IS THE BIBLE
GOD'S WORD?
CHAPTER ONE
WHAT THEY SAY
CHRISTIANS CONFESS
Dr. W. Graham Scroggie of the MOODY
BIBLE INSTITUTE, Chicago, one of the most prestigious Christian Evangelical
Mission in the world, answering the question "Is the Bible the Word
of God?" (also the title of his book), under the heading: IT IS
HUMAN, YET DIVINE. He says on page 17:
"Yes, the Bible is human,
though some, out of zeal which is not according to knowledge, 1
have denied this. Those books2 have passed through the
minds of men, are written in the language of men, were penned by the
hands of men, and bear in their style the characteristics of
men." (Emphasis added).
Another erudite Christian scholar,
Kenneth Cragg, the Anglican Bishop of Jerusalem, says on page 277 of his book,
"The Call of the Minaret":
"Not so the New Testament3
. . . There is condensation and editing; 4 there is
choice, reproduction and witness. The Gospels have come through the
mind of the Church behind the authors. They represent experience and
history." 5
If words have any meaning, do we need to
add another word of comment to prove our case? No! But the professional
propagandists, after letting the cat out of the bag, still have the face to try
to make their readers believe that they have proved beyond the shadow of any
doubt that the Bible is the "irrefragable 6 Word of
God." Their semantic gymnastics equivocating, and playing with words
is amazing!
1. Out of ignorance.
2. The Bible is not Just a Book. It is a selection and
compilation of many books.
3. As opposed to the Qurβn.
4. Another word for Interpolating.
5. Emphasis are mine.
6. Indisputable.
Both these Doctors of Religion are
telling us in the clearest language humanly possible that the Bible is the
handiwork of man, all the while pretending that the are proving to the
contrary. An old Arab saying goes: "IF SUCH ARE THE PRIESTS, GOD BLESS THE
CONGREGATION."
With this sort of drivel, the
hot-gospeller and the Bible-thumper is "inspired" to harry the
"heathen." 1 A theological student a
not-yet-qualified young evangelist from the University of Witwatersrand,
became a frequent visitor to the Newtown Mosque in Johannesburg, with the
"noble" thought of "witnessing"2 to the
members of its congregation. When I was introduced to him, (and having learnt
his purpose), I invited him to lunch at my brother's residence a
stone's-throw from the Mosque. While discussing the authenticity of the Bible
over the dinner table and sensing his stubborn dogmatism, I put out a feeler:
"Your Professor Geyser, (The Head of the Department of Theology)
does not believe the Bible to be the Word of God." Without the slightest
surprise he answered, "I know." Now I personally had no knowledge of
the Professor's conviction about the Bible. I had only assumed so from a
controversy which raged around him about the "Divinity of Christ."
3 He had taken issue with the orthodox believers on this point some
years ago. I continued further, saying, "Your lecturer does not
believe the Bible as being God's Word." The young evangelist, responded
again, "I know" but he continued this time-with the words,
"but I believe that it is the Word of God!" There is no real
remedy for such people. Even Jesus bewailed this sickness:
"... seeing they see not; and
hearing they hear not, neither do they understand." (Matthew 13:13)
Al-Qur'an, the Holy Book of God, also
condemns this mulish mentality:
These pages are now addressed to those
sincerely humble souls, who are genuinely interested in seeking the Light of
God, and who wish to be guided by it. As for the other, with a sickness in
their souls, the facts presented herein can only increase the disease of their
hearts.
1. See "How Lost are the Heathen?" by the
same MOODY PRESS of Dr. Scroggie.
2. When the Christian talks of "witnessing" he
means propagating, proselytizng, converting.
3. This subject is dealt extensively in the book "CHRIST
IN ISLAM"
CHAPTER TWO
THE MUSLIMS' STANDPOINT
PRESUMPTUOUS CHRISTIANS
Whether Catholic, Protestant or a
"Cultist," of the thousand -and - one - sects - and -
denominations-of-Christianity, never will you find a missionary who will not,
prima facie, presuppose that his potential convert accepts his "Holy
Bible" as the book of final authority on every religious opinion? The only
answer the prospective proselyte has is to quote verses from the Bible which
are contradictory to the missionary's or debate their interpretations.
THE DOGGED QUESTION
When the Muslim proves his point from
the Christian's own Holy Scripture, and when the professional priest,
parson or predikant cannot refute the arguments the inevitable Christian
evasion is "DO YOU ACCEPT THE BIBLE AS GOD'S WORD? On the face of it,
the question seems to be an easy one, but a simple "Yes" or
"No" cannot be given as an answer. You see, one has first to explain
one's position. But the Christian will not give one the opportunity. He gets
impatient. "Answer 'Yes or No!' " he insists. The Jews did the same
to Jesus two thousand years ago, except that surprisingly he was not
strait-jacketed, as is the fashion today!
The reader will readily agree that
things are not always either BLACK or WHITE. Between these two extremes there
are various shades of GREY. If you say "Yes" to his question, then it
would mean that you are prepared to swallow everything HOOK, LINE and SINKER,
from Genesis to Revelation from his Bible. If you respond with a
"No" he quickly unhooks himself from the facts you have presented,
and rallies support from his co-religionists in the audience with; "You
see, this man does not believe in the Bible! What right has he to expound his
case from our Book?" With this hydra-like somersault he rests content that
he has safely evaded the issue. What is the Muballigh1to do?
He has to explain his position vis-a-vis the Bible, as he ought to do.
1. MUBALLIGH: The Propagator of Islam
THREE GRADES OF EVIDENCE
We Muslims have no hesitation in acknowledging that in the
Bible, there are three different kinds of witnessing recognizable without any
need of specialized training. These are:
1. You will be able to recognize in the
Bible what may be described as "The Word of God."
2. You will also be able to discern what
can be described as the "Words of a Prophet of God."
3. And you will most readily observe
that the bulk of the Bible is the records of eye witnessess or ear witnesses,
or people writing from hearsay. As such they are the "Words of a
Historian"
You do not have to hunt for examples of
these different types of evidences in the Bible. The following quotations will
make the position crystal clear:
The FIRST Type:
(a) I
will raise them up a prophet . . . and I will put
my words in ... and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him." (Deuteronomy 18:18)
(b) I
even, I am the Lord, and beside me there is no saviour." (Isaiah 43:11)
(c) "Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the end of the earth: for I am God, and there is non else." (Isaiah 45:22)
Note the first person pronoun singular
(highlighted in green) in the above references, and without any difficulty you
will agree that the statements seem to have the sound of being GOD'S WORD.
The SECOND Type:
(a) "Jesus cried with
a loud voice, saying Eli, Eli, lama sabachtani? . . ."
(Matthew 27:46)
(b) "And Jesus answered him,
The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; the Lord our God is
one Lord:" (Mark 12:29)
(c) "And Jesus said unto
him, Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is God."
(Mark 10:18).
Even a child will be able to affirm
that: Jesus "cried" Jesus "answered" and
Jesus "said" are the words of the one to whom they are
attributed, i.e. the WORDS OF A PROPHET OF GOD.
The THIRD Type:
"And seeing a fig tree afar off
having leaves, he, (JESUS) came, if haply he (JESUS) might find
anything thereon: and when he (JESUS) came to it, (Jesus) found nothing
but leaves . . ." (Mark 11:13)
The bulk of the Bible is a witnessing of
this THIRD kind. These are the words of a third person. Note the
underlined pronouns. They are not the Words of God or of His prophet, but the
WORDS OF A HISTORIAN.
For the Muslim it is quite easy to distinguish
the above types of evidence, because he also has them in his own faith. But of
the followers of the different religions, he is the most fortunate in this that
his various records are contained in separate Books!
ONE: The first kind THE WORD OF GOD is found in a Book
called The Holy Qurβn.
TWO: The second kind THE WORDS OF THE PROPHET OF GOD,
(Muhummed, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) are recorded in
the Books of Tradition called The Hadeeth.
THREE: Evidence of the third kind abounds in different volume of
Islamic history, written by some of high integrity and learning, and others of
lesser trustworthiness, but the Muslim advisedly keeps his Books in separate
volumes!
The Muslim keeps the above three types
of evidence Jealously apart, in their proper gradations of authority. He never
equates them. On the other hand, the "Holy Bible" contains a motley
type of literature, which composes the embarrassing kind, the sordid, and the
obscene all under the same cover A Christian is forced to concede equal
spiritual import and authority to all, and is thus unfortunate in this regard.
CHAPTER THREE
THE MULTIPLE BIBLE VERSIONS
It will now be easy for us to analyze a
Christian's claim about his Holy Book.
SEPARATING THE WHEAT FROM THE CHAFF
Before we scrutinize the various
versions, let us clarify our own belief regarding the Books of God. When we say
that we believe in the Tauraat, the Zaboor, the Injeel and
the Qur'an, what do we really mean? We already know that the Holy Qur'an
is the infallible Word of God, revealed to our Holy Prophet Hazrat Muhummed
Mustapha (Peace be upon him) word for word, through the agency of the Archangel
Jibraeel, (known as Gabriel in English), and perfectly preserved and protected
from human tampering for the past fourteen hundred years! 1
Even hostile critics of Islam have grudgingly vouched for the purity of the
Holy Qurβn: "THERE IS PROBABLY IN THE WORLD NO OTHER BOOK WHICH HAS
REMAINED TWELVE CENTURIES (now fourteen) WITH SO PURE A TEXT."
(Sir William Muir)
The Tauraat we Muslims believe in
is not the "Torah" of the Jews and the Christians, though the words
one Arabic, the other Hebrew are the same. We believe that whatever the Holy
Prophet Moses (Peace be upon him) preached to his people, was the revelation
from God Almighty, but that Moses was not the author of those
"books" attributed to him by the Jews and the Christians. 2
Likewise, we believe that the Zaboor
was the revelation of God granted to Hazrat Dawood (David) (Peace be upon him),
but that the present Psalms associated with his name are not that
revelation. The Christians themselves do not insist that David is the
sole author of "his" Psalms.3
1. Whether Muslim or non-Muslim, you do not have lo accept
this claim on faith alone. You can verify the fact that Al-Qurβn
is the Word of God. See "AL-QURAN- The Miracle of Miracles";
2- More evidence later on "Moses not the author of the
Biblical "Torah."
3.. Later on youll read how Christian "Brains
Trust" confess "Author; Principally David, though there are
other writers."
What about the Injeel? INJEEL
means the "Gospel" or "good news" which Jesus Christ
preached during his short ministry. The "Gospel" writers often
mention that Jesus going about and preaching the Gospel (the Injeel):
1. "And Jesus went . . . preaching
the gospel . . . and healing every disease among the people." (Matthew
9:35)
2. "... but whosoever shall lose
his fife for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it." (Mark
8:35)
3. "... preached the gospel. .
." (Luke 20:1)
The "gospel" is a
frequently-used word, but what Gospel did Jesus preach? Of the 27 books of the
New Testament, only a small fraction can be accepted as the words of Jesus. The
Christians boast about the Gospels according to St. Matthew, according to St.
Mark, according to St. Luke and according to St. John, but there is not a
single Gospel "according" to (St.) Jesus himself! We
sincerely believe that everything Christ (May the peace and blessings of
God be upon him) preached was from God. That was the Injeel, the good
news and the guidance of God for the Children of Israel. In his life-time Jesus
never wrote a single word, nor did he instruct anyone to do so. What passes off
as the "GOSPELS" today are the works of anonymous hands!
The question before us is: "Do
you accept that the Bible is God's Word?" The question is really in
the form of a challenge. The questioner is not simply seeking enlightenment.
The question is posed in the spirit of a debate. We have every right to demand
in a similar vein "Which Bible are you talking about?", we may ask.
"Why, there is only ONE Bible!" he mutters.
THE CATHOLIC BIBLE
Holding the "Douay"
Roman Catholic Version of the Bible aloft in my hand, I ask, "Do YOU
accept THIS Bible as the Word of God?" For reasons best known to
themselves, the Catholic Truth Society have published their Version of the
Bible in a very short, stumpy form. This Version is a very odd proportion of
the numerous Versions in the market today. The Christian questioner is taken
aback. "What Bible is that?" he asks. "Why, I thought you said
that there was only ONE Bible!" I remind him. "Y-e-s," he
murmurs hesitantly, "but what Version is that?" "Why, would that
make any difference?" I enquire. Of course it does, and the professional
preacher knows that it does. He is only bluffing with his "ONE Bible"
claim.
The Roman Catholic Bible was published
at Rheims in 1582, from Jerome's Latin Vulgate and reproduced at Douay in 1609.
As such the RCV (Roman Catholic Version) is the oldest Version that one can
still buy today. Despite its antiquity, the whole of the Protestant world,
including the "cults"* condemn
the RCV because it contains seven extra "books" which they
contemptuously refer to as the "apocrypha" i.e. of DOUBTFUL
AUTHORITY. Notwithstanding the dire warning contained in the Apocalypse, which
is the last book in the RCV (renamed as "Revelation" by the
Protestants), it is "revealed":
". . . If any man shall add to
these things (or delete) God shall add unto him
the plagues written in this Book." (Revelation 22:18-19)
But who cares! They do not really
believe! The Protestants have bravely expunged seven whole books from
their Book of God! The outcasts are:
The Book of Judith
The Book of Tobias
The Book of Baruch
The Buck of Esther, etc.
* This disparaging title is given by the orthodox to
Jehovah's Witnesses, the Seventh Day Adventists and a thousand other sects and
denominations with whom they do not see eye to eye.
THE PROTESTANT BIBLE
Sir Winston Churchill has some pertinent
things to say about the Authorised Version (AV) of the Protestant Bible, which
is also widely known as the "King James Version (KJV)".
"THE AUTHORISED VERSION OF THE
BIBLE WAS PUBLISHED IN 1611 BY THE WILL AND COMMAND OF HIS
MAJESTY KING JAMES THE 1ST WHOSE NAME IT BEARS TILL TODAY."
The Roman Catholics, believing as they
do that the Protestants have mutilated the Book of God, are yet aiding and
abetting the Protestant "crime" by forcing their native converts to
purchase the Authorised Version (AV) of the Bible, which is the only Bible
available in some 1500 languages of the lesser developed nations of the world.
The Roman Catholics milk their cows, but the feeding is left to the
Protestants! The overwhelming majority of Christians both Catholics and
Protestant use the Authorised (AV) or the King James Version
(KJV) as it is alternatively called.
GLOWING TRIBUTES
First published, as Sir Winston says, in
1611, and then revised in 1881 (RV), and now re-revised and brought up to date
as the Revised Standard Version (RSV) 1952, and now again re-re-revised
in 1971 (still RSV for short). Let us see what opinion Christendom has of this
most revised Bible, the RSV:-
1. "THE FINEST VERSION WHICH HAS
BEEN PRODUCED IN THE PRESENT CENTURY." (Church of England Newspaper)
2. "A COMPLETELY FRESH TRANSLATION
BY SCHOLARS OF THE HIGHEST EMINENCE." (Times literary Supplement)
3. "THE WELL-LOVED CHARACTERISTICS
OF THE AUTHORISED VERSION COMBINED WITH A NEW ACCURACY OF TRANSLATION."
(Life and Work)
4. "THE MOST ACCURATE AND CLOSE
RENDERING OF THE ORIGINAL" (The Times)
The publishers (Collins) themselves, in
their notes on the Bible at the end of their production, say on page 10:
"THIS BIBLE (RSV), IS THE PRODUCT OF THIRTY-TWO SCHOLARS, ASSISTED
BY AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPRESENTING FIFTY CO-OPERATING
DENOMINATIONS." Why all this boasting? To make the gullible public buy
their product? All these testimonies convince the purchaser that he is backing
the right horse, with the purchaser little suspecting that he is being taken
for a ride.
"THE WORLD'S BEST SELLER"
But what about the Authorised Version of
the Bible (AV), the "World's Best Seller?" These Revisers, all good
salesmen, have some very pretty things to say about it. However, their page
iii, paragraph six of the PREFACE of the RSV reads;
"THE KING JAMES VERSION
(alternative description of AV) HAS WITH GOOD REASON BEEN TERMED 'THE
NOBLEST MONUMENT OF ENGLISH PROSE. ITS REVISERS IN 1881 EXPRESSED
ADMIRATION FOR 'ITS SIMPLICITY, ITS DIGNITY, ITS POWER, ITS HAPPY TURNS OF
EXPRESSION ... THE MUSIC OF ITS CADENCES, AND THE FELICITIES OF ITS RHYTHM.
IT ENTERED, AS NO OTHER BOOK HAS, INTO THE MAKING OF THE PERSONAL CHARACTER AND
THE PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS OF THE ENGLISH-SPEAKING PEOPLES. WE OWE TO IT AN
INCALCULABLE DEBT."
Can you, dear reader, imagine a more
magnificent tribute being paid to the "Book of Books" than the above?
I, for one, cannot. Let the believing Christian, now steel himself for the
un-kindest blow of all from his own beloved Lawyers of Religion; for in the
very same breath they say:
"YET THE KING JAMES VERSION HAS
GRAVE DEFECTS." And, "THAT THESE DEFECTS ARE SO MANY AND SO
SERIOUS AS TO CALL FOR REVISION . . ." This is straight from the
horse's mouth, i.e. the orthodox Christian scholars of "the highest
eminence." Another galaxy of Doctors of Divinity are now required to
produce an encyclopedia explaining the cause of those GRAVE AND SERIOUS DEFECTS
in their Holy Writ and their reasons for eliminating them.
This is a photographic reproduction from
the R.S.V. 1971.
CHAPTER FOUR
FIFTY THOUSAND ERRORS (?)
The Jehovah's Witnesses in their
"AWAKE!" Magazine dated 8 September, 1957, carried this startling
headline "50000 ERRORS IN THE BIBLE?" (See below for the
reproduction).
While I was still formulating the theme
of this booklet, I heard a knock at my door one Sunday morning. I opened the
door. A European gentleman stood there, grinning broadly. "Good
morning'" he said. "Good morning" I replied. He was offering me
his "Awake" and "Watchtower" magazines. Yes,
a Jehovah's Witness! If a few had knocked at your door previously, you will
recognize them immediately. The most supercilious lot of people who ever
knocked at people's doors! I invited him in.
As soon as he settled down, I produced
the full reproduction of what you see below. Pointing to the monograph at the top of the page, I asked, "Is
this your's?" He readily recognised his own. I said, "It says: 50 000
Errors in the Bible, is it true?" "What's that!" he exclaimed. I
repeated, "I said, that it says, that there are 50 000 errors in your
Bible." "Where did you get that?" He asked. (This was published
23 years ago, when he was perhaps a little nipper) I said, "Leave the
fancy talk aside is this your's?" pointing again to the monograph
"Awake!" He said, "Can I have a look?" "Of
course," I said. I handed him the page. He started perusing. They (the
Jehovah's Witnesses) are trained. They attend classes five times a week in
their "Kingdom Halls." Naturally, they are the fittest missionaries
among the thousand -and - one - sects - and - denominations of Christendom.
They are taught that when cornered, do not commit yourself to anything, do not
open your mouths. Wait for the Holy Ghost to inspire you with what to say.
I silently kept watching him, while he
browsed the page. Suddenly he looked up. He had found it. The "Holy
Ghost" had tickled him. He began, "The article says that
"most of those errors have been eliminated." I asked "If
MOST are eliminated, how many remain out of 50000? 5000? 500? 50? Even if
50 remain, do you attribute those errors to God?" He was speechless. He
excused himself by suggesting that he will come again with some senior member
of his Church. That will be the day!
If I had this booklet ready, I would
have offered him, saying "I would like to do you a favour, give me your
name and address, and your telephone number. I will lend you this
booklet IS THE BIBLE GOD'S WORD?" for 90 days. I want a written
reply!" If you do this, And a few other Muslims do the same. They and the
other missionaries will never darken your doors again. I believe that this
publication will prove the most effective talisman to date. Insha-Allah!
This "cult" of Jehovah's
Witnesses which is so strong in its condemnation of the orthodox Trinitarians,
for playing with the "Word of God," is itself playing the same game
of semantic gymnastics. In the article under review "50000 ERRORS
IN THE BIBLE?" they say: "there are probably 50 000
errors . . . errors that have crept into the Bible text . . . 50000
such serious (?) errors
most of those so-called errors...
as a whole the Bible is accurate." (?)
We do not have the time and space to go
into the tens of thousands of grave or minor defects that the authors of
the Revised Standard Version (RSV) have attempted to revise. We leave that
privilege to the Christian scholars of the Bible. Here I will endeavour to cast
just a cursory glance at a "half-a-dozen" or so of those
"minor" changes.
1. "Therefore the Lord himself
shall give you a sign: Behold, a VIRGIN shall conceive, and bear a son, and
shall call his name Immanuel."
(Isaiah 7:14 - AV)
The indispensable "VIRGIN" in
the above verse has now been replaced in the RSV with the phrase "a
young woman," which is the correct translation of the Hebrew word
almah. Almah is the word which has occurred all along in the Hebrew text
and NOT bethulah which means VIRGIN. This correction is only to be found
in the English language translation, as the RSV is only published in this
tongue. For the African and the Afrikaner, the Arab and the Zulu, in fact, in
the 1 500 other languages of the world, Christians are made to continue to
swallow the misnomer "VIRGIN."
BEGOTTEN, NOT MADE
"Jesus is the only begotten son of
God, begotten not made," is an adjunct of the orthodox
catechism, leaning for support on the following:
2. For God so loved the world, that
he gave his only BEGOTTEN son, that whosoever believeth in him should not
perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16 - AV)
No priest worth his cloth would fail to
quote "the only BEGOTTEN of the Father!" when preaching to a
prospective convert. But this fabrication "BEGOTTEN" has now been
unceremoniously excised by the Bible Revisers, without a word of excuse. They
are as silent as church-mice and would not draw the reader's attention to their
furtive excision. This blasphemous word "BEGOTTEN" was another of the
many such interpolations in the "Holy Bible." God Almighty condemned
this blasphemy in the strongest terms soon after its innovation. He did not
wait for 2000 years for Bible scholars to reveal the fraud.
The Muslim World should congratulate the
"Fifty cooperating denominations" of Christendom and their Brains
Trust the "Thirty-two scholars of the highest eminence" for
bringing their Holy Bible a degree nearer to the Qur-anic truth.
"CHRISTIAN
MES-A-MATHICS"
3. "For there are three that
bear record in heaven, the FATHER,
the WORD, and the HOLY GHOST: and these three are one."
1st Epistle of John 5:7 - AV
This verse is the closest approximation
to what the Christians call their Holy Trinity in the encyclopaedia
called the BIBLE. This key-stone of the Christian faith has also been scrapped
from the RSV without even a semblance of explanation. It has been a pious fraud
all along and well-deservedly has it been expunged in the RSV for the
English-speaking people. But for the 1499 remaining language groups of the
world who read the Christian concoctions in their mother tongues, the fraud
remains. These people will never know the truth until the Day of Judgement.
However, we Muslims must again congratulate the galaxy of D.D.s who have been
honest enough to eliminate another lie from the English (RSV) Bible, thus
bringing their Holy Book yet another step closer to the teachings of Islam. For
the Holy Qur'an says:
* Not one in a trinity. Not one in a trinity.
THE ASCENSION
One of the most serious of those
"grave defects" which the authors of the RSV had tried to rectify
concerned the Ascension of Christ. There have been only two references in the
Canonical Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and of John to the most stupendous event
in Christianity OF JESUS BEING TAKEN UP INTO HEAVEN. These two references
were obtained in every Bible in every language, prior to 1952, when the RSV
first appeared. These were:
4a. "So then the Lord Jesus,
after he had spoken to them, was TAKEN UP INTO HEAVEN, and sat down at the
right hand of God." (Mark
16:19)
4b. "While he blessed them, he
parted from them, and was CARRIED UP INTO HEAVEN." (Luke 24:51)
Now please look at the image below,
which is a photocopy where the quotation 4a above ought to appear. You will be
shocked to note that Mark 16 ends at verse 8, and after an embarrassing
expanse of blank space the missing verses appear in "small print" as
a footnote at the bottom of the page. If you can lay your hands on a RSV
1952, you will find the last six words of 4b above, i.e. "AND WAS
CARRIED UP INTO HEAVEN" replaced by a tiny "a" to tell you
to see the footnote if you please, where you will find these missing words.
Every honest Christian has to admit that he does not consider any footnote in
any Bible as the word of God. Why should the paid servants of Christianity
consign the mightiest miracle of their religion to a mere footnote?
From the Chart "The
Origin and Growth of the English Bible" appearing below, you will
note that all the Biblical "Versions" prior to the Revised Version of
1881 were dependent upon the ANCIENT COPIES those dating only five or six
hundred years after Jesus. The Revisers of the RSV 1952, were the first Bible
scholars who were able to tap the "MOST Ancient Copies" fully,
dating three and four centuries after Christ. We agree that the closer to the
source the more authentic is the document. Naturally "MOST" Ancient
deserves credence more than mere "ANCIENT." But not finding a word
about Jesus being "taken up" or "carried up"
into heaven in the MOST ANCIENT manuscripts, the Christian fathers expurgated
those references from the RSV 1952.
THE DONKEY CIRCUS
The above facts are a staggering
confession by Christendom that the "inspired" authors of the
Canonical Gospels did not record a single word about the ASCENSION of Jesus-
Yet these "inspired" authors were unanimous in recording that
their Lord and Saviour rode a donkey into Jerusalem as his mission drew to a
close.
|
. . . And they sat him thereon." (The Donkey) (Matt. 21:7) |
. . . And he sat upon him." (The Donkey) (Mark 11:7) |
|
. . . And they set Jesus Thereon." (The Donkey) (Luke 19:35) |
. . . Jesus ... sat thereon:" (The Donkey) (John 12:14) |
Could God Almighty have been the author
of this incongruous situation going out of His Way to see that all the Gospel
writers did not miss their footing recording of His "son's"
donkey-ride into the Holy City and yet "inspiring" them to
black-out the news about His "son's" heavenly flight on the wings of
angels?
NOT FOR LONG!
The hot-gospellers and the
Bible-thumpers were too slow in catching the Joke. By the time they
realised that the corner-stone of their preaching THE ASCENSION OF JESUS
had been undermined as a result of Christian Biblical erudition, the publishers
of the RSV had already raked in a net profit of 15 000 000 dollars! (Fifteen
Million). The propagandists made a big hue and cry, and with the backing of two
denominational committees out of the fifty, forced the Publishers to
re-incorporate the interpolations into the "INSPIRED" Word of God in
every new publication of the RSV after 1952, the expunged portion was
"RESTORED TO THE TEXT."
It is an old, old game. The Jews and the
Christians have been editing their "Book of God" from its very
inception. The difference between them and the ancient forgerers is that the
ancient forgers did not know the art of writing "prefaces" and
"footnotes", otherwise they too would have told us as clearly as our
modern heroes have about their tampering, and their glib excuses for
transmuting forged currency into glittering gold.
"MANY PROPOSALS FOR MODIFICATION
WERE SUBMITTED TO THE COMMITTEE BY INDIVIDUALS AND BY TWO DENOMINATIONAL
COMMITTEES ALL OF THESE WERE GIVEN CAREFUL ATTENTION BY THE COMMITTEE.
"TWO PASSAGES, THE I LONGER ENDING
OF MARK (16:9-20) . . . AND LUKE 24:51 ARE RESTORED TO THE TEXT." (Preface Collins' pages vi and vii)
"Why 'restored'"?
Because they had been previously expunged! Why had the references to the
Ascension expunged in the first place? The MOST Ancient manuscripts had
no references to the Ascension at all. They were interpolations similar to 1
John 5:7 about the Trinity. (Refer to the earlier example 3). Why
eliminate one and re-instate the other? Do not be surprised! By the time you lay
your hands on a RSV, the "Committee" might also have decided to
expunge the whole of their invaluable Preface. The Jehovah's Witnesses have
already eliminated 27 revealing pages of their FOREWORD to their "New
World Translation of the CHRISTIAN GREEK SCRIPTURES," (this is their
way of saying New Testament).
ALLAH IN THE CHRISTIAN BIBLE
The Rev. C. I. Scofield, D. D. with a
team of 8 Consulting Editors, also all D.D.s in the "Scofield
Reference Bible" thought it appropriate to spell the Hebrew word
"Elah" (meaning God) alternatively as "Alah"
The Christians had thus swallowed the camel they seemed to have accepted at
last that the name of God is Allah but were still straining at the gnat by
spelling Allah with one "L"! (Photographic reproduction of the Bible
page showing the word "ALAH" is preserved here for posterity
below). References were made in public lectures to this fact by the author of
this booklet. Believe me, the subsequent "Scofield Reference
Bible" has retained word for word the whole commentary of Genesis 1:1,
but has, by a clever sleight-of-hand, blotted out the word "Alah"
altogether. There is not even a gap where the word "Alah" once
used to be. 1 This is in the Bible of the orthodox! One is
hard pressed to keep up with their Jugglery.
1. See "WHAT IS HIS NAME" for more
information on this Biblical omission of the word Allah. Under the section of
"Now you see it, now you dont".
CHAPTER FIVE
DAMNING CONFESSIONS
Mrs. Ellen G. White, a
"prophetess" of the Seventh Day Adventist Church, in her Bible
Commentary Vol. 1, page 14, has this confession to make about the fallibility
of the "Holy Bible."
"THE BIBLE WE READ TODAY IS THE
WORK OF MANY COPYISTS WHO HAVE IN MOST INSTANCES DONE THEIR WORK WITH MARVELLOUS
ACCURACY. BUT COPYISTS HAVE NOT BEEN INFALLIBLE, AND GOD MOST EVIDENTLY
HAS NOT SEEN FIT TO PRESERVE THEM ALTOGETHER FROM ERROR IN
TRANSCRIBING."
In the following pages of her
commentary, Mrs. White testifies further: "I SAW THAT GOD HAD ESPECIALLY
GUARDED THE BIBLE" (from what?) "YET WHEN COPIES OF IT WERE FEW,
LEARNED MEN HAD IN SOME INSTANCES CHANGED THE WORDS, THINKING THAT THEY
WERE MAKING IT PLAIN, WHEN IN REALITY THEY WERE MYSTIFYING THAT WHICH
WAS PLAIN, BY CAUSING IT TO LEAN TO THEIR ESTABLISHED VIEWS, WHICH WERE
GOVERNED BY TRADITION."
DEVELOPED SICKNESS
The mental malady is a cultivated one.
This authoress and her followers can still trumpet from roof tops that
"Truly, the Bible is the infallible Word of God." "Yes, it is
adulterated, but pure" "It is human, yet divine." Do words
have any meaning in their language? Yes, they have in their courts of law, but
not in their theology. They carry a "poetic license" in their
preaching.
THE WITNESSES
The most vociferous of all the
Bible-thumpers are the Jehovah's Witnesses. On page 5 of their
"FOREWORD" mentioned earlier, they confess:
"IN COPYING THE INSPIRED ORIGINALS
BY HAND THE ELEMENT OF HUMAN FRAILTY ENTERED IN, AND SO NONE OF THE
THOUSANDS OF COPIES EXTANT TODAY IN THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE ARE PERFECT
DUPLICATES. THE RESULT IS THAT NO TWO COPIES ARE EXACTLY
ALIKE" Now you see, why the whole "foreword" of 27 pages is
eliminated from their Bibles. Allah was making them to hang themselves with
their own erudition.
POT-LUCK
Out of over four thousand differing manuscripts
the Christians boast about, the Church fathers just selected four which tallied
with their prejudices and called them Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
We will deal with each of them in their proper place. Here/ let us go
over the conclusion of the Jehovah's Witnesses' research as recorded in the now
expunged Foreword:
"THE EVIDENCE IS, THEREFORE, THAT
THE ORIGINAL TEXT Of THE CHRISTIAN GREEK SCRIPTURES 1 HAS BEEN
TAMPERED WITH, THE SAME AS THE TEXT OF THE LXX THE SAME AS THE TEXT OF THE
LXX2 HAS BEEN,"
Yet this incorrigible Cult has the
effrontery to publish 9 000 000 (Nine Million) copies as a First Edition of a
192-page book entitled "Is the Bible REALLY the Word of God?"
We are dealing here with a sick mentality, for no amount of tampering, as they
say, will "APPRECIABLY AFFECT THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE BIBLE" (?).
This is Christian logic.
1. New Testament.
2. "LXX" meaning Seventy, is the JWs
alternative title of the Old Testament Do not be mystified; they have a habit
of calling a simple four letter word, a "tetragrammaton." meaning
Seventy, is the JWs alternative title of the Old Testament Do not be
mystified; they have a habit of calling a simple four letter word, a
"tetragrammaton."
A PATIENT HEARING
Dr. Graham Scroggie in his
aforementioned book, pleads, on page 29. for the Bible:-
"AND LET US BE PERFECTLY FAIR AS WE
PURSUE THE SUBJECT (Is the Bible the Word of God?). BEARING IN MIND THAT WE ARE
TO HEAR WHAT THE BIBLE HAS TO SAY ABOUT ITSELF. IN A COURT OF LAW
WE ASSUME THAT A WITNESS WILL SPEAK THE TRUTH, AND MUST ACCEPT WHAT HE SAYS
UNLESS WE HAVE GOOD GROUNDS FOR SUSPECTING HIM, OR CAN PROVE HIM A LIAR. SURELY
THE BIBLE SHOULD BE GIVEN THE SAME OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD, AND SHOULD RECEIVE
A LIKE PATIENT HEARING."
The plea is fair and reasonable. We will
do exactly as he asks and let the Bible speak for itself.
In the first five books of the Bible
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy there are more than 700
statements which prove not only that God is NOT the Author of these
books, but that EVEN Moses himself had no hand in them. Open these books at
random and you will see:
"And the Lord said unto him.
Away, get thee down . . ."
"And Moses said unto the Lord,
the people cannot come. . ."
"And the Lord said unto Moses,
Go on before the people . . ."
"And the Lord spake unto
Moses, saying . . ."
"And the Lord said unto Moses,
Get down, charge the . . ."
It is manifest and apparent that these are
NEITHER the Words of God NOR of Moses. They indicate the voice of a
third person writing from hearsay.
MOSES WRITES HIS OWN OBITUARY?
Could Moses had been a contributor to
his own obituary before his demise? Did the Jews write their own obituaries?
"So Moses . . . DIED . . . And he (God Almighty) BURIED HIM (Moses)
... he was 120 years old when he DIED ... And there arose not a prophet SINCE
in Israel like unto Moses
" (Deut. 34:5-10). We will
analyze the rest of the Old Testament presently from other angles.
CHAPTER SIX
THE BOOK CHRISTENED "THE NEW
TESTAMENT"
WHY "ACCORDING TO?"
What about the so-called New Testament?
1 Why does every Gospel begin with the introduction ACCORDING TO
... ACCORDING TO ... (See below). Why "according to?" Because
not a single one of the vaunted four thousand copies extant carries its
author's autograph! Hence the supposition "according to!" Even
the internal evidence proves that Matthew was not the author of the first
Gospel which bears his name.
"And as Jesus passed forth thence,
HE (JESUS) saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and
HE (JESUS) saith unto HIM (MATTHEW), follow ME (JESUS) And
HE (MATTHEW) arose, and followed HIM (JESUS)." (Matthew 9:9)
1. The "so-called," because nowhere does the "New
Testament" calls itself the New Testament, and nowhere the Old Testament
calls itself the Old Testament. And also the word "Bible" is
unknown within the pages of the Bible. God forgot to give a title to
"HIS" books!
Without any stretch of the imagination,
one can see that the "He's" and the "Him's"
of the above narration do not refer to Jesus or Matthew as its author, but some
third person writing what he saw and heard a hearsay account. If we cannot
even attribute this "book of dreams" (as the first Gospel is also
described) to the disciple Matthew, how can we accept it as the Word of God?
|
ST. MATHEW 9 Mathew Called 9. And as Jesus passed forth from thence,
he saw a man named Mathew,
sitting at the receipt of custom: and he saith unto him, follow
me. And he arose, and followed him. |
|
|
"HE" AND "HIM" NOT JOHN! ST. JOHN 19 35. And he that saw it bare
record, |
ST. JOHN 21 24. This is the disciple which
testifieth The Conclusion 25. And there are also many other
things |
We are not alone in this discovery
that Matthew did not write the "Gospel according to St. Matthew"
and that it was written by some anonymous hand. J. B. Phillips concurs with us
in our findings. He is the paid servant of the Anglican Church, a prebendary of
the Chichester Cathedral, England. He would have no reason to lie or betray to
the detriment of the official view of his Church! Refer to his introduction to
the "Gospel of St. Matthew" (reproduced here below). Phillips has
this to say about its authorship.
"EARLY TRADITION ASCRIBED THIS
GOSPEL TO THE APOSTLE MATTHEW, BUT SCHOLARS NOWADAYS ALMOST ALL REJECT THIS
VIEW." In other words, St. Matthew did not write the Gospel which
bears his name. This is the finding of Christian scholars of the highest
eminence not of Hindus, Muslims and Jews who may be accused of bias. Let our
Anglican friend continue: "THE AUTHOR, WHOM WE STILL CAN CONVENIENTLY CALL
MATTHEW" "Conveniently" because otherwise everytime we
made a reference to "Matthew" we would have to say "THE
FIRST BOOK OF THE NEW TESTAMENT" Chapter so and so, verse so and so.
And again and again "The first book . . ." etc. Therefore,
according to J. B. Phillips it is convenient that we give the book some
name. So why not "Matthew?" Suppose its as good a name as any other!
Phillips continues: "THE AUTHOR HAS PLAINLY DRAWN ON THE MYSTERIOUS 'Q'
WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN A COLLECTION OF ORAL TRADITIONS." What is this
"mysterious 'Q'?" "Q" is short for the German word
"quella" which means "sources." There is
supposed to be another document a common source to which our present
Matthew, Mark and Luke had access. All these three authors, whoever they were,
had a common eye on the material at hand. They were writing as if looking
through "one" eye. And because they saw eye to eye, the first
three "Gospels" came to be known as the Synoptic Gospels.
WHOLESALE CRIBBING
But what about that
"inspiration" business? The Anglican prebendary has hit the nail
on the head. He is, more than anyone else, entitled to do so. A paid servant of
the Church, an orthodox evangelical Christian, a Bible scholar of repute,
having direct access to the "original" Greek manuscripts, let HIM
spell it out for us. (Notice how gently he lets the cat out of the bag):
"HE (Matthew) HAS USED MARK'S GOSPEL FREELY" which in the
language of the school-teacher "has been copying WHOLESALE from
Mark!" Yet the Christians call this wholesale plagiarism the Word of
God?
Does it not make you wonder that an
eye-witness and an ear-witness to the ministry of Jesus, which the disciple
Matthew was supposed to be, instead of writing his own first hand impressions
of the ministry of "his Lord" would go and steal from the writings of
a youth (Mark), who was a ten year old lad when Jesus upbraided his nation? Why
would an eye-witness and ear-witness copy from a fellow who himself was writing
from hearsay? The disciple Matthew would not do any such silly thing. For an
anonymous document has been imposed on the fair name of Matthew.
PLAGIARISM OR LITERARY KIDNAPPING
Plagiarism means literary theft. Someone
copies ad verbatim (word for word) from another's writing and palms it off as
his own, is known as plagiarism. This is a common trait amongst the 40 or so
anonymous authors of the books of the Bible. The Christians boast about a supposedly
common cord amongst the writers of the 66 Protestant booklets and the writers
of the 73 Roman Catholic booklets called the "Holy Bible." Some
common cord there is, for Matthew and Luke, or whoever they were, had
plagiarised 85% word for word from Mark! God Almighty did not dictate the same
wordings to the synoptists (one-eyed). The Christians themselves admit this,
because they do not believe in a verbal inspiration, as the Muslims do about
the Holy Qurβn. 1
This 85% plagiarism of Matthew and Luke
pales into insignificance compared to the literary kidnapping of the authors of
the Old Testament where a hundred percent stealing occurs in the so-called Book
of God. Christian scholars of the calibre of Bishop Kenneth Cragg
euphemistically calls this stealing, "reproduction"2
and take pride in it.
1. See "AL-QURAN The Miracles of Miracles" (coming
soon)
2. See beginning of chapter one for the full quotation.
PERVERTED STANDARDS
Dr. Scroggie (referred to earlier on) most enthusiastically
quotes in his book Scroggie (referred to earlier on) most enthusiastically
quotes in his book1 a Dr. Joseph Parker for his unique eulogy
of the Bible:
"WHAT A BOOK IS THE BIBLE IN THE
MATTER OF VARIETY OF CONTENTS! . . . WHOLE PAGES ARE TAKEN UP WITH OBSCURE
NAMES, AND MORE IS TOLD OF A GENEALOGY THAN OF THE DAY OF JUDGMENT. STORIES ARE
HALF TOLD, AND THE NIGHT FALLS BEFORE WE CAN TELL WHERE VICTORY LAY. WHERE IS
THERE ANYTHING" (in the Religious Literature of the world) "TO
CORRESPOND WITH THIS?" A beautiful necklace of words and phrases
undoubtedly! It is much ado about nothing, and rank blasphemy against God
Almighty for authorising such an embarrassing hotch potch. Yet the Christians
gloat over the very defects of their book, like Romeo over the "mole"
on Juliet's lip!
1. "Is the Bible the Word of
God?" by the Moody
Press. by the Moody Press.
NOTHING LESS THAN 100%
To demonstrate the degree of plagiarism
practised by the "inspired" Bible writers, I asked my audience during
a symposium at the University of Cape Town conducted between myself and
Professor Cumpsty the Head of the Department of Theology on the subject
"Is the Bible God's Word?" to open their Bibles.
Some Christians are very fond of
carrying their Bibles under their arms when religious discussions or debates
take place. They seem to be utterly helpless without this book. At my
suggestion a number of the audience began ruffling the pages. I asked them to
open chapter 37 in the "Book of Isaiah." When the audience was
ready, I asked them to compare my "Isaiah 37" with their "Isaiah
37" while I read, to see whether they were identical. I began, readingly
slowly. Verses 1, 2, 4,10, 15, and so on, until the end of the chapter. I kept
on asking after every verse if what I had been reading, was identical with the
verses in their Bibles. Again and again they chorused "Yeh!",
"Yeh!". At the end of the chapter with the Bible still open in my
hands at the place from which I had been reading, I made the Chairman to reveal
to the audience that I was not reading from Isaiah 37 at all but from 2
KINGS 19! There was a terrible consternation in the audience! I had thus
established 100% plagiarism in the "Holy Bible." (See below)
In other words, Isaiah 37 and 2 Kings 19
are identical word for word. Yet they have been attributed to two different
authors, centuries apart, whom the Christians claim have been inspired by God.
Who is copying whom? Who is stealing
from whom? The 32 renowned Bible scholars of the RSV say that the author of the
Book of Kings is "UNKNOWN!" See later on for a reproduction from the
RSV by "Collins'". These notes on the Bible were prepared and
edited by the Right Rev. David J. Fant, Litt. D., General Secretary of the New
York Bible Society. Naturally, if the Most Reverend gentlemen of Christiandom
had an iota of belief about the Bible being the Word of God, they would have
said so, but they honestly (shamefacedly?) confess: "Author UNKNOWN!"
They are prepared to pay lip service to Scriptures which could have been penned
by any Tom, Dick or Harry and expect everyone to regard these as the Word of
God Heaven forbid!
|
100% PLAGARISM |
|
|
II KINGS 19 |
ISAIAH 37 |
|
AND it came to pass. when king
Hez-e-ki'-ah heard it, that he rent his clothes, and covered himself with
sackcloth, and went into the house of the lord. 36 So Sen-nach'-er-ib king of Assyria
departed, and went and returned, and dwelt at Nin'-e-veh. |
AND it came to pass. when king
Hez-e-ki'-ah heard it, that he rent his clothes, and covered himself
with sackcloth, and went into the house of the lord. |
These verses are culled from the
Authorised Version, but you will find the same in every Version.
NO VERBAL INSPIRATION
(For a complete list of all the books of
the Bible and their authors, avail yourself of the "Collins'" R.S.V.
'with' its annotations). What have Christian scholars to say about the
"Book of Isaiah?" They say: "MAINLY CREDITED TO
ISAIAH. PARTS MAY HAVE BEEN WRITTEN BY OTHERS" In view of
the confessions of Bible scholars, we will not take poor Isaiah to task. Can we
then nail this plagiarism on the door of God? What blasphemy! Professor
Cumptsy confirmed at question time, at the end of the aforementioned symposium
that the "Christians do not believe in a verbal inspiration of the
Bible" So God Almighty had not absent-mindedly dictated the same tale
twice! Human hands, all too human, had played havoc with this so-called Word of
God the Bible. Yet, Bible-thumpers will insist that "every word, comma
and full stop of the Bible is God's Word!"
THE ACID TEST
How do we know that a book claimed to be
from God is really the Book of God? One of the tests, out of many such tests,
is that a Message emanating from an Omniscient Being MUST be consistent with
itself. It ought to be free from all discrepancies and contradictions. This is
exactly what the LAST TESTAMENT, the Book of God says:
GOD OR THE DEVIL?
If God Almighty wants us to verify the
authenticity of His Book (The Holy Qurβn) with this acid test, why should we not
apply the very same test to any other Book claiming to be from Him? We do not
want to bamboozle anybody with words as the Christians have been doing. It
would be readily agreed from the references, I have given from Christian
scholars, that they have been proving to us that the Bible is NOT the
Word of God, yet making us believe that they have actually convinced us to the
contrary.
A classic example of this sickness was
in evidence again only "yesterday" The Anglican synod was in session
in Grahamstown. The Most. Rev. Bill Burnett, the Archbishop was preaching to
his flock. He created a confusion in his Anglican community. An erudite
Englishman, addressing a group of learned English priests and bishops, in their
own mother-tongue English, which his learned colleagues drastically
misunderstood: to such an extent that Mr. McMillan, perhaps also an Anglican,
the Editor of an English daily "The Natal Mercury" dated
December 11, 1979, had this to say about the confusion the Archbishop had
created among his own learned clergy:
"ARCHBISHOP BURNETTS REMARKS AT THE
SYNOD WERE HARDLY A MODEL OF CLARITY AND WERE WIDELY AND DRAMATICALLY
MISINTERPRETED BY MANY OF THOSE PRESENT."
There is nothing wrong with English as a
language, but can't you see that the Christian is trained in muddled thinking
in all matters religious. The "bread" in his Holy Communion is not
"bread" but "flesh?" The "wine" is
"blood?" "Three is one?" and "Human is Divine?"
But don't make a mistake, he is not that simple when dealing with the earthly
kingdom, he is then most precise. You will have to be doubly careful when
entering into a contract with him! He can have you sold out, without you
realising it.
The examples that I shall furnish in
substantiating the points I have raised about the contradictions in the
so-called Book of God, would be found so easy even for a child to follow and
understand. See below.
|
II SAMUEL 24 The Numbering AND again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah. |
|
While the author of Samuel 24 above,
makes God the boss of the situation, the author of Chronicles below gives
credit to the Devil. |
|
I CHRONICLES 21 The Numbering AND SATAN stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel. |
Apart from showing allegiance to God as
is noted elsewhere, the Devil (Satan) is also given his due. This
dichotomy on the part of the author of Chronicles reminds one of the story of
the old woman who lit one candle to St. Michael and another to the devil. St.
Michael was trampling underfoot, so that whether she went to Heaven or Hell,
she would have a friend. This Chronicles fellow, made sure that he had a friend
at court Above, as well as a friend at court Below. He wanted to have it both
ways, or wanted to have his cake and eat it too.
You will observe that the authors of the
books of "Chronicles" and of "Samuel" are
telling us the same story about David taking a census of the Jews. Where did
David get his "inspiration" to do this novel deed? The author of 2
Samuel 24:1 says that it was the "LORD" God who MOVED
(RSV: "incited") David, but the author of 1 Chronicles 21:1
says that it was "SATAN" who PROVOKED (RSV: "incited")
David to do such a dastardly thing! How could the Almighty God have been the
source of these contradictory "INSPIRATIONS?" Is it God or
is it Satan! In which religion is the DEVIL synonymous with GOD? I am not
talking about "Satanism" a recent fungus growth of Christianity, in
which ex-Christians worship the Devil. Christianity has been most prolific of
spawning isms. Atheism, Communism, Fascism, Totalitarianism, Nazism, Mormonism,
Moonism, Christian Scientism and now Satanism. What else will Christianity give
birth to?
The "Holy Bible" lends itself
to all kinds of contradictory interpretations. This is the Christian boast!
"SOME CLAIM AND RIGHTLY SO, THAT BIBLICAL PASSAGES HAVE BEEN CONTINUOUSLY
MISUSED AND MISAPPROPRIATED TO JUSTIFY ALMOST EVERY EVIL KNOWN TO MAN"
(From: "The Plain Truth" an American-based Christian Journal
under the heading: "THE BIBLE World's Most Controversial Book."
(July 1975).
WHO ARE THE REAL AUTHORS?
As further evidence will be adduced from
"Samuel" and "Chronicles" I deem it advisable first
to determine their authors instead of suspecting God of those books'
incongruities. The Revisers of the RSV say:
(a) SAMUEL: Author
"Unknown" (Just one word)
(b) CHRONICLES: Author "Unknown,
probably collected and edited by Ezra."
We must admire the humility of these
Bible scholars, but their "possiblys" "probablys"
and "likelys" are always construed as ACTUALLY'S by their
fleeced sheep. Why make poor Ezra or Isaiah the scapegoats for these anonymous
writers?
WHAT DID THE LORD DECREE 3 YEARS FAMINE
OR 7 YEARS FAMINE?
|
II SAMUEL 24:13 13.So Gad came to David, and told him, and said unto him, Shall seven years of famine come unto thee in thy land? Or wilt thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue, thee? |
|
I CHRONICLES 21:11 11. So Gad came to David, and said unto him, Thus saith the
LORD, Choose thee |
If God is the Author of every single
word, comma and full-stop in the Bible, as the Christians claim, then is He the
Author of the above arithmetical discrepancy as well?
THREE OR SEVEN?
Note the reproduction of above. Compare
both the quotations. 2 Samuel 24:13 tells us "So Gad
came to David, AND TOLD HIM, and said unto him . . ." These words are
repeated word for word in 1 Chronicles 21:11, except the
redundant "AND TOLD HIM" is removed! But while trimming the useless
phrase, the author also pruned the time factor from "SEVEN" years to
"THREE" years. What did God say to Gad Three or Seven
years plague "on both your houses?"
EIGHT OR EIGHTEEN?
See below. Compare the two quotations. 2
Chronicles 36:9 tells us that JEHOIACHIN was "eight"
years old when he began to reign, while 2 Kings 24:8 says that he was
"eighteen" when he began to reign. The "unknown"
author of KINGS must have reasoned that what possible "evil" could a
child of eight do to deserve his abdication, so he generously added ten years
to make JEHOIACHIN mature enough to become liable to God's wrath. However, he
had to balance his tampering, so he cut short his reign by 10 days! Add TEN
years to age and deduct TEN days from rule? Could God Almighty say two
widely differing things on the same subject?
HOW OLD WAS JEHOIACHIN? 8 OR 18?
Between Eight and Eighteen years, there
is a gap or difference at a full 10 years. Can we say (God forbid!) that the
all-knowing Almighty could not count, and thus did not know the difference
between 8 and 18? If we are to believe in the Bible as the Word of God, then
the Dignity and Status of the Lord Almighty will hit an all-time low!
|
II CHRONICLES 36 9. Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD. |
|
II KINGS 24 8. Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mothers name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem. |
CAVALRY OR INFANTRY?
Compare the two quotations on page 40.
How many chariot riders did David slay? Seven hundred or seven
thousand? And further, did he slay 40000 "HORSEMEN" or 40000
"FOOTMEN?" The implication in the conflicting records between 2
Samuel 10:18 and 1 Chronicles 19:18 is not only that God
could not discern the difference between hundreds and thousands, but that He
could not even distinguish "CAVALRY" from
"INFANTRY!" It is obvious that blasphemy masquerades in the
Christian dictionary as "inspiration!"
700 or 7 000?
It is certainly naught for Bible-lovers'
comfort that a whole nought (0) was either added to 700, or subtracted from 7
000, thus making the confused Biblical Mathematics even more confounded!*
|
II SAMUEL 10 18. And the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew the men of seven hundred chariots of the Syrians, and forty thousand horsemen, and smote Shobach the captain of their host, who died there. |
|
I CHRONICLES 19 18. But the Syrians fled before Israel: and David slew of the Syrians seven thousand men which fought in chariots, and forty thousand footmen, and killed Shophach the captain of the host. |
*
The remarks on the Zero will be discussed soon.
GOD CONFUSED BETWEEN "CAVALRY"
AND "INFANTRY" ?
As for the "inspired writers"
of the Bible not knowing the difference between "footmen" and
"horsemen," is all the more serious because God himself here stands
accused, as a source of that "inspiration" for not knowing the
difference between cavalry and infantry. Or is it possible that the Syrians who
fled before Israel were centaurs (i.e. a race of creatures with the body and
legs of a horse and the torso, head and arms of a man), is it possible that
these "creatures" had suddenly stepped out of Classical Mythology to
bemuse the all too gullible authors.
PRACTICAL HOMEWORK
Solomon is his glory began building a
royal palace for himself which took him thirteen years. We learn this from the
1st Book of Kings, chapter 7. You remember Dr. Parker's boast (earlier on)
about "whole pages being taken up by obscure names?" Well, for
sheer puerility you cannot beat this chapter 7 and Ezekiel chapter 45. You owe
it to yourself to read it just once in your lifetime. After that, you will
really appreciate the Holy Qurβn! Reproduced below, you will read the passages
for your boring pleasure. Obtain your own Bible and colour code it for
easy reference. You may colour the various references from this booklet in your
Bible: "Yellow" for all contradictions; use "Red"
for pornographic passages; and "Green" for sensible,
acceptable quotations as the ones I have mentioned at the beginning of this
essay that is words that you can effortlessly recognize as being those of God
and His Holy Messengers. With just this preparation, you will be ready to
confute and confuse any missionary or Bible scholar that comes your way!
"IF WE PERSPIRE MORE IN TIMES OF PEACE, WE WILL BLEED LESS IN TIMES OF
WAR." (Chiang Kai-Shek)
GOD, AS BUILDER, ENGINEER AND CRAFTSMAN (IF
YOU HAVE PATIENCE, READ
THIS CHAPTER AND COMPLETE THE REST OF THE CHAPTER IN YOUR BIBLE)
|
7 But Solomon took "thirteen years to build his own
house; so he finished all his house. 2Chr 8:1 2. He also built the
"House of the Forest of Lebanon; its length was one hundred cubits, its
width fifty cubits, and its height thirty cubits, with four rows of cedar
pillars, and cedar beams on the pillars. 2 Chr 9:16 About 150 feet |
9. All these were of costly stones hewn to size, trimmed
with saws. inside and out. from the foundation to the eaves, and also on the
outside to the great court. |
GOD, AS LAND SURVEYOR AND
ARCHITECT (IF YOU HAVE PATIENCE, READ THIS CHAPTER AND COMPLETE THE REST OF THE CHAPTER IN YOUR BIBLE)
|
45 "Moreover, when you "divide the land by lot
into inheritance, you shall set apart a district for the lord, a holy portion
of the land; its length shall be twenty-five thousand cubits, and the
width ten thousand. It shall be holy throughout its territory all
around. Ezek 47:22 - Ezek 48:8,9 |
7. ""The prince shall have a portion on one
side and the other of the holy district and the city's property; and
bordering on the holy district and the city's property, extending westward on
the west side and eastward on the east side, the length shall be side
by side with one of the tribal Portions, from the west border to the east
border. Ezek. 48:21 |
HOW HYGIENIC?
Now, look below and note that the author
of 1 Kings 7:26 has counted 2 000 baths in Solomon's palace, but
the author of 2 Chronicles 4:5 increases the kingly count by 50%
to 3 000! What extravagance and error in the "Book of God?" Even if
God Almighty had nothing else to do, would He occupy Himself
"inspiring" such trivial contradictory nonsense to the Jews? Is the
Bible God's Book? Is it the Word of God?
THE DIFFERENCE 2 000 and 3 000 IS ONLY
50% EXAGGERATION!
|
I KINGS 7 26. And it was an hand breadth thick, and the brim thereof was wrought like the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies: it contained two thousand baths.. |
|
II CHRONICLES 4 5. And the thickness of it was an handbreadth, and the brim of it like the work of the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies; and it received and held three thousand baths. |
Whether it is witting or
unwitting, the "inspired" writer's singular inability to grasp the
difference between 2 000 and 3 000 is unforgivable. It is an obvious
contradiction. "AND NO MIRACLE WOULD PROVE THAT TWO AND TWO MAKES FIVE, OR
THAT A CIRCLE HAS FOUR ANGELS; AND NO MIRACLES, HOWEVER NUMEROUS COULD REMOVE A
CONTRADICTION WHICH LIES ON THE SURFACE OF THE TEACHINGS AND RECORDS OF
CHRISTIANITY." (Albert Schweizer), from his book: "In Search of
the Historical Jesus." Page 22.
PILED CONTRADICTIONS
Before I conclude this series of
contradictions, let me give you just one more example. There are hundreds of
others in the Bible. See below. It is Solomon again. He really does things in a
big way. The ex-Shah of Iran was a nursery kid by comparison! The author of 2
Chronicles 9:25 gives Solomon one thousand more stalls of horses than
the number of baths he had given him. "And Solomon had FOUR thousand
stalls for horses ..." But the author of 1 Kings 4:26 had
real kingly thoughts about his royal patron. He multiplied Solomon's stalls by
1 000% from 4 000 to 40000 stalls of horses! Before some glib evangelist
draws the wool over your eyes that the difference is only a nought, a zero
"0"; that some scribe or copyist had inadvertently added a zero to 4
000 to make it 40 000, let me tell you that the Jews in the time of Solomon
knew nothing about the zero "O"! It was the Arabs who introduced
the zero to the Middle East and to Europe centuries later. The Jews spelt out
their figures in words in their literary works and did not write them in
numerals. Our Question is Who was the real author of this staggering
discrepency of 36000? Was it God or man? You will find these references and
many more allied facts in a very comprehensive book "THE BIBLE Word
of God or Word of Man?" by A. S. K. Joommal.
|
II CHRONICLES CHAPTER 9 25. And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem. |
|
I KINGS CHAPTER 4 26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen. |
The Difference between 4 thousand
and 40 thousand is only 36 OOO!
The Jews did not use The "0" (Zero)
in the Old Testament between 4 thousand
and 40 thousand is only 36 OOO!
The Jews did not use The "0" (Zero)
in the Old Testament
CHAPTER EIGHT
MOST OBJECTIVE TESTIMONY
The Christian propagandist is very fond
of quoting the following verse as proof that his Bible is the Word of God.
"All scripture IS given by
inspiration of God, and IS profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for
correction, for instruction in righteousness." (2 Timothy 3:16 AV by Scofield)
Note the "ISs" in capitals.
Rev. Scofield is telling us silently that they do not occur in the original
Greek. "THE NEW ENGLISH BIBLE," translated by a
committee representing the Church of England, the Church of Scotland, the
Methodist Church, the Congregational Church, the Baptist Union, the
Presbyterian Church of England, etc., etc., and the BRITISH AND FOREIGN
BIBLE SOCIETY has produced the closest translation of the original Greek which
deserves to be reproduced here:
"EVERY INSPIRED SCRIPTURE HAS ITS
USE FOR TEACHING THE TRUTH AND REFUTING ERROR, OR FOR REFORMATION OF MANNERS
AND DISCIPLINE IN RIGHT LIVING." (2 Timothy 3:16)
The Roman Catholics in their
"Douay" Version, are also more faithful to the text than the
Protestants in their Authorised Version (AV). They say: "ALL SCRIPTURE,
INSPIRED OF GOD, IS PROFITABLE TO TEACH, TO REPROVE, TO CORRECT . . ."
We will not quibble with words. Muslims
and Christians are agreed that whatever emanates from God, whether through in
inspiration or by revelation, must serve one of four purposes:-
1. It must either teach us DOCTRINE;
2. REPROVE us for our error;
3. Offer us CORRECTION;
4. Guide us into RIGHTEOUSNESS.
I have been asking learned men of
Christianity for the past forty years, whether they can supply a FIFTH
"peg" to hang the Word of God on. They have failed signally. That
does not mean that I have improved upon their performance. Let us examine the
"Holy Bible" with these objective tests.
NOT FAR TO SEEK
The very first book of the Bible
Genesis provides us with many beautiful examples. Open chapter 38 and
read. We are given here the history1 of Judah, the father of
the Jewish race, from whom we derive the names "judea" and
"Judaism." This patriarch of the Jews got married and God granted
him three sons, Er, Onan and Shelah. When the first-born was big enough, Judah
had him married to a lady called Tamar. "BUT ER, JUDAH'S FIRST-BORN WAS
WICKED IN THE SIGHT OF THE LORD; AND THE LORD SLEW HIM.'' (Genesis
38:7). Under what heading, from the above four principles of Timothy
will you place this sad news? The second "REPROVE" is the
answer. Er was wicked so God killed him. A lesson for all, God will destroy us
for our wickedness. REPROOF!
Continuing with this Jewish history,
according to their custom, if a brother died and left no offspring, it was the
duty of the other brother to give "seed" to his sisters-in-law so
that the deceased's name might be perpetuated. Judah, in honour of this custom,
orders his second son Onan to do his duty. But Jealousy enters his heart. It
will be his seed but the name will be his brother's! So at the critical
moment "HE SPILLED IT ON THE GROUND . . . AND THE THING HE DID
DISPLEASED THE LORD: WHEREFORE HE SLEW HIM ALSO." (Genesis
38:9-10). Again, where does this slaying fit into Timothy's tests?
"REPROOF!" is the answer again. No prizes are offered for these easy
answers. They are so basic. Do wrong and bear the consequence! Onan is
forgotten in the "Book of God," but Christian sexologists have
immortalized him by referring to "coitus interruptus," as Onanism2
in their "Books of Sex."
Now Judah tells his daughter-in-law, Tamar, to return to her
father's house until his third son Shelah attains manhood, when she will be
brought back so that he can do his duty.
1. You remember Dr. Kenneth Cragg in his
"Call of the Minaret" and his "HISTORY." See
full quotation on page one. This is that "history."
2. "ONANISM:" Now immortalized in the Oxford
Dictionary.
A WOMAN'S REVENGE
Shelah grows up and is, perhaps, married
to another woman. But Judah had not fulfilled his obligation to Tamar. Deep in
his heart he is terrified. He has already lost two sons on account of
this "witch," "LEST PERADVENTURE HE (Shelah) DIE ALSO, AS HIS
BRETHERN DID." (Genesis 38:11). So Judah conveniently
forgets his promise. The aggrieved young lady resolves to take revenge on her
father-in-law for depriving her of her "seed" right. Tamar learned
that Judah is going to Timnath to sheer his sheep. She plans to get even with
him on the way. She forestalls him, and goes and sits in an open place en route
to Timnath. When Judah sees her, he thinks she is a harlot because she has
covered her face. He comes up to her and proposes "ALLOW ME TO COME IN
UNTO THEE; AND SHE SAID WHAT WILT THOU GIVE ME, THAT THOU MAYEST COME IN UNTO
ME?" He promises that he would send her a goat kid from his flock. What
guarantee could she have that he would send it? What guarantee did she require,
Judah queried. "His ring, his bracelet and his staff" is the ready
answer. The old man hands these possessions to her, and "CAME IN UNTO HER,
AND SHE CONCEIVED BY HIM." (Genesis 38:16-18).
THE MORAL LESSON
Before we seek the heading from Timothy
3:16, under which to categorize this filthy, dirty story from the
"Book of God," I am tempted to ask, as you would be tempted to ask:
what is the moral (?) lesson that our children will learn from Tamar's sweet
revenge? Of course we do tell our children, fables, not really for their
entertainment value, but that through them some moral may be imparted."
The Fox and the Grapes,'' "The Wolf and the Lamb,'' "The Dog and his
Shadow," etc. However simple or silly the story, a moral is aimed
at.
'CHRISTIAN PARENTAL DILEMMAS'
Dr. Vernon Jones, an American
psychologist of repute, carried out experiments on groups of schoolchildren to
whom certain stories had been told. The heroes of the stories were the same in
the case of the different groups of children, but the heroes behaved contradictorily
to each group. To one group "St. George," slaving the dragon emerged
a very brave figure, but to another group, fleeing in terror and seeking
shelter in his mother's lap. "THESE STORIES MADE CERTAIN SLIGHT BUT
PERMANENT CHANGES IN CHARACTER, EVEN IN THE NARROW CLASSROOM SITUATION,''
concluded Dr. Jones.
How much more permanent damage the rapes
and murders, incests and beastialities of the "Holy Bible" has done
to the children of Christendom, can be measured from reports in our daily
newspapers. If such is the source of Western morality, it is no little wonder,
then, that Methodists and Roman Catholics have already solemnized marriages
between HOMOSEXUALS in their "Houses of God." And 8000
"gays" (an euphemistic term for sodomites) parade their "wares"
in London's Hyde Park in July 1979, to the acclaim of the news and TV media.
1
You must get that "Holy Bible"
and read the whole chapter 38 of Genesis. Mark in "red" the
words and phrases deserving this adornment. We had reached verse 18 in our
moral (?) lesson "AND SHE CONCEIVED BY HIM."
1. Ever since then, the major cities of the Western World; be
it London, New York, San Francisco, Sydney, Paris etc hold annual gay parades
(Mardi Gras), with now, public turnouts bringing in children as spectators. Australia
prides itself in having Sydney being declared the gay capital of the world.
CAN'T HIDE FOR EVER
Three months later, as things were bound
to turn out, news reached Judah that his daughter-in-law, Tamar, had played the
"harlot" and that she was with "CHILD BY WHOREDOM AND JUDAH
SAID, BRING HER FORTH, AND LET HER BE BURNT." (Genesis 38:24).
Judah had deliberately spurned her as a "witch" and now he
sadistically wants to burn her. But this wiley Jewess was one up on the old
man. She sent the "ring," the "bracelet," and the
"staff'' with a servant, beseeching her father-in-law to find the culprit
responsible for her pregnancy. Judah was in a fix. He confessed that his
daughter-in-law was more "RIGHTEOUS" than himself, and "HE KNEW
HER AGAIN NO MORE." (verse 26). It is quite an experience to compare the
choice of language in which the different Versions describe the same incident.
The Jehovah's Witnesses in their "New World Translation"
translate the last quotation as "HE HAD NO FURTHER INTERCOURSE WITH HER
AFTER THAT." 1 This is not the last we will hear about
in the "Book of God" of this Tamar whom the Gospel writers have
immortalized in their "Genealogy of their Lord."
1. The Jehovah's Witness Version is more explicit in its
choice of words. It does not hesitate to call a spade a spade! Compare Ezekiel
23 with any other Version, and see the difference.
INCEST HONOURED
I do not want to bore you with details,
but the end verses of Genesis 38 deal with a duel in Tamar's womb: about the
twins struggling for ascendancy. The Jews were very meticulous about recording
their "first borns." The first born got the lion's share of their
father's patrimony. Who are the lucky winners in this prenatal race? There are
four in this unique contest. They are "PHAREZ and ZARAH of
TAMAR by JUDAH.'' How? You will see presently. But first, let us
have the moral. What is the moral in this episode? You remember Er and Onan:
how God destroyed them for their several sins? And the lessons we have learnt
in each case was "REPROOF'' Under what category of Timothy will you
place the incest of Judah, and his illegitimate progeny? All these characters
are honoured in the "Book of God" for their bastardy. They become the
great grandfathers and great grandmothers of the "only begotten son of
God'(?) See Matthew 1:3. In every Version of the Bible, the
Christians have varied the spelling of these characters' names from those
obtained in the Old Testament (Genesis chapter 38) with those contained in the
New Testament (Matthew chapter 1) to put the reader off the scent. From PHAREZ
in the "Old" to PARES in the "New,'' and ZARAH to ZARA and TAMAR
to THAMAR, But what about the moral? God blesses Judah for his incestuous
crime! So if you do "evil" (Er), God will slay you; if you spill
"seed" (Onan), God will kill you, but a daughter-in-law (Lamat) who
vengefully and guilefully collect her father-in-law's (Judah's)
"seed" is rewarded. Under what category will the Christians place
this "honour" in the "Book of God?" Where does it fit? Is
it Your ...
1. DOCTRINE?
2. REPROOF?
3. CORRECTION? or
4. INSTRUCTION INTO RIGHTEOUSNESS?
Ask him who comes and knocks at your
door that professional preacher, that hot-gospeller, that Bible-thumper.
Here, he deserves a prize if he can grant an explanation for the correct
answer. There is none born who can justify this filth, this pornography under
any of the above headings. But a heading has to be given. It can only be
recorded under "PORNOGRAPHY!"
BAN THE BOOK!
George Bernard Shaw said that "THE
MOST DANGEROUS BOOK (the Bible) ON EARTH, KEEP IT UNDER LOCK AND KEY."
Keep the Bible out of your children's reach. But who will follow his advice? He
was not a "B.A., 1 a "reborn" Christian.
According to the high moral scruples of
the Christian rulers of South African, who have banned the book, "Lady
Chatterley's Lover,'' because of a "tetragrammaton" a
four-letter word, they would most assuredly have placed a ban on the "Holy
Bible" if it had been a Hindu religious Book, or a Muslim religious Book. But
they are utterly helpless against their own "Holy Book," their
"SALVATION" depends upon it!
|
Reading
Bible stories to children can also
open up all sorts of opportunities to
discuss the morality of sex. An unexpurgated Bible might get an X-rating from
some censors, The PLAIN TRUTH October 1977 |
1. "B.A." short for "born again"
it is a new sickness. It destroyed the "SUICIDE CULT" of Rev. Jim
Jones, in Jonestown, Guyana.
DAUGHTERS SEDUCE THEIR FATHER
Read Genesis 19, verses 30 to the end
and mark again in "red" the words and phrases deserving this
honour. Do not hesitate and procrastinate. Your "coloured" Bible will
become a priceless heirloom for your children. I agree with Shaw, to keep the
Bible "under lock and key,'' but we need this weapon to meet the Christian
challenge. The Prophet of Islam said that "WAR IS STRATEGY,'' and strategy
demands that we use the weapons of our enemy. It is not what we like and what
we do not like. It is what we are forced to use against the "ONE BOOK"
(Bible) professors, who are knocking at our doors with "the Bible says
this" and "the Bible says that." They want us to
exchange our Holy Qur'an for their "Holy Bible." Show them the holes
in the "holiness" which they have not yet seen. At times these
zombies pretend to see the filth for the first time. They have been programmed
with selected verses for their propagation.
To continue: the "history" has
it that, night after night, the daughters of Lot seduce their drunken father
with the noble (?) motive of preserving their father's "seed."
"Seed" figures very prominently in this "Holy Book": forty
seven times in the little booklet of Genesis alone! Out of this another
incestuous relationship come the "Ammonites" and the
"Moabites," for whom the God of Israel was supposed to have had a
special compassion. Later on in the Bible we learn that the Jews are ordered by
the same compassionate God to slaughter the Philistines mercilessly men,
women and children. Even trees and animals are not to be spared, but the Amonites
and the Moabites are not to be "distressed" or
"meddled" with because they are the seed of Lot! (Deuteronomy
2:19)
No decent reader can read the seduction
of Lot to his mother, sister or daughter, not even to his fiancee if she is a
chaste and moral woman. Yet you will come across perverted people who will
gorge this filth. Tastes can be cultivated!
Read again and mark Ezekiel 23. You will
know what colour to choose. The "whoredoms" of the two
sisters, Aholah and Aholibah. The sexual details here puts to shame even the
unexpurgated edition of many banned books. Ask your "born again"
Christian visitors, under what category will they classify all this lewdness?
Such filth certainly has no place in any "Book of God."
Al-Haj A.D. Ajijola in his book
"The Myth of the Cross" gives a masterly expose of the fallacy of
the Bible as well as of the crucifixion, in short, of the whole of
Christianity. No student of comparative religion can afford to be without this
publication and "THE BIBLE: Word of God or Word of Man?"
mentioned earlier on.
CHAPTER NINE
THE GENEALOGY OF JESUS
Watch now how the Christian fathers have
foisted the incestuous progenies of the Old Testament upon their Lord and
Saviour, Jesus Christ, in the New Testament. For a man who had no genealogy,
they have manufactured one for him. And what a genealogy! Six adulterers and
offsprings of incest are imposed upon this holy man of God. Men and women
deserving to be stoned to death according to God's own law, as revealed through
Moses, and further to be ostracised and debarred from the House of God for
generations. 1
1. "The bastard shall not enter the congregation
of the Lord even unto the tenth generation." (Deut. 23:2 AV). The
"Witnesses" have been hyper sensitive to this word. Swallowing the
camel and straining at the gnat!
IGNOBLE ANCESTRY
Why should God give a "father"
(Joseph) to His "son" (Jesus)? And why such an ignoble ancestry?
"This is the whole beauty of it" says the pervert. "God
loved the sinners so much that he disdaineth not to give such progenitors for
His 'son. "
ONLY TWO COMMISSIONED
Of the four Gospel writers, God
"inspired" only two of them to record the genealogy of His
"son." To make it easy for you to compare the "fathers and
grandfathers" of Jesus Christ in both the "inspired" lists, I
have culled the names only, minus the verbiage. See below. Between David and
Jesus, God "inspired" Matthew to record only 26 ancestors for His
"son." But Luke, also "inspired," gathered up 41
forefathers for Jesus. The only name common to these two lists between David
and Jesus is JOSEPH and that, too, a "supposed" father
according to Luke 3:23 (AV). This one name is glaring. You need no fine-tooth
comb to catch him. It is Joseph the carpenter. You will also easily observe
that the lists are grossly contradictory. Could both the lists have emanated
from the same source, i.e. God?
GENEALOGY FROM DAVID TO JESUS
FULFILLING PROPHECY?
Matthew and Luke are over-zealous in
making DAVID the King, the prime ancestor of Jesus, because of that
false notion that Jesus was to sit on the "THRONE OF HIS FATHER
DAVID" (Acts 2:30). The Gospels belie this prophecy, for
they tell us that instead of Jesus sitting on his father's (David's) throne, it
was Pontious Pilate, a Roman Governor, a pagan who sat on that very throne and
condemned its rightful (?) heir (Jesus) to death. "Never mind,'' says the
evangelist, "if not in his first coming, then in his second coming he
will fulfill this prophecy and three hundred others beside" But with
their extravagant enthusiasm to trace the ancestry of Jesus physically
to David, (for this is actually what the Bible says THAT OF THE FRUIT OF
HIS (David's) LOINS, ACCORDING TO THE FLESH" (literally, not
metaphorically Acts 2:30), both the "inspired" authors
trip and fall on the very first step.
Matthew 1:6 says that Jesus was the son
of David through SOLOMON, but Luke 3:31 says that he (Jesus) was the son
of David through NATHAN. One need not be a gynecologist to tell that by
no stretch of the imagination could the seed of David reach the mother of Jesus
both through Solomon and Nathan at the same time! We know that both the authors
are confounded liars, because Jesus was conceived miraculously, without any
male intervention. Even if we concede a physical ancestry through David, both
authors would still be proved liars for the obvious reason.
BREAKING PREJUDICE
As simple as the above logic is, the
Christian is so emotionally involved that it will not penetrate his prejudiced
mind. Let us give him an identical example, but one where he can afford to be
objective.
We know from history that Muhammed the
Prophet of Islam, was the son of Abraham through ISHMAEL, so if some
"inspired" writer came along and tried to palm off his
"revelation" to the effect that Muhummed was the son of Abraham
through ISAAC, we would, without any hesitation, brand such a writer as a liar,
because the seed of Abraham could never reach Amina (Muhummed's mother) through
Ishmael and through Isaac at the same time! The differences of lineage between
these two sons of Abraham is the difference between the JEWS and the ARABS.
In the case of Muhummed, we would know
then that anyone who says that Isaac is his progenitor, was a liar. But in the
case of Jesus both Matthew and Luke are suspect. Until the Christians decide
which line of ancestors they prefer for their "god," both Gospels
will have to be rejected. Christendom has been battling tooth and nail with these genealogies
for the past 2000 years, trying to unravel the mystery. They have not given up
yet. We admire their perseverance. They still believe that "TIME WILL
SOLVE THE PROBLEM." Perhaps another 2000 years?!
"THERE ARE CLAIMED CONTRADICTIONS
THAT THEOLOGIANS HAVE NOT RESOLVED TO EVERY ATHEIST'S SATISFACTION. THERE ARE
TEXTUAL DIFFICULTIES WITH WHICH SCHOLARS ARE STILL WRESTLING. ONLY A
BIBLE ILLITERATE WOULD DENY THESE AND OTHER PROBLEMS" "The Plain
Truth," July 1975.
THE SOURCE OF LUKE'S
"INSPIRATION"
We have already nailed 85% of Matthew
and Luke to Mark or that "mysterious 'Q''. 1 Let us now
allow Luke to tell us who "inspired" him to tell his "most
excellent Theophilus" (Luke 1:3) the story of Jesus. See
below for Luke's preamble to his "Gospel." He tells us plainly that
he was only following in the footsteps of others who were less qualified than
himself, others who had the temerity to write accounts of his hero (Jesus). As
a physician, as against fishermen and tax collectors, he was no doubt better
equipped to create a literary masterpiece. This he did, because "IT
SEEMED GOOD TO ME ALSO" to "PUT IN ORDER." These are
his prominent Justifications over his predecessors.
FORASMUCH as many have taken in hand to
set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
2. Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the
beginning were eyewitnesses and
ministers of the word;
3. It seemed good to me also, having had perfect
understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order,
most excellent Theophilus,
4. That thou mightest know the certainty of those
things, wherein thou has been instructed.
Luke 1:1-4
In the introduction to his translation
of the "Gospel of St Luke" A Christian scholar, J. B.
Phillips, has this to say "ON HIS OWN ADMISSION LUKE HAS CAREFULLY
COMPARED AND EDITED EXISTING MATERIAL, BUT IT WOULD SEEM THAT HE HAD ACCESS TO
A GOOD DEAL OF ADDITIONAL MATERIAL, AND WE CAN REASONABLY GUESS AT SOME OF THE
SOURCES FROM WHICH HE DREW." And yet you call this the Word of God?!
Obtain "The Gospels in Modern English" in soft cover by
'FONTANA' publications. It is a cheap edition. Get it quickly before the Christians
decide to have Phillips' invaluable notes expunged from his translation! And do
not be surprised if the authors of the RSV also decide to eliminate the
"Preface" 2 from their translation. It is an old,
old habit. As soon as those who have vested interests in Christianity realize
that they have inadvertently let the cat out of the bag, they quickly make
amends. They make my current references "past" history overnight!
1. Refer to Chapter Six.
2. Refer to Chapter Three.
THE REMAINING GOSPEL
Who is the author of "The Gospel
of St. John?" Neither God nor St. John! See what "he" (?)
says about it "himself" (?) on page 58 John 19:35 and 21:24-25. Who
is his "HE" and "HIS" and "THIS?" A-N-D,
his "WE KNOW" and "I SUPPOSE." Could it be the
fickle one who left him in the lurch in the garden, when he was most in need,
or the fourteenth man at the table, at the "last Super," the one that
"Jesus loved?" Both were Johns. It was a popular name among the Jews
in the times of Jesus, and among Christians even now. Neither of these two was
the author of this Gospel. That it was the product of an anonymous hand, is
crystal clear.
WATCH THE PRONOUNS!
ST. JOHN 19
35. And he that saw it bare
record, and his record is true:
and he knoweth that he saith
true, that ye might believe.
WHO IS "HE" AND
"HIS"?
ST. JOHN 21
24. This is the disciple which
testifieth of these things, and wrote these things:
and we know that his testimony is true.
WHO IS "WE"?
The Conclusion
25. And there are also many other things
which Jesus did, the which, if they should
be written every one, I suppose
that even the world itself could not
contain the books
that should be written. Amen. WHAT AN EXAGGERATION!
WHO IS "I"?
AUTHORS IN A NUTSHELL
Let me conclude this
"authorship" search with the verdict of those 32 scholars, backed by
their 50 co-operating denominations. God had been eliminated from this
authorship race long ago. In the RSV by "Collins," invaluable notes
on "The Books of the Bible" are to be found at the back of
their production. I am reproducing only a bit of that information on below. We
start with "GENESIS" the first book of the Bible. The
scholars say about its "AUTHOR": "One of the 'five books of
Moses'." Note the words "five books of Moses" are
written in inverted commas " " This is a subtle way of admitting
that this is what people say that it is the book of Moses, that Moses was its
author, but we (the 32 scholars) who are better informed, do not subscribe to
that tittle-tattel.
The next four books, "EXODUS,
LEVITICUS, NUMBERS and DEUTERONOMY": AUTHOR? "Generally
credited to Moses."
This is the same category as the book of Genesis.
Who is the author of the book of
"JUDGES?" Answer: "Possibly Samuel."
Who is the author of the book of
"JOSHUA?" Answer: "Major part credited to Joshua."
Who is the author of
"RUTH?" Answer: "Not definitely known" AND
Who is the author of:
1ST SAMUEL?............ Answer: Author "Unknown"
2ND SAMUEL........... Answer: Author "Unknown"
1ST KING?................. Answer:
Author "Unknown"
2ND KING?............... Answer: Author "Unknown"
1st CHRONICLES?
. Answer:
Author "Unknown, probably
"
2st CHRONICLES?
. Answer:
Author "Likely collected
"
THE BOOKS OF THE BIBLE
|
GENESIS EXODUS LEVITICUS NUMBERS RUTH FIRST SAMUEL FIRST KINGS |
FIRST CHRONICLES EZRA JOB PSALMS ISAIAH HABAKKUK |
The above facts are from Collins' R.S.V.
1971. Pages 12-17.
And so the story goes. The authors of these anonymous books
are either "UNKNOWN" or are "PROBABLY" or
"LIKELY" or are of "DOUBTFUL" origin. Why blame
God for this fiasco? The Long-suffering and Merciful God did not wait for two
thousand years for Bible scholars to tell us that He was not the Author of
Jewish peccadilloes, prides and prejudices; of their lusts, wranglings,
jealousies and enormities. He said it openly what they do:-
We could have started the thesis
of this book with the above Qur'anic verse and ended with it, with the
satisfaction that God Almighty had Himself delivered His verdict on the subject
"Is the Bible God's Word?", but we wished to afford our
Christian brethern an opportunity to study the subject as objectively as they
wished.2Allowing believing Christians, "reborn"
Christians, and their own Holy Book the Bible to testify against their
"better" judgement.
What about the Holy Qurβn? Is the Qurβn
the Word of God? The author of this humble publication has endeavoured to
answer this question in a most scientific manner in his book "AL'QUR'AN
The Miracle of Miracles" available absolutely free of charge from
the "Centre" on request.
1. "THE BIBLE" - "The
World's Best Seller!"
the Publishers of the RSV made a net profit of 15 000 000 dollars on the first
edition alone' "What a miserable price in exchange for eternity!"
2. See Dr Scroggie's plea in chapter 5.
EPILOGUE
The reader must by now be convinced,
that is if he has an open mind, that the Bible is not what it is claimed to be
by the protagonists of Christianity.
For nearly four decades people have
asked me as to how I have such an "in depth" knowledge of the Bible
and Christianity.
Frankly speaking my present position as
a Muslim "expert" on Judaism and Christianity is not of my own
volition. I have been forced into being what I am.
EARLY PROVOCATION
It was in 1939 when I was working as a
shop assistant at Adams Mission near a Christian seminary by that name;
producing preachers and priests, that I and my fellow Muslim workers were the
target of young aspiring men of the cloth. Not a day passed when these young
Christians did not harass me or my brothers-in-faith, through insults which
they piled on Islam, the Holy Prophet and the Qurβn.
Being a sensitive young man of 20, I
spent sleepless nights in tears for not being able to defend the one dearer to
me than my own life, that mercy unto all mankind Muhummed P.B.U.H.
I resolved to study the Qurβn, the
Bible and other literature. My discovery of the book "IZHARUL
HAQ" was the turning point in my life. After a short while I was able
to invite the trainee missionaries of Adams Mission College and cause them to
perspire under the collar until they developed a respect for Islam and its Holy
Apostle.
MUSLIMS UNDER CONSTANT ATTACK
It made me ponder as to how so many
unwary Muslims are being constantly assaulted by Christian evangelists who
carry out a door to door campaign, and being invited in by the proverbially
hospitable Muslim, I thought of how the merciless missionary munched the
samoosas and punched the wind out of the Muslim with snide remarks against
his beliefs.
Determined to bring home to the Muslims
their right to defend themselves and to arm them with enough knowledge to
counter the hot gospeller, the door to door pedlar of Christianity and the
shameless insulter of Islam and its Holy Apostle; I humbly undertook to deliver
lectures to show the Muslim masses that they had nothing to fear from the
assaults of the Christians.
My lectures were also an invitation to
the Christians to witness the truth of Islam and the fabrications which had
penetrated the true teachings of Jesus (P.B.U.H).
ATTACK NOT NEW
Christian Missionaries in the past
hundred years and more have challenged Muslims on many aspects and quite a
number of these challenges have, to my knowledge, gone answered or have been
partly answered. Perhaps by the will of Allah my contribution in this field can
also be answers or part answers to the challenges of the detractors of Islam.
It is of supreme importance that we do not go by default.
One such challenge comes to mind viz.
Geo G. Harris the author of "How to lead Muslims to Christ".
This missionary who tried to convert the Muslims of China says in the usual
arrogant and condecending manner of the Westerner on page 19 under the heading
"THE THEORY OR CHARGE OF CORRUPTION."
"WE NOW COME TO THE MOST SERIOUS
CHARGE BY THE MOSLEM WORLD, AGAINST OUR CHRISIIAN SCRIPTURES. THERE ARE THREE
ASPECTS OF THIS CHARGE.
1. That the Christian scriptures have
been so changed and altered that they bear little, if any, resemblance to the
glorious Injil praised in the Qurβn. This can be answered by the asking of one
of the following questions: Wherein have these been so changed or altered? Can
you obtain a copy of a true Injil and show it that I may compare it with mine?
At what date in past history was the unaltered Injil in circulation?
2. That our Gospels have suffered
corruption. The following five questions are definite and we have a perfect
right to ask them;
(a) Was such corruption or alteration
intentional?
(b) Can you point out in my Bible one
such passage?
(c) How did this passage read
originally?
(d) When, by whom, how or why was
it corrupted or altered?
(e) Was such, corruption of the text or
of the meaning?
3. That our Gospels are
"faked" substitutes for the original Injil. Or that our Gospels are
the handiwork of men, not the noble Injil which descended upon Jesus. A little
questioning will usually reveal the true situation, that usually the Moslem making
the charge is woefully ignorant of the Bible or New Testament as it actually
existed in the past or exists today.
BEFORE GOING ON TO THE LATTER HALF OF
THIS DISCUSSION, A REMINDER IS IMPORTANT THAT AS SOON AS THE OBJECTOR IS
WILLING TO SENSE THE FLIMSINESS OF SUCH A CHARGE WE SHOULD PRESS HOME SOME
TEACHING FROM OUR SCRIPIURES, THAT OUR EFFORT MAY BE POSITIVE AND NOT
NEGATIVE."
HAVE MUSLIMS THE ANSWER?
Have we as Muslims no answers for these
questions? If you, gentle reader have read this book you will admit that Ceo
G. Harris has no feet to stand on. I have been able to give actual pages
from the Bible to disprove his assertions.
MUSLIMS CHALLENGED
On page 16 of Geo G. Harris' book he
teaches his comrades a basic missionary rule in order to corner the Muslim
prospective:
"In this chapter it is assumed that
the question of the authenticity and genuineness of our scriptures has been
raised by the Mohammedan. When this is the case, before we undertake defense of
our position we should bear in mind a basic rule. THE BURDEN OF PROOF RESTS
WITH THE MOSLEM." 1
Praise be to Allah that in my 40 years
of disproving the authenticity of the Bible which the Christians have so boldly
asked for, I have been able to win the day.
Remember, we Muslims do not go door to
door peddling our religion. Whereas Christians of different denominations
encroach upon our privacy and peace and take advantage of our hospitality to
harass the unwary Musalman.
Those who are afraid to project the
truth when they are provoked by these Christians, who even go to the extent of
insulting our beloved Nabee Muhummed (S.A.W.) should re-examine their Eemaan.
The lectures I hold are to sound out
these slinking missionaries who "attack" the home and hearth of the
unsuspecting Muslim who goes about minding his own business.
The lectures are also aimed at restoring
the damaged dignity of the Muslim who has been ruffled by the ruthless attacks
of the Christian pedlar. Ask the poor Muslims of Chatsworth, Hanover Park or
Riverlea2 as to how they are subjected to the tyrany of
certain missionaries.
If this humble little contribution of
mine "Is the Bible God's Word?" finds a place in the
Muslim home as a bulwark against the missionary menace my effort would be amply
rewarded.
A greater reward would be if even one
sincere disciple of Jesus (on whom be peace) were to be led to the truth and be
removed from fabrications and falsehood.
The greatest reward of course lies with
Allah Almighty whom I supplicate for guidance and mercy and pray and crave that
He accepts my effort which I dedicate to Him in all humility.
1. Alhamdo-lillah! (Praise be to Allah), the reader
will agree that in this and our other publications listed on the back cover, we
have been constantly meeting this Christian challenge. (Praise be to Allah),
the reader will agree that in this and our other publications listed on the
back cover, we have been constantly meeting this Christian challenge.
2. These are Just a couple of the many townships in which the
poorer Muslim is made to live by law under the South African "Group
Areas Act"