Muhammad in the Bible

[Khaled]

Well, watch both of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cur_6aYs_7k

and

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbSCY...eature=related

The video tells us the name "Muhammad" is in the Bible. You can use a translation to translate this hebrew " מחמד " to English.

Edit:

Translation site:
http://www.freetranslation.com/
http://worldlingo.com/en/products_se...ranslator.html

[Dr Zoidberg]

Even if it is a translation of the name Mohammed, it cannot be the same Mohammed as Islam's. It is a case of simple maths. The Bible as we know it was compiled at least 1000 years before the Mohammed who founded Islam arrived on the scene.

I'm sure there are more knowledgeable Biblical scholars on this forum who can provide more detail.

[Fiyenyaa]

Even if it is a translation of the name Mohammed, it cannot be the same Mohammed as Islam's. It is a case of simple maths. The Bible as we know it was compiled at least 1000 years before the Mohammed who founded Islam arrived on the scene.

I'm sure there are more knowledgeable Biblical scholars on this forum who can provide more detail.

Well, Islam was founded in the 600s, so it's more like 500 years before Muhammad - it's still impossible though.

[Dr Zoidberg]

Well, Islam was founded in the 600s, so it's more like 500 years before Muhammad - it's still impossible though.

Oops. My bad. It's 1400 years old not originated in the 1400s. Sorry, it's been a long day.

[empr guy]

Well, Islam was founded in the 600s, so it's more like 500 years before Muhammad - it's still impossible though.

well dosent the bible say (among other things) people originaly lived for hundreds of years?

[basics]

" well dosent the bible say (among other things) people originaly lived for hundreds of years?"

empr guy,

It surely does and this time limit on man has changed twice, once at the flood and once just before or is it after the time of Moses. The first consequential to the sun being exposed by the flood and the other by some event that took place of which I cannot quite remember. But I do remember my old minister taking the figures to Aberdeen University for analysis and them finding no fault in what he gave them.

But what has this to do with Mohammed and the Bible? Mohammed is not in the Bible and if he were he would join a long list of men that consider works as a way of salvation despite the Law and what Scripture says about works. What his religion requires of men runs contrary to what God says on the subject.

[Fiyenyaa]

well dosent the bible say (among other things) people originaly lived for hundreds of years?

That's true. Of course there's the "Wandering Jew" who was supposedly present at the time when Jesus said that he would return (i.e. the Second Coming) in the lifetime of those who were listening to him - this is seriously believed by some Christian denominations.

I think we can safely say - rubbish until proven otherwise.

[empr guy]

That's true. Of course there's the "Wandering Jew" who was supposedly present at the time when Jesus said that he would return (i.e. the Second Coming) in the lifetime of those who were listening to him - this is seriously believed by some Christian denominations.

I think we can safely say - rubbish until proven otherwise.

i know lol, the reason i posted that face and [(among other things)] is because most of the bible is completley garbage, or just repacaged myths from other religions. Any way, i have to say, even if muhammad is in the bible, you should all know it dosent prove anything\

any answers?
come on... any arguements

If your so eagar for debate then how come on the thread "Why is the Arab world so extraordinarily Insular?" when i disproved what you said (e.g., you said it was a mericale the koran dosent think people are made of concrete) and pointed out the many flaws in your reasoning, you said "the koran has many interpritations" and left. Later you said, "well, i just had to go do something" The problem is that you never went back, and have gone to other threads.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Yeah, if this is suggesting that this is the same Muhammed as the one of Islamic tradition then that's obviously incorrect.

[Tankbuster]

My name (Matthew) is in the Bible too. Even at the top of one of them gospels.

Surely this means something...

[Arthurean]

They will always have a reason to give to support themself.
The name is in the song of Solomon. nice video btw

[basics]

" The name is in the song of Solomon. nice video btw "

Arthurean,

This is surprising as I am looking at my brand new Hebrew/Greek/English Interlinear at the Song of Solomon chapter 5, v16 and if the book and Strong's Concordance are correct the word is mamtaq which means figuratively or literally something sweet or most sweet.

I am quite sure that God would not hide away the name of any prophet, rather the opposite, to give him his proper name and not one as important as Mohammed should his case for change stand up to scrutiny. But of course we know that Mohammed is not in the Bible because both sets of Books are set in legal content making it impossible for another to come into being lest God should die. That is quite impossible to a Muslim.

Even if the New Covenant was not in effect, had never happened despite Scripture, the Old Covenant would still be in effect and could not be otherwise unless God died. So whether it is possible to make a case for the name Mohammed to be included it doesn't change anything for Islam. It is not the heir to any promise ever made by God. That my friends would still be with the Jews which by the way is what all saved peoples rightfully are since they are the children of God, Jew and Gentile alike.

[Central Asian Qaghan]

basics you know little of islam. I suggest you stop commenting on it and stick with your idol christan worship.

[basics]

" basics you know little of islam. I suggest you stop commenting on it and stick with your idol christan worship."

Shahanshah of Central Asia,

And you Sir, know little of the Bible and its Law from which your religion hopes to take succour. What I do know of Islam is that it has no Biblical authority, no Spiritual authority and certainly no Legal authority upon which both Judaism and Christianity certainly have.

So my friend, why should I have to know anything about something that is unlawful? But you show me by the Scriptures that it is Lawful and I'll retract all that I have said about it.

[Arthurean]

" basics you know little of islam. I suggest you stop commenting on it and stick with your idol christan worship."

Shahanshah of Central Asia,

And you Sir, know little of the Bible and its Law from which your religion hopes to take succour. What I do know of Islam is that it has no Biblical authority, no Spiritual authority and certainly no Legal authority upon which both Judaism and Christianity certainly have.

So my friend, why should I have to know anything about something that is unlawful? But you show me by the Scriptures that it is Lawful and I'll retract all that I have said about it.

The modern bible book is corrupted.

[Taiji]

He shouldn't comment on it because you don't agree with what he has said?

Why don't you agree?

edit:

Or am I being totally naive and that was just a flame?

[Central Asian Qaghan]

I have no intension of debating with a Christan like you Basics. You can live in the Idolitary of Christanity and stay away from good Muslim lands. I am not your friend. I would rather make a dead mule my friend than you.

[Groundtotem]

I have no intension of debating with a Christan like you Basics. You can live in the Idolitary of Christanity and stay away from good Muslim lands. I am not your friend. I would rather make a dead mule my friend than you.

If you have no intentions on debating in a thread then you should not respond to it.

[Dr Zoidberg]

I have no intension of debating with a Christan like you Basics. You can live in the Idolitary of Christanity and stay away from good Muslim lands. I am not your friend. I would rather make a dead mule my friend than you.

If you have no intentions on debating in a thread then you should not respond to it.

I second that. If you aren't willing to debate, nor conduct yourself civilly, then it is preferred that you stay away. If yourself and basics were sitting together, having this discussion, would you be this rude or belligerent? The anonymity of the internet allows to a degree of personal freedom to say and do what you want not available in any other public forum. But that doesn't mean you're allowed to throw the rules of civil discourse out the window.

[basics]

" I have no intension of debating with a Christan like you Basics. You can live in the Idolitary of Christanity and stay away from good Muslim lands. I am not your friend. I would rather make a dead mule my friend than you."

Shahanshah of Central Asia,

Now that is quite a shame, because getting to know me is getting to know that I have nothing to do with idolatry as most on these threads may testify. Does that mean you never knowing me would see me dead because I am Christian? And here was me thinking that any follower of Islam was all for a peaceful existence but your remarks, if you don't mind me saying, are a little beyond being a peaceful man.

Forgetting Christianity for a moment, have you never heard that the man who lives in the Law dies by the Law? That is what God gave to Moses to tell to the people, yep, a man in whom you are supposed to have allegience with. But you don't want to debate that for some reason. Rather distort Scripture to make Mohammed's name appear where it was never meant to be. Well my friend, you run away from truth. What is a good Muslim land by the way?

" Also, basics I think you're a little worried,"

Leutrim,

Why would I be worried? A Testament can only be annulled by the death of a Testator, in this case God, so even if Mohammed's claims were true, God would in some way have to die to bring another Testament into effect. Now you as a Muslim cannot accept that God can die under any circumstances therefore whatever Mohammed claims he has no legitimacy for making such a claim.

Therefore the promise made to Abraham that Sarah would bear him an heir stands, leaving Hagar and her son still out in the cold. The Jews remain the people of God but still under Law which by the way has no facility for mercy, rather blood for sin. So as the Old Covenant proves even the Jew is locked into the Law and without a proper Sacrifice has no way out. That some of them were considered righteous before God was because God Himself put to their account that they were but until the proper Sacrifice came the account remained unsettled.

Mohammed is not that sacrifice on many counts. First, he was a man born of male and female parents. Second, he is not Jewish. Third, he is not divine. Fourth, the promise was not made for him but the offspring of Jacob. Fifth, he was not born as the prophets said. Sixth, he is not the prophet promised to come as that was John the Baptist. Seventh, the only prophet of noteriety yet to come is the false one. Is that him?

No, I don't think I have anything to worry myself over.