Muhammed prophecied in the bible?

[Loki]

Muslims claim that Mohammad is last in a line of prophets that include most of those mentioned in the Bible such as Adam, Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon, Jonah, and Jesus. With this being the case, we'd expect there to be numerous prophecies of Mohammad found in these prophets' revelations if there is any veracity to the Muslim claim. Similar to the claims of New Testament(Injil) writers in applying Old Testament(Torah and Zabur(Psalms)) prophecies to Jesus Christ

The prophecies is how God authenticates. He gives prophecy for all major acts he does. He announces them beforehand so that nobody will mistake God's acts for anything else. Jesus' birth as the Messiah was prophesied in Scripture. Mohammed's birth as the so-called Seal of the Prophets was not.

Deuteronomy 18:18

"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."

their brethren, understood in its proper context of Deuteronomy 18, clearly refers to the brethren of the Levites, that is, other Israelites, not the Ishmaelites. with this argument only, there is no need to refute the rest of the prophecy

Who's is the prophecy about then?
Well Jesus was a Jew, did miraclesas Moses, made a new covenant like Moses, cause before all other prophets only builded further on Moses his Covenant. Jesus was proven to be a prophet (Luke 7:39) and proclaimed himself a prophet (John 4:44). And on top of that Jesus claims to be the prophet Moses foretold (John 5:46). In various places, at various times, various people called Jesus the 'prophet' of Deuteronomy 18:18, yet Jesus never corrected them, rebuked them, or told them otherwise. He always accepted those particular statements. When the Pharisees called him otherwise, He set them straight. Matt. 21:11, John 1:45, 6:14, 7:40, Luke 7:16, 24:19, etc. And after his ascension his disciples confirmed that he was that prophet (Acts 3:22, 7:37)

Deuteronomy 33:2

"And he said, The Lord came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from mount Paran, and he came with ten thousands of saints: from his right hand went a fiery law for them."

First of all, the whole argument breaks down when we consider that the One coming in all of these cases is the Lord(see opening phrase of this verse). Muslims would definitely not attribute divinity to Mohammad because doing so would make them guilty of the Islamic sin of shirk, the worst sin according to Islam.

Furthermore, Seir and Paran are actually near Egypt in the Sinai peninsula(Genesis 14:6; Numbers 10:12; 12:16-13:3; Deuteronomy 1:1). This eliminates the possibility of Jesus being the one "rising up" from Seir since this is not in Palestine. Furthermore, Paran is, in actuality, hundreds of miles away from Mecca in the northeastern Sinai of southern Palestine

A close look at the text also disqualifies on at least two other counts why this prophecy cannot refer to Mohammad. First of all, Mohammad conquered Mecca with 10,000 men, not ten thousandS. At best, Mohammad's regime was only one-half of the necessary number. Furthermore, verse 2 says that the subject "shined forth from Mount Paran," not "shined forth to Mount Paran." Even if Paran is/was Mecca, the verse says that the subject came from there, not went to there as Mohammad and company did.

Deuteronomy 34:10-12

"And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses..."

Concerning not a prophet since IN Israel This prophecy is ripped from its historical setting. What the text indicates is that no prophet like Moses arose in Israel since the time that the verse was written, which was perhaps by Joshua or even Moses himself about 1,400 B.C.

John 16:7

"But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Comforter will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you."

the Comforter, is clearly identified by the Lord Jesus as the Holy Spirit in John 14:26
John 14:26 "But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you."

Again no need to explain the rest of the prophecy with it being baseless.

Haggai 2:7-9

"I will shake the nations, and the desired of all nations will come, and I will fill this house with glory,' says the LORD Almighty."

Many Muslims claim that Haggai 2:7 is a prophecy about the Prophet Muhammad. They claim that where it says "and the desired of all nations will come" should really read "and the Himada of all nations will come"

"ve.hir.ash.ti et-kol-ha.go.yim u.va.u khem.dat kol-ha.go.yim u.mi.le.ti et-ha.ba.yit ha.ze ka.yod a.mar a.do.nai tse.va.ot" -- Haggai 2:7-9

There isn't any Himada in the text, it is a perverted translation of khem.dat wich means desire in hebrew. "the desire of" is not "Himada" in Hebrew but khem.dat. But yes, it does have a individual signifance... but to the Messiah.

This verse is very important. It (A) reverses the curse placed on King Jehoiachin in Jeremiah 22:24 (the Messiah's lineage) and (B) God says that the Messiah would come from the lineage of Zerubabbel (the signet ring) (Matthew 1:13). With this context, Muhammad does not fit into the picture. Also, when we read Haggai 2:7, we see that God is speaking of the Temple in Jerusalem.

When Muhammad came, was glory brought to the Temple in Jerusalem? No! The Temple in Jerusalem had been destroyed and demolished a few hundred years earlier. Clearly, Muhammad was not "the desired of all nations" to come.

Psalm 84:5-6

"Blessed is the man whose strength is in thee; in whose heart are the ways of them. Who passing through the valley of Baca make it a well; the rain also filleth the pools."

This psalm is describing the Jerusalem Temple that Solomon built moreso than the Ka'aba in Mecca

1) the tabernacle in Psalm 84 is being described as God's residence within the Jerusalem Temple, the concept of God actually taking residence in the Ka'aba would be foreign to general Islamic theology.
2) In Psalm 84:4 you'll read that people live within this structure. There certainly are not people living in the Ka'aba. However, there were people, particularly caretakers, that lived in the Jerusalem Temple
3) the people are described as going to Zion, which is often used interchangeably with Jerusalem(Isaiah 2:2). More specifically, Mount Zion is one of the hills in which Jerusalem is founded upon.
4) the occupation of doorkeeper does not exist at the Ka'aba whereas it did at the Jerusalem Temple.(II Kings 25:18)

Song of Solomon 5:16

"His mouth is most sweet: yea, he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem."

Or how muslims want it to read
"His mouth is most sweet: yea, he is Mohammad. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem."

Muslims assert that since the word for "altogether lovely," machmad, can be translated as "praise" and that Mohammad's name means "praised one" that this is a prophecy of Mohammad. Although the word in this case is used as an adjective, it is claimed that this can be used as a noun.

Of course, such an exercise of interpreting an adjective as a noun is unwarranted. Furthermore, if we translate "machmad" as Mohammad in other Biblical verses, we get some interesting passages.

1 Kings 20:6 "Yet I will send my servants to thee tomorrow about this time, and they shall search thy house, and the houses of thy servants; and it shall be, [that] whatever is Muhammad in thy eyes, they shall take [it] in their hand, and carry [it] away."
Lamentations 1:11 "All her people sigh, they seek bread; they have given their Muhammad things for food to relieve the soul: see, O LORD, and consider; for I am become vile."
Ezekiel 24:21 "Speak to the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will profane my sanctuary, the excellence of your strength, the Muhammad of your eyes, and that which your soul pitieth; and your sons and your daughters whom ye have left shall fall by the sword." In light of the fact that a change in a part of speech(from adjective to noun) is unfounded and that parallel passages show this interpretation to be ludicrous, we can conclude that "altogether lovely" means simply that.

Decide for yourself.

Habbakuk 3:3

"God came from Teman, and the Holy One from mount Paran. Selah. His glory covered the heavens, and the earth was full of his praise."

1) Teman is 800 kilometers north of Medina. Therefore, there are great geographical anomalies asserted by Muslim apologists in their attempts of fitting Mohammad into this verse
2) We have already seen where Paran is actually nowhere near Mecca.
3) The verse says that "God came from Teman" which is self-explanatory and "and the Holy One from mount Paran." The latter phrase is an example of Hebrew parallelism where our subject, God, is described using a different name than what is used in the first phrase
4) Considering that Muslims would consider it blasphemy(or shirk, as they put it) to associate Mohammad(or anything or anyone else) as God, it is surprising to see this verse ascribed to Mohammad by Muslim apologists.

[Unite]

Dear friends,

I sometimes wonder why the prophecies in the Bible are so vague and do not exactly locate the event and person in the future, and leaves so much room for interpretations. Also I wonder why it becomes really necessary to refer to the original text to explain some points. I think translations should be enough for the text to explain itself. Also the art of prophecy is as old as the history of mankind. People might think that Bible rephrases the older prophecies and submits them as if they are of some miracle.

Regards,
Unite

[Loki]

I sometimes wonder why the prophecies in the Bible are so vague and do not exactly locate the event and person in the future, and leaves so much room for interpretations.

Sorry but i gotta dissapoint you in this... most of the time when God prophecies something to happen he does so in more then one prophecy, trough different prophets.

Here's an example of over 324 prophecies concerning the Messiah, this being in utmost detail http://hopeofisrael.net/messiah1.htm

And here you'll find some 100 prophecies concerning Israel.
http://www.100prophecies.org/
also in detail.

Also I wonder why it becomes really necessary to refer to the original text to explain some points. I think translations should be enough for the text to explain itself.

the translations are trustworthy and explain themselves, it's with the haggai verse, that muslim apologetics refer to the original text, complaining that's it's not good translated... while it is

Also the art of prophecy is as old as the history of mankind. People might think that Bible rephrases the older prophecies and submits them as if they are of some miracle.

acctually they don't rephrase older prophecies, if Moses made a prophecy, then other prophets of God, would add unto it... not copy it.
the fact that these prophecies are not an 'art' is that they come true

[Kai Hagbard]

Well
In that case you strongly debunk all the Muslim attempts to prove Muhammad's presence in the Bible.
These Muslims clearly claim that the Bible gives explicit predictions about Islam and Muhammad.

Whatever, you cant have it both ways. Do you still claim that Muhammad is present in the Bible (that is of course if join the rest) or is the Bible to unclear to provide any plausible predictions.

Kai

[Unite]

the fact that these prophecies are not an 'art' is that they come true

Yeah there are also many Nostradamus fans out there. They say his prophecies come true. This interpretation issue again.

[Unite]

Well
In that case you strongly debunk all the Muslim attempts to prove Muhammad's presence in the Bible.
These Muslims clearly claim that the Bible gives explicit predictions about Islam and Muhammad.

Whatever, you cant have it both ways. Do you still claim that Muhammad is present in the Bible (that is of course if join the rest) or is the Bible to unclear to provide any plausible predictions.

Kai

They were said in satire.

[Loki]

Yeah there are also many Nostradamus fans out there. They say his prophecies come true. This interpretation issue again.

Well Nostradamus, i don't know if you judge on prejuice or on knowledge.
But Nostradamus made cryptic prophecies based on trance (wich we never found a decoding system for) and he had put them in order according to a quatrin. according to the quatrin people can know about wich era he made a prophecy...

Yet with Nostradamus, his 'prophecies' are cryptic in 3 or 4 different languages and the words are not in order... they are like a puzzle and don't make sence at all. That's why all prophecies in the quatrin's are only puzzled out after it happend... yes these are puzzles and not clear prophecies. Next to that, all that has happend in the past of what's in quatrin's that should have made sence by know but doesn't, is only explainable because they didn't come true or because we don't have the decoding system yet (as why it attracks such a following).

The difference with the bible, is that the source isn't claimed to be of trance but of God, that the prophecies are not cryptic (excluding Daniel and Revelations, alltough they have a concensus), that they are said what they are about (Messiah, Israel, Apocalyps,etc...) and that they come true.

[Unite]

As I said it is all related to differtent point of views. Yes we Muslims believe God prophecied Muhammad pbuh in the original OT and NT. And you cant do anything against this. You cannot change our minds by text analysis because we believe the text is corrupted.

So, everyone can prove or legitimize anything in his mind if he really wishes to. We are talking of three big religions. But there are many people out there of other polytheistic religions. They look quite content. So, the question is what is beyond this? What is the reliable criterion? What really saves us? Care to tell?

[Loki]

As I said it is all related to differtent point of views. Yes we Muslims believe God prophecied Muhammad pbuh in the original OT and NT. And you cant do anything against this. You cannot change our minds by text analysis because we believe the text is corrupted.

we have substantial arguments, and 3500 years of archeologic evidence that confirms the authenthicy of the OT and NT without historical and theological contradictions... in the 1400 years that came after muhammed not one, not one source has indicated the perversion of judo-christian scripture... accuatlly the quran never says that the bible is corrupted... but islam became so bankrupt and desperate in his quest for confirmation when it realized that the bible didn't agree with it's prophet... that they had to change the theology saying we corrupted stuff in order that Islam wouldn't lose face... it even became so bankrupt that they rely their theology on fabricated gospels like the gospel of barbnabas, a christian sect like Jehova's Witnesses and a unquranic, unchristian flamboyant theologian as Ahmed Deedat. The Quran doesn't even stand on it's own, without the Hadith there is no code of life in islam... quran without hadith is as a car without an engine... how can you still claim this book is clear and stands on it's own?

So, everyone can prove or legitimize anything in his mind if he really wishes to.

No, first using christian scripture to try and proof muhammed is prophecied.... and then when this gets refuted saying "well... we didn't believe those prophecies anyway" sounds like hypocrism.

That's not legitimizing, that's just ignorance... making Islam a little island, alienating itself from ALL religions... since it agrees with none. not even the Judo-Christian ones.

What really saves us? Care to tell?

someone else allready did tell you, 2000 years ago.