The Geography of Sinai and Kadesh

This is not the first post I've made on that subject.  I have for various reasons become more interested in Kadesh then Sinai.  That includes the extent to which the Wandering in the Wilderness has typological significance to aspects of the End Times.

Among people trying to argue for alternatives to the traditional site of Mt Sinai, those who are merely moving it further north in the peninsula still accept the traditional sites of Kadesh-Barnea and Paran and everything else just about.  But I feel you can't make the argument that the traditional Sinai is based on probably wrong European guesses but keep all the others, because those identifications came even later and are derived from that Sinai location. 

It really doesn't matter that you think they aren't compatible with each other, the people who first choose current Barnea either didn't consider the 11 days verse from Deuteronomy, or had reasons for thinking it fit just fine.  I've seen people specifically argue for the 11 days journey fitting locations even further apart, so I frankly am uninterested in using that as an argument at all.

Frankly I suspect even Empress Helena gets too much credit/blame, I think a lot of what's attributed to her is more folklore then history.  I do think she went to Jerusalem and played a role in choosing the Church of the Holy Sepulture, but I have my doubts she went down to those remote parts of the Sinai.

Paran is a good one to start with.  Both Eusebius and Jerome place Paran in Arabia Deserta.  That is a lot more specific then just saying Arabia, that is a precise Roman Geographical term for the Arabian Desert that was distinct from and between Arabia Petraea/Nabataea and Arabia Felix(Yemen).

This witness to Paran being in Arabia Deserta has been used to support the Paran of Hagar and Ishmael being the Hejaz and Mecca, but most Biblical evidence places the Ishmaelite Tribes in or very near modern Jordan.  Mecca and Medina/Yathrib are south even of most lands associated with the sons of Keturah, though Josephus says her sons were settled in Arabia Felix which is basically Yemen.

Contrary to what some Jabal el-Lawz enthusiasts will tell you, Arabia in antiquity did sometimes include the Sinai Peninsula.  But the basis for that is mostly the Sinai being part of the Roman Province of Arabia Petraea which before Trajan conquered it was the Nabataean Kingdom.  The Sinai was also known to have been inhabited by Qedarites in the 5th Century BC.  

Biblical support for a Trans-Jordan Paran begins with Genesis 14 where El-Paran and Kadesh are associated with Seir and the Horites and various other obscure tribes that later Torah passages associate with the lands of Edom, Moab and Ammon.  And that is further backed up by the very first verse of Deuteronomy.

I'm not entirely decided on if I think Kadesh-Barnea and Kadesh-Meribah are the same location, but at this moment I lean towards them being the same, since both have equally valid reasons for being placed in Jordan.  It could be possible they are sperate specific encampments but still close enough that a modern city could encompass both.

Kadesh-Meribah is used in Ezekiel 47:19 and 48:28 as a marker for Israel's southern border.  Basically you're supposed to draw an east-west line from Kadesh-Meribah to a river that flows into the Mediterranean Sea (probably the Wādī al-ʻArīsh).  That supports it being a location on or very near the border between Israel and Jordan.

Josephus in Antiquities of The Jews Book 4 Chapter 4 Section 7 identifies Petra as a Metropolis of the Arabs and as where Aaron died.  Now strictly speaking that is Biblically Hor not Kadesh-Meribah.  However the area of Petra includes sites locally identified with everything in Numbers 20.  It's possible that at one time this was not all considered one city.  Numbers 20 implies Kadesh is on the King's Highway which fits Petra but not the traditional location.

All that is how I was thinking about the Josephus reference.  Now I know that the Petra linked Mount Hor is technically South West of Petra proper.  Since Numbers 20:21 says they turned away from Edom when they went to Hor that can fit the city of Kadesh being North of Hor.  It still seems weird that Josephus didn't mention the name of Petra sooner.

Kadesh and Hor were not under Edom's control at the time of Moses but are near Edom's border according to both Numbers 20 and Josephus.  But Petra did become Edomite for awhile later during the Kingdom period being the city known as Cela/Sela/Selah in 2 Kings 14:7 and Isaiah 16:1, but also sometimes simply translated Rock in Obadiah verse 3 and Jeremiah 49:16.  Cela is a city also named in the Amarna Letters and is in fact the Semitic equivalent of the Greek Petra.

This Hebrew word for Rock first appears in The Bible in Numbers 20 verses 8, 10 and 11, being used of the Rock Moses stuck.  The first Meribah incident in Exodus 17 at Rephidim where Moses did what he was supposed to do uses different words for rock/stone, cagal in verse 4 and tswur in verse 6.  So is it possible the use of this word for rock is circumstantial evidence we are in the future Edomite Cela?

[Apparently the Petra=Sela assumption is outdated, Edomtie Sela is now identified as a place further north.  I still think Moses using this word for Rock here and not at Rephidim could reflect this location being the same mountain range and thus same kinds of rocks.  Petra being on the King's Highway but to the South of Edom arguably fits Kadesh of Numbers 20 even better.  Isaiah 42:11 does refer to a Cela being inhabited by Kedar.]

Numbers 13 places Kadesh-Barnea in Paran.  Genesis 21:21 identifies Paran as where Hagar raised Ishmael.  And I feel it's reasonably implied Hagar returned to the same location as her earlier temporary exile from Genesis 16:14, the well between Kadesh and Bered.

Petra as Kadesh lends credence to the Petra was the original Mecca theory of Dan Gibson which I've discussed in a few posts on a different blog already.  What Mecca claims to be Biblically is basically the Kadesh and Paran of these verses of Genesis.  Though there is still no Biblical support for Abraham building a House of Worship there, he only did that at future Israelite locations, Shechem, Bethel and Mamre near Hebron.  However the meaning of the name Kadesh suggests it was considered Sacred by someone.

Of course Kadesh could be one of a number of Genesis place names that appear as an editorial decision from Moses and not names already used at that time.  A Samaritan source known as Sharḥ al-Asāṭīr claims that Mecca was build by the sons of Nabojath (Nabateans).

Sinai I do now lean towards placing in the Sinai Peninsula.  It being described by Josephus as "between Egypt and Arabia" best fits that location, yet is also consistent with being sometimes placed in Arabia because it was part of the Roman Province and the Nabataean kingdom.

That said what Paul says in Galatians I don't even think we should consider geographically useful.   Paul is using Sinai as a symbol, and his association of Sinai with Hagar suggests he's combing Sinai and Kadesh of Paran in his symbolism.  However if both were part of the Domain of Aretas when Paul was writing that makes his fusing them together as both Hagarene work.

I find it amusing when Jabal El-Lawz proponents use Josephus calling Sinai the largest mountain in the area against Jebel Musa and then talk about how tall their mountain is.  When Mount Catherine right next to Jebel Musa is taller then Jabal El-Lawz.  That said I am also interested in more northern theories.  Being the tallest in the region isn't a Biblical detail and in fact I think it's a very secular mindset that would want that to be the case, God doesn't need to prove how Big He is the way Men do.

Some people will also place Sinai in Petra, Jebel al-Madhbah (the Mountain of the Altar).  Clearly however that is too close to the Numbers 20 events I now place there.  But maybe this mountain has some importance to the Petra=Mecca theory?  Maybe it's the original Jabal al-Nour, since after all that mountain's role in Muhammad's biography tempts one to thematically compare it to Sinai.  Question is does Madhbah have a cave that could work as the Cave of Hira?  I would hope whoever first tried to convince people this was Sinai/Horeb made sure there was a cave for Elijah in 1 Kings 19:8-9?

Maybe Jebel al-Madhbah is the Mount Paran of Deuteronomy 33:2 and Habakkuk 3:3.

The only East of Aqaba location I'm currently willing to consider for Sinai is Jabal Ahmad al Baqir in southern Jordan.  It kind of perfectly fits the Deuteronomy picture of the Seir mountains being between Sinai and Kadesh-Barnea if the later is indeed Petra.  Unfortunately no one has made documentaries on this mountain and I can't find the 19th Century book that proposed it online, and Amazon has no copies at the moment.

The Languages of The Table of Nations

Genesis 10 says the Nations were divided according to their Languages, not bloodlines or DNA Haplogroups or geopolitical alliances, and then Genesis 11 explains how and why that happened.. If you study what the word "Ethnos" meant to the Ancient Greeks the same implication exists, language more then anything else decided what an "Ethnos" was, hence Barbarian originally meaning "non Greek speakers".  There is also Biblical Support for what god you worship being equally a factor, but that's where Liturgical Languages come in.

On the subject of Japheth, almost every Liturgical Language of the Eastern Orthodox Church is Indo-European, the only exception is the Georgian Language interestingly, Georgia's ancient demographic relationships to the lands around it are uniquely complicated.   

The big issue for trying to define Languages Biblically however is that the language of the ancient Canaanites is in the same Language Family as Hebrew, and very closely related in fact.  Thus modern Linguistic Scholars classify it as a Semitic Language.

When Abraham and his nephew Lot left Mesopotamia for Canaan and then lived there a few generations before the captivity in Egypt, I think it's highly probable they dropped the language of their homeland and adopted the language of the Canaanites, or became Bilingual.  And Isaiah 19 does in fact call the Language the Israelites and other YHWH worshipers were speaking the "Language of Canaan", so the Hebrew Bible itself defined this Language as belonging to Canaan not Heber.  It's not till the New Testament during Greco-Roman times we start seeing that language called Hebrew.

Basically I think Abraham's family did the same thing Diaspora Jews of the Christian Era have repeatedly done, developed a modified form of the language of the people they sojourned among.

The same thing happened with the Philistines, they did not originate as descendants of Canaan but wound up speaking a Canaanite language after settling in the Gaza strip. 

So the Language Family called Semitic today I think is Biblically Canaanite.  But scholars also use Canaanite for a specific subgroup of that family (the one that includes Hebrew), that sub group I shall call Sidonian since that Tribe had the most influence over that immediate area.

Looking at that break down of the Semitic Language Family I got from Wikipedia, it's clear that the Abrahamic Tribes came to dominate some entire Branches.  Nabatean and Aramaic both descend from Ishmael, Nabatean from Naboth, Kedar, Tema and Dumah, and than Aramaic from Hadad who was the name of the Patron deity of the earliest Aramaic speaking pagans.  And then Arabic originated among the sons of Abraham by Keturah, perhaps chiefly Dedan son of Jokshan..

How can Genesis 10 Aram not be the father of the Aramaic Language?  Well we know from Deuteronomy 26:5 that Abraham was sometimes called Aramean even though his direct Patralineal descent was from Arphaxad, I think some Ishmaelite Tribes may have had a similar idea.  

One detail of that Map is out of date and that's implying Aramaic first emerged in Mesopotamia, linguistic scholars now agree it first emerged in the general area of Damascus.  The city of Damascus proper wasn't truly founded till after 2000 BC and thus well after when I place even the latest events of Genesis.  So I think it was Ishmaelites who founded that city and named it after the Damascus of Genesis 14-15 possibly because it was in the same area.  Damascus is included in what I interpret to be the inheritance given to Ishmael, which is all of the Trans-Jordan part of what was Promised to Abraham.  Zobah is probably where these Ishmaelites of Hadad lived first however, and then 1 Kings 11 explains how an offshoot of their civilization became a King of Damascus.

We know from 1 Chronicles 5 that the Jetur and Naphish tribes of Ishmael also resided in South West Syria, the region known as Iturea in New Testament times.

Ugarit I suspect was the original city of the Girgashites, and then the Amorites are who you'd assume they are, The Torah does hint a few times that the Amorite Language is distinct from the Sidonian Canaanites.  Eteocyptriot if it's Semitic (there is dispute about it) may just come from Ugarites who colonized Cyrpus.  [Update: my perspective on the Girgashites has changed, and my view on Ugarit now is them being an Amorite colony.]

Ebla and the Hamathite are the same in my current theory.  Ironically the name Akkad itself is not Semitic, that city was originally Sumerian.  It was Sargon's Empire that imposed this Semitic Language on all of Mesopotamia, and that makes me suspect Azupiranu was the actual Akkadian name of Akkad.  Actually I think I should just identify the Hamathites as the ancestor of the entire Eastern branch.

The South Semites descended from various groups who traveled South and their history may be the subject of their own post in the future.  But it is worth noting that Josephus said Abraham's children by Keturah were given Arabia Felix. I think the entire South Semite region of that map is what the Egyptians called the Land of Punt.  Still I do think there may have been Canaanites who traveled there first.  Actually I have decided to identity the Sinite with the South Semitic branch because of the Sinim in Isaiah 49:12.

Qahtan is traditionally identified with Joktan, James A. Montgomery however has pointed out that the etymology of that doesn't work.  My theory that it refers to descent form Keturah isn't perfect either, but it at least begins with the right letter.  So the Sheba of Yeman I do now unlike in the past identify with the Keturite Sheba.  I also believe the Mineans of ancient Yemen were the descendants of Teman son of Eliphaz son of Esau.

Spiritual/Religious descent from the Canaanites is dead, any modern Neo-Pagan groups using Canaanite names for their gods have no actual continuity with them.  So the Churches who's Liturgical Rites are East Syraic/Aramaic I view as the Eschatological Assyria of Isaiah 11 and 19 alongside the Coptic Churches as Mizraim.

If the Semitic Language Family is Canaan then that fits it's larger Afroasiatic Family being Ham, with Mizraim as Egyptian, Cush the Cushitic Languages and the Berber Languages as Phut. 

"What about the Afroasiatic Families that don't fit into one of those four categories?" You may ask?  Maybe Ham did have more offspring then the four the Table of Nations specified, after all he does have the least mentioned.  Or maybe they can be explained by named Grandsons of Ham via Mizraim and Cush?   I also agree with those linguistic scholars who argue for adding the Nilo-Saharan languages to the Afro-Asiatic family.  Some linguists do think Chadic languages are closely related to Berber, which can make them also Phut.  And some think Omotic can be classified as Cushitic.

The Abyssinians (modern Ethiopia and Eritrea in Africa) are people speaking South Semitic Languages closely related to those of Ancient Yemen, but they were in antiquity surrounded by Cushetic speaking peoples on all sides.  I think they were the "Arabians that were near the Cushites" of 1 Chronicles 21:16 and that those captive wives and children of Jehoram (who I don't believe included any by Athaliah) may have became the actual ancestors of the Solomonic dynasty of Axum.

Another Biblical reference to this region may be the land "Beyond the rivers of Cush" in Isaiah 18, the rivers of Cush here I think are the rivers that flow into The Nile, what we call the White Nile, Blue Nile and the Atbarah also known as the Black Nile.

Some Canaanites may have came here first, certain Tribes in the region are traditionally believed to be Canaanite with three specific sons of Canaan cited.  However these are mostly tribes who spoke non Semitic Languages making me suspect the Abrahamites of the region often just called the local Heathens Canaanites, but it's still possible clans from those three sons were the first Semitic speakers in the region and their relationship to later groups was complicated.

The first Abrahamites of the region may have been Keturite Arabs, some scholars have speculated reasons to associate Epheh and Epher of Midian with Africa.  But I think some Edomite tribes may have came here too, cousins of Teman/Mineans.

What languages do I think descend from the non Abrahamic sons of Shem?  Well first of all Sumerian the language of Ur would probably be the language of the family of Arphaxad and perhaps others of Shem who lived in Mesopotamia (Abraham is also called an Aramean), and thus Sumer might have been named after Shem.  

And maybe the special language the Chaldean Magicians were using was actually Sumerian?  It could be the only reason the language we call Aramaic is called that is because of the assumption that the language being referred to in Daniel 2:4 is the same Language that the book is written in from that point till the end of chapter 7.

Elamite is the Language of Elam, yes that's right Elamite is not a Semitic Language but rather one seemingly unrelated to any other known languages.  Last year I made a post where I used that fact to justify making that Elam not Biblical Elam but I've now changed my mind on that.  Elamite may also be related to Dravidian according to some theories, and thus to Y Chromosome Haplogroup H, and thus maybe the modern Elamite Diaspora foretold by Jeremiah 49 are the Romani and related groups?

The Gutians have been theorized to descend from Aram's son Gether before. And I think the Lullubi could be of Aram's son Hul.  I also have a hunch the Hattic Language is Aram's son Mash. The Hurro-Uratian Language family including the Kassites could be the original language of the Assyrians and/or some Arameans before they adopted the Akkadian language.  Or maybe Lullubi is better positioned to be Asshur.

The Kartvelian language family including Georgian I think is Lud, since Y Haplogroup G ties the Georgians to Lydia implying they may descend from the original pre-Indo-Europeans of Lydia.  Or Lud could be another candidate for the Hattic Language.  Or Lud could be the other West Caucasian Language family.

Actually the above statement on Sumerian assumes the popular belief that Ur Kassidim was the Sumerian Ur.  I've increasingly come to favor a North of Harran location for Ur Kassidim.  Sumerian maybe simply was the Pre-Babel Language and the few people who kept the original language after the confusion were the ones who stayed in the general area.

The common theory on the Etymology of Eve/Havvah being the same as the Hurrian Goddess Hepat I find interesting.  It could be all or most other early Genesis figures had their names translated to an equivalent Semitic meaning but hers lacked an easy direct analogue so it was transliterated.  A Hurrian origin for Abraham would fit Urkesh being Ur Kassidim (but it could fit Ur being Urfa/Urshu later called Edessa as well).  That would make the Hurro-Uratian language family the one that comes from Peleg.  The Book of Jubilees says Arphaxad was allotted the region of Ararat itself, which is often identified with Urartu, the name of Aram/Arame is also associated with Urartu but I think that's the Aram of Genesis 22:21 not Genesis 10.  I also support the theory that the Kassadim/Chaldeans are the same people as the Kassites who's original language is theorized by some to have been of the Hurro-Urartian family, and I think they can be connected to the Chesed of Genesis 22:22.

Joktan's thirteen sons are a subject I need to completely rethink now.  I had made a post criticizing those who would place Joktan in the East rather then Yemen, but now I'm more open to that, maybe the Mormons are right about two Joktanite sons contributing to early Native American populations and giving his name to the Yucatan.  However the Mormon route would still be wrong, they would have to also contribute to Eat Asia.  Or maybe some did pass through Yemen then crossed the Bab-el-Mandeb and became ancestral to the non Afroasiatic Languages of Arica.

As a Young-Earth Creationist who still favors a Global Flood I would of course like to make Shem ancestral to all of the Languages that are neither Indo-European or Afroasiatic.  And even in the context of considering something similar to InspiringPhilosophy's view of the Flood but still more Literalist then him on other issues, we're really only allowed one Non-Noahtic Language, the Pre-Babel Language.

Some Hebrew Roots types may be hostile to the thesis of this post.  They are invested in Extra-Biblical traditions about Hebrew being the Pre-Flood language and becoming named after Heber when he didn't go along with Babel and/or Nimrod.  

And they could see the agenda behind arguing Abraham abandoned an earlier language for Hebrew as justifying Mainstream Gentile Christian Churches abandoning Semitic Languages for Indo-European ones.  And yes one of the lessons I think we should learn from this conclusion is that the true worship of YHWH is not tied to any single language.  But that's not what motived me to come to it.  I simply feel this is the most logical explanation of the evidence.

Did Muhammad descend from Ishmael?

There are some who question the traditional claim that Muhammad descended from Ishmael Abraham's Firstborn, and I can understand why.

The Koran itself never addressed Muhammad's ancestry.  But Islamic genealogies usually trace him to Kedar, but a minority to Nebajoth/Nebaioth, the progenitor of the Nabateans.  These are the first two of Ishmael's sons listed, and Isaiah 60:7 also lists these two together as existing in the Messianic Era.

The Bible seems to always associate the tribes of Ishmael with mainly the region of modern Jordan, but also to an extent the Golan Heights and parts of modern Syria between the Golan Heights and Damascus, and some very far northern parts of Saudi Arabia.  While the parts of Arabia where Muhamamd is traditionally said to have emerged seem more likely to be Keturite tribes or even Joktanite.  In fact the name of Medina probably comes from Medan.

The Nabateans were associated with Petra, a city also linked often to Edom, but also to Kedar in Isaiah 42:11.  Isaiah 21 also confirms Kedar and Tema in the area of modern Jordan, and links Dumah to Seir. It seems like once Edom left the region his ancient lands were all absorbed by the Ishmaelites, I agree with Bill Cooper in After The Flood that the Idumeans were from Dumah not Esau.  Passages like 1 Chronicles 5 also further link Jether and Hagar to the Trans-Jordan region.  The New Testament era Iturians came from Jether.

Jeremiah 49:28-33 is the key.  This is a Prophecy against Kedar and Hazor, in which they are foretold to be scattered by Nebuchadnezzar.

The traditional genealogies of Muhammad do clearly skip many generations.  As they pretty much go right from Kedar to Adnan.  Adnan and his son Ma'ad were contemporaries of Nebuchadnezzar.  Their families fled south when Nebuchadnezzar attacked Kedar, and many tribes of Saudi Arabia, not just the Quraysh from whom came the Hashamites, claimed descent from Adnan.  Like for example  the Banu Kinanah.

Later, around 100 AD the Nabatean Kingdom of Petra was conquered by Trajan and became a Roman Province.  So that is when Nabateans would have fled south.  It was about 400 years before the birth of Muhammad, 170 AD, that the Hubal idol was set up at the Kaaba.  Hubal was a Nabatean god, their form of Baal Hadad, not a moon god as is often claimed.

Things inevitably came full circle as the Royal Family of modern Jordan are the senior heirs to Muhammad.

As far as attempts out there to argue a different ancestry for Muhammad.  Well Muhammad like most people did have multiple ancestors.  But Tribal Identity tended to be determined by Paternal ancestry, and Muhammad's Paternal ancestry going back to Adnan does seem to hold up.  He does also descend from intermarriages between the leading Quraysh and the tribe that controlled Mecca before them, who were possibly a Joktanite Tribe from Yemen.

Israel's hiding place in The Wilderness during The Day of Yahuah

I still believe the doctrine that Israel will have a Hiding Place in the Wilderness during the three and a half years between The Rapture and the start of the Millennium.

The Woman of Revelation 12 is Israel, and verses 6 and 14 refer to her hiding in the Wilderness in a place prepared by God.

Matthew 14 also records Jesus warning to flee to the Wilderness when you see The Abomination of Desolation.

What I have come to disagree with is the popular view that this hiding place is in the land anciently ruled by Edom but today part of Jordan, Biblically identified with Bozrah, though for some reason popularly identified with the distinct Petra.

Daniel 11:41 is taken as assurance that Edom, Moab and at least part of Ammon (all in modern Jordan) will escape The Antichrist.  But I've already shown that Prophecy was about Caesar Augustus, and refers to those lands being ruled by the Nabatean kingdom of Aretas.  And even if it does have a second fulfillment, this passage still doesn't directly connect itself to this doctrine, and that lack of control is not guaranteed to be permanent, Rome did eventually conquer the Nabatean Kingdom under Trajan, the same Caesar who conquered Babylon for Rome interestingly.

The main basis for placing their hiding place in Bozrah is Micah 2:12.

I will surely assemble, O Jacob, all of thee; I will surely gather the remnant of Israel; I will put them together as the sheep of Bozrah, as the flock in the midst of their fold: they shall make great noise by reason of the multitude of men.

Thing is Bozrah is also a Hebrew term that means Sheepfold, and in context it looks like that is what's being said here, not a place name.  There are no near by references to Edom or other Edomite place names to verify this being the Edomite city.  And to further complicate things Jeremiah 48:24 refers to a Bozrah in Moab.

Amos 1:12 and Isaiah 34 refers to Bozrah specifically and Edom as a whole as being subject to God's Wrath during the Day of Warth.  Now I think that is arguably about Eschatological Edom being Rome/The West, but I think the geographical lands of Ancient Edom could play a role in that, Edom returning to their roots in a sense, not unlike Mystery Babylon returning to Shinar in Zechariah 5.

The final passage cited to prove this theory is Isaiah 63 where Jesus, described similarly to how he is in Revelation 19, is coming from Edom and Bozrah.  This passage also doesn't directly connect itself to the Wilderness hiding place doctrine but I think it's more likely to be relevant then Daniel.

It could be Jesus is traveling through Edom/Bozrah and it's neither the starting or ending point.  However it certainly is not the ending point, so this theory is dependent on saying he goes where Israel is hiding first and then marches to Armageddon.

I however think based on Genesis 28:17 that when Revelation 19:11 says Heaven Opened, that opening is in Beth-El.  Destroying The Armies of The Beast is the first thing Jesus will do, then he'll go to Israel to lead them back to Jerusalem.

So I think the reference to Edom and Bozrah in Isaiah 63 is the same as in Isaiah 34 and other Prophecies about Edom's final Judgment, like Obadiah, of Ezekiel 35-36.

So where do I think Israel will be protected?

I have argued before for seeing the Day of Yahuah as being a typological repeat of much of the history of The Exodus.  In that context I think perhaps this will be the same place they wandered in The Wilderness for 40 years in the days of Moses.  In fact I think the reference to her being fed there in 12:6 possibly alludes to a return of the Manna miracle.  Also Exodus 19:4 uses Eagles' Wings terminology, as does Isaiah 40:31.

We do also see a pattern throughout The Bible of individuals returning to this same location.  David spent some time in Paran which is also a place Israel spent some of the 40 year wandering.  Elijah spent some time at Mt Sinai.  We're never told where Jesus 40 days in the Wilderness was.  Paul in Galatians 1:17 says he was in Arabia for some of the time between his conversion and the beginning of his ministry.  Paul places Sinai in Arabia in Galatians 4:24-25.

That of course leads to debates about where those locations are.

I believe Mt Sinai is in Midian, possibly Jabal El Lawz, a view first popularized in The West by Ron Wyatt but later verified by the more reliable and trustworthy Bob Cornuke.

I've expressed in the past a willingness to believe certain Muslim claims that most modern Western Christians are adverse to.  Doesn't change my complete rejection of the Theology, Christolgoy and Soterology of Islam, or that Muhammad is not eligible to be a Biblical Prophet.  These issues come up in any post I give the Ishmael label to.

The Mt Sinai debate ties into that.  If Sinai is in what we today call the Sinai Peninsula then the Desert of Paran can't be in Arabia either, since Paran is also one of the locations mentioned during the 40 year wandering.

We're used to thinking of the total geography of the 40 year wandering as pretty small because The West since the time of Constantine has been forced to limit it to the Sinai Peninsula.  But once you place Mt Sinai in Arabia, then things can open up.

I want to point out that the Islamic view of Paran is not that it's just Mecca, they view the Wilderness of Paran as the entire Hijaz, that's pretty much all of Saudi Arabia that borders the Red Sea.  But there is also a more specific Mt Paran.

Eusebius and Jerome were Pre-Islamic non Arab Christians who placed Paran in Arabia Desertia, which is the Roman name for Saudi Arabia basically, south of Nabatea (Jordan mostly) and north of Arabia Felix (Yemen).

There are Samaritan sources like some texts of their Pentateuch and their apocryphal Book of Moses that seem to agree with identifying Paran with al-Hijaz and linking Ishmael to Mecca.  However a claim that Abraham built the Kaaba remains incompatible with Genesis.

Immanuel Velikvosky when arguing for his view of the Amalekites (which I agree with, with some qualifiers) in Ages in Chaos saw identifying Paran with al-Hijaz as supporting his theory based on his use of Arab Historians.

I'm even willing to consider valid the identification of the Baca of Psalm 84:6 with Bakkah an ancient name for Mecca.  Though that is pretty difficult to prove.

In context it does sound like a Desert or Wilderness location, I'm even wondering now if Psalm 84 could be directly applicable to Israel's End Times wildness protection.

Psalm 84 being a Davdic Psalm is taken as meaning it's probably a location linked to a place David was during his exile.  Well 1 Samuel 25:1 says David went to Paran after Samuel died.

The usage of Psalm 82 by Islamic apologists remains wrong in that Baca is not the destination of this Pilgrimage.  They basically try to argue Zion just means Sacred Land and thus can mean the Kaaba.  Zion only came to mean that after David placed his Tabernacle on Mt Zion, this being a Daivdic Psalm shows David's Zion is what he meant.  While he was in Paran he longed to return to Zion.

If you take the size of New Jerusalem in Revelation 21-22, and place it's center at Jerusalem or Beth-El, it's total land would include Mecca and Medina, and one or two of it's southern gates would be just south of them in Arabia.  So you could have people pilgrimage through those gates and past Mecca towards Zion.

So basically I think Arabia, not Jordan is where Israel will be protected during the last 1260 days.

Or maybe this and the Petra view don't conflict, since another suggested location for Mt Sinai is Jabel al-Madhbah near Petra.  Petra isn't named as such in the Bible being a Greek name and the city as we know it from the Greco-Roman period.  It was the Nabatean capital making it actually Ishmaelite territory just outside of Edom.   But again during the NT era the Nabateans ruled Edom, Moab and much of Amon.  But being connected to Ishmael's oldest son makes it logical to be near Paran.

It is named in The Bible as Cela/Sela/Selah, often translated Rock. Possibly first being given that name in 1 Samuel 23:25-28.  And having being given another name in 2 Kings 14:7.  It's refereed to in Obadiah 3 and Jeremiah 49:16.  Showing at times Edom did have it.  But it's linked to Kedar in Isaiah 42:11.  And it identified as being in The Wilderness in Isaiah 16:1.

It is used of the Rock Moses smote the second time, when smiting it wasn't what he was supposed to do, in Numbers 20, and mentioned in Psalm 78:16.  And it's used in Number 24:21 about the Kenites, the clan of the Father in-law of Moses.  And in Deuteronomy 32:13.  It's also possibly being mentioned in Judges 1:36.

Firstborn Inheretence and the Patriarchs

Deuteronomy 21:15-17

"If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated: Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn: But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his."

It's strange to me how this command of the Torah seems to condemn so much of what happened in Genesis.  There are other areas where the behavior of the Patriarchs is in conflict with the Law given later, but this is the one area where God himself seems to be complicit, besides maybe incest where the change in attitude (we assume) was do to a change in biological circumstances.

We keep talking about a younger son getting treated as the firstborn being an ongoing theme of The Bible.  But that theme doesn't apply to Jesus, who was the first born of both Mary and by adoption of Joseph, because all Joseph's other children were by Mary.  And He is refereed to as The Only-Begotten Son of God.

The thing that occurred to me recently is, for the most part the inheritance this was done with isn't the natural Firstborn inheritance, the Double Portion, but rather special divine promises.

Let's start with Isaac and Ishmael.  The land Abraham was promised went all the way to the Euphrates in Genesis 15:18.  But the geography in Ezekiel 40-48 does not give the 12 tribes of Israel all of what Abraham was promised, rather their borders don't even go east of the Jordan (meaning it gives Israel no claim to any Land in modern Jordan or the Golan Heights).  David ruled all the way to the Euphrates, but that was via other nations being tributaries, they still had their national sovereign identities outside the Tribal Allotments of Joshua.

Meanwhile the lands affiliated with Ishmael's sons include all of modern Jordan (Edom, Moab and Ammon were also in Jordan, but Edom I believe will not exist in the Messianic era, and the Nabateans conquered Edom, Moab and much of Ammon by NT times, and Isaiah 21 affiliated Dumah with Seir), the Golan heights, modern Syria south of Damascus (like the Iturians who were of Jether, and the Haggarenes/Haggarites), some northernmost parts of Saudi Arabia, and Iraq west of the Euphrates.  Isaiah 60:7 confirms Kedar and Nebaioth, the two oldest sons of Ishmael, will exist in the Messianic era.  So it does seem that as far a geography goes Ishmael does still get twice what Isaac got.

What about applying the Firstborn inheritance to Nebaioth, Ishmael's Firstborn?  During NT times there were two Nabatean Kingdoms, the one based in Petra ruled by the House of Aretas, and the Kingdom of Osroene ruled by the Abgars.

So I'm willing to agree with certain Muslim apologists that Genesis 17 and 21 do not at all disinherit Ishmael.

Now with Jacob/Esau and Pharez/Zerah in Genesis 38 we're dealing with twins, where who is the real first born is legitimately ambiguous.  Still all Pharez got over Zerah is the Royal Line and other leaders.  And Esau sold his inheritance, while Jacob suffered repercussions for stealing the Blessing.

Genesis 10 says Japheth was the firstborn of Noah, and God said in Genesis 9 he would enlarge Japheth.

In Genesis 48 the younger son of Joseph, Ephraim, is given a special blessing and promise.  But in the land allotment Manasseh still got twice the land Ephraim did, even based on the larger interpretation of what Ephraim got (giving Ephraim both Shechem and Samaria), Manasseh had huge portions on each side of the Jordan river.  So in fact Manasseh's firstborn inheritance was in no way taken away by this.  In the Song of Deborah, Manasseh is treated as two tribes, Machir and Gilead.

So it's really only Jacob who would have been in direct violation of this command given in Deuteronomy, by giving the Double Portion to Joseph (which is why Joseph gets two tribes).  And while it can seem unfair to judge him by a law not written yet, the consequences of his choice are very apparent, God respected it, but it's still not painted as a good idea.

The same applies to looking at how this plays out with David.

David was the youngest son of Jesse and was chosen to be King over his seven older brothers.  I would argue that was irrelevant to who inherited Jesse's land, if anything David was effectively removed from that inheritance.  I like to speculate that the Shepherds in Luke 2 were descendants of David's older brothers, being called to witness the birth of their distant Cousin.  Some scholars already believe their fields were the same land Boaz redeemed for Naomi.

And then there's David's own sons.  Solomon was not even the oldest by Bathsheba who was far from David's first wife.  But still he inherited the Crown.  The King arguably didn't have a normal land inheritance.

David's actual firstborn was Amnon who predeceased him.  And either way you could argue lost any potential inheritance by the Sin he committed.

That leaves Daniel Chileab as the oldest surviving son.  He was the son of Abigail the Widow of Nabal, David gained Nabal's land when he married Abigail, so perhaps it's a safe guess that Daniel Chileab inherited Nabal's land?

Absolam and Adonijah effectively forfeited their inheritances by becoming usurpers, not unlike Reuben.

Maybe the remaining sons born in Hebron inherited Hebron or land near it in some fashion?

And perhaps the older sons of Bathsheba inherited land that once belonged to Urias?

Was Muhammad a valid Prophet

I want here to advise Christians on how to argue against the Prophethood of Muhammad without diverging into a debate about his moral character.  That's a legitimate issue to look into, but irrelevant to if he was a Prophet.

I'm going to argue that Muhammad can't even qualify as a False Prophet.  Now yes I know the literal definition is any fake prophet, so once you claim to be a Prophet you either are one or you're a false prophet.

But the Pseudophophetes that The Bible is concerned with both contemporary with itself and eschatologically.  Were individuals just as capable of performing genuine supernatural miracles, and having genuine supernatural revelations as a legit Prophet.  Balaam even had legit revelations from the Biblical God, The Holy Spirit sometimes uses unsaved people, likewise John's Gospel records Caiaphas giving a legit Prophecy.

So Biblically someone has to be proven a Prophet before we can even get into if they're a False Prophet or not.  Joseph Smith did prove himself a Prophet by predicting The Civil War, but Muhammad couldn't even do that, yet the modern world takes Joseph Smith's Prophethood less seriously then Muhammad's, I find that funny.

Now there are different kinds of Prophets in The Bible.  In a sense a Prophet is anyone who declares the Word of God, which is why Evangelists and Preachers and Pastors are considered New Testament successors to the office of Prophet.

But in order for someone to be able to add to the Canon, to say their Revelations are God's Word and Authoritative just as much if not more so then The Bible.  They need to be able to prove the Supernatural origin of their revelations.  No amount of discrediting the preservation of The Bible used by Jews and Christians will matter if you can't prove a Supernatural origin for the Koran, you're then only arguing against anything being God's Word.

The Koran itself says Muhammad never performed miracles and gives it's own justification for why.

They say, 'We will not believe thee till thou makest a spring to gush forth from the earth for us, or till thou possessest a garden of plants and vines, and thou makest rivers to gush forth abundantly all amongst it, or till thou makest heaven to fall, as thou assertest, on us in fragments, or thou bringest God and the angels as a surety, or till thou possessest a house of gold ornament, or till thou goest up into heaven; and we will not believe thy going up till thou bringest down on us a book that we may read. Say: 'Glory be to my Lord. Am I aught BUT A MORTAL, a Messenger?' S. 17:90-93 

Yet when the truth came to them from Ourselves, they said, 'Why has he not been given the like of that Moses was given?' But they, did they not disbelieve also in what Moses was given aforetime? They said, 'A pair of sorceries mutually supporting each other.' They said, 'We disbelieve both.' S. 28:48

 And they that know not say, 'Why does God not speak to us? Why does a sign (ayatun) not come to us?' So spoke those before them as these men say; their hearts are much alike. Yet We have made clear the signs (bayyanna al-ayati) unto a people who are sure. S. 2:118

Jesus performed Miracles which The Koran agrees with but gives a different account of what miracles.

Jesus' Disciples/Apostles including Paul performed miracles.  The only place the New Testament tells us to expect any new Prophets in the future it tells us what miracles they'll perform, in Revelation 11.  John The Baptist performed no miracles but he was only the forerunner, Jesus whom he spoke of appeared and performed miracles overlapping with John's ministry.  The Baptist didn't author any Scripture.

Muslims don't consider any of that valid.  But Muslim apologists constantly want to claim the "Prophet like unto Moses" of Deuteronomy 18 is Muhammad.  The problem is first the context of that Prophecy clearly defines this Prophet as an Israelite, as coming from among the children of Israel to whom Moses was speaking.

Muslims will argue all kinds of superficial parallels between Muhammad and Moses, but Deuteronomy 34 when the book ends tells us what "like unto Moses" means and it includes performing miracles.

There are major differences between the miracles of Jesus and the miracles of Moses.  But both turned water into another liquid, Moses blood and Jesus wine.  And wine is called the "Blood of The Grape" in The Torah.

Deuteronomy 34 also tells us it requires knowing God face to face like Moses did.  Muhammad only claimed to have met Gabriel not Allah himself.

Muhammad gave no testable Prophecies.

Most of his statements about the future were all about the Second Coming and the End Times.  And I will concede that he said nothing to prove he meant it would happen in the lifetime of his companions.  The same kinds of arguments get used against Jesus which I gave my own take on recently.  Since there are Muslims who will use the same tactics Atheists use to attack the Prophet hood of the New Testament version of Jesus, only then would I consider it valid to bring up that issue to show their hypocrisy.  But I will not consider it part of my main argument against Muhammad being a Prophet.

Besides the End Times.  He said Aisha would be important to passing on his history and teachings.  1. It seems we only know he said this because Aisha said so. 2. It only proves him being perceptive about Aisha's talents, nothing truly supernatural.

The only even possibly testable Prophecy Muhammad gave was when he said exactly how God would kill him if he said anything false.  In which case his credibility depends on it not coming true.

I. QUR'AN TRANSLATIONS

Qur’an 69:44-46—And if he (Muhammad) had forged a false saying concerning Us We surely should have seized him by his right hand (or with power and might), and then certainly should have cut off his life artery (Aorta). (Hilali-Khan)

Qur’an 69:44-46—And if he had invented false sayings concerning Us, We assuredly had taken him by the right hand and then severed his life-artery. (Pickthall)

Qur’an 69:44-46—Had he invented lies concerning Us, We would have seized him by the right hand and severed his heart’s vein. (Dawood)

Qur’an 69:44-46—And if he had fabricated against Us some of the sayings, We would certainly have seized him by the right hand, then We would certainly have cut off his aorta. (Shakir)

II. MUSLIM COMMENTARIES

Tafsir Ibn Abbas on Qur’an 69:44-46—(And if he had invented) and had Muhammad invented (false sayings concerning Us) lies against Us and attributed to Us that which We did not say, (We assuredly had taken him) We assuredly had taken revenge against him (by the right hand) by means of truth and proofs; it is also said this means: We assuredly had vehemently taken him. (And then severed his life artery) the life artery of Muhammad (pbuh).

Tafsir Jalalayn on Qur’an 69:44-46—And had he, namely, the Prophet (s), fabricated any lies against Us, by communicating from Us that which We have not said, We would have assuredly seized him, We would have exacted vengeance [against him], as punishment, by the Right Hand, by [Our] strength and power; then We would have assuredly severed his life-artery, the aorta of the heart, a vein that connects with it, and which if severed results in that person’s death.

He said God would sever his Arota or Life-Artery. Generally it's only a fraud who would even go around making a claim like that, like God would even bother personally striking down everyone who claims to be a Prophet.  In fact it's generally people who don't think there is a real God that would make that claim.

But still it's worth looking into the most trusted Muslim accounts of Muhammad's life to see if this ever happened.

Sahih al-Bukhari 4428—The Prophet in his ailment in which he died, used to say, “O Aishah! I still feel the pain caused by the food I ate at Khaibar, and at this time, I feel as if my aorta is being cut from that poison.”

Sahih Muslim 5430—A Jewess came to Allah’s Messenger with poisoned mutton and he took of what had been brought to him. (When the effects of this poison were felt by him) he called for her and asked her about that, whereupon she said: I had determined to kill you. Thereupon he said: Allah will never give you the power to do it. 

Sunan Abu Dawud 4498—A Jewess presented [Muhammad] at Khaibar a roasted sheep which she had poisoned. The Apostle of Allah ate of it and the people also ate. He then said: Lift your hands (from eating), for it has informed me that it is poisoned. Bishr b. al-Bara b. Ma’rur al-Ansari died. So he (the Prophet) sent for the Jewess (and said to her): What motivated you to do the work you have done? She said: If you were a prophet, it would not harm you; but if you were a king, I would rid the people of you. The Apostle of Allah then ordered regarding her and she was killed. He then said about the pain of which he died: I continued to feel pain from the morsel which I had eaten at Khaibar. This is the time when it has cut off my aorta.

Sunan Abu Dawud 4449—Umm Bishr said to the Prophet during the sickness of which he died: What do you think about your illness, Apostle of Allah? I do not think about the illness of my son except the poisoned sheep of which he had eaten with you at Khaibar. The Prophet said: And I do not think about my illness except that. This is the time when it cut off my aorta.

Sunan Ibn Majah 1622—Aishah said: “I never saw anyone suffer more pain than the Messenger of Allah.”

What do you know, it did happen, or at least Muhammad the supposed Prophet thought it did.

He also declared to his poisoner that Allah would not allow this to kill him.  But all the sources agree (except Shiites slandering Aisha) his Death was the inevitable result of this poison.  So he did make at least one failed Prophecy failing the test of Deuteronomy 18:22.

He also claimed to have a supernatural revelation that the food was poisoned after he'd already eaten some, not in time to save anyone's life.  And his companion said he tasted the poison instantly, he it seems could tell it was poisoned before Allah bothered to warn Muhammad.  The logical conclusion is Muhammad tasted it too but couldn't figure out what he tasted as quickly.

I'm not going to include the issue of the Satanic Verses here because it's historical reliability is in doubt.  I feel above a strong enough case has been made against his Prophet-hood.

Now among Muslim attempts to find Muhammad in Bible Prophecy.  There is Deuteronomy 18 which I've dealt with already.

Some have appealed to Isaiah 29:11 because Muhammad couldn't read.  In context this person is clearly being condemned.  So that is ill advised.

The Comforter passage has been a go to method of many would be Prophets from Mani to Bahi.  In the case of Muslims that they keep trying it is really funny.  It's one thing to say our Bible is corrupt but pick and choose passages that you think support your views.  But in the case of the Comforter prophecy it's not even a separate passage, the doctrine of Jesus being the Son of God is right in those same verses.

The Koran and early Islamic tradition claims you can even find Muhammad by name in The Bible (The Torah and The Gospel), and in some extra Biblical prophecies of Arabic folklore.  But I find it funny that Muhammad or Ahmed is the name they look for because that wasn't Muhammad's birth name.  He was born Amim.

Muhammad means "praise worthy" in Arabic so it makes sense as a name that might be used in made up Prophecies, being related in meaning to Yahuda/Judah.  And so Al-Amim changing his name to Muhammad proved nothing.

The attempts to find his name in the Hebrew Scriptures involve Strong number 4261 in Song of Solomon 5:16.  And Strong number 2532 in Haggai 2:7.  Both variations of the same root.

Only the latter example makes sense in context to view as a prophecy of a future individual.  It is grammatically feminine, which I'm fine with for viewing it as a title of Christ, but if you want to argue it's someone's personal name then that person better be a woman or man with a woman's name.

Leaving aside that the obvious context of Song of Solomon 5:16 is Shulamith describing her Beloved as "altogether lovely". David Wood likes to point out this same word is used in other contexts where it would outright make Muhammad look bad to interpret it as Muhammad.  But one Muslim he debated said here (in SoS, he didn't use the Haggai one) and only here is it used in that precise form.

That form he admits in grammatically plural (Mahamadim), but he defends that by siding with the Rabbinic Jewish view on why Eliohim is grammatically plural.  Problem is even if we agree with that interpretation for why a singular individual can be described with a plural title, it's NEVER done that way of a personal name.  YHWH never had an -im at the end, and that not Elohim is God's personal name.  The two known examples of an individual person being foretold by name in advance likewise don't put an -im at the end, Josiah in 1 Kings 13:2 and Cyrus in Isaiah 44:28 and 45:1.

But the bigger problem with seeing Strong Number 4261 as Muhammad is that these Muslims pronounce it as if it has a Heh but it doesn't, it has a Het, which actually makes more of a ch sound.  The pronunciations of Muhammad and Ahmed would both use a Heh in Hebrew, how Ahmadinejad is pronounced would use a Het in Hebrew.

This same Muslim challenged David Wood to find Jesus by name in the Hebrew Bible. By the same standard he's used it's all over the Hebrew Scriptures, far closer then this flawed Muhammad argument.  Strong number 3444 is exactly the spelling of Yeshua except with a Heh on the end making it grammatically feminine.  So if 2532 can count as close enough to Ahmed then this noun is far closer to Yeshua.  It's used in many verses that can work as Messianic Prophecies far better then this Song of Solomon verse can.  Just look em over.

The name of Jeshua in the Hebrew is the exact same name, and Joshua is very close.  Jeshua's name is used in some Zechariah prophecies that seem pretty epic for being just a High Priest, in fact he's crowned a King which is strictly not allowed of Aaronic Priests, clearly foreshadowing Jesus as the Priest after the Order of Melchizedek.

And I've already done a post on the direct connection I see between the names Yeshua and Yahuah.

I do agree that Ishmael still has his Firstborn Inheritance.  Still I do not yet see any evidence of The Hebrew Bible foretelling an Ishmaelite Prophet.

If there is however, I'd consider the possibility of that being fulfilled in Agabus who's name isn't Hebrew but possibly could be Arabic from an Arabic root that means "to Burn".  Also Agabus has been theorized to be similar to the name Agbarus/Abgarus/Abgar, but I would not agree with any theory making Agabus and King Abgar the same person.  Abgar was of Nabatean descent.

And if you could convince me of a Prophet being foretold to come geographically from Paran/Arabia.  Mt Sinai is arguably part of Paran as Muslims define it.  Elijah spent time in Sinai, and so did Paul according to Galatians 1:17.

Muslims have tried to make Deuteronomy 33:2 about Muhammad.  That is clearly about what just happened, the wandering in the wilderness, and is about Yahuah himself not a Prophet.  But if it does have an Eschatological second application, it's to Revelation 19 and Isaiah 63, since I believe at that time Israel will be in the same wilderness they were back then.

How could Jesus be the Seed of Abraham without a Human Father?

I was watching on Youtube a few days ago a debate between David Wood and a Muslim named Zakir Hussain about Isaac or Ishmael.  In it Zakir Hussain criticizes the Christian view of how Jesus relates to the promise given to Abraham in Genesis 12 and 15 by saying Jesus couldn't be the Seed of Abraham without a human father (Muslims do believe in The Virgin Birth) since Seed strictly speaking refer to pater-lineal descent.

While normally Seed refers to pater-lineal ancestry being most literally a Hebrew word for Semen/Sperm.  The very beginning of Messianic Prophecy from the Christian POV at least is Genesis 3:15 making a very abnormal reference to "The Seed of the Woman".

I could also say the Koran does call Jesus the Messiah (Al-Maish) of Israel, and He couldn't have been that without being of the Seed of David.  So he is not actually helping the Muslim case.

Zakir Hussain did make one comment during the debate about the Y-Chromosome, implying he could accept that as an acceptable literal interpretation of what Seed refers to.

Which leads me to bring up something I thought about a long time ago, but was hesitant to go public with it precisely because a statement in the Koran played a role in my coming up with it.  But since a Muslim broached the issue.

Sura 3 verse 36.

And when she was delivered she said: My Lord! Lo! I am delivered of a female - Allah knew best of what she was delivered - the male is not as the female; and lo! I have named her Mary, and lo! I crave Thy protection for her and for her offspring from Satan the outcast.

The Koran defines Mary the mother of Jesus as inter-sex.  Well, the terminology it uses is actually exactly the modern politically correct terminology for a Trans Man, saying she was mistakenly labeled the wrong gender at birth based on how she looked.  But the intent was to say Mary internally has some biological maleness to her and that is how she could give birth as a Virgin.  This is the Islamic explanation for how the Virgin Birth was possible without Jesus being Divine.

There are examples of women being born with a Y-Chromosome.  Often these women aren't able to reproduce but there is at least one documented exception to that.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2190741/
[Report of Fertility in a Woman with a Predominantly 46,XY Karyotype in a Family with Multiple Disorders of Sexual Development]

Since the discovery of modern DNA and how the Y-Chromosome works, the traditional Christian view of how Jesus could be male even though his only Biological parent was a Female has been that God supernaturally gave Jesus a distinct Y-Chromosome.  Especially with the idea related to genetic memory theory that the Y-Chromosome carries a memory of the first Man, naturally it became popular to see that as scientific confirmation of Original Sin.

But I do not hold the Catholic or Calvinist view of original Sin which both derive from Augustine.  To me it is just a genetic Pre-Disposition to Sin.  Paul said in Hebrews 2:18 that Jesus was tempted by all the same Temptations we are.  So I don't think Jesus was born without that pre-disposition, he simply was alone in being able to overcome it.

So I'm very open to the possibility that Mary was inter-sex and Jesus was able to through her carry the Y-Chromosome of David and Abraham and Adam.  And maybe that is the full explanation of what the Seed of The Woman means.

But regardless of my willingness to think the Koran might have been onto something there.  I firmly believe Jesus was The Son of God, The Word made Flesh.  And I have before argued for the Deity of The Messiah from The TNAK.

The Biblical basis for this theory is the doctrine of the Seed of the Woman.

This same debate also mentioned Isaiah 53.  Zakir Hussain objected to the Christian view of this being Jesus since it refers to him having Seed in verse 10.  David Wood responded that Christians are spiritually of Jesus Seed.  And the Zakir said in the Hebrew it's Zerah so can only mean physical.

A word having a literal meaning does not mean a spiritual or symbolic application is impossible.  If you're gonna take that logic there is no need to cite the Hebrew, the literal meaning of Seed is more strict then Zerah, we are being figurative when we use it of Sperm in modern English, literally it refers only to plant seeds.

The plain reading is that people become His seed after His Resurrection.  If Muslims believe (like I do) biological reproduction will go on after the Resurrection then they can't rule out that Jesus could literally fulfill that.  It is an error BTW that the Koran teaches Jesus didn't die, it actually clearly says Jesus did die.

If you're going to agree with the common view of Rabbinic Jews that the Servant is not an individual then you're not taking it literally at all and can't object to a non-literal interpretation of the Seed.

For the record there are a few things in that debate I'm willing to agree with Zakir Hussain over David on.  I plan to do a post or two on Ishmael and Firstborn Inheritance in the near future.  

But his insistence that begotten can be read into Genesis 22:2 is not supported by any Hebrew text I know.  And the abuse of what Genesis 21 says to make it sound like Hagar carried Ishmael not her luggage on her shoulder just made me laugh.

And the Genealogies of Jesus came up.  I have addressed Luke being Mary's genealogy before.