Is the bible God's word?
Whether Catholic, Protestant or a “Cultist,” of the thousand and one sects and denominations-of-Christianity, never will you find a missionary who will not, prima facie, presuppose that his potential convert accepts his “Holy Bible” as the book of final authority on every religious opinion? The only answer the prospective proselyte has is to quote verses from the Bible which are contradictory to the missionary’s or debate their interpretations.
The dogged question
When the Muslim proves his point from the Christian’s own Holy Scripture, and when the professional priest, parson or predikant cannot refute the arguments the inevitable Christian evasion is “Do you accept the Bible as God’s word?
On the face of it, the question seems to be an easy one, but a simple “Yes” or “No” cannot be given as an answer. You see, one has first to explain one’s position. But the Christian will not give one the opportunity. He gets impatient.
“Answer ‘Yes or No!’ “ he insists. The Jews did the same to Jesus two thousand years ago, except that surprisingly he was not strait-jacketed, as is the fashion today!
The reader will readily agree that things are not always either black or white. Between these two extremes there are various shades of grey. If you say “Yes” to his question, then it would mean that you are prepared to swallow everything Hook, Line and Sinker, from Genesis to Revelation from his Bible.
If you respond with a “No” he quickly unhooks himself from the facts you have presented, and rallies support from his co-religionists in the audience with; “You see, this man does not believe in the Bible! What right has he to expound his case from our Book?” With this hydra-like somersault he rests content that he has safely evaded the issue. What is the Muballigh1to do? He has to explain his position vis-a-vis the Bible, as he ought to do.
- We Muslims have no hesitation in acknowledging that in the Bible, there are three different kinds of witnessing recognizable without any need of specialized training. These are:
You will be able to recognize in the Bible what may be described as “The Word of God.”
You will also be able to discern what can be described as the “Words of a Prophet of God.”
And you will most readily observe that the bulk of the Bible is the records of eye witnesses or ear witnesses, or people writing from hearsay. As such they are the “Words of a Historian”
You do not have to hunt for examples of these different types of evidences in the Bible. The following quotations will make the position crystal clear:
The first type
a) “I will raise them up a prophet ... and I will put my words in ... and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.”
b) “I even, I am the Lord, and beside me there is no saviour.”
c) “Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the end of the earth: for I am God, and there is non else.”
Note the first person pronoun singular in the above references, and without any difficulty you will agree that the statements seem to have the sound of being God’s Word.
The second type
a) “Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying Eli, Eli, lama sabachtani?”
b) “And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; the Lord our God is one Lord:”
c) “And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is God.”
Even a child will be able to affirm that: Jesus “cried” Jesus “answered” and Jesus “said” are the words of the one to whom they are attributed, i.e. the words of a prophet of God.
The third type
“And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he, (Jesus) came, if haply he (Jesus) might find anything thereon: and when he (Jesus) came to it, (Jesus) found nothing but leaves”
The bulk of the Bible is a witnessing of this third kind. These are the words of a third person. Note the pronouns. They are not the Words of God or of His prophet, but the words of a historian.
For the Muslim it is quite easy to distinguish the above types of evidence, because he also has them in his own faith. But of the followers of the different religions, he is the most fortunate in this that his various records are contained in separate Books!
One: The first kind ‘The Word of God’ is found in a Book called The Holy Quran.
Two: The second kind the words of ‘The Prophet of God’, (Muhammad) are recorded in the Books of Tradition called The Hadeeth.
Three: Evidence of the third kind abounds in different volume of Islamic history, written by some of high integrity and learning, and others of lesser trustworthiness, but the Muslim advisedly keeps his Books in separate volumes!
The Muslim keeps the above three types of evidence Jealously apart, in their proper gradations of authority. He never equates them. On the other hand, the “Holy Bible” contains a motley type of literature, which composes the embarrassing kind, the sordid, and the obscene all under the same cover A Christian is forced to concede equal spiritual import and authority to all, and is thus unfortunate in this regard.
The multiple bible versions
Before we scrutinize the various versions, let us clarify our own belief regarding the Books of God. When we say that we believe in the Tablets, the Psalms, the Gospel and the Quran, what do we really mean? We already know that the Holy Quran is the infallible Word of God, revealed to Prophet Muhammad word for word, through the agency of the Archangel Gabriel, and perfectly preserved and protected from human tampering for the past fourteen hundred years! See The Quran - The Miracle of Miracles Even hostile critics of Islam have grudgingly vouched for the purity of the Holy Quran:
“There is probably in the world no other book which has remained twelve centuries (now fourteen) with so pure a text.”
The Old and New Testaments we Muslims believe in is not the “Old and New Testaments” of the Jews and the Christians, though the words one Arabic, the other Hebrew are the same. We believe that whatever the Holy Prophet Moses preached to his people, was the revelation from God Almighty, but that Moses was not the author of those “books” attributed to him by the Jews and the Christians.
Likewise, we believe that the Psalms was the revelation of God granted to David, but that the present Psalms associated with his name are not that revelation. The Christians themselves do not insist that David is the sole author of “his” Psalms. (Later on you’ll read how Christian “Brains Trust” confess “Author; Principally David, though there are other writers.”)
What about the ‘Gospel’? or ‘good news’ which Jesus Christ preached during his short ministry. The “Gospel” writers often mention that Jesus going about and preaching the Gospel “And Jesus went ... preaching the gospel ... and healing every disease among the people.”
“but whosoever shall lose his fife for my sake and the gospel’s, the same shall save it.”
“preached the gospel”
The “gospel” is a frequently used word, but what Gospel did Jesus preach? Of the 27 books of the New Testament, only a small fraction can be accepted as the words of Jesus. The Christians boast about the Gospels according to St. Matthew, according to St. Mark, according to St. Luke and according to St. John, but there is not a single Gospel “according” to (St.) Jesus himself! We sincerely believe that everything Christ preached was from God. That was the Injeel, the good news and the guidance of God for the Children of Israel. In his life-time Jesus never wrote a single word, nor did he instruct anyone to do so. What passes off as the “Gospels” today are the works of anonymous hands!
The question before us is:
“Do you accept that the Bible is God’s Word?” The question is really in the form of a challenge. The questioner is not simply seeking enlightenment. The question is posed in the spirit of a debate. We have every right to demand in a similar vein “Which Bible are you talking about?”, we may ask.
“Why, there is only one Bible!”.
The Catholic bible
Holding the “Douay” Roman Catholic Version of the Bible aloft in my hand, I ask, “Do you accept this Bible as the Word of God?” For reasons best known to themselves, the Catholic Truth Society have published their Version of the Bible in a very short, sturnpy form. This Version is a very odd proportion of the numerous Versions in the market today.
The Christian questioner is taken aback. “What Bible is that?” he asks. “Why, I thought you said that there was only one Bible!” I remind him. “Yes,” he murmurs hesitantly, “but what Version is that?” “Why, would that make any difference?” I enquire. Of course it does, and the professional preacher knows that it does. He is only bluffing with his “one Bible” claim.
The Roman Catholic Bible was published at Rheims in 1582, from Jerome’s Latin Vulgate and reproduced at Douay in 1609. As such the RCV (Roman Catholic Version) is the oldest Version that one can still buy today. Despite its antiquity, the whole of the Protestant world, including the “cults”condemn the RCV because it contains seven extra “books” which they contemptuously refer to as the “apocrypha” i.e. of doubtful authority. Notwithstanding the dire warning contained in the Apocalypse, which is the last book in the RCV (renamed as “Revelation” by the Protestants), it is “revealed”:
“If any man shall add to these things (or delete) God shall add unto him the plagues written in this Book.”
But who cares! They do not really believe! The Protestants have bravely expunged seven whole books from their Book of God! The outcasts are:
The Book of Judith The Book of Tobias The Book of Baruch The Buck of Esther, etc.
The Protestant bible
Sir Winston Churchill has some pertinent things to say about the Authorised Version (AV) of the Protestant Bible, which is also widely known as the “King James Version
“The authorised version of the bible was published in 1611 by the will and command of his majesty king James the 1st whose name it bears till today.”
The Roman Catholics, believing as they do that the Protestants have mutilated the Book of God, are yet aiding and abetting the Protestant “crime” by forcing their native converts to purchase the Authorised Version (AV) of the Bible, which is the only Bible available in some 1500 languages of the lesser developed nations of the world. The Roman Catholics milk their cows, but the feeding is left to the Protestants! The overwhelming majority of Christians both Catholics and Protestant use the Authorised (AV) or the King James Version (KJV) as it is alternatively called.
First published, as Sir Winston says, in 1611, and then revised in 1881 (RV), and now re-revised and brought up to date as the Revised Standard Version (RSV) 1952, and now again re-revised in 1971 (still RSV for short). Let us see what opinion Christendom has of this most revised Bible, the RSV:
1. “The finest version which has been produced in the present century.”
2. “A completely fresh translation by scholars of the highest eminence.”
3. “The well-loved characteristics of the authorised version combined with a new accuracy of translation.”
4. “The most accurate and close rendering of the original”
The publishers (Collins) themselves, in their notes on the Bible at the end of their production, say on page 10:
“This bible (RSV), is the product of thirty-two scholars, assisted by an advisory committee representing fifty co-operating denominations.” Why all this boasting? To make the gullible public buy their product? All these testimonies convince the purchaser that he is backing the right horse, with the purchaser little suspecting that he is being taken for a ride. See The Multiple Bible's Versions.
The world’s best seller
But what about the Authorised Version of the Bible (AV), the “World’s Best Seller?” These Revisers, all good salesmen, have some very pretty things to say about it. However, their page iii, paragraph six of the preface of the RSV reads:
“The king James version (alternative description of av) has with good reason been termed ‘the noblest monument of English prose.’ its revisers in 1881 expressed admiration for ‘its simplicity, its dignity, its power, its happy turns of expression ... the music of its cadences, and the felicities of its rhythm.’ it entered, as no other book has, into the making of the personal character and the public institutions of the English-speaking peoples. we owe to it an incalculable debt.”
Can you, dear reader, imagine a more magnificent tribute being paid to the “Book of Books” than the above? I, for one, cannot. Let the believing Christian, now steel himself for the un-kindest blow of all from his own beloved Lawyers of Religion; for in the very same breath they say:
“Yet the king James version has grave defects.” and, “that these defects are so many and so serious as to call for revision ...” This is straight from the horse’s mouth, i.e. the orthodox Christian scholars of “the highest eminence.” Another galaxy of Doctors of Divinity are now required to produce an encyclopedia explaining the cause of those grave and serious defects in their Holy Writ and their reasons for eliminating them.
Fifty thousand errors!
The Jehovah’s Witnesses in their “AWAKE!” Magazine dated 8 September, 1957, carried this startling headline “50,000 Errors in The Bible?”.
While I was still formulating the theme of this booklet, I heard a knock at my door one Sunday morning. I opened the door. A European gentleman stood there, grinning broadly. “Good morning’” he said. “Good morning” I replied. He was offering me his “Awake” and “Watchtower” magazines. Yes, a Jehovah’s Witness! If a few had knocked at your door previously, you will recognize them immediately. The most supercilious lot of people who ever knocked at people’s doors! I invited him in.
As soon as he settled down, I produced the full reproduction of what you see below. Pointing to the monograph at the top of the page, I asked, “Is this your’s?” He readily recognised his own. I said, “It says:
50,000 Errors in the Bible, is it true?” “What’s that!” he exclaimed. I repeated, “I said, that it says, that there are 50,000 errors in your Bible.” “Where did you get that?” He asked. (This was published 53 years ago, when he was perhaps a little nipper) I said, “Leave the fancy talk aside is this your’s?” pointing again to the monograph “Awake!” He said, “Can I have a look?” “Of course,” I said. I handed him the page. He started perusing.
They (the Jehovah’s Witnesses) are trained. They attend classes five times a week in their “Kingdom Halls.” Naturally, they are the fittest missionaries among the thousand and one sects and denominations of Christendom. They are taught that when cornered, do not commit yourself to anything, do not open your mouths. Wait for the Holy Ghost to inspire you with what to say.
I silently kept watching him, while he browsed the page. Suddenly he looked up. He had found it. The “Holy Ghost” had tickled him. He began, “The article says that “most of those errors have been eliminated.” I asked “If most are eliminated, how many remain out of 50,000? 5000? 500? 50? Even if 50 remain, do you attribute those errors to God?” He was speechless. He excused himself by suggesting that he will come again with some senior member of his Church. That will be the day!
This “cult” of Jehovah’s Witnesses which is so strong in its condemnation of the orthodox Trinitarians, for playing with the “Word of God,” is itself playing the same game of semantic gymnastics. In the article under review “50,000 Errors In The Bible?” they say: “there are probably 50,000 errors ... errors that have crept into the Bible text ... 50,000 such serious errors... most of those so-called errors... as a whole the Bible is accurate.”
We do not have the time and space to go into the tens of thousands of grave or minor defects that the authors of the Revised Standard Version (RSV) have attempted to revise. We leave that privilege to the Christian scholars of the Bible.
Here I will endeavour to cast just a cursory glance at a “half-a-dozen” or so of those “minor” changes:
1. “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign: Behold, a Virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”
The indispensable “Virgin” in the above verse has now been replaced in the RSV with the phrase “a young woman,” which is the correct translation of the Hebrew word Almah. Almah is the word which has occurred all along in the Hebrew text and not bethulah which means Virgin. This correction is only to be found in the English language translation, as the RSV is only published in this tongue. For the African and the Afrikaner, the Arab and the Zulu, in fact, in the 1 500 other languages of the world, Christians are made to continue to swallow the misnomer “Virgin.”
Begotten, not made
“Jesus is the only begotten son of God, begotten not made,” is an adjunct of the orthodox catechism, leaning for support on the following:
2. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only BEGOTTEN son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”
No priest worth his cloth would fail to quote “the only Begotten of the Father!” when preaching to a prospective convert. But this fabrication “Begotten” has now been unceremoniously excised by the Bible Revisers, without a word of excuse. They are as silent as church-mice and would not draw the reader’s attention to their furtive excision. This blasphemous word “Begotten” was another of the many such interpolations in the “Holy Bible.” God Almighty condemned this blasphemy in the strongest terms soon after its innovation. He did not wait for 2000 years for Bible scholars to reveal the fraud:
“They say: (God) Most Gracious has begotten a son! Indeed ye have put forth a thing most monstrous! At it the skies are ready to burst, the earth to split asunder, and the mountains to fall down in utter ruin, That they should invoke a son for (God) Most Gracious. For it is not consonant with the majesty of (God) Most Gracious that He should beget a son.”
The Muslim World should congratulate the “Fifty cooperating denominations” of Christendom and their Brains Trust the “Thirty-two scholars of the highest eminence” for bringing their Holy Bible a degree nearer to the Quranic truth: “He begetteth not, nor is He begotten;”
3. “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.”
This verse is the closest approximation to what the Christians call their Holy Trinity in the encyclopaedia called the Bible. This key-stone of the Christian faith has also been scrapped from the RSV without even a semblance of explanation. It has been a pious fraud all along and well-deservedly has it been expunged in the RSV for the English-speaking people. But for the 1499 remaining language groups of the world who read the Christian concoctions in their mother tongues, the fraud remains.
These people will never know the truth until the Day of Judgement. However, we Muslims must again congratulate the galaxy of D.D.’s who have been honest enough to eliminate another lie from the English (RSV) Bible, thus bringing their Holy Book yet another step closer to the teachings of Islam. For the Holy Quran says:
“Say not ‘Trinity’: desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is one Allah”
One of the most serious of those “grave defects” which the authors of the RSV had tried to rectify concerned the Ascension of Christ. There have been only two references in the Canonical Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and of John to the most stupendous event in Christianity of Jesus being taken up into heaven. These two references were obtained in every Bible in every language, prior to 1952, when the RSV first appeared. These were:
4a. “So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God.”
4b. “While he blessed them, he parted from them, and was carried up into heaven.”
You will be shocked to note that Mark 16 ends at verse 8, and after an embarrassing expanse of blank space the missing verses appear in “small print” as a footnote at the bottom of the page. If you can lay your hands on a RSV 1952, you will find the last six words of 4b above, i.e. “and was carried up into heaven” replaced by a tiny “a” to tell you to see the footnote if you please, where you will find these missing words. Every honest Christian has to admit that he does not consider any footnote in any Bible as the word of God. Why should the paid servants of Christianity consign the mightiest miracle of their religion to a mere footnote?
From the Chart “The Origin and Growth of the English Bible” appearing below, you will note that all the Biblical “Versions” prior to the Revised Version of 1881 were dependent upon the Ancient copies those dating only five or six hundred years after Jesus. The Revisers of the RSV 1952, were the first Bible scholars who were able to tap the “Most Ancient Copies” fully, dating three and four centuries after Christ.
We agree that the closer to the source the more authentic is the document. Naturally “Most” Ancient deserves credence more than mere “Ancient.” But not finding a word about Jesus being “taken up” or “carried up” into heaven in the Most Ancient manuscripts, the Christian fathers expurgated those references from the RSV 1952.
The donkey circus
The above facts are a staggering confession by Christendom that the “inspired” authors of the Canonical Gospels did not record a single word about the Ascension of Jesus- Yet these “inspired” authors were unanimous in recording that their Lord and Saviour rode a donkey into Jerusalem as his mission drew to a close:
- “And they sat him thereon.”
- “And he sat upon him.”
- “And they set Jesus Thereon.”
- “Jesus ... sat thereon:”
Could God Almighty have been the author of this incongruous situation going out of His Way to see that all the Gospel writers did not miss their footing recording of His “son’s” donkey-ride into the Holy City and yet “inspiring” them to black-out the news about His “son’s” heavenly flight on the wings of angels?
Not for long!
The hot-gospellers and the Bible-thumpers were too slow in catching the Joke. By the time they realised that the corner-stone of their preaching The Ascension Of Jesus had been undermined as a result of Christian Biblical erudition, the publishers of the RSV had already raked in a net profit of US$15,000,000! (Fifteen Million). The propagandists made a big hue and cry, and with the backing of two denominational committees out of the fifty, forced the Publishers to re-incorporate the interpolations into the “Inspired” Word of God in every new publication of the RSV after 1952, the expunged portion was “Restored To The Text.”
It is an old, old game. The Jews and the Christians have been editing their “Book of God” from its very inception. The difference between them and the ancient forgerers is that the ancient forgers did not know the art of writing “prefaces” and “footnotes”, otherwise they too would have told us as clearly as our modern heroes have about their tampering, and their glib excuses for transmuting forged currency into glittering gold.
“many proposals for modification were submitted to the committee by individuals and by two denominational committees all of these were given careful attention by the committee.
“Two passages, the I longer ending of... and are restored to the text.”
“Why ‘restored’”? Because they had been previously expunged! Why had the references to the Ascension expunged in the first place? The most Ancient manuscripts had no references to the Ascension at all. They were interpolations similar to 1 John 5:7 about the Trinity.
Why eliminate one and re-instate the other? Do not be surprised! By the time you lay your hands on a RSV, the “Committee” might also have decided to expunge the whole of their invaluable Preface. The Jehovah’s Witnesses have already eliminated 27 revealing pages of their Foreword to their “New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures,” (this is their way of saying New Testament). See The Origin Of The New Testament
Allah in the Christian Bible
The Rev. C. I. Scofield, D. D. with a team of 8 Consulting Editors, also all D.D.’s in the “Scofield Reference Bible” thought it appropriate to spell the Hebrew word “Elah” (meaning God) alternatively as “Alah” The Christians had thus swallowed the camel they seemed to have accepted at last that the name of God is Allah but were still straining at the gnat by spelling Allah with one “L”!
References were made in public lectures to this fact by the author of this booklet. Believe me, the subsequent “Scofield Reference Bible” has retained word for word the whole commentary of Genesis 1:1, but has, by a clever sleight-of- hand, blotted out the word “Alah” altogether. There is not even a gap where the word “Alah” once used to be. What Is His Name” . This is in the Bible of the orthodox! One is hard pressed to keep up with their Jugglery.“
Mrs. Ellen G. White, a “prophetess” of the Seventh Day Adventist Church, in her Bible Commentary Vol. 1, page 14, has this confession to make about the fallibility of the “Holy Bible.”
“The bible we read today is the work of many copyists who have in most instances done their work with marvellous accuracy. but copyists have not been infallible, and god most evidently has not seen fit to preserve them altogether from error in transcribing.”
In the following pages of her commentary, Mrs. White testifies further: “I saw that god had especially guarded the bible” (from what?) “yet when copies of it were few, learned men had in some instances changed the words, thinking that they were making it plain, when in reality they were mystifying that which was plain, by causing it to lean to their established views, which were governed by tradition.”
The mental malady is a cultivated one. This authoress and her followers can still trumpet from roof tops that “Truly, the Bible is the infallible Word of God.” “Yes, it is adulterated, but pure” “It is human, yet divine.” Do words have any meaning in their language? Yes, they have in their courts of law, but not in their theology. They carry a “poetic license” in their preaching.
The most vociferous of all the Bible-thumpers are the Jehovah’s Witnesses. On page 5 of their “Foreword” mentioned earlier, they confess:
“In copying the inspired originals by hand the element of human frailty entered in, and so none of the thousands of copies extant today in the original language are perfect duplicates. the result is that no two copies are exactly alike” Now you see, why the whole “foreword” of 27 pages is eliminated from their Bibles. Allah was making them to hang themselves with their own erudition.
Out of over four thousand differing manuscripts the Christians boast about, the Church fathers just selected four which tallied with their prejudices and called them Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. We will deal with each of them in their proper place. Here/ let us go over the conclusion of the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ research as recorded in the now expunged Foreword:
“The evidence is, therefore, that the original text of the Christian Greek scriptures (New Testament) has been tampered with, the same as the text of the lxx the same as the text of the lxx.
Yet this incorrigible Cult has the effrontery to publish 9,000,000 (Nine Million) copies as a First Edition of a 192 page book entitled “Is the Bible Really the Word of God?” We are dealing here with a sick mentality, for no amount of tampering, as they say, will “Appreciably affect the authenticity of the bible”. This is Christian logic!.
A patient hearing
Dr. Graham Scroggie in his aforementioned book, pleads, on page 29. for the Bible: “And let us be perfectly fair as we pursue the subject (Is the Bible God's word?). Bearing in mind that we are to hear what the bible has to say about itself. in a court of law we assume that a witness will speak the truth, and must accept what he says unless we have good grounds for suspecting him, or can prove him a liar. surely the bible should be given the same opportunity to be heard, and should receive a like patient hearing.”
The plea is fair and reasonable. We will do exactly as he asks and let the Bible speak for itself. In the first five books of the Bible Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy there are more than 700 statements which prove not only that God is not the Author of these books, but that EVEN Moses himself had no hand in them. Open these books at random and you will see:
- “And the Lord said unto him. Away, get thee down ...”
- “And Moses said unto the Lord, the people cannot come ...”
- “And the Lord said unto Moses, Go on before the people ...”
- “And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying ...”
- “And the Lord said unto Moses, Get down, charge the ...”
It is manifest and apparent that these are neither the Words of God nor of Moses. They indicate the voice of a third person writing from hearsay.
Moses writes his own obituary?
Could Moses had been a contributor to his own obituary before his demise? Did the Jews write their own obituaries? “So Moses ... died ... And he (God Almighty) buried him (Moses) ... he was 120 years old when he died ... And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses ...”
The New Testament
What about the so-called New Testament? because nowhere does the ‘New Testament’ calls itself the New Testament, and nowhere the Old Testament calls itself the Old Testament. And also the word “Bible” is unknown within the pages of the Bible. (God forgot to give a title to ‘His’ books!)
Why does every Gospel begin with the introduction According To ... According To ... Why “According to?”
Because not a single one of the vaunted four thousand copies extant carries its author’s autograph! Hence the supposition “according to!” Even the internal evidence proves that Matthew was not the author of the first Gospel which bears his name.
“And as Jesus passed forth thence, he (Jesus) saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he (Jesus) saith unto him (Matthew), follow me (Jesus) And he (Matthew) arose, and followed him (Jesus).”
Without any stretch of the imagination, one can see that the “He’s” and the “Him’s” of the above narration do not refer to Jesus or Matthew as its author, but some third person writing what he saw and heard a hearsay account. If we cannot even attribute this “book of dreams” (as the first Gospel is also described) to the disciple Matthew, how can we accept it as the Word of God?
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. See Jesus Christ In Islam
We are not alone in this discovery that Matthew did not write the “Gospel according to St. Matthew” and that it was written by some anonymous hand. J. B. Phillips concurs with us in our findings. He is the paid servant of the Anglican Church, a prebendary of the Chichester Cathedral, England. He would have no reason to lie or betray to the detriment of the official view of his Church! Refer to his introduction to the “Gospel of St. Matthew”.
Phillips has this to say about its authorship:
“Early tradition ascribed this gospel to the apostle Matthew, but scholars nowadays almost all reject this view.” In other words, St. Matthew did not write the Gospel which bears his name. This is the finding of Christian scholars of the highest eminence not of Hindus, Muslims and Jews who may be accused of bias. Let our Anglican friend continue: “The author, whom we still can conveniently call Matthew” “Conveniently” because otherwise every time we made a reference to “Matthew” we would have to say “The first book of The New Testament” Chapter so and so, verse so and so. And again and again “The first book ...” etc. Therefore, according to J. B. Phillips it is convenient that we give the book some name.
So why not “Matthew?” Suppose its as good a name as any other! Phillips continues: “The author has plainly drawn on the mysterious ‘Q’ which may have been a collection of oral traditions.” What is this “mysterious ‘Q’?’ ‘Q’ is short for the German word “quella” which means “sources.” There is supposed to be another document a common source to which our present Matthew, Mark and Luke had access. All these three authors, whoever they were, had a common eye on the material at hand. They were writing as if looking through “one” eye. And because they saw eye to eye, the first three “Gospels” came to be known as the Synoptic Gospels.
But what about that “inspiration” business? The Anglican prebendary has hit the nail on the head. He is, more than anyone else, entitled to do so. A paid servant of the Church, an orthodox evangelical Christian, a Bible scholar of repute, having direct access to the “original” Greek manuscripts, let him spell it out for us. (Notice how gently he lets the cat out of the bag): “He (Matthew) has used Mark’s Gospel freely” which in the language of the school- teacher “has been copying wholesale from Mark!” Yet the Christians call this wholesale plagiarism the Word of God?
Does it not make you wonder that an eye-witness and an ear-witness to the ministry of Jesus, which the disciple Matthew was supposed to be, instead of writing his own first hand impressions of the ministry of “his Lord” would go and steal from the writings of a youth (Mark), who was a ten year old lad when Jesus upbraided his nation? Why would an eye-witness and ear-witness copy from a fellow who himself was writing from hearsay? The disciple Matthew would not do any such silly thing. For an anonymous document has been imposed on the fair name of Matthew.
Plagiarism or literary kidnapping
Plagiarism means literary theft. Someone copies ad verbatim (word for word) from another’s writing and palms it off as his own, is known as plagiarism. This is a common trait amongst the 40 or so anonymous authors of the books of the Bible. The Christians boast about a supposedly common cord amongst the writers of the 66 Protestant booklets and the writers of the 73 Roman Catholic booklets called the “Holy Bible.” Some common cord there is, for Matthew and Luke, or whoever they were, had plagiarised 85% word for word from Mark! God Almighty did not dictate the same wordings to the synoptists (one-eyed). The Christians themselves admit this, because they do not believe in a verbal inspiration, as the Muslims do about the Holy Quran. (See “The Quran: The Miracles of Miracles”)
This 85% plagiarism of Matthew and Luke pales into insignificance compared to the literary kidnapping of the authors of the Old Testament where a hundred percent stealing occurs in the so-called Book of God. Christian scholars of the calibre of Bishop Kenneth Cragg euphemistically calls this stealing, “reproduction” and take pride in it.
Dr. Scroggie most enthusiastically quotes in his book Scroggie most enthusiastically quotes in his book (Is the Bible God's word?) a Dr. Joseph Parker for his unique eulogy of the Bible:
“What a book is the bible in the matter of variety of contents! ... whole pages are taken up with obscure names, and more is told of a genealogy than of the day of judgment. stories are half told, and the night falls before we can tell where victory lay. where is there anything” (in the religious literature of the world) “to correspond with this?”
A beautiful necklace of words and phrases undoubtedly! It is much ado about nothing, and rank blasphemy against God Almighty for authorising such an embarrassing hotch potch. Yet the Christians gloat over the very defects of their book, like Romeo over the “mole” on Juliet’s lip!
Nothing less than 100%
To demonstrate the degree of plagiarism practised by the “inspired” Bible writers, I asked my audience during a symposium at the University of Cape Town conducted between myself and Professor Cumpsty the Head of the Department of Theology on the subject “Is the Bible God’s Word?” to open their Bibles.
Some Christians are very fond of carrying their Bibles under their arms when religious discussions or debates take place. They seem to be utterly helpless without this book. At my suggestion a number of the audience began ruffling the pages. I asked them to open chapter 37 in the “Book of Isaiah.” When the audience was ready, I asked them to compare my “Isaiah 37” with their “Isaiah 37” while I read, to see whether they were identical.
I began, readingly slowly. Verses 1, 2, 4,10, 15, and so on, until the end of the chapter. I kept on asking after every verse if what I had been reading, was identical with the verses in their Bibles. Again and again they chorused “Yeh!”, “Yeh!”. At the end of the chapter with the Bible still open in my hands at the place from which I had been reading, I made the Chairman to reveal to the audience that I was not reading from Isaiah 37 at all but from 2 Kings 19! There was a terrible consternation in the audience! I had thus established 100% plagiarism in the “Holy Bible.”
In other words, Isaiah 37 and 2 Kings 19 are identical word for word. Yet they have been attributed to two different authors, centuries apart, whom the Christians claim have been inspired by God.
Who is copying whom? Who is stealing from whom? The 32 renowned Bible scholars of the RSV say that the author of the Book of Kings is “Unknown!” See later on for a reproduction from the RSV by “Collins’”. These notes on the Bible were prepared and edited by the Right Rev. David J. Fant, Litt. D., General Secretary of the New York Bible Society. Naturally, if the Most Reverend gentlemen of Christiandom had an iota of belief about the Bible being the Word of God, they would have said so, but they honestly (shamefacedly?) confess: “Author UNKNOWN!” They are prepared to pay lip service to Scriptures which could have been penned by any Tom, Dick or Harry and expect everyone to regard these as the Word of God Heaven forbid!
II kings 19
“And it came to pass. when king Hezeki’ah heard it, that he rent his clothes, and covered himself with sackcloth, and went into the house of the lord.”
2. “And he sent Eli’akim. which was over the household, and Shebna the scribe, and the ‘elders of the priests, covered with sackcloth, to Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz.”
3. “And they said unto him. Thus saith Hezeki’ah, This day is a day of trouble, and of rebuke, and blasphemy: for the children are come to the birth, and there is not strength to bring forth.”
5. “So the servants of king Hezeki’ah came to Isaiah.”
10. “Thus shall ye speak to Hezeki’ah king of Judah, saying. Let not thy God in whom thou trustest deceive thee, saying. Jerusalem shall not be delivered into the hand of the king of Assyria.”
11. “Behold, thou hast heard what the kings of Assyria have done to all lands, by destroying them utterly: and shalt thou be delivered?”
12. “Have the gods of the nations delivered them which my fathers have destroyed; as Gozan, and Ha-ran. and Rezeph. and the children of Eden which were in Thel’-a-sar?”
14. “And Hezeki’ah received the letter of the hand of the messengers. and read it: and Hezekiah went up into the house of the lord, and spread it before the lord;”
15. “And Hezeki’ah prayed before the lord, and said. O lord God of Israel, which dwellest between the cher’-u-bims. thou art the God. even thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth, thou hast made heaven and earth.”
36. “So Sennach’erib king of Assyria departed, and went and returned, and dwelt at Nin’eveh.”
37. “And it came to pass. as he was worshipping in the house of Nis’-roch his god, that A-dram’-me-lech and Sha-re’-zer his sons smote him with the sword: and they escaped into - he land of Armenia. And E-sar-had’-don his son reigned in his stead.”
And it came to pass. when king Hezeki’ah heard it, that he rent his clothes, and covered himself with sackcloth, and went into the house of the lord.
2. “And he sent Eli’akim. who was over the household, and Shebna the scribe, and the elders of the priests covered with sackcloth, unto Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz.”
3. “And they said unto him. Thus saith Hezeki’ah, This day is a day of trouble, and of rebuke, and of blasphemy: for the children are come to the birth, and there is not strength to bring forth.”
5. “So the servants of king Hezeki’ah came to Isaiah.”
10. “Thus shall ye speak to Hezeki’ah king of Judah. saying. Let not thy God. in whom thou trustest, deceive thee, saving, Jerusalem shall not be given into the hand of the king of Assyria.”
11. “Behold, thou hast heard what the kings of Assyria have done to all lands by destroying them utterly; and shall thou be delivered?”
12. “Have the gods of the nations delivered them which my fathers have destroyed, as Gozan, and Haran. and Rezeph. and the children of Eden which were in Telas’sar?”
14. “And Hezeki’ah received the letter from the hand of the messengers, and read it: And Hezekiah went up unto the house of the lord, and spread it before the lord.”
15. “And Hezeki’ah prayed unto the lord, saying,”
16. “O lord of hosts. God of Israel. that dwellest between the cher’-u-bims, thou art the God, even thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth: thou hast made heaven and earth.”
37. “So Sennach’erib king of Assyria departed, and went and returned. and dwelt at Nin’eveh.”
38. “And it came to pass. as he was worshipping in thc_house of Nis’roch his god, that Adram’melecb and Sharc’zcr his sons smote him with the sword; and they escaped into the land of Armenia: and E’sarhad’don his son reigned in his stead.”
These verses are culled from the Authorised Version, but you will find the same in every Version. See The Old Testament.
No verbal inspiration
What have Christian scholars to say about the “Book of Isaiah?” They say: “Mainly credited to Isaiah. Parts may have been written by others” In view of the confessions of Bible scholars, we will not take poor Isaiah to task. Can we then nail this plagiarism on the door of God? What blasphemy!
Professor Cumptsy confirmed at question time, at the end of the aforementioned symposium that the “Christians do not believe in a verbal inspiration of the Bible” So God Almighty had not absent-mindedly dictated the same tale twice! Human hands, all too human, had played havoc with this so-called Word of God the Bible. Yet, Bible-thumpers will insist that “every word, comma and full stop of the Bible is God’s Word!”
The acid test
How do we know that a book claimed to be from God is really the Book of God? One of the tests, out of many such tests, is that a Message emanating from an Omniscient Being must be consistent with itself. It ought to be free from all discrepancies and contradictions. This is exactly what the Last Testament, the Book of God says:
“Do they not consider the Quran (with care)? Had it been from other Than Allah, they would surely have found therein Much discrepancy”.
God or the devil?
If God Almighty wants us to verify the authenticity of His Book (The Holy Quran) with this acid test, why should we not apply the very same test to any other Book claiming to be from Him? We do not want to bamboozle anybody with words as the Christians have been doing. It would be readily agreed from the references, I have given from Christian scholars, that they have been proving to us that the Bible is not the Word of God, yet making us believe that they have actually convinced us to the contrary.
A classic example of this sickness was in evidence again only “yesterday” The Anglican synod was in session in Grahamstown. The Most. Rev. Bill Burnett, the Archbishop was preaching to his flock. He created a confusion in his Anglican community. An erudite Englishman, addressing a group of learned English priests and bishops, in their own mother-tongue English, which his learned colleagues drastically misunderstood: to such an extent that Mr. McMillan, perhaps also an Anglican, the Editor of an English daily “The Natal Mercury” dated December 11, 1979, had this to say about the confusion the Archbishop had created among his own learned clergy:
“Archbishop burnetts remarks at the synod were hardly a model of clarity and were widely and dramatically misinterpreted by many of those present.”
There is nothing wrong with English as a language, but can’t you see that the Christian is trained in muddled thinking in all matters religious. The “bread” in his Holy Communion is not “bread” but “flesh?” The “wine” is “blood?” “Three is one?” and “Human is Divine?” But don’t make a mistake, he is not that simple when dealing with the earthly kingdom, he is then most precise. You will have to be doubly careful when entering into a contract with him! He can have you sold out, without you realising it.
The examples that I shall furnish in substantiating the points I have raised about the contradictions in the so-called Book of God, would be found so easy even for a child to follow and understand. See below.
II Samuel 24: The Numbering
“And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.”
While the author of Samuel 24 above, makes God the boss of the situation, the author of Chronicles below gives credit to the Devil.
I Chronicles 21 The Numbering
“And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.”
Apart from showing allegiance to God as is noted elsewhere, the Devil (Satan) is also given his due. This dichotomy on the part of the author of Chronicles reminds one of the story of the old woman who lit one candle to St. Michael and another to the devil. St. Michael was trampling underfoot, so that whether she went to Heaven or Hell, she would have a friend. This Chronicles fellow, made sure that he had a friend at court Above, as well as a friend at court Below. He wanted to have it both ways, or wanted to have his cake and eat it too.
You will observe that the authors of the books of “Chronicles” and of “Samuel” are telling us the same story about David taking a census of the Jews. Where did David get his “inspiration” to do this novel deed? The author of 2 Samuel 24:1 says that it was the “Lord” God who moved (RSV: “incited”) David, but the author of 1 Chronicles 21:1 says that it was “Satan” who Provoked (RSV: “incited”) David to do such a dastardly thing! How could the Almighty God have been the source of these contradictory “inspirations?” Is it God or is it Satan! In which religion is the devil synonymous with God?
I am not talking about “Satanism” a recent fungus growth of Christianity, in which ex-Christians worship the Devil. Christianity has been most prolific of spawning isms. Atheism, Communism, Fascism, Totalitarianism, Nazism, Mormonism, Moonism, Christian Scientism and now Satanism. What else will Christianity give birth to?
The “Holy Bible” lends itself to all kinds of contradictory interpretations. This is the Christian boast! “Some claim and rightly so, that biblical passages have been continuously misused and misappropriated to justify almost every evil known to man”
Who are the real authors?
As further evidence will be adduced from “Samuel” and “Chronicles” I deem it advisable first to determine their authors instead of suspecting God of those books’ incongruities. The Revisers of the RSV say:
a) Samuel: Author “Unknown” (Just one word)
b) Chronicles: Author “Unknown, probably collected and edited by Ezra.”
We must admire the humility of these Bible scholars, but their “possiblys” “probablys” and “likelys” are always construed as actually’s by their fleeced sheep. Why make poor Ezra or Isaiah the scapegoats for these anonymous writers?
What did the Lord decree 3 years famine or 7 years famine?
II Samuel 24:13
13. So Gad came to David, and told him, and said unto him, Shall seven years of famine come unto thee in thy land? Or wilt thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue, thee?
I Chronicles 21:11
11. So Gad came to David, and said unto him, Thus saith the Lord, Choose thee 12. Either three years’ famine; or three months to be destroyed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee;
If God is the Author of every single word, comma and full-stop in the Bible, as the Christians claim, then is He the Author of the above arithmetical discrepancy as well?
Three or seven?
Note the reproduction of above. Compare both the quotations. 2 Samuel 24:13 tells us — “So Gad came to David, and told him, and said unto him” These words are repeated word for word in 1 Chronicles 21:11, except the redundant “and told him” is removed! But while trimming the useless phrase, the author also pruned the time factor from “seven” years to “three” years. What did God say to Gad — Three or Seven years plague — “on both your houses?”
Eight or eighteen?
See below. Compare the two quotations. 2 Chronicles 36:9 tells us that Jehoiachin was “eight” years old when he began to reign, while 2 Kings 24:8 says that he was “eighteen” when he began to reign. The “unknown” author of Kings must have reasoned that what possible “evil” could a child of eight do to deserve his abdication, so he generously added ten years to make Jehoiachin mature enough to become liable to God’s wrath. However, he had to balance his tampering, so he cut short his reign by 10 days! Add ten years to age and deduct ten days from rule? Could God Almighty say two widely differing things on the same subject?
How old was Jehoiachin? 8 or 18?
Between Eight and Eighteen years, there is a gap or difference at a full 10 years. Can we say (God forbid!) that the all-knowing Almighty could not count, and thus did not know the difference between 8 and 18? If we are to believe in the Bible as the Word of God, then the Dignity and Status of the Lord Almighty will hit an all-time low!
II Chronicles 36
9. Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord.
II Kings 24
8. Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mothers name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.
Cavalry or infantry?
Compare the two quotations on page 40. How many chariot riders did David slay? Seven hundred or seven thousand? And further, did he slay 40000 “horsemen” or 40000 “footmen?” The implication in the conflicting records between 2 Samuel 10:18 and 1 Chronicles 19:18 is not only that God could not discern the difference between hundreds and thousands, but that He could not even distinguish “cavalry” from “infantry!” It is obvious that blasphemy masquerades in the Christian dictionary as “inspiration!”
700 or 7 000?
It is certainly naught for Bible-lovers’ comfort that a whole nought (0) was either added to 700, or subtracted from 7 000, thus making the confused Biblical Mathematics even more confounded! (The remarks on the Zero will be discussed later in this article).
II Samuel 10
18. And the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew the men of seven hundred chariots of the Syrians, and forty thousand horsemen, and smote Shobach the captain of their host, who died there.
I Chronicles 19
18. But the Syrians fled before Israel: and David slew of the Syrians seven thousand men which fought in chariots, and forty thousand footmen, and killed Shophach the captain of the host.
God confused between “cavalry” and “infantry” ?
As for the “inspired writers” of the Bible not knowing the difference between “footmen” and “horsemen,” is all the more serious because God himself here stands accused, as a source of that “inspiration” for not knowing the difference between cavalry and infantry. Or is it possible that the Syrians who fled before Israel were centaurs (i.e. a race of creatures with the body and legs of a horse and the torso, head and arms of a man), is it possible that these “creatures” had suddenly stepped out of Classical Mythology to bemuse the all too gullible authors.
Now, look below and note that the author of 1 Kings 7:26 has counted 2 000 baths in Solomon’s palace, but the author of 2 Chronicles 4:5 increases the kingly count by 50% to 3 000! What extravagance and error in the “Book of God?” Even if God Almighty had nothing else to do, would He occupy Himself “inspiring” such trivial contradictory nonsense to the Jews? Is the Bible God’s Book? Is it the Word of God?
The difference 2000 and 3000 is only 50% exaggeration!
I Kings 7
26. And it was an hand breadth thick, and the brim thereof was wrought like the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies: it contained two thousand baths..
II Chronicles 4
5. And the thickness of it was an handbreadth, and the brim of it like the work of the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies; and it received and held three thousand baths.
Whether it is witting or unwitting, the “inspired” writer’s singular inability to grasp the difference between 2 000 and 3 000 is unforgivable. It is an obvious contradiction. “And no miracle would prove that two and two makes five, or that a circle has four angels; and no miracles, however numerous could remove a contradiction which lies on the surface of the teachings and records of Christianity.”
Before I conclude this series of contradictions, let me give you just one more example. There are hundreds of others in the Bible. See below. It is Solomon again. He really does things in a big way. The ex-Shah of Iran was a nursery kid by comparison! The author of 2 Chronicles 9:25 gives Solomon one thousand more stalls of horses than the number of baths he had given him. “And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses ...”
But the author of 1 Kings 4:26 had real kingly thoughts about his royal patron. He multiplied Solomon’s stalls by 1 000% from 4 000 to 40000 stalls of horses! Before some glib evangelist draws the wool over your eyes that the difference is only a nought, a zero “0”; that some scribe or copyist had inadvertently added a zero to 4 000 to make it 40 000, let me tell you that the Jews in the time of Solomon knew nothing about the zero “O”!
It was the Arabs who introduced the zero to the Middle East and to Europe centuries later. The Jews spelt out their figures in words in their literary works and did not write them in numerals. Our Question is Who was the real author of this staggering discrepancy of 36000? Was it God or man? You will find these references and many more allied facts in a very comprehensive book “The Bible Word of God or Word of Man?” by A. S. K. Joommal.
II Chronicles chapter 9
25. And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.
I Kings chapter 4
26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.
The Difference between 4 thousand and 40 thousand is only 36000!
The Jews did not use The “0” (Zero) in the Old Testament.
Most objective testimony
The Christian propagandist is very fond of quoting the following verse as proof that his Bible is the Word of God. “All scripture IS given by inspiration of God, and IS profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” (2 Timothy 3:16 - AV by Scofield)
Note the “IS’s” in capitals. Rev. Scofield is telling us silently that they do not occur in the original Greek. “The New English Bible,” translated by a committee representing the Church of England, the Church of Scotland, the Methodist Church, the Congregational Church, the Baptist Union, the Presbyterian Church of England, etc., etc., and the British and Foreign Bible Society has produced the closest translation of the original Greek which deserves to be reproduced here:
“Every inspired scripture has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, or for reformation of manners and discipline in right living.”
II chronicles chapter 9
25. And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.
I kings chapter 4
26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen. The Roman Catholics in their “Douay” Version, are also more faithful to the text than the Protestants in their Authorised Version (AV). They say: “All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct ...”
We will not quibble with words. Muslims and Christians are agreed that whatever emanates from God, whether through in inspiration or by revelation, must serve one of four purposes:
1. It must either teach us doctrine;
2. Reprove us for our error;
3. Offer us correction;
4. Guide us into righteousness.
I have been asking learned men of Christianity for the past forty years, whether they can supply a fifth “peg” to hang the Word of God on. They have failed signally. That does not mean that I have improved upon their performance. Let us examine the “Holy Bible” with these objective tests.
Not far to seek
The very first book of the Bible - Genesis - provides us with many beautiful examples. Open chapter 38 and read. We are given here the history of Judah, the father of the Jewish race, from whom we derive the names “Judea” and “Judaism.” This patriarch of the Jews got married and God granted him three sons, Er, Onan and Shelah.
When the first-born was big enough, Judah had him married to a lady called Tamar. “But er, Judah’s first-born was wicked in the sight of the Lord; and the Lord slew him.’’
Under what heading, from the above four principles of Timothy will you place this sad news? The second - “Reprove” is the answer. Er was wicked so God killed him. A lesson for all, God will destroy us for our wickedness. Reproof!
Continuing with this Jewish history, according to their custom, if a brother died and left no offspring, it was the duty of the other brother to give “seed” to his sisters-in-law so that the deceased’s name might be perpetuated. Judah, in honour of this custom, orders his second son Onan to do his duty. But Jealousy enters his heart. It will be his seed but the name will be his brother’s! So at the critical moment “He spilled it on the ground. .. and the thing he did displeased the Lord: Wherefore he slew him also.”
Again, where does this slaying fit into Timothy’s tests? “Reproof!” is the answer again. No prizes are offered for these easy answers. They are so basic. Do wrong and bear the consequence! Onan is forgotten in the “Book of God,” but Christian sexologists have immortalized him by referring to “coitus interruptus,” as Onanismin their “Books of Sex.”
Now Judah tells his daughter-in-law, Tamar, to return to her father’s house until his third son Shelah attains manhood, when she will be brought back so that he can do his duty.
A woman’s revenge
Shelah grows up and is, perhaps, married to another woman. But Judah had not fulfilled his obligation to Tamar. Deep in his heart he is terrified. He has already lost two sons on account of this “witch,” - “Lest peradventure he (shelah) die also, as his brethren did.”
So Judah conveniently forgets his promise. The aggrieved young lady resolves to take revenge on her father-in-law for depriving her of her “seed” right. Tamar learned that Judah is going to Timnath to sheer his sheep. She plans to get even with him on the way. She forestalls him, and goes and sits in an open place en route to Timnath. When Judah sees her, he thinks she is a harlot because she has covered her face. He comes up to her and proposes “Allow me to come in unto thee; and she said what wilt thou give me, that thou mayest come in unto me?”
He promises that he would send her a goat kid from his flock. What guarantee could she have that he would send it? What guarantee did she require, Judah queried. “His ring, his bracelet and his staff” is the ready answer. The old man hands these possessions to her, and “came in unto her, and she conceived by him.” Women in Islam vs women in ChristianitySee
The moral lesson
Before we seek the heading from Timothy 3:16, under which to categorize this filthy, dirty story from the “Book of God,” I am tempted to ask, as you would be tempted to ask: what is the moral lesson that our children will learn from Tamar’s sweet revenge?
Of course we do tell our children, fables, not really for their entertainment value, but that through them some moral may be imparted.” The Fox and the Grapes,’’ “The Wolf and the Lamb,’’ “The Dog and his Shadow,” etc. However simple or silly the story, a moral is aimed at.
‘Christian parental dilemmas’
Dr. Vernon Jones, an American psychologist of repute, carried out experiments on groups of schoolchildren to whom certain stories had been told. The heroes of the stories were the same in the case of the different groups of children, but the heroes behaved contradictorily to each group. To one group “St. George,” slaving the dragon emerged a very brave figure, but to another group, fleeing in terror and seeking shelter in his mother’s lap. “these stories made certain slight but permanent changes in character, even in the narrow classroom situation,’’ concluded Dr. Jones.
How much more permanent damage the rapes and murders, incests and beastialities of the “Holy Bible” has done to the children of Christendom, can be measured from reports in our daily newspapers. If such is the source of Western morality, it is no little wonder, then, that Methodists and Roman Catholics have already solemnized marriages between homosexuals in their “Houses of God.” And 8000 “gays” (an euphemistic term for sodomites) parade their “wares” in London’s Hyde Park in July 1979, to the acclaim of the news and TV media.
(Ever since then, the major cities of the Western World; be it London, New York, San Francisco, Sydney, Paris etc hold annual gay parades (Mardi Gras), with now, public turnouts bringing in children as spectators. Australia prides itself in having Sydney being declared the gay capital of the world.)
You must get that “Holy Bible” and read the whole chapter 38 of Genesis. Mark in “red” the words and phrases deserving this adornment. We had reached verse 18 in our moral (?) lesson - “and she conceived by him.”
Can’t hide for ever
Three months later, as things were bound to turn out, news reached Judah that his daughter-in-law, Tamar, had played the “harlot” and that she was with “child by whoredom and Judah said, bring her forth, and let her be burnt.”
Judah had deliberately spurned her as a “witch” and now he sadistically wants to burn her. But this wiley Jewess was one up on the old man. She sent the “ring,” the “bracelet,” and the “staff’’ with a servant, beseeching her father-in-law to find the culprit responsible for her pregnancy. Judah was in a fix. He confessed that his daughter-in-law was more “Righteous” than himself, and “he knew her again no more.”
It is quite an experience to compare the choice of language in which the different Versions describe the same incident. The Jehovah’s Witnesses in their “New World Translation” translate the last quotation as - “he had no further intercourse with her after that.”
This is not the last we will hear about in the “Book of God” of this Tamar whom the Gospel writers have immortalized in their “Genealogy of their Lord.”
I do not want to bore you with details, but the end verses of Genesis 38 deal with a duel in Tamar’s womb: about the twins struggling for ascendancy. The Jews were very meticulous about recording their “first born” The first born got the lion’s share of their father’s patrimony. Who are the lucky winners in this prenatal race? There are four in this unique contest. They are “Pharez and Zarah of Tamar by Judah.’’ How?
You will see presently. But first, let us have the moral. What is the moral in this episode? You remember Er and Onan: how God destroyed them for their several sins? And the lessons we have learnt in each case was “REPROOF’’ Under what category of Timothy will you place the incest of Judah, and his illegitimate progeny? All these characters are honoured in the “Book of God” for their bastardy. They become the great grandfathers and great grandmothers of the “only begotten son of God’(?) See Matthew 1:3.
In every Version of the Bible, the Christians have varied the spelling of these characters’ names from those obtained in the Old Testament (Genesis chapter 38) with those contained in the New Testament (Matthew chapter 1) to put the reader off the scent. From Pharez in the “Old” to Pares in the “New,’’ and Zarah to Zara and Tamar to Thamar, But what about the moral? God blesses Judah for his incestuous crime! So if you do “evil” (Er), God will slay you; if you spill “seed” (Onan), God will kill you, but a daughter-in- law (Lamat) who vengefully and guilefully collect her father-in-law’s (Judah’s) “seed” is rewarded. Under what category will the Christians place this “honour” in the “Book of God?” Where does it fit? Is it Your ...
1. Doctrine? 2. Reproof? 3. Correction? or 4. Instruction into Righteousness?
Ask him who comes and knocks at your door - that professional preacher, that hot-gospeller, that Bible-thumper. Here, he deserves a prize if he can grant an explanation for the correct answer. There is none born who can justify this filth, this pornography under any of the above headings. But a heading has to be given. It can only be recorded under - “Pornography!”
Ban the book!
George Bernard Shaw said that the Bible is “The most dangerous book on Earth, keep it under lock and key.” Keep the Bible out of your children’s reach. But who will follow his advice? He was not a “B.A., (“B.A.” short for “born again” it is a new sickness. It destroyed the “Suicide Cult” of Rev. Jim Jones, in Jonestown, Guyana.) a “reborn” Christian.
According to the high moral scruples of the Christian rulers of South African, who have banned the book, “Lady Chatterley’s Lover,’’ because of a “tetragrammaton” - a four-letter word, they would most assuredly have placed a ban on the “Holy Bible” if it had been a Hindu religious Book, or a Muslim religious Book. But they are utterly helpless against their own “Holy Book,” their “Salvation” depends upon it!
“Reading Bible stories to children can also open up all sorts of opportunities to discuss the morality of sex. An unexpurgated Bible might get an X-rating from some censors,”
Daughters seduce their father
Read Genesis 19, verses 30 to the end and mark again in “red” the words and phrases deserving this honour. Do not hesitate and procrastinate. Your “coloured” Bible will become a priceless heirloom for your children. The “history” has it that, night after night, the daughters of Lot seduce their drunken father with the noble (?) motive of preserving their father’s “seed.” “Seed” figures very prominently in this “Holy Book”:
Forty seven times in the little booklet of Genesis alone! Out of this another incestuous relationship come the “Ammonites” and the “Moabites,” for whom the God of Israel was supposed to have had a special compassion. Later on in the Bible we learn that the Jews are ordered by the same compassionate God to slaughter the Philistines mercilessly - men, women and children. Even trees and animals are not to be spared, but the Amonites and the Moabites are not to be “distressed” or “meddled” with because they are the seed of Lot!
No decent reader can read the seduction of Lot to his mother, sister or daughter, not even to his fiancee if she is a chaste and moral woman. Yet you will come across perverted people who will gorge this filth. Tastes can be cultivated!
Read again and mark Ezekiel 23. You will know what colour to choose. The “whoredoms” of the two sisters, Aholah and Aholibah. The sexual details here puts to shame even the unexpurgated edition of many banned books. Ask your “born again” Christian visitors, under what category will they classify all this lewdness? Such filth certainly has no place in any “Book of God.”
Al-Haj A.D. Ajijola in his book - “The Myth of the Cross” gives a masterly expose of the fallacy of the Bible as well as of the crucifixion, in short, of the whole of Christianity. No student of comparative religion can afford to be without this publication and “The Bible: Word of God or Word of Man?”.
The genealogy of Jesus
Watch now how the Christian fathers have foisted the incestuous progenies of the Old Testament upon their Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, in the New Testament. For a man who had no genealogy, they have manufactured one for him. And what a genealogy! Six adulterers and offsprings of incest are imposed upon this holy man of God. Men and women deserving to be stoned to death according to God’s own law, as revealed through Moses, and further to be ostracised and debarred from the House of God for generations.
Why should God give a “father” (Joseph) to His “son” (Jesus)? And why such an ignoble ancestry? “This is the whole beauty of it” says the pervert. “God loved the sinners so much that he disdaineth not to give such progenitors for His ‘son’”.
Only two commissioned
Of the four Gospel writers, God “inspired” only two of them to record the genealogy of His “son.” To make it easy for you to compare the “fathers and grandfathers” of Jesus Christ in both the “inspired” lists, I have culled the names only, minus the verbiage. Between David and Jesus, God “inspired” Matthew to record only 26 ancestors for His “son.” But Luke, also “inspired,” gathered up 41 forefathers for Jesus. The only name common to these two lists between David and Jesus is Joseph and that, too, a “supposed” father according to
This one name is glaring. You need no fine-tooth comb to catch him. It is Joseph the carpenter. You will also easily observe that the lists are grossly contradictory. Could both the lists have emanated from the same source, i.e. God?
Matthew and Luke are over-zealous in making David the King, the prime ancestor of Jesus, because of that false notion that Jesus was to sit on the “throne of his father David”
The Gospels belie this prophecy, for they tell us that instead of Jesus sitting on his father’s (David’s) throne, it was Pontious Pilate, a Roman Governor, a pagan who sat on that very throne and condemned its rightful (?) heir (Jesus) to death. “Never mind,’’ says the evangelist, “if not in his first coming, then in his second coming he will fulfill this prophecy and three hundred others beside” But with their extravagant enthusiasm to trace the ancestry of Jesus physically to David, (for this is actually what the Bible says - that of the fruit of his (David’s) Loins, according to the flesh” (literally, not metaphorically Acts 2:30), both the “inspired” authors trip and fall on the very first step.
Matthew 1:6 says that Jesus was the son of David through Solomon, but Luke 3:31 says that he (Jesus) was the son of David through Nathan. One need not be a gynecologist to tell that by no stretch of the imagination could the seed of David reach the mother of Jesus both through Solomon and Nathan at the same time! We know that both the authors are confounded liars, because Jesus was conceived miraculously, without any male intervention. Even if we concede a physical ancestry through David, both authors would still be proved liars for the obvious reason.
As simple as the above logic is, the Christian is so emotionally involved that it will not penetrate his prejudiced mind. Let us give him an identical example, but one where he can afford to be objective.
We know from history that Muhammed the Prophet of Islam, was the son of Abraham through Ishmael, so if some “inspired” writer came along and tried to palm off his “revelation” to the effect that Muhummed was the son of Abraham through Isaac, we would, without any hesitation, brand such a writer as a liar, because the seed of Abraham could never reach Amina (Muhummed’s mother) through Ishmael and through Isaac at the same time! The differences of lineage between these two sons of Abraham is the difference between the Jews and the Arabs.
In the case of Muhummed, we would know then that anyone who says that Isaac is his progenitor, was a liar. But in the case of Jesus both Matthew and Luke are suspect. Until the Christians decide which line of ancestors they prefer for their “god,” both Gospels will have to be rejected. Christendom has been battling tooth and nail with these genealogies for the past 2000 years, trying to unravel the mystery. They have not given up yet. We admire their perseverance. They still believe that “time will solve the problem.” Perhaps another 2000 years?!
“There are claimed contradictions that theologians have not resolved to every atheist’s satisfaction. There are textual difficulties with which scholars are still wrestling. Only a bible illiterate would deny these and other problems”
The source of Luke’s inspiration
We have already nailed 85% of Matthew and Luke to Mark or that “mysterious ‘Q’’’. Let us now allow Luke to tell us who inspired him to tell his “most excellent Theophilus” the story of Jesus. He tells us plainly that he was only following in the footsteps of others who were less qualified than himself, others who had the temerity to write accounts of his hero (Jesus). As a physician, as against fishermen and tax collectors, he was no doubt better equipped to create a literary masterpiece. This he did, because “It seemed good to me also” to “put in order.” These are his prominent Justifications over his predecessors.
1. For as much as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us;
2. Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word;
3. It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus;
4. That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou has been instructed.
In the introduction to his translation of the “Gospel of St Luke” A Christian scholar, J. B. Phillips, has this to say - “on his own admission Luke has carefully compared and edited existing material, but it would seem that he had access to a good deal of additional material, and we can reasonably guess at some of the sources from which he drew.” And yet you call this the Word of God?!
Obtain “The Gospels in Modern English” in soft cover by ‘Fontana publications. It is a cheap edition. Get it quickly before the Christians decide to have Phillips’ invaluable notes expunged from his translation! And do not be surprised if the authors of the RSV also decide to eliminate the “Preface” from their translation. It is an old, old habit. As soon as those who have vested interests in Christianity realize that they have inadvertently let the cat out of the bag, they quickly make amends. They make my current references “past” history overnight!
The remaining Gospel
Who is the author of The Gospel of St. John? Neither God nor St. John! See what he says about it himself on page 58 - John 19:35 and 21:24-25. Who is his “he” and “his” and “this?” A-N-D, his “we know” and “I suppose.” Could it be the fickle one who left him in the lurch in the garden, when he was most in need, or the fourteenth man at the table, at the “last Super,” the one that “Jesus loved?” Both were Johns. It was a popular name among the Jews in the times of Jesus, and among Christians even now. Neither of these two was the author of this Gospel. That it was the product of an anonymous hand, is crystal clear.
Watch the pronouns!
St. John 19:35. And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe. Who is “he” and “his”?
St. John 21:24. This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true. Who is “we”?
Authors in a nutshell
Let me conclude this “authorship” search with the verdict of those 32 scholars, backed by their 50 co-operating denominations. God had been eliminated from this authorship race long ago. In the RSV by “Collins,” invaluable notes on “The Books of the Bible” are to be found at the back of their production. I am reproducing only a bit of that information on below. We start with “Genesis” - the first book of the Bible. The scholars say about its “Author”: “One of the ‘five books of Moses’.” Note the words “five books of Moses” are written in inverted commas - “ “ This is a subtle way of admitting that this is what people say - that it is the book of Moses, that Moses was its author, but we (the 32 scholars) who are better informed, do not subscribe to that tittle-tattel.
The next four books, “Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy”: Author? “Generally credited to Moses.” This is the same category as the book of Genesis.
- Who is the author of the book of ‘Judges’? “Possibly Samuel.”
- Who is the author of the book of ‘Joshua’? “Major part credited to Joshua.”
- Who is the author of ‘Ruth’? “Not definitely known”
And who is the author of:
|1st Samuel?||Author is “unknown”|
|2st Samuel?||Author is “unknown”|
|1st king?||Author is “unknown”|
|2st king?||Author is “unknown”|
|1st chronicles?||Author is “unknown probably...”|
|2st chronicles?||Author is "likely collected...”|
|Bible's Books||The author is:|
|Genesis||One of the “five books of Moses.”|
|Exodus||Generally credited to Moses.|
|Leviticus||Generally credited to Moses|
|Numbers||Generally credited to Moses|
|Deuteronomy||Generally credited to Moses|
|Joshua||Major part credited to joshua|
|Ruth||Not definitely known, perhaps Samuel|
|First chronicles||Unknown, probably edited by Ezra|
|Second chronicles||Is likely collected and edited by Ezra|
|Ezra||Probably written or edited by Ezra|
|Psalms||Principally David, though there are other writers|
|Ecclesiastes||Doubtful, but commonly assigned to Solomon|
|Isaiah||Mainly credited to Isaiah. or written by others|
|Habakkuk||Nothing known of the place or time of his birth|
|The above facts are from Collins’ R.S.V. 1971. Pages 12-17|
And so the story goes. The authors of these anonymous books are either “UNKNOWN” or are “PROBABLY” or “LIKELY” or are of “DOUBTFUL” origin. Why blame God for this fiasco?
The Long-suffering and Merciful God did not wait for two thousand years for Bible scholars to tell us that He was not the Author of Jewish peccadilloes, prides and prejudices; of their lusts, wranglings, jealousies and enormities. He said it openly what they do:
“Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say: This is from Allah, to traffic with it for miserable price! Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby.”
Note: (“The Bible” - “The World’s Best Seller!” the Publishers of the RSV made a net profit of 15 000 000 dollars on the first edition alone’ “What a miserable price in exchange for eternity!”)
We could have started the thesis of this book with the above Quranic verse and ended with it, with the satisfaction that God Almighty had Himself delivered His verdict on the subject - “Is the Bible God’s Word?”, but we wished to afford our Christian brethren an opportunity to study the subject as objectively as they wished. (See Dr Scroggie’s plea in chapter 5.) Allowing believing Christians, “reborn” Christians, and their own Holy Book the Bible to testify against their “better” judgement.
What about the Holy Quran? Is the Quran the Word of God? The author of this humble publication has endeavoured to answer this question in a most scientific manner in his book “The Quran - The Miracle of Miracles”. Also see The Amazing Quran by Dr Gary Miller.
The reader must by now be convinced, that is if he has an open mind, that the Bible is not what it is claimed to be by the protagonists of Christianity. For nearly four decades people have asked me as to how I have such an “in depth” knowledge of the Bible and Christianity.
Frankly speaking my present position as a Muslim “expert” on Judaism and Christianity is not of my own volition. I have been forced into being what I am.
It was in 1939 when I was working as a shop assistant at Adams Mission near a Christian seminary by that name; producing preachers and priests, that I and my fellow Muslim workers were the target of young aspiring men of the cloth. Not a day passed when these young Christians did not harass me or my brothers-in-faith, through insults which they piled on Islam, the Holy Prophet and the Quran.
Being a sensitive young man of 20, I spent sleepless nights in tears for not being able to defend the one dearer to me than my own life, that mercy unto all mankind - Muhammad I resolved to study the Quran, the Bible and other literature. My discovery of the book - “Izharul Haq” was the turning point in my life. After a short while I was able to invite the trainee missionaries of Adams Mission College and cause them to perspire under the collar until they developed a respect for Islam and its Holy Apostle.
Muslims under constant attack
It made me ponder as to how so many unwary Muslims are being constantly assaulted by Christian evangelists who carry out a door to door campaign, and being invited in by the proverbially hospitable Muslim, I thought of how the merciless missionary munched the samoosas and punched the wind out of the Muslim with snide remarks against his beliefs.
Determined to bring home to the Muslims their right to defend themselves and to arm them with enough knowledge to counter the hot gospeller, the door to door pedlar of Christianity and the shameless insulter of Islam and its Holy Apostle; I humbly undertook to deliver lectures to show the Muslim masses that they had nothing to fear from the assaults of the Christians. My lectures were also an invitation to the Christians to witness the truth of Islam and the fabrications which had penetrated the true teachings of Jesus.
Attack is not new
Christian Missionaries in the past hundred years and more have challenged Muslims on many aspects and quite a number of these challenges have, to my knowledge, gone answered or have been partly answered. Perhaps by the will of Allah my contribution in this field can also be answers or part answers to the challenges of the detractors of Islam. It is of supreme importance that we do not go by default.
One such challenge comes to mind viz. Geo G. Harris the author of “How to lead Muslims to Christ”. This missionary who tried to convert the Muslims of China says in the usual arrogant and condecending manner of the Westerner on page 19 under the heading - “The theory or charge of corruption.”
“we now come to the most serious charge by the Moslem world, against our Christian Scriptures. There are three aspects of this charge.
1. That the Christian scriptures have been so changed and altered that they bear little, if any, resemblance to the glorious Gospel praised in the Quran. This can be answered by the asking of one of the following questions: Wherein have these been so changed or altered? Can you obtain a copy of a true Gospel and show it that I may compare it with mine? At what date in past history was the unaltered Gospel in circulation?
2. That our Gospels have suffered corruption. The following five questions are definite and we have a perfect right to ask them;
a) Was such corruption or alteration intentional?
b) Can you point out in my Bible one such passage?
c) How did this passage read originally?
d) When, by whom, how or why was it corrupted or altered?
e) Was such, corruption of the text or of the meaning?
3. That our Gospels are “faked” substitutes for the original Gospel. Or that our Gospels are the handiwork of men, not the Noble Gospel which descended upon Jesus. A little questioning will usually reveal the true situation, that usually the Moslem making the charge is woefully ignorant of the Bible or New Testament as it actually existed in the past or exists today.
Before going on to the latter half of this discussion, a reminder is important that as soon as the objector is willing to sense the flimsiness of such a charge we should press home some teaching from our scriptures, that our effort may be positive and not negative.
Have Muslims the answer?
Have we as Muslims no answers for these questions? If you, gentle reader have read this book you will admit that Ceo G. Harris has no feet to stand on. I have been able to give actual pages from the Bible to disprove his assertions.
On page 16 of Geo G. Harris’ book he teaches his comrades a basic missionary rule in order to corner the Muslim prospective:
“In this chapter it is assumed that the question of the authenticity and genuineness of our scriptures has been raised by the Mohammedan. When this is the case, before we undertake defence of our position we should bear in mind a basic rule. “the burden of proof rests with the Moslem.”