Gospel of John, chapter 16, verse 12-14

Tue Jul 12, 2011 1:27 pm » by **Fayaz**

antechrist wrote:
truthdefender wrote:
fayaz wrote:Brother this is ur quote in which u have clearly said that Muhammed pbuh is the substitute name mentioned in the koran for Jesus pbuh..
Do not beat around the bush. ask ur Q directly and be to the point directly and simply... you are talking too much but nt answering to my Q of song of solomon chapter 5 verse 16.
If u can tell me hu is the person mentioned in the above verse??? if u dare answer me...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Song of Songs 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."

Problem:
The underlined word is the Hebrew Machmaddim. Moslems claim that this word is a reference to Muhammad for two reasons,

The word Machmad (singular of Machmaddim) sounds a bit like the name Muhammad
The word Machmad means The praised one (i.e. the one worthy of praise); this, they assert, must be Muhammad!

Solution:

The logic of the assertion that the word Machmad is Muhammad because the two words sound a bit similar is somewhat specious. The name John sounds a bit like the Arabic Jinn, but there is no connection between the two. Similarly a connection on the grounds that the word means "the praised one" falls short of a guaranteed logical link; has only one person in the world ever been praised?

The context of the passage identifies the person described as Machmad as someone in the time of Solomon (Song 3:11) who is loved by a Shulamite (Song 6:13). He is red-haired (Song 5:10). None of these descriptions fits Muhammad who never visited Shunem in his life.

A search of all the occurrences of the word Machmad in the Bible shows that the word has nothing to do with praise. It simply refers to whatever is desirable for whatever reason and is derived from the root chamad which means desire.

If one is to accept that the word Machmad refers to Muhammad then one should look at all the occurrences of that word. When one does this one can see why only the occurrence in the Song of Solomon is cited by Moslems. The others tell one that Machmad was destroyed (2 Chron. 36:19), was to be laid waste (Isa. 64:10-11), has been taken captive by an enemy (Lam. 1:10), has been traded for food (Lam. 1:11), has been slain by God (Lam. 2:4; Hos. 9:16), has been removed by God (Ezek. 24:16), is to be profaned by God (Ezek. 24:21), is to be buried in nettles (Hos. 9:6) and been carried away by pagans into their temples (Joel 3:5). Even an unkind person would not attribute all these things to Muhammad. http://www.wrestedscriptures.com/a08islam/song5v16.html

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. http://www.answering-islam.org/BibleCom/songs5-16.html

Is Mohammed Mentioned in Song of Songs?
"He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a G-d of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he."
Deuteronomy 32:4 (KJV)

Claim: Mohammed Is Mentioned In Song of Songs

Another claim is made that in the book Song of Songs (Also called Song of Solomon), the coming of Mohammed is prophesied.

The verse in question (translation is the author's) is as follows:

Song of Songs 5:16 His mouth is most sweet; and he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem.

The assertion is that chapter 5 is a prophecy of a prophet yet to come. But, if we take a look at a transliteration of the Hebrew text we will see what the real principle of the matter is:

Chiku mamtakim v'khulo machamadim zeh dodi v'zeh re'i b'not yerushalayim.

If you look at the word "machamadim" we can start to see the issue. Mohammed is a name that comes from the Hebrew root of "lovely" or "cute" or "desirable" and as such, Muslims try to use the word "lovely" in each instance to refer to Mohammed. These Muslims are making it so we can't use our own language without it somehow being a prophecy.

But That's Not The Word!

The word used is machamadim, the plural form of machamad.

If we follow the Muslim way of translating this sentence, we would produce the following:

His mouth is most sweet; and he is altogether Mohammeds. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem.

It doesn't make any sense.

Conclusion

One who asserts that Mohammed is mentioned in the Song of Songs ignores the most simple reading of the text and has probably never even looked at the Hebrew of the text.
http://www.messiahtruth.com/songs.html
Excellent insights, truthdefender!

When I first read in the closing sura how the devil admits to writing the Holy Koran, it all came clear almost in an instant how so many people have misunderstood what I call some of the most powerful poetry ever written.

When I saw how that same misunderstanding leeched into such passages of the Holy Bible as devoted in this topic, it seemed like a plague out of control. I appreciate your work to set the records straight.

Song of Solomon Chapter 5 verse 16 in Hebrew should be read as
"Hikko Mamittakim we kullo Muhammadim Zehdoodeh wa Zehraee Bayna Jerusalem."
Do not give false information to people.

Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:41 pm » by **Spock**

fayaz wrote:
spock wrote:I never understood how Islam can accept Jesus as a prophet, then quote what he says concerning the Holy Spirit but say he is talking about Muhammad, yet reject everything else he said, concerning his entire mission on Earth, to be the sacrificial lamb and to fulfill the law.

Talk about inconsistencies.

If u read the bible Jesus pbuh was circumcised on the 8th day. All the Muslims are circumcised, but majority of the chrisitians are not circumcised.
If u read the bible in Leviticus, Isaiah it says u MUST NOT EAT PORK mulims do not have pork but majority of the chrisitians have pork.
IF u read the book of proverb it says U SHOULD NOT HAVE ALCOHOL most of the muslims do not have alcohol but majority of the chrisitians have alcohol.

If u say that the word CHRISITIAN means a person who follows Jesus pbuh then I am more christian than the christian themselves.

Actually, this statement alone shows you are completely uneducated on what it is to be a Christian.

Tue Jul 12, 2011 6:20 pm » by **Phaeton**

spock wrote:
fayaz wrote:
spock wrote:I never understood how Islam can accept Jesus as a prophet, then quote what he says concerning the Holy Spirit but say he is talking about Muhammad, yet reject everything else he said, concerning his entire mission on Earth, to be the sacrificial lamb and to fulfill the law.

Talk about inconsistencies.

If u read the bible Jesus pbuh was circumcised on the 8th day. All the Muslims are circumcised, but majority of the chrisitians are not circumcised.
If u read the bible in Leviticus, Isaiah it says u MUST NOT EAT PORK mulims do not have pork but majority of the chrisitians have pork.
IF u read the book of proverb it says U SHOULD NOT HAVE ALCOHOL most of the muslims do not have alcohol but majority of the chrisitians have alcohol.

If u say that the word CHRISITIAN means a person who follows Jesus pbuh then I am more christian than the christian themselves.

Actually, this statement alone shows you are completely uneducated on what it is to be a Christian.

Completely uneducated he says.. In contraduction to him, we should all nodoubt interpret. Can you not read sir? He said 'If u say..' The most you can blame him for is misunderstanding you. Arent you a lovable, rational individual. :vomit:

The arrogance.. the misguidedness...

Tue Jul 12, 2011 6:27 pm » by **Spock**

I would say that back at you Phaeton. And yes, by his post, that does show a lack of understanding of what it is to be a Christian. And if you side with it, it shows yours as well.

Tue Jul 12, 2011 6:31 pm » by **Phaeton**

spock wrote:I would say that back at you Phaeton. And yes, by his post, that does show a lack of understanding of what it is to be a Christian. And if you side with it, it shows yours as well.

Read my post again arrogant sir.

Tue Jul 12, 2011 6:35 pm » by **Phaeton**

And in all clarity; YOU are the one proposing to 'know', while you simply do not - proceeding to decree some other 'uneducated'. Bah.

Tue Jul 12, 2011 6:43 pm » by **Newdawnrising**

Beliefs in the same, differing by geological locations and languages. Even if all ancient writings were proven to be depictions of that time, it stilll shows just how very small we all are. Prophets are like the greatest Artists, only truly pondered after death.

Tue Jul 12, 2011 6:45 pm » by **99socks**

fayaz wrote:
Song of Solomon Chapter 5 verse 16 in Hebrew should be read as
"Hikko Mamittakim we kullo Muhammadim Zehdoodeh wa Zehraee Bayna Jerusalem."
Do not give false information to people.

The Hebrew word for Jerusalem is Yerushalayem.

Tue Jul 12, 2011 6:45 pm » by **Spock**

So Phaeton, eating pork, not being circumcised and drinking alcohol are things you consider separate people from the grace of God?

That is the legalism Jesus came in the hopes of doing away with.

Tue Jul 12, 2011 6:51 pm » by **99socks**

It seems to me, that there are a lot of people who do not understand the Bible. I have complete respect for someone who disagrees with the message of the Bible if when doing so they can articulate what it is they disagree with, within the context of what the Bible actually means. However, to debate about the Bible with people who read it so shallowly and literally that their own arguments belie their ignorance is frankly, a waste of time.

La hawla wa la quwa-t-illa billah.