Amasa an Israelite or Ishmaelite?

[Godistruth1]

2 Samuel 17:25 says Amasa was an Israelite but 1 Chronicles 2:17 says Amasa was an Ishmaelite. Interestingly in newer translations Israelite is changed into Ishmaelite to hide the contradiction. See various translations below!
2 Samuel 17:25 Absalom had appointed Amasa over the army in place of Joab. Amasa was the son of a man named Ithra, the Ishmaelite who had married Abigail daughter of Nahash and sister of Zeruiah the mother of Joab.

Any comments?

 

[Barney2.0]

2 Samuel 17:25 says Amasa was an Israelite but 1 Chronicles 2:17 says Amasa was an Ishmaelite. Interestingly in newer translations Israelite is changed into Ishmaelite to hide the contradiction. See various translations below!
2 Samuel 17:25 Absalom had appointed Amasa over the army in place of Joab. Amasa was the son of a man named Ithra, the Ishmaelite who had married Abigail daughter of Nahash and sister of Zeruiah the mother of Joab.

Any comments?

Amasa's father was Ithra an Israelite. (2 Samuel 17:25).
Right. Ithra or Jether had a Jewish mother and by that had the status of an Israelite.

Amasa's father was Jether an Ishmaelite. (1 Chronicles 2:17).
Right. Ithra or Jether had an Ishmaelite father and had by that also the status of an Ishmaelite.
This is what we call a double nationality.
No Contradiction

SAB Contradictions 26 – 50 fully rejected. | Contradicting

 

[Godistruth1]

Ithra or Jether had a Jewish mother

What is your proof for that?
Also why your biblical scholars changed from Israelite to Ishmaelite in the verse 2 Samuel 17:25 in modern translations?

 

[Barney2.0]

What is your proof for that?
Also why your biblical scholars changed from Israelite to Ishmaelite in the verse 2 Samuel 17:25 in modern translations?

Ithra is the Israelite equivalent of the name Jether, so we can tell he probably belonged to both tribes.

 

[Godistruth1]

Ithra is the Israelite equivalent of the name Jether, so we can tell he probably belonged to both tribes.

You see you are guessing solutions!

You have not answered my second question. Why the modern translations replace Israelite with Ishmaelite in 2 Samuel 17:25 ?

 

[HypnoToad]

2 Samuel 17:25 says Amasa was an Israelite but 1 Chronicles 2:17 says Amasa was an Ishmaelite. Interestingly in newer translations Israelite is changed into Ishmaelite to hide the contradiction. See various translations below!
2 Samuel 17:25 Absalom had appointed Amasa over the army in place of Joab. Amasa was the son of a man named Ithra, the Ishmaelite who had married Abigail daughter of Nahash and sister of Zeruiah the mother of Joab.

Any comments?

There are a couple possibilities, such as mixed parentage, or that he was an Israelite by birth but had lived for quite some time in the land of Ishmael.

These are not simple "guesses" but plausible, logical explanations. If you can't show that they are impossible or implausible, then you have no argument.

As to newer translations, *SOME* change it, some do not. The NASB and NET, for example, still say "Israelite". So your blanket statement about new translations changing it is less than truthful. Some of them probably feel the "Israelite" in 2 Samuel is a copyist error (which the doctrine of infallibility does not preclude, by the way).

 

[Godistruth1]

There are a couple possibilities, such as mixed parentage, or that he was an Israelite by birth but had lived for quite some time in the land of Ishmael

Living in Ishmaelite land does not make one Ishmaelite. Its lineage that makes one Ishmaelite or Israelite!

These are not simple "guesses" but plausible, logical explanations. If you can't show that they are impossible or implausible, then you have no argument.

Yes it's impossible to be both since progeny of Ishmael are Ishmaelite and progeny of Israel are Israelite

As to newer translations, *SOME* change it, some do not. The NASB and NET, for example, still say "Israelite". So your blanket statement about new translations changing it is less than truthful. Some of them probably feel the "Israelite" in 2 Samuel is a copyist error (which the doctrine of infallibility does not preclude, by the way)

How is it a copy error. Originals are public and its not difficult to find this major error. Its a deliberate change of facts to hide error!

 

[HypnoToad]

Living in Ishmaelite land does not make one Ishmaelite. Its lineage that makes one Ishmaelite or Israelite!

According to you, sure. But the Bible isn't written from your point of view. The Hebrews had their own culture, their own writing habits, their own ways of expression, their own way of looking at things. It's irrelevant if YOU don't think that makes him an Ishmaelite, the Hebrews DID.

Yes it's impossible to be both since progeny of Ishmael are Ishmaelite and progeny of Israel are Israelite

Not impossible with mixed parentage.

How is it a copy error. Originals are public and its not difficult to find this major error. Its a deliberate change of facts to hide error!

The way you word this is unclear. I am not saying that the new translations made a copyist error - I'm saying the Hebrew manuscripts might contain a copyist error. Also, there are no "originals" that have been found. All the manuscripts we have are copies, we don't possess any originals.

 

[Barney2.0]

Living in Ishmaelite land does not make one Ishmaelite. Its lineage that makes one Ishmaelite or Israelite!

Yes it's impossible to be both since progeny of Ishmael are Ishmaelite and progeny of Israel are Israelite

How is it a copy error. Originals are public and its not difficult to find this major error. Its a deliberate change of facts to hide error!

By that logic Iblis was not an angel and we can now revisit that contradiction which you failed to explain to me.

 

[Barney2.0]

You see you are guessing solutions!

You have not answered my second question. Why the modern translations replace Israelite with Ishmaelite in 2 Samuel 17:25 ?

Modern translations? These are two different verses, I’m not guessing solutions even if I’m able to guess solutions that don’t contradict the text then it’s no longer a contradiction which refuted your point.

 

[Godistruth1]

According to you, sure. But the Bible isn't written from your point of view. The Hebrews had their own culture, their own writing habits, their own ways of expression, their own way of looking at things. It's irrelevant if YOU don't think that makes him an Ishmaelite, the Hebrews DID.

That's what means to be general terms. If you think otherwise, what proof do you have

Not impossible with mixed parentage

Give me an example from bible which is clear!

The way you word this is unclear. I am not saying that the new translations made a copyist error - I'm saying the Hebrew manuscripts might contain a copyist error. Also, there are no "originals" that have been found. All the manuscripts we have are copies, we don't possess any originals

Are you saying the originals are not reliable because there might be other errors too?

 

[Godistruth1]

By that logic Iblis was not an angel and we can now revisit that contradiction which you failed to explain to me

I know where this will go so you can make a different post about that error and we can discuss.

 

[Godistruth1]

Modern translations? These are two different verses, I’m not guessing solutions even if I’m able to guess solutions that don’t contradict the text then it’s no longer a contradiction which refuted your point.

I think you did not understand what I said. I'm only talking about 2 Samuel 17:25. Below is a link from biblehub website which gives all the translations from many versions. See the difference by reading the translations!
2 Samuel 17:25 Absalom had appointed Amasa over the army in place of Joab. Amasa was the son of a man named Ithra, the Ishmaelite who had married Abigail daughter of Nahash and sister of Zeruiah the mother of Joab.

 

[HypnoToad]

That's what means to be general terms.

I don't understand what you're saying there.

Give me an example from bible which is clear!

I don't have to. I only said it's possible. If you can't refute it, then you have to accept that it is possible.

Are you saying the originals are not reliable because there might be other errors too?

No, I did not say the originals are not reliable. I said we don't have any originals.

 

[Barney2.0]

I think you did not understand what I said. I'm only talking about 2 Samuel 17:25. Below is a link from biblehub website which gives all the translations from many versions. See the difference by reading the translations!
2 Samuel 17:25 Absalom had appointed Amasa over the army in place of Joab. Amasa was the son of a man named Ithra, the Ishmaelite who had married Abigail daughter of Nahash and sister of Zeruiah the mother of Joab.

It’s most likely a translation problem due to confusion with the various manuscripts during translations. As some translations follow up on different manuscripts, some would follow the Septuagint, while some follow the Masoretic text. Again it’s not much of a problem.

 

[Barney2.0]

I don't understand what you're saying there.


I don't have to. I only said it's possible. If you can't refute it, then you have to accept that it is possible.


No, I did not say the originals are not reliable. I said we don't have any originals.

Actually we do have copies of the original, while we don’t even have complete copies of the Quran written during Mohamed’s time or even the one complied by Uthman.

 

[Hank77]

I think you did not understand what I said. I'm only talking about 2 Samuel 17:25. Below is a link from biblehub website which gives all the translations from many versions. See the difference by reading the translations!
2 Samuel 17:25 Absalom had appointed Amasa over the army in place of Joab. Amasa was the son of a man named Ithra, the Ishmaelite who had married Abigail daughter of Nahash and sister of Zeruiah the mother of Joab.

First not all newer Bibles are not true translations, they are simply rewording in modern language what real translations say. They may have seen this as confusing to the reader and decided to go with Ishmaelite because first mention was Ishmaelite.
If you would tell us which Bible you are referring to we could see if it's a true translation.

It could be they were confused not realizing that Jether could have been an Ishmaelite married to a Hebrew woman but was a proselyte to the Hebrew faith.
In 1 Chronicles, the author is going through the begats/births and he is named an Ishmaelite just as Ruth was a Moabite by birth. Later being mentioned as a Israelite would show his faith nation rather than his birth nation just as Ruth was a proselyte to the faith of the nation of Israel making her an Israelite.

 

[Godistruth1]

I don't understand what you're saying there.

Let me give you a link of who are Ishmaelites and Israelites from a Christian website:
Ishmael and the Ishmaelites - Amazing Bible Timeline with World History
www.gotquestions.org/amp/Ishmaelites.html
Its almost impossible to be both. Ishmael was in Arabia and descendants of Issac are Israelites in Israel.

I don't have to. I only said it's possible. If you can't refute it, then you have to accept that it is possible.

So is possibility of evolution. Do you believe in its possibility? There are a million things possible that are almost impossible to be true like for one to be both Ishmaelite and Israelite

No, I did not say the originals are not reliable. I said we don't have any originals

If you have no originals how do you have the Bible?

 

[Godistruth1]

It’s most likely a translation problem due to confusion with the various manuscripts during translations. As some translations follow up on different manuscripts, some would follow the Septuagint, while some follow the Masoretic text. Again it’s not much of a problem.

How is it translation problem when an Israelite is made into an Ishmaelite? Its a fact change. One does not translate Ishmaelite to Israelite while translating. How easily is the word of God changed !!

 

[Godistruth1]

First not all newer Bibles are not true translations, they are simply rewording in modern language what real translations say. They may have seen this as confusing to the reader and decided to go with Ishmaelite because first mention was Ishmaelite.
If you would tell us which Bible you are referring to we could see if it's a true translation.

It could be they were confused not realizing that Jether could have been an Ishmaelite married to a Hebrew woman but was a proselyte to the Hebrew faith.
In 1 Chronicles, the author is going through the begats/births and he is named an Ishmaelite just as Ruth was a Moabite by birth. Later being mentioned as a Israelite would show his faith nation rather than his birth nation just as Ruth was a proselyte to the faith of the nation of Israel making her an Israelite.

Originals actually say Israelite and still changed to Ishmaelite to fit !
See the footnote in NIV:
Bible Gateway passage: 2 Samuel 17:25 - New International Version