Omission No. 1: The Length of the Israelites’ Stay in Egypt

The Book of Genesis contains this statement:

And he said unto Abram. Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years.1[1]

The statement “and shall afflict them four hundred years,” and another similar statement contained in verse 14 of the same chapter, which is, “When they shall serve and afterwards shall they come out with great substance,” both clearly denote that the land referred to here is the land of Egypt, because those who afflicted the Israelites and made them their servants and then were punished by God were none but the Egyptians. It was from Egypt that they came out with great wealth. This description does not fit any other place. However, Exodus 2:40 contradicts the above statement:

Now that sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt was four hundred and thirty years.

The period of sojourn is different in the two verses. Either the word “thirty” has been omitted from the first verse or added to the latter. Besides, the period described by both verses is certainly not correct for the following reasons.

Firstly, the Prophet Moses was the grandson of Levi on his mother’s side, and great grandson on his father’s side. On his mother's side he is the son of Jochebed, the daughter of Levi, while on his father's side he is the son of Amran, son of Kohath, son of Levi. This implies that Amran married his aunt, the sister of his father as is indeed understood from Exodus 6, and Numbers 26. Kohath, the grandfather of Moses was born before the Israelites came into Egypt, a fact which can be ascertained from Genesis 26:11. The period of the Israelites’ stay in Egypt cannot therefore exceed 215 years.

Secondly, almost all the Christian commentators and historians are unanimous on the point that the period of the Israelites’ stay in Egypt is 215 years. The Arabic book Murshid at-Talibeen, written by a Protestant scholar and printed in 1840, contains the chronology of the events from the beginning of the creation to the birth of Jesus. Each event is preceded and followed by a year. The preceding year denotes the number of years from the creation of the world while the following year signifies the number of year.’ from that event to the birth of Jesus. On page 346 of this book, describing the stay of the Prophet Joseph and his father and brother; in Egypt, it says:

2298: Joseph’s and his father’s stay: 1760.

2513: Crossing of the Red Sea by the Israelites and the Drowning of Pharaoh: 1491.

Now a deduction of either of the smaller numbers from the greater ones gives us 215, thus:

2513 - 2298 = 215

1706 - 1491 = 215

Thirdly Paul’s letter to the Galatians says:

Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one. And to thy seed, which is Christ. And this I say, that the covenant that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law which was four hundred and thirty years after cannot disannul that it should make the promise of none effect. 2[2]

This statement is in clear contradiction of the statement found in Exodus, where the total period from the promise to the revelation of the Torah is described as four hundred and thirty years, while this promise to Abraham was made much earlier than the coming of the Israelites to Egypt, and the Torah was revealed to Moses long after their exodus from Egypt. This implies that the total period of their stay in Egypt was much less than 430 years.3[3] Since this statement was erroneous it was corrected in the Greek and Samaritan versions with these words:

And the sojourning of the children of Israel and their forefathers who dwelt in Egypt and Canaan was four hundred and thirty years.

That is, the word “forefather:” and “Canaan” were added to the above text in both the versions. Adam Clarke under his comments on this verse said on page ’369 of volume one:

There is unanimous agreement on the fact that the meanings of this verse are obscure and doubtful.

We may be allowed to contend that the contents of this verse are not obscure and doubtful but they are certainly wrong, as we intend to show very soon. The author further quoted from the Samaritan version and said:

The reading of the text of Alexandrinus is similar to that of the Samaritan version. Many learned scholars have decided that the Samaritan version is the most reliable, as far as the five books of the Pentateuch are concerned. And it is an established fact that the text of Alexandrinus is older and the most authentic of all the Greek translations and Paul’s statement is not doubted by any one. Now this matter has been decided by the witness of the above three versions. Besides, there are historical evidences to favour this opinion. Isaac was born 25 years after Abraham’s coming to Canaan and Isaac was 60 years old when Jacob was born to him, and Jacob 130 years of age when he came to Egypt. All this adds up to 215 years, which is the total period of stay of the Israelites in Egypt, in this way the total number of years becomes 430 years.

Henry and Scott’s compilers also acknowledge that the total period of the stay in Egypt is 215 years. Quoting from the Samaritan version they said:

There is no doubt that this text is correct and explains the difficulties raised by the text.

The above shows that Christian scholars can find no explanation for the above text of Exodus and have to admit its being erroneous. Paul’s description as quoted above is also not free from error, because he counted the period from the time of the promise, which is one year prior to the birth of Isaac, as is known from Genesis 17:21 referred to above:

But my covenant will I establish with Isaac which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.

The Torah was given to them three months after the exodus from Egypt as is described in chapter 19 of Exodus. Now according to calculations of Adam Clarke this total period comes to 407 years and not 430 years. The same calculations are found in the books of history by Protestant writers which is contrary to what Paul claimed, that is 430 years.

The book ‘Murshid at-Talibeen’ says on page 345:

2107: God’s covenant with Abraham, change of his name to

Abraham, Institution of circumcision. Lot’s escape.

Death of Hadum, Amra, Adaira and Zebaim on account of their misdeeds....1897.

Further on page 347 it records:

2514: Ordination of ‘the Laws’ on Mount Sinai..1490.

Now the smaller number deduced from the larger gives 407.

2514-2107 = 407. 1897- 1490 = 407.4[4]

Omission No. 2

The Book of Genesis states:

And Cain talked with Abel, his brother, and it came to pass when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel, his brother, and slew him.5[5]

The Samaritan. Greek, and other ancient translations describe it in these words:

And Cain said unto Abel his brother, Rise let us go into the field, and it came to pass that they were in the field etc.

The phrase, “let us go in the field” is omitted in the Hebrew version. Home said on page 193 of vol. 2, of his commentary:

This is present in the Samaritan, Greek, and Syrian versions, as well as in the Latin edition printed in Vulgate and Walton. Kennicott decided that it should be included in the Hebrew version. No doubt this is a good description.

Further on page 338 of the same volume he said:

Sometimes the text of Greek version is more correct but it is not found in the current Hebrew translations. For example the Hebrew translations, printed or handwritten manuscripts, are defective with regard to this verse. And the translator of the English authorised version could not understand this verse. He therefore translated, ’and Cain talked to his brother Abel.’ This defect has been made up in the Greek version. This version became similar to the Samaritan, Latin, Syrian and Akola translations, and also to the two commentaries in the two Chaldean languages, and according to the sentence copied by Philo.

Adam Clarke said the same as was said by Home. This passage was included in the Arabic translation of 1831 and 1848.

Omission No. 3

The book of Genesis 7:17 of the Hebrew version contains:

And the flood was forty days upon the earth.

The same sentence appears; in many Latin and Greek translations:

And the flood was forty days and nights upon the earth. Horne said in his first volume:

The word “nights” ought to be added in the Hebrew version.

Omission No. 4

Genesis 35:22 in the Hebrew version reads as follows:

And it came to pass when Israel dwelt in that land that Rueben went and lay with Bilhah, his father’s concubine and Israel heard it.

The compilers of Henry and Scott said:

The Jews admit that something from this verse has been certainly omitted. The Latin version has supplemented the words with, ”he was evil in his sight,” to compensate for the omission.

This is clear example of omission in the text as admitted by the Jews which is hardly surprising in view of their normal practice of changing their holy texts.

Omission No. 5

Horsley commenting on Genesis 44:5 said on page 82 of volume one of his commentary:

At the beginning of this verse in the Greek translation the following sentence has been added, ”Why hast thou robbed me of my measure.”

According to him the above sentence was omitted in the Hebrew version.

Omission No. 6

The Book of Genesis chapter 50 verse 25 contains:

And ye shall carry up my bones from hence.

The Samaritan, Latin and Greek translations and other old versions have it in these words:

And ye shall carry up my bones with ye.

The words “with ye” have been omitted from the Hebrew version. Horne said:

Mr. Boothroyd has inserted these omitted words in his new translation of the Bible and he has done right.

1[1] Gen. 15:13


2[2] Gal. 3:16,17.


3[3] The total period of stay described by Exodus 12:40 is 430 years.


4[4]The left side numbers denotes Adam’s appearance on Earth while the rights number denotes the year before Christ.


5[5]Gen. 4:8.

Omission No. 7

Exodus 2:22 contains:

And she bare him a son, and he called his name Gershom,6[6] for he said, I have been stranger in a strange land.

6[6]1. Gershom in the Hebrew language signifies a stranger.

The text of the Greek, Latin and other old translations is followed by the following additional statement:

And a second time also she bare him a son and he called his name Eleazar, for he said the lord of my father helped me and saved me from the sword of Pharaoh.

Adam Clarke, quoting the above passage from the translations said on page 310 of volume one:

Houbigant has included this passage in his Latin translation and claimed that the proper place of this passage was here, while none of the Hebrew versions, printed or manuscript, contains this. It is present in all the authentic translations.

Omission No. 8

The book of Exodus 6:20 says:

And she bare him Aaronand Moses and Mary, their sister.

The words ‘their sister’have been omitted in the Hebrew version. Adam Clarke after reproducing the text of the Greek and Samaritan version said:

Some great scholars thinkthat these words were present in the Hebrew version.

Omission No. 9

Numbers chapter 10 verse 6 has:

When ye blow an alarm the second time the camps that lie on the south side shall take their journey.

And at the end of this verse in the Greek version it says:

When ye blow a third time then the camps that lie on the West Side shall take their journey. And when ye blow a fourth time then the camps that lie on the north side shall take their journey.

Adam Clarke said on page 663 of volume 1 of his commentary:

The west and the north camps are not mentioned, but it seems that they used to make their journey at the blowing of an alarm. It proves that the Hebrew text at this place is defective. The Greek translations added the following sentence, “And when ye blow a third time the camps on the west side shall take their journey, and when ye blow a fourth time that are on the north side shall take journey.”

Omission No. 10

Job 42:17 says:

So Job died, being old and full of days.

The Hebrew version ends at this sentence, while the Greek version contains the following additional sentence:

He shall resume life a second time with those whom the Lord shall recover.

It has also been supplemented with short description of Job's genealogy and other circumstances. Calmet and Harder claim that this supplement is part of the revealed text. This opinion is favoured by Philo and Polyhistor. It was also acknowledged by the people of Origen's time. Theodotion also included this supplement in his Greek translation. This proves that the Hebrew version has been distorted by the omission of the above supplement. Protestant scholars are, however, unanimous on the point that the above supplement is a later addition and not genuine. The compilers of Henry and Scott’s commentary said:

Apparently it is a forged description, though it was written some time before Christ.

We may be allowed to ask, if the above passage belongs to the period before Christ, how did the ancient Christians believe it to be the word of God right from the time of the Apostles up to the year 1500, because they acknowledged these translations as genuine, and claimed that the Hebrew version was distorted.

Omission No. 11

Psalm 14 of the Latin, Arabic, Ethiopic and Greek translations contains the following:

Their threat is an open sepulchre, with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips. Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness, their feet are swift to shed blood. Destruction and misery are in their ways and the way of peace have they not known. There is no fear of God before their eyes.

The above description cannot be found in the Hebrew version. It is, however, found in Paul’s letter to the Romans. Now either the Jews discarded it from the Hebrew version or the Christians added it in their translations to support Paul’s description. 1n any case it is a distortion either in the form of an omission or in the form of an addition.

Adam Clarke said under his comments on the above verse:

After this verse in the Vatican version of the Ethiopic translation and in the Arabic translation verses have appeared which are present in Paul’s Letter to the Romans 3:13-18.

Omission No. 12

Isaiah 40:5 in the Hebrew version says:

And the glory of the Lord shall berevealed, and all flesh shall see it together for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.

While the Greek translations containthese words:

And the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall soon seeto the salvation of our God for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.

Adam Clarke quoting the above passage of the Greek translations said on page 785 of vol. 4 of his book:

I think that this passageis genuine.

He further said:

This omission in the Hebrew version is very old and even older than the Latin, Chaldean and Syrian translations. This passage is present in all the versions of the Greek translations.

Luke also acknowledged it in chapter 3 verse 6. 7[7] I possess a very old translation where this verse is missing.

Horne said in chapter 8 of vol. 2 ofhis book:

Luke 3:6 is written according to theLatin translation. Noth (Loth) included it in his translation of the book ofIsaiah because he thought it was original,

The compilers of Henry and Scottsuggested that:

It is essential to add the words “thesalvation of our God” after the words “shall see”. Chapter 53 verse 10 of theGreek translation should he seen.

According to the above commentatorsthe Hebrew text has been distorted by omitting the above verse and Adam Clarkethinks that this distortion is very old.

7[7] Luke quotes a passage from Isaiah where it is said ”and all flesh shall see it.”

Omission No. 13

Adam Clarke said commenting onchapter 64 verse 5 of the Book of Isaiah:

I believe that the copier is responsible for the omission in this verse.This distortion is very old. Since the translators of the past were not able tocomprehend the meaning of the verse was has been the case with theirsuccessors.

Omission No. l4

Horne said in his commentary on page 477:

The Gospel of Luke has omitted a complete verse of chapter 11 frombetween verses 33 and 34. It is therefore necessary to add part of Matthew 24:36or Mark 13:32 so that Luke may become similar to the other two Gospels.

Again he said in a marginal note:

All the scholars and commentators ignored this defect in Luke’s text, until it was observed by Hales. The above shows clearly that a complete verse has been omitted by Luke which must be added to it. The verse according to Matthew isthis: ”But of that day and hour knoweth no man; no, not the angels of heaven;but my father only.

Omission No. 15

Acts 16:7 says:

But the Spirit suffered them not.

Griesbach and Sholtz said that the correct text is:

But the spirit of Jesus suffered them not.

According to them the word Jesus was omitted.Later, this word was added to the text in the Arabic versions of 1671 and 1821.Now the text in these versions reads:

But the spirit of Jesus suffered them 8[8] not.

8[8] The current English and Urdu translations also contain this word, while the old English version does not have it.

Omission No. 16

The Gospel of Matthew is not Matthew’s. The present Gospel of Matthew which is ascribed to him, and happens to be the first Gospel, and is considered to be the earliest, was certainly not written by Matthew. The original Gospel written by him was destroyed long long ago. All the ancient Christians and a number of later scholars are unanimous on the point that the original Gospel of Matthew which was in the Hebrew language was destroyed because it had been distorted by some of the Christian sects.

The Christians do not possess any authority to prove its authenticity and indeed the name of its author is not yet known. Jerome, the most renowned and celebrated scholar among the ancient writers, admitted it. They have only conjectures with regard to its translator which obviously cannot be accepted as an argument. A book cannot he ascribed to a person simply on the basis of unsupported calculations. Now the claim made by Protestant scholars that Matthew, him-self, translated it is not valid unless they present some acceptable argument to prove it. Now we will produce some witnesses to prove our claim. The Encyclopaedia Britannica vol.19 says:

Every book of the New Testament was written in Greek except the Gospel of Matthew and the Epistle to the Hebrews. It is certain, on the ground of strong arguments, that these two books were written in the Hebrew language.

Lardner stated in vol. 2 on page 119:

Papi as observed that Matthew had written his Gospel in Hebrew. Later on everyone translated it according to their own ability.

The above implies that there are many writers who have translated thisGospel. Now unless thc writer of the present Gospel is definitely known and itis proved through irrefutable arguments that the writer was a man ofinspiration, this book should not be, and cannot be, included among the revealed books. We do not even know the name of its translator let alone whether he was a man of inspiration. Further Lardner said on page 170 of the same volume:

Irenaeus wrote that matthew wrote his Gospel for the Jews in theirlanguage at the time when Paul and Peter were preaching in Rome.

Further he said on page 574 of the same volume:

There are statements of Origen, first written by Eusebius, that Matthew gave the Gospel to the Jews in the Hebrew language; secondly that Matthew wrote his Gospel first for the Hebrews; thirdly that Matthew wrote the Gospel for the Hebrews who were waiting the birth of a man who was promised to the progeny of Abraham and David.

Again he said on page 95 of volume 4 that Eusebius had written that Matthew, after his sermons to the Hebrews who were deciding to go to other communities, wrote his Gospel in their language and gave it to them. And on page 174 of the same volume he says that Cyril said that Matthew wrote the Gospel in the Hebrew language.

And on page 187 of the same volume he said:

Epiphanius writes that Matthew wrote the Gospel in the Hebrew language. He is unique in using this language in writing the New Testament.

Further on page 439 he wrote:

Jerome wrote that Matthew wrote the Gospel in the Hebrew language forbelieving Jews in a Jewish land. He did not combine the truth of the Gospel withthe law.

Again on page 441 he said:

Jeromenoted in his list of historians that Matthew wrote his Gospel for believing Jewsin the Hebrew script in the land of Jews. It is not yet proved that it wastranslated into Greek, neither is the name of its translator known. Besides, itmust be noted that the copy of his Hebrew Gospel which was collected byPamphilus with great labour is still present in the library of Syria. I obtaineda copy of this Gospel with the help of the assistants in the district of”Barya”. They also had this version with them.

Further he writes on page 501 of the same volume:

Augustine said that out of the four Evangelists, only Matthew wrote hisGospel in thc Hebrew language while the others wrote theirs in Greek.

And on page 538 of the same volume he said:

Chrysostom writes that it is said that Matthew wrote his Evangel on therequest of believing Jews in the Hebrew language.

And on page 1371 of volume 5 he writes:

Isidore said that only Matthew out of the four evangelists wrote hisGospel in the Hebrew language while others wrote theirs in Greek.

Horne said in volume 4 of his commentarythat:

Bellarmine, Grotius, Causabon, Walton,Tomline, Cue, Hammond, Mill, Harwood, Owen, Calmet, Michaelis, Irenaeus, Origen,Cyril, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Jerome and other ancient and modem writers havefollowed the view of Papias that this Gospel was written in the Hebrew language.

And by'other' he refers to Gregory Nazianzen, Abed, Theophylactus, Euthymius,Eusebius, Athanasius, Augustine and many others who have been named by Watsonand Lardner in their books. D’Oyly and Richard Mant's commentary contains thefollowing:

There was great controversy in the past over the question of the languagein which this Gospel was originally written, but many of the ancient writersdetermined that Matthew had written his Gospel in the Hebrew language and thisis therefore now an established point of view.

The compilers of Henry and Scott's commentary said:

The disappearance of the Hebrew version was due to the fact that theEbionites, who disbelieved the divinity of Christ, made changes in this version.Then after the fall of Jerusalem it disappeared.

Some writers think:

The Nazarenes or the Jewish proselytesaltered the Hebrew Gospels, and the Ebionites discarded many sentences from it.Eusebius quoted Irenaeus saying that Matthew wrote his Gospel in the Hebrewlanguage.

Reussobserved in his Histoire de l’ Evangile:

Anyone who says that Matthew wrote his Gospelin Greek is wrong because Eusebius in his history and many other theologians of Christianity explicitly mentioned that Matthew wrote his Gospel in the Hebrewlanguage, and not in Greek.

Norton has written a voluminous book in which he proved that thePentateuch is not a genuine book and not the one written by Moses. Heacknowledged the Evangel after admitting the presence of many distortions in theGospels. This is why he is not very popular among the Christians. Since he is aChristian and has quoted many of the ancient writers, it is quite in order toquote at least one passage from him. He writes on page 45 of his book printed in1837 in Boston in a marginal note:

People believe that Matthew wrote his Gospel in the Hebrew language,because all the ancient writers referring to this subject are all unanimous onthis point. I leaveaside the writers who are not considered authentic, and Iassert that Papias, Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius and Jerome admitted the fact thatthis Gospel was written in Hebrew. There is none among the ancients who sayanything contrary to this. This is a great witness, indeed, because they, too,were as much prejudiced religiously as the people of modern times. Had therebeen any room for any doubt in what the ancients said, their opponents led bytheir prejudices, would have said that the Greek Gospel was the original Gospeland not a translation. We should not reject this ancient and unanimous witness,especially when it does not deprive us of anything. It is therefore necessarythat we maintain the belief that Matthew wrote his Gospel in the Hebrewlanguage. Up to this day I could not find any objection calling for research onthis subject. On the contrary I have found valuable witnesses among the ancientsto the effect that the Hebrew version of this Gospel, be it genuine ordistorted, was with the Christians who were of Jewish race.

Theabove statements unambiguously prove that Matthew wrote his Gospel in the Hebrewlanguage 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 RichardMant. They also admitted that the Hebrew version was in existence up to the timeof Jerome. It is also clear from the above that the name of its translator isnot yet known. Horne, in spite of admitting the above opinion, said that it ismost probable that Matthew wrote it in two languages, in Hebrew and in Greek.This is unacceptable because he has not produced any authority for hisassumption.

Theopinion of the ancients is also strengthened by the fact that Matthew was one ofthe Apostles who was an eye-witness of Christ’s life and a direct listener tohim. Now had he been the author of the present Gospel there must have been anindication somewhere in the Gospel that he is relating his won observations. Hewould have used the first person somewhere in the Gospel for himself as was thepractice of the ancients. The Apostles used the first person for themselveswhich is evident from the letters that are included in the New Testament,indicating that they are written by them.

Haveyou not seen the writings of Luke. He wrote his Gospel and the Book of Acts upto 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 9[9]as we have shown in the first part of this book. The obvious cannot be deniedunless there is a strong argument against it. We also understand from thestatement of the compilers of Henry and Scott that this Gospel, in the earlyperiod of Christianity, was not considered to be authentic. In that period theChristians were in the habit of changing the texts of their sacred books, (as wehave seen earlier). Now when the original text could not be saved fromdistortions, how can one believe that a translation whose author is not evenknown can have remained unchanged? Faustus, the celebrated scholar of theManichaeans, 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 thefirst two chapters were missing from it. They think that these two chapters wereadded to it later. The Ebionites are of the same opinion. The Unitarian scholarsand Father William have rejected both these chapters.

9[9] That is if they claim that Moses has not used 6cfirst person for himself in the

Pentateuch, we would say that on the basis of sound arguments we do not acknowledge that the present Torah was written by Moses.

Omission No. 17

Matthew 2:23 contains:

And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that it might befulfilled which was spoken by the Prophets. He shall be called a Nazarene.

Thewords, ”which was spoken by the Prophets” in the above is one of the famouserrors 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 enmityto the Christians, removed all those passages. This is another example ofomission; that a certain sect should destroy holy books simply for personalreason. Manfred, a Catholic scholar, wrote a book called The Questions of theQuestion 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 Jewscarelessly lost them, but rather because out of their dishonesty and perversionthey burnt these books to ashes.

This statement is very near tothe 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 NewTestament would appear not to conform with the Old Testament. This shows thatmany books have been destroyed.

The above leads us to conclude firstly, that the Jews have destroyed manybooks of the Prophets and secondly, that it was easy to distort holy texts inthe past. We have seen that by their burning these books they completelyobliterated their existence. In view of their dishonest attitude towards theirholy books it is just possible that they might have changed the texts of theirbooks 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 werecarried away to Babylon.

This shows that Jeconiah and his brothers are the sons of Josiah and thatthey were born at the time of their exile to Babylon. All the information givenhere is erroneous. Firstly because Jeconiah is the son of Jehoiakim, son ofJosiah, that is, he is the grandson of Josiah and not his son. Secondly Jeconiahhad no brothers. His father, however had three brothers. Thirdly becauseJeconiah was not born at the time of exile to Babylon, he was eighteen years oldat 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 thisverse. Even then the third objection remains unanswered.

We have produced almost a hundred examples of distortions in the form of alterationsadditions and omissions in the above three sections. There are many moreexamples of such distortions in the Bible which we have not produced here toavoid making the present work unnecessarily long. This much is more than enoughto prove the presence of distortion in the Bible in all the three forms:alteration, addition, and omission.