IZHARUL HAQ READING CONTINUED
Alteration No. 4: Seven Years or Three Years
We find the phrase ’seven years’ in ll Sam. 24:13, while I Chronicles 21:12
has ’three year`. This has been already discussed earlier.
Obviously one of the two statements must be wrong. Adam Clarke
commenting on the statement of Samuel said:
Chronicles contains ’three years’ and not ’seven years’. The Greek
version similarly has ’three years’ and this is undoubtedly the correct
Alteration No. 5: Sister or Wife
I Chronicles of the Hebrew version contains:
And whose sister’s name was Micah 52
It should be ’wife’ and not ’sister’. Adam Clarke said:
The Hebrew version contains the word ’sister’ while the Syrian, Latin and
Greek versions have the word ’wife’. The translators have followed these
Protestant scholars have rejected the Hebrew version and followed the above
translations indicating that they too consider the Hebrew version to be
Alteration No. 6
II Chronicles 22:2 of the Hebrew version informs us:
Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign.
This statement is undoubtedly wrong because his father Jehoram was forty
years 53 old when he died, and Ahaziah was enthroned immediately after the
death of his father. If the above statement be true, he must have been two years
older than his father. II Kings reads as follows:
Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he
reigned one year in Jerusalem 54
Adam Clarke making comments on the statement of Chronicles said in the
second volume of his commentaries:
The Syrian and the Arabic translations contain twenty-two years, and
some Greek translations have twenty years. Most probably the Hebrew
version was the same, but the people used to write the numbers in the form
of letters. It is most likely that the writer has substituted the letter ’mim’
(m=40) for the letter ’kaf” (k=20).
He further said:
The statement of II Kings is correct. There is no way of comparing the
one with the other. Obviously any statement allowing a son to be older than
his father cannot be true. Home and Henry and Scott have also admitted it to
the mistake of the writers.
Alteration No. 7
II Chronicles 28:19 of the Hebrew version contains:
The lord brought Judah low because of Ahaz king of Israel.
The word Israel in this statement is certainly wrong because Ahaz was the
king of Judah and not of Israel. The Greek and the Latin versions have the word
’Judah’. The Hebrew version therefore has been changed.
Alteration No. 8
Psalm 40 contains this:
Mine ears hast thou opened.
Paul quotes this in his letter to the Hebrews in these words
But a body hast thou prepared me 55.
One of these two statements must be wrong and manipulated. The Christian
scholars are surprised at it. Henry and Scott’s compilers said:
This is a mistake of the scribes. Only one of the two statements is true.
They have admitted the presence of alteration in this place but they are not
definite which of the two statements has been changed. Adam Clarke ascribes
the change to the Psalms. D’Oyly and Richard Mant observe in their comments:
It is surprising that in the Greek translation and in the Epistle to the
Hebrews 10:5 this sentence appears as: ’but a body hast thou prepared me.’
The two commentators agree that it is the statement of the Evangel that has
been altered, that is, the Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews.
Alteration No. 9
Verse 28 of Psalm 105 in the Hebrew version includes the statement; “They
rebelled not against his words.” The Greek version on the contrary bears these
words: “They rebelled against these words.” It can be seen that the former
version negates the latter. One of the two statements, therefore, must be wrong.
Christian scholars are greatly embarrassed here. The commentary of Henry and
This difference has induced much discussion and it is obvious that the
addition or omission of a certain word has been the cause of all this.
The presence of manipulation in the text has been admitted, though they are
not able to decide which version is wrong.
Alteration No. 10: The Number of the Israelites
II Samuel contains this statement:
And there were in Israel eight hundred thousand valiant men that drew
the sword; and the men of Judah were five hundred thousand men 56
This statement is contradicted by I Kings:
And all they of Israel were a thousand thousand and a hundred thousand
men that drew sword.
Certainly one of the two statements has been altered. Adam Clarke making
his comments on the first statement observed:
The validity of both the statements is not possible. Most probably the first
statement is correct. The historical books of the Old Testament contain more
distortions than the other books. Any effort to find conformity among them
is just useless. It is better to admit, in the beginning, what cannot be refuted
later. The authors of the Old Testament were men of inspiration but the
copiers were not.
This is a plain admission of the fact that alterations are abundant in the books
of the Old Testament and that one should objectively admit their presence
because these changes and contradictions are unexplainable.
Alteration No. 11: Horsley’s Admission
The famous commentator, Horsley, under his comments on Judges 12:4
observed on page 291 of the first volume of his commentary:
There is no doubt that this verse has been distorted.
The verse referred to is:
Then Jephtah gathered together all the man of Gilead and fought with
Ephraim: and the men of Gilead smote Ephraim, because they said, Ye
Gileadites are fugitives of Ephraim among the Ephraimites and among the
Alteration No. 12: Four or Forty
II Samuel l 5:7 contains:
And it came to pass after forty years that Absalom said unto the King”,
Here the word ’forty’ is undoubtedly wrong: the correct number is four.
Adam Clarke said in volume two of his book:
There is no doubt that this text has been altered.
Alteration No. 13: Kennicott’s Admission
Adam Clarke observed in volume 2 of his commentary under the comments
on II Sam 23: 8:
According to Kennicott three alternations have been made in this verse.
This is a plain admission that a single verse contains three distortions.
Alteration No. 14
I Chronicles 7:6 inform us as follows:
The sons of Benjamin; Bela and Becher, and Jediael, three.
While in chapter 8 it says:
Now Benjamin begat Bela, his first born, Ashbel the second and Aharah
the third Noahah the fourth and Repha the fifth.
These two different statements are again contradicted by Genesis 46:21:
And the sons of Benjamin were Belah, and Becher, and Ashbel, Gera and
Naaman, Ehi and Rosh, Muppim and Huppim and Ard.
It is quite easy to see that there are two kinds of differences in the above
three statements. The first passage informs us that Benjamin had three sons, the
second claims he had five while the third counts them as ten. Since the first and
the second statements are from the same book, it shows a contradiction in the
statements of a single author, the Prophet Ezra. Obviously only one of the two
statements can be accepted as correct making the other two statements false and
erroneous. The Judaeo-Christian scholars are extremely embarrassed and,
seeing no way out, they put the blame on the Prophet Ezra. Adam Clarke said
with regard to the first statement;
It is because the author (Ezra) could not separate the sons from the
grandsons. In fact any effort to reconcile such contradictions is of no use.
Jewish scholars think that the author Ezra did not know that some of them
were sons and the others grandsons. They also maintain that the genealogical
tables from which Ezra had copied were defective. We can do nothing but
leave such matters alone.
This is an obvious example of how the Christian as well as the Jewish
scholars find themselves helpless and have to admit the errors in Ezra’s
The above admission of Adam Clarke helps us to conclude many points of
great significance. But before going into those points we must remind ourselves that it is the unanimous claim of both Jewish and Christian scholars that the
Book of Chronicles was written by Ezra with the help of the Prophet Haggai
and Zechariah, This implies that these two books have the unanimous witness of
the three Prophets. On the other hand we have historical evidence that all the
books of the Old Testament were in a very bad condition before the invasion of
Nebuchadnezzar and after his invasion there was no trace of them left but their
names. Had Ezra not recompiled them, they would have ceased to exist then and
there. The above fact is admitted in the book which is ascribed to the Prophet
Ezra 57 Although the Protestants do not believe it to be inspired; they
nevertheless acknowledge it as a document of historical value. In it we find:
The Torah was burnt. No one knew anything of it. It is said that Ezra
rewrote it guided by the Holy Spirit.
Clement of Alexandria said;
All the divine books were destroyed. Then Ezra was inspired to rewrite
It is generally believed that Ezra recomposed these books after the
invasion of the Babylonians.
The Holy Books completely disappeared. Ezra gave new birth to them
The Catholic, John Mill observed on page 115 of his book printed at Derby
All the scholars unanimously agree that the original Torah (Pentateuch)
and other original books of the Old Testament were destroyed by the forces
of Nebuchadnezzar. When the books were recompiled through Ezra, these
too were later on destroyed during the invasion of Antiochus.
Keeping the above information in mind will help us understand the
significance of the following six conclusions based on the observations of the
commentator. Adam Clarke.
The present Torah (the Pentateuch) cannot be the original Torah that was
first revealed to Moses and then, after having been destroyed, rewritten by Ezra
through inspiration. Had it been the original Torah, Ezra could have not
opposed it in his writings 58 and must have copied according to it, without
trusting its defective genealogical tables as he did and without distinguishing
right from wrong.
The contention that Ezra copied it from the defective versions available to
him at the time, and was unable to remove errors contained in them, exactly as
he was unable to do in the case of the defective genealogical tables, makes it
lose its divine character and, therefore, its trustworthiness.
If Ezra could have made mistakes in spite of being assisted by two other
Prophets, he could have made mistakes in other books also. This kind of
situation leaves one in doubt about the divine origin of these books, especially
when it happens to contrast with definitely established arguments and simple
human logic. For example we must reject the truth of the disgraceful event
described in chapter 19 of Genesis where the Prophet Lot is imputed to have
committed fornication with his two daughters, resulting in their pregnancy, and
then two sons being born to them who later become the forefathers of the
Moabites and Ammonites. (May God forbid).
Similarly we must reject the event described in I Samuel chapter 21 where
the Prophet David is accused of fornication with the wife of Uriah, making her
pregnant, and of killing her husband under some pretext and taking her to his
There is another unacceptable event described in I Kings chapter 11 where
the Prophet Solomon is reported to have converted to paganism, misguided by
his wives, and to have built temples for idols thus becoming low in the eyes of
God. There are many other obscene and shameful events described in the Bible
which make the hair of the faithful stand on end. All these events have been
rejected by irrefutable arguments.
Protestant theologians claim that, although the Prophets are not generally
immune from committing sins and making mistakes, in preaching and writing
they are innocent of and immune to all kinds of errors and omissions. We may be allowed to remind them that this claim remains unsupported by their holy books. Otherwise they should explain why the writing of the Prophet Ezra is not free from errors especially when he had the assistance of two other Prophets.
This allows us to conclude that according to the Christians there are times
when a Prophet does not receive inspiration when he needs it. The Prophet Ezra
did not receive inspiration while he most needed it at the time of writing these
Our claim that everything written in these books is not inspired by God has
been proved because a false statement cannot be an inspiration from God. The
presence of such statements in the Bible has been demonstrated above.
If the Prophet Ezra is not free from error, how can the Evangelists Mark and
Luke be supposed to be immune to error, especially when they were not even
disciples of Christ’? According to the People of the Book, Ezra was a Prophet
who received inspiration and he was assisted by two other Prophets. Mark and
Luke were not men of inspiration. Though the other two Evangelists, Matthew
and John, are considered by the Protestants to be Apostles, they too are not
different from Mark and Luke since the writings of all four evangelists are full
of errors and contradictions.
802 total views, 0 views today