Is the Phonic Fallacy A Real Fallacy?

Hi all,

I recently purchased the book Logically Fallacious and have just started to read it.

I wanted to ask about another potential logical fallacy that perhaps has not been included in the book. Although I'm not sure that it is in fact a valid logical fallacy.

The alleged fallacy in question, named by the person I heard it from (an Evangelical Christian called Sam Shamoun), is the Phonic Fallacy. This fallacy says that if a word in language A sounds like a word in language B, then, if that word is used in a sentence in language A, then that word can be interpreted to have the meaning given to it in language B.

The example given by Sam Shamoun and David Wood is the interpretation of Song of Solomon 5:16 given by some Muslims. The verse says

"His mouth is sweetness itself; he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, this is my friend, daughters of Jerusalem."

Now, "altogether lovely" is "Machmadim" in Hebrew and some Muslims are claiming that this is a reference to Muhammad. In other words the claim is that Muhammad is prophesied in the Bible.

This example is discuused in this 10 minute video on YouTube: www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z. . .

Do you all think it is even a valid fallacy?

Thanks for your time.

Sachin

I do not consider it a fallacy. It is an interpretation of scripture, probably questionable, as are other Islamic and Christian interpretations of scripture in the Old Testament that stretch the meaning to justify their own religion.

Was there a known name Muhammad in Hebrew at the time then they would have used it. If the name Muhammad was simply evolved from that Hebrew word that means the phrase is being looked at via current history being applied to past history, at the time of course.This reminds me of the argument about the bible saying the earth is flat. There were greek and Hebrew words for flat and they aren't used in the bible so it's ridiculous to attempt to claim descriptions are saying the earth is flat when they could have just came right out and said it..

There is a problem of the claims of fulfillment of prophecy in Christianity and Islam that has a questionable link to the original sound (phonetic), definition, and context in the original text. I am not certain how these would fit in the definition of a fallacy, but it may be a form of Petitio principii (begging the question) where the a priori assumption is that these all are references to prophesies for either Jesus Christ or Muhammad.

An example of different definitions and context of Christian prophesy for Jesus Christ is the claims of the prophecy of 'virgin birth' of the Messiah.

[cite= www.patheos.com/blogs/joe. . .
The Septuagint scholars mistranslated the Hebrew word for “young woman” into the Greek word for “virgin.” It was an easy mistake to make because there was only a subtle difference in the spelling.
So they came up with a prophecy: “Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear us a son.” You understand this? It was the word “virgin” that caught people’s attention. It’s not everyday a virgin conceives and bears a son. [/cite]

The name Muhammad is specifically literally translated as "The Most Praised One," but is subject to varying interpretations of translations such as the "The Most (Blessed, Beautiful, or Chosen) one. Translation of ancient texts leave a lot of room for interpretation for when one wants to justify prophecy for their own religion.

For example there is no specific reference that names Jesus of Nazareth as the promised Messiah the Christ.