First Conclusion:

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,1[1] and must have copied according to it, without trusting its defective genealogical tables as he did and without distinguishing right from wrong.

1[1]That is the Book of Chronicles would have not contradicted the book of Genesis which is the part of the Torah.

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.

Second Conclusion:

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 house.

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.

Third Conclusion:

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.

Fourth Conclusion:

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 books.

Fifth Conclusion:

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.

Sixth Conclusion:

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.