recognize contradictions p1
(note: Many of the following quotations were
obtained from the writings of Ahmed Deedat although many other
sources were used as well)
Let us start from the
beginning. No Biblical scholar on this earth will claim that the
Bible was written by Jesus himself. They all agree that the
Bible was written after the departure of Jesus peace be upon him
by his followers. Dr. W Graham Scroggie of the Moody Bible
Institute, Chicago, a prestigious Christian evangelical mission,
"..Yes, the Bible is human, although some
out of zeal which is not according to knowledge, have denied
this. Those books have passed through the minds of men, are
written in the language of men, were penned by the hands of men
and bear in their style the characteristics of men...."
"It is Human, Yet Divine," W Graham Scroggie,
Another Christian scholar, Kenneth Cragg, the
Anglican Bishop of Jerusalem, says:
"...Not so the New testament...There is
condensation and editing; there is choice reproduction and
witness. The Gospels have come through the mind of the church
behind the authors. They represent experience and history..."
"The Call of the Minaret," Kenneth Cragg, p
"It is well known that the primitive
Christian Gospel was initially transmitted by word of mouth and
that this oral tradition resulted in variant reporting of word
and deed. It is equally true that when the Christian record was
committed to writing it continued to be the subject of verbal
variation. Involuntary and intentional, at the hands of scribes
Peake's Commentary on the Bible, p. 633
"Yet, as a matter of fact, every book of
the New Testament with the exception of the four great Epistles
of St. Paul is at present more or less the subject of
controversy, and interpolations are asserted even in these."
Encyclopaedia Brittanica, 12th Ed. Vol. 3, p.
Dr. Lobegott Friedrich Konstantin Von
one of the most adamant conservative Christian defenders of the
Trinity was himself driven to admit that:
"[the New Testament had] in many passages
undergone such serious modification of meaning as to leave us in
painful uncertainty as to what the Apostles had actually
Secrets of Mount Sinai, James Bentley, p. 117
After listing many examples of contradictory
statements in the Bible, Dr. Frederic Kenyon says:
"Besides the larger discrepancies, such as
these, there is scarcely a verse in which there is not some
variation of phrase in some copies [of the ancient manuscripts
from which the Bible has been collected]. No one can say that
these additions or omissions or alterations are matters of mere
Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, Dr.
Frederic Kenyon, Eyre and Spottiswoode, p. 3
Throughout this book you will find countless
other similar quotations from some of Christendom's leading
scholars. Let us suffice with these for now.
Christians are, in general, good and decent
people, and the stronger their convictions the more decent they
are. This is attested to in the noble Qur'an:
"...and nearest among them (men) in love to
the believers will you find those who say 'we are Christians':
because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who
have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant. And when
they listen to the revelation received by the messenger
(Muhammad), you will see their eyes overflowing with tears for
they recognize the truth: They pray: 'Our Lord! we believe;
write us down among the witnesses'."
The noble Qur'an, Al-Maidah(5):82-83.
All biblical "versions" of the Bible prior to
the revised version of 1881 were dependent upon the "Ancient
Copies" (those dating between five to six hundred years after
Jesus). The revisers of the Revised Standard Version (RSV) 1952
were the first biblical scholars to have access to the "MOST
ancient copies" which date fully three to four hundred years
after Christ. It is only logical for us to concur that the
closer a document is to the source the more authentic it is. Let
us see what is the opinion of Christendom with regard to the
most revised version of the Bible (revised in 1952 and then
again in 1971):
"The finest version which has been produced
in the present century" - (Church of England newspaper)
"A completely fresh translation by scholars
of the highest eminence" - (Times literary supplement)
"The well loved characteristics of the
authorized version combined with a new accuracy of translation"
- (Life and Work)
"The most accurate and close rendering of
the original" - (The Times)
The publishers themselves (Collins) mention on
page 10 of their notes:
"This Bible (RSV) is the product of thirty
two scholars assisted by an advisory committee representing
fifty cooperating denominations"
Let us see what these thirty two
Christian scholars of the highest eminence backed by fifty
cooperating Christian denominations have to say about the
Authorized Version (AV), or as it is better known, the King
James Version (KJV). In the preface of the RSV 1971 we find the
"...Yet the King James Version has GRAVE
They go on to caution us that:
"...That these defects are SO MANY AND SO
SERIOUS as to call for revision"
The Jehovah's Witnesses in their "AWAKE"
Magazine dated 8th September 1957 published the
following headline: "50,000 Errors in the
Bible" wherein they say "..there are probably 50,000
errors in the Bible...errors which have crept into the Bible
text...50,000 such serious errors..." After all of this,
however, they go on to say: "...as a whole the Bible is
accurate." Let us have a look at only a very few of these
In John 3:16 - AV(KJV) we read:
"For God so loved the world, that he gave
his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him should
not perish, but have everlasting life.."
But as seen in section 22.214.171.124, this
fabrication "begotten" has now been unceremoniously
excised by these most eminent of Bible revisers. However,
humanity did not have to wait 2000 years for this revelation.
In Maryam(19):88-98 of the noble Qur'an we
"And they say 'Allah Most Compassionate has
begotten a son!'. Indeed you have put forth a thing most
monstrous! The skies are ready to burst (at such a claim), and
the earth to split asunder, and the mountains to fall down in
utter ruin. That they should ascribe a son to the Most
Compassionate. But it is not befitting [the majesty of] the Most
Compassionate that He should beget a son. Not one of the beings
in the heavens and the earth but must come to the Most
Compassionate as a servant. He has taken account of all of them
and has numbered them all exactly. And every one of them will
come to him singly on the day of judgment. On those who believe
and work deeds of righteousness, will Allah most gracious bestow
love. Verily, We have made this [Qur'an] easy in your tongue [O
Muhammad] that you might deliver glad tidings to those who seek
refuge [in Allah] and warn with it a people who are contentious.
And how many a generation before them have we destroyed! Can you
find a single one of them or hear from them so much as a
In 1st Epistle of John 5:7 (King James
Version) we find:
"For there are three that bear record in
heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these
three are one."
As we have already seen in section 126.96.36.199,
this verse is the closest approximation to what the Church calls
the holy Trinity. However, as seen in that
section, this cornerstone of the Christian faith has also been
scrapped from the RSV by the same thirty two
Christian scholars of the highest eminence backed by fifty
cooperating Christian denominations, once again all according to
the "most ancient manuscripts." And once again, we find that the
noble Qur'an revealed this truth over fourteen hundred years
"O people of the book! commit no excesses
in your religion: nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ
Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a Messenger of Allah,
and his Word, which he bestowed upon Mary, and a spirit
preceding from him so believe in Allah and his messengers. Say
not "Three" desist It will be better for you for Allah is one
God Glory be to him Far exalted is he above having a son. To him
belong all things in the heavens and the earth. And enough is
Allah as a disposer of affairs."
The noble Qur'an, Al-Nissa(4):171
Prior to 1952 all versions of the Bible made
mention of one of the most miraculous events associated with the
prophet Jesus peace be upon him, that of his ascension into
"So then the lord Jesus, after he had
spoken to them, was taken up into heaven, and sat down at the
right hand of God"
and once again in Luke:
"While he blessed them, he parted from
them, and was carried up into heaven. And they worshipped him,
and returned to Jerusalem with great joy."
In the 1952 RSV Mark 16 ends at verse 8 and
the rest is relegated in small print to a footnote (more on this
later). Similarly, in the commentary on the verses of Luke 24,
we are told in the footnotes of the NRSV Bible "Other ancient
authorities lack "and was carried up into heaven'"
and "Other ancient authorities lack 'and worshipped him'".
Thus, we see that the verse of Luke in it's original form only
"While he blessed them, he parted from
them. And they returned to Jerusalem with great joy."
It took centuries of "inspired correction" to
give us Luke 24:51-52 in their current form.
As another example, in Luke 24:1-7 we read:
"Now upon the first day of the week, very
early in the morning, they came unto the sepulcher, bringing the
spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them.
And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulcher. And
they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus. And
it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold,
two men stood by them in shining garments: And as they were
afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto
them, Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but
is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in
Galilee, saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands
of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again."
Once again, in reference to verse 5, the
footnotes say: "Other ancient authorities lack 'He is not
here but has risen'" Also, please read entries 16 and 17
in the table in section 2.2.
The examples are far too numerous to list
here, however, you are encouraged to obtain a copy of the New
Revised Standard Version of the Bible for yourself and scan
through the four gospels. You shall be hard pressed to find even
two consecutive pages that do not contain the words "Other
ancient authorities lack..." or "Other ancient
authorities add..." etc. in the footnotes..
Let us now talk about the alleged authors of
the New Testament. We will note that every Gospel begins with
the introduction "According to....." such as "The Gospel
according to Saint Matthew," "The Gospel according to Saint
Luke," "The Gospel according to Saint Mark," "The Gospel
according to Saint John." The obvious conclusion for the average
man on the street is that these people are known to be the
authors of the books attributed to them. This, however is not
the case. Why? Because not one of the vaunted four thousand
copies existent carries it's author's signature. It has just
been assumed that they were the authors. Recent discoveries,
however, refute this belief. Even the internal evidence proves
that, for instance, Matthew did not write the Gospel attributed
"...And as Jesus passed forth thence, HE
(Jesus) saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of
custom: and HE (Jesus) saith unto HIM (Matthew), follow ME
(Jesus) and HE (Matthew) arose, and followed HIM (Jesus)."
It does not take a rocket scientist to see
that neither Jesus nor Matthew wrote this verse of "Matthew."
Such evidence can be found in many places throughout the New
Testament. Although many people have hypothesized that it is
possible that an author sometimes may write in the third person,
still, in light of the rest of the evidence that we shall see
throughout this book, there is simply too much evidence against
This observation is by no means limited to the
New Testament. There is even proof that at least parts of
Deuteronomy were neither written by God nor by Moses.
This can be seen in Deuteronomy 34:5-10 where we read
"So Moses....DIED... and he (God Almighty)
BURIED HIM (Moses)... He was 120 years old WHEN HE DIED... and
there arose not a prophet SINCE in Israel like unto Moses...."
Did Moses write his own obituary?
Joshua also speaks in detail about his own death
in Joshua 24:29-33. The evidence overwhelmingly supports the
current recognition that most of the books of the Bible were not
written by their supposed authors.
The authors of the RSV by Collins say that the
author of "Kings" is "Unknown." If they knew it to be the word
of God they would have undoubtedly attributed it to him. Rather,
they have chosen to honestly say "Author....Unknown." But if the
author is unknown then why attribute it to God? How can it then
be claimed to have been "inspired"? Continuing, we read that the
book of Isaiah is "Mainly credited to Isaiah. Parts may have
been written by others." Ecclesiastics: "Author. Doubtful, but
commonly assigned to Solomon." Ruth:
"Author. Not definitely known, perhaps Samuel." and on and on.
Let us have a slightly more detailed look at
only one book of the New Testament:
"The author of the Book of Hebrews is
unknown. Martin Luther suggested that Apollos was the author...Tertullian
said that Hebrews was a letter of Barnabas...Adolf Harnack and
J. Rendel Harris speculated that it was written by Priscilla (or
Prisca). William Ramsey suggested that it was done by Philip.
However, the traditional position is that the Apostle Paul wrote
Hebrews...Eusebius believed that Paul wrote it, but Origen was
not positive of Pauline authorship."
From the introduction to the King James Bible,
New revised and updated sixth edition, the Hebrew/Greek Key
Study, Red Letter Edition
Is this how we define "inspired by God"?
As seen in chapter one, St. Paul and his
church after him, were responsible of making wholesale changes
to the religion of Jesus (pbuh) after his departure and were
further responsible for mounting a massive campaign of death and
torture of all Christians who refused to renounce the teachings
of the apostles in favor of the Pauline doctrines. All but the
Gospels acceptable to the Pauline faith were then systematically
destroyed or re-written. Rev. Charles Anderson Scott has the
following to say:
"It is highly probable that not one of the
Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) was in existence in
the form which we have it, prior to the death of Paul. And were
the documents to be taken in strict order of chronology, the
Pauline Epistles would come before the synoptic Gospels."
History of Christianity in the Light of Modern
Knowledge, Rev. Charles Anderson Scott, p.338
This statement is further confirmed by Prof.
"The earliest Christian writings that have
been preserved for us are the letters of the apostle Paul"
"Religions in Ancient History," S.G.F.
Brandon, p. 228.
In the latter part of the second century,
Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth says:
"As the brethren desired me to write
epistles(letters), I did so, and these the apostles of the devil
have filled with tares (undesirable elements), exchanging some
things and adding others, for whom there is a woe reserved. It
is not therefore, a matter of wonder if some have also attempted
to adulterate the sacred writings of the Lord, since they have
attempted the same in other works that are not to be compared
The Qur'an confirms this with the words:
"Then woe to those who write the book (of
Allah/God) with their own hands and then say: 'This is from
Allah', to traffic with it for a miserable price. Woe to them
for what their hands do write and for the gain they make
The noble Qur'an Al-Bakarah(2):79
Victor Tununensis, a sixth century African
Bishop related in his Chronicle (566 AD) that when Messala was
consul at Costantinople (506 AD), he "censored and corrected"
the Gentile Gospels written by persons considered illiterate by
the Emperor Anastasius. The implication was that they were
altered to conform to sixth century Christianity which differed
from the Christianity of previous centuries (The Dead Sea
Scrolls, the Gospel of Barnabas, and
the New Testament, by M. A. Yusseff, p. 81)
These "corrections" were by no means confined
to the first centuries after Christ. Sir Higgins says:
"It is impossible to deny that the
Bendictine Monks of St. Maur, as far as Latin and Greek language
went, were very learned and talented, as well as numerous body
of men. In Cleland's 'Life of Lanfranc, Archbishop of
Canterbury', is the following passage: 'Lanfranc, a Benedictine
Monk, Archbishop of Canterbury, having found the Scriptures much
corrupted by copyists, applied himself to correct them, as also
the writings of the fathers, agreeably to the orthodox faith,
secundum fidem orthodoxam."
History of Christianity in the light of Modern
knowledge, Higgins p.318
In other words, the Christian scriptures were
re-written in order to conform to the doctrines of the eleventh
and twelfth centuries and even the writings of the early church
fathers were "corrected" so that the changes would not be
discovered. Sir Higgins goes on to say:
"The same Protestant divine has this
remarkable passage: 'Impartiality exacts from me the confession,
that the orthodox have in some places altered the Gospels."
The author then goes on to demonstrate how a
massive effort was undertaken in Costantinople, Rome,
Canterbury, and the Christian world in general in order to
"correct" the Gospels and destroy all manuscripts before this
Theodore Zahan, illustrated the bitter
conflicts within the established churches in Articles of the
Apostolic Creed. He points out that the Roman Catholics
accuse the Greek Orthodox Church of remodeling the text of the
holy scriptures by additions and omissions with both good as
well as evil intentions. The Greek Orthodox, on the other hand,
accuse the Roman Catholics of straying in many places very far
away from the original text. In spite of their differences, they
both join forces to condemn the non-conformist Christians of
deviating from "the true way" and condemn them as heretics. The
heretics in turn condemn the Catholics for having "recoined
the truth like forgers." The author concludes "Do not
facts support these accusations?"
"And from those who said: "We are
Christians," We took their Covenant, but they forgot a good part
of the message which was sent to them. Therefore We have stirred
up enmity and hatred among them till the Day of Resurrection,
and Allah will inform them of what they used to do. O people of
the Scripture! Now has Our messenger (Muhammad) come to you,
explaining to you much of that which you used to hide in the
Scripture, and forgiving much. Indeed, there has come to you a
light from Allah and a plain Scripture. Wherewith Allah guides
him who seeks His good pleasure unto paths of peace. He brings
them out of darkness by His will into light, and guides them to
a straight path. They indeed have disbelieved who say: Lo! Allah
is the Messiah, son of Mary. Say: Who then has the least power
against Allah, if He had willed to destroy the Messiah son of
Mary, and his mother and everyone on earth? And to Allah belongs
the dominion of the heavens and the earth and all that is
between them. He creates what He will. And Allah is Able to do
all things. The Jews and Christians say: We are sons of Allah
and His loved ones. Say; Why then does He punish you for your
sins? No, you are but mortals of His creating. He forgives whom
He will, and punishes whom He will. And to Allah belongs the
dominion of the heavens and the earth and all that is between
them, and unto Him is the return (of all). O people of the
Scripture! Now has Our messenger (Muhammad) come unto you to
make things plain after a break in (the series of) the
messengers, lest you should say: There came not unto us a
messenger of cheer nor any Warner. Now has a messenger of cheer
and a Warner come unto you. And Allah is Able to do all things."
The noble Qur'an, Al-Maidah(5):14-19
St. Augustine himself,
a man acknowledged and looked up to by both Protestants and
Catholics alike, professed that there were secret doctrines in
the Christian religion and that
"there were many things true in the
Christian religion which it was not convenient for the vulgar to
know, and that some things were false, but convenient for the
vulgar to believe in them."
Sir Higgins admits:
"It is not unfair to suppose that in these
withheld truths we have part of the modern Christian
mysteries, and I think it will hardly be denied that the
church, whose highest authorities held such doctrines, would not
scruple to retouch the sacred writings" (The Dead Sea Scrolls,
the Gospel of Barnabas, and the New
Testament, M. A. Yusseff, p.83)
Even the epistles attributed to Paul were not
written by him. After years of research, Catholics and
Protestants alike agree that of the thirteen epistles attributed
to Paul only seven are genuinely his. They are: Romans, 1, 2
Corinthians, Galatians, Philipians, Philemon, and 1
Christian sect are not even agreed on the
definition of what exactly is an "inspired" book of God. The
Protestants are taught that there are 66 truly "inspired" books
in the Bible, while the Catholics have been taught that there
are 73 truly "inspired" books, not to mention the many other
sects and their "newer" books, such as the Mormons, etc. As we
shall see shortly, the very first Christians, for many
generations, did not follow either the 66 books of the
Protestants, nor the 73 books of the
Catholics. Quite the opposite, they believed in books that were,
many generations later, "recognized" to be fabrications and
apocrypha by a more enlightened age than that of the apostles.
Well, where do all of these Bibles come from
and why the difficulty in defining what is a truly "inspired"
word of God? They come from the "ancient manuscripts" (also
known as MSS). The Christian world today boasts of an excess of
24,000 "ancient manuscripts" of the Bible dating all the way
back to the fourth century after Christ (But not back to Christ
or the apostles themselves). In other words, we have with us
gospels which date back to the century when the Trinitarians
took over the Christian Church. All manuscripts from before this
period have strangely perished. All Bibles in existence today
are compiled from these "ancient manuscripts." Any scholar of
the Bible will tell us that no two ancient manuscripts are
People today generally believe that there is
only ONE Bible, and ONE version of any given verse of the Bible.
This is far from true. All Bibles in our possession today (Such
as the KJV, the NRSV, the NAB, NIV,...etc.) are the result of
extensive cutting and pasting from these various manuscripts
with no single one being the definitive reference. There
are countless cases where a paragraph shows up in one "ancient
manuscript" but is totally missing from many others. For
instance, Mark 16:8-20 (twelve whole verses) is completely
missing from the most ancient manuscripts available today (such
as the Sinaitic Manuscript, the Vatican #1209 and the Armenian
version) but shows up in more recent "ancient
manuscripts." There are also many documented cases where even
geographical locations are completely different from one ancient
manuscript to the next. For instance, in the "Samaritan
Pentateuch manuscript," Deuteronomy 27:4 speaks
of "mount Gerizim," while in the "Hebrew manuscript" the
exact same verse speaks of "mount Ebal."
From Deuteronomy 27:12-13 we can see that these are two
distinctly different locations. Similarly, Luke 4:44 in some
"ancient manuscripts" mentions "Synagogues of Judea," others
mention "Synagogues of Galilee." This is only a sampling, a
comprehensive listing would require a book of it's own.
There are countless examples in the Bible
where verses of a questionable nature are included in the text
without any disclaimer telling the reader that many scholars and
translators have serious reservations as to their authenticity.
The King James Version of the Bible (Also known as the
"Authorized Version"), the one in the hands of the majority of
Christendom today, is one of the most notorious in this regard.
It gives the reader absolutely no clue as to the questionable
nature of such verses. However, more recent translations of the
Bible are now beginning to be a little more honest and
forthcoming in this regard. For example, the New Revised
Standard Version of the Bible, by Oxford Press, has adopted an
extremely subtle system of bracketing the most glaring examples
of such questionable verses with double square brackets ([[ ]]).
It is highly unlikely that the casual reader will realize the
true function these brackets serve. They are there to tell the
informed reader that the enclosed verses are of a highly
questionable nature. Examples of this are the story of the
"woman taken in adultery" in John 8:1-11, as well as Mark 16:9-20 (Jesus' resurrection and return), and Luke 23:34 (which,
interestingly enough, is there to confirm the prophesy of Isaiah 53:12).....and so forth.
For example, with regard to John 8:1-11, the
commentators of this Bible say in very small print at the bottom
of the page:
"The most ancient authorities lack
7.53-8.11; other authorities add the passage here or after 7.36
or after 21.25 or after Luke 21.38 with variations of text; some
mark the text as doubtful." (emphasis
With regard to Mark 16:9-20, we are, strangely
enough, given a choice of how we would like the Gospel of
Mark to end. The commentators have supplied both a "short
ending" and a "long ending." Thus, we are given a choice
of what we would prefer to be the "inspired word of God". Once
again, at the end of this Gospel in very small text, the
"Some of the most ancient
authorities bring the book to a close at the end of verse 8. One
authority concludes the book with the shorter ending; others
include the shorter ending and then continue with verses 9-20.
In most authorities, verses 9-20 follow immediately after verse
8, though in some of these authorities the passage is marked as
Peake's Commentary on the Bible records;
"It is now generally agreed that 9-20 are
not an original part of Mk. They are not found in the oldest
MSS, and indeed were apparently not in the copies used by Mt.
and Lk. A 10th-cent. Armenian MS ascribes the passage to
Aristion, the presbyter mentioned by Papias (ap.Eus.HE III,
"Indeed an Armenian translation of St. Mark
has quite recently been discovered, in which the last twelve
verses of St. Mark are ascribed to Ariston, who is otherwise
known as one of the earliest of the Christian Fathers; and it is
quite possible that this tradition is correct"
Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, F.
Kenyon, Eyre and Spottiswoode, pp. 7-8
Even at that, these verses are noted as having
been narrated differently in different "authorities." For
example, verse 14 is claimed by the commentators to have the
following words added on to them in some "ancient authorities":
"and they excused themselves saying 'This
age of lawlessness and unbelief is under Satan, who does not
allow the truth and power of God to prevail over the unclean
things of the spirits. Therefore, reveal your righteousness now'
- thus they spoke to Christ and Christ replied to them 'The term
of years of Satan's power has been fulfilled, but other terrible
things draw near. And for those who have sinned I was handed
over to death, that they may return to the truth and sin no
more, that they may inherit the spiritual and imperishable glory
of the righteousness that is in heaven'.".
Dr. Lobegott Friedrich Konstantin Von
was one of the most
eminent conservative biblical scholars of the nineteenth
century. He was also one of the staunchest most adamant
defenders of the "Trinity" history has known. One of his
greatest lifelong achievements was the discovery of the oldest
known Biblical manuscript know to mankind, the "Codex Sinaiticus,"
from Saint Catherine's Monastery
in Mount Sinai. One of the most devastating discoveries made
from the study of this fourth century manuscript was that the
gospel of Mark originally ended at verses 16:8 and not at verse
16:20 as it does today. In other words, the last 12 verses (Mark
16:9 through Mark 16:20) were "injected" by the church into the
Bible sometime after the 4th century. Clement of Alexandria and
Origen never quoted these verses. Later on, it was also
discovered that the said 12 verses, wherein lies the account of
"the resurrection of Jesus," do not appear in codices Syriacus,
Vaticanus and Bobiensis. Originally, the "Gospel of Mark"
contained no mention of the "resurrection of Jesus" (Mark
16:9-20). At least four hundred years (if not more) after
the departure of Jesus, the Church received divine "inspiration"
to add the story of the resurrection to the end of this Gospel.
The author of "Codex Sinaiticus"
had no doubt that the Gospel of Mark came to an end at Mark
16:8, to emphasize this point we find that immediately following
this verse he brings the text to a close with a fine artistic
squiggle and the words "The Gospel according to Mark."
was a staunch conservative Christian and as such he managed to
casually brush this discrepancy aside since in his estimation
the fact that Mark was not an apostle nor an eye witness to the
ministry of Jesus made his account secondary to those of the
apostles such as Matthew and John. However, as seen elsewhere in
this book, the majority of Christian scholars today recognize
the writings of Paul to be the oldest of the writings of the
Bible. These are closely followed by the "Gospel of Mark" and
the "Gospels of Matthew and Luke" are almost universally
recognized to have been based upon the "Gospel of Mark." This
discovery was the result of centuries of detailed and
painstaking studies by these Christian scholars and the details
can not be repeated here. Suffice it to say that most reputable
Christian scholars today recognize this as a basic indisputable
Today, the translators and publishers of our
modern Bibles are beginning to be a little more forthright and
honest with their readers. Although they may not simply openly
admit that these twelve verses were forgeries of the Church and
not the word of God, still, at least they are beginning to draw
the reader's attention to the fact that there are two "versions"
of the "Gospel of Mark" and then leave the reader to decide what
to make of these two "versions."
Now the question becomes "if the Church has
tampered with the Gospel of Mark, then did they stop there or is
there more to this story?. As it happens, Tischendorf
also discovered that the "Gospel of John" has been heavily
reworked by the Church over the ages. For example,
- It was found that the verses starting from
John 7:53 to 8:11 (the story of the woman taken in adultery)
are not to be found in the most ancient copies of the Bible
available to Christianity today, specifically, codices
Sinaiticus or Vaticanus.
- It was also found that John 21:25 was a
later insertion, and that a verse from the gospel of Luke (24:12) that speaks of Peter discovering an empty tomb of
Jesus is not to be found in the ancient manuscripts.
(For more on this topic please read 'Secrets
of Mount Sinai' by James Bentley, Doubleday, NY, 1985).
Much of the discoveries of Dr. Tischendorf
regarding the continuous and unrelenting tampering with the text
of the Bible over the ages has been verified by twentieth
century science. For example, a study of the Codex Sinaiticus
under ultraviolet light has revealed that the "Gospel of John"
originally ended at verse 21:24 and was followed by a small tail
piece and then the words "The Gospel according to John."
However, some time later, a completely different "inspired"
individual took pen in hand, erased the text following verse 24,
and then added in the "inspired" text of John 21:25 which we
find in our Bibles today.
The evidence of tampering goes on and on. For
example, in the Codex Sinaiticus
the "lord's prayer" of Luke 11:2-4 differs
substantially from the version which has reached us through the
agency of centuries of "inspired" correction. Luke 11:2-4 in
this most ancient of all Christian manuscripts reads:
"Father, Hallowed by thy name, Thy kingdom
come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so upon earth. Give us day
by day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins, as we ourselves
also forgive everyone that is indebted to us. And bring us not
Further, the "Codex Vaticanus,"
is another ancient manuscript held by the scholars of
Christianity in the same reverent standing as the Codex
Sinaiticus. These two
fourth century codices are together considered the most ancient
copies of the Bible available today. In the codex Vaticanus we
can find a version of Luke 11:2-4 even shorter than that of
Codex Sinaiticus. In this version even the words "Thy will be
done, as in heaven, so upon earth." are not to be found.
Well, what has been the official Church
position regarding these "discrepancies"? How did the Church
decide to handle this situation? Did they call upon all of the
foremost scholars of Christian literature to come together in a
mass conference in order to jointly study the most ancient
Christian manuscripts available to the Church and come to a
common agreement as to what was the true original word of God?
Well then, did they immediately expend every
effort to make mass copies of the original manuscripts and send
them out to the Christian world so that they could make their
own decisions as to what truly was the original unchanged word
of God? Once again, No!
So what did they do? Let us ask Rev. Dr.
George L. Robertson. In his book "Where did we get our Bible? he
"Of the MSS. of Holy Scripture in Greek
still existing there are said to be several thousand of varying
worth ... Three or four in particular of these old, faded out,
and unattractive documents constitute the most ancient and the
most precious treasures of the Christian Church, and are
therefore of special interest." First
in Rev. Richardson's list is the "Codex Vaticanus"
of which he says: "This is probably the most ancient of all
Greek MSS. now known to exist. It is designated as Codex 'B.' In
1448, Pope Nicholas V brought it to Rome where it has lain
practically ever since, being guarded assiduously by papal
officials in the Vatican Library. It's history is brief: Erasmus
in 1533 knew of its existence, but neither he nor any of his
successors were permitted to study it... becoming quite
inaccessible to scholars, till Tischendorf
in 1843, after months of delay, was finally allowed to see it
for six hours. Another specialist, named de Muralt in 1844 was
likewise given an aggravating glimpse of it for nine hours. The
story of how Dr. Tregelles in 1845 was allowed by the
authorities (all unconscious to themselves) to secure it page by
page through memorizing the text, is a fascinating one. Dr.
Tregelles did it. He was permitted to study the MS. continuously
for a long time, but not to touch it or to take notes. Indeed,
every day as he entered the room where the precious document was
guarded, his pockets were searched and pen, paper and ink were
taken from him, if he carried such accessories with him. The
permission to enter, however, was repeated, until he finally had
carried away with him and annotated in his room most of the
principle variant readings of this most ancient text. Often,
however, in the process, if the papal authorities observed he
was becoming too much absorbed in any one section, they would
snatch the MS. away from him and direct his attention to another
leaf. Eventually they discovered that Tregelles had practically
stolen the text, and that the Biblical world knew the secrets of
their historic MS. Accordingly, Pope Pius IX ordered that it
should be photographed and published; and it was, in five
volumes which appeared in 1857. But the work was very
unsatisfactorily done. About that time Tischendorf made a third
attempt to gain access to and examine it. He succeeded, and
later issued the text of the first twenty pages. Finally in
1889-90, with papal permission, the entire text was photographed
and issued in facsimile, and published so that a copy of the
expensive quartos was obtainable by, and is now in the
possession of all the principle libraries in the biblical
"Where did we get our Bible?", Rev. Dr. George
L. Robertson. Harper and Brothers Publishers, pp.110-112
What were all of the Popes afraid of? What was
the Vatican as a whole afraid of? Why was the concept of
releasing the text of their most ancient copy of the Bible to
the general public so terrifying to them? Why did they feel it
necessary to bury the most ancient copies of the inspired word
of God in a dark corner of the Vatican never to be seen by
outside eyes? Why? What about all of the thousands upon
thousands of other manuscripts which to this day remain buried
in the darkest depths of the Vatican vaults never to be seen or
studied by the general masses of Christendom?
"[And remember] When God took a Covenant
from those who were given the Scripture: You shall make it known
and clear to mankind, and you shall not to hide it; but they
flung it behind their backs, and purchased with it a miserable
gain! How evil was that which they purchased!"
The noble Qur'an, A'al-Umran(3):187
"Say: 'O people of the Book! exceed not in
your religion the bounds [of what is proper], trespassing beyond
the truth, nor follow the vain desires of people who went astray
in times gone by, who misled many, and strayed [themselves] from
the straight path.'"
The noble Qur'an, Al-Maida(5):77
Returning to our study of some of the
"discrepancies" to be found between our modern Bibles and
between the most ancient copies of the Bible available to the
chosen few, we find that the verse of Luke 24:51 contains Luke's
alleged account of the final parting of Jesus (pbuh) and how he
was "raised up into heaven." However, as seen in previous pages,
in the Codex Sinaiticus
and other ancient manuscripts the words "and was carried up
into heaven" are completely missing. The verse only says:
"And it came to pass, while he blessed
them, he was parted from them."
C.S.C. Williams observed, if this omission
were correct, "there is no reference at all to the Ascension
in the original text of the Gospel."
Some other "inspired" modification of the
Church to Codex Sinaiticus
and our modern Bibles:
- Matthew 17:21 is missing in Codex
- In our modern Bibles, Mark 1:1 reads
"The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;"
however, in this most ancient of all Christian manuscripts,
this verse only reads "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus
Christ" Strangely, the very words which are most grating
to the Muslim's Qur'an, "the Son of God," are
completely missing. Isn't that interesting?
- The words of Jesus in Luke 9:55-56 are
- The original text of Matthew 8:2 as found
in Codex Sinaiticus
tells us that a leper asked Jesus to heal him and Jesus
"angrily put forth [his] hand, and touched him, saying, I
will; be thou clean." In our modern Bibles, the word
"angrily" is strangely absent.
- Luke 22:44 in Codex Sinaiticus
and our modern Bibles claim that an angel appeared before
Jesus, strengthening him. In Codex Vaticanus,
this angel is strangely absent. If Jesus was the "Son of God"
then obviously it would be highly inappropriate for him to
need an angel to strengthen him. This verse, then, must
have been a scribal mistake. Right?
- The alleged words of Jesus on the cross
"Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do"
(Luke 23:34) were originally present in the Codex Sinaiticus
but was later erased from the text by another editor. Bearing
in mind how the Church regarded and treated the Jews in the
middle ages, can we think of any reason why this verse might
have stood in the way of official Church policy and their
- John 5:4 is missing from Codex Sinaiticus.
- In Mark chapter 9, the words "Where
their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." are
- In Matt. 5:22, the words "without cause"
are missing in both the codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.
- Matt. 21:7 in our modern Bibles reads
"And [the disciples] brought the ass, and the colt, and put on
them their clothes, and they set [Jesus] thereon." In the
original manuscripts, this verse read "and they set [Jesus]
upon them," However, the picture of Jesus being
placed upon two animals at the same time and being asked to
ride them at once was objectionable to some, so this verse was
changed to "and they set [Jesus] upon him"
(which "him"?). Soon after, the English translation completely
avoided this problem by translating it as "thereon."
- In Mark 6:11, our modern Bibles contain the
words "Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable
for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that
city." However, these words are not to be found in either
of these two most ancient of Christian Biblical manuscripts,
having been introduced into the text centuries later.
- The words of Matthew 6:13 "For thine is
the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever." Are
not to be found in these two most ancient manuscripts as well
as many others. The parallel passages in Luke are also
- Matthew 27:35 in our modern Bibles contains
the words "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by
the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my
vesture did they cast lots." This passage, once again, is
not found according to Rev. Merrill in any Biblical uncial
manuscript dating before the ninth century.
- 1 Timothy 3:16 originally read "And
without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:
which was manifest in the flesh.." This was then later
(as seen previously), ever so subtly changed to "And
without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God
was manifest in the flesh�." Thus, the doctrine of the
"incarnation" was born.
Table of Contents |