IZHAR UL-HAQ Part 2

Contradiction No. 109
Matthew has reported that the mother of Zebedee’s sons had requested Jesus to:
“Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on the left in thy kingdom.” [Matt. 20:21]

Mark on the other hand reports that the request was made by Zebedee’s sons themselves. [Mark 10:35]

Contradiction No. 110
The Gospel of Matthew includes a parable of a man who planted a vineyard. At the end of the parable we find:
“When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen? They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen which shall render him the fruits in their seasons” [Matt. 21:40,41]

Luke, however, has at the end of the parable:
“What therefore shall the lord of the vineyard do unto them? He shall come and destroy these husbandmen, and shall give the vineyard to others. And when they heard it, they said, God forbid.” [Luke 20:15,16]

The texts are obviously contradictory. The second text contradicts the first, by adding, “When they heard it, they said, God forbid!”

Contradiction No. 111
The event of a woman of Bethany, who poured perfumed ointment on the head of Jesus, is described in three gospels. There are several contradictions between the different accounts.
91
1. Mark reports that this event took place two days before the feast of Passover [Mark 14:1], while John reports it to have happened six days prior to the festival [John 12:1]. Matthew is silent regarding the time of this incident.

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

3. Matthew and Mark agree that the ointment was poured on the head of Jesus [Matt. 26:7; Mark 14:3], while John contradicts this and says that she anointed the feet of Jesus. [John 12:3]

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

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

The serious contradictions presented by these texts cannot be eliminated by 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, reveals two serious contradictions: 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.
92
2. According to Luke, the body of Christ was sacrificed only for the disciples [Luke 22:19], while Mark reports it to have been sacrificed is given for many [Mark 14:24], and from Matthew we understand that neither the body, nor the blood of Jesus is shed, but the blood of the New Testament is the thing which is shed for others. How the blood of the New Testament is shed is a riddle.

We are greatly surprised to note that the Gospel of John describes ordinary events like Jesus riding on an ass or applying perfume to his clothes, but does not make any mention of as important an event as the Last Supper which holds such a vital place in Christian ritual.

Contradiction No. 113
We read this verse in Matthew:
“Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.” [Matt. 7:14]

But further in the same Gospel we read of Jesus’ saying:
“Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me, …for my yoke is easy and my burden is light.” [Matt. 11:29,30]

Contradiction No. 114
We read in chapter 4 of Matthew that the Devil first took Jesus to the Holy City, and set him on the pinnacle of the temple, then took him up to the peak of a mountain. Jesus then went to Galilee. Then leaving Nazareth came to Capernaum and dwelt there.

Luke says in chapter 4 of his Gospel that the Devil first took Jesus onto the mountain then to Jerusalem and then he was stood on the Pinnacle of the Temple, then Jesus returned to Galilee and started teaching there, then he went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up.
93

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.” [Matt. 8:8]

Jesus, commending the faith of the officer, said: “As thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee.” And his servant was healed in the selfsame hour. [Matt. 8:13]

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

When he came near the house:
“...the centurion sent friends to him saying unto him, Lord, trouble not thyself: for I am not worthy that you shouldest enter under my roof. Wherefore neither thought I myself worthy to come unto thee: but say in a word, and my servant shall be healed.” [Luke 7:6,7]

Then Jesus praised the officer, and the people who were sent by the officer returned to his house, the servant had been healed.

Contradiction No. 116
Matthew reports in chapter 8 that a scribe came to Jesus and asked his permission to follow him wherever he went. Then a disciple said to him that 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 of Jesus [Matt. 17:5].

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
94
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 [Mark 15:25]. This statement is contradicted by the Gospel of John which reports that Jesus was in the court of Pilate until sixth hour of the day. [John 9:14]

Contradiction No. 119
It is understood from the descriptions of Matthew and Mark that the soldiers who mocked Jesus and put the scarlet rope on him were Pilate’s soldiers not Herod’s, while Luke’s statement is just the opposite.

CONTRADICTIONS AND ERRORS IN THE BIBLICAL TEXT:
Errors 1-35
THE ERRORS
This section contains the errors, mistakes and contradictions of the Biblical Text that are in addition to the ones discussed previously.
95
Error No. 1
It is stated in the Book of Exodus that the period that the Israelites stayed in Egypt was 430 years, which is wrong. The period was 215 years [Ex. 12:40]. This error is admitted by the historians and the biblical commentators.

Error No. 2
It appears in the Book of Numbers that the total number of the Israelites, who were 20 years of age or over, was six hundred thousand, while all the males and females of the Levites and the women and children of all the other tribes are 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.” [1 Sam. 6:19] The number fifty thousand in this verse is wrong as will be discussed later.
96
Errors No. 6 and 7
2 Samuel 15:7 contains the words “forty years” and in the next verse of the same chapter the name “Geshur” is mentioned. Both are wrong. The correct words are “four years” and “Adom” respectively.

Error No. 8
It is stated in 2 Chronicles:
“And the porch that was on the front of the house, the length of it was according to the breadth of the house, twenty cubits, and height was a hundred and twenty.” [2 Chr. 3:4]

This is an exaggerated and erroneous account of the height. According to 1 Kings the height of the porch was thirty cubits [1 Kings 6:2]. Adam Clarke in volume 2 of his commentary expressly admitted the error in this statement and said that the height was twenty cubits.

Error No. 9
The Book of Joshua, describing the borders of the land given to the children of Benjamin, states:
“And the border was drawn thence and compassed the corner of the sea southward.” [Josh. 18:14]

The word “sea” in this statement is wrong as there was no sea near their land.

The commentators D’Oyby and Richardment acknowledged this fact and said, that the Hebrew word which was translated as “sea” actually signified “west”.

Error No. 10
In Chapter 19 of the Book of Joshua, under the description of the borders of Naphtali, we read:
97
“And reacheth to Asher on the west side and to Judah upon Jordan toward the sun rising.” [Josh 19:36]

This statement is also wrong as the land of Judah extended towards the South.

Adam Clarke also pointed out this error in his commentary.

Errors No. 11
The commentator Horseley remarked that verses 7 and 8 of Chapter 3 of the Book of Joshua are wrong.

Error No. 12
The Book of Judges contains this statement:
“And there was a young man out of Bethlehem-Judah, of the family of Judah, who was a Levite.”

In this statement the phrase, “who was a Levite”, cannot be true because anyone belonging to the family of Judah cannot be Levite. The commentator Horseley also acknowledged this error, and Houbigant even excluded this passage from his text.

Error No. 13
We read this statement in 2 Chronicles:
“And Abijah set the battle in array with an army of valiant men of war even four hundred thousand chosen men: Jeroboam also set the battle in array against him, with eight hundred thousand chosen men, being mighty men of valour.” [2 Chr. 13:3]

Further in the same chapter it gives this description:
And Abijah and his people slew them with a great slaughter: and so there fell down slain of Israel five hundred thousand chosen men.” [2 Chr. 13:17]
98
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.

Error No. 14
It is stated in 2 Chronicles:
“For the Lord brought Judah low because of Ahaz, King of Israel.” [2 Chr. 28:19]
The word Israel in this statement is certainly wrong, because Ahaz was the King of Judah and not the the King of Israel. The Greek and the Latin translations, therefore, have replaced Israel with Judah which is an open distortion of the 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. 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.”
99
Error No. 16
The name “Hadarezer” is wrongly spelled in 2 Samuel 10:16-19 in three places and in 1 Chronicles 18:3-10 in seven places, whereas the correct spelling is Hadadezer (as given in all other references in the Old Testament).

Errors No. 17
Another name “Achan” is given wrongly in the Book of Joshua [Josh. 7:18]. The correct name is Achar, with an ‘r’ at the end.

Error No. 18
We find in 1 Chronicles 3:5 under the description of the sons of David, “Bathshua, the daughter of Ammiel”. The correct name is, “Bath-sheba, the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah”. [2 Sam. 11:3]

Error No. 19
The Second Book of Kings gives the name “Azariah” which is certainly wrong [2 Kings 14:21]. It should be “Uzziah”, as can be ascertained from several other sources.[e.g. 2 Chr. 26:1; 2 Kings 15:13,30,32 and 34]

Error No. 20
The name “Jehoahaz”, which appears in 2 Chronicles, is not correct [2 Chr. 21:17]. It should be “Ahaziah”. Horne admits that the names we have pointed out in errors No. 16-20 are all wrong and then adds that there are some other places in the scriptures where names have been written erroneously.
100

Error No. 21
2 Chronicles gives an account of how Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon, bound Jehoiakim in chains and deported him to Babylon [2 Chr. 36:6].

This statement is certainly not true. The fact is that he killed him in Jerusalem and ordered his body to be thrown outside the city wall and left unburied.

The historian Josephus says in Volume 10 of his book:
“The King of Babylon came with a great army and captured the city without resistance. He killed all the young men of the city. Jehoiakim was one of them. He threw his body outside the city wall. His son Jehoiachin was made the king. He imprisoned three thousand men. The Prophet Ezekiel was among the captives.”

Error No. 22
According to the Arabic versions of 1671 and 1831, the Book of Isaiah (7:8) contains this statement:
“...and within three score and five years shall Aram be broken.”

While the Persian translation and English version says:
“...and within three score and five years shall Ephraim be broken.”

Historically this prophecy was proved false, as in the sixth year of Hezekiah’s reign, the King of Assyria invaded Ephraim, as is recorded in 2 Kings in Chapters 17 and 18. Thus Aram was destroyed in twenty one years.

Vitringa, a celebrated Christian scholar, said:
“There has been a mistake in copying the text here. In fact, it was sixteen and five years, and the period referred to was sixteen years after the reign of Ahaz and five after that of Hezekiah.”

There is no justification for the opinion of this writer, but at least, he has admitted the error in this text.
101
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.” [Gen. 2:17]

This statement is clearly wrong since Adam, after eating from that tree, did not die that very day but lived for more than nine hundred years after it.

Error No. 24
We find in the book of Genesis:
“My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.” [Gen. 6:3]

To say that the age of man is a hundred and twenty years is erroneous, as we know that the men of earlier ages lived far longer – Noah’s age, for instance, 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.
102
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.” [Jer. 25:1,11,12]

And further in Chapter 29 of the same book, it states:
“Now these are the words of the letter that Jeremiah the Prophet sent from Jerusalem unto the residue of the elders which were carried away captives, and to the priests, and to the prophets, and to all the people whom Nebuchadnezzar had carried away captives from Jerusalem to Babylon; (After that Jeconiah, the king and the queen, and the eunuchs, the princes of Judah and Jerusalem, and the carpenters, and the smiths were deported from Jerusalem;)” [Jer. 29:1,2]

And further in the same chapter we read:
“For thus saith the, Lord, that after seventy years be accomplished at Babylon I will visit you and perform my good word to you in causing you to return to this place.” [Jer. 29:10]

In the Persian translation of 1848 we find these words:
“After seventy years be accomplished in Babylon, I will turn towards you.”

Further in chapter 52 of the same book we find the following statement:
“This is the people whom Nebuchadrezzar carried away captive in the seventh year, three thousand Jews and three and twenty: In the eighteenth year of 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.” [Jer. 52:28-30]
103
After a careful reading of the several passages quoted above the following three points are established:
1. Nebuchadnezzar ascended the throne in the fourth year of the reign of Jehoiakim. That is historically correct. The Jewish historian Josephus said in Vol. 10 and Chapter 5 of his history that Nebuchadnezzar ascended the throne of Babylon in the fourth year of Jehoiakim. It is, therefore, necessary that the first year of Nebuchadnezzar must coincide with the fourth year of Jehoiakim.

2. Jeremiah sent his words (the book) to the Jews after the deportation of Jeconiah, the king, the elders of Judah and other artisans to Babylon.

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

This reveals three obvious errors. Firstly, according to the historians, 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.
104

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 [2 Kings 24:14].

Thirdly, from the text quoted above, we understand that the third capacaty took place in the twenty-third year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign whereas this is contradicted in 2 Kings which says that Nebuzar-adan took them captive in the nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar. [2 Kings 25:8]

Error No. 29
The Book of Ezekiel contains the following words:
“And it came to pass in the eleventh year, in the first day of the month, that the word of the Lord came unto me.” [Ezek. 26:1]

And later in the same chapter we find:
“For thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I will bring upon Tyrus Nebuchadrezzar, king of Babylon, a king of kings, from the north, with horses, and with chariots, and with horsemen and companies, and much people.”
105
“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.” [Ezek. 26:7-12]

History proved this prediction false because Nebuchadnezzar tried his best to capture the city of Tyrus, and kept the city in a state of siege for thirteen 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...” [Ezek. 29:17-20]
106
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.” [Dan. 8:13]

The Judaeo-Christian scholars, from the very beginning, have wondered about the significance of this prediction. Almost all the Judaeo-Christian commentators of the Bible are of the opinion that it is Antiochus, the consul of Rome who invaded Jerusalem in 161 BC, who is referred to in this vision, and the days mean the usual days of our calendar. Josephus, the famous commentator, also agreed with this opinion.

Historically, however, this opinion does not hold water, because the occupation of the sanctuary and host, lasted for three and a half years, whereas the period of two thousand and three hundred days referred to comes to six years, three months and nineteen days. For the same reason Issac Newton rejected the assumption that Antiochus had to do anything with this vision.

Thomas Newton who wrote a commentary on the predictions and prophesies of the Bible first quoted several other commentators on this point, and then, like Isaac Newton, completely rejected the possibility of it being Antiochus who is referred to in this vision of Hezekiah. He asserted that the Roman emperors and the Popes are the import of the vision.
107
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.

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: 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
4. According to the fourth ordinance it would end in 1856.

All these dates passed without the prophecy being fulfilled and, in any case, this illogically metaphorical interpretation is not acceptable.

Firstly it is a mis-statement to say that it would be difficult for scholars to ascertain the period of its commencement. The difficulty lies only in the fact that the period should start right from the time when this vision was shown to Daniel not from any period after it.
108
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 [Dan. 12:11,12]:
“And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.”

“Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five 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 transtgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and toseal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.” [Dan. 9:24]
109
This prophecy is also wrong as the Messiah did not appear in this period None of the explanations forwarded by the Christan scholars in this regard deserve any serious consideration, partly for the resasons we have already discussed and partly on account of a number of facts we discuss below:
Firstly the period between the first year of the reign of Cyrus, the year of the release of the Jews as confirmed by Ezra [Ezra 1:1], and the birth of the 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;

“Behold this day thine eyes have seen how that the Lord hath delivered thee into mine hand in the cave: and some bade me to kill thee: but mine eye spared thee; and I said, I will not put forth mine hand against my lord, for he is the Lord’s anointed.” [1 Sam. 24:10]
110
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” [Isaiah 45:1]

Cyrus, the king of Persia, is mentioned as God’s anointed or the Christ in this text. Cyrus is the one who liberated the Jews from their captivity and allowed 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.” [2 Sam. 7:10]

The same prediction appeared in slightly different words in the Persian translation of 1835. According to this text God had promised them that they would live in peace there, without any affliction to them at the hands of wicked people.

This promised place was Jerusalem, where they made their habitations and lived. History has proved that this promise was not fulfilled. They were severely afflicted at the hands of several rulers. Nebuchadnezzar invaded them three times and slaughtered them, captured them and deported them to Babylon.

Titus the Emperor of Rome, persecuted them so barbarously that one million of the Jews were killed, a hundred thousand people were hanged and ninety-nine thousand were imprisoned. Up to this day their descendants are living in degradation around the world.
111

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 forever.

“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.” [2 Sam. 7:12-16]

Another statement of similar nature is given in I Chronicles:
“Behold, a son shall be born to thee, who shall be a man of rest: and I will 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.” [1 Chr. 22:9-10]

Although, God had promised everlasting kingdom in the family of David, this promise was not fulfilled, as the family of David was deprived of the kingdom, a long time ago.

Error No. 35
Paul reported God’s word regarding the prominence of Jesus over the angels in his letter to the Hebrews [Heb. 1:5]:
“I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son.”

Christian scholars have claimed that this is a reference to the verses in 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles discussed in the previous paragraph. This claim is not acceptable for several reasons.
112
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.” [Matt. 8:20]

4. It is clearly stated in the first prediction that:
“If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the 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 truthSolomon was a man of that nature and gave up the prophethood and became an apostate in his last days, indulging in idol worship, building temples for the idols, and committing himself to heathenism. Whereas Jesus was absolutely innocent, and could not commit a sin of any kind.

5. In the text of Chronicles it says clearly:
“Who shall be a man of rest, and I will give him rest from all his enemies round about.”

However, Jesus, according to the Christians, was never in peace right from his 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.
113
6. In the prediction of Chronicles the Israelites are promised:
“I will give peace and quieteness unto Israel in his days.”

Whereas it is historically known to everyone that the Jews were servile to and 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.

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.
114

CONTRADICTIONS AND ERRORS IN THE
BIBLICAL TEXT:
Errors 36 - 55

Error No. 36
It is said regarding the Prophet Elijah in I Kings:
“And the word of Lord came unto him, saying, Get thee hence, and turn thee eastward, and hide thyself by the brook Cherith, that is before Jordan. And it shall be, that thou shalt drink of the brook; and I have commanded the ravens to feed thee there.

So he went and did according unto the word of the Lord: for he went and dwelt by the brook Cherith, that is before Jordan, And the ravens brought him bread and flesh in the morning, and bread and flesh in the evening, and he drank of the brook.” [1 Kings 17:2-6]

In the above text the word ’raven’ is a translation of the original word ’arem’. All the translators except Jerome have translated it as ’raven’, only Jerome has translated it differently as ”Arab”.

Since his opinion did not gain popularity, his followers distorted the texts in Latin translations and changed the word ’Arab’ to raven.

This has been much laughed at by non-Christian scholars. Horne, a famous scholar, was much surprised at it and was, in fact, inclined to agree 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:
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.
115
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.” [1 Kings 6:1]
116
According to the historians, this statement is incorrect. Adam Clarke, for example, said, when commenting on this verse in Vol. 2 of his commentary: The historians have differred from this text in the following details: The Hebrew text gives 480, Latin 440, Glycas 330, Melchior Canus 590; Josephus 592, Slipicius Severus 585, Clement Alexander 570, Cedrenus 672 Codomanus 598, Vosius Capellus 580, Seranius 680, Nicholas Abraham 527, Mastlinus 592, Petavius and Watherus 520.”

Had the year, described by the Hebrew text been correct and revealed by God, the Latin translator and so many of the Judeao-Christian historians would have not contradicted it. Josephus and Clement Alexandrianus also differed from the Hebrew text, even though both of them are known as staunch believers in their religion. This, naturally, leads us to believe that the biblical text was to them no more worthy of respect than any other book of history. Otherwise they would have not even thought of disagreeing with it.

Error No. 38
It is stated in Matthew:
“So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations;
and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.” [Matt. 1:17]

According to this statement the genealogy of Jesus from Abraham is subdivided into three groups, each consisting of fourteen generations. It is obviously not correct, because since the first group from Abraham to David, includes David in it, he must be excluded from the second group as he cannot be counted twice.

The second group should start with Solomon and end with Jeconias, thus excluding him from the third group. The third group should start from Salathiel, which leaves only 13 generations in the last group. All of the ancient as well as modern scholars have criticized this error, but the Christian scholars are unable to produce any convincing explanation for it.
117

Errors No. 39- 42:
According to the Arabic translation printed in 1849, describing the genealogy of the Christ, the Gospel of Matthew states: Josias begat Jeconias and his brethren, in the captivity of Babylon.” [Matt. 1:11]

It can be understood from this text that Jeconias and his brothers were born in the period of exile in Babylon, which obviously implies that Josias was alive during that period.

However this cannot be the case for the following four reasons:
1. Josias had died twelve years before the exile, because after his death his son Jehoahaz became king and ruled for three months. Then Jehoiachin, another son of Josias reigned for eleven years. And it was only when Jeconias, the son of Jehoiakim. had been ruling for three months in Jerusalem, that Nebuchadnezzar invaded Jerusalem and imprisoned him along with all other Israelites and deported them to Babylon. [See 2 Chr. 35:23; 36:1,2,59; and 2 Kings 23:30,31,36 and 24:8]

2. Jeconias is the grandson of Josias, and not his son, as is clear from the above statement.

3. At the time of exile, Jeconias was 18 years old [2 Kings 24:8], therefore his birth in this period is out of the question.

4. Jeconias had no brothers but his father had three brothers.
118
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 of manipulating the text of the holy scriptures is something to be noted by the reader. Even after this change, our objection discussed in no. 3 above remains unaffected.

In our opinion, some ingenious priests have deliberately deleted the word Jehoiakin from the text to avoid the objection that Jesus, being a descendant of Jehoiakin, would not be able to sit on the throne of David [Jer. 36:30], and that in this case it would no longer be possible for him to be the Messiah.

They did not appreciate the implications that were to occur as a result of this tiny change in the text. Perhaps they thought it was easier to lay blame on Matthew than to preclude Jesus from being the descendant of David and from his being the Messiah.

Error No. 43
The genealogical description in Matthew records seven generations between Judah and Salmon, and five generations from Salmon to David [Matt. 1:6-11].

The period from Judah to Salmon is about three hundred years, and from Salmon to David four hundred years. Even bearing in mind the long lives of those people, this statement cannot be true, as the age of the first group of 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
119
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, son of Joram. These are the three generations which have been left out by Matthew perhaps to make them fourteen. These three were kings of repute. They are mentioned in Chapters 8, 12 and 14 of the Second Book of Kings, and in Chapters 22-25 of 2 Chronicles. There is no way of knowing why these generations have been left out by Matthew from the geneology. It seems simply to be one of his great mistakes.

2. Is the correct name Uzziah or Ozias, as he is named by 2 Kings and I Chronicles?

Error No. 47
Again in the same passage we find this statement:
“And Salathiel begat Zorobabel.” [Matt. 1:12]

This is also incorrect because Zorobabel was the son of Pedaiah and the nephew of Salathiel as is expressly mentioned in I Chronicles 3.
120
Error No. 48
The same passage of genealogy in Matthew states:
“Zorobabel begat Abiud.” [Matt. 1:13]

This, too, is wrong since Zerubbabel had only five sons, as is confirmed by 1 Chronicles. None of the five sons is of this name. [1 Chr. 3:25]

There are in all eleven errors in the genealogy recorded by Matthew. If the differences of Luke and Matthew, discussed earlier are also included they total seventeen mistakes. This short passage of Matthew is, therefore, erroneous in no less than seventeen places.

Error No. 49
Matthew describes the event of some wise men from the east who had seen the star which was the sign of the birth of Christ. They came to Jerusalem, and, guided by the star, they reached Bethlehem where the star halted above the head of the infant.

Astronomically this statement is ridiculous and unacceptable. The movement of stars and some comets as seen from the earth is from the East to the West, and some of the comets move contrarily from the West to the East. Bethlehem is situated to the south of Jerusalem. Besides the men coming from the east could not possibly see the movement of a star which is too slow to be seen by the naked eye. And in any case how could a moving star, if it did ever come to a stop in the sky, be said to have stopped at the head of a new born child.
121

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’.” [Matt. 1:22,23]

According to the Christian writers the Prophet referred to in this verse is the Prophet Isaiah, because in his book he had said:
“Therefore, the Lord himself shall give you a sign: Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name ‘Emmanuel’.” [Isaiah 7:14]

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

Frier, in his book on the etymology of Hebrew words, a book that is considered the most authentic work on the subject, said that the word ’alamah, had a dual meaning: ’virgin’ and ’young woman’. His opinion, as compared to the commentaries of the Jews, is not acceptable, and even if we accept this opinion, the word cannot be taken to mean a virgin with any argument against the established meaning adopted by the commentators and the ancient translators. The above facts are certainly enough to prove falsity of the statement of the author of Meezan-ul-Haq, who claimed that the word had no other meaning than ’virgin’.
122
2. Jesus was never called by the name Emmanuel, nor did his adopted father [Joseph the carpenter] give this name to him: The angel told his father to call him with the name of Jesus.” [Matt. 1:21]

It is also a fact that Gabriel came to his mother and said:
“Thou shall conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son and shalt call his name Jesus.” [Luke 1:31]

Apart from this Jesus himself never claimed that his name was Emmanuel.

3. The passage where this word occurs, precludes its application to Jesus. It states that Rezin, the king of Syria, and Pekah, the king of Israel, went together to war against Ahaz, the king of Judah. He was very frightened and God sent a revelation to Isaiah as a consolation for Ahaz, saying that he should not be frightened as his enemies would not be able to prevail against him, and that their kingdoms would be destroyed, and that the sign of their destruction was that a young woman would bring forth a son and before the child grew up their kingdoms would be destroyed. [Isaiah 7:1-17]

In fact Jesus was born after 721 years of the destruction of the kingdoms which were destroyed only 21 years after the above Prophecy. Judaeo-Christian scholars disagree on this point. Some of them have claimed that Isaiah used the word ’young woman’ for his own wife who would conceive and give birth to a child. And the two kings, of whom the people were frightened, would be destroyed along with their kingdom before the child grew up. This was said by Dr. Benson and seems to have logic and bear truth.
123
Error No. 51
There is another statement in Matthew regarding Joseph, the carpenter:
“And was there until the death of Herod, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the Prophet, saying out of Egypt have I called my son.” [Matt. 2:15]

The Prophet referred to in this text is Hosea and Matthew makes reference to the first verse of Chapter 11 of his book, which is absolutely incorrect as that 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.” [Hosea 11:2]

This statement cannot be applied to Jesus.
124
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.” [Matt. 2:16]

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 have been very particular in describing any weak points of Herod which they could dig out from history, have not said anything in this regard. Had this incident been true they would have jumped at it and described it as negatively as possible. If any Christian historian were to describe it, he would certainly base his description on the statement in the Gospel of Matthew.

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

Error No. 53
The Gospel of Matthew also contains this statement:
“Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremiah the Prophet, saying, In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted because they are not.” [Matt. 2:17,18]
125
This is again a clearly distorted rendering of the text of Jeremiah. Any reader can himself look up the passage in. Jeremiah [Matt. 2:23], and see for himself that the above verse has nothing to do with Herod. It is clearly related to the 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.” [Matt. 31:15]

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.” [John 7:52]

The Christian scholars have put forward weak explanations regarding this, which do not deserve any serious consideration.

Readers will have noted that there are seventeen errors in the first two chapters of Matthew.
126
Error No. 55
According to the Arabic translations printed in 1671, 1821, 1826, 1854 and 1880, there is a statement in Matthew which reads as follows: In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea.” [Matt. 3:1]

And in the Persian translations printed in 1671, 1821, 1826, 1854 and 1880, we find the same statement:
“In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea.”

In this passage, the phrase ‘in those days’ refers to the days when Archelaus 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 [Luke 3:1] that John, the Baptist delivered this sermon when Pontius Pilate was the governor of Judaea, and that it was the fifteenth year of Tiberius’ reign. The Emperor Tiberius began his reign fourteen years after the birth of Jesus. (Britannica 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.
127
CONTRADICTIONS AND ERRORS IN THE
BIBLICAL TEXT:
Errors 56 - 83

Error No. 56:
The Name of Herodias’ Husband We find in Matthew:
For Herod had laid hold on John and bound him, and put him in prison for Herodias’ sake, his brother Philip’s wife.” [Matt. 14:3]

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

Error No. 57
It is stated in Matthew:
“But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him; How he entered into the house of God and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him.” [Matt. 12:3,4]

The phrase “neither for them which were with him” is clearly wrong as will be discussed under Error No. 92.
128
Error No. 58
Matthew contains this statement:
“Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value.” [Matt. 27:9]

This statement is also wrong as will be shown later in the book.

Error No. 59:
The Earthquake on Jesus’ Crucifixion Once more we find in Matthew:
“And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose. And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city and appeared unto many.” Matt. 27:51-53]

This is a concocted story. Norton, the famous scholar, though he favoured the gospels, said, proving the falsity of this story with several arguments, ”This is a totally false story. It seems that such stories were prevalent among the Jews at the time of destruction of Jerusalem. Possibly someone might have written this story as a marginal note in the Gospel of Matthew, and later on it might have been included in the text, the translator might have translated it from that text.
129
The falsehood of this story is evident for several reasons:
1. The Jews went to Pilate, the day after the Crucifixion of Christ, and said to Pilate:
“Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive. After three days I will rise again. Command therefore, that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day.” [Matt. 27:63-64]

Moreover, Matthew, in the same chapter expressly states that Pilate and  his wife were not pleased at the crucifixion of Christ. The Jews would not dare go to Pilate in these circumstances, especially when there was an earthquake and the graves opened and the rocks rent. The fact that Pilate was not pleased at the crucifixion of Christ, would have put him into a rage against the Jews. They could have not gone to Pilate to say that Christ was a ’deceiver’, God forbid.

2. In the presence of such miraculous signs a great number of people of that time would have embraced the new faith without hesitation, whereas, according to the Bible, three thousand people did accept the new faith, but only when the Holy Spirit descended on the disciples and they spoke several languages before the people. This event is explicitly mentioned in Acts. [Acts 2:1-40]

The events described by Matthew were obviously of a much more compelling nature than the disciples speaking in several languages.

3. Is it not surprising that none of the historians of that time and of the time succeeding it, and none of the evangelists except Matthew, has written a single word about these events of so great an historical importance It is of no avail to say that opponents have deliberately avoided any reference to these events. But what do they have to say of the absence of any account of these events in the books of those Christian historians who are considered to be advocates of Christianity.
130
In particular the absence of any description of these events in the Gospel of Luke is very surprising, as he is generally known for reporting the rarities of the life of Jesus, as is clear from the first chapters of his gospel and of the Book of Acts.

We cannot understand why all the evangelists, or at least most of them, have not referred to these events when they have given full account of events of no or lesser, significance. Mark and Luke, too, only speak of the splitting of the veil and not of anything else.

4. Since the veil in question was made of silk, we cannot understand how a soft curtain of silk could be torn like this, and if it was true, how the building of the temple could remain unaffected. This objection is forwarded equally to all evangelists.

5. The bodies of the saints coming out of the graves happens to be in clear contradiction to the statement of Paul, in which he said that Christ was the first to rise from the dead.

The learned scholar Norton truthfully said that this evangelist seems to be in the habit of making his own guesses, and is not always able to sort out the truth from the available stock of events. Can such a man be trusted with the word of God?

Errors No. 60, 61, 62:
The Resurrection of Jesus
The Gospel of Matthew reports Jesus’ answering to some scribes:
“But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the Prophet Jonas: For Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” [Matt. 12:39-40]
131
We find a similar statement in the same gospel:
“A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the Prophet Jonas.” [Matt. 16:4]

The same is understood from the statement of the Jews reported by Matthew: Sir, we remember that, that deceiver said while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again.” [Matt. 27:63]

All these statements are incorrect for the fact is that according to the gospels Jesus was crucified on Friday in the afternoon and died at about nine in the evening. Joseph asked Pilate for his body in the evening and arranged his funeral, as is clear from the Gospel of Mark. He was therefore buried in the night of Friday, and his body is said to have disappeared on the morning of Sunday, as described by John. According to this detail, his body did not remain in the earth for more than one day and two nights. Therefore his statement of staying in the earth for three days and three nights is proved incorrect.

Seeing the error in these statements, Paley and Channer admitted that the statement in question was not of Jesus but was the result of Matthew’s own imagination. Both of them said words to the effect that Jesus would have meant to convince them only through his preachings without their asking a sign from him, like the people of Nineveh, who embraced the new faith without a sign from Jonah.

According to these two scholars this statement was proof of a lack of understanding on the part of Matthew. It also proves that Matthew did not write his gospel by inspiration. His not understanding the intention of Jesus in this case, shows that he could well have written similarly erroneous accounts in other places.
132
It is, therefore, a natural conclusion that the gospel of Matthew cannot, in any way be called revelation but is rather a collection of accounts influenced by the local environment and the result of human imagination.

Error No. 63:
The Second Coming of Jesus
It is stated in Matthew:
“For the son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the son of man coming in his kingdom.” [Matt. 16:27,28]

This statement has definitely been wrongly attributed to Jesus, because all those ’standing here’, died nearly two thousand years ago, and none of them saw the Son of Man coming into his kingdom

Error No. 64:
Another Prediction of Jesus
Matthew reports Jesus saying to his disciples:
“But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another, for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the son of man be come.” [Matt. 10:23]

Again this is obviously wrong as the disciples have, long, long ago, done their duty of going over the cities of Israel, but the S on of Man never came with his kingdom.
133
Errors No. 65 - 68
The book of Revelations contains this statement:
“Behold, I come quickly:” [Rev. 3:11]

The same words are found in chapter 22 verse 7 of the same book.

And verse 10 of the same chapter contains this statement:
“Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.”

Further in verse 20 it says again:
“Surely, I come quickly.”

On the basis of these statements of Christ, the earlier followers of Christianity held the firm belief that the second coming of Christ would be in their own time.

They believed that they were living in the last age and that the day of Judgement was very near at hand. The Christian scholars have confirmed that they held this belief.

Errors No. 69 - 75
The Epistle of James contains this statement:
“Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth near.” [James 5:8]

It also appears in I Peter:
“But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober and watch unto prayer.” [1 Peter 4:7]

And the First Epistle of Peter contains these words: Little children, it is the last time.” [1 Peters 4:7]
134
And the First Epistle of Paul to the Thessalonians states:
“For this we say unto you, by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.

For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.” [1 Thess. 4:15-17]

And Paul said in his letter to Philippians: The Lord is at hand.” [Phil. 4:5]

And in his First Epistle to the Corinthians, Paul said:
“And they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the worlds are come.” [1 Cor. 10:11]

Paul also said later in the same letter:
Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.” [1 Cor. 15:51,52]
135
The above seven statements are the arguments for our claim that the early Christians held a firm belief in the second coming of Christ during their own lifetime, with the result that all the seven statements are proved false.

Errors No. 76 - 78:
The Signs of the End of the World
Matthew describes in Chapter 24 that the disciples of Jesus asked the Messiah, when they were on the Mount of Olives, about the signs of the destruction of the Temple and the Second Coming of Jesus and about the end of the world. Jesus told them all the signs, first of the destruction of the House of the Lord, of his own coming to the earth again and of the day of Judgement. The description up to verse 28 talks of the destruction of the Temple; and verse 29 to the end of the chapter consists of the events related to the second coming of Christ and the Day of Judgement.

Some verses of this chapter according to the Arabic translation printed in 1820, read thus:
“Immediately after the tribulation of those days, shall the sun be darkened, and the moon will not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken. And then shall appear the sign of the son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall send his angels with a great sound of trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heaven to the other.” [Matt. 24:29-31]
136

And in verses 34 and 35 it says:
“Verily I say unto you. This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away but my words shall not pass away.”

The text of the Arabic translation printed in 1844 is exactly the same.

However, the Persian translations of 1816, 1828, 1842 contain:
“Immediately after the trouble of those days, the sun shall be darkened.”

Verse 34 of these translations is identical to the one quoted above. It is, therefore necessary that the day of Judgement should come at the time when the House of God has been destroyed and Jesus has reappeared on the earth,”...immediately after the trouble of those days,” according to the statement of Jesus. Similarly it is also necessary that the generation contemporary with Christ should not have died until they saw these event with their eyes, as was the belief of the early Christians. However they did die centuries ago and heaven and earth still continue to exist.

The evangelists, Mark and Luke also included similar descriptions in Chapters 13 and 21 respectively of their gospels. The three evangelists are equally responsible for this historically proved false statement.

Errors No. 79 - 81:
The Reconstruction of the Temple The Gospel of Matthew reports this statement of Christ:
“Verily I say unto you. There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.” [Matt. 24:2]

The Protestant scholars have therefore said that any construction to be built on the foundations of the temple would be razed to the ground as had been foretold by Jesus.
137
The Author of Tehqeeq-e-Deen-ul-Haq, (Inquisition into the True Faith) printed in 1846, said on page 394:
“King Julian, who lived three hundred years after Christ and had become an apostate, intended to rebuild the temple of Jerusalem, so that he could thus refute the prediction of Jesus. When he started the construction suddenly a fire jumped out from its foundations. All the workers were frightened and fled away from there. No one after him ever dared to refute the saying of the truthful, who had said, ”The heaven and the earth shall pass away but my words shall not pass away.”

The priest Dr. Keith wrote a book in renunciation of the disbelievers in Christ which was translated into Persian by Rev. Mirak entitled ”Kashf - ul - Asar – Fi - Qisas - e - Bani Israel” (An exposition of the Israelite Prophets) and printed in Edinburgh in 1846.

We produce the translation of a passage from page 70:
“King Julian allowed the Jews to rebuild Jerusalem and the temple. He also promised that they would be allowed to live in the city of their ancestors, the Jews were no less grieved than the king was pleased. They started the work of the Temple. Since it was against the prophecy of Christ, the Jews, in spite of their best efforts and all the possible help from the king could not succeed in their mission. Some pagan historians have reported that the huge flames of fire burst out of this place and burnt the workers stopping the work altogether.”

Thomas Newton, in vol 3 (pages 63 and 64) of his commentary on the prophecies of the Holy Scripture printed in London in 1803 said, which we translate here from Urdu:
“Omar, the second great Caliph of Islam, spread corruption all over the world. He reigned for ten and a half years. In this short period he made great conquests and conquered all the countries of Arabia, Syria, Iran and Egypt. The Caliph personally besieged Jerusalem and in 637 A.D. signed the treaty of peace with the Christians who were tired of the prolonged siege. The Christians surrendered and handed over the city to Omar.
138
Omar offered generous terms to the Christians. He did not take any church into his possession, but he requested the high priest for a piece of land to build a mosque. The priest showed him the room of Jacob and Solomon’s temple. The Christians had covered this place with dirt and filth out of their hatred for the Jews. Omar, himself, cleansed the place with his own hands. Following the example of Omar, the great officers of his army thought it their religious duty and cleansed the place with religious zeal and built a mosque there. This was the first mosque ever built in Jerusalem. Some historians have also added that in the same mosque Omar was murdered by a slave. Abdul Malik, son of Marvan, who was the twelfth Caliph extended this mosque in his reign.”

Though, the above description of this commentator is not true in several places, he has admitted that the first mosque built at the place of Solomon’s Temple was that built by the Caliph Omar, and that it was extended by Abdul Malik and still exists in Jerusalem after over 1200 years. How would it have been possible for Omar to succeed in building a. mosque there if it had really been against the prophecy of Christ?

Since this statement of Jesus is also reported by Mark and Luke, they are equally responsible for this false description.

Error No. 82:
A False Prediction Matthew reports this statement as having been said by Jesus to his disciples:
“And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in regeneration when the son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye shall also sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” [Matt. 19:28]
139
It is quite apparent from this that Jesus assured his twelve disciples, of eternal success and redemption promising them to sit upon twelve thrones on the Day of Judgement. This prophetic witness of eternal success has been proved wrong by the gospels themselves. We have already seen that one of the disciples of Jesus, namely Judas Iscariot, betrayed Jesus and became an apostate, how, then is it possible for him to sit on the twelfth throne on the Day of Judgement?

Error No. 83
We find in the Gospel of John:
“And he (Jesus) saith unto him, Verily, verily I say unto you. Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the son of man.” [John 1:51]

This is also historically false and incorrect, for, this was said by Jesus after his baptism and after the descent of the Holy Spirit upon him, while we know that nothing like this ever happened in history after this. These prophetic words have never come true.
140
CONTRADICTIONS AND ERRORS IN THE
BIBLICAL TEXT:
Errors 84-110
Error No. 84:
The Ascension of Christ It is said in John:
 “And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the son of man which is in heaven.” [John 3:13]

This is also incorrect, as is evident from the fifth chapter of Genesis [Gen. 5:24] and 2 Kings Chapter 2. [2 Kings 2:11]

Error No. 85
We find this statement in the gospel of Mark:
“For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever saith.” [Mark 1:23]

We find another similar statement in the same book:
“And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.” [Mark 16:17-18]

And in the gospel of John we read the following statement:
“Verily, verily I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do, shall he do also, and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.” [John 14:12]

The prophetic promise made in the above texts is a general statement that does not particularise any man or people, particularly the phrase, ”Whosoever shall say unto this mountain” which is totally unconditional and can be applied to any people of any time.

Similarly the statement, ”He that believeth on me,” can include any believer in Christ of any time. There is no argument to support the claim that the above predictions were particularly made in respect of the early Christians.
141
It is therefore, necessary for a mountain to move and be cast into the sea, if a believer says so to it, of course, with firm belief in Christ. Everyone knows that nothing like this has even happened in history. We would like very much to know if any Christian, in or after the time of Jesus, did perform “works greater than Christ” as the evangelist has made Jesus say this in the above prediction.

The Protestants have more than admitted that after the time of Jesus the occurrence of miracles and marvels has never been proved in history. We have seen many priests in India, who, in spite of making strenuous efforts for many years are not able to speak correctly in Urdu, let alone take up serpents, drink poison and heal the sick.

FALLIBITY OF LUTHER AND CALVIN
Perhaps we might be allowed at this juncture, for the interest of the readers, to reproduce two incidents directly related to Luther and Calvin, the founders of the Protestant faith. We quote this from the book entitled Mira’atus Sidq that was translated into Urdu by a Catholic scholar and priest Thomas Inglus and printed in 1857.

He relates the following incidents on pages 105-107:
“In 1543 Luther tried to cast out the devil from the son of Messina with a result similar to the Jews who once tried to cast out devil as is described by the Book of Acts in Chapter 19. Satan, in the same way attacked Luther and wounded him and his companions. Stiffels seeing that his spiritual leader, Luther was being choked and strangled by Satan, tried to run away but being in great terror was not able to open the latch of the door and had to break down the door with a hammer which was thrown to him from the outside by his servant through a ventilator.
142
Another incident is related of Calvin, the great leader of the Protestants, by another historian. Calvin once hired a man called Bromius and told him to lie down in front of the people and pretend to be dead. He arranged with him that when he heard Calvin say the words, ”Bromius, rise from the dead and be alive,” he should rise from the bed as though he had been dead and had just risen, having been miraculously brought to life. The wife of Bromius was also told to cry and lament over the body of her husband.

Bromius and his wife acted accordingly and people, hearing her cries and lamentation, gathered there for her consolation. Calvin came and said to the weeping woman, ”Do not cry. I will raise him from the dead.”

He began to recite some prayers and then holding the hand of Bromius, said, ”Rise in the name of God.” But his design of deceiving people in the name of God was not a success as Bromius really had died. God had avenged Calvin for his deception and iniquity. Bromius’ wife, seeing that her husband had died in reality started crying and blaming Calvin.

Both these leaders were considered to be the greatest spiritual leaders of their time. If they can be blamed for such acts what remains to be said of the generality of the people.

Pope Alexander VI, the head of the Roman church and the representative of the Lord on the earth, according to the Catholic faith, had prepared some poison for some other persons, but drinking it himself by mistake he died. One cannot avoid coming to the conclusion that the leaders of both the rival sects do not possess any of the qualities mentioned in the prediction under discussion.
143

Error No. 86
The gospel of Luke states:
“Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri.” [Luke 3:27]

This genealogical description of the Christ contains three errors:
1. The sons of Zorobabel or Zerubbabel are described very clearly in 1 Chronicles Chapter 3 and none of them has this name. We have already discussed this earlier and besides this, it is against the description of Matthew.
2. Zerubbabel is the son of Pedaiah, not Salathiel. He is, however, his nephew.
3. Salathiel is the son of Jeconias, not of Neri. Matthew has also agrees with this.

Error No. 87
In his account of the genealogy of Jesus, Luke states:
“...which was the son of Sala, which was the son Cainan which was the son of Arphaxad...” [Luke 3:35,36]

This statement is also not correct as Sala was the son of Arphaxad, and not his grandson, which is clear from the book of Genesis [Gen. 11:12] and from I Chronicles. [1Chr. 1:24]

The Hebrew version has always preference over any translation according to the Protestants. No translation can be preferred to the original Hebrew version simply because it corresponds with the description of Luke. On the contrary, such a translation would be considered unacceptable on the grounds that it has been modified.
144
Error No. 88
We read the following statement in Luke:
“And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed, (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria).” [Luke 2:1]

This, too, is incorrect because the phrase ”all the world” includes the total population of the Roman empire. No historian prior to, or contemporary with Luke ever mentioned this tax before the birth of Jesus in his history.

Later historians, when describing it, only do so using Luke as their source which is unacceptable. Apart from this, it seems impossible that Cyrenius, who was governor of Syria fifteen years after the birth of Jesus, could have done the taxing which was accomplished fifteen years prior to the birth of Jesus.

Equally unbelievable is the notion that Jesus was born during the time of his governorship, because in this case we are required to believe that Mary remained in the state of pregnancy for as long as fifteen years. It is so because Luke has admitted in the second chapter that the wife of Zacharias conceived in the reign of Herod and that Mary conceived Jesus six month later. Realizing this ”difficulty” some Christian scholars have declared that verse 2 is a later addition and not written by Luke.
145
Error No. 89
Luke states:
“Now in the fifteenth year of the Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip, tetrarch of Ituraea and of the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene.” [Luke 3:1]

This is incorrect as the historians have denied of there being any ruler of Abilene named Lysaneas in the time of Herod and Pontius Pilate.

Error No. 90
In the same chapter of Luke we find this statement: But Herod the tetrarch, being reproved by him for Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife, and for all the evils which Herod had done.” [Luke 3:19]

This is absolutely wrong, as we have shown under Error No. 56 and as will be discussed later in the book. The mistake was made by Luke and not by the copier, as has been said by some exegetes admitting the presence of the mistake in the text.

Error No. 91
We find in Mark:
“For Herod himself had sent forth and laid hold upon John, and bound him in prison for Herodias’ sake, his brother Philip’s wife...” [Mark 6:17]

This statement too, is erroneous, as we have already discussed. All the three evangelists are equally responsible for this error. The translator of the Arabic versions printed 1821 and 1844 has manipulated the texts of Matthew and Luke and deleted the word Philip, while other translators have not followed his example.
146

Errors No. 92 - 94:
Did David Eat Shewbread?
It appears in Mark:
“Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him? How he went into the house of God, in the days of Abiathar, the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?” [Mark 2:25,26]

Earlier in the book we showed that this statement is also incorrect, since David at that time was alone, therefore the phrase ”they that were with him” is a misstatement.

Besides, it is incorrect to say the high priest at that time was Abiathar, whereas, in fact, Ahimelech was the high priest. The falsity of this statement can also be understood from the beginning of 1 Samuel 21 and 22.

There are three errors in two verses of Mark. The third error will also be discussed later. The Christian scholars have plainly admitted that Mark has made a mistake in this text.

Errors No. 95 - 96
The Gospel of Luke also describes the same event with words signifying that David was accompanied at that time, when, as we have just shown, he was alone.

Error No. 97
The First Epistle to Corinthians contains the following sentence: And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve.” [1 Cor. 15:5]
147
This statement is quite obviously wrong, since one of the twelve, Judas Iscariot had died prior to this event, reducing the number of the disciples to eleven.

Mark, therefore, says in Chapter 16: He appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat.” [Mark 16:14]

Errors No. 98-100
Matthew says:
“But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.” [Matt. 10:19,20]

Luke also reports this in the following words:
“And when they bring you unto the synagogues, and unto magistrates, and powers, take ye no thought, how or what thing shall ye answer, or what ye shall say: For the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what ye ought to say.” [Luke 12:11,12]

A similar statement is also given in Mark in chapter 13. The implication of the texts contained in the three gospels is that Jesus promised his disciples that whatever they said to the officers would be inspired to them by the Holy Ghost, which in turn signified that their words would not be their own words but the word of the Holy Ghost.
148
This statement is shown to be incorrect in the light of the following passage of the Book of Acts:
“And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day.

And the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth.

Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: For sittest thou to judge me after the law and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law? And they that stood by said, Revilest thou God’s high priest?

Then said Paul, I wist not, brethern, that he was the high priest: for it is written, Thou shall not speak evil of the ruler of thy people.” [Acts 23:1-5]

 Had the statement of Matthew and Luke been true, their spiritual leader Paul, who is considered equal in status with the disciples and who himself claims to be equal to Peter, the greatest of all disciples, could have not said anything erroneous before the council. Paul’s admission to his fault is enough to prove the text incorrect. We shall later on show that the Christian scholars have admitted the presence of error in this text. Since this text has appeared in the three gospels, this makes three errors in the text.

Errors No. 101 & 102
In Luke we find:
“...in the days of Elias, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months...” [Luke4:25]

And in the Epistle of James:
“...and it rained not on earth by the space of three years and six months.” [James 5:17]
149
This also seems incorrect as it is understood from I Kings that there was rain in the third year. [1 Kings 18:1]

Since this statement has appears in Luke as being said by Jesus, while in the Epistle of James, as the statement of James himself, this, in fact, makes it two mistakes.

Error No. 103:
Jesus and the Throne of David
The Gospel of Luke says in chapter 1: And Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever, and of his Kingdom there shall be no end.” [Luke1:32,33]

This is incorrect for the following two reasons:
1. Because Jesus, according to the genealogy given by Matthew, is a descendant of Jehoiakim, and none of his descendants can sit on the throne of David according to the statement of the Prophet Jeremiah. [Jer. 36:30]

2. Secondly because historically we know that Jesus never sat on the throne of David even for a single minute; nor did he ever rule over the house of Jacob. On the contrary, the Jews became hostile to him to the extent that they arrested him and took him to Pilate, who reviled him and then handed him over to the Jews to crucify.

Besides, it is clear from the Gospel of John that Jesus hated the idea of being a king [John 6:15], and, moreover, it is unbelievable that Jesus would hate something for which he was sent by God.
150
Error No. 104
We find the following passage in Mark:
“Jesus answered, and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for my sake, and the gospel’s, But he shall receive hundred-fold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.” [Mark 10:29,30]

And Luke reports these words in the same context:
“...who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and in the world to come, life everlasting.” [Luke 18:30]

This cannot be true because, according to their law the Christians are not allowed to marry more than one woman. It would therefore, not be possible for a man leaving his wife for the sake of Jesus, to receive ”hundred-fold or at least manifold wives in this present life.”

Besides the phrase, ”lands with persecutions”, is out of place here as Jesus is speaking of the reward that would be given to them by God, hence the phrase ”with persecutions” is not relevant, and does not fit the context.
151
Error No. 105:
Jesus Healing the One Possessed by Devils
The Gospel of Mark describes the event of a man possessed by evil spirits and being healed by Jesus, saying: And all the devils besought him saying, Send us into the swine that we may enter into them. And forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean spirits went out, and entered into the swine; and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the sea.” [Mark 5:12,13]

This is incorrect, for the reason that the Jews were not allowed to keep swine, being inadmissible for them under the law.

Error No. 106
Matthew reports Jesus saying to the Jews:
“I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.” [Matt. 26:64]

It is wrong because the Jews have never seen Christ coming in the clouds of heaven before or after his death.

Error No. 107
Luke has reported in chapter 6:
“The disciple is not above his master, but every man that is perfect shall be as his master.” [Luke 6:40]

This appears to be wrong as there are many personalities who have had greater perfection than their teacher.
152
Error No. 108:
Parents: Honour or Hate Them?
The following statement of Jesus has been reported by Luke: If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.” [Luke 14:26]

It is, all the more, incredible to think that such a remark could have been made by Jesus, when he had said, reproaching the Jews: For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother, and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” [Matt. 15:4]

We cannot see how Jesus could have said this.

Error No.109
The Gospel of John says:
“And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year said unto them, Ye know nothing at all.

Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. And this spake he not of himself, but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.” [John 11:49-52]
153
This statement cannot be accepted as true for the following inconsistencies in the text.
Firstly, because this statement implies that the high priest should necessarily be a prophet which is certainly not correct. Secondly, if the statement of the high priest is accepted as prophetic, it necessitates that the death of Jesus should be an atonement only for the Jews and not for the whole world, which is obviously against the established beliefs and claims of the Christians. And the phrase, ”not only for this nation” becomes an absurd statement and against the prophethood of Jesus.

Thirdly, according to the evangelist, this high priest who enjoys the status of a prophet happens to be the same man who was the high priest at the time of the ’crucifixion’ of Jesus and the one who passed the religious decree against Jesus accusing him of being a liar, a disbeliever and being liable to be killed. And he was the one who was pleased at the smiting and insulting of Jesus.

This is witnessed to by Matthew who says:
“And they that had laid hold on Jesus led him away to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were assembled.” [Matt. 26:57]

And further in the same chapter we find the following details:
“But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the son of God. Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
154
Then the high priest rent his clothes saying, He has spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? Behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy. What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death. Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him; and others smote him with the palms of their hands, Saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, Who is he that smote thee?” [Matt 26:63-68]

The fourth gospel, John, is even more explicit, saying:
“And led him away to Annas first: for he was father in law of Caiaphas, which was the high priest that same year. Now Caiaphas was he, which gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one should die for the people.” [John 18:13,14]

We may now be allowed to say that if this statement of the high priest was made by him as a prophet why did he gave his judgement to kill Jesus? He declared him blasphemous and was happy at the humiliation of Jesus in his court. Is it in any way credible that a prophet should command people to kill his God?

We declare our utter disbelief in such prophet who remains a prophet even after committing such profane and sacrilegious acts. From this situation it logically deduced that Jesus was a prophet of God but having gone astray (may God forbid) he claimed of being God incarnate and put a false blame on God. In short, the innocence of Christ, in this case, becomes doubtful. In fact, the evangelist John is also innocent, as is Jesus Christ, of making such incredible statements.

The responsibility for all such statements lies totally on the shoulders of the Trinitarians. If, for a moment, we suppose that Caiaphas’s statement is true, even then the significance of his statement would be that when the disciples and the followers of Jesus confirmed that Jesus was, in fact, the Promised Messiah or Christ, since it was generally believed by the people that it was necessary for the Messiah to be a great king of the Jews, Caiaphas and his elders, were afraid that having come to know this fact, the Caesar of Rome would be angry and might make trouble for them, he proposed, ”one should die for the people”
155
This was the real and natural significance of that statement and not that the people of the world would be redeemed and saved from their ’original sin’, as they call it, which was committed by Adam thousands of years prior to the birth of the Christ, which is a whimsical and, of course, illogical interpretation of the statement. The Jews also do not believe in this whimsical conception of the Trinitarians.

Perhaps this evangelist, later on, realised the mistake and he replaced the phrase ’he prophesied’ with the words ’he gave counsel’, in Chapter 18, because to give counsel is very different from making a prophesy as a prophet. Though by making this change he has opened himself to the charge of contradicting his own statement.
156
Error No. 110
Paul’s letter to Hebrews contains this statement:
“For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book and all the people, Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you. Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry.” [Heb. 9:19-21]

The above statement is incorrect for the following three reasons: 

Firstly because the blood was not of calves and goats, but was only of oxen, at that occasion.

Secondly because, the water, the scarlet wool and hyssop were not present; at that moment only the blood was sprinkled.

Thirdly, because Moses himself did not sprinkle on the book and on the vessels as described by Paul, rather half the blood was sprinkled on the altar and half of it on the people.

These three mistakes are clear from the following description given by the book of Exodus. It reads:
“And Moses came and told the people all the words of the Lord, and all the judgements: and all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which the Lord hath said will we do.

And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord, and rose up early in the morning, and builded an altar under the hill, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of the Israel... which offered burnt offerings and sacrificed peace offerings of oxen unto the Lord.

And Moses took half of the blood and put it in basons; and half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar.
157
And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient.

And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words.” [Ex. 24:3-8]

In view of the textual defects and inconsistencies present in the Bible, pointed out to the readers so far, the Roman Catholic Church prohibited the study and reading of these books for common people. They rightly said that the damage caused by the reading of them would be greater than the benefit to be expected from them.

They were certainly right in having this opinion. In fact, the contradictions, errors and inconsistencies of the biblical texts were not known to the people until the appearance of the Protestant movement. They discovered and dug into these books and the secrets were disclosed, causing the strong reaction which is well known to the world today.

The book entitled, Kitabu’th-Thalathu-Ashrah (The Thirteen Books) printed in Beirut in 1849, contains the following on pages 417, 418 of the Thirteenth Book.

We give its faithful translation from Urdu:
“Let us now look at the law passed by the Council of Trent and duly stamped by the Pope. It said that the experience of the past showed that such words when read by common people would produce greater evil than good.

It was therefore the responsibility of the priest or of the judge that, according to his description, or in consultation with the teacher of confession, he should allow the reading of the words in these books only to those who, in their opinion, might be benefited by them, and it was of great importance that the book must have been previously checked by a Catholic teacher, and it had to bear the signature of the teacher who allowed it to be read. Anyone who dared read it without permission, was not to be excused unless he was sent to the proper authorities.”
158