(August 8, 2022 at 7:31 am)WinterHold Wrote:

(August 8, 2022 at 3:12 am)Helios Wrote: Refuted 

https://www.study-islam.org/muhammad-and...muhammadim

https://islamqa.info/en/answers/246893/h...-testament

https://christianwatchdog.wordpress.com/tag/muhammadim/

You have no right to translate peoples' "names", if somebody's name is "Ray" then his name is "Ray", translating it to "each of the lines in which light (and heat) may seem to stream from the sun or any luminous body, or pass through a small opening." is a gullible act of hiding the truth.

You really love denigrating islam, don't you? Hope you're somewhere that respects freedom of religion.

(August 8, 2022 at 7:51 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(August 8, 2022 at 7:31 am)WinterHold Wrote: You have no right to translate peoples' "names", if somebody's name is "Ray" then his name is "Ray", translating it to "each of the lines in which light (and heat) may seem to stream from the sun or any luminous body, or pass through a small opening." is a gullible act of hiding the truth.

But the word in the Song of Solomon isn't even a noun, let alone a proper name. 

You're simply wrong. Suck it up and move on.

Boru

The Old Testament was revealed in the language of the Jews: i.e Hebrew.
Thus the verse was revealed in Hebrew.

It reads in its original tongue:

חכו ממתקים וכלו מחמדים זה דודי וזה רעי בנות ירושלם׃

מחמדים  = Mohammed


The word is a noun; Boru:

[size=large]https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/%D7%9E%D6%B7%D7%97%D6%B2%D7%9E%D6%B7%D7%93%D6%B4%D6%BC%D7%99%D7%9D.2697288/#:~:text=Senior%20Member&text=It's%20plural%20of%20noun%20%D7%9E%D7%97%D7%9E%D7%93,Of%20pattern%20maqtal.

See this comment from the forum above:

Quote:[size=small]It's plural of noun מחמד, The root is حمد Ḥ-M-D like Arabic "praise" and the name Mohammed محمد, for example. Of pattern maqtal. The Wiki link below accurately translates to "desire, desirable thing, pleasant thing, beloved, goodly, lovely, pleasant, desirable, precious ones, precious things, precious treasures, treasures, valuable".


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ḥ-M-D

(August 8, 2022 at 11:20 am)WinterHold Wrote:

Quote:It's plural of noun מחמד, The root is حمد Ḥ-M-D like Arabic "praise" and the name Mohammed محمد, for example. Of pattern maqtal. The Wiki link below accurately translates to "desire, desirable thing, pleasant thing, beloved, goodly, lovely, pleasant, desirable, precious ones, precious things, precious treasures, treasures, valuable".


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ḥ-M-D0plura...n%20maqtal.[/size][/url]

Bolding mine
Looks like the prophet had a multiple personality disorder.

(August 8, 2022 at 11:20 am)WinterHold Wrote:

(August 8, 2022 at 7:51 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: But the word in the Song of Solomon isn't even a noun, let alone a proper name. 

You're simply wrong. Suck it up and move on.

Boru

The Old Testament was revealed in the language of the Jews: i.e Hebrew.
Thus the verse was revealed in Hebrew.

It reads in its original tongue:

חכו ממתקים וכלו מחמדים זה דודי וזה רעי בנות ירושלם׃

מחמדים  = Mohammed


The word is a noun; Boru:

The word is ‘muhammadim’, not ‘Mohammed’. The literal meaning is ‘lovely’ (source: my wife, who speaks, reads, and writes fluent Hebrew). The literal meaning of the name ‘Mohammed’ is ‘praiseworthy’.

You’re wrong.

Boru

The “finally” is my favorite part. You’ve been looking?

……..why? To what end, and what made you expect to find it….?

And he just keeps repeating what my links refuted. Even his fellow Muslims call his opinion nonsense.

If he actually wanted an argument for MO in the bible link two has one and it's actually a hell of a lot more convincing....But again he didn't actually read my links so.....

IDK that it would have mattered if he had. There's no passage or missive in old magic book, composed between 1600 and 200bc, that does or could even be expected to contain a mention of a warlord from the 6th or 7th ad, alleged author and subject of new-new magic book..... composed in the 8th to 13th century ad. It seems to me like you'd have to be entirely lost in the sauce to even go looking. Islamist nuts even have an easy out in that they maintain that old magic book and new magic book are both "corrupted" as well as "incomplete"....hence the necessity of new-new magic book. It's raison-de-entendre from the point of the holy host.

Self inflicted wounds.......The whole thing is a variation on the theme of new-new magic book being some kind of tawdry crystal fucking ball.....tell me how these dipshit aren't idol worshippers. God herself could come down from on high and tell these dumb dumbs it's just a book and they'd bury that bitch to her neck in sand and stone her to death. Each and every islamist would reject a god that could not be contained between the preamble and epilogue.

(August 8, 2022 at 2:43 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: IDK that it would have mattered if he had.  There's no passage or missive in old magic book, composed between 1600 and 200bc, that does or could even be expected to contain a mention of a warlord from the 6th or 7th ad, alleged author and subject of new-new magic book..... composed in the 8th to 13th century ad.  It seems to me like you'd have to be entirely lost in the sauce to even go looking.  Islamist nuts even have an easy out in that they maintain that old magic book and new magic book are both "corrupted" as well as "incomplete"....hence the necessity of new-new magic book.  It's raison-de-entendre from the point of the holy host.

Self inflicted wounds.......The whole thing is a variation on the theme of new-new magic book being some kind of tawdry crystal fucking ball.....tell me how these dipshit aren't idol worshippers.  God herself could come down from on high and tell these dumb dumbs it's just a book and they'd bury that bitch to her neck in sand and stone her to death.  Each and every islamist would reject a god that could not be contained between the preamble and epilogue.

I think another aspect of it may be a kind of Muslim inferiority issue. Their book is the newest of the Big Three, so they’re desperate to make up nonsense to validate it.

Boru

(August 8, 2022 at 4:56 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(August 8, 2022 at 2:43 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: IDK that it would have mattered if he had.  There's no passage or missive in old magic book, composed between 1600 and 200bc, that does or could even be expected to contain a mention of a warlord from the 6th or 7th ad, alleged author and subject of new-new magic book..... composed in the 8th to 13th century ad.  It seems to me like you'd have to be entirely lost in the sauce to even go looking.  Islamist nuts even have an easy out in that they maintain that old magic book and new magic book are both "corrupted" as well as "incomplete"....hence the necessity of new-new magic book.  It's raison-de-entendre from the point of the holy host.

Self inflicted wounds.......The whole thing is a variation on the theme of new-new magic book being some kind of tawdry crystal fucking ball.....tell me how these dipshit aren't idol worshippers.  God herself could come down from on high and tell these dumb dumbs it's just a book and they'd bury that bitch to her neck in sand and stone her to death.  Each and every islamist would reject a god that could not be contained between the preamble and epilogue.

I think another aspect of it may be a kind of Muslim inferiority issue. Their book is the newest of the Big Three, so they’re desperate to make up nonsense to validate it.

Boru

Indeed Christianity can at least be seen as a legit split from Judaism (though not without contradictions) Islam has about as much legitimacy as an Abrahamic religion as Mormonism.