i believe Quran and Bible

Ceo3 wrote: Dear 2Acts, Thank you for the information. I agree that Jesus AS arrival was prophesized, at the same time Ive found Muhammad SAW also mentioned. My source for this comment is from Dr Z Naik relating King James Version.        It is mentioned in the book of Isaiah chapter 29 verse 12: "And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned." When Archangel Gabrail commanded Muhammad (pbuh) by saying Iqra - "Read", he replied, "I am not learned".       Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is mentioned by name in the Song of Solomon chapter 5 verse 16: "Hikko Mamittakim we kullo Muhammadim Zehdoodeh wa Zehraee Bayna Jerusalem." "His mouth is most sweet: yea, he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem." In the Hebrew language im is added for respect. Similarely im is added after the name of Prophet Muhammad       (pbuh) to make it Muhammadim. In English translation they have even translated the name of Prophet Muhammad     (pbuh) as "altogether lovely", but in the Old Testament in Hebrew, the name of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is yet      present.       "Nevertheless I tell you the truth; it is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you". "Ahmed" or "Muhammad" meaning "the one who praises" or "the praised one" is almost the translation of the Greek word Periclytos. In the Gospel of John 14:16, 15:26, and 16:7. The word 'Comforter' is used in the English      translation for the Greek word Paracletos which means advocate or a kind friend rather than a comforter.    Paracletos is the warped reading for Periclytos. Jesus (pbuh) actually prophesised Ahmed by name. Even the Greek word Paraclete refers to the Prophet (pbuh) who is a mercy for all creatures. Some Christians say that the Comforter mentioned in these prophecies refers to the Holy Sprit. They fail to realise that the prophecy clearly says that only if Jesus (pbuh) departs will the Comforter come. The Bible states that the Holy Spirit was already present on earth before and during the time of Jesus (pbuh), in the womb of Elizabeth, and    again when Jesus (pbuh) was being baptised, etc. Hence this prophecy refers to none other than Prophet      Muhammad (pbuh). Your input on these Biblical verses would be appreciated. Regards.

Hello Ceo
Lets seek to do careful exegesis (taking out of the Scriptures what is there), rather than eisegesis (forcing into them something that is not there) which Muslim scholars are guilty of.
Isaiah chapter 29 verse 12 reads -

For you this whole vision is nothing but words sealed in a scroll. And if you give the scroll to someone who can read, and say, �Read this, please,� they will answer, �I can�t; it is sealed.�
Or if you give the scroll to someone who cannot read, and say, �Read this, please,� they will answer, �I don�t know how to read.�

This is obviously not about Mohamad because the scroll in question is a judgment on Israel. It has nothing to do with Mohammed or the Arabs. The point of the passage is that when God gives his teaching to Israel through Isaiah the people will not want to listen to it.
The only thing which even extremely remotely can be misapplied to Mohammed is the fact that a person who does not read is mentioned. The problem with this is that almost no one in the ancient world read. The idea that this is a reference to a specific person who lived 1300 years later is truly outrageous unless someone can show the context refers to something specifically about Muhammed.   
Also the Quran mentions the angel Gabriel. There is no indication whatsoever that Gabriel has anything to do with the Isaiah prophecy. His name is not mentioned.
I see nothing at all in this passage which is similar to Mohammed, other than the fact that it mentions an illiterate person, which would describe the vast majority of all people who ever lived before recent times.
In conclusion, the only way anyone could find Mohammed in Isaiah 29:12 is if they are scanning the Old Testament to find passages, no matter how far out of context, that they can say are about Mohammed. I believe we could do this with any figure from ancient history if we want to play games with the Bible.

Regarding Song of Soloman 5.16 the word in discussion is Machmad ( מַחְמָד ).makh-mawd'; delightful; hence, a delight, i.e. object of affection or desire:�beloved, desire, goodly, lovely, pleasant (thing). Song of Solomon is a short poetic book about a loving, physical relationship between Solomon and his bride. There are a variety of interpretations but none will help turn this into a prophecy about Muhammad.
Muslims believe in sexual purity and non alcohol do they not ? But in this verse Solomon continues praising her body and in the first verse of the chapter Solomon talks about drinking wine...

His mouth is sweetness itself; he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, this is my friend, daughters of Jerusalem.

This last verse, according to some Muslim scholars is somehow about Muhammad. Why should we interpret this verse as a prophecy about Muhammad? Muslims reason that, since the Hebrew for "altogether lovely" is machmadim, and machmadim sounds somewhat similar to the name "Muhammad," the verse is actually referring to Muhammad by name. Zakir Naik claims that the suffix -im is "added for respect" in Hebrew, but this is sheer nonsense. The suffix -im is added to form the plural, which may be a plural of intensity, i.e., "altogether."
So Song of Solomon 5:16 should be translated: �His mouth is sweetness itself; he is Muhammad. This is my beloved, this is my friend, daughters of Jerusalem.�
The bride is praising a man's body. This makes perfect sense if she's talking about her husband. But if Muslim scholars insist that she's talking about Muhammad, they're accusing Solomon's bride of lusting after another man (Muhammad) in a vision given to her by God. If 5:16 is about Muhammad, then Solomon's wife calls Muhammad her "beloved." But in chapter 7, verse 10, she says, "I belong to my beloved, and his desire is for me." Since Muhammad is her beloved she declares in 7:10 that she belongs to Muhammad and that Muhammad desires her. So how did Solomon's bride belong to Muhammad? And why would Muhammad desire a woman who had been dead for more than fifteen centuries?
Either Song of Solomon is an immoral story about a time-traveling adulterous love affair between Solomon's bride and Muhammad, or the book simply has nothing to do with Muhammad.
Also the word machmad is used in many places in the Old Testament. It refers to something pleasing, treasured, or lovely. So if machmad is actually Muhammad's name, we need to be consistent and say that wherever the word machmad is used, it's referring to Muhammad. Let's consider two passages that use the word machmad and see what happens if we translate the word as "Muhammad."
In Ezekiel 24:16, Ezekiel's wife is called "machmad," because she's treasured by Ezekiel. So if machmad means "Muhammad," Muhammad must have been Ezekiel's wife! Is that what any Muslim believes? Of course not. So why do Muslims keep telling us that machmad means "Muhammad"?
Just five verses later in Ezekiel, God tells the children of Israel that Jerusalem will be conquered and that the temple will be destroyed. He says, "I am about to desecrate my sanctuary�the stronghold in which you take pride, the delight of your eyes" (Ezekiel 24:21). The word "delight" here is machmad. So if machmad is the name "Muhammad," God is promising to desecrate Muhammad! Is that what Shabir Ally and Zakir Naik want us to believe God is saying? (For further uses of machmad, see 1 Kings 20:6; 2 Chronicles 36:19; Lamentations 1:10-11; 2:4; Isaiah 64:11; Ezekiel 24:25; Hosea 9:6; and Joel 3:5.)
This is what happens when Muslim scholars try to force Muhammad into the Bible. They go to a passage in which Solomon's bride is praising her husband's body, and they expect us to believe that she's actually having adulterous thoughts about a future prophet. Shabir Ally and Zakir Naik take a perfectly normal Hebrew word and try to transform it into a prophecy of Muhammad, but in doing so they end up claiming that Muhammad was Ezekiel's wife and that God promises to desecrate him!

In regards to �Periclytos�let's again seek to do careful exegesis (taking out of the Scriptures what is there), rather than eisegesis (forcing into them something that is not there) which Muslim scholars are guilty of.
John 14.16 is clear it is the word - par�klētos, par-ak'-lay-tos; (παράκλητος ) an intercessor, consoler:�advocate, comforter , that is used. This is obvious for the following reasons if you read the verse. It reads -
And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you FOREVER �
So John 14:16 says the Comforter will be with these disciples FOREVER. The Lord Jesus Christ promised that the Comforter would be with these disciples forever. Muhammad could not be the Comforter because he wasn't born until over 500 years later � well after the deaths of these disciples. Muhammad was born around 570 AD and died around 632 AD. He has not been there forever.
John 16:14 says - "He will bring glory to Me by taking from what is Mine and making it known to YOU. All that belongs to the Father is Mine. That is why I said the Spirit (NOT A HUMAN) will take from what is Mine and make it known to YOU."
The Comforter will take from Jesus and make it known to the disciples. Muhammad never knew the Lord Jesus Christ and never took from Him and made it known to his disciples.
To fulfil exactly what Jesus foretold concerning the Comforter and His relationship with the disciples, the New Testament records the fulfilment of the coming of the Holy Spirit and the disciples receiving Him. The disciples received the Comforter - the Holy Spirit, on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2:3, 4. The Comforter was now �in� the disciples and He remained �in� them from then on and taught them � just as Jesus had said He would. The early Christians knew this. They did not expect another human being to come. To illustrate this see in 1 John 4:6, the terms "the spirit of truth" and "the spirit of error" are used for human beings. Does this imply that the Comforter, the Spirit of Truth, be a human? No. This verse is not referring to human beings. Humans are humans, spirits are spirits.
Finally Mohamad was not a comforter. He was not even a �mercy to all creatures�. Muhammad murdered people, massacred people, allowed his men to torture people, allowed female slaves to be raped, sent his men out to kill, steal, and enslave. Nothing comforting there ! not a �mercy to all creatures�!

Yes the Holy Spirit was already present before Jesus but not in the nature of power that he was to come later as described above in Acts 2. So there is no contradiction here.

Regards to you Ceo
I hope this has been helpful.
Peace

Ceo3 wrote: Dear 2Acts, Many thanks for the extensive reply. As a newbie to this specific topic on inter faith dialogue appreciate getting Christian persfective especially wrt the translation of ancient Biblical text. May I just ask that you reconsider your wording when mentioning Muhammad SAW(last paragraph). Muslims are forbiden to speak ill of any Prophet AS (if they do they not considered muslim) and we hold Jesus AS and His Disciples in the highest esteem. Take care and Kind regards..

Thankyou Ceo for your reply.
Yes inter faith dialogue can be challenging and interesting.I am not out to cause offence. However facts and truth are important. Any figure in history � prophet or not needs to be assessed by their lives. Everything I said about Mohamad was fact. He killed with the sword. He let his men take women slaves. He allowed his men to torture his enemies. These are facts.
Again I do not want to cause offence. But truth is necessary.

Kind regards.

@CEO
As told, I was very busy over the last weeks....

May I just ask that you reconsider your wording when mentioning Muhammad SAW(last paragraph). Muslims are forbiden to speak ill of any Prophet AS (if they do they not considered muslim) and we hold Jesus AS and His Disciples in the highest esteem.

Sure, but Christians do not consider Mohamed as a prophet.
In essence they look at him pretty much as 2Acts described him.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's go in response to your post:
------------------------------------------------------------------------

You haven�t answered re: reading Quran cover to cover? It is lengthy and while not a pre-requisite, critically examining the Quran in totality, perhaps your view regarding this discussion point will be altered.

I read about a third, when I started to realize that I was wasting my time. Honestly I never saw anything more boring and self repeating than that, absolutely no useful info, more of a diary, only threats, and and the clear will of the author to leave no freedom (of thinking) whatsoever to the people. I browsed through the other two thirds, no sign of improvements. For me it is clear that this book was a way to impose absolute power (of Mohamed).
Sorry....
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abrogation

If I understand your comment correctly you do not object to the fact that Mohamed changed (you'd say 'improved') the Quran.
So it wasn't perfect before, no ?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Preservation of the Quran ---------- Afzal Sumar is a Shiite scholar; it�s like me providing David Cameron to write an article on Brexit. Please if you could provide from Sunni source then we discuss further.

Do you seriously try to tell me that shiites can't read ? What I told you is not a matter of interpretation, it's factual. You can also consult the Wiki to see a list of changes.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Protection of Quran and not Bible

I truly do not understand your answer to my question "Why did God protect the Quran and not the Bible". Can you try to rephrase it ?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ON:

�how God can exist with human free will"

I don't feel as your Quran citation is an adequate answer.
May be I should rephrase my point to make it clear: One one side you claim that we have free will. So we are free to choose in a non deterministic way - otherwise we'd be puppets.
At the same time you claim God knows everything. This implies that from Gods perspective everything is deterministic, in conflict with above statement.
Thirdly: According to you God is almighty. So ultimately he must have created everything including us, even if the path of creation he has chosen is not retraceable for us.
As a consequence he created me as an unbeliever, knowing from even before my birth that he would [find great pleasure to] roast me in hell once I'm dead.
Does this really sound logical to you ?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Micheal Heart

So we agree, his statement about Mohamed isn't worth a penny.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When he went back to Makkah and conquered Makkah from people who tortured and killed his own family he forgave them all and not a drop of bloodshed. Surely if he was bloodthirsty they would have been the people to destroy (Am a bit short on non-Muslim sources on this event, hopefully your sources concur). Others did far less and were awarded Nobel Peace Prize.

Godness me, the Quraysh were his own tribe, that's why!
If you want to see his other face just look what happened to the Banu Qurayza.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes the punishment seems severe///�just do the exercise�///, but looks at his actions (point above); if he was a hard person he would not have been as successful.

Good ideas win without killing. Einstein didn't go around to kill his opponents in order to impose his ideas, nor did Galilei nor Kopernikus.
Obviously his ideas were not overwhelming enough by themselves.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Treason ------------- SOURCE: Lings, M: Muhammad; his life based on the earliest sources pg 233. This I believe was before Lings reverted. Some 900 men were convicted of treason and executed, woman and children spared. Interesting to note it was a Jew chief who gave to order in accordance with Jewish Tradition. Ito relying on different sources, history is word of the powerful.

No, Lings wrote that book after he converted.
I see you argument of "Jewish Tradition" and I would also accept that this kind of treatment was common practice at the time.

This implies however that -at least in this respect- Mohamed was nothing else than a typical warlord of his time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for the openness. With you being a man of science I find this intriguing, may I enquire as to what led to this conclusion \\\�possibility of another reality\\\�? This other reality we call the unseen.

Not so fast. I accepted the possibility of "other realities" on the basis of the limited knowledge that I/we have. This does however not imply that I accept ideas like 7 heavens, Angels -or worse- "Jinns" without the slightest evidence.
------------------------------------ --------------------------------------

Evolution

You can't have both: If you think that Evolution Theory (ET) is real, Adam (as described) never existed, no other (reasonable) explanation possible.
If you deny ET you must really come up with very good alternative explanations to "overrule" the ten-thousands of observations which have been made in favour of ET

The same applies to Noah, there has never been a flood as described in the Quran/Bible, nor would a stone age man be able to build such a ship.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eternal Questions I can�t with the naked eye see gravity or air, but it exists otherwise id be dead and floating. I can�t see God but I have hope he will ensure ultimate justice.

That's ok, I do not hold the ultimate truth either. We can prove the presence of air and gravity but not the existence of God. Using the word 'hope' as you do, is a good starting point since it implies the absence of knowledge/proof for his existence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Similar a man who rapes and kills innocent children is sent away for life. Where is the justice even if he lives out his life in prison to the aggrieved? So God is the Great equaliser.

If so, he does a very bad job.
Either he lets these things happen on purpose or he is not almighty.

I do not see a third alternative. Do you ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

� If I went to heaven and my kids to hell...� If you raised your kids well you will all go to heaven.

Obviously you're not really tackling my question here. Implicitly you accuse all parents who's children "run wild" of being automatically guilty. Is this your point ? If not - could you try again ?


Airmano

Edited by airmano - 09 March 2017 at 1:58pm

Ceo3 wrote: Appreciate the respect you show in dialogue. Yes freedom of speech, I do however believe people of faith should guide one another as to terms of effective conversation. The 'truth' you speak of is debatable. As we know there is always a bias in all history books depending on perspective. Also note some Jews at the time of Jesus AS and even today speak ill of Jesus AS and His Beloved mother Mary AS and consider that the 'truth'. As for muslims, he is not of us if he speaks bad of any Prophet and as said we hold Jesus AS and Mary AS with the greatest of honor. Indeed AS after There names is abbreviation for Alahisalaams, means peace upon Them ie: a honor for all great servants of God invoking His peace and blessings upon them. We further believe we get rewarded for honoring the Great servants of God. Peace and regards,

Hello Ceo.

I agree for the need for effective conversation. But that should not mean ignoring the facts.

No Ceo the history is not debatable. It is well documented in Muslim sources in the Quran and Sahih hadith. You find historical factual evidence of Mohamad
supporting his men to take women slaves and allowing his men to torture his enemies in Sahih Bukhari 3. 432 and the Quran 70.22-30.

Yes. It may be the case that Jews speak ill of Jesus and Mary but I have no problem in them expressing their point of view. In fact I welcome it and the discussion it may bring.

There is a difference between wanting to cause offence and be honest with the facts. It is this fear of discussion that holds the Muslim world from developing. In many ways Islam is still in the Medieval era because it cannot embrace freedom of thought and speech. Islam is too quick to brand any new thinking as blasphemy or apostasy. This is what keeps Islam back.

Peace and regards to you to Ceo.


Edited by 2Acts - 17 March 2017 at 4:26pm