Monday, December 13, 2010

James White: Is Muhammad in the Bible?


APB said...

James White is awesome ...
did he ever lose a debate .. cos i think he would rip apart anyone in a debate!!!

hugh watt said...

Is Muhammad in the Bible? This is believed to be so by Muslims but denied by +ians. I may shock a few people with this, but, Muhammad is in the Bible, I've checked.


Brilliant, God Bless,Amen.

APB said...

@ hugh watt

ya ...if a guy named muhammad has a bible and he wrote this bible belongs to muhammad in it .... then ya ... Muhammed is in "his bible"

he aint certainly in mine

hugh watt said...


Yep, he's in there alright!

Matt.7:15 "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you pretending to be sheep. But on the inside they are hungry wolves.

Exodus 20:16 Do not tell lies about others.

Revelation 21: 8 "But others will have their place in the lake of fire that burns with sulfur. Those who are afraid and those who do not believe will be there. Murderers and those who pollute themselves will join them. Those who commit sexual sins and those who practice witchcraft will go there. Those who worship statues of gods and all who tell lies will be there too. It is the second death."

Heck, I even found Muhammad in the first verse of the B.O.M!!!

1 I, Nephi, having been born of goodly parents, therefore I was taught somewhat in all the learning of my father; and having seen many afflictions in the course of my days, nevertheless, having been highly favored of the Lord in all my days; yea, having had a great knowledge of the goodness and the mysteries of God, therefore I make a record of my proceedings in my days.

You just gotta look hard enough.

Sophie said...

@ APB:

Yes he is in your Bible! Not personally by name, of course. But my guess is that Hugh is referring to the parts of the Bible which warn against false prophets, and curse anyone who adds to the Word of God. Depending on his perspective, he may be referring to characters and events in Revelation, too.

Zack_Tiang said...

Yes, Muhammad was prophesied in the bible as far as I know.. not by name, of course, as with MOST of all prophesies in the bible (one prophecy, sort of, that mentions someone by name was only Cyrus, as far as I know)..

Haven't you read all the prophecies and warnings regarding false prophets and false Christs?

And yes, Dr James White is one of the best and love watching his debates... =)

APB said...

sorry .... i am dumb ... so you gotta make it clear to me :)

got it now :)

minoria said...


Ali Ataie has given as an argument that the Song of Songs describes a great man and the type would be like Mohammed(a kind of Midrash argument).But it better fits Jesus.
Right now(I thought the argument was over and I guess it is)in Yahya's blog have been debating a Muslim called Maratsafin(in the article"Christians who support James White").
It all began with about the gospel of John,then Deut and rape/supposed rape,then John again and the Lewis Trilemma,then midrash and the Son of Jonah saying,then why 30 AD is the year Jesus was killed and the Essenes,then the Olivet Discourse and if Jesus was a failed apocalyptic prophet.
Maratsafin has raised more objections so here I give the latest,not to show off,but because it is really interesting.

minoria said...

Here is my reponse to Maratsafin's objections(which may or may not appear in Yahya's blog,so just in case I post it here so he will know I have considered his ideas):
He wrote:
"everyone i wouldlike you to see the minoria, the guy who answers questions that were not asked!! where on earth did i mention the olivet discourse? your generation explanantion is so pathetic i really cant belive you blieve it,but i suppose you being a preterist ( a argument only brought around the 17th century)you have to choose the best explanation that you see fit. its also desperate how you try to weave another magic number (40) into your apologetic arsenal and claiming without a shread of evidence the precise date jesus was executed we know why this is (the gospels differ).the gospel will never be preached to the whole world and never was even back then,it is near impossible,there are countless tribes in deep jungles around the world who have been recently discovered but still have no communication with the rest of the world, as for it been preached to everyone before 70 ad (another desperate answer) who preached to the aboriginal people? the ancient aztecs? the tribes in most remote parts of latin america? i have decided not to rebut your explanation for the false prophecy because it dosent warrant one.btw even indian christians are coming out and saying the myth that thomas went to india is just that,A MYTH.i will leave youwith this though,one of the strongest arguments for the opinion that the followers of jesus thought his return was iminent is the 2 letter of peter."

minoria said...

My response to Marat's objections:

"Hello Marat:
It seems you havent read some of the information I wrote.Ok,first I gave reasons for 30 AD as the year for Jesus' death.Certainly you have read that scholars are divided between 2 dates,30 AD and 33 AD(not 29 AD,31 AD,32 AD,34 AD).

THE PHRASE "Son of Man coming in clouds with glory" AGAIN:

In case you didnt know the way Jesus uses "Son of Man" it means MESSIAH,so "you will see..."is also a metaphor for"you will see I AM THE MESSIAH".And the destruction of the Temple-Jerusalem as Jesus predicted and that it was exactly 40 years later (to coincide with the repetition of the number 40 in the OT)would be PROOF he was the Messiah.

Several writers in antiquity collected the oral tradition.That he went to Persia then to India.And the disciples of Jesus' time would have understood "the entire world"as meaning what they knew then(not places like NORTH AND SOUTH AMERICA and AUSTRALIA AND POLYNESIA).And one must not discount it because:

First there was only the oral tradition,then archeological evidence (20th century)appeared:

Again,based on written works that collected oral tradition and then DNA verification:

ABOUT 2 PETER 3:3-4:(Youngs literal translation)

You are refering to:

"this first knowing, that there shall come in the LATTER END OF THE DAYS (last days) scoffers, according to their own desires going on,

4and saying, `Where is the promise of his presence? for since the FATHERS did fall asleep, all things so remain from the beginning of the creation;'"

By the context he is talking about the FUTURE,not his time,since the word FATHER,according to Jewish custom,was also used to mean ANCESTOR.


He was the Roman Emperor,he had been raised as a Christian but early stopped believing,or maybe never did.He wrote a book against Christianity called "AGAINST THE GALILEANS."He knew of Jesus' Olivet Discourse and decided to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem to prove Jesus a false prophet(and Christianity with it).But according to the EARLIEST account,by the CONTEMPORARY of Julian,an ADMIRER of Julian and also a PAGAN,the historian MARCELLINUS AMMIANUS,it could not be done because balls of fire were preventing the construction.Whether it was a coincidence(natural event) or divine intervention,the Temple was not built.

He wrote:"But, though this Alypius pushed the work on with VIGOUR, aided by the governor of the province, TERRIFYING BALLS OF FLAME kept BURSTING FORTH near the foundations of the TEMPLE, and made the place inaccessible to the workmen, some of whom were burned to death; and since in this way the element PERSISTENTLY REPELLED THEM, the enterprise halted."(Ammianus in Book 23 of his History of the Roman Empire)


Gregory Nazianzen(Orat.vol 4)
Rufinus(Historia Ecclesiatica 1.38-39)
Sozomen (Historia Eccles. 5.22)
Theodoret(Historia Ecclest. 3.20)
Philostorgius (Hist. Ecclest.(7.9-14)"

minoria said...


Hello,just to finish with the theme,I think,here is what I sent as further response to Maratsafin:

"Hello Marat:

I know you are very skeptical about the claim that when Jesus,in the Olivet Discourse said;"You will see the Son of man coming in the clouds with glory",he was saying it in a DOUBLE sense:literal and metaphorical.


Skeptical scholars say Jesus was a failed apocalytic prophet,like EHRMAN.First,WHY do THEY believe Jesus ACTUALLY said he would come a second time VERY,VERY soon?In MARK,the earliest gospel CAIAPHAS ask jesus if he is the Messiah.Jesus says he is God and "And YOU (Note:YOU,CAIAPHAS) will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."


There is the criterion of embarassment.I believe MARK is from 50 AD,the skeptics from 70-75 AD.Even taking 50 AD,20 YEARS LATER after Jesus spoke to Caiaphas,in all probability Caiaphas was DEAD,certainly by 70-75 AD.I believe LUKE and MATTHEW are from 61 AD,THEY have it too,and by 61 AD Caiaphas was DEAD.So Caiaphas never saw the second coming,Jesus was a failed apocalytic prophet.


If,as is so often said,the gospel writers were INVENTING things,why did they include that passage which was COUNTER-PROPAGANDA?That is the reason why Ehrman and others accept it as authentic.Plus the same passage in the Olivet Discourse.


On one level Jesus told Caiaphas he would one day know he was telling the truth(that would be after Caiaphas`death,in the next life) but on another level the saying is simply a METHAPHOR for "You will see I am the Messiah and God,PROOF will be given to you".
In the same way the destruction of the Temple-Jerusalem as predicted by Jesus 40 years later was the PROOF which corroborated the same saying.

CAIAPHAS heard about the RESURRECTION of the man condemned for claiming to be GOD(Jesus was not condemned for claiming to be the Messiah).In MATTHEW he knows for certainty because the Romans soldiers were there and saw it.That was what Jesus was referring to when he spoke to Caiaphas.The skeptical scholars take it completely literaly,ignoring that when you analyze Jesus`sayings over and over again he uses a lot of METAPHORS and PARABLES."

minoria said...

I had actually thought all had been said about Jesus' credentials as a prophet,the Temple,the year 30 AD as when he was killed when I remembered a detail that had escaped me.This is what I sent to Yahya'sblog,sorry for the spamming:

"Hello Maratsafin:

To finish,and believe me,it is not to win an argument for winning,because I know the evidence is not enough for you,but because I really believe there is evidence all should know anyway.


It was written in 500 AD but contains information from before.In the section called YOMA 39b it says God did NOT accept the sacrifices offered on the "Day of Atonement"(Yom Kippur,the most sacred Jewish day,a sacrifice done by the High Priest for the sins of the Jewish people) for 40 years before the destruction of the Temple.This was known by some signs that turned up negative for 40 years.In other words,the sacrifice was not accepted.

This is NOT an invention of mine,it appears in the Talmud,in b.Yoma 39b.You can read it here:

Again,it could be a coincidence,and it is from a text that can not be said to have been a Christian forgery."

minoria said...

Hello again:
I had thought I was through with the theme of the Olivet Discourse and the second coming but Maratsafin brought up some valid points.Since most who read this blog are Christian and more read this blog the following is relevant.He said:

"hi minoria,i argued with myself if i should respond to you and i will.
First of about the false prophecies specifically the olivet discourse. you ask the good question why would they writers put that in? because they belived it, i take you back to the dead sea scrolls, the same themes are in some of those scrolls. the dead sea scrolls were written around and before that time. those writing the gospels specifiaclly the synopitcs (the earliest ones hence the reason john the last one doesnt have the olivet doiscourse)really thought they were that generation and every generation after that thought they were that generation and these passages were kept for a few reason 1) they belived it to be inspired so they could not change it 2) only a few could read back then so the general populace didnt really have a clue of what was in the bible except for what thier priests,bishops told them.3) those that knew it was a problem but belived the excuse the 2nd peter so they just didnt think much of it.alos at this stage i have to mention that letter again, if jesus meant what YOU AND PRETERIST want him to be meaning then the holy spirit inspired 2nd letter of peterwould have written something to that effect, but all he says is be patient and gives a out of context quote out of psalms. alsoi really do wish you read all of matthew chapter 24 FULLY,verse 30 all the earth shall mourn and see him coming WITH GREAT POWER AND GLORY!! not just jerusalem!
verse 31, the angel shall sound the trumpet and jesus shall gather all his elect!!!! if that happened then you most certainly do not follow the right christianity!!!! think about it. verse 34 needs no elaboration,verse 36-37 shows exactly why this passage is talking about the end of the world. verse 36,only the father knows of the HOUR!!! and verse 37 it will be like in the days of noah!! when he destroyed the world but for a select few!!!!! but it is just not the olivet discourse where makes these claims,he repeatedly says the kingdom of God is at hand and some of them will see him establish it luke 9:26-27 (please dont he is talkig about the transfiguration because that makes no sense) but it is just not the new testament jesus it is those that wrote the letters especially paul in his letters to corinth,thessalonica,romans also 1 peter.actually most of the letters have that sort of theme, and then you have the book of revelation right from the first verse it says all the things he prophecieses must SOON come to pass. there is just no escape from these passages that is why you either ignore them ( more or less what the author of 2nd peter was telling everyone)or come up with the best explanation to ease you doubts,which is were the preterists come in, although a close examination of the tells you why that reason is wrong. but you dont need the false prophecies of the nt to prove it wrong,the doctrines and theology of the OT and the NT are not easily reconciled. most probably that is the reason why gnostics belived there were 2 different Gods in the OT and NT.
and to your statement about the ribbon not turning white 40 years before the destruction, you may find this answer interesting"

minoria said...

PART 3(answer to marat)


In 1970 only 2,000 Jewish people believed in Jesus as Messiah,but in 40 years the number has gone to about 250,000.Before there had been conversions,like in Germany in the 19th century,I think about 200,000 but they were almost always for social mobility reasons,for example the case of Karl Marx's father and Disraeli's father,the case of Heine.Or there were forced conversions(50,000 in Spain in 1391).

ROMANS 11:25-26:

"I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: ISRAEL(NOTE:the Jewish people) has experienced a hardening in part TILL THE FULL NUMBER OF GENTILES HAS COME IN(note:will accept Jesus as Messiah), and in this way ALL ISRAEL WILL BE SAVED(note:the Jewish people will believe in Jesus)."

So the prophecy is CONDITIONAL and we see that as more and more Gentiles accept Jesus more and more Jews are also,the "hardening" is disappearing.


You said he believed in the imminent coming of the second coming,he had LUKE as his traveling COMPANION so he knew of the LUKE 13:34-35 prophecy by Jesus,so he knew it was CONDITIONAL,he knew the details of the Olivet Discourse also and God had revealed to him that Luke 13:34-35 depended on the conversion of many Gentiles.
The point is that you have accepted the skeptical argument that prophecies,real ones,are impossible,so Jesus NEVER said Jerusalem-Temple would be destroyed (it was INVENTED and put in Jesus' mouth)and place Luke-Acts at 80-85 AD(so Paul never knew of LUKE 13:34-35).I had given reasons for accepting 61 AD in other posts."

minoria said...

Part 2:
My answer to Marat was:

Hello Maratsafin:

In the link about the Talmud you gave it is agreed that the sacrifice signs were negative.The answer was that it was because the Jews were fighting among themselves.The strange thing is that it has a 40 year time period.From your comment it appears you accept Jesus actually said the Son of Man prophecy in the Olivet Discourse.
As I said before it has a PARALLEL application,it is also about the physical appearence of Jesus when there is a literal preaching to the world.So the Fig Tree generation part has a parallel application.
One application is that it made the punishment of Jerusaem coincide with 40 years,by then the known regions of the world have been preached to.Certainly that is proof.Today all the regions of the world have been preached to,not every inhabitant,but every region.

THE TRANSFIGURATION("see the kingdom of God arrive with glory and power")
You dont accept Jesus also had that in mind when he said to his disciples that some of them would not die before seeing him in glory.I already gave you the example of him saying something similar to CAIAPHAS and how it was metaphorical for PROOF that he was God,the proof being the resurrection.Skeptical scholars believe it is authentic,I gave you the reasons,that he made such a statement to the priest.


Ok,in LUKE 13:34-35 Jesus when entering Jerusalem says he WILL NOT come back till the people of Jerusalem accept him as Messiah:

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which kills the prophets, and stones them that are sent to you; how often would I have gathered your children together, as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not! Behold, your house is left to you desolate: and verily I say to you, YOU WILL NOT SEE ME TILL when you will say, "Blessed is HE(referring to himself,Jesus)that comes in the name of the Lord."

That did not happen in 70 AD.Jesus made it CONDITIONAL and 40 years passed and nothing.But to MAKE SURE people knew he was a real prophet the punishment came 40 years later.That is PROOF.If the Jewish people had accepted Jesus by 70 AD the second coming would have occured.

But there is another prophecy that is related to the second coming indirectly since it says that after a CERTAIN NUMBER of NON-JEWS believe,the JEWS will begin to believe.

Anonymous said...

verses Isaiah 42:1 contains this phrase 'Abed-i Atmak', (my servant, Atmak)
Muhammad s.a.w's name is 'Abed-Allah Ahmad'. (servant of Allah, Ahmad)

the spelling of Atmak is אתמך
the spelling of Ahmad is אחמד

the scribes clearly mistaken it for a meaning instead of prophesied name

Purple Gateway Corp said...

yes he is song of song 5:16 is his name in hebrew mohammaddin go to were the rabbino risited it

David Wood said...

Purple Gateway,

You just proved that Allah is a mouse!

Purple Gateway Corp said...

What about every other verse like isaias 42:1-13 especially verse 11 find out who he refering too

Purple Gateway Corp said...

Yes by name n also akbar what it mean n hebrew in dont matter it was reviel in arabe

David Wood said...

I think you missed the point. "Machmadim" means "altogether lovely" in Hebrew. If you want to say, "but it sounds like Muhammad's name in Arabic," then you need to be consistent. "Akbar" means "mouse" in Hebrew. But in Arabic, it means "greater." So if you're suggesting that we start giving Hebrew words the meanings of Arabic words that sound like them, you have to admit that "Allah is a mouse."

Purple Gateway Corp said...

name do not have traslation sweetie in any lenguaje

David Wood said...

Wow! Do you simply repeat whatever nonsense your apologists tell you to repeat?

Machmad isn't a name in Hebrew. It's a word. It's used in Hosea 9:6,16; 1 Kings 20:6; Lamentations 1:10,11; 2:4; Isaiah 64:10; 2 Chronicles 36:19; Ezekiel 24:16,21,25.

Are you telling me that all of these verses contain the name "Muhammad"? Please give us your translations!

Purple Gateway Corp said...

Ok what do you tell me about 18:18 deut isaias 42:1-13 especially verse 11 tell me about that

Purple Gateway Corp said...

dont we all do or you was there in time or you fallowing someone say so?

David Wood said...

Deuteronomy 18:18? Here's our response:

Please explain where our refutation is incorrect.

As for Isaiah 42:11, here it is:

Let the wilderness and its cities lift up their voices,
The settlements where Kedar inhabits.
Let the inhabitants of Sela sing aloud,
Let them shout for joy from the tops of the mountains.

The fact that you see Muhammad somewhere in this verse shows how desperate you are.

Purple Gateway Corp said...

ajajajjajajajaj deperete yeah maybe im can you guess anything else who kedar?

David Wood said...

What does Kedar have to do with a prophet? Kedar is a land. It's referred to many times in the Bible. Do you think the following passage is talking about Muhammad?

Isaiah 21:16-17--"For thus the Lord said to me, “In a year, as a hired man would count it, all the splendor of Kedar will terminate; and the remainder of the number of bowmen, the mighty men of the sons of Kedar, will be few; for the Lord God of Israel has spoken.”

Is this about Muhammad? If so, Muhammad's "splendor" was destroyed!

Moreover, the same book you're quoting says that Kedar will ultimately serve Israel!

Isaiah 60:7--"All the flocks of Kedar will be gathered together to you, the rams of Nebaioth will minister to you; they will go up with acceptance on My altar,
and I shall glorify My glorious house."

So if Kedar is about Muhammad, then Muhammad is going to serve the Jews, and all of Muhammad's property is going to be brought to Israel.

You're really helping your prophet! Do you still not see that your apologists are deceptive? Why do you let your apologist lie to you like this?