Need Input on the "muhammad" word in Bible

[yeshua_seven]

I was contacted recently by a Somali Muslim who wants to discuss religion. He gave me links to some videos and a very common argument by Muslims is that Mohammad is mentioned in the Bible. They often mention Song of Solomon 5:16 in which the Hebrew word transliterated as "machmad" is found. Humorously they see that as convincing proof that Mohammad is prophecied in the Bible. "Machmad" is the root word, but the full Hebrew word in the Bible I will transliterate as "machmadim" which the guy in the video claims is the plural form which means respect. He speaks of many Eastern languages having a plural in number and a plural in respect. Thus "elohim" which literally means 'gods' is a plural respect, rather than a plural number.

I agree with everything this Muslim scholar said, except the foolish part about such a word proving that Mohamad is prophecied in the Bible. I can give a decent response in refuting that argument, but I may be able to do better with more information and help from others. I'm not quite sure how to explain it in words.

First of all, as it is obvious, just because a form which is similar to the Arabic "muhamad" is in the Bible doesn't mean anything. Many words in the Bible can be either common nouns or proper nouns. The Hebrew word transliterated into English as "adam" can be a proper noun or a common noun. As a proper noun it is the name Adam, but as a common noun it means "man." Of course if we were to translate all instances of the Hebrew "adam" as "man," some of the passages would still make sense, while others do not.

Song of Solomon 5:16 (NKJV) says, "His mouth is most sweet; yea, he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jurusalem."

The "lovely" or as the Muslim scholar says "altogether lovely" is what "machmadim" is translated as. For those who understand Hebrew way more than I do, what is the purpose of the "im" (yod, mem) suffixed unto "machmad" (mem, chet, mem, dalet)? If I understand the scholar correctly, he seems to be saying that because of the "im" added to the word it is referring to a person by using the plural respect form, and thus speaking of Muhamad, the prophet of Islam.

I look forward to your wisdom in this matter and guidance in how I should refute this argument which at first was just a foolish argument to me, but I am a little stumped on what the "im" suffix means. Thank you for your time.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I was contacted recently by a Somali Muslim who wants to discuss religion. He gave me links to some videos and a very common argument by Muslims is that Mohammad is mentioned in the Bible. They often mention Song of Solomon 5:16 in which the Hebrew word transliterated as "machmad" is found. Humorously they see that as convincing proof that Mohammad is prophecied in the Bible. "Machmad" is the root word, but the full Hebrew word in the Bible I will transliterate as "machmadim" which the guy in the video claims is the plural form which means respect. He speaks of many Eastern languages having a plural in number and a plural in respect. Thus "elohim" which literally means 'gods' is a plural respect, rather than a plural number.

I agree with everything this Muslim scholar said, except the foolish part about such a word proving that Mohamad is prophecied in the Bible. I can give a decent response in refuting that argument, but I may be able to do better with more information and help from others. I'm not quite sure how to explain it in words.

First of all, as it is obvious, just because a form which is similar to the Arabic "muhamad" is in the Bible doesn't mean anything. Many words in the Bible can be either common nouns or proper nouns. The Hebrew word transliterated into English as "adam" can be a proper noun or a common noun. As a proper noun it is the name Adam, but as a common noun it means "man." Of course if we were to translate all instances of the Hebrew "adam" as "man," some of the passages would still make sense, while others do not.

Song of Solomon 5:16 (NKJV) says, "His mouth is most sweet; yea, he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jurusalem."

The "lovely" or as the Muslim scholar says "altogether lovely" is what "machmadim" is translated as. For those who understand Hebrew way more than I do, what is the purpose of the "im" (yod, mem) suffixed unto "machmad" (mem, chet, mem, dalet)? If I understand the scholar correctly, he seems to be saying that because of the "im" added to the word it is referring to a person by using the plural respect form, and thus speaking of Muhamad, the prophet of Islam.

I look forward to your wisdom in this matter and guidance in how I should refute this argument which at first was just a foolish argument to me, but I am a little stumped on what the "im" suffix means. Thank you for your time.
Hi Yeshua_Seven,

It looks like you have a pretty good handle on how to answer truly absurd argument. But since it is a relatively popular argument amongest Muslem apologists, it is worth digging in to all the details. The first thing I would be sure to explain to your friend is that the word "machmadim" is from the Semtic root "chamad" which is common to both Hebrew and Arabic, with somewhat different overtones. In Hebrew it means "to desire, to covet, to lust" and in Arabic it means "to praise, to extol." Thus in Hebrew machmad means "something desirable" whereas in Arabic it means "something praised." Your friends assertion that it refers to Muhammed rests on nothing but the fact that the name Muhammed is from the Semitic root "chamad." That is not much of an argument.

As for the plural - it is probably an abstract plural such as we see in words like chayyam (life). You can read more about it here (http://books.google.com/books?id=aYm6qSGwJeoC&pg=PA167&lpg=PA167&dq=hebrew+abstract+plurals&source=web&ots=nsX-kou5ym&sig=d_U6a4lVVoRIplIaKTgHBRPcdnU) on google books. The scholar is correct that machamdim is "refering to the person" - that is, the Beloved - in the Song of Songs. But that only contradicts the whole thrust of the argument by proving that the word "machmadim" is being used as a description of the qualities of the Beloved, not as a variation on the personal name of a prophet from the distant future from a language which doesn't even sound like machmadim but is connected only via the common root. The absuridity of this argument should be self-evident.

Richard

[yeshua_seven]

Thank you so much for the information. I may seek input here on other things in the future.

I already refuted on argument on how Jewish days were reckoned back then. Another popular argument is the "just as Jonah was in the belly of the fish for three days and three nights, so too will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." They then go on to count the days and nights to show that Jesus did not fulfill the prophecy. They also add that Jonah was alive but Jesus died, thus Jesus didn't fulfill the prophecy. Of course that verse says nothing about being alive or dead, but is strictly a time factor. Through my research I just found on a site that "three days and three nights" is a figure of speech in those Jewish days which doesn't mean literally three days and three nights for Jews would never say, "I will be back in three days and two nights." A part of a day is considered a whole day I already know, but I did have to research that three days and three nights part for Jesus was only in the heart of the earth for three days and two nights.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Thank you so much for the information. I may seek input here on other things in the future.

I already refuted on argument on how Jewish days were reckoned back then. Another popular argument is the "just as Jonah was in the belly of the fish for three days and three nights, so too will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." They then go on to count the days and nights to show that Jesus did not fulfill the prophecy. They also add that Jonah was alive but Jesus died, thus Jesus didn't fulfill the prophecy. Of course that verse says nothing about being alive or dead, but is strictly a time factor. Through my research I just found on a site that "three days and three nights" is a figure of speech in those Jewish days which doesn't mean literally three days and three nights for Jews would never say, "I will be back in three days and two nights." A part of a day is considered a whole day I already know, but I did have to research that three days and three nights part for Jesus was only in the heart of the earth for three days and two nights.
Those are good answers. I think maybe I should open an Apologetics forum for us to discuss these things. I really like having a "ready answer" to these questions that always come up, and they are very helpful for others.

As for the Sign of Jonah - Christ was speaking in such a way that anyone with common sense and basic Bible knowledge would perfectly understand (after the fact) that He was speaking of His death and resurrection. To quibble over the precise meaning of three days while ignoring that His Death and Resurrection was the real point of the prophecy is manifestly absurd - straining at gnats while swallowing a camel indeed.


A close study of Jonah is truly astounding. It is supernaturally woven into other prophecies of the resurrection. Consider Peter's Pentecostal sermon:
Acts 2:30-33 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; 31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. 32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.

That is a quote from Psalm 16 in which the word corruption is the Hebrew shachat which we also find in a central passage in the book of Jonah:
Jonah 2:6 I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars was about me for ever: yet hast thou brought up my life from corruption [shachat], O LORD my God.
Thus we see that the same theme of resurrection and freedom from corruption is expressed with exactly the same word in the seemingly "unrelated" OT passages that are both independently applied to the resurrection of Christ by different writers in the NT. This is an example of the Divine Unity of the Holy Bible.

Richard