Is the Bible God's Word ? by Ahmed Deedat

zy

That Jesus was to sit on the "THRONE OF HIS FATHER DAVID" (Acts 2:30). The Gospels belie this prophecy, for they tell us that instead of Jesus sitting on his father's (David's) throne, it was Pontious Pilate, a Roman Governor, a pagan who sat on that very throne and condemned its rightful (?) heir (Jesus) to death. "Never mind," says the evangelist, "if not in his first coming, then in his second coming he will fulfill this prophecy and three hundred others beside." But with their extravagant enthusiasm to trace the ancestry of Jesus physically to David, (for this is actually what the Bible says - THAT OF THE FRUIT OF HIS (David's) LOINS, ACCORDING TO THE FLESH" (literally, not metaphorically Acts 2:30), both the "inspired" authors trip and fall on the very first step.

Matthew 1:6 says that Jesus was the son of David through SOLOMON, but Luke 3:31 says that he (Jesus) was the son of David through NATHAN. One need not be a gynaecologist to tell that by no stretch of the imagination could the seed of David reach the mother of Jesus both through Solomon and Nathan at the same time! We know that both the authors are confounded liars, because Jesus was conceived miraculously, without any male intervention. Even if we concede a physical ancestry through David, both authors would still be proved liars for the obvious reason.

BREAKING PREJUDICE
As simple as the above logic is, the Christian is so emotionally involved that it will not penetrate his prejudiced mind. Let us give him an identical example, but one where he can afford to be objective.

We know from history that Muhammed the Prophet of Islam, was the son of Abraham through ISHMAEL, so if some "inspired" writer came along and tried to palm off his "revelation" to the effect that Muhummed was the son of Abraham through ISAAC, we would, without any hesitation, brand such a writer as a liar, because the seed of Abraham could never reach Amina (Muhummed's mother) through Ishmael and through Isaac at the same time! The differences of lineage between these two sons of Abraham is the difference between the JEWS and the ARABS.

In the case of Muhummed, we would know then that anyone who says that Isaac is his progenitor, was a liar. But in the case of Jesus both Matthew and Luke are suspect. Until the Christians decide which line of ancestors they prefer for their "god," both Gospels will have to be rejected. Christendom has been battling tooth and nail with these genealogies for the past 2 000 years, trying to unravel the mystery. They have not given up yet. We admire their perserverance. They still believe that "TIME WILL SOLVE THE PROBLEM."

"THERE ARE CLAIMED CONTRADICTIONS THAT THEOLOGIANS HAVE NOT RESOLVED TO EVERY ATHEIST'S SATISFACTION. THERE ARE TEXTUAL DIFFICULTIES WITH WHICH SCHOLARS ARE STILL WRESTLING. ONLY A BIBLE ILLITERATE WOULD DENY THESE AND OTHER PROBLEMS." "The Plain Truth," July 1975.

THE SOURCE OF LUKE'S "INSPIRATION"
We have already nailed 85% of Matthew and Luke to Mark or that "mysterious 'Q'."1 Let us now allow Luke to tell us who "inspired" him to tell his "most excellent Theophilus" (Luke 1:3) the story of Jesus. See page 56 for Luke's preamble to his "Gospel." He tells us plainly that he was only following in the footsteps of others who were less qualified than himself, others who had the temerity to write accounts of his hero (Jesus). As a physician, as against fishermen and tax collectors, he was no doubt better equipped to create a literary masterpiece. This he did, because "IT SEEMED GOOD TO ME ALSO" to "PUT IN ORDER." These are his prominent justifications over his predecessors.

In the introduction to his translation of the "Gospel of St. Luke," A Christian scholar J. B. Phillips, has this to say - "ON HIS OWN ADMISSION LUKE HAS CAREFULLY COMPARED AND EDITED EXISTING MATERIAL,BUT IT WOULD SEEM THAT HE HAD ACCESS TO A GOOD DEAL OF ADDITIONAL MATERIAL, AND WE CAN REASONABLY GUESS AT SOME OF THE SOURCES FROM WHICH HE DREW." And yet you call this the Word of God? Obtain "The Gospels in Modern English," in soft cover by 'FONTANA' publications. It is a cheap edition. Get it quickly before the Christians decide to have Phillips' invaluable notes expunged from his translation! And do not be surprised if the authors of the RSV also decide to eliminate the "Preface"2 from their translation. It is an old, old habit. As soon as those who have vested interests in Christianity realize that they have inadvertently let the cat out of the bag, they quickly make amends. They make my current references "past" history overnight!

[ Last edited by zy on 1-2-2005 at 02:13 AM ]

zy

WHY LUKE WROTE "HIS" GOSPEL?



THE REMAINING GOSPEL
Who is the author of "The Gospel of St. John?" Neither God nor St. John! See what "he" (?) says about it "himself" (?) on page 58 - John 19:35 and 21:24-25. Who is his "HE" and "HIS" and "THIS?" A-N-D, his "WE KNOW" and "I SUPPOSE." Could it be the fickle one who left him in the lurch in the garden, when he was most in need, or the fourteenth man at the table, at the "Last Supper," the one that "Jesus loved?" Both were Johns. It was a popular name among the Jews in the times of Jesus, and among Christians even now. Neither of these two was the author of this Gospel. That it was the product of an anonymous hand, is crystal clear.

AUTHORS IN A NUTSHELL
Let me conclude this "authorship" search with the verdict of those 32 scholars, backed by their 50 co-operating denominations. God had been eliminated from this authorship race long ago. In the RSV by "Collins," invaluable notes* on "The Books of the Bible" are to be found at the back of their production. I am reproducing only a bit of that information on page 59. We start with "GENESIS" - the first book of the Bible. The scholars say about its "AUTHOR": "One of the 'five books of Moses'." Note the words "five books of Moses" are written in inverted commas - "." This is a subtle way of admitting that this is what people say - that it is the book of Moses, that Moses was its author, but we (the 32 scholars) who are better informed, do not subscribe to that tittle-tattel.

The next four books, "EXODUS, LEVITICUS, NUMBERS and DEUTERONOMY": AUTHOR? "Generally credited to Moses." This is the same category as the book of Genesis.

Who is the author of the book of "JOSHUA?" Answer: "Major part credited to Joshua."

Who is the author of the book of "JUDGES?" Answer: "Possibly Samuel."

Who is the author of "RUTH" Answer: "Not definitely known" AND

Who is the author of:
1ST SAMUEL?...................................... Answer: Author "Unknown"
2ND SAMUEL....................................... Answer: Author "Unknown"
1ST KING?.......................................... Answer: Author "Unknown"
2ND KING?......................................... Answer: Author "Unknown"

zy

WATCH THE PRONOUNS!

zy

1ST CHRONICLES? Answer: Author "Unknown, probably ..."
2ND CHRONICLES? ..... Answer: Author "Likely collectly ..."

And so the story goes. The authors of these anonymous books are either "UNKNOWN" or are "PROBABLY" or "LIKELY" or are of "DOUBTFUL" origin. Why blame God for this fiasco? The Long-suffering and Merciful God did not wait for two thousand years for Bible scholars to tell us that He was not the Author of Jewish peccadilloes, prides and prejudices; of their lusts, wranglings, jealousies and enormities. He said it openly what they do:-



We could have started the thesis of this book with the above Quŕ醤ic verse and ended with it, with the satisfaction that God Almighty had Himself delivered His verdict on the subject - "Is the Bible God's Word?", but we wished to afford our Christian brethern an opportunity to study the subject as objectively as they wished.1 Allowing believing Christians, "reborn" Christians, and their own Holy Book the Bible to testify against their "better" judgement.

What about the Holy Quŕ醤? Is the Quŕ醤 the Word of God? The author of this humble publication has endeavoured to answer this question in a most scientific manner in his book "AL'QUŔ罭 - The Ultimate Miracle," available absolutely free of charge from the "Centre" on request.

zy

E P I L O G U E

The reader must now be convinced, that is if he has an open mind, that the Bible is not what it is claimed to be by the protagonists of Christianity.

For nearly four decades people have asked me as to how I have such an "in depth" knowledge of the Bible and Christianity.

Frankly speaking my present position as a Muslim "expert" on Judaism and Christianity is not of my own volition. I have been forced into being what I am.

EARLY PROVOCATION
It was in 1939 when I was working as a shop assistant at Adams Mission near a Christian seminary by that name; producing preachers and priests, that I and my fellow Muslim workers were the target of young aspiring men of the cloth. Not a day passed when these young Christians did not harass me or my brothers-in-faith, through insults which they piled on Islam, the Holy Prophet and the Quŕ醤.

Being a sensitive young man of 20, I spent sleepless nights in tears for not being able to defend the one dearer to me than my own life, that mercy unto all mankind - Muhummed P.B.U.H. I resolved to study the Quŕ醤, the Bible and other literature. My discovery of the book - "IZHARUL HAQ" was the turning point in my life. After a short while I was able to invite the trainee missionaries of Adams Mission College and cause them to perspire under the collar until they developed a respect for Islam and its Holy Apostle.

MUSLIMS UNDER CONSTANT ATTACK
It made me ponder as to how so many unwary Muslims are being constantly assaulted by Christian evangelists who carry out a door to door campaign, and being invited in by the proverbially hospitable Muslim, I thought of how the merciless missionary munched the samoosas and punched the wind out of the Muslim with snide remarks against his beliefs.

Determined to bring home to the Muslims their right to defend themselves and to arm them with enough knowledge to counter the hot gospeller, the door to door pedlar of Christianity and the shameless insulter of Islam and its Holy Apostle; I humbly undertook to deliver lectures to show the Muslim masses that they had nothing to fear from the assaults of the Christians.

[ Last edited by zy on 3-2-2005 at 09:30 PM ]

zy

My lectures were also an invitation to the Christians to witness the truth of Islam and the fabrications which had penetrated the true teachings of Jesus (P.B.U.H.).

ATTACK NOT NEW
Christian Missionaries in the past hundred years and more have challenged Muslims on many aspects and quite a number of these challenges have, to my knowledge, gone answered or have been partly answered. Perhaps by the will of Allah my contribution in this field can also be answers or part answers to the challenges of the detractors of Islam. It is of supreme importance that we do not go by default.

One such challenge comes to mind viz. Geo G. Harris the author of "How to lead Muslims to Christ". The missionary who tried to convert the Muslims of China says in the usual arrogant and condescending manner of the Westerner on page 19 under the heading - "THE THEORY OR CHARGE OF CORRUPTION."

'WE NOW COME TO THE MOST SERIOUS CHARGE BY THE MOSLEM WORLD, AGAINST OUR CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURES. THERE ARE THREE ASPECTS OF THIS CHARGE.

   1. That the Christian scriptures have been so changed and altered that they bear little, if any, resemblance to the glorious Injil praised in the Quŕ醤. This can be answered by the asking of one of the following questions: Wherein have these been so changed or altered? Can you obtain a copy of a true Injil and show it that I may compare it with mine? At what date in past history was the unaltered Injil in circulation?
   2. That our Gospels have suffered corruption. The following five questions are definite and we have a perfect right to ask them:
         1. Was such corruption or alteration intentional?
         2. Can you point out in my Bible one such passage?
         3. How did this passage read originally?
         4. When, by whom, how or why was it corrupted or altered?
         5. Was such, corruption of the text or of the meaning?
   3. That our Gospels are "faked" substitutes for the original Injil. Or that our Gospels are the handiwork of men, not the noble Injil which descended upon Jesus. A little questioning will usually reveal the true situation, that usually the Moslem making the charge is woefully ignorant of the Bible or New Testament as it actually existed in the past or exists today.

BEFORE GOING ON TO THE LATTER HALF OF THIS DISCUSSION A REMINDER IS IMPORTANT THAT AS SOON AS THE OBJECTOR IS WILLING TO SENSE THE FLIMSINESS OF SUCH A CHARGE WE SHOULD PRESS HOME SOME TEACHING FROM OUR SCRIPTURES, THAT OUR EFFORT MAY BE POSITIVE AND NOT NEGATIVE."

HAVE MUSLIMS THE ANSWER?
Have we as Muslims no answers for these questions? If you, gentle reader have read this book you will admit that Geo G.Harris has no feet to stand on. I have been able to give actual pages from the Bible to disprove his assertions.

zy

MUSLIMS CHALLENGED
On page 16 of Geo G. Harris' book he teaches his comrades a basic missionary rule in order to corner the Muslim prospective:

"In this chapter it is assumed that the question of the authenticity and genuineness of our scriptures has been raised by the Mohammedan. When this is the case, before we undertake defence of our position we should bear in mind a basic rule. THE BURDEN OF PROOF RESTS WITH THE MOSLEM."1

Praise be to Allah that in my 40 years of disproving the authenticity of the Bible which the Christians have so boldly asked for, I have been able to win the day.

Remember, we Muslims do not go door to door peddling our religion. Whereas Christians of different denominations encroach upon our privacy and peace and take advantage of our hospitality to harass the unwary Musalmān.

Those who are afraid to project the truth when they are provoked by these Christians, who even go to the extent of insulting our beloved Nabee Muhummed (S.A.W.) should re examine their Eimaan.

The lectures I hold are to sound out these slinking missionaries who "attack" the home and hearth of the unsuspecting Muslim who goes about minding his own business.

The lectures are also aimed at restoring the damaged dignity of the Muslim who has been ruffled by the ruthless attacks of the Christian pedlar. Ask the poor Muslims of Chatsworth, Hanover Park or Riverlea2 as to how they are subjected to the tyranny of certain missionaries.

If this humble little contribution of mine "Is the Bible God's Word?" finds a place in the Muslim home as a bulwark against the missionary menace my effort would be amply rewarded.

A greater reward would be if even one sincere disciple of Jesus (on whom be peace) were to be led to the truth and be removed from fabrications and falsehood.

The greatest reward of course lies with Allah Almighty whom I supplicate for guidance and mercy and pray and crave that He accepts my effort which I dedicate to Him in all humility.