Muhammed Mentioned by Name in Bible

[Struggle151]

Song of Solomon 5:16 (original Hebrew)
"Hikko Mamittakim we kullo Muhammadim Zehdoodeh wa Zehraee Bayna Jerusalem."

They way Christians have translated it - "His mouth is most sweet: yea, he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters
of Jerusalem."

The "im" on the end of the Prophets PBUH name is the Hebrew plural of respect. I want to know why Christians have translated a name. A name is the same in any language, you have no right to translate a persons name. Why do they intentionally cover this up?

 

[Hentenza]

LOL!!! The original Hebrew word is מַחְמַד which is rendered here as lovely. The typical meaning is beloved or desirable. It is not a noun.

Your prophet is not mentioned in the bible.

 

[_JJM]

Song of Solomon 5:16 (original Hebrew)
"Hikko Mamittakim we kullo Muhammadim Zehdoodeh wa Zehraee Bayna Jerusalem."

They way Christians have translated it - "His mouth is most sweet: yea, he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters
of Jerusalem."

The "im" on the end of the Prophets PBUH name is the Hebrew plural of respect. I want to know why Christians have translated a name. A name is the same in any language, you have no right to translate a persons name. Why do they intentionally cover this up?

Is this baseless and absurd assertion made because of those you believe are being made by others about the Koran?

 

[Struggle151]

Oh no, i would never stoop down to their level of ignorance and intentional mistranslating to lead others astray. This is only what I've uncovered from some minor research. Thanks for your concern though.

 

[_JJM]

Oh no, i would never stoop down to their level of ignorance and intentional mistranslating to lead others astray. This is only what I've uncovered from some minor research. Thanks for your concern though.

May I humbly offer that you are approaching a certain level with this assertion.

 

[Struggle151]

It's no assertion, why else would someone blatantly mistranslate verses when they know not many people can read and understand arabic and more often then not wont do the research by themselves, so their left to believe w/e this person wanted that verse to say. and its always very, very far from the truth. I sincerely apologize if i hurt any ones feelings, but its the truth. Anyway, back on the subject, thank you for all your inputs so far. Again i said this is only what i uncovered from MINOR research, i will continue to look into this. But please, keep the thread going, i think this is an important and hopefully educational topic for both religions.

 

[laconicstudent]

The fact that a Hebrew word when rendered in English is similar in spelling (in English) to the English rendering of an Arabic name means absolutely nothing.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

The fact that a Hebrew word when rendered in English is similar in spelling (in English) to the English rendering of an Arabic name means absolutely nothing.

Bravo! Too bad they are not interested in the linguistics and etymologies of certain words. They do the same to an infamous passage in the Gospel of Luke, where the rendering is "Mushlam" and means "servant" ... Cyber-jihadists of course realize that means "muslim"... They did the same when the movie "The Passion of the Christ" came out, they searched and searched for Allah and Muhammad in it. Why the struggle, right? The answer, unconfidence, uncertainty, doubt...

 

[Supreme]

So, if Muhammed was mentioned ( and I do mean 'if', as other member have pointed out, the Hebrew semantics of the Bible have been translated accurately), do you think a very minor mention that wouldn't even make grammatical sense in Hebrew in a book regarding erotic metaphors concerning God's love for Israel is sufficient evidence for Christians to convert, or at least concede that the specific Islamic prophet Muhammed is mentioned in the Bible, and if so, why?

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

Yes, like 2000 year worth of theologians and historians could not see this...

 

[Supreme]

Yes, like 2000 year worth of theologians and historians could not see this...

Indeed. No offense to Muslims, but I really do not feel they put enough effort into their arguments sometimes. As soon as they find something in the Bible, they start shouting 'Error, error, Bible must be wrong!' or 'this one verse, when taken completely out of context, may agree with an Islamic view!', when they don't know the true meaning or story behind the part of the Bible they are (mis)quoting. I have heard plenty of Islamic arguments, weighed them up, pitted them against Christianity, rejected them, but it still makes no difference- the odd misquote is hardly proof of the Islamic concept of a diety, far from it. When Muslims try to prove the existence of their diety, the burden of proof is on them, and attempting to disprove the Bible is as redudant (in the case of their arguments) as quoting from the Quran to disprove a Christian belief, which no Christian views as the legitimate words of God.

 

[GodIsNear]

Another thing to add here. If this is truly the word Mohammed written in the old testament, why was this word not changed or modified as muslims claim that Jews or Christians did long time ago?
Why do Jews or Christians want to leave such an obvious revelation (according to muslims now) about Mohammed?

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

Another thing to add here. If this is truly the word Mohammed written in the old testament, why was this word not changed or modified as muslims claim that Jews or Christians did long time ago?
Why do Jews or Christians want to leave such an obvious revelation (according to muslims now) about Mohammed?

Good point, the more we talk about this, the more I remember why I did become a Christian leaving Islam. We are always accused of tampering with Revelation of God, attributing things to God, telling that He begot a son, we say Jesus was crucified, all those we tampered with and added!

For some dumb reason, we are dumb enough to forget to remove Muhammad from our tampered Scriptures!!!

 

[humblemuslim]

LOL!!! The original Hebrew word is מַחְמַד which is rendered here as lovely. The typical meaning is beloved or desirable. It is not a noun.

Your prophet is not mentioned in the bible.

How does bursting out in laughter help anyone here? Surely this is not a religiously acceptable reaction nor a useful one...

Here is what I found regarding the word in question:

yea he is altogether lovely
machmad (makh-mawd')
delightful; hence, a delight, i.e. object of affection or desire -- beloved, desire, goodly, lovely, pleasant (thing).

Pay close attention to the second source which is a Hebrew Lexicon that notes this word is a "Masculine Noun". So actually...Yes it is a noun, it is not an adjective. "Lovely" is an adjective...

Song of Solomon 5:16 His mouth is most sweet: yea, he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem.
Machmad - Hebrew Lexicon

Is this baseless and absurd assertion made because of those you believe are being made by others about the Koran?

I will agree the presentation of the argument was not the best, however the point that this passage might be referring to someone who is not immediately thought of by Christians or Jews is not necessarily anymore baseless than any other interpretations. Labeling it absurd, akin to the previous laughter, is of no benefit to anyone here...

The fact that a Hebrew word when rendered in English is similar in spelling (in English) to the English rendering of an Arabic name means absolutely nothing.

That is true that the English rendering (Transliteration) is unimportant. I am failing to see that as the core statement being presented...

Bravo! Too bad they are not interested in the linguistics and etymologies of certain words. They do the same to an infamous passage in the Gospel of Luke, where the rendering is "Mushlam" and means "servant" ... Cyber-jihadists of course realize that means "muslim"... They did the same when the movie "The Passion of the Christ" came out, they searched and searched for Allah and Muhammad in it. Why the struggle, right? The answer, unconfidence, uncertainty, doubt...

You do not know the unseen my friend. GOD alone knows what is truly in the hearts of all. It is not anyone's place to be guessing intentions, nor does it benefit anyone here.

So, if Muhammed was mentioned ( and I do mean 'if', as other member have pointed out, the Hebrew semantics of the Bible have been translated accurately), do you think a very minor mention that wouldn't even make grammatical sense in Hebrew in a book regarding erotic metaphors concerning God's love for Israel is sufficient evidence for Christians to convert, or at least concede that the specific Islamic prophet Muhammed is mentioned in the Bible, and if so, why?

Yes, like 2000 year worth of theologians and historians could not see this...

Do you have a clear explanation why understanding this passage as making a reference to Muhammad would not make grammatical sense?

Indeed. No offense to Muslims, but I really do not feel they put enough effort into their arguments sometimes. As soon as they find something in the Bible, they start shouting 'Error, error, Bible must be wrong!' or 'this one verse, when taken completely out of context, may agree with an Islamic view!', when they don't know the true meaning or story behind the part of the Bible they are (mis)quoting. I have heard plenty of Islamic arguments, weighed them up, pitted them against Christianity, rejected them, but it still makes no difference- the odd misquote is hardly proof of the Islamic concept of a diety, far from it. When Muslims try to prove the existence of their diety, the burden of proof is on them, and attempting to disprove the Bible is as redudant (in the case of their arguments) as quoting from the Quran to disprove a Christian belief, which no Christian views as the legitimate words of God.

Honestly, I see all humans guilty of this. I see no benefit in singling out any one group of people.

I again see no benefit is guessing what is in the hearts of others...

The deity you speak of as though it is foreign to your own is the deity of Abraham. It is not the place of the believers to prove GOD's existence. GOD is capable of providing evidence on GOD's behalf. The efforts of believers are futile regardless of which earthly religion label they follow. The evidence is all around us, for those who do not see it even the most devout believer will be of no benefit to the disbeliever.

Another thing to add here. If this is truly the word Mohammed written in the old testament, why was this word not changed or modified as muslims claim that Jews or Christians did long time ago?
Why do Jews or Christians want to leave such an obvious revelation (according to muslims now) about Mohammed?

This question leads to judging the hearts of humans. Something that no one here is qualified to do. Leave that to GOD.

Good point, the more we talk about this, the more I remember why I did become a Christian leaving Islam. We are always accused of tampering with Revelation of God, attributing things to God, telling that He begot a son, we say Jesus was crucified, all those we tampered with and added!

For some dumb reason, we are dumb enough to forget to remove Muhammad from our tampered Scriptures!!!

Much like the two previous jests, I simply do not see the benefit here...

Peace be unto everyone here,

Here is what I found regarding the word in question:

yea he is altogether lovely
machmad (makh-mawd')
delightful; hence, a delight, i.e. object of affection or desire -- beloved, desire, goodly, lovely, pleasant (thing).

Pay close attention to the second source which is a Hebrew Lexicon that notes this word is a "Masculine Noun". So actually...Yes it is a noun, it is not an adjective. "Lovely" is an adjective...

Song of Solomon 5:16 His mouth is most sweet: yea, he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem.
Machmad - Hebrew Lexicon

If you read the entire chapter and pay close attention to the passage it is talking about someone (A masculine Noun). Now as to whether this someone is Muhammad or not. I do not know. There is no direct mention of prophet hood or a message coming later or anything particularly noteworthy that would allow me to hold such a belief strongly. Though given the passage, I see it as a distinct possibility pending any further insight that is not corrupted by laughter or jest...

 

[Hentenza]

How does bursting out in laughter help anyone here? Surely this is not a religiously acceptable reaction nor a useful one...

The posted LOL is merely what it is. You can choose to take it as you wish. I find the suggested idea that Mohammad is mentioned in the bible....well, ludicrous. So, yes, it is funny.

Even when used as noun, it still is defined as beloved or the like. Not Mohammad.

 

[humblemuslim]

The posted LOL is merely what it is. You can choose to take it as you wish. I find the suggested idea that Mohammad is mentioned in the bible....well, ludicrous. So, yes, it is funny.

Even when used as noun, it still is defined as beloved or the like. Not Mohammad.

I question whether expressing this amusement serves any useful purpose, not whether or not you find it amusing...

Just so you are informed, In Arabic ﷴ (Muhammad) means "Much praised, Highly lauded." according to the Dictionary of the Holy Qur'an By Abdul Mannan Omar. Compare this meaning with the meaning of the word in question.

Much praised is akin to beloved in that it conveys a quality of desirability. This is enough for me to consider the idea plausible, but not certain as I mentioned earlier.

Consider the fact my name literally means happy. If my name was found in poetry I could see people easily mistaking my name as an expression of joy.

And consider the possibility the passage speaks of someone indirectly using a word that references a meaning akin to their name providing a link to a specific person.

Reasons you will not find agreement on the idea this interpretation is "Ludicrous". Unclear perhaps, since as mentioned eariler we find no mention of specific deeds that would narrow the focus (Prophethood/Message/Revelation/Etc.). It could technically be speaking of any of the countless Muhammads throughout history. Or none of them.

 

[Hentenza]

I question whether expressing this amusement serves any useful purpose, not whether or not you find it amusing...

Just so you are informed, In Arabic ﷴ (Muhammad) means "Much praised, Highly lauded." according to the Dictionary of the Holy Qur'an By Abdul Mannan Omar. Compare this meaning with the meaning of the word in question.

Much praised is akin to beloved in that it conveys a quality of desirability. This is enough for me to consider the idea plausible, but not certain as I mentioned earlier.

Consider the fact my name literally means happy. If my name was found in poetry I could see people easily mistaking my name as an expression of joy.

And consider the possibility the passage speaks of someone indirectly using a word that references a meaning akin to their name providing a link to a specific person.

Reasons you will not find agreement on the idea this interpretation is "Ludicrous". Unclear perhaps, since as mentioned eariler we find no mention of specific deeds that would narrow the focus (Prophethood/Message/Revelation/Etc.). It could technically be speaking of any of the countless Muhammads throughout history. Or none of them.

The text is in Hebrew not Arabic and does not contain any Muhammad(s). Period. You have no case nor evidence. To suggest it with such meager to non existence evidence is indeed ludicrous.

 

[humblemuslim]

The text is in Hebrew not Arabic and does not contain any Muhammad(s). Period. You have no case nor evidence. To suggest it with such meager to non existence evidence is indeed ludicrous.

You appear to not be listening to or understanding what I am saying.

There is nothing more I can say to help you here.

Peace be unto you

 

[ApplePie7]

Just so you are informed, In Arabic ﷴ (Muhammad) means "Much praised, Highly lauded." according to the Dictionary of the Holy Qur'an By Abdul Mannan Omar. Compare this meaning with the meaning of the word in question.

Nice to see that you are starting to refer to our references, brother...

You can see how Omar refers to "Muhammad" as a passive participle....not a proper name, and means literally 'praised one'.

You will find that the Holy Bible also refers to Jesus Christ as 'The Praised One'.

Could your beloved "Muhammad" actually be the Biblical Jesus Christ....?

 

[alhamdullilah]

Nice to see that you are starting to refer to our references, brother...

You can see how Omar refers to "Muhammad" as a passive participle....not a proper name, and means literally 'praised one'.

You will find that the Holy Bible also refers to Jesus Christ as 'The Praised One'.

Could your beloved "Muhammad" actually be the Biblical Jesus Christ....?

nope