What dose the bible say about Prophet Muhammad (PBUH)

[Dr. Zakir Naik]

My question is, that what dose the bible prophecise about the comming of Prophet Muhammad(SAWM)?

[Dr. Zakir Naik]

MUHUMMED (PBUH) MENTIONED BY NAME IN THE BIBLE: "his mouth is most sweet: yea, he is (Muhummed-im) altogether lovely, this is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem. SONG OF SOLOMON 5:16

(From the original Hebrew manuscript the word "MUHUMMEDIM", is translated as "altogether lovely' which is actually the word MUHUMMED with "im" added. "IM" is the plural of respect in the Hebrew language

That is nonsense. The suffix 'iym' simply signifies plurality, not respect. What greedy little inventors are Mohammedans!

The plural is sometimes used as an intensifier, so 'mamtaq' is 'sweet', but 'mamtaqiym' can be either 'sweetnesses' or 'very sweet'- or maybe both. The context allows for either, or both (and since this applies to Christ alone, it means both!) Similarly for 'machmad', which means either 'desirable' or 'desirable thing', so 'machmadiym' means 'very desirable' or 'desirable things'. So the (wonderfully poetic) saying may be translated:

Chikow mamtaqiym, wakulow machmadiym.
His mouth (is) very sweet, full of desirable things. or
His mouth (is) sweetnesses, all of them very desirable.

which bears similarity to Psalm 119:103:

'How sweet are your words to my taste, sweeter than honey to my mouth!'

This fact is UNESCAPEABLE! What ever you wrote makes no sense. No matter what you do, even if you translate all togather lovely in arabic, it yet means Muhammad!

[1John2_26]

Here is good study material.

It is long. read the rest at your pleasure.

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/monono.html

Taking on a Muslim Misapprehension

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I suppose it's inevitable that I'll get junk mail from weirdos, and one such came today, from someone apparently of Muslim persuasion who sent me a bit claiming, "Muhammad was predicted to come in the Gospel of John." My friend Jochen Katz has something to say about this here and here and here, but I'll also give some of my own input on this subject.

Since this is short enough we'll engage our recent method of leaving the arguments intact and commenting in green.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just a quick note, the Arabic word "Muhammad" is an expression which means "The honorable one" or "The glorified one" or "The admirable". Prophet Muhammad was the first in the Middle East to be named "Muhammad". Below, you will see how Jesus in today's Gospel of John had called this human Prophet which he predicted his comming "The honorable one".

Jesus in the Greek Bible used the Greek word "Periklytos" which means the admirable or glorified one. He called that predicted human prophet "Periklytos". This word corresponds exactly to the Arabic word "Muhammad" which also means the "admired one" or "glorified one." In other words, "Periklytos" is "Muhammad" in Greek. Since I write this just before Super Bowl Sunday I'll put it this way: False start, offense. Strong's tells us it is: 3875. parakletos, par-ak'-lay-tos; an intercessor, consoler:--advocate, comforter. No "admirable or glorified one" in sight, but note the spelling mismatch. Witherington [John commentary, 250] notes that the word is used of one who is "someone's agent in a judicial situation" -- which fits in with 1 John 2:1: "My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous..." "Admired one" doesn't make much sense here. So where does he get this nonsense? We'll see farther below. Our Muslim apologist (we will call him "Zack" from here on) quotes the four passages from John's gospel that use the word, then admits:

In these four verses, the word "comforter" is translated from the word "Paraclete" ("Ho Parakletos" in Greek). Parakletos in Greek is interpreted as "an advocate", one who pleads the cause of another, one who councils or advises another from deep concern for the other's welfare (Beacon Bible commentary volume VII, p.168). In these verses we are told that once Jesus (peace be upon him) departs, a Paraclete will come. He will glorify Jesus (peace be upon him), and he will guide mankind into all truth. This "Paraclete" is identified in John 14:26 as the Holy Ghost. Oh ho. Then what's all that about it meaning "admirable or glorified one"? Zack contradicts himself in the space of only a few paragraphs. Note that no source was given on his first definition.

It must be pointed out that the original Greek manuscripts speak of a "Holy pneuma." The word pneuma {pnyoo'-mah} is the Greek root word for "spirit." There is no separate word for "Ghost" in the Greek manuscripts, of which there are claimed to be over 24,000 today. The translators of the King James Version of the Bible translate this word as "Ghost" to convey their own personal understanding of the text. However, a more accurate translation is "Holy Spirit." More faithful and recent translations of the Bible, such as the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), do indeed now translate it as "Holy Spirit." This is significant, and will be expounded upon shortly. This should be good. None of this is actually untrue, other than that I can't say about what he thinks the KJV people were trying to do.

All Bibles in existence today are compiled from "ancient manuscripts," the most ancient of which being those of the fourth century C.E. False. Second century. Any scholar of the Bible will tell us that no two ancient manuscripts are exactly identical. All Bibles in our possession today are the result of extensive cutting and pasting from these various manuscripts with no single one being the definitive reference. Typical sound bite overplay of the sort we answer here.

What the translators of the Bible have done when presented with such discrepancies is to do their best to choose the correct version. In other words, since they can not know which "ancient manuscript" is the correct one, they must do a little detective work on the text in order to decide which "version" of a given verse to accept. John 14:26 is just such an example of such selection techniques. Zack isn't clear on what he knows about the textual critical process, but as it stands this is a generally devoid of sense, sound-bite statement, as noted in the link above. Let's see how the specifics work out.

John 14:26 is the only verse of the Bible which associates the Parakletos with the Holy Spirit. But if we were to go back to the "ancient manuscripts" themselves, we would find that they are not all in agreement that the "Parakletos" is the Holy Spirit. For instance, in the famous the Codex Syriacus, written around the fifth century C.E., and discovered in 1812 on Mount Sinai by Mrs.Agnes S. Lewis (and Mrs. Bensley), the text of 14:26 reads; "Paraclete, the Spirit"; and not "Paraclete, the Holy Spirit.". The fifth century, is it? And just one mss.? By the principles of textual criticism this one is a bonehead loser. We have copies of John from quite earlier than that, by a hundred years or more, as Katz notes in one of the links above. It also happens to be in Syriac, not in Greek. But now get this bonehead statement as well:

Very Important Point: A "Spirit" in the New Testament is a human Prophet. Therefore, Jesus had predicted the comming of a human Prophet (spirit) after him and not the Holy Spirit. Jesus would not have used the word "he" for the Holy Spirit. He would have used "it" instead in John 14:26 above. What nonsense. So when 2 Tim. 1:7 speaks of the "spirit of fear" is that a human? Is the spirit of divination (Acts 16:16) human? The spirit of holiness (Rom. 1:4)? Add to that Zack's profound ignorance of the Greek behind John 14:26. Jesus used neither "it" nor "he" but "that one" or ekeinos. This word is used to refer to God (5:19, 6:29, 8:42), the Paraclete (14:26, 15:26, 16:8, 13, 14), and Jesus himself (1:18, 2:21, 3:28-30, 9:37) - and by the Pythagoreans to refer to their own dead master, and to Jesus again (disparagingly!) in later Judaism. Read 1 John 4:1-3 below:

"Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world," (1 John 4:1-3)

(also see 1 John 4:6), or an inspired human, for example read 1 Corinthians 2:10, 2 Thessalonians 2:2, ...etc. In all cases what we see here is a "spirit" that inspires a human -- as in the spirit of divination. It does not refer to the human itself. 1 Cor. 2:10 says, "But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God." 2 Thess. 2:2 says, "That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand." None of this makes the word pneuma mean "a human prophet" or "an inspired human" and neither Zack nor any Muslim apologist will find a Greek lexicon that supports such a nonsensical definition.

[Tilia]

MUHUMMED (PBUH) MENTIONED BY NAME IN THE BIBLE: "his mouth is most sweet: yea, he is (Muhummed-im) altogether lovely, this is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem. SONG OF SOLOMON 5:16

(From the original Hebrew manuscript the word "MUHUMMEDIM", is translated as "altogether lovely' which is actually the word MUHUMMED with "im" added. "IM" is the plural of respect in the Hebrew language

That is nonsense. The suffix 'iym' simply signifies plurality, not respect. What greedy little inventors are Mohammedans!

The plural is sometimes used as an intensifier, so 'mamtaq' is 'sweet', but 'mamtaqiym' can be either 'sweetnesses' or 'very sweet'- or maybe both. The context allows for either, or both (and since this applies to Christ alone, it means both!) Similarly for 'machmad', which means either 'desirable' or 'desirable thing', so 'machmadiym' means 'very desirable' or 'desirable things'. So the (wonderfully poetic) saying may be translated:

Chikow mamtaqiym, wakulow machmadiym.
His mouth (is) very sweet, full of desirable things. or
His mouth (is) sweetnesses, all of them very desirable.

which bears similarity to Psalm 119:103:

'How sweet are your words to my taste, sweeter than honey to my mouth!'

This fact is UNESCAPEABLE! What ever you wrote makes no sense.

I don't doubt that it was understood very well indeed, even if not by you.

No matter what you do, even if you translate all togather lovely in arabic, it yet means Muhammad!

I am not going to waste any more time with an incompetent or a blatant liar. Even if you were right, it would do nothing whatever for your case, as even a moment's thought shows. But as you cannot or will not understand even the basics, you won't understand anything slightly subtle.

[snappyanswer]

I am not going to waste any more time with an incompetent or a blatant liar. Even if you were right, it would do nothing whatever for your case, as even a moment's thought shows. But as you cannot or will not understand even the basics, you won't understand anything slightly subtle.

Tila,

There were people in the middle east long before Ishmael. Look at the way they dealt with Isreal and the people of God?

Now do the math.

Muhammad and his code of ethics just flows through the minds of the peoples that have lived in that place for millenia after millenia without changing a thing. Once America has no need of oil, then the mid-east can do what it has always done. WAR.

Muhammad was an interesting warrior in the mold of that kind of person. The followers of muhammad are the sons and daughters of generation after generation of people always fighting.

They know that if peace and free speech (free exchange of ideas) were to really come to the "Islamic world" the Islamic world would be reduced to another cult.

Debating a Muslim is nothing like debating a Christian.

Did Abdul Rahman the Afghani-Christian condemned to death by Islamic religious leaders; raise an AK-47 in the middle of millions and millions of death threats or did he raise his Bible and Christ Jesus?

I so hope to meet that man.

[Jose]

MUHUMMED (PBUH) MENTIONED BY NAME IN THE BIBLE: "his mouth is most sweet: yea, he is (Muhummed-im) altogether lovely, this is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem. SONG OF SOLOMON 5:16

(From the original Hebrew manuscript the word "MUHUMMEDIM", is translated as "altogether lovely' which is actually the word MUHUMMED with "im" added. "IM" is the plural of respect in the Hebrew language

That is nonsense. The suffix 'iym' simply signifies plurality, not respect. What greedy little inventors are Mohammedans!

The plural is sometimes used as an intensifier, so 'mamtaq' is 'sweet', but 'mamtaqiym' can be either 'sweetnesses' or 'very sweet'- or maybe both. The context allows for either, or both (and since this applies to Christ alone, it means both!) Similarly for 'machmad', which means either 'desirable' or 'desirable thing', so 'machmadiym' means 'very desirable' or 'desirable things'. So the (wonderfully poetic) saying may be translated:

Chikow mamtaqiym, wakulow machmadiym.
His mouth (is) very sweet, full of desirable things. or
His mouth (is) sweetnesses, all of them very desirable.

which bears similarity to Psalm 119:103:

'How sweet are your words to my taste, sweeter than honey to my mouth!'

This fact is UNESCAPEABLE! What ever you wrote makes no sense.

I don't doubt that it was understood very well indeed, even if not by you.

No matter what you do, even if you translate all togather lovely in arabic, it yet means Muhammad!

I am not going to waste any more time with an incompetent or a blatant liar. Even if you were right, it would do nothing whatever for your case, as even a moment's thought shows. But as you cannot or will not understand even the basics, you won't understand anything slightly subtle.

Please refrain from making personal remarks, as per the rules. If you disagree with the argument, address the argument. If you disagree with the person, it might be better not to post anything at all.

[HughDP]

I disagree. I saw nothing more logical or illogical about one reply over another - merely different interpretations. Get a devout scholarly Christian and a devout scholarly Muslim to debate these issues and the chance of agreement is very, very slim indeed. Both will believe they're right and both will believe their views represent some ultimate truth.

You should have made an honest opinion.

That was an honest opinion!

This smacks of arrogance to me. Your making out that somehow only you and other Muslims have the intelligence to cut through media hype and ascertain things for themselves.

My english is very bad. Perhaps this is why I could not understand what you wrote.

Hmm, possibly.

Islam is without doubt the best religion

In your opinion.

You prove it wrong then?

I can't 'prove' it wrong and I can't 'prove' it right. Neither can you. Whatever works for you is fine by me; just don't expect me to subscribe to your beliefs. I'll choose my own, thanks.

but the media is in the hands of the westerners who are afraid of Islam. The media is continuously broadcasting and printing information against Islam. They either provide misinformation about Islam, misquote Islam or project a point out of proportion, if any.

Well personally I have no fear of Islam nor any other religion.

I can see that, and I can see the posts made in this forum against Islam speaking how much they are not afraid of it.

I can't see what posts by others in this thread have to do with me.

I don't fear any religion. What is there to fear?

When any bomb blasts take place anywhere, the first people to be accused without proof are invariably the Muslims. This appears as headlines in the news. Later, when they find that non-Muslims were responsible, it appears as insignificant news’ item.

You don't have to tell me that. I don't blame the Islamic faith for terrorist acts commited either in its name or by its practicioners. I blame individuals, whatever their faith or culture.

Where did you take a 100 person sample test to blame the individuals?!? THE MEDIA IS THE ONLY SOURCE!!

I don't need to take a 100 person sample. If somebody shoots or bombs somebody, I don't blame their religion - I blame the individual(s) doing the shooting and bombing. Don't you?

Inspite of all the black sheep in the Muslim community, Muslims taken on the whole, yet form the best community in the world. We are the biggest community of tee-tattlers as a whole, i.e. those who don’t imbibe alcohol. Collectively, we are a community which gives the maximum charity in the world. There is not a single person in the world who can even show a candle to the Muslims where modesty is concerned; where sobriety is concerned; where human values and ethics are concerned.

I disagree.

My job, is not to 'make you agree.' It is only to let you know of the truth. You agree or not, its your personal view. You'll be questioned about it, I won't be. And its a universal fact, you cannot close your eyes from it.

Alas, I disagree. I don't close my eyes to it because they were never open to it. I know this must be a hard concept for you to grasp, but I don't believe in divine judgement. I can see that you worry about it, but you have to put yourself in my shoes: why would I worry about something I simply don't believe in?

If you want to judge ...

I don't want to 'judge' Islam at all. It simply 'is' as far as I'm concerned. I'm happy to debate issues where I'm able to (for the purposes of learning or interest) but I don't want to 'judge' it.

By judging, I did not mean the typical 'judging' meaning which westrn girls usually get. "Oh don't judge me!", "Oh, I don't want to be judged" etc.

By judging, I too meant 'learning', which you have stated.

Learning's fine. I'm always happy to learn and listen to new arguments and opinions. Just don't expect me to agree with all of them.

But if I don't believe in God, I can't believe in 'The Word of God' can I?

So why don't you come to the point.

What point?!

I have no point beyond the next moment.

I think I can make my own mind up whether or not a source has some particular stance on or agenda relating to its subject matter.

The way you've already made of Islam?

Yes.

[1John2_26]

I don't fear any religion. What is there to fear?

Islamic Sharia law.

My Nigerian friends fear that greatly. They will never go back to their "homeland." They fear for their lives. They are Christians.

[HughDP]

I don't fear any religion. What is there to fear?

Islamic Sharia law.

My Nigerian friends fear that greatly. They will never go back to their "homeland." They fear for their lives. They are Christians.

Oh yes, I agree there. I'm not in favour of Nigeria's interpretation of Sharia in relation to apostasy.

But that's people again, not religions. There are plenty of Muslims who would not interpret or carry out the laws that way.

I'm well aware of how religion can be used to lead people for evil purposes, but that's people again. Religion itself is an inanimate object and blaming it for atrocities is like blaming the gun for the murder and letting the murderer go free.

[Easyrider]

MUHUMMED (PBUH) MENTIONED BY NAME IN THE BIBLE: "his mouth is most sweet: yea, he is (Muhummed-im) altogether lovely, this is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem. SONG OF SOLOMON 5:16

(From the original Hebrew manuscript the word "MUHUMMEDIM", is translated as "altogether lovely' which is actually the word MUHUMMED with "im" added. "IM" is the plural of respect in the Hebrew language

That is nonsense. The suffix 'iym' simply signifies plurality, not respect. What greedy little inventors are Mohammedans!

The plural is sometimes used as an intensifier, so 'mamtaq' is 'sweet', but 'mamtaqiym' can be either 'sweetnesses' or 'very sweet'- or maybe both. The context allows for either, or both (and since this applies to Christ alone, it means both!) Similarly for 'machmad', which means either 'desirable' or 'desirable thing', so 'machmadiym' means 'very desirable' or 'desirable things'. So the (wonderfully poetic) saying may be translated:

Chikow mamtaqiym, wakulow machmadiym.
His mouth (is) very sweet, full of desirable things. or
His mouth (is) sweetnesses, all of them very desirable.

which bears similarity to Psalm 119:103:

'How sweet are your words to my taste, sweeter than honey to my mouth!'

This fact is UNESCAPEABLE! What ever you wrote makes no sense. No matter what you do, even if you translate all togather lovely in arabic, it yet means Muhammad!

Hi, Doctor, how's it going?

I've heard that the Koran refers to Jesus as a prophet, and that it also says he was born of a virgin. It that your understanding also?

And if Jesus is a prophet, then wouldn't what he said about himself being "the way and the truth and the life, and that no one comes to the Father except through me" be considered as coming straight from God?

I'd also like to get your view on Jesus as being divine, as it is taught in numerous passages in the Bible. If Jesus is divine, a Savior for sins, and God's only begotten son, then why didn't Muhammud believe that and teach it also?

God bless!

[Tilia]

MUHUMMED (PBUH) MENTIONED BY NAME IN THE BIBLE: "his mouth is most sweet: yea, he is (Muhummed-im) altogether lovely, this is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem. SONG OF SOLOMON 5:16

(From the original Hebrew manuscript the word "MUHUMMEDIM", is translated as "altogether lovely' which is actually the word MUHUMMED with "im" added. "IM" is the plural of respect in the Hebrew language

That is nonsense. The suffix 'iym' simply signifies plurality, not respect. What greedy little inventors are Mohammedans!

The plural is sometimes used as an intensifier, so 'mamtaq' is 'sweet', but 'mamtaqiym' can be either 'sweetnesses' or 'very sweet'- or maybe both. The context allows for either, or both (and since this applies to Christ alone, it means both!) Similarly for 'machmad', which means either 'desirable' or 'desirable thing', so 'machmadiym' means 'very desirable' or 'desirable things'. So the (wonderfully poetic) saying may be translated:

Chikow mamtaqiym, wakulow machmadiym.
His mouth (is) very sweet, full of desirable things. or
His mouth (is) sweetnesses, all of them very desirable.

which bears similarity to Psalm 119:103:

'How sweet are your words to my taste, sweeter than honey to my mouth!'

This fact is UNESCAPEABLE! What ever you wrote makes no sense. No matter what you do, even if you translate all togather lovely in arabic, it yet means Muhammad!

Hi, Doctor, how's it going?

I've heard that the Koran refers to Jesus as a prophet, and that it also says he was born of a virgin. It that your understanding also?

And if Jesus is a prophet, then wouldn't what he said about himself being "the way and the truth and the life, and that no one comes to the Father except through me" be considered as coming straight from God?

I'd also like to get your view on Jesus as being divine, as it is taught in numerous passages in the Bible. If Jesus is divine, a Savior for sins, and God's only begotten son, then why didn't Muhammud believe that and teach it also?

God bless!

Mohammedans simply ignore and contradict any part of the Bible that contradicts their view, and, at least 600 years after the event, dismiss most of Jesus' teachings as corruptions. It would be comic, but they can say they believe that with a straight face. Of course, some have been thoroughly brainwashed, and have no difficulty with it.

Anyone could write a Koran. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.