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

[The Emperor of Mankind]

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.

So basically the logic is:

• You'd better learn Arabic if you want to truly understand the Quran;
• Who needs to learn the Yehud tongue? We know what their scriptures really mean better than they do even if we've never studied them.

And people wonder why you and @gnostic see things the way you do.

 

[Riadinho]

Great Topic​

 

[Britedream]

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:



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:



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

Dead Sea Scrolls:


(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:



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.



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.

Doesn't it occur to you why I am ignoring you, and your responds in the past?, nothing in your responds deserves replying to , you always committe the fallacy of attacking the Messenger instead of the message , in order to compensate for your inability to respond to the points of discussion, and you leave the verse, and dance around other verses, just for justification.


As a rule of thumb , whoever speaks, he means what he says literally, and should be interpreted as to that, however if the interpretation results in an impossible meaning, then we have to look at the inner meaning, provided, it is viable, and evidenced.


Nothing of what I have said resulted in impossible meaning. so there is no merit in what you are saying.

so let us see :

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. (King James Version)
I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him. (New International Version)
I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brethren; and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. (Revised Standard Version)

In the quote above, are all from well known christian sources, and basically they are saying the same thing.

‎יח נָבִיא אָקִים לָהֶם מִקֶּרֶב אֲחֵיהֶם, כָּמוֹךָ; וְנָתַתִּי דְבָרַי, בְּפִיו, וְדִבֶּר אֲלֵיהֶם, אֵת כָּל-אֲשֶׁר אֲצַוֶּנּוּ.

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


http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0518.htm

The quote above, is from Hebrew bible, so the translation of the verse that I have chosen is basically, the same.

Please allow me to show you, why God meant what he said, when he said in verse 18:18 their brethren, and how that fits my understanding to the letter.

And he (Ishmael) shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.’ (Genesis 16:12).

Genesis 25:9 And his sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in the cave of Machpelah, in the field of Ephron the son of Zohar the Hittite, which is before Mamre

Now, if there are no planes, or cars, if you attended my father funeral, you will be living in town.

Let see what the bible commentary says: ( Mathew Henry commentary) in the comment on verses 25:1-10

It seems that Abraham had himself brought them together while he lived.

So who is dwelling with his brethren Isaac, from above?, Ishmael.

Let us see what you have said:

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

Attacking fallacy. I am not the subject of discussion.

You said:

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

Has nothing to do with the point of discussion.


You said:

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.

False, I read it, as it is. again false , Quran and Muslim were not part of the discussion.

You said:

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 already pointed out to you above, and in my reply to Tumh, I read it as it is. please go ahead and have the christian and Hebrew sources , I quoted above, changed, come back here and tell us they are wrong, and you are right. till then they stand.

You said:

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.

Sorry, What you are saying here, has no touch with reality. verse 18:18 is a prophecy where God said " I will raise them a prophet......"; Moses can't say I will raise them a prophet; prophet is only raised by God, you are committing a blasphemy. in the other verses Moses said, Lord will raise them a prophet.

So my reply to other claims of yours, is that, we are discussing the prophecy itself; what God had said, not what Moses has said.

One more note, Muslim will never get their prove for their belief from yours, never was, and never will. when we discuss a matter with you, we discuss it because we feel what we say regarding the matter is correct, but we do't ask you to agree with it.




So your claims are dwelling in illusions.

I think my point is clear, and I will leave it to that.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Doesn't it occur to you why I am ignoring you, and your responds in the past?

Because he's stating a dissenting opinion and your confirmation bias won't allow you to tolerate dissenting opinion? Just a guess.

Attacking fallacy. I am not the subject of discussion.

An accusation isn't an attack if it's true. You're repeating a position that relies on Muslim ignorance of Jewish scripture to reinforce its truthfulness even though an educated (even basic) understanding of Jewish texts - as provided to you by people who actually read & understand Hebrew - shows your claim that the verse in question is false.

you always committe the fallacy of attacking the Messenger instead of the message ,

@gnostic 's post deals at length with the interpretation you've brought forth and why it's wrong. If that isn't 'attacking the message', what is?

in order to compensate for your inability to respond to the points of discussion, and you leave the verse, and dance around other verses, just for justification.

Hold on, whenever Muslims do this regarding quotes from the Quran or the ahadith it's called 'examining the context' and is perfectly acceptable. But now a non-Muslim is doing it with another religion's scripture that you're trying to twist to suit your own theological bias and all of a sudden examining the context becomes 'dancing around other verses'? It must be great from inside that glass house of yours.

 

[Britedream]

Because he's stating a dissenting opinion and your confirmation bias won't allow you to tolerate dissenting opinion? Just a guess.




An accusation isn't an attack if it's true. You're repeating a position that relies on Muslim ignorance of Jewish scripture to reinforce its truthfulness even though an educated (even basic) understanding of Jewish texts - as provided to you by people who actually read & understand Hebrew - shows your claim that the verse in question is false.




@gnostic 's post deals at length with the interpretation you've brought forth and why it's wrong. If that isn't 'attacking the message', what is?




Hold on, whenever Muslims do this regarding quotes from the Quran or the ahadith it's called 'examining the context' and is perfectly acceptable. But now a non-Muslim is doing it with another religion's scripture that you're trying to twist to suit your own theological bias and all of a sudden examining the context becomes 'dancing around other verses'? It must be great from inside that glass house of yours.

The discussion is not about me, Quran, Muslims, or him, and I don't believe you are his spokeman, if you can prove my points are wrong, you are more than welcome, show your evidence please, otherwise, please don't post to me whatever comes to your mind.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

The discussion is not about me, Quran, Muslims, or him, and I don't believe you are his spokeman,

I wish. @gnostic doesn't need me or anyone to speak on his behalf.

if you can prove my points are wrong, you are more than welcome, show your evidence please,

I'll admit I can't contribute more valuably than what other posters like Tumah and Rival have. What would be the point anyway? Others have done so in a multitude of posts in this thread. Practising Jews who have studied their scriptures in Hebrew have pointed out that, linguistically, your argument doesn't make sense.

otherwise, please don't post to me whatever comes to your mind.

Don't you like it when people disagree with you? Like the Tiger (who seems to have ****ed off to places unknown now that his arguments have been soundly debunked), your reaction gives the impression
that you really don't like dissenting opinions. For example:

Tumah, please, leave Islam and Judaism out of your mind, and come to the verse with out a bias, if you ever want to understand my point.

This reads like "Tumah, please, leave Islam and Judaism out of your mind, and come to the verse with out a bias your knowledge of Hebrew". Expecting him to throw all his knowledge to the side because it's a barrier to your theological position is arrogant; and you're accusing someone of bias when you've already arrived at a conclusion without weighing up the arguments & information against - i.e. from those who read or actually understand Hebrew.

 

[Britedream]

I wish. @gnostic doesn't need me or anyone to speak on his behalf.



I'll admit I can't contribute more valuably than what other posters like Tumah and Rival have. What would be the point anyway? Others have done so in a multitude of posts in this thread. Practising Jews who have studied their scriptures in Hebrew have pointed out that, linguistically, your argument doesn't make sense.




Don't you like it when people disagree with you? Like the Tiger (who seems to have ****ed off to places unknown now that his arguments have been soundly debunked), your reaction gives the impression
that you really don't like dissenting opinions. For example:



This reads like "Tumah, please, leave Islam and Judaism out of your mind, and come to the verse with out a bias your knowledge of Hebrew". Expecting him to throw all his knowledge to the side because it's a barrier to your theological position is arrogant; and you're accusing someone of bias when you've already arrived at a conclusion without weighing up the arguments & information against - i.e. from those who read or actually understand Hebrew.

We are discussing the verse 18:18, not me , you, or them. running away from that to your daily composition willn't help you, it only proves my points.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

We are discussing the verse 18:18, not me , you, or them.

An argument does not exist in isolation from the person making it - the argument is informed by the level of knowledge possessed by its maker. I am allowed to mention people in my posts and I am allowed to mention both the verse you're misinterpreting, the argument you're making and you without it being an attack or slander or whatever. If you disagree that strongly then report my posts and we'll see what happens.

runing away from that to your daily composition willn't help you

Whereas your argument can be summed up as blindly repeating "It refers to Muhammad, it does, it does, it does, it does!". Seriously, how many more times do people need to explain the context of the verse as well as the language it was written in disproves your position?

it only proves my points.

No, it doesn't. All it shows is that you're setting up straw men and deflecting from the fact the claim that Deuteronomy 18:18 has been proven false.

 

[Britedream]

An argument does not exist in isolation from the person making it - the argument is informed by the level of knowledge possessed by its maker. I am allowed to mention people in my posts and I am allowed to mention both the verse you're misinterpreting, the argument you're making and you without it being an attack or slander or whatever. If you disagree that strongly then report my posts and we'll see what happens.




Whereas your argument can be summed up as blindly repeating "It refers to Muhammad, it does, it does, it does, it does!". Seriously, how many more times do people need to explain the context of the verse as well as the language it was written in disproves your position?




No, it doesn't. All it shows is that you're setting up straw men and deflecting from the fact the claim that Deuteronomy 18:18 has been proven false.

Please don't emit the nonsense of yours, it is well known fallacy of argument to attack your opponent. you are only allowed to attack his points; if someone said to you this year is 2016, then you are going to say to him, you are wrong, because I believe that you are bad, or you mean this or that. is that your way of thinking?.

it doesn't matter what you think to whom I am referring to, what matter is the meaning of the words included in the verse in question; I say, it should be read as it is; to me the word "You", will never mean your "brother", or the other way around. I provided evidence that shows God meant what he said. This is the point of discussion. if you are unable to deal with it, please leave the discussion.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Please don't emit the nonsense of yours, it is well known fallacy of argument to attack your opponent.

• Accusing you of ignorance is not an attack since it's actually true. You've demonstrated ignorance of Hebrew in discussion with those who know the language and its history.
• Accusing you of quoting the verse out of context is not an attack since it's actually true. You're determined to examine the verse in isolation as opposed to also considering Deuteronomy 18 as a whole.
• No doubt if I point out you're falling back on an appeal to blasphemy I'll be told I'm attacking you even though it's right here:

Sorry, What you are saying here, has no touch with reality. verse 18:18 is a prophecy where God said " I will raise them a prophet......"; Moses can't say I will raise them a prophet; prophet is only raised by God, you are committing a blasphemy. in the other verses Moses said, Lord will raise them a prophet.

Seriously though, if you're that confident my posts attack you rather than your argument then report them and I'll be suitably chastised. Or I won't because you're wrong.

you are only allowed to attack his points; if someone said to you this year is 2016, then you are going to say to him, you are wrong, because I believe that you are bad, or you mean this or that. is that your way of thinking?.

Except I haven't done this anywhere or engaged in rhetoric of any equivalent kind.

it doesn't matter what you think to whom I am referring to, what matter is the meaning of the words included in the verse in question; I say, it should be read as it is; to me the word "You", will never mean your "brother", or the other way around. I provided evidence that shows God meant what he said. This is the point of discussion. if you are unable to deal with it, please leave the discussion.

And you've been shown evidence by those with a greater knowledge of Hebrew that you're wrong and why. That you've determined that you're still right and the others are wrong shows you're not interested in discussion and just want to continue engaging in confirmation-bias-led theology. If you want to view accusations of confirmation bias as an attack then

Report. My. Posts.

 

[shava]

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 ..​

 

[shava]

Wrong,
Islam as a religion was established by Muhammad, a member of the Arabic Quraish tribe from the West-Central part of the Arabian Peninsula in the region of present-day Mecca. Muhammad is a real person who lived from AD 570-632. He claimed to receive a revelation from the archangel Gabriel in AD 610 to be a prophet to the Arabic peoples promoting monotheism and a belief in Allah. His movement started slowly, but when he moved to Medina, it began to gain momentum. Later, Muhammad returned and conquered Mecca. By his death, his troops had conquered much of the Arabian Peninsula. By physical force and persuasion Islam spread across North Africa and the Middle East, reaching India by about the 11th century.

The Old Testament claims that Ishmael, son of Abraham moved into the area we now call "Arabia." It claims that the Arab peoples are the direct descendant of Ishmael. Muslims agree that this is true. They believe that the promised son of Abraham in Genesis is actually Ishmael, not Isaac. They claim that Abraham traveled to Mecca with Ishmael and worshipped the one true God at the Kabba, a stone idol in Mecca. There is not external verification of this claim and no evidence that Abraham made this journey. What we can say for sure is that Ishmael definitely did not establish the religion Islam because he died over two thousand years before the religion was founded by Muhammad. Muhammad himself definitely did not claim that Ishmael founded Islam, but he did claim that he was a prophet in the spirit of Abraham, Ishmael and Moses.


Here's a timeline from the beginning to now, which proves the Islam is a man made false evil religious entity started by a total psycho called
Muhammad.http://www.granbychurchofchrist.org/Studies/timeline.htm

"Abraham was the first Jew".

 

[David1967]

Here's a timeline from the beginning to now, which proves the Islam is a man made false evil religious entity started by a total psycho called
Muhammad.http://www.granbychurchofchrist.org/Studies/timeline.htm



Agree or disagree with Islam, that comment is just mean spirited.

 

[McBell]

Agree or disagree with Islam, that comment is just mean spirited.

Agreed.
Though I have to say that he is flat out wrong.
His link does not prove what he claims it proves.

 

[David1967]

Agreed.
Though I have to say that he is flat out wrong.
His link does not prove what he claims it proves.

What he fails to understand is that opinion does not equal truth. Even if it is the teaching of his particular denomination.

 

[shava]

Muhammad was indeed a psycho, not the OP.

 

[McBell]

Muhammad was indeed a psycho, not the OP.

Bold empty claim

 

[Britedream]

• Accusing you of ignorance is not an attack since it's actually true. You've demonstrated ignorance of Hebrew in discussion with those who know the language and its history.
• Accusing you of quoting the verse out of context is not an attack since it's actually true. You're determined to examine the verse in isolation as opposed to also considering Deuteronomy 18 as a whole.
• No doubt if I point out you're falling back on an appeal to blasphemy I'll be told I'm attacking you even though it's right here:

Seriously though, if you're that confident my posts attack you rather than your argument then report them and I'll be suitably chastised. Or I won't because you're wrong.




Except I haven't done this anywhere or engaged in rhetoric of any equivalent kind.




And you've been shown evidence by those with a greater knowledge of Hebrew that you're wrong and why. That you've determined that you're still right and the others are wrong shows you're not interested in discussion and just want to continue engaging in confirmation-bias-led theology. If you want to view accusations of confirmation bias as an attack then

Report. My. Posts.

It amazes me to see you trying catch your tail, an empty respond is worthless, you haven't addressed the points I have raised, just appealing to what others have said. please go ahead and continue to amaze me, I will stand by and enjoy the scenery. have good day.

 

[shava]

Muhammad was indeed a psycho, not the OP.

Bold empty claim

Many then and today would disagree.

 

[McBell]

Many then and today would disagree.

it matters not one bit how many people agree with and or disagree with a bold empty claim.
It is still just as bold and empty a claim as "Mohammed is the last of the prophets".