Muhammad is prophesied in the Bible

I would first like to address your statement in paragraph one "I can't trust everything out of the bible". You go on to explain that you believe some of it is corrupted. If you cannot believe some of the Text because it is corrupted, I am interested to know how you know which piece(s) are corrupted? Do you just dis-regard the pieces you do not like because they do not comply with your religion? Or have you read other texts from the time conflicting with facts, or descriptions in the bible. If you cannot tell me exactly what you believe is corrupted and why, you have no legitimate claim to the belief that pieces of the Book are corrupted.I will now address your second paragraph, stating the previous verse given was out of text.I have to disagree. You merely brought this up as a Cop-out, as I have read this passage many times, and have found almost no alternate interpretations of this verse. If you can, however prove to me that the text was talking about something else than what I previously thought, I will gladly listen. Otherwise I can pull up 47 additional verses, and examples telling your that Jesus is God, but indeed different, which I will address in the next paragraph. Here is just one other example."The Father and I are one." Once again the people picked up stones to kill him. Jesus said, "At my Father's direction I have done many good works. For which one are you going to stone me?" They replied, "We're stoning you not for any good work, but for blasphemy! You, a mere man, claim to be God." John 10:30-33 Here you have the Israelites admitting that Jesus claimed to be God. If this text is Corrupted, please tell me what text conflicts with it, and why, if Jesus hadn't claimed to be God, had the Israelites tried to stone him, and later crucified him. If he was merely claiming to be a prophet, why would they kill him? Everything he taught was in-line with the Old Testament.Onto Isaiah 42. If any quote mentioned in this debate is "Out of Context" it is this one.Isaiah 42:6 Clearly Reads:" I will keep you and will make you to be a covenant for the people and a light for the Gentiles,"Mohammad gave no covenant for the people, as he had no power to do so, he did not make any covenant for the Jews (Who he on one occasion slew for disbelief), and he most certainly was not a light to any gentiles but the ones under his command. I respect him for a Military mind, and a leader, but doubtfully for a prophet.In addition to this Isaiah 41:25 says that the Messenger comes from the North. Mohammad was from Mecca, Due South. His Army was centered in Modern say Saudi-Arabia, Due South. And also in Isaiah 41, God say he would strengthen Israel, and if they listened to God he would "Uphold Israel's Righteous hand". Mohammad upheld the hand of his own opinions and Nation, but not Israel's as foretold. Before I move onto what this verse REALLY meant, I would like to ask you why I shouldn't believe this certain piece of the text is "Corrupted"? Additionally, Isaiah 41:26-29 says that the Messenger brought good news to Israel.Who told of this from the beginning, so we could know, or beforehand, so we could say, ‘He was right’?No one told of this, no one foretold it, no one heard any words from you.27 I was the first to tell Zion, ‘Look, here they are!’ I gave to Jerusalem a messenger of good news.28 I look but there is no one— no one among the gods to give counsel, no one to give answer when I ask them.29 See, they are all false! Their deeds amount to nothing; their images are but wind and confusion.Here is what this paragraph is really referring to. My own bible addresses this."To understand the context of the verse, one must remember that Isaiah, who lived in the 8th century B.C., is known as the “Messianic prophet” because he prophesied so many details about Jesus—not Muhammad. Isaiah 29 is in a context in which God pronounced woes on Judah for her sins at that time, i.e., 702 B.C. The context indicates that within a year, the great Assyrian king Sennacherib would lay siege to Jerusalem in 701 B.C. (vs. 3). Jerusalem (called “Ariel”) would be attacked by her enemies and punished for her crimes against God, and then those enemies would, themselves, also receive their just desserts (vss. 4-8). God’s people were in the throes of deliberate spiritual blindness, and Judah’s false prophets/seers were not helping the situation (vss. 9-10). Notice that Isaiah then described the unwillingness of the people of his day to heed the truth by comparing them to a literate person who is told to read something, but refuses, excusing himself by saying the document is sealed (vs. 11). It then is delivered to an illiterate person, but he excuses himself by saying he cannot read (vs. 12). The point is that the people of Isaiah’s day refused to pay attention to God’s Word spoken through His prophets. They did not want it! Verses 13-16 explain that because of their closed minds, they would all suffer for their rejection of His Word when the Assyrians arrived to besiege the city. But, as usual, God revealed a better day when people would listen (vss. 17ff.). Having examined the context, it is transparently evident that these verses have absolutely nothing to do with Muhammad!"------In conclusion for this above paragraph, I can safely assume that we could continue on all day with this topic, as dozens of different empires and dynasties after the 7th century B.C. (The Time of Isaiah) have occured. This proof is not definitive.You next claim that Jesus was not a light to Gentiles. You have put all of your Cards and quotes you have on the table, but you have not realized that Jesus's true followers are Largely "Gentile". Paul went from Cyprus, to Asia Minor, To Greece, and Then to Rome.Peter went to Pontus, Galatia, then AsiaAndrew went to Scythia and countless others. Jesus Is a true light to Gentiles.Everything you are putting before me are apologetics splitting hairs. Everything is prophectic, and therefore can be twisted a thousand ways into a million more shapes. --------You moved onto say Jesus "never mentioned he was a prophet of God" and he wasn't. He WAS God. Picture it as a Three ELaf clover. It is all one clover, but it has three different petals. What one petal looks like, the other must Look like.---------Next you say the New Testament Contradicts the Old Testament.As much as you like prophesie, you should know Jeremiah 31:31 “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt"Jesus is the new Covenant. We no longer have to sacrafice Animals for our Sins, or pay with a Chopped hand, or Death. And though we probably should stick to the Culinary laws (As they are healthier) Paul does not list the Culinary Laws as a needed commandment to be a Christian.Pertaining to the Title "Son of God"Jesus certainly was the Son of God, but nto litterally the Son, as in Child of God. He was a Piece of God in Human Form. Jesus calls himself God on multiple occasions, he was charged for it, with Roman records to cross-prove it, and he was crucified for it. LASTLYYou have given me commonly used Muslim quotations. Unfortunately, Many different Cultures, people, and interpretations could fit the same criteria.You have told me that The Bible is Compatable with the Bible. Yet it dis-regards the New Covenant, Made by Jesus Christ. If Jesus Christ wasn't the NEw Covenant, Than who was, If Mohammad completely follows the Old Testament? Tell me who was promised to the Gentiles and Israel in Jeremiah?