5 5
In 2 Samuel 24:9, it says:
And Joab gave up the number of the people unto the king: and there were
in Israel eight hundred thousand valiant men that drew the sword and the
men of Judah were five hundred thousand men.
On the other hand, we find in I Chronicles 21:5:
And Joab gave the sum of the number of the people unto David. And all they of Is
rael
were a thousand thousand and an hundred thousand men that drew sword: and Judah
was
four hundred and three score and ten thousand men that drew sword.
The discrepancy in these statements amounts to a great contradiction in the
number of people. There is a difference of three hundred thousand in the
number of the Israelites while the difference in the number of the People of
Judah is thirty thousand.
Contradiction No. 6
We read in 2 Samuel 24:13:
“So Gad came to David, and told him, and said unto him, Shall seven
years of famine come unto thee in thy land?
However we read in 1 Chr. 21:12:
“Either three years famine or.... “
The contradiction is quite obvious, since the former statement speaks of seven
years of famine while the latter statement mentions only three years of famine
referring to the same occasion. The commentators of the Bible have admitted
that the former statement is erroneous.

Contradiction No. 7
In 2 Kings 8:26 we find this statement:
“Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one
year in Jerusalem. “
In contrast with the above statement we read in 2 Chr. 22:2:
“Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign... “
This contradiction speaks for itself. The latter statement is obviously wrong an
d
the commentators on the Bible have admitted this to be the case. It has to be
wrong because the age of Ahaziah’s father, Jehoram, at the time of his death
was 40 years and Ahaziah began reigning just after the death of his father as is
known from the previous chapter. In this case if we did not negate the latter
statement it would mean that the son was two years older than his father.
Contradiction No. 8
In 2 Kings 24:8 it is stated that:
“Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign... “
This statement is contradicted by 2 Chr. 36:9 which says:
“Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign... “
The contradiction is more than obvious. The second statement is erroneous as
will be shown later in this book. This has been admitted by Bible commentators.
Contradiction No. 9
There is an obvious contradiction between the statements of 2 Samuel 23:8
which state:

“These be the names of the mighty men whom David had: The Tachomonite that sat i
n
the seat, chief among the captains; the same was Adino the Eznite; he lift up hi
s spear
that sat in
the seat, chief among the captains; the same was Adino the Eznite; he lift up hi
s spear
against eight hundred, whom he slew at one time.”
and 1 Chronicle 11:11 which state:
“And this is the number of the mighty men whom David had; Hashobeam, and
Hachmonite, the chief of the captains; he lifted up his spear against three hund
red slain
by him at one time.”
Both are talking of the mighty men of David. Adam Clarke, making comments on
the former statements of 2 Samuel, has quoted Dr Kennicot as saying that the
verse in question contains three great distortions. This requires no further
comment.
Contradiction No. 10
It is stated in 2 Samuel 5 and 6 that David brought the Ark to Jerusalem after
defeating the Philistines, while chapters 13 and 14 of 1 Chronicles, describing
the same event, make David bring the Ark before the defeat of Philistine. One of
the two statements must be wrong.
Contradiction No. 11
In Genesis 6:19,20 and 7:8,9 we read:
“And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into
the Ark, to
keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.”
“Of fowls after their kind and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping
thing of the earth after its kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee. “
But as we proceed a little further to the next chapter of this book we suddenly
come to this statement.

“Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female
, and of
beasts that are not clean by two, the male and the female.” beasts that are not
clean by two, the male and the female.”
When we proceed to the next verse it says: ”Of fowls also of the air by sevens..
.”
The contradiction speaks for itself.
Contradiction No. 12
It is understood from the Book of Numbers 31:7 that the Israelites killed all th
e
men of Midian during the lifetime of Moses, and only their young girls were
allowed to live in servitude.
”And they warred against the Midianites, as the Lord commanded Moses; and they s
lew
all the males.”
This statement contradicts the description given in Judges 6 from which it is
understood that in the time of Judges the Midianites were so strong and powerful
that they dominated the Israelites while historically the time difference betwee
n
the two periods is not more than one hundred years. Having been totally wiped
out, how could the Midianites have been sufficiently strong and powerful to keep
the Israelites under their domination for seven years within the short period of
only one hundred years?
”And the hand of Midian prevailed against Israel.” [Judges 6: 2]
”And Israel was greatly impoverished because of the Midianites.” [Judges 6:6]
Contradiction No. 13
Exodus 9:6 states:
“And the Lord did that thing on the morrow, and all the cattle of Egypt died: b
ut of the
cattle of the children of Israel died not one.”

This implies that all the cattle of Egypt had died but it is contradicted by ano
ther
statement of the same chapter of the same book which says: statement of the same
chapter of the same book which says:
“He that feared the word of the Lord among the servants of Pharaoh made his serv
ants
and his cattle flee into the houses”
“And he that regarded not the word of the Lord left his servants and his
cattle in the field.”
The discrepancy in the above statements needs no comment.
Contradiction No. 14
Genesis 8:4,5 contains this statement:
“And the Ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, u
pon the
mountains of Ararat.”
“And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month,
on the
first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.”
This statement contains a serious contradiction of facts, since the Ark could ha
ve
not rested on the mountain in the seventh month as described in the first verse
if
the tops of the mountains could not be seen until the first day of the tenth mon
th
as described by the next verse
Contradictions No. 15 -26
A comparison between 2 Samuel 8 and 1 Chronicles 18, discloses a great
number of discrepancies and contradictions in the original version in the Hebrew
language, although the translators have tried to rectify some of them.
We reproduce some of them in parallel columns below, using the commentary of
Adam Clarke on Samuel. As can be seen there are numerous contradictions in
these two chapters.

Verse
No. No.
The Words of 2 Samuel
(8)
Verse
No.
The Words of I Chronicles
(18)
1 ”David smote the
Philistines and subdued
them and took the tax out
of the hand of Philistines.”
1 “David smote the Philistines
and subdued them and took
Gath and her towns out of
the hands of Philistines.”
3 “Hadadezer” 3 “Hadarezer”
4 “A thousand chariots and
seven hundred horsemen”
4 “A thousand chariots and
seven thousand horsemen”
8 “And from Betah and from
Berothai, cities of
Hadadezer King David
took exceeding much
brass”
8 “From Tibbath, and from
Chun, Cities of Hadarezer
brought David very much
brass”
10 “Joram, his son unto King
David”
10 “Hadoram, his son to the
King David”
17 “… and Ahimelech, the son
of Abiathar were the
priests, and Seraiah was
the scribe”
17 “… and Abimelech, the son
of Abiathar were the priests,
and Shavsha was scribe”
Contradictions No. 27 -32
Some other similar contradictions are found in the text of 2 Samuel 10 and 1 Chr
onicles
19. These contradictions are also mentioned by the commentators of the Bible. We
reproduce below the contradicting words and phrases in two adjacent columns:
Verse
No.
The Words of 2 Samuel
(10)
Verse
No.
The Words of I Chronicles
(19)
16 “… Sobach, the captain of
the host of Hadarezer…”
16 “… Shophach, the Captain
of the host of Hadarezer…”

17 “came to Helam.” 17 “came upon them.”

18 “… slew the men of seven
hundred chariots of the
Syrians, and forty
thousand horsemen.”
18 “… slew of the Syrians
seven thousand men which
fought in chariots, and forty
thousand footmen.”

IN THE BIBLICAL TEXT:

Contradiction No. 33
1 Kings 4:26 contains this statement:
“And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve
thousand horsemen.”
This statement is clearly contradicted by 2 Chronicles 9:25, which says:
“And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousa
nd
horsemen;”
Urdu and Persian translations have the same number but the Arabic translator
has changed four thousand to forty thousand. Adam Clarke, the commentator,
having pointed out the controversies of various translations and commentaries,
has said, that in view of the various discrepancies, it would be better to admit
that
the numbers (in the Book of Kings) have been changed and distorted.
Contradiction No. 34
Comparison of 1 Kings 7:24 and 2 Chronicles 4:2-3 also discloses a contradiction
in the statement of facts. In both texts a natatorium (molten sea) made by
Solomon is mentioned. The text of the Book of Kings is this:

“And under the brim of it round about there were knops compassing it, ten in a c
ubit,
compassing the sea round about: the knops were cast in two rows, when it was cas
t.” compassing the sea round about: the knops were cast in two rows, when it was
cast.”
The text of Chronicles contains this description:
“Also he made a molten sea of ten cubits from brim to brim, round in compass...”

“And under it was the similitude of oxen, which did compass it round
about: ten in a cubit, compassing the sea round about. Two rows of oxen
were cast, when it was cast.”
This is what it says in the Urdu and English versions while the Arabic translati
on
of 1865 describes neither knops nor oxen but totally different things, a kind of
cucumber. Knop! Ox! or Cucumber! Can you find any relation between these
totally different things?
Adam Clarke, making comments on the text of Chronicles, points out that the
opinion of great scholars was to accept the text of the Book of Kings, and it wa
s
possible that the word ’bakrem’ might have been used in place of ’bakem’.
’Bakrem’ signifies a knop and ’bakem’ an ox. To be short, the commentator has
admitted the presence of human manipulation in the text of Chronicles. The
compilers of Henry and Scott are forced to say that this difference in the text
was
due to a change in the alphabets.
Contradiction No. 35
2 Kings 16:2 says:
“Twenty years old was Ahaz when he began to reign, and reigned sixteen years in
Jerusalem... “
We find another statement in the same book in 18:2 regarding his son Hezekiah:
“Twenty and five years old was he when he began to reign; and he reigned twenty
and nine years in Jerusalem. “
This later statement means that Hezekiah must have been born when his father
Ahaz was only eleven years old which is physically impossible. Obviously one of
the two texts is wrong. The commentators have admitted that the former
statement is wrong. Commenting on chapter 16 the compilers of Henry and Scott
say that apparently thirty has been written instead of twenty and have advised
people to refer to 18:2 of the same book .
Ahaz was only eleven years old which is physically impossible. Obviously one of
the two texts is wrong. The commentators have admitted that the former
statement is wrong. Commenting on chapter 16 the compilers of Henry and Scott
say that apparently thirty has been written instead of twenty and have advised
people to refer to 18:2 of the same book .
Contradiction No. 36
2 Chronicles 28:1 says:
“Ahaz was twenty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned sixteen years
in
Jerusalem: “
Chapter 29 of the same book starts with these words:
“Hezekiah (the son of Ahaz) began to reign when he was five and twenty years old
..”
Here too (as in No. 35) one of the two texts has to be wrong and apparently it i
s
the first text that is erroneous.
Contradiction No. 37
A comparison between 2 Samuel 12:31 and 1 Chronicles 20:3, presents another
obvious contradiction between the two texts. Horne has also noted this differenc
e
and has suggested that the text of the 1 Chronicles should be changed to accord
with the text of the Book of Samuel. He says, ”The text of Samuel is correct,
therefore the text of Chronicles may accordingly be altered.”
What is to be noted from this example is the despotic and arbitrary attitude of
the
Christian theologians towards their holy scriptures. The more surprising fact in
this regard is that this suggestion was followed by the Arabic translator in 184
4 in
the opposite direction to this suggestion. That is to say, he altered the text o
f the
Samuel to accord with the text of Chronicles and not the other way round as was
suggested by Horne.

The readers of this book should not be shocked by this. They will soon be
coming to frequent distortions of this nature – a usual practice of the Christia
ns. coming to frequent distortions of this nature – a usual practice of the Chri
stians.
Contradiction No. 38
We read in 1 Kings 15:33:
“In the third year of Asa king of Judah began Baasha the son of Abijah to reign
all
over Israel in Tirzah, twenty and four years.”
Contrary to this 2 Chronicles 16:1 says:
“In the sixth and thirtieth year of the reign of Asa Baasha, King of Israel came
up
against Judah... “
The contradiction between the texts is more than clear. One of the two texts mus
t
be wrong because according to the first text Baasha died in the twenty-sixth yea
r
of Asa’s reign so that in the thirty-sixth year of Asa’s reign he has been dead
for
ten years. Obviously Baasha cannot invade Judah ten years after his death.
The compilers of Henry and Scott, commenting on the text of Chronicles have
said, ”Asher, a great Christian scholar, has said, ”This twenty-sixth year is no
t the
year of Asa’s reign, but this is the year of the division of the kingdom which w
as
in the period of Jeroboam.”
The Christian scholars, however, have admitted that the text of Chronicles is
erroneous – either the number thirty-six has been replaced by twenty-six or the
phrase ’the division of the kingdom’ is to be put in place of Asa.
Contradiction No. 39
The text of 2 Chronicles 15:19 is this:
“And there was no war unto the five and thirtieth year of Asa.”
This text is again contradicting the text of 1 Kings 15:33 as has been shown in
the previous argument under Contradiction No. 38.

Contradiction No. 40
The number of Solomon’s officers looking after the work is described as three
thousand and three hundred in 1 Kings 5:16, whereas in 2 Chronicles 2:2 this
number is mentioned as three thousand and six hundred. The Greek translators
have altered this number making it six hundred.
Contradiction No. 41
The text of 1 Kings 7:26 giving the description of the ”molten sea” made by
Solomon says, ”It contained two thousand baths”, while the text of 2 Chronicles
4:5 claims, ”It received and held three thousand baths”.
The Persian translation, 1838, speaks of the capacity of two thousand ”idols”.
The Persian translation, 1845, contains, ”Two thousand vessel,” And the Persian
translation, 1838, contains, ”three thousand idols”. The inconsistencies and
discrepancies of these various texts speak for themselves.
Contradiction No. 42
When chapter 2 of the Book of Ezra is compared with chapter 7 of Nehemiah,
several discrepancies and contradictions in the texts can be seen. Apart from
textual differences, there are errors in number of the Israelites. In the two
chapters there are twenty numerical contradictions and many others where
names are concerned. We reproduce below the errors concerning the numbers
of the liberated Israelites:
Verse
No.
The Text of EZRA, Ch. 2
Verse
No.
The Text of NEHEMIAH,
Ch. 7
6 “The children Pahath -
Moab… two thousand
eight hundre and twelve”
11 “The children of Phahath
Moab … two thousand eight
hundred and eighteen”

8 “The children of Zattu, nine

hundred forty and five”
13 “The children of Zattu, eight
hundred forty and five”
12 The children of Azgad, a
thousand two hundred
twenty and two”
17 “The children of Azgad, two
thousand three hundred
twenty and two”
15 “The children of Adin, four
hundred fifty and four”
20 “The children of Adin, six
hundred fifty and five”
19 “The children of Hashum,
two hundred twenty and
three”
22 “The children of Hashum,
three hundred twenty and
eight”
28 “The children of Beth-el
and Ai, two hundred
twenty and three”
32 The men of Beth-el and Ai,
an hundrred twenty and
three”
Both texts agree on the total number of the Israelites who came to Jerusalem
after the release from captivity in Babylon. These chapters claim that they were
forty-two thousand three hundred and sixty. But if we add them ourselves, we do
not obtain this number neither from Ezra or from Nehemiah. The total according
to Ezra comes to twenty nine thousand eight hundred and eighteen, while in
Nehemiah it adds up to thirtyone thousand and eighty-nine.
Nor is this total number correct according to the historians. Joseph (Eusephius)
says in the first chapter of vol. 2 of his history:
“The Israelites that came from Babylon count to forty-two thousand, four hundred
and sixty-two.”
The compiler of Henry and Scott’s commentary have said under the comments
on the text of Ezra:
“A great difference has been caused between this chapter and chapter 7 of Nehemi
ah
by the copyists. At the time of their rendering into English, the corrections we
re made
through the available copies. Wherever the copies could not be found, the Greek
translation was preferred over the Hebrew.”

It may be noted how the texts of the Holy Scripture are so easily distorted in t
he
name of correction, and how texts that remained acknowledged for centuries
vanish altogether from the books. Meanwhile the books still remain full of error
s
and contradictions.
ripture are so easily distorted in the
name of correction, and how texts that remained acknowledged for centuries
vanish altogether from the books. Meanwhile the books still remain full of error
s
and contradictions.
In fact, participation of human element in these books has been present from
their very origin. The copyists are unjustifiably blamed for making errors. Even
today a comparative reading of these two chapters will reveal more than twenty
errors and contradictions.
Contradiction No. 43
We find this statement in 2 Chronicles concerning the name of the mother of King
Abijah:
“His mother’s name also was Michaiah, the daughter of Uriel of Gibeah.” [2 Chr.
13:2]
Contrary to this we find another statement in the same book to the effect that:
“He took Maachah the daughter of Absalom; which bare him Abijah...” [2 Chr.
11:20]
Again this latter statement is contradicted by the book of 2 Samuel 14:27 which
says that Absalom had only one daughter named Tamar.
“And unto Absalom, there were born three sons, and one daughter, whose name was
Tamar.”
Contradiction No. 44
It is understood from the Book of Joshua chapter 10 that the Israelites took ove
r
Jerusalem after killing the king, while 15:63 of the same book denies the captur
e
of Jerusalem by the Israelites.

” As for the Jebusites the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the children of Judah

could not drive them out: but the Jebusites dwell with the children of Judah
at Jerusalem unto this day.”
could not drive them out: but the Jebusites dwell with the children of Judah
at Jerusalem unto this day.”
Contradiction No. 45
2 Samuel 24:1 says:
“And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David
against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.”
This statement is plainly contradicted by I Chronicles 21:1 where it says that t
his
thought was provoked by Satan. Since, according to the Christians, God is not
the Creator of evil, this turns into a very serious contradiction

THE BIBLICAL TEXT:

CONTRADICTIONS 46 -75
CONTRADICTIONS IN THE GENEALOGY OF JESUS NO. 46 51
A comparative reading of the genealogy of Jesus according to the Gospel of
Matthew and the genealogy according to Luke reveals a number of
contradictions:
Contradiction No. 46
Matthew describes Joseph as son of Jacob, while Luke says Joseph son of Heli.
“Jacob begat Joseph” [Matt. 1:16];
“… the son of Joseph, who was son of Hel” [Luke 3:23]

Contradiction No. 47
According to Matthew, Jesus was a descendant of Solomon, the son of David
[Matt. 1:6], while Luke puts him into the line of Nathan, the son of David [Luke
3:31].
Contradiction No. 48
Matthew claims that the ancestors of Jesus right from David to the exile of the
Israelites were all kings of great repute, while Luke says that except David and
Nathan none of them was king. They were not even known as prominent
personalities of their time. [Matthew, therefore, has mentioned the names of all
the famous king while in Luke there are totally different names of unknown
personalities.]
Contradiction No. 49
From Matthew we learn that Salathiel was the son of Jeconias [Matt 1:12], while
Luke informs us that he was the son of Neri [Luke 3:27].
Contradiction No. 50
We read in Matthew that “Zorobabel begat Abiud,” while Luke says, “which was
the son of Rhesa [Matt. 1:13; Luke 3:27] which was the son of Zorobabel.” It wil
l
be more surprising or rather very interesting for the reader to know that I
Chronicles mentions all the names of the sons of Zorobabel, and neither Rhesa
nor Abiud appear. It appears that both names are false.
Contradiction No. 51
According to Matthew there are twenty-six generations from David to Jesus,
while according to Luke there are forty. As the period of time between David and
Jesus is one thousand years, the gap from one generation to another according

to Matthew is forty years and according to Luke twenty-five years. This

contradiction is so clear that it requires no comment. It has been a cause of gr
eat
embarrassment to the Christian theologians and scholars from the very inception
of these two Gospels.
-five years. This
contradiction is so clear that it requires no comment. It has been a cause of gr
eat
embarrassment to the Christian theologians and scholars from the very inception
of these two Gospels.
A group of great scholars like Eichhorn, Kaiser, Heins, De Wett, Winner Fritsche
and
others have plainly admitted that these two Gospels do really contain contradict
ions of an
unjustifiable nature. Just as the two Gospels contain discrepancies in other pla
ces, so here
too they are different from each other. Had they been free from discrepancies th
roughout,
some justification for the difference in genealogical description might have bee
n found.
Adam Clarke, however, making comments on chapter 3 of Luke, has reluctantly quot
ed
some justifications together with his remarks of astonishment about them. He has
, for
instance, quoted Harmer on page 408 of vol. 5 making this unpalatable excuse:
“The genealogical tables were well kept by the Jews. It is known to everyone tha
t
Matthew and Luke have erred in such a way as to embarrass all the ancient and
modern scholars. But as several objections were raised in the past against the a
uthor,
for several doubtful points of the books, and, these objections, later on, turne
d out to
be in his favour, similarly this objection too, will come to his aid. And time w
ill
certainly do it.”
However, this contradiction is so serious that it has caused great embarrassment
to both ancient and modern scholars. Their claim that the genealogical tables
were kept safe by the Jews is false as it has been historically proved that they
were destroyed in the course of the calamities and unfortunate accidents that
have dogged the history of the Jews. For this obvious reason errors are found in
the text of Ezra as well as these Gospels. Now if this was the condition of the
scriptures in Ezra`s time, one can imagine the condition of these texts in the t
ime
of the disciples. If the genealogies of the notable personalities and the priest
s
could not be preserved, how much reliance can be put on the genealogy of poor
Joseph who was only a carpenter. It is a possible assumption that the
evangelists might have adopted two different genealogical tables concerning
Joseph, the carpenter [Joseph, the carpenter, was the husband of Mary
according to the Ghospels], without proper regard to their accuracy. Harmer’s
hope that time would change this objection in favour of the authors seems very

far from being realized since nineteen centuries have passed without the
Evangelists being exonerated in this matter.
have passed without the
Evangelists being exonerated in this matter.
Had it been possible to do so, it would have been done a long time ago, seeing
that in the last three centuries Europe has made such extraordinary advances in
all branches of science and technology and has accumulated a treasure-house of
resources to help in the search for the truth. As a result of scientific researc
h in
the field of religion, they first made some reforms in their faith and then reje
cted
outright many of the established tenets and creeds of their religion.
Similarly the Pope, who was considered infallible and the highest authority of t
he
Christians all over the world, was declared an impostor and unworthy of trust.
Further, in the name of reforms, the Christians became subdivided into several
sects and continued to make so called reforms until they finally had to declare
that Christianity as a whole was not more than a collection of whimsical ideas
and fabulous stories. Given this situation the future does not allow us to hope
for
any positive results.
The only explanation for this contradiction presented by some scholars is to say
that perhaps Matthew has described the genealogy of Joseph whereas Luke
might have written the genealogy of Mary. In this case Joseph would become the
son-in-law of Heli who was himself without a son. Joseph, therefore, might have
been described as the son of Heli. This explanation is unacceptable and is
rejected for several reasons. Firstly because in this case Jesus would not be a
descendant of Solomon but a descendant of Nathan, as he would be included in
the genealogy on his mother’s side, not that of Joseph, the carpenter. If this w
ere
so, Jesus could not possibly have been the Messiah, since the Messiah who had
been predicted by the prophets had to be a descendant of Solomon. This is why
a great leader of the Protestant faith rejected this explanation saying to the e
ffect
that, “Whoever excludes the Christ from the genealogical line of Solomon,
precludes the Christ from being the Christ.”

Secondly this explanation is not acceptable until it is proved through authentic

historical condly this explanation is not acceptable until it is proved through
authentic historical
reports that Mary was indeed the daughter of Heli and Nathan’s line was through
her.
Mere assumptions are of no avail in this regard especially in the presence of th
e
adversary remarks of Calvin and Adam Clarke. On the contrary, it is expressly me
ntioned
in the Gospel of John that the parents of Mary were Jehoachim and Joanna. And th
ough
this Gospel is not recognized by the modern Christians as a revealed book writte
n by
John, the disciple of Jesus, it is, undoubtedly a document of great historical v
alue. Its
author certainly belongs to the early times of Christianity. The book certainly
has more
historical value than the most reliable books of history. It cannot, therefore,
be denied by
unauthenticated reports.
St. Augustine said that he found a statement in a certain book that Mary was a
Levite. This goes against her being a descendant of Nathan. Besides, we find the

following statement in the Book of Numbers:

“And every daughter, that possesseth an inheritance in any tribe of the children
of
Israel, shall be wife unto one of the family of the tribe of her father, that th
e
children of Israel may enjoy every man the inheritance of his fathers.”
“Neither shall the inheritance remove from one tribe to another tribe; but
every one of the tribes of the children of Israel shall keep himself to his
own inheritance.” [Numbers 36:8,9]
And in the Gospel of Luke we read:
“There was a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wif
e was
of ttie daughters of Aaron.”
It is known from the Gospels that Mary was closely related to the wife of Zachar
ias
(Elisabeth) which implies that Mary was also a descendant of Aaron. We have just
read
the commandment of Torah (Pentateuch) that any daughter of the children of Israe
l
should be married to her own tribe, therefore Joseph also should be a descendant
of
Aaron. Jesus, in this case, would be a descendant of David.
To avoid this confusion two different genealogies were written. Since these
Gospels were not known until the end of the second century, the writer of one
genealogy remained unknown to the other genealogist. This is the apparent
reason for the present contradiction in the two Gospels.

Thirdly, had Mary been the daughter of Heli, it must have been in the knowledge
of ancient writers, who would not knowingly have presented such unbelievable
explanations which, later on, were rejected and laughed at by modern writers.
daughter of Heli, it must have been in the knowledge
of ancient writers, who would not knowingly have presented such unbelievable
explanations which, later on, were rejected and laughed at by modern writers.
Fourthly, the Gospel of Matthew says:
“Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called
the
Christ.”
While Luke says:
“The son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.”
Both the statements clearly show that the authors are writing the genealogy of J
oseph.
Fifthly, if we presume that Mary was the daughter of Heli, Luke’s statement will
not be
true unless it is proved that it was customary among the Jews that they, in the
absence of
a real son, used to include the name of their son-in-law in their genealogy. Thi
s has not so
far been proved by any authentic argument. As far as the unauthentic claims of t
he
scholars of the protestant faith are concerned, they remain unacceptable to us o
n account
of their lack of proof and valid arguments.
We do not deny the possibility of a certain person being associated with another
person who is related to him through his father or wife or even being his teache
r
or his priest and he may be associated with the name of another person. That is
to say we may, for example, refer to him as the king’s nephew or the king’s soni
n-
law in order to recognise him through a known personality. This kind of
association is a totally different thing from someone being included in the
genealogical line of another person. It is possible that it might have been a
custom among the Jews to say that someone was the son of his father-in-law,
but it remains to be historically proved that such a custom existed.
Another point to be noted here is that the Gospel of Matthew cannot have been kn
own or
acknowledged in the time of Luke. Otherwise it would have not been possible for
Luke to
contradict Matthew so blatantly that it has resulted in a serious embarrassment
to the
ancient and modern advocates of Christianity.

Contradictions No. 52 -53 52 -53

A comparative reading of Matthew 2 and Luke presents a great contradiction to
the reader and tends to indicate that neither of the two Gospels are divinely
inspired.
It is understood from the description in Matthew that the parents of the Messiah
lived in Bethlehem even after his birth. It is also made clear by another
description in Matthew that the period of their stay in Bethlehem was two years.
Due to the domination of the Magians they afterwards migrated to Egypt and
lived there during the lifetime of Herod [the Governor of Judah], and after his
death, they returned to live in Nazareth. Luke, on the other hand, gives us a
different description. He says that Jesus’ parents went to Jerusalem after Mary’
s
confinement [Luke 2:22], and that after offering the sacrifice they went to
Nazareth and lived there. However they used to go to Jerusalem every year at
the feast of Passover [Luke 2:41].
According to him there is no question of the Magians’ coming to Bethlehem.
Similarly, the parents of Jesus could have not gone to Egypt and stayed there as
it is clear from what is said that Joseph never left Judah in his life neither f
or
Egypt nor for any other place.
We learn from the Gospel of Matthew that Herod and the people of Judah were
not aware of the birth of Jesus until the Magians reported it to him [Matt. 2:13
].
On the other hand Luke says that after Mary’s confinement when Jesus’ parents
had gone to Jerusalem to offer the sacrifice they met Simeon, who was a
righteous man and to whom it had been revealed by the Holy Ghost that he
would not die until he had seen the Messiah. He lifted Jesus high in his arms an
d
told the people of his great qualities. Similarly Anna, a prophetess, also told
the
people about the coming of the Messiah and thanked God. Now if we accept that
Herod and his people were enemies of Jesus, Simeon would have not informed
the people about Jesus in the temple where his enemies were all around, nor

would the prophetess, Anna, have disclosed the identity of the Christ to the
people of Jerusalem. people of Jerusalem.
The scholar Norton, who is a great advocate of the Gospels, has admitted the
presence of real contradiction in the two texts, and decided that the text of
Matthew was erroneous and that of Luke was correct.
Contradiction No. 54
It is learnt from the Gospel of Mark that Christ asked the congregation to go
away after his sermon of parables, and the sea at that time was stormy. But from
the Gospel of Matthew we learn that these events took place after the Sermon on
the Mount. This is why Matthew described the parables in chapter 13 of his
Gospel. This sermon, therefore, is proved to have been a long time after these
events, as the two sermons are separated by a long period. One of the two
statements, therefore, has to be essentially wrong. The two authors, who claim t
o
be men of inspiration or are considered by the people to be so, should not make
erroneous statements.
Contradiction No. 55
The Gospel of Mark describes the debate of Jesus with the Jews as taking place
three days after his arrival in Jerusalem. Matthew writes that it took place on
the
second day.
One of the two statement obviously has to be wrong. Horne says in his
commentary (vol. 4 p. 275, 1822 edition) regarding this contradiction and the on
e
discussed before it that: “There is no way of explaining these discrepancies.”
Contradiction No. 56
The sequence of events after the Sermon on the Mount as given by Matthew is
different from the one given by Luke. For instance, the events according to

Matthew happened in this order; curing a leper, Jesus’ arrival at Capernaum,

healing the servant of a Roman officer, and healing of Peter’s mother-in-law [Ma
tt
8:3,13,16]. The Gospel of Luke first describes the event of Peter’s mother-in-la
w,
then in chapter 5 describes the healing of the leper and in chapter 7 the healin
g
of the servant of a Roman officer [Luke 4:38; 5:13; 7:10]. One of the two
statements certainly has to be erroneous.
at Capernaum,
healing the servant of a Roman officer, and healing of Peter’s mother-in-law [Ma
tt
8:3,13,16]. The Gospel of Luke first describes the event of Peter’s mother-in-la
w,
then in chapter 5 describes the healing of the leper and in chapter 7 the healin
g
of the servant of a Roman officer [Luke 4:38; 5:13; 7:10]. One of the two
statements certainly has to be erroneous.
Contradiction No. 57
According to the Gospel of John [John 1:19-21] some of the priests and Levites
were sent by the Jews to John to inquire if he was Elias. He replied, ”I am not
Elias.” This statement is expressly contradicted by Jesus according to Matthew
11:14 where Jesus is quoted as saying “And if ye will receive it, this is Elias
which was for to come.” And also we find this statement in Matthew 17:10-13:
“And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias must f
irst
come?”
“And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restor
e all
thing.”
“But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not,
but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the
Son of man suffer of them.”
“Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John, the
Baptist.”
Both these texts denote that John the Baptist is the promised Elias, with the
result that the statements of John and Jesus contradict each other.
A careful reading of the books of Christianity makes it almost impossible to
believe that Jesus was the promised Messiah. To premise our argument, the
following four points should first be noted:

Firstly, according to the book of Jeremiah when Jehoiakim, son of Josiah, burnt
the scripture which was written by Baruch from Jeremiah’s recitation, Jeremiah
received the following revelation from God:
the scripture which was written by Baruch from Jeremiah’s recitation, Jeremiah
received the following revelation from God:
“Thus saith the Lord of Jehoiakim King of Judah; He shall have none to sit upon
the
throne of David.” [Jer. 36:30]
According to the word of Gabriel as quoted by Luke it is necessary for the
Messiah to sit on the throne of David:
“And the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father, David.”
[Luke 1:32]
Secondly, the coming of the Christ was conditional on the coming of Elias prior
to
him. One of the major arguments of the Jews to support their disbelief in Christ
was that Elias had not come, whereas his coming prior to the Messiah was
positively necessary according to their books. Jesus himself confirmed that Elia
s
must come first, but at the same time he said that Elias had already come but th
e
people did not recognize him. On the other hand Elias himself denied being
Elias.
Thirdly, the Christians do not consider the miracles of the prophets as an
argument for faith in God or in the prophets. Matthew quotes the words of Jesus
in 24:24 that:
“For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great s
igns and
wonders; in so much that, if it were possible they shall deceive the very elect.
”
Paul in his second letter to the Thessalonians 2:9 says regarding the Antichrist
:
“Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs a
nd
lying wonders.”
Fourthly, according to the law of the Pentateuch, anyone inviting people to the
worship of something other than God should be killed in spite of any kind of
wonders and miracles they might perform. And someone who claims divinity for

himself is even more evil since not only does he claim godhood but also invites
people to worship other than God. people to worship other than God.
According to the genealogy described by Matthew, Jesus was a descendant of
Jehoiakim and is, therefore, according to the first proposition quoted above, no
t
able to sit on the throne of David. Besides, Elias did not come before Jesus as
is
proved by the words of John himself that he was not Elias. Given this admission,
anything contrary to it cannot be acceptable. And it is logically impossible to
believe that John, being a prophet and a man of revelation, would not have been
aware of his being Elias. Therefore, the second proposition, too, disallows Jesu
s
from being the Messiah. And whereas, according to the belief of the Christians,
Jesus claimed divinity for himself, this admission would make him liable to be
killed according to the law of Moses, as we discussed in our fourth proposition.
As far as the miracles and wonders performed by Jesus are concerned they
cannot, according to the belief of the Christians, be an argument for his being
a
believer let alone a prophet.
All praise be to Allah who has saved us from these doubts and difficulties by
means of His chosen prophet Muhammad, may Allah bless him and grant him
peace, who informed us of the truth and taught us to believe that Jesus, the son
of Mary, peace be on them both, was a true prophet and the promised Messiah
and was absolutely free from the blame of making any claim to divinity. The
Christians are responsible for attributing this claim to him.
Contradictions No. 58-63
Matthew chapter 11, Mark chapter 1, and Luke chapter 7, contain this statement:
“Behold! I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before
thee.” [This text has been quoted from Mark 1:2]
According to the Christian commentators, the three Evangelists have quoted this
line from the book of Malachi:

“Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me.”
The text quoted by the Evangelists is different in two ways from the text of
Malachi. Firstly the words, “before thy face” do not exist in the text of Malach
i,
and have been added by all the three authors. Secondly, the text of Malachi uses
the first person in the second sentence while the text of the three Gospels uses
the second person. Horne quotes Dr. Rudolf in vol. 2 of his book saying: “It is
not
possible to explain this difference easily, except that the earlier versions hav
e
been changed.”
Contradictions No. 64-67
The following texts contradict each other:
1. Matthew 2:6 and Micah 5:2. The Matthew text says:
“And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, art not the least among the Princes o
f
Judah: for out of thee shall come a governor, that shall rule my people Israel.”

In the text of Micah, Bethlehem is mentioned as little.

2.
Acts 2:25-28 and four verses of Psalm 15, according to the Arabic
version and Psalm 16:8-11 according to other translations.
3.
The Epistle to the Hebrews 10:5-7 contradicts Psalm No. 39 (Arabic) and
Psalm No. 40:6-8 according to other translations. The text of Hebrews has:
“Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou
wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: In burnt offerings and sacrifice
s for
sin thou hast had no pleasure. Then said I, Lo: I come to do thy will, O God! “
Whereas in the Psalms it says:
“Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears thou has opened: burnt
offering and sin offering hast thou not required.”
“Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me,“
“I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart.”
4. Acts 15:16,17 are inconsistent with Amos 9:11,12. In Acts 15 it says:
“After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which i
s fallen
down; and I will build again the ruins thereof; and I will set it up, that the r
esidue of
will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen
down; and I will build again the ruins thereof; and I will set it up, that the r
esidue of
men might seek after the Lord.”
Amos has:
“In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close
up the
breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins and I will build it as in the da
ys of old.
That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are cal
led
by my name.”
The Christian commentators have admitted the presence of contradictions in
these texts and have acknowledged that the Hebrew version has been
manipulated.
Contradiction No. 68
Paul’s first letter to Corinthians 2:9 says:
“But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered in
to the
heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.”
The researches of the Christian theologians have concluded that this statement
derives from Isaiah 64:4 which is this:
“For, since of the beginning of the world, men have not heard, nor perceived by
the
ear, neither has the eye seen, O God, besides thee, what he hath prepared for hi
m that
waiteth for him.”
The difference between the two texts is quite obvious. The commentators of the
Bible admit the presence of incompatibility in the above texts and say that the
text of Isaiah has been distorted.
Contradiction No. 69
The Gospel of Matthew describes in chapter 9 that Jesus, after departing from
Jericho, saw two blind men on the way and healed them of their blindness [Matt.
9:27-31]. Contradicting this, Mark writes in chapter 10 of his gospel:

“..blind Bartimxus, the son of Timaeus, sat by the highway side begging.”
So in Mark the healing of only one man by Jesus is mentioned.
Contradiction No. 70
Matthew describes this event in chapter 8:28:
“...into the country of Gergesenes, there met him two possessed with devils, com
ing
out of the tombs.”
Then Jesus is described as healing them. This statement is inconsistent with the
texts of Mark chapter 5 and Luke chapter 8, which is this:
“There met him out of the city a certain man which had devils...” [Luke
8:27]
Then he was healed by Jesus. Two men in the first quotation become one in the
second.
Contradiction No. 71
It appears from chapter 21 of Matthew that Jesus sent two of his disciples to
bring an ass and a colt from a village and the disciples:
“...brought the ass and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set hi
m
thereon.” [Matt. 21:7]
While the rest of the Evangelists said that Jesus asked his disciples to bring o
nly
the colt or an ass and that when it came he rode on it.
Contradiction No. 72
Mark says in his first chapter: “And John ...did eat locusts and wild honey.” [M
ark
1:6]

While Matthew states that: “John came neither eating nor drinking.” [Matt. 11:18
ting nor drinking.” [Matt. 11:1819]

Contradiction Nos. 73-75

A comparison between the texts of Mark chapter one, Matthew chapter four and
John chapter one, reveals inconsistencies regarding the circumstances in which
the disciples embraced the new faith. The Gospels of Matthew and Mark write:
“And Jesus walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon called Peter,
and
Andrew, his brother, casting a net into the sea... and he saith unto them, Follo
w me ...
And they followed him ... He saw other two brethren James, the son of Zebedee an
d
John his Brother, mending their nets ... he called them ... and they followed hi
m.”
[Matt. 4:18-22]
But the text of John is different from the above text in three ways. Firstly Joh
n
does not mention the name of James. Secondly it describes that Jesus saw them
with the exception of John on the banks of the Jordan (not Galilee). Thirdly Joh
n
does not speak of their nets. The contents of John’s text inform us that Jesus m
et
John and Andrew on the banks of the Jordan then Peter was sent by Andrew.
And on the next day came Philip and Nathanael. James is not mentioned. [John
1:42-51]
CONTRADICTIONS AND ERRORS IN THE BIBLICAL TEXT:
CONTRADICTIONS 76 -96
Contradiction No. 76
A comparison of chapter 9 of Matthew with chapter 5 of Mark reveals
contradictions in the reports of the two evangelists concerning the ruler’s
daughter. Matthew reports:

“There came a certain ruler .... saying my daughter is even now dead.”
While Mark says :
“He fell at his feet... saying, my little daughter lieth at the point of death”
[Mark
5:22,23]
Further he says that Jesus went with the ruler, but on the way people came from
the synagogue and said, “Thy daughter is dead.”
Some early scholars have admitted that incompatibility existed between the two
texts. Some of them favoured the text of Matthew while some others preferred
the text of Mark. Luke’s text is similar to the text of Mark except that he writ
es
that the report of the daughter’s death was given only by one man. [Luke 8:49]
The death of the ruler’s daughter has consistently been a point of confusion
among scholars of the Bible. There is disagreement on the question of whether
the daughter had died or was just looking as if she was dead. The learned
scholar Nander is not convinced that she was dead. He said that, in fact, she wa
s
not dead but only looked as if she was. The scholars Balish, Sliemasher and
Sassoon are also of the opinion that she was not dead but only unconscious.
This is also supported by the statement of Jesus [Luke 8:52]:
“Weep not, she is not dead, but sleepeth.”
According to these opinions this event does not serve the purpose of proving the
miracle of the resurrection of the dead.
Contradiction No. 77
It is understood from Matthew and Luke that when Christ sent his disciples to
preach, he forbade them to keep staves with them [Matt 10:10], while on the
contrary the text of Mark says that Jesus allowed them to keep their staves [Mar
k
6:8].

Contradiction No. 78
It is said in chapter 3 of Matthew that:
“Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. But
John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to
me?”
[Matt. 3:13]
Further in the chapter it says:
“And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water ... and h
e
saw the Spirit of God, descending like a dove... “
And the Gospel of John describes this event in these words:
“And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven
like a dove, and it abode upon him. And I knew him not: but he that sent
me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shall
see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which
baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.” [John 1:32,33]
The Gospel of Matthew contains this statement in chapter 11:
“Now when John had heard in the prison the works of Christ, he sent two of his
disciples and said unto him. Art thou he that should come, or do we look for ano
ther.”
[Matt. 11:2]
The first statement gives us to understand that John knew Jesus before the
descending of the Spirit on him. Contrary to this the second statement quotes th
e
words of John, “I knew him not”, implying that John did not know Jesus before
the descent of the Spirit on him. While the third takes a middle position.
Contradiction No. 79
The Gospel of John has reported Christ as saying:
“If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.” [John 5:31]

And the same Gospel has reported Christ as contradicting this:

“Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true.” [John 8:14]
Contradiction No. 80
It appears from Matthew chapter 15 that the woman who came to Jesus crying
for her daughter was from Canaan [Matt. 15:22]. This information is contradicted
by the Gospel of Mark chapter 7 where he reports that she was a Greek and a
Syrophoenician by tribe [Mark 7:26].
Contradiction No. 81
We read in the Gospel of Mark [Mark 7:32]:
“And they bring unto him one that was deaf, and had an impediment in his speech.
”
It is clearly understood from this that the man who was deaf and dumb, was a
single person, but the description in the Gospel of Matthew plainly contradicts
this, saying:
“And great multitudes came unto him, having with them those that were lame, blin
d,
dumb, maimed and many others, and cast them down at Jesus’ feet, and he healed
them.” [Matt. 15:30]
This exaggeration is similar to the one made by John, the author of the fourth
Gospel who says at the end of the book:
“And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they
should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not
contain the books that should be written.” [John 21:25]
What one should think of such statements? They are supposed to be men of
inspiration beyond any criticism.

Contradiction No. 82 radiction No. 82

We read in the Gospel of Matthew that Jesus, addressing his disciples, said:
“...I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me. And they were exceeding
sorrowful, and began every one of them to say unto him, Lord, is it I? And he
answered and said, He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, the same shall
betray
me, ... then Judas answered and said, Master, is it I? He said unto him, Thou ha
st
said.” [Matt. 26:21-25]
The same event is described by John in a way that is greatly different from the
above:
“Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me, Then the disci
ples
looked one on another, doubting of whom he spake. Now there was leaning on Jesus
’
bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.”
“Simon Peter, therefore beckoned to him, that he should ask who it should
be of whom he spake. He then lying on Jesus’s breast saith unto him,
Lord, who is it? Jesus answered, He it is to whom I shall give a sop, when
I have dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas
Iscariot, the son of Simon.” [John 13:21-26]
Contradiction No. 83
The Gospel of Matthew, describing the event of the arrest of Jesus says in
chapter 26:48-50:
“Now he that betrayed him gave them a sign, saying, Whomsoever I shall kiss, tha
t
same is he: hold him fast. And forthwith he came to Jesus and said, Hail, Master
; and
kissed him... Then came they, and laid hands on Jesus, and took him.”
The Gospel of John gives the same story with great differences in chapter 18:
Judas then, having received a band of men and officers from the chief
priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and
weapons. Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him,
went forth, and said unto them, Whom seek ye? They answered him,

Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he. And Judas also, which
betrayed him, stood with them. As soon then as he had said unto them, I
am He, they went backward and fell to the ground. Then asked he them
again, Whom seek ye? And they said, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus
answered, I have told you that I am he: if therefore ye seek me, let these
go their way.... Then the band and the captain and officers of the Jews
took Jesus, and bound him.” [John 18:2-12]
betrayed him, stood with them. As soon then as he had said unto them, I
am He, they went backward and fell to the ground. Then asked he them
again, Whom seek ye? And they said, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus
answered, I have told you that I am he: if therefore ye seek me, let these
go their way.... Then the band and the captain and officers of the Jews
took Jesus, and bound him.” [John 18:2-12]
Contradiction No. 84
All the four Gospels give a description of Peter denying Jesus after his arrest.
But
each description is different from the other in eight respects.
1. According to the reports of Matthew [Matt. 26:6-75] and Mark [Mark
14:66-72] there were two maids who claimed that Peter was one of the
disciples of Jesus, and some other men who “stood by”. While Luke’s
description claims that there was one maid and two other men.
2. According to Matthew, when the first maid spoke to Peter he was sitting
on the outside of the palace, while according to Luke, he was “in the midst of
the hall,” [Luke 22:55] and according to Mark, he was “beneath in the palace”,
and according to John he denied him when he was inside the palace.
3. The wording of the maid’s question to Peter is different in all the four
Gospels.
4. According to the reports of Matthew, Luke and John, the cock crew
only once after Peter had denied Jesus three times, while according to Luke,
the cock crew three times; once just after the first denial of Peter, and twice,
after the second denial.
5. According to Matthew and Luke, Jesus had foretold Peter that he would
deny Jesus thrice before the cock crew that night, while Mark has reported it
differently, saying that Jesus said to Peter that he would deny him three times
before the cock crew twice that night.
aying that Jesus said to Peter that he would deny him three times
before the cock crew twice that night.
6. Peter’s answer to the maid who first challenged Peter is reported by
Matthew as: “I know not what thou sayest.” [Matt 26:70] While according to
John he only said, “I am not.” [John 18:25] Mark, on the other hand, has
reported it in these words: “I know not, neither understand I what thou
sayest.” [Mark 15:68] And Luke has put it this way: “Woman, I know him not.”
[Luke 22:57
7. Peter’s second answer is also reported differently by all the
Evangelists. According to Matthew ..... Peter denied him with an oath and
said, “I do not know the man,” [Matt. 26:72] and according to John his answer
was, ”I am not,” [John 18:25] while Mark has just said, “And he denied it
again,” [Mark 14:70] and according to Luke his answer was, “Man, I am not.”
[Luke 22:58]
8. The people who “stood by” at the time of Peter’s denial were, according
to Mark, outside the palace, while Luke reports them as being, ”in the midst of
the hall”.
Contradiction No. 85
Describing the event of crucifixion of Jesus Luke says:
“And as they led him away, they laid hold upon one Simon, a Cyrenian, coming out
of the country, and on him they laid the cross, that he might bear it after Jesu
s.” [Luke
23:26]
This statement is contradicted by the Gospel of John, where it says that Jesus,
bearing his cross himself, went forth to the place of crucifixion. [John 19:17]

Contradiction No. 86
The first three Gospels agree that Christ was on the cross at the sixth hour on
the day of crucifixion [Matt. 27:45, Mark 15:23 and Luke 23:44], but contrary to
this the
Gospel of John reports him to be in the court of Pilate exactly at the sixth hou
r on
the same day. [John 19:14]
Contradiction No. 87
The Gospel of Mark says regarding the thieves who were crucified with Jesus:
“And they that were crucified with him reviled him” [Mark 15:32]
while Luke reports that one of them reproached Jesus and the other said,
“Lord remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. Then Jesus replied to him,
Today shalt thou be with me in Paradise.” [Luke 23:43]
The Urdu translators of the editions 1839, 1840, 1844 and 1846 changed the
texts of Matthew and Mark to avoid this difference to the effect that there was
only one person who was crucified with Jesus. It is a common practice of
Christian scholars to change the texts of their Holy scriptures whenever they
think they should.
Contradiction No. 88
It is understood from chapters 20 and 21 of Matthew that Jesus arrived in
Jerusalem after departing from Jericho [Matt. 20:29; 21:1], while from John we
learn that Jesus, departing from Ephraim, arrived in Bethany, where he stayed
for the night. [John 11:54; 12:1]
Contradiction No. 89
The Resurrection of Jesus:

We learn from Matthew [Matt. 27:56] that when Mary Magdalene and Mary, the
mother of James, arrived near the grave, an angel of God descended from the
heaven, and the stone rolled back from the grave and he sat upon it, and said to
the women not to fear and go home quickly. [Matt. 28:5,6]
that when Mary Magdalene and Mary, the
mother of James, arrived near the grave, an angel of God descended from the
heaven, and the stone rolled back from the grave and he sat upon it, and said to
the women not to fear and go home quickly. [Matt. 28:5,6]
The Gospel of Mark describes this incident as follows:
“Mary Magdalene, and Mary, the mother of James and Salome.... Came unto the
sepulchre,.... and when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away....
And
entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clo
thed in
a long white garment.” [Mark 16:1-6]
Luke’s description of this is:
“And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre, and they entered in an
d
found not the body of the Lord Jesus..... behold, two men stood by them in shini
ng
garments.” [Luke 24:2-4]
Contradiction No. 90
It is expressly mentioned in Matthew that after the angels informed the women of
Jesus’ resurrection, they returned from there, and on the way they met Jesus.
Jesus hailed them and asked them to tell the people to go to Galilee where they
would see him. [Matt. 28:8-10]
But Luke differs from this statement when he says:
“And returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things unto the
eleven, and to all the rest. It was Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and Mary,
the mother of James and other women that were with them which told
these things unto the apostles. And their word seemed to them as idle
tales, and they believed them not.” [Luke 24:9-11]
On the other hand we learn from the Gospel of John that Jesus met Mary
Magdalene near the grave. [John 20:13-15]

Contradiction No. 91
The Gospel of Luke says in chapter 11:
“From the blood of Abel, unto the blood of Zacharias which perished between the
altar and the temple: Verily I say unto you, it shall be required of this genera
tion.”
[Luke 11:51]
But we read this in the Book of Ezekiel:
“The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the
father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son. The
righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of
the wicked shall be upon him.” [Ez. 18:20]
However in other places in the Old Testament there are several passages which
imply that the children of a man will be accountable for the sins of their fathe
r up
to three or four generations.
Contradiction No. 92
Paul’s first letter to Timothy contains this statement:
“For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God, our Saviour, who will have
all
the men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the Truth.” [1Tim. 2:3,4
This statement is incompatible with, and contradicts, Paul’s statement in his se
cond letter
to Thessalonians:
“And for this cause, God shall send them strong delusion, that should believe a
lie,
that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in
unrighteousness.” [2 Thess. 2:11,12]
It may be noted how Paul’s two statements contradict each other. The first text
gives us to understand that God’s aim is to redeem all the men and take them to
knowledge of the truth, while the latter statement would have us believe that Go
d
sends strong delusions to them so that they believe in falsehood like a truth; a
nd
God will punish them for that. The Protestants raise the same objection against

other religions. .According to them God first deludes them to make them stray
from the right path, and then punishes them for unrighteousness.
.According to them God first deludes them to make them stray
from the right path, and then punishes them for unrighteousness.
Contradictions No. 93-6
Acts 9:22 and 26 give a description of Paul’s conversion to Christianity. The te
xts
of all three chapters are different in many respects. We intend to give only thr
ee
discrepancies in this book.
1. We read in Acts this statement:
“And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but see
ing
no man.” [Acts 9:7]
This statement is contradicted by the following statement:
“And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they hear
d not
the voice of him that spoke to me.” [Acts 22:9]
The contradiction between ”hearing a voice” and ”heard not the voice of him” spe
aks
for itself.
2. Again in Chapter 9 we find Paul quoting these words of Jesus:
“...and the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be
told thee, what thou must do.” [Acts 9:7]
Chapter 22 also contains this:
“Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things whic
h are
appointed for thee to do.” [Acts 22:10]
But in Chapter 26 we are told a different story:
“But rise, and stand upon thy feet; for I have appeared unto thee for this
purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which
thou has seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee.
Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I

send thee to open their eyes and to turn them from darkness to light, and
from the Power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of
sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in
me.” [Acts 26:16-18]
from the Power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of
sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in
me.” [Acts 26:16-18]
It may be noted that according to the first two texts, Jesus did not assign any
duty to Paul at this occasion, but he was promised that he would be told after
he arrived in Damascus, while the later statement shows that Jesus
explained his duties at the time of his appearance.
3. It is understood from the first text that the people who were with Paul
stood there silently, while the third text shows them as having fallen onto the
ground, and the second text does not mention it at all.
CONTRADICTIONS AND ERRORS IN THE BIBLICAL TEXT:
CONTRADICTIONS 97 -119
Contradiction No. 97
We find in Paul’s first letter to Corinthians:
“Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in
one day three and twenty thousand.” [Cor. 10:8]
This statement is contradicted by the book of Numbers:
“And those that died in the plague were twenty and four thousand.”
[Numb. 25:1,9]
One of these two texts must be wrong.

Contradiction No. 98
We read this statement in the book of Acts:
“Then sent Joseph, and called his father Jacob to him, and all his kindred, thre
escore
and fifteen souls.” [Acts 7:14]
The above text expressly denotes that Joseph and his children who were with
Joseph in Egypt are naturally excluded from this number. In fact, it refers to
Jacob and his family, but in Genesis we read:
“And the sons of Joseph which were born of him in Egypt were two souls. All the
souls of the house of Jacob which came into Egypt were threescore and ten.” [Gen
.
46:27]
And according to the commentaries of D’Oyly and Richardment the number of
the house of Jacob comes to seventy only when Joseph and his two sons are
included in it. They enumerate as follows: the children of Leah thirty two souls
, of
Zilpah sixteen, of Rachel eleven, and of Bilhah seven. They were in all sixtysix
souls. They become seventy when Jacob, Joseph and his two sons are included.
This means that the above text of the book of Acts is certainly erroneous.
Contradiction No. 99
The death of Judas Iscariot is described both by Matthew and Acts. The two texts
disclose serious contradictions in two respects. Firstly according to Matthew,
Judas “departed, and went and hanged himself.” [Matt. 27:5] While Acts says:
“Now this man (Judas) purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and
falling headlong; he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed
out.” [Acts 1:18]
Secondly, we know from the first text, that chief priests of the temple bought a
field with the money left by Judas while the second text clearly says that Judas
himself bought a field with that money. Peter in the latter text also adds:

“And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem.”

There are several reasons to believe that the statement made by Matthew is
erroneous as compared to Luke, which may be true.We discuss five of these
reasons here:
1. It is clear from the text of Matthew [Matt. 27:4] that Judas was
remorseful about his sin of betrayal, before hanging himself, but this cannot
be true as Jesus, at that hour, was in the court of Pilate and not yet
sentenced to death.
2. The text shows that Judas had returned the money to the high priests
and elders of the Temple. This is also wrong on the same ground that the
high priests and elders were all with Pilate at that time and were not present
at the temple.
3. The context of Matthew’s text clearly indicates that the passage
referred to, which lies between the second and ninth verses, does not
correspond to the rest of the text.
4. Judas died on the morning of the night in which Jesus was arrested. It
seems unlikely that, in such a short time, he should repent and kill himself
because he knew, even before the arrest of Jesus, that Jesus would be killed
by the Jews.
5. The ninth verse of this text contains a serious error which will be
discussed in the section discussing the errors of the Bible.
Contradiction No.100
The First Letter to John says:
“Jesus Christ, the righteous: and he is the propitiation for our sins: and not f
or ours
only, but also for the sins of the whole world.” [1 John 2:1,2]

Contrary to this we read in the book of Proverbs:

“The wicked shall be ransom for the righteous, and the transgressor for
the upright.” [Prov. 21:18]
The contradiction here needs no comment.
Contradiction No. 101
It is understood from the text of Paul’s letter to the Hebrews that one of the
commandments of Moses is weak and unprofitable and therefore defective [Heb.
7:18], while Psalm No. 18 says in verse 7. “The law of the Lord is perfect.”
Contradiction No. 102
The Gospel of Mark describes the women coming to the grave of Jesus “very
early in the morning”, while the Gospel of John tells us that only Mary Magdalen
e
came to the grave “when it was yet dark.”
Contradiction No. 103
The inscription superscribed on the cross by the Pilate is given differently in
all four
Gospels. In Matthew it is, ”This is Jesus, the king of the Jews.” [Matt. 27:37]
In the Gospel of Mark it appears as only, “The king of the Jews.” [Mark 15:26]
Luke says that written in letters of Greek, Latin and Hebrew was, ”This is the
king of the Jews.” [Luke 23:38]
And the Gospel of John puts it in these words, “Jesus of Nazareth, the king of t
he
Jews.” [John 19:19]
It is strange that the evangelists could not record such a short sentence
consistently. How then can their records be trusted for detailed and long report
s.

Contradiction No. 104

We learn from the Gospel of Mark that Herod believed in the righteousness of
John the Baptist, and was pleased with him [Mark 6:20]. He arrested and killed
him only for the sake of Herodias (his brother’s wife).
Luke, on the other hand, reports that Herod did not persecute John only for the
sake of Herodias but also for the reproaches of John regarding his own
perversion. [Luke 3:19]
Contradiction No. 105
The three evangelists, Matthew, Mark and Luke are unanimous about the
description of the names of eleven of the disciples of Jesus, but all the three
disagree regarding the name of the twelfth disciple. The names of eleven
disciples unanimously mentioned are: Peter, Andrew, James son of Zebedee,
John, Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, Matthew, James sonof Alpheus, Simon the
Canaanite and Judas Iscariot. According to Matthew, the name of the twelfth
disciple was Lebbeus whose surname was Thaddeus. Mark says it was
Thaddaeus. Luke claims it was Judas, the brother of James.
Contradiction No. 106
The first three Evangelists make mention of the man who was sitting at the
receipt of custom, and who followed Jesus when he called him. There is,
however, considerable disagreement among them regarding his name.
According to Matthew his name is Matthew [Matt. 9:9], while Mark says he was
Levi, the son of Alpheus [Narj. 2:14], and Luke writes Levi without his father’s
name. [Luke 5:27]

Contradiction No. 107

We read in Matthew that Jesus considered Peter as the best of his disciples, as
Jesus said to him:
“Blessed art thou Simon: .... and I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and
upon
this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail agains
t it. And
I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever shalt bi
nd on
earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall b
e
loosed in heaven.” [Matt. 16:17-19]
Further in the same chapter, Jesus is reported to have said, to Peter:
“Get thee behind me Satan; thou art an offense unto me: for thou
savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.” [Matt.
16:23]
Protestant scholars have reproduced many statements of the ancient scholars
about Peter’s accusation. John, in his commentary on Matthew, said that Peter
was arrogant and a man of “feeble intellect”. St Augustine said that he was not
steadfast and sure, at one time he would believe and at another he would doubt.
Is it not strange and ridiculous that a man of such qualities is promised “the k
eys
of the kingdom of heaven”?
Contradiction No. 108
The Gospel of Luke describes two disciples of Jesus asking him, “Wilt thou that
we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias
did?” Jesus rebuked the two disciples saying, “Ye know not what manner of spirit
ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save
them.” [Luke 9:54-56] Further on in the same Gospel we find another statement
of Jesus, which absolutely contradicts this. It says, “I am come to send fire on
earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled?” [Luke 12:49]

Contradiction No. 109

Matthew has reported that the mother of Zebedee’s sons had requested Jesus
to:
“Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the
other on the left in thy kingdom.” [Matt. 20:21]
Mark on the other hand reports that the request was made by Zebedee’s sons
themselves. [Mark 10:35]
Contradiction No. 110
The Gospel of Matthew includes a parable of a man who planted a vineyard. At
the end of the parable we find:
“When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto
those husbandmen? They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those
wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen which
shall render him the fruits in their seasons” [Matt. 21:40,41]
Luke, however, has at the end of the parable:
“What therefore shall the lord of the vineyard do unto them? He shall come and
destroy these husbandmen, and shall give the vineyard to others. And when they
heard it, they said, God forbid.” [Luke 20:15,16]
The texts are obviously contradictory. The second text contradicts the first, by
adding, “When they heard it, they said, God forbid!”
Contradiction No. 111
The event of a woman of Bethany, who poured perfumed ointment on the head
of Jesus, is described in three gospels. There are several contradictions betwee
n
the different accounts.

1.
Mark reports that this event took place two days before the feast of
Passover [Mark 14:1], while John reports it to have happened six days
prior to the festival [John 12:1]. Matthew is silent regarding the time of
this incident.
2.
Mark and Matthew agree that Jesus was in the house of Simon the leper when
the woman came, while John reports him to be in the house of Lazarus, the
brother of Mary.
3.
Matthew and Mark agree that the ointment was poured on the head of
Jesus [Matt. 26:7; Mark 14:3], while John contradicts this and says that
she anointed the feet of Jesus. [John 12:3]
4.
Mark says that the people who rebuked the woman were from among the
people who were present there at that time, while Matthew has said that they
were the disciples of Jesus, and John’s version is that the objection was raised

by Judas.
5.
The three Gospels have quoted Jesus’ speech to his disciples on this occasion
differently.
The serious contradictions presented by these texts cannot be eliminated by clai
ming that
this event of Jesus’ anointment might have taken place a number of times, and ea
ch
gospel might have reported a different story. The event is clearly the same in e
ach case
and the contradictions in the different accounts is clear indication of the usua
l
manipulation in the text.
Contradiction No. 112
A comparison of the texts of Matthew 22, Luke 26 and Mark 14 regarding the
description of The Last Supper, reveals two serious contradictions :
1.
There are two cups mentioned in Luke’s description, one before the
meal and the other after it, while Matthew and Mark speak of only one
cup. Apparently Luke’s description is erroneous, because this
description involves serious objection against the faith of the Catholics
who believe that the wine and the bread actually turn into the flesh and
the body of Christ.
2.
According to Luke, the body of Christ was sacrificed only for the
disciples [Luke 22:19], while Mark reports it to have been sacrificed is
given for many [Mark 14:24], and from Matthew we understand that
neither the body, nor the blood of Jesus is shed, but the blood of the
New Testament is the thing which is shed for others. How the blood of
the New Testament is shed is a riddle.
We are greatly surprised to note that the Gospel of John describes
ordinary events like Jesus riding on an ass or applying perfume to his
clothes, but does not make any mention of as important an event as
the Last Supper which holds such a vital place in Christian ritual.
Contradiction No. 113
We read this verse in Matthew:
“Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and
few
there be that find it.” [Matt. 7:14]
But further in the same Gospel we read of Jesus’ saying:
“Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me, …for my yoke is easy and my burden
is light.” [Matt. 11:29,30]
Contradiction No. 114
We read in chapter 4 of Matthew that the Devil first took Jesus to the Holy City
,
and set him on the pinnacle of the temple, then took him up to the peak of a
mountain. Jesus then went to Galilee. Then leaving Nazareth came to
Capernaum and dwelt there.
Luke says in chapter 4 of his Gospel that the Devil first took Jesus onto the
mountain then to Jerusalem and then he was stood on the Pinnacle of the
Temple, then Jesus returned to Galilee and started teaching there, then he went
to Nazareth, where he had been brought up.

Contradiction No. 115

Matthew reports that a Roman officer himself came to Jesus and requested him
to heal his servant and said:
“Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof, but speak the wor
d
only, and my servant shall be healed.” [Matt. 8:8]
Jesus, commending the faith of the officer, said: “As thou hast believed, so be
it
done unto thee.” And his servant was healed in the selfsame hour. [Matt. 8:13]
Luke reports this event differently. According to him the centurion himself did
not
come to Jesus, but sent some elders of the Jews. Then Jesus went with them.
When he came near the house:
“...the centurion sent friends to him saying unto him, Lord, trouble not thyself
: for I
am not worthy that you shouldest enter under my roof. Wherefore neither thought
I
myself worthy to come unto thee: but say in a word, and my servant shall be heal
ed.”
[Luke 7:6,7]
Then Jesus praised the officer, and the people who were sent by the officer
returned to his house, the servant had been healed.
Contradiction No. 116
Matthew reports in chapter 8 that a scribe came to Jesus and asked his
permission to follow him wherever he went. Then a disciple said to him that firs
t
he should go and bury his father and then follow Jesus. Matthew describes many
events after this, and in chapter 17 reports the event of the Transfiguration of
Jesus [Matt. 17:5]. Luke, on the other hand, reports the request of the scribe i
n
chapter 9 after the Transfiguration. One of the two texts must be wrong.
Contradiction No. 117
Matthew talks in chapter 9 of a dumb man possessed by devil who is healed by
Jesus. Then in chapter 10 he describes the mission of the disciples and Jesus
commanding to them to heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead and cast

out devils. Then in other chapters he describes many other events and then in
chapter 17 the event of the Transfiguration. Luke, on the other hand, first
describes the mission of the disciples, then the Transfiguration of Jesus in the
same chapter and then after the description of many other events in chapters 9,
10 and 11 he has the report of the dumb man healed by Jesus.
chapter 17 the event of the Transfiguration. Luke, on the other hand, first
describes the mission of the disciples, then the Transfiguration of Jesus in the
same chapter and then after the description of many other events in chapters 9,
10 and 11 he has the report of the dumb man healed by Jesus.
Contradiction No. 118
Mark states that the Jews crucified Christ at the third hour of the day [Mark
15:25]. This statement is contradicted by the Gospel of John which reports that
Jesus was in the court of Pilate until sixth hour of the day. [John 9:14]
Contradiction No. 119
It is understood from the descriptions of Matthew and Mark that the soldiers who
mocked Jesus and put the scarlet rope on him were Pilate’s soldiers not Herod’s,
while Luke’s statement is just the opposite.
CONTRADICTIONS AND ERRORS IN THE
BIBLICAL TEXT:
Errors 1-35
THE ERRORS
This section contains the errors, mistakes and contradictions of the Biblical Te
xt
that are in addition to the ones discussed previously.

Error No. 1
It is stated in the Book of Exodus that the period that the Israelites stayed in
Egypt was 430 years, which is wrong. The period was 215 years [Ex. 12:40]. This
error is admitted by the historians and the biblical commentators.
Error No. 2
It appears in the Book of Numbers that the total number of the Israelites, who
were 20 years of age or over, was six hundred thousand, while all the males and
females of the Levites and the women and children of all the other tribes are no
t
included in this number. This statement is highly exaggerated and erroneous.
Error No. 3
The statement of Deuteronomy 23:2, “A bastard shall not enter into the
congregation of the Lord...” is wrong, as has already been discussed in Part One
.
Error No. 4
In Genesis 46:15 the phrase “thirty and three” is certainly wrong, thirty four i
s the
correct number. The details of this error have been given in part one under the
tenth argument on page twenty seven.
Error No. 5
I Samuel contains this statement ”...fifty thousand, three score and ten men.” [
1
Sam. 6:19] The number fifty thousand in this verse is wrong as will be discussed
later.

Errors No. 6 and 7

2 Samuel 15:7 contains the words “forty years” and in the next verse of the same
chapter the name “Geshur” is mentioned. Both are wrong. The correct words are
“four years” and “Adom” respectively.
Error No. 8
It is stated in 2 Chronicles:
“And the porch that was on the front of the house, the length of it was accordin
g to
the breadth of the house, twenty cubits, and height was a hundred and twenty.” [
2
Chr. 3:4]
This is an exaggerated and erroneous account of the height. According to 1
Kings the height of the porch was thirty cubits [1 Kings 6:2]. Adam Clarke in
volume 2 of his commentary expressly admitted the error in this statement and
said that the height was twenty cubits.
Error No. 9
The Book of Joshua, describing the borders of the land given to the children of
Benjamin, states:
“And the border was drawn thence and compassed the corner of the sea southward.”

[Josh. 18:14
The word “sea” in this statement is wrong as there was no sea near their land.
The commentators D’Oyby and Richardment acknowledged this fact and said,
that the Hebrew word which was translated as “sea” actually signified “west”.
Error No. 10
In Chapter 19 of the Book of Joshua, under the description of the borders of
Naphtali, we read:

“And reacheth to Asher on the west side and to Judah upon Jordan toward
the sun rising.” [Josh 19:36]
eacheth to Asher on the west side and to Judah upon Jordan toward
the sun rising.” [Josh 19:36]
This statement is also wrong as the land of Judah extended towards the South.
Adam Clarke also pointed out this error in his commentary.
Errors No. 11
The commentator Horseley remarked that verses 7 and 8 of Chapter 3 of the
Book of Joshua are wrong.
Error No. 12
The Book of Judges contains this statement:
“And there was a young man out of Bethlehem-Judah, of the family of Judah, who
was a Levite.”
In this statement the phrase, “who was a Levite”, cannot be true because
anyone belonging to the family of Judah cannot be Levite. The commentator
Horseley also acknowledged this error, and Houbigant even excluded this
passage from his text.
Error No. 13
We read this statement in 2 Chronicles:
“And Abijah set the battle in array with an army of valiant men of war even
four hundred thousand chosen men: Jeroboam also set the battle in array
against him, with eight hundred thousand chosen men, being mighty men
of valour.” [2 Chr. 13:3]
Further in the same chapter it gives this description:
And Abijah and his people slew them with a great slaughter: and so there fell do
wn
slain of Israel five hundred thousand chosen men.” [2 Chr. 13:17]

The numbers mentioned in the two texts are wrong. The commentators of the
Bible have admitted the error. The Latin translators changed four hundred
thousand to forty thousand, and eight hundred thousand to eighty thousand, and
five hundred thousand to fifty thousand men.
the two texts are wrong. The commentators of the
Bible have admitted the error. The Latin translators changed four hundred
thousand to forty thousand, and eight hundred thousand to eighty thousand, and
five hundred thousand to fifty thousand men.
Error No. 14
It is stated in 2 Chronicles:
“For the Lord brought Judah low because of Ahaz, King of Israel.” [2 Chr.
28:19]
The word Israel in this statement is certainly wrong, because Ahaz was the King
of Judah and not the the King of Israel. The Greek and the Latin translations,
therefore, have replaced Israel with Judah which is an open distortion of the te
xt
of their Holy Scriptures.
Error No. 15
We find this statement in 2 Chronicles:
“...and made Zedekiah, his brother, king over Judah and Jerusalem.”
The words “his brother” are incorrect in this statement. It should say his uncle
or
his father’s brother. The Arabic and the Greek translators have replaced “his
brother” with “his father’s brother”, another example of blatant manipulation of
the
text of the Holy scriptures. Ward says in his book words to this effect, “Since
it
was not correct, it has been changed to uncle in the Greek and other
translations.”

Error No. 16
The name “Hadarezer” is wrongly spelled in 2 Samuel 10:16-19 in three places
and in 1 Chronicles 18:3-10 in seven places, whereas the correct spelling is
Hadadezer (as given in all other references in the Old Testament).
Errors No. 17
Another name “Achan” is given wrongly in the Book of Joshua [Josh. 7:18]. The
correct name is Achar, with an ‘r’ at the end.
Error No. 18
We find in 1 Chronicles 3:5 under the description of the sons of David, “Bathshu
a,
the daughter of Ammiel”. The correct name is, “Bath-sheba, the daughter
of Eliam, the wife of Uriah”. [2 Sam. 11:3]
Error No. 19
The Second Book of Kings gives the name “Azariah” which is certainly wrong [2
Kings 14:21]. It should be “Uzziah”, as can be ascertained from several other
sources.[e.g. 2 Chr. 26:1; 2 Kings 15:13,30,32 and 34]
Error No. 20
The name “Jehoahaz”, which appears in 2 Chronicles, is not correct [2 Chr.
21:17]. It should be “Ahaziah”. Horne admits that the names we have pointed out
in errors No. 16-20 are all wrong and then adds that there are some other places
in the scriptures where names have been written erroneously.
Error No. 21
2 Chronicles gives an account of how Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon,
bound Jehoiakim in chains and deported him to Babylon [2 Chr. 36:6]. This

statement is certainly not true. The fact is that he killed him in Jerusalem and
ordered his body to be thrown outside the city wall and left unburied. ordered h
is body to be thrown outside the city wall and left unburied.
The historian Josephus says in Volume 10 of his book:
“The King of Babylon came with a great army and captured the city without
resistance. He killed all the young men of the city. Jehoiakim was one of them.
He
threw his body outside the city wall. His son Jehoiachin was made the king. He
imprisoned three thousand men. The Prophet Ezekiel was among the captives.”
Error No. 22
According to the Arabic versions of 1671 and 1831, the Book of Isaiah (7:8)
contains this statement:
“...and within three score and five years shall Aram be broken.”
While the Persian translation and English version says:
“...and within three score and five years shall Ephraim be broken.”
Historically this prophecy was proved false, as in the sixth year of Hezekiah’s
reign, the King of Assyria invaded Ephraim, as is recorded in 2 Kings in Chapter
s
17 and 18. Thus Aram was destroyed in twenty one years.
Vitringa, a celebrated Christian scholar, said:
“There has been a mistake in copying the text here. In fact, it was sixteen and
five
years, and the period referred to was sixteen years after the reign of Ahaz and
five
after that of Hezekiah.”
There is no justification for the opinion of this writer, but at least, he has a
dmitted
the error in this text.
Error No. 23
The Book of Genesis says:

“But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: fo
r in the
day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die.” [Gen. 2:17] day that thou
eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die.” [Gen. 2:17]
This statement is clearly wrong since Adam, after eating from that tree, did not
die that very day but lived for more than nine hundred years after it.
Error No. 24
We find in the book of Genesis:
“My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: his days
shall be
an hundred and twenty years.” [Gen. 6:3]
To say that the age of man is a hundred and twenty years is erroneous, as we
know that the men of earlier ages lived far longer – Noah’s age, for instance, w
as
nine hundred and fifty, Shem, his son, lived for six hundred years and Arphaxad
for three hundred and thirty eight years; while the life-span of present-day man
is
usually seventy or eighty years.
Error No. 25
Genesis reports this address of God to Abraham:
“And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou ar
t a
stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, and I will be t
heir
God.”
This statement is again historically wrong, since all the land of Canaan was nev
er
possessed by Abraham nor has it been under the everlasting rule of his
descendants. On the contrary this land has seen innumerable political and
geographical revolutions.
Errors No. 26, 27, 28
The Book of Jeremiah says:

“The word that came to Jeremiah, concerning all the people of Judah in the fourt
h
year of Jehoiakim, the son of Josiah, king of Judah, that was the first year of
f Judah in the fourth
year of Jehoiakim, the son of Josiah, king of Judah, that was the first year of
Nebuchadrezzar, king of Babylon.”
Further in the same chapter it says:
“And this whole land shall be desolation, and an astonishment: and these
nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years. And it shall come to
pass, when seventy years are accomplished, that I will punish the king of
Babylon, and that nation, saith the Lord, for their iniquity, and the land of
Chaldeans, and will make it perpetual desolations.” [Jer. 25:1,11,12]
And further in Chapter 29 of the same book, it states:
“Now these are the words of the letter that Jeremiah the Prophet sent from
Jerusalem unto the residue of the elders which were carried away
captives, and to the priests, and to the prophets, and to all the people
whom Nebuchadnezzar had carried away captives from Jerusalem to
Babylon; (After that Jeconiah, the king and the queen, and the eunuchs,
the princes of Judah and Jerusalem, and the carpenters, and the smiths
were deported from Jerusalem;)” [Jer. 29:1,2]
And further in the same chapter we read:
“For thus saith the, Lord, that after seventy years be accomplished at Babylon I
will
visit you and perform my good word to you in causing you to return to this place
.”
[Jer. 29:10]
In the Persian translation of 1848 we find these words:
“After seventy years be accomplished in Babylon, I will turn towards you.”
Further in chapter 52 of the same book we find the following statement:
“This is the people whom Nebuchadrezzar carried away captive in the seventh year
,
three thousand Jews and three and twenty: In the eighteenth year of Nebuchadrezz
ar,
he carried away captive from Jerusalem eight hundred and thirty and two persons:
in
the three and twentieth year of Nebuchadrezzar Nebuzar-adan the captain of the g
uard

carried away captive of the Jews seven hundred forty and five persons: all the p
ersons
were four thousand and six hundred.” [Jer. 52:28-30] were four thousand and six
hundred.” [Jer. 52:28-30]
After a careful reading of the several passages quoted above the following three
points are established:
1. Nebuchadnezzar ascended the throne in the fourth year of the reign of
Jehoiakim. That is historically correct. The Jewish historian Josephus said in
Vol. 10 and Chapter 5 of his history that Nebuchadnezzar ascended the
throne of Babylon in the fourth year of Jehoiakim. It is, therefore, necessary
that the first year of Nebuchadnezzar must coincide with the fourth year of
Jehoiakim.
2. Jeremiah sent his words (the book) to the Jews after the deportation of
Jeconiah, the king, the elders of Judah and other artisans to Babylon.
3. The cumulative number of the captives in the three exiles was four
thousand and six hundred, and that the third exile by Nebuchadnezzar took
place in the twenty-third year of his reign.
This reveals three obvious errors. Firstly, according to the historians, Jeconia
h,
the elder of Judah, and other artisans were exiled to Babylon in 599 B.C. The
author of Meezan-ul-Haq printed in 1849 says on page 60, that this exile took
place in 600 B.C. and Jeremiah sent the letter after their departure to Babylon.
According to the Biblical text quoted above their stay in Babylon should be
seventy years, which is certainly not true, because the Jews were released by
the order of the king of Persia in 536 B.C. This means that their sojourn in
Babylon was only sixty-three years and not seventy years. We have quoted
these figures from the book Murshid-ut-Talibeen printed in Beirut in 1852 which
is different s from the edition printed in 1840 in several places. We find the
following table in the 1852 edition.

THE YEAR
OF THE
CREATION
OF THE
CREATION
THE EVENT
THE
YEAR
BEFORE
CHRIST
BC
3405 Jerenish’s wtiting to the Captives of Babylon 599
3468 The death of Darius , the uncle of Koreish the
ascension of Cyrus to the theone of Babylon, Madi
and Pharus .His orders to release the Jews amd
semd them back to Jerusalem
356
Secondly, the cumulative number of those exiled during the three exiles is
mentioned as four thousand and six hundred people, while according to 2 Kings
the number of captives, including the princes and the brave men of Jerusalem, at

the time of the first exile, was three thousand, the craftsmen and the smiths no
t
being included in this number [2 Kings 24:14].
Thirdly, from the text quoted above, we understand that the third capacaty took
place in the twenty-third year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign whereas this is
contradicted in 2 Kings which says that Nebuzar-adan took them captive in the
nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar. [2 Kings 25:8]
Error No. 29
The Book of Ezekiel contains the following words:
“And it came to pass in the eleventh year, in the first day of the month, that t
he word
of the Lord came unto me.” [Ezek. 26:1]
And later in the same chapter we find:
“For thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I will bring upon Tyrus Nebuchadrezzar, ki
ng
of Babylon, a king of kings, from the north, with horses, and with chariots, and
with
horsemen and companies, and much people.”
“He shall slay with the sword thy daughters in the field, and he shall make a fo
rt
against thee, and cast a mount against thee, and lift up the buckler against the
e;”
thy daughters in the field, and he shall make a fort
against thee, and cast a mount against thee, and lift up the buckler against the
e;”
“And he shall set the engines of war against thy walls, and with his axes he sha
ll
break down thy towers.”
“By reason of the abundance of his horses their dust shall cover thee, thy walls
shall
shake at the noise of the horsemen, and of the wheels, and of the chariots, when
he
shall enter into thy gates, as men enter into a city wherein is made a breach.”
“With the hoofs of his horses shall he tread down all thy streets; he shall slay
thy
people by the sword, and thy strong garrisons shall go down to the ground.
“And they shall make a spoil of thy riches, and make a prey of thy
merchandise, and they shall break down thy walls, and destroy thy
pleasant houses, and they shall lay thy stones and thy timber and thy dust
in the midst of thy water.” [Ezek. 26:7-12]
History proved this prediction false because Nebuchadnezzar tried his best to
capture the city of Tyrus, and kept the city in a state of siege for thirteen ye
ars,
but had to go back without success. Since it is inconceivable that God’s promise
would not be fulfilled, it must be that the prediction itself is misreported.
In Chapter 29, we find the following words attributed to Ezekiel:
“And it came to pass in the seven and twentieth year, in the first month, in the
first
day of the month, the word of the Lord came unto me saying,”
“Son of man, Nebuchadrezzar, king of Babylon caused his army to serve a great se
rvice
against Tyrus; every head was made bald, and every shoulder was peeled: yet he h
ad no
wages, nor his army, for Tyrus... “
“...thus saith the Lord God: Behold, I will give the land of Egypt unto
Nebuchadrezzar, king of Babylon; and he shall take her multitude, and take her s
poil,
and take her prey; and it shall be the wages for his army.”
“I have given him the land of Egypt for his labour wherewith he served
against it...” [Ezek. 29:17-20]
The above text expressly states that since Nebuchadnezzar could not get the
reward of his siege of Tyrus, God promises to give him the land of
Egypt.
d not get the
reward of his siege of Tyrus, God promises to give him the land of
Egypt.
Error No. 30
The Book of Daniel contains this statement:
“Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint
which
spake, how long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the
transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodd
en
underfoot?”
“And he said unto me, unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the
sanctuary be cleansed.” [Dan. 8:13]
The Judaeo-Christian scholars, from the very beginning, have wondered about
the significance of this prediction. Almost all the Judaeo-Christian commentator
s
of the Bible are of the opinion that it is Antiochus, the consul of Rome who
invaded Jerusalem in 161 BC, who is referred to in this vision, and the days
mean the usual days of our calendar. Josephus, the famous commentator, also
agreed with this opinion.
Historically, however, this opinion does not hold water, because the occupation
of the sanctuary and host, lasted for three and a half years, whereas the period
of two thousand and three hundred days referred to comes to six years, three
months and nineteen days. For the same reason Issac Newton rejected the
assumption that Antiochus had to do anything with this vision.
Thomas Newton who wrote a commentary on the predictions and prophesies of
the Bible first quoted several other commentators on this point, and then, like
Isaac Newton, completely rejected the possibility of it being Antiochus who is
referred to in this vision of Hezekiah. He asserted that the Roman emperors and
the Popes are the import of the vision.

Snell Chauncy also wrote a commentary on the predictions of the Bible which
was published in 1838. He claimed that in his commentary he incorporated the
essence of eighty five other commentaries. Commenting on this vision he said
that from the earliest times it has been very difficult for the scholars to asce
rtain
and define the time of the commencement of the event to which this vision refers
.
was published in 1838. He claimed that in his commentary he incorporated the
essence of eighty five other commentaries. Commenting on this vision he said
that from the earliest times it has been very difficult for the scholars to asce
rtain
and define the time of the commencement of the event to which this vision refers
.
The majority of the scholars have concluded that the time of its commencement
is certainly one of four periods in which four royal commands were issued by the
Kings of Persia:
1. Cyrus, who issued his ordinance in 636 B.C.
2. The king Darius, who issued his orders in 815 B.C.
3. Ardashir, who gave his commands about Ezra in 458 B.C.
4. The king Ardashir, who issued his ordinance to Nehemiah in the
twentieth year of his reign in 444 B.C.
He also added that the days mentioned in this vision are not days as usually und
erstood,
but days signifying years. Keeping this in mind Snell Chauncy said, the ending o
f the
period of this vision would be as follows:
1. According to the first command of Cyrus it would end in 1764 A.D.
2. According to the second of Darius it would end in 1782 A,D
3. According to the third command of Ardashir it would be 1843 A.D
4. According to the fourth ordinance it would end in 1856.
All these dates passed without the prophecy being fulfilled and, in any case, th
is
illogically metaphorical interpretation is not acceptable.
Firstly it is a mis-statement to say that it would be difficult for scholars to
ascertain the period of its commencement. The difficulty lies only in the fact t
hat

the period should start right from the time when this vision was shown to Daniel
not from any period after it. not from any period after it.
Next an arbitrary change in meaning of days into years is not acceptable,
because the word, “day” continues to mean the usual period of 24 hours unless
otherwise indicated by the writer himself. The word is used in both the Old and
the New Testaments in its usual meaning and never means ”year”. Even if we
accept that the word might have been used to mean ”year” it would have been in
a figurative sense; but a figurative use of a word requires some strong indicati
on
of it. In the account of this vision the word ”day” has been used for the purpos
e of
defining a period of time and we do not find any indication that it should be ta
ken
in a figurative sense. Most scholars have, therefore, accepted it in its usual
meaning otherwise scholars like Isaac Newton, Thomas Newton and Snell
Chauncy would not have tried to put forward such confusing explanations.
Error No. 31
The Book of Daniel states [Dan. 12:11,12]:
“And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the
abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two
hundred and ninety days.”
“Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five t
hirty
days.”
This prophecy is similar to the one previously discussed which never came true.
Neither Christ nor the Messiah of the Jews appeared within this period.
Error No. 32
The Book of Daniel contains this statement:
“Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city,to finish t
he
transtgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniqu
ity,

and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and toseal up the vision and prophecy
, and
to anoint the most Holy.” [Dan. 9:24]
This prophecy is also wrong as the Messiah did not appear in this period None of
the explanations forwarded by the Christan scholars in this regard deserve any
serious consideration, partly for the resasons we have already discussed and
partly on account of a number of facts we discuss below:
Firstly the period between the first year of the reign of Cyrus, the year of the
release of the Jews as confirmed by Ezra [Ezra 1:1], and the birth of the Prophe
t
Jesus is nearly six hundred years according to Josephus and five hundred and
thirty-six years in Snell Chaucy’s estimation.
Secondly, if we accept this as a correct explanation, it would mean that all tru
e
dreams have come to end for ever, which is obviously untrue. Watson, in the
third part of his book, has reproduced Dr. Grib’s letter who said, ”The Jews hav
e
so much distorted the text of this prophecy that it has been rendered inapplicab
le
to Jesus.” This confession by Watson is enough to confirm our contention that
this prediction, according to the original copy of the Book of Daniel, still
preserved with the Jews, which is free from the objection of any kind of
manipulation, that this prophecy is inapplicable to Jesus.
Thirdly, the word ”Christ”, meaning anointed, has been used for all the kings of
the Jews irrespective of their character or deeds. It appears in Psalm 18 verse
50. Similarly, David is mentioned as the anointed in Psalm 131. And also 1
Samuel contains this statement of David regarding King Saul, who is said to have
been one of the worst kings of the Jews;
“Behold this day thine eyes have seen how that the Lord hath delivered thee into
mine
hand in the cave: and some bade me to kill thee: but mine eye spared thee; and I
said,
I will not put forth mine hand against my lord, for he is the Lord’s anointed.”
[1 Sam.
24:10]
The same application of this word is also found in 1 Samuel 24 and 2 Samuel 1.
Besides, this word is not only limited to the kings of the Jews. We find it bein
g
used for other kings too. It is stated in Isaiah:
Besides, this word is not only limited to the kings of the Jews. We find it bein
g
used for other kings too. It is stated in Isaiah:
“Thus saith the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have
holden,” Isaiah” [Isaiah 45:1]
Cyrus, the king of Persia, is mentioned as God’s anointed or the Christ in this
text. Cyrus is the one who liberated the Jews from their captivity and allowed t
he
Temple to be rebuilt.
Error No. 33
The following statement is given through the Prophet David in 2 Samuel:
“Moreover I will appoint a place for my people Israel, and will plant them, that
may
dwell in a place of their own, and move no more; neither shall the children of
wickedness afflict them any more, as beforetime. And as since the time that I
commanded judges to be over my people Israel.” [2 Sam. 7:10]
The same prediction appeared in slightly different words in the Persian
translation of 1835. According to this text God had promised them that they
would live in peace there, without any affliction to them at the hands of wicked
people. This promised place was Jerusalem, where they made their habitations
and lived. History has proved that this promise was not fulfilled. They were
severely afflicted at the hands of several rulers. Nebuchadnezzar invaded them
three times and slaughtered them, captured them and deported them to Babylon.
Titus the Emperor of Rome, persecuted them so barbarously that one million of
the Jews were killed, a hundred thousand people were hanged and ninety-nine
thousand were imprisoned. Up to this day their descendants are living in
degradation around the world.
Error No. 34
In 2 Samuel we read the following promise of God to David:

“And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will s
et up
thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will stablish
his
kingdom.”
“He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his king
dom

for ever.
“I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will cha
sten him
with the rod of men, and with stripes of the children of men;
“But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul whom I put
away before thee.
“And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before
thee; thy throne shall be established for ever.” [2 Sam. 7:12-16]
Another statement of similar nature is given in I Chronicles:
“Behold, a son shall be born to thee, who shall be a man of rest: and I will giv
e him
rest from all his enemies round about: for his name shall be Solomon, and I will
give
peace and quietness unto Israel in his days.
“He shall build a house for my name: and he shall be my son,... and I will
establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel for ever.” [1 Chr. 22:9-10]
Although, God had promised everlasting kingdom in the family of David, this
promise was not fulfilled, as the family of David was deprived of the kingdom, a
long time ago.
Error No. 35
Paul reported God’s word regarding the prominence of Jesus over the angels in hi
s letter
to the Hebrews [Heb. 1:5]:
“I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son.”
Christian scholars have claimed that this is a reference to the verses in 2 Samu
el
and 1 Chronicles discussed in the previous paragraph. This claim is not
acceptable for several reasons.

1. The text of Chronicles is unambiguous saying that the son’s name will
be Solomon.
2. Both the texts say that he would build a house in the name of God. This
can only be applied to Solomon who built the house of God, as promised.
Jesus, on the other hand was born one thousand and three years after the
construction of this house and used to talk of its destruction. This will be
discussed under Error No.79.
3. Both predictions foretold that he would be a king, where as Jesus was
not a king, on the contrary he was a poor man as he himself said:
“And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have n
ests;
but the son of man hath not where to lay his head.” [Matt. 8:20]
4. It is clearly stated in the first prediction that:
“If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the str
ipes of
the children of men.”
This implies that he will be a man of iniquitous nature. According to the
Christians – and they are far from the truthSolomon was a man of that nature
and gave up the prophethood and became an apostate in his last days,
indulging in idol worship, building temples for the idols, and committing
himself to heathenism. Whereas Jesus was absolutely innocent, and could
not commit a sin of any kind.
5. In the text of Chronicles it says clearly:
“Who shall be a man of rest, and I will give him rest from all his enemies round
about.”
However, Jesus, according to the Christians, was never in peace right from his e
arly
days up to the time of the crucifixion. He lived in constant fear of the Jews an
d left

one place for another until he was arrested by them and, they say, killed. Solom
on,
on the other hand, fulfilled the condition of living in rest from his enemies.
6. In the prediction of Chronicles the Israelites are promised:
“I will give peace and quieteness unto Israel in his days.”
Whereas it is historically known to everyone that the Jews were servile to and d
ominated
by the Romans in the time of Jesus.
7. The Prophet Solomon, himself has claimed that the prediction was
made about him. This is clear from 2 Chronicles.
Although the Christians agree that these tidings were for Solomon, they say that
it was
in fact for Jesus too, as he was a descendant of Solomon. We contend that this i
s a
false claim because the attributes of the predicted son must coincide with the
description of the prophecy. We have already shown that Jesus does not fulfill t
he
requirements of the prediction.
Apart from this, Jesus cannot be the subject of this prediction, even according
to the Christian scholars. In order to remove the contradiction between the
genealogical descriptions of Jesus in Mathew and Luke, they have said that
Matthew described the genealogy of Joseph of Nazareth, while Luke
described the genealogy of Mary. However, Jesus was not the son of Joseph,
but rather the son of Mary, and according to her genealogy Jesus is the
descendant of Nathan, son of David, and not the son of Solomon.
CONTRADICTIONS AND ERRORS IN THE
BIBLICAL TEXT:
Errors 36 -55

Error No. 36
It is said regarding the Prophet Elijah in I Kings:
“And the word of Lord came unto him, saying, Get thee hence, and turn
thee eastward, and hide thyself by the brook Cherith, that is before
Jordan.
And it shall be, that thou shalt drink of the brook; and I have commanded
the ravens to feed thee there.
So he went and did according unto the word of the Lord: for he went and
dwelt by the brook Cherith, that is before Jordan,
And the ravens brought him bread and flesh in the morning, and bread
and flesh in the evening, and he drank of the brook.” [1 Kings 17:2-6]
In the above text the word ’raven’ is a translation of the original word ’arem’.
All
the translators except Jerome have translated it as ’raven’, only Jerome has
translated it differently as ”Arab”. Since his opinion did not gain popularity,
his
followers distorted the texts in Latin translations and changed the word ’Arab’
to
raven. This has been much laughed at by non-Christian scholars. Horne, a
famous scholar, was much surprised at it and was, in fact, inclined to agree wit
h
Jerome in that the word ’arem’ most likely signifies ’Arab’ and not raven. He
greatly criticised the other translators and gave three arguments to prove the
absurdity of their opinion. He said on page 639 of the first volume of his
commentary:
Some critics have censured the translators saying that it is far from being
true that crows should provide sustenance to a Prophet. If they had seen
the original word, they would not have reproached them, because the

original word is ’Orim’ which has the meaning of ’Arab’. This word is used
for the same purpose in 2 Kings 21 and in Nehemiah 4.
’Orim’ which has the meaning of ’Arab’. This word is used
for the same purpose in 2 Kings 21 and in Nehemiah 4.
Besides, it is understood from ’Perechat Riba’, an exegesis of the Book
of Genesis, that this prophet was commanded to live and hide himself in a
place in the vicinity of ’Butshan’. Jerome said that the ’Orim’ were the
residents of that town which was within the limits of Arabia. They provided
food for this prophet.
This is a valuable finding and evidence for Jerome. Although the Latin
translations contain the word ’raven’, the Book of Chronicles, the Book of
Nehemiah and Jerome have translated it as ’Arab’. Similarly it is indicated by t
he
Arabic translation that this word signified men, and not crows. The famous
Jewish commentator Jarchi also translated this word as ’Arab’. It is certainly n
ot
likely that God would have provided bread and flesh to his prophet through such
impure birds. A prophet like Elijah, who was so strict a follower of the
commandments of God would not be satisfied with flesh provided by crows
unless he knew beforehand that the crows were not bringing carrion. Elijah was
provided with such flesh and bread for a whole year. How could this kind of
service be attributed to crows? It is much more likely the inhabitants of ’Orbo’
or
’Arabs’ rendered this service to him.”
It is up to the Protestants now to decide which of the two opinions is correct.
Error No. 37
We find the following statement in I Kings:
“...in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were
come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over
Israel, in the month Zif, which is the second month, that he began to build
the house of Lord.” [1 Kings 6:1]

According to the historians, this statement is incorrect. Adam Clarke, for

example, said, when commenting on this verse in Vol. 2 of his commentary: exampl
e, said, when commenting on this verse in Vol. 2 of his commentary:
“The historians have differred from this text in the following details: The
Hebrew text gives 480, Latin 440, Glycas 330, Melchior Canus 590;
Josephus 592, Slipicius Severus 585, Clement Alexander 570, Cedrenus
672 Codomanus 598, Vosius Capellus 580, Seranius 680, Nicholas
Abraham 527, Mastlinus 592, Petavius and Watherus 520.”
Had the year, described by the Hebrew text been correct and revealed by God,
the Latin translator and so many of the Judeao-Christian historians would have
not contradicted it. Josephus and Clement Alexandrianus also differed from the
Hebrew text, even though both of them are known as staunch believers in their
religion. This, naturally, leads us to believe that the biblical text was to the
m no
more worthy of respect than any other book of history. Otherwise they would
have not even thought of disagreeing with it.
Error No. 38
It is stated in Matthew:
“So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations;
and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen
generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are
fourteen generations.” [Matt. 1:17]
According to this statement the genealogy of Jesus from Abraham is subdivided
into three groups, each consisting of fourteen generations. It is obviously not
correct, because since the first group from Abraham to David, includes David in
it, he must be excluded from the second group as he cannot be counted twice.
The second group should start with Solomon and end with Jeconias, thus
excluding him from the third group. The third group should start from Salathiel,
which leaves only 13 generations in the last group. All of the ancient as well a
s

modern scholars have criticized this error, but the Christian scholars are unabl
e
to produce any convincing explanation for it. to produce any convincing explanat
ion for it.
Errors No. 39-42:
According to the Arabic translation printed in 1849, describing the genealogy of
the Christ, the Gospel of Matthew states:
“Josias begat Jeconias and his brethren, in the captivity of Babylon.”
[Matt. 1:11]
It can be understood from this text that Jeconias and his brothers were born in
the period of exile in Babylon, which obviously implies that Josias was alive
during that period. However this cannot be the case for the following four
reasons:
1. Josias had died twelve years before the exile, because after his death
his son Jehoahaz became king and ruled for three months. Then Jehoiachin,
another son of Josias reigned for eleven years. And it was only when
Jeconias, the son of Jehoiakim. had been ruling for three months in
Jerusalem, that Nebuchadnezzar invaded Jerusalem and imprisoned him
along with all other Israelites and deported them to Babylon. [See 2 Chr.
35:23; 36:1,2,59; and 2 Kings 23:30,31,36 and 24:8]
2. Jeconias is the grandson of Josias, and not his son, as is clear from the
above statement.
3. At the time of exile, Jeconias was 18 years old [2 Kings 24:8], therefore
his birth in this period is out of the question.
4. Jeconias had no brothers but his father had three brothers.
In view of the above textual difficulties, the commentator Adam Clarke reported
in
his commentaries that:

“Calmet suggested that this verse should be read as follows: ‘Josiah

begat Jehoiakin, and his brethren, Jehoiakin begat Jeconiah about the
time of carrying away to Babylon’.”
Calmet suggested that this verse should be read as follows: ‘Josiah
begat Jehoiakin, and his brethren, Jehoiakin begat Jeconiah about the
time of carrying away to Babylon’.”
This suggestion of manipulating the text of the holy scriptures is something to
be
noted by the reader. Even after this change, our objection discussed in no. 3
above remains unaffected.
In our opinion, some ingenious priests have deliberately deleted the word
Jehoiakin from the text to avoid the objection that Jesus, being a descendant of
Jehoiakin, would not be able to sit on the throne of David [Jer. 36:30], and tha
t in
this case it would no longer be possible for him to be the Messiah.
They did not appreciate the implications that were to occur as a result of this
tiny
change in the text. Perhaps they thought it was easier to lay blame on Matthew
than to preclude Jesus from being the descendant of David and from his being
the Messiah.
Error No. 43
The genealogical description in Matthew records seven generations between
Judah and Salmon, and five generations from Salmon to David [Matt. 1:6-11].
The period from Judah to Salmon is about three hundred years, and from
Salmon to David four hundred years. Even bearing in mind the long lives of those
people, this statement cannot be true, as the age of the first group of generati
ons
was longer than the second group. Matthew’s description puts seven generations
in three hundred years, and five generations in four hundred years.
Error No. 44
The second of the three groups of fourteen generations described by Matthew in
the genealogy of Jesus, has in fact eighteen generations and not the fourteen
mentioned in the third chapter of I Chronicles. Newman expressed great concern

about this and mocked it saying that so far it had only been necessary to believ
e
in the parity of one and three, now it was necessary to believe in the parity of
eighteen and fourteen, because the holy scriptures cannot be thought of as being
incorrect
in the parity of one and three, now it was necessary to believe in the parity of
eighteen and fourteen, because the holy scriptures cannot be thought of as being
incorrect
Errors No. 45 & 46
In the same passage of Matthew we read:
“Jehoram begat Uzziah.”
This statement is incorrect for two reasons:
1. It claims that Uzziah was the son of Jehoram which is not true,
because Uzziah was the son of Ahaziah, son of Joash who was the son of
Amaziah, son of Joram. These are the three generations which have been left
out by Matthew perhaps to make them fourteen. These three were kings of
repute. They are mentioned in Chapters 8, 12 and 14 of the Second Book of
Kings, and in Chapters 22-25 of 2 Chronicles. There is no way of knowing
why these generations have been left out by Matthew from the geneology. It
seems simply to be one of his great mistakes.
2. Is the correct name Uzziah or Ozias, as he is named by 2 Kings and I
Chronicles?
Error No. 47
Again in the same passage we find this statement:
“And Salathiel begat Zorobabel.” [Matt. 1:12]
This is also incorrect because Zorobabel was the son of Pedaiah and the
nephew of Salathiel as is expressly mentioned in I Chronicles 3.

Error No. 48
The same passage of genealogy in Matthew states:
“Zorobabel begat Abiud.” [Matt. 1:13]
This, too, is wrong since Zerubbabel had only five sons, as is confirmed by 1
Chronicles. None of the five sons is of this name. [1 Chr. 3:25]
There are in all eleven errors in the genealogy recorded by Matthew. If the
differences of Luke and Matthew, discussed earlier are also included they total
seventeen mistakes. This short passage of Matthew is, therefore, erroneous in
no less than seventeen places.
Error No. 49
Matthew describes the event of some wise men from the east who had seen the
star which was the sign of the birth of Christ. They came to Jerusalem, and,
guided by the star, they reached Bethlehem where the star halted above the
head of the infant.
Astronomically this statement is ridiculous and unacceptable. The movement of
stars and some comets as seen from the earth is from the East to the West, and
some of the comets move contrarily from the West to the East. Bethlehem is
situated to the south of Jerusalem. Besides the men coming from the east could
not possibly see the movement of a star which is too slow to be seen by the
naked eye. And in any case how could a moving star, if it did ever come to a sto
p
in the sky, be said to have stopped at the head of a new born child.
Error No. 50
In Chapter One of Matthew we read this statement:

“Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the
Lord by the prophet, saying,
Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the
Lord by the prophet, saying,
Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they
shall call his name ‘Emmanuel’.” [Matt. 1:22,23]
According to the Christian writers the Prophet referred to in this verse is the
Prophet Isaiah, because in his book he had said:
“Therefore, the Lord himself shall give you a sign: Behold, a virgin shall
conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name ‘Emmanuel’.” [Isaiah
7:14]
This is again incorrect for the following reasons:
1. The original word that has been translated as ’virgin’ by Matthew and
the translator of the book of Isaiah is ’alamah’ which is the feminine form of
’alam’ which according to the Jewish scholars, signifies a ’young girl’ married
or unmarried. This word is also used, as they say, in the Book of Proverbs,
Chapter 30, where it is used for a young married woman. The three famous
Latin translations say ’young woman’. These translations are the earliest
known translations and are said to have been made in 129, 175, and 200. In
view of these ancient translations and the opinion of the Jewish scholars,
Matthew’s statement is shown to be erroneous.
Frier, in his book on the etymology of Hebrew words, a book that is
considered the most authentic work on the subject, said that the word
’alamah, had a dual meaning: ’virgin’ and ’young woman’. His opinion, as
compared to the commentaries of the Jews, is not acceptable, and even if we
accept this opinion, the word cannot be taken to mean a virgin with any
argument against the established meaning adopted by the commentators and
the ancient translators. The above facts are certainly enough to prove falsity

of the statement of the author of Meezan-ul-Haq, who claimed that the word
had no other meaning than ’virgin’.
Meezan-ul-Haq, who claimed that the word
had no other meaning than ’virgin’.
2. Jesus was never called by the name Emmanuel, nor did his adopted
father [Joseph the carpenter] give this name to him:
“The angel told his father to call him with the name of Jesus.” [Matt. 1:21]
It is also a fact that Gabriel came to his mother and said:
“Thou shall conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son and shalt call his
name Jesus.” [Luke 1:31]
Apart from this Jesus himself never claimed that his name was Emmanuel.
3. The passage where this word occurs, precludes its application to
Jesus. It states that Rezin, the king of Syria, and Pekah, the king of Israel,
went together to war against Ahaz, the king of Judah. He was very frightened
and God sent a revelation to Isaiah as a consolation for Ahaz, saying that he
should not be frightened as his enemies would not be able to prevail against
him, and that their kingdoms would be destroyed, and that the sign of their
destruction was that a young woman would bring forth a son and before the
child grew up their kingdoms would be destroyed. [Isaiah 7:1-17]
In fact Jesus was born after 721 years of the destruction of the kingdoms which
were destroyed only 21 years after the above Prophecy. Judaeo-Christian
scholars disagree on this point. Some of them have claimed that Isaiah used the
word ’young woman’ for his own wife who would conceive and give birth to a
child. And the two kings, of whom the people were frightened, would be
destroyed along with their kingdom before the child grew up. This was said by Dr
.
Benson and seems to have logic and bear truth.

Error No. 51
There is another statement in Matthew regarding Joseph, the carpenter:
“And was there until the death of Herod, that it might be fulfilled which was
spoken of the Lord by the Prophet, saying out of Egypt have I called my
son.” [Matt. 2:15]
The Prophet referred to in this text is Hosea and Matthew makes reference to the
first verse of Chapter 11 of his book, which is absolutely incorrect as that ver
se
has nothing to do with Jesus. The verse, according to the Arabic translation,
printed in 1811, reads like this:
“When Israel was a child, then I loved him and called his sons out of
Egypt.”
This verse, is in fact, an expression of God’s benevolence to the Israelites
conferred upon them in the time of Moses. Matthew made two changes in the
text. He changed the plural, ’sons’, into the singular, ’son’, and turned the th
ird
person ’his’ into the first person making it ’my son’.
Following the example of Matthew, the Arabic translator of 1844 changed the text
to incorporate this alteration.
Besides, this change cannot be overlooked because further in this chapter the
people who were called from Egypt are mentioned in these words:
“As they called them, so they went from them, they sacrificed unto
Baalim.” [Hosea 11:2]
This statement cannot be applied to Jesus.

Error No. 52 or No. 52

It is also stated in Matthew:
“Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was
exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in
Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under,
according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men.”
[Matt. 2:16]
This statement is wrong both logically and historically. Historically because no
ne
of the non-Christian historians mentioned this event of the slaying of the infan
ts
by Herod.
For example Josephus did not said anything regarding this event. Similarly the
Jewish scholars, who are very hostile and antagonistic towards Herod, and have
been very particular in describing any weak points of Herod which they could dig
out from history, have not said anything in this regard. Had this incident been
true
they would have jumped at it and described it as negatively as possible. If any
Christian historian were to describe it, he would certainly base his description
on
the statement in the Gospel of Matthew.
And logically it is not acceptable because Bethlehem, at that time, was a small
village situated near Jerusalem. Herod, being the governor could easily have
found out the house where the wise men had stayed. It was absolutely
unnecessary for him to commit such a heinous act as killing innocent children.
Error No. 53
The Gospel of Matthew also contains this statement:
“Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremiah the Prophet,
saying,

In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great
mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted
because they are not.” [Matt. 2:17,18]
ntation, and weeping, and great
mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted
because they are not.” [Matt. 2:17,18]
This is again a clearly distorted rendering of the text of Jeremiah. Any reader
can
himself look up the passage in. Jeremiah [Matt. 2:23], and see for himself that
the above verse has nothing to do with Herod. It is clearly related to the famou
s
historical calamity of Nebuchadnezzar’s invasion of Jerusalem. The people of
Rachel’s tribe were among the Israelites who were exiled to Babylon. Her soul
lamented over the misery of her people. God, therefore, promised that her
children would be released to go back to their own land.
Error No. 54
We find this statement in Matthew:
“And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled
which was spoken by the prophets. He shall be called a Nazarene.” [Matt.
31:15]
This is also certainly incorrect, as this statement is not found in any of the b
ooks
of the Prophets. The Jews deny the validity of this kind of prediction. Accordin
g to
them it is simply a false claim. On the contrary they had a firm belief that no
prophet would ever come from Galilee, not to speak of Nazareth, as is expressly
stated in the Gospel of John:
“They answered and said unto him, Art thou also of Galilee? Search, and
look: For out of Galilee ariseth no Prophet.” [John 7:52]
The Christian scholars have put forward weak explanations regarding this, which
do not deserve any serious consideration.

Readers will have noted that there are seventeen errors in the first two chapter
s
of Matthew.
e seventeen errors in the first two chapters
of Matthew.
Error No. 55
According to the Arabic translations printed in 1671, 1821, 1826, 1854 and 1880,
there is a statement in Matthew which reads as follows:
“In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of
Judaea.” [Matt. 3:1]
And in the Persian translations printed in 1671, 1821, 1826, 1854 and 1880, we
find the same statement:
“In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of
Judaea.”
In this passage, the phrase ‘in those days’ refers to the days when Archelaus di
d
reign in Judaea, because just before the verse in question, Matthew has
described that after the death of Herod, Archelaus became the king of Judaea
and Joseph, the carpenter, took the child (Jesus) and his wife to Galilee and
settled in the city of Nazareth, and that at this time came John, the Baptist.
This statement is certainly wrong because John, the Baptist delivered his sermon
preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins eighteen years
after the events discussed above, since it is clear from Luke [Luke 3:1] that Jo
hn,
the Baptist delivered this sermon when Pontius Pilate was the governor of
Judaea, and that it was the fifteenth year of Tiberius’ reign. The Emperor
Tiberius began his reign fourteen years after the birth of Jesus. (Britannica pa
ge
246 Vol. 2 under Tiberius) This implies that John, the Baptist came twenty-nine
years after the birth of Jesus. In the seventh year after the birth of Jesus,
Archelaus had left his throne of Judaea. (Britannica 246 vol. 2 under Archelaus)
If we assume that the beginning of Archelaus reign and the arrival of Joseph in

Nazareth were before the birth of Jesus, the coming of John the Baptist will be
proved to have been twenty-eight years after the birth of Jesus. proved to have
been twenty-eight years after the birth of Jesus.
CONTRADICTIONS AND ERRORS IN THE
BIBLICAL TEXT:

Errors 56 -83

Error No. 56:

The Name of Herodias’ Husband
We find in Matthew:
For Herod had laid hold on John and bound him, and put him in prison for
Herodias’ sake, his brother Philip’s wife.” [Matt. 14:3]
This statement is also historically wrong, because the name of Herodias’
husband was Herodius, as is stated by Josephus in Chapter 12 of Vol. 8 of his
history.
Error No. 57
It is stated in Matthew:
“But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an
hungred, and they that were with him;
How he entered into the house of God and did eat the shewbread, which
was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him.” [Matt.
12:3,4]

The phrase “neither for them which were with him” is clearly wrong as will be
discussed under Error No. 92.
hrase “neither for them which were with him” is clearly wrong as will be
discussed under Error No. 92.
Error No. 58
Matthew contains this statement:
“Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying,
And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued,
whom they of the children of Israel did value.” [Matt. 27:9]
This statement is also wrong as will be shown later in the book.
Error No. 59:
The Earthquake on Jesus’ Crucifixion
Once more we find in Matthew:
“And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the
bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept
arose.
And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy
city and appeared unto many.” Matt. 27:51-53]
This is a concocted story. Norton, the famous scholar, though he favoured the
gospels, said, proving the falsity of this story with several arguments, ”This i
s a
totally false story. It seems that such stories were prevalent among the Jews at
the time of destruction of Jerusalem. Possibly someone might have written this
story as a marginal note in the Gospel of Matthew, and later on it might have
been included in the text, the translator might have translated it from that tex
t.

The falsehood of this story is evident for several reasons:

1. The Jews went to Pilate, the day after the Crucifixion of Christ, and said
to Pilate:
“Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive. After
three days I will rise again.
Command therefore, that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day.”
[Matt. 27:63-64]
Moreover, Matthew, in the same chapter expressly states that Pilate and his
wife were not pleased at the crucifixion of Christ. The Jews would not dare
go to Pilate in these circumstances, especially when there was an
earthquake and the graves opened and the rocks rent. The fact that Pilate
was not pleased at the crucifixion of Christ, would have put him into a rage
against the Jews. They could have not gone to Pilate to say that Christ was a
’deceiver’, God forbid.
2. In the presence of such miraculous signs a great number of people of
that time would have embraced the new faith without hesitation, whereas,
according to the Bible, three thousand people did accept the new faith, but
only when the Holy Spirit descended on the disciples and they spoke several
languages before the people. This event is explicitly mentioned in Acts. [Acts
2:1-40]
The events described by Matthew were obviously of a much more compelling nature
than the disciples speaking in several languages.
3. Is it not surprising that none of the historians of that time and of the
time succeeding it, and none of the evangelists except Matthew, has written a
single word about these events of so great an historical importance
It is of no avail to say that opponents have deliberately avoided any reference
to these
events. But what do they have to say of the absence of any account of these even
ts in

the books of those Christian historians who are considered to be advocates of

Christianity. In particular the absence of any description of these events in th
e Gospel
of Luke is very surprising, as he is generally known for reporting the rarities
of the
life of Jesus, as is clear from the first chapters of his gospel and of the Book
of Acts.
Christianity. In particular the absence of any description of these events in th
e Gospel
of Luke is very surprising, as he is generally known for reporting the rarities
of the
life of Jesus, as is clear from the first chapters of his gospel and of the Book
of Acts.
We cannot understand why all the evangelists, or at least most of them, have not
referred to these events when they have given full account of events of no or le
sser,
significance. Mark and Luke, too, only speak of the splitting of the veil and no
t of
anything else.
4. Since the veil in question was made of silk, we cannot understand how
a soft curtain of silk could be torn like this, and if it was true, how the buil
ding
of the temple could remain unaffected. This objection is forwarded equally to
all evangelists.
5. The bodies of the saints coming out of the graves happens to be in
clear contradiction to the statement of Paul, in which he said that Christ was
the first to rise from the dead.
The learned scholar Norton truthfully said that this evangelist seems to be in
the habit of making his own guesses, and is not always able to sort out the
truth from the available stock of events. Can such a man be trusted with the
word of God?
Errors No. 60, 61, 62:
The Resurrection of Jesus
The Gospel of Matthew reports Jesus’ answering to some scribes:
“But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation
seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of
the Prophet Jonas:
For Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall
the son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.”
[Matt. 12:39-40]
We find a similar statement in the same gospel:
“A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall
no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the Prophet Jonas.” [Matt. 16:4]
The same is understood from the statement of the Jews reported by Matthew:
“Sir, we remember that, that deceiver said while he was yet alive, After
three days I will rise again.” [Matt. 27:63]
All these statements are incorrect for the fact is that according to the gospels
Jesus was crucified on Friday in the afternoon and died at about nine in the
evening. Joseph asked Pilate for his body in the evening and arranged his
funeral, as is clear from the Gospel of Mark. He was therefore buried in the nig
ht
of Friday, and his body is said to have disappeared on the morning of Sunday, as
described by John. According to this detail, his body did not remain in the eart
h
for more than one day and two nights. Therefore his statement of staying in the
earth for three days and three nights is proved incorrect.
Seeing the error in these statements, Paley and Channer admitted that the
statement in question was not of Jesus but was the result of Matthew’s own
imagination. Both of them said words to the effect that Jesus would have meant
to convince them only through his preachings without their asking a sign from
him, like the people of Nineveh, who embraced the new faith without a sign from
Jonah.
According to these two scholars this statement was proof of a lack of
understanding on the part of Matthew. It also proves that Matthew did not write
his gospel by inspiration. His not understanding the intention of Jesus in this
case, shows that he could well have written similarly erroneous accounts in othe
r
places.

It is, therefore, a natural conclusion that the gospel of Matthew cannot, in any
way be called revelation but is rather a collection of accounts influenced by th
e
local environment and the result of human imagination.
gospel of Matthew cannot, in any
way be called revelation but is rather a collection of accounts influenced by th
e
local environment and the result of human imagination.
Error No. 63:
The Second Coming of Jesus
It is stated in Matthew:
“For the son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels;
and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste
of death, till they see the son of man coming in his kingdom.” [Matt.
16:27,28]
This statement has definitely been wrongly attributed to Jesus, because all thos
e
’standing here’, died nearly two thousand years ago, and none of them saw the
Son of Man coming into his kingdom
Error No. 64:
Another Prediction of Jesus
Matthew reports Jesus saying to his disciples:
“But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another, for verily I
say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the son of
man be come.” [Matt. 10:23]
Again this is obviously wrong as the disciples have, long, long ago, done their
duty of going over the cities of Israel, but the S on of Man never came with his
kingdom.

Errors No. 65 -68 65 -68

The book of Revelations contains this statement:
“Behold, I come quickly:” [Rev. 3:11]
The same words are found in chapter 22 verse 7 of the same book. And verse 10
of the same chapter contains this statement:
“Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.”
Further in verse 20 it says again:
“Surely, I come quickly.”
On the basis of these statements of Christ, the earlier followers of Christianit
y
held the firm belief that the second coming of Christ would be in their own time
.
They believed that they were living in the last age and that the day of Judgemen
t
was very near at hand. The Christian scholars have confirmed that they held this
belief.
Errors No. 69 -75
The Epistle of James contains this statement:
“Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord
draweth near.” [James 5:8]
It also appears in I Peter:
“But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober and watch unto
prayer.” [1 Peter 4:7]
And the First Epistle of Peter contains these words:

“Little children, it is the last time.” [1 Peters 4:7]

And the First Epistle of Paul to the Thessalonians states:
“For this we say unto you, by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive
Little children, it is the last time.” [1 Peters 4:7]
And the First Epistle of Paul to the Thessalonians states:
“For this we say unto you, by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive
and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are
asleep.
For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the

voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ

shall rise first:

Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them
in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the
Lord.” [1 Thess. 4:15-17]

And Paul said in his letter to Philippians:

“The Lord is at hand.” [Phil. 4:5]
And in his First Epistle to the Corinthians, Paul said:
“And they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the
worlds are come.” [1 Cor. 10:11]
Paul also said later in the same letter:
Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be
changed,
In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet
shall sound and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be
changed.” [1 Cor. 15:51,52]

The above seven statements are the arguments for our claim that the early
Christians held a firm belief in the second coming of Christ during their own
lifetime, with the result that all the seven statements are proved false.
Christians held a firm belief in the second coming of Christ during their own
lifetime, with the result that all the seven statements are proved false.
Errors No. 76 -78:
The Signs of the End of the World
Matthew describes in Chapter 24 that the disciples of Jesus asked the Messiah,
when they were on the Mount of Olives, about the signs of the destruction of the
Temple and the Second Coming of Jesus and about the end of the world. Jesus
told them all the signs, first of the destruction of the House of the Lord, of h
is own
coming to the earth again and of the day of Judgement. The description up to
verse 28 talks of the destruction of the Temple; and verse 29 to the end of the
chapter consists of the events related to the second coming of Christ and the
Day of Judgement. Some verses of this chapter according to the Arabic
translation printed in 1820, read thus:
“Immediately after the tribulation of those days, shall the sun be darkened,
and the moon will not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven,
and the powers of the heavens 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 trumpet, and they shall
gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heaven
to the other.” [Matt. 24:29-31]
And in verses 34 and 35 it says:

“Verily I say unto you. This generation shall not pass, till all these things
be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away but my words shall not pass
away.”
Verily I say unto you. This generation shall not pass, till all these things
be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away but my words shall not pass
away.”
The text of the Arabic translation printed in 1844 is exactly the same. However,
the Persian translations of 1816, 1828, 1842 contain:
“Immediately after the trouble of those days, the sun shall be darkened.”
Verse 34 of these translations is identical to the one quoted above. It is, ther
efore
necessary that the day of Judgement should come at the time when the House of
God has been destroyed and Jesus has reappeared on the earth, ”...immediately
after the trouble of those days,” according to the statement of Jesus. Similarly
it
is also necessary that the generation contemporary with Christ should not have
died until they saw these event with their eyes, as was the belief of the early
Christians. However they did die centuries ago and heaven and earth still
continue to exist.
The evangelists, Mark and Luke also included similar descriptions in Chapters 13
and 21 respectively of their gospels. The three evangelists are equally
responsible for this historically proved false statement.
Errors No. 79 -81:
The Reconstruction of the Temple
The Gospel of Matthew reports this statement of Christ:
“Verily I say unto you. There shall not be left here one stone upon
another, that shall not be thrown down.” [Matt. 24:2]
The Protestant scholars have therefore said that any construction to be built on
the foundations of the temple would be razed to the ground as had been foretold
by Jesus. The Author of Tehqeeq-e-Deen-ul-Haq, (Inquisition into the True Faith)
printed in 1846, said on page 394:

“King Julian, who lived three hundred years after Christ and had become
an apostate, intended to rebuild the temple of Jerusalem, so that he could
thus refute the prediction of Jesus. When he started the construction
suddenly a fire jumped out from its foundations. All the workers were
frightened and fled away from there. No one after him ever dared to refute
the saying of the truthful, who had said, ”The heaven and the earth shall
pass away but my words shall not pass away.”
King Julian, who lived three hundred years after Christ and had become
an apostate, intended to rebuild the temple of Jerusalem, so that he could
thus refute the prediction of Jesus. When he started the construction
suddenly a fire jumped out from its foundations. All the workers were
frightened and fled away from there. No one after him ever dared to refute
the saying of the truthful, who had said, ”The heaven and the earth shall
pass away but my words shall not pass away.”
The priest Dr. Keith wrote a book in renunciation of the disbelievers in Christ
which was translated into Persian by Rev. Mirak entitled ”Kashf-ul-Asar-FiQisas-
e-Bani Israel” (An exposition of the Israelite Prophets) and printed in
Edinburgh in 1846. We produce the translation of a passage from page 70:
“King Julian allowed the Jews to rebuild Jerusalem and the temple. He
also promised that they would be allowed to live in the city of their
ancestors, the Jews were no less grieved than the king was pleased. They
started the work of the Temple. Since it was against the prophecy of
Christ, the Jews, in spite of their best efforts and all the possible help from
the king could not succeed in their mission. Some pagan historians have
reported that the huge flames of fire burst out of this place and burnt the
workers stopping the work altogether.”
Thomas Newton, in vol 3 (pages 63 and 64) of his commentary on the
prophecies of the Holy Scripture printed in London in 1803 said, which we
translate here from Urdu:
“Omar, the second great Caliph of Islam, spread corruption all over the
world. He reigned for ten and a half years. In this short period he made
great conquests and conquered all the countries of Arabia, Syria, Iran and
Egypt. The Caliph personally besieged Jerusalem and in 637 A.D. signed
the treaty of peace with the Christians who were tired of the prolonged
siege. The Christians surrendered and handed over the city to Omar.

Omar offered generous terms to the Christians. He did not take any
church into his possession, but he requested the high priest for a piece of
land to build a mosque. The priest showed him the room of Jacob and
Solomon’s temple. The Christians had covered this place with dirt and filth
out of their hatred for the Jews. Omar, himself, cleansed the place with his
own hands. Following the example of Omar, the great officers of his army
thought it their religious duty and cleansed the place with religious zeal
and built a mosque there. This was the first mosque ever built in
Jerusalem. Some historians have also added that in the same mosque
Omar was murdered by a slave. Abdul Malik, son of Marvan, who was the
twelfth Caliph extended this mosque in his reign.”
church into his possession, but he requested the high priest for a piece of
land to build a mosque. The priest showed him the room of Jacob and
Solomon’s temple. The Christians had covered this place with dirt and filth
out of their hatred for the Jews. Omar, himself, cleansed the place with his
own hands. Following the example of Omar, the great officers of his army
thought it their religious duty and cleansed the place with religious zeal
and built a mosque there. This was the first mosque ever built in
Jerusalem. Some historians have also added that in the same mosque
Omar was murdered by a slave. Abdul Malik, son of Marvan, who was the
twelfth Caliph extended this mosque in his reign.”
Though, the above description of this commentator is not true in several places,
he has admitted that the first mosque built at the place of Solomon’s Temple was
that built by the Caliph Omar, and that it was extended by Abdul Malik and still
exists in Jerusalem after over 1200 years. How would it have been possible for
Omar to succeed in building a. mosque there if it had really been against the
prophecy of Christ?
Since this statement of Jesus is also reported by Mark and Luke, they are equall
y
responsible for this false description.
Error No. 82:
A False Prediction
Matthew reports this statement as having been said by Jesus to his disciples:
“And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you,
That ye which have followed me, in regeneration when the son of man
shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye shall also sit upon twelve thrones,
judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” [Matt. 19:28]

It is quite apparent from this that Jesus assured his twelve disciples, of etern
al
success and redemption promising them to sit upon twelve thrones on the Day of
Judgement. This prophetic witness of eternal success has been proved wrong by
the gospels themselves. We have already seen that one of the disciples of
Jesus, namely Judas Iscariot, betrayed Jesus and became an apostate, how,
then is it possible for him to sit on the twelfth throne on the Day of Judgement
?
success and redemption promising them to sit upon twelve thrones on the Day of
Judgement. This prophetic witness of eternal success has been proved wrong by
the gospels themselves. We have already seen that one of the disciples of
Jesus, namely Judas Iscariot, betrayed Jesus and became an apostate, how,
then is it possible for him to sit on the twelfth throne on the Day of Judgement
?
Error No. 83
We find in the Gospel of John:
“And he (Jesus) saith unto him, Verily, verily I say unto you. Hereafter ye
shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending
upon the son of man.” [John 1:51]
This is also historically false and incorrect, for, this was said by Jesus after
his
baptism and after the descent of the Holy Spirit upon him, while we know that
nothing like this ever happened in history after this. These prophetic words hav
e
never come true.
CONTRADICTIONS AND ERRORS IN THE
BIBLICAL TEXT:

Errors 84-110
Error No. 84:
The Ascension of Christ
It is said in John:

“And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from
heaven, even the son of man which is in heaven.” [John 3:13]
And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from
heaven, even the son of man which is in heaven.” [John 3:13]
This is also incorrect, as is evident from the fifth chapter of Genesis [Gen. 5:
24] and 2
Kings Chapter 2. [2 Kings 2:11]
Error No. 85
We find this statement in the gospel of Mark:
“For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain,
Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his
heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to
pass; he shall have whatsoever saith.” [Mark 1:23]
We find another similar statement in the same book:
“And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they
cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
They shall take up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not
hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.” [Mark
16:17-18]
And in the gospel of John we read the following statement:
“Verily, verily I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do,
shall he do also, and greater works than these shall he do; because I go
unto my Father.” [John 14:12]
The prophetic promise made in the above texts is a general statement that does
not particularise any man or people, particularly the phrase, ”Whosoever shall
say unto this mountain” which is totally unconditional and can be applied to any
people of any time. Similarly the statement, ”He that believeth on me,” can
include any believer in Christ of any time. There is no argument to support the

claim that the above predictions were particularly made in respect of the early
Christians. It is therefore, necessary for a mountain to move and be cast into t
he
sea, if a believer says so to it, of course, with firm belief in Christ. Everyon
e
knows that nothing like this has even happened in history. We would like very
much to know if any Christian, in or after the time of Jesus, did perform “works
greater than Christ” as the evangelist has made Jesus say this in the above
prediction.
Christians. It is therefore, necessary for a mountain to move and be cast into t
he
sea, if a believer says so to it, of course, with firm belief in Christ. Everyon
e
knows that nothing like this has even happened in history. We would like very
much to know if any Christian, in or after the time of Jesus, did perform “works
greater than Christ” as the evangelist has made Jesus say this in the above
prediction.
The Protestants have more than admitted that after the time of Jesus the
occurrence of miracles and marvels has never been proved in history. We have
seen many priests in India, who, in spite of making strenuous efforts for many
years are not able to speak correctly in Urdu, let alone take up serpents, drink
poison and heal the sick.
FALLIBITY OF LUTHER AND CALVIN
Perhaps we might be allowed at this juncture, for the interest of the readers, t
o
reproduce two incidents directly related to Luther and Calvin, the founders of t
he
Protestant faith. We quote this from the book entitled Mira’atus Sidq that was
translated into Urdu by a Catholic scholar and priest Thomas Inglus and printed
in 1857. He relates the following incidents on pages 105-107:
“In 1543 Luther tried to cast out the devil from the son of Messina with a
result similar to the Jews who once tried to cast out devil as is described
by the Book of Acts in Chapter 19. Satan, in the same way attacked
Luther and wounded him and his companions. Stiffels seeing that his
spiritual leader, Luther was being choked and strangled by Satan, tried to
run away but being in great terror was not able to open the latch of the
door and had to break down the door with a hammer which was thrown to
him from the outside by his servant through a ventilator.

Another incident is related of Calvin, the great leader of the Protestants,

by another historian. Calvin once hired a man called Bromius and told him
to lie down in front of the people and pretend to be dead. He arranged with
him that when he heard Calvin say the words, ”Bromius, rise from the
dead and be alive,” he should rise from the bed as though he had been
dead and had just risen, having been miraculously brought to life. The wife
of Bromius was also told to cry and lament over the body of her husband.
by another historian. Calvin once hired a man called Bromius and told him
to lie down in front of the people and pretend to be dead. He arranged with
him that when he heard Calvin say the words, ”Bromius, rise from the
dead and be alive,” he should rise from the bed as though he had been
dead and had just risen, having been miraculously brought to life. The wife
of Bromius was also told to cry and lament over the body of her husband.
Bromius and his wife acted accordingly and people, hearing her cries and
lamentation, gathered there for her consolation. Calvin came and said to
the weeping woman, ”Do not cry. I will raise him from the dead.”
He began to recite some prayers and then holding the hand of Bromius,
said, ”Rise in the name of God.” But his design of deceiving people in the
name of God was not a success as Bromius really had died. God had
avenged Calvin for his deception and iniquity. Bromius’ wife, seeing that
her husband had died in reality started crying and blaming Calvin.
Both these leaders were considered to be the greatest spiritual leaders of their
time. If they can be blamed for such acts what remains to be said of the
generality of the people.
Pope Alexander VI, the head of the Roman church and the representative of the
Lord on the earth, according to the Catholic faith, had prepared some poison for
some other persons, but drinking it himself by mistake he died. One cannot avoid
coming to the conclusion that the leaders of both the rival sects do not possess
any of the qualities mentioned in the prediction under discussion.
Error No. 86
The gospel of Luke states:

“Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was
the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of
Neri.” [Luke 3:27]
Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was
the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of
Neri.” [Luke 3:27]
This genealogical description of the Christ contains three errors:
1. The sons of Zorobabel or Zerubbabel are described very clearly in 1
Chronicles Chapter 3 and none of them has this name. We have already
discussed this earlier and besides this, it is against the description of
Matthew.
2. Zerubbabel is the son of Pedaiah, not Salathiel. He is, however, his
nephew.
3. Salathiel is the son of Jeconias, not of Neri. Matthew has also agrees
with this.
Error No. 87
In his account of the genealogy of Jesus, Luke states:
“...which was the son of Sala, which was the son Cainan which was the
son of Arphaxad...” [Luke 3:35,36]
This statement is also not correct as Sala was the son of Arphaxad, and not his
grandson, which is clear from the book of Genesis [Gen. 11:12] and from I
Chronicles. [1Chr. 1:24]
The Hebrew version has always preference over any translation according to the
Protestants. No translation can be preferred to the original Hebrew version
simply because it corresponds with the description of Luke. On the contrary, suc
h
a translation would be considered unacceptable on the grounds that it has been
modified.

Error No. 88
We read the following statement in Luke:
“And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from
Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed,
(And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria).”
[Luke 2:1]
This, too, is incorrect because the phrase ”all the world” includes the total
population of the Roman empire. No historian prior to, or contemporary with Luke
ever mentioned this tax before the birth of Jesus in his history.
Later historians, when describing it, only do so using Luke as their source whic
h
is unacceptable. Apart from this, it seems impossible that Cyrenius, who was
governor of Syria fifteen years after the birth of Jesus, could have done the
taxing which was accomplished fifteen years prior to the birth of Jesus. Equally
unbelievable is the notion that Jesus was born during the time of his
governorship, because in this case we are required to believe that Mary
remained in the state of pregnancy for as long as fifteen years. It is so becaus
e
Luke has admitted in the second chapter that the wife of Zacharias conceived in
the reign of Herod and that Mary conceived Jesus six month later. Realizing this
”difficulty” some Christian scholars have declared that verse 2 is a later addit
ion
and not written by Luke.
Error No. 89
Luke states:
“Now in the fifteenth year of the Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being
governor of Judaea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother

Philip, tetrarch of Ituraea and of the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias

the tetrarch of Abilene.” [Luke 3:1] the tetrarch of Abilene.” [Luke 3:1]
This is incorrect as the historians have denied of there being any ruler of Abil
ene
named Lysaneas in the time of Herod and Pontius Pilate.
Error No. 90
In the same chapter of Luke we find this statement:
“But Herod the tetrarch, being reproved by him for Herodias, his brother
Philip’s wife, and for all the evils which Herod had done.” [Luke 3:19]
This is absolutely wrong, as we have shown under Error No. 56 and as will be
discussed later in the book. The mistake was made by Luke and not by the
copier, as has been said by some exegetes admitting the presence of the
mistake in the text.
Error No. 91
We find in Mark:
“For Herod himself had sent forth and laid hold upon John, and bound him
in prison for Herodias’ sake, his brother Philip’s wife...” [Mark 6:17]
This statement too, is erroneous, as we have already discussed. All the three
evangelists are equally responsible for this error. The translator of the Arabic
versions printed 1821 and 1844 has manipulated the texts of Matthew and Luke
and deleted the word Philip, while other translators have not followed his
example.

Errors No. 92 -94: -94:

Did David Eat Shewbread?
It appears in Mark:
“Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an
hungred, he, and they that were with him?
How he went into the house of God, in the days of Abiathar, the high
priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the
priests, and gave also to them which were with him?” [Mark 2:25,26]
Earlier in the book we showed that this statement is also incorrect, since David
at
that time was alone, therefore the phrase ”they that were with him” is a misstat
ement.
Besides, it is incorrect to say the high priest at that time was Abiathar,
whereas, in fact, Ahimelech was the high priest. The falsity of this statement c
an
also be understood from the beginning of 1 Samuel 21 and 22.
There are three errors in two verses of Mark. The third error will also be
discussed later. The Christian scholars have plainly admitted that Mark has made
a mistake in this text.
Errors No. 95 -96
The Gospel of Luke also describes the same event with words signifying that
David was accompanied at that time, when, as we have just shown, he was
alone.
Error No. 97
The First Epistle to Corinthians contains the following sentence:
“And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve.” [1 Cor. 15:5]

This statement is quite obviously wrong, since one of the twelve, Judas Iscariot
had died prior to this event, reducing the number of the disciples to eleven. Ma
rk,
therefore, says in Chapter 16:
had died prior to this event, reducing the number of the disciples to eleven. Ma
rk,
therefore, says in Chapter 16:
“He appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat.” [Mark 16:14]
Errors No. 98-100
Matthew says:
“But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall
speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak.
For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in
you.” [Matt. 10:19,20]
Luke also reports this in the following words:
“And when they bring you unto the synagogues, and unto magistrates,
and powers, take ye no thought, how or what thing shall ye answer, or
what ye shall say:
For the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what ye ought to
say.” [Luke 12:11,12]
A similar statement is also given in Mark in chapter 13. The implication of the
texts contained in the three gospels is that Jesus promised his disciples that
whatever they said to the officers would be inspired to them by the Holy Ghost,
which in turn signified that their words would not be their own words but the wo
rd
of the Holy Ghost.
This statement is shown to be incorrect in the light of the following passage of
the
Book of Acts:

“And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I have
lived in all good conscience before God until this day.
And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I have
lived in all good conscience before God until this day.
And the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite
him on the mouth.
Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: For
sittest thou to judge me after the law and commandest me to be smitten
contrary to the law?
And they that stood by said, Revilest thou God’s high priest?
Then said Paul, I wist not, brethern, that he was the high priest: for it is
written, Thou shall not speak evil of the ruler of thy people.” [Acts 23:1-5]
Had the statement of Matthew and Luke been true, their spiritual leader Paul,
who is considered equal in status with the disciples and who himself claims to b
e
equal to Peter, the greatest of all disciples, could have not said anything
erroneous before the council. Paul’s admission to his fault is enough to prove t
he
text incorrect. We shall later on show that the Christian scholars have admitted
the presence of error in this text. Since this text has appeared in the three
gospels, this makes three errors in the text.
Errors No. 101 & 102
In Luke we find:
“...in the days of Elias, when the heaven was shut up three years and six
months...” [Luke4:25]
and in the Epistle of James:
“...and it rained not on earth by the space of three years and six months.”
[James 5:17]

This also seems incorrect as it is understood from I Kings that there was rain i
n
the third year. [1 Kings 18:1] the third year. [1 Kings 18:1]
Since this statement has appears in Luke as being said by Jesus, while in the
Epistle of James, as the statement of James himself, this, in fact, makes it two
mistakes.
Error No. 103:
Jesus and the Throne of David
The Gospel of Luke says in chapter 1:
“And Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever, and of his Kingdom
there shall be no end.” [Luke1:32,33]
This is incorrect for the following two reasons:
1. Because Jesus, according to the genealogy given by Matthew, is a
descendant of Jehoiakim, and none of his descendants can sit on the throne
of David according to the statement of the Prophet Jeremiah. [Jer. 36:30]
2. Secondly because historically we know that Jesus never sat on the
throne of David even for a single minute; nor did he ever rule over the house
of Jacob. On the contrary, the Jews became hostile to him to the extent that
they arrested him and took him to Pilate, who reviled him and then handed
him over to the Jews to crucify.
Besides, it is clear from the Gospel of John that Jesus hated the idea of being
a king [John
6:15], and, moreover, it is unbelievable that Jesus would hate something for whi
ch he
was sent by God.

Error No. 104

We find the following passage in Mark:
“Jesus answered, and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that
hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or
children, or lands for my sake, and the gospel’s,
But he shall receive hundred-fold now in this time, houses, and brethren,
and sisters and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and
in the world to come eternal life.” [Mark 10:29,30]
And Luke reports these words in the same context:
“...who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and in the
world to come, life everlasting.” [Luke 18:30]
This cannot be true because, according to their law the Christians are not
allowed to marry more than one woman. It would therefore, not be possible for a
man leaving his wife for the sake of Jesus, to receive ”hundred-fold or at least
manifold wives in this present life.”
Besides the phrase, ”lands with persecutions”, is out of place here as Jesus is
speaking of the reward that would be given to them by God, hence the phrase
”with persecutions” is not relevant, and does not fit the context.
Error No. 105:
Jesus Healing the One Possessed by Devils
The Gospel of Mark describes the event of a man possessed by evil spirits and be
ing
healed by Jesus, saying:

“And all the devils besought him saying, Send us into the swine that we
may enter into them.
And all the devils besought him saying, Send us into the swine that we
may enter into them.
And forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean spirits went out,
and entered into the swine; and the herd ran violently down a steep place
into the sea.” [Mark 5:12,13]
This is incorrect, for the reason that the Jews were not allowed to keep swine,
being
inadmissible for them under the law.
Error No. 106
Matthew reports Jesus saying to the Jews:
“I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the son of man sitting on the right
hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.” [Matt. 26:64]
It is wrong because the Jews have never seen Christ coming in the clouds of heav
en
before or after his death.
Error No. 107
Luke has reported in chapter 6:
“The disciple is not above his master, but every man that is perfect shall
be as his master.” [Luke 6:40]
This appears to be wrong as there are many personalities who have had greater
perfection than their teacher.
Error No. 108:
Parents: Honour or Hate Them?
The following statement of Jesus has been reported by Luke:
“If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife,
and children, and brethren, and sisters yea, and his own life also, he
cannot be my disciple.” [Luke 14:26]
It is, all the more, incredible to think that such a remark could have been made
by
Jesus, when he had said, reproaching the Jews:
“For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother, and, He that
curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” [Matt. 15:4]
We cannot see how Jesus could have said this.
Error No.109
The Gospel of John says:
“And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year
said unto them, Ye know nothing at all.
Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the
people, and that the whole nation perish not.
And this spake he not of himself, but being high priest that year, he
prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;
And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one
the children of God that were scattered abroad.” [John 11:49-52]

This statement cannot be accepted as true for the following inconsistencies in t

he
text. text.
Firstly, because this statement implies that the high priest should necessarily
be
a prophet which is certainly not correct.
Secondly, if the statement of the high priest is accepted as prophetic, it
necessitates that the death of Jesus should be an atonement only for the Jews
and not for the whole world, which is obviously against the established beliefs
and claims of the Christians. And the phrase, ”not only for this nation” becomes
an absurd statement and against the prophethood of Jesus.
Thirdly, according to the evangelist, this high priest who enjoys the status of
a
prophet happens to be the same man who was the high priest at the time of the
’crucifixion’ of Jesus and the one who passed the religious decree against Jesus
accusing him of being a liar, a disbeliever and being liable to be killed. And h
e
was the one who was pleased at the smiting and insulting of Jesus. This is
witnessed to by Matthew who says:
“And they that had laid hold on Jesus led him away to Caiaphas the high
priest, where the scribes and the elders were assembled.” [Matt. 26:57]
And further in the same chapter we find the following details:
“But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto
him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the
Christ, the son of God.
Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you,
Hereafter shall ye see the son of man sitting on the right hand of power,
and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Then the high priest rent his clothes saying, He has spoken blasphemy;
what further need have we of witnesses? Behold, now ye have heard his
blasphemy.
what further need have we of witnesses? Behold, now ye have heard his
blasphemy.
What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death.
Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him; and others smote him with
the palms of their hands,
Saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, Who is he that smote thee?” [Matt
26:63-68]
The fourth gospel, John, is even more explicit, saying:
“And led him away to Annas first: for he was father in law of Caiaphas,
which was the high priest that same year.
Now Caiaphas was he, which gave counsel to the Jews, that it was
expedient that one should die for the people.” [John 18:13,14]
We may now be allowed to say that if this statement of the high priest was made
by him as a prophet why did he gave his judgement to kill Jesus? He declared
him blasphemous and was happy at the humiliation of Jesus in his court. Is it in
any way credible that a prophet should command people to kill his God?
We declare our utter disbelief in such prophet who remains a prophet even after
committing such profane and sacrilegious acts. From this situation it logically
deduced that Jesus was a prophet of God but having gone astray (may God
forbid) he claimed of being God incarnate and put a false blame on God. In short
,
the innocence of Christ, in this case, becomes doubtful. In fact, the evangelist
John is also innocent, as is Jesus Christ, of making such incredible statements.
The responsibility for all such statements lies totally on the shoulders of the
Trinitarians.

If, for a moment, we suppose that Caiaphas’s statement is true, even then the
significance of his statement would be that when the disciples and the followers
of Jesus confirmed that Jesus was, in fact, the Promised Messiah or Christ, sinc
e
it was generally believed by the people that it was necessary for the Messiah to
be a great king of the Jews, Caiaphas and his elders, were afraid that having
come to know this fact, the Caesar of Rome would be angry and might make
trouble for them, he proposed, ”one should die for the people”
’s statement is true, even then the
significance of his statement would be that when the disciples and the followers
of Jesus confirmed that Jesus was, in fact, the Promised Messiah or Christ, sinc
e
it was generally believed by the people that it was necessary for the Messiah to
be a great king of the Jews, Caiaphas and his elders, were afraid that having
come to know this fact, the Caesar of Rome would be angry and might make
trouble for them, he proposed, ”one should die for the people”
This was the real and natural significance of that statement and not that the
people of the world would be redeemed and saved from their ’original sin’, as
they call it, which was committed by Adam thousands of years prior to the birth
of
the Christ, which is a whimsical and, of course, illogical interpretation of the
statement. The Jews also do not believe in this whimsical conception of the
Trinitarians.
Perhaps this evangelist, later on, realised the mistake and he replaced the
phrase ’he prophesied’ with the words ’he gave counsel’, in Chapter 18,
because to give counsel is very different from making a prophesy as a prophet.
Though by making this change he has opened himself to the charge of
contradicting his own statement.
Error No. 110
Paul’s letter to Hebrews contains this statement:
“For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to
the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water and scarlet
wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book and all the people,
Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto
you.

Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle and all the vessels
of the ministry.” [Heb. 9:19-21]
th blood both the tabernacle and all the vessels
of the ministry.” [Heb. 9:19-21]
The above statement is incorrect for the following three reasons:
Firstly because the blood was not of calves and goats, but was only of oxen, at
that
occasion.
Secondly because, the water, the scarlet wool and hyssop were not present; at
that moment only the blood was sprinkled.
Thirdly, because Moses himself did not sprinkle on the book and on the vessels a
s
described by Paul, rather half the blood was sprinkled on the altar and half of
it on the
people.
These three mistakes are clear from the following description given by the book
of
Exodus. It reads:
“And Moses came and told the people all the words of the Lord, and all
the judgements: and all the people answered with one voice, and said, All
the words which the Lord hath said will we do.
And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord, and rose up early in the
morning, and builded an altar under the hill, and twelve pillars, according
to the twelve tribes of the Israel...
...which offered burnt offerings and sacrificed peace offerings of oxen unto
the Lord.
And Moses took half of the blood and put it in basons; and half of the
blood he sprinkled on the altar.

And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the the
people: and they said, All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be
obedient.
And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said,
Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made with you
concerning all these words.” [Ex. 24:3-8]
In view of the textual defects and inconsistencies present in the Bible, pointed
out to the
readers so far, the Roman Catholic Church prohibited the study and reading of th
ese
books for common people. They rightly said that the damage caused by the reading
of
them would be greater than the benefit to be expected from them. They were certa
inly
right in having this opinion. In fact, the contradictions, errors and inconsiste
ncies of the
biblical texts were not known to the people until the appearance of the Protesta
nt
movement. They discovered and dug into these books and the secrets were disclose
d,
causing the strong reaction which is well known to the world today.
The book entitled, Kitabu’th-Thalathu-Ashrah (The Thirteen Books) printed in
Beirut in 1849, contains the following on pages 417, 418 of the Thirteenth Book.

We give its faithful translation from Urdu:

“Let us now look at the law passed by the Council of Trent and duly stamped by t
he
Pope. It said that the experience of the past showed that such words when read b
y
common people would produce greater evil than good. It was therefore the
responsibility of the priest or of the judge that, according to his description,
or in
consultation with the teacher of confession, he should allow the reading of the
words
in these books only to those who, in their opinion, might be benefited by them,
and it
was of great importance that the book must have been previously checked by a
Catholic teacher, and it had to bear the signature of the teacher who allowed it
to be
read. Anyone who dared read it without permission, was not to be excused unless
he
was sent to the proper authorities.”

The Trinity Refuted

The Biblical Texts : Are they revealed
The Opinion Of The Muslim Scholar
Human Distortion of the Bible.
Refutation of Misleading Protestant Statements Regarding the
Authenticity of the Bible
The Arguments
Distortions
The Admission of Christian Scholars
The Opinion of Encyclopaedia Britannica
Watson’s Admission
Beausobre and Lenfant’s opinion
The Views of Christian Scholars on Pentateuch
The Epistle of James and the Book of Revelation
The Admission of Clement
Admissions of Protestant Scholars
Admissions of German Scholars
Views on the Subject of the Chronicles
The Muslim Attitude towards the Gospels

We intend to show in this chapter that the Judaeo-Christian

claim that the Bible, -both Old and New Testaments, Was revealed
to and written down by men inspired by God, is false and
ungrounded. There are numerous arguments to prove this but we will
confine ourselves in the following pages to seventeen of them which,
in our opinion, are more than sufficient to prove our claim.
A large number of clear contradictions are to be found in the
books of the Bible. The Christian scholars and commentators have
always been at a loss to find any way of explaining them. For some of
the textual differences they have had to admit that one of the texts is
correct and the other false, due either to deliberate distortion on the
part of later theologians or to mistakes of the copiers. For some
contradictory texts they have put forward absurd explanations that
would never be accepted by a sensible reader. These have already
been discussed.
The Biblical books are full of errors and we have pointed out
more than one hundred of them already. It is self-evident that a
revealed text must be free from errors and contradictions.
There are also many cases of distortion and human
manipulation in the texts of these books. The alterations and changes

which have been deliberately or unknowingly made have even been

admitted by Christian theologians. Texts which have been definitely
changed or distorted cannot be accepted as revealed or inspired
even by the Christians. We intend to present a hundred examples of
such distortions in the Bible later in this book.
admitted by Christian theologians. Texts which have been definitely
changed or distorted cannot be accepted as revealed or inspired
even by the Christians. We intend to present a hundred examples of
such distortions in the Bible later in this book.
As we mentioned previously, certain books or part of books
are accepted by the Catholics as being the revelations of their
Prophets while the Protestants have proved that these books were
not divinely inspired. These books are: the Book of Baruch, the Book
of Tobit, the Book of Judith, the Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiastes,
Maccabees I and II, chapters eleven to sixteen of the Book of Esther,
and ten verses from chapter ten of the same book, and the song of
the three children from chapter three of the Book of Daniel.
These books are considered by the Catholics to be an
integral part of the Old Testament, whereas the Protestants have
rejected them and do not include them in the Old Testament. We,
therefore, leave them out of our discussion. Any readers
particularly curious about these books should refer to the books of
the Protestant scholars. The Jews do not accept these books as
genuine either.
Similarly, the third Book of Ezra is considered part of the Old
Testament according to the Greek church, while both the Catholics
and the Protestants have proved conclusively that this book is not
genuine. The revealed status of the Book of Judges is also in
question for those who claim it to be written by Phineas or Hezekiah,
and the same applies to the Book of Ruth, according to those who
perceive it as being written by Hezekiah. Nor, according to the
majority of writers, is the Book of Nehemiah divinely inspired,
especially the first twenty-six verses of chapter twelve.
The Book of Job was also not considered revelation by
Maimomides, Michel, Semler, Stock, Theodore and Luther, the
founder of the Protestant faith. The same opinion is held by those
who attribute this book to Elihu or to someone unknown. Chapters
thirty and thirty-one of the Book of Proverbs are not divinely inspired.
According to the Talmud, Ecclesiastes is not an inspired book.

The same applies to the Song of Solomon according to

Theodore, Simon, Leclerc, Whiston, Sewler, and Castellio. Twenty-
seven chapters of the Book of Isaiah are also not revelation
according to the learned scholar Lefevre d’Etapes of Germany. The
Gospel of Matthew, according to the majority of ancient scholars and
almost all later scholars who consider it to have been originally
written in the Hebrew language and that the present Gospel is merely
a translation of the original which has been lost, is not, and cannot
be, divinely inspired.
Theodore, Simon, Leclerc, Whiston, Sewler, and Castellio. Twenty-
seven chapters of the Book of Isaiah are also not revelation
according to the learned scholar Lefevre d’Etapes of Germany. The
Gospel of Matthew, according to the majority of ancient scholars and
almost all later scholars who consider it to have been originally
written in the Hebrew language and that the present Gospel is merely
a translation of the original which has been lost, is not, and cannot
be, divinely inspired.
As for the Gospel of John, the scholars, Bretschneider and
Lefevre d’Etapes have refused to accept it as genuine. The last
chapter was certainly rejected by the scholar Grotius as being neither
genuine or inspired.
Similarly all the Epistles of John are not accepted as prophetic
by Bretschneider and the Alogi school. The Second Epistle of Peter,
the Epistle of Jude, the Epistle of James, the First and Second
Epistles of John and the Book of Revelations are not considered as
genuine by most of the scholars.

Home says on page 13l of Vol. I of his commentaries printed in

1822:
If we accept that some books of the Prophets have been lost
and have disappeared, we shall have to believe that those books
were never written with the help of inspiration. St. Augustine proved
this fact with very strong arguments saying that he had found many
things mentioned in the books of the kings of Judea and Israel, but
could not find any description of the things in these books. For their
explanations, they have referred to the books of other Prophets, and
in some instances they have also mentioned the names of the
Prophets. These books have not been included in the canon

acknowledged by the church, which has not assigned any reason for
their exclusion, except to say that the Prophets, to whom significant
religious instructions are revealed, have two kinds of writings.
Writings without inspiration, which are simi1ar to the writings of
honest historians, and writings guided by inspiration. The first kind of
writings are attributed to the Prophets themselves, while the others
are ascribed directly to God. The first kind of writings are meant to
add to our knowledge while the others are the source of the law and
religious instructions.
their exclusion, except to say that the Prophets, to whom significant
religious instructions are revealed, have two kinds of writings.
Writings without inspiration, which are simi1ar to the writings of
honest historians, and writings guided by inspiration. The first kind of
writings are attributed to the Prophets themselves, while the others
are ascribed directly to God. The first kind of writings are meant to
add to our knowledge while the others are the source of the law and
religious instructions.
Further on page 133 of Vol. I, discussing the cause of the
disappearance of the Book of Wars of the Lord, mentioned in the
Book of Numbers1[1] (21:14), he said:
The book: which has disappeared was, according to the great
scholar Dr. Lightfoot s findings, the one that was written for the
guidance of Joshua under the command of the Lord after the defeat
of the Amalekites. It seems that the book in question contained some
accounts of the victory of this war as well as strategic instructions for
the future war. This was not an inspired book nor was it a part of the
Canonical books.
Then in the supplement of his first volume he said:
When it is said that the Holy books were revealed by God, it
docs not necessarily signify that every word and the whole text was
revealed. The difference of idiom and expression of the authors show
that they were allowed to write according to their own temperament
and understanding. The knowledge of inspiration was used by them
similar to the use of the current sciences. It cannot be imagined that
every word they said or every doctrine they passed was revealed to
them by God.
Further he said that it was confirmed that the writers of the
books of the Old Testament were ”sometimes inspired”. The
compilers of Henry and Scott’s Commentary, in the last volume of
1[1] There is a d«criptiim given in the Book of Numbers with the reference to th
e Book of Wars
of the Lords. Only some sentences from tha book have been given, rhe rest of the
book has been
lost.

their book, quote. From the Alexander Canon, that is, from the
principles of faith laid down by Alexander:
the
principles of faith laid down by Alexander:
It is not necessary that everything said by a Prophet should be
an inspiration or a part of the Canon. Because Solomon wrote some
books through inspiration it does not mean that everything he wrote
was inspired by God. It should be known that the Prophets and the
disciples of Jesus were sometimes inspired for important instructions.
Alexander’s Canon is held as a book worthy of great respect
and trust in the eyes of the Protestants. Warn, a great scholar of the
Protestants, has used arguments from this book in his discursive
examination of the authenticity of the Bible.

The author s entry "Inspiration"2[1] in the Encyclopaedia

Britannica3[2] has this statement on page 274 vol. 11
It has always been a matter of controversy whether everything
which is written in the sacred books is inspired or not. Similarly all
accounts of the events described in them arc not inspired by God
according to Jerome, Grotius, Papias and many other scholars.
Further in vol. 19 on page 20 it says:
2[1] We did not find this sentence in the present. edition of Britannica, howeve
r, we have found
the admission that every word of these books is no( inspired on page 23 vol. 12
under the entry
”Inspiration”
3[2] All the references in thc Encyclopaedia Britannica have been taken from the
old 18th
century edition. The present edition docs not have been them at the places refer
red to. We have
therefore translated them from Urdu in our own words. This however, does not mak
e difference
as this admission can be found in many place in the Britannica. (Raazi)

Those who claim that everything of the Gospels is inspired by

God cannot prove their claim easily.
aim that everything of the Gospels is inspired by
God cannot prove their claim easily.
It also says:
If ever we are asked which part of the Old Testament is held by
us as inspiration of God, we would answer that the doctrines and the
predictions for future events which are the foundation of Christian
faith cannot be other than inspiration. As for other descriptions, the
memory of the apostles is enough for them.
THE REES ENCYCLOPEDIA
In volume nineteen of the Rees Encyclopedia, the author says
that
The authenticity and divinity of the Holy books has been debated
because there are many contradictions and inconsistencies found in
the statements of the authors of these books. For example, when the
texts of Matthew 10:19,20 and Mark, 11:13 are compared with Acts
23:1-6, 4[3] the contradictory nature of these books becomes all the
more serious.
It is also said that the disciples of Jesus themselves did not
know one another to be receiving inspiration from God, as is evident
from their debates in the council of Jerusalem and from Paul’s
blaming of peter. Moreover it is clear that the ancient Christians did
not consider them innocent and free form faults, since they
sometimes made them subject to their criticism. This is obvious from
Acts 11:12,3 5[4] and also Acts 21:20-24.
It has also been mentioned that Paul, who considered himself
not less than the disciples of Jesus (see 2 Corinthians 11:5 and
12:11), nevertheless mentioned himself in such a manner as to show
4[3] This difference of the texts has been discussed by us, under the errors Nos
: 98-100.
5[4] And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision
contended
with him, Saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, didst eat with them. (Ac
ts 11:2,3)

that he did not feel himself constantly to be a man of inspiration 6[5]

the author also said:
nstantly to be a man of inspiration 6[5]
the author also said:
We are not given a feeling by the disciples of Jesus as
speaking on behalf of God every time they spoke.
He has said that:
Michaelis thoroughly examined the arguments of both the
groups, which was necessary for a matter of such importance, and
decided that the presence of inspiration in the Holy Book is certainly
of great use, but even if we dispense with the presence of inspiration
in the Gospels and the Acts, which are books of an historical nature,
we lose nothing and they still remain as useful to us as before. It does
not damage anything if we accept that the historical descriptions of
the evangelists in the gospels, are similar to the descriptions of the
historians, since, as was observed by Christ, “And ye also shall bear
wit-ness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.” John
15:27.
It is therefore unnecessary to prove the truth of these books to
a non-Christian, on the basis of his acceptance of the truth of some of
the evangelic descriptions. On the contrary you should put forward
arguments in favour of such miracles as the death and resurrection of
Christ as related in the writings of the evangelists, always bearing in
mind that they are historians. For anyone who wishes to examine the
foundation and origin of his faith, it is necessary to consider the
statements of the evangelist about those particular matters as similar
to the statements of other historians. Because it would be physically
impossible to prove the truth of the events described by them, it is
necessary that we accept their descriptions in the manner we accept
the descriptions of other historians. This line of approach would save
Christianity from all dangers. We do not find it mentioned anywhere
that the general events experienced by the apostles, and perceived
by Luke through his investigations, were inspired.
If however we are allowed to admit that some evangelists made
mistakes and that they were later corrected by John, this would he
6[5] 3.I Corinthians 7:10,12.15,40. And also 2 Cor. 11:17

greatly advantageous and facilitate conformity in the Bible. Mr.

Cuddle also favored the opinion of Michaelis in section 2 of his book.
As far as the books written by the pupils of the apostles are
concerned, like the Gospels of Mark and Luke and the Book of Acts.
Michaelis has not given his decision as to whether they were inspired
or not.
and facilitate conformity in the Bible. Mr.
Cuddle also favored the opinion of Michaelis in section 2 of his book.
As far as the books written by the pupils of the apostles are
concerned, like the Gospels of Mark and Luke and the Book of Acts.
Michaelis has not given his decision as to whether they were inspired
or not.
7[1] We did not find this sentence in the present. edition of Britannica, howeve
r, we have found
the admission that every word of these books is no( inspired on page 23 vol. 12
under the entry
”Inspiration”
8[2] All the references in thc Encyclopaedia Britannica have been taken from the
old 18th
century edition. The present edition docs not have been them at the places refer
red to. We have
therefore translated them from Urdu in our own words. This however, does not mak
e difference
as this admission can be found in many place in the Britannica. (Raazi)

Watson, in volume four of his book on Revelations, which was

based on the commentary of Dr. Benson, remarks that the fact that
Luke’s writing is not inspired is evident from the dedication of his
Gospel to Theophilus:
For as much as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a
declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were
eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; it seemed good to me also,
having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to
write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest
know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.
9[1]
9[1] Luke 1:1-4.

Waston says about this:

The ancient writers of Christian theology have also given a
similar opinion. Irenaeus said that Luke conveyed to us the things
which he learnt from the apostles. Jerome said that Luke does not
depend only on Paul, who was never in the physical company of
Christ. Luke also acquired the knowledge of the Evangel from other
apostles as well.
He further elucidates:
The apostles, when they used to speak or write anything
concerning the faith, were protected with the treasure of inspiration
that they had. Being, however, human beings, and men of reason
and inspiration, they were just like other people when describing
common events.
This made it possible for Paul to write in his first epistle to
Timothy, without inspiration:
Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach’s
sake and thine often infirmities.10[2]
and further:
The cloak that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest,
bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments. 11[3]
And that he could write to Philemon, “But withal prepare me
also a lodging.” (v.22) And as he wrote to Timothy, "Erastus abode at
Corinth; but Trophimus have I left at Miletum sick.” 12[4]
However there are other occasions when it is clear that Paul
speaks by inspiration, as in his first letter to the Corinthians:
10[2] I Tim. 5: 23. 10[2] 2 Tim 4:13. 10[2] 2 Tim. 4:20. 10[2]1 Cor. 7:10.
Acts 16:6,7.

And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let the
wife depart from her husband. 13[5] wife depart from her husband. 13[5]
But in verse twelve of the same epistle he says:
But to the rest speak I, not the Lord.
Then in verse twenty-five he says:
Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord:
yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord
to be faithful.
The book of Acts contains this statement:
Now when they had gone throughout Phrygia and the region of
Galatia, and were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in
Asia. After they were come to Mysia, they assayed to go into
Bithynia: but the Spirit suffered them not.
From the above we are given to understand that the apostles’
work was based on two things: reason and inspiration. They used the
first to speak of general events, while through the other they gave
religious instructions related to the Christian faith. This is why the
apostles, like other human beings, committed mistakes in their
domestic affairs and in their intentions. This is quite evident from Acts
23:3; Rom. 15:24,28; I Cor. 16:5,6,8 and 2-Cor. 11:15-18.
The nineteenth volume of the Rees Encyclopedia contains this
description under the entry ”Dr. Benson”:
Whatever he has written in connection with inspiration seems to
be clear and logical and, indeed, unique in its application.
Beausobre and Lenfant said the following about this matter:

The Holy Ghost, with whose help and teaching the evangelists
and the apostles wrote, did not prescribe any particular language for
them, but conveyed the meanings to their hearts through intuition and
protected them from being involved in errors. They were allowed to
preach or write the word of inspiration in their own language using
their own expressions. As we find differences of expression and idiom
in the writings of the ancient writers, which are mainly dependent on
the temperaments and capabilities of the writers concerned, so an
expert of the original language will easily recognise the differences of
idiom and expression in the gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John and
the epistles of Paul.
and the apostles wrote, did not prescribe any particular language for
them, but conveyed the meanings to their hearts through intuition and
protected them from being involved in errors. They were allowed to
preach or write the word of inspiration in their own language using
their own expressions. As we find differences of expression and idiom
in the writings of the ancient writers, which are mainly dependent on
the temperaments and capabilities of the writers concerned, so an
expert of the original language will easily recognise the differences of
idiom and expression in the gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John and
the epistles of Paul.
If, however, the Holy Ghost had truly inspired the words to
them, this would have not happened. The style and expression of all
the gospels would have been identical. Besides, there have been
many events the description of which does not require inspiration. For
example, they write of many events which they saw with their own
eyes or heard from reliable observers. Luke says that when he
intended to write his gospel he wrote the descriptions according to
eye witnesses of the events described. Having this knowledge in his
mind, he thought that it was a treasure which should be conveyed to
future generations.
An author who received his account through the inspiration of
the Holy Ghost usually expressed this fact by saying something to the
effect that everything he had written was according to inspiration he
had received from the Holy Ghost. Though the faith of Paul is of an
unusual kind, it is still strange that Luke does not seem to have any
witnesses except Paul and his companions.
We have produced above the testimony of two of the great
scholars of Christianity, who are very much esteemed and celebrated
in the Christian world. Home and Watson have also the same opinion
of them.

Horne said on page seven hundred and ninety-eight of volume two of

his great work:

Eichhorn, one of the German scholars, denied that Moses

received inspiration. received inspiration.
And on page eight hundred and eighteen:
Scholz, Noth, Rosenmuller and Dr. Geddes are of the opinion
that Moses did not receive inspiration, and that all the five books of
the Pentateuch were simply a collection of verbal traditions current in
that period. This concept is making its way rapidly among the
German scholars.
He also said:
Eusebius and several latter theologians have pronounced that
the book of Genesis was written by Moses, in Midian, when he was
pasturing the goats of his father in law.
We may be allowed to remark that, in this case, this book
cannot be an inspiration because, according to Eusebius, this was
before Moses was entrusted with prophethood. Therefore the book of
Genesis also must be a collection of current local verbal traditions. If
the writings of the Prophets, written by them as Prophets, were not
books of inspiration, a fact admitted by Home and other scholars,
how then could a book written by Moses long before his prophethood
be a revealed book?
The Catholic, Ward, has on page thirty-eight of the 1841
edition:
Luther said in vol. 3 of his book on pages 40 and 41 that:
"Neither do we hear Moses, nor do we turn to him, for he was only for
the Jews; we have nothing to do with him."
In another book he said: ’We believe neither in Moses nor in
the Torah, because he was an enemy of Jesus, and said that he was
the master of executioners, and said that the Christians have nothing
to do with the ten commandments.’
Again he said that he would discard the Ten Commandments
from the books so that heresy was abolished forever, because these
are the root of all heretical ideas.

One of his pupils, Aslibius, has said that no one knew the ten
commandments in the churches. The Christian sect called the
Antinomians was initiated by a person who believed that the
Pentateuch did not have any such qualities as to be considered the
word of God. It was their belief that any one committing sins like
adultery and other evil deeds deserved salvation and would be in
eternal happiness if only he had faith in Christianity. Those who
turned to the ten commandments were influenced by Satan, and they
were the ones who crucified Jesus.
commandments in the churches. The Christian sect called the
Antinomians was initiated by a person who believed that the
Pentateuch did not have any such qualities as to be considered the
word of God. It was their belief that any one committing sins like
adultery and other evil deeds deserved salvation and would be in
eternal happiness if only he had faith in Christianity. Those who
turned to the ten commandments were influenced by Satan, and they
were the ones who crucified Jesus.
These remarks of the founder of the
Protestant faith and his pupil are certainly of
great importance. They mean that all
Protestants must be disbelievers in Moses
and the Pentateuch, since, according to them,
Moses was the enemy of Jesus, the master of
the executioners, and the Pentateuch was not
the word of God. Having nothing to do with the
ten commandments, they must turn to
paganism and multitheism. They should also
disregard their parents, trouble their
neighbours, commit theft, murder and perjury
because, otherwise, they would bc acting
according to the ten commandments which
”are the root of all heretical ideas”.
Some Christians belonging to this sect have said to us that they
did not believe in Moses as a Prophet but only as a man of wisdom
and a great legislator, while some others said to us that Moses, God
forbid, was a thief and a robber. We asked them to fear God, they
answered that they were right in saying this as it had been said by
Jesus himself:
All that ever came before me are thieves and robber: but the
sheep did not hear them.14[1]
14[1]John 10:8.

Now we can see why the founder of the Protestant faith, Luther,
and his pupil reproached Moses; they must have been guided by the
above statement.
and his pupil reproached Moses; they must have been guided by the
above statement.
THE EPISTLE OF JAMES AND THE BOOK OF REVELATION
Luther said regarding the epistle of James:
This is the word not suitable to be included in the books, as the
disciple James said in chapter five of his epistle, ”Is any sick among
you? Let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over
him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. 15[2]
Luther, raising objection on the above statement, said in
volume Two of his book:
If this is what James has said, I answer him that no disciple has
the right to define and issue religious injunctions on his own account,
because it was only Jesus who possessed that status.
It is clear from the above that the epistle of James is not,
according to Luther, inspired, and that injunctions given by the
disciples are not supported by inspiration, otherwise the above
statement would be absurd and meaningless.
Ward stated in his book printed in 1841:
Pomran, an eminent scholar of the Protestants and a pupil of
Luther, says that James has written false and absurd events at the
end of his letter. He has copied from other books events which
cannot be associated with the Holy Ghost. Such a book therefore
must not be considered as inspired.
Vitus Theodore, a Protestant preacher in Nuremberg, said that
they had intentionally given up the Book of Revelation and the Epistle
of James. He said that the Epistle of James is not to be censured
15[2]James 5:14.

where he has stressed the necessity of good deeds along with faith,
but that this latter contains contradictions. The Magdeburg Centuries
said that the Epistle of James, at one place, is unique among all the
accounts of the disciples because he says that salvation does not
depend on faith alone but that it also requires good deeds. He also
says that the Torah was the Law of Freedom.
with faith,
but that this latter contains contradictions. The Magdeburg Centuries
said that the Epistle of James, at one place, is unique among all the
accounts of the disciples because he says that salvation does not
depend on faith alone but that it also requires good deeds. He also
says that the Torah was the Law of Freedom.
It is clear from the above that these elders, like Luther, do not
believe in the Epistle of James being inspired by the Holy Ghost.

And the Book of Revelation

Luther said regarding the epistle of James:
This is the word not suitable to be included in the books, as the
disciple James said in chapter five of his epistle, ”Is any sick among
you? Let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over
him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. 16[1]
Luther, raising objection on the above statement, said in
volume Two of his book:
If this is what James has said, I answer him that no disciple has
the right to define and issue religious injunctions on his own account,
because it was only Jesus who possessed that status.
It is clear from the above that the epistle of James is not,
according to Luther, inspired, and that injunctions given by the
disciples are not supported by inspiration, otherwise the above
statement would be absurd and meaningless.
16[1]James 5:14.

Ward stated in his book printed in 1841: rd stated in his book printed in 1841:
Pomran, an eminent scholar of the Protestants and a pupil of
Luther, says that James has written false and absurd events at the
end of his letter. He has copied from other books events which
cannot be associated with the Holy Ghost. Such a book therefore
must not be considered as inspired.
Vitus Theodore, a Protestant preacher in Nuremberg, said that
they had intentionally given up the Book of Revelation and the Epistle
of James. He said that the Epistle of James is not to be censured
where he has stressed the necessity of good deeds along with faith,
but that this latter contains contradictions. The Magdeburg Centuries
said that the Epistle of James, at one place, is unique among all the
accounts of the disciples because he says that salvation does not
depend on faith alone but that it also requires good deeds. He also
says that the Torah was the Law of Freedom.
It is clear from the above that these elders, like Luther, do not
believe in the Epistle of James being inspired by the Holy Ghost.
Clement said:
Matthew and Mark are different from each other in their
writings, but when they agree on a certain point they are preferred to
Luke’s account.
We may be allowed to say that the above statement allows us
to deduce two important points. Firstly that Mathew and Mark
themselves differ in many places in their accounts of the same event
and whenever they agree in their statement their accounts are

preferable to Luke. None of them ever agree word for word about any
event. Secondly that all three gospels are proved to have been
written without inspiration because the preference of the first two
gospels over the third would be out of the question had they been
inspired.
ever agree word for word about any
event. Secondly that all three gospels are proved to have been
written without inspiration because the preference of the first two
gospels over the third would be out of the question had they been
inspired.
Paley, an eminent Protestant scholar, wrote a book concerning
the truth of the four gospels. It was printed in 1850. He writes on page
323 of his book to this effect:
The second thing that has been falsely attributed to the ancient
Christians is that they firmly believed in the coming of the Day of
Judgment in their own time. I will present an example before any
objection to this is raised. Jesus said to Peter, ”If I will that he tarry till
I come, what is that to thee?” This statement has been taken to mean
that John would not die until the Day of Judgment, and this false
concept spread among the common people. Now if this report was
conveyed to us after it had become a public opinion and the cause
which initiated the mistake is not known, and someone comes
forward to present it as an argument against the Christian faith this
would be absolutely unfair, in view of the facts that we posses.
Those who say that the gospels lead us to believe that the early
Christians truly expected that thc Last Day would come about in their
own time should keep this explanation in mind, and it will save them
from the blame of deceiving people. Now there comes another
question that if, for a moment, we accept the possibility of errors and
omissions on the part of the disciples, how then can they be trusted
about anything they say? As a reply to this question it would be
enough for the supporters of Christianity to say to the disbelievers
that what we seek from the disciples is their witness not their
personal opinion. The object, in fact, is to achieve the result which, as
a consequence of this, is safe.
But in answering this, we must keep two points in mind; to eliminate
all the dangers. First, the object intended by the mission of all the
disciples should be defined. They helped prove the point which was
either strange or mixed with truth. They are not required to say
anything about what is obviously not related to the faith, but they
would be required to say something to remove ambiguity about

something in the text of the divine books which has accidentally got
mixed up with the truth. Another example of this is the belief in the
possession by devils. In the case of those who hold that this false
opinion had become common in their time and also influenced the
evangelists and the early Christians, it must be accepted that this
opinion does not in anyway damage the truth of the Christian faith,
because this is not the matter Jesus was sent for. But something
which, having become a public opinion in that country, somehow got
mixed with the statement of Jesus.
mixed up with the truth. Another example of this is the belief in the
possession by devils. In the case of those who hold that this false
opinion had become common in their time and also influenced the
evangelists and the early Christians, it must be accepted that this
opinion does not in anyway damage the truth of the Christian faith,
because this is not the matter Jesus was sent for. But something
which, having become a public opinion in that country, somehow got
mixed with the statement of Jesus.
It is certainly not a part of their message to rectify their false
belief in the spirits, nor has it anything to do with their witness
Secondly their message should be separated and distinguished from
what they present to support and elucidate that which is inspired. For
instance, something in what they say might be inspired, but in
addition to that they present personal explanations to strengthen their
message. For example, the principle that anyone other than a Jew
accepting the Christian faith would not be bound to follow the law of
Moses, in spite of its truth having been proved through miracles
Paul, for example, when speaking of this principle, has
mentioned many things in support of it. Therefore the principle in itself
is acknowledged by us, but it is not necessary for us to support all
their explanatory remarks in order to prove the truth of the Christian
faith. This method may be applied to other principles of a simi1ar
nature. I am absolutely sure of the truth that any instruction agreed
upon by the pious men of God will always be followed as a religious
obligation. It is, however, not necessary for us to explain or to accept
all those details, unless they have, of course, specified those
premise.
The above passage allows us to advance the following four
points:
1.
We have already proved through sufficient arguments and
sports, under the heading of Errors no. 64-78, that all the
disciples Jesus and other Christians of that time had firm belief
in the coming of the Day of Judgment in their own time and that
John would not until the Day of Judgment.
We have reproduced their unambiguous and definite
statements to this effect. Barnes, making his comments on
chapter twenty-one of the Gospel of John, said the words which
we reproduce below from the Urdu translation:
statements to this effect. Barnes, making his comments on
chapter twenty-one of the Gospel of John, said the words which
we reproduce below from the Urdu translation:
The misconception that John would not die was created
by the words of Jesus which can be easily misunderstood. The
idea became even stronger with the fact that John survived until
after the death of the other disciples.
The compilers of Henry and Scott remark:
Most probably the purpose of Jesus by this statement was to
annoy the Jews, but thc disciples misunderstood it to signify
that John would live up to the Last Day or that he would be
raised to heaven alive.
Further they say:
Here we must keep in mind that a report of a certain man may
come without proper confirmation. It would, therefore be a folly
to base our faith on such reports. This statement, in spite of
being a report of the disciples and having become common and
established among people, turned out to be untrue. How then
could reports which were not even written down and recorded
demand our belief. These are our own comments and not a
statement made by Jesus.
Further they say in their marginal notes:
The disciples misunderstood the words of Jesus, as the
evangelist 17[1] has elucidated, because they had firm belief
that the coming of the Lord would be for establishing Justice.
In view of the above statements, there remains no doubt that
the disciples misunderstood it. Now, when they had such
beliefs regarding the Day of Judgment and John not dying until
17[1]This refers to John, 21:23. ’Then went this saying abroad among the brethre
n, that
the disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him , He shall not die.”

the day of Judgment, their statement with regard to the

occurrence would naturally be taken literally which proves them
to have been wrong and to find new explanations for them is of
no avail. That would involve an effort to give the words a
meaning which was not intended by their speakers. Having
been proved to have been other than the truth they obviously
cannot be taken as inspirations.
occurrence would naturally be taken literally which proves them
to have been wrong and to find new explanations for them is of
no avail. That would involve an effort to give the words a
meaning which was not intended by their speakers. Having
been proved to have been other than the truth they obviously
cannot be taken as inspirations.
2.
It is clear from the above description of Paley that the scholars
have admitted the fact that the matters which are not directly
related to the faith, or have been somehow mixed with the
principles of faith, do not damage the Christian faith in any way
if they are proved erroneous.
3.
They have also admitted that the presence of errors and
mistakes in the arguments of the disciples is not damaging to
the Christian faith.
4.
They have accepted that the existence of evil spirits and their
influence on human beings is not a reality and that belief in
them was a product of human imagination and superstition; and
that they had found their way in through the statements of the
evangelists, and even through Jesus, because they had
become a part of common tradition of that period.
Keeping these four conclusions in mind, we must be allowed to
claim that more than fifty percent of the gospels are thus
precluded from having been the result of inspiration. According
to this opinion, only the descriptions directly related to faith or
those defining the rituals can be considered as inspired.
However this opinion does not carry any weight because it
happens to be against the opinion of Luther, the founder of the
Protestant church, who explicitly declared that none of the
apostles had any right to issue or define any religious principle
on his own account, because only Jesus had the right to issue
religious doctrines. The unavoidable conclusion is that the
remaining part of the gospels, consisting of the descriptions
from the disciples directly related to faith, is likewise deprived of
its Divine character.

ADMISSIONS OF PROTESTANT SCHOLARS

Ward reproduced a number of statements from the great
scholars of the Protestant faith. We reproduce below nine of them
from his book prenticed in 1841.
(1) Zwingli, a Protestant bibliographer, said that all the
events described in Paul’s letters cannot be considered
sacred, as some events described in these epistles arc
incorrect.
(2) Mr. Fulk accused Peter of making false statements
and declared him to be ignorant of the Evangel.
(3) Dr. Goad, during a polemic with Father Campion,
said that Peter was wrong in his belief about the descent of the
Holy Spirit on Jesus.
(4) Brentius, called a learned leader and master by
Jewel, said that Peter the chief disciple and Barnabas made
erroneous statements after the descent of the Holy Spirit.
(5) John Calvin remarked that Peter spread heresy in thc
church and put the independence of Christianity in danger and
the Christian grace was led a stray by him.
(6) The Magdeburg Centuries accuses the disciples, and
especially Paul, of making false statements.
(7) Whittaker said that the people and dignitaries of the
church, and even the disciples of Jesus, made great mistakes
in preaching the Christian faith to the gentiles, and that Peter
made mistakes in rituals, and that these mistakes were
committed by them after the descent of the Holy Spirit.
(8) Zanchius gave an account of some followers of Calvin
in his book. He reported that some of them said that if Paul
ever came to Geneva to preach against Calvin, they would
listen to Calvin and leave Paul alone.
(9) Lewathrus, a staunch follower of Luther, giving a
description of some great scholars has quoted their
statements to the effect that it was possible for them to doubt
a statement of Paul, but there was no room for any doubt
about the statements made by Luther. Similarly it was not
possible for them to allow of any doubt in (he book of the
church of Augsburg concerning the principles of faith.
The above statements are from the great scholars of the
Protestant faith. They have declared that none of the books of the
New Testament were inspired and genuine. They have also admitted
that the disciples were erratic in what they wrote.

Clement said:
Matthew and Mark are different from each other in their
writings, but when they agree on a certain point they are preferred to
Luke’s account.
We may be allowed to say that the above statement allows us
to deduce two important points. Firstly that Mathew and Mark
themselves differ in many places in their accounts of the same event
and whenever they agree in their statement their accounts are
preferable to Luke. None of them ever agree word for word about any
event. Secondly that all three gospels are proved to have been
written without inspiration because the preference of the first two
gospels over the third would be out of the question had they been
inspired.

Paley, an eminent Protestant scholar, wrote a book concerning

the truth of the four gospels. It was printed in 1850. He writes on page
323 of his book to this effect:
the truth of the four gospels. It was printed in 1850. He writes on page
323 of his book to this effect:
The second thing that has been falsely attributed to the ancient
Christians is that they firmly believed in the coming of the Day of
Judgment in their own time. I will present an example before any
objection to this is raised. Jesus said to Peter, ”If I will that he tarry till
I come, what is that to thee?” This statement has been taken to mean
that John would not die until the Day of Judgment, and this false
concept spread among the common people. Now if this report was
conveyed to us after it had become a public opinion and the cause
which initiated the mistake is not known, and someone comes
forward to present it as an argument against the Christian faith this
would be absolutely unfair, in view of the facts that we posses.
Those who say that the gospels lead us to believe that the early
Christians truly expected that thc Last Day would come about in their
own time should keep this explanation in mind, and it will save them
from the blame of deceiving people. Now there comes another
question that if, for a moment, we accept the possibility of errors and
omissions on the part of the disciples, how then can they be trusted
about anything they say? As a reply to this question it would be
enough for the supporters of Christianity to say to the disbelievers
that what we seek from the disciples is their witness not their
personal opinion. The object, in fact, is to achieve the result which, as
a consequence of this, is safe.
But in answering this, we must keep two points in mind; to eliminate
all the dangers. First, the object intended by the mission of all the
disciples should be defined. They helped prove the point which was
either strange or mixed with truth. They are not required to say
anything about what is obviously not related to the faith, but they
would be required to say something to remove ambiguity about
something in the text of the divine books which has accidentally got
mixed up with the truth. Another example of this is the belief in the
possession by devils. In the case of those who hold that this false
opinion had become common in their time and also influenced the
evangelists and the early Christians, it must be accepted that this
opinion does not in anyway damage the truth of the Christian faith,

because this is not the matter Jesus was sent for. But something
which, having become a public opinion in that country, somehow got
mixed with the statement of Jesus.
which, having become a public opinion in that country, somehow got
mixed with the statement of Jesus.
It is certainly not a part of their message to rectify their false
belief in the spirits, nor has it anything to do with their witness
Secondly their message should be separated and distinguished from
what they present to support and elucidate that which is inspired. For
instance, something in what they say might be inspired, but in
addition to that they present personal explanations to strengthen their
message. For example, the principle that anyone other than a Jew
accepting the Christian faith would not be bound to follow the law of
Moses, in spite of its truth having been proved through miracles
Paul, for example, when speaking of this principle, has
mentioned many things in support of it. Therefore the principle in itself
is acknowledged by us, but it is not necessary for us to support all
their explanatory remarks in order to prove the truth of the Christian
faith. This method may be applied to other principles of a simi1ar
nature. I am absolutely sure of the truth that any instruction agreed
upon by the pious men of God will always be followed as a religious
obligation. It is, however, not necessary for us to explain or to accept
all those details, unless they have, of course, specified those
premise.
The above passage allows us to advance the following four
points:
1.
We have already proved through sufficient arguments and
sports, under the heading of Errors no. 64-78, that all the
disciples Jesus and other Christians of that time had firm belief
in the coming of the Day of Judgment in their own time and that
John would not until the Day of Judgment.
We have reproduced their unambiguous and definite
statements to this effect. Barnes, making his comments on
chapter twenty-one of the Gospel of John, said the words which
we reproduce below from the Urdu translation:
The misconception that John would not die was created
by the words of Jesus which can be easily misunderstood. The

idea became even stronger with the fact that John survived until
after the death of the other disciples.
until
after the death of the other disciples.
The compilers of Henry and Scott remark:
Most probably the purpose of Jesus by this statement was to
annoy the Jews, but thc disciples misunderstood it to signify
that John would live up to the Last Day or that he would be
raised to heaven alive.
Further they say:
Here we must keep in mind that a report of a certain man may
come without proper confirmation. It would, therefore be a folly
to base our faith on such reports. This statement, in spite of
being a report of the disciples and having become common and
established among people, turned out to be untrue. How then
could reports which were not even written down and recorded
demand our belief. These are our own comments and not a
statement made by Jesus.
Further they say in their marginal notes:
The disciples misunderstood the words of Jesus, as the
evangelist 18[1] has elucidated, because they had firm belief
that the coming of the Lord would be for establishing Justice.
In view of the above statements, there remains no doubt that
the disciples misunderstood it. Now, when they had such
beliefs regarding the Day of Judgment and John not dying until
the day of Judgment, their statement with regard to the
occurrence would naturally be taken literally which proves them
to have been wrong and to find new explanations for them is of
no avail. That would involve an effort to give the words a
meaning which was not intended by their speakers. Having
been proved to have been other than the truth they obviously
cannot be taken as inspirations.
18[1]This refers to John, 21:23. ’Then went this saying abroad among the brethre
n, that
the disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him , He shall not die.”

2.
It is clear from the above description of Paley that the scholars
have admitted the fact that the matters which are not directly
related to the faith, or have been somehow mixed with the
principles of faith, do not damage the Christian faith in any way
if they are proved erroneous.
3.
They have also admitted that the presence of errors and
mistakes in the arguments of the disciples is not damaging to
the Christian faith.
4.
They have accepted that the existence of evil spirits and their
influence on human beings is not a reality and that belief in
them was a product of human imagination and superstition; and
that they had found their way in through the statements of the
evangelists, and even through Jesus, because they had
become a part of common tradition of that period.
Keeping these four conclusions in mind, we must be allowed to
claim that more than fifty percent of the gospels are thus
precluded from having been the result of inspiration. According
to this opinion, only the descriptions directly related to faith or
those defining the rituals can be considered as inspired.
However this opinion does not carry any weight because it
happens to be against the opinion of Luther, the founder of the
Protestant church, who explicitly declared that none of the
apostles had any right to issue or define any religious principle
on his own account, because only Jesus had the right to issue
religious doctrines. The unavoidable conclusion is that the
remaining part of the gospels, consisting of the descriptions
from the disciples directly related to faith, is likewise deprived of
its Divine character.
ADMISSIONS OF PROTESTANT SCHOLARS
Ward reproduced a number of statements from the great
scholars of the Protestant faith. We reproduce below nine of them
from his book prenticed in 1841.

(1) Zwingli, a Protestant bibliographer, said that all the

events described in Paul’s letters cannot be considered
sacred, as some events described in these epistles arc
incorrect.
(2) Mr. Fulk accused Peter of making false statements
and declared him to be ignorant of the Evangel.
(3) Dr. Goad, during a polemic with Father Campion,
said that Peter was wrong in his belief about the descent of the
Holy Spirit on Jesus.
(4) Brentius, called a learned leader and master by
Jewel, said that Peter the chief disciple and Barnabas made
erroneous statements after the descent of the Holy Spirit.
(5) John Calvin remarked that Peter spread heresy in thc
church and put the independence of Christianity in danger and
the Christian grace was led a stray by him.
(6) The Magdeburg Centuries accuses the disciples, and
especially Paul, of making false statements.
(7) Whittaker said that the people and dignitaries of the
church, and even the disciples of Jesus, made great mistakes
in preaching the Christian faith to the gentiles, and that Peter
made mistakes in rituals, and that these mistakes were
committed by them after the descent of the Holy Spirit.
(8) Zanchius gave an account of some followers of Calvin
in his book. He reported that some of them said that if Paul
ever came to Geneva to preach against Calvin, they would
listen to Calvin and leave Paul alone.
(9) Lewathrus, a staunch follower of Luther, giving a
description of some great scholars has quoted their
statements to the effect that it was possible for them to doubt
a statement of Paul, but there was no room for any doubt
about the statements made by Luther. Similarly it was not
possible for them to allow of any doubt in (he book of the
church of Augsburg concerning the principles of faith.
The above statements are from the great scholars of the
Protestant faith. They have declared that none of the books of the
New Testament were inspired and genuine. They have also admitted
that the disciples were erratic in what they wrote.
Protestant faith. They have declared that none of the books of the
New Testament were inspired and genuine. They have also admitted
that the disciples were erratic in what they wrote.
Ward reproduced a number of statements from the great
scholars of the Protestant faith. We reproduce below nine of them
from his book prenticed in 1841.
(1) Zwingli, a Protestant bibliographer, said that all the
events described in Paul’s letters cannot be considered
sacred, as some events described in these epistles arc
incorrect.
(2) Mr. Fulk accused Peter of making false statements
and declared him to be ignorant of the Evangel.
(3) Dr. Goad, during a polemic with Father Campion,
said that Peter was wrong in his belief about the descent of the
Holy Spirit on Jesus.
(4) Brentius, called a learned leader and master by
Jewel, said that Peter the chief disciple and Barnabas made
erroneous statements after the descent of the Holy Spirit.
(5) John Calvin remarked that Peter spread heresy in thc
church and put the independence of Christianity in danger and
the Christian grace was led a stray by him.
(6) The Magdeburg Centuries accuses the disciples, and
especially Paul, of making false statements.
(7) Whittaker said that the people and dignitaries of the
church, and even the disciples of Jesus, made great mistakes
in preaching the Christian faith to the gentiles, and that Peter
made mistakes in rituals, and that these mistakes were
committed by them after the descent of the Holy Spirit. committed by them after
the descent of the Holy Spirit.
(8) Zanchius gave an account of some followers of Calvin
in his book. He reported that some of them said that if Paul
ever came to Geneva to preach against Calvin, they would
listen to Calvin and leave Paul alone.
(9) Lewathrus, a staunch follower of Luther, giving a
description of some great scholars has quoted their
statements to the effect that it was possible for them to doubt
a statement of Paul, but there was no room for any doubt
about the statements made by Luther. Similarly it was not
possible for them to allow of any doubt in (he book of the
church of Augsburg concerning the principles of faith.
The above statements are from the great scholars of the
Protestant faith. They have declared that none of the books of the
New Testament were inspired and genuine. They have also admitted
that the disciples were erratic in what they wrote.
The learned scholar Norton wrote a book on the truth of the Bible,
which was printed in Boston in 1837, He said in his preface to the
book:
Eichhorn observed in his book that, in the first days of the
Christianity, there was a short book consisting of various accounts of
Jesus’ life. It is quite possible to say that this was the original
Evangel. Most probably this was written for those followers who could
not listen to the sayings of Jesus and could not see him with their
own eyes. This Evangel was a model. The accounts of Jesus written
there were not in chronological order.
It must be noted that this script was different from the present
gospels in many respects. The present gospels are by no means the
model represented by the one discussed above. The present gospels
were written under very difficult circumstances and contain some
accounts of Jesus which were not present in the original script. There
is evidence to suggest that this original script was the main source of
all the gospels which appeared in the first two centuries after the
death of Jesus. It also served as the basis for the gospels of

Matthew, Mark and Luke which later on became more popular than
the others. Though these three gospels also contained additions and
omissions, they were later on supplemented with the missing events
by other people to make them complete. The other gospels, which
contained various accounts of Jesus occurring after his prophethood,
such as the Gospel of Marcion and the Gospel of Tatian were
abandoned. They also added many other accounts, accounts of
Jesus’ birth and also accounts of his youth and reaching maturity and
other things. This fact is evident from the gospel called the Memoirs
from which Justin quoted in his book. The same is understood from
the gospel of Corinth.
the others. Though these three gospels also contained additions and
omissions, they were later on supplemented with the missing events
by other people to make them complete. The other gospels, which
contained various accounts of Jesus occurring after his prophethood,
such as the Gospel of Marcion and the Gospel of Tatian were
abandoned. They also added many other accounts, accounts of
Jesus’ birth and also accounts of his youth and reaching maturity and
other things. This fact is evident from the gospel called the Memoirs
from which Justin quoted in his book. The same is understood from
the gospel of Corinth.
The portions of these gospels which are still available, if
compared with each other, clearly show that the addition of these
accounts has been quite gradua1, for example, the heavenly voice
which was heard originally spoke in these words:
Thou art my son, 1 have begotten thee this day.
As has been quoted by Justinian in two places. Clement also
reproduced this sentence from a Gospel of unknown identity in these
words:
Thou art my beloved son, I have begotten thee this day.
The present gospels, however, have this sentence in these words:
Thou art my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased. 19[1]
The Ebonite Gospel combined the two statements together thus:
19[1]Mark 1:1l.
19[2]. A pagan scholar of the second century AD.
19[3]. Matt. 5:10.
19[4] The event of his hanging himself after the arrest of jesus and selling his
land for thirty
pieces of silver.
Thou art my beloved son, I am pleased unto thee, thou art
begotten this day begotten this day
This was stated by Epiphanius.
Christian history, through gradual additions and innumerable
manipulations, has totally lost its original form and is now a mixture of
unidentifiable ingredients. Any one curious enough can easily satisfy
his curiosity by reading an account of Jesus’ baptism that has been
collected together from several gospels.
This gradual mixture of contra-factual events with original
scripture has so terribly deformed the authenticity of the gospels that
they no longer retain their original divine character. The more they
were translated from one language to another, the more they lost
their original shape and form.
Releasing this situation, the Church came to their aid towards
the end of the second century or at the beginning of the third century
AD and tried to save the true and the original Evangel and to convey,
as far as possible, the truth to the future generations. They, therefore
selected the four present gospels out of many gospels that were
current in that period, because these four scripts seemed more
comprehensible than any of the others.
There is no sign of the existence of the gospels of Matthew,
Mark and Luke before the end of the second century or the beginning
of the third century AD, The first man to speak of these gospels in
history was Irenaeus in 200 AD who also advanced some arguments
concerning the number of the gospels.
Then in 216 AD Clement of Alexandria made a painstaking
efforts to prove that these four gospels were inspired and, therefore,
should be acknowledged as the source of Christian faith. The result
of this is that, towards the end of the second century and the
beginning of third, the Church made serious efforts to get these four
gospels acknowledged, in spite of the fact that they did not deserve
acknowledgement since they are clearly not genuine in all respects.
The Church also tried hard to convince people to discard all other
existing gospels.

Had the Church devoted this serious effort to purifying the

original script found by the early preachers, it would have been a
great contribution towards the future generations. But perhaps it was
not possible for the Church to do so since none of the existing
gospels was free from additions and alterations, and there was no
way of distinguishing the right from the wrong. Eichhorn further said
in the footnotes to his book:
original script found by the early preachers, it would have been a
great contribution towards the future generations. But perhaps it was
not possible for the Church to do so since none of the existing
gospels was free from additions and alterations, and there was no
way of distinguishing the right from the wrong. Eichhorn further said
in the footnotes to his book:
Many early theologians had doubts about several parts of these
gospels, but they were not able to put forward any corrections to
them.
He also said:
In our times, printing facilities have made it impossible for
people to distort and manipulate the text of a certain book. Before the
invention of printing the conditions differed from those of today. It
was possible for the owner of a certain version to insert distortions
and additions into the book, which then became the source for all
subsequent copies, leaving no means for them to ascertain which
parts of the book were from the author and which had been added or
changed. Subsequently these corrupted copies became common
among the people.
You will find that many saints and theologians complained that
the copiers and the owners of the copies of these hooks distorted the
texts shortly after they were written. The script of Dionysius was
distorted even before it was circulated. You also find that there were
complaints of impurities being inserted into the books by the followers
of Satan who were said to have excluded certain things and included
certain others on their own account. In the view of these witnesses it
is clear that the Holy Scriptures did not remain safe and intact. This in
spite of the fact that it was quite difficult for the people of that period
to distort the texts as the authors of that period used to issue heavy
curses and make sworn oaths in order to discourage people from
daring to make changes in them.
The same also happened with the history of Jesus, otherwise
Celsius would have not felt it necessary to point out the changes and
distortures that had been made by the Christians in their texts. That is

how some sentences regarding certain accounts of Jesus, which

were scattered in several gospels, came to be combined together in a
single gospel. For examp1e, the Ebionite Gospel gives a complete
account of the baptism of Jesus which has been compiled from things
found scattered in all of the first three gospels and in the memoirs
from which, according to Epiphanius,20[2] Justin quoted.
were scattered in several gospels, came to be combined together in a
single gospel. For examp1e, the Ebionite Gospel gives a complete
account of the baptism of Jesus which has been compiled from things
found scattered in all of the first three gospels and in the memoirs
from which, according to Epiphanius,20[2] Justin quoted.
In another place Eichhorn said:
Manipulations in the sacred texts, in the form of additions and
omissions and the replacement of a word by its synonym, by those
who lacked the necessary scholastic aptitude, is historically traceable
right from the time of the appearance of the gospels. This is not
surprising since, from the beginning of the history of the Christianity, it
has been a common habit of writers to make changes according to
their own whims, particularly in the sermons of Jesus and the
accounts of events in his life which were preserved by them. This
procedure, initiated in the first era of Christian history, continued to be
followed by the people of later centuries. 1n the second century AD,
this habitual distortion in the texts had become so commonly known
to the people that even the opponents of the Christian faith were
aware of it. Celsus, as noted above, raised objections against the
Christians that, they had changed their texts more than three or four
times, and these changes were not of a superficial nature but done in
such a manner that the subjects and meanings of the gospels were
altogether changed. Clement also pointed out that at the end of the
second century AD there were some people who used to tamper with
the texts of the gospels. He has specified that the sentence, ”For
theirs is the kingdom of heaven”21[3] was changed in some versions
to, ”they shall be perfect.” Some others even made it read: ”They
shall attain a place where they shall see no trouble.”
Norton, having quoted the above statement by Eichhorn said:
No one thinks that Eichhorn is alone in this opinion, because no
other book is as popular in Germany as the book of Eichhorn, and it
is considered to be in accordance with the opinions of most of the

modem writers with regard to the gospels, and the same applies to
matters which cast doubt upon the truth of the gospels. matters which cast doubt
upon the truth of the gospels.
Since Norton is known as an advocate of the gospels, having
quoted the above statements of Eichhorn, he refutes them all in
favour of the gospels, but, as will be evident to any reader of his
hook, his arguments are not convincing. In spite of all this, he had to
admit openly that the following seven portions of the New Testament
are definitely not from those who are considered to be their authors,
and had been added later.
1.
He says on page 53 of his book that the first
two chapters of Matthew were not written by
him.
2.
On page 63 he says that the event of Judas
Iscariot22[4]contained in Matt. 27:3-10 is
certainly a false statement and was added
later on.
3.
Similarly he declared that verses 52 and 53 of
chapter 27 of Matthew are a later
addition.23[5]
4.
It appears on page 70 that verses 9-20 of
chapter 16 of Mark are a later invention.24[6]
5.
On page 89 he says that verses 43 and 44 of
chapter 22 of Luke are a later addition.25[7]
23[5] This refers to a description of raising the dead saints from the graves af
ter the death of
Jesus.
24[6] These verses contain the description of the resurrection of Jesus which co
ntains a number
of errors.
25[7] "This refers to the visit of Jesus to the Mount of Olives a night before h
is crucifixion. It
reads, ”And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him. And
being in an
agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of bloo
d falling down to
the ground.” (Luke 22;43 and 44) Home, however has confirmed the correctness of
this verse and

6.
On page 84 he points out that verses 3, and 4
of chapter 5 of the Gospel of John, are a later
addition, That is from, "Waiting for the moving
of the water...” to, ”...was made whole of
whatsoever disease he had.”
7.
On page 88 he specifies that verses 24 and
25 of chapter 21 of the Gospel of John are
certainly later additions.26[8]
Further on page 610 he says:
The miraculous events described by Luke have been mixed
with traditional untruths and poetic exaggeration by the scribes. But it
is very difficult in this age to separate the truth from falsifications. Any
statement containing traditional untruths and poetic exaggeration is
obviously very far from being an inspiration.
We may be allowed to draw the following four conclusions from
the above statement of Eichhorn which has also been favoured by
other German scholars.
1.
The original Evangel has become extinct from the world.
2.
The present gospels are a mixture of true and
false descriptions.
3.
The text of these gospels has been distorted
and changed by the people of different times.
Celsus tried hard to inform the world that the
Christians had changed their texts three or
four times or more, to the extent that they had
actually changed the subject matter of these
texts.
has opposed the opinion which advocates excluding it from the books. We have dis
cussed this
verse in detail later in the book.
26[8] 1.These verses contain greatly exaggerated number of people and animals he
aled by Jesus.
26[9] Vol. 4. Page. 295.

4.
The present gospels did not show any signs of
existence before the end of the second
century and the beginning of the third century
AD.
Scholars such as Leclerc, Koppe, Michael, Lessing, Niemeyer
and Manson agree with regard to our first conclusion, because they
have all said that perhaps Matthew, Mark and Luke might have had
the same copy in the Hebrew language of a document containing and
account of the life of Christ. Matthew borrowed most of the contents
of that script while Mark and Luke did not use as much of it as he
did. Home also stated this in his commentary printed in 1822
AD,27[9] but he does not seem to agree with their option, which,
However, does not make any difference as far as our point of view is
concerned.

Almost all the Judaeo-Christian scholars are agreed on the point that
both Books of Chronicles were written by the Prophet Ezra with the
help of two other Prophets, Haggai and Zechariah. The above three
Prophets are jointly supposed to be the author of this book. However,
strangely enough, we know for a fact that the First Book of Chronicles
contains many errors as has been admitted by the scholars of both
the Christians and the Jews. They have said that through the folly of
the author the name of the grandson was written instead the name of
the son.
They have also said that Ezra, who wrote these books, did not
even know which of them were sons and grandsons. The script from
which Ezra copied was defective and incomplete and he could not

distinguish the false from the true, as will be shown in the next
chapter. This evidence is more than sufficient to reach the conclusion
that these books were not written through inspiration. Their
dependence on defective and incomplete documents is further proof.
However the two books of the Chronicles are held to be as sacred as
the other books of the Bible both by the Christians and the Jews.
chapter. This evidence is more than sufficient to reach the conclusion
that these books were not written through inspiration. Their
dependence on defective and incomplete documents is further proof.
However the two books of the Chronicles are held to be as sacred as
the other books of the Bible both by the Christians and the Jews.
This also confirms our suspicion that, according to the Christian
faith, it is not necessary for the Prophets, as we have seen before, to
be free from committing sins. Similarly, they are not necessarily free
from errors in their writings, with the result that these books cannot be
considered to be written through inspiration.
Whatever we have so far discussed in this chapter is enough to
show that the Christians are not in a position to make a definite claim
that any single book of the Old or the New Testaments was written
through inspiration.

From all that has preceded it is quite clear that we can claim without
the fear of being wrong that the original Pentateuch and the original
Evangel have disappeared and become extinct from the world. The
books we have today which go by these names are no more than
historical accounts containing both true and false accounts of past
ages. We strictly deny that the original Torah (Pentateuch) and the
original Evangel existed at the time of the Prophet Muhammad
(peace is on him) and that they were not changed until later. As far as
the Epistles of Paul are concerned, even if we grant that they were
really written by him, they are still not acceptable to us because it is
our well-founded opinion that Paul was a traitor and a liar who
introduced a completely new concept of Christianity, absolutely
different from what Jesus himself preached.28[1]
28[1] This opinion of the Muslim community should not be misunderstood as the pr
oduct of
prejudice and slander. He was considered a traitor even by the family of Jesus a
nd his disciples.

As far as the disciples of Jesus who were living after the

Ascension of Jesus are concerned, they are held to be respectable
and honest by the Muslims. They are not, however, considered to be
Prophets (and therefore able to have received inspiration from God).
They were ordinary human beings and not free from human errors.
Their teachings and their statements have lost validity through the
absence of authenticated historical verification: for instance, the
absence of any sign of the existence of the present gospels until the
end of the second century AD, the disappearance of the original
Hebrew copy of Matthew’s gospel and the unavailability even of the
same of the translator of the remaining translation, and the presence
of accumulated errors and manipulations in the present text, As far as
Mark and Luke are concerned, they were not disciples of Jesus, and
there is no indication that they ever received inspiration from God
Ascension of Jesus are concerned, they are held to be respectable
and honest by the Muslims. They are not, however, considered to be
Prophets (and therefore able to have received inspiration from God).
They were ordinary human beings and not free from human errors.
Their teachings and their statements have lost validity through the
absence of authenticated historical verification: for instance, the
absence of any sign of the existence of the present gospels until the
end of the second century AD, the disappearance of the original
Hebrew copy of Matthew’s gospel and the unavailability even of the
same of the translator of the remaining translation, and the presence
of accumulated errors and manipulations in the present text, As far as
Mark and Luke are concerned, they were not disciples of Jesus, and
there is no indication that they ever received inspiration from God
However we do solemnly believe that the Torah (Pentateuch)

was the book revealed to the Prophet Moses: The Holy Qura an
says:29[2]
We gave Moses the Book (Torah)
And we also find in the Holy Qura’an in reference to Jesus son
of Mary:
We gave him the Evangel.30[3]
And the nineteenth chapter of the Holy Qura’an, called
’Maryam’ after Mary the mother of Jesus, quotes Jesus as saying:
He hath given me the book (the Evangel).31[4]
We reproduce below the opinion of a modern French scholar. Maurice Bucaille. He
says on page
52 of his book The Bible, The Qur’an and Science:” Paul is the most controversia
l figure in
Christianity, he was considered to be a traitor to Jesse’s thought by the family
of Jesus and by the
apostles who had: stayed in Jerusalem in the circle around James. Paul created C
hristianity at the
expense of those whom Jesus had gathered around him to spread his teachings. He
had not known
Jesus during his lifetime and he proved the legitimacy of his mission; by declar
ing that Jesus,
raised from the dead, had appeared to him on the road to Damascus.” (Wali Raazi)

29[2] Qur’an 2:89.

30[3] Qur’an 5:16

The present gospels, chronicles and epistles

are certainly not
the Evangel referred to by the Holy Qura an and so they are not, as
such, acceptable to the Muslims. The Islamic teaching regarding the
Pentateuch, the other books of the Old Testament, and the Gospels
and the rest of the New Testament is that any biblical statements
which are confirmed by the Qura’anic Revelation will be accepted
and respected by the Muslims and any statements rejected by the
Qura’an will be rejected by the Muslims. Any statements about which
the Holy Qura’an is silent, the Muslims too should remain silent
about without rejecting or accepting them.
and epistles are certainly not

the Evangel referred to by the Holy Qura an and so they are not, as
such, acceptable to the Muslims. The Islamic teaching regarding the
Pentateuch, the other books of the Old Testament, and the Gospels
and the rest of the New Testament is that any biblical statements
which are confirmed by the Qura’anic Revelation will be accepted
and respected by the Muslims and any statements rejected by the
Qura’an will be rejected by the Muslims. Any statements about which
the Holy Qura’an is silent, the Muslims too should remain silent
about without rejecting or accepting them.
Allah the Almighty addressed His Prophet Muhammad (Peace
be on Him) in the Holy Qura’an in these words:
To thee we sent the Book (Qura’an) in truth confirming what
came before it of the Book, and assuring its safety.32[5]
The famous commentary on the Holy Qura’an, Ma’alim-u-
Tanzeel, contains the following comments on this verse:
According to Ibn al-Jurayj, the last phrase of this verse,
assuring its safety’, signifies that any statement produced by the
People of the Book (the followers of Christianity and Judaism) will be
accepted, subject to its confirmation by The Holy Qura’an, otherwise
that particular statement will be considered as false and
unacceptable. Saeed ibn Musayyab and Zihaq said the word
”Muhaimin” in this verse signifies ”the one who judges”, while
Khalil gave its meaning as ”protector and guard”. These different
shades of meanings, however, do not change the general
implication
that any book or statement confirmed by The Holy Qura an should
be considered as the word of God; the rest are obviously excluded as
not being the word of God.
What follows are the remarks on this matter from the
commentary Tafseer-e-Mazhari:
31[4] The complete verse is this: ”He said, I am in deed the servant of God, he
hath given me the
Book (the Evangel) and made me a Prophet.” (Wali Raazi)
32[5] Qur’an 5:51
If The Holy Qura’an bears witness to it, you are bound to
confirm it and if it rejects or says it is false, it must be rejected by us.
If The Holy Qura’an has been silent, you too have to be silent
because, in that case, the possibility of truth and falsehood will be
equal.
The Holy Qura’an bears witness to it, you are bound to
confirm it and if it rejects or says it is false, it must be rejected by us.
If The Holy Qura’an has been silent, you too have to be silent
because, in that case, the possibility of truth and falsehood will be
equal.
Imam al-Bukhari cited a tradition of the Holy Prophet, reported
by Ibn ’Abbas, in his Kitabu’sh-Shahadat along with its chain of
authorities then the same hadith has been cited by him in Kitabu’lI’tisam
supported by a different chain of reporters, and the same
hadith was again quoted by him in his book Kitabur Radd ’ala
Jahmiyyah, reported by a different group of narrators.
Why do you go to the People of the Book, the Jews and the
Christians, to seek injunctions about the Shari’a while your Book, The
Holy Qur’an, revealed to Muhammad, the prophet of Allah, is the
latest and freshest revelation of God. You recite it in its original form.
Allah Almighty has told you that the the Jews, have changed the
Pentateuch, the Book of Allah, having written it with their own hands.
They started saying that it was from Allah, only to get a small amount
of money in return. Does not your knowledge prevent you from asking
them questions.
The other version of this hadith as cited by al-Bukhari in Kitabur-
Radd’al Jahmiyyah is as follows:
O Muslims ! Why do you ask the People of the Book questions
regarding anything when your own Book is the Word which God has
revealed to your Prophet, Muhammad (Peace be on Him). It is new
and fresh, pure and original, free from foreign touch. Allah has
declared in His Book that the People of the Book have changed and
distorted their Books. They have written them with their own hands
and claimed that they come from God, (they did so) only for a small
amount of money. Does the knowledge which has come to you not
prevent you from seeking guidance from them? No, by God.’ we have
not seen them asking you about what has been sent to you. Why
then do you ask them knowing that their books have been distorted.

Kitabu’l-I’tisam contains the following statement of the

companion Mu’awiyah (may Allah be pleased with Him) regarding
Ka’b al-Ahbar (an expert on the Bible and a scholar of 1slam):
’l-I’tisam contains the following statement of the
companion Mu’awiyah (may Allah be pleased with Him) regarding
Ka’b al-Ahbar (an expert on the Bible and a scholar of 1slam):
Although he was one of the most truthful of those scholars of
hadith who sometimes report traditions from the People of the Book,
we have nevertheless found falsehood in them (in the reports of the
Bible).
This implies that the falsehood found in those reports was due
to the fact that those books had been distorted, not Ka’b al-Ahbar’s
misstatement, because he is considered one of the righteous
scholars of the Bible by the Companions of the Prophet. The phrase,
“We have found falsehood in them,” clearly denotes that the
Companions of the Prophet had the belief that all the Judaeo-
Christian books had been distorted.
Every Muslim scholar who has examined the Torah and the
Evangel has certainly refused to recognise the authenticity of these
books. The author of the book Takhjeel Man Harrafaal Injeel said in
chapter two of his book regarding the present gospels:
These gospels are not the true and genuine Gospel which was
sent through the Prophet (Jesus) and revealed by God.
Later in the same chapter he said:
And the true Evange1 is only the one which was spoken by the
tongue of Christ.
Again in chapter nine he stated:
Paul through his clever deception deprived all the Christians of
their original faith, because he found their understanding so weak that
he deluded them quite easily into believing anything he wished. By
this means he totally abolished the original Pentateuch.
One of the Indian Scholars has written his judgement about the
thesis of the author of Meezan ul Haq and the speech made by me in
the public debate held in Delhi. ’This judgement has been added as a
supplement to a Persian book called Risalatu’l-Munazarah printed in

1270 AH in Delhi. He said that a certain Protestant scholar, either

because of a misunderstanding or perhaps through misinformation,
publicly claimed that the Muslims did not refute the present Torah and
Evangel. This scholar himself went to the scholars of Delhi to find out
whether this was true. He was told by the ‘Ulama’ (Muslim scholars)
that the collection of books called the New Testament was not
acceptable as it was not the same Evangel which had been revealed
to the Prophet Jesus. He got this judgement of the ’Ulama’ in writing
and then made it part of his book. All the Indian scholars of Islam
have verified this judgement for the guidance of the people.
stant scholar, either
because of a misunderstanding or perhaps through misinformation,
publicly claimed that the Muslims did not refute the present Torah and
Evangel. This scholar himself went to the scholars of Delhi to find out
whether this was true. He was told by the ‘Ulama’ (Muslim scholars)
that the collection of books called the New Testament was not
acceptable as it was not the same Evangel which had been revealed
to the Prophet Jesus. He got this judgement of the ’Ulama’ in writing
and then made it part of his book. All the Indian scholars of Islam
have verified this judgement for the guidance of the people.

The Opinion of Imam Ar-Razi

The Opinion of Imam Al-Qurtubi
The Opinion of Al-Maqrizi
Two Claims to the Aunthintcity of the Gospels
Answer the First Claim
The Source of Clement s Letter
The Second Passage of Clement s Letter
The Third Passage of Clement s Letter
The Letters of Ignatius
The Cannons of Nicaea
Answer to the Second Clain to the Authenticity of the Gospels
The Gospel of Luke was Not Seen by Paul

Imam ar-Razi 33[1] said in his book ’Matlib ul-Aliya’ in the

chapter on Nubuwah (the prophethood) in the fourth section:
The effect of the original teaching of Jesus was very limited
because he never preached the faith which the Christians ascribe to
him. The idea of Father and son and the concept of trinity are the
worst kind of atheism and association and are certainly the product of
ignorance. Such heretical teachings cannot be ascribed to so great a
Prophet as Jesus who was innocent of all such crimes. We are
therefore certain that Jesus could have not preached this impure
faith. He originally preached monotheism and not tritheism as the
Christians claim. But this teaching of Jesus did not spread due to
many historical factors. His message therefore remained very limited.

Imam al-Qurtubi said in his book Kitabul A’lam Bima Fi Deeni’n-,

Nasara Minal Fisadi Wal Awham:
The present gospels, which are called evangels, are not the
same Evangel which the Prophet Muhammad (Peace be on Him)
alluded to in the words:
33[1] Imam ar-Razi, a great authority on almost all the Islamic Sciences and aut
hor of many
valuable books on Qur’an, hadith history and other sciences.

’And Allah revealed the Torah and the Evangel for the guidance
of the earlier people.’
And Allah revealed the Torah and the Evangel for the guidance
of the earlier people.’
Then al-Qurtubi put forward the argument that the disciples of
Jesus were not Prophets, hence not protected from impurity, and the
miraculous events ascribed to them have not been proved by an
unbroken chain of reporters. There are only statements made by
isolated reporters, We also do not find any indication that the copies
of these gospels are free from serious manipulations. They are
wrong. If, for a moment, we accept that these reports are true, they
are still not an argument for proving the truth of all the wonders
attributed to the disciples, nor do they help in proving the claim of
prophethood for them, because they never made any claim to
prophethood; on the contrary, they solemnly confirmed that the
Prophet Jesus was a preacher. Al-Qurtubi also said:
It is evident from the above discussion that the present gospels
have not been authenticated by means of an unbroken chain of
transmission, nor is there any indication that the copiers were
protected from wrong action and therefore the possibility of error and
fault from them cannot be overlooked. The presence of the above two
factors deprives the gospels of their divine character, authenticity and
hence their reliability. The proven presence of human manipulation
within the text of these gospels is enough to prove their
unacceptability. We quote, however, some examples from these
books to show the carelessness of their copiers and blunders made
by them.
After producing several examples he said:
These examples are sufficient to prove that the present gospels
and the Pentateuch cannot: be trusted and that neither of them are
capable of providing divine guidance to man, because no historical
chain of transmission can be adduced in favour of either in support of
their authenticity.
We have already cited several examples to show that these
books have been subject to great changes and distortions in their
texts. The condition of other books of the Christian theologians can

well be imagined in the light of the distorted texts of the Judaeo-

Christian scriptures, books of such prime importance to them.
-
Christian scriptures, books of such prime importance to them.
This book of al-Qurtubi can be seen in the Topkapi Library in
Istanbul.

Al-Maqrizi was a great scholar of Islam in the eighth century

AH. He said in the first volume of his history:
The Jews think that the book which they have is true and
original, free from all corruption. The Christians, on the other hand,
claim that the Septuagint 34[1] version of the Bible which is with them
is free from any possible distortion and change, while the Jews deny
this and contradict their statement. The Samaritans consider their
Pentateuch to be the only genuine version as compared to all others.
There is nothing with them to eliminate the doubts about this
difference of opinion among them. 35[2]
The same difference of opinion is found among the Christians
regarding the Evangel. For the Christians have four versions of the
Evangel which have been combined together in a single book, The
first version is of Matthew, the second of Mark, the third of Luke and
the fourth of John.
Each of them wrote his gospel according to his own preaching
in his own area with the help of his memory. There are innumerable
contradictions, incompatibilities and inconsistencies between their
34[1] The Septuagint is the oldest version of the Old Testament. The Septuagint
is so-called
because in the third century BC severity’ (more correctly seventy-two) translato
rs were sent to
Alexandria where they prepared this translation with their combined effort. Late
r on, the same
translation was acknowledged by Greeks as their Bible.
34[2] . Britannica page 868 vol. 14. Marcion.
various accounts regarding the attributes of Jesus, his message, the
time of his Crucifixion and his genealogy. The contradictions are
irresolvable.
time of his Crucifixion and his genealogy. The contradictions are
irresolvable.
Alongside this the Marcionites and the Ebionites have their
separate version of the Evangels, each being different from the
present canonical gospels. The Manichaeans also claim to have an
Evangel of their own totally different from the current accepted
gospels. They claim that this is the only genuine Evangel precinct in
the world and the rest are inauthentic. They have another evangel
called the Evangel of AD 70 (Septuagint) which is ascribed to
Ptolamaeus. The Christians in general do not recognize this gospel
as genuine.
In the presence of the above multifarious differences to be
found within the corpus of the Judaeo-Christian revelation, it is almost
impossible for them to sort out the truth.”
The author of Kashf az-Zunun said with regard to this matter
that the Evangel was a book which was revealed to Jesus, the son of
Mary, and, discussing the lack of authenticity and genuineness of the
present gospels, he said:
The Evangel which was in reality revealed to Jesus was a
single book which was absolutely free from contradictions and
inconsistencies. It is the Christians who have put the false blame on
Allah and His Prophet (Jesus) by ascribing the present gospel to
them.
The author of Hidayatu’I-Hayara Fi Ajwibaru’l-Yahood wa’n-
Nasara said quite explicitly:
The present Torah (Pentateuch) owned by the Jews is much
distorted and defective, a fact known to every biblical reader. The
Biblical scholars, themselves, are certain and sure of the fact that the
original Torah which was revealed to Moses was genuine and totally
free from the present distortions and corruptions. There was no
corruption present in the Evangel which was originally revealed to
Christ and which could not have included the event of the crucifixion
of Christ, or other events like his resurrection three days after his

death. These are, in fact additions inserted by their elders and have
nothing whatever to do with divine Truth.
lders and have
nothing whatever to do with divine Truth.4
He further said:
Several Islamic scholars have laboriously pointed out hundreds
of specific examples and passages showing contradictions,
incompatibilities and differences in the so-called Canonical Gospels.
It is only to avoid an unnecessary elongated discussion that we
refrain from presenting more examples.
The first two parts of this book should be more than enough to
prove the truth of this claim.
Two Claims to the Aunthenticity of the Gospels
Sometimes Protestant scholar try to misguide people with
regard to the historicity of the Synoptic gospels. They put forward
their claim that authentic proofs of the originality of the present
gospels existed during the first and the second centuries AD, by
reason of the fact that Clement and Ignatius testified to their
presence.
The second claim advanced by them is that Mark wrote his
gospel with the help of Peter while Luke wrote his gospel with the
help of Paul. Since both Peter and Paul were men of inspiration, the
above two gospels are also divinely inspired books.
It would seem to be our duty to examine the validity of these
two misguiding claims, each one separately, in the light of available
historical data and general human logic.
The main point of dispute regarding the originality of the
present gospels is the lack of an uninterrupted continuity in
transmission of the reporting authorities of any of the gospels. There
is no evidence that any of the gospels have come down to us direct

from Jesus through his disciples to the subsequent recipients so as to

form a continuous chain of reliable reporters. To say it more simply,
there should be a reliable record of a recognised disciple of Jesus
bearing witness that whatever he has written was told to him by
Jesus in the presence of one or more people of such and such
names. Then the next reporter should bear witness to having
received, heard or been told the same statement by that particular
disciple of Jesus in the presence of such and such people. Then one
or more of those present should have conveyed the same text to
others by the same procedure so that the texts would have been
conveyed to us with an uninterrupted chain of reporters traceable
directly back to Jesus himself (as is the case with Qura’anic
revelation).
form a continuous chain of reliable reporters. To say it more simply,
there should be a reliable record of a recognised disciple of Jesus
bearing witness that whatever he has written was told to him by
Jesus in the presence of one or more people of such and such
names. Then the next reporter should bear witness to having
received, heard or been told the same statement by that particular
disciple of Jesus in the presence of such and such people. Then one
or more of those present should have conveyed the same text to
others by the same procedure so that the texts would have been
conveyed to us with an uninterrupted chain of reporters traceable
directly back to Jesus himself (as is the case with Qura’anic
revelation).
Now we say, and without any fear of being wrong, that the
Christians do not possess any such succession of authorities from
the authors of the gospels to the end of the second century or the
beginning of the third century AD. We, ourselves, have dug into their
books to find any trace of such proofs, and also sought guidance from
renowned Christian scholars but could not get anywhere. The priest,
French,36[1] during our public polemic with him, tried to explain this
away by saying that we do not have any such authorities due to the
historical calamities which befell the Christians during the first three
centuries. It is, therefore, not correct to say that the priest Clement
and Ignatius had no such authority with them in their time.
We do not necessarily refute the conjectures and suppositions
by which they ascribe these writings to their authors. What we are
trying to say is that these suppositions and conjectures cannot be
accepted as an argument for the genuineness of the word of God.
Neither do we deny the fact that the present gospels gained
popularity towards the end of the second century or at the beginning
of the third century, with all their faults, errors, and contradictions.
36[1] Our author had a famous public polemic with a priest named Fonder in India
.
French was appointed as an assistant to Fonder. The assistant of the author was
Dr.. Vazir Khan.
(Taqi)

We must be allowed to bring to light some facts regarding

Clement and Ignatius to eliminate any misapprehensions. Clement and Ignatius to
eliminate any misapprehensions.

Clement, the Patriarch of Rome, is said to have written a letter

to the church of Corinth. There is a disagreement between the
scholars regarding the exact year that this letter was written.
Canterbury puts it between 64 and 70 AD. Leclerc claimed it to have
been written in 69 AD, while Duchesne and Tillemont have said that
Clement did not become Pope until 91 or 93 A.D. How Clement could
have written letters to the church in 64 or 70 AD when he was not yet
Pope is not explained. However, setting aside all the differences, the
letter in question could have not been written later than 96 AD. Some
sentences of this letter, however, happen to be identical to some of
the sentences in one of the four gospels. This allowed the Christians
to claim that Clement had copied those sentences from the gospel.
This claim is liable to be rejected for the following reasons:
Firstly, it is not sufficient to copy only some sentences from a
gospel. If this were the case the claim of those people would be true
who are considered heretics37[1] by the Protestants because they
have claimed that all the moral teachings contained in the gospels
have been borrowed from the pagans and other philosophers
(because some of their ideas were identical to some of the ideas of
the gospels). The author of Aksihumo said:
37[1] 1.The Rationalists who strongly favour liberalism.
37[2] Confucius, 6c great moral philosopher of China born in 551 BC, who had str
ong
influence on the religion and general character of the Chinese. Thc past Chinese
ideology was
thus called Confucianism.

The moral teachings of the Evangel, of which the Christians are

very proud, have been copied word for word from the Book of Ethics
of Confucius,38[2] who lived in the sixth century BC. For example he
said under his moral no. 24: ”Behave towards other as you want to
be behaved towards by others. You need only this moral because this
is the root of all other morals. Do not wish for the death of your
enemy because to do so would be absurd since his life is controlled
by God.” Moral no. 53 goes: ”It is quite possible for us to overlook our
enemy without revenging him. Our natural thoughts are not always
had.”
very proud, have been copied word for word from the Book of Ethics
of Confucius,38[2] who lived in the sixth century BC. For example he
said under his moral no. 24: ”Behave towards other as you want to
be behaved towards by others. You need only this moral because this
is the root of all other morals. Do not wish for the death of your
enemy because to do so would be absurd since his life is controlled
by God.” Moral no. 53 goes: ”It is quite possible for us to overlook our
enemy without revenging him. Our natural thoughts are not always
had.”
Similar good advice can be found in the books of Indian and
Greek philosophers.
Secondly, if Clement really had copied it from the gospel, all its
contents would have been identical to the gospel, but such is not the
case. On the contrary, he differed from the gospel in many places,
showing that he had not copied what he wrote from the gospels. Even
if it were proved that he had copied from a gospel, it might have been
from any of the many gospels which were current in his time, as
Eichhorn admitted in respect of the sentence spoken by a heavenly
voice at the time of the descension of the Holy Spirit.
Thirdly, Clement was one of the followers of the disciples and
his knowledge about Christ was no way less than that of Mark and
Luke, which allows us to believe, and logically so, that he might have
written the letter from reports received by himself directly. If there
were an indication anywhere in his writing that he had copied it from
any of the gospels, our claim would certainly have been out of place.
We quote below three passages from his letter.
He who loves Jesus should follow his commandment.
Jones claimed that Clement copied this sentence from John
14:15 which reads:
If ye love me, keep my commandments.

The apparent similarity between these two statements led Mr.

Jones to suppose that Clement had copied it from John. However,
he has chosen to overlook the clear textual difference between these
two statements. The falsity of this claim has already been proved by
our showing that the letter could not have been written after 96 AD,
while, according to their won findings, thc Gospel of John was written
in 98 AD. It is nothing but a desperate effort to provide some
authenticity to the present gospels.
Mr.
Jones to suppose that Clement had copied it from John. However,
he has chosen to overlook the clear textual difference between these
two statements. The falsity of this claim has already been proved by
our showing that the letter could not have been written after 96 AD,
while, according to their won findings, thc Gospel of John was written
in 98 AD. It is nothing but a desperate effort to provide some
authenticity to the present gospels.
Horne said on page 307, Vol. 4 of his commentaries printed
1824.
According to Chrysostom and Epiphanius, the early scholars
and according to Dr. Mill, Fabricius, Leclerc and Bishop Tomline,
John wrote his gospel in 97 AD, while Mr. Jones situates this gospel
in 98 AD.
However, a true lover always follows what his love commands,
otherwise he would not be a 1over in the true sense of the word.
Lardner justly said in his Commentaries printed 1827 on Page 40 of
Vol., 2:
I understand that the copying of this letter from the gospel is
doubtful, because Clement was fully aware of the fact that any claim
to the love of Christ necessitated practical obedience to his
commandments, because Clement had been in the company of the
disciples of Jesus.

It appears in chapter thirteen of this letter:

We follow what is written, because the Holy Spirit has said that
a wise man is never proud of his wisdom. And we should keep in

mind the words of Christ who said at the time of preaching patience
and practice: and practice:
”Be ye merciful, that ye be shown mercy, forgive that ye he
forgiven; ye will be acted upon, the same as you will act upon others,
as you will give so shall you be given, you will be judged as you will
judge upon others; as you will pity, so shall you be pitied upon and
with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to
You again.”
The Christians claim that this passage was taken by Clement
from Luke 6:36-38 and Matt.7: 1,2,12. The passage from the Luke is
this:
Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful. Judge
not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be
condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven: Give, and it shall be
given unto you; good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and
running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same
measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you mete.
The passage from Matthew 7:1,2 reads:
Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye
judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be
measured to you again.
And in verse 12:
Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to
you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

Chapter forty-six of his letter contains this passage:

Remember the words of Lord Christ who said, Woe unto the
man who has committed a sin. It would have been better for him if he

had not been born, that he should harm those chosen by me. And
whosoever shall offend my little ones, it will be better for him that a
millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in
the depth of the sea.
whosoever shall offend my little ones, it will be better for him that a
millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in
the depth of the sea.
The Christians have claimed that the above passage was
copied from Matthew 26:24 and 18:6 and Mark 9:42 and Luke 17:2:
reproduce these verses below:
The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that
man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that
man if he had not been born.
Matthew 18:6 contains the following lines:
But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in
me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his
neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
Mark 9:42 reads:
"And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that
believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about
his neck, and he were cast into the sea."
The text of Luke 17:2 is this:
It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his
neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of
these little ones.
Having reproduced the passages from Clement and the above
texts of the gospels, Lardner said in his Commentaries printed 1827
vol. 2 page 37 that:
The above two passages of Clement are his longest passages
and this is why Paley confined himself to them to support the claim of
authenticity for the gospels. This claim does not, however, stand to
reason because Clement would at least have made a reference to the
gospels had he copied any passage from them and he would also
have copied the rest of the related text or, if that was not possible, the

text reproduced by him should have been totally consistent and

similar to the text of the gospel. However none of these conditions
are met. Such being the case, there is no possibility of its have been
copied from the gospel.
by him should have been totally consistent and
similar to the text of the gospel. However none of these conditions
are met. Such being the case, there is no possibility of its have been
copied from the gospel.
1t is surprising to see Luke being referred to as the teacher of
Clement, imparting to him the knowledge which he must already have
had, being the companion of the disciples just as Luke was.
In volume 2 of his commentaries, Lardner remarked about the
above two passages:
When we study the writings of those who enjoyed the company
of the apostles or of the other followers of our Lord who, like the
evangelists, were fully conversant with the teachings of Christ, we
find ourselves very much in doubt without the evidence of a clear
reference. We are faced with the difficulty of ascertaining whether
Clement copied written statements of Christ or whether he is simply
reminding the Corinthians of the sayings which he and the
Corinthians had heard from the Apost1es and their followers. Leclerc
preferred the former opinion ,while the Bishop of Paris preferred the
latter.
If we accept that the three Gospels had been compiled prior to
that time, in that case Clement could possibly have copied from them,
though the word and expression may not exactly be identical. But that
he actually has copied is not easy to confirm, because this man was
fully acquainted with these matters even prior to the compilation of
the Gospels. It is also possible that Clement would have described
events already known to him without referring to the Gospels even
after their compilation out of his old habit. In both the cases, the faith
in the truth of the Gospels is reaffirmed, obviously so in first case, and
in the second case because his words correspond to the text of the
Gospels, proving that the. Gospels were so widely known that the
Corinthians and Clement both had the knowledge of them.
Through this we achieve the belief that the evangelists faithfully
conveyed the words consisting of the true teachings of Christ. These
words deserve the most careful preservation, though there we have a

difficulty. I think that the most scholars will agree with the opinion of
leclerc, however, as Paul advises us in Acts 20:35 with the words: leclerc, howe
ver, as Paul advises us in Acts 20:35 with the words:
’And to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It
is more blessed to give than to receive.’
It is, I am sure, generally acknowledged that Paul did not copy
the above statement from any letter but just quoted the words of the
Christ which were in his knowledge and in the know1edge of others.
This does not mean that it may be accepted as a general rule but this
method can possibly be applied in letters. We know that Polycarp
also used this method in his writings. We are quite sure that he also
copied from the written gospels.
It is clear from the above statement that the Christians are not
certain that Clement really copied from the canonical gospels, and
any claim to this effect is only based on conjecture.
We do not agree with the conclusion of Lardner that in both
case the truth of the present gospels is proved because there can be
no certainty in the presence of doubt. As the evangelists incompletely
recorded the words of Christ in this particular instance, they might
have done the same in other places too, and they might have not
recorded the exact words used.
Moreover, if we overlook this point for a moment, it only proves
that these particular sentences are the words of Christ, it does not in
any way help us to believe that all the contents of the gospels are the
genuine words of Christ. The knowledge of a certain statement
cannot be an argument for the acceptance of other statements. If that
were the case, all the rejected gospels would have to be accepted as
genuine simply because some sentences of Clement bear some
similarity with them.
We are also confident in our refutation of the claim that
Polycarp also used the method of copying from the gospels in spite of
his own knowledge, gained by being, like Clement, also a companion
of the disciples of Jesus. Both of them are of equal status. His
copying from the gospels cannot prove their genuineness. It is, on
the other hand, possible that like Paul he might have ascribed some
statements to Christ.35

Let us now find out the truth regarding the letters written by
lgnatius, the Bishop of Antioch. Lardner said in vol. 2 of his
commentary;
Eusebius and Jerome both mentioned certain of his letters.
Apart from these some other letters are also attributed to him, which
are generally considered by most of the scholars to be false and
concocted. My opinion is no different. There are two copies of his
seven letters, the large and small. Except for Mr. Weston and a few of
his followers, all the scholars have decided that additions have been
made in the larger one, the smaller version, however, can possibly be
ascribed to him.
I have carefully made a comparative study of both the texts and
my study revealed that the smaller version was turned into a larger
one by the inclusion of many additions and insertions. It is not the
case that the larger was turned into the smaller through the exclusion
of some of the contents. The ancient writings, also, are more in
accordance with the smaller version.
The question whether Ignatius really did write these letters
remains to be settled. There is great dispute and disagreement on
this point. The great scholars have made free use of their pens in
expressing their opinions. The study of the writing of both the camps
has made the question all the more complicated. However, in my
opinion, this much is settled and decided; that these are the sames
letter which were present in the time of Origen and were read by
Eusebius. Some of the sentences are not appropriate to the time of
Ignatius. It is therefore better if we accept that these sentences are
later additions instead of rejecting all the letters on the ground of
these sentences, especially keeping in view the crisis of shortage of
copies which we are facing.

It is also possible that some of the followers of Arius36 might

have made additions to the smaller version just as they did to the
larger Additions may also have been made by others.
36 might
have made additions to the smaller version just as they did to the
larger Additions may also have been made by others.
Paley writes in his footnotes:
"In the past, the translation of three letters of lgnatius were
present in the Syrian language and were printed by William Cureton.
It is almost certain that the smaller letters, which were revised by
Ussher, contained many additions.”
The above writings of the Christian scholars bring out the
following facts:
1. All the 1etters except these seven letters are definitely
fabricated and forged according to the Christian scholars and are
therefore unacceptable.
2. The larger version of the letters is similarly not genuine in the
opinion of all the scholars except Mr. Weston and a few of his
followers.
3. As far as the smaller collection is concerned, there is great
dispute and difference of opinion among great scholars with regards
to its authenticity. Both the groups of scholars have their own
arguments against or in favour of its authenticity. The group of
scholars who have favored it also admit its having been subjected to
later modifications their by Arius or by others, with the result that this
collection also appears to be equally of doubtful authenticity.
It seems most probable that this collection of letters was also
put together in the third century AD similarly to the other letters. This
should not present too much of a surprise, in view of the general
practice of the theologians of early centuries who frequently prepared
false writings and attributed to other writers to suit their whims.
Historical records bear witness to the fact that there were not less
than seventy-five gospels which were falsely attributed to Christ, to
Mary and to the disciples of Christ. It does, therefor, not seem
particularly far-fetched to assert that these seven letters, too, were
prepared and attributed to Ignatius, similar to other such letters and

similar to the gospel of Tatian 39[1] which was falsely attributed to

him. Adam Clarke said in the introduction of his commentary:
39[1] which was falsely attributed to
him. Adam Clarke said in the introduction of his commentary:
The book which was genuinely ascribed to Tatian has
disappeared and the one which is now attributed to him is doubtful in
the eyes of most of the scholars, and they are right in their
suspicion.
Let us ignore all the above points for a moment and take it that
the 1etters in question really were originally written by lgnatius. Even
these does not help much because, after the additions and
modifications inserted by later people, they have lost their originality
and are no longer acceptable.
According to the scholars some sentences of these letters were
certainly added later on and so there is nothing to remove suspicion
from other sentences which are supposed by them to be original.
They, likewise, might have been added to or modified in subsequent
times.
Eusebius said in chapter 23 of the fourth volume of his history:
Dionysius, the Bishop of Corinth, admitted that he had written
several letters on the request of some of his friends, but those
deputies of Satan filled them with profanities and altered some parts
and added others. This made me all the more, aggrieved. Therefore,
there is no wonder if someone made intentional additions in the holy
books of our Lord, because they had no qualms in respect of the
books of other authorities.
39[1] This is also called Diatessaron of Tatian. According to G.T. Menley this w
as put together
by combining the present four gospels, but it is not known if it was in the Gree
k or in the Syrian
language.
39[2] Chrysostom, being a great orator, was called the Golden Mouth. He was born
in 347 AD
and was later made bishop of Constantinop1e.
39[3]This was a Christian sect who were the followers of Basilius who was the bi
shop of
Caesarea from 329 - 379 AD

Adam Clarke has said in his introduction to his commentary:

The great works of Origen have been lost and several of his
Commentaries which are available contain an abundance of unfactual
and imaginary comments which in itself is a powerful argument in
favour of the fact that they have been interpolated.”
Michael Musaka, a Protestant scholar, has said in his Arabic
work, Ajwibatu’l-Engeleer Ala Abateel-At-Taqleedeen, section one,
chapter 10:
As far as their habit of distorting the statements of the ancients,
we should first produce our arguments so that our position may not
be similar to these of our opponents, that is to say, so that our claims
may not be considered as baseless as theirs. We proceed to say that
the book Afshin which is attributed to John Chrysostom, the Golden
Mouth,40[2] and which is recited in the churches during the services
of consecration, presents different texts. That is, the text recited by
one group is different from the text recited by others. For, in the copy
of the Orthodox, the Father God is besought to make descend his
Holy Spirit on the bread and wine and turn them into flesh and blood,
while in the text of the Catholics it is said that he should send the
Holy Ghost on the bread and wine so that they may be transformed.
But in the time of Maximus, it was changed by the people and they
started to say that both the transformable things have39 fled away for
the reason that the Orthodox had claimed against it. But the Catholics
of Syria say it with these words, ’Send thy Holy Spirit upon this bread
that is the secret of the body of Christ.’ There is no word denoting
transformation present in this text. It is possible that this statement
might have been of Chrysostom (the Golden Mouth) as the preaching
of transformation was not introduced in his time. And Major Bobi
Tompter, who had converted to Catholicism said in his speech to the
Orthodox in 1722: ”I have compared these books with the Orthodox
version possessed by the Basilians, 41[3]and we did not find a single
word in these books denoting transformation. This story of
transformation of the bread and wine was invented by Nicephorus,
the patriarch of Constantinople, and is ridiculous. Now, when they
could have made a play of such a pious text as Afshin and altered its

contents to suit their unholy intentions and when they did not hesitate
to attribute their distortions to such a pious man, how can they be
trusted and how can they be free from the suspicion of changing and
distorting the texts of their ancestors.
to attribute their distortions to such a pious man, how can they be
trusted and how can they be free from the suspicion of changing and
distorting the texts of their ancestors.
We have had our own experience in recent years that Deacon
Ghariel of Egypt, who was a Catholic, took great pains and spent a lot
of money in correcting the translation of the commentary of
Chrysostom from the original Greek copy. The Orthodox scholars,
who were expert in the Greek and Arabic languages, compared it in
Damascus and testified to its accuracy, and then a certified version
was prepared. But Maximus did not allow its publication in Tyre.41
This copy was given to Bishop Alexis of Spain who made a
thorough examination of the book. Both of them were totally ignorant
of the original Greek version. In order to make it correspond with the
teachings of the Pope they made many changes through additions
and omissions using their own discretion. Having so spoilt the whole
book they attested to it with their stamps and then it was allowed to
be published. It was not until the publication of its first volume, when it
was compared with the original manuscript which was in safe custody
with the Orthodox, that their unholy act of manipulation was
uncovered, with the result that they became the subject of common
reproach. Ghariel was so appalled at this incident that he never
recovered and died of shock.
Musaka further said:
We produce the unanimous witness of their elders from one of
the Arabic books generally available there. This is a report which was
unanimously passed in a meeting, along with all its various parts, by
the priests of the Maronites, their patriarchs and scholars, with the
permission of Monsignor Samani. This report bears the seal of the
Church of Rome. It was printed in Tyre with the permission of the
chiefs of the Catholics. Discussing the ritual of the offerings this
report said that the old liturgies were still present in the churches, free
from errors and faults, but they have been attributed to some saints
and the pious men who were not the authors of these books, nor
could they possibly have written them. Some of them were included
by the copiers only to suit their unholy needs. It is more than enough

for you to admit that your churches are full of fabricated and forged
writings. writings.
He further said:
We are fully aware that our enlightened generation would not
dare to make alterations in the holy books, as they are fully wise to
the fact that they are watched by the eyes of the protectors of the
gospels. However we are not sure of the circumstances which
prevailed from the fifth century to the seventh century AD, known as
the dark ages, when the Popes and the priests enjoyed a barbarous
kingdom of their own. Some of them did not even know how to write
and read and the helpless Christians of the East were living a very
distressed life, always anxious to save their souls. What happened in
that period is best known to them alone. Whenever we come to know
the history of that terrible age, and think of the conditions ruling over
the Christian church, which had become a symbol of corruption, our
grief and sorrow knows no limits.
Keeping in view the facts reproduced above, we leave the judgment
to our readers to see the truth of our claim themselves.

The number of the canons passed by the council of Nicaea 42

was twenty. Subsequently many additions were made to them. The
Catholics derive their arguments for the Popes authority from Canons
No. 37 and 44. It is written on Page 68 and 69 of ’Les Treize Epitres’
of the second letter printed in 1849 AD:
The aforementioned council prescribed only twenty canons
according to the witness of the history of Theodorus and the writings

of Gelasius. The Fourth Ecumenical 42[1] council also affirmed that

there were only twenty Canons prescribed by the Council of Nice.
42[1] council also affirmed that
there were only twenty Canons prescribed by the Council of Nice.
Similarly many other false books were written which were
attributed to several Popes like Calixtus, Sircius, Nectarius,
Alexander and Marcellus. The above book contains this statement on
page 80:
Pope Leo and the majority of the Roman scholars have
admitted that the books of these Popes are false and fictitious.
To the Authenticity of the Gospels
The second false claim made by the Christian scholars in order
to support the authenticity of the gospels is their contention that the
gospel of Mark was written with the help of Peter. This is another
clever contrivance to misguide the general populace. Let us first have
the wittiness of Irenaeus. He said:
Mark, the follower and the translator of Peter, wrote the
teachings of Peter after the death of Paul and Peter.
Lardner said in his commentary;
In my opinion Mark did not write his gospel before 63 or 64 AD.
This period is also in accordance with the description of the ancient
writer Irenacus, who said that Mark wrote his gospel after the death of
Peter and Paul. Basnage agreed with Irenaeus and said that Mark
wrote his gospel in 66 AD after the death of Peter and Paul,
The witnesses of Basnage and Irenaeus are sufficient to prove
that this gospel was written after the death of Peter and Paul, and
42[1]An ecumenical council. in Christian terminology, is a council inviting scho
lar from all parts
of the world. Here the athor is referring to the council which was held Chaledon
in 451 AD. This
Council declared the Monophysites to be heretics. (Al Munajjid).

that Peter certainly did not see the gospel of Mark,43[1] and the
statement, often cited to prove that Peter saw it, is weak and
unacceptable. It is why Se author of Murshid ut-Talibeen, in spite of
all his religious preoccupations said on page 170 of his book printed
in 1840:
43[1] and the
statement, often cited to prove that Peter saw it, is weak and
unacceptable. It is why Se author of Murshid ut-Talibeen, in spite of
all his religious preoccupations said on page 170 of his book printed
in 1840:
He has falsely answered that the gospel of Mark was written
under the guidance of Peter.
This claim of its being written in the life of Peter has therefore
no grounds and hence, is rejected.

Similarly the gospel of Luke was not seen by Paul. This is true
for two reasons:
1. Firstly because the findings of the modem Protestant scholars
are that Luke wrote his gospel in 63 AD in Achaias. It is established
that Paul was released from prison in 63 AD. After that nothing is
known about him up to his death but it is most probable that he went
to Spain in the West and not towards the Churches of the East, and
Achaias is one of the Eastern cities. Most possibly Luke had sent his
gospel to Theophilus who was indeed the real cause of writing it. The
author of Murshid-u-Talibeen wrote on page 161 of volume two,
printed in 1840, discussing the history of Luke:
43[1]G. T. Menley said that in the Markine Preface of the gospel of Mark, which
was written in
170, we are informed that Mark wrote his gospel in ltaly after the: death of Pet
er, and this seems
to be correct. (Our Holy Books)

As Luke 44[1] did not write anything related to

Paul after his release from prison, we know
nothing about his travels from his release to
his death.
44[1] did not write anything related to
Paul after his release from prison, we know
nothing about his travels from his release to
his death.
Gardner said in his Commentaries printed 1728 vol. 5, p. 350:
Now we want to write about the life of the disciple, from his
release to his death, but we are not helped by Luke in this regard.
However we do find some traces in other books of the modem time.
The ancient writers do not help. We find great dispute over the
question of where Paul went after his release.
In the light of the above, the contention of some of modem
scholars that he went to the Churches of the East after his release is
not proved. He said in his epistle to the Romans 15:23,24:
But now having no more place in these parts, and having a
great desire these many years to come unto you; Whensoever I take
my journey into Spain, I will come to you; for I trust to see you in my
journey…
It is quite explicit from the above statement of their apostle that
he had an intention to go to Spain, and at the same time we know
that he never went to Spain before his imprisonment. It is therefore,
quite logical that he might have gone to Spain after his release,
because we do not see any reason for him to have abandoned his
intention to travel to Spain. It appears in the Book of Acts 20:25:
And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I have gone
preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more.
This statement also indicates that he had no intention to visit
the Churches of the East. Clement, the Bishop of Rome, said in his
letter:
Paul, in order to unveil the truth to the world, went to the end of
the West and then reached the sacred p1ace (i.e. died).”
44[1]That is, in the Book of Acts, which is considered to be written by Luke.

This too obviously implies that he went towards the West and
not to the East before his death. not to the East before his death.
Lardner first reproduced the statement of Irenaeus as follows:
Luke, the servant of Paul, wrote in a book the tidings that Paul
had preached in his sermon.
He further said:
The context of the description indicates that this (Luke s writing
the gospel) happened after Mark had written his gospel, that is, after
the death of Peter and Paul.
On the grounds of this statement it is physically impossible for
Paul to have seen the gospel of Luke. Besides, even if we assume
that Paul saw this gospel, it does not prove and thing because we do
not consider him to have been inspired by God and a statement
made by an uninspired person could not achieve the status of
inspiration simply by the fact of Paul having seen it.