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 Qur’ân.
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 Qur’ân.
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 Qur’ân: "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.
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-Qur’ân 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 you’ll 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 (?)
CHAPTER FOUR
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.
href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhIyVNNNzyJvlB-kI86E-EYoP6sAflWbrReVURVS8O_Mz0-WtVDCU1PwQu2YCw5rMjFFPgzXx8w5pM4MGQ_gOJntXC6IBmj7sD8A-4OqqG0FbvnG2p-vsO6bA2L87kn2Hgcj0U6RR5Sl0k/s1600/5.jpg">
"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 they set Jesus Thereon." (The
Donkey) (Luke 19:35)
“ . . . And he sat upon him." (The Donkey)
(Mark 11:7)
“ . . . 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 don’t".
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?
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 Qur’ân. 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!
No comments:
Post a Comment