Talks on Islam: Is Muhammad mentioned in the Bible

Posted: June 29, 2011 in Islam
Tags: , , , , ,

This verse has come up numerous times in discussion by Moslems who really believe Muhammad gets a mention in the Bible. They are adamant that if you look up the original language the word Muhammad is there in the Bible.

 Now here is the verse in question:

Sgs 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
.

Now I know you will probably be scratching your head and thinking WHERE!!!

Please bare with me here and we will see where this word MUHAMMAD is.

They will tell you it is from the word “altogether lovely” (Strongs 4261).  IS IT !!!!!

Now is this really the word Muhammad in Hebrew?  Let’s look at the Hebrew in question.  Now remember that this is what Moslems are being taught by their notable teachers.

Altogether lovely” in the Hebrew is the word machmad which is pronounced as makh·mäd’

Now other than the fact the both Muhammad and Machmad start with the letter m and finishes with d there is absolutely no similarity.  Plus the word Machmad means 1) desire, desirable thing, pleasant thing.  It has been translated AV — pleasant thing 4 , pleasant 3, desire 3, goodly 1, lovely once  1, beloved  .1

Now if even for the sake of debate we tried to change that word “Machmad”  to “Muhammad” simple exegesis would therefore require that we should change every instance of the use of this word throughout the  Old Testament.
Let’s do this and we will see what results we come up with
.

Lam 1:11 All her people sigh , they seek bread; they have given their pleasant things (4261) for meat to relieve the soul: see , O LORD, and consider ; for I am become vile .

Same word is used 4261. replace the word for Muhammad and what do we get.

Lam 1:11 All her people sigh , they seek bread; they have given their Muhammad (4261) for meat to relieve the soul: see , O LORD, and consider ; for I am become vile.

 Now according to this Muhammad should be given for food!!!  How can you eat someone before he was ever born, and I don’t think there is much of him now to eat?  YUCH!!!!

 

Ezekiel 24 : 16 Son of man, behold, I take away from thee the desire (4261) of thine eyes with a stroke: yet neither shalt thou mourn nor weep , neither shall thy tears run down .

Same word  is used 4261.  Lets replace that word again for Muhammad and lets see what we read.

Ezekiel 24 : 16 Son of man, behold, I take away from thee the Muhammad (4261) of thine eyes with a stroke: yet neither shalt thou mourn nor weep , neither shall thy tears run down .

Now according to this we are now to take away Muhammad of thine eyes.  Not only does this make nonsense of the verse in question.  But it would suggest that we get rid of Muhammad for some reason.  It is only as we translate the word correctly that sense is made of the verse.

 One more :

 Hosea 9: 16 Ephraim is smitten , their root is dried up , they shall bear no fruit: yea, though they bring forth , yet will I slay [even] the beloved ( 4261) [fruit] of their womb.

 Lets change the word again for Muhammad.

 Hosea 9: 16 Ephraim is smitten , their root is dried up , they shall bear no fruit: yea, though they bring forth , yet will
I slay [even] the Muhammad  ( 4261)
[fruit] of their womb

 This would suggest that we should slay Muhammad.  But again the sentence ceases to make any sense if we try and replace Machmad with Muhammad.   Now please remember Moslem teachers are actually teaching their followers this.  Now what makes all this even more foolish is that on the one hand they will reject the Bible because they believe that the Jews messed with it, and as you can see they will try and use it to prove what is a lie on the other hand.

 As one Moslems has stated his case:

bible is corrupted…nd it may contain some of d original text…but u ppl hav corrupted nd changed it….we never say its lie….”

 LET’S TAKE A BRIEF LOOK AT THIS FOR A MOMENT.  THEY WOULD HAVE US BELIEVE THE BIBLE IS A
LIE, AND IF SO WHY DO THEY USE A LIE TO PROVE SOMETHING THAT IS NOT EVEN TRUE?

 Now human nature dictates that if I write a book about myself I am going to make sure that it gives a very good impression of myself.  The Bible does not give a good impression of the Jews. That’s why it can be trusted.  It tells me the truth about us.  Man is a sinful rebellious creature who needs saving from himself.

 Now you will realise that if it is only taking me a few minutes looking up the word to disprove their theory, then why do their scholars perpetuate such a preposterous lie?   There can be NO doubt that they are so deceived and so desperate that they will cling to any shred of a lie, no matter how wild and outlandish it is.
 

When they are faced with the obvious evidence they will either not answer or change the subject.

 2 Th 2: 11-12  And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

 Dear Moslems if you have any desire for the truth abandoned Islam as fast as you can.

 1 John 2: 21 I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no
lie is of the truth.

 

Advertisements
Comments
  1. Some Moslems would have us believe that machmad is an abrieviated form of Muhammad. However this again does not work. Plus there is still no evidence to suggest that the verses in question are even refering to a person at all. As Muhammad is a personal name and Machmad is a Noun. Even googling the Hebrew names through Google translator still produces the same results as posted. There is absolutly no evidence that Muhammad.s name was ever abrieviated.

    Abreviating a persons name today might seem cool , but it unlikley to have happen centuries ago.

    One foolish Molsem which I debated with tried to suugest that Muhammads name actually meant pleasant thing Until I showed him what the name meant. Again they are two different meanings. Here is what Yahoo had to say on this question

    “The name Muhammad is the transliteration of a Arabic name that comes from the Arabic passive participle from the Triconsonantal root of H-M-D (“praise”), meaning “the praised one”.

    DOES “PRAISE ONE ” MEAN THE SAME AS pleasant thing 4 , pleasant 3, desire 3, goodly 1, lovely once 1, beloved .1 When we try and place these terms into the various verses in the Bible they still dont make sense. Lam 1: 11 Would still give us major issue concerning what is being eaten.

  2. 2Ch 36:19 And they burnt the house of God, and brake down the wall of Jerusalem, and burnt all the palaces thereof with fire, and destroyed all the goodly (4261) vessels thereof. THIS MAKES SENSE!!!

    Again if Machmad was an example of Muhammad then we should be able to exchange the word Machmad 4261 with muhammad.

    Now lets see what we get?

    2Ch 36:19 And they burnt the house of God, and brake down the wall of Jerusalem, and burnt all the palaces thereof with fire, and destroyed all the muhammad vessels thereof.

    THIS MAKES NO SENSE!!!

    Muhammad was not even born when this happened so how can we burn which was not his to start with, Plus the reference is talking about Jerusalem. So we have a Name which is out of historical context. About a man who was not even thought of and a religion that did not even exist.

    Isa 64:11 Our holy and our beautiful house, where our fathers praised thee, is burned up with fire: and all our pleasant things (4261) are laid waste.

    THIS MAKES PERFECT SENSE BECAUSE IT IS TALKING ABOUT THINGS!

    Now lets change the word for Muhammad.

    Isa 64:11 Our holy and our beautiful house, where our fathers praised thee, is burned up with fire: and all our Muhammad are laid waste. THIS MAKES NO SENSE DOES IT!!!

    Suddenly we would have a verse refering to plural “our” muhammad are laid waste. Again this would be out of historical context. He was never born, never mind that again it is speaking of Jerusalem. The verse is refering to something rather than some one.

  3. Hsa 9:16 Ephraim is smitten , their root is dried up , they shall bear no fruit: yea, though they bring forth , yet will I slay [even] the beloved (4261) [fruit] of their womb.
    THIS MAKES SENSE!!

    Here is another verse to compare with. Again let us change the word.

    Hsa 9:16 Ephraim is smitten , their root is dried up , they shall bear no fruit: yea, though they bring forth , yet will I slay [even] the muhammad [fruit] of their womb.

    DOES THIS MAKE SENSE?

    So we have a reference to muhammad having a womb. note it says THEIR WOMB. WOULD THIS MEAN THAT MUHAMMAD WAS A WOMAN??????

    Again this is taken out of historical and cutural context as it is speaking about “EPHRAIM”

  4. מחמד الحيوانات الأليفة Machmad 1. charm
    2. grace
    3. delight
    4. loveliness
    5. desire
    מוחמד محمد Muhammad Personal name meaning of Muhammad is “praiseworthy”.

    As you can see both words have been given in both the Hebrew and Arab. They are not the same words.

  5. One Moslem who tried to get around the obvious contradictions had this to say.

    “we have been over this before. IN English you can have it as Mahad, mahod…but in Hebrew Alphabet it is Mahamad like you sa it in the video. Rememebr Hebrew had no Vouls when it was wriiten.Even if it is spellet this way what would you say about Jesus and Isous or Yashua , even your name james from Locamus!

    One munite he is saying that the christians have changed the word in question, which means its not there, and the next he is saying that Hebrew has NO VOWELS. In reality Hebrew does. The vowels are the dots and dashes you see above hebrew words. They are so desperete to put Muhammad into the Bible that they will lie steal and do whatever is neccecery.

    Another Christian on the same thread added this to the conversation.
    …………………………………………………………………………………………………..
    Does Song of Songs mention Muhammad’s name?

    Muhammad’s Claim: Those who follow the Apostle, the unlettered Prophet, Whom they find mentioned in their own Scriptures, in the Torah and the Gospel… (Holy Qur’an: VII – 157; Translation: Yusif Ali)
    1. Song of Solomon is NOT in the Torah (Torah also known as the Pentateuch refers to the Five Books in the Bible written by Moses these books are Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy)
    2. Song of Solomon is NOT in the Gospels. (The Gospels are the first 4 books of the New Testament; these books are Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John)

    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.
    But we find that the word in Hebrew is a common, and not a proper noun (i.e. not a name), as the use of the plural here shows.
    The same word occurs again as a common noun in Hosea 9:6,16; 1 Kings 20:6; Lamentations 1:10,11; 2:4; Isaiah 64:10; 2 Chronicles 36:19; Ezekiel 24:16,21,25. In the last passage (Ezekiel 24:16, “the desire of thine eyes”) it is applied to a woman, Ezekiel’s wife (compare verse 18), and to the sons and daughters of the idolatrous Jews (verse 25). It would be just as wise to apply the word to Muhammad HERE as in the Song of Songs.

    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.

    A newsgroup article in regard to that:

    Song of Songs 5:16 shyr hshyrym 5,16

    his mouth is sweets …. Hkw mmtqym
    and all of him is delights…. wklw mHmdym
    this is my love …. zh dwdy
    and this is my darling …. wzh r`y
    daughters of Jerusalem …. bnwt yrwshlm

    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.

    Because Arabic and Hebrew share a cognate word [Hmd], there are of
    course several other similar occurrences in the Hebrew scriptures.

    The New Bantam-Megiddo Hebrew & English Dictionary lists…

    Hmd (yHmwd) p covet, …. lust after
    Hmd z …. delight, loviness
    Hmdh n …. desire, object of desire
    Hmdnwt …. covetousness, lustfulness

    It is also interesting to note: Many Muslims are “outraged” that something like the Song of Songs by Solomon which is a love song and sometimes very open in its erotic language could be part of the Word of God, the Bible. But then, they completely “forget” this argument and try to find in the middle of this very same love poem expressing this woman’s desire for her lover the name of Muhammad and are not the least embarrassed by this. Have a look at the whole context of Song of Songs 5-6. The argument goes: This should not be in the Bible, such erotic language is unworthy of the Word of God, but it is a prophecy of Muhammad nevertheless.

    A further problem is that even though Muslims need to find Muhammad mentioned because the Qur’an claims so, the Song of Songs is neither part of the Torah nor the Gospel, so that this verse wouldn’t help at all to satisfy this demand of the Qur’an even if it were to speak about Muhammad.

  6. UC Ministries: This has been one of the most interesting debates I have had in some time. A Moslems decided that maybe this arguement would help him. So he writes:
    …………………………………………………………………
    “Hebrew is an ancient language, and there were no vowels. It is made up of 22 consonants. In ancient times, the reader decided on his own which vowels to add in. It was not until the 8th century that vowels were introduced, in the form of dots and lines…..your friends would be rolling their eyes now with embaressment at your claim”
    …………………………………………………………………….
    A quick check on the internet gave me this :

    ” Hebrew is written with 22 letters. Of these 22, 4 were originally vowel/consonants such as our “Y” which can be a consonant as in “Yellow” or a vowel, as in “Fly.” The aleph, hey, vav (archaically waw) and yud were these vowel/consonants but, not all words had these “vowels” and the vowel sounds were often “understood” and remembered by memory. Around 700 CE (AD) the Masorites, wanting to standardize Hebrew pronunciation, added dots and dashes (called nikkudot or nikkud in the singular) above and below the consonants to form vowels. Also at this time all 22 letters became consonants alone and no longer stood for vowels. The nikkudot are only used in Modern Hebrew for beginning Hebrew grammar books, Bibles, Sidduriym (prayer books) and obscure words where the pronuciation is probably not known by most readers. Magazines, books, newspapers, signs, etc. will not use the nikkudot as the words can be recognized by their consonants only. You can see how easy it is for one fluent in the language by looking at the following sentence in English without the vowels.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,”

    SO AGAIN HEBREW DID INDEED HAVE VOWELS

    But even for the sake of debate even if we were to take out the vowels would that change the context in question? NO IT WOULD NOT.!!!

    I also reposted with this comment:

    “Song of solomon was not a prophetic book. It was a love song between two people. That is all it was. just like Romeo and Juliet, written by William Shakespeare. Now just as they are in the middle of sharing their feelings one of them starts talking about president Obama. This would be out of historical context, and out of context of the book as well as the verses in question. and it would have looked really really stupid.”

    “Another problem with finding a name where it does not exist is which muhammad is it talking about. Have you seen how many Muhammad’s there are…..hundreds. thats like putting Smith, Jones John , or Paul in that verse. But what Paul, what Smith, or even what John. So again the context, historically, scripturally and language of the SONG says it does not work.”

    Finally let us remind ourselves of the verse in question.

    Sgs 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.

    The context does not say future. He is certainly not pointing to a future person , but someone who was there at that point in time. It says “This “IS” my beloved”. Present tense. “This “IS” my friend.” It almost as if the writers are calling the daughters of Jerusalem to witness this relationship.

    So the actual “BELOVED” WAS PRESENT ”
    Sgs 5:6 I opened to my beloved; but my beloved had withdrawn himself, [and] was gone: my soul failed when he spake: I sought him, but I could not find him; I called him, but he gave me no answer.

    WE ARE EVEN GIVEN A DESCRIPTION OF WHAT HE LOOKED LIKE FROM SONG OF SOLOMON 5: 8-

    Sgs 5:8 I charge you, O daughters of Jerusalem, if ye find my beloved, that ye tell him, that I [am] sick of love.

    Sgs 5:9-12 ” What [is] thy beloved more than [another] beloved, O thou fairest among women? what [is] thy beloved more than [another] beloved, that thou dost so charge us? My beloved [is] white and ruddy, the chiefest among ten thousand. His head [is as] the most fine gold, his locks [are] bushy, [and] black as a raven. His eyes [are] as [the eyes] of doves by the rivers of waters, washed with milk, [and] fitly set…..”

    SO HOW CAN WE HAVE A SONG ABOUT TWO LOVERS, WHO ARE MADLY IN LOVE AND THEN WE ARE GIVEN A NAME OF SOMEONE WHO IS NOT EVEN BORN AT THAT TIME.

    The women then askes ” charge you daughters of Jerusalem , if ye find my beloved” Well that would be a a very hard problem to solve if he was not to be born for another thousand years or so would it? NO it was written and presented about two people who knew each other at that time.

  7. . Sura 7:157 Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered prophet, whom they find written in what they have of the Torah and the Gospel, who enjoins upon them what is right and forbids them what is wrong and makes lawful for them the good things and prohibits for them the evil and relieves them of their burden and the shackles which were upon them. So they who have believed in him, honored him, supported him and followed the light which was sent down with him – it is those who will be the successful.

    This the verse moslems will say that proves that Muhammed is mentioned in the Song of Songs. Except Song of Songs is not in the Torah or the gospels. So Muhammad it appears go it well and trully wrong.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s