Muhammad in the Bible

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

God bless you too!

I have also moved to Islam. It's almost 15 years now. Been rather "exoteric" in it but soon I found the Spiritual Path in Islam (which is called Sufism or Tassawwuf in Islam). I can perfectly go on loving Jesus, because he is a great Prophet and Model, also in Islam, especially Spiritual Islam. Our Guide, Prophet Muhammad, is not very different from Jesus if you read him in a Spiritual way.
Not all Muslims accept the spiritual Path and that hurts.

Peace.
It's all for love.
We're all brothers and sisters

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Muhammed is not in the Bible. Definitely not. Unless he is mentioned by name, then he is not in the Bible. Islam and Christianity, much like Judaism and Christianity, simply cannot coexist due to the major differences in belief and theology.

As a matter of fact, he is mentioned by name in Hebrew in the Bible "Muhammad-im".

p.s. In English the name Muhammad was translated as "he is altogether lovely". In Arabic, Hebrew's sister language, Muhammad means "the praised one", "the praiseworthy", also "the beloved one".

Now everyone is free to interpret the scriptures, but we should bear in mind that each name in Arabic/Aramaic/Hebrew has a meaning.

For example the disciple's "Shimôn's" (Simon) nickname was "Kefa" (stone or rock in Aramaic/Hebrew). Instead of keeping it as such, they translated the meaining of it into Greek "Petros" which means "stone or rock". In English the deformed version of Petros is Peter, and in French it is even retranslated into "Pierre" which means "stone" in French.

This selective choice of translating some names and some not gives people a limited view of the message if they don't master the original language. Most translators, however, have tendency to translate religious scripts according to their own beliefs or according to the official position of a particular religious organization. That explains why you have so many religious subgroups among Jews, Christians and Muslims.

 

[Garden]

Yes, thank you for the beautifull link
http://webzoom.freewebs.com/tawhiyd/...lose up).jpg
but, and I maybe speak against my own "camp" lol, but it might have been another person... maybe I should do an elaborate and indepth study about this... and even then it would still be... a belief I think.
But as such it is no problem for me, because I read Bible and Quran not in a litteral, even not a historical way. These books contain different plans and different layers. For me the spiritual plan is the most important and it is forever. The material, historical, geographical, social, cultural, and so on plans are related to a certain context in space and time. That's the big problem with the litteralists : they don't make enough the difference in the plans and interprete for instance justice matters from that very old ancient time like if they can transfer it to present time.
I think the key of Thora, Bible and Quran study is not only a linguistical or historical problem.
Problem I think is the litteralism and the taking out of context, together with not seeing the Spiritual plan. I think all what's not spiritual is temporal, limited to a certain time and space.
Leaders with agendas teach litteralistic, radicalistic teachings (for instance Salafism, Wahhabism). It's dangerous.

"Muhammad" can be "seen" in different plans, also in a very spiritual plan: for instance, somewhere in Quran or Hadith (I am not too good at the books) : "God took a handfull of his Light and he said "Be Praised!" (be Muhammad)...."

Now, it is known that classic Islam scholars say that Muhammad is in the Bible... so I am not going to contradict them because I certainly can not say that he is not in it.
I am not a "knower". God knows best (Allahu a'lam, like the proverb says).

Love.

 

[Garden]

As a matter of fact, he is mentioned by name in Hebrew in the Bible "Muhammad-im".

p.s. In English the name Muhammad was translated as "he is altogether lovely". In Arabic, Hebrew's sister language, Muhammad means "the praised one", "the praiseworthy", also "the beloved one".

Now everyone is free to interpret the scriptures, but we should bear in mind that each name in Arabic/Aramaic/Hebrew has a meaning.

For example the disciple's "Shimôn's" (Simon) nickname was "Kefa" (stone or rock in Aramaic/Hebrew). Instead of keeping it as such, they translated the meaining of it into Greek "Petros" which means "stone or rock". In English the deformed version of Petros is Peter, and in French it is even retranslated into "Pierre" which means "stone" in French.

This selective choice of translating some names and some not gives people a limited view of the message if they don't master the original language. Most translators, however, have tendency to translate religious scripts according to their own beliefs or according to the official position of a particular religious organization. That explains why you have so many religious subgroups among Jews, Christians and Muslims.

I surely agree with the importance of translation!!

 

[LoveMJackson]

As a matter of fact, he is mentioned by name in Hebrew in the Bible "Muhammad-im".

p.s. In English the name Muhammad was translated as "he is altogether lovely". In Arabic, Hebrew's sister language, Muhammad means "the praised one", "the praiseworthy", also "the beloved one".

Now everyone is free to interpret the scriptures, but we should bear in mind that each name in Arabic/Aramaic/Hebrew has a meaning.

For example the disciple's "Shimôn's" (Simon) nickname was "Kefa" (stone or rock in Aramaic/Hebrew). Instead of keeping it as such, they translated the meaining of it into Greek "Petros" which means "stone or rock". In English the deformed version of Petros is Peter, and in French it is even retranslated into "Pierre" which means "stone" in French.

This selective choice of translating some names and some not gives people a limited view of the message if they don't master the original language. Most translators, however, have tendency to translate religious scripts according to their own beliefs or according to the official position of a particular religious organization. That explains why you have so many religious subgroups among Jews, Christians and Muslims.

Hebrew is my native language. Mahmad מחמד means delightful, precious thing, lovely. 'The Songs of Songs' is about love songs written by king Solomon (according to most commentators), love songs between a man and a woman, it can also be interpreted as an allegorical representation of the relationship of God and Israel. Mahmad מחמד might be written the same as Muhammad מוחמד in Hebrew but the meaning is different and it even pronounces differently. Actually I'm reading it right now in Hebrew (wow its a long time since I opened a bible), the whole chapter..you made me curious lol and it is a love song..cant see how people think its about prophet Muhammad.

 

[Garden]

"A voice whispered to me last night: 'There's no such thing as a voice whispering in the night' " :cheeky:

Well.... I answered this post but... in a mysterious way my post dissappeared. In a spiritual way, lol? In mean time I red there was something like spam prevention that run out of hands.
Hm I spent pretty much time writing my answer to your post. Hopefull that it is found back.
"Has to be approved by moderator" it said....

See you!

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Hebrew is my native language. Mahmad ???? means delightful, precious thing, lovely. 'The Songs of Songs' is about love songs written by king Solomon (according to most commentators), love songs between a man and a woman, it can also be interpreted as an allegorical representation of the relationship of God and Israel. Mahmad ???? might be written the same as Muhammad ????? in Hebrew but the meaning is different and it even pronounces differently. Actually I'm reading it right now in Hebrew (wow its a long time since I opened a bible), the whole chapter..you made me curious lol and it is a love song..cant see how people think its about prophet Muhammad.

Well, I just said it in my explanation. Everything is a question of interpretation, even if it is someone's mother tongue, as it was the case with the translators who opted either to translate some names and some not. As I mentioned, Kephas was translated into Greek Petros (why???) and the irony is that today in Arabic (semitic language as Hebrew and Aramaic) the name "Boutros" is actually the deformed name from Peter (as there's no "p" in Arabic), which means that if somebody called Shimon Kephas by the names "Boutros" or "Petros" or "Peter" or "Pierre" he would probably have never imagined that he's being called actually by translated names.

The fact that some scholars consider that Muhammad's name is written in Hebrew, is not that surprising actually. As it is not the only place of possible interpretation in the Bible. Many other passages in the Bibles are believed by some scholars to refer to respectively Muhammad, Jesus, and other prophets.

Jewish scholars, however, do not see in any of those scriptures that anything refer neither to Muhammad nor Jesus, while Christian scholars interpret many prophecies in the Bible as referring only to Jesus.

Likewise, the word that is used in Genesis Eloh-im, some Christian scholars believe that the plural is referring to the Holy Trinity, while Jewish and Muslim scholars see the plural form "-im" in "Eloh-im" as a plural indicating a respect for a singular and the unique God: Eloh/Ealah/Alah (old and modern Hebrew) / Allaha (Syriac/Aramaic) /Allah (Arabic).


No matter how you read the scriptures, there is always a door for interpretation. However, eventually the three religions definitely are referring to the same God, the only difference is in the understanding of His nature and/or manifestation and/or concept in general.

 

[LoveMJackson]

Well, I just said it in my explanation. Everything is a question of interpretation, even if it is someone's mother tongue, as it was the case with the translators who opted either to translate some names and some not. As I mentioned, Kephas was translated into Greek Petros (why???) and the irony is that today in Arabic (semitic language as Hebrew and Aramaic) the name "Boutros" is actually the deformed name from Peter (as there's no "p" in Arabic), which means that if somebody called Shimon Kephas by the names "Boutros" or "Petros" or "Peter" or "Pierre" he would probably have never imagined that he's being called actually by translated names.

The fact that some scholars consider that Muhammad's name is written in Hebrew, is not that surprising actually. As it is not the only place of possible interpretation in the Bible. Many other passages in the Bibles are believed by some scholars to refer to respectively Muhammad, Jesus, and other prophets.

Jewish scholars, however, do not see in any of those scriptures that anything refer neither to Muhammad nor Jesus, while Christian scholars interpret many prophecies in the Bible as referring only to Jesus.

Likewise, the word that is used in Genesis Eloh-im, some Christian scholars believe that the plural is referring to the Holy Trinity, while Jewish and Muslim scholars see the plural form "-im" in "Eloh-im" as a plural indicating a respect for a singular and the unique God: Eloh/Ealah/Alah (old and modern Hebrew) / Allaha (Syriac/Aramaic) /Allah (Arabic).


No matter how you read the scriptures, there is always a door for interpretation. However, eventually the three religions definitely are referring to the same God, the only difference is in the understanding of His nature and/or manifestation and/or concept in general.

You are right about Jewish scholars, I've never heard in my life this interpretation about prophet Muhammad and I also think it doesn't sound logic, in many ways. I guess when people really want to find something, even if it doesn't exist, they will find and convince others they are right..that's my opinion. so there is no point arguing about it. I only said how I understood it by reading the whole chapter in Hebrew and its pretty clear to me, however, when I change the word to Muhammed I can't see how it fits there.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Muhammad and I also think it doesn't sound logic, in many ways. I guess when people really want to find something, even if it doesn't exist, they will find and convince others they are right..that's my opinion. so there is no point arguing about it. I only said how I understood it by reading the whole chapter in Hebrew and its pretty clear to me, however, when I change the word to Muhammed I can't see how it fits there.

sounds logical to this atheist. seems like soneones picked a word that looks abit like mohammed and have declared that word is mohammed when logically it doesnt fit.

someone care to explain how mo would be in the bible when he came last. is this fortune telling or was the book written after mo was around?

 

[Garden]

sounds logical to this atheist. seems like soneones picked a word that looks abit like mohammed and have declared that word is mohammed when logically it doesnt fit.

someone care to explain how mo would be in the bible when he came last. is this fortune telling or was the book written after mo was around?

I did not follow this entire thread, so this maybe is already said : indeed, the Prophet in Islam Muhammad was born after the time of the Bible books, more than 600 years after Jesus Christ.
What could be a possibility and what was meant is that the coming of Muhammad was predicted in the Bible.
But real proof for that I think does not exist, neither proof against it.

 

[MJLoverForEver]

Yes, thank you for the beautifull link
http://webzoom.freewebs.com/tawhiyd/...lose up).jpg
but, and I maybe speak against my own "camp" lol, but it might have been another person... maybe I should do an elaborate and indepth study about this... and even then it would still be... a belief I think.
But as such it is no problem for me, because I read Bible and Quran not in a litteral, even not a historical way. These books contain different plans and different layers. For me the spiritual plan is the most important and it is forever. The material, historical, geographical, social, cultural, and so on plans are related to a certain context in space and time. That's the big problem with the litteralists : they don't make enough the difference in the plans and interprete for instance justice matters from that very old ancient time like if they can transfer it to present time.
I think the key of Thora, Bible and Quran study is not only a linguistical or historical problem.
Problem I think is the litteralism and the taking out of context, together with not seeing the Spiritual plan. I think all what's not spiritual is temporal, limited to a certain time and space.
Leaders with agendas teach litteralistic, radicalistic teachings (for instance Salafism, Wahhabism). It's dangerous.

"Muhammad" can be "seen" in different plans, also in a very spiritual plan: for instance, somewhere in Quran or Hadith (I am not too good at the books) : "God took a handfull of his Light and he said "Be Praised!" (be Muhammad)...."

Now, it is known that classic Islam scholars say that Muhammad is in the Bible... so I am not going to contradict them because I certainly can not say that he is not in it.
I am not a "knower". God knows best (Allahu a'lam, like the proverb says).

Love.

I like what you said here, especially when you say" the spiritual plan is the MOST IMPORTANT."
I totally agree with you. Then the focus depends on the reader based on what they want to hear or teachers to tell others. Like you said, those with hidden agenders, chose paragraphs to focus on and ignore the most important part, spiritual.
It is the same way I always wonder to why many Christian Churches, starting with Catholic, don't tell people the importance of receiving Holly Spirit in there christian lives? While we all know that, this is the most important part of becoming a Christian? It is actually the most important than recieving baptism.
Baptism, communion etc, are more symbolic while receiving holly spirit is like a stamp from God that you are christian. Holly spirit guides us in our everyday lives and help us distinguish between GOOD and BAD, something we are not capable on our own.
To me it looks like the devil still work among church leaders to stop the people from coming to God.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

I like what you said here, especially when you say" the spiritual plan is the MOST IMPORTANT."
I totally agree with you. Then the focus depends on the reader based on what they want to hear or teachers to tell others. Like you said, those with hidden agenders, chose paragraphs to focus on and ignore the most important part, spiritual.
It is the same way I always wonder to why many Christian Churches, starting with Catholic, don't tell people the importance of receiving Holly Spirit in there christian lives? While we all know that, this is the most important part of becoming a Christian? It is actually the most important than recieving baptism.
Baptism, communion etc, are more symbolic while receiving holly spirit is like a stamp from God that you are christian. Holly spirit guides us in our everyday lives and help us distinguish between GOOD and BAD, something we are not capable on our own.
To me it looks like the devil still work among church leaders to stop the people from coming to God.

Again, the difficulty is the language itself. You for example call it Holy Spirit. Some other English speakers call it Holy Ghost.
Spirit and ghost although similar are two different words, hence two different concepts.

By the way, receiving the Holy Spirit is the Christian dogma, while Garden was referring to the universal path towards the light, which means as many paths as individuals, comparable to people climbing to the top of the mountain from different sides of the mountain. If your path is receiving the Holy Spirit, someone else's path is something else.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

sounds logical to this atheist. seems like soneones picked a word that looks abit like mohammed and have declared that word is mohammed when logically it doesnt fit.

someone care to explain how mo would be in the bible when he came last. is this fortune telling or was the book written after mo was around?

No, the spelling that is used is used exactly the way you would use to write Muhammad. One should bear in mind that Semitic languages give importance to the consonants, while the vowels are optional, hence:

-iBRaHiM vs aBRaHaM = BRHM in both cases
-MuSa* vs MoS(h)e* = MS(h) in both cases *Moses
-aLLaH* vs eLoH* = L(L)H in both cases *God (the unique)/Allah
-MuHaM(M)aD vs MaHaMaD = MHMD in both cases.


So, no, it is not something that ressembled, it is exactly the same spelling with the same meaning. As some other verses are also interpreted as announcing the coming of the prophet Muhammad, as I said it is not surprising at all to see different theories circulating.

The same goes for Jesus. Many Christian and Muslim scholars believe that some verses are referring to the advent of Jesus.

The fact that Jesus and Muhammad lived afterwards is actually the whole point in interpreting the Bible's verses as prophecies.

The only problem is that the original scriptures are seriously damaged and many are actually copies or translations of older copies which we don't possess.

 

[LoveMJackson]

No, the spelling that is used is used exactly the way you would use to write Muhammad. One should bear in mind that Semitic languages give importance to the consonants, while the vowels are optional, hence:

-iBRaHiM vs aBRaHaM = BRHM in both cases
-MuSa* vs MoS(h)e* = MS(h) in both cases *Moses
-aLLaH* vs eLoH* = L(L)H in both cases *God (the unique)/Allah
-MuHaM(M)aD vs MaHaMaD = MHMD in both cases.


So, no, it is not something that ressembled, it is exactly the same spelling with the same meaning. As some other verses are also interpreted as announcing the coming of the prophet Muhammad, as I said it is not surprising at all to see different theories circulating.

The same goes for Jesus. Many Christian and Muslim scholars believe that some verses are referring to the advent of Jesus.

The fact that Jesus and Muhammad lived afterwards is actually the whole point in interpreting the Bible's verses as prophecies.

The only problem is that the original scriptures are seriously damaged and many are actually copies or translations of older copies which we don't possess.

Written the same But as I said, the pronunciation is not the same. The diacritical signs are not the same.
מֻחַמַּד
מַחֲמַדִּים
Very similar but different pronunciation, as you see in the first letter מ M. the first sounds like Mu, second like Ma.
(Ancient) Hebrew and Aramaic are older than Arabic. And the bible is older than the Qur'an that came last. Judaism is the oldest monotheistic religion so the example you gave doesn’t prove anything. Hebrew and Arabic are alike, true but you have to go to the source which is Ancient Hebrew (like the Hebrew in the Bible/Tanakh).

I’m not a bible expert, never pretended to be..even though I studied in a religious school (but I’m not religious hehe quite the opposite, I’m agnostic), I was referring to that particular chapter that doesn’t sound logical when you read it all, its a love song, if you put Muhammad instead, I have to say it sounds funny. I even tried to find several interpretations to this from Jewish scholars and its exactly what I said all along. Maybe according to some Jewish commentators Muhammad does appear somewhere in the bible but not mentioned by name. As you said, maybe some kind of prophecy or whatever.. but there are so many interpretations haha anyone can claim that their interpretation is the correct.
Anyway, lets say he does appear in the bible..what does that prove exactly? Jews don’t accept Muhammad as the prophet of god, not sure about Christians but I think they don’t accept him either..correct me if I’m wrong. So what’s the point again?

 

[Garden]

Again, the difficulty is the language itself. You for example call it Holy Spirit. Some other English speakers call it Holy Ghost.
Spirit and ghost although similar are two different words, hence two different concepts.

By the way, receiving the Holy Spirit is the Christian dogma, while Garden was referring to the universal path towards the light, which means as many paths as individuals, comparable to people climbing to the top of the mountain from different sides of the mountain. If your path is receiving the Holy Spirit, someone else's path is something else.

"The difficulty is the lanuage itself" you say Bumper. Well yes, language expresses a system of "symboles" There is a link between civilisations, their paradigma, their concepts of world and things, their symboles and meanings and on the other hand "language groups, language systems". These things unfold in what you could call linguistic "game"'s. Maybe there's a better word but I don't have it now . (Among others a wellknown Hindu scholar has written interesting things about that, I thought it was Paniker, I can look it up if you are interested.)
Unfortunately I am not so good in English and my one time Hinduism teacher tought us in Dutch...

Now, the Holy Spirit, the Holy Ghost in Christianity and ar Rûh in Islam and maybe the Light that enlightened the Buddha and enlighten(ed)s the Hindu saints and actually the Spirit, the Light that can come in all opened hearts and spirits... I guess it could refer to a similar something... and to different things.
Well, "Spirit", "Ghost", "Ruh" isn't a thing, it is formless... and in it's ultimate modality it is endless, timeless, unlimited, so yes, in essence it is one and the same.
That's from the innerly plan and therein the Spiritual.

Now, there is also what people attribute to it that belongs to the outerly world of "forms" and/or "attributes", the "relative" world and that can differ.
There's a proverb : "The Water Is One And The Flowers (that grow from it) Are Various" (I translated).
The systems of forms, symboles and meanings will be different in Christianity, Islam, Judaism and so on. You can try to compare elements of different systems and you will find similarities and differences but all of the religious systems will converge in the core, the formless, the spiritual plan and you will find diversity on the formal, ritual, symbolical, linguistic plans. These "forms" sometimes can seem very similar in different "systems". It is very interesting to study religions in a comparative way. For me it was actually kind of comparative antropological approach linked to a possibility to search for the Spiritual core in each religious or spiritual system (even in cults and sects). Unfortunately these days I am not so much in this study anymore and my language skills are not sufficient, but it still remains a very interesting and passionating subject to me.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

I am at work now, so I can't develop my answer. But as soon as I get home I'll answer to you LoveMJackson and Garden.

 

[Garden]

I like what you said here, especially when you say" the spiritual plan is the MOST IMPORTANT."
I totally agree with you. Then the focus depends on the reader based on what they want to hear or teachers to tell others. Like you said, those with hidden agenders, chose paragraphs to focus on and ignore the most important part, spiritual.
It is the same way I always wonder to why many Christian Churches, starting with Catholic, don't tell people the importance of receiving Holly Spirit in there christian lives? While we all know that, this is the most important part of becoming a Christian? It is actually the most important than recieving baptism.
Baptism, communion etc, are more symbolic while receiving holly spirit is like a stamp from God that you are christian. Holly spirit guides us in our everyday lives and help us distinguish between GOOD and BAD, something we are not capable on our own.
To me it looks like the devil still work among church leaders to stop the people from coming to God.

Glad that you too see the spiritual plan as the most important !
Yes, there are hidden agendas and silencing of important things everywhere, it's part of the human nature.

The devil at work, you say? Yes most probably he is, but you know where it is that the "devil", the spirit of evil, works? We see devil at work in bad leaders and so on and that can be a good thing to see that and innerly take position. (Can see devil on face of some of them )

The devil at work, that expression intrigued me, allow me to think further about it ...
And I don't know how it came but I thought this : all of us should look in the mirror... (concerning devils and things)


On the other hand I guess we like to point at the devil in other people and sometimes we forget he is continuously at work in each of us. Yes.... there is a continuous battle between Good and Bad in each of us. Sometimes in such subtil ways we even are not aware of it. That's why we have to focus on good ways, the best possible ways of dealing with things and keeping our hearts opened for the Spirit of Good, so that it can enter. Spiritual practice like prayer can be of great help.

That doesn't mean that we should only pray and not distinguish, no we should not close our eyes for things happening in our world! But whatever we see our heart should stay opened for the Mercyfull, Spirit of Good (which is Divine). Then we can try to give constructive answers to things that happen. And in our hearts we will be stronger than all devils together .

 

[Garden]

I am at work now, so I can't develop my answer. But as soon as I get home I'll answer to you LoveMJackson and Garden.

Thanks

 

[elusive moonwalker]

slightly off topic. but lovemjackson you might be able to answer this for me seeing as u studied judaism etc. it confuses me how jews think theres a heaven so to speak (afterlife) yet dont believe that jesus is the son of god. yet i thought the only way(according to christians) to get to heaven is through jesus and believing hes the son of god .cna u or anyone explain put me right?

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Written the same But as I said, the pronunciation is not the same. The diacritical signs are not the same.
מֻחַמַּד
מַחֲמַדִּים
Very similar but different pronunciation, as you see in the first letter מ M. the first sounds like Mu, second like Ma.

You are completely right about the pronunciation and the diacritical signs. I am not a Hebrew speaker, neither am I an Arabic speaker. Nonetheless I understand their respective linguistical system.

Allow me to give my opinion as a professional linguist, translator/interpreter and a multilingual language teacher. I've also been studying and comparing religions and scriptures parallelly to languages -these latter being nothing else but the translation of our concepts and vice versa.

Be it Hebrew, Aramaic or Arabic, or any other Semitic language or dialect, the pronunciation will ALWAYS be different in each respective region. However what will not be --in most cases-- different is the consonant spelling.
As you know, Semitic languages do not possess written vowels. That is the reason why the tetragram YHWH is impossible to pronounce correctly. As it was forbidden, according to Jewish scholars, to pronounce God's name, we have forgotten how were the vowels between the consonants pronounced. We don't know if it is YAHWE, or YAHOWAH, or YEHUWAH, or YA! HUWA (ELOH-im) = (O, HE IS --ELOH-im), etc.

Likewise, there are many othe examples:

BRHM = IBRAHIM vs ABRAHAM
MSh = MUSA vs MOShE (n.b. the letter "sin" and "shin" are the same in some Semitic dialects and most probably in Ancient Hebrew; it's the same letter)
NH = NUH vs NOAH etc

and also

MHMD = MUHAMMAD vs MAHAMAD


The diacritical signs that you were referring to were added much later in order to codify the language and in order to be consistent while pronouncing some vowels. I don't know if you knew it, but even the arabic language never had diacritical signs, just like Hebrew. The languages had to be codified and they did it according to the pronunciation of those times, not according to the pronunciation of the abcient times of Abraham, Moses, Noah, etc.

This explains the difference between sister languages such as Aramaic, Hebrew and Arabic.

Sme further examples:

Salaam = Shalom (note that "sin" and "shin" are the same letter when you remove the diacritical signs)
Suleyman = Shalomon
Yassu3 / 3issaa = Yeshu/Yashua/Yoshua

(Ancient) Hebrew and Aramaic are older than Arabic.

Well actually, there is a big difference between Ancient Hebrew and Modern Hebrew.

In ancient times Hebrew, Arabic and Aramaic was one and only language. It is only after with regions and different communities that the language evolved, split into Semitic dialects giving birth to sister languages such as Modern Hebrew, Aramaic and Arabic.

And the bible is older than the Qur'an that came last.

No one denies that the Bible is older and that the Qur'an came last. However, let's not lose sight of the fact that the Bible is not one book. It is a collection of books. Some books are rejected by the Jews, some books are rejected by the Christians, some books are rejected by the Muslims.

Jews recognize only the Old Testament as the Bible. Some Christians recognize the Old and The New Testament, but not more than 66 books in total, while other Christians recognize 77 or so. Muslims are divided and recognize that the Bible contain God's word, but also that some scriptures are written by men and not dictated by God. So they believe in Qur'an as -so to say- the "Last Testament".

Judaism is the oldest monotheistic religion so the example you gave doesn’t prove anything.

I must correct the terminology here. The word Judaism appeared much later. I don't recollect that Moses in the Bible is preaching Judaism. Moses is preaching monotheism. The word Judaism appeared much later. And, as far as terminology is concerned, it wouldn't be contradicting that Moses was preaching submission to (to be in peace with) one God (this term in Arabic is rendered as Islam/salaam = SLM = ShLM = Shalom) against the polytheist Egyptians who were using the Hebrew population as slaves.

Hebrew and Arabic are alike, true but you have to go to the source which is Ancient Hebrew (like the Hebrew in the Bible/Tanakh).

I just did. As I said, long ago Arabic and Hebrew was one and the same language, just as French and Italian were the same --Latin.

I’m not a bible expert, never pretended to be..even though I studied in a religious school (but I’m not religious hehe quite the opposite, I’m agnostic), I was referring to that particular chapter that doesn’t sound logical when you read it all, its a love song, if you put Muhammad instead, I have to say it sounds funny. I even tried to find several interpretations to this from Jewish scholars and its exactly what I said all along. Maybe according to some Jewish commentators Muhammad does appear somewhere in the bible but not mentioned by name. As you said, maybe some kind of prophecy or whatever.. but there are so many interpretations haha anyone can claim that their interpretation is the correct.
Anyway, lets say he does appear in the bible..what does that prove exactly? Jews don’t accept Muhammad as the prophet of god, not sure about Christians but I think they don’t accept him either..correct me if I’m wrong. So what’s the point again?

Well to Muslim scholars it doesn't change much, but it only confirms that God's word indeed can be found in the Bible despite many damaged scriptures and lost originals.

It also proves that the Prophets in the Bible were right when announcing the advent of either Jesus or Muhammad.

Indeed, Jews do not recognize Jesus as the Messiah (contrary to Muslims who do recognize Jesus as the Messiah). Neither Jews nor Christians do recognize Muhammad as a Prophet.

Nevertheless, in the past some Jews did recognize Jesus as the Messiah, today they are Christians, many Arameans are Christians for example. Likewise, some Jews and Christians did recognize Muhammad as a prophet, today they're Muslims.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

"The difficulty is the lanuage itself" you say Bumper. Well yes, language expresses a system of "symboles" There is a link between civilisations, their paradigma, their concepts of world and things, their symboles and meanings and on the other hand "language groups, language systems". These things unfold in what you could call linguistic "game"'s. Maybe there's a better word but I don't have it now . (Among others a wellknown Hindu scholar has written interesting things about that, I thought it was Paniker, I can look it up if you are interested.)
Unfortunately I am not so good in English and my one time Hinduism teacher tought us in Dutch...

What I wanted to emphasize is that when you say "an apple" to someone, that someone will understand you, but won't have the same color of the apple in his head as you in your head. That is the difficulty that I was pointing out actually.

Now, the Holy Spirit, the Holy Ghost in Christianity and ar Rûh in Islam and maybe the Light that enlightened the Buddha and enlighten(ed)s the Hindu saints and actually the Spirit, the Light that can come in all opened hearts and spirits... I guess it could refer to a similar something... and to different things.
Well, "Spirit", "Ghost", "Ruh" isn't a thing, it is formless... and in it's ultimate modality it is endless, timeless, unlimited, so yes, in essence it is one and the same.
That's from the innerly plan and therein the Spiritual.

In brief, it is actually much more complex than that. Those terms are more different than same. "Ruh" is seen more as Divine's "breath" pouring life into lifeless body, while Christians see the Holy Spirit as one of the three entities from the Trinity concept.

The light that ou are referring to is also different term: Nur.

Now, there is also what people attribute to it that belongs to the outerly world of "forms" and/or "attributes", the "relative" world and that can differ.
There's a proverb : "The Water Is One And The Flowers (that grow from it) Are Various" (I translated).
The systems of forms, symboles and meanings will be different in Christianity, Islam, Judaism and so on. You can try to compare elements of different systems and you will find similarities and differences but all of the religious systems will converge in the core, the formless, the spiritual plan and you will find diversity on the formal, ritual, symbolical, linguistic plans. These "forms" sometimes can seem very similar in different "systems". It is very interesting to study religions in a comparative way. For me it was actually kind of comparative antropological approach linked to a possibility to search for the Spiritual core in each religious or spiritual system (even in cults and sects). Unfortunately these days I am not so much in this study anymore and my language skills are not sufficient, but it still remains a very interesting and passionating subject to me.

I can assure you that languages are sometimes amazing when it comes to philosophy and theology.

Food for thought: Aloha & Hawaii. Or, Brahma and Saraiswati

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

slightly off topic. but lovemjackson you might be able to answer this for me seeing as u studied judaism etc. it confuses me how jews think theres a heaven so to speak (afterlife) yet dont believe that jesus is the son of god. yet i thought the only way(according to christians) to get to heaven is through jesus and believing hes the son of god .cna u or anyone explain put me right?

This is easy to answer. Jews do not believe that Jesus was neither a messiah nor a prophet, so why would they believe that the only way to access heaven is through someone who they do not believe in?

Untill the Christian theology has been developed, nobody in the Jewish religious milieu was talking about salvation through Jesus, why would all of sudden they start believe in that? If they however start to believ that, they wouldn't be Jews anymore, they would become Chrsitians.

Generally speaking in many non-Christian religions such as Judaism or Islam, salvation is acquired through good deeds and daily actions with faith in one and unique God, not through believeing in who is God or did he have a son or not. By the way, if you read the Bible in Hebrew, you will see that God mentions tons of time to have sons all along the Old Testament, Jesus not being an exception, except his birth.

However, another point is that, Jesus's miraculous birth doesn't make him more son of God in Jewish or Muslim's opinion than Adam who not only didn't have a father, but neither a mother.

 

[MJLoverForEver]

Glad that you too see the spiritual plan as the most important !
Yes, there are hidden agendas and silencing of important things everywhere, it's part of the human nature.

The devil at work, you say? Yes most probably he is, but you know where it is that the "devil", the spirit of evil, works? We see devil at work in bad leaders and so on and that can be a good thing to see that and innerly take position. (Can see devil on face of some of them )

The devil at work, that expression intrigued me, allow me to think further about it ...
And I don't know how it came but I thought this : all of us should look in the mirror... (concerning devils and things)


On the other hand I guess we like to point at the devil in other people and sometimes we forget he is continuously at work in each of us. Yes.... there is a continuous battle between Good and Bad in each of us. Sometimes in such subtil ways we even are not aware of it. That's why we have to focus on good ways, the best possible ways of dealing with things and keeping our hearts opened for the Spirit of Good, so that it can enter. Spiritual practice like prayer can be of great help.

That doesn't mean that we should only pray and not distinguish, no we should not close our eyes for things happening in our world! But whatever we see our heart should stay opened for the Mercyfull, Spirit of Good (which is Divine). Then we can try to give constructive answers to things that happen. And in our hearts we will be stronger than all devils together .

You see, most people don't realize that the world, and here I mean us the people have been mislead and now we are trap in this world's ways of life, which is contrary to what Jesus taught us. As the result, we didn't get anywhere since Jesus left, ormaybe just got few knowledge about God. But, if did stick to Jesus messages, which by the way focus in spiritual path other that religions, we would be at better place already. As the result, we have prolonged days of misry in this world(but I sure God knew this how it was going to happen). Religions(churches) were formally formed to assist people in learn the world of God, the message of Jesus, otherwise, we find religions everywhere on other, way before Jesus as means to try to make sense on it all about this higher source unseen and unknown; that can be felt by every human being. But Religions have turned the whole purpose into business and the main message is not there anymore because the focus is on something else, and if needed or the business threatened, they fit it into this world.
You know I was reading Romans 1:18-32 and found out that, this so called homosexual is a form of panishment to us mankind for we have gone too far in wickedness and ungodly!
Yet, you will find some churches saying it is OK to be that way if people chose to be. Ofcorse you can't stop someone from being what whey want to be, but, don't aprove it when you know in wrong from the eyes of God
God reveiled to us through Jesus and if we were to study the book about him, there wouldn't be any confussion.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

This is easy to answer. Jews do not believe that Jesus was neither a messiah nor a prophet, so why would they believe that the only way to access heaven is through someone who they do not believe in?

Untill the Christian theology has been developed, nobody in the Jewish religious milieu was talking about salvation through Jesus, why would all of sudden they start believe in that? If they however start to believ that, they wouldn't be Jews anymore, they would become Chrsitians.

Generally speaking in many non-Christian religions such as Judaism or Islam, salvation is acquired through good deeds and daily actions with faith in one and unique God, not through believeing in who is God or did he have a son or not. By the way, if you read the Bible in Hebrew, you will see that God mentions tons of time to have sons all along the Old Testament, Jesus not being an exception, except his birth.

However, another point is that, Jesus's miraculous birth doesn't make him more son of God in Jewish or Muslim's opinion than Adam who not only didn't have a father, but neither a mother.

thanks. so heaven is mentioned in the old testament ie torah?.thought the whole concept of resurrection came about through the new testament ie jesus and being a christian.was it around b4 then so to speak. i guess its another example of different religions all claiming they are right when going by whats said they cant be cause they all contridict each other

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

thanks. so heaven is mentioned in the old testament ie torah?

From the very beginning. Where were Adam and Eve chased away from?

.thought the whole concept of resurrection came about through the new testament ie jesus and being a christian.was it around b4 then so to speak. i guess its another example of different religions all claiming they are right when going by whats said they cant be cause they all contridict each other

According to your understanding, would it mean that all the people who had thousands of years across the world died before Jesus's mission were not resurrected?

Only Christians believe that salvation comes through Jesus. In other religions salvation comes through God, the "Father" if you prefer, not the "Son".

p.s. Jesus did not call his teachings Christian. Jesus was a Jew and was reminding the Law (the Torah) and the monotheism among the Romans who were polytheists. The term "Christian" appeared later.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

You see, most people don't realize that the world, and here I mean us the people have been mislead and now we are trap in this world's ways of life, which is contrary to what Jesus taught us.

I see your point. However, let's do not forget that we actually know very little about what Jesus really taught.

The four Gospels that we have refer to Jesus's life (except John's), only about his birth, some points of his childhood (till 12 years old) and the last three years of his mission. Inbetween, we do not know a single thing about him.

On top of that, Jesus, who was a Jew and whose mother tongue was Aramaic, did not teach in Ancient Greek, whereas all the New Testament is written in Ancient Greek, failing to clearly translate some concepts from the Semitic languages into the Indo-European language, which is Ancient Greek.

Furthermore, the four Gospels that we possess are not according to Jesus, but respectively according to Matthew, Luke, Mark and John. The four Gospels were attributed by the scribes to Matthew, Luke, Mark and John, but we don't know if they themselves wrote them or if others wrote them.

So, what do we actually know about Jesus's teachings are only the writings according to some scribes.

The rest of the New Testament was hugely written by Paul who actually never met Jesus, except in visions, dreams, etc (he says it himself).

As the result, we didn't get anywhere since Jesus left, ormaybe just got few knowledge about God. But, if did stick to Jesus messages, which by the way focus in spiritual path other that religions, we would be at better place already.

When Jesus was around, people weren't any better. On the contrary, they were spitting at him and even were looking forward to crucifying him.

As the result, we have prolonged days of misry in this world(but I sure God knew this how it was going to happen). Religions(churches) were formally formed to assist people in learn the world of God, the message of Jesus, otherwise, we find religions everywhere on other, way before Jesus as means to try to make sense on it all about this higher source unseen and unknown; that can be felt by every human being. But Religions have turned the whole purpose into business and the main message is not there anymore because the focus is on something else, and if needed or the business threatened, they fit it into this world.

They did it before too. According to the Gospels, didn't Jesus struggle against sellers in front of the temple?

You know I was reading Romans 1:18-32 and found out that, this so called homosexual is a form of panishment to us mankind for we have gone too far in wickedness and ungodly!

Ask yourself this, was Jesus the author of "Romans"?

Yet, you will find some churches saying it is OK to be that way if people chose to be. Ofcorse you can't stop someone from being what whey want to be, but, don't aprove it when you know in wrong from the eyes of God
God reveiled to us through Jesus and if we were to study the book about him, there wouldn't be any confussion.

How about this in the Gospel of Luke:

[FONT=verdana, geneva, helvetica] 19:25 (And they said unto him, Lord, he hath ten pounds.)
[/FONT]
[FONT=verdana, geneva, helvetica]19:26 For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him. [/FONT]
[FONT=verdana, geneva, helvetica] 19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. [/FONT]
[FONT=verdana, geneva, helvetica] 19:28 And when he had thus spoken, he went before, ascending up to Jerusalem. [/FONT]

Not confusing? Jesus ordering to kill people in front of him?

 

[PlatinumMJFan]

Reverted to Islam last year ( I say reverted because we believe everyone was born muslim ). I would love to learn more about sufism

 

[LoveMJackson]

You are completely right about the pronunciation and the diacritical signs. I am not a Hebrew speaker, neither am I an Arabic speaker. Nonetheless I understand their respective linguistical system.

Allow me to give my opinion as a professional linguist, translator/interpreter and a multilingual language teacher. I've also been studying and comparing religions and scriptures parallelly to languages -these latter being nothing else but the translation of our concepts and vice versa.

Be it Hebrew, Aramaic or Arabic, or any other Semitic language or dialect, the pronunciation will ALWAYS be different in each respective region. However what will not be --in most cases-- different is the consonant spelling.
As you know, Semitic languages do not possess written vowels. That is the reason why the tetragram YHWH is impossible to pronounce correctly. As it was forbidden, according to Jewish scholars, to pronounce God's name, we have forgotten how were the vowels between the consonants pronounced. We don't know if it is YAHWE, or YAHOWAH, or YEHUWAH, or YA! HUWA (ELOH-im) = (O, HE IS --ELOH-im), etc.

Likewise, there are many othe examples:

BRHM = IBRAHIM vs ABRAHAM
MSh = MUSA vs MOShE (n.b. the letter "sin" and "shin" are the same in some Semitic dialects and most probably in Ancient Hebrew; it's the same letter)
NH = NUH vs NOAH etc

and also

MHMD = MUHAMMAD vs MAHAMAD


The diacritical signs that you were referring to were added much later in order to codify the language and in order to be consistent while pronouncing some vowels. I don't know if you knew it, but even the arabic language never had diacritical signs, just like Hebrew. The languages had to be codified and they did it according to the pronunciation of those times, not according to the pronunciation of the abcient times of Abraham, Moses, Noah, etc.

This explains the difference between sister languages such as Aramaic, Hebrew and Arabic.

Sme further examples:

Salaam = Shalom (note that "sin" and "shin" are the same letter when you remove the diacritical signs)
Suleyman = Shalomon
Yassu3 / 3issaa = Yeshu/Yashua/Yoshua

You are correct. Its forbidden for Jews to pronounce God's name YEHWA, Elohim, however, is allowed. Most, if not all Hebrew speakers Jews refer to God this way.

The diacritical signs were added later, indeed, somewhere in the middle ages people started using it in all Semitic languages. In Hebrew for example, when you learn the language, you use diacritical signs, it helps you to understand how to pronounce the words. After you know the language, there is no use in these diacritical signs, people use it rarely when they want to make sure you understood the word correctly.

Yes, in Arabic its the same, like all Semitic languages the diacritical signs were added later. I think they are using it regularly. I learned Arabic for a few years when I was in school. You have similar letters that can confuse you without the diacritical signs.

Arabic came much later after Hebrew and Aramaic and was influenced by both Hebrew and Aramaic.
That’s quite complicated. According to researches all Semitic languages were developed from one called, Proto-Semitic. There were also Canaanite languages, in ancient times, Hebrew & Phoenician and more languages/ dialects that don’t exist today. Phoenician its closest living relative is Hebrew, to which it is very similar, then Aramaic and then Arabic. Many Jewish scriptures were written in Aramaic and some were later translated to Hebrew. Some Jewish prayers are in Aramaic. Babylonian Aramaic which Hebrew was influenced by it. Anyway, as I said its quite complicated because the languages were influenced by each other and from other languages. Its not correct to say that Hebrew, Arabic and Aramaic were one language, even if they are alike and belong to the same group=Semitic language. Arabic came later. In ancient times Hebrew (it was called all kinds of different names) and Aramaic were most spoken languages that time and this is according to researchers and archaeological finding. Its interesting, today, the Aramaic language is still spoken in communities in Syria, Iraq and others..its quite interesting to hear, reminds me Arabic (obviously it was influenced after the Arab occupation of the Middle East) and some words in Hebrew. Anyway, Way off topic here. Hehe

Well actually, there is a big difference between Ancient Hebrew and Modern Hebrew.

Indeed, there is a big difference. Same with Ancient Aramaic.

I must correct the terminology here. The word Judaism appeared much later. I don't recollect that Moses in the Bible is preaching Judaism. Moses is preaching monotheism. The word Judaism appeared much later. And, as far as terminology is concerned, it wouldn't be contradicting that Moses was preaching submission to (to be in peace with) one God (this term in Arabic is rendered as Islam/salaam = SLM = ShLM = Shalom) against the polytheist Egyptians who were using the Hebrew population as slaves.

Judaism came from the word Judah. Jews were those who belong to Kingdom of Judah. After the rebuilt of the second temple (350 BCE), all Israelites were called Jews. You are wrong. The Torah and the Ten Commandments were revealed to Moses in 1312 BCE at Mount Sinai. Of course he was preaching Judaism (religion of the Israelites) , right after God was revealed and gave the Torah to Moses .

Nevertheless, in the past some Jews did recognize Jesus as the Messiah, today they are Christians, many Arameans are Christians for example. Likewise, some Jews and Christians did recognize Muhammad as a prophet, today they're Muslims.

There are “Jews” today who accept Jesus as the Messiah, they call themselves ‘Messianic Jews’. They are not considered as Jews though. Their faith is more close to Christianity than Judaism.

elusive moonwalker, Jews do not accept Jesus as the son of god nor as the Messiah. Jesus was a regular [Jewish] person. According to Judaism, in End of Days the Messiah (messenger of God) which means the anointed one, refers to the ancient practice of anointing kings with oil when they took the throne (Like David, Solomon). Anyway, this Messiah will save the Jewish people and the whole world and turn it to a better place, all good. About heaven.. well, there are variety of opinions among Jewish scholar, there is not only one answer. Some believe in Retribution and Punishment. According to Maimonides who considered to be one of the greatest Jewish scholars, there is no hell and if you are not sentenced to the next world then you just fade away from this world and never come back, your soul has no existence anymore, you just vanished. Many disagree. As I said, you can find all kinds of opinions. But to your first question, it has nothing to do with Jesus being the son of God, its not part of the Jewish faith.
BUMPER SNIPPET is correct, heaven is mentioned at the right beginning in Genesis, the story of Adam and Eve. I’m sure you heard about it. lol

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

@LoveMJackson,

To me, today's Arabic is of course much younger than Ancient Hebrew, but older than Modern Hebrew.

However, old Arabic must have been closer to Ancient Hebrew and Aramaic as it was splitting from the other Semitic languages.

If I am not mistaken, in the northern parts in Semitic languages every sound "SH" (written with SHIN) was pronounced "S" in southern Semitic dialects. Hence the grapheme SIN and SHIN are the same (with diacritical differences) and the words also are same starting with SH or S: shalom / salaam. Further splitting occured in words of course, but basically I don't see actually Arabic as a much different language than Ancient Hebrew as it hadn't died out, forgotten and afterwards restored. It simply evolved from the proto-Semitic. Correct me if I am wrong, but Ancient Hebrew on the other hand, unfortunately was partially forgotten and later had to be restored into modern Hebrew which explains why many words in Modern Hebrew are from European origin.

As far as the word "Judaism" is concerned, didn't you forget to count backwards in your comment? I mean 320 BCE came after 1312 BCE.

What I also mentioned is that I don't recollect having read in the Bible that Moses actually ever used the word "Judaism".

 

[LoveMJackson]

@LoveMJackson,

To me, today's Arabic is of course much younger than Ancient Hebrew, but older than Modern Hebrew.

However, old Arabic must have been closer to Ancient Hebrew and Aramaic as it was splitting from the other Semitic languages.

If I am not mistaken, in the northern parts in Semitic languages every sound "SH" (written with SHIN) was pronounced "S" in southern Semitic dialects. Hence the grapheme SIN and SHIN are the same (with diacritical differences) and the words also are same starting with SH or S: shalom / salaam. Further splitting occured in words of course, but basically I don't see actually Arabic as a much different language than Ancient Hebrew as it hadn't died out, forgotten and afterwards restored. It simply evolved from the proto-Semitic. Correct me if I am wrong, but Ancient Hebrew on the other hand, unfortunately was partially forgotten and later had to be restored into modern Hebrew which explains why many words in Modern Hebrew are from European origin.

As far as the word "Judaism" is concerned, didn't you forget to count backwards in your comment? I mean 320 BCE came after 1312 BCE.

What I also mentioned is that I don't recollect having read in the Bible that Moses actually ever used the word "Judaism".

Everything I wrote is taken from different sources, I always check before I write, not to make mistakes. I don't make things up. So no, to answer your question, I didn't forget to count. I explained that in my previous post, at the start, Jews referred to those who were from Kingdom of Judah, later also those who practice the religion of the Israelites. Read the bible again then, it is mentioned various times. What's the point anyway? are you saying now that Judaism is not the oldest monotheistic religion? because I don't get why you are repeating yourself with this. It is a fact and both Christianity and Islam were influenced by Judaism.

Well you said yourself that you don't understand Hebrew and Arabic so how can you make this assumption? I already explained in details about all Semitic languages. You should do a research yourself. Its pointless anyway to this thread.