Know Islam

Know Islam, Know Paradise


September 5, 2018 Book Reading Events 0

Click here for previous session




Addition No. 1: Added Books

It must be noted in the beginning of this section that the following eight
books of the Old Testament remained inauthentic and were rejected up until

1. The Book of Esther
2. The Book of Baruch.
3. The Book of Judith
4. The Book of Tobit
5. The Book of Wisdom
6. The Book of Ecclesiasticus
7. The First Book of Maccabees
8. The Second Book of Maccabees
In 325 Constantine called a meeting of Christian scholars in the city of Nice
(Nicaea) which is known as the Council of Nicaea to decide which of these
books should be discarded from the acknowledged list of biblical books. After a
detailed scrutiny, this council decided that only the Book of Judith was to be
acknowledged as authentic and the rest of the books were declared doubtful.
Another council with the same purpose was held at Laodicea in 364. This
committee confirmed the decision of the Nicaean council and unanimously
decided that the Book of Esther was also to be included in the acknowledged
books. This council publicised its decision through an official declaration.
In 397 another grand council was convened in Carthage. One hundred and
twenty-seven great scholars of the time participated in this council. The learned
and the most celebrated theologian of the Christian world, St. Augustine, were
among the participants. This council not only confirmed the decisions of the
previous councils but also unanimously decided to acknowledge all the
remaining six books with the proviso that the Book of Baruch was not a
separate book but merely part of the book of Jeremiah, because Baruch was the
assistant of the Prophet Jeremiah. Its name, therefore, did not appear separately
in the list.
Three more subsequent meetings were held in Trullo, Florence and Trent.
These councils reacknowledged the decision of the previous councils. In this
way all the above eight books after being rejected received the status of Holy
Books under the declaration of the above councils. This situation remained
unchanged for more than eight hundred years.
Later there was a great revolution over this situation and the Protestants
came forward to change the decisions of their forebears and decided that the
books of Baruch, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus and the two books of
Maccabees were all to be rejected. They also rejected the decision of their
elders with regard to a particular part of the book of Esther and accepted only
one part of it, with the result that out of sixteen chapters of this book the first
nine chapters and three verses of chapter 10 were acknowledged and the
remaining six chapters and ten verses of chapter 10 were rejected. They
forwarded many arguments in support of their decision.

For example the historian Eusebius decided in chapter 22 of the fourth
volume of his book:
These books have been distorted, especially the Second Book of
Nor do the Jews recognise these books as being inspired, The Roman
Catholics, who have always been greater in number than the Protestants,
acknowledge these books up to this day as being authentic and divine. The
books have been included in the Latin version that is considered by them to be
the most authentic of all versions.
Knowledge of the above facts proves the presence of distortion and human
manipulation in these books. Having been rejected for three hundred and
twenty-five years these books suddenly turn out to be inspired books simply
because some people sat together in several meetings and decided that they
were. The Catholics still insist on their being divine. This implies that any
consensus of the Christian scholars lacks value as an argument against
opponents. If such a consensus can authenticate previously rejected books, one
may be allowed to presume that the same kind of consensus might have been
held in case of the four Gospels which themselves contain many distortions and
human manipulations.
The elders first unanimously agreed on the accuracy of the Hebrew version
and then claimed that the Jews had changed it in 130 AD as we have shown
under Alteration No. 2. The Greek and Eastern Churches still agree on its
accuracy, but Protestant scholars have proved that their consensus was wrong,
and have shown that, on the contrary, the Hebrew version is incorrect and
altered. The same is the case with the Greek translation. The Catholics similarly
agreed on the accuracy of the Latin translation while, contrary to this, the
Protestants have not only proved it to be distorted and changed but have also
said that its distortion is so great that cannot be compared with other
translations. Home observed on page 463 of the fourth volume of his
commentary printed in 1822:
This translation has undergone innumerable alterations and frequent
additions from the 5th century to the 15th century.
Further on page 467 he observed:
It may be kept in mind that no other translation in the world has been so
greatly distorted as was the Latin translation. The copiers took great liberties
in inserting the verses of one book of the New Testament into another and
including marginal notes into the basic text.

In the presence of this attitude towards the most popular translation, what
assurance is there that they might have not changed the basic text of a
translation which was not popular among them. It can be assumed that people,
who were bold enough to change a translation, would have also tried to change
the original version to cover their crime.
Strangely the Protestants did not reject the part of the book of other along
with all other books, because in this book the name of God does not occur even
once; let alone His attributes or injunctions. Also, the name of its author is not
known. The exegetes of the Old Testament do not ascribe it to anyone with
certainty. Some of them ascribe it to the ecclesiastics of the Church from the
period of Ezra to the period of Simeon. The Jewish scholar Philo thinks that it
was written by Jehoiachin, the son of Joshua who had returned from Babylon
after his release from captivity. Augustine attributed it directly to Ezra; while
some others relate it to Mordecai some others even think that Mordecai and
Esther are the authors of this hook. The Catholic Herald contains the following
remarks on page 347 of vol. 2:
The learned Melito did not include this book in the list of acknowledged
books, as has been pointed out by Eusebius in the History of the Church
(Vol. 4 Chapter 26). Gregory Nazianzen described all the acknowledged
books in his Poem and this book is not included by him. Similarly
Amphilochius expressed his doubts about this hook in the poem which he
addressed to Seleucus and Athanasius rejected and negated it in his letter No.

Addition No. 2 

The Book of Genesis contains the following:
And these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before there
reigned any king over the children of Israel.71
These cannot be the words of the Prophet Moses, because they denote that
speaker belonged to the period after the Israelites had formed their kingdom 72
The first king of this kingdom was Saul, 73 who reigned 356 years after the
death of the Prophet Moses. Adam Clarke remarked in the first volume of his

I am almost certain that this verse and the subsequent verses up to verse
39 were not written by Moses. In fact, these verses belong to the first chapter
of I Chronicles, and a strong possibility, which is very near to being a
certainty, is that these verses were written in the margin of the original
Pentateuch. The copier included them in the text on the assumption that they
formed a part of the text.
This commentator has admitted that the above nine verses were added to the
text later. This proves that their holy books were capable of allowing foreign
material to be inserted later, otherwise these later additions would have not
become a part of all the translations.

Addition No. 3

We find the following statement in Deuteronomy:
Jair, the son of Manasseh took all the country of Argob unto the coasts of
Geshuri and Maachathi, and called them after his own name, Bashan-havoth-
jair unto this day.74
It is also not possible for this to be the word of Moses, because the words
’unto this day’ in the above verse situate the speaker in a period much later than
that of Jair, because such phrases can be used only to denote the remote past.
The renowned scholar Home made the following comments on both the above
verses in the first volume of his commentary;
It is not possible for these two verses to be the word of Moses, because
the former sentence denotes that the speaker belongs to the period after the
Kingdom of Israel had been founded while the latter verse shows that the
author belonged to a period long after the stay of the Israelites in Palestine.
Even if we accept these two verses as later additions, the truth of the book
still remains unaffected. A careful examination of these verses will show that
they are of great advantage, rather they carry more weight than the text itself,
especially the second verse, because the author, be he Moses or someone
else, could not say ’unto this day’, it is therefore most predominantly
presumed that the original text was: ”Jair, the son of Manassch took all the
country of Argob unto the coast of Geshuri and Maachathi and called them
after his own name and after a few centuries these words were added in the
margin to let the people know that this land still continued to be known by
the same name.” This note then was added into the text in future translations.
Anyone with doubt can ascertain from the Latin version the fact that some later additions which are found in the text of some translations are present in
the margin of others.
The above scholar has openly admitted that the above two verses are not the
word of Moses and that they are later additions. As for his assumption regarding
what the above verse would have been, it is merely personal guesswork that is
not supported by argument. He has admitted that these words were inserted into
the text ’a few centuries later’ and then became the part of other translations.
This is a clear admission that these books allowed the possibility of such
insertions being made and that is not a character of divine books. His claim that
the truth remains unaffected even after this distortion is nothing but sheer
obstinacy and is rejected by common sense.
The compilers of Henry and Scott’s commentary observed with regard to the
second verse:
The last sentence is an addition that was inserted long after the period of
Moses. It makes no difference if we overlook it.


…..continue reading….

2,339 total views, 0 views today

Enter your email address:

Delivered by



Leave a Reply

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