Bible question

Discussion in 'Religion and Ethics' started by mrsx, May 22, 2005.

  1. mrsx
    Online

    mrsx Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    My KJ Bible in Deut 18: 15-18 describes a Prophet that will be like Moses who will come "from the midst of thee, of thy brethren ... from among their brethren" I don't have any other translation (much less a Torah!). What I would like to know: does this passage indicate that the Prophet will be an Israelite or from the bretheren of the Israelites? Any help would be appreciated.
     
  2. freeandfun1
    Offline

    freeandfun1 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Messages:
    6,201
    Thanks Received:
    295
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +296
    Moses was a Jew and Moses was speaking to the Jews. Hence, The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken; That makes it pretty clear. The prophet will be "from within their midst, of the same brethren (bloodline) and like Moses, a Jew.
     
  3. mrsx
    Online

    mrsx Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    I agree that the KJV language seems to mean what you suggest. As you know, the King James is not always a clear or accurate as a translation of the Hebrew or Greek originals - especially for the modern, English reader. In an essay I am reading, the author says that the Hebrew text means that the Prophet will come from the "bretheren" of the Israelites; that is from one of the closely related tribes but not an Israelite tribe. I am asking if someone with knowelge of Hebrew and/or textual exegesis can confirm that reading. Thank you for your post.
     
  4. freeandfun1
    Offline

    freeandfun1 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Messages:
    6,201
    Thanks Received:
    295
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +296
    I suggest that any time one reads the Bible (especially for research) that they have with them a "Strong's Concordance" which will give you the original Hebrew and/or Greek meanings.

    According to THIS site, this is what it means...

    When clicking on 0251 (Strong's reference number for the word Brethren) we see that in this instance, the exact meaning is:

     
  5. mrsx
    Online

    mrsx Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    That is one great site! Thank you for the link. I put it right onto my "favorites." Very helpful information. Thanks very much again.
     
  6. Arabian
    Offline

    Arabian Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2004
    Messages:
    282
    Thanks Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Egypt
    Ratings:
    +8
    actually if he didnt mention no one can assume,,,
    especially prophets were from bany israel and the arabs,,,
    all prophets were from bani israeli except Ismael and Sho'aib and Muhammed peace be upon them,,,
    and the previouse prophets didnt say the people the next prophet will be from,,,
    but the last prophet was Muhammed PBUH
     
  7. mrsx
    Online

    mrsx Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    I understand that this passage is cited by Muslim scholars to show that Muhammed is the Prophet mentioned in Deut. These scholars also point out that Deut. says the Prophet will be like Moses and the the Prophet Muhammed (peace be unpon him) is much more like Moses than the Prophet Jesus. Can you tell me other points of Muslim teaching that connect Muhammed to the Old or New Testaments?

    I think this is an important thing for us Christians to examine because the criticisms that are being made about Muslims not worshiping the same God as Christians and Jews or that Muslims are desecrating the Bible the way U.S. soldiers are desecrating the Holy Koran. It seems to me that, from a traditional Christian point of view, Muslims are more like Mormons than, for example, Buddists. Is it fair to say that, like Mormons, Muslims accept the Old and New Testaments, but have a third Book which they believe is equally legitimate?
     
  8. 5stringJeff
    Offline

    5stringJeff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,990
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings:
    +540
    No.

    Muslims believe that while the Bible was written by people they deem prophets, it was somehow corrupted in translation - though modern scholarship has shown the Bible to be ~99.9% accurately translated, with only minor spelling variations and transliterations found in the text after 2000 years. Muslims believe that the Koran is divinely inspired and accurate, and that the Koran trumps all other religious writings.

    Mormon doctrine holds that the Bible is part of the word of God, but that Joseph Smith's revelations and writings (the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, and Doctrines and Covenants) are also God's revelation. Mormons believe the Bible to be correct "insofar as it is translated correctly," but in practice, if any doctrinal differences arise between the Bible and the newer three books, the newer books take precedence.
     
  9. mrsx
    Online

    mrsx Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    The Muslim question of translation: translation into what? Arabic? Muslim scholars have had access to Hebrew and Greek ms. longer in fact than most Western scholars. How can I learn more about this translation issue?

    It seems to me that for Muslims to say that "the Koran trumps all other religious writings" and Mormons to say that "if any doctrinal differences arise between the Bible and the newer three books, the newer books take precedence," is a practically identical point of view towards the Bible.
     
  10. 5stringJeff
    Offline

    5stringJeff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,990
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings:
    +540
    The Muslim line is that someone "corrupted" the translations of the Bible. In other words, the original texts, which have all been lost to time, contained different messages, including many which were favorable to Islam, predicted Mohammed's coming, etc. etc. They say that the only texts we have now are the corrupted texts.
    In defense of the Bible, however, one has to ask how the Bible, and especially the New Testament, was corrupted. The earliest bits of the NT we have date from the second century AD, and they translate exctly into what we have in the NT today. In addition, the Dead Sea Scrolls, written in 200 BC but not found until 1948, show that the OT have been translated accurately since at least 200 BC.

    In the sense that they view the Bible as secondary to other religious writings, yes, you are correct.
     

Share This Page