Mohammad in the Bible...

[rosends]

and if you will stop being so mean you will KNOW I apologized but you won't stop. You are trying to find me faulty when I already said I don't know. Now I am starting to understand and now I see my religion more.

Wait... You are repeatedly saying things that are offensive to me and my religion and I'm the one being mean? Now I'm starting to understand your religion more.

 

[rosends]

But the Hebrew does use the plural of respect LIke in the book of Psalms.

Show me.

 

[rosends]

But the Hebrew does use the plural of respect LIke in the book of Psalms.


In Islam, we believe that all the Muslims are unanimously agreed that the Prophets (peace be upon them) – especially Muhammad pbuh – are infallible and protected from error in that which they conveyed from Allah.

1 – Infallibility in conveying the message

2 – Infallibility from human error such as major sins like adultery etc.

The Prophets were infallible in conveying the message from Allah. They did not conceal anything that Allah had revealed to them, and they did not add anything from themselves. Allah says, “O Messenger (Muhammad)! Proclaim (the Message) which has been sent down to you from your Lord. And if you do not, then you have not conveyed His Message. Allah will protect you from mankind”
al-Maa'idah 5:67
“And if he (Muhammad) had forged a false saying concerning Us (Allah),
We surely would have seized him by his right hand (or with power and might),
And then We certainly would have cut off his life artery (aorta),
And none of you could have withheld Us from (punishing) him”
al-Haaqqah 69:44-47

All the Muslims are unanimously agreed that the Prophets (peace be upon them) are infallible and protected from error in that which they conveyed from Allah.

The verses which point to the Prophethood of the Prophets indicate that they are infallible with regard to the message that they convey from Allah, so what they convey from their Lord can only be true. This is the meaning of Prophethood and this implies that Allah tells [the Prophet] of the unseen and he tells the people of the unseen. So the Messenger is commanded to call people and to convey the message to them.


With regard to the Prophets as people, they may make mistakes.

1 –They do not commit major sins

With regard to major sins, the Prophets do not commit major sins at all, and they are protected from such major sins both before their missions began or afterwards.

The Prophets were infallible in conveying the message from Allah, so their words could not be but true and they did not make any mistake, whether deliberate or otherwise, in conveying the message.

They were also infallible and protected from committing major sins such as zina (adultery) and theft.

They were also infallible and protected from committing minor sins that are indicative of baseness, such as stealing a morsel of food or giving short measure.


Some of them may have made mistakes in minor issues that are not indicative of baseness, but they did not persist in that; rather Allah, may He be exalted, pointed that out to them and drew their attention to that, so they corrected their mistakes.

All you have done is solidify my assessment of your view of Judaism and Jewish scripture. Thank you.

 

[MyM]

Show me.

Psalms 8:5

 

[rosends]

Psalms 8:5

Where is the plural in that verse (let alone the "majestic" anything)?

Here is a handy translation:
"what is man that You have been mindful of him,
mortal man that You have taken note of him,"

See, just citing a verse is not so helpful because if someone is mean enough to ask you to support your contention, you won't know what to say.

I fear you have copied this from someplace that sees the noun "man" as a collective, and then, in the translation, uses "them" to refer to mankind as a whole.

 

[MyM]

All you have done is solidify my assessment of your view of Judaism and Jewish scripture. Thank you.

you're quite welcome.

 

[MyM]

Where is the plural in that verse (let alone the "majestic" anything)?

Here is a handy translation:
"what is man that You have been mindful of him,
mortal man that You have taken note of him,"

See, just citing a verse is not so helpful because if someone is mean enough to ask you to support your contention, you won't know what to say.

5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.

 

[rosends]

5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.

um..."him" is singular. What did you have in mind?

 

[MyM]

um..."him" is singular. What did you have in mind?

Usually elohim followed by singular words is translated into "god", while elohim followed by plural words is translated by "gods"

just curious is all

 

[rosends]

Usually elohim followed by singular words is translated into "god", while elohim followed by plural words is translated by "gods"

just curious is all

The verse literally reads "וַתְּחַסְּרֵ֣הוּ מְּ֭עַט מֵאֱלֹהִ֑ים" "you have reduced him a little from elohim" "וְכָב֖וֹד וְהָדָ֣ר תְּעַטְּרֵֽהוּ" "and honor and glory you will crown him". There is nothing in the verse that indicates number as it relates to the word elohim. The only question is whether you think that elohim here refers to God or to angels. In the former case, as explained, the word is a singular word, in the latter case, the noun is a plural noun because it refers to more than one angel -- this has nothing to do with majesty. Note that YOU cited a translation that has "angels" which would mean that you see the plural not as majesty but as plural.

Again, you are copying and pasting things you don't understand.

 

[MyM]

The verse literally reads "וַתְּחַסְּרֵ֣הוּ מְּ֭עַט מֵאֱלֹהִ֑ים" "you have reduced him a little from elohim" "וְכָב֖וֹד וְהָדָ֣ר תְּעַטְּרֵֽהוּ" "and honor and glory you will crown him". There is nothing in the verse that indicates number as it relates to the word elohim. The only question is whether you think that elohim here refers to God or to angels. In the former case, as explained, the word is a singular word, in the latter case, the noun is a plural noun because it refers to more than one angel -- this has nothing to do with majesty. Note that YOU cited a translation that has "angels" which would mean that you see the plural not as majesty but as plural.

Again, you are copying and pasting things you don't understand.

I am just trying to understand. I said I was curious. sheesh!

but none the less, it is plural. If it isn't the majesty case....why are translations all confused over it? Why do they mean different things? It's the same word for the different meanings why?

 

[rosends]

I am just trying to understand. I said I was curious. sheesh!

but none the less, it is plural. If it isn't the majesty case....why are translations all confused over it? Why do they mean different things? It's the same word for the different meanings why?

There are different translations and some follow one interpretation (God) and some another (angels). Translation is interpretation, but teh grammar follows the specific interpretation. You quoted a version that chose "angels" and therefore, the word is a plural (though that has not grammatical impact on the rest of the verse). Other translations use "God" but, again, there is no grammatical impact.

 

[MyM]

There are different translations and some follow one interpretation (God) and some another (angels). Translation is interpretation, but teh grammar follows the specific interpretation. You quoted a version that chose "angels" and therefore, the word is a plural (though that has not grammatical impact on the rest of the verse). Other translations use "God" but, again, there is no grammatical impact.

Then who is correct? Why is translation the determiner for scripture when one differs from the other? Wouldn't there be conflict?

 

[rosends]

Then who is correct? Why is translation the determiner for scripture when one differs from the other? Wouldn't there be conflict?

You ask who is correct -- start by asking yourself that question. The verse is there. You tell me if the word means God or angels. Remember, neither choice will have any impact on the grammar of the verse. Then tell me on the basis of what you decided what the right answer was.

The Jewish commentators have a pretty solid agreement on what the word means so there is no conflict on this verse. But at the same time, the talmud includes some interesting interpretations which understand the verse differently. And yet, no conflict because Judaism believes that there is more than one understanding to things and both can be the intent of God.

 

[Muffled]

... and interpreted to suit the narrative.

I believe quite often a prophecy is not fully understood until after the event has occurred.

 

[England my lionheart]

I believe quite often a prophecy is not fully understood until after the event has occurred.

A bit like “the horse has bolted,close the stable door “,not very helpful.

 

[Muffled]

Yes, agreed, but it isn't the fault of the message. It's the fault of the translators who write the book with their own hands and sell it. Also the not-knowing of the Greek and Hebrew language and how they misinterpret words.

I believe you are aware of how differently the Arabic in the Qu'ran is translated into English. I actually had to study Arabic a bit to understand a key verse.

 

[Muffled]

A bit like “the horse has bolted,close the stable door “,not very helpful.

I believe strangely enough the astrologers got it part right when they showed up for the birth of Jesus believing He would be a great king. He was Just not the kind of king they expected and nothing like what the Jews expected.

 

[Muffled]

Oh, heavens. While I have no interest in finding errors in the Quran, the fact that anything presented can be explained away just proves the point being made.
Textual Variants of the Qur'an
The Different Arabic Versions of the Qur'an - Understanding the qira'at and dialects of the Qur'an

This site makes the case clearly -- each culture has a way to understand and reconcile anything that outsiders label as a problem, so why not abadon that dimension of discussion?
Contradictions / Difficulties in the Qur'an

I believe I don't understand why anyone would believe God would send a prophecy to Israel about a guy who isn't even Jewish and probably is irrelevant to Jews.

 

[England my lionheart]

I believe strangely enough the astrologers got it part right when they showed up for the birth of Jesus believing He would be a great king. He was Just not the kind of king they expected and nothing like what the Jews expected.

The 3 wise men?