Total Posts:166|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Muhammad in the Bible

InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2010 1:35:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I didn't want to continue derailing the other thread so I thought I would post this hear. This is mainly for tboonepickens, but anybody can offer their own feedback.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2010 1:45:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Astonishingly silly. Akin to numerology.

"Some refer chapter 5:16, of the Song of Songs, to Muhammad, simply because in the Hebrew the word mahamaddim, "delights," "delightfulnesses," occurs there, and is derived from the same root...Song of Songs 5:16 is no more a reference to Muhammad than it is to Mumattaq or to David. Finding the name of Muhammad is child's play."

http://www.answering-islam.org...
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2010 1:48:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/15/2010 1:45:49 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
Astonishingly silly. Akin to numerology.

"Some refer chapter 5:16, of the Song of Songs, to Muhammad, simply because in the Hebrew the word mahamaddim, "delights," "delightfulnesses," occurs there, and is derived from the same root...Song of Songs 5:16 is no more a reference to Muhammad than it is to Mumattaq or to David. Finding the name of Muhammad is child's play."

http://www.answering-islam.org...

Let me ask you this? Do you know Hebrew?
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2010 2:04:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/15/2010 1:48:07 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 7/15/2010 1:45:49 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
Astonishingly silly. Akin to numerology.

"Some refer chapter 5:16, of the Song of Songs, to Muhammad, simply because in the Hebrew the word mahamaddim, "delights," "delightfulnesses," occurs there, and is derived from the same root...Song of Songs 5:16 is no more a reference to Muhammad than it is to Mumattaq or to David. Finding the name of Muhammad is child's play."

http://www.answering-islam.org...

Let me ask you this? Do you know Hebrew?

How is this pertinent to this discussion? Did you understand the amount of rationalizing one has to do in order to believe that it is Mohammed? Can you comment on the link above first? I will answer your question later.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2010 2:07:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Interesting, but I'll have to read that entire passage to get a better understanding as it's easy for anybody to take any scripture out of context and use it to fit their own agenda. I tend to see that alot.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2010 2:11:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/15/2010 2:07:07 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Interesting, but I'll have to read that entire passage to get a better understanding as it's easy for anybody to take any scripture out of context and use it to fit their own agenda. I tend to see that alot.

Agreed. That is what is being done in the video. It is a cheap parlor trick. Example: "In Arabic many words are formed from the same root , but they do not on that account denote Muhammad. An ignorant Muslim might just as well assert that Muhammad's name occurred in Surah 1, Al Fatihah, verse 1: Al hamdo lillahi Rabbi 'lalamin ("Praise be to God, the Lord of the worlds"). In the same way a Hindu might assert that the name of Ram or some other of his deities was mentioned in the Qur'an, because in Sura 30, Ar-Rum, verse 1, we read " the Romans have been overcome," where Arabic dictionaries give "Rum" as if derived from the root "ram". This kind of argument is unworthy of men of learning and judgement"

I am checking the 2nd part. BTW, I understand that you are a convert to Islam. I that correct?
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2010 2:16:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/15/2010 2:11:55 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:

Agreed. That is what is being done in the video. It is a cheap parlor trick.

Yes, the video is being a bit unfair by not providing the entire context. That is why I want to read it for myself.

I am checking the 2nd part. BTW, I understand that you are a convert to Islam. I that correct?

Yes I am.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2010 2:18:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/15/2010 2:16:45 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 7/15/2010 2:11:55 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:

Agreed. That is what is being done in the video. It is a cheap parlor trick.

Yes, the video is being a bit unfair by not providing the entire context. That is why I want to read it for myself.

I am checking the 2nd part. BTW, I understand that you are a convert to Islam. I that correct?

Yes I am.

From what, may I ask?
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2010 2:20:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/15/2010 2:18:39 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 7/15/2010 2:16:45 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 7/15/2010 2:11:55 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:

Agreed. That is what is being done in the video. It is a cheap parlor trick.

Yes, the video is being a bit unfair by not providing the entire context. That is why I want to read it for myself.

I am checking the 2nd part. BTW, I understand that you are a convert to Islam. I that correct?

Yes I am.

From what, may I ask?

Mostly exploration of various faiths which began mostly from some struggles I was having in life. I found it to be the one that made the most sense.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2010 2:23:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/15/2010 2:20:33 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 7/15/2010 2:18:39 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 7/15/2010 2:16:45 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 7/15/2010 2:11:55 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:

Agreed. That is what is being done in the video. It is a cheap parlor trick.

Yes, the video is being a bit unfair by not providing the entire context. That is why I want to read it for myself.

I am checking the 2nd part. BTW, I understand that you are a convert to Islam. I that correct?

Yes I am.

From what, may I ask?

Mostly exploration of various faiths which began mostly from some struggles I was having in life. I found it to be the one that made the most sense.

Sure but which faith did you start from?
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2010 2:24:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/15/2010 2:23:31 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:

Sure but which faith did you start from?

I didn't really have one. I believed in God except for one point where I was agnostic.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2010 2:27:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/15/2010 2:24:36 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 7/15/2010 2:23:31 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:

Sure but which faith did you start from?

I didn't really have one. I believed in God except for one point where I was agnostic.

What religion were your parents and or family?
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2010 2:28:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/15/2010 2:27:41 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 7/15/2010 2:24:36 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 7/15/2010 2:23:31 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:

Sure but which faith did you start from?

I didn't really have one. I believed in God except for one point where I was agnostic.

What religion were your parents and or family?

Most of my family is non-religious with my sister being a militant atheist.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2010 2:51:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/15/2010 2:28:41 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Most of my family is non-religious with my sister being a militant atheist.

So you were spiritual but not religious or not spiritual and non religion.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2010 2:54:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/15/2010 2:51:22 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 7/15/2010 2:28:41 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Most of my family is non-religious with my sister being a militant atheist.

So you were spiritual but not religious or not spiritual and non religion.

Spiritual, but not religious.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2010 3:08:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/15/2010 2:54:19 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 7/15/2010 2:51:22 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 7/15/2010 2:28:41 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Most of my family is non-religious with my sister being a militant atheist.

So you were spiritual but not religious or not spiritual and non religion.

Spiritual, but not religious.

I am Catholic: born & raised. Personally, I would NEVER change my religion. However, if I did I would probably pick Judaism or be an Atheist. I would never be any other. Nothing personal, but I'd rather die than be a Muslim.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2010 3:10:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/15/2010 3:08:51 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 7/15/2010 2:54:19 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 7/15/2010 2:51:22 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 7/15/2010 2:28:41 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Most of my family is non-religious with my sister being a militant atheist.

So you were spiritual but not religious or not spiritual and non religion.

Spiritual, but not religious.

I am Catholic: born & raised. Personally, I would NEVER change my religion. However, if I did I would probably pick Judaism or be an Atheist. I would never be any other. Nothing personal, but I'd rather die than be a Muslim.

Fair enough. That's your opinion.
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2010 9:00:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/15/2010 3:08:51 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:

Nothing personal, but I'd rather die than be a Muslim.

Funny thing is... oh wait... I see what you did there.
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2010 9:06:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/15/2010 1:35:08 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I didn't want to continue derailing the other thread so I thought I would post this hear. This is mainly for tboonepickens, but anybody can offer their own feedback.

The really interesting thing about the Bible is that people are continuously saying it refers to their religion. Christians, Mormons, and Muslims are all completely off-base here (at least for the Old Testament).

In these cases.... Mormons just made their crap up. Christians claim that the OT refers to Jesus, which is completely bogus because Jesus does not fit the Messianic archaetype.

In the case of Muslims, here's a simple thought experiment. If the OT verses really DO refer to Muhammad, then Muhammad is either the Jewish messiah, or a Jewish prophet. And since he is very clearly neither, we arrive at the next conclusion - the inferences to Muhammad are read into the Bible in a desire to sweep the Jewish faith into Islam...

Not in a malicious way per se - it would just be a huge source of "reverts" if it turned out that all Jews were really Muslims. I could see some Imam's getting pretty excited about that and reading what they want into the Bible, as opposed to what is there.
Zeitgeist
Posts: 430
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2010 12:10:11 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Actually as it turns out Mohammed IS mentioned in the Bible.

Or at least in the "New Covenant" Scriptures.

Associated with The Beatitudes, Matthew 7 : 15 – 18 (KJV) :-

"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit."


The matter of a false prophet is raised with considerable emphasis in the other of the Synoptic Gospels, Mark and Luke, as part of the Sermon on the Mount in which Jesus prophesies and predicts his future and the future.

So is Mohammed mentioned in The Bible?

Oh yes, he certainly is.

But not in the way that many people would like him to be.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2010 3:26:44 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
JCMT, he is not only in OT, but also NT. That invalidates your argument about him being Jew. Furthermore, "Jew" refers to one being as the tribe of Judah, while Muslim is just one who submits his will to God. So, a prediction of a new Prophet neither made him Jew or Christian, but one who submitted his will to God. Even Jesus mentioned the word "Muslim" in the Bible.

The 10,000 followers etc. all predicted in the Bible is the exact thing that was going on with Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). I will explain later.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2010 5:31:55 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/15/2010 1:35:08 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I didn't want to continue derailing the other thread so I thought I would post this hear. This is mainly for tboonepickens, but anybody can offer their own feedback.:

The most obvious flaw in this line of reasoning is that a well-known Islamic claim is that the bible is fallible and as been tampered with, making its authenticity questionable. If the bible has in fact been compromised by human intervention, then you cannot reasonably trust any of it without knowing which parts have been compromised.

If it is true that its integrity has been compromised, then the claim you present is evidence of you cherry picking. Passages that tend to corroborate the bible you dismiss, but as long as it serves your self-interests (like, Islam) you'll happily overlook that the bible has allegedly been compromised.

Is that logically consistent?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2010 7:11:26 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/16/2010 3:26:44 AM, Mirza wrote:
JCMT, he is not only in OT, but also NT. That invalidates your argument about him being Jew. Furthermore, "Jew" refers to one being as the tribe of Judah, while Muslim is just one who submits his will to God. So, a prediction of a new Prophet neither made him Jew or Christian, but one who submitted his will to God. Even Jesus mentioned the word "Muslim" in the Bible.

The 10,000 followers etc. all predicted in the Bible is the exact thing that was going on with Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). I will explain later.

Lol! It's like talking to a brick wall! There is no hope for you.

(PARADIGM_L0ST) If it is true that its integrity has been compromised, then the claim you present is evidence of you cherry picking. Passages that tend to corroborate the bible you dismiss, but as long as it serves your self-interests (like, Islam) you'll happily overlook that the bible has allegedly been compromised.

Is that logically consistent?

You are correct. To some Muslims, when the Bible doesn't literally say what they want, they say it's context. When the twisting of the context is so blatant that even they themselves cannot believe it, they say it's been tampered with. Of course, when you bring up the same points about the Koran, they somehow disappear. It's a win-win for them! With that lack of reasoning, it's no wonder they've not advanced for the past 800 years! Same mentality. The problem with these people isn't that they want to live like people did a 1000 years ago; if it was just that, that be fine cause natural selection would get rid of them. It's that they also want EVERYONE else to do so as well!

Well, I am sure that there are more moderate Muslims like INH out there, and I hope that they become the majority soon. For all our sakes.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2010 8:28:48 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
tBoone, if you think you are right about when it comes to Islam or whatever we have discussed before, then create a thread for me and you and we will discuss every point, and we will see who is right. Just do it. Qur'an being copied, the beloved Prophet being predicted in the Bible, anything. Accept it or drop all this.