According to the Bible: All prophets before Muhammad were Muslims !!

[Tumah]

I know.

I have actually started a thread about Deuteronomy 18, years ago, I realised back then that you cannot reason with Muslims, once they have brainwashed by Muslim propaganda.

The Qur'an say nothing about Deuteronomy 18 at all. This is just recent propaganda, started by some silly Muslims, who like to cherry-pick verses. It is all about ego, not actual scholarship.

Its very difficult. Very difficult. I don't understand this type of thinking at all.

 

[Tumah]

Please do not appeal to someone else post to reply to me. in my post #110 above, if you beleive any of the statements is false, please say why.

Of course, I would address it. I wouldn't ignore it. I was just carrying on a side conversation.

 

[Augustus]

Its very difficult. Very difficult. I don't understand this type of thinking at all.

You don't understand because you have closed your mind to the truth. What you have to remember is that the Jewish scribes spent every waking hour for centuries purposely corrupting the word of God, so you can't trust anything they say.

The original was probably something like this:

I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren [you know brother, like as in Ishmael. I definitely don't mean Jews, I'm fed up with you lot corrupting my words], like unto thee [i.e. he will have laws and stuff, not one of these common or garden law-lacking prophets that you lot keep going on about]; and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him [remember 'he' has to have laws and stuff so don't keep pretending your ones count].

The scribes then deleted the clarifying remarks and fabricated an entire chapter around the One True Sentence to make it look like Moses was talking about Jewish stuff, which he definitely wasn't. He was obviously talking about futuristic Arabs as that was the primary concern of the ancient Jews - 'Enough of the sage advice Moses, what's going to happen to the Arabs in a millennium or so? How can we remain true to God if he won't even tell us that?'

In your heart, you know it's true. You're just too proud to admit it.

 

[RabbiO]

You don't understand because you have closed your mind to the truth. What you have to remember is that the Jewish scribes spent every waking hour for centuries purposely corrupting the word of God, so you can't trust anything they say.

The original was probably something like this:

I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren [you know brother, like as in Ishmael. I definitely don't mean Jews, I'm fed up with you lot corrupting my words], like unto thee [i.e. he will have laws and stuff, not one of these common or garden law-lacking prophets that you lot keep going on about]; and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him [remember 'he' has to have laws and stuff so don't keep pretending your ones count].

The scribes then deleted the clarifying remarks and fabricated an entire chapter around the One True Sentence to make it look like Moses was talking about Jewish stuff, which he definitely wasn't. He was obviously talking about futuristic Arabs as that was the primary concern of the ancient Jews - 'Enough of the sage advice Moses, what's going to happen to the Arabs in a millennium or so? How can we remain true to God if he won't even tell us that?'

In your heart, you know it's true. You're just too proud to admit it.

The only problem with your post is that some, not appreciating and recognizing it for what it is, will actually start nodding in agreement.

 

[Britedream]

xcd

Of course Isaac and Ishmael are technically half-brothers. But the Tanach seems to exclude Isaac from the brotherhood of Ishmael and the sons of Keturah as I explained above where the verse says "all" but in its fulfillment, doesn't include Isaac's progeny.
We see from the fulfillment verse, that the prophecy of him dwelling with his brothers meant "in his lifetime" (as the fulfillment verse states that he had lived among his brothers) which not only clearly excludes Israel, but also excludes Isaac neither of whom lived near Ishmael and the sons of Keturah. Any explanation of the prophecy of him living among his brothers, has to be understood in the context of the way the prophecy was fulfilled, because that's obviously what the prophecy intended.

And all that is tangential as I've already proven that when the verse says "from your brothers" it means "Jews" based on the verse in the chapter before.

Don't try to force into the verse your own understanding. You have to read the text and see what its telling you, not tell the text what you want it to say.

Again, here is a summary of the problems you need to deal with in your interpretation, that you have so far not rebutted:

1. Context - The context the verse was made in, doesn't indicate a prophecy about future events as much as guidance about living in Israel. A prophecy about Muhammad at this point would be incongruous with the message of the passage.

2. Context - The verse clearly states at the beginning of the passage that Moses is telling them something relevant to when they enter the land of Israel. A prophecy about Muhammad at this point would be incongruous with the time-frame and place the passage is discussing.

3. Comparison - The context of the verse places the "prophet" as an alternative to the "diviner". People who performed divination did so to learn the future, not to learn new laws. In this context, a prophecy about Muhammad as a "bringer of Law" would be incongruous with the comparison being made.

4. Contextual Phraseology - The Tanach is known to use a singular form of a word to indicate a category or collection of things. See Lev. 11:9 where the words "scale" and "fin" are in singular. Obviously a fish with fins and scales will have more than one fin and one scale. In the context of a prophet to guide the Jews while living in the land, this word is probably meant to be understood in the plural - a collection of prophets who will guide them for the duration of their time in the land.

5. Phraseology - The words "from your brothers" is clearly used in other contexts (Deut. 17:15) to indicate that the speaker means "from one of you" and not "from someone outside of you." This seems to be how the Tanach uses this phrase in this type of context. It excludes the possibility of Muhammad being the prophet.

6. Qualification - The first qualifier used for the prophet is "from your midst". As the Jews are the ones being spoken to, "your midst" indicates, "from the midst of the Jews". Muhammad did not live with a Jewish community. As you know, he was born in to the Banu Hashim clan of the Quraysh tribe. This is not in the midst of the Jews.

7. Lack of Qualifier - When the verse says, "like me/you (Moses)" the verse gives no indication as to what facet of Moses the following prophet would have. Choosing "a bringer of law" has no basis and is nothing more than self-serving interpolation.

8. Qualification - The verse says the the prophet would be "for you/them (Jews)". According to Islam, Muhammad was not sent for the Jews but for the whole world. Although the whole world includes Jews, the verse here seems to be excluding 'the whole world' and specifying "for you (Jews)".

9. Phraseology - The words "I will give My words in his mouth" make no indication as to the type of prophecy, the prophet would receive. There is no indication here that the prophet would bring a new law and indeed all the prophets began their prophecy with "So said G-d" and did not bring new laws.

Well, let us see your responds:




My point:

Israel is the son of Isaac, and Isaac and Ishmael are the sons of Abraham, so all the son of Isaac and their siblings are brethren to Ishmael.

you responded with:

Of course Isaac and Ishmael are technically half-brothers. But the Tanach seems to exclude Isaac from the brotherhood of Ishmael and the sons of Keturah as I explained above where the verse says "all" but in its fulfillment, doesn't include Isaac's progeny.

You concluded they are not brothers. you contradicted a known fact; the sons of a man are brothers. this is a fallacy in argument.

you did not respond to my last point:

when God says "All", God means All.

you committed a fallacy of omission.

You claimed that :

Don't try to force into the verse your own understanding. You have to read the text and see what its telling you, not tell the text what you want it to say.

Let us see who is forcing his understanding on the verse, the verse 18:18 : (Words of God to Moses)

I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.

I will discuss the parts that we disagree on greatly.

My interpretation : " I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren"; I did not change any thing, I read it as is.

Your Interpretation :"I will raise them up a Prophet from among them"

Now who is forcing his understanding on the verse.

My interpretation is coming from the fact, that God addressed them in the verse, as one racial entity, as all the 12 tribes were with Moses at that time, so your Interpretation of changing their brethren to mean "among them"; is in fact making this one entity is a brethren to itself; which is not possible.

From my Interpretation, one has to see that the prophet promised in the verse has to be from out side of this one addressed racial entity, and into their brethren. I took Ishmael as the one, this " brethren" belong to, because God has confirmed that Ishmael is the son of Abraham; so Isaac and Ishmael are brethren.

From your interpretation, you have to change words to fit your belief, in such way that meaningly impossible; a racial entity is a brethren to itself, and you have to twist a human relation fact; brothers are not brothers, that is in reality not possible, and committed few fallacies on the way, in order to serve your point.

For Muhammad pbuh, Islam, or muslims , I did not address them in my posts to you, this is out of our discussion.

For a person with reasonable fairness, will see my interpretation is reasonable, and the verse lend itself to it, reasonably.

I see us made our positions clear on the subject, and I will leave it to that.

Thank you, for the time and effort, it was a pleasure to exchange views on the subject with you.

 

[von bek]

Its very difficult. Very difficult. I don't understand this type of thinking at all.

I want you to know that your responses have been excellent and filled with detailed evidence as to why the claims being made about the verse in question are tortured interpretations. I have no horse in this race; but, I do despair at the onslaught of threads and claims that have the aim of appropriating other scriptures to use as a weapon against the traditions that actually created the texts.

 

[ukok102nak]

~;> weve found this written words
though we dont have any circumstancial evidence to clarify it as an authentic writtings from the written verse in
the books of Gen 16:12 from the bible
:read: (as it is written)
He will be man of Wild Ohand his there will be you Aganst every man and people of Yaari Hand Aganst him

and this one too
also
read: (as it is written)
He will be a wylde man and his hande will be agenst every man and euery mans hande agenst him. And yet shall he dwell faste by all his brothren.

probably someone here could shed a light upon its
description regarding unto what is really written

by the way
this will lead unto some question such as this
:read:
who were those brothers that reffering to ishmael which
shall he dwell faste

:ty:



godbless
unto all always

 

[Britedream]

~;> weve found this written words


though we dont have any circumstancial evidence to clarify it as an authentic writtings from the written verse in
the books of Gen 16:12 from the bible
:read: (as it is written)
He will be man of Wild Ohand his there will be you Aganst every man and people of Yaari Hand Aganst him


read: (as it is written)

Very interesting, wise man!!.

Yaari is a Jewish name.

 

[ukok102nak]

~;> to god all be the glory
also
thank you very much for that clarification
and still with that information of yours
we never intended to put any thoughts unto anyone that this is
the final stage of our conclusion

... . it happeneds to be that
we were just lookin for some writtings to translate then suddenly
this thing pop up unto our screen

sometimes we really expect
the unexpected . ...


:ty:



godbless
unto all always

Very interesting, wise man!!.

Yaari is a Jewish name.

 

[gnostic]

You don't understand because you have closed your mind to the truth. What you have to remember is that the Jewish scribes spent every waking hour for centuries purposely corrupting the word of God, so you can't trust anything they say.

The original was probably something like this:

I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren [you know brother, like as in Ishmael. I definitely don't mean Jews, I'm fed up with you lot corrupting my words], like unto thee [i.e. he will have laws and stuff, not one of these common or garden law-lacking prophets that you lot keep going on about]; and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him [remember 'he' has to have laws and stuff so don't keep pretending your ones count].

The scribes then deleted the clarifying remarks and fabricated an entire chapter around the One True Sentence to make it look like Moses was talking about Jewish stuff, which he definitely wasn't. He was obviously talking about futuristic Arabs as that was the primary concern of the ancient Jews - 'Enough of the sage advice Moses, what's going to happen to the Arabs in a millennium or so? How can we remain true to God if he won't even tell us that?'

In your heart, you know it's true. You're just too proud to admit it.

I don't know if you are serious or not.

If you are joking, then...hmmm.

If you are serious, then it is appalling and funny at the same time...not funny as in humour, but funny as in "shocking".

 

[Augustus]

I don't know if you are serious or not.

If you are joking, then...hmmm.

If you are serious, then it is appalling and funny at the same time...not funny as in humour, but funny as in "shocking".

 

[Tumah]

I want you to know that your responses have been excellent and filled with detailed evidence as to why the claims being made about the verse in question are tortured interpretations. I have no horse in this race; but, I do despair at the onslaught of threads and claims that have the aim of appropriating other scriptures to use as a weapon against the traditions that actually created the texts.

I appreciate your saying that.

 

[Tumah]

Well, let us see your responds:




My point:






you responded with:



You concluded they are not brothers. you contradicted a known fact; the sons of a man are brothers. this is a fallacy in argument.

you did not respond to my last point:



you committed a fallacy of omission.

You claimed that :



Let us see who is forcing his understanding on the verse, the verse 18:18 : (Words of God to Moses)



I will discuss the parts that we disagree on greatly.

My interpretation : " I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren"; I did not change any thing, I read it as is.

Your Interpretation :"I will raise them up a Prophet from among them"

Now who is forcing his understanding on the verse.

My interpretation is coming from the fact, that God addressed them in the verse, as one racial entity, as all the 12 tribes were with Moses at that time, so your Interpretation of changing their brethren to mean "among them"; is in fact making this one entity is a brethren to itself; which is not possible.

From my Interpretation, one has to see that the prophet promised in the verse has to be from out side of this one addressed racial entity, and into their brethren. I took Ishmael as the one, this " brethren" belong to, because God has confirmed that Ishmael is the son of Abraham; so Isaac and Ishmael are brethren.

From your interpretation, you have to change words to fit your belief, in such way that meaningly impossible; a racial entity is a brethren to itself, and you have to twist a human relation fact; brothers are not brothers, that is in reality not possible, and committed few fallacies on the way, in order to serve your point.

For Muhammad pbuh, Islam, or muslims , I did not address them in my posts to you, this is out of our discussion.

For a person with reasonable fairness, will see my interpretation is reasonable, and the verse lend itself to it, reasonably.

I see us made our positions clear on the subject, and I will leave it to that.

Thank you, for the time and effort, it was a pleasure to exchange views on the subject with you.

I understand the point you were making and I addressed it a number of times. Although in common speaking today, when we would take to a group of people and say "your brother" we would mean someone who is not within the group, I've demonstrated that the Tanach doesn't do that. So although what you are saying is a fair point, its been defeated by the explicit usage in other places. Additionally, although it is true that Isaac and Ishmael were [half-]brothers, your verse demonstrating their brotherhood was rebutted by the verse depicting the fulfillment of that prophetic verse by describing Ishmael's brothers as being restricted to those sons of Keturah that lived with him in the Arabian peninsula.

What you are describing as me twisting, is only using the terminology, phraseology and perhaps philosophy/theology of the Tanach itself to interpret itself. And this is the more logical method as in the time it was written they were not bound by usage of terms that we use today.

 

[gnostic]

Let us see who is forcing his understanding on the verse, the verse 18:18 : (Words of God to Moses)

I will discuss the parts that we disagree on greatly.

My interpretation : " I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren"; I did not change any thing, I read it as is.

Your Interpretation :"I will raise them up a Prophet from among them"

Now who is forcing his understanding on the verse.

Actually, all I see from you, is just spinning propaganda, britedream.

This quote (18:18) is certainly not in Islamic teaching, and have never been being cited by Muhammad, nor anywhere in the Qur'an.

As far as I can determined, this verse you used to reinterpret, is only recent interpretation by modern Muslims. The interpretation certainly don't date back to Muhammad.

That much is very clear (modern interpretation) because you (and other Muslims like you) are using the old King James Version (KJV) translation. But I will get back to you about KJV, later.

I would like to make my first point on your interpretation. So let me requote your reply to tumah:

I will discuss the parts that we disagree on greatly.

My interpretation : " I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren"; I did not change any thing, I read it as is.

Your Interpretation :"I will raise them up a Prophet from among them"

Now who is forcing his understanding on the verse.

First, you are ignoring the whole chapter, and you are only using part of the verse 18. You are only cherry-picking what you want other people to read. That's a very dishonest tactic, britedream.

So you are forcing people to look what it is only relevant to your argument.

If you were truly serious about your argument, you would look at all the relevant verses, from verse 15 to 18, and not half of verse 18.

NJPS:

15 The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet from among your own people, like myself; him you shall heed. 16 This is just what you asked of the LORD your God at Horeb, on the day of the Assembly, saying,"Let me not hear the voice of the LORD my God any longer or see this wondrous fire any more, lest I die."17 Whereupon the LORD said to me,"They have done well in speaking thus. 18 I will raise up a prophet for them from among their own people, like yourself: I will put My words in his mouth and he will speak to them all that I command him;

Hey, I will even throw you a couple of bones here:

Dead Sea Scrolls:

[17 Then the L ORD replied to me, “They are right in what they have said. 18 I will raise for them a prophet like you from among their countrymen; I will put my words in] his mouth, and he will speak to them [all that I command him.

(Source: Martin G. Abear (Jnr), Peter Flint & Eugene Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, 2002)

The Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) are missing some verses in this chapter (12 to 16), of which, 2 verses are of importance: verses 15 & 16.

But since you are narrow-mindedly fixated with KJV, I have included the full four verses, which were meant to be read together, but you have stripped down to only one partial verse:

KJV:

15 The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken; 16 According to all that thou desiredst of the Lord thy God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, "Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not." 17 And the Lord said unto me, "They have well spoken that which they have spoken. 18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him…"

You wrote earlier "(Words of God to Moses)" that God was speaking to Moses, well you are dead wrong here. Starting with verse 15, I can see it is Moses who were speaking to the people - the Israelites.

They are the same people when told them about what the Levites' rights were in their new land (Canaan), 18:1-8, and the same people in 18:9-14, when Moses spoke that the Israelites should not adopted the customs of the Canaanites, like sorcery, divination, soothsaying and necromancy (or speaking to the dead).

Moses only began reciting what God WAS SAYING, starting at verse 17:

17 And the Lord said unto me, "They have well spoken that which they have spoken..."​

But verses 17 & 18 should be read with 15 & 16, because they all give indications that moses was speaking to his people. And verse 16 is what people was saying to Moses, which Moses quote them about their time at Mount Horeb.

Deuteronomy 18:18 is not the first time was speaking of "raising a prophet"; it began with verse 15, when Moses was continuing to talk to the Israelites that began with the first verse of this chapter.

Moses was recalling what God said to him.

15 The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;​

This much is clear, it say "like unto me" is referring to Moses. But who is "thee" and "thy"?

Moses said "thee", twice in this verse and "thy" twice in this verse. And "ye", once at the end.

Apparently, Moses was still talking to his brethren, the Israelites, about what they should do when they cross and settle in Canaan, their new home.

1. The Lord thy God ["thy God", thus Moses' God] raise up unto thee [eg Moses] a Prophet...
2. ...a Prophet from the midst of thee ["thee" as in Moses], of thy brethren ["thy brethren" thus means "Moses brethren", his fellow-Israelites], like unto me [of course, this "me" is referring to Moses];
   
3. unto him ye shall hearken; [the "ye" is the Israelites, so how can Israelites heed or hear the words of a prophet (Muhammad) if he was not yet born, hence the earlier brethren doesn't refer to any Ishmaelite.]

So all the "thee" & "thy" all referred to Moses, and "thy brethren" and "ye" referred to Moses' fellow Israelites. However, Moses was talking to the Israelites when he said these things. It is not a prophecy about Muhammad.

My interpretation is coming from the fact, that God addressed them in the verse, as one racial entity, as all the 12 tribes were with Moses at that time, so your Interpretation of changing their brethren to mean "among them"; is in fact making this one entity is a brethren to itself; which is not possible.

From my Interpretation, one has to see that the prophet promised in the verse has to be from out side of this one addressed racial entity, and into their brethren. I took Ishmael as the one, this " brethren" belong to, because God has confirmed that Ishmael is the son of Abraham; so Isaac and Ishmael are brethren.

From your interpretation, you have to change words to fit your belief, in such way that meaningly impossible; a racial entity is a brethren to itself, and you have to twist a human relation fact; brothers are not brothers, that is in reality not possible, and committed few fallacies on the way, in order to serve your point.

For Muhammad pbuh, Islam, or muslims , I did not address them in my posts to you, this is out of our discussion.

For a person with reasonable fairness, will see my interpretation is reasonable, and the verse lend itself to it, reasonably.

All of this (above) is just circular reasoning.

I think it is very funny that Muslims would use the bible to validate Muhammad, considering that most Muslims think it has been corrupted.

Did you know that Deuteronomy was never written by Moses?

The Deuteronomy and along with Deuteronomical history (eg the books of Judges, Samuel and Kings) were all written during and after the reign of King Josiah (reign 641 - 609 BCE).

Throughout much of the history of Judah and Israel, they were kingdoms that swung back and forth with polytheism (or more precisely, henotheism) and monotheism. It was only during Josiah's religious reform, that the kingdom of Judah became strictly monotheism.

Anyway, the King James Version (KJV) was written Early Modern English. The main source to the KJV for the Old Testament, was the Masoretic Text, written in Hebrew, which they sometimes with the Greek Septuagint bible and on very few occasions with Latin Vulgate bible, as supplementary sources.

My point is that the KJV is neither the most accurate English translation, nor the most authoritative English.

And we no longer speak like that anymore (early modern English) with thee, ye, thy and hearken.

There are many translations to the Hebrew Scriptures (Tanakh or OT) using the Masoretic Text, and some are better than others, such as the NRSV (New Revised Standard Version), NJPS (New Jewish Publication Society, 1985, titled Tanakh).

But since all English translations are based on the Masoretic Text (hence in Hebrew), including that of KJV, then wouldn't the most authoritative and accurate would be written in Hebrew, hence the Masoretic Text?

Well, guess what, britedream. If tumah can read Hebrew than shouldn't he know better than you, which contexts are right, yours or his?

I have read in past topics, that Muslims would argue that people can only under the Qur'an if they can read Arabic. Shouldn't this same rule apply to the Torah and Tanakh (Old Testament) where it can only be truly understood in Hebrew, with Hebrew lexicon, grammar and context?

Instead you are using English translation, based on the old and outdated Early Modern English of the King James Version.

Seriously, we rarely use the word, "brethren", today, or "hearken".

The only person who is not reasoning properly is you, britedream.

 

[Augustus]

This quote (18:18) is certainly not in Islamic teaching, and have never been being cited by Muhammad, nor anywhere in the Qur'an.

As far as I can determined, this verse you used to reinterpret, is only recent interpretation by modern Muslims. The interpretation certainly don't date back to Muhammad.

Not sure about Deuteronomy, but Biblical prophecies foretelling Muhammad have been part of Islamic discourse since about the 8th/9th C, such as Isiah 29:12, 'Then the book will be given to the one who is illiterate, saying, "Please read this." And he will say, "I cannot read."

John 15:26 "When the Advocate comes, whom I will send you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—He will testify about Me.…" (Which they link to Quran 61:6)

Saying that, medieval exegetes clearly didn't understand how to interpret much of their own scripture never mind those of other faiths so how authentic this is regarding the early 7th C is questionable.

Discussed at length here Muhammad, Menahem and the Paraclete

 

[gnostic]

Not sure about Deuteronomy, but Biblical prophecies foretelling Muhammad have been part of Islamic discourse since about the 8th/9th C, such as Isiah 29:12, 'Then the book will be given to the one who is illiterate, saying, "Please read this." And he will say, "I cannot read."

But there are no reference to Deuteronomy 18:8 in the Qur'an, so what britedream and other Muslims have to say about this verse, is not authentic teaching of Islam.

These are simply modern Muslim interpretations, which hold no more authority than pathetic attempts at changing the meanings of their own scripture (Qur'an) to fit in with modern science.

I have not read the Hadiths, but I don't you will find any Deuteronomy verses in the Hadiths too.

Second, britedream repeatedly have ignored my posts, in which I have disputed his claims, not only taking the verse out of context, but omitting the other verses (18:15-18) that clearly the next prophet would be chosen among the Israelites.

That sort of omission, either showed britedream incompetency in scholarship (or reading comprehension), or worse, his lack of integrity.

I have been here for 10 years, and to date, I have not been impressed by any Muslim scholarship.

I know that there are more intelligent Muslims, but they have avoid these types of debates, perhaps for good reason. Any attempt at making their religion better than science or better than other religions, will put Islam and the Qur'an under spotlights.

Muslims are their own worse enemies when this happened, because under the spotlights they cannot hide the flaws or errors in their teaching or interpretations.

 

[Tumah]

Discussed at length here Muhammad, Menahem and the Paraclete

An interesting read!

 

[Augustus]

But there are no reference to Deuteronomy 18:8 in the Qur'an, so what britedream and other Muslims have to say about this verse, is not authentic teaching of Islam.

It depends on what you consider to be 'authentic teachings of Islam'. I'm not specifically talking about Deuteronomy, just a general concept of which Deuteronomy is but one example (and might well not be a Late Antique example)

Islam is an Abrahamic religion that emerged in the late antique ME and the Quran contains passages like:

I [Jesus] am God's Messenger to you, sent to confirm the teachings of the Torah before me and to announce good tidings of a messenger who shall come after me; his name is Ahmad (61:16)

The idea that there should be references to Muhammad in Jewish or Christian scriptures could be considered to be an 'authentic teaching', especially given that knowledge of the Biblical narrative is necessary to make sense of the Quran.

Such attempts date from at least the 8th C, and most of what people consider to be 'authentic teachings' are Medieval rather than Late Antique so it qualifies as much as pretty much anything else outside of the literal Quranic script.

Medieval exegetes didn't know how to interpret many passages of the Quran, and the standard Islamic narrative contains much intended to 'fill in the gaps' (see: Reading the Quran through the Bible for an excellent introductory explanation)

These are simply modern Muslim interpretations, which hold no more authority than pathetic attempts at changing the meanings of their own scripture (Qur'an) to fit in with modern science.

The 'scientific miracles' hypothesis is from 1980s Saudi Arabia, the 'Muhammad was foretold in the Bible' hypothesis is from 8thC Arabia at the latest.

I wouldn't consider it a particularly apt comparison bearing in mind how the 'traditional' Islamic narrative likely emerged.

 

[Tumah]

I have been here for 10 years, and to date, I have not been impressed by any Muslim scholarship.

I'm somewhat worried that hearing this same complaint so many times from many different people, they might see it not as a factual fault but as some expression of Islamaphobia that is causing us to perceive their scholarship that way. Or [perhaps] worse, as being blinded by our desire to remain as we are and not become Muslim.

I just haven't got the feeling so far - from any of those whom I have tried to explain why their interpretation doesn't work - of recognition of a misconception on their part. Sometimes I even get the feeling that they believe they can't be wrong even with regards to concepts foreign to their religion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Assalamu Alaikum

السلام عليكم ورحمة الله

Lets read Genesis 17 From Targum: http://targum.info/pj/pjgen12-7.htm

XVII. And Abram was the son of ninety and nine years, and the Lord appeared to Abram, and said to him, I am El Shadai; serve before Me and be perfect (shelim) in thy flesh. And I will set My covenant between My Word and thee, and will multiply thee very greatly. And because Abram was not circumcised, he was not able to stand, but he bowed himself upon his face

The translators of the Bible twisted the meaning of the word "Shelim" according to their lust to avoid the hurting truth.

1. THE WORLD "SHELIM" MEANS SUBMIT TO GOD IN ISLAM.

Source: Hebrew and Chaldee lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures; translated, with additions, and corrections from the author's Thesaurus and other works ([1857]) ------ Page 830

Link to the book: https://archive.org/details/hebrewchaldeelex00geseuoft

2. According to Brown-Driver-Briggs dictionary of the Bible:

The word "Shelim" in Genesis means MUSLIM.

Source: http://biblehub.com/hebrew/7999.htm

3. According to Encyclopaedia Judaica, Volume 1 By Fred Skolnik and Michael Berenbaum:

Abraham was muslim !!!

"The very word Islam and the idea contained in it, namely that of complete dedication to God, is connected with the story of Abraham, e.g., Sura 2:125, "When God said to him [Abraham], ‘dedicate yourself to God in islam [aslim]‘, he said, ‘I dedicate myself to the Lord of the Worlds.’" Or (22:77): "This is the religion of your father Abraham. He called you muslimin (Muslims)," i.e., those who dedicate themselves to God.

This expression GOES BACK TO GENESIS 17:1 in the version of Targum *Onkelos, where Abraham is admonished by God to become shelim, and the subsequent definition of a proselyte as one who dedicates himself to his Creator."

Source: http://what-when-how.com/jews-and-judaism/abrabanel-judah-to-abraham-apocalypse-of-jews-and-judaism/


To be continued ..​

By the same logic, you could also say that all the prophets were Catholic (members of a universal faith) or Orthodox (true believers). Do you accept that Muslims are Catholic?