Was Muhammad a good man?

[loverOfTruth]

"The light to the nations" would make lot of sense if you bother to read Isaiah 49.

It is about the mission of the servant, and one of them is about bringing back the survivors of jacob's descendants so they can served as "a light to the nations" (Isaiah 49:6).

Please read the whole chapter. Nothing in this chapter speak of a prophet coming out of Kedar.

There is no TWO LIGHTs.

If Muhammad was this servant, then he would not be making against them, as Muhammad have. All the chapters (from Isaiah 41 to 49) are linked. All references to the servants in those chapters are clearly about Jacob or about Israel, including that of Isaiah 42.

Nothing in Isaiah 42 say anything about the servant or prophet would come from or be born in Kedar. You are deliberately misreading this chapter.

And that can be expected since you are a Muslim and very biased and refused to look at all chapters concerning about the servant.

I have read Isaiah 49 and nothing there tells me that it is talking about the same person as in Isaiah 42. Not to mention all the stuff in Isaiah 42 that you keep ignoring and had no answer for .....

One thing that is very clear (if you have read Isaiah 42) is that it is talking about ..
1) a person, also known as a slave or servant of God
who ...
2) shall bring judgement unto Gentiles(non-Jews)
3) he shall establish judgement on the earth
4) he shall bring the law for the gentiles to the isles (or arabian peninsula)
5) God shall place him as a covenant as a light to the Gentiles (non-Jews)

Does Jacob meet any of the above other than #1 ? No.
Does Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) meet any of the them ? All of them.

So to conclude ... in order to prove that Isaiah 42 is talking about Jacob and not Prophet Muhammad(pbuh), all you have to show is that he(Jacob) tirelessly worked to bring Judgement to the Gentiles and was successful in doing so, that he(Jacob) brought a new law to the Gentiles, and the Law he(Jacob) was given was magnified and established ?

You have not explained any of them yet ...

Before calling me biased ... lets' see some real substantial evidence and substance from you regarding Isaiah 42.

 

[gnostic]

Whether it is "light to the gentiles" or light to the nations, neither of them say this light will be a gentile.

Again, I would ask you to read Isaiah 49. Will you read it?

I don't care if you use KJV, NIV or NRSV, because all 3 say that the servant is Israel.

3 And said unto me, Thou art my servant, O Israel, in whom I will be glorified.

4 Then I said, I have laboured in vain, I have spent my strength for nought, and in vain: yet surely my judgment is with the Lord, and my work with my God.

5 And now, saith the Lord that formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob again to him, Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the Lord, and my God shall be my strength.

6 And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth.

As you can see the servant is Israel, not a gentile servant.

He said to me, “You are my servant,
Israel, in whom I will display my splendor.”
4 But I said, “I have labored in vain;
I have spent my strength for nothing at all.
Yet what is due me is in the Lord’s hand,
and my reward is with my God.”

5 And now the Lord says—
he who formed me in the womb to be his servant
to bring Jacob back to him
and gather Israel to himself,
for I am honored in the eyes of the Lord
and my God has been my strength—
6 he says:
“It is too small a thing for you to be my servant
to restore the tribes of Jacob
and bring back those of Israel I have kept.
I will also make you a light for the Gentiles,
that my salvation may reach to the ends of the earth.”

3 And he said to me, “You are my servant,
Israel, in whom I will be glorified.”
4 But I said, “I have labored in vain,
I have spent my strength for nothing and vanity;
yet surely my cause is with the Lord,
and my reward with my God.”

5 And now the Lord says,
who formed me in the womb to be his servant,
to bring Jacob back to him,
and that Israel might be gathered to him,
for I am honored in the sight of the Lord,
and my God has become my strength—
6 he says,
“It is too light a thing that you should be my servant
to raise up the tribes of Jacob
and to restore the survivors of Israel;
I will give you as a light to the nations,
that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth.”

No matter how I read either Isaiah 42 or 49, nothing say that the servant will be gentiles, but the servant will bring judgment upon the gentiles.

Just as Isaiah 42 mentioned servant as do Isaiah 49, but Isaiah 49 clearly state the servant was Israel, not some foreigner or gentile. Likewise, there are parallel about the Light in both verses, whether it be to gentiles or to the nations, the parallels are there.

 

[Smart_Guy]

All I have to say for now is if Muhammad peace be upon him was not a good man, I wouldn't be smiling to people, spending money to the poor, respecting the elders, forgiving offense against me, helping the ones in need, taking care of the youth, loving for the others what I love for my self, taking exceptional care of the family, working honestly, lowering my voice with other, managing my anger, considering my actions before acting, prioritizing women over men ... and the list goes on!

 

[loverOfTruth]

Whether it is "light to the gentiles" or light to the nations, neither of them say this light will be a gentile.

Again, I would ask you to read Isaiah 49. Will you read it?

I don't care if you use KJV, NIV or NRSV, because all 3 say that the servant is Israel.

As you can see the servant is Israel, not a gentile servant.



No matter how I read either Isaiah 42 or 49, nothing say that the servant will be gentiles, but the servant will bring judgment upon the gentiles.

Just as Isaiah 42 mentioned servant as do Isaiah 49, but Isaiah 49 clearly state the servant was Israel, not some foreigner or gentile. Likewise, there are parallel about the Light in both verses, whether it be to gentiles or to the nations, the parallels are there.

As I said before, all you keep talking about is 'Servant' and the 'light'. I have shown you that 'My Servant' is used for others in the bible and 'light' is the guidance that will be applicable for any prophet - they will bring light of guidance to the ignorant people. Also, yes, it doesn't say that the 'light' is 'gentile' but Isaiah 42 doesn't say that the 'light' won't be gentile either. So it could be either way - you just have to read the content/context of Isaiah 42 to determine. So none of that prove that 'Servant' in Isaiah 42 is the same as Isaiah 49.

Why do you keep ignoring the other verses in Isaiah 42 ? I guess because you have no answer. So far you could not respond with logic and evidence to any of my other questions/claims. So I am going to post the last question to you and if you can't respond, I am not gonna waste my time on this anymore.

"3 He shall not break a bruised reed, nor shall he quench the smoking flax; he shall bring forth judgment unto truth. 4 He shall not tire nor faint until he has set judgment in the earth; and the isles shall wait for his law."
...
9 Behold, the former things are come to pass, and I declare new things: before they spring forth I tell you of them.

As quoted above, Isaiah 42 states that The Servant in Isaiah 42 will bring a New Law for the Gentiles. What new law did Israel/Jacob bring to the Gentiles ? That should be the end of story.

 

[Tumah]

All I have to say for now is if Muhammad peace be upon him was not a good man, I wouldn't be smiling to people, spending money to the poor, respecting the elders, forgiving offense against me, helping the ones in need, taking care of the youth, loving for the others what I love for my self, taking exceptional care of the family, working honestly, lowering my voice with other, managing my anger, considering my actions before acting, prioritizing women over men ... and the list goes on!

That is no proof of anything. I have a feeling that if you personally would have happen to have been born in a religion created by some crazy mix of Hitler and Stalin, you would still be doing all those things. You're just that type of guy.

 

[gnostic]

Why do you keep ignoring the other verses in Isaiah 42 ? I guess because you have no answer. So far you could not respond with logic and evidence to any of my other questions/claims. So I am going to post the last question to you and if you can't respond, I am not gonna waste my time on this anymore.

I am not ignoring Isaiah 42. I just see that there are parallels, but you rejected them out of hand.

And I am asking you why are you ignoring all references to the servant as being Jacob or Israel?

All the chapters between 41 to 49 are related, but you refuses to see the big picture.

That there are parallels to both the servant and light, in other chapters, are indication, they are speaking of the same person, in which case, is Jacob, otherwise known as Israel. And Isaiah 49 clearly linked the servant to the Jacob/Israel as well as to the light, but you continued to ignore this. That you are still ignoring 49, that you are not interested in logic and evidence there.

You are cherry picking only a few selected verses, and twisting them out of context.

Nothing state that the servant or the light to be a gentile.

You are being very biased in your reading.

As quoted above, Isaiah 42 states that The Servant in Isaiah 42 will bring a New Law for the Gentiles. What new law did Israel/Jacob bring to the Gentiles ? That should be the end of story.

Again, you're ignoring Isaiah 49:

“It is too light a thing that you should be my servant
to raise up the tribes of Jacob
and to restore the survivors of Israel;
I will give you as a light to the nations,
that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth.”

Since you dislike the NRSV translation, that has "a light to the nations", I've included the archaic translation of KJV - "a light to the Gentiles" - below, for your convenience:

6 And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth.

One of the question I would like to ask is this -

why are you ignoring the a light to the Gentiles, which clearly connect the light to the servant Israel?​

It has both servant and light here, in this verse. If this is a prophecy too, then what did Muhammad do? Did he "raise up" the descendants or tribes of Jacob? Did he restore the survivors?

But since you are so fixated on the verses from Isaiah 42, let's look at Isaiah 42:6, with regards to the light, line by line.

6 I the Lord have called thee in righteousness,/QUOTE]

There is no doubt, that in the bible, Jacob is righteous, so this verse can fit him quite neatly. Are you saying Jacob was righteous?

and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee,

This can fit Jacob as much as it could fit Muhammad.

and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles;

And here, Jacob was given a covenant, so that fit him quite well.

As to the very first verse - 42:1 - it clearly state "he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles." Nothing in that verse, or in the next 5 verses, state that god will bring new LAW to the gentile, just JUDGMENT.

You are read more stuff than there are there, imaginary stuff...or you are twisting the context to fit your agenda.

 

[Smart_Guy]

That is no proof of anything. I have a feeling that if you personally would have happen to have been born in a religion created by some crazy mix of Hitler and Stalin, you would still be doing all those things. You're just that type of guy.

Having a feeling is no proof of anything too

To clarify even more, I always wanted to yell at some annoying old people but I didn't because Muhammad peace be upon him told me not to. I always wanted to steal things from the office where I work (and it's so easy) but I didn't because he told me not to. I want to look at accidentally exposed women without their consent but I don't, do some immoral acts, perform prayers like a child, slack in my job, have fun torturing animals, ignore my parents specially my mother...

All of the above bad things are also included in what kinda guy I am but I hold myself back from doing them even at whims. Honestly, I'm perverted, greedy and lazy, but I don't allow them to control me, simply because the Prophet told me not to and they are wrong, not because it is the kinda guy I am!

Btw, I'm grateful that you think kindly of me

 

[loverOfTruth]

As to the very first verse - 42:1 - it clearly state "he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles." Nothing in that verse, or in the next 5 verses, state that god will bring new LAW to the gentile, just JUDGMENT.

You are read more stuff than there are there, imaginary stuff...or you are twisting the context to fit your agenda.

Really ?
Read Isaiah 42:1 and then 4
"1 Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.
...
4 He shall not tire nor faint until he has set judgment in the earth; and the isles shall wait for his law."

And you accuse me of not reading the full context/content etc. And you tell me that I am the one with agenda. Nice try.

So my question remains. As quoted above, Isaiah 42:1-4 states that The Servant in Isaiah 42 will bring a Law for the Gentiles. What new law did Israel/Jacob bring to the Gentiles ?

 

[gnostic]

Really ?

Read Isaiah 42:1 and then 4

"1 Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.
...
4 He shall not tire nor faint until he has set judgment in the earth; and the isles shall wait for his law."

And you accuse me of not reading the full context/content etc. And you tell me that I am the one with agenda. Nice try.

So my question remains. As quoted above, Isaiah 42:1-4 states that The Servant in Isaiah 42 will bring a Law for the Gentiles. What new law did Israel/Jacob bring to the Gentiles ?

Yes, really. I have read them half-dozen times.

Nothing in any of these verses, say it is introducing new law. Do you see it, for I still don't them?

And nothing in these verses say that it will start new religion among the Gentiles. Do see it, for I don't?

You need to either get yourself a pair of glasses or learn to read English or stop lying to yourself.

And I still don't see anywhere in the verses that say a servant, prophet or messenger will be gentile or come from Kedar.

The only it say about Kedar is that it is ONLY ONE OF THE PLACES that will sing praise to the Lord, and lord, meaning god, not the servant.

8 I am the Lord, that is my name;
my glory I give to no other,
nor my praise to idols.
9 See, the former things have come to pass,
and new things I now declare;
before they spring forth,
I tell you of them.
10 Sing to the Lord a new song,
his praise from the end of the earth!
Let the sea roar and all that fills it,
the coastlands and their inhabitants.
11 Let the desert and its towns lift up their voice,
the villages that Kedar inhabits;
let the inhabitants of Sela sing for joy,
let them shout from the tops of the mountains.
12 Let them give glory to the Lord,
and declare his praise in the coastlands.

Kedar is not the only place named in 42:11. Can you not even see Sela, which mean "The Rock"?

Sela is a city in Edom, not in the Arabian peninsula. Why do all Muslims all blindly ignore Sela when they read this verse?

There are many other places that will sing hymn of praises to god, mountains, coastlines or islands (KJV say "isles", hence islands). And even with Kedar, it is not talking of one village or or town, not many villages and many towns. Mecca is not many places.

 

[loverOfTruth]

Yes, really. I have read them half-dozen times.

Nothing in any of these verses, say it is introducing new law. Do you see it, for I still don't them?

And nothing in these verses say that it will start new religion among the Gentiles. Do see it, for I don't?

You need to either get yourself a pair of glasses or learn to read English or stop lying to yourself.

And I still don't see anywhere in the verses that say a servant, prophet or messenger will be gentile or come from Kedar.

The only it say about Kedar is that it is ONLY ONE OF THE PLACES that will sing praise to the Lord, and lord, meaning god, not the servant.


Kedar is not the only place named in 42:11. Can you not even see Sela, which mean "The Rock"?

Sela is a city in Edom, not in the Arabian peninsula. Why do all Muslims all blindly ignore Sela when they read this verse?

There are many other places that will sing hymn of praises to god, mountains, coastlines or islands (KJV say "isles", hence islands). And even with Kedar, it is not talking of one village or or town, not many villages and many towns. Mecca is not many places.

So which 'law' did Israel/Jacob bring to the waiting people of the Isles ? Ok, I take it that you don't have an answer for that.

All those stuff you have brought up, I have already answered in
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3733521-post1880.html
and
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3733526-post1881.html
but since you don't have a proper response, so I guess you keep bringing up the same stuff again and again.

Thanks I have no intention of wasting my time on this anymore.

p.s : something about Sela ...

 

[gnostic]

p.s : something about Sela ...

Since you are going to use wiki, then try reading this Sela (Edom).

You really don't know squat.

Sela is also mentioned Isaiah 16:1, which is a prophecy (Isaiah 15 & 16) concerning the kingdom of Moab:

Send ye the lamb to the ruler of the land from Sela to the wilderness, unto the mount of the daughter of Zion.

Edom and Moab were neighbouring kingdoms, but frequently the borders moved. Sela is far closer to Zion than Sela, near medina which is some 900 kilometres between these two cities.

2 kings 14:7 stated a battle between Amaziah and the Edomite king in the valley of the Dead Sea and Amaziah's forces took Sela:

7 He killed ten thousand Edomites in the Valley of Salt and took Sela by storm; he called it Jokthe-el, which is its name to this day.

36 The border of the Amorites ran from the ascent of Akrabbim, from Sela and upward.

In KJV, judges 1:36 is called The Rock:

36 And the coast of the Amorites was from the going up to Akrabbim, from the Rock [Sela], and upward.

Akrabbim means "scorpions" and this is located between south of the Dead Sea and the Zin desert, hence also in Edom.

Sorry, but I can't take your claim of Sela in Arabia seriously.

 

[loverOfTruth]

You really don't know squat.

Says the one who could not answer this simple question (which 'law' did Israel/Jacob bring to the waiting people of the Isles ? ) yet.

 

[farouk]

Yes, really. I have read them half-dozen times.

Nothing in any of these verses, say it is introducing new law. Do you see it, for I still don't them?

And nothing in these verses say that it will start new religion among the Gentiles. Do see it, for I don't?

You need to either get yourself a pair of glasses or learn to read English or stop lying to yourself.

And I still don't see anywhere in the verses that say a servant, prophet or messenger will be gentile or come from Kedar.

The only it say about Kedar is that it is ONLY ONE OF THE PLACES that will sing praise to the Lord, and lord, meaning god, not the servant.


Kedar is not the only place named in 42:11. Can you not even see Sela, which mean "The Rock"?

Sela is a city in Edom, not in the Arabian peninsula. Why do all Muslims all blindly ignore Sela when they read this verse?

There are many other places that will sing hymn of praises to god, mountains, coastlines or islands (KJV say "isles", hence islands). And even with Kedar, it is not talking of one village or or town, not many villages and many towns. Mecca is not many places.

Peace to all
The bible says "inhabitants of Sela".
If Sela is the city of Edom then its inhabitants(Nabataens) are the children of Prophet Ishmael(PBBuh) via his son Nebaioth.
Prophet Ishmael(PBBUH) and his son Nebaioth both built the city of Mecca together.
You can read that info in a book called "secrets of Moses".
My point is the inhabitants of Sela were Arabs and they were living in Mecca because at the time of Prophet Muhammad (PBBUH) Edom was in ruins.
Peace
Farouk

 

[gnostic]

Peace to all
The bible says "inhabitants of Sela".
If Sela is the city of Edom then its inhabitants(Nabataens) are the children of Prophet Ishmael(PBBuh) via his son Nebaioth.
Prophet Ishmael(PBBUH) and his son Nebaioth both built the city of Mecca together.
You can read that info in a book called "secrets of Moses".
My point is the inhabitants of Sela were Arabs and they were living in Mecca because at the time of Prophet Muhammad (PBBUH) Edom was in ruins.
Peace
Farouk

What on earth are you talking about?!

Edom may have being no longer a kingdom, and hence in ruins during the time of Muhamamad, but Isaiah wasn't writing in 7th century CE. Isaiah flourished during the 8th century BCE, over a 1200 years before Muhammad. You are not making sense. This whole Nabateans thingy have nothing to do with Edom of 8th century BCE. You are talking of different time and different place, which has nothing to with the Arabian Sela.

Have you studied geography in school, Farouk?

The Edomite Sela and the Arabian Sela are over 800 kms apart. Why would Isaiah speak of Sela in Arabia, where there is a much closer Sela, just south of the kingdom of Judah.

Edom is just south of Canaan, or the kingdom of Judah. It is not in the Arabian peninsula. Secondly, Esau, Jacob's brother (hence a son of Isaac), according to the Genesis, was the ancestor of the Edomites. Ishmael wasn't the ancestor of the Edom.

The Sela, LoverOfTruth has a Wiki link to Sela in the Arabian peninsula, near the town of Medina. The Sela in Edom is more 800 km away from the Arabian Sela. Perhaps, there were 2 Sela, but LoverOfTruth seemed to be ignoring the fact that Sela was mentioned twice in the Book of Isaiah, so not just in Isaiah 42:11.

The Hebrew scriptures (Tanakh or the Old Testament bible) mentioned Sela several times, which I have already quoted in post 1911: Read Judges 1:36, 2 Kings 14:7 and Isaiah 16:1.

In Isaiah 16:1, the prophecy (Isaiah 15 & 16) was about the kingdom of Moab. Moab bordered both Judah and Edom.

Send lambs
to the ruler of the land,
from Sela, by way of the desert,
to the mount of daughter Zion.

You could send lambs from Sela to Zion, Zion being the hill where David had renamed as the City of David, and where the temple was built by Solomon. Daughter of Zion referred to the Temple Mount.

My point is that Sela in Edom is close enough for lambs to be sent to the Zion. You wouldn't moved lambs 900 kms away from the Arabian Sela to Temple Mount or Daughter of Zion. So it would make sense that when Isaiah 42:11 speak of Sela or The Rock, it is actually referring to the one in Edom.

I hoped that LoverOfTruth is not ignoring this or my other post, where I actually quoted other references to Sela in post 1911.

 

[loverOfTruth]

The Sela, LoverOfTruth has a Wiki link to Sela in the Arabian peninsula, near the town of Medina.
....
The Edomite Sela and the Arabian Sela are over 800 kms apart. Why would Isaiah speak of Sela in Arabia, where there is a much closer Sela, just south of the kingdom of Judah.

Perhaps because he was talking about 'the villages that Kedar inhabits' right before saying 'let the inhabitants of the rock sing' . Read the verse again :

11 Let the wilderness and the cities thereof lift up their voice, the villages that Kedar inhabits; let the inhabitants of the rock sing, let them shout {Heb. command} from the top of the mountains.

* The Kedarities lived in Arabia (part of the Arabian Desert known as Saudi Arabia today) 1

* The singing with joy of the inhabitants of Sela prophesied in the verse is a well known event of the authentic history. When the Holy Prophet (Pbuh) entered Madinah (upon hijra from Makkah), the people of Madina were singing the following song in his welcome:
“Upon us has dawned the full moon.
from the valley of Tanniyat-al-Vida” ...

* not to mention the link you provided for Sela(Edom) gives reference to many verses in the Bible in regards to that Sela but Isaiah 42:11 is not one of them.

In fact, the mention of the villages that KEDAR inhabits and SELA in conjunction with the other key point such as the Servant will bring judgement and a 'law' for the gentiles, leaves no room for doubt that it cannot be talking about Jacob but rather it is talking about the Prophet from Arabia.

 

[gnostic]

Did you bother to read my last 2 posts?

I've given several quotes, from the Hebrew Scriptures that indicate the Rock or Sela was in Edom, not Arabia, including one in Isaiah 16:1. Sela wasn't just mentioned in Isaiah 42:11.

The fact that Sela is mentioned, as well as from other lands, coastlines or isles mean that it just mean that hymn of praise was confined at one place.

And if you read the text from 42:1-12, especially the singing is not about the servant or prophet but singing praise s or in joy to the LORD, and this Lord means "god", not to a human prophet.

Read 42:10:

10 Sing to the Lord a new song,
his praise from the end of the earth!

"Sing to the Lord a new song..." mean "Sing to the god".

Do you seriously think the LORD is Muhammad? Are you that arrogant that you read it without twisting and turning your prophet into a god?

Learn to read English, loveroftruth. If you are serious about seeking the truth, then understand that your interpretation is still faulty.

Tell me, loveroftruth, did you bother to read any of the 4 quotes of 3 verses I have given in post 1911? I am referring to the verses in judges 1:36, 2 kings 14:7 & Isaiah 16:1.

Where do you think Sela of Isaiah 16:1 located?

 

[loverOfTruth]

Did you bother to read my last 2 posts?

I've given several quotes, from the Hebrew Scriptures that indicate the Rock or Sela was in Edom, not Arabia, including one in Isaiah 16:1. Sela wasn't just mentioned in Isaiah 42:11.

The fact that Sela is mentioned, as well as from other lands, coastlines or isles mean that it just mean that hymn of praise was confined at one place.

And if you read the text from 42:1-12, especially the singing is not about the servant or prophet but singing praise s or in joy to the LORD, and this Lord means "god", not to a human prophet.

Read 42:10:


"Sing to the Lord a new song..." mean "Sing to the god".

Do you seriously think the LORD is Muhammad? Are you that arrogant that you read it without twisting and turning your prophet into a god?

Learn to read English, loveroftruth. If you are serious about seeking the truth, then understand that your interpretation is still faulty.

Tell me, loveroftruth, did you bother to read any of the 4 quotes of 3 verses I have given in post 1911? I am referring to the verses in judges 1:36, 2 kings 14:7 & Isaiah 16:1.

Where do you think Sela of Isaiah 16:1 located?

I see fundamental problem in your reading of the scriptures. You see one word in one place and think it means the same thing in Isaiah 42(ignoring the actual content/context of Isaiah 42) even though the same word has been used for different meaning for different people/places through out the bible.

For example, this is used for Isaiah 42:11 and Judges 1:36 and the proper noun Sela is not used but rather translated as 'the rock'. So you can't claim that it is the same Sela (edom) that is used in Isaiah 1:16 and 2 Kings 14:7, which is very clear from here

So your argument regarding that Sela in Isaiah 42:11 cannot be in Saudi arabia has already broken apart. Not to mention the context related to Kedar makes it more likely that it is the one in Saudi Arabia (if it is the proper noun at all). In fact, KJV does translate it is as 'rock' rather than using the proper name 'Sela' for Isaiah 42:11. So either way your argument doesn't work.

Now you are mixing 1) 'let the inhabitants of the rock sing' (Isaiah 42:11) with 2) 'Sing unto the Lord a new song, and his praise' (Isaiah 42:10) and 3) 'Let them give glory unto the Lord, and declare his praise in the islands' (Isaiah 42:12). They are not talking about the same thing and I have clearly explained to you that Muslims DO NOT worship Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) ... rather we worship the LORD, GOD. Now let me explain to you again how those 3 points relate to Islam and Muslims.

1)As I stated, The singing with joy of the inhabitants of Sela prophesied in the verse is a well known event of the authentic history. When the Holy Prophet (Pbuh) entered Madinah (upon hijra from Makkah), the people of Madina were singing in joy a song in his welcome. This is not the same 'singing' as in 'singing a new song to God'.

2 & 3) God did reveal a "New Song" - The Qur'an (Koran). The verses of the Qur'an are recited like a poem. Nearly 1.2 billion Muslims, residing all over the world, recite this "new song" and Glorify Allah(God), in their daily prayers, five times in a day. Not to mention that we sing His praises through out the day, at least 17 times a day during our daily prayer when we recite the 1st chapter of the Qur'an which states 'all praise is due to God'.

Also, during the annual Islamic Pilgrimage called "Hajj", Muslims from all over the world (end of the earth), start their journey to assemble in Mecca while reciting the following : "Here I am at Thy service O Lord, here I am. Here I am at Thy service and Thou hast no partners. Thine alone is All Praise and All Bounty, and Thine alone is The Sovereignty. Thou hast no partners."
The pilgrims continuously give Glory to Allah on their ways, to and from Mecca. Watch any video on Hajj and you'll know what I am talking about.

Show me people of another religion that are doing that on a continual basis as frequently as Muslims as a ritual on a daily basis. So none of your arguments hold up so far - not to mention the most crucial point that you could not counter, that is 'Jacob never brought any law to the Gentiles' which is a critical prophecy for The Servant (in Isaiah 42) to come.

Peace.

 

[farouk]

What on earth are you talking about?!

Edom may have being no longer a kingdom, and hence in ruins during the time of Muhamamad, but Isaiah wasn't writing in 7th century CE. Isaiah flourished during the 8th century BCE, over a 1200 years before Muhammad. You are not making sense. This whole Nabateans thingy have nothing to do with Edom of 8th century BCE. You are talking of different time and different place, which has nothing to with the Arabian Sela.

Have you studied geography in school, Farouk?

The Edomite Sela and the Arabian Sela are over 800 kms apart. Why would Isaiah speak of Sela in Arabia, where there is a much closer Sela, just south of the kingdom of Judah.

Edom is just south of Canaan, or the kingdom of Judah. It is not in the Arabian peninsula. Secondly, Esau, Jacob's brother (hence a son of Isaac), according to the Genesis, was the ancestor of the Edomites. Ishmael wasn't the ancestor of the Edom.

The Sela, LoverOfTruth has a Wiki link to Sela in the Arabian peninsula, near the town of Medina. The Sela in Edom is more 800 km away from the Arabian Sela. Perhaps, there were 2 Sela, but LoverOfTruth seemed to be ignoring the fact that Sela was mentioned twice in the Book of Isaiah, so not just in Isaiah 42:11.

The Hebrew scriptures (Tanakh or the Old Testament bible) mentioned Sela several times, which I have already quoted in post 1911: Read Judges 1:36, 2 Kings 14:7 and Isaiah 16:1.

In Isaiah 16:1, the prophecy (Isaiah 15 & 16) was about the kingdom of Moab. Moab bordered both Judah and Edom.


You could send lambs from Sela to Zion, Zion being the hill where David had renamed as the City of David, and where the temple was built by Solomon. Daughter of Zion referred to the Temple Mount.

My point is that Sela in Edom is close enough for lambs to be sent to the Zion. You wouldn't moved lambs 900 kms away from the Arabian Sela to Temple Mount or Daughter of Zion. So it would make sense that when Isaiah 42:11 speak of Sela or The Rock, it is actually referring to the one in Edom.

I hoped that LoverOfTruth is not ignoring this or my other post, where I actually quoted other references to Sela in post 1911.

Peace to all.
gnostic
I am not sure if you reading your bible while doing the head stand.From what i am reading you definately rerading the bible upside down.It also looks as though you majored in the wrong subject.Learn history and travel the middle east so that you stop making a fool of yourself.
Edom is a name of a nation and Sela is a city within Edom.Hewbrew meaning of Sela is a rock.The Greeks invaded this city and called it Petra.The english meaning of greek word Petra is rock.Now do your soul a favour and travel to Petra and see why they called this place a rock.
Petra is located just 3 miles north of the Edomite capital of Bozrah(today this city is called Buseirah).
Read your bible.
2 Kings 14:7
Orthodox Jewish Bible.
7 He struck down Edom in the Gey HaMelach 10,000, and took Selah [Petra] in milchamah (battle), and called the shem of it Yokte’el unto this day.
Now stop denying and making a fool of yourself.This is black and white in your bible that Sela is Petra.
Futher go and study your bible and find out how Esau is connected to Prophet Ishmael(PBBUH).Its all in your scriptures.
Peace
Farouk

 

[gnostic]

For example, this is used for Isaiah 42:11 and Judges 1:36 and the proper noun Sela is not used but rather translated as 'the rock'. So you can't claim that it is the same Sela (edom) that is used in Isaiah 1:16 and 2 Kings 14:7, which is very clear from here

So your argument regarding that Sela in Isaiah 42:11 cannot be in Saudi arabia has already broken apart. Not to mention the context related to Kedar makes it more likely that it is the one in Saudi Arabia (if it is the proper noun at all). In fact, KJV does translate it is as 'rock' rather than using the proper name 'Sela' for Isaiah 42:11. So either way your argument doesn't work.

You didn't break any interpretation of mine, especially in regarding to Isaiah 42:11 and Judges 1:36, because you are fixated on using only ONE source - the KJV translation.

Sorry, but as much as some people loved the KJV, the KJV is archaic with its Hebrew-English scholarship. Over the last 50 to 70 years also, the Hebrew-English scholarship (with regarding to translating biblical texts) have improved greatly and beyond the early 17th century Hebrew-English) our understanding with Hebrew grammar and lexicology.

Most translations of the Hebrew scriptures (or the Tanakh) to English, come from the copies of Masoretic Text, which began in the 7th century. But the oldest extant and most complete copies of the Masoretic Text (MT), come from the Aleppo Codex (930 CE) and the Leningrad Codex (1008 CE).

The reason why I am bringing up the Masoretic Text, is that the KJV translation of the OT are based mainly on the MT, with some supplements from the Greek Septuagint. MT was also used as the main sources for English translations of the 20th and 21st centuries.

The reason why I said that modern English translations have improved greatly in our time, and this is due to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS), found in Qumran 1946 (more scrolls were found in other caves, as late as 1956).

The KJV, as well as many of the English translations published prior to 1957, don't take into account of the DSS. The new translations, like the New Jewish Publication Society (NJPS, 1985) and the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV, 1989) do take into scholarship to the DSS into account, and used Septuagint sparingly, if ever.

Some DSS texts were written in Aramaic and Greek, but the bulk of the text were written in Hebrew from as early as 200 BCE to as late as 200 CE. And it is these written in Hebrew that we can compare DSS Hebrew against the Masorah Hebrew; though there were some differences when comparing the 2 texts, there are however great deal of similarities, especially context of the verses.

Do you understand the significances of the DSS? Scholarship in ancient Hebrew have improved greatly, and if you were serious in studying Hebrew-English bible, then the NRSV and NJPS should be considered as more viable sources than the archaic KJV.

 

[gnostic]

I have to break up my reply, so here's part 2:

Here (below), you compare the English translation of Isaiah with DSS as source, against the KJV, NRSV and NJPS:

10 Sing to the Lord a new song and his praise from the end of the earth, you who travel the sea and everything in it, coastlands and their inhabitants. 11 Let the desert cry out, its cities and the villages that Kedar inhabits, and let the inhabitants of Sela sing for joy. Let them shout aloud from the tops of the mountains. 12 Let them give glory to the Lord and declare his praise in the coastlands.

10 Sing to the Lord a new song,
His praise from the ends of the earth—
You who sail the sea and you creatures in it,
You coastlands and their inhabitants!

11 Let the desert and its towns cry aloud,
The villages where Kedar dwells;
Let Sela’s inhabitants shout,
Call out from the peaks of the mountains.

12 Let them do honor to the Lord,
And tell His glory in the coastlands.

10 Sing to the Lord a new song,
his praise from the end of the earth!
Let the sea roar and all that fills it,
the coastlands and their inhabitants.
11 Let the desert and its towns lift up their voice,
the villages that Kedar inhabits;
let the inhabitants of Sela sing for joy,
let them shout from the tops of the mountains.
12 Let them give glory to the Lord,
and declare his praise in the coastlands.

10 Sing unto the Lord a new song, and his praise from the end of the earth, ye that go down to the sea, and all that is therein; the isles, and the inhabitants thereof.

11 Let the wilderness and the cities thereof lift up their voice, the villages that Kedar doth inhabit: let the inhabitants of the rock sing, let them shout from the top of the mountains.

12 Let them give glory unto the Lord, and declare his praise in the islands.

Did you notice that I have quote parts in red and bold?

It clearly state that the "singing or giving of praises is to the Lord, not to a prophet or to the "servant", even in KJV: "Sing unto the Lord" (42:10) and "give glory unto the Lord" (42:12).

And it is speaking of people (like the inhabitants), not a single individual (like a servant or prophet) to sing a new song of praises.

None of these 3 verses are indication of a new prophet coming out of Kedar or out of the Arabian peninsula, except through you twisting the words to suit your agenda.

And in large blue text, I don't deny that the KJV had translated Sela in Isaiah 42:11 into "The Rock", but I like I have said before, Sela or the Rock as given elsewhere in the Hebrew scriptures, not in Arabia, near Medina, but in Edom. That you would dismiss these verses showed only that you are not interested in finding the truth, objectively.

As to the identification of Sela to Petra. This is a mistake. Although, the site is very ancient, and there were signs of occupations as early as 7000 BCE, there were no village, town or city of Petra until the late 4th century BCE, which was founded by the Nabataeans.

This (Petra) post-dated the Isaiah's Sela by several centuries. I think most people, may have confused the two places, and have identified them as one and the same.

You damn well know that your interpretation have nothing with Muhammad and Sela is not in Arabia...not beyond your wishful thinking and religious biases.