Contents

i

Contents

Foreword ii

Introduction by S.H.M. Kutbi iii

The Contradictions 2-1

The Errors 2-45 ii FOREWORD

The English translation of this truly remarkable work of scholarship will hopefully bring it to the audience it deserves and to which it is most relevant. Its importance lies not so much in the author’s actual discoveries as in their implications for the impartial Christian reader. The contradictions and errors in the biblical text, most of them acknowledged by Christian scholars, proved beyond a doubt that the biblical account of event is, to say the least, unreliable and occasionally clearly manipulated to serve the interests of particular individuals or power groups. This means in turn that the biblical version of events can only be accepted in most general terms and that serious doubt must be thrown on the accounts even such central events of Christianity as the ‘crucifixion’ and ‘resurrection of Jesus’. This in turn opens the way for Christians to accept the true and definitely divinely revealed version of these

events in the Qur’an.

iii INTRODUCTION

by Syed Hassan Mohammad Kutbi

Former Minister of Hajj Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

The Truth Revealed is a book which describes Islam as the inspired truth, guiding mankind to faith, peace and security. Islam is the religion of Abraham

from whom all the followers of the three heavenly religions claim to belong. The conflict between Islam and the Christian missionaries in the Indian subcontinent turned into a fierce fight in which Islam was defended by a faithful man who depended on Allah alone. He was equally true and faithful in his understanding of the other heavenly religions in their true form, as revealed to the Prophets Moses and Jesus Christ, which in essence accord with the

teachings and spirit of Islam. The conflict was of greater importance than the wars with early Arab infidels (the Quraysh and other tribes) and the Crusades, and so was the victory. One side in it was supported by the strength, resources and media of a strong Christian government. The stake was enormous as any set-back would be fatal to them in this most important and strategic area. All the powers of the Christian religion joined to defend their teachings from being blamed for alterations in their scriptures which, if proved, might mean Christians abandoning their

religion. The Christians go on pilgrimage not only to seek forgiveness, but also to gain spiritual blessings to fight against all the other religions, Islam being the foremost. In this particular conflict they had a clear plan to destroy Islam and the Muslims in India before spreading their fight to the rest of the Islamic world, as, having already achieved victory in India; it would then be easier elsewhere. Islam had already made its strength felt in India by Rajab 70 AH, and India and its people became a great Islamic power, as India had a great civilization and great wealth. It also became a major aim for the ambitious colonial powers to conquer India and the sub-continent. Since the power in India was with Islam they, therefore, mischievously started spreading Christianity. The activities of the Christians started by appointing a bishop for the Christians and changing the Great Mosque of Delhi into a church. Books denouncing the Islamic faith were published to confuse the common Muslims. The old prejudice of Christianity

against Muslims even led them to commit murders.

iv This conduct startled Muslim scholars into defending their faith, without any regard to the sacrifice involved. The Muslims decided to publish books and to increase the religious awareness of the common Muslims so as to counteract the unfair attack on Islam. This program was effective in protecting the image of Islam. A number of books were written, numerous debates were conducted, and a lot of meaningful speeches were delivered in the mosques transmitting Islam

as the true religion. All this brought into the limelight a great man to lead the Muslims engaged in defending Islam. This learned scholar, Shaykh Rahmatullah Kairanvi not only defended Islam, but also exposed Christianity and its teachings by obtaining guidance only from the Qur’an. Being a true Muslim scholar, he had all the courage necessary to sacrifice his life for the sake of Allah, cherishing

the saying:

If I am killed for being a Muslim, I do not care on which side my body

lies. It is for the sake of Allah.

The great and faithful Shaykh Rahmatullah challenged the head of the Christian Mission of India at that time, the Rev. C-C-P Fonder to an open debate to prove to the Christians that Muslims had been silent merely because they did not feel that an answer had been necessary. However, since the anti- Islamic forces had been making false claims and increasing their efforts against Islam, the time had come for a Muslim scholar to expose the true facts in an

open debate. The Rev. Fonder said, “Let it be here in Agra where the Muslim scholars have been reading the Bible, and reading my books, and other books written by Western scholars in order to prove that the Bible was false as it contains

alterations and that my books are also false.” The debate took place in January, 1854, in Akbarabad in the city of Agra. Shaykh Rahmatullah proved that the Bible used at that time and still in use now was not the one given to Jesus (peace be upon him). The Rev. Fonder admitted

that there were alterations in the Bible in seven or eight places. Shaykh Qamar al-Islam, the Imam of the Grand Mosque, asked a journalist Khadim Ali Khan to publish the missionary’s admission that there were seven or eight alterations in the Bible, upon which the Rev. Fonder shouted, “Yes, I do admit to this, but this small alteration does not affect the Holy Book of the

Heavens!” Hearing this Shaykh Rahmatullah commented, “If any alteration is proved to have been perpetrated in a particular text, it is considered null and void and invalidated. Since you admit that the Bible has been altered in seven or eight

places, how can you claim that it is true and how can you believe in it?”

The first debate ended on this note.

v On the 11th of April 1854, there was a second debate, attended by diplomats and important dignitaries from all walks of life. It also ended in humiliation for the Chief Missionary, who disappeared after a couple of sessions and did not

attend the rest of the debate. Before starting the debate, the Chief Missionary had asserted in front of all those present, “This debate is held at the request of Shaykh Rahmatullah. I have accepted it without any personal benefit to me. I am going to show you the clear proofs that prove the Christian religion to be a true one. You should be aware that the subjects of this debate are: revelation, alterations, the divinity of Jesus,

the Trinity, and the mission of Muhammad.” Shaykh Rahmatullah asserted that he would convert to Christianity if he failed to answer the questions of the missionary who also made the commitment

to accept Islam if he was defeated. The result was the admission that the Bible had been altered. The victory, proving Islam to be the true religion caused the brutal aggression on the part of the British government against the Muslims in India in 1857, in which thousands of renowned Muslim scholars were killed. Shaykh Rahmatullah was at the top of the list, but Allah saved him. He escaped to Makka al-Mukarrama,

and there he established the Madrasa Saulatia. Sultan Abdul-Aziz Khan invited Shaykh Rahmatullah to Constantinople, where he held a great celebration for him, and requested him to write a book on the debate. He wrote the book, The Great Debate, which later became known as

The Truth Revealed (Izharu’l-Haqq). Then times changed and scholars in the West themselves started rejecting their altered religion. Some scholars accepted the fact of the Holy Qur’an and became Muslims while others did not accept the truth of the Holy Qur’an and

have yet to join the faithful. A dire need was felt to translate the book of The Great Debate into English so that its message would be read and comprehended. Allah has now made this possible and the book has been translated into English. I pray to Allah to accept

it as a sincere work and reward all those who were associated with it. May Allah make it a cause for the fight guidance of those who read it in the

search for truth and a straight path.

Madina al-Munawwara 21 Jumada’th-Thani 1409 AH

28 January 1989 AD 2 CONTRADICTIONS AND ERRORS IN THE

BIBLICAL TEXT

THE CONTRADICTIONS

“Had it (the Holy Qur’an) been from other than God, they would surely have found therein much

discrepancy.” (Qur’an 4:82)

The texts of all the Judeo-Christian scriptures contain surprisingly 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 contradictions 1 in numerical order. The errors found in these texts will be discussed separately in

the following section.

Contradiction No. 1

Any serious reader making a comparison between chapters 45 and 46 of the book of Ezekiel, and chapters 28 and 29 of the book of Numbers will notice

great contradiction in the doctrines 2 mentioned therein.

Contradiction No. 2

A comparison between chapter 13 of the Book of Joshua and chapter 2 of Deuteronomy concerning the inheritance of the children of Gad discloses a plain

contradiction. One of the two statements has to be wrong.

Contradiction No. 3

I Chronicles chapters 7 and 8 concerning the descendants of Benjamin makes a statement which contradicts chapter 46 of Genesis. The Judea-Christian scholars have had to admit that the statement made by Chronicles is erroneous.

This will be discussed later.

1 The author had given no less than one hundred and nineteen examples of such contradictions in the biblical text. 2 In both places there are injunctions regarding offerings and sacrifices. Readers may look these up themselves if interested.

2 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 commentary: “The Jewish scholars claim that Ezra had found two books which contained these sentences with the contradicting names and since he could not prefer one to the other, he included

both of them.”

Contradiction No. 5

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 thousand and an hundred thousand men that drew sword: and Judah was four hundred and three score and ten

thousand men that drew sword.

The discrepancy in these statements amounts to a great contradiction in the number of people. There is a difference of three hundred thousand in the number of the Israelites while the difference in the number of the People of

Judah is thirty thousand.

Contradiction No. 6

We read in 2 Samuel 24:13:

“So Gad 3 came to David, and told him, and said unto him, Shall seven

years of famine come unto thee in thy land?

However we read in 1 Chr. 21:12:

“Either three years famine or…. “

The contradiction is quite obvious, since the former statement speaks of seven years of famine while the latter statement mentions only three years of

3 According to Torah Gad was the prophet who was considered to be the seer of the unseen.

2 famine referring to the same occasion. The commentators of the Bible have

admitted that the former statement is erroneous.

Contradiction No. 7

In 2 Kings 8:26 we find this statement:

“Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he

reigned one year in Jerusalem. “

In contrast with the above statement we read in 2 Chr. 22:2:

“Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign… “

This contradiction speaks for itself. The latter statement is obviously wrong and the commentators on the Bible have admitted this to be the case. It has to be wrong because the age of Ahaziah’s father, Jehoram, at the time of his death was 40 years and Ahaziah began reigning just after the death of his father as is known from the previous chapter. In this case if we did not negate the latter

statement it would mean that the son was two years older than his father.

Contradiction No. 8

In 2 Kings 24:8 it is stated that:

“Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign… “

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

“Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign… “

The contradiction is more than obvious. The second statement is erroneous as will be shown later in this book. This has been admitted by Bible

commentators.

Contradiction No. 9

There is an obvious contradiction between the statements of 2 Samuel 23:8 4

and and 1 Chronicle 11:11 5

4 “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.”

2 Both are talking of the mighty men of David. Adam Clarke, making comments on the former statements of 2 Samuel, has quoted Dr Kennicot as saying that the verse in question contains three great distortions. This requires

no further comment.

Contradiction No. 10

It is stated in 2 Samuel 5 and 6 that David brought the Ark to Jerusalem after defeating the Philistines, while chapters 13 and 14 of 1 Chronicles, describing

the same event, make David bring the Ark before the defeat of Philistine 6.

One of the two statements must be wrong.

Contradiction No. 11

In Genesis 6:19,20 and 7:8,9 we read:

“And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring

into the Ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.” “Of fowls after their kind and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping

thing of the earth after its kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee. “

But as we proceed a little further to the next chapter of this book we

suddenly come to this statement.

“Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his

female, and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and the female.”

When we proceed to the next verse it says: ”Of fowls also of the air by

sevens…”

The contradiction speaks for itself.

Contradiction No. 12

It is understood from the Book of Numbers 31:7 that the Israelites killed all the men of Midian during the lifetime of Moses 7, and only their young girls

5 “And this is the number of the mighty men whom David had; Hashobeam, and Hachmonite, the chief of the captains; he lifted up his spear against three hundred slain by him at one time.” 6 Chapter 5 describes the events of war against Philistines while chapter 6 speaks of the Ark brought to Jerusalem by David whereas chapter 13 of I Chronicles speaks of the Ark and chapter 14 describes the defeat of Philistines. 7 ”And they warred against the Midianites, as the Lord commanded Moses; and they slew all the males.”

2 were allowed to live in servitude. This statement contradicts the description given in Judges 6 from which it is understood that in the time of Judges the Midianites were so strong and powerful that they dominated the Israelites while historically the time difference 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? 8

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 contradicted by

another statement of the same chapter of the same book which says:

“He that feared the word of the Lord among the servants of Pharaoh made

his servants and his cattle flee into the houses” “And he that regarded not the word of the Lord left his servants and his

cattle in the field 9.”

The discrepancy in the above statements needs no comment.

Contradiction No. 14

Genesis 8:4,5 contains this statement:

“And the Ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the

month, upon the mountains of Ararat.” “And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth

month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.”

This statement contains a serious contradiction of facts, since the Ark could 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

8 ”And the hand of Midian prevailed against Israel.” [Judges 6: 2] ”And Israel was greatly impoverished because of the Midianites.” [Judges 6:6] 9 Exodus 9:20,21 2 Contradictions No. 15 - 26

A comparison between 2 Samuel 8 and 1 Chronicles 18, discloses a great number of discrepancies and contradictions in the original version in the

Hebrew language, although the translators have tried to rectify some of them. We reproduce some of them in parallel columns below, using the commentary of Adam Clarke on Samuel. As can be seen there are numerous

contradictions in these two chapters.

Verse The Words of 2 Samuel (8) Verse The Words of I Chronicles (¹)

No. No.

1 ”David smote the Philistines and 1 “David smote the Philistines and subdued

subdued them and took the tax 10 out them and took Gath and her towns out of the

of the hand of Philistines.” hands of Philistines.”

3 “Hadadezer” 3 “Hadarezer”

4 “A thousand chariots and seven 4 “A thousand chariots and seven thousand

hundred horsemen” horsemen”

8 “And from Betah and from Berothai, 8 “From Tibbath, and from Chun, Cities of

cities of Hadadezer King David took Hadarezer brought David very much brass”

exceeding much brass” 10 “Joram, his son unto King David” 10 “Hadoram, his son to the King David”

17 “… and Ahimelech, the son of 17 “… and Abimelech, the son of Abiathar

Abiathar were the priests, and Seraiah were the priests, and Shavsha was scribe”

was the scribe”

Contradictions No. 27 – 32

Some other similar contradictions are found in the text of 2 Samuel 10 and 1 Chronicles 19. These contradictions are also mentioned by the commentators of the Bible. We reproduce below the contradicting words and phrases in two

adjacent columns:

Verse Verse No. The Words of 2 Samuel (10) The Words of I Chronicles (19) No.

“… Sobach, the captain of the host of

“… Shophach, the Captain of the host Hadarezer…” of Hadarezer…”

“came to Helam.”

“came upon them.”² 2 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 controversies of various translations and commentaries, has said, that in view of the various discrepancies, it would be better to admit that the numbers (in the Book of Kings) have been changed and

distorted.

Contradiction No. 34

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

contradiction in the statement of facts. In both texts a natatorium (molten sea) made by Solomon is mentioned. The

text of the Book of Kings is this:

“And under the brim of it round about there were knops compassing it, ten in a 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 different things?

2 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 commentator has admitted the presence of human manipulation in the text of Chronicles. The compilers of Henry and Scott are forced to say that this difference in the text

was due to a change in the alphabets.

Contradiction No. 35

2 Kings 16:2 says:

“Twenty years old was Ahaz when he began to reign, and reigned sixteen

years in Jerusalem… “

We find another statement in the same book in 18:2 regarding his son

Hezekiah:

“Twenty and five years old was he when he began to reign; and he

reigned twenty and nine years in Jerusalem. “

This later statement means that Hezekiah must have been born when his father Ahaz was only eleven years old which is physically impossible 11. Obviously one of the two texts is wrong. The commentators have admitted that the former statement is wrong. Commenting on chapter 16 the compilers of Henry and Scott say that apparently thirty has been written instead of twenty

and have advised people to refer to 18:2 of the same book .

Contradiction No. 36

2 Chronicles 28:1 says:

“Ahaz was twenty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned

sixteen years in Jerusalem: “

Chapter 29 of the same book starts with these words:

“Hezekiah (the son of Ahaz) began to reign when he was five and twenty

years old..”

11 According to the first text Ahaz began to reign when he was twenty. He reigned sixteen years; his total age was thirty six years. According to the second text his son began to reign when he was twenty five years old. Deduction of 25 from 36 leaves eleven.

2 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.

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 accordingly be altered.” What is to be noted from this example is the despotic and arbitrary attitude of the Christian theologians towards their holy scriptures. The more surprising fact in this regard is that this suggestion was followed by the Arabic translator in 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.

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 12 in the twenty- sixth year of Asa’s reign so that in the thirty-sixth year of Asa’s reign he has been dead for ten years. Obviously Baasha cannot invade Judah ten years after

his death. The compilers of Henry and Scott, commenting on the text of Chronicles have said, ”Asher, a great Christian scholar, has said, ”This twenty-sixth year is

12 Since he reigned twenty-four years, and ascended to thye throne after two years of Asa’s reign making twenty-six years, and 1 King 16:6 says, “Baasha slept with his fathers.” And further in 16:8 of the same book we read, “In the twenty-sixth year of ASA, King of Judah began Elah, the son of Baasha to reign over Israel in Tirzah.”

2 not the year of Asa’s 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.

Contradiction No. 39

The text of 2 Chronicles 15:19 is this:

“And there was no war unto the five and thirtieth year of Asa.”

This text is again contradicting the text of 1 Kings 15:33 as has been shown

in the previous argument under Contradiction No. 38.

Contradiction No. 40

The number of Solomon’s officers looking after the work is described as three thousand and three hundred in 1 Kings 5:16, whereas in 2 Chronicles 2:2 this number is mentioned as three thousand and six hundred. The Greek

translators have altered this number making it six hundred.

Contradiction No. 41

The text of 1 Kings 7:26 giving the description of the ”molten sea” made by Solomon says, ”It contained two thousand baths”, while the text of 2

Chronicles 4:5 claims, ”It received and held three thousand baths”. The Persian translation, 1838, speaks of the capacity of two thousand ”idols”. The Persian translation, 1845, contains, ”Two thousand vessel,” And the Persian translation, 1838, contains, ”three thousand idols”. The

inconsistencies and discrepancies of these various texts speak for themselves.

Contradiction No. 42

When chapter 2 of the Book of Ezra is compared with chapter 7 of Nehemiah, several discrepancies and contradictions in the texts can be seen. Apart from textual differences, there are errors in number of the Israelites. In the two chapters there are twenty numerical contradictions and many others where names are concerned. We reproduce below the errors concerning the numbers of

the liberated Israelites:

2 Verse The Text of EZRA, Ch. 2 Verse The Text of NEHEMIAH, Ch. 7

No. No.

6 “The children Pahath Moab… two 11 “The children of Phahath Moab … two

thousand eight hundred and twelve” thousand eight hundred and eighteen”

8 “The children of Zattu, nine hundred 13 “The children of Zattu, eight hundred forty

forty and five” and five”

12 The children of Azgad, a thousand 17 “The children of Azgad, two thousand three

two hundred twenty and two” hundred twenty and two”

15 “The children of Adin, four hundred 20 “The children of Adin, six hundred fifty and

fifty and four” five”

19 “The children of Hashum, two 22 “The children of Hashum, three hundred

hundred twenty and three” twenty and eight”

28 “The children of Beth-el and Ai, two 32 The men of Beth-el and Ai, an hundrred

hundred twenty and three” 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 history:

“The Israelites that came from Babylon count to forty-two thousand, four

hundred and sixty-two.”

The compiler of Henry and Scott’s commentary have said under the

comments on the text of Ezra:

“A great difference has been caused between this chapter and chapter 7 of 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 contradictions. In fact, participation of human element in these books has been present from their very origin. The copyists are unjustifiably blamed for making errors. Even 2 today a comparative reading of these two chapters will reveal more than twenty

errors and contradictions.

Contradiction No. 43

We find this statement in 2 Chronicles concerning the name of the mother of

King Abijah:

“His mother’s name also was Michaiah, the daughter of Uriel of Gibeah.”

[2 Chr. 13:2]

Contrary to this we find another statement in the same book to the effect

that:

“He took Maachah the daughter of Absalom; which bare him Abijah…”

[2 Chr. 11:20]

Again this latter statement is contradicted by the book of 2 Samuel 14:27

which says that Absalom had only one daughter named Tamar 13.

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 Israelites 14.

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

13 “And unto Absalom, there were born three sons, and one daughter, whose name was Tamar.” 14 ”As for the Jebusites the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the children of Judah could not drive them out: but the Jebusites dwell with the children of Judah at Jerusalem unto this day.”

2 CONTRADICTIONS IN THE GENEALOGY

OF JESUS NO. 46-51

A comparative reading of the genealogy of Jesus according to the Gospel of Matthew and the genealogy according to Luke reveals a number of

contradictions:

Contradiction No. 46

Matthew describes Joseph as son of Jacob, while Luke says Joseph son of

Heli 15.

Contradiction No. 47

According to Matthew, Jesus was a descendant of Solomon, the son of

David, 16 while Luke puts him into the line of Nathan, the son of David 17

Contradiction No. 48

Matthew claims that the ancestors of Jesus right from David to the exile of the Israelites were all kings of great repute, while Luke says that except David and Nathan none of them was king. They were not even known as prominent

personalities of their time 18.

Contradiction No. 49

From Matthew we learn that Salathiel was the son of Jeconias 19, while

Luke informs us that he was the son of Neri 20

Contradiction No. 50

We read in Matthew that “Zorobabel begat Abiud,” while Luke says, “which was the son of Rhesa 21 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.

15 “Jacob begat Joseph” [Matt. 1:16]; “… the son of Joseph, who was son of Hel” [Luke 3:23] 16 Matthew 1:6 17 Luke 3:31 18 Matthew, therefore, has mentioned the names of all the famous king while in Luke there are totally different names of unknown personalities. 19 Matthew 1:12 20 Luke 3:27 21 Matthew. 1:13; Luke 3:27 2 Contradiction No. 51

According to Matthew there are twenty-six generations from David to Jesus, while according to Luke there are forty. As the period of time between David and Jesus is one thousand years, the gap from one generation to another according to Matthew is forty years and according to Luke twenty-five years. This contradiction is so clear that it requires no comment. It has been a cause of 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 unjustifiable 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 found. 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 excuse:

“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`s 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 22, the carpenter, without proper regard to their accuracy. Harmer’s hope that time would change this objection in favour of the

22 Joseph, the carpenter, was the husband of Mary according to the Ghospels 2 authors seems very far from being realized since nineteen centuries have passed

without the Evangelists being exonerated in this matter. Had it been possible to do so, it would have been done a long time ago, seeing that in the last three centuries Europe has made such extraordinary advances in all branches of science and technology and has accumulated a treasure-house of resources to help in the search for the truth. As a result of scientific research 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 results. The only explanation for this contradiction presented by some scholars is to say that perhaps Matthew has described the genealogy of Joseph whereas Luke might have written the genealogy of Mary. In this case Joseph would become the son-in-law of Heli who was himself without a son. Joseph, therefore, might have been described as the son of Heli. This explanation is unacceptable and is rejected for several reasons. Firstly because in this case Jesus would not be a descendant of Solomon but a descendant of Nathan, as he would be included in the genealogy on his mother’s side, not that of Joseph, the carpenter. If this 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’s line was through her. Mere assumptions are of no avail in this regard especially in the presence 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 recognized 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 certainly belongs to the early times of Christianity. The book certainly has more historical value than the most reliable books of history. It cannot, therefore, be denied by

unauthenticated reports. St. Augustine said that he found a statement in a certain book that Mary was a Levite. This goes against her being a descendant of Nathan. Besides, we find

the following statement in the Book of Numbers:

2 “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

fathers.” “Neither shall the inheritance remove from one tribe to another tribe; but every one of the tribes of the children of Israel shall keep himself to his own

inheritance.” [Numbers 36:8,9]

And in the Gospel of Luke we read:

“There was a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and

his wife was of the daughters of Aaron.”

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 commandment of Torah (Pentateuch) that any daughter of the children 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 written. Since these Gospels were not known until the end of the second century, the writer of one genealogy remained unknown to the other genealogist. This is the apparent

reason for the present contradiction in the two Gospels. Thirdly, had Mary been the daughter of Heli, it must have been in the knowledge of ancient writers, who would not knowingly have presented such unbelievable explanations which, later on, were rejected and laughed at by

modern writers. 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’s statement will not be true unless it is proved that it was customary among the Jews that they, in the absence of a real son, used to include the name of their son-in-law in their genealogy. This has not so far been proved by any authentic argument. As 2 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’s nephew or the king’s 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 existed. 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 contradict Matthew so blatantly that it has resulted in

a serious embarrassment to the ancient and modern advocates of Christianity.

Contradictions No. 52 – 53

A comparative reading of Matthew 2 and Luke presents a great contradiction to the reader and tends to indicate that neither of the two Gospels are divinely

inspired. It is understood from the description in Matthew that the parents of the Messiah lived in Bethlehem even after his birth. It is also made clear by another description in Matthew that the period of their stay in Bethlehem was two years. Due to the domination of the Magians they afterwards migrated to Egypt and lived there during the lifetime of Herod 23 and after his death, they returned to live in Nazareth. Luke, on the other hand, gives us a different description. He says that Jesus’ parents went to Jerusalem after Mary’s confinement 24 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 25 According to him there is no question of the Magians’ coming to Bethlehem. Similarly, the parents of Jesus could have not gone to Egypt and stayed there as it is clear from what is said that Joseph never left Judah in his life neither 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 Jesus 26 until the Magians reported it to him. On the other hand Luke says that after Mary’s confinement when Jesus’ parents had gone to Jerusalem to offer the sacrifice they met Simeon, who was a

23 Herod, the Governor of Judah 24 “And when the days of her purification, according to the Law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord.” Luke 2:22 25 “His parents went to Jerusalem, every year at the feast of Passover.” Luke 2:41 26 “For Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.” Matthew 2:13 2 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.

Contradiction No. 54

It is learnt from the Gospel of Mark that Christ asked the congregation to go away after his sermon of parables 27, 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 28. 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.

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.”

Contradiction No. 56

The sequence of events after the Sermon on the Mount as given by Matthew is different from the one given by Luke. For instance, the events according to

27 The sermon of parables was delivered by Jesus by the bank of a lake 28 The sermon on the mount was delivered by Jesus on a mountain. This is described by Matthew in chapters 5, 6 and 7.

2 Matthew happened in this order; curing a leper 29, Jesus’ arrival at Capernaum, healing the servant of a Roman officer 30, and healing of Peter’s mother-in-law 31. The Gospel of Luke first describes the event of Peter’s mother-in-law 32, then in chapter 5 describes the healing of the leper 33 and in chapter 7 the healing of the servant of a Roman officer 34. One of the two statements

certainly has to be erroneous.

Contradiction No. 57

According to the Gospel of John 35 some of the priests and Levites were sent by the Jews to John to inquire if he was Elias. He replied, ”I am not Elias.” This statement is expressly contradicted by Jesus according to Matthew 11:14 where Jesus is quoted as saying “And if ye will receive it, this is Elias which

was for to come.” And also we find this statement in Matthew 17:10-13:

“And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias

must first come?” “And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and

restore all thing.” “But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son

of man suffer of them.” “Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John, the

Baptist.”

Both these texts denote that John the Baptist is the promised Elias, with the

result that the statements of John and Jesus contradict each other. A careful reading of the books of Christianity makes it almost impossible to believe that Jesus was the promised Messiah. To premise our argument, the

following four points should first be noted: Firstly, according to the book of Jeremiah when Jehoiakim, son of Josiah, burnt the scripture which was written by Baruch from Jeremiah’s recitation,

Jeremiah received the following revelation from God:

29 Matt 8:3 30 Ibid 8:13 31 Matt 8:3,13,16 32 Luke 4:38. It should be noted that Peter is called Simon in this text. Simon and Peter are the name of one and the same person 33 Ibid 5:13 34 Luke 4:38; 5:13; 7:10 35 John 1:19-21 2 “Thus saith the Lord of Jehoiakim King of Judah; He shall have none to

sit upon the throne of David 36.”

According to the word of Gabriel as quoted by Luke it is necessary for the

Messiah to sit on the throne of David:

“And the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father, David

37.” [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 hand Elias himself denied

being Elias. Thirdly, the Christians do not consider the miracles of the prophets as an argument for faith in God or in the prophets. Matthew quotes the words of Jesus

in 24:24 that:

“For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders; in so much that, if it were possible they shall

deceive the very elect.”

Paul in his second letter to the Thessalonians 2:9 says regarding the

Antichrist:

“Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power

and signs and lying wonders.”

Fourthly, according to the law of the Pentateuch, anyone inviting people to the worship of something other than God should be killed in spite of any kind of wonders and miracles they might perform. And someone who claims divinity for himself is even more evil since not only does he claim godhood but also

invites people to worship other than God. According to the genealogy described by Matthew, Jesus was a descendant of Jehoiakim and is, therefore, according to the first proposition quoted above, not able to sit on the throne of David. Besides, Elias did not come before Jesus as is proved by the words of John himself that he was not Elias. Given this admission, anything contrary to it cannot be acceptable. And it is logically impossible to believe that John, being a prophet and a man of revelation, would

36 Jeremiah 36:30 37 Luke 1:32 2 not have been aware of his being Elias. Therefore, the second proposition, too, disallows Jesus from being the Messiah. And whereas, according to the belief of the Christians, Jesus claimed divinity for himself, this admission would make him liable to be killed according to the law of Moses, as we discussed in our

fourth proposition. As far as the miracles and wonders performed by Jesus are concerned they cannot, according to the belief of the Christians, be an argument for his being a

believer let alone a prophet. All praise be to Allah who has saved us from these doubts and difficulties by means of His chosen prophet Muhammad, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, who informed us of the truth and taught us to believe that Jesus, the son of Mary, peace be on them both, was a true prophet and the promised Messiah and was absolutely free from the blame of making any claim to divinity. The

Christians are responsible for attributing this claim to him.

Contradictions No. 58-63

Matthew chapter 11, Mark chapter 1, and Luke chapter 7, contain this

statement:

“Behold! I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy

way before thee 38.”

According to the Christian commentators, the three Evangelists have quoted

this line from the book of Malachi 39:

“Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before

me.”

The text quoted by the Evangelists is different in two ways from the text of Malachi. Firstly the words, “before thy face” do not exist in the text of Malachi, and have been added by all the three authors. Secondly, the text of Malachi uses the first person in the second sentence while the text of the three Gospels uses

the second person. Horne quotes Dr. Rudolf in vol. 2 of his book saying:

“It is not possible to explain this difference easily, except that the earlier

versions have been changed.”

Contradictions No. 64-67 The following texts contradict each other:

38 This text has been quoted from Mark 1:2 39 However Mark says that this statement is taken from Isaiah 1:2 2 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 translations.

3. The Epistle to the Hebrews 10:5-7 contradicts Psalm No. 39 (Arabic)

and Psalm No. 40:6-8 according to other translations.

The text of Hebrews has:

“Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: In burnt offerings and 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.”

2 The Christian commentators have admitted the presence of contradictions in these texts and have acknowledged that the Hebrew version has been

manipulated.

Contradiction No. 68

Paul’s first letter to Corinthians 2:9 says:

“But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered 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 incompatibility in the above texts and say that

the text of Isaiah has been distorted.

Contradiction No. 69

The Gospel of Matthew describes in chapter 9 that Jesus, after departing from Jericho, saw two blind men on the way and healed them of their blindness

40 Contradicting this, Mark writes in chapter 10 of his gospel:

“..blind Bartimxus, the son of Timaeus, sat by the highway side begging.”

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

Contradiction No. 70

Matthew describes this event in chapter 8:28:

“…into the country of Gergesenes, there met him two possessed with

devils, coming out of the tombs.”

Then Jesus is described as healing them. This statement is inconsistent with

the texts of Mark chapter 5 and Luke chapter 8, which is this:

40 Matt. 9:27-31 2 “There met him out of the city a certain man which had devils 41…”

Then he was healed by Jesus. Two men in the first quotation become one in

the second.

Contradiction No. 71

It appears from chapter 21 of Matthew that Jesus sent two of his disciples to

bring an ass and a colt from a village and the disciples:

“…brought the ass and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set

him thereon 42.”

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.

Contradiction No. 72

Mark says in his first chapter: “And John …did eat locusts and wild honey

43.”

While Matthew states that: “John came neither eating nor drinking 44.”

Contradiction Nos. 73-75

A comparison between the texts of Mark chapter one, Matthew chapter four and John chapter one, reveals inconsistencies regarding the circumstances in which the disciples embraced the new faith. The Gospels of Matthew and Mark

write:

“And Jesus walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew, his brother, casting a net into the sea… and he saith unto them, 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 45.”

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

41 Luke 8:27 42 Matt. 21:7 43 Mark 1:6 44 Matt. 11:18-19 45 Matt. 4:18-22 2 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’s 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 46.

Contradiction No. 76

A comparison of chapter 9 of Matthew with chapter 5 of Mark reveals contradictions in the reports of the two evangelists concerning the ruler’s

daughter. Matthew reports:

“There came a certain ruler …. saying my daughter is even now dead.”

While Mark says :

“He fell at his feet… saying, my little daughter lieth at the point of death

47”

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

from the synagogue and said, “Thy daughter is dead.” Some early scholars have admitted that incompatibility existed between the two texts. Some of them favoured the text of Matthew while some others preferred the text of Mark. Luke’s text is similar to the text of Mark except that he writes that the report of the daughter’s death was given only by one man 48. The death of the ruler’s daughter has consistently been a point of confusion among scholars of the Bible. There is disagreement on the question of whether the daughter had died or was just looking as if she was dead. The learned scholar Nander is not convinced that she was dead. He said that, in fact, she 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 statement of Jesus 49

“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.

46 John 1:42-51 47 Mark 5:22,23 48 Luke 8:49 49 Luke 8:52:

2 Contradiction No. 77

It is understood from Matthew and Luke that when Christ sent his disciples to preach, he forbade them to keep staves with them 50 while on the contrary

the text of Mark says that Jesus allowed them to keep their staves 51

Contradiction No. 78

It is said in chapter 3 of Matthew that:

“Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and

comest thou to me? 52”

Further in the chapter it says:

“And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water

… and he saw the Spirit of God, descending like a dove… “

And the Gospel of John describes this event in these words:

“And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shall see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which

baptizeth with the Holy Ghost 53.”

The Gospel of Matthew contains this statement in chapter 11:

“Now when John had heard in the prison the works of Christ, he sent two of his disciples and said unto him. Art thou he that should come, or do we look

for another 54.”

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.

50 “Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves”, Matt 10:10 51 “They should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only”, Mark 6:8 52 Matt. 3:13 53 John 1:32,33 54 Matt. 11:2 2 Contradiction No. 79

The Gospel of John has reported Christ as saying:

“If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.” [John 5:31]

And the same Gospel has reported Christ as contradicting this:

“Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true.” [John 8:14]

Contradiction No. 80

It appears from Matthew chapter 15 that the woman who came to Jesus crying for her daughter 55 was from Canaan. This information is contradicted by the Gospel of Mark chapter 7 where he reports that she was a Greek and a

Syrophoenician by tribe 56.

Contradiction No. 81

We read in the Gospel of Mark 57.

“And they bring unto him one that was deaf, and had an impediment in

his speech.”

It is clearly understood from this that the man who was deaf and dumb, was a single person, but the description in the Gospel of Matthew plainly contradicts

this, saying:

“And great multitudes came unto him, having with them those that were lame, blind, dumb, maimed and many others, and cast them down at Jesus’

feet, and he healed them 58.”

This exaggeration is similar to the one made by John, the author of the fourth

Gospel who says at the end of the book:

“And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not

contain the books that should be written 59.”

55 “And behold a woman came out of the same coasts.” Matt. 15:22 56 Mark 7:26 57 Mark 7:32 58 Matt. 15:30 59 John 21:25 2 What one should think of such statements? They are supposed to be men of

inspiration beyond any criticism.

Contradiction No. 82

We read in the Gospel of Matthew that Jesus, addressing his disciples, said:

“…I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me. And they were exceeding sorrowful, and began every one of them to say unto him, Lord, is it I? And he answered and said, He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me, … then Judas answered and said, Master, is it I? He

said unto him, Thou hast said 60.”

The same event is described by John in a way that is greatly different from

the above:

“Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me, Then the 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 lying on Jesus’s breast saith unto him, Lord, who is it? Jesus answered, He it is to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot,

the son of Simon 61.”

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 differences in chapter

18:

Judas then, having received a band of men and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons.

60 Matt. 26:21-25 61 John 13:21-26 2 Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him, went forth, and said unto them, Whom seek ye? They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he. And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them. As soon then as he had said unto them, I am He, they went backward and fell to the ground. Then asked he them again, Whom seek ye? And they said, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus answered, I have told you that I am he: if therefore ye seek me, let these go their way…. Then the band and the

captain and officers of the Jews took Jesus, and bound him 62.”

Contradiction No. 84

All the four Gospels give a description of Peter denying Jesus 63 after his

arrest. But each description is different from the other in eight respects.

1. According to the reports of Matthew 64 and Mark65 there were two maids who claimed that Peter was one of the disciples of Jesus, and some other men who “stood by”. While Luke’s description claims that there was

one maid and two other men.

2. According to Matthew, when the first maid spoke to Peter he was sitting on the outside of the palace, while according to Luke, he was “in the midst of the hall 66,” and according to Mark, he was “beneath in the palace”, and

according to John he denied him when he was inside the palace.

3. The wording of the maid’s question to Peter is different in all the four

Gospels.

4. According to the reports of Matthew, Luke and John, the cock crew only once after Peter had denied Jesus three times, while according to Luke, the cock crew three times; once just after the first denial of Peter, and twice,

after the second denial.

5. According to Matthew and Luke, Jesus had foretold Peter that he would deny Jesus thrice before the cock crew that night, while Mark has reported it differently, saying that Jesus said to Peter that he would deny him three

times before the cock crew twice that night.

62 John 18:2-12 63 According to the Gospels, Jesus had foretold Peter that he would deny his acquaintance with him 3 times before the cock crew in the morning. Peter denied him as was foretold, the author refers to this event here. 64 Matt. 26:6-75 65 Mark 14:66-72 66 Luke 22:55 2 6. Peter’s answer to the maid who first challenged Peter is reported by Matthew as: “I know not what thou sayest 67.”. While according to John he only said, “I am not.” [John 18:25] Mark, on the other hand, has reported it in these words: “I know not, neither understand I what thou sayest.” [Mark

15:68] And Luke has put it this way: “Woman, I know him not 68.”

7. Peter’s second answer is also reported differently by all the Evangelists. According to Matthew ….. Peter denied him with an oath and said, “I do not know the man 69,” and according to John his answer was, ”I am not 70,” while Mark has just said, “And he denied it again 71,” and according to

Luke his answer was, “Man, I am not 72.”

8. The people who “stood by” at the time of Peter’s denial were, according to Mark, outside the palace, while Luke reports them as being, ”in the midst

of the hall”.

Contradiction No. 85

Describing the event of crucifixion of Jesus Luke says:

“And as they led him away, they laid hold upon one Simon, a Cyrenian, coming out of the country, and on him they laid the cross, that he might bear

it after Jesus 73.”

This statement is contradicted by the Gospel of John, where it says that

Jesus, bearing his cross himself, went forth to the place of crucifixion 74.

Contradiction No. 86

The first three Gospels agree that Christ was on the cross at the sixth hour on the day of crucifixion 75 but contrary to this the Gospel of John reports him to

be in the court of Pilate exactly at the sixth hour on the same day 76.

67 Matt 26:70 68 Luke 22:57 69 Matt. 26:72 70 John 18:25 71 Mark 14:70 72 Luke 22:58 73 Luke 23:26 74 John 19:17 75 Matt. 27:45, Mark 15:23 and Luke 23:44 76 John 19:14 2 Contradiction No. 87

The Gospel of Mark says regarding the thieves who were crucified with

Jesus:

“And they that were crucified with him reviled him 77”

while Luke reports that one of them reproached Jesus and the other said,

“Lord remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. Then Jesus

replied to him, Today shalt thou be with me in Paradise 78.”

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 79. It is a common practice of Christian scholars to change the texts of their Holy scriptures whenever they

think they should.

Contradiction No. 88

It is understood from chapters 20 and 21 of Matthew that Jesus arrived in Jerusalem after departing from Jericho 80 while from John we learn that Jesus, departing from Ephraim, arrived in Bethany, where he stayed for the night 81.

Contradiction No. 89 - The Resurrection of Jesus:

We learn from Matthew 82 that when Mary Magdalene and Mary, the mother of James 83, 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 84. The Gospel of Mark describes this incident as follows:

“Mary Magdalene, and Mary, the mother of James and Salome…. Came unto the sepulchre,…. and when they looked, they saw that the stone was

77 Mark 15:32 78 Luke 23:43 79 The present Urdu Translation, however, describe two men. 80 Matt. 20:29; 21:1 81 John 11:54; 12:1 82 Matt. 27:56 83 According to the Gospels these two women were the follower of Jesus and had come to his grave for prayer 84 Matt. 28:5,6 2 rolled away…. And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting

on the right side, clothed in a long white garment 85.”

Luke’s description of this is:

“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 86.”

Contradiction No. 90

It is expressly mentioned in Matthew that after the angels informed the women of Jesus’ resurrection, they returned from there, and on the way they met Jesus. Jesus hailed them and asked them to tell the people to go to Galilee

where they would see him 87. But Luke differs from this statement when he says:

“And returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things unto the eleven, and to all the rest. It was Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and Mary, the mother of James and other women that were with them which told these things unto the apostles. And their word seemed to them as idle tales, and

they believed them not 88.”

On the other hand we learn from the Gospel of John 89 that Jesus met Mary

Magdalene near the grave.

Contradiction No. 91

The Gospel of Luke says in chapter 11:

“From the blood of Abel, unto the blood of Zacharias which perished between the altar and the temple: Verily I say unto you, it shall be required

of this generation 90.”

But we read this in the Book of Ezekiel:

“The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son. The

85 Mark 16:1-6 86 Luke 24:2-4 87 Matt. 28:8-10 88 Luke 24:9-11 89 John 20:13-15 90 Luke 11:51 2 righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the

wicked shall be upon him 91.”

However in other places in the Old Testament there are several passages which imply that the children of a man will be accountable for the sins of their

father up to three or four generations.

Contradiction No. 92

Paul’s first letter to Timothy contains this statement:

“For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God, our Saviour, who will have all the men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the

Truth 92.”

This statement is incompatible with, and contradicts, Paul’s statement in his

second letter to Thessalonians:

“And for this cause, God shall send them strong delusion, that should believe a lie, that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but

had pleasure in unrighteousness 93.”

It may be noted how Paul’s two statements contradict each other. The first text gives us to understand that God’s aim is to redeem all the men and take them to knowledge of the truth, while the latter statement would have us believe that 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 94. .According to them God first deludes them to make them stray from the right path, and then punishes them for

unrighteousness.

Contradictions No. 93-96

Acts 9:22 and 26 give a description of Paul’s conversion to Christianity 95. The texts of all three chapters are different in many respects. We intend to give

only three discrepancies in this book.

91 Ez. 18:20 92³

⁴ 2 1. We read in Acts this statement:

“And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a

voice, but seeing no man 96.”

This statement is contradicted by the following statement:

“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 97.”

The contradiction between ”hearing a voice” and ”heard not the voice of

him” speaks for itself.

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

“…and the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it

shall be told thee, what thou must do 98.”

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 do 99.”

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 100.”

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

when suddenly he saw a light shine on him and he heard the voice of Jesus, who invited him to Christianity and he became a Christian, Acts 9:15 96 Acts 9:7 97 Acts 22:9 98 Acts 9:7] 99 Acts 22:10 100 Acts 26:16-18 2 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’s first letter to Corinthians:

“Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed 101, and

fell in one day three and twenty thousand 102.”

This statement is contradicted by the book of Numbers:

“And those that died in the plague were twenty and four thousand.”

[Numb. 25:1,9]

One of these two texts must be wrong.

Contradiction No. 98

We read this statement in the book of Acts:

“Then sent Joseph, and called his father Jacob to him, and all his kindred,

threescore and fifteen souls 103.”

The above text expressly denotes that Joseph and his children who were with Joseph in Egypt are naturally excluded from this number. In fact, it refers to

Jacob and his family, but in Genesis we read:

“And the sons of Joseph which were born of him in Egypt were two souls. All the souls of the house of Jacob which came into Egypt were

threescore and ten 104.”

101 The commentators are unanimous on the point that the event referred to in this text is the one described in the book of Numbers 25:1 and 9. The Israelites, during their stay in Shittin, began to commit fornication and “whoredom” with the daughters of Moab. Hence twenty- four thousand were killed by God in a plague. 102 Cor. 10:8 103 Acts 7:14 104 Gen. 46:27 2 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, Judas “departed, and went and hanged himself 105.”

While Acts says:

“Now this man (Judas) purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong; he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out

106.”

Secondly, we know from the first text, that chief priests of the temple bought a field with the money left by Judas 107 while the second text clearly says that Judas himself bought a field with that money. Peter in the latter text also adds:

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

There are several reasons to believe that the statement made by Matthew is erroneous as compared to Luke, which may be true. We discuss five of these

reasons here:

1. It is clear from the text of Matthew 108 that Judas was remorseful about his sin of betrayal, before hanging himself, but this cannot be true as Jesus,

at that hour, was in the court of Pilate and not yet sentenced to death.

2. The text shows that Judas had returned the money to the high priests and elders of the Temple. This is also wrong on the same ground that the high priests and elders were all with Pilate at that time and were not present at the

temple.

105 Matt. 27:5 106 Acts 1:18 107 And the chief priest took the silver pieces and said, “It is unlawful to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood. They bought with them the potter’s field, to bury strangers.” Matt. 27:6,7⁵ 2 3. The context of Matthew’s text clearly indicates that the passage referred to, which lies between the second and ninth verses, does not correspond to

the rest of the text.

4. Judas died on the morning of the night in which Jesus was arrested. It seems unlikely that, in such a short time, he should repent and kill himself because he knew, even before the arrest of Jesus, that Jesus would be killed

by the Jews.

5. The ninth verse of this text contains a serious error which will be

discussed in the section discussing the errors of the Bible.

Contradiction No.100

The First Letter to John says:

“Jesus Christ, the righteous: and he is the propitiation for our sins: and

not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world 109.”

Contrary to this we read in the book of Proverbs:

“The wicked shall be ransom for the righteous, and the transgressor for

the upright 110.”

The contradiction here needs no comment.

Contradiction No. 101

It is understood from the text of Paul’s letter to the Hebrews that one of the commandments of Moses is weak and unprofitable and therefore defective 111

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.”

109⁶ 2 Contradiction No. 103

The inscription superscribed on the cross by the Pilate is given differently in

all four Gospels. In Matthew it is, ”This is Jesus, the king of the Jews 112.”

In the Gospel of Mark it appears as only, “The king of the Jews113.” Luke says that written in letters of Greek, Latin and Hebrew was, ”This is

the king of the Jews 114.” And the Gospel of John puts it in these words, “Jesus of Nazareth, the king

of the Jews 115.” 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 that Herod believed in the righteousness of John the Baptist, and was pleased with him 116. He arrested and killed him

only for the sake of Herodias (his brother’s wife 117). Luke, on the other hand, reports that Herod did not persecute John only for the sake of Herodias but also for the reproaches of John regarding his own

perversion 118.

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.

112 Matt. 27:37 113 Mark 15:26 114 Luke 23:38 115 John 19:19 116 “Herod feared John, knowing that he was a just man, and a Holy … when he heard him, he did many things, and heard him gladly,” Mark 6:20 117 Herodias was the wife of Herod’s brother. Herod married her. John opposed him as it was unlawful to marry her. Herod arrested him and then killed him just to please Herodias. 118 “But Herod, the Tetrarch, being reproved by him for herodias —- and for all the evils which Herod had done,” Luke 3:19 2 Contradiction No. 106

The first three Evangelists make mention of the man who was sitting at the receipt of custom, and who followed Jesus when he called him. There is, however, considerable disagreement among them regarding his name. According to Matthew his name is Matthew 119 while Mark says he was Levi,

the son of Alpheus 120 and Luke writes Levi without his father’s name 121.

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 122.”

Further in the same chapter, Jesus is reported to have said, to Peter:

“Get thee behind me Satan; thou art an offense unto me: for thou

savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men 123.”

Protestant scholars have reproduced many statements of the ancient scholars about Peter’s accusation. John, in his commentary on Matthew, said that Peter was arrogant and a man of “feeble intellect”. St Augustine said that he was not steadfast and sure, at one time he would believe and at another he would doubt. Is it not strange and ridiculous that a man of such qualities is promised “the

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’s lives, but to save them 124.” Further on in the same Gospel we find another statement of

119 Matt. 9:9 120 Narj. 2:14 121 Luke 5:27 122 Matt. 16:17-19 123 Matt. 16:23 124 Luke 9:54-56 2 Jesus, which absolutely contradicts this. It says, “I am come to send fire on

earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled 125?”

Contradiction No. 109

Matthew has reported that the mother of Zebedee’s sons had requested Jesus

to:

“Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the

other on the left in thy kingdom 126.”

Mark on the other hand reports that the request was made by Zebedee’s sons

themselves 127.

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 128”

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 129.”

The texts are obviously contradictory. The second text contradicts the first,

by adding, “When they heard it, they said, God forbid!”

Contradiction No. 111

The event of a woman of Bethany, who poured perfumed ointment on the head of Jesus, is described in three gospels 130. There are several contradictions

between the different accounts.

125 Luke 12:49 126 Matt. 20:21 127 Mark 10:35 128 Matt. 21:40,41 129 Luke 20:15,16 2 1. Mark 131 reports that this event took place two days before the feast of Passover 132, while John reports it to have happened six days prior to

the festival 133. Matthew is silent regarding the time of this incident.

2. Mark and Matthew agree that Jesus was in the house of Simon the leper when the woman came, while John reports him to be in the house of

Lazarus, the brother of Mary.

3. Matthew and Mark agree that the ointment was poured on the head of Jesus 134 while John contradicts this and says that she anointed the feet

of Jesus 135.

4. Mark says that the people who rebuked the woman were from among the people who were present there at that time, while Matthew has said that they were the disciples of Jesus, and John’s version is that the

objection was raised by Judas.

5. The three Gospels have quoted Jesus’ speech to his disciples on this

occasion differently.

The serious contradictions presented by these texts cannot be eliminated by 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 text.

Contradiction No. 112

A comparison of the texts of Matthew 22, Luke 26 and Mark 14 regarding

the description of The Last Supper 136, reveals two serious contradictions :

130 The gospels of Matthew, Mark and John have given details of this event. This gist of the story is that Jesus was at the meal at Bethany when a woman came with a costly perfume and poured it on Jesus. The disciples were angry at her for wasting such a costly thing which could help some poor man; Jesus rebuked them for it. 131 Mark 14:1 The Passover is a religious festival of the Jews which was celebrated on 14th April every year 132 in the memory of their exodus from Eygpt. 133 John 12:1 134 Matt. 26:7; Mark 14:3 135 John 12:3 136 The Last Supper or Eucharist is a sacramental rite of the Christian. According to the 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, “This is my body which is given to you, this do in rememberence of me,” After the supper he took a 2 1. There are two cups mentioned in Luke’s description, one before the meal and the other after it, while Matthew and Mark speak of only one cup. Apparently Luke’s description is erroneous, because this description involves serious objection against the faith of the Catholics who believe that the wine and the bread actually turn into the flesh and the body of

Christ.

2. According to Luke, the body of Christ was sacrificed only for the disciples 137, while Mark reports it to have been sacrificed is given for many 138 and from Matthew we understand that neither the body, nor the blood of Jesus is shed, but the blood of the New Testament is the thing which is shed for others. How the blood of the New Testament is shed is

a riddle.

We are greatly surprised to note that the Gospel of John describes ordinary events like Jesus riding on an ass or applying perfume to his clothes, but does not make any mention of as important an event as the Last

Supper which holds such a vital place in Christian ritual.

Contradiction No. 113

We read this verse in Matthew:

“Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life,

and few there be that find it 139.”

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 140.”

Contradiction No. 114

We read in chapter 4 of Matthew that the Devil first took Jesus to the Holy City, and set him on the pinnacle of the temple, then took him up to the peak of

cup with wine in it and said, “This cup is new testatment in my blood, which is shed for you,” The Christianshave made it a rite that they take a cup of wine and offer their thanks, and break bread and offer their thanks on it. The Catholics believe that the bread and wine actually turn into the body and flesh of Jesus. The ceremony was named Eucharist, which signify “thankfulness”, by Paul. 137 “This is my body which is given for you,” Luke 22:19 138 “This is my blood of the new testatment, which is shed for many.” Mark 14:24 139 Matt. 7:14 140 Matt. 11:29,30 2 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 141.”

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 142.

Luke reports this event differently. According to him the centurion himself did not come to Jesus, but sent some elders of the Jews. Then Jesus went with

them. When he came near the house:

“…the centurion sent friends to him saying unto him, Lord, trouble not thyself: for I am not worthy that you shouldest enter under my roof. Wherefore neither thought I myself worthy to come unto thee: but say in a

word, and my servant shall be healed 143.”

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 Transfiguration

141 Matt. 8:8 142 Matt. 8:13 143 Luke 7:6,7 2 144 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 devils. Then in other chapters he describes many other events and then in chapter 17 the event of the Transfiguration. Luke, on the other hand, first describes the mission of the disciples, then the Transfiguration of Jesus in the same chapter and then after the description of many other events in chapters 9,

10 and 11 he has the report of the dumb man healed by Jesus.

Contradiction No. 118

Mark states that the Jews crucified Christ at the third hour of the day 145. 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 146.

Contradiction No. 119

It is understood from the descriptions of Matthew and Mark that the soldiers who mocked Jesus and put the scarlet rope on him were Pilate’s soldiers not

Herod’s, while Luke’s statement is just the opposite.

144 The transfiguration took place on a mountain. Jesus, along with Peter, James and Jacob, went there and he was transfigured before their eyes, and his face shone like the sun. He was seen talking with Moses and Elias. A bright cloud overshadowed them, and a voice was heard, “This is my son in whom I am well pleased,” Matt. 17:5. This event is also known as the descend of the Holy Ghost. 145 Mark 15:25 146 John 9:14 2 THE ERRORS

This section contains the errors, mistakes and contradictions of the Biblical

Text that are in addition to the ones discussed previously.

Error No. 1

It is stated in the Book of Exodus that the period that the Israelites stayed in Egypt was 430 years, which is wrong. The period was 215 years 147. This error

is admitted by the historians and the biblical commentators.

Error No. 2

It appears in the Book of Numbers that the total number of the Israelites, who were 20 years of age or over, was six hundred thousand, while all the males and females of the Levites and the women and children of all the other tribes are 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 twenty seven.

Error No. 5

I Samuel contains this statement ”…fifty thousand, three score and ten men 148.”. The number fifty thousand in this verse is wrong as will be discussed

later.

147 Ex. 12:40 148⁷ 2 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 149.”

This is an exaggerated and erroneous account of the height. According to 1 Kings the height of the porch was thirty cubits 150. Adam Clarke in volume 2 of his commentary expressly admitted the error in this statement and said that

the height was twenty cubits.

Error No. 9

The Book of Joshua, describing the borders of the land given to the children

of Benjamin, states:

“And the border was drawn thence and compassed the corner of the sea

southward 151.”

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 152.”

149⁸

⁹ 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 153.”

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 hundred thousand chosen men 154.”

The numbers mentioned in the two texts are wrong. The commentators of the Bible have admitted the error. The Latin translators changed four hundred thousand to forty thousand, and eight hundred thousand to eighty thousand, and

five hundred thousand to fifty thousand men.

153¹⁰

¹¹ 2 Error No. 14

It is stated in 2 Chronicles:

“For the Lord brought Judah low because of Ahaz, King of Israel 155.”

The word Israel in this statement is certainly wrong, because Ahaz was the King of Judah and not the the King of Israel. The Greek and the Latin translations, therefore, have replaced Israel with Judah which is an open

distortion of the text of their Holy Scriptures.

Error No. 15

We find this statement in 2 Chronicles:

“…and made Zedekiah, his brother, king over Judah and Jerusalem.”

The words “his brother” are incorrect in this statement. It should say his uncle or his father’s brother 156. The Arabic and the Greek translators have replaced “his brother” with “his father’s brother”, another example of blatant manipulation of the text of the Holy scriptures. Ward says in his book words to this effect, “Since it was not correct, it has been changed to uncle in the Greek

and other translations.”

Error No. 16

The name “Hadarezer” is wrongly spelled in 2 Samuel 10:16-19 in three places and in 1 Chronicles 18:3-10 in seven places, whereas the correct spelling

is Hadadezer (as given in all other references in the Old Testament).

Errors No. 17-19

Another name “Achan” is given wrongly in the Book of Joshua 157. The

correct name is Achar, with an ‘r’ at the end 158.

155¹² 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 Uriah 159”.

Error No. 19

The Second Book of Kings 160 gives the name “Azariah” which is certainly wrong. It should be “Uzziah”, as can be ascertained from several other sources

161.

Error No. 20

The name “Jehoahaz”, which appears in 2 Chronicles 162, 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 Chronicles 163 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.”

159¹³

¹⁴¹⁵

¹⁶ 2 While the Persian translation and English version says:

“…and within three score and five years shall Ephraim be broken.”

Historically this prophecy was proved false, as in the sixth year of Hezekiah’s reign 164, 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

165. 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 166.”

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 167:

“ My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: his

days shall be an hundred and twenty years.”

164 “Even in the sixth year of Hezekiah, that is the ninth year of Hoshea’s king of Israel, Samaria was taken. And the king of Assyria did carry away Israel unto Assyria.” 2 Kings 18:10,11 165 Because Isaiah had predicted this in the reign of Ahaz (Isaiah 7:1) and the period between the reign of Ahaz and of Hoshea is 12 years (2 Kings 17:1) and nine years after his succession to throne, the fall of Ephraim was completed. This makes it twenty-one years contrary to the prediction which says sixty-five years. 166 Gen. 2:17 167 Gen. 6:3 2 To say that the age of man is a hundred and twenty years is erroneous, as we know that the men of earlier ages lived far longer – Noah’s age, for instance, 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

present-day man is usually seventy or eighty years.

Error No. 25

Genesis reports this address of God to Abraham:

“And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, and

I will be their God.”

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 revolutions.

Errors No. 26, 27, 28

The Book of Jeremiah says:

“The word that came to Jeremiah, concerning all the people of Judah in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, the son of Josiah, king of Judah, that was the

first year of Nebuchadrezzar, king of Babylon.”

Further in the same chapter it says:

“And this whole land shall be desolation, and an astonishment: and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years. And it shall come to pass, when seventy years are accomplished, that I will punish the king of Babylon, and that nation, saith the Lord, for their iniquity, and the land of

Chaldeans, and will make it perpetual desolations 168.”

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

168 Jer. 25:1,11,12 2 Judah and Jerusalem, and the carpenters, and the smiths were deported from

Jerusalem;)” 169

And further in the same chapter we read:

“For thus saith the, Lord, that after seventy years be accomplished at Babylon I will visit you and perform my good word to you in causing you to

return to this place 170.”

In the Persian translation of 1848 we find these words:

“After seventy years be accomplished in Babylon, I will turn towards you.”

Further in chapter 52 of the same book we find the following statement:

“This is the people whom Nebuchadrezzar carried away captive in the seventh year, three thousand Jews and three and twenty: In the eighteenth year of 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 captive of the Jews seven hundred forty and five persons: all the persons were four

thousand and six hundred 171.”

After a careful reading of the several passages quoted above the following

three points are established:

1. Nebuchadnezzar ascended the throne in the fourth year of the reign of Jehoiakim. That is historically correct. The Jewish historian Josephus said in Vol. 10 and Chapter 5 of his history that Nebuchadnezzar ascended the throne of Babylon in the fourth year of Jehoiakim. It is, therefore, necessary that the

first year of Nebuchadnezzar must coincide with the fourth year of Jehoiakim.

2. Jeremiah sent his words (the book) to the Jews after the deportation of

Jeconiah, the king, the elders of Judah and other artisans to Babylon.

3. The cumulative number of the captives in the three exiles was four thousand and six hundred, and that the third exile by Nebuchadnezzar took

place in the twenty-third year of his reign.

169 Jer. 29:1,2 170 Jer. 29:10 171 Jer. 52:28-30 2 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 edition.

THE YEAR THE

OF THE THE EVENT YEAR

CREATION BEFORE CHRIST

BC

3405 Jerenish’s writing to the Captives of Babylon 599

3468 The death of Darius , the uncle of Koreish the 356

ascension of Cyrus to the throne of Babylon, Madi

and Pharus .His orders to release the Jews and

send them back to Jerusalem

Secondly, the cumulative number of those exiled during the three exiles is mentioned as four thousand and six hundred people, while according to 2 Kings the number of captives, including the princes and the brave men of Jerusalem, at the time of the first exile, was three thousand, the craftsmen and the smiths not

being included in this number 172 Thirdly, from the text quoted above, we understand that the third capacity took place in the twenty-third year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign whereas this is contradicted in 2 Kings which says that Nebuzar-adan took them captive in the

nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar 173.

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 me 174.”

172 “And he carried away all Jerusalem, and all princes, and all the mighty men of valour, even three thousand captives, and all the craftsmen and smiths.” 2 Kings 24:14 173 “… the nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, came Nebuzar-adan …” 2 Kings 25:8 174 Ezek. 26:1 2 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 field, 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 175.”

History proved this prediction false because Nebuchadnezzar tried his best to capture the city of Tyrus, and kept the city in a state of siege for thirteen years, but had to go back without success. Since it is inconceivable that God’s promise

would not be fulfilled, it must be that the prediction itself is misreported.

In Chapter 29, we find the following words attributed to Ezekiel:

“And it came to pass in the seven and twentieth year, in the first month,

in the first day of the month, the word of the Lord came unto me saying,” “Son of man, Nebuchadrezzar, king of Babylon caused his army to serve a great 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 wherewith he served

against it…” 176

175 Ezek. 26:7-12 176 Ezek. 29:17-20 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 177.”

The Judea-Christian scholars, from the very beginning, have wondered about the significance of this prediction. Almost all the Judea-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 178, 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 Isaac Newton

rejected the assumption that Antiochus had to do anything with this vision. Thomas Newton who wrote a commentary on the predictions and prophesies of the Bible first quoted several other commentators on this point, and then, like Isaac Newton, completely rejected the possibility of it being Antiochus who is referred to in this vision of Hezekiah. He asserted that the Roman emperors and

the Popes are the import of the vision. Snell Chauncy also wrote a commentary on the predictions of the Bible which was published in 1838. He claimed that in his commentary he incorporated the essence of eighty five other commentaries. Commenting on this vision he said that from the earliest times it has been very difficult for the scholars to ascertain and define the time of the commencement of the event to

which this vision refers 179.

177 Dan. 8:13 178 According to 1 Maccabees 1:59 Antiochus invaded Jerusalem in 168 BC and not 161 BC 179 As far as we understand Snell Chauncy interpreting the days of this vision as years has presumed that the vision foretold the reapperance 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 occasion when Jerusalem has been taken out of the possession of Judaeo-Christian followers.

2 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 A,D 3. According to the third command of Ardashir it would be 1843 A.D

3. 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 right 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 writer himself. The word is used in both the Old and the New Testaments in its usual meaning and never means ”year”. Even if we accept that the word might have been used to mean ”year” it would have been in a figurative sense; but a figurative use of a word requires some strong 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 Daniel states 180

180 Dan. 12:11,12 2 “And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two

hundred and ninety days.” “Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and

five 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 iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to

seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy 181.”

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 Ezra 182 and the birth of the Prophet Jesus is nearly six hundred years according to Josephus and five hundred and thirty-

six years in Snell Chaucy’s estimation. Secondly, if we accept this as a correct explanation, it would mean that all true dreams have come to end for ever, which is obviously untrue. Watson, in the third part of his book, has reproduced Dr. Grib’s letter who said, ”The Jews have so much distorted the text of this prophecy that it has been rendered inapplicable to Jesus.” This confession by Watson is enough to confirm our contention that this prediction, according to the original copy of the Book of Daniel, still preserved with the Jews, which is free from the objection of any

kind of manipulation, that this prophecy is inapplicable to Jesus. Thirdly, the word ”Christ”, meaning anointed, has been used for all the kings of the Jews irrespective of their character or deeds. It appears in Psalm 18 verse 50. Similarly, David is mentioned as the anointed in Psalm 131. And also 1 Samuel contains this statement of David regarding King Saul, who is said to

have been one of the worst kings of the Jews;

181 Dan. 9:24 182 Ezra 1:1 2 “Behold this day thine eyes have seen how that the Lord hath delivered thee into mine hand in the cave: and some bade me to kill thee: but mine eye spared thee; and I said, I will not put forth mine hand against my lord, for he

is the Lord’s anointed 183.”

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,” Isaiah 184”

Cyrus, the king of Persia, is mentioned as God’s anointed or the Christ in this text. Cyrus is the one who liberated the Jews from their captivity and

allowed 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 185.”

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 186the Emperor of Rome, persecuted them so barbarously that one million of the Jews were killed, a hundred thousand people were hanged and ninety-nine thousand were imprisoned. Up to this day their descendants are

living in degradation around the world.

183¹⁷

¹⁸ 2 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 kingdom.” “He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish 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 established for ever before

thee; thy throne shall be established for ever 187.”

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 188.”

Although, God had promised everlasting kingdom in the family of David, this promise was not fulfilled, as the family of David was deprived of the

kingdom, a long time ago.

Error No. 35

Paul reported God’s word regarding the prominence of Jesus over the angels

in his letter to the Hebrews 189

“I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son 190.”

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.

187¹⁹

²⁰ 2 1. The text of Chronicles is unambiguous saying that the son’s name will be

Solomon.

2. Both the texts say that he would build a house in the name of God. This can only be applied to Solomon who built the house of God, as promised. Jesus, on the other hand was born one thousand and three years after the construction of this house and used to talk of its destruction. This will be

discussed under Error No.79.

3. Both predictions foretold that he would be a king, where as Jesus was not

a king, on the contrary he was a poor man as he himself said:

“And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the

air have nests; but the son of man hath not where to lay his head 191.”

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. According 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 worship, building temples for the idols, and committing himself to heathenism 192. 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:

191 Matt. 8:20 192 See Kings 11 and Nehemiah 13:26 2 “I will give peace and quietness unto Israel in his days.”

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 prediction was made

about him. This is clear from 2 Chronicles 193. 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 prediction, even according to the Christian scholars. In order to remove the contradiction between the genealogical descriptions of Jesus in Mathew and Luke, they have said that Matthew described the genealogy of Joseph of Nazareth, while Luke described the genealogy of Mary. However, Jesus was not the son of Joseph, but rather the son of Mary, and according to her genealogy Jesus is

the descendant of Nathan, son of David, and not the son of Solomon.

Error No. 36

It is said regarding the Prophet Elijah in I Kings:

“And the word of Lord came unto him, saying, Get thee hence, and turn thee eastward, and hide thyself by the brook

Cherith, that is before Jordan. And it shall be, that thou shalt drink of the brook; and I have commanded

the ravens to feed thee there. So he went and did according unto the word of the Lord: for he went and

dwelt by the brook Cherith, that is before Jordan, And the ravens brought him bread and flesh in the morning, and bread

and flesh in the evening, and he drank of the brook 194.”

In the above text the word ’raven’ is a translation of the original word ’arem’. All the translators except Jerome have translated it as ’raven’, only Jerome has translated it differently as ”Arab”. Since his opinion did not gain popularity, his followers distorted the texts in Latin translations and changed the

193 “But the Lord said to David my father, Forasmush as it was in 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 194²¹ 2 word ’Arab’ to raven. This has been much laughed at by non-Christian scholars. Horne, a famous scholar, was much surprised at it and was, in fact, inclined to agree with Jerome in that the word ’arem’ most likely signifies ’Arab’ and not raven. He greatly criticised the other translators and gave three arguments to prove the absurdity of their opinion. He said on page 639 of the first volume of

his commentary 195: 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 certainly 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’s reign over Israel, in the month Zif, which is the second month, that he began to build

the house of Lord 196.”

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

example, said, when commenting on this verse in Vol. 2 of his commentary:

195 We give the contents, abridged in our own words. 196²² 2 “The historians have differed 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 Judea-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 generations 197.”

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 modern 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, describing the

genealogy of the Christ, the Gospel of Matthew states:

“Josias begat Jeconias and his brethren, in the captivity of Babylon 198.”

197 Matt. 1:17 198 Matt. 1:11 2 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 199. 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 200 therefore his birth in

this period is out of the question. 4. Jeconias had no brothers but his father had three brothers.

In view of the above textual difficulties, the commentator Adam Clarke

reported in his commentaries that:

“Calmet suggested that this verse should be read as follows: ‘Josiah begat Jehoiakin, and his brethren, Jehoiakin begat Jeconiah about the time of

carrying away to Babylon’.”

This suggestion 201 of manipulating the text of the holy scriptures is something to be noted by the reader. Even after this change, our objection

discussed in no. 3 above remains unaffected. In our opinion, some ingenious priests have deliberately deleted the word Jehoiakin from the text to avoid the objection that Jesus, being a descendant of

199 See 2 Chr. 35:23; 36:1,2,59; and 2 Kings 23:30,31,36 and 24:8 200²³ 2 Jehoiakin, would not be able to sit on the throne of David 202 and that in this

case it would no longer be possible for him to be the Messiah 203. They did not appreciate the implications that were to occur as a result of this tiny change in the text. Perhaps they thought it was easier to lay blame on Matthew than to preclude Jesus from being the descendant of David and from

his being the Messiah.

Error No. 43

The genealogical description in Matthew records seven generations between Judah and Salmon 204, 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 generations was longer than the second group. Matthew’s description puts seven generations in three

hundred years, and five generations in four hundred years.

Error No. 44

The second of the three groups of fourteen generations described by Matthew in the genealogy of Jesus, has in fact eighteen generations and not the fourteen mentioned in the third chapter of I Chronicles. Newman expressed great concern about this and mocked it saying that so far it had only been necessary to 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:

“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,

202 “Therefore, thus saith the loard of Jehoiakin king of Judah, we shall have none to sit upon the throne of David,” Jer. 36:30 203 According to Bible it is necessary for the Messiah to be a descendent of David. 204 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, Josiah, Jehoichin, and Jecomias, whereas Matthew records thirteen generations which is wrong. Matt. 1:6-11 2 son of Joram. These are the three generations which have been left out by Matthew perhaps to make them fourteen. These three were kings of repute. They are mentioned in Chapters 8, 12 and 14 of the Second Book of Kings, and in Chapters 22-25 of 2 Chronicles. There is no way of knowing why these generations have been left out by Matthew from the geneology. It

seems simply to be one of his great mistakes. 2. Is the correct name Uzziah or Ozias, as he is named by 2 Kings and I

Chronicles?

Error No. 47

Again in the same passage we find this statement:

“And Salathiel begat Zorobabel 205.”

This is also incorrect because Zorobabel was the son of Pedaiah and the

nephew of Salathiel as is expressly mentioned in I Chronicles 3.

Error No. 48

The same passage of genealogy in Matthew states:

“Zorobabel begat Abiud 206.”

This, too, is wrong since Zerubbabel had only five sons, as is confirmed by 1

Chronicles. None of the five sons is of this name 207. There are in all eleven errors in the genealogy recorded by Matthew. If the differences of Luke and Matthew, discussed earlier are also included they total seventeen mistakes. This short passage of Matthew is, therefore, erroneous in no

less than seventeen places.

Error No. 49

Matthew describes the event of some wise men from the east who had seen the star which was the sign of the birth of Christ. They came to Jerusalem, and, guided by the star, they reached Bethlehem where the star halted above the head

of the infant. Astronomically this statement is ridiculous and unacceptable. The movement of stars and some comets as seen from the earth is from the East to the West, and some of the comets move contrarily from the West to the East. Bethlehem is

205 Matt. 1:12 206 Matt. 1:13 207 “And the sons of Zerubbabel, Meshullam and Hananiah, and Shelomith, their sister: and Hashubah and Ohel, and Berechiah, and Hasadiah, Jushab-hesed five” 1 Chr. 3:25 2 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 208.

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’ 209.”

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’ 210.”

This is again incorrect for the following reasons:

1. The original word that has been translated as ’virgin’ by Matthew and the translator of the book of Isaiah is ’alamah’ which is the feminine form of ’alam’ which according to the Jewish scholars, signifies a ’young girl’ married or unmarried. This word is also used, as they say, in the Book of Proverbs, Chapter 30, where it is used for a young married woman. The three famous Latin translations say ’young woman’. These translations are the earliest known translations and are said to have been made in 129, 175, and 200. In view of these ancient translations and the opinion of the Jewish

scholars, Matthew’s statement is shown to be erroneous. Frier, in his book on the etymology of Hebrew words, a book that is considered the most authentic work on the subject, said that the word ’alamah, had a dual meaning: ’virgin’ and ’young woman’. His opinion, as compared to the commentaries of the Jews, is not acceptable, and even if we accept this opinion, the word cannot be taken to mean a virgin with any argument against the established meaning adopted by the commentators and the ancient translators. The above facts are certainly enough to prove falsity

208 This objection, in our opinion does not carry much weight, since Jesus was the Prophet who was born miraculously without a biological father. Besides, the movement of the comets and stars as explained by author was acceptable up to the 18th century AD. Modern scientific data, however, has produced more convincing explainations of the directions and paths of the stars. 209 Matt. 1:22,23 210 Isaiah 7:14 2 of the statement of the author of Meezan-ul-Haq, who claimed that the word

had no other meaning than ’virgin’.

2. Jesus was never called by the name Emmanuel, nor did his adopted

father 211 give this name to him:

“The angel told his father to call him with the name of Jesus 212.”

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 213.”

Apart from this Jesus himself never claimed that his name was

Emmanuel.

3. The passage where this word occurs precludes its application to Jesus. It states that Rezin, the king of Syria, and Pekah, the king of Israel, went together to war against Ahaz, the king of Judah. He was very frightened and God sent a revelation to Isaiah as a consolation for Ahaz, saying that he should not be frightened as his enemies would not be able to prevail against him, and that their kingdoms would be destroyed, and that the sign of their destruction was that a young woman would bring forth a son and before the

child grew up their kingdoms would be destroyed 214. In fact Jesus was born after 721 years of the destruction of the kingdoms which were destroyed only 21 years after the above Prophecy. Judea- Christian scholars disagree on this point. Some of them have claimed that Isaiah used the word ’young woman’ for his own wife who would conceive and give birth to a child. And the two kings, of whom the people were frightened, would be destroyed along with their kingdom before the child grew up. This was said by Dr. Benson and seems to have logic and bear

truth.

Error No. 51

There is another statement in Matthew regarding Joseph, the carpenter:

211 Joseph the carpenter 212 Matt. 1:21 213 Luke 1:31 214 Isaiah 7:1-17 2 “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 215.”

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, printed in 1811, reads like this:

“When Israel was a child, then I loved him and called his sons out of

Egypt.”

This verse, is in fact, an expression of God’s benevolence to the Israelites conferred upon them in the time of Moses. Matthew made two changes in the text. He changed the plural, ’sons’, into the singular, ’son’, and turned the 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 mentioned in these words:

“As they called them, so they went from them, they sacrificed unto

Baalim 216.”

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 men 217.”

This statement is wrong both logically and historically. Historically because none of the non-Christian historians mentioned 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

215 Matt. 2:15 216 Hosea 11:2 217 Matt. 2:16 2 have been very particular in describing any weak points of Herod which they could dig out from history, have not said anything in this regard. Had this incident been true they would have jumped at it and described it as negatively as possible. If any Christian historian were to describe it, he would certainly base

his description on the statement in the Gospel of Matthew. And logically it is not acceptable because Bethlehem, at that time, was a small village situated near Jerusalem. Herod, being the governor could easily have found out the house where the wise men had stayed. It was absolutely unnecessary for him to commit such a heinous act as killing innocent children

218.

Error No. 53

The Gospel of Matthew also contains this statement:

“Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremiah the Prophet,

saying, In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted

because they are not 219.”

This is again a clearly distorted rendering of the text of Jeremiah. Any reader can himself look up the passage in. Jeremiah 220 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’s invasion of Jerusalem. The people of Rachel’s tribe were among the Israelites who were exiled to Babylon. Her soul lamented over the misery of her people. God, therefore, promised that her

children would be released to go back to their own land.

Error No. 54

We find this statement in Matthew:

“And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets. He shall be called a Nazarene

221.”

218 This refers to the wise men who had seen the star of Jesus’ birt. They came to Jerusalem to search for him and tolf Herod, the governor about the child. Herod asked them to inform him when they found the child. When he came to know that the wise men had left without his knowledge, he sent his men to kill all the children, who were born within two years. 219 Matt. 2:17,18 220 Matt. 2:23 221 Matt. 31:15 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 Prophet 222.”

The Christian scholars have put forward 223 weak explanations regarding

this, which do not deserve any serious consideration. 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 wilderness of

Judaea 224.”

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

settled in the city of Nazareth, and that at this time came John, the Baptist. This statement is certainly wrong because John, the Baptist delivered his sermon preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins eighteen years after the events discussed above, since it is clear from Luke 225 that John, the Baptist delivered this sermon when Pontius Pilate was the governor of

222 John 7:52 223 The commentator R.A. Knox, a writer of modern times, after reproducing the opinions of various commentators has said words to the effect that there is no statement in the Old Testament that the Messiah would be a Nazarene. (The commentary on the New Testatment printed in London in 1953. Vol. I, page 4.) 224 Matt. 3:1 225 Luke 3:1 2 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’s wife 226.”

This statement is also historically wrong, because the name of Herodias’ husband was Herodius, as is stated by Josephus in Chapter 12 of Vol. 8 of his

history.

Error No. 57

It is stated in Matthew:

“But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was

an hungred, and they that were with him; How he entered into the house of God and did eat the shewbread, which

was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him 227.”

The phrase “neither for them which were with him” is clearly wrong as will

be discussed under Error No. 92.

Error No. 58

Matthew contains this statement:

“Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued,

whom they of the children of Israel did value 228.”

226 Matt. 14:3 227 Matt. 12:3,4 228 Matt. 27:9