Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) in the Bible

Sawtul - I know that muslims are constantly trying to find mention of Muhammad in the Bible, but this may be the most outlandish attempt I've come across.  The word in question is machmad, pronounced makh-mawd'.  Its meaning is given as:-

"delightful, hence a delight, that is, object of affection or desire:- beloved, desire, goodly, pleasant (thing)"

My information is that it occurs 13 times in the Old Testament, in these verses:-

Song of Songs 5: 16

1 Kings 20: 6

Lamentations 1: 10, 1: 11, 2: 4

2 Chronicles 36: 19

Ezekiel 24: 16, 24: 21, 24: 25

Hosea 9: 6, 9: 16

Joel 3: 5

Isaiah 64: 11

The word is usually translated as pleasant or goodly.  I wonder why you have not referred to these other scriptures to back up your claim.  After all, if Muhammad is mentioned by name 13 times in the Bible, this should be front page news, I think.  Is it perhaps because you know that your claim is without foundation?

There is something else.  Makh-mawd' is basically an adjective, meaning delightful, goodly, pleasant. (Now I know that adjectives can sometimes be used as nouns, as in the famous film The good, the bad and the ugly, but it is an adjective).  The name Muhammad, on the other hand is a noun, or rather a noun phrase which means (so muslims have assured me) the praised One.  So it is a different meaning, and a different part of speech to makh-mawd'

Sawtul - you may have missed my point.  The word occurs 13 times in the Old Testament.  One of these instances is in Hosea 9: 16.  It reads like this:-

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 (fruit) of their womb

Now if this word is, in fact, the name Muhammad, then the verse would read like this:-

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 of their womb

I hope you can see that this poses a serious problem for your theory.  The fact is, the word is not the name Muhammad, but merely a Hebrew word which has the meanings I outlined.  If you look at the other verses I listed, still believing that this is Muhammad, you will find his name popping up in all sorts of surprising contexts.

You point to the physical descriptions in the Song.  Well I cant see the relevance at all.  Bear in mind that the Song is basically a story about two people in love.  Of course they will describe themselves as beautifully as they can

"Names have meaning, but that doesnt mean that just because they are sometimes used for their meaning then they were never used as names."

So how come you conclude, then, that makh-mawd is Muhammad?  Is it the physical descriptions?  You have nothing else to go on, it would seem.  Let's look at these descriptions, which you claim fit Muhammad exactly.

They don't, of course.  They don't match up at all.  For instance, 5: 10 mentions "white and ruddy".  This is not white as in European white, but fair-skinned.  There is nothing exceptional about fair-skinned Middle-Eastern people contrary to what you say.  "Chiefest among 10 000" - here the woman is simply saying that her beloved is the most handsome and the best, hardly a literal 10 000.

There is likewise nothing exceptional for an Middle-Eastern person to have black hair.  You give quotations claiming that Muhammad's hair did not go white later in life - but it does not say this about the man in the Song of songs....

5: 11 says "his head is as the most fine gold.." - just what does this have to do with having a large head? (which you say Muhammad had)

5: 12 - were his eyes black, or reddish (or both)?

5: 13 refers to the cheeks and the lips of the beloved.  But the islamic quotations you give refer to neither the cheeks nor the lips of Muhammad

5: 14 - "hands as gold rings set with the beryl" - what has this got to do with the "big, soft" hands of Muhammad you gave references for?

It seems to me that whoever is being talked about, it cannot be Muhammad, going by your own quotations.

Incidentally, I would be most interested to know exactly who it is who says that the person being described in these verses is a woman.  It seems to me that you are muddying the waters unnecessarily here by introducing a red herring.  This is something else you will have to prove

One problem is that, contrary to the Qur'anic claim of Surah 61:6, there is no such statement mentioned by Jesus in the Gospels. To explain this, Muslims generally resort to their usual charge that the Bible has been corrupted. In other words, they claim, among other things, that Jews and Christians removed prophecies of Mohammad from their Scriptures. However, while textual criticism of both Testaments has rendered this claim to be absurd, Mohammad confirmed the integrity of the Bible that existed in his day. Today's Bible is based on manuscripts that predate Mohammad by centuries. Furthermore, we know that the Christians that lived in areas surrounding Arabia were using the same Bible in which we do today. The canons may have differed in minor degrees across the various groups, but each group accepted the same essential books, including the four Gospels.

Some Muslim apologists have suggested that "Holy Spirit"(which is synonymous with "Holy Ghost" and is what we find in the earliest manuscripts) was not in the original text because the Codex Syriacus, a 4th century manuscript of the New Testament translated into the Syrian language, only contains the word "Spirit" rather than "Holy Spirit." However, all of the earlier New Testament manuscripts, including the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, which are still in the original Greek, render "Holy Spirit" in the text rather than just "Spirit." Therefore, by the standards of textual criticism, it would be absurd to allow one later Syrian translation to usurp the testimony of several earlier(and at least a couple of MUCH earlier(2nd century)) manuscripts, some of which are in the original Greek. Plus, as we've shown, the word "spirit" would not lend much credence to the Muslim argument anyway since that word means simply "spirit."

One reason that Muslim apologists use this verse with such fervency is because the word for "Comforter" in Greek, "Paracletos," is very similar in spelling to "Periklytos." "Periklytos" is Greek for "praised one" which is what the name, "Ahmed"(another name for Mohammad) means[12]. Muslims allege that the original text contained the latter word rather than the former. However, this is unfounded speculation because ALL manuscripts of the New Testament that we have today use the former spelling. This, of course, includes the many manuscripts that predate Mohammad's ministry. Christians would obviously have no polemical reason to corrupt the original spelling before Islam and Mohammad existed. It is also sometimes claimed that vowels were not part of the original text(like in the Hebrew Old Testament) and because of this, incorrect vowels were added by later scribes and this is the reason why we find "Paracletos" in the manuscripts rather than "Periklytos." However, this assertion is incorrect as, in fact, the vowels WOULD be included in the original text of ancient Greek[13].

When performing proper exegeses of Scripture, it is imperative to consider all relevant verses. Muslim apologists typically will use verses that they think fits their agenda while ignoring other verses, even when the very next verse in the text provides the death knell to their position. In this case, it is important to consider ALL of the verses John records about the "Paraclete" when determining the latter's identity. Thus, all of these verses are provided below with certain parts of the text highlighted for further discussion.

"And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you forever. Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him: for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you."(John 14:16-17, )

"But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you."(John 14:26, )

"But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:"(John 15:26, )

"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. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: Of sin, because they believe not on me; Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged. I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself, but whatsoever he shall hear that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you."(John 16:7-14, )

Some observations from the verses presented are now in order.

1. Notice in John 14:16 that Jesus says that "another Comforter" will be given. Muslim apologists allege that this proves that the Comforter had to be human since Jesus was human and He considered Himself to be a Comforter. However, this could just as easily be interpreted to conclude that this proves that the Comforter had to be divine since Jesus claimed divinity(John 8:58, 17:5, 14:6-11, etc.).
2. Notice also in John 14:16 that the Comforter would abide with the disciples forever. Not only was Mohammad not born before almost 500 years after the last disciple had died, but Mohammad was on Earth for 62 years, not forever. Muslim apologists cite that Mohammad abides forever by his teachings. However, the text indicates that the Comforter Himself would abide forever and not just His teachings.
3. While John 14:16 is cited in support of the Muslim assertion, the next verse is often ignored. We see in John 14:17 that the world cannot see the Comforter. Since Mohammad was visible, this cannot refer to him.
4. For this observation, we will see how essential it is to display all relevant verses and avoid the use of proof-texting. One of the favorite Muslim assertions that the Comforter cannot refer to the Holy Spirit comes from the following phrase in John 16:7: "�.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." It is asserted that since the Holy Spirit was already with the disciples(He was with Jesus-see the baptism narratives(like Matthew 3:13-17)), the Comforter could not be the Holy Spirit since Jesus must go away to send the Comforter to them. However, this argument falls since the disciples had yet to receive the Holy Spirit, but did so 10 days after Jesus' ascension into heaven(see Acts 2). Plus, John 14:17 confirms that the Comforter *WAS* with the disciples already! In this verse, we see 3 qualifiers of the Comforter, none of which Mohammad possessed. A) The disciples knew the Comforter. The disciples obviously did not know Mohammad since it was more than a half a millennium later that Mohammad was born. B) The Comforter dwelled with the disciples. Again, this disqualifies Mohammad. C) Finally, the Comforter was to be *in* the disciples. We know that this means literally inside the disciples since the Comforter was already dwelling inside of Jesus. Mohammad, a physical being, obviously could not dwell inside of anyone.
5. It is claimed by at least one Muslim apologist that we are aware of that in John 14:26, the Comforter could not be the Holy Spirit since the verse says that "he will teach you all things." It is asserted that since the Holy Spirit did not teach anything new and Mohammad did that the latter is a better fit for this criterion. However, this assertion is simply false. There are many doctrines expounded by the New Testament writers that were not purported by Christ.

With Respect.