Know Islam

Know Islam, Know Paradise

IZHARUL HAQ READING CONTINUED

May 24, 2018 Book Reading Events 0

Click here for previous session

 

 

Error No. 33

The following statement is given through the Prophet David in 2 Samuel:
“Moreover I will appoint a place for my people Israel, and will plant
them, that may dwell in a place of their own, and move no more; neither
shall the children of wickedness afflict them any more, as beforetime. And as
since the time that I commanded judges to be over my people Israel 185.”
The same prediction appeared in slightly different words in the Persian
translation of 1835. According to this text God had promised them that they
would live in peace there, without any affliction to them at the hands of wicked
people. This promised place was Jerusalem, where they made their habitations
and lived. History has proved that this promise was not fulfilled. They were
severely afflicted at the hands of several rulers. Nebuchadnezzar invaded them
three times and slaughtered them, captured them and deported them to Babylon.
Titus 186the Emperor of Rome, persecuted them so barbarously that one
million of the Jews were killed, a hundred thousand people were hanged and
ninety-nine thousand were imprisoned. Up to this day their descendants are
living in degradation around the world.

Error No. 34

In 2 Samuel we read the following promise of God to David:
“And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I
will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I
will stablish his kingdom.”
“He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his
kingdom for ever.
“I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will
chasten him with the rod of men, and with stripes of the children of men;
“But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul
whom I put away before thee.
“And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before
thee; thy throne shall be established for ever 187.”
Another statement of similar nature is given in I Chronicles:
“Behold, a son shall be born to thee, who shall be a man of rest: and I will
give him rest from all his enemies round about: for his name shall be
Solomon, and I will give peace and quietness unto Israel in his days.
“He shall build a house for my name: and he shall be my son,… and I will
establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel for ever 188.”
Although, God had promised everlasting kingdom in the family of David,
this promise was not fulfilled, as the family of David was deprived of the
kingdom, a long time ago.

 

Error No. 35

Paul reported God’s word regarding the prominence of Jesus over the angels
in his letter to the Hebrews 189
“I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son 190.”
Christian scholars have claimed that this is a reference to the verses in 2
Samuel and 1 Chronicles discussed in the previous paragraph. This claim is not
acceptable for several reasons.

1. The text of Chronicles is unambiguous saying that the son’s name will be
Solomon.
2. Both the texts say that he would build a house in the name of God. This
can only be applied to Solomon who built the house of God, as promised.
Jesus, on the other hand was born one thousand and three years after the
construction of this house and used to talk of its destruction. This will be
discussed under Error No.79.
3. Both predictions foretold that he would be a king, where as Jesus was not
a king, on the contrary he was a poor man as he himself said:
“And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the
air have nests; but the son of man hath not where to lay his head 191.”
4. It is clearly stated in the first prediction that:
“If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and
with the stripes of the children of men.”
This implies that he will be a man of iniquitous nature. According to the
Christians – and they are far from the truth Solomon was a man of that nature
and gave up the prophethood and became an apostate in his last days, indulging
in idol worship, building temples for the idols, and committing himself to
heathenism 192. Whereas Jesus was absolutely innocent, and could not commit
a sin of any kind.
5. In the text of Chronicles it says clearly:
“Who shall be a man of rest, and I will give him rest from all his
enemies round about.”
However, Jesus, according to the Christians, was never in peace right from
his early days up to the time of the crucifixion. He lived in constant fear of the
Jews and left one place for another until he was arrested by them and, they say,
killed. Solomon, on the other hand, fulfilled the condition of living in rest from
his enemies.
6. In the prediction of Chronicles the Israelites are promised:

“I will give peace and quietness unto Israel in his days.”
Whereas it is historically known to everyone that the Jews were servile to and
dominated by the Romans in the time of Jesus.
7. The Prophet Solomon, himself has claimed that the prediction was made
about him. This is clear from 2 Chronicles 193.
Although the Christians agree that these tidings were for Solomon, they
say that it was in fact for Jesus too, as he was a descendant of Solomon. We
contend that this is a false claim because the attributes of the predicted son
must coincide with the description of the prophecy. We have already shown
that Jesus does not fulfill the requirements of the prediction.
Apart from this, Jesus cannot be the subject of this prediction, even
according to the Christian scholars. In order to remove the contradiction
between the genealogical descriptions of Jesus in Mathew and Luke, they
have said that Matthew described the genealogy of Joseph of Nazareth, while
Luke described the genealogy of Mary. However, Jesus was not the son of
Joseph, but rather the son of Mary, and according to her genealogy Jesus is
the descendant of Nathan, son of David, and not the son of Solomon.

 

Error No. 36

It is said regarding the Prophet Elijah in I Kings:
“And the word of Lord came unto him, saying,
Get thee hence, and turn thee eastward, and hide thyself by the brook
Cherith, that is before Jordan.
And it shall be, that thou shalt drink of the brook; and I have commanded
the ravens to feed thee there.
So he went and did according unto the word of the Lord: for he went and
dwelt by the brook Cherith, that is before Jordan,
And the ravens brought him bread and flesh in the morning, and bread
and flesh in the evening, and he drank of the brook 194.”
In the above text the word ’raven’ is a translation of the original word
’arem’. All the translators except Jerome have translated it as ’raven’, only
Jerome has translated it differently as ”Arab”. Since his opinion did not gain
popularity, his followers distorted the texts in Latin translations and changed the word ’Arab’ to raven. This has been much laughed at by non-Christian scholars.
Horne, a famous scholar, was much surprised at it and was, in fact, inclined to
agree with Jerome in that the word ’arem’ most likely signifies ’Arab’ and not
raven. He greatly criticised the other translators and gave three arguments to
prove the absurdity of their opinion. He said on page 639 of the first volume of
his commentary 195:
Some critics have censured the translators saying that it is far from being
true that crows should provide sustenance to a Prophet. If they had seen the
original word, they would not have reproached them, because the original word
is ’Orim’ which has the meaning of ’Arab’. This word is used for the same
purpose in 2 Kings 21 and in Nehemiah 4.
Besides, it is understood from ’Perechat Riba’, an exegesis of the Book of
Genesis, that this prophet was commanded to live and hide himself in a place in
the vicinity of ’Butshan’. Jerome said that the ’Orim’ were the residents of that
town which was within the limits of Arabia. They provided food for this
prophet.
This is a valuable finding and evidence for Jerome. Although the Latin
translations contain the word ’raven’, the Book of Chronicles, the Book of
Nehemiah and Jerome have translated it as ’Arab’. Similarly it is indicated by
the Arabic translation that this word signified men, and not crows. The famous
Jewish commentator Jarchi also translated this word as ’Arab’. It is certainly not
likely that God would have provided bread and flesh to his prophet through such
impure birds. A prophet like Elijah, who was so strict a follower of the
commandments of God would not be satisfied with flesh provided by crows
unless he knew beforehand that the crows were not bringing carrion. Elijah was
provided with such flesh and bread for a whole year. How could this kind of
service be attributed to crows? It is much more likely the inhabitants of ’Orbo’
or ’Arabs’ rendered this service to him.”
It is up to the Protestants now to decide which of the two opinions is correct.

 

Error No. 37

We find the following statement in I Kings:
“…in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were
come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over
Israel, in the month Zif, which is the second month, that he began to build
the house of Lord 196.”
According to the historians, this statement is incorrect. Adam Clarke, for
example, said, when commenting on this verse in Vol. 2 of his commentary:

“The historians have differed from this text in the following details: The
Hebrew text gives 480, Latin 440, Glycas 330, Melchior Canus 590;
Josephus 592, Slipicius Severus 585, Clement Alexander 570, Cedrenus 672
Codomanus 598, Vosius Capellus 580, Seranius 680, Nicholas Abraham
527, Mastlinus 592, Petavius and Watherus 520.”
Had the year, described by the Hebrew text been correct and revealed by
God, the Latin translator and so many of the Judea-Christian historians would
have not contradicted it. Josephus and Clement Alexandrianus also differed
from the Hebrew text, even though both of them are known as staunch believers
in their religion. This, naturally, leads us to believe that the biblical text was to
them no more worthy of respect than any other book of history. Otherwise they
would have not even thought of disagreeing with it.

 

Error No. 38

It is stated in Matthew:
“So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations;
and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen
generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are
fourteen generations 197.”
According to this statement the genealogy of Jesus from Abraham is
subdivided into three groups, each consisting of fourteen generations. It is
obviously not correct, because since the first group from Abraham to David,
includes David in it, he must be excluded from the second group as he cannot be
counted twice. The second group should start with Solomon and end with
Jeconias, thus excluding him from the third group. The third group should start
from Salathiel, which leaves only 13 generations in the last group. All of the
ancient as well as modern scholars have criticized this error, but the Christian
scholars are unable to produce any convincing explanation for it.

 

Errors No. 39- 42

According to the Arabic translation printed in 1849, describing the
genealogy of the Christ, the Gospel of Matthew states:
“Josias begat Jeconias and his brethren, in the captivity of Babylon It can be understood from this text that Jeconias and his brothers were born in
the period of exile in Babylon, which obviously implies that Josias was alive
during that period. However this cannot be the case for the following four
reasons:
1. Josias had died twelve years before the exile, because after his death his
son Jehoahaz became king and ruled for three months. Then Jehoiachin, another
son of Josias reigned for eleven years. And it was only when Jeconias, the son
of Jehoiakim. had been ruling for three months in Jerusalem, that
Nebuchadnezzar invaded Jerusalem and imprisoned him along with all other
Israelites and deported them to Babylon 199.
2. Jeconias is the grandson of Josias, and not his son, as is clear from the
above statement.
3. At the time of exile, Jeconias was 18 years old 200 therefore his birth in
this period is out of the question.
4. Jeconias had no brothers but his father had three brothers.
In view of the above textual difficulties, the commentator Adam Clarke
reported in his commentaries that:
“Calmet suggested that this verse should be read as follows: ‘Josiah begat
Jehoiakin, and his brethren, Jehoiakin begat Jeconiah about the time of
carrying away to Babylon’.”
This suggestion 201 of manipulating the text of the holy scriptures is
something to be noted by the reader. Even after this change, our objection
discussed in no. 3 above remains unaffected.
In our opinion, some ingenious priests have deliberately deleted the word
Jehoiakin from the text to avoid the objection that Jesus, being a descendant of Jehoiakin, would not be able to sit on the throne of David 202 and that in this
case it would no longer be possible for him to be the Messiah 203.
They did not appreciate the implications that were to occur as a result of this
tiny change in the text. Perhaps they thought it was easier to lay blame on
Matthew than to preclude Jesus from being the descendant of David and from
his being the Messiah.

 

Error No. 43

The genealogical description in Matthew records seven generations between
Judah and Salmon 204, and five generations from Salmon to David. The period
from Judah to Salmon is about three hundred years, and from Salmon to David
four hundred years. Even bearing in mind the long lives of those people, this
statement cannot be true, as the age of the first group of generations was longer
than the second group. Matthew’s description puts seven generations in three
hundred years, and five generations in four hundred years.

 

Error No. 44

The second of the three groups of fourteen generations described by
Matthew in the genealogy of Jesus, has in fact eighteen generations and not the
fourteen mentioned in the third chapter of I Chronicles. Newman expressed
great concern about this and mocked it saying that so far it had only been
necessary to believe in the parity of one and three, now it was necessary to
believe in the parity of eighteen and fourteen, because the holy scriptures cannot
be thought of as being incorrect.

 

…continue reading….

564 total views, 0 views today

Comments

comments



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *