Bible question

[mrsx]

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.

 

[freeandfun1]

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.

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.

 

[mrsx]

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.

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.

 

[freeandfun1]

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.

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...

Deu 18:15 The LORD (03068 ) thy God (0430 ) will raise up (06965 ) unto thee a Prophet (05030) from the midst (07130 ) of thee, of thy brethren (0251), like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken (08085);

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

Lexicon Results for 'ach (Strong's 0251)
Hebrew for 0251

Pronunciation Guide
'ach {awkh}
TWOT Reference
TWOT- 62a

Root Word
a primitive word

Part of Speech
n m​

Outline of Biblical Usage
1) brother

• brother
• brother of same parents
• half-brother (same father)
• relative, kinship, same tribe
• each to the other (reciprocal relationship)
• (fig.) of resemblance

 

[mrsx]

That is one great site! Thank you for the link. I put it right onto my "favorites." Very helpful information. Thanks very much again.

 

[Arabian]

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.

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

 

[mrsx]

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

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?

 

[5stringJeff]

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?

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.

 

[mrsx]

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.

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.

 

[5stringJeff]

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?

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.

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.

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

 

[mrsx]

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.

Do Muslims say the Bible has been inaccurately *transcribed* (copied by one scribe from another) or inaccurately *translated* (turned from Hebrew/Greek into some other language)?

 

[5stringJeff]

Do Muslims say the Bible has been inaccurately *transcribed* (copied by one scribe from another) or inaccurately *translated* (turned from Hebrew/Greek into some other language)?

Transcribed, I suppose, would be a better word.

 

[mrsx]

Transcribed, I suppose, would be a better word.

Thank you. Is there a link where I can find out more about the Muslim claims about the Bible?

 

[5stringJeff]

Thank you. Is there a link where I can find out more about the Muslim claims about the Bible?

The alleged corruption of the Bible section on this page discusses Islam's view of the Bible. There are a lot of other links on this page. Here is a one-stop shopping link that answers the specific question we are talking about.

 

[mrsx]

The alleged corruption of the Bible section on this page discusses Islam's view of the Bible. There are a lot of other links on this page. Here is a one-stop shopping link that answers the specific question we are talking about.

Thank you for the links. The more I try to sort out the "corruption" of Biblical texts, the more evidence I find for the kind of manuscript transcription errors that are so well documented in the writings of Cicero or Vergil. Here is just one partial list from Luke: http://bible.ovc.edu/tc/lay06luk.htm.

Besides the textual issues, the large number of "Bibles" - different books in different order - seems to show that there has never been one Bible. It might be more accurate to think of the Bible as "the Library" rather than "the Book."

What about crucial facts like the day of the Crucifixion? Different in John from the Synoptic Gospels? None of this changes my faith in the Bible as the Word of God; it does seem to suggest that the Word of God has passed through the hands of innumerable men and become changed or degraded in the process. The idea of literal inerrancy doesn't make sense to me in light of all this evidence. Perhaps a thousand years of Muslim exegesis isn't all wrong.

 

[5stringJeff]

Thank you for the links. The more I try to sort out the "corruption" of Biblical texts, the more evidence I find for the kind of manuscript transcription errors that are so well documented in the writings of Cicero or Vergil. Here is just one partial list from Luke: http://bible.ovc.edu/tc/lay06luk.htm.

Besides the textual issues, the large number of "Bibles" - different books in different order - seems to show that there has never been one Bible. It might be more accurate to think of the Bible as "the Library" rather than "the Book."

What about crucial facts like the day of the Crucifixion? Different in John from the Synoptic Gospels? None of this changes my faith in the Bible as the Word of God; it does seem to suggest that the Word of God has passed through the hands of innumerable men and become changed or degraded in the process. The idea of literal inerrancy doesn't make sense to me in light of all this evidence. Perhaps a thousand years of Muslim exegesis isn't all wrong.

mrsx, thanks for the link. I looked over the particular discrepancies that were listed, and most of them seemed to be arguments over verb tenses, or variant spellings of proper nouns - nothing doctrinal in issue.

And I'm curious about the "crucial facts" you mention as being disparate. Can you give a couple of examples? While the accounts do differ, I don't see any that contradict each other.

 

[mrsx]

mrsx, thanks for the link. I looked over the particular discrepancies that were listed, and most of them seemed to be arguments over verb tenses, or variant spellings of proper nouns - nothing doctrinal in issue.

And I'm curious about the "crucial facts" you mention as being disparate. Can you give a couple of examples? While the accounts do differ, I don't see any that contradict each other.

I agree that the textual variants I found in the list seem to be the sort of copyist errors that show up in any hand copied manuscript that goes through dozens of transcriptions. Whether Jesus was crucified on Passover or the day before seems to be more an issue of fact than transcription - may be just a copying error. I'd agree that I don't see that it makes any difference in Christian doctrine.

What I'm trying to get at is that the Bible seems to be a different kind of Divine Word than the Ten Commandments. The Commandments were written (at least in the first edition) by God Himself and given to Moses at one time in complete form. The Bible is composed of a number of different books (lots of different opinions about which books are in and which are out) originally written down by men (however inspired). One scholar I have read claims that the Hebrews didn't begin to claim Divine inspiration for books not part of the Torah until a century or so before the Common Era. All this makes it difficult to accept the doctrine of literal inerrancy (every jot and tittle directly inspired by God and without error) and so makes the Muslim idea of corrupted Biblical text at least theologically possible.

I've often wondered about why we Christians seem to have different standards for following parts of the Old Testament that aren't discussed in the New Testament. We condemn homosexuality out of Leviticus but handle pigskin and shave the corners of our beards (gentlemen only on that one). There even seems to be some waffling on so basic a commandment as circumcision (gents only here too). As I understand it, Islam claims the same relationship to the Old and New Testament for the Koran as Christianity claims for the NT and Mormons claim for the Book of Mormon. Why do some Christians get so upset about this?

 

[no1tovote4]

I've often wondered about why we Christians seem to have different standards for following parts of the Old Testament that aren't discussed in the New Testament. We condemn homosexuality out of Leviticus but handle pigskin and shave the corners of our beards (gentlemen only on that one). There even seems to be some waffling on so basic a commandment as circumcision (gents only here too). As I understand it, Islam claims the same relationship to the Old and New Testament for the Koran as Christianity claims for the NT and Mormons claim for the Book of Mormon. Why do some Christians get so upset about this?

Many Christians believe that this would be because of the New Covenant that released the people from the old laws so that they may go among all the people to preach the gospel. The new covenant was predicted in Jeremiah.

http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?book_id=30&chapter=31&verse=31&version=31&context=verse

And spoken of often in the New Testament.

The old laws were made to keep the people as pure as possible, and that they might make themselves pure through sacrifice so that the Lord would not turn away from them. By the New Covenant you are made pure by the blood of Christ and through that one sacrifice you were given the gift of salvation.

 

[Arabian]

hi friend
actually if u notice the link JOb sent to you you will see that the name of the site is
answering islam
so its what other think about islam,, not what muslims says about islam,, or let us say what qur'an says about islam and other religion,,
u can read these links it could help you

http://www.answering-christianity.com/contra.htm
http://saifur.tripod.com/muslimview.html
http://www.answering-christianity.com/ac.htm
read the left links in this page

and what i do believe in
how could any christian be sure that the message of jesus came to them complete and without any corruption,, if they do believe that they followers change and edit some passage,, though they dont belive that they followers are prophets,, and there are lots of copies of bible,, and they all arent the same,, i dont mean in translation but in its content too,,,
thats what i believe in friend,,, but i didnt study it in my school

 

[archangel]

hi friend
actually if u notice the link JOb sent to you you will see that the name of the site is
answering islam
so its what other think about islam,, not what muslims says about islam,, or let us say what qur'an says about islam and other religion,,
u can read these links it could help you

http://www.answering-christianity.com/contra.htm
http://saifur.tripod.com/muslimview.html
http://www.answering-christianity.com/ac.htm
read the left links in this page

and what i do believe in
how could any christian be sure that the message of jesus came to them complete and without any corruption,, if they do believe that they followers change and edit some passage,, though they dont belive that they followers are prophets,, and there are lots of copies of bible,, and they all arent the same,, i dont mean in translation but in its content too,,,
thats what i believe in friend,,, but i didnt study it in my school

I for one have witnessed Saudi Prince's and Princess's come to Nevada..shed their cloak of deceit...party hardy...then climb aboard their planes to return home...they had alot of fun in our "oh so corrupt society"...then piaously return home and preach"America is bad" the only word I have for Islam is "Hypocrit" no more no less! Again it is a political party masked as a religion!