Historical Context of the 'False Prophet' Label + Modern Misunderstandings Due to Translation and Transmission Gaps
After I posted the previous chapter, someone complained about it in an X post, and when I refuted them, they blocked me—presumably because it was inconvenient for them (lol).
This is actually quite a ridiculous story, so I will explain it further.
⸻
Chapter 6: The English translation 'the last days' is a stretch
A common argument seen on social media: 'In the English translation, the last days is plural, so it includes the era of Muhammad!' ...No, no, that's a bit of a stretch (lol).
The reason is that the original text of the New Testament is Greek.
The English translation is merely a reflection of the translator's interpretation, and in context, it usually just means 'the end times.'
In other words, the logic that it includes Muhammad just because it is in the plural form does not hold up.
★ It is a stretch to say 'the last days' is plural in English translations
• There are places in English translations where it is written in the plural as 'the last days.'
→ This is sometimes used as a reason to say, 'It includes the era of Muhammad.'
• However, the original text is the New Testament in Greek (Koine Greek).
In Greek, it is sometimes written as 'ἡμέραι τὰς ἐσχάτας (the last days),' but
in context, it usually just refers to 'the end times' or 'the final period.'
• Furthermore, since English translations include the translator's interpretation, the logic that it includes the arrival of Muhammad just because it is plural is a stretch.
⸻
Chapter 7: Matthew was not written by Matthew
What is even more important is the circumstances surrounding the creation of the Gospel of Matthew itself.
• After Jesus' death, the oral traditions of his disciples were compiled and documented in Greek.
• At the time, Jesus and the twelve apostles used Aramaic.
• The Greek record was a secondary means for missionary work and written records.
In other words, it is unlikely that the Gospel of Matthew preserves the 'exact words of Jesus himself' as they were.
Since both the original text and the translations involve human interpretation and omissions,
concluding that 'the last days being plural means it includes Muhammad' is a highly suspicious deduction.
⸻
Chapter 8: Some things are not written in the English version
Furthermore, in English versions of the Bible, fine details present in the original Greek are sometimes omitted.
• The name of God (such as Yahweh) is omitted without being translated.
• Nuances change due to differences in grammar and word order.
• The meaning of important passages can change based on the translator's intent.
Therefore, claiming that 'it includes Muhammad' based on the words and grammar of an English translation is,
from a linguistic and historical perspective, quite a stretch.
⸻
Chapter 9: Summary
• 'The last days is plural = it includes Muhammad' is a misunderstanding caused by gaps between translation and the original text.
• The Gospel of Matthew is a compilation of oral traditions; it does not perfectly preserve the words of Jesus.
• English versions may lack the nuances of the original text or the name of God.
• In short, the grounds for treating Muhammad as a false prophet using this logic are extremely weak.
Basically, people on social media who say things like 'The English translation is plural, so it includes the era of Muhammad!' and get blocked might just be ignorant of the basics of translation and tradition (lol).
⸻
Chapter 10: Isn't it too convenient to call only Muhammad a false prophet? (lol)
Here is another pattern seen on social media: 'Muhammad is a false prophet!'
...No, no, wait a minute.
In the first place, God should have sent prophets at every turning point in history.
Moses, Jesus, Abraham, and many others.
Yet, why label only Muhammad as 'false'?
Isn't this logic a bit too convenient? (lol)
⸻
Chapter 11: Believe in previous prophets, but not Muhammad?
Another point to criticize.
• 'I believe in the words of Moses and Jesus, but I don't believe in Muhammad or the Quran.'
• In other words, they are just drawing a line based on their own preferences.
• If they want to justify it theologically, they need to at least explain the reason, but in most cases, it's a stretch.
From an atheistic point of view, it's just an arbitrary choice.
It's less about faith and more like 'a game of choosing only what you want to believe for your own convenience' (lol).
⸻
Chapter 12: Logically Speaking, It's Laughable
If you organize these retorts, it looks like this:
1. God sent prophets many times
2. You believe in the previous prophets
3. You decide only Muhammad is 'false'
4. It is logically bankrupt
Moreover, in reality, many believers have not properly read the original texts or translations of the Bible.
Since they confidently shout 'He is a false prophet!' despite that, as an atheist, I can't help but laugh.
—
Chapter 13: Summary
• 'Only Muhammad is a false prophet' is weak in evidence from the perspectives of history, translation, and logic alike
• Believing only in previous prophets while ignoring Muhammad is purely a personal choice
• From an atheistic viewpoint, the logical gaps in religious debates make for interesting material
In the end, it's understandable why I get blocked on social media (lol).
They are just applying labels that are convenient for their own faith, so they get flustered when challenged.
—
#ReligiousHistory #Islam #Bible #TranslationTheory #Eschatology #FalseProphet #LogicalContradiction #AtheistPerspective #InterpretingHistory #CivilizationTheory