Know Islam

Know Islam, Know Paradise


May 25, 2018 Book Reading Events 0

Click here for previous session



Errors No. 45 & 46

In the same passage of Matthew we read:
“Jehoram begat Uzziah.”
This statement is incorrect for two reasons:
1. It claims that Uzziah was the son of Jehoram which is not true, because
Uzziah was the son of Ahaziah, son of Joash who was the son of Amaziah, son of Joram. These are the three generations which have been left out by
Matthew perhaps to make them fourteen. These three were kings of repute.
They are mentioned in Chapters 8, 12 and 14 of the Second Book of Kings,
and in Chapters 22-25 of 2 Chronicles. There is no way of knowing why
these generations have been left out by Matthew from the geneology. It
seems simply to be one of his great mistakes.
2. Is the correct name Uzziah or Ozias, as he is named by 2 Kings and I


Error No. 47

Again in the same passage we find this statement:
“And Salathiel begat Zorobabel 205.”
This is also incorrect because Zorobabel was the son of Pedaiah and the
nephew of Salathiel as is expressly mentioned in I Chronicles 3.


Error No. 48

The same passage of genealogy in Matthew states:
“Zorobabel begat Abiud 206.”
This, too, is wrong since Zerubbabel had only five sons, as is confirmed by 1
Chronicles. None of the five sons is of this name 207.
There are in all eleven errors in the genealogy recorded by Matthew. If the
differences of Luke and Matthew, discussed earlier are also included they total
seventeen mistakes. This short passage of Matthew is, therefore, erroneous in no
less than seventeen places.


Error No. 49

Matthew describes the event of some wise men from the east who had seen
the star which was the sign of the birth of Christ. They came to Jerusalem, and,
guided by the star, they reached Bethlehem where the star halted above the head
of the infant.
Astronomically this statement is ridiculous and unacceptable. The movement
of stars and some comets as seen from the earth is from the East to the West,
and some of the comets move contrarily from the West to the East. Bethlehem is situated to the south of Jerusalem. Besides the men coming from the east could
not possibly see the movement of a star which is too slow to be seen by the
naked eye. And in any case how could a moving star, if it did ever come to a
stop in the sky, be said to have stopped at the head of a new born child 208.


Error No. 50

In Chapter One of Matthew we read this statement:
“Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the
Lord by the prophet, saying,
Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they
shall call his name ‘Emmanuel’ 209.”
According to the Christian writers the Prophet referred to in this verse is the
Prophet Isaiah, because in his book he had said:
“Therefore, the Lord himself shall give you a sign: Behold, a virgin shall
conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name ‘Emmanuel’ 210.”
This is again incorrect for the following reasons:
1. The original word that has been translated as ’virgin’ by Matthew and
the translator of the book of Isaiah is ’alamah’ which is the feminine form of
’alam’ which according to the Jewish scholars, signifies a ’young girl’
married or unmarried. This word is also used, as they say, in the Book of
Proverbs, Chapter 30, where it is used for a young married woman. The three
famous Latin translations say ’young woman’. These translations are the
earliest known translations and are said to have been made in 129, 175, and
200. In view of these ancient translations and the opinion of the Jewish
scholars, Matthew’s statement is shown to be erroneous.
Frier, in his book on the etymology of Hebrew words, a book that is
considered the most authentic work on the subject, said that the word
’alamah, had a dual meaning: ’virgin’ and ’young woman’. His opinion, as
compared to the commentaries of the Jews, is not acceptable, and even if we
accept this opinion, the word cannot be taken to mean a virgin with any
argument against the established meaning adopted by the commentators and
the ancient translators. The above facts are certainly enough to prove falsity of the statement of the author of Meezan-ul-Haq, who claimed that the word
had no other meaning than ’virgin’.
2. Jesus was never called by the name Emmanuel, nor did his adopted
father 211 give this name to him:
“The angel told his father to call him with the name of Jesus 212.”
It is also a fact that Gabriel came to his mother and said:
“Thou shall conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son and shalt call
his name Jesus 213.”
Apart from this Jesus himself never claimed that his name was
3. The passage where this word occurs precludes its application to Jesus.
It states that Rezin, the king of Syria, and Pekah, the king of Israel, went
together to war against Ahaz, the king of Judah. He was very frightened and
God sent a revelation to Isaiah as a consolation for Ahaz, saying that he
should not be frightened as his enemies would not be able to prevail against
him, and that their kingdoms would be destroyed, and that the sign of their
destruction was that a young woman would bring forth a son and before the
child grew up their kingdoms would be destroyed 214.
In fact Jesus was born after 721 years of the destruction of the kingdoms
which were destroyed only 21 years after the above Prophecy. Judea-
Christian scholars disagree on this point. Some of them have claimed that
Isaiah used the word ’young woman’ for his own wife who would conceive
and give birth to a child. And the two kings, of whom the people were
frightened, would be destroyed along with their kingdom before the child
grew up. This was said by Dr. Benson and seems to have logic and bear


Error No. 51

There is another statement in Matthew regarding Joseph, the carpenter:

“And was there until the death of Herod, that it might be fulfilled
which was spoken of the Lord by the Prophet, saying out of Egypt have I
called my son 215.”
The Prophet referred to in this text is Hosea and Matthew makes reference to
the first verse of Chapter 11 of his book, which is absolutely incorrect as that
verse has nothing to do with Jesus. The verse, according to the Arabic
translation, printed in 1811, reads like this:
“When Israel was a child, then I loved him and called his sons out of
This verse, is in fact, an expression of God’s benevolence to the Israelites
conferred upon them in the time of Moses. Matthew made two changes in the
text. He changed the plural, ’sons’, into the singular, ’son’, and turned the third
person ’his’ into the first person making it ’my son’.
Following the example of Matthew, the Arabic translator of 1844 changed
the text to incorporate this alteration.
Besides, this change cannot be overlooked because further in this chapter the
people who were called from Egypt are mentioned in these words:
“As they called them, so they went from them, they sacrificed unto
Baalim 216.”
This statement cannot be applied to Jesus.


Error No. 52

It is also stated in Matthew:
“Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was
exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in
Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under,
according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men 217.”
This statement is wrong both logically and historically. Historically because
none of the non-Christian historians mentioned this event of the slaying of the
infants by Herod.
For example Josephus did not said anything regarding this event. Similarly
the Jewish scholars, who are very hostile and antagonistic towards Herod, and have been very particular in describing any weak points of Herod which they
could dig out from history, have not said anything in this regard. Had this
incident been true they would have jumped at it and described it as negatively as
possible. If any Christian historian were to describe it, he would certainly base
his description on the statement in the Gospel of Matthew.
And logically it is not acceptable because Bethlehem, at that time, was a
small village situated near Jerusalem. Herod, being the governor could easily
have found out the house where the wise men had stayed. It was absolutely
unnecessary for him to commit such a heinous act as killing innocent children

Error No. 53

The Gospel of Matthew also contains this statement:
“Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremiah the Prophet,
In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great
mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted
because they are not 219.”
This is again a clearly distorted rendering of the text of Jeremiah. Any reader
can himself look up the passage in. Jeremiah 220 and see for himself that the
above verse has nothing to do with Herod. It is clearly related to the famous
historical calamity of Nebuchadnezzar’s invasion of Jerusalem. The people of
Rachel’s tribe were among the Israelites who were exiled to Babylon. Her soul
lamented over the misery of her people. God, therefore, promised that her
children would be released to go back to their own land.


Error No. 54

We find this statement in Matthew:
“And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be
fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets. He shall be called a Nazarene This is also certainly incorrect, as this statement is not found in any of the
books of the Prophets. The Jews deny the validity of this kind of prediction.
According to them it is simply a false claim. On the contrary they had a firm
belief that no prophet would ever come from Galilee, not to speak of Nazareth,
as is expressly stated in the Gospel of John:
“They answered and said unto him, Art thou also of Galilee? Search, and
look: For out of Galilee ariseth no Prophet 222.”
The Christian scholars have put forward 223 weak explanations regarding
this, which do not deserve any serious consideration.
Readers will have noted that there are seventeen errors in the first two
chapters of Matthew.


Error No. 55

According to the Arabic translations printed in 1671, 1821, 1826, 1854 and
1880, there is a statement in Matthew which reads as follows:
“In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of
Judaea 224.”
And in the Persian translations printed in 1671, 1821, 1826, 1854 and 1880,
we find the same statement:
“In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of
In this passage, the phrase ‘in those days’ refers to the days when Archelaus
did reign in Judaea, because just before the verse in question, Matthew has
described that after the death of Herod, Archelaus became the king of Judaea
and Joseph, the carpenter, took the child (Jesus) and his wife to Galilee and
settled in the city of Nazareth, and that at this time came John, the Baptist.
This statement is certainly wrong because John, the Baptist delivered his
sermon preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins eighteen
years after the events discussed above, since it is clear from Luke 225 that John,
the Baptist delivered this sermon when Pontius Pilate was the governor of Judaea, and that it was the fifteenth year of Tiberius’ reign. The Emperor
Tiberius began his reign fourteen years after the birth of Jesus. (Britannica page
246 Vol. 2 under Tiberius) This implies that John, the Baptist came twenty-nine
years after the birth of Jesus. In the seventh year after the birth of Jesus,
Archelaus had left his throne of Judaea. (Britannica 246 vol. 2 under Archelaus)
If we assume that the beginning of Archelaus reign and the arrival of Joseph in
Nazareth were before the birth of Jesus, the coming of John the Baptist will be
proved to have been twenty-eight years after the birth of Jesus.


Error No. 56: The Name of Herodias’ Husband

We find in Matthew:
For Herod had laid hold on John and bound him, and put him in prison
for Herodias’ sake, his brother Philip’s wife 226.”
This statement is also historically wrong, because the name of Herodias’
husband was Herodius, as is stated by Josephus in Chapter 12 of Vol. 8 of his


Error No. 57

It is stated in Matthew:
“But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was
an hungred, and they that were with him;
How he entered into the house of God and did eat the shewbread, which
was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him 227.”
The phrase “neither for them which were with him” is clearly wrong as will
be discussed under Error No. 92.


Error No. 58

Matthew contains this statement:
“Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying,
And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued,
whom they of the children of Israel did value

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



…..continue reading…..

870 total views, 0 views today



Leave a Reply

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