Hence, the true Sharia (Islamic law) of God and the true saying and the true judgment all come from God. As for the legislations of humans, they are all filled with bias and prejudice distinguishing some from others, and this is what we find in the Bible and we find also that it has taken the rights of others so that it gives them to others. Hence, we find in each human method a human injustice. Nevertheless, we are not to discuss such matters at the moment.
Next, William Campbell turns to another very important point which I would like to find a Christian discussing and here I am, I find William Campbell providing us with the most considerable evidence that the interpreters of the so-called Book are ignorant and may interpret it according to their whims in ignorance, lying and forgery.
William Campbell discusses the impossibility of matters correlation (spiritual and material) which are how God throws spiritual (devils) by the (material) meteors. How this tangible matter (meteors) would hit an abstract spiritual creature (the devil). These words are 100% true in terms of the concept of the spiritual and the material only. However, he does not know how God created the devil and what is the matter from which he was created and I will answer this point in detail, but after I reveal that the theologians of the so-called Holy Book are wrong. I will prove through what William Campbell brought and the relation between the two (the material and the spiritual) that Jesus has come to announce in the New Testament that he is bastard.
According to the Gospel of St. Mathew (Matt) 34:10
لا تظنوا اني جئت لألقي سلاما على الارض . ما جئت لألقي سلاما بل سيفا
“Don’t think that I have come to find peace on earth. I only came to find not peace but a sword.”
Here interpretation scientists claim by their saying in the interpretation of this paragraph: when Christianity spread, any Christian person would be expelled from the Jewish home. Therefore, Jesus compared himself to the sword which would break the relation between a son and his father, between the daughter and her mother. This the explanation of the paragraph discussing the relation between (the spiritual and the matter). I hope that William Campbell the donkey alive to see how his words have hits Christianity and his Jesus before they hit Islam and Koran.
Interpreters say : (Jesus compared himself to the sword which would break the relation between a son and his father). This is a falsity talk and nothing can be said about its writer except oh you a son of a nation at whose ignorance other nations laughed, why?
William Campbell admitted the impossibility of discussing something which is material and its being identical to something spiritual or material.
The science of language teaches us that a comparison is find in its position, adjective and action.
The task of the sword (because it is material) is to cut the material thing such as killing or suiting anything such as beheading, separating the head from the body, amputating a hand, a leg, bread , meat … or any material thing.
However, the comparison in this paragraph contradicts mind and logic and makes the sword whose function is to cut the material thing has changed and its meaning has turned into cutting an abstract thing and this is an error, how?
As the relation between parents and their children and the daughter in law and her mother in law is a spiritual relation, then how would then the sword whose task is originally to deal with the material thing would turn to deal with the abstract thing.
Therefore, the interpretation provided by interpreters of the Holy Book is a falsity because they do not understand a single letter in the rules of Arabic or any other language, so they have forged the rules of languages in order to assert their erroneous ideas.
For example, how could I say that I may prevent someone to talk to himself by hitting him with a stick? Can a stick regulate and control the inner senses of man?
Hence, we find that the above-mentioned sentence is meant to denote spilling blood, killing and separation because this is the quality of the sword not what the priests claim by the false interpretation.
This sentence does not have the conditions for the m etaphor; therefore, where did you get the comparison word (sword)?