Muhammad is mentioned in the Bible.

My rebuttal will be focused on refuting claims made by Pro. Deuteronomy 18:18 I believe I have already provided a sufficient list that shows many of the similarities between Jesus and Moses. In Round 2, I took some of the claims of similarity between Muhammad and Moses that Pro raised and proved that they were not at all significant and in fact almost anybody could claim such similarities, i. e. Solomon. Pro brings up the verse in the Qu'ran that claims God put words into Muhammad's mouth. He assumes that this claim is unique to Muhammad and thus is sufficient evidence that Muhammad is the Prophet like Moses. However, Jesus can assert the exact same claim. John 12:49 - "For I did not speak on my own, but the Father who sent me commanded me to say all that I have spoken. " Let's look at Deuteronomy 18:18 "I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their fellow Israelites, and I will put my words in his mouth. He will tell them everything I command him. " Jesus claims that he is DIRECTLY commanded by God to speak. Muhammad is commanded by the Angel Gabriel, not directly by God. Now let's look at the issue of brethren. If we look at Deuteronomy 18 as a whole, we will realize that this chapter is addressed to the Levites, a single tribe of Israel. In Deut. 18:2 we see the term "brethren" in use. "They [Levites] shall have no inheritance among their brethren. " In this context, we realize that the term brethren actually refers to the other tribes of Israel. Why on earth would the Levites be concerned about inheritance from the Ishmaelites? Now seeing that the term brethren is used to refer to Israelites in Deut. 18:2, we can logically assume that in Deut 18:18, the exact same chapter, also uses the term brethren as a reference to fellow Israelites. If not, wouldn't we expect some kind of indication that the term brethren is not meant to refer to Israel? All uses of the term brethren in the Book of Deuteronomy reference fellow Israelites, not any other nation. I challenge you to produce a verse in Deuteronomy that does. Also I would like to bring up the fact that several translations of the Bible use the term "fellow Israelites" (or something similar) instead of brethren in Deut. 18:18. New International Version - "I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their fellow Israelites, and I will put my words in his mouth. He will tell them everything I command him. " GOD'S WORD Translation - "So I will send them a prophet, an Israelite like you. I will put my words in his mouth. He will tell them everything I command him. " Lexham English Bible - "I will raise up a prophet for them from among their countrymen like you, and I will place my words into his mouth, and he shall speak to them everything that I command him. " New American Standard Bible - "I will raise up a prophet from among their countrymen like you, and I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. " New English Translation Bible - "I will raise up a prophet like you for them from among their fellow Israelites. I will put my words in his mouth and he will speak to them whatever I command. " (Verses courtesy of biblehub. com and biblegateway. com) Muhammad, an Ishmaelite, does not fit these descriptions. I would like to also mention that the descriptions of Jesus in the NT fulfill this description perfectly. He was an Israelite (a "brethren", "countryman", "fellow Israelite"), he speaks only what the father commands him (see above argument and John 12:49), called himself a prophet (Luke 13:33), and was considered by the people to be a prophet (Matthew 21:11, Luke 7:16, Luke 24:19, John 4:19, John 6:14, John 7:40, John 9:17) [3]. John 16:12 - 16 Pro continues to assert that Jesus used the term "periklytos", meaning "admirable" or "honorable", and not "paracletos", meaning "advocate" or "comforter", despite the fact that not a single ancient manuscript has John use the term "periklytos" in this case. Pro has not been able to produce a single manuscript of the Gospel of John that agrees with his claim. He still assumes without evidence that "periklytos" was indeed in the verse and therefore Jesus prophesied the coming of Muhammad. Pro asserts that the because the Holy Spirit is referred to as a "he", and not an "it", Jesus actually was predicting a human prophet. As to why the Holy Spirit cannot be referred to in the masculine gender is not explained by Pro. God is referred to in the masculine gender and according to Christian theology, the Holy Spirit is one of the three persons of God. If this is the case, there should be no problem with referring to the Holy Spirit as a "he. " Pro makes the claim that the term "spirits" used in 1 John 4:1 means "inspired human. " The Greek for the word "spirit" (`0;_7;^9;P59;_6;^5;`4;^5;) used in 1 John 4:1 [1], is never used as a term meaning "inspired human" anywhere in the NT. Pro eisegesis of the text is simply erroneous. Pro claims that there are MANY cases of modification of the Biblical text by members of the clergy, however, the only case he cites is the example of 1 John 5:7 (see the "Johannine Comma") which even he admits has been discarded. (A through research of the Johannine Comma will show that although it was not originally in the text, it simply affirmed to the doctrine of the Trinity, which was already established in previous books. ) He has yet to provide evidence that there has been a major attempt to alter any MAJOR doctrines of the Bible. There is evidence that the Bible has been well preserved, as seen in the Dead Sea Scrolls, which is hundreds of years older than other ancient documents yet shockingly similar [2]. Pro now quotes the commentary of the Gospel of John from the Anchor Bible, written by Father Raymond E. Brown. "The word parakletos is peculiar in the NT to the Johnannine literature. In John ii Jesus is a parakletos (not a title), serving as a heavenly intercessor with the Father . .. Christian tradition has identified this figure (Paraclete) as the Holy Spirit, but scholars like Spitta, Delafosse, Windisch, Sasse, Bultmann, and Betz have doubted whether this identification is true to the original picture and have suggested that the Paraclete was once an independent salvific figure, later confused with the Holy Spirit. " Let it be known that Brown was simply stating the scholarly opinion of SOME biblical scholars. Now if we look further into the document, we will notice that on page 1139, after an analysis of the argument presented by the above scholars, Brown states "It is our contention that John presents the Paraclete as the Holy Spirit in a special role, namely, as the personal presence of Jesus in the Christian while Jesus is with the Father. "[3][4] Obviously, using the Anchor Bible to support your claim that the Paraclete was Muhammad is now out of question. Pro claims that the Holy Spirit is unable to speak. However the Acts of the Apostles records the Holy Spirit speaking twice (Acts 8:29, Acts 13:2. ) Pro claims that in order to speak or hear, the Holy Spirit must have speech and hearing organs. This is a question I ask Pro, do angels in Islam have vocal and hearing organs? Also, according to the Qu'ran, God doesn't have a body and there is nothing like him (Al-Qu'ran 42:11). If He is not like anything in creation, logically assume that according to Islam, God has no speech or hearing organs, because those are characteristics of creation. However, in Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 9, Book 93 it states "the Almighty (Allah) will say, "Now remains My Intercession. "" Considering that the texts that you believe in indicate that speech and hearing organs are not required to hear and speak for non-earthly beings, I see no reason why you should have a problem with the suggestion that the Holy Spirit could see and hear without speech or hearing organs. Pro still fails to understand my refutation of his "the Holy Spirit was already with them" argument that I presented in Round 2. ". .. if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. " Again, Jesus was talking to his disciples and was telling them that in order for the DISCIPLES to be filled with the Holy Spirit, he would have to depart. No doubt the Holy Spirit had always existed, but He had not yet come into the lives of the disciples as evidenced by their rampant disbelief and denial of Christ prior to his death. Song of Songs 5:16 I admit, I indeed made a mistake in rendering the word "machmad" as an adjective. I apologize for the error. However, Pro has made a serious translation error in claiming that the term "machmad" (מַחְמַד) translates to "the praised one. " It can be translated as "desire", "desirable thing", "pleasant thing", "lovely thing", "precious thing", etc. but it cannot be "praised thing. " [5][6][7] Also, in the prestigious book Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar it states "The use of the plural as a form of respectful address is quite foreign to Hebrew. " (Gesenius, 1898, p. 418) [8] Pro claims Song of Songs is not a romantic dialogue between a man and a woman. I challenge him to produce a scholarly description of the Book that agrees with his claim. "The Song of Songs (or Canticle of Canticles) is an exquisite collection of love lyrics, arranged to tell a dramatic tale of mutual desire and courtship. " [9] I will refute Pros rebuttal for Isaiah 29:12 when he gives me the more detailed version of it. [1] . http://biblehub.com... [2] . http://www.gotquestions.org... [3] . http://halfhermit.blogspot.com... [4] . http://www.answering-islam.org... [5] . http://www.biblestudytools.com... [6] . http://en.wiktionary.org... [7] . http://biblehub.com... [8] . http://www.apologeticspress.org... [9] (see final round)