Ahmed Deedat own Revealing the Truth

The Ultimatum manual


Ahmed Deedat, Kairanvi, Zakir Naik, Yusuf Estes (though Zakir and Estes are wrong to market Ibn Abdel Wahab innovated creed of the upper 6th direction for the Creator instead the pure Koran and Hadith creed by the Prophet from the 9 books of Hadith which negates their false assumption, also we just released it in 2777 hadith in Arabic and draft in 79 languages – I ask Allah forgiveness) are leading the Great Debate


Revealing the Truth of Islam to Christians

Izhar al Haq


Sheikh Ahmed Deedat decided to study English Bibles all various editions even Arabic versions,

he made a comparative study charts of the Gospels, he found in himself the full ability to work

for Islamic Call and to respond to missionaries, so Sheikh decided to leave all other business.

In Pakistan he found the book (Izhar Al Haq; revealing the truth) by Rahmatullah M.R. Kairanvi

of Agra, India (1854), so Sheikh practised what he learned from this book in responding to missionaries,

visiting them in their homes every Sunday. He then moved to the city of Durban, south Africa and

faced many missionaries and established


Islamic Propagation Centre International













Revealing the Truth debate

on 345 Proofs (196 ARGUMENTS plus 149 Additions to the Bible)

Covering 38 Bibles and books each is believed to be genuine and

authentic by almost all the Christians



Rev. C.C.P. Fonder, Head of Global Christian Mission


And the Winner


M.R. Kairanvi, The Scholar of Agra, India 1854


The first English translation from Urdu by anonymous Blessed Mujawir in Medina


The second and last English revision by Anne Khadiejah & Ahmad Darwish

while living in Muhammad Ali Clay house, Chicago, IL, USA


Written originally in Persian and translated into Arabic by Prof. Abdusabour Shaheen,

Dar al Uloom, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.


See also

The Articles of the Bishop of Uramiah

"Muhammad in the Old & New Testaments"

Prof. Rev. David Benjamin Keldani, B.D. 1904

Published by the Court of Doha, Qatar


Referenced in this Dialogue the Old and New Testaments verses

are quoted from King James by American Bible Society.


The Koran (Quran) verses are quoted from the contemporary Koran

by the Darwish of Allah.com


The Arabic word "Allah" is a proper noun of the Creator

The Arabic word "Islam" means in English own ubmission" to Allah


1 Bible outlines:




"They are but names given by you and your fathers.

Allah has not sent down an authority for them.

They follow conjectures and their soul own Desire, although

the guidance of their Lord has come to them." [Koran 53:23]


The books of the Bible are divided by the Christians

and the Jews 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 Prophets 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 Testaments together are

called the 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, while the authenticity of the

other part is held to be doubtful and controversial.




This collection comprises of 38 books:




The Book of Genesis describes the creation of the earth and

the skies and gives an historical 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.




Exodus is mainly a description of the life of the Prophet

Moses. It includes the teachings of Moses, his altercations with

Pharaoh, Pharaoh own drowning in the sea and the oral

communication of God with Moses. It ends with the Israelites"

camping in the desert of Sinai. It is called Exodus because it

describes the event of the Israelites" exodus from Egypt.


3 Leviticus


Is a collection of the injunctions and laws given to the Israelites

during their wanderings in the desert of Sinai. It has 27 chapters.




5 The Book of Numbers includes events of the census of the

Israelites, their history before their departure to Canaan and the

injunctions of the Prophet Moses revealed to him by the bank of

the river Jordan. It contains 36 chapters.




The Book of Deuteronomy is a collection of those events and

injunctions which took 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

Pentateuch or Torah. This is a Hebrew word meaning "the law

The word is also occasionally used to mean the Old Testament m





The Book of Joshua is ascribed to the Prophet Joshua son of

Nun who was the reliable servant and minister of Moses. He was

made the Prophet of Israelites after the death 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





The Book of Judges covers the period after the death of

Joshua. This period is called 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 their sins. Then some leaders were raised up among

them and came to their rescue. These Israelite leaders were

known as the Judges. It has 21 chapters.




The Book of Ruth describes events in the life of a woman of

Moab called Ruth. She was the mother of Obed the grandfather

of the Prophet David. She migrated to Bethlehem and married

Boaz. They bore a child Obed. His son was Jesse who was the

father of the Prophet David. It has only 4 chapters.




The First Book of Samuel concerns the Prophet Samuel who

was the last of the Judges of Israelites. Samuel was made king of

the Israelites in his period. It also includes the killing of


by David and other incidents up until the death of Samuel. It has




The Second Book of Samuel describes the events after the

death of Saul. It includes the kingship of David and his war

against the sons of Saul. It has 24 chapters.




The First Book of Kings begins with the old age of David

an includes the event 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 own description is also included. It has 22





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.




Chronicles I comprises genealogies from Adam to Solomon.

It also includes short historical accounts leading up until the

time of David and gives details of David own reign over the

Israelites. It contains 36 chapters.




Chronicles II describes Solomon own rule in detail and also

gives a short account of various Kings after Solomon up until the

reign of Zedikiah. The invasion of Nebuchadnezzar is also

covered at the end.




Ezra I describes the reconstruction of Jerusalem by Cyrus the

King of Persia after the invasion of Nebuchadnezzar. It also

mentions the exile of Ezra and the return of the Israelites from

Babylon to their homeland. It contains 10 chapters.




Ezra II is also called the Book of Nehemiah. Nehemiah was a

cupbearer of Artaxerxes the King of Persia. When he learnt about

the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, he sought the

king own 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.




The Book of Job is said to be by the Prophet Job whose

patience and forbearance are also acknowledged and praised by

the Holy Koran. He was born in Uz, a city to the east of the

Dead Sea. The book mainly consists of conversations between

Job and his three friends Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the

Shubite, Zopher the Na"amathite who insist that the calamities of

Job are the result of his sins while Job refutes this. This book is

held to be of great literary merit. It contains 42 chapters.




The Book of Psalms is the corrupt form of the book of which

the Holy Koran says, "We have given the Zaboor to Dawood."

The book is a collection of 150 Psalms, or songs of praise, to





The Book of Proverbs is a collection of the exhortations and

proverbs of the Prophet Solomon. The Christians claim that this

book was compiled by Solomon himself. Kings I says: "And he

spoke three thousand proverbs." (4: 32). It contains 31 chapters.




The Book of Ecclesiastes is also called the "Book of the

Preacher". It is said that the name of one of the sons of David

was "the Preacher". It begins with these words: "The words of

the Preacher, the son of David." (1: 1). The book is a collection

of exhortations and advises.




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.




The Book of Isaiah is ascribed to the Prophet Isaiah, son of

Amoz, who was adviser to Hezekiah, 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

Judah. This book is a collection of his visions and predictions of

future events. These predictions according to the Christians were

made by Isaiah in the reigns of the kings Azariah, Jotham and

Hezekiah. It has 66 chapters. This book contains many passages

of great literary merit.




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 their perversion. He

preached to the Israelites but they did not listen to him. God

revealed to him that the 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 Nebuchadnezzar. The Prophet Jeremiah

migrated to Egypt. According to some scholars the Holy Koran

refers to this incident in Surah 2: 259. It has 56 chapters.




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.




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 predictions,

exhortations and warnings to the people about God own Judgement

on them and about the coming fall and destruction of Jerusalem.




The Prophet Daniel was among the wise people who were

exiled from 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 of 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.




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 his

admonitions to the Israelites against their perversion. His

revelations are mostly in the form of proverbs or in symbolic

language. It consists of 14 chapters.




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 about fasting and warnings

against the evil deeds of the Israelites.




Amos is also said to be a prophet. In the beginning he was a

shepherd in the city 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)




This small scripture consists of only 21 verses and includes a

dream of Obadiah the Prophet. There are some predictions

regarding the defeat of Adom, the enemy of Judah.




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 the Muslims.




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 own wrath on account

of their perversion. The king, Hezekiah, acknowledged his

prophethood and abstained from evil deeds. (Kgs. 32: 26)




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 downfall of

the City of Nineveh.




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 own invasion of Jerusalem. This

book mentions one of his dreams which admonishes the Israelites

on their evil deeds and predicts the destruction of Jerusalem by

Nebuchadnezzar. It has 3 chapters.




Zephaniah is also supposed to be a Prophet who was

ordained by God to prophet-hood 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





This script of 2 chapters is attributed to the Prophet Haggai

who lived in the time of Darius, the king of Persia, in 500 BC

after the invasion of Nebuchadnezzar. He urged the Israelites to

rebuild Jerusalem and warned those who obstructed them.




Zechariah was also a Prophet. It should be noted here that

this Zechariah is not the one who has been mentioned in the Holy

Quran. He is said to be a companion of the Prophet Haggai at

the time of the rebuilding of Jerusalem. This book consists

mostly of dreams which include prophecies regarding the future

of the Israelites and the coming of the Prophet Jesus It has




The Book of Malachi is ascribed to the Prophet Malachi. He

is the last Prophet of the Old Testament. The book has 4 chapters

and describes the thanklessness of the Israelites. The Prophet

Malachi lived about 420 years before the Prophet Jesus, the



These thirty eight books are believed to be genuine and

authentic by almost all the Christians. 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 Judges. 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 worship.




There are nine books in this part. The authenticity of these

books has been a point of great controversy among Christians.

The Protestant faith, for instance, does not acknowledge 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 nine books and five other books

together are called the Apocrypha.




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 he married Esther. Aman, a

minister of the king, had some differences with Mardochaeus, the

father of Queen Esther. He plotted to destroy the Jews. Esther

convinced the king to combat this plot and saved the Jews. This

book describes this event in 10 chapters.




Baruch was a 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.






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 event of his marriage with a

strange woman Sarah. This book is has great literary merit.




This book is ascribed to a very brave Jewish woman named

Judith. She saved and delivered her people from the oppression

of the king of Assyria. It also includes the story of her love.




This book is ascribed to the Prophet Solomon. It contains

wise sayings of the Prophet and is similar in many ways to the

Book of Proverbs.




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.




This book describes the rebellion of the tribe of the





This book describes the history of a short period of time and

contains some unbelievable or corrupt reports.






There are twenty books in the first part of the New

Testament. These twenty books are believed to be genuine and

authentic by the Christians.




This is not the Matthew who was one of the Twelve Disciples of

the Prophet Jesus. This book is considered to be the oldest of

the Gospels. The book begins with the genealogy of the Prophet

Jesus and describes his life and teachings up until his ascension

to the heavens.




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.




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 name in Koran is Yahya) and covers the life

of Jesus up until his ascension to heaven. It has 24 chapters.




This book also begins with the birth of John the Baptist and

describes the events 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 certainly not the author of this book. Some of

the Christians claim that the author of this book may be John the

Elder but this claim too is not supported by any historical



These four books are also called the four Evangels.

Sometimes the word Evangel is also used for all the books of the

new Testament. The word is of Greek origin and means good

tidings and teaching.




It is said that this script was written by Luke to Theopheus. It

includes the acts and achievements of the disciples of the Prophet


Jesus after his ascension. It particularly describes the journeys

of Paul until his arrival in Rome in 22 AD. It has 28 chapters.




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 beginning. Some time after the ascension of Jesus to

heaven he suddenly appeared and claimed to have received

instructions from Jesus.




This is Paul own first letter to the Corinthians and it consists

mostly of teachings and injunctions regarding unity among the

Christians. At that time they were involved in various disputes.

Chapter 7 includes some injunctions concerning matrimonial

relations. In chapter 8 the evils of paganism and the Christians"

attitude towards a pagan society are discussed. The last few

chapters include a discussion on atonement and the Hereafter

Chapter 16 describes the blessings of alms-giving and donations

for Christianity.




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 ourneys.




Galatia was a province of Rome in the north of Asia Minor.

This letter was written to the churches of Galatia in early 57 AD.

Paul had heard that the people of Galatia were being influenced

by another religion. In this letter he tries to prevent them from





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 in three years of

great effort. (Acts 1(): 19) In this letter he gives some moral

instructions to the people.




This letter of Paul is addressed to the people of Philippi, a

city of Macedonia. This is the first city in Europe where Paul

preached Christianity. He was arrested there. This letter includes

his moral teachings and exhortations for unity among the





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 deeds.




This letter of Paul was written to the people of Thessalonica,

a city of the province of Macedonia which is a part of Greece

today. He discusses, in this letter, the principles which bring

about God own pleasure. It also speaks of other subjects. It has 5





This letter, containing only 3 chapters, offers Paul own

encouragement to the Thessalonians on their good deeds and

some instructions regarding their general behaviour.




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 descriptions regarding rituals

and ethics.




This second letter to Timothy speaks of certain people who

had converted to other religions and also includes instructions to

Timothy about preaching and also some predictions for the last

ages. It has 4 chapters.




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 has 3

chapters and gives preaching instructions and details of the

prerequisites of bishops.




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)




Peter was one of the closest apostles of Jesus. The study of

the New Testament shows 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. the

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.






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 from the first letter of John

are also not believed to be authentic.




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.




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 return of the Messiah.




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.




This letter was addressed to Gaius, one of the pupils of John

and a church leader. The writer praises the reader for his help to

other Christians, and warns against a man called Diotrephes.




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 of Acts. The

letter is a collection of practical instructions and emphasizes the

importance of actions guided by faith.




Jude is a brother of the James who was one of the 12

apostles. He is mentioned in 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.




The Revelation of John is a collection of visions and

revelations written in symbolic language. Its main concern is to

give its readers hope and encouragement in their suffering for

their faith.




1 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 Emperor Constantine to

examine and define the status of these books. After thorough

investigation 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.


2 [St. Jerome was a Christian scholar who translated the Bible

into Latin, he was born in 340 A.C.]


3 Another council was held in 364 in Liodicia for the same

purpose. This conference of Christian scholars and theologians

not only confirmed the decision of the council 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 books: The Book of Esther, The Epistle

of James, The Second Epistle of Peter, The Second and Third

Epistles of John, The Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews. This

conference pronounced their decision to the public. The book of

Revelations, however, remained out of the list of the

acknowledged books in both the councils.


4 In 397 another great conference was held called the Council

of Carthage. Augustine, the great Christian scholar, W;tS among

the one hundred and twenty six learned participants. The

members of this council confirmed the decisions of the two

prevlous 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 Second Books of Maccabees.


5 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 they did not

include the name of this book separately in the list.


6 Three more conferences were held after this in Trullo,

Florence and Trent. The members of these meetings confirmed

the decision of the Council of Carthage. The last two councils,

however, wrote the name of the book of Baruch separately.


7 After these councils nearly all the books which had been

doubtful among Christians were included in the list of

acknowledged books.




The status of these books remained unchanged until the

Protestant Refom1ation. The Protestants repudiated the decisions

of the councils and declared that the following books were

essentially to be rejected: The Book of Baruch, The Book of

Tobit, The Letter of Jude, The Song of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus,

The First and Second Books of Maccabees. 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 be

rejected They based their decision on the following six reasons:


1 These works were considered to be false even in the

original Hebrew and Chaldaean languages which were no longer


2 The Jews did not acknowledge them as revealed books.

3 All the Christians have not acknowledged them as


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 have been tampered with, and changed. In

particular the Second Book of Maccabees.


Reasons: Numbers 1, 2, and 6 are particularly to be noted by the

readers as self-sufficient evidence of the dishonesty and perjury

of the earlier Christians. Books which had been lost in the

original and which only existed in translation were erroneously

acknowledged 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 both the Catholic

and the Protestant persuasions. The followers of Catholic faith

still believe in these books in blind pursuance of their forebears.




1 It is a prerequisite of believing in a certain book as divinely

revealed that it is proved through infallible arguments that the

book in question was revealed through a prophet and that it has

been conveyed to us precisely in the same order without any

change through an uninterrupted chain of narrators. It is not at

all sufficient to attribute a book to a certain prophet on the

basis of suppositions and conjectures. Unsupported assertions made

by one or a few sects of people should not be, and cannot be,

accepted in this connection.


2 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 which have been

rejected by Christians.


3 They include the Book of Revelation, the Book of Genesis, the

Book of Ascension, the Book of Mysteries, the Book of Testament

and the Book of Confession which are all ascribed to the Prophet



Similarly a fourth Book of Ezra is claimed to be from the Prophet

Ezra and a book concerning Isaiah own ascension and revelation are

ascribed to him.


4 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 are more than 70

books, other than the present ones, of the new Testament, which

are ascribed to Jesus, Mary, the apostles and their disciples.


5 The Christians of this age have claimed that these books are

false and are forgeries. The Greek Church, Catholic church and

the Protestant Church are unanimous on this point. Similarly the

Greek Church claims that the third book of Ezra is a part of the

Old Testament and believes it to have been written by the Prophet

Ezra, while the Protestant and Catholic Churches have declared it

false and fabricated. We have already seen the controversy of the

Catholics and Protestants regarding the books of Baruch, Tobit,

Jude, the Song of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus and both the books of

Maccabees. A part of the book of Esther is believable to the

Catholics but essentially rejected by the Protestants.


6 In this kind of situation it seems absurd and beyond the

bounds of reason to accept 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 from the author of the book to

prove their claim but they were unable to do so. At a public

debate held in India, one of the famous missionaries confessed to

the truth that the absence 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

ourselves examined and probed into their books and took great pains

to find any such authorities but our findings did not lead beyond

conjecture and presumption. Our impartial search in the sources

of their books showed that most of their assertions are based on

nothing but presumptions.


7 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 until we had been given

some arguments and authorities to prove their genuineness and

authenticity. However, for the sake of truth, we still go forward

to discuss and examine the authority 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 Pentateuch (Torah) included in the Old Testament is

claimed to be the collection of the revelations to the Prophet

Moses. We firmly claim that the books of Pentateuch do not

possess any authority or support to prove that they were in fact

evesled to Mose and that they were wrltten by him or through

him. We possess sound arguments to support our claim.




1 The existence of the Torah, Pentateuch, is not historically

known before King Josiah [of Judah], the son of Amon. The script of

the Pentateuch which was found by a priest called Hilkiah 18 years

after Josiah own 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 Nebuchadnezzar [king of Babylon].


2 Not only the Pentateuch, but also all the books of the Old

Testament were destroyed in this historical calamity. History

does not evince any evidence of the existence of these books after

this invasion.


3 According to the Christians the Pentateuch was rewritten by

the Prophet Ezra.


4 This book along with all its copies were again destroyed and

burnt by Antiochus [I Maccabees 1:59] at the time of his invasion

of Jerusalem.




1 It is an accepted notion of all Jewish and Christian scholars

that the First and Second books of Chronicles were written by

Ezra with the 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. These descriptions also contradict statements in the

Pentateuch, firstly in the names, and secondly in counting the

number of the descendants. In chapter 7:6 we read that Benjamin

had three sons and in chapter 8:1-3 we find that he had five

sons while the Pentateuch claims that he had ten sons [Genesis



2 Both the Christian and the Jewish scholars are unanimous on

the point that the statement made by the First Book of Chronicles

is erroneous, and they have justified this error by saying that the


3 Prophet Ezra could not distinguish and separate the sons from

the grandsons, because the genealogical 1ables from which he had

quoted were defective and incomplete


4 It is true that the three prophets who wrote the Pentateuch)

were necessarily sincere 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 deviate

and or make mistakes in the divine book, neither was it possible

that Ezra would have wrongly trusted an incomplete and defective

table of genealogy in a matter of such importance.


5 Had the Pentateuch written by Ezra been the same famous

Pentateuch, they would have not deviated from it. These

evidences lead us to believe that the present Pentateuch 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 their



6 Their claim that three prophets committed mistakes in copying

the names and number of the sons of Benjamin leads us to

another obvious conclusion that, according to the 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.




1 Any reader of the Bible making a comparison between

chapters 45 and 46 of the book of Ezekiel, and chapters 28 and

29 of the Book of Numbers, will find that they contradict 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 Pentateuch how could he

have acted upon those doctrines without deviating from it.


2 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 this, the

Book of Ezekiel (18: 20) says, "Son shall not bear the iniquity of

the father, neither shall 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."


3 This verse implies that no-one will be punished for the sin of

others. And this is the Truth. The Holy Koran has confirmed it.

It says:


"No bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another."




1 The study of the books of Psalms, Nehemiah, Jeremiah and

Ezekiel testifies to the 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.


2 The Pentateuch in particular, is very different in style, and

we do not find even a single place to indicate that the author of

this book was Moses. On the contrary it leads us to believe that

the author of the books of the Pentateuch is someone else who was

making a collection of current stories and customs of the Jews.

However, in order to separate the statements which he thought

were the statements of God and Moses, he prefixed them 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 person for himself. At least there

would have been one place where we could find Moses speaking

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 first 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 wishes to

attribute those statements to the author.




1 The present Pentateuch includes within its chapters some

statements which are historically impossible to attribute to Moses.

Some verses explicitly denote that the author of this book cannot

have existed prior to the Prophet David but must either be a

contemporary of David or later than him.


2 The Christian scholars have tried to justify the opinion that

these sentences were 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 has added a sentence to a certain chapter of a certain bok

Now unless these chapters and sentences are not proved through

infallible arguments to have been added by a prophet they remain

the writings of someone other than the Prophet Moses.




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 Christi;m

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 is not the book of Moses.

2 This book was written either in Cana"an or Jerusalem. That is

to say, it was not written during the period when the Israelites

were living in the wilderness of the desert.

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





1 "There appears no appreciable difference between the mode

of expression of the Pentateuch and the idiom of the other books

of the Old Testament which were written after the release of the

IsraeliteS from the captivity of Babylon, while they are separated

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.


2 For example, 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

languages. 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.




1 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 them. And thou

shall write upon the stones all the work of this law very plainly,


2 This verse appears in Persian translation published in 1835 ln

these words:


3 "And write all the words of the Pentateuch (Torah) on the

stones very clearly."


4 In the Persian translation of 1845, it appears like this:


5 "Write the words of this Torah (Pentateuch) on the stones in

bright letters."

And the Book of Joshua says:


6 "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:


7 "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).


8 All these extracts sufficiently show that the laws of Moses or

the Pentateuch was just as much as could be written on the stones

of an altar.


9 Now if we presume that it is the present Pentateuch that is

referred to in the above verses this would be impossible.




1 Norton, a missionary, said, "Writing was not in vogue in the

time of Moses," indicating that if writing was not in use in the

period of Moses, he could not be the author of the Pentateuch. If

the authentic books of history confirrn his statement this can be

a powerful ARGUMENT in this connection. This statement is also

supported by the book "English History" printed by Charles

Dallin Press, London in 1850. It says:


2 "The people of the past ages used to scribble on plates of

copper, wood and wax, with needles of iron and brass or 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

made from cloth. The pen was invented in the seventh century



3 If this historian is acceptable to Christians, the claim made

by Norton is sufficiently confirmed.




1 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:


2 "These be the sons of Leah which she bore unto Jacob in

Padanaram with his daughter Dinah: all the souls of his sons and

daughters were thirty and three."


3 The figure 33 is wrong. The correct number is 34. The

famous commentator Horsely, also admitted this mistake. He



4 "If you count the names, including Dinah, the total comes to

34 and Dinah must be included as is evident from the number of

the sons of Zilpha, because Sarah was one of the sixteen.

Similarly the Book of Deuteronomy 23: 2 contains this



5 "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."


6 This statement is also not correct. On the basis of this

statement the Prophet David and all his ancestors up to Perez

would be excluded from the congregation of the Lord because

Perez was an illegitimate son of Judah. This is quite evident from

the description in chapter 38 of the Book of Genesis. And the

Prophet David happens to be in his tenth 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 congregation of the Lord; and according to the

Psalms of David he was the first born of God.




1 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 able to go forth to war in Israel; even all they that

were numbered were six hundred thousand and three thousand and five

hundred and fifty. But the Levites after the tribe of their fathers

were not numbered among them."


2 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 Tribe and all

the women of the other tribes of the Israelites and all those men

who were under twenty years of age. If we include the number of

all the people of Israelites excluded from this enumeration, their

total should not be less than twenty-five hundred thousand. This

statement is wrong for five reasons.




1 The total number of men and women of the Israelites was

seventy a. he time of their arrival in Egypt. This is evident from

Genesis 46: 27, Exodus 1: 5 and Deuteronomy 10: 22. The

greatest possible period of their stay in Egypt is 215 years. It

cannot be more.


2 It has been mentioned in the first chapter of the Book of

Exodus that the sons of the people of Israel were killed and their

daughters left to live, 80 years before their liberation from



3 Now keeping in mind their total number at their arrival in

Egypt, the duration of their stay in Egypt, and the killing of

their sons by the King, if we assume that after 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.




1 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.


2 The Israelites lived a collective life in Egypt. If they are

believed to have been 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 sign of resistance and rebellion from them.

Even animals fight and resist to save their offspring.




1 The Book of Exodus chapter 12:39 describes how the

Israelites had taken with them the cattle herds and flocks, and the

same book 5:19, also informs us that they crossed the river in a

single night; and that they used to travel every day 13:21, and

that Moses used to give them verbal orders to march 14:1.




1 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 herds or cattle. The

fact is that the area surrounding Mount Sinai, and the area of the

twelve springs in Elim are not sufficiently large to have

accommodated the Israelites and their cattle.




1 We find the following statement in Deuteronomy 7:22.

"And the Lord, thy God will put out those nations before thee by

little and little: thou mayest not consume them at once, lest the

beasts of the field increase upon thee."


2 It is geographically true that Palestine extended nearly 200

miles in length and ninety miles in breadth. Now, if the number of

the Israelites was really twenty-five hundred thousand, 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 had they been much less in number than

stated, even then, they would have been enough to populate such

a small area.


3 Ibn Khaldun, also refuted this number in his

"Introduction; Muqaddimma" saying that, according to the researches

made by the scholars, the gap between Israel and Moses is only

three generations. It is unbelievable that in a period of only

three generations they could increase to that number.


4 In view of the above ARGUMENTs, it is obvious tht "the People

of the Book" (The Christians and the Jews) do not possess any

ARGUMENTs to prove their claim that the books of the Pentateuch

were written or conveyed by the Prophet Moses.


5 It is, therefore, not binding upon us to believe in these books

until and unless they produce irrefutable ARGUMENTs to support

thetr clalm.




1 We have already seen that the Pentateuch, which enjoys the

status of being a fundanlent;ll book of the Christian faith,


be proved to be authentic and believable. Let us now proceed to

find out the truth about the Book of Joshua, the next book in



2 First of all, the nallle of the author of this book is not

known with certainty, and the period of its composition is also



3 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 [grandson of Prophet Aaron]

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



5 Henry claimed that it was written by the Prophet Jeremiah.


4 Readers should note the contradictory opinions of these

Christian scholars, especially keeping in mind the fact that Joshua

and Jeremiah are separated by a period of 850 years. The presence

of this great difference in opinion is, in itself, a strong

evidence that the book is not believed to be authentic by them.

Their opinions are generally based on their calculations supported

by some vague notions indicatingthat a certain person might 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 the Jebusites dwell with the children

of Judah at Jerusalem unto this day." The above statement 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 seventh year of the ascension of David to throne (5:6-8), the

author of Joshua own statement said that the Jebusites dwelt in

Jerusalem "unto this day" meaning the seventh year of David own

ascension to throne. This clearly implies that the author belonged

to that period.


5 Similarly the same book includes this statement, "And they

drove not out the Canaanites that dwelt in Gezer, but the

Canaanites dwell among the Ephraimites unto this day."" We find

another statement in I Kings 9:16 that the Pharaoh had driven out

the Canaanites from Gezer in the time of Solomon. This leads to

the conclusion that the book was written 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 the conclusion that this book was written

before Rehobo"aam. See 2-Samuel 1:18


6 In view of this evidence, it is logical to conclude that the

author of the book of Joshua must have lived after the Prophet





1 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



2 Some Christian writers claim it to be the book of Phineas,

while some other believe 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)


3 Some other writers have asserted that this book was written by

Ezra. It may be noted that difference of time between Ezra and

Phineas is not less than nine hundred years.


4 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

opinions about it.




1 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 hold the opinion that

the author of this book is Ezra. All other Christians and the Jews

attribute it to Samuel.


2 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.




1 The same kind of difference is present regarding the author

and the period of this book. The most popular opinion is that it

was written by Nehemiah. Athanasius, Epiphanius and

Chrysostome believe it to have been written by Ezra. Aecording

to popular opinion it cannot be accepted as a revealed book.


2 The first 26 verses of chapter 12 are different from the rest

of the book of Nehemiah 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

Drius, the King of Persia being mentioned in verse 22 of the

same chpter, when in fact he lived one hundred years after the

death of Nehemiah. The Christian commeIltators have to declare

this anomaly as a later addition. The Arabic translator of the

Bible has omitted it altogetl1er.




1 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 period.

Maimonides, a celebrated scholar and Rabbi of the Jews, Michael

Leclerc, Semler, Hock, Isnak alld other Christians insist that Job

is a fictitious name and the book of Job is no more than a fiction.

Theodore has also condemned it. Luther, the leader of the

Protestant faith, holds it as purely a fictitious story.


2 The book has been attributed to various names on the basis of

conjecture. However if we assume that the book was written by

Elihu [son of Bar"achel the Buzite] or by a certain unknown person

who was a contemporary of Manasse, it is not acceptable as a

prophetic and revealed text.




1 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 of 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 by the Prophet David

himself. On the other hand, writers like Hilary, Athanasius,

Jerome and Eusebius have strictly refuted this. Horne says:


2 "Undoubtedly the fomler statement is altogether wrong".

According to the opinion of the latter group, more than thirty

psalms are from unknown authors. Ten psalms from 9() to 99 are

supposed to be from Moses and seventy-one psalms are claimed to

be from David. Psalm 88 is attributed to Heman and to Ethan [both

were physicians], while Psalms 72 and 177 are said to be from



3 And three psalms are believed to be from Jeduthun and one

hundred and twenty psalms from Asaph, but some Christians

refute that Psalms 74 and 79 are written by him. Eleven psalms

[42 to 49 and 84,85 and 87] are supposed to have been written

by three sons of Kore.


4 Some writers even think that the author of these psalms was a

totally different person who attributed these psalms to the various

writers concerned, while yet others of the psalms were written by

another unknown person. Calmat says that only forty-five psalms

were written by David, while the rest are by other people.


5 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 together. According to them

David, himself, is not the author of any of the Psalms; he is just

the receiver of them:


6 Horne said that the judgement of modern Christian and Jewish

scholars is that this book was written by the following authors:

the Prophets Moses, David and Solomon; and Asaph, Heman,

Ethan, Jeduthun and the three sons of Kore.


7 The same contradiction and confusion is found regarding the

period of its compilation. Some scholars hold them to have been

written and compiled in the time of David; some believe that they

were collected by some friends of Hezekiah in his period; while

some others think that they were compiled in different periods.

Similar differences are also expressed about the names of the

Psalms. Some claim that they are revealed, while others think that

someone who was not a prophet had called them with these



8 Psalm 72, verse 20 says, "The Prayers of David, the son of

Jesse are ended." This verse has been omitted in the Arabic

translations apparently with the purpose of supporting the opinion

of the first group that the whole Book of Psalms was written by

the Prophet David. On the other hand it is also possible that this

verse might have been added later to support the second group own

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 this verse or by addition of it.




1 The condition of this book, too, is not much different from the

books we have discussed so far. A few writers have claimed that

the author of this whole book is the Prophet Solomon himself.

This claim is false because of variations in linguistic idioms and

style, and repetition of several verses found in this book


2 Apart from this the first verses of chapters 30 and 31 also

refute this assumption.


3 Even if we accept that some part of this book could have been

written by Solomon which is possibly true for 29 chapters, these

were not collected or compiled in his period because there is no

doubt that several of them were collected by Hezekiah as is evident

from 25:1:


4 "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.


5 Some writers are of the opinion that the first nine chapters of

the book were not written by Solomon. Chapters 30 and 31 are

attributed to Agur and Lemuel, as cited, but strangely the

commentators could neither find out who these two authors were

nor are they sure of their being prophets.


6 On the basis of their usual presumptions they hold that they

were prophets. However, this kind of conjecture is not acceptable

to an impartial reader.


7 Some of them think that Lemuel is the second name of Solomon,

but Henry and Scott state:


8 "Holden has rejected the assumption that Lemuel was another

name of Solomon, and he has proved that Lemuel was a separate

person. Perhaps he has got sufficient proof that the book of

Lemuel and the book of Agur are revealed books. Otherwise they

could have not been included in the canonical books."


9 Adam Clarke says in his commentary:

"This claim is not supported by any evidence that Lemuel was

Solomon. This chapter was written a long period after his death.

The idioms of the Chaldean language that are found in the

beginning of this book also refute this claim.

And he comments on chapter 31:


10 "Certainly this chapter could not have been written by


Verse 25 of this chapter says:

"there are also proverbs of Solomon which the men of

Hezekiah copied out."


11 Verse 30 in the Persian version of the Bible printed 1838

says: "The words Aglr, the son of Jakeh, even the Prophecy: the

man spoken unto Ithiel and Ucal."

And the Bible printed in the Persian language in 1845 contains

this: "The words of Acur, son of Jafa, were such that the man

spoke unto Ithiel, evn Ithiel and Ucal."


12 The majority of writers have admitted that the book was

compiled by many people including Hezekiah, Isaiah and perhaps





1 This book, too, has a history of serious differences. Some

writers have claimed that its author was Solomon. Rabbi Kammchi, a

famous Jewish scholar, said that it was written by Isaiah. The

scholars of the Talmud attribute it to Hezekiah while Grotius says

that this book was written by Zorobabel for his son, Ebihud. John,

a Christian scholar, and some Gerrnan scholars calculate it to have

been written after the release of the Israelites from Babylon.




1 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 had 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. Theodore, a missionary who lived in

the fifth century AD, strictly condemned this book and the Book of

Job, while Simon and Leclerc did not acknowledge it as a genuine

book. Whiston said that it was a foul song and should be

excluded from the holy books of the Old Testament. Some others

have made the same judgement about it. Semler holds it as a

forged and fabricated book. The Catholic, Ward, has pointed out

that Castilio declared it to be a vile song and decided that it

should be excluded from the books of the Old Testament.




1 The Greek Translation of Theodotion, the Latin translation and

all the translations of the Roman Catholics include the Song of

Three Children and chapters 13 and 14 of this book. The Roman

Catholic faith acknowledges this song and the two chapters, but

the Protestants disapprove of it and do not consider it genuine.




3 The name of the writer of this book as well as the time of its

compilation is unknown. Some Christian scholars believe that it

was written by scholars living in the period between Ezra and

Simon. A Jewish Scholar Philon [a contemporary of Paul] aims that

it was written by Jehoiachin, the son of Joshua [was the son of

Jehoakin] , who had come to Jerusalem after the release from

Babylon. St Augustine believed it to be a book of Ezra.


4 Some other writers attribute it to Murdoch and Esther. Other

details of this book will later be discussed in chapter 2 of

this book.




1 We are certain that chapter 52 of this book cannot be claimed

to have been written by Jeremiah. Similarly the eleventh verse of

chapter 1() cannot be attributed to Jeremiah. In the former case,

because verse 64 of chapter 51 of the Persian Version 1838

contains: "Thus far are the words of Jeremiah". While the Persian

Translation of 1839 AD says: "The words of Jeremiah ended



2 In the latter case the reason is that verse 11 of chapter 10 is

in the Chaldean language, while the rest of the book 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:


3 "It appears that Ezra or some other person inserted it to

elucidate the predictions occurring in the previous chapter."

Horne says on page 194 of Vol. 4:


4 "This chapter was added after the death of Jeremiah and the

release from the captivity of Babylon, some of which we find

mentioned in this chapter too."


5 Further in this volume he says:

"Certainly the words of this Prophet are in the Hebrew

language but chapter 10:11 is in the Chaldean language." I

The Reverend Venema said:

"This verse is a later addition."




1 A public debate was held between Karkaran, a religious leader

of the Roman Catholics, and Warren about this book. This

discussion was published in 1852 in Agra (India). Karkaran

writes in his third letter that Stapelin, a learned Gerrnan writer,

had said that chapter 40 and all the chapters up to chapter 66 of

the book of Isaiah were not written by Isaiah. This implies that

twenty-seven chapters of this book are not the writings of







1 All the ancient Christian writers and a great number of modern

writers are unanimous on the point that the Gospel of Matthew

was originally in the Hebrew language and has been completely

obscured due to distortions and alterations made by the Christians.

The present Gospel is merely a translation and is not supported by

any ARGUMENT or authority. Even the name of its translator is not

definitely known. There are only conjectures that possibly this or

that person might have translated it. This kind of ARGUMENT cannot

be acceptable to a non-Christian reader. The book cannot be

attributed to its author only on the basis of uncertain



2 The Christian author of Meezan-ul-Haq could not produce any

authority regarding the author of this book. He only conjectured

and said that Matthew might possibly have written it in the Greek

language. In view of this fact this translation is not acceptable

and is liable to be rejected.


3 The Penny Encyclopedia says regarding the Gospel of



4 "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."


5 Thomas Ward, a Catholic writer, says in his book:

"Jerome explicitly stated in his letter that some ancient

scholars were suspicious about the last chapter of the Gospel of

Mark; and some of them had doubt about some verses of chapter

23 of the Gospel of Luke; and some other scholars were doubtful

about the first two chapters of this Gospel. These two chapters

have not been included by the Marchionites [who do not acknowledge

th old testament and believe in two gods, one of good and one of

evil] in their book."


6 Norton writes in his book printed in 1837 in Boston:

" This Gospel contains a passage running from verse nine to

the end of the last chapter which calls for research. It is

surprising that Griesbach has not put any sign of doubt about its

text, since he has presented numerous ARGUMENTs to prove that this

part was an addition by some later people."


7 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 omit from it."

Griesbach is one of the most reliable scholars of the Protestant





1 There is no authority for the claim that the Gospel of John is

the book of the Apostle John to whom it has been attributed. On

the contrary, there are several ARGUMENTs that strongly refute this





1 Before and after the period of the Prophet Jesus, the style of

writing and the method of compiling books was similar to the style

of the present writers. Although this Gospel is John own it appears

that the writer of it is not John himself.


2 It is not possible to refute the obvious evidence which the

text itself offers unless strong ARGUMENTs are presented to negate





1 This Gospel contains this statement in 21:24:

"This is the disciple which testifieth of these things: and we

know that his testimony is true," describing the Apostle John.

This denotes that the writer of this text is not John himself. It

leads us to guess that the writer has found some script written by

John and has described the contents in his own language making some

omissions and additions to the contents.




1 In the second century AD when the authorities refused to

accept this Gospel as the book of John [the disciple],

Irenaeus - a disciple of Polycarp, the disciple of John - was



2 He did not make any statement to negate those who refused to

accept the book and did not testify that he had heard Polycarp

saying that this Gospel was the book of John, the Apostle. Had it

been the book of John, Polycarp must have known it. It cannot be

the truth that he heard Polycarp saying many secret and profound

things which he related but did not hear a single word about a

matter of such importance.


3 And it is even more unbelievble that he had heard it and

forgot, since we know about him that he had great trust in verbal

statements and used to memorize them. This is evident from the

following statement of Eusebius regarding the opinion of Irenaeus

about verbal statements:


4 I listened to these words with great care by the grace of God,

and wrote them not only on paper, but also on my heart. For a

long time, I have made it my habit to keep reading them."


5 It is also unimaginable that he remembered it and did not


it for the fear of his enemies. This ARGUMENT also rescues us from

the blame of refusing the genuineness of this Gospel from

religious prejudice. We have seen that it was refused in the second

century AD and could not be defended by the ancient Christians.

Celsus, who was a pagan scholar of the second century AD,

fearlessly declared that the Christians had distorted their Gospels

three or four times or more. This change or distortion changed the

contents of the text.


6 Festus, the chief of the Manichaeans and a scholar publicly

announced in 4th century AD:


7 "It has been established that the books of the New Testament

are neither the books of the Christ, nor are they the books of his

apostles but unknown people have written them and attributed

them to the apostles and their friends."




1 The Catholic Herald, printed in 1844, includes the statement in

vol. 3 on page 205 that Stapelin said in his book that the Gospel

of John was undoubtedly written by a student of a school in

Alexandria. See how blatantly he claims it to be a book of a





1 Bertshiender, a great scholar, said:

"The whole of this Gospel and all the Epistles of John

were definitely not written by him but by some other person in

the second century A.D."




1 Grotius, a famous scholar, admitted:

"There used to be twenty chapters in this Gospel. The

twenty-first chapter was added after the death of John, by the

church of Ephesus."




1 The Allogin, a sect of the Christians in the second century AD,

disowned this Gospel and all the writings of John.




1 The first eleven verses of chapter 8 are not accepted by any of

the Christian writers 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 writers would have not made such statements. Therefore

the opinion of Bertshiender and Stapelin is undoubtedly true.




1 Horne, in chapter two of vol. 4 of his commentary says:

"The information that has been conveyed to us by the

historians of the church regarding the period of the four Gospels

is defective and indefinite. It does not help us reach 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 long period of time

has passed, and it has become very difficult to find out the



2 Further in the same volume he says:

"The first Gospel was written either in 37 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 time after it up until 65

A.D. and most possibly in 60 or 63 A.D. The third Gospel was

written in 53 or 63 or 64 A.D. The fourth Gospel was written in

68,69,70 or in 89 or 98 A.D."


3 following statement of Eusebius regarding the opinion of

Irenaeus about verbal statements:


4 I listened to these words with great care by the grace of God,

and wrote them not only on paper, but also on my heart. For a

long time, I have made it my habit to keep reading them."


5 It is also unimaginable that he remembered it and did not state

it for the fear of his enemies. This ARGUMENT also rescues us from

the blame of refusing the genuineness of this Gospel from

religious prejudice. We have seen that it was refused in the second

century AD and could not be defended by the ancient Christians.


6 Celsus, who was a pagan scholar of the second century AD,

fearlessly declared that the Christians had distorted their Gospels

three or four times or more. This change or distortion changed the

contents of the text.


7 Festus, the chief of the Manichaeans44 and a scholar publicly

announced in 4th century AD:


8 "It has been established that the books of the New Testament

are neither the books of the Christ, nor are they the books of his

apostles but unknown people have written them and attributed

them to the apostles and their friends."




1 The Catholic Herald, printed in 1844, includes the statement in

vol. 3 on page 205 that Stapelin said in his book that the Gospel

ofJohn was undoubtedly written by a student of a school in

Alexandria. See how blatantly he claims it to be a book of a





1 Bertshiender, a great scholar, said:

"The whole of this Gospel and all the Epistles of John

were definitely not written by him but by some other person in

the second century A.D."




1 Grotius, a famous scholar, admitted:

"There used to be twenty chapters in this Gospel. The

twenty-first chapter was added after the death of John, by the

church of Ephesus."




1 The Allogin, a sect of the Christians in the second century AD,

disowned this Gospel and all the writings of John.




1 The first eleven verses of chapter 8 are not accepted by any of

the Christian writers and it will soon be shown that these verses

do not exist in the Syriac version.


2 If there were any authentic proof to support it most of the

Christian writers would have not made such statements. Therefore

the opinion of Bertshiender and Stapelin is undoubtedly true.




1 Horne, in chapter two of vol. 4 of his commentary says:

"The information that has been conveyed to us by the

historians of the church regarding the period of the four Gospels

is defective and indefinite. It does not help us reach 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 long period of time

has passed, and it has become very difficult to find out the



2 Further in the same volume he says:

"The first Gospel was written either in 37 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 time after it up until 65

A.D. and most possibly in 60 or 63 A.D. The third Gospel was

written in 53 or 63 or 64 A.D. The fourth Gospel was written in

68,69,70 or in 89 or 98 A.D."




1 The Epistle to the Hebrews, the Second Epistle of Peter, the

Second and the Third Epistles of John, the Epistle of Jacob, the

Epistle of Jude and several verses of the First Epistle of John are

wrongly attributed to the apostles. These books were generally

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.


2 The Arabian churches have rejected the second Epistle of

Peter, both the Epistles of John, the Epistle of Jude, and the

Revelation. Similarly the churches of Syria have rejected them

from the beginning of their history.


3 Horne says in the second volume of his commentary (1822)

on pages 206 and 207:)


4 "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 Epistle 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 the Syrian version omitted these

verses because he did not believe them to be genuine. Ward confirms

this in his book (1841) on page 37: " Rogers, a great scholar of

the Protestant 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 to the Hebrews,

the Epistle of Jacob, the second and the third Epistles of John,

and the Revelation."


5 Dr Bliss, a learned scholar of the Protestant faith stated:

"All the books up until the period of Eusebius are found

acceptable," and he insists on the point that:


6 "The Epistle of Jacob, the second Epistle of Peter and the

second and third Epistles of John are not the writings of the

Apostles. The Epistle to the Hebrews remained rejected for a long

period, similarly the Syrian church did not acknowledge the

second Epistle of Peter, the second and third Epistles of John, thc

Epistle to Jude and the Revelation."


7 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."


8 On page 323 of the same volume he further said:


"Revelation was not the part of the Syrian version.

Barhebroeus and Jacob did not include this book for comments in

their commentary. Abedjessu omitted the second Epistle of Peter,

the second and third Epistles of John, the Epistle of Jude and the

Revelation from his list. All other Syrians have the same opinion

about these books."


9 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 scholars consider the 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 John cannot be the writings of the same person.


10 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 the Holy Scriptures and have completelv

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 righteous man or with any Christian is wrong. In fact, this

book was attributed to John by a heretic Cerinthus. I wish I had

the powers of excluding it from the Holy Scriptures. 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."


11 On the contrary the idiom of the text and its style strongly

indicate that the writer cannot have been the Apostle John who is

mentioned in the Book of Acts because his presence 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. The 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.


12 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 person or in the

third person, while the writer of this book has mentioned his own

name. In the revelation of Jesus in chapter I he says: "The

revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave unto him to show unto his

servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and

signified it by his Angel unto his servant John."


13 He also writes in chapter 4:

"John to the seven churches which are in Asia." In chapter 9 he

says: "1, John, who am your brother, and companion in tribulation

and in this kingdom, and patience of Jesus Christ." Again in 22:8

he says: " I John saw these things and heard them."


14 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 together with his name

defining his intention. For example, he could have written John,

the son of Zebedee or brother of James. He only uses some

general words like " your brother ", companion in patience etc.

which do not serve the purpose of his introduction


15 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 included in the Holy Scripture. Fourteen Epistles

of Paul are, however, read. The Epistle to the Hebrews has been

excluded by some people."


16 He further elaborates in chapter 25 of the same book:

"It has been a point of debate whether the Epistles to James,

and Jude, the second Epistle of Peter, and the Epistles of John I

and 11 were written by the Evangelists or some other writers of the

same names. It should be understood that the Acts of Paul, the

Revelation of Peter, the Epistle 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."


17 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 (150-22()) and some

people think that it was written by Luke."


18 The Irish missionary Lyon (178) and Hippolitus (220) and

Nouclus, the missionary of Rome (251), refused to accept the

genuineness of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Turtullien, the bishop

of Carthage (d. 200) says that this Epistle belongs to Barnabas.

Caius, the Presbyter of Rome (d. 251) counted thirteen Epistles of

Paul and did not count this Epistle. Cyprien, the bishop of

Carthage (248), does not make any mention of this Epistle. The

Monophysite churches still refuse to acknowledge the second

Epistle of Peter and the second and third Epistles of John.


19 Scaliger disowns the Epistle to the Hebrews by saying that

whoever was the author of this Epistle had wasted his time.

Eusebius, in chapter 23 of vol. 2 of his book 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 still act according to



20 The History of the Bible (1850) contains this statement:

"Grotius says that this Epistle, that is, the Epistle of Jude was

written by Jude Oskolf (Archbishop) the 15th Oskolf of Jerusalem

living in the period of the Emperor Hadrian."


21 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 anything to the churches, and if he

wrote to any church it was not more than a few lines."


22 According to Origen, all the Epistles which are attributed to

Paul, were not written by him. They are hypothetically attributed

to him. Perhaps a few lines of Paul might also be present in these



23 Keeping all these statements in mind, we are led to believe

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."


24 The truth of this statement has been proved beyond doubt. We

have already shown earlier in this book that these six Epistles and

the Book of Revelation were not believed in and remained rejected

up until 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 later on in 397 was

acknowledged by the Council of Carthage.


25 The decision of the two councils about these books cannot be

considered as an ARGUMENT for obvious reasons. Firstly all the

councils had acknowledged 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, Ecclesiastes and Maccabees

were acknowledged by the council of Carthage, while all the

subsequent councils confirmed the decision of the above three



26 Now, if the decisions of these councils were founded on

authenticated ARGUMENTs, which they most certainly were not, then

the Protestants would have accepted them, but on the other hand,

if their decisions were arbitrary, as was in fact the case, it was

necessary for the Protestants to reject all of these books. We are

very much surprised to note that they accepted the Councils"

decision regarding the six Epistles as well as the Book of

Revelation but rejected it concerning the other books, especially

the book of Judith which had been unanimously acknowledged by

all the councils. This decision is again arbitrary and without



27 Their only proffered reason, that the original versions of

these books had been lost, cannot be accepted because Jerome

confirmed the fact that he found the original versions of Jude and

Tobit in the Chaldean language and the original book of

Ecclesiasticus 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 reject the

Gospel of Matthew since the original of that book was lost.


28 The statement of Horne, already quoted previously, proves the

fact that the ancient 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

traditions 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,

were acknowledged by them without any authentication)


29 Because the holy scriptures are treated by the Christians in

the same way as ordinary books of law and civil administration,

they continually changed and altered the texts to suit their needs.

A few examples of this will be sufficient to establish our claim.


30 The Greek translation was consistently acknowledged as the

authoritative text from the time of the Apostles to the 1 5th

century. The Hebrew versions were believed to have been distorted

and the Greek translation was considered the accurate version.

Subsequently the position of these books was altogether changed.

The distorted version was acknowledged as accurate and the

accurate one as distorted.


31 The Book of Daniel in the Greek version was genuine in the

eyes of the early scholars, but after Origen declared that it was

incorrect, they rejected it and replaced it with the version of



32 The Epistle of Aristias remained on the list of the Holy

Scriptures but in the seventeenth century some objections were

raised against it and suddenly it turned into a false document in

the eyes of a]l the Protestant scholars.


33 The Latin version is believed genuine by all the Catholics

while it is considered distorted and unbelievable by the



34 The small book of Genesis remained genuine and believable

up until the 15th century while the same book was declared false

and rejected in thel6th century.


35 The third Book of Ezra is still acknowledged by the Greek

church but has been rejected by both the Catholics and the

Protestants. Similarly the Song of Solomon was considered

genuine and a part of the Holy Scriptures and can still be found in

the Codex Elexandrine, yet it is now rejected.


36 The gradual realization of the distortions present in a number

of their holy books 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



37 We have shown that the Christians do not possess any

authentic records or acceptable ARGUMENTs for the authenticity of

the books of either the Old Testament or the New T estament.




"Had it the Holy Koran) been from other than God,

they would surely have found therein

much discrepancy." (Koran 4:82)


The texts of all the Judaeo-Christian scriptures contain sur-

prisingly numerous contradictions and errors that are easily

spotted by a serious reader of the Bible. This section is devoted

to pointing out some of these contradictionsl in numerical order.

The errors found in these texts will be discussed separately in

the following section.


1 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

doctrines2 mentioned therein.


2 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.


3 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 dis-

cussed later.


4 Contradiction No. 4


There is great discrepancy in the description of genealogical

names in I Chronicles 8:29-35 and 9:35-44. This contradiction

was noticed by Adam Clarke who says in volume 2 of his com-



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.


5 Contradiction No. 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 Israel were a thousand thou-

sand and an hundred thousand men that drew sword: and

Judah was four hundred and threescore and ten thousand

men that drew sword.


The discrepancy in these statements amounts to a great con-

tradiction in the number of people. There is a difference of three

hundred thousand in the number of the Israelites while the dif-

ferenCe in the number of the People of Judah is thirty thousand.


6 Contradiction No. 6


We read in 2 Samuel 24:13:


So Gadl came to David, and told him, and said unto

him Shall seven years of famine come unto thee in thy



However we read in 1 Chr. 21:12:


Either three years famine or....

The contradiction is quite obvious, since the former state-

ment speaks of seven years of famine while the latter statement

mentions only three years of famine referring to the same occa-

sion. The commentators of the Bible have admitted that the for-

mer statement is erroneous.


7 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 and the commentators on the Bible have

admitted this to be the case. It has to be wrong because the age

of Ahaziah own 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.


8 Contradiction No. 8


In 2 Kings 24:8 it is stated that:

Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to



This statement is contradicted by 2 Chr. 36:9 which says:


Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to



The contradiction is more than obvious. The second state-

ment is erroneous as will be shown later in this book. This has

been admitted by Bible commentators.


9 Contradiction No. 9


There is an obvious contradiction between the statements of

2 Samuel 23:8l


["These be the names of the mighty men whom David had: The

Tachomonite that

sat in the seat, chief among the captains; the same was Adino the

Eznite: he lift up

his spear against eight hundred, whom he slew at one time."]


and 1 Chronicle 11:112


["And this is the number of the mighty men whom David had,

Jashobeam, an

Hachmonite, the chief of the captains: he lifted up his spear

against three hundred

slam 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.


10 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 Philistines.

One of the two statements must be wrong.


11 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.


When we proceed to the next verse it says: "Of fowls also of the

air by sevens..."


The contradiction speaks for itself.


12 Contradiction No. 12


It is understood from the Book of Numbers 31:7


["And they warred against the Midianites, as the Lord cornmanded

Moses- and

they slew all the males." 31:7]


that the Israelites killed all the men of Midian during the

lifetime of Moses,l and only their young girls were allowed to live

in se tude. This statement contradicts the description given in

Judges 6


["And the hand of Midian prevailed against Israel." Judges 6: 2

"And Israel was greatly impoverished because of the Midianites."

Judges 6:6]


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 between 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?2


13 Contradiction No. 13


Exodus 9:6 states:


And the Lord did that thing on the morrow, and all

the cattle of Egypt died: but of the cattle of the children

of Israel died not one.


This implies that all the cattle of Egypt had died but it is con-

tradicted by another statement of the same chapter of the same

book which says:


He that feared the word of the Lord among the ser-

vants of Pharaoh made his servants and his cattle flee

into the houses:

And he that regarded not the word of the Lord left


his serants and his cattle in the field.[Exodus 9:20,21]


The discrepancy in the above statements needs no comment.


14 Contradiction No. 14


Genesis 8:4,5 contains this statement:


And the Ark rested in the seventh month, on the sev-

enteenth day of the month, upon the mountains of



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 have 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 month as

described by the next verse.


15 Contradictions No. 15 - 26


A comparison between 2 Samuel 8 and l Chronicles 18, dis-

closes a great number of discrepancies and contradictions in the

original version in the Hebrew language, although the transla-

tors have tried to rectify some of them.


You can reproduce some of them in parallel columns

using the commentary of Adam Clarke on Samuel.


As can be seen there are numerous contradictions in these

two chapters.


16 2 Samuel vs. Chronicles

17 2 Samuel vs. Chronicles

18 2 Samuel vs. Chronicles

19 2 Samuel vs. Chronicles

20 2 Samuel vs. Chronicles

21 2 Samuel vs. Chronicles

22 2 Samuel vs. Chronicles

23 2 Samuel vs. Chronicles

24 2 Samuel vs. Chronicles

25 2 Samuel vs. Chronicles


26 2 Samuel vs. Chronicles

27 2 Samuel vs. Chronicles

28 2 Samuel vs. Chronicles

29 2 Samuel vs. Chronicles

30 2 Samuel vs. Chronicles

31 2 Samuel vs. Chronicles

32 2 Samuel vs. Chronicles


33 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 thousand 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 contro-

versies 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



34 Contradiction No. 34


Comparison of 1 Kings 7:24 and 2 Chronicles 4:2-3 also dis-

closes 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 cubit, 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 translation 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 dif-

ferent 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 was 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 commenta-

tor 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



35 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



This later statement means that Hezekiah must have been

born when his father Ahaz was only eleven years old which is

physically impossible.l 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



36 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 is the first text that is erroneous.


37 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 difference 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 accord-

ingly 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 1844 in the

opposite direction to this suggestion. That is to say, he altered

the text of 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 Christians.


38 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 must be wrong because according to the first

text Baasha died" in the twenty-sixth year of Asa own reign so that

in the thirty-sixth year of Asa own 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 not the year of Asa own reign, but

this is the year of the division of the kingdom which was 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.


39 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.


40 Contradiction No. 40


The number of Solomon own 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.


41 Contradiction NO. 41


The text of 1 Kings 7:26 giving the description of the

"molten sea" made by Solomon says, "It contained two thou-

sand 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 vessels," And the Persian translation, 1838, contains,

"three thousand idols". The inconsistencies and discrepancies

of these various texts speak for themselves.


42 Contradiction NO. 42


When chapter 2 of the Book of Ezra is compared with chap-

ter 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. You can notice

the errors concerning the numbers of the liberated



The following is the contradictory wording from both:


6 The children Pahath- 11 The children of Pahath

Moab... two thousand eight Moab...two thousand eight

hundred and twelve. hundred and eighteen.

8 The children of Zattu, nine 13 The chilren of Zattu,

hundred forty and five. eight hundred forty and five.

12 The children of Azgad, a 17 The children of Azad

thousand two hundred twenty two thousand three hundred

and two. twenty and two.

15 The children of Adin, four 20 The children of Adin, six

hundred fifty and four. hundred fifty and five.

19 The chlldren of Hashum, 22 The children of Hashum

two hundred twenty and three. three hundred twenty and

28 The children of Beth-el eight.

and Ai, two hundred twenty 32 The men of Beth-el and Ai,

and three. an hundred 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 thirty-

one 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 his-



The Israelites that came from Babylon count to

forty-two thousand, four hundred and sixty-two.


The compiler of Henry and Scott own commentary have said under

the comments on the text of Ezra:


A great difference has been caused between this

chapter and chapter 7 of Nehemiah by the copyists. At

the time of their rendering into English, the corrections

were 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 the name of correction, and how texts that

remained acknowledged for centuries vanish altogether from the

books. Meanwhile the books still remain full of errors and con-



In fact, participation of human element in these books has

been present from their very origin. The copyists are unjustifi-

ably blamed for making errors. Even today a comparative read-

ing of these two chapters will reveal more than twenty errors

and contradictions.


43 Contradiction No. 43


We find this statement in 2 Chronicles concerning the name

of the mother of King Abijah:


His mother own name also was Michaiah, the daughter

of Uriel of Gibeah. (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... (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.


44 Contradiction No. 44


It is understood from the Book of Joshua chapter 10 that the

Israelites took over Jerusalem after killing the king, while 15:63

of the same book denies the capture of Jerusalem by the



45 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 this thought was provoked by Satan. Since,

according to the Christians, God is not the Creator of evil, this

turns into a very serious contradiction.



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:


46 Contradiction No. 46


Matthew describes Joseph as son of Jacob 1:16, while Luke says

Joseph son of Heli 3:23


47 Contradiction No. 47


According to Matthew 1:6, Jesus was a descendant of Solomon,

the son of David, while Luke 3:31 puts him into the line of Nathan,

the son of David.


48 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



49 Contradiction No. 49


From Matthew 1:12 we learn that Salathiel was the son of

Jeconias while Luke 3:27 informs us that he was the son of Neri.


50 Contradiction No. 50


We read in Matthew 1:13 that "Zorobabel begat Abiud," while

Luke 3:27 says, "which was the son of Rhesa which was the son of

Zorobabel." It will 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.


51 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 con-

tradiction is so clear that it requires no comment. It has been a

cause of great 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 contradictions of an unjusti-

fiable nature. Just as the two Gospels contain discrepancies in

other places, so here too they are different from each other. Had

they been free from discrepancies throughout, some justification

for the difference in genealogical description might have been



Adam Clarke, however, making comments on chapter 3 of

Luke, has reluctantly quoted 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



The genealogical tables were well kept by the Jews.

It is known to everyone that 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 author, for several doubtful points

of the books, and, these objections, later on, turned out

to be in his favour, similarly this objection too, will

come to his aid. And time will 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 own time,

one can imagine the condition of these texts in the time of the

disciples. If the genealogies of the notable personalities and the

priests 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 car-

penter, without proper regard to their accuracy. Harmer own 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



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 tech-

nology and has accumulated a treasure-house of resources to

help in the search for the truth. As a result of scientific


in the field of religion, they first made some reforms in their

faith and then rejected outright many of the established tenets

and creeds of their religion.


Similarly the Pope, who was considered infallible and the

highest authority of the 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



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, there-

fore, might have been described as the son of Heli. This expla-

nation 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 own side, not that of Joseph, the

carpenter. If this were 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 effect 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 reports that Mary was indeed the

daughter of Heli and Nathan own line was through her. Mere

assumptions are of no avail in this regard especially in the pres-

ence of the adversary remarks of Calvin and Adam Clarke. On

the contrary, it is expressly mentioned in the Gospel of John that

the parents of Mary were Jehoachim and Joanna. And though

this Gospel is not recognised by the modern Christians as a

revealed book written by John, the disciple of Jesus, it is,

undoubtedly a document of great historical value. Its author cer-

tainly belongs to the early times of Christianity. The book cer-

tainly has more historical value than the most reliable books of

history. It cannot, therefore, be denied by unauthenticated



St. Augustine said that he found a statement in a certain book

that Mary was a Levite. This goes against her being a descen-

dant 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 the children

of Israel may enjoy every man the inheritance of his



Neither shall the inheritance remove from one tribe

to another tribe; but every one of the tribes of the chil-

dren 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 wife was of the daughters of



It is known from the Gospels that Mary was closely related

to the wife of Zacharias (Elisabeth) which implies that Mary

was also a descendant of Aaron. We have just read the com-

mandment of Torah (Pentateuch) that any daughter of the chil-

dren of Israel 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 writ-

ten. 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 pre-

sent 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 know-

ingly 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 Joseph.


Fifthly, if we presume that Mary was the daughter of Heli,

Luke own 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. This has not so far been proved by any authentic

ARGUMENT. As far as the unauthentic claims of the scholars of the

protestant faith are concerned, they remain unacceptable to us

on 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 teacher 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 own nephew or the

king own son-in-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



Another point to be noted here is that the Gospel of Matthew

cannot have been known or acknowledged in the time of Luke.

Otherwise it would have not been possible for Luke to contra-

dict Matthew so blatantly that it has resulted in a serious embar-

rassment to the ancient and modem advocates of Christianity.


52 Contradictions No. 52 - 53


A comparative reading of Matthew 2 and Luke presents a

great contradiction to the reader and tends to indicate that nei-

ther of the two Gospels are divinely inspired.


It is understood from the description in Matthew that the par-

ents of the Messiah lived in Bethlehem even after his birth. It is

also made clear by another description in Matthew that the peri-

od of their stay in Bethlehem was two years. Due to the domina-

tion of the Magians they afterwards migrated to Egypt and lived

there during the lifetime of Herod,l and after his death, they

retumed to live in Nazareth. Luke, on the other hand, gives us a

different description. He says that Jesus" parents went to

Jerusalem after Mary own confinement,2 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.


According to him there is no question of the Magians" com-

ing 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 for 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 Jesus4 until the

Magians reported it to him.


On the other hand Luke says that after Mary own 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 and 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.

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.


54 Contradiction No. 54


It is learnt from the Gospel of Mark that Christ asked the

congregation to go away after his sermon of parables,l 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.2 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 to be men of

inspiration or are considered by the people to be so, should not

make erroneous statements.


55 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 one discussed before it that: "There is

no way of explaining these discrepancies."


56 Contradiction No. 56


The sequence of events after the Sermon on the Mount as

given by Matthew 8:3,13,16 is different from the one given by

Luke 4:38 5:13, 7:10

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 own mother-in-

law. The Gospel of Luke first describes the event of Peter own

mother-in-law, then in chapter describes the healing of the

leper and in chapter the healing of the servant of a Roman

officer. One of the two statements certainly has to be erro-



57 Contradiction No. 57


According to the Gospel of 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 contra-

dicted 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



And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say

the scribes that Elias must first come?

And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly

shall first come, and restore all things.

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


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 con-

tradict 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 own recitation, Jeremiah received the following rev-

elation from God:


Thus saith the Lord of Jehoiakim King of Judah; He

shall have none to sit upon the throne of David [Jeremiah 36:30]


According to the word of Gabriel as quoted by Luke it is neces-

sary 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

Elias must come first, but at the same time he said that Elias had

already come but the people did not recognize him. On the other


Unable to recognize this page.


except that the earlier versions have been changed.


64 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 of 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 trans-



(3) The Epistle to the Hebrews 10:5-7 contradicts Psalm No.

39 (Arabic) and Psalm No. 40:6-8 according to other transla-

tions. 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 sacrifices 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 is fallen down; and I will

build again the ruins thereof; and I will set it up, that the

residue 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 days of

old. That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of

all the heathen, which are called 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.


68 Contradiction No. 68


Paul own first letter to Corinthians 2:9 says:


But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard,

neither have entered into 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

him that waiteth for him.


The difference between the two texts is quite obvious. The

commentators of the Bible admit the presence of incompatibili-

ty in the above texts and say that the text of Isaiah has been dis-



69 Contradiction No. 69


The Gospel of Matthew 9:27-31 describes in chapter 9 that Jesus

after departing from Jericho, saw two blind men on the way and

healed them of their blindness. Contradicting this, Mark writes

in chapter 10 of his gospel:


..blind Bartimaus, the son of Timaeus, sat by the

highway side begging.


So in Mark the healing of only one man by Jesus is mentioned.


70 Contradiction No. 70


Matthew describes this event in chapter 8:28:


...into the country of Gergesenes, there met him two

possessed with devils, coming out of the tombs.


Then Jesus is described as healing them. This statement is

inconsistent with the texts of Mark chapter S 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.


71 Contradiction No. 71


It appears from chapter 21:7 of Matthew that Jesus sent two of

his disciples to bring an ass and a colt from a village and the



...brought the ass and the colt, and put on them their

clothes, and they set him thereon.


While the rest of the Evangelists said that Jesus asked his

disciples to bring only the colt or an ass and that when it came

he rode on it.


72 Contradiction No. 72


Mark 1:6 says in his first chapter "And John ...did eat locusts

and wild honey.


While Matthew 11:18,19 states that: "John came neither eating nor



73 Contradiction Nos. 73-75




A comparison between the texts of Mark chapter one,

Matthew chapter four and John chapter one, reveals inconsisten-

cies regarding the circumstances-in which the disciples

embraced the new faith. The Gospels of Matthew and Mark



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

Follow me ... And they followed him ... He saw other

two brethren James, the son of Zebedee and John his

Brother, mending their nets ... he called them . and they

followed him [Matthew 4:18-22]


But the text of John is different from the above text in three

ways. Firstly John 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 John does

not speak of their nets. The contents of John own text inform us

that Jesus met 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 5:22,23]


76 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 own daughter. Matthew reports:


There came a certain ruler .... saying my daughter is

even now dead.


While Mark 5:22,23 says:


He fell at his feet... saying, my little daughter lieth at

the point of death.


Further he says that Jesus went with the ruler, but on the way

people came from the synagogue and said, "Thy daughter is


Some early scholars have admitted that incompatibility exist-

ed between the two texts. Some of them favoured the text of

atthew while some others preferred the text of Mark. Luke own

text is similar to the text of Mark except that he writes that the

report of the daughter own death was given only by one man [8:49]


The death of the ruler own daughter has consistently been a

point of confusion among scholars of the Bible. There is dis-

agreement 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 was

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 state-

ment of Jesus [Like 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.


77 Contradiction No. 77


It is understood from Matthew 10:10 and Luke that when Christ

sent his disciples to preach, he forbade them to keep staves with

them, while on the contrary the text of Mark 6:8 says that Jesus

allowed them to keep their staves.


78 Contradiction No. 78




It is said in chapter 3:13 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



Further in the chapter it says:


And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straight-

way out of the water ... and he saw the Spirit of God,

descending like a dove...


And the Gospel of John 1:32,23 describes this event in these



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.


The Gospel of Matthew 11:2 contains this statement in chapter


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 another.


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 the 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.



And the same Gospel has reported Christ as contradict-

ing this:


Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true.



Contradiction No. 80


It appears from Matthew chapter 15:22 that the woman who

came to Jesus crying for her daughterl was from Canaan. This

information is contradicted by the Gospel of Mark chapter 7:26

where he reports that she was a Greek and a Syrophoenician by



Contradiction No. 81


We read in the Gospel of 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 15:30 plainly contradicts this, saying:


And great multitudes came unto him, having with

them those that were lame, blind, dumb, maimed and

many others, and cast them down at Jesus" feet, and he

healed them.


This exaggeration is similar to the one made by John 21:25, 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.


What one should think of such statements? They are sup-

posed to be men of inspiration beyond any criticism.


Contradiction No. 82


We read in the Gospel of Matthew 26:21-25 that Jesus, addressing


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 hast said.


The same event is described by John 13:21-26 in a way that is


different from the above:


Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall

betray me, Then the disciples 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 Iying 13

on Jesus own 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.


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, that 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 differ-

ences in chapter 18:3-12


Judas then, having received a band of men and offi-

cers 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 heir way.... Then

the band and the captain and officers of the Jews took

Jesus, and bound him.


Contradiction No. 84


All the four Gospels give a description of Peter denying

Jesusl after his arrest. But each description is different from the

other in eight respects.


1. According to the reports of Matthew 26:6-75 and Mark 14:66-72


were two maids who claimed that Peter was one of the dis-

ciples of Jesus, and some other men who "stood by". While

Luke own 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 22:55, he was "in the midst of the hall," and

according to Mark, he was "beneath in the palace", and

according to John he denied him when he was inside the



3. The wording of the maid own 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.


6. Peter own answer to the maid who first challenged Peter is

reported by Matthew 26:70 as: "I know not what thou sayest."

While according to John 18:25 he only said, "I am not." Mark 15:68

on the other hand, has reported it in these words: "I know

not, neither understand I what thou sayest." And Luke 22:57 has

put it this way: "Woman, I know him not."


7. Peter own second answer is also reported differently by all

the Evangelists. According to Matthew 26:72 ..Peter denied

him with an oath and said, "I do not know the man," and

according to John 18:25 his answer was, "I am not,"6 while Mark


has just said, "And he denied it again," and according to

Luke 22:58 his answer was, "Man, I am not."


8. The people who "stood by " at the time of Peter own 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 23:26 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 Jesus.


This statement is contradicted by the Gospel of John 19:17, where

it says that Jesus, bearing his cross himself, went forth to the

place of crucifixion.


Contradiction No. 86


The first three [Matthew 27:45, Mark 15:23, Luke 23:44] Gospels


that Christ was on the cross at the sixth hour on the day of


but contrary to this the Gospel of John 19:14 reports him to be in

the court

of Pilate exactly at the sixth hour on the same day.


Contradiction No. 87


The Gospel of Mark 15:32 says regarding the thieves who were

crucified with Jesus:


And they that were crucified with him reviled him,


while Luke 23:43 reports that one of them reproached Jesus and the

other said,


Lord remember me when thou comest into thy king-

dom. Then Jesus replied to him, Today shalt thou be

with me in Paradise.


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.6 It is a common practice of Christian schol-

ars to change the texts of their Holy scriptures whenever they

think they should.


Contradiction No. 88


It is understood from chapters 20:29 and 21:1 of Matthew that

Jesus arrived in Jerusalem after departing from Jericho, while

from John 11:54; 12:1 we learn that Jesus, departing from Ephraim,


in Bethany, where he stayed for the night.


Contradiction No. 89

The Resurrection of Jesus:


We learn from Matthew 27:56; 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.


The Gospel of Mark 16:1-6 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, clothed in a long white



Luke own description of this is 24:2-4 :


And they found the stone rolled away from the

sepulchre, and they entered in and found not the body of

the Lord Jesus......behold, two men stood by them in

shining garments.


Contradiction No. 90


It is expressly mentioned in Matthew 28:8-10 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.


But Luke 24:9-11 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.


On the other hand we learn from the Gospel of John 20:13-15 that

Jesus met Mary Magdalene near the grave.


Contradiction No. 91


The Gospel of Luke says in chapter 11:51 :


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 generation.S


But we read this in the Book of Ezekiel 18:20 :


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.


However in other places in the Old Testament there are sev-

eral passages which imply that the children of a man will be

accountable for the sins of their father up to three or four gener-



Contradiction No. 92


Paul own first letter to Timothy 2:3,4 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.


This statement is incompatible with, and contradicts, Paul own

statement in his second letter to Thessalonians 2:11,12 :


And for this cause, God shall send them strong delu-

sion, that should believe a lie, that they all might be

damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in



It may be noted how Paul own two statements contradict each

other. The first text gives us to understand that God own aim is to

redeem all the men and take them to knowledge of the truth,

while the latter statement would have us believe that God sends

strong delusions to them so that they believe in falsehood like a

truth; and 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.


Contradictions No. 93-6


Acts 9:1-5,22 and 26 give a description of Paul own conversion to

Christianity. The texts of all three chapters are different in

many respects. We intend to give only three discrepancies in

this book.


1. We read in Acts 9:7 this statement:


And the men which journeyed with him stood

speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.


This statement is contradicted by the following Acts 22:9



And they that were with me saw indeed the light

and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that

spoke to me.


The contradiction between "hearing a voice" and "heard not the

voice of him" speaks for itself.


2. Again in Chapter 9:7 we find Paul quoting these words of



..and the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the

city; and it shall be told thee, what thou must do.t


Chapter 22 also contains this:


Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be

told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to



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.


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.


Contradiction No. 97


We find in Paul own first letter to Corinthians 10:8 :


Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them

committed,l and fell in one day three and twenty thou-



This statement is contradicted by the book of Numbers 25:1,9 :


And those that died in the plague were twenty and

four thousand.


One of these two texts must be wrong.


Contradiction No. 98


We read this statement in the book of Acts 7:14 :


Then sent Joseph, and called his father Jacob to him,

and all his kindred, threescore and fifteen souls.


The above text expressly denotes that Joseph and his chil-

dren who were with Joseph in Egypt are naturally excluded

from this number. In fact, it refers to Jacob and his family, but


Genesis 46:27 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.


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 sixty-

six 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 27:4,5,6,7 Judas "departed,


went and hanged himself."

While Acts 1:18 says:


Now this man (Judas) purchased a field with the

reward of iniquity; and falling headlong; he burst asun-

der in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.


Secondly, we know from the first text, that chief priests of

the temple bought a field with the money left by Judas3 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 Matthewl 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



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 pre-

sent at the temple.


3. The context of Matthew own text clearly indicates that

the passage referred to, which lies between the second

and ninth verses, does not correspond to the rest of the



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 2:1,2 says:


Jesus Christ, the righteous: and he is the propitiation

for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of

the whole world.


Contrary to this we read in the book of Proverbs 21:18 :


The wicked shall be ransom for the righteous, and

the transgressor for the upright.


The contradiction here needs no comment.


Contradiction No. 101


It is understood from the text of Paul own letter to the Hebrews


that one of the commandments of Moses is weak and unprof-

itable and therefore defective, 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 Magdalene 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 27:37 it is,

"This is

Jesus, the king of the Jews."


In the Gospel of Mark 15:26 it appears as only, "The king of the



Luke 23:38 says that written in letters of Greek, Latin and Hebrew

was, "This is the king of the Jews.""

And the Gospel of John 19:19 puts it in these words, "Jesus of

Nazareth, the king of the Jews."

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 reports.


Contradiction No. 104


We learn from the Gospel of Mark 6:20 that Herod believed in the

righteousness of John the Baptist, and was pleased with him.

He arrested and killed him only for the sake of Herodias (his

brother own wife).

Luke 3:19, 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.


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 son of 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 disagree-

ment among them regarding his name. According to Matthew

his name is Matthew, l while Mark says he was Levi, the son of

Alpheus, 2 and Luke writes Levi without his father own name.3


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 against it.

And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of

heaven: and whatsoever shalt bind on earth shall be

bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on

earth shall be loosed in heaven.4


Further in the same chapter, Jesus is reported to have said, to



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.5


Protestant scholars have reproduced many statements of the

ancient scholars about Peter own accusation. John, in his commen-

tary 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


Is it not strange and ridiculous that a man of such qualities is

promised "the keys 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 own lives,

but to save them.""l 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?2


Contradiction No. 109


Matthew has reported that the mother of Zebedee own 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.3


Mark on the other hand reports that the request was made by

Zebedee own sons themselves.4


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.""


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.2


The texts are obviously contradictory. The second text con-

tradicts the first, by adding, "When they heard it, they said, God



Contradiction No. 111


The event of a woman of Bethany, who poured perfumed

ointment on the head of Jesus, is described in three gospels.3

There are several contradictions between the different



1. Mark4 reports that this event took place two days before


the feast of Passover,l while John reports it to have hap_

pened SlX days prior to the festival.2 Matthew is silent

regarding the time of this incident.


2 Mark and Matthew agree that Jesus was in the house of

Slmon 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,3 while John contradicts this and says

that she anointed the feet of Jesus.4


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 own version is that the objection was raised

by Judas.


5 The three Gospels have quoted Jesus" speech to his dis-

clples on this occasion differently.


The serious contradictions presented by these texts cannot be

eliminated by claiming that this event of Jesus" anointment

might have taken place a number of times, and each gospel

might have reported a different story. The event is clearly the

same in each case and the contradictions in the different

accounts is clear indication of the usual manipulation in the



Contradiction No. 112


A comparison of the texts of Matthew 22, Luke 26 and Mark

14 regarding the description of The Last Supper,l reveals two

serious contradictions


1. There are two cups mentioned in Luke own description, one

before the meal and the other after it, while Matthew and Mark

speak of only one cup. Apparently Luke own description is erro-

neous, 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,2 while Mark reports it to have been sacrificed

is given for many,3 and from Matthew we understand that nei-

ther 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.


1. The Last Supper or Eucharist is a sacramental rite of the

Christians. According to

e Gospels, the origin of this sacrament was an event which took

place on the night

preceding Jesus" arrest when he was eating a meal with his

disciples. He took bread

and recited blessings and thanks over it and gave it to the

disciples to share among

themselves. Then he said, ""rhis is my body which is given for you,

this do in remem-

brance of me." Afler the supper he took a cup with wine in it and

said, ""rhis cup is

new testament in my blood, which is shed for you." The Christians

have made it a rite

that they take a cup of wine and offer their thanks, and break the

bread and offer their

thanks on it. The Catholics believe that the bread and wine

actually tum into the body

and flesh of Jesus. The ceremony was named Eucharist, which

signifies "thankful-

ness", by Paul.

2. "This is my body which is given for you." 22:19

3. "This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many."



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.


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.2


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 tem-

ple, 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 word only, and my servant

shall be healed.3


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.l


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



...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 healed.2


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 first 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 Transfiguration3

of Jesus. Luke, on the other hand, reports the request of the

scribe in 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 dev-

ils. 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.


Contradiction No. 118


Mark states that the Jews crucified Christ at the third hour of

the day.l 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.2


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 own soldiers not Herod own , while Luke own statement

is just the opposite.




This section contains the errors mistakes and contradictions

of the Biblical Text that are in addition to the ones discussed



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.l 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 hun-

dred thousand, while all the males and females of the Levites

and the women and children of all the other tribes are not

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 is the correct number. The details of this error


have been given in part one under the tenth ARGUMENT on page



Error No. 5


I Samuel contains this statement "...fifty thousand, three

score and ten men." " 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 according to the breadth of the house,

twenty cubits, and height was a hundred and twenty.2


This is an exaggerated and erroneous account of the height.

According to 1 Kings the height of the porch was thirty cubits 3

Adam Clarke in volume 2 of his commentary expressly admit-

ted 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 I "

to the children of Benjamin, states:


And the border was drawn thence and compassed the

corner of the sea southward.l


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.2


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. 11-13


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. 1


Further in the same chapter it gives this description:


And Abijah and his people slew them with a great

slaughter: and so there fell down slain of Israel five hun-

dred thousand chosen men.2


The numbers mentioned in the two texts are wrong. The com-

mentators of the Bible have admitted the error. The Latin trans-

lators 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. l


The word Israel in this statement is certainly wrong, because

haz 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 text of their Holy



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 own brother.2 The Arabic and the

Greek translators have replaced "his brother" with "his father own

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

1o:l6-l9 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).




2. We do find the words, "his father own brother" in 2 Kings 24:17,

and this is correct


because Jehoiachin was the son of Jehoiakim. He would have been

known as

Zedekiah, the son of Jehoiakim, while in fact he is called

Zedekiah, the son of Josiah.

See Jen 26 1 and 27:1.


Errors No. 17-19


Another name "Achan" is given wrongly in the Book of

Joshua." The correct name is Achar, with an "r" at the end.2


Error No. 18


We find in 1 Chronicles 3:5 under the description of the sons

of David, "Bath-shua, the daughter of Ammiel". The correct

name is, "Bath-sheba, the daughter of Eliam, the wife of



Error No. 19


The Second Book of Kings4 gives the name "Azariah" which

is certainly wrong. It should be "Uzziah", as can be ascertained

from several other sources.5


Error No. 20


The name "Jehoahaz", which appears in 2 Chronicles,6 is not

correct. 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 Chroniclesl gives an account of how Nebuchadnezzar, the

king of Babylon, bound Jehoiakim in chains and deported him

to Babylon. 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.

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 own reign,2 the King of Assyria invaded Ephraim,

as is recorded in 2 Kings in Chapters 17 and 18. Thus Aram was

destroyed in twenty-one years. l


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 admitted 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: for in the day that thou eatest

thereof, thou shalt surely die.2


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:3


My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that

he also is flesh: his days shall be an hundred and twenty



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 own age, for instance, was 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 pre-

sent-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 art a stranger, all the land of

Canaan, for an everlasting possession, and I will be their



This statement is again historically wrong, since all the land

of Canaan was never 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 revo-



Errors No. 26, 27, 28


The Book of Jeremiah says:


The word that came to Jeremiah, concerning all the

people of Judah in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, the son

of Josiah, king of Judah, that was the first year of

Nebuchadrezzar, king of Babylon.


urther 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 per-

petual desolations.l


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;)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


In the Persian translation of 1848 we find these words:


After seventy years be accomplished in Babylon, I

Wlll turn towards you.


Further in chapter 52 of the same book we find the following



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

Nebuchadrezzar, 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 guard carried away cap-

tive of the Jews seven hundred forty and five persons: all

the persons were four thousand and six hundred.l


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


year of Nebuchadnezzar must coincide with the fourth year of


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, Jeconiah, 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







3405 Jeremiah own writing to the 599

captives of Babylon


3468 The death of Darius, the uncle of h

Koreish, the ascension of CYrus tc

the throne of Babylon, Madi and

Pharus. His orders to release the

Jews and send them back to



Secondly, the cumulative number of those exiled during the

three exiles is mentioned as four thousand and six hundred peo-

ple, while according to 2 Kings the number of captives, includ-

ing the princes and the brave men of Jerusalem, at the time of

the first exile, was three thousand, the craftsmen and the smiths

not being included in this number. I

Thirdly, from the text quoted above, we understand that the


1. "And he carried away all Jerusalem, and all the princes, and all

the mighty men of

valour, even three thousand captives, and all the craftsmen and

smiths." 2 Kings

24: 14




, third captivity took place in the twenty-third year of

Nebuchadnezzars reign whereas this is contradicted in 2 Kings

which says that Nebuzar-adan took them captive in the nine-

- teenth year of Nebuchadnezzar.


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 the word of the Lord came unto



And later in the same chapter we find:


For thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I will bring

upon Tyrus Nebuchadrezzar, king 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

f1eld, and he shall make a fort against thee, and cast a

mount against thee, and lift up the buckler against thee;

And he shall set the engines of war against thy walls,

and with his axes he shall 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."


History proved this prediction false because Nebuchad-

nezzar tried his best to capture the city of Tyrus, and kept the

city in a state of siege for thirteen years, but had to go back

without success. Since it is inconceivable that God own promise

would not be fulfilled, it must be that the prediction itself is


In Chapter 29, we find the following words attributed to



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 service against Tyrus; every head

was made bald, and every shoulder was peeled: yet he had

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 spoil, and take her prey; and

it shall be the wages for his army.

I have given him the land of Egypt for his labour where-

with he served against it...2


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.


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 trodden underfoot?

And he said unto me, unto two thousand and three

hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.l


The Judaeo-Christian scholars, from the very beginning,

have wondered about the significance of this prediction. Almost

all the Judaeo-Christian commentators 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,2 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


Thomas Newton who wrote a commentary on the predic-

tions and prophesies of the Bible first quoted several other com-

mentators 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


tain and define the time of the commencement of the event to

which this vision refers.l

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 understood, but days signifying years. Keeping

this in mind Snell Chauncy said, the ending of 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


3 .According to the third command of Ardashir it would be


1. As far as we understand Snell Chauncy interpreting the days of

this vision as years

has presumed that the vision foretold the realpearance of the

Christ Jesus. The two

thousand three hundred days are assumed to be years. This number

of years should be

counted from any of the occasions when Jerusalem has been taken

out of the posses-

sion of Judaeo-Christian followers.


4. According to the fourth ordinance it would end in 1856.


All these dates passed without the prophecy being fulfilled

and, in any case, this 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 that the period should start


from the time when this vision was shown to Daniel 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 writ-

er 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 indication of it. In the account of

this vision the word "day" has been used for the purpose of

defining a period of time and we do not find any indication that

it should be taken 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 Daniell states:


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


Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thou-

sand three hundred and five and thirty 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 the transgression, and to

make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniq-

uity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to

seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most



This prophecy is also wrong as the Messiah did not appear in

this period. None of the explanations forwarded by the Christian

scholars in this regard deserve any serious consideration, partly

for the reasons 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 Ezra2 and the

birth of the Prophet Jesus is nearly six hundred years according

to Josephus and five hundred and thirty-six years in Snell

Chauncy own estimation.

Secondly, if we accept this as a correct explanation, it would

mean that all true dreams have come to an end for ever, which is


obviously untrue. Watson, in the third part of his book, has

reproduced Dr. Grib own letter who said, "The Jews have so much

distorted the text of this prophecy that it has been rendered inap-

plicable to Jesus." This confession by Watson is enough to con-

firm our contention that this prediction, according to the origi-

nal 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 men-

tioned as the anointed in Psalm 131. And also 1 Samuel con-

tains 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 own anointed.l


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 being 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.2


Cyrus, the king of Persia, is mentioned as God own anointed or

the Christ in this text. Cyrus is the one who liberated the Jews


from their captivity and allowed the 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.l


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,2 the

Emperor of Rome, persecuted them so barbarously that one mil-

lion 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



.l 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 set up thy seed after thee, which

shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will stablish his


He shall build an house for my name, and I will stab-

lish the throne of his kingdom for ever.

I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he

commit iniquity, I will chasten 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 estab-

lished for ever before thee; thy throne shall be estab-

lished for ever.l


,1 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 give 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.2


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 own word regarding the prominence of Jesus

over the angels in his letter to the Hebrews: I


I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son.2


Christian scholars have claimed that this is a reference to the

verses in 2 Samuel 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 own 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 nests; but the son of man hath

not where to lay his head.3


1. Heb. 1:5.

2. To prove the greatness of łesus over the angels, Paul argued

that God never said to

any of the angels that any of them was His Son. He only said it to

Jesus that, "I will

be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son."

3. Mat: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 stripes of the children of men.


This implies that he will be a man of iniquitous nature.

ccording to the Christians - and they are far from the truth -

Solomon was a man of that nature and gave up the prophethood

and became an apostate in his last days, indulging in idol wor-

ship. building temples for the idols, and committing himself to

heathenism.l 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 early days up to the time of the crucifixion.

He lived in constant fear of the Jews and left one place for

another until he was arrested by them and, they say, killed.

Solomon, 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



Whereas it is historically known to everyone that the Jews were

servile to and dominated by the Romans in the time of Jesus.


7. The Prophet Solomon, himself has claimed that the predic_

tion was made about him. This is clear from 2 Chronicles.l

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 is 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 the requirements of the prediction.

Apart from this, Jesus cannot be the subject of this predic-

tion, 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.


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 thy-

self 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


1. "But the Lord said to David my father, Forasmuch as it was un

thine heart to build a

house for my name, thou didst well in that it was in thine heart:

Not withstanding

thou shalt not build the house; but thy son which shall come forth

out of thy loins. he

shall build the house for my name. The Lord therefore hath

performed his word that

he hath spoken: for I am risen up in the room of David my father."

2 Chr. 6:8-10.


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.l


In the above text the word "raven" is a translation of the orig-

inal word "arem". All the translators except Jerome have trans-

lated 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 sur-

prised at it and was, in fact, inclined to agree with Jerome in

that the word "arem" most likely signifies "Arab" and not raven.

He greatly criticised the other translators and gave three argu-

ments to prove the absurdity of their opinion. He said on page

639 of the first volume of his commentary:2


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.

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 the Arabic translation

that this word signified men, and not crows. The famous Jewish

commentator Jarchi also translated this word as "Arab". It is cer-

tainly not 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 own reign over Israel, in the

month Zif, which is the second month, that he began to

build the house of Lord.l


According to the historians, this statement is incorrect. Adam

Clarke, for example, 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 them 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



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 as mod-

ern scholars have criticized this error, but the Christian scholars

are unable to produce any convincing explanation for it.


Errors No. 39-42:


According to the Arabic translation printed in 1849, describ-

ing the genealogy of the Christ, the Gospel of Matthew states:


Josias begat Jeconias and his brethren, in the

captivity of Babylon.l


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.2

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,3 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

Adarn 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."


This suggestionl of manipulating the text of the holy scrip-

tures is something to be noted by the reader. Even after this

change, our objection discussed in no. 3 above remains unaf-


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,2 and that 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



1. This suggestion has been partially carried out. The suggestion

said that Jehoiachin

should be inserted within the text and that instead of the phrase

" in the captivity" it

should be, "about the time of..." So the translators have

manipulated the text, and in

almost all the translations the text now reads: " Josias begat

Jeconias and his brethren,

about the time they were carried away to Babylon."

By adding the phrase "about the time" they have tried to avoid the

objection that

the author raised in no.3 above.

In the English translation published by the Anglican Church in

1961, this difficul-

ly has been solved a bit differently. In this translation the

verse reads:

"And Josias was the father of Jecohias and his brethren at the

time of the deportation

to Babylon.

2. "Therefore, thus saith the lord of Jehoiakin king of Judah, he

shall have none to sit

upon the throne of David." Jer. 36:30

3. According to Bible it is necessary for the Messiah to be a

descendant of David.


was easier to lay blame on Matthew than to preclude Jesus fron

being the descendant of David and from his being the Messiah.


Error No. 43


The genealogical description in Matthew records seven gen-

erations between Judah and Salmon,l and five generations from

Salmon to David. 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 genera-

tions was longer than the second group. Matthew own description

puts seven generations in three hundred years, and five genera-

tions 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 believe 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:


1. According to this the generations from David to Jeconias are as

follows: David.

Solomon, Roboam, Abia, Asa, Josaphat, Joram, Ozias, Joatham,

Achaz, Ezekias.

Manasses, Amon, Josias, Jehoiachin, and Jeconias, whereas Matthew

records thirteen

generations which is wrong. Matt. 1:6-11


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 gen-

erations which have been left out by Matthew perhaps to make

them fourteen. These three were kings of repute. They are men-

tioned 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 mis-


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.l


This is also incorrect because Zorobabel was the son of

Pedaiah2 and the nephew of Salathiel as is expressly mentioned

in I Chronicles 3.


Error No. 48


The same passage of genealogy in Matthew states:


2 I Chr. 3:19 says: "And Ihe sons of Pedaiah were Zerubbabel arld



Zorobabel begat Abiud.l


This, too, is wrong since Zerubbabel had only five sons, as is

confirmed by I Chronicles. None of the five sons is of this


There are in all eleven errors in the genealogy recorded by

Matthew. If the differences of Luke and Matthew, discussed ear-

lier are also included they total seventeen mistakes. This short

passage of Matthew is, therefore, erroneous in no less than sev-

enteen 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 con-

trarily 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 stop in the sky, be said to have

stopped at the head of a new born child.3


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,

Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring

forth a son, and they shall call his name ""Emmanuel"".l


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.2


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 own

statement is shown to be erroneous.

Frier, in his book on the etymology of Hebrew words, a book


cometS and stars as explained by the author was accepted up to the

18th century A.D.

Modern scientific data, however, has produced more convincing

explanations of the

directions and paths of the stars.


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



2. Jesus was never called by the name Emmanuel, nor did his

adopted fatherl give this name to him:


The angel told his father to call him with the name of



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.3


Apart from this Jesus himself never claimed that his name was



3. The passage where this word occurs, precludes its applica-

tion 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


,F 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.l

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

1 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



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.2


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 verse has nothing to do

with Jesus. The verse, according to the Arabic translation, print-

ed 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 own benevolence to

the Israelites conferred upon them in the time of Moses.

Matthew made two changes in the text. He changed the plural,

 own ons", into the singular, own on", and turned the third 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 men-

tioned in these words:


As they called them, so they went from them, they

sacrificed unto Baalim.l


This statement cannot be applied to Jesus.


Error 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



This statement is wrong both logically and historically.

Historically because none of the non-Christian historians men-

tioned this event of the slaying of the infants 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 state-

ment 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



This is again a clearly distorted rendering of the text of

Jeremiah. Any reader can himself look up the passage in


Jeremiah," and see for himself that the above verse has nothing

to do with Herod. It is clearly related to the famous historical

calamity of Nebuchadnezzar own invasion of Jerusalem. The peo-

ple of Rachel own 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.2


This is also certainly incorrect, as this statement is not found

in any of the books of the Prophets. The Jews deny the validity

of this kind of prediction. According 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



The Christian scholars have put forward4 weak explanations


Oregarding this, which do not deserve any serious consideration.

f Readers will have noted that there are 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

wildemess of Judaea.l


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 did 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 set-

tled in the city of Nazareth, and that at this time came John, the


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 that John, the Baptist deliv-

ered 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 page 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.


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 own



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


How he entered into the house of God and did eat

the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, nei-

ther for them which were with him.2


The phrase "neither for them which were with him" is clear-

Iy 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.l


This statement is also wrong as will be shown later in the



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.2


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 is 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 transla-

tor might have translated it from that text.l

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.2


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 peo-

ple 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.3

The events described by Matthew were obviously of a much

more compelling nature than the disciples speaking in several




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

atthew, 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 avoid-

ed any reference to these events. But what do they have to say

of the absence of any account of these events 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 the 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

A ts

c .

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 lesser, significance. Mark

and Luke, too, only speak of the splitting of the veil and not 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 building of the temple could remain unaf-

fected. 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 evange-

list 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



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


For Jonas was three days and three nights in the

whale own belly; so shall the son of man be three days and

three nights in the heart of the earth.2


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.3


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.4


f All these statements are incorrect for the fact is that accord-

ing 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 night

of Friday, and his body is said to have disappeared on the morn-

ing of Sunday, as described by John. According to this detail,

his body did not remain in the earth 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 own 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 under-

standing the intention of Jesus in this case, shows that he could

well have written similarly erroneous accounts in other 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 the 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.l


This statement has definitely been wrongly attributed to

Jesus, because all those own tanding here", died nearly two thou-

sand 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.2


Again this is obviously wrong as the disciples have, long,

long ago, done their duty of going over the cities of Israel, but

the Son of Man never came with his kingdom.


Errors No. 65 - 68


The book of Revelations contains this statement:


Behold, I come quickly:3


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 lS at hand."


Further in verse 20 it says again:


Surely, I come quickly.


On the basis of these statements of Christ, the earlier follow-

ers of Christianity 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 Judgement 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 com-

ing of the Lord draweth near.


It also appears in I Peter:


But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore

sober and watch unto prayer.2


And the First Epistle of Peter contains these words:


Little children, it is the last time.3


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.


And Paul said in his letter to Philippians:


The Lord is at hand.2


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.3


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.4


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.


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,


his 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 pow-

ers 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.2


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.


The text of the Arabic translation printed in 1844 is exactly

the same. However, the Persian translations of 1816, 1828, 1842


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, therefore 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, "...immediate-

ly after the trouble of those days," according to the statement of

Jesus. Similarly it is also necessary that the generation contem-

porary 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 historical-

ly proved-false statement.


Errors No. 79 - 80: 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.l


The Protestant scholars have therefore said that any con-

struction 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."


The priest Dr. Keith wrote a book in renunciation of the dis-

believers in Christ which was translated into Persian by Rev.

Mirak entitled "Kashf-ul-Asar-Fi-Qisas-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 commen-

tary 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 cor-

ruption 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 own 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 his-

torians 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



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 own 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.l 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 equally 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,


. More than 1400 years have now passed since this event.


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.l


It is quite apparent from this that Jesus assured his twelve

disciples, of eternal success and redemption promising them to

sit upon twelve thrones on the Day of Judgement. This prophet-

ic witness of eternal success has been proved wrong by the

gospels themselves. We have already seen2 that one of the disci-

ples 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



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,4 while we know that nothing like this ever hap-

pened in history after this. These prophetic words have never

come true.


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 own 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 his-

torians have also added that in the same mosque Omar

was murdered by a slave. Abdul Malik, son of MaNan,

who was the twelfth Caliph extended this mosque in his



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 own 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.l 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 equally 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.l


It is quite apparent from this that Jesus assured his twelve

disciples, of eternal success and redemption promising them to

sit upon twelve thrones on the Day of Judgement. This prophet-

ic witness of eternal success has been proved wrong by the

gospels themselves. We have akeady seen2 that one of the disci-

ples 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



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,4 while we know that nothing like this ever hap-

pened in history after this. These prophetic words have never

come true.


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.l


This is also incorrect, as is evident from the fifth chapter of


Genesis2 and 2 Kings Chapter 2.3


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.4


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.5


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



The prophetic promise made in the above texts is a general

statement that does not particularise any man or people, particu-

larly 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 argu-

ment to support the claim that the above predictions were par-

ticularly made in respect of the early Christians. It is therefore,

necessary for a mountain to move and be cast into the sea, if a

believer says so to it, of course, with firm belief in Christ.

Everyone knows that nothing like this has even happened in his-

tory. 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 predic-


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.




Perhaps we might be allowed at this juncture, for the interest

of the readers, to reproduce two incidents directly related to

Luther and Calvin, the founders of the Protestant faith. We

quote this from the book entitled Mira"atus Sidq that was trans-

lated into Urdu by a Catholic scholar and priest Thomas Inglus

and printed in 1857. He relates the following incidents on pages



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.

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 spiritu-

al 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 per-

sons, 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 pre-

diction 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.l


This genealogical description of the Christ contains three



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



This statement is also not correct as Sala was the son of

Arphaxad, and not his grandson, which is clear from the book of

Genesis2 and from I Chronicles.3

The Hebrew version has always preference over any transla-

tion according to the Protestants.4 No translation can be pre-

ferred to the original Hebrew version simply because it corre-

sponds with the description of Luke. On the contrary, such 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).l


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 which 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 because Luke has admitted

in the second chapter that the wife of Zacharias conceived in the

reign of Herod2 and that Mary conceived Jesus six month later.

Realizing this "difficulty" some Christian scholars have

declared that verse 2 is a later addition and not written by Luke.


Error No. 89


Luke t t -


s a es.


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.3


This is incorrect as the historians have denied of there being

any ruler of Abilene 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 own wife, and for all the evils

which Herod had done.l


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 own wife...2


This statement too, is erroneous, as we have already dis-

cussed. 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 delet-

ed the word Philip, while other translators have not followed his



Errors No. 92-94: 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


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?l


Earlier in the book we showed that this statement is also

incorrect, since David at that time was alone,2 therefore the

phrase "they that were with him" is a mis-statement. 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 can 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 sen-




And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve.l


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. Mark, therefore, says in

Chapter 16:


He appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat.2


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.3


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.4


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 offi-


cers would be inspired to them by the Holy Ghost, which in turn

signified that their words would not be their own words but the

word of the Holy Ghost.

This statement is shown to be incorrect in the light of the fol-

lowing 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 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 own

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."


Had the statement of Matthew and Luke been true, their spir-

itual leader Paul, who is considered equal in status with the dis-

ciples and who himself claims to be equal to Peter, the greatest

of all disciples,2 could have not said anything erroneous before

the council.l Paul own admission to his fault is enough to prove the

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



Errors No. 101& 102


In Luke we find:


...in the days of Elias, when the heaven was shut up

three years and six months...


and in the Epistle of James:


...and it rained not on earth by the space of three

years and six months.2


This also seems incorrect as it is understood from I Kings

that there was rain in the third year.3

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.4


This is incorrect for the following two reasons:


1. Because Jesus, according to the genealogy given by

MaKhew, is a descendant of Jehoiakim, and none of his descen-


dants can sit on the throne of David according to the statement

of the Prophet Jeremiah.l

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,2 and, moreover, it is unbelievable that

Jesus would hate something for which 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 own ,

But he shall receive hundred-fold now in this time,

houses, and brethren, and sisters and mothers, and chil-

dren, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to

come eternal life.3


And Luke reports these words in the same context:


...who shall not receive manifold more in this pre-

sent time, and in the world to come, life everlasting.


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 rele-

vant, 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 being healed by Jesus, saying:


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.l


This is incorrect, for the reason that the Jews were not

allowed to keep swine, being inadmissible for them under the



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.2


It is wrong because the Jews have never seen Christ coming

in the clouds of heaven 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.l


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.2


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 "y father and

mother, and, He that curseth father or mother, let him

die the death.3


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


Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man

should die for the people, and that the whole nation per-

ish 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.l


This statement cannot be accepted as true for the following

inconsistencies in the 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 Jews2 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


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 he was the one who was pleased at the smiting and insult-

ing 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.l


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 sit-

ting 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 wit-

nesses? 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?


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


Now Caiaphas was he, which gave counsel to the


Jews, that it was expedient that one should die for the



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 own 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, since 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 pro-

posed, "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 com-

mitted by Adam thousands of years prior to the birth of the

Christ, which is a whimsical and, of course, illogical interpreta-


tion 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 differ-

ent 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 own 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 taberna-

cle and all the vessels of the ministry.l


The above statement is incorrect for the following three rea-


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 as 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 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



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 these 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 certainly right in having this

opinion. In fact, the contradictions, errors and inconsistencies


the biblical texts were not known to the people until the appear-

ance of the Protestant movement. They discovered and dug into

these books and the secrets were disclosed, 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 the Pope. It said that the

experience of the past showed that such words when

read by 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 con-

sultation 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








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,


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


rect and the other false, due either to delibeMte distortion on the


of later theologians or to mistakes of the copiers. For some


tory texts they have put forward absurd explanations that would


be accepted by a sensible reader. These have already been



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


text must be free from errors and contMdictions.


There are also many cases of distortion and human manipulation

in the texts of these books. The alteMtions and changes which have

been delibeMtely 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 distor-

tions 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


while the Protestants have proved that these books were not


inspired. These books are: the Book of Baruch, the Book of Tobit,


Book of Judith, the Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, Maccabees I

and II, chapters eleven to sixteen of the Book of Esther, and ten


from chapter ten of the same book, and the song of the three


from chapter three of the Book of Daniel.


These books are considered by the Catholics to be an integMl part

of the Old Testament, whereas the Protestants have rejected them


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


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


for those who claim it to be written by Phineas or Hezekiah, and


same applies to the Book of Ruth, according to those who perceive


as being written by Hezekiah. Nor, according to the majority of


ers, is the Book of Nehemiah divinely inspired, especially the


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


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 chap-

ters 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


later scholars who consider it to have been originally written in


Hebrew language and that the present Gospel is merely a translation

of the original which has been lost, is not, and cannot be,




As for the Gospel of John, the scholars, Bretschneider and

Lefevre d"Etapes have refused to accept it as genuine. The last


was certainly rejected by the scholar Grotius as being neither


or inspired.


Similarly all the Epistles of John are not accepted as prophetic by

Bretschneider and the Alogi school. The Second Epistle of Peter,


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.





Horne says on page 131 of Vol. I of his commentaries printed in

1 822:


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 exclu-

sion, except to say that the Prophets, to whom significant reli-

gious instructions are revealed, have two kinds of writings.

Writings without inspiration, which are similar to the writings

of honest historians, and writings guided by inspiration. The

first kind of writings are attributed to the Prophets them-

selves, 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 disap-

pearance of the Book of Wars of the Lord, mentioned in the Book of

Numbersl (21:14), he said:


The book which has disappeared was, according to the

great scholar Dr. Lightfoot own findings, the one that was writ-

ten for the guidance of Joshua, under the command of the

Lord aRer the defeat of the Amalekites. It seems that the book

in question contained some accounts of the victory of this war


l.There is a description given in the Book of Numbers with

reference to the Book

of Wars of the Lords. Only some sentences from that book have been

given, the rest

of the book has been lost.


as well as strategic instructions for the future wars. 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 does not necessarily signify that every word and the

whole text was revealed. The difference of idiom and expres-

sion 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 own Commentary, in the last vol-

ume of their book, quote from the Alexander Canon, that is, from


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 own 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 own entry ""Inspiration""l in the Encyclopaedia


has this statement on page 274 vol. 11


It has always been a matter of controversy whether every-

thing which is written in the sacred books is inspired or not.

Similarly all accounts of the events described in them are not

inspired by God according to Jerome, Grotius, Papias and

many other scholars.


Furlher in vol. 19 on page 20 it says:


Those who claim 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.




In volume nineteen of the Rees Encyclopedia, the author says that


l.We did not find this sentence in the present edition of

Britannica, however, we

have found the admission that every word of these books is not

inspired, on page 23

vol. 12 under the entry "Inspiration"


2. All the references in the Ercyclopaedia Britannica have been

taken from the

old 18th century edition. The present edition does not have been

them at the places

referred to. We have therefore translated them from Urdu in our own

words. This

however, does not make difference as this admission can be found in

many place in

the Britannica. (Raazi)


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

23:1-6,1 the contradictory nature of these books becomes all the




It is also said that the disciples of Jesus themselves did not know

one another to be receiving inspiration from God, as is evident


their debates in the council of Jerusalem and from Paul own blaming


Peter. Moreover it is clear that the ancient Christians did not


them innocent and free from faults, since they sometimes made them

subject to their criticism. This is obvious from Acts 11:2,32 and


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


nevertheless mentioned himself in such a manner as to show that he

did not feel himself constantly to be a man of inspiration.3 The


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


l.This difference of the texts has been discussed by us, under the

errors Nos: 98-



2. And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the


contended with him, Saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised,

and didst eat

with them. (Acts 11:2,3)


3. I Corinthians 7:10,12,15,40. And also 2 Cor. 11:17.

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 auments in favour of such miracles

as the death and resurrection of Christ as related in the writ-

ings 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 state-

ments of the evangelist about those particular matters as simi-

lar 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 be 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.




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

based on the commentary of Dr. Benson, remarks that the fact that

Luke own writing is not inspired is evident from the dedication of


Gospel to Theophilus:


Forasmuch 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



Watson 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 knowl-

edge 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 peo-

ple 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 stom-

ach own sake and thine often infirmities.2


and furLher:


The cloak that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou

comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the

parchments. "


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."

However there are other occasions when it is clear that Paul speaks

by inspiration, as in his first letter to the Corinthians:


And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord,

Let not the wife depart from her husband.3


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 conceming 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


instructions related to the Christian faith. This is why the


like other human beings, committed mistakes in their domestic


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 inspiMtion

seems to be clear and logical and, indeed, unique in its appli-





Beausobre and Lenfant said the following about this matter:


The Holy Ghost, with whose help and teaching the evan-

gelists 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 writ-

ings 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


ed to write his gospel he wrote the descriptions according to eye


nesses of the events described. Having this knowledge in his mind,


thought that it was a treasure which should be conveyed to future




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


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


witnesses except Paul and his companions.


We have produced above the testimony of two of the great schol-

ars of Christianity, who are very much esteemed and celebrated in


Christian world. Horne and Watson have also the same opinion of






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

of his great work:


Eichhom, one of the German scholars, denied that Moses

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 al the

five books of the Pentateuch were simply a collection of ver-

bal 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 tum 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 con-

sidered the word of God. It was their belief that any one com-

mitting sins like adultery and other evil deeds deserved salva-

tion and would be in etemal happiness if only he had faith in

Christianity. Those who tumed to the ten commandments

were influenced by Satan, and they were the ones who cruci-

fied Jesus.


These remarks of the founder of the Protestant faith and his pupil

are certainly of great importance. They mean that all Protestants


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 multi-

theism. They should also disregard their parents, trouble their


bours, commit theft, murder and perjury because, otherwise, they

would be 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


not believe in Moses as a Prophet but only as a man of wisdom and


great legislator, while some others said to us that Moses, God


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



All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but

the sheep did not hear them.l


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.





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.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 disci-

ple 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,


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 Nuremburg, said that they

had intentionally given up the Book of Revelation and the Epistle


James. He said that the Epistle of James is not to be censured


he has stressed the necessity of good deeds along with faith, but


this letter contains contradictions. The Magdeburg Centuries said


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


alone but that it also requires good deeds. He also says that the


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 pre-

ferred to Luke own account.


We may be allowed to say that the above statement allows us to

deduce two important points. Firstly that Matthew and Mark them-

selves differ in many places in their accounts of the same event


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


out 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 conceming the

truth of the four gospels. It was printed in 1850. He writes on


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 the 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 per-

sonal 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 posses-

sion by devils. In the case of those who hold that this false

opinion had become common in their time and also influ-

enced 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 state-

ment 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 dis-

tinguished 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 per-

sonal 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 mira-



Paul, for example, when speaking of this principle, has

mentioned many things in support of it. Therefore the princi-

ple 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 similar 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 premises.


The above passage allows us to advance the following four points:


1. We have already proved through sufficient ARGUMENTs and sup-

ports, under the heading of Errors no. 64-78, that all the

disciples of

Jesus and other Christians of that time had firm belief in the


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 sur-

vived 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 the disciples misunderstood it to signi-

fy 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.


urther they say in their marginal notes:


The disciples misunderstood the words of Jesus, as the

evangelist" 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 regard-

ing the Day of Judgment and John not dying until the day of

Judgment. their statement with regard to the occurrence would natu-

rally be taken literally which proves them to have been wrong and


find new explanations for them is of no avail. That would involve


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


have admitted the fact that the matters which are not directly


to the faith, or have been somehow mixed with the principles of


do not damage the Christian faith in any way if they are proved




3. They have also admitted that the presence of errors and mis-

takes 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


a product of human imagination and superstition; and that they had

found their way in through the statements of the evangelists, and


through Jesus, because they had become a part of common tradition

of that period.


1. This refers to John, 21:23. "hen went this saying abroad among

the brethren

that that disciple should not die: yel Jesus said not unto him, He

shall not die."


Keeping these four conclusions in mind, we must be allowed to

claim that more than fifty perent of the gospels are thus precluded

from having been the result of inspiration. According to this


only the descriptions directly related to faith or those defining

the rit-

uals can be considered as inspired.


However this opinion does not carry any weight because it hap-

pens to be against the opinion of Luther, the founder of the


church, who explicitly declared that none of the apostles had any


to issue or define any religious principle on his own account,


only Jesus had the right to issue religious doctrines. The


conclusion is that the remaining part of the gospels, consisting of


descriptions from the disciples directly related to faith, is


deprived of its Divine character.




Ward reproduced a number of statements from the great scholars

of the Protestant faith. We reproduce below nine of them from his

book printed in 1841.


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

described in Paul own letters cannot be considered sacred, as some

events described in these epistles are 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


Peter the chief disciple and Barnabas made erroneous state-

ments after the descent of the Holy Spirit.


(5) John Calvin remarked that Peter spread heresy in the church

and put the independence of Christianity in danger and the

Christian grace was led astray 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,


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


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 the book of the church of Augsburg conceming 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



Eichhom 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.


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


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


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


quoted in his book. The same is understood from the gospel of



The portions of these gospels which are still available, if


with each other, clearly show that the addition of these accounts



been quite gradual, for example, the heavenly voice which was heard

originally spoke in these words:


Thou art my son, I have begotten thee this day.


As has been quoted by Justinian in two places. Clement also repro-

duced this sentence from a Gospel of unknown identity in these



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.l


The Ebionite Gospel combined the two statements together thus:


Thou art my beloved son, I am pleased unto thee, thou art

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


of unidentifiable ingredients. Any one curious enough can easily


isfy 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 scrip-

ture has so terribly deformed the authenticity of the gospels that


no longer retain their original divine character. The more they


translated from one language to another, the more they lost their


nal shape and form.


Realising this situation, the Church came to their aid towards the

end of the second century or at the beginning of the third century



and tried to save the true and the original Evangel and to convey,


far as possible, the truth to the future generations. They,


selected the four present gospels out of many gospels that were


rent in that period, because these four scripts seemed more compre-

hensible 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


third century AD. The first man to speak of these gospels in


was Irenaeus in 200 AD who also advanced some ARGUMENTs concern-

ing the nu nber of the gospels.


Then in 216 AD Clement of Alexandria made a painstaking effort

to prove that these four gospels were inspired and, therefore,


be acknowledged as the source of Christian faith. The result of

this is

that, towards the end of the second century and the beginni