There are two kinds of biblical distortions:

explicit distortions which are directly related to clear changes in the text, which arise through alteration, omission or addition to the original text; and implicit distortions which are brought about by deliberate misinterpretation without any actual textual change. There is no dispute over the existence of such distortions in the Bible since all Christians, both Protestants and Catholics, admit their existence.

According to them the verses of the Old Testament contain-ing references to Christ and the injunctions which were, to the Jews, of perpetual value were distorted by the Jews through misinterpretation. Protestant theologians claim that the Catholics have distorted many texts of both the Old and the New Testament. The Catholics similarly accuse the Protestants of having distorted the text of the Bible. We therefore do not need to include demonstrations of implicit distortions as they have already been provided by the Christians themselves.

As far as textual distortion is concerned, this kind of distortion is denied by the Protestants and they offer false arguments and misguiding statements in their writings in order to create doubts among the Muslims. It is therefore necessary to demonstrate that all the three kinds of textual distortion, that is, alterations in the text: the deletion of phrases and verses from the text; and later additions to the original texts are abundantly present in both the. Old and the New Testaments.

Alterations in the Text of the Bible

It should be noted in the beginning that there are three acknowledged versions of the Old Testament:

1. The Hebrew version which is acknowledged equally by the Jews and the Protestants.

2.The Greek version which was recognized as authentic by the Christians up until the seventh century. Until that time the Hebrew version was considered by the Christians to be inauthentic and distorted, the Greek version is still held to be authentic by the Greek and Eastern Churches. The above two versions include all the books of the Old Testament.

3.The Samaritan version which is recognized by the Samaritans. This is in fact the Hebrew version with the difference that it consists of only seven books that is, the five books of the Pentateuch which are ascribed to Moses, the Book of Joshua and the Book of Judges. This is because the Samaritans do not believe in, or acknowledge, any of the other books of the Old Testament. Another difference is that it includes many additional phrases and sentences that are not present in the Hebrew version. Many Protestant scholars and theologians like Kennicott, Hales and Houbigant recognize it as authentic and do not accept the Hebrew version which they believe to have been distorted by the Jews. In fact the majority of Protestant scholars prefer it to the Hebrew version, as you will see from the following pages.

Alterations # 1 to 14


Alteration No. 1:

The Period from Adam to the Flood

The period from Adam to the flood of Noah, as described by the Hebrew version, is one thousand six hundred and fifty-six years, while according to the Greek version, it is two thousand three hundred and sixty-two years1[1] and the Samaritan version gives it as one thousand three hundred and seven years. A table is given in the commentary of Henry and Scott where the age of every descendant has been given at the time when he gave birth to his son except Noah, whose age is given a s at the time of the flood.

1[1]This number is given as 2362 in all the versions, but according to this table it comes to 2363. The mistake may be either in the book that the author has used or somewhere in the table

This table is as follows:

NAME : The Prophet Adam

HEBREW VERSION : 130

SAMARITAN VERSION: 130

GREEK VERSION : 230

NAME : Seth

HEBREW VERSION : 105

SAMARITAN VERSION: 105

GREEK VERSION : 205

NAME : Cainan

HEBREW VERSION : 70

SAMARITAN VERSION: 70

GREEK VERSION : 170

NAME : Mabalabel

HEBREW VERSION : 65

SAMARITAN VERSION: 65

GREEK VERSION : 165

NAME : Jared

HEBREW VERSION : 162

SAMARITAN VERSION: 62

GREEK VERSION : 162

NAME : Enoch

HEBREW VERSION : 65

SAMARITAN VERSION: 65

GREEK VERSION : 165

NAME : Methuselah

HEBREW VERSION : 187

SAMARITAN VERSION: 67

GREEK VERSION : 187

NAME : Lamech

HEBREW VERSION : 182

SAMARITAN VERSION: 53

GREEK VERSION : 188

NAME : Noah

HEBREW VERSION : 600

SAMARITAN VERSION: 600

GREEK VERSION : 600

Total HEBREW VERSION : 1650

Total SAMARITAN VERSION: 1307

Total GREEK VERSION : 2262 . 2[2]

2[2]It should be 2362 according to thc above table, but our author has given 2262 in all vcrsianc. We havc, usnilated it as it is withoui correction.

The above table shows extremely serious differences between the statements of all three versions. All three versions agree that the age of the Prophet Noah at the time of the flood was six hundred and the total age of Adam was nine hundred and thirty.

However according to the Samaritan version the Prophet Noah was two hundred and thirteen years of age when Adam died which is obviously wrong and goes against the unanimous agreement of the historians and is also erroneous according to the Hebrew and Greek versions. For according to the former, Noah was born one hundred and twenty-six years after the death of Adam and, according to the latter, he was born seven hundred and thirty-two years after the death of Adam.

In view of this serious discrepancy, the renowned historian of the Jews, Josephus, who is also recognized by the Christians, did not accept the statement of any of the three versions and decided that the correct period was two thousand two hundred and fifty-six years.

Alteration No. 2:

The period from the Flood to Abraham

The period from the Flood of Noah to the birth of the Prophet Abraham is given as two hundred and ninety-two years in the Hebrew version, one thousand and seventy-two years in the Greek, and nine hundred and forty-two years in the Samaritan version. There is another table covering this period in the Henry and Scott commentary where against every descendant of Noah, the year of the birth of their sons is given except in the case of Shem, against whose name the year of birth is given for his child who was born after the Flood.

This table is as follows:

NAME : Shem

HEBREW : 2

SAMARITAN : 2

GREEK : 2

NAME : Arphaxad

HEBREW : 35

SAMARITAN : 135

GREEK : 135

NAME : Cainan

HEBREW : ـــ

SAMARITAN : ـــ

GREEK : 130

NAME : Salah

HEBREW : 30

SAMARITAN : 130

GREEK : 130

NAME : Eber

HEBREW : 34

SAMARITAN : 134

GREEK : 134

NAME : Peleg

HEBREW : 30

SAMARITAN : 130

GREEK : 130

NAME : Rew

HEBREW : 32

SAMARITAN : 132

GREEK : 132

NAME : Sherug

HEBREW : 30

SAMARITAN : 130

GREEK : 130

NAME : Nohor

HEBREW : 29

SAMARITAN : 79

GREEK : 79

NAME : Terah . 3[3]

HEBREW : 70

SAMARITAN : 70

GREEK : 70

TOTAL HEBREW : 290

TOTAL SAMARITAN : 942

TOTAL GREEK : 1072

3[3] Terah was the name of Abraham’s father, and other was. his appellation. Some historians think that Azar was Abraham’s uncle and the Qur’an has used the word father for uncle.

This discrepancy among the three versions is so serious that it can not be explained. Since the Hebrew version informs us that Abraham was born two hundred and ninety-two years after the Flood and that Noah lived for three hundred and fifty years after the Flood as is understood from Genesis:

And Noah lived after the flood three hundred and fifty years. 4[4]

4[4]Gen. 9: 28.

This means that Abraham was fifty-eight years old at the death of Noah which is wrong according to the Greek and Samaritan versions and according to the unanimous decision of the historians. The Greek version places the birth of Abraham seven hundred and twenty-two years after the death of Noah while the Samaritan makes it five hundred and ninety-two years after his death. Secondly, in the Greek version an additional generation is given that is not to be found in the other two versions. The Evangelist Luke trusted the Greek version and therefore included in the genealogy of Christ the name of Canaan.

This great discrepancy in the statements of the above three versions has caused great difference of opinion among Christians. The historians rejected all three versions and decided that actual period in this case was three hundred and fifty-two years. Josephus, the renowned Jewish historian, also rejected the above three versions and said that the correct figure was nine hundred and ninety-three years, as is evident from the Henry and Scott commentary. The great theologian of the fourth century, Augustan, and other ancient writers favoured the statement of the Greek version. Horsley, the commentator, expressed the same opinion in his comments on Genesis, while Hales thinks that the Samaritan version was correct. The scholar Home also seems to support the Samaritan version. Henry and Scott’s commentary includes this statement:

Augustine held the opinion that the Jews had distorted the description in the Hebrew version with regard to the elders who lived either prior to the Flood or after it up to the time of Moses, so that the Greek version would be discredited, and because of the enmity which they had against Christianity. It seems that the ancient Christians also favoured this opinion. They thought that this alteration was made by them in 130.

Horne says in the first volume of his commentary:

The scholar Hales presented strong argument in favourof the Samaritan version. It is not possible to give a summary of his argumentshere. The curious reader may see his book from page 80 onward.

Kennicott said:

If we keep in mind the general behaviour of the Samaritans towards the Torah, and also the reticence of Christ at the time of his discourse with the Samaritan woman, and many other points, we are led to to believe that the Jews made deliberate alterations in the Torah, and that the claim of the scholars of the Old and the New Testament, that the Samaritans made deliberate changes, is baseless.

Christ’s disco urse with a Samaritan woman referred to in the abovepassage is found in the Gospel of John where we find:

The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that Thou arta prophet. Our father worshipped in this mountain; and ye say that in Jerusalemis the place where men ought to worship5[5]

5[5]John 4:19,20.

The Samaritan woman, convinced that Christ was aProphet, asked about the most disputed matter between the Jews and theSamaritans in respect of which each of them accused the other of makingalterations to the original text. Had the Samaritans distorted it, Christ, beinga Prophet, must have disclosed the truth. Instead, he kept silent on the matter,implying that the Samaritans were right and showing that there must be humanmanipulations in the text of the Holy Scriptures.

Alteration No. 3:

Mount Gerizim or Mount Ebal

We find the following statement in Deuteronomy:

It shall be when ye be gone over Jordan that ye shallset up these stones, which I command you this day, in mount Ebal, and thou shallplaster them with plaster 6[6]

On the other hand the Samaritan version contains:

…the stones which I command set them up inGerizim.

6[6]Deut. 27:4.

Ebal and Gerizim are two mountains adjacent to eachother as is known from verses 12 and 13 of the same chapter and from 11:29 ofthe same book. According to the Hebrew version it is clear that the ProphetMoses had commanded them to build a temple on Mount Ebal, while from theSamaritan version we know that he commanded this temple to be built on Gerizim.This was a matter of great dispute between the Jews and the Samaritans, and eachof them accused the other of altering the original text of the Pentateuch. Thesame dispute is found among Protestant scholars on this point. Adam Clarke, thefamous Protestant scholar, says on page 817 of the first volume of hiscommentary:

The scholar Kennicott maintained that the Samaritanversion was correct, while the scholars Parry and Verschuur claimed that theHebrew version was authentic, but it is generally know that Kennicott'sarguments are irrefutable, and people positively believe that the Jews, out oftheir enmity against the Samaritans, changed the text. It is unanimouslyacknowledged that Mount Gerizim is full of vegetation, springs and gardens whileMount Ebal is barren without any water and vegetation in it. In this case MountGerizim fits the description of ’the place of blessing' 7[7] and Ebal as theplace of curse.

The above makes us understand that Kennicott and otherscholar have favoured the Samaritan version and that Kennicott forwardedirrefutable arguments.

7[7] ”That thou shall put the blessing upon mount Gerizim, and the curse upon mount Ebal.” (Deut. 11:29). Obviously a p1ace of worship should be built on a place of blessing, not on a place of curse.

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 discussedearlier.

Obviously one of the two statements must be wrong. AdamClarke commenting on the statement of Samuel said:

Chronicles contains ’three years’ and not ’sevenyears’. The Greek version similarly has ’three years’ and this is undoubtedlythe correct statement.

Alteration No. 5: Sister or Wife

I Chronicles of the Hebrew version contains:

And whose sister’s name was Micah 8[8]

8[8] Chron. 19:30.

It should be ’wife’ and not ’sister’. Adam Clarke said:

The Hebrew version contains the word ’sister’ while theSyrian, Latin and Greek versions have the word ’wife’. The translators havefollowed these versions.

Protestant scholars have rejected the Hebrew versionand followed the above translations indicating that they too consider the Hebrewversion to be erroneous.

Alteration No. 6

II Chronicles 22:2 of the Hebrew version informsus:

Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign.

This statement is undoubtedly wrong because his fatherJehoram was forty years 9[9] old when he died, and Ahaziah was enthronedimmediately after the death of his father. If the above statement be true, hemust have been two years older than his father.

9[9] l. ’Thirty and two years old was he when he began to reign, and he reigned h Jerusalem.”

Chr. 21:20.

II Kings reads as follows:

Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began toreign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. 10[10]

10 [10]II Kings 8:26.

Adam Clarke making comments on the statement ofChronicles 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 theHebrew version was the same, but the people used to write the numbers in theform 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 wayof comparing the one with the other. Obviously any statement allowing a son tobe older than his father cannot be true. Home and Henry and Scott have alsoadmitted 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 ofIsrael.The word Israel in this statement is certainly wrong becauseAhaz was the king of Judah and not of Israel. The Greek and the Latin versionshave 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 thesewords

But a body hast thou prepared me. 11[11]

11[11] Heb. 10:5.

One of these two statements must be wrong andmanipulated. The Christian scholars are surprised at it. Henry and Scott’scompilers said:

This is a mistake of the scribes. Only one of the twostatement is true.

They have admitted the presence of alteration in thisplace 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 observein their comments:

Itis surprising that in the Greek translation and in the Epistle to the Hebrews10:5 this sentence appears as: ’but a body hast thou prepared me.’

The two commentators agree that it is the statement ofthe 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 includesthe statement; “They rebelled not against his words.” The Greek version on thecontrary bears these words: “They rebelled against these words.” It can be seenthat the former version negates the latter. One of the two statements,therefore, must be wrong. Christian scholars are greatly embarrassed here. Thecommentary of Henry and Scott concludes:

This difference has induced much discussion and it isobvious that the addition or omission of a certain word has been the cause ofall this.

The presence of manipulation in the text has beenadmitted, though they are not able to decide which version is wrong.

Alteration No. 10:

The Number of the Israelites

II Samuelcontains this statement:

And there were in Israel eight hundred thousand valiantmen that drew the sword; and the men of Judah were five hundred thousandmen.12[12]

12[12]II Samuel 24: 9.

This statement is contradicted by I Kings:

And all they of Israel were a thousand thousand and ahundred thousand men that drew sword.

Certainly one ofthe two statements has been altered. Adam Clarke making his comments on thefirst statement observed:

The validity of both the statements is not possible.Most probably the first statement is correct. The historical books of the OldTestament contain more distortions than the other books. Any effort to findconformity 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 ofinspiration but the copiers were not.

This is a plain admission of the fact that alterationsare abundant in the books of the Old Testament and that one should objectivelyadmit their presence because these changes and contradictions are unexplainable.

Alteration No. 11: Horsley's Admission

The famous commentator, Horsley, under his comments onJudges 12:4 observed on page 291 of the first volume of hiscommentary:

There is no doubt that this verse has been distorted.

The verse referred to is:

Then Jephtah gathered together all the man of Gileadand fought with Ephraim: and the men of Gilead smote Ephraim, because they said,Ye Gileadites are fugitives of Ephraim among the Ephraimites and among theManassites.

Alteration No. 12: Four or Forty

II Samuel l 5:7 contains:

And it came to pass after forty years that Absalom saidunto the King”,

Here the word ’forty’ is undoubtedly wrong: the correctnumber 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 commentaryunder the comments on II Sam 23: 8:

According to Kennicott three alternations have beenmade in this verse.

This is a plain admission that a single verse containsthree distortions.

Alteration No. 14

I Chronicles 7:6 informs 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 thesecond and Aharah the third Noahah the fourth and Repha the fifth.

These two different statements are again contradictedby Genesis 46:21:

And the sons of Benjamin were Belah, and Becher, andAshbel, Gera and Naaman, Ehi and Rosh, Muppim and Huppim and Ard.

It is quite easy to see that there are two kinds ofdifferences in the above three statements. The first passage informs us thatBenjamin had three sons, the second claims he had five while the third countsthem 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 theother two statements false and erroneous. The Judaeo-Christian scholars areextremely embarrassed and, seeing no way out, they put the blame on the ProphetEzra. Adam Clarke said with regard to the first statement;

It is because the author (Ezra) could not separate thesons from the grandsons. In fact any effort to reconcile such contradictions isof no use. Jewish scholars think that the author Ezra did not know that some ofthem were sons and the others grandsons. They also maintain that thegenealogical tables from which Ezra had copied were defective. We can do nothingbut leave such matters alone.

This is an obvious example of how the Christian as wellas the Jewish scholars find themselves helpless and have to admit the errors inEzra’s writings.

The above admission of Adam Clarke helps us to concludemany points of great significance. But before going into those points we mustremind ourselves that it is the unanimous claim of both Jewish and Christianscholars that the Book of Chronicles was written by Ezra with the help of theProphet Haggai and Zechariah, This implies that these two books have theunanimous witness of the three Prophets. On the other hand we have historicalevidence that all the books of the Old Testament were in a very bad conditionbefore the invasion of Nebuchadnezzar and after his invasion there was no traceof them left but their names. Had Ezra not recompiled them, they would haveceased to exist then and there. The above fact is admitted in the book which isascribed to the Prophet Ezra.13[13] Although the Protestants do not believe it tobe 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 issaid that Ezra rewrote it guided by the Holy Spirit.

Clement of Alexandria said;

All the divine books were destroyed. Then Ezra wasinspired to rewrite them.

Tertullian observed:

It is general1y believed that Ezra recomposed thesebooks after the invasion of the Babylonians.

Theophylactus said:

The Holy Books completely disappeared. Ezra gave newbirth to them through inspiration.

The Catholic, John Mill observed on page 115 of hisbook printed at Derby in 1843:

All the scholars unanimously agree that the originalTorah (Pentateuch) and other original books of the Old Testament were destroyedby the forces of Nebuchadnezzar. When the books were recompi1ed through Ezra,these too were later on destroyed during the invasion of Antiochus.

Keeping the above information in mind will help usunderstand the significance of the following six conclusions based on theobservations of the commentator. Adam Clarke.

13[13]Perhaps the author is referring to the book of Esdras because it is the book containing these events. It may be noted that this book is not included in the Protestant Bible. However. it is part of the Catholic Bible. In the Knox version of the Catholic Bible there are ten chapters in the first book of Esdras and thirteen in the second book. I was unable to find this passage in the books of Esdras. Thc statement has been translated from Urdu. (Raazi).