The Song of Solomon, Chapter 5, Verse 16

[Mark2020]

My friend, I addressed this concept in my reply. To repeat, how they translated it to Arabic is irrelevant. What concerns us, is the Hebrew.

Since you don't know Hebrew, I gave you the literal translation of the part before it:
...وكله
and all of him ...
I asked you if you can put a name after وكله

Yes, thats why I say the context is important.

This is equally ridiculous.

 

[muslim-]

Since you don't know Hebrew, I gave you the literal translation of the part before it:
...وكله
and all of him ...
I asked you if you can put a name after وكله

This is equally ridiculous.

You talk like you actually know Hebrew while giving dictionary translations that are meaningless to me. According to jews-for-Allah.org, it is

, so it is my understanding what you're talking about is a part of the word itself, and there is no separate word with "كله" in it.

What is there is the plural mentioned in reply #17. And what supports that its plural of respect is that the context is singular, and clearly discussing someone (an individual), and not a group of people.

Do you speak Hebrew fluently? If you don't, then how can you be so confident looking at Arabic and English translations? I don't speak it and thats why I'm discussing possibilities and confirming nothing.

Also, its interesting (again, to see that the description fits prophet Muhammad peace e upon him as well.

A coincidence? Maybe.

A chief of ten thousand? The exact number of the Muslims under the leadership of the prophet Muhammad peace be upon him to Makkah.

Another coincidence? Maybe.


Also, in Haggai 2:7, it says "I will shake all nations, and the desired of all nations will come, and I will fill this house with glory,' says the Lord Almighty." So perhaps it was translated again, to desired. And thats its the "desired" that will come, and not Muhammad? What is this "desired" who all nations will be shaken by him? Simply money?

Again, a third coincidence? Maybe


About the first "coincidence" I quote the website :

"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" which means he was slightly light-skinned with a rosy color. This can be confirmed in the Sahih Bukhari Hadiths, Volume 4, Book 56, Number 747, which says Muhammad was slightly light skinned, with a rosy color (and also has the same hair as is mentioned in verse 11). Also verse 14 describes this man as having a stomach like ivory. I take it this means the parts of his body that were usually covered by his garment from the sun, were very white (like ivory). This also can be atributed to Muhammad who although having a rosy, golden color, had white armpitts (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 17, Number 141 says you could see the whites of his armpitt when he raised his hand)."


Clearly, I don't trust translations at all.My distrust of translation is furthered when even the original texts /manuscripts have variations. I don't even like translations of the Qur'aan as theres so much in meaning that is lost even in the best of translations. Yes, theres quite a few questions that I think are important, you think they are ridiculous. I have my opinion, and you have yours.

I don't have the time for it these days, but I am thinking about starting a thread on the authenticity of the Bible and ancient manuscripts, the numbers of these manuscripts, the language they are in, their variations, and so on (but not the trinity, just the texts) . I think its a very serious and important topic, and connected to this topic. And Im hoping to have a nice "peaceful" discussion in which I myself can learn, as opposed to a debate in which participants get defensive and sometimes disrespectful of each other , with no one really learning anything.

Back to the topic, I think it would be much stronger of an argument to simply say "read it from 1-16", instead of actually discussing the word. Because in that case, although it could cause controversy (given the name) and raise questions about the original text, and about Haggai 2:7, it could still be easily argued "even if it is a name, its not talking about prophethood, and thats why no one ever understood it that way".

In this case maybe some would point out the irony, that a prophet did actually come, fitting the description, and with the same name, but still, it doesn't say anything about a message, or prophethood.

I think I said pretty much everything I have to say on it in previous posts, and you really think its ridiculous, or the even that more holistic view of things is, then you have your opinion, and I have mine. Wish you the best.

 

[Mark2020]

You talk like you actually know Hebrew....

I do
וְכֻלּ֖וֹ = وكله
literally.
And as I said, trying to put a name after it is laughable and desperate.

 

[muslim-]

I do
וְכֻלּ֖וֹ = وكله
literally.
And as I said, trying to put a name after it is laughable and desperate.

Again, you're taking the Arabic as the basis, and not the Hebrew. This is going around in circles. Adding "laughable, desperate etc" doesn't create an argument, and only reflects a non objective approach.

I dont trust that you know Hebrew, nor do I trust your objectivity (no offense, I understand that you question mine, too), nor do I trust the Bible to be %100 authentic to begin with.

The Hebrew, being related to Arabic, has many usages of a given word, and it can't be discussed without proper knowledge of Hebrew. On top of this, as I said, I don't trust the "original" Hebrew to be "original" and authentic to begin with, which is why I'm connecting the word Muhammad, to the description, and find it to be a very ironic coincidence. Especially if we connect this to other "ironic coincidences"

I also mentioned earlier that I don't consider the word in this particular as any proof for anything to me, but again, you choose to ignore this. And on top of this, you also totally ignored my statement in which I said that if we look at the context as a whole, one could easily argue that its not talking about prophet Muhammad!

And furthermore, you were not humble enough to accept the simple fact, and the whole point here, which is that in Hebrew, its spells out Muhammad, letter by letter.

What I am discussing (the name being there) is a fact. Not an opinion. Which is apparently why you avoid admitting it, and choose to discuss interpretation instead, as if I accept the Bible/Torah to be authentic, which I don't.

The simple fact is that if you deny that

is exactly how the name Muhammad is spelled, letter by letter, then you are not telling the truth, to put it politely.

How you explain/interpret this, is completely irrelevant. Because then its no longer discussing facts, but only opinions. And these opinions cannot possibly be disconnected from other topics that are also, not agreed upon, such as authenticity of all whats in todays Bible. To accept this, is only reasonable, and to deny it, only shows the involvement of ego and lack of humbleness.

I think I'm done here, as I find myself having to repeat statements that were continuously ignored, just to point out a simple fact. You have your beliefs and opinions, and I have mine.

Good luck.

 

[Caladan]

I dont trust that you know Hebrew, nor do I trust your objectivity (no offense, I understand that you question mine, too), nor do I trust the Bible to be %100 authentic to begin with.

LOL. you got all your bases covered. don't you?
one is that the person does not speak Hebrew. and just in case that he does you do not consider the Bible to be 100% authentic.
pre tell then, why if the Bible is not 100% authentic do you believe that in case of the Bible speaking about Muhammad it is authentic?
speaking about standards... yours seem to be as far away from objectivity as possible.

The simple fact is that if you deny that

is exactly how the name Muhammad is spelled, letter by letter, then you are not telling the truth, to put it politely.

The Hebrew word is pronounced differently, which is irrelevant in itself, just like it is irrelevant if it was the exact same word spelled and pronounced the same. because is has a meaning in the context of the Song of Solomon. not in the Qur'an. the Qur'an was written centuries after the Hebrew Bible. its authors knew nothing about Muhammad. I am afraid it is you who are either dishonest or simply has adversity towards the objective.
the Song of Solomon is one of my favourite pieces of the Bible. when I read it, it is most likely that I read it in Hebrew. it says nothing about a Muslim prophet from the 7th century, long after the Bible has been compiled.
You are simply being dishonest, and the fact that you fight over this or that other Muslims make such pseudo-esoteric claims make me wonder why they think so low of their religion that this is how they justify it.
isn't it time to give us a better discussion than the scientific miracles of the Qur'an or that Muhammad is found in the Hebrew scriptures.

 

[Mark2020]

Again, you're taking the Arabic as the basis,...

I already explained that...

I dont trust ...

Doesn't really matter, without trying to discuss or disprove what I said.
Go learn some Hebrew and then come to discuss this.

nor do I trust the Bible to be %100 authentic to begin with.

lol

 

[Mark2020]

LOL. you got all your bases covered. don't you?
one is that the person does not speak Hebrew. and just in case that he does you do not consider the Bible to be 100% authentic.

That's funny

the fact that you fight over this or that other Muslims make such pseudo-esoteric claims make me wonder why they think so low of their religion that this is how they justify it.
isn't it time to give us a better discussion than the scientific miracles of the Qur'an or that Muhammad is found in the Hebrew scriptures.

+1

 

[alar]

Greetings to All:

I have just this moment found out that Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is mentioned by name in the Song of Solomon chapter 5 verse 16:

"Hikko Mamittakim we kullo Muhammadim Zehdoodeh wa Zehraee Bayna Jerusalem."

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

In the Hebrew language im is added for respect. Similarely im is added after the name of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) to make it Muhammadim.

In the English translation they have translated the name of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) as "altogether lovely", but in the Old Testament in Hebrew, the name of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is yet present !!

thank you for thise poste
but dont waist youre time
some ppl make there heart like rocks but much harder and from rocks and from rocks what rivers explode form and from rocks what water came from

thise is the e quote from the quran thy wont believe no matter

 

[Pegg]

why did Jesus not mention Allah, or any other prophet mention him? why only is the 'name' found in one book?

 

[Godobeyer]

I remember last year , when i posted a simular topic about this issue , was google translation , put an option of Phonitic in hebrew (the spelling ) when i was put that word , it was appears the word Muhammad (pbuh) phoniticaly , but infornely this service is disabled now!!!.

this the word we are talking about in hebrew : מַחֲמַדִּ , it's found in song of songs .
if we use google to translate it , it's now as "premis " , before a year ago it was translated as "beloved " or something like that
any way the spelling will appears when we put a sign like - + . , before or after the word !!!
like this
Google*Traduction

good luck as Muslim- brother said above

 

[Godobeyer]

LOL. you got all your bases covered. don't you?
one is that the person does not speak Hebrew. and just in case that he does you do not consider the Bible to be 100% authentic.
pre tell then, why if the Bible is not 100% authentic do you believe that in case of the Bible speaking about Muhammad it is authentic?
speaking about standards... yours seem to be as far away from objectivity as possible.



The Hebrew word is pronounced differently, which is irrelevant in itself, just like it is irrelevant if it was the exact same word spelled and pronounced the same. because is has a meaning in the context of the Song of Solomon. not in the Qur'an. the Qur'an was written centuries after the Hebrew Bible. its authors knew nothing about Muhammad. I am afraid it is you who are either dishonest or simply has adversity towards the objective.
the Song of Solomon is one of my favourite pieces of the Bible. when I read it, it is most likely that I read it in Hebrew. it says nothing about a Muslim prophet from the 7th century, long after the Bible has been compiled.
You are simply being dishonest, and the fact that you fight over this or that other Muslims make such pseudo-esoteric claims make me wonder why they think so low of their religion that this is how they justify it.
isn't it time to give us a better discussion than the scientific miracles of the Qur'an or that Muhammad is found in the Hebrew scriptures.

this is the word in Hebrew in song of songs מַחֲמַדִּ ok ?

check it's spelling , when we add just a comma or point or mince or plus symboles before or after the word !!!!!
Google Traduction

 

[Rakhel]

Oh Dear Heavens!!!
This is no worse than claiming that Beyonce's daughter, Blue Ivy, was prophesied in the Torah.
The word "blue" is mentioned more times then the one word you're desperately hung on.

 

[Godobeyer]

Oh Dear Heavens!!!
This is no worse than claiming that Beyonce's daughter, Blue Ivy, was prophesied in the Torah.
The word "blue" is mentioned more times then the one word you're desperately hung on.

don't tell me that google translation is convert to Islam

 

[F0uad]

*Smashes head* I am a muslim and i find this very offensive i don't want my messenger(saws) being mentioned in a Jewish erotic poetry scripture!

Muslims stop wasting your time your just fooling yourself by each time quoting this verse at-least quote something else now..

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

*Smashes head* I am a muslim and i find this very offensive i don't want my messenger(saws) being mentioned in a Jewish erotic poetry scripture!

Is the problem that it's Jewish or that it's erotic?

 

[F0uad]

Is the problem that it's Jewish or that it's erotic?

Erotic off-course are you assuming that Muslims hate Jewish people or dislike them?

I can speak for myself and i like Jews off-course not the bankers or politicians but in General i like Jewish people and certainly because they are kind have great humour and mostly are devoted to Allah(swt) in there own way.

 

[mohamad Gamal]

Very nice. So in another words, instead of translating it as a name, they just translated the meaning of the name. Every name in Arabic has a meaning. Hypothetically speaking, if a girls name is "Wardah" (which means a rose), or one can translate its meaning and say "no its not a person", and essentially never end up giving names and translating the meanings instead.

Now imagine if that is done by the police if they had to translate documents with such names.

Also (again), in Arabic, the Qur'aan refers to prophet Muhammad as both Muhammad and Ahmad. Both revolving around/derived from the root word Hmd. This is how words and names can be used in Arabic.

Hi, this translation is only to show the meaning of the word but does that mean it doesn't show a description of the name's holder?
we in arabic say mohamad on earth and mahmoud in the sky (the translation is not what it seems ) it means that he is praised on earth and in heavens and by the way mohamad is used just like the name jesus is used so what I would have the honor to be named after our prophet just like u

 

[mohamad Gamal]

I used references for the meanings of both words.
If you have another meaning of محمد, please get it, even if it is in Arabic.
By the way, I know Arabic too.

As I showed before, the same word is used in other locations in the OT.
Read point 6:
(laid waste, destroyed, slain).
Do you want to put Muhammed's name in these verses?

Isaiah 64:11
Our holy and our beautiful house, where our fathers praised thee, is burned up with fire: and all our pleasant things are laid waste.

בֵּ֧ית קָדְשֵׁ֣נוּ וְתִפְאַרְתֵּ֗נוּ אֲשֶׁ֤ר הִֽלְל֙וּךָ֙ אֲבֹתֵ֔ינוּ הָיָ֖ה לִשְׂרֵ֣פַת אֵ֑שׁ וְכָל־ מַחֲמַדֵּ֖ינוּ הָיָ֥ה לְחָרְבָּֽה

2 Chronicles 36:19
And they burnt the house of God, and brake down the wall of Jerusalem, and burnt all the palaces thereof with fire, and destroyed all the goodly vessels thereof.

וַֽיִּשְׂרְפוּ֙ אֶת־ בֵּ֣ית הָאֱלֹהִ֔ים וַֽיְנַתְּצ֔וּ אֵ֖ת חוֹמַ֣ת יְרוּשָׁלִָ֑ם וְכָל־ אַרְמְנוֹתֶ֙יהָ֙ שָׂרְפ֣וּ בָאֵ֔שׁ וְכָל־ כְּלֵ֥י מַחֲמַדֶּ֖יהָ לְהַשְׁחִֽית

Lamentations 2:4
He hath bent his bow like an enemy: he stood with his right hand as an adversary, and slew all that were pleasant to the eye in the tabernacle of the daughter of Zion: he poured out his fury like fire.

דָּרַ֨ךְ קַשְׁתּ֜וֹ כְּאוֹיֵ֗ב נִצָּ֤ב יְמִינוֹ֙ כְּצָ֔ר וַֽיַּהֲרֹ֔ג כֹּ֖ל מַחֲמַדֵּי־ עָ֑יִן בְּאֹ֙הֶל֙ בַּת־ צִיּ֔וֹן שָׁפַ֥ךְ כָּאֵ֖שׁ חֲמָתֽוֹ

the name he is not used it is used for description not to indicate a name it is just like saying ''come here happy" it may indicate that the persons name is happy or he just feels happy (it may not seem sensible in English but in arabic there is a name which is translated to happy=saeed )

 

[mohamad Gamal]

why did Jesus not mention Allah, or any other prophet mention him? why only is the 'name' found in one book?

jesus did mention allah but in a different way he said "Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"
u see he said mine and your he clearly showed that he praises one God why cant u get me

1st:do u not agree that there is only one god if yes continue to the next question if not (all the prophets listed below
adam
Idris
Nuh
Hud
Salih
Ibrahim
Isma'il
Ishak
Yaqub
Lut
Shuaib
Yusuf
Ayub
Dhul-Kifl
Yunus
Musa & Harun
Hizqueel
Elisha
Shammil
Dawud
Daniel
Uzair
Zechariah
Yahya
Isa
Mohammed
said that there is only one god no one can deny it check in ur holy book u are going to find at least one time sth that indicates the existence of only one god
2nd :do u believe mohamad PBH is a prophet? if yes then u are only a few steps away from islam if not (i want u to look at the world the religions came after each other one by one each one to continue the previous the Christianity came to the jews though they didnt obey Jesus though Christianity became dominant that is what is happening today islam is going to be dominant look at the statistics lots of people are converting to islam why would all these people do that if they didnt see what u cant see nor feel?

3rd: finally if u believe in all the previous all u have to do is say shada (ashado an la elah ela allah wa an mohmad rasool allah) which means i truly vow and admit that there is no god but only one god allah and i swear and vow that mohamad is his messanger and become muslim but with becoming a muslim u will have responsibilities towards ur maker like praying 5 times a day and wearing hijab(and hijab is mentioned it the bible where it says that the woman who shall not cover her hair u should shave it off so why do people say that hijab is wrong?) finally for all those who dont believe i shall ask god to show u the right way and sorry i took so much of ur time and thx for listing and thx bye

 

[Poisonshady313]

The simple fact is that if you deny that

is exactly how the name Muhammad is spelled, letter by letter, then you are not telling the truth, to put it politely.

But there's a problem...

Does Muhammad's name have the "ch" (sort of like Bach, not like church) sound in it? (I think that sound exists in Arabic, yes?)

That sound "ch" exists in Arabic, but not in the name of the prophet, peace be upon him.

If Cordoba is correct, then Muhammad's name is NOT spelled מחמד, it is spelled מהמד.

Which means you're wrong.