Interesting..
The name “Muhammad” is written in the Bible in the original Hebrew language.
In the 5th chapter of the Shir haShirim ( שיר השירים ), which is one of the five megilot or Sacred Scrolls that are part of the Hebrew Bible or for short the “Song of Solomon” (also called “Song of Songs”). That chapter is giving a prophecy about an individual to come, a mystery man.
Song of Songs 5:15 compares this prophetic mystery man to the land of “Lebanon” which is the land of the Arabs. This implies that the mystery man would be an Arab.
Verse 15 of the NIV Bible says: “His appearance is like Lebanon”, so this is an Arabic gentleman (or Arab looking).
Verse 11 says: “his head is as the most fine gold, his locks are
wavy, and black as a raven”. Verse 10 describes this man as being “radiant and ruddy”…
View original post 441 more words
Categories: Islam
Blogging Theology 
Hmmmmm………
LikeLike
hmmm what?
LikeLike
How does that hymn go again?
Oh come Oh come E-maa-aa-anuel………..
LikeLike
The Muhammad in Song of Songs thing is very weak and has been debunked for years now. All it takes is for you to read chapter 5 from the beginning and you’ll clearly see that it’s a poem about a man and a woman. Parts of Song of Songs also symbolically represents the relationship of God with Israel.
In verse 2 of chapter 5 the beloved already speaks: Listen! My beloved is knocking: “Open to me, my sister, my darling, my dove, my flawless one. My head is drenched with dew, my hair with the dampness of the night.
Let’s look at more verses
Verse 4: My beloved thrust his hand through the latch-opening; my heart began to pound for him.
Verse 5: I arose to open for my beloved…
Verse 6: I opened for my beloved, but my beloved had left; he was gone. My heart sank at his departure. I looked for him but did not find him. I called him but he did not answer.
So now let’s go to the verse that apparently mentions Muhammad by name, verse 16:
His mouth is sweetness itself; he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, this is my friend, daughters of Jerusalem.
“Altogether lovely” in Hebrew is written “Machmad”. But Machmad in Hebrew means something to “desire” or something “pleasant” or “valuable”. For that reason, the sentence can also be translated as “He is altogether desirable” or “He is desirable”, which is the case in other English translations. The HMD root is shared in Hebrew and Arabic but their expressions are different in the respective languages. In Arabic, words with HMD are associated with “praise”, whereas in Hebrew it is associated with “desire”. Don’t believe me? Look it up.
Now here is the ultimate killer… The word Machmad can be found in many other parts in the Bible for example:
1 Kings 20:6 – They will seize everything you value (literally: whatever is desirable (machmad) in your eyes)
2 Chronicles 36:19 – they burned all the palaces and destroyed everything of value (machmad) there
Ezekiel 24:25 – And you, son of man, on the day I take away their stronghold, their joy and glory, the delight (machmad) of their eyes, their heart’s desire, and their sons and daughters as well–
There’s more from where that came from, but I’ll stop there. This is why it’s important to verify stuff first rather than simply belive what someone (presumably Zakir Naik) told you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
HMD root has multiple connotations in Hebrew including to regard as precious and to esteem highly.
See Daniel 10:11
New International Version: He said, “Daniel, you who are highly esteemed…
New American Standard Bible: He said to me, “O Daniel, man of high esteem, ….
As for the interpretation of SoS, Jewish and Christian scholars have historically interpreted this book in a wide variety of ways. It has been acknowledged that there are many authors too.
One of the main themes that Jewish scholars extracted from this book is that it predicts the restoration of Jerusalem in the aftermath of the Roman devastation of the city.(See Three oaths Midrash in Talmud). If this understanding is true, and you add to it the statement attributed to Jesus “The kingdom of God shall be taken from you and given to another nation..”
Christian scholars like J L Von Hug proposed a theory that this book is a series of visions. And that this explains the disjointed nature of the narrative. If we take this understanding then consider the description from 5:10-6:3:
He is chief of 10,000 the size of the army that liberated Mecca under the Prophet.
He has black and wavy hair. He has a strong physique.His mouth is sweet i.e. full of divine revelation. [See Ezekiel 3].
Where did he go? 6:2 – To the land of balsam [Hijaz is famous for balsam of Mecca] but his flock[ his companions] graze in the land of lilies[will conquer the fertile land of Jerusalem and the Levant in general].
Combining the Jewish understanding that the restoration of Jerusalem is intended but with the additional perspective of the statement attributed to Jesus we can see that the restoration of the Temple Mount as a place of worship by the companions of the Prophet after the Christians had turned it into a garbage dump is the fulfilment of this.
LikeLike
I don’t know what Song of Songs you’re reading, where does it say chief of 10,000 and “to the land of balsam”?
Regardless though, Song of Songs does not mention Muhammad by name.
Otherwise we can replace all the verses I quoted and the one you did too with the word Muhammad and it wouldn’t make sense. For example, “Daniel, you are Muhammad…” (Daniel 10:11), “They will seize everything you Muhammad…” (1 Kings 20:6). It just doesn’t work.
Also whilst I believe the Muslims have kept the Temple Mount in good protection, that is not the fulfilment of the prophecy about the 3rd Temple. It is the messiah who will restore the 3rd Temple of Solomon upon his return.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Oops
Check the lying video after around 4 minutes you will see they don’t translate the whole word they left a couple of letters out…it’s a crime!
Furthermore the Koran says Muhammad is spoken about in two parts of the bible and that the alas and the gospels
LikeLike
defendchrist,
Thanks for alerting me. They did indeed falsely translate the word in the video to make it fit Muhammad’s name more but despite that it still doesn’t work anyway. The word they’re looking for, “machmad” is found in multiple places in the Bible (I quoted just a few) and none of them are about a future prophet who’s name will be Ahmad or Muhammad.
And like you said, the Quran says Muhammad is mentioned in the Torah and Gospel.
Yet we are mocked or criticised when we say Jesus is mentioned in the Bible, a prophet they are supposed to believe in. So they prefer to believe that Muhammad is mentioned in the Bible but not their prophet Jesus. Strange.
LikeLike
The reason I mentioned Daniel 10:11 was to show that the root HMD does have the connotation of to esteem greatly similar to Arabic praise. In any case, sister languages such as Hebrew and Arabic often share words with multiple and slightly different but related connotations.
Even if you take it to mean the much desired,much loved or highly esteemed the fact is that it would apply to the Prophet who is loved by billions of people around the world who desire his company in paradise. So this is a case of the meaning of the name applying to the person.
As for the Quran mentioning that the Prophet is found in the Tawrah and the Injil, there is no verse restricting his mention to these two only. Especially when you consider that the other scriptures expound on the message of the Tawrah. Also the Quran affirms that God sent many Prophets to the Israelites who all received revelations.
In fact, the Quran 21:105 even references that in the Zabur, it is written that God’s righteous servants will inherit the land. This is similar to what is still found in Psalms 37.
The companions of the Prophet and other Muslims including Jewish and Christian converts to Islam in the early days of his Ummah, referenced other passages as well including Isaiah 42 and Daniel.
Oops mentioned “Also whilst I believe the Muslims have kept the Temple Mount in good protection, that is not the fulfilment of the prophecy about the 3rd Temple”. I mentioned that Jews have historically considered SoS to contain references to the restoration of Jerusalem in the aftermath of the Roman devastation. If you want a possible Biblical explanation to what constitutes the restoration consider the vision of Daniel 2.
A giant idol representing four successive earthly kingdoms is seen in a vision that is struck by a stone which becomes a mountain.
1. Gold Head : Babylon 605 BC -539 BC
2. Silver arms and chest: Medo-Persia 539 BC-331 BC
3. Bronze Belly and thighs: Greek empire 331BC-1st century BC
4a.Iron legs: Roman empire: 33 BC- 395 CE
4b Iron and Clay feet: Divided Roman Empire and mercenaries/vassals/subject nations 395 CE- 636 CE
In the Iron and clay feet period the following characteristics are noticed.
Mixed with seed of men: highly dependent on mercenary and subject nations. See the Church father Jerome’s commentary:
“Now the fourth empire, which clearly refers to the Romans, is the iron empire which breaks in pieces and overcomes all others. But its feet and toes are partly of iron and partly of earthenware, a fact most clearly demonstrated at the present time. For just as there was at the first nothing stronger or hardier than the Roman realm, so also in these last days there is nothing more feeble (D), since we require the assistance of barbarian tribes both in our civil wars and against foreign nations.”
There were many attempts to unite the empire including by Justinian in the 530s when he actually reconquered the lands of the Western empire from former Roman mercenaries the Vandals and Ostrogoths. But after his death another group of mercenaries the Lombards took Italy.
The empire in this stage has divisions and elements of weaknesses but the text of Daniel 2:41 insists it still has the strength of iron. This was proven conclusively when Heraclius steamrolled the Persians after they had conquered much of Roman territory. Heraclius was able not only to push back the Persians but crushed their force in their home turf.
Now while this was going on with the Roman empire, separately in Arabia one man receives revelation. When it began he had no army, no kingdom, no state structure, no great wealth to speak of. Just one man surrounded by polytheists who hated his message. Yet within a short period of time this Ummah grew from one man to a small community to a city-state until the entirety of Arabia came under his rule and centuries of idolatry was crushed. Then within a remarkably short period of time his Ummah went from the desert of Arabia to the shores of the Atlantic in the West and the rivers of Khorasan in the East. From the Caucasus to the Erythrean sea.
From a single man to the greatest civilzation the world has seen encompassing people of many races,languages and ethincities. This is the stone that became the mountain that emerged in the precise circumstances as predicted by Daniel 2.
In 636 CE, the period of dominion of the four empire schema of Daniel 2 came to an end.This provides a timeline to explain what the restoration of Jerusalem and by extension the region as whole meant.
LikeLike
“From a single man to the greatest civilzation the world has seen encompassing people of many races,languages and ethincities. This is the stone that became the mountain that emerged in the precise circumstances as predicted by Daniel 2.”
That first part is biased and subjective, I could say the same thing about Jesus. And now you are attributing prophecies that Christians say are about Jesus to Muhammad. From Jesus also came a great civilization of people of many races, languages and ethnicities, more so than Islam in fact. Christianity is found in more nations worldwide than Islam is, and the Bible has been translated to more languages than the Quran has. Not only that, it is a requirement in Islam for Muslims to acknowledge Jesus as prophet and Messiah so when you combine Christians and Muslims together, Jesus has more followers so it makes more sense that these prophecies are about him. I at least applaud you for trying to find more Biblical references to support Muhammad, just reminds me how important the Bible is for Islam as too many Muslims wish to dissociate completely from it.
I hope you’re not going to tell me that Muhammad is the real son of man mentioned in Daniel 7 too (I have come across Muslims who have said this before).
LikeLike
@Oops,
Without getting into the question of whether Nicene Trinitarian Christianity is the heir to Jesus’ message or not, there are a few reasons why he cannot be the stone of Daniel 2:
1. His birth and ministry was in the first part of the fourth empire i.e. the iron legs when the Roman empire was strong. But the stone emerges during the iron and clay feet when the empire is divided, has mixed with the seed of men, has some weakness but still retains strength. The Roman empire had not yet reached the peak of its strength during Jesus’s time.
2. The kingdom of the rock strikes the idol, it does not operate in separate realms.If John 18:36 is a reliable account then how can he be considered as the stone that be came mountain.
When Jesus came the first time he was rejected by the people of Judea. Then the kingdom of God went to another nation i.e. it would be led by another group at least in the beginning.
LikeLike
Fawaz
The stone starts off small and gradually grows. That is a reflection of the growth of Christianity. By the way, Rome was pretty much finished before Islam even arrived.
If God was going to take away the kingdom from the Jews He wouldn’t wait 600 years to dish out His punishment. Jesus was talking about an immediate effect which happened when the Jews rejected him, which resulted in the destruction of the Temple in 70AD and the scattering of Jews across parts of the world, and the growth of Christianity amongst Gentiles (which had already started thanks to Paul anyway). You make it sound like there was a big 600 year gap in history where nothing happened until Islam arrived.
And I don’t care much about Nicean Christianity since I’m not a Trinitarian. Either way according to Romans 11, God has not abandoned the Jews no matter how much Christians or Muslims want to believe so.
Can you answer the question I asked you below by the way:
So if I presented you with let’s say Isaiah 53, would you agree that the suffering servant matches the description of Jesus Christ in the gospels? Or do you also have a wild interpretation of why it just can’t be him?
LikeLike
@Oops,
Did not know you were not a Trinitarian. Either way the point stands since majority of churches officially teach it even if the common people don’t understand it properly.
Let me break down my answer to cover all points:
—————————————————–
Daniel 2:
“The stone starts off small and gradually grows.” I don’t see how Daniel 2 implies gradual growth Note it is the stone that strikes the statue then becomes a mountain. At what point did the spiritual kingdom of Jesus strike the statue?
You said: “Rome was pretty much finished before Islam even arrived”. Lets check the following:
It shall be a divided kingdom – 395 CE: Empire divides into East and West.
they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men- becoming dependent on subject/mercenary nations(foedarati). Like Jerome said about his time: “since we require the assistance of barbarian tribes both in our civil wars and against foreign nations.”
“but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay” – Justinian defeated two nations that had been foedarati i.e. Vandals and Ostrogoths. He reunited the empire but soon after his death Italy fell to the Lombards another foedarati.
“it will still have the strength of iron”: Heraclius emperor of the East steam-rolled the Persian empire proving that despite the weakness the empire still had strength. Edward Gibbon says:
“Since the days of Scipio and Hannibal, no bolder enterprise has been attempted than that which Heraclius achieved for the deliverance of the empire”
————————————————————-
Jews and the Kingdom of God:
You said: “God has not abandoned the Jews no matter how much Christians or Muslims want to believe so.”
I try to keep the comments brief -keyword try- so I may not have been clear on this point. God did not abandon the Judean people or the other Israelites. He just stopped sending them Prophets from their own nation.
You said: “You make it sound like there was a big 600 year gap in history where nothing happened until Islam arrived.”
On the Contrary I covered the history of the Roman empire.
From strength > division and dependence on feodarati > attempted reuniting under Justinian > Heraclius resurgence making him one of the greatest emperors since Caesar.
“He wouldn’t wait 600 years to dish out His punishment.” No the punishment was that when Prophet Jesus ascended to heaven they had no prophet to seek guidance from until the arrival of Prophet Muhammad.
The period of the absence of prophets was the punishment.
The arrival of the Prophet Muhammad was an opportunity.
The prophet being from another nation was a challenge and a test.
Also the period of absence of Prophets is Biblically predicted. Isaiah 42:14:
“For a long time I have kept silent,I have been quiet and held myself back”
Also about the dates:
70 CE: Jerusalem destroyed by Romans > 570 CE: Mecca saved from Axumites. Prophet born.
130 CE: Hadrian bans circumcision >629/630 CE Heraclius massacres Jews for supporting the Persians. This coincides with first battles between the Companions of the Prophet and Byzantium.
132 CE: Bar Kokhba disastrous rebellion begins > 632 CE: Prophet last speech leaving his legacy.
135 CE: Bar Kokhba killed and Jews massacred > 635 CE: Muslims defeat Heraclius in the Levant.
136-140 CE: Romans crushing vestiges of resistance and building pagan temple >636-640 CE Yarmouk battle and restoration of Jerusalem.
All this is in the 50th decade as opposed to the 50th year. Compare the first restoration by Cyrus to the second restoration. The period is magnified by 10.
——————————————————————
Isaiah 53: Key point in Isaiah 53 is whether vicarious atonement is intended. Is it “for our transgressions” or “because of our transgressions” as Jews say.
Isaiah 53 is about those who suffer in the path of God but through their suffering bring about a great good for the benefit of others. It refers to the revival of the Israelites in the aftermath of the Babylonian exile as well as to Prophets that are ill-treated by their own people but persevere to become a means of guidance. See Jeremiah 11:18-19..
LikeLike
Fawaz,
You lost me on a few points but here’s something I want to highlight from Daniel 2.
“In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever.”
According to you this is Islam. Now maybe if Islam was the only dominant religion on earth this would work. Yet Christianity has never been destroyed and has endured since the 1st century, 6 centuries older than Islam. Do you have an explanation as to why that is so?
And interesting interpretation of Isaiah 53. Whilst I agree that it can refer to all the prophets who had to persevere, if you’re also going to interpret it as meaning the revival of the Israelites than you should be honest with your interpretation of Isaiah 42, that it’s also about the Israelites since that’s what they believe about all the servant songs.
I’m curious about something though. Since you see Muhammad and Islam in the Bible, I’m curious to know where you’d find Jesus and Christianity in the Bible too. And I’m talking about Old Testament prophecies here, not the New Testament. What Old Testament prophecies do you feel are about Jesus and Christianity? Or do you just ignore and skip them straight to Islam?
LikeLike
Daniel 2:44 does not refer to every single earthly and/or spiritual kingdom across the globe.Daniel 2 is primarily concerned about the region and the powers that dominate it. See Daniel 2:37-38 where a similar description is given for the first kingdom. Daniel is concerned about powers outside the region only when they come to rule it. This is why for example Daniel 2 does not speak of China or Latin America.
As for Isaiah 42 there are two servants in it who are obviously different because of different characteristics. Verse 18-25 is about Israel personified as a servant. Here is a link on Isaiah 42 which includes a more detailed explanation as to why the two servants are different:
http://www.manyprophetsonemessage.com/2014/06/28/muhammad-pbuh-and-madinah-in-the-bible/
You asked “do you just ignore and skip them straight to Islam?”. The basic meaning of Islam is submission to God. I’m sure you’ll agree based on this definition all the prophets were Muslim i.e. people who submitted to God and they also taught others to do so.
As for prophecies of Jesus, I think Malachi 4 the sun of righteousness with healing in its wings is a good description of the work Jesus did. Especially when we consider :”I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing” Luke 13:34.
Also Jesus proclaimed what is found in Isaiah 61. Although Luke 13:34 would also apply here.
Also Psalms 91:10-15 in light of Matthew 4:5-7. And Psalms 91:15 would be the prayer at Gethsamene.
And God knows best.
LikeLike
Wow pretty interesting to find a Muslim interpret scriptures in such a way. I appreciate that you don’t shy away from interpreting the Bible in such a way, especially when so many Muslims completely dismiss it.
In regards to the Isaiah thing I see your point but the same can be said about different verses in Isaiah 53 which are clearly not about Israel but more about an individual. And yep given that simple definition of Islam there’s no problem.
Once again nice to see a Muslim find prophecies about Jesus in the Hebrew Bible. Would you also agree that his virgin birth was a prophecy in Isaiah or did God perform that miracle rather arbitarily in your view?
And I can see that your Psalm 91 interpretation is a little jab at the crucifixion since you probably believe that God rescued Jesus from harm. It makes me wonder though, why would He specifically rescue Jesus from harm but not some of his other prophets, in light of Surah 2:87 and 2:91?
But like you’ve mentioned anyway, God knows best.
LikeLike
Hi Paul
As far as the Koran is concerned Muhammad is written about in the Torah and the Gospel but nothing is said about poetry.
And secondly the video is pure deception why? Because in the video when they begin to pull letters mem..dalet..etc they don’t pull the whole word which means the WHOLE word is not going to be translated only that which the deceptive person wants you to see.
This is just pure desperation and very embarrassing for Muslims that was to deal in truth.
This is so bad…out of one side of their mouths Muslims say…its corrupted….out of the other side of their mouth…The Prophet Muhammad is here in this scripture.
This is book and this chapter has nothing whatsoever to do with the Prophet Muhammad.
IS PROPHET MUHAMMAD A WINE DRINKER?
Son 5:1 I am come into my garden, my sister, my spouse: I have gathered my myrrh with my spice; I have eaten my honeycomb with my honey; I have drunk my wine with my milk: eat, O friends; drink, yea, drink abundantly, O beloved.
His own teaching says NO!
Bukhari 5:59:590 The Prophet said in the year of the Conquest (of Meccah) “Allah and His Apostle have made the selling of alcohol unlawful”.
Abu Dawud (38:4467) The Prophet said, “If they drink wine, flog them Again if they drink it, flog them. Again if they drink it kill them.” But in (38:4469) they received three cautionary floggings before being killed on the fourth occasion
Muslim 622 The sale of wine, carcass, swine and idols is forbidden. Lard is not to be used for coating boats, varnishing hides or for lighting purposes
Stop embarrassing yourselves this is really ridiculous.
LikeLiked by 1 person
LOL Only a Muslim would believe such nonsense
LikeLike
Fawaz,
Very good points….
“HMD root has multiple connotations in Hebrew including to regard as precious and to esteem highly.
See Daniel 10:11
New International Version: He said, “Daniel, you who are highly esteemed…
New American Standard Bible: He said to me, “O Daniel, man of high esteem, ….
As for the interpretation of SoS, Jewish and Christian scholars have historically interpreted this book in a wide variety of ways. It has been acknowledged that there are many authors too.
One of the main themes that Jewish scholars extracted from this book is that it predicts the restoration of Jerusalem in the aftermath of the Roman devastation of the city.(See Three oaths Midrash in Talmud). If this understanding is true, and you add to it the statement attributed to Jesus “The kingdom of God shall be taken from you and given to another nation..” ”
…
“He is chief of 10,000 the size of the army that liberated Mecca under the Prophet.
He has black and wavy hair. He has a strong physique.His mouth is sweet i.e. full of divine revelation. [See Ezekiel 3].
Where did he go? 6:2 – To the land of balsam [Hijaz is famous for balsam of Mecca] but his flock[ his companions] graze in the land of lilies[will conquer the fertile land of Jerusalem and the Levant in general].
Combining the Jewish understanding that the restoration of Jerusalem is intended but with the additional perspective of the statement attributed to Jesus we can see that the restoration of the Temple Mount as a place of worship by the companions of the Prophet after the Christians had turned it into a garbage dump is the fulfilment of this.”
Thanks. I did not hear these points before.
Who else can fit all these points? Whose army was 10,000 like the number that conquered Makkah?
Was that person’s name also connected to HMD?
Did that person or his companions conquer Jerusalem? (interestingly the author Shoemaker cites evidence that Prophet Muhammad was even alive at the time of Jerusalem being conquered from the Tyrannical Byzantines who were oppressing Jews and others). Although I did not have time to read any of his book, I am not convinced by Shoemaker who apparently gives only sketchy evidence like a non-Muslim statement at the same year Jerusalem was conquered and that isolated statement refers to the Prophet as having come to Jerusalem but that was likely just an assumption by the writer since the conquerers of Jerusalem were mentioning their Prophet.
Anyhow, although we don’t have conclusive information, nonetheless, your points are good Fawaz and they warrant attention, not dismissal. Thank you.
LikeLike
Omer, Fawaz’ points don’t work as I’ve pointed out in my response.
The only point that works is the one about the HMD root in Hebrew potentially also including praise. Despite that though it still doesn’t work as I’ve shown. And you won’t find any Hebrew with the name Muhammad or any of the other HMD root names related to that word such as Ahmad or Mahmoud. These are all Arabic words and not Hebrew.
Also I’m still waiting to see where Song of Songs mentions an army of 10,000 and land of balsam. Plus balsam is already naturally found around Israel and the Jordan which makes sense as to why it is mentioned in the Bible. How Fawaz associates that with Mecca is beyond me.
Despite all of that also, the Quran specifically says that Muhammad is mentioned in the Torah, it doesn’t mention any other book from the Hebrew Bible. Song of Songs is not part of the Torah.
And it’s rather silly that the Bible is corrupted yet works only for Muhammad. Come on
LikeLike
@Oops,
The part about being chief among 10,000 is found in SoS 5:10. The part about him going to a land of balsam is mentioned in SoS 6:2 where it is called a garden. His flock is mentioned in the same verse. Flock is a well-known metaphor for followers of a leader and/or prophet. They graze in the land of lilies.
As for Balsam being a references to the Hijaz. The Bible associates balsam with Arabia in general (1 King 10:2 an Arabian queen brings balsam to King Solomon on many camels).
The Bible also provides a place from where this restoration will occur. Habakkuk 3:3-7 and Isaiah 42.
In my above post I mentioned the timeline for this restoration from the Bible i.e. Daniel 2.
LikeLike
Ok thanks Fawaz. It’s interesting how you go so far out of your way to find these wild interpretations in the Song of Songs of all places in the Bible.
So if I presented you with let’s say Isaiah 53, would you agree that the suffering servant matches the description of Jesus Christ in the gospels? Or do you also have a wild interpretation of why it just can’t be him?
LikeLike
Hi Fawaz
Are you dealing with the text in question Song of Solomon 5:16?
LikeLike
I find these discussions interesting, in part because most of the Christians I have seen take up the question seemed to take what strikes me as almost a “hyper-literal” approach to the text. I say that because history is filled with both Jewish and Christian thinkers who interpreted the text as referring to things which are far from obvious from a literal, surface reading (e.g. the relationship between God and Israel, or the relationship between Christ and the Church, et cetera). Yet when I see Christians taking up this question, today, I see many of them casting aside the myriad of metaphors and allegories historically seen by others, and reducing the text to a mere collection of compliments traded between Solomon and one of his wives. I understand that approach can be helpful in rebutting the relevant polemic, but I am left wondering at what expense.
Having said that, without getting into what or who precisely the text is referring to, I wanted to explore the grammar of the first four words of Songs 5:16…
If one is curious how to interpret the third and fourth words, I would propose that the grammatical structure there is identical to what we find in that of the first two words. In short, we need not interpret the verse as referring to a person by name. Rather we can easily understand the relevant word as being an adjective modifying the noun before it. The grammatical structure of Hiko mamtaqīm (i.e. the first two words of Songs 5:16) is identical to that of kulo maHamadīm (i.e. the third and fourth word of the same verse). So one question that should be asked is: what textual indicator would move a person two interpret the latter phrase in a different way from the former phrase?
On a side note, there is an alternative approach. Being that mamtaqīm can be interpreted as a plural noun, one can start reading at verse 14 (or even earlier), and understand the text as being part of a series of statements likening parts (and then the whole) to various things. Exempli gratia:
V14: yadayw g’līley zahabh
“his arms — gold cylinders”
V15: shoqayw amūdey shesh
“his legs — marble columns”
V16: Hiko mamtaqīm
“his mouth — sweet things”
kulo maHamadīm
“his entirety — lovely/precious things”
LikeLike
Interesting, thanks Denis.
I hope the authors of that video can translate more honestly or just stop using this passage altogether.
LikeLike
It’s always interesting to read how the Bible, which my Muslim friends slam as being corrupted, is supposed to also contain information which confirms Mohammed to be a true prophet, so, it’s both corrupt, for which it can’t be used to prove Mohammed was a false prophet, while being so correct as to confirm he’s a true prophet of God, talk about having our cake and eating it too.🙂 Nonetheless, I’ll leave these here for those of us wishing to read further on the subject. . .
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2014/05/muhammad-in-song-of-solomon-516.html
http://answering-islam.org/BibleCom/songs5-16.html
LikeLiked by 1 person
A good point! Perhaps Ijaz can reply to this.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s much appreciated, Paul. To summarize everything I’ve read on the Song of Solomon discussion thus far: Only by way of a highly suspect and inaccurate mispronunciation does the original Hebrew plural “ma-kha-madeem” sound anything like Mohammed. Second, I’m being told by both defendchrist and Oops that the video makers in a premeditated fashion corrupted the letters of the original Scripture so to make them appear as if they were a name (which they’re by all appearances not). We’re discussing a plural and not a proper noun, meaning it’s in no wise a name. Moreover, even by use of the claims found in my copy of Islamic scripture (Qur’an 61:6?), “Ahmed” should be the name found in copies of the Torah (not Mohammed in the Song of Solomon). In addition, just reading the context of the Song of Solomon outlines how Solomon himself is in fact the male character being described. And lastly, although there’s certainly more which may be shared, the additional critiques of the argument I’ve linked to appear to show beyond doubt how that to use such an uncritical and even dishonest method of understanding ancient material as the above would lead into other comical absurdities (e.g. Allah is a mouse and the Hindu god Ram appearing in the Qur’an). People keen on the idea have added useful additions to the conversation, for example, pointing out they’re not limited to the books of Moses in their hopes of finding proof texts for their Islamic beliefs, about which I’m sympathetic. However, if we’re to remain consistent and properly informed, such methodology as that which has been used to invent Mohammed at the cost of the text’s clear meaning must be abandoned. I’m certain Ijaz, who I’m first reading about by contact with James White and their (meaning Ijaz’s) attempted use of textual criticism, would indeed provide an answer polished over much passionate desire for the justification of their beliefs, although, I’d also hope the more passionate the person, the less they would back what appear to be patently dishonest/double standard laden positions. Many of the Muslim contributors online would agree, I’d imagine.
LikeLike