Know Islam

Know Islam, Know Paradise

IZHARUL HAQ READING CONTINUED

October 17, 2018 Book Reading Events 0

Click here for previous session

 

 

The above statements unambiguously prove that Matthew wrote his Gospel
in the Hebrew language and in Hebrew script. The ancient writers are
unanimous on this point. Their opinion in this matter is final as was
acknowledged by D’Oyly and Richard Mant. They also admitted that the
Hebrew version was in existence up to the time of Jerome. It is also clear from
the above that the name of its translator is not yet known. Horne, in spite of
admitting the above opinion, said that it is most probable that Matthew wrote it
in two languages, in Hebrew and in Greek. This is unacceptable because he has
not produced any authority for his assumption.
The opinion of the ancients is also strengthened by the fact that Matthew was
one of the Apostles who was an eye-witness of Christ’s life and a direct listener
to him. Now had he been the author of the present Gospel there must have been
an indication somewhere in the Gospel that he is relating his won observations.
He would have used the first person somewhere in the Gospel for himself as
was the practice of the ancients. The Apostles used the first person for
themselves which is evident from the letters that are included in the New
Testament, indicating that they are written by them.
Have you not seen the writings of Luke. He wrote his Gospel and the Book
of Acts up to chapter 19, through what he heard from others. He uses the first
person when referring to himself. For instance when he accompanies Paul on his
journeys and writes those circumstances in chapter 20 he refers to himself in the
first person. If anyone refutes this by referring to the Pentateuch and the Gospel
of John, we would simply say that these two books are of doubtful authenticity
125 as we have shown in the first part of this book. The obvious cannot be
denied unless there is a strong argument against it. We also understand from the statement of the compilers of Henry and Scott that this Gospel, in the early
period of Christianity, was not considered to be authentic. In that period the
Christians were in the habit of changing the texts of their sacred books, (as we
have seen earlier). Now when the original text could not be saved from
distortions, how can one believe that a translation whose author is not even
known can have remained unchanged? Faustus, the celebrated scholar of the
Manichaeans, said:
The Gospel which is ascribed to Matthew is not his writing.
Professor Germain said:
The whole of this Gospel is false.
This Gospel was with the Marcionites but the first two chapters were missing
from it. They think that these two chapters were added to it later. The Ebionites
are of the same opinion. The Unitarian scholars and Father William have
rejected both these chapters.

Omission No. 17

Matthew 2:23 contains:
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.
The words, ”which was spoken by the Prophets” in the above is one of the
famous errors of this Gospel, because it is not found in any of the known books
of the Prophets. We would say what the Catholic scholars have said in this
matter, that this was present in the books of the Prophets but the Jews, out of
their enmity to the Christians, removed all those passages. This is another
example of omission; that a certain sect should destroy holy books simply for
personal reason. Manfred, a Catholic scholar, wrote a book called The
Questions of the Question printed in London in 1843, in which he said:
The books which contained this description (quoted by Matthew) have
been destroyed, because in any of the present books of the Prophets we do
not find the statement that Jesus would be called ‘Nazarene.’
Chrysostom said in volume 9 of his book:

Many books of the Prophets have disappeared not because the Jews
carelessly lost them, but rather because out of their dishonesty and
perversion they burnt these books to ashes.
This statement is very near to the truth. We must keep in mind what Justin
said in his polemic against Trypho:
The Jews excluded many books from the Old Testament so that the New
Testament would appear not to conform with the Old Testament. This shows
that many books have been destroyed.
The above leads us to conclude firstly, that the Jews have destroyed many
books of the Prophets and secondly, that it was easy to distort holy texts in the
past. We have seen that by their burning these books they completely obliterated
their existence. In view of their dishonest attitude towards their holy books it is
just possible that they might have changed the texts of their books which they
thought could be helpful to the Muslims.

Omission No. 18

Matthew 10:11 contains:
And Josiah begat Jeconiah and his brethren, about the time they were
carried away to Babylon.
This shows that Jeconiah and his brothers are the sons of Josiah and that they
were born at the time of their exile to Babylon. All the information given here is
erroneous. Firstly because Jeconiah is the son of Jehoiakim, son of Josiah, that
is, he is the grandson of Josiah and not his son. Secondly Jeconiah had no
brothers. His father however had three brothers. Thirdly because Jeconiah was
not born at the time of exile to Babylon, he was eighteen years old at the time of
exile. Adam Clarke said:
Calmet has suggested that the eleventh verse should be read thus: ‘Josiah
begat Jehoiakim and his brethren and Jehoiakim begat Jechoniah about the
time they were carried to Babylon.’
The above implies that Calmet has suggested the addition of the name of
Jehoiakim in the verse, in other words this name has been omitted from this
verse. Even then the third objection remains unanswered.
We have produced almost a hundred examples of distortions in the form of
alterations, additions and omissions in the above three sections. There are many
more examples of such distortions in the Bible which we have not produced here to avoid making the present work unnecessarily long. This much is more
than enough to prove the presence of distortion in the Bible in all the three
forms: alteration, addition, and omission.

 

…..continue reading….

834 total views, 0 views today

Enter your email address:

Delivered by KnowIslam.com.ng

Comments

comments



Leave a Reply

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